295 post 2

The picture seen above lends itself to discussions of both Nagra and Evaristo’s writings. The idea of having bodies that are displayed is a discussion we had over the Roman remains with regards to Evaristo’s novel, at least in some capacity. Zuleika wants to be remembered, but our discussion could have encompassed more of an idea that would she want to be remembered like these bodies. She clearly tells Alba to bury her and remember her, but she also has to grapple with the idea that no one but her best friends will think about her on with kindness or remember her. This brings up the question of would she want to be seen or remembered by others like these skeletons in the reconstructed tomb are remembered. All of the passers-by see the skeletons and read the description, but they don’t know their names, they don’t know their personalities. This calls ethics into the discussion. Would these people have wanted their bodies on display, would they have wanted to remain buried? The viewers see these skeletons, but how many really think about who they were and where they were found. They do not consider the people that these skeletons used to be, which degrades them further. Is presenting them on display really allowing people to remember them, or is it in fact just prolonging the return of the bodies to the soil. Is remembrance only by a face or does the personality and life of a person matter as well? Thus, the question of Zuleika comes into play, as she wants to be buried and before she dies she clearly wants to be remembered, but most likely not in the way these poor souls are remembered to the world.

A greater portion of the issues that are inherent in this display are brought up by Nagra’s poem, “Meditation on the British Museum”. This poem deals with the fact that most if not all of the artifacts in the museum are stolen and that the museum has not returned these relics to the rightful countries or people. This reconstructed tomb is a perfect example of what he is discussing, as the tomb was dug up by a British archaeologist who was funded by a British archaeological society. The section of the society that funded the excavation was in Jerusalem, however the placard did not say anything about permission from Jerusalem to either excavate or bring the tomb back for display in this museum. The issue lies therein that they museum might not have permission to display these remains. Coupled with the Evaristo idea, it is somewhat disturbing to see this tomb reset at the British Museum.

Both of the discussion brought forth through Nagra and Evaristo point out the idea of displaying human remains as a conundrum of moral questions. The questions revolve around the permission of excavation and display by either the people themselves and by where they were found. The people that were once alive cannot be brought back to ask if they minded, so in that sense the question may never be answered, but the question of permission by the country or culture they were found in can be procured. And herein lies the major issue with the British museum. Moral questions remain for ancient artifacts as to how the citizens who used them would mind having them on display, but ancient artifacts are ancient that question will forever go unasked. The questions surrounding the permission of a country to whom those artifacts do not belong though can be answered. Artifacts should be given with permission by the country they come from and that country should get part of the donations given, as it is their artifact. It would make the most sense to display artifacts in their country of origin and then the question of permission would be delegated to possible religious groups who use different relics. This would ensure that all of the relics receive the proper care and respect that they should in a situation where they are in a museum.

However, I do agree somewhat on Nagra’s point about protecting artifacts that specific groups are targeting. Groups like ISIS are essentially destroying history and thus it makes sense for protection to be given to the artifacts of those countries. However, this does not necessarily mean giving them to a museum and if the threat is so great that a museum is the best option, then as soon as the threat is gone the items should be returned. The country should also have a say in if and how the item is displayed in every situation and particularly in this one. There are many issues that have yet to be addressed by the museum and the display of human remains and religious relics bring up even more before the simpler ones are resolved.