NationStates Jolt Archive

All right, I am doing an essay and need input. But 'tis interesting, No?

yes.

They should.

Sure, why not?

Are you referring, by chance, to the recent exhibit with plasticized bodies? All of those people *wished* to have the procedure done and to be used either in the display or in medical schools/research. I can't see any reason why their wishes shouldn't be carried out.

We're talking about wax dummies right? Don't see why not... We have Freedom of Speech...or something.

No. perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in the initial post. I'm talking about the bodies of dead people, recovered archaeologically. Like Ramesses II.

The problem is that they cannot consent, and would not have dreamed that any such thing would have happened to them, having died 1000s of yoears before the inception of archaeology. They expected to buried according to their religion, and remain there for eternity. But instead we dug them up and studied them.

that plastination thing looks amazing. yes it should be allowed - its a valuable way for people to learn about whats inside. also - what could be an argument against it?

*late - crumb.*

regarding rameses: since the bodies have been discovered their corpses have been imbued with value. if we left them to rot in the ground as per their religion/wishes they would be pilfered by theives and sold to private collectors. now that they have been discovered there is no way their wishes can be kept. at least this way more people have access to learn about an important part of human history

The plasticised bodies are an interesting aside, and I'll probably mention them in the essay. But they did give consent, and expected to be exhibited.

No. perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in the initial post. I'm talking about the bodies of dead people, recovered archaeologically. Like Ramesses II.

The problem is that they cannot consent, and would not have dreamed that any such thing would have happened to them, having died 1000s of yoears before the inception of archaeology. They expected to buried according to their religion, and remain there for eternity. But instead we dug them up and studied them.

Hmm, in that case I'll have to think about it.

My first impulse was to go with #4, but I certainly wouldn't want the body of a member of my family being used for anything without their consent.

My second would be to go with #2. I'll probably go with that one, although I can see the logic in saying that they shouldn't be used at all.

Ever been to the Mutter Museum in Philadelphia? It has numerous dead bodies (mostly bones) on display. The exhibits include the remains of an obese woman who was transformed into Adipocere, a sort of naturally occuring soap. It's educational and entertaining.

Wow. That's cool!
But do you think she'd have wanted millions of people ogling her fat soap arse?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

Wow. That's cool!
But do you think she'd have wanted millions of people ogling her fat soap arse?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
I honestly don't care. She's dead. She doesn't want anything anymore.

Only if they die in the museum. In which case, they should be left in the exact place and condition in which they died.

I am an Archaeologist who has worked in commercial archaeology where human remains have been, recovered. In this situation (In the UK at least) were the bodies not excavated, the graves would be destroyed by subsequent development anyway, that is why they are being excavated.

In this situation I believe it is better to remove these bodies (in a respectful way, which is almost always the way it is done) so that any information that can be recovered is recovered. I feel that it would be far more disrespectful to the dead ,to allow development to go ahead without trying to understand the life and death of those that lived in this area in the past.

So, as a hard case, you'd be happy to think that when you died your naked carcass would be pegged out for everyone to look at?

So, as a hard case, you'd be happy to think that when you died your naked carcass would be pegged out for everyone to look at?
Honestly, it wouldn't bother me a bit. I want my rights to be respected when I'm alive. When I'm dead my carcas is just meat and bone. Do with it as you will.

I am an Archaeologist who has worked in commercial archaeology where human remains have been, recovered. In this situation (In the UK at least) were the bodies not excavated, the graves would be destroyed by subsequent development anyway, that is why they are being excavated.

In this situation I believe it is better to remove these bodies (in a respectful way, which is almost always the way it is done) so that any information that can be recovered is recovered. I feel that it would be far more disrespectful to the dead ,to allow development to go ahead without trying to understand the life and death of those that lived in this area in the past.

Sure. I hope to be an archaeologist, and rather agree with voltaire:

"We owe respect to the living; to the dead we owe only truth"

But my department requires discussion.

But what about the museum issue? Is it right to display the bodies of dead people? I'm reminded of the (naturally mummified) prehistoric Egyptian guy ('Ginger') who I saw in the British museum. There was a small boy looking up his arse.
While I'd be happy to have my bones (or mummified corpse) displayed in a museum, I might reconsider if I knew I'd spend an eternity baring my anus to the scientific community.

I'm leaving my body to science, but I don't think I'd be entirely pleased about being stuck in a museum for people to point at. If this was likely to happen then I think I'd insist in my will that I be posed in a chair, masturbating, while my other hand flicks the living world the bird. Then I could be dead happy.

Sure, but only if appropriately and entertainingly stuffed and, even then, only if arranged as part of a scandalous and/or amusing diorama.

Personally, I don't think most bodies should be on display. I do think that scientists could benifit from studying them- but to put them up on show to be gawked at... I don't know it seems rude to me.

Think thousands of years after our time, people digging up your parents, grandparents, yourself or your children- then putting them on display where they end up being the butt end of jokes (Which most displayed dead people do become).

Ultimately, I don't believe in an afterlife- I don't believe people need their bodies after death- and I don't belive once a person is dead, they actually care what happens to their bod. But I still believe the wishes of a person when they're still alive should carry over to their deaths, no matter how long ago it is.

Now if permission is given, that's one thing. If pictures and reports are used instead of the actual body- that another thing. But people don't want that. They want to see the actual corpse of some guy. Just really morbid in my book.

Personally, I don't think most bodies should be on display. I do think that scientists could benifit from studying them- but to put them up on show to be gawked at... I don't know it seems rude to me.

Think thousands of years after our time, people digging up your parents, grandparents, yourself or your children- then putting them on display where they end up being the butt end of jokes (Which most displayed dead people do become).

Ultimately, I don't believe in an afterlife- I don't believe people need their bodies after death- and I don't belive once a person is dead, they actually care what happens to their bod. But I still believe the wishes of a person when they're still alive should carry over to their deaths, no matter how long ago it is.

Now if permission is given, that's one thing. If pictures and reports are used instead of the actual body- that another thing. But people don't want that. They want to see the actual corpse of some guy. Just really morbid in my book.

Of course, we are now keeping very good records of *current* physiology, culture, etc. As such, there is no reason to believe that the bodies of anyone you know will ever be disturbed, barring some horrible disaster in which all records were destroyed.

You need another option there for the many people who leave their bodies to science for scientists to do as they please in the name of medicine and biology.

If a person has left their body to science then there is nothing wrong in displaying their pickled remains in a museum, it's very interesting.

Ever been to the Mutter Museum in Philadelphia? It has numerous dead bodies (mostly bones) on display. The exhibits include the remains of an obese woman who was transformed into Adipocere, a sort of naturally occuring soap. It's educational and entertaining.

I knew a nice girl from Philly who told me about that place. She went on a date there, apparantly.

Poor choices in the poll and a poorly worded OP. :(

Pre-historic remains: study, display respectfully
Proto-historic remains: study, possibly display, some reasonable objections are possible
Historic remains: study, do not display except in unusual circumstances
"Modern" remains: autopsy if needed for criminal purposes, study and/or display only with explicit permission

Reasoning: The primary protection here is the deceased's family, with lesser protections on those who may have a more remote religious or emotional objection.

Of course, we are now keeping very good records of *current* physiology, culture, etc. As such, there is no reason to believe that the bodies of anyone you know will ever be disturbed, barring some horrible disaster in which all records were destroyed.

Hmmm... What of the Guanajarto mummies? 107 are on display at El Museo de las Momias the most recent dating 1958. They were on display when I was there in 1988.

I knew a nice girl from Philly who told me about that place. She went on a date there, apparantly.
Who was she dating? Dr. Frankenstein? A museum with a rack of skulls from every different population of humans on earth seems like a weird place for a date.

Of course, we are now keeping very good records of *current* physiology, culture, etc. As such, there is no reason to believe that the bodies of anyone you know will ever be disturbed, barring some horrible disaster in which all records were destroyed.

I'm talking thousands of years in the future. You're assuming people will be able to access our info then. Paper deteriorates, technology becomes obsolete. Try using a computer punch card that was used to program computers in the 80's on your computer you use now. Isn't going to happen. Try sitting down and decoding that punch card by yourself- not to simple.

Thousands of years from now- we'll prob be as much of a mystery to the people then, as people thousands of years ago are to us. You can't say it won't happen... because who knows? Wars, natural disasters- anything can happen in thousands of years. And even knowing how people died, we still keep their bodies on display.

It could happen to us, and honestly, that wasn't the point. The point is right now, how would you feel if you knew that at some point a relative of yours, like a parent or a child, would be on display to be gawked at? Now realize those bodies in museums ARE someone's child, someone's parent. Think of the reaction their parents would have had if you were to go back in time to say they'd be a museum peice for decades.

It's just really distasteful to me. Just because they're thousands of years old, doesn't mean they don't deserve the same respect that we'd want our family members to have.

And, by the way- people are being dug up and moved today. People who died not too long ago. Graves are being torn up- I've seen news reports about them ending up in mass graves- or left behind to have a building or road built on top of them- never to be found again. And I'm talking about graves of people who still have living relatives who KNEW them. They aren't being put on display, sure- but they're being treated with disrespect. Think it can't happen in a couple of thousand years to us?

I am strongly against the showing of people (bodys) in museum. They should be left alone were they where laid to rest years or centurys ago.
At least I don't want to end up in a glass case after a hundred years for people to see and study.
I am not a person of significanse but then again most of the people in museums have no identedy.

no. dead bodies should not be displayed in museums. (unless they have specific permission from the dead person)

the egyptians went to incredible lengths to bury people in a certain way and it is wrong to have "dug them up" , taken them out of their sarcophagi, unwrapped them and displayed them in museums. all of them should be returned to the places they were found.

several native american tribes have sued to get the remains of ancestors returned to them from museums so they can be properly re-buried (or however they deal with their dead)

i dont disagree with the study of the remains of prehistoric people, but they should not be put on display and should be reburied as soon as possible after the studies are complete.

no. dead bodies should not be displayed in museums. (unless they have specific permission from the dead person)

the egyptians went to incredible lengths to bury people in a certain way and it is wrong to have "dug them up" , taken them out of their sarcophagi, unwrapped them and displayed them in museums. all of them should be returned to the places they were found.

several native american tribes have sued to get the remains of ancestors returned to them from museums so they can be properly re-buried (or however they deal with their dead)

i dont disagree with the study of the remains of prehistoric people, but they should not be put on display and should be reburied as soon as possible after the studies are complete.
What's the real harm in putting them on display? Plus sometimes Native respect for the dead goes too far. There was one incident recently in which prehistoric remains that bear no connection to any tribe living today (in fact they resembled caucasian remains) were claimed by a tribe and had to be reburied before scientists could study them and perhaps learn some revolutionary facts about the first North Americans. Religion and superstition should never, NEVER stand in the way of science.

Only if they die in the museum. In which case, they should be left in the exact place and condition in which they died.

It would be better if their exact position was recorded, the body removed, embalmed and then returned to the "correct" location and state. The smell of decomposition would deter other visitors unless this were done.

how about this. Everyone can stick a curse on there grave like shakespeare did and then write a "Dig at own risk" warning

If there is consent, anything goes (e.g., the body of Lenin that is still on display). If consent is unknown then study is acceptible (otherwise how would we advance knowledge?) but display is not because it implies the person is an object.

This is one reason why I'm going for cremation. :D

Actually, Lenin wanted to be buried in a normal 'worker'-type grave and would be horrified that they've still got him pickled up there.

Pre-historic remains: study, display respectfully
Proto-historic remains: study, possibly display, some reasonable objections are possible
Historic remains: study, do not display except in unusual circumstances
"Modern" remains: autopsy if needed for criminal purposes, study and/or display only with explicit permission

Reasoning: The primary protection here is the deceased's family, with lesser protections on those who may have a more remote religious or emotional objection.



I'm interested as to why there's this distinction between literate and pre-literate societies.
Do prehistoric people have less rights/dignity than we do? Because they're less like us?

If the main objection is that the victim's family will be upset, surely you can isplay anyone whose family can't be traced?