Posted on 05/21/2008 12:15:27 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
The last time they had the chance to offend anyone was 2,700 years ago when they were wandering around ancient Egypt.
Since then the mummies have led a blameless existence, spending the last 120 years in a museum where countless thousands of visitors have managed to see them without anyone becoming in the least bit upset.
Not any longer, it appears.
Complaints have led to the naked remains of Asru, a chantress at the Temple of Amun in Karnak, plus the partially-wrapped male Khary and a child mummy, all being covered in shrouds to protect their modesty.
The decision, which has prompted wholesale derision, came after Manchester Museum said it had received 'feedback' from the public saying it was 'insensitive to display unwrapped mummies'.
Having ordered the cover up, managers claim they are following Government policy and are carrying out a public consultation.
Last night the museum, whose Egyptian department has a worldwide reputation, was accused of being ridiculous and told it risked becoming a 'laughing stock'. Mummies at Manchester Museum
Naked truth: Mummies at Manchester Museum are being covered up after visitors complained about them being displayed 'naked'
Bob Partridge, chairman of the Manchester Ancient Egypt Society, said the cover-up was 'absolutely incomprehensible'.
'The mummies have always been sensitively displayed and have been educational and informative to generations of visitors.
"We are shocked this has been done in advance of any results from the public."
Josh Lennon, a museum visitor, said: "This is preposterous. Surely people realise that if they go to see Egyptian remains some of them may not be dressed in their best bib and tucker.
"The museum response to complaints is pure Monty Python - they have now covered them from head to foot rendering the exhibition a non-exhibition. It is hilarious."
Manchester Museum has several mummies - embalmed bodies tightly wrapped in cotton bandages - and is home to one of the most important collections in Britain.
George Mutter, a professor at Harvard medical school in the U.S. said: "For decades the Manchester Museum has been a leader in the scientific study of human mummies.
"The decision to hide the mummies from view is a step backwards."
He added: "In the interest of inclusiveness, the museum has become a playground for those who do not understand the subject at hand, nor respect the interests of scientists and public alike."
But the museum's Nick Merriman said: "We get a stream of feedback saying it is insensitive to display unwrapped mummies.
"We are trying to follow Government guidelines about how they should be displayed with respect and sensitivity."
If the public wanted the mummies unwrapped, the museum would take that "very seriously'," he added.
PC makes it to museums...Nat Geo mag is doomed
No doubt muzzies.
They must have heard Bill Clinton was on his way for a visit.
I didn’t know John Ashcroft was a Egyptologist.
Not nearly as horrid as our very own Smithsonian refusing an exhibit extolling the American Dream offeredas a gift to the museum by very wealthy self-made people. Smithie is big on slavery exhibits though.
“Sorry, had to play devil’s advocate”
Wouldn’t that be “dead-guy’s advocate” ?
Oooh, baby, I just loved dried up 2700 year old husks. Mmmm...mmmm.
I agree with you.
Once again GMTA
Then they’d better start covering up the various bog bodies in museums, and Otzi, the iceman.
Too late! Have you read National Geographic lately? It has bought into AGW big-time! Al Goracle probably sits on the board. In their Traveler magazine they lambasted the museum dedicated to Kalashnikov, snarkily implying America was just as bad since we had a firearms museum (great place in Virginia by the way). The beauty of some of the old weapons as well as the dioramas at the NRA museum are quite a step above a hall dedicated to one weapon in Russia. So, Nat Geo is PC big time.
I was going to answer him as well; sorry for the thread jack. I bought Nat Geo subscription about 10 years ago for my then 8 year old daughter. This was prompted by my love for them as a kid. My grandmother had every issue in a closet back to Perry at the pole (which I still have).
A new crew had come in and every EVERY article had some nasty anti-American, anti-capitalist blather in it. Front to back. Oh, plenty of advertising still, wouldn’t want to starve or anything. I cancelled after two years and told them explicitly why.
Back to mummies and their letting it all hang out.
The British weapon collection is on semi-permanent loan from the Imperial War Museum in Great Britain. They have tens of thousands of pieces that are taking up vast amounts of storage space, so they loan out as much as possible to keep their overhead costs down and to give folks in other countries an opportunity to see some of these fascinating weapons.
I second your sentiments - unfortunately, my subscription is a gift from my dad, so I still experience the sharp rise in blood-pressure each month when Nat’l Geographic is delivered.
I have no idea where the crew came from but they’ve infected some fine periodicals like The New Yorker, Smithsonian, and Travel and Leisure. As a design and construction professional, I have noticed these folks have overwhelmed any possible opposition to or questioning of Al Gore’s AGW groupthink.
The NRA’s American Hunter magazine had a wondeful tribute to Charlton Heston; you certainly don’t see that anywhere else. Along with other hunting and auto publications, that’s about all I read in non-news periodicals.
Thanks for the heads up! The Imperial War Museum is great; definitely a recommendation if you’re in Britain.
di aph a nous adjective (esp. of fabric) light, delicate, and translucent
I love FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.