Revering The Ancestors : A Duty To The Past

I’ve written on here before concerning the exceedingly black image that most of contemporary society has of Ancient Egypt. A lot of these views are based on old stereotypes from Hollywood, the press hysteria over the “Mummy’s Curse” surrounding the tomb of Tutankhamun (a.k.a. “King Tut”) and views based on the myths and folktales of an entirely different culture (I.e. Exodus).

Archaeology and study of Egyptian literature and administrative documents long ago dispelled these black myths, but the public perception lingers. This may be because that much of work done in translation and excavation is published in journals and books that are largely inaccessible and undesirable to the general public because of it’s highly academic nature, and many of the specialist publications are also not available in more general bookstores. Meanwhile increasing amounts of information come from TV, whose study of Egyptian culture is limited to Hollywood blockbusters or embarrassingly bad “edutainment” documentaries that focus on the sensational.

However, what good is research if it’s huge advances in understanding utterly pass by the general population, whom still cling the notions of the sneering Pharaoh keeping his slaves in line with the lash?

I am interested in getting some views and comments on this, so please debate!

 

Bodies found in the tomb of ‘boy king’ Tutankhamun’s tomb are twin daughters

From The Times (London) – Full article

By Aditi Khanna

Two foetuses found buried with Tutankhamun may have been his twin daughters, an expert has claimed.

Professor Robert Connolly, an anatomist who is working with Egyptian authorities to analyse the tomb of the Egyptian Pharaoh, says that preliminary tests on the mummified remains of the two still-born babies indicate that Tutankhamun may have fathered them both. He will present the new findings at the Pharmacy and Medicine in Ancient Egypt Conference at the University of Manchester today.

Professor Connolly, who first studied the remains of Tutankhamun in the Sixties, said: “The two foetuses in the tomb of Tutankhamun could be twins, despite their very different size and thus fit better as a single pregnancy for his young wife [Ankhesenamun]. This increases the likelihood of them being Tutankhamun’s children.”

“I studied one of the mummies, the larger one, back in 1979, determined the blood group data from this baby mummy and compared it with my 1969 blood grouping of Tutankhamun. The results confirmed that this larger foetus could indeed be the daughter of Tutankhamun.

“Now we believe that they are twins and they were both his children.”

Professor Connolly, a physical anthropologist at the University of Liverpool, said: “It is a very exciting finding which will not only paint a more detailed picture of this famous young king’s life and death, it will also tell us more about his lineage.”

The  complete results of the  tests are expected in December.  Otherwise I don’t feel there is much to add here besides what I have already written on this subject. I do not feel that these tests are ethically sound. They trouble me greatly.

 

New Standards On Collecting Of Archaeological Material, Ancient Art

From Huliq News via Andie Byrnes’ blog (Egyptology News) – Full Article on Huliq

The American Association of Museums (AAM) today announced the establishment of standards regarding museum acquisition of archaeological material and ancient art that emphasize proper provenance of such objects and complete transparency on the part of the acquiring institutions.

The product of two years of concerted research and vetting from the museum field, Standards Regarding Archaeological Material and Ancient Art provides clear ethical guidance on collecting such material so as to discourage illicit excavation of archaeological sites or monuments. Crafted by the specially created AAM Task Force on Cultural Property the standards were approved by the AAM Board of Directors at its July meeting in Minneapolis.

A welcome development indeed.

 

More DNA Testamania…

From Daily News Egypt – Original article in full

Egypt to DNA-test 2 fetuses from King Tut’s tomb

CAIRO: Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities says the country’s scientists will start DNA tests on two mummified fetuses found in the tomb of King Tutankhamun to determine their link to the young pharaoh.

The fetuses were found in 1922 in the tomb in Luxor and have since been stored at Cairo University. They are widely believed to be King Tut’s stillborn children.

The tests will be carried out in collaboration with Cairo University’s Faculty of Medicine under the leadership of Dr Ashraf Selim, head of Cairo Scan.

Selim together with Dr Yehia Zakaria of the National Research Center have carried out CT scans of the two fetuses and took samples to make the DNA tests.

The council quotes in a statement Egypt’s Antiquities chief Zahi Hawass as saying the test will also try to determine the fetuses’ mother as well as Tutankhamun’s family lineage, a mystery that has baffled Egyptologists for years.

And what, precisely, do we hope to gain from this? A snippet from further into the article rasies some eyebrows for me…

Hawass said the tests will also help in identifying the mummy of Queen Nefertiti.

Which the last batch of DNA tests and CAT scans were supposed to have already established. I am not personally convinced that the ethical issues involved, and the time and cost spent on DNA testing of the royal mummies is consistently repaid in concrete advances in our knowledge. I am willing and ready to concede that some breakthroughs have been made, particularly in regards to the royal line of the early 18th Dynasty. But, at some point a line needs to be drawn between “testamania”, and ethically and practically justifable research, which we can reasonably expect to deliver a significant advance to our understanding.

In addition, most archaeology involves conservation and preservation of material. DNA testing is unusual in archaeology in that it is the opposite. DNA testing is damaging to, and invasive of, the human remains which are subjected to it.

 

Menkaura and the Mediterranean

This is hardly up to date news, it did in fact hit the pages of The Times  back in June (link), however I havn’t had a chance to comment on this until now. However, I feel it warrents a mention.

The empty sarcophagus of Menkaura, a Pharaoh of the 4th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom, was found inside the burial chamber of his Giza pyramid by Richard Vyse, who had  ”excavated” the pyramid using gunpowder. In a true testament to Menkaura’s engineers and architects, this didn’t bring the entire structure down on top of either Vyse or the sarcophagus.  He also found shards of a wooden coffin, inscribed with Menkaura’s name, and a skeleton wrapped in cloth. The coffin turned out, interestingly, to be from the 26th Dynasty, whilst it’s inhabitant was from the Coptic Period. The Pharaohs of the 26th Dyansty had, it seemed, piously re-consecrated the pyramid, having found it robbed, as was common at the time, the 26th Dyn. being the height of the Archaic Revival mentioned in my last post on the Late Period tomb of Harwa.

Vyse claimed that the basalt resting place of  Menkaura would be endangered if it were to be left in place, and decided to ship it back to the British Museum in London, along with the coffin shards and remains.  All did not go to plan, however. The sarcophagus was loaded onto one ship, the Beartrice, along with some other artifacts Vyse had found, whilst the coffin and remains were placed upon another vessel. The Beartrice departed Egypt, and stopped in at Malta, where she departed, ominously enough, on October 13th 1838.

Exactly what happened next is unclear, but the Beartrice was lost, and sank somewhere off the Spanish Mediterranean coast, never making it as far as Gibraltar.  It is speculated that the wreck lies around the south eastern coats of Spain, around Cartagena. And now, Dr. Zahwi Hawass wishes to recover the sarcophagus, and has enlisted Robert Ballard, who located the wreck of the Titanic with help of the US Navy (they were using the mission to search for two lost 1960′s nuclear submarines) to help him.

Many have said that the project is next to impossible, as the exact location of the Beartrice is not known. However, in comparison to the project to locate the Titanic, conditions are in fact much easier, from a marine point of view. Firstly, the area is in fact, fairly confined. If we are to go with the fairly well founded assumption that the best chance for finding the vessel is along the coast of Cartagena, then the actual area of seabed to be searched is not huge compared to the North Atlantic. Secondly, conditions are infinitely better. The sea bed in this area is much shallower. The Titanic lies at some 3,800 metres, and more than 600km from the nearest land, in an area of frequent violent storms. The Mediterranean, by contrast, is an enclosed, almost tideless, sea, with much more moderate weather conditions. The area in question is close to land, as indeed, almost every single point in the Mediterranean is. The difficulties with this project are not technical.

The difficulty is legal, and, of course, political. Egyptian antiquities, on a British vessel, that (it is believed) sank in Spanish waters. In addition, Dr. Hawass announced this project before an agreement with the Spanish authorities has been reached, and I have been unable to find any actual acceptance of the request for his assistance, or confirmation, by Robert Ballard.  Dr. Hawass has stated that he is hoping for co-operation with the Spanish authorities, citing the positive publicity this would bring for all parties (in association with National Geographic, one assumes, especially given the involvement of Ballard) and has also stated that whilst the sarcophagus would return to Egypt, any other Egyptian antiquities found with the wreckage would remain with the Spanish.  This is a pragmatic move, and is more likely to lead to Spanish co-operation. However I cannot help but think this a rather risky offer to make, as well as somewhat contradictory in light of the wish, often expressed by the SCA, to return Egyptian antiquities to Egypt. It is risky, because we do not know for certain what other artifacts were on board the Beatrice when she went down. There may be some unique or extremely valuable items amongst the wreckage, and should this be the case (rather than “less valuable” or lower profile items, which is expected) then I cannot help but fear that many in Egypt will be eating their hats, as it were, in frustration.  It will inevitably lead to arguments…

So, what is to be done? Personally, I see no reason why this project shouldn’t go ahead. I feel the technical issues, whilst expensive to tackle, are far from insurmountable. Politically and legally, a genuine and out of the limelight dialogue between the Egyptian, Spanish and British authorities could easily be stepped up, with no side issuing unilateral statements to the awaiting media.  Menkaura’s sarcophagus could, and should, be brought home. There is a strong argument for this, but it is not one that should be fought through the media. Meanwhile, deciding on who gets the other “spoils” before they are even seen is, I fear, only going to lead to further problems down the road, as well as conjuring up unseemly images of vultures fighting over a carcass.

 

Covering the mummies

From “Egypt at the Manchester Museum” blog –  Link to original article

Last week, the unwrapped mummy of Asru, and the partially wrapped mummy of Khary, and the loaned child mummy from Stonyhurst College, were covered. The covering was carried out in order that the human remains be treated with respect and to keep the bodies on display in line with the Manchester Museum Human Remains policy

As you can see, the decision has not been without controvsery. However, I am very pleased to see this as it is forcing everyone to actually consider this issue and is forcing them to look at their own positions and assumptions anew. I quote below my own thoughts on this topic, originally posted in a comment on the article.

I think the museum has taken an ethical and courageous stance on this issue. Whilst I think that the final decision could and should have waited until the consultation period was complete, I personally feel the move is mostly positive.

One thing I think that could have been done better would be leaving the face of dead visible. I think this would be a good balance between giving the dead the respect they deserve, whilst preserving a “link” with the public. Within Egypt this seems to be the way things are moving, albeit gradually.

Because the BM has not covered it’s human remains does not make Manchester’s decision automatically wrong. Personally I hope that the BM will study the move that Manchester (and some Egyptian museums) have made and consider adopting a similar policy.

I agree with George Stilwell that When we talk about “human remains” and mummies, we are talking about people. Let’s not be so quick to forget this, and what their wishes for the afterlife were. Modern research can further our knowledge of Ancient Egypt whilst barely having to touch their bodies, thanks to more sophisticated technology than the early Egyptologists had at their disposal, and so it is only fitting that our attitudes towards how we “interact” with remains overall also needs some rethinking. Museums can provide informative and in depth exhibits to educate the public about Ancient Egyptian beliefs and practises concerning burial, mummification and the afterlife, without having to turn the body of the deceased into a macabre spectacle.

This is not the view of one who is overly distressed by seeing human remains. This is the view of one who believes, that in the 21st century, we have an opportunity to move the popular perception and interest in Ancient Egypt beyond the spectacle of the unwrapped mummy, and hopes that such an opportunity will not be wasted.

I support Manchester Museum.

 

Banking on King Tut – Opinion

The SCA’s project to secure funding through high profile exhibitions has courted a degree of controversy in the world, and in so doing has certainly met another of it’s aims, of raising the profile of Egyptian antiquities world wide. They have also generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the SCA and Egypt as a whole.

To the critics, who have decried the measure as being too risky, the SCA has replied that such exhibitions have been carried out for a long time, and are nothing new. That is undeniably true. My adopted home city of London has indeed been graced by the treasures of Tutankhamun in 1972, attracting more visitors to the British Museum than any other exhibition in it’s history.

Whilst we can point to tradition as justification for our current actions, we must not be blind to the situation around us. In the 1970′s awareness of risks of transporting antiquities was much lower than at present, as was the importance of the then much less matured art of conservation. The SCA itself now follows a different process to that of the 1972 exhibition -only “secondary” antiquities now travel, hence the absence of objects such as the mummy mask of Tutankhamum from the current travelling exhibitions. Clearly the SCA is aware of the risks. It seems, therefore, to be the degree of risk that is the issue, not the idea of exposing antiquities to un-necessary risk per se. In addition, ethical matters, such as the display of mummies and the jewels taken from them, was much less prominent than it is today.

At the end of the day, this is the crux of the matter. These artefacts do not have to travel, and be exposed to the associated risks and ethical dilemmas. It is a decision consciously taken. Why? The SCA gives two reasons.

To raise awareness of Egyptian antiquities globally
To raise finance for SCA projects

As for the first, the SCA has also famously forged an alliance with the media, in particular the American television network “Discovery Channel” which has resulted in numerous documentaries being produced, often for special, highly choreographed events, such as the famous (or perhaps infamous) Hatshepsut documentary that one commentator likened to an episode of CSI, and many others, including myself (on a personal level) felt the documentaries to be highly disrespectful of Ancient Egyptian culture and it’s values. One is forced to question the value of interest generated by appealing to the lowest common denominator, which is what these documentaries undeniably have done, and to the image of Ancient Egypt in generates in the popular imagination, appealing to the lowest common denominator of mummies, “mysteries” and more.

The SCA has complimented the documentary approach with the exhibitions. As far as PR goes, these have been somewhat more successful. Whilst documentary TV can fall flat, Ancient Egyptian PR rarely failed to hit the spot, and still does the job. The artefacts in the various exhibitions that have travelled the world in recent years have all drawn in the crowds, despite controversially high ticket prices. The exhibitions that I have seen have been less tacky and sensationalist than they could have been, and, well depressingly far from perfect, do give a hint of the genuine history and interest behind the treasures. It’s fair to say that the exhibitions have been, to a degree, a success (though not an unqualified one) in this stated aim of raising interest. They do, however, also raise a serious ethical issue, which I shall return to.

The second objective of the exhibitions has been to raise revenue:

“Over the past five years, Hawass told Al-Ahram Weekly, the SCA has earned almost $350 million from 23 exhibitions sent abroad. This falls within the framework of the policy developed by the SCA to sending archaeological exhibitions abroad and at the same time give Egypt added worldwide publicity” (Al-Ahram Weekly – Banking on King Tut – Nevine El Aref)

OK. Let’s do a little maths. $350m from 23 exhibitions makes $15.2m per exhibition. The annual income would be $70m p/a. Now this may sound like a lot of money, but as Hawass himself said in the article just quoted, “This money is not even a drop of water in the bucket of cash needed to build this museum…It is costing billions of dollars” he is quoted as saying, referring to the Grand Egyptian Museum.

Nor is it much compared to the investment needs of any number issues the SCA is facing in Egypt. The groundwater management scheme at Luxor Temple has proven successful, and so there are any number of temples where this scheme now seems a sensible way forward to managing the ever present water table issue, Karnak being only the most high profile of them. Projects like this are capital intensive, and although Luxor Temple was financed for the most part by foreign donations, this source is not endless. In addition there are everyday needs that make a small but steady demand on overstretched resources. If the money from these exhibitions pales by comparison to the capital demands of the GEM, it practically disappears when compared with the demands of Pharaonic antiquities overall.

Whilst one could say every little helps, the enormous risks entailed in these exhibitions still overshadows the financial return, and even moreso when one considers the financial return is nowhere near adequate. The Golden Age of the Pharaohs attracted much publicity because it was the first in a long time in London, and also in the States. However subsequent exhibitions are attracting less publicity. It would be possible to make the public tire even of Tutankhamun, and would lead to pressure to send increasingly valuable artefacts to the exhibitions to keep up attendance.

In the end, it is a close call. The publicity of the exhibitions, not the documentaries, has been somewhat beneficial. The money is beneficial also, though perhaps less so than it might at first seem, given the drop in the ocean factor, and this is assuming that the money from these exhibitions is in fact going to the SCA and not on other projects, and that’s a big if. But, the risk involved is massive, and this cannot be ignored or denied. The SCA has gone to great length to point out the care taken in transporting the artefacts, and the full insurance coverage provided. But how can you insure these things? Let us consider the unthinkable for one moment. Let us suppose that the diadem taken from the head of Tutankhamun’s mummy was destroyed. Let us assume the SCA had insured this for $20m. That will not bring it back. It may allow us to make a perfect replica, but it doesn’t actually help recover anything, because you cannot recover these things. Once they are destroyed, they are destroyed “forever and eternity”.

In addition to this, one must not forget the image generated of Pharaonic culture by these exhibitions, and the treatment of these artefacts. Whilst some, like the Tutankhamun & The Golden Age Of The Pharaohs exhibition has been reasonably respectful, a lot of people, myself included, are turned off by the idea of such exhibitions as “prostituting” Pharaonic culture, and demeaning both the people and the culture to the status of fairground attractions. Financial calculations aside, this leave a foul taste in many people’s mouths. This should not be underestimated, specially given the sensitive issue of some exhibits displayed, such as the diadem of Tutankhamun, removed from his head. Undeniably beautiful, a masterpeiece of craftsmanship, one has to do some very serious soul searching when confronted with this piece behind glass.

It, like the famous golden dagger, were removed from his body and displayed to the public. We must not forget what we have done, not in the name of being able to better understand Ancient Egyptian culture, religion or society, but to put on a display of treasure. Maybe we are not the ones who removed them, but by displaying them we are furthering this action, and we must ask ourselves where we stand on this issue.

When I first looked into this, I thought that it would be an “open and shut” case. We cannot justify letting these treasures be exposed to any unnecessary risk. End of. I still do feel that we should not take this risk, and I still feel it is unnecessary. We should keep them secure (in all senses of the word) and bring people to the antiquities and not vice versa. However it is not as simple as I first believed.

The arguments the SCA has put forward are real issues. The money is a drop in the ocean, but where else will that drop come from? Nowhere, most likely. None of this justifies moving these treasures and jetting them around the world. But it does mean it is not an open and closed case. There are reasonable arguments to be considered, and not simply dismissed out of hand.

However, in the end, the risks are still too great, and the ethical questions too thorny… and there is nothing on earth we can do to change that. I cannot agree with the idea of exposing these irreplaceable items to this risk of transport and display, and I cannot ethically justify the display of items taken from a mummy. We understand the mores of Pharaonic culture, and we cannot pretend to be ignorant of how this would be considered by the people we are claiming to be showing the greatest respect and understanding. As well as being practically unwise, at the end of the day, we know it’s wrong.