Bodies on display

It is good news that the Spanish authorities have recognized that "El Negro" should be returned home. The sight of the body of an African being displayed in a museum - exactly like a stuffed animal - is a disturbing reminder of attitudes to Africans which (hopefully) belong to the past. By the same token, it does matter where he came from: "El Negro" is not the body of a specimen, a generalized "Black Man"; it is the body of a person, a human being, who lived in a particular place, had friends, relatives, perhaps children... a man like ourselves. Hence the importance UB scholars have placed on trying to find out where he really came from. It is the same reason as the reason for bringing the body home to Africa: a recognition that this is the body of a real person, not a museum exhibit.

"El Negro" of Banyoles is not unique: there are quite a lot of human bodies displayed in various ways in museums and other places. But the significance varies from case to case, and not all should be regarded in the same way as "El Negro".

In Europe, archaeologists have dug up and studied a number of bodies. Very ancient ones, such as the "Pete Marsh" body, are sometimes subsequently displayed in museums. More recent bodies are not. Recently I read of bodies from the early Middle Ages, which had been dug up and studied, later being buried with a Catholic Mass (the religious ceremony which the people whose bodies were involved would almost certainly have wanted). There is perhaps a principle identifiable here: the early-medieval bodies were those of Christians, members of a religious tradition which is still alive. It is therefore easy to see what should be done: their bodies should be buried within that tradition. The "Pete Marsh" body (a body found preserved in a peat marsh, apparently the victim of a pre-Christian human sacrifice) by contrast does not belong to any living tradition. There is no priest of Pete Marsh's religion to rebury him; he does not belong to any existing community which will feel offended by his display. By this test, "El Negro" has to be treated in a manner parallel to that of the early-medieval bodies: whether he belonged to a Khoisan or a Tswana community, he clearly belonged to a community and tradition which still exists.

There are many other cases where modern representives of the deceased person's tradition are quite clear that display is offensive. Some New Zealand Maori heads, for example, have been displayed in foreign museums - the museums perhaps being unaware that such disrespect to the head is in Maori culture a very extreme insult.

In Europe, there is also another form of display of bodies: display in a religious context. This includes, but is not limited to, the display of "relics" (bodies or body parts) of saints. The tradition is especially strong in Southern Europe, including Spain. (Could this perhaps have made it harder for the Spanish to see that the display of "El Negro" was offensive?)

Ancient Egyptian bodies are another interesting case. The Egyptians' religion no longer exists as a living tradition - the modern Egyptians are either Muslims or Coptic Christians. However, we know a great deal about their religion, and we know why they carefully mummified their bodies. The Ancient Egyptians believed that you could have a happy afterlife, provided that your body and your name were preserved. The after-life was enhanced by the provision of grave-goods, often of a symbolic nature - models of workers stacking up grain bags ensured that your food supply in the afterlife would be abundant. Hence the elaborate precautions they took for the preservation of their bodies and grave-goods.

This means that there is a good argument that the Ancient Egyptians would be grateful for what museums do with their bodies! The museums ensure that their bodies and grave-goods are carefully preserved, which was what they most wanted.

So far we have been discussing religious and cultural traditions. But there are also some special cases to be considered. The Soviet leader Lenin was not buried (as he had wished) but preserved in a glass case on public display. This has been sometimes been seen as an appropriation of Russian Orthodox practice; at all events it led to a curious fashion in the Communist world, with a number of other Marxist-Leninist leaders receiving the same treatment.

An even more striking case is that of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the great Utilitarian philosopher. In his will he directed that his body should be preserved as an "Auto-Icon". The Auto-Icon consists of his preserved body, dressed in his clothes, mounted in a glass case. It is kept at University College London (part of the University of London) which he is often (though apparently incorrectly) credited with having helped to found. A description, with photograph, can be found at <http://www-server.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/jb.htm>. Various suggestions have been made as to how exactly Bentham meant his Auto-Icon to be regarded.

Back to top

By Bruce Bennett, email bennett@mopipi... [Click here for full email address]

Copyright © 2000 Bruce Bennett
22 March 2000
Last updated 24 February 2002