The short version
- Kelvingrove Gallery removed a mummified priest from public view due to lack of consent from descendants.
- The Hunterian Museum covered a female mummy with textile, citing a duty of care and respect for privacy in death.
- National Museums Scotland stated it would not change its displays, highlighting inconsistent sector-wide implementation of new ethics codes.
Two prominent museums in Glasgow have significantly altered how they present ancient Egyptian human remains, marking a shift in institutional practice driven by renewed ethical scrutiny. Kelvingrove Gallery has completely removed the mummified body of the priest Nekht from public exhibition, while The Hunterian Museum has obscured the remains of Lady Shep-En-Hor behind a specially designed textile. These actions reflect a broader reassessment of how cultural institutions handle human remains, particularly in light of updated guidance from the International Council of Museums regarding the inherent dignity of the deceased.
The decision at Kelvingrove was explicitly linked to the absence of consent from the individuals or their ancestors. Glasgow Life, the organization managing the gallery, noted that contemporary museum standards increasingly require documented and informed permission before displaying such sensitive materials. The remains of Nekht, who lived between 1985 and 1797 BC, were excavated in Middle Egypt during early twentieth-century digs and donated to the city in 1923. Alongside the priest’s coffin, a mummified head, foot, and hand recovered from the Valley of the Kings were also withdrawn from view.
At The Hunterian Museum, managed by the University of Glasgow, the approach differed slightly but shared the same ethical foundation. After consulting with Egyptologists, museum officials concluded that Lady Shep-En-Hor deserved privacy in death. Her ornate sarcophagus, which has been on display since 1820, remains visible as a significant work of funerary art, but the body inside is now shielded from direct observation. The institution emphasized that this move was part of a commitment to becoming more ethical, acknowledging historical practices where excavators sometimes swapped remains between coffins based on preservation quality.
These changes align with a revised code of ethics issued by the International Council of Museums in June, which recommends upholding the dignity of human remains and making decisions in collaboration with descendant communities when possible. However, experts note that the code serves as guidance rather than a mandate. Professor Steph Scholten, a member of the Icom ethics committee, clarified that the guidelines do not prescribe a single outcome for all institutions. Instead, they encourage careful consideration, allowing museums to determine appropriate responses based on their specific collections and contexts.
Despite these developments in Glasgow, there is no uniform approach across Scotland’s museum sector. National Museums Scotland has stated it is not considering changes to its displays of human remains, which include Scottish archaeological finds as well as mummies from Egypt and Peru. This divergence highlights the complexity of implementing ethical guidelines that balance respect for the deceased with educational and historical missions. Different institutions are given leeway in how they interpret and apply these principles, leading to varied outcomes even within the same region.
The debate over displaying human remains has gained momentum due to growing awareness of colonial histories and the rights of source communities. A parliamentary group on African repatriation recently highlighted ethical concerns regarding the constant disregard for the wishes of ancestors who originally buried these individuals. This perspective has influenced institutions like Kelvingrove, which views removing ancient Egyptian remains as a more respectful gesture toward the deceased. The shift represents a move away from treating human remains solely as artifacts and toward recognizing them as individuals with inherent dignity.
Both Glasgow museums have indicated they would consider repatriation requests if approached by relevant countries or institutions. This openness reflects a broader trend in the museum world toward restitution and collaborative stewardship. While the immediate changes involve restricting public access, the long-term implications may include returning remains to their places of origin. The decisions underscore a evolving understanding of museum responsibilities, where ethical considerations increasingly outweigh traditional display practices.
The case of Lady Shep-En-Hor also illustrates the scientific complexities involved in managing such collections. Although her body has never been removed from the coffin, it has undergone X-ray and CT scans over the past fifty years. Historical theories from the 1970s questioned whether the remains inside were actually hers, given nineteenth-century practices of swapping specimens. These uncertainties further complicate ethical decisions, as institutions must navigate both historical inaccuracies and modern moral standards. The covering of her remains serves as a compromise, preserving the artifact’s visibility while respecting the individual’s privacy.
As museums continue to grapple with these issues, the Glasgow examples serve as early indicators of how revised ethical codes might be implemented in practice. The lack of a one-size-fits-all solution means that visitors may encounter different standards depending on which institution they visit. This fragmentation challenges the notion of a cohesive national policy but allows for nuanced, context-specific responses. The ongoing dialogue between museums, ethicists, and descendant communities will likely shape future practices, potentially leading to more widespread changes in how human remains are treated globally.
The immediate impact of these decisions is a reduction in public access to specific exhibits, but the broader significance lies in the redefinition of museum ethics. By prioritizing consent and dignity, Glasgow’s institutions are setting precedents that could influence other museums worldwide. The tension between preservation, education, and respect remains unresolved, but the willingness to adapt suggests a growing recognition of the moral weight carried by human remains. As debates continue, the focus shifts from mere display to meaningful engagement with history and heritage.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- BBC News↗Glasgow museums remove mummified remains from public view over ethical concerns
