While I would applaud an intentionally provocative act to spark debate on display of human remains – and to be fair the museum does state this as an aim – the framing of the decision (presumably an executive one) as some kind of democratic exercise in what is ‘respectful display’ is a bit misleading. As you said earlier. And the comments of Jasmine Day on the Egypt blog say research shows that most visitors do not actually object to showing mummified remains.

Of course we can’t all agree on what counts as ethical, but when there’s a good enough educational justification to display human remains (or indeed retain them for research), then this should override what at the time is seen as ‘good taste’.

I was reading the ICOM ethics codes the other day and I wonder if that, rather than the museum’s own policy is what is behind this – it talks about addressing requests for removal from display ‘expeditiously’, which might explain the rush, and also about taking into account the beliefs of the deceased, where known.
Obviously we can argue till the cows come home about what the ancient Egyptians wanted/would have wanted had they known museums were going to exist. In my opinion the ICOM ethics code never really got to grips with the implications of that bit for archaeology.

The Aboriginal parallel is interesting. I think I end up being a utilitarian on this matter, as I have rather more sympathy with the Aboriginal claims based on the fact that their suffering from their ancestors’ being in museums is greater (and hence the aim of maximising the sum total of human happiness would say it should be given more weight) than that of the Pagans.

I agree with your points. In this instance consultation seems to be a pretext for advancing some sort of predetermined postmodern / postcolonial agenda. Or perhaps I’m reading too much into it!

The statement on the Egyptology department’s website notes that “The ancient Egyptians believed that, once the tombs were closed, the bodies were gone forever to the Afterlife. .. These mummies were not deposited in their graves in this state, but were unwrapped in the 19th or early 20th centuries for reasons, variously, of public curiosity and genuine research.”

This is an interesting point, but as far as I can tell it is not the main reason why the mummies are being covered. If the aim was really to provoke debate about the ‘authenticity’ of museum displays or public access to traditionally restricted areas then this should be made more explicit.

In Australia, where the debate over displaying sacred/secret things (let alone bodies) is very active, I also tend to take a ‘conservative’ view, and think that, while people’s spiritual beliefs should be given serious consideration, they should not be a barrier to ‘others’. I’ve noticed there is now a movement of ‘indigenous Britons’ seeking repatriation and reburial of excavated remains from the UK. Should these self-appointed moral voices really be given the airplay that some relativists suggest they should?

From my knowledge of the individuals involved, I think the Manchester mummy-covering is more likely to be the result of pressure from management (director and senior curators) than any non-curatorial PR wing. What really puzzles me about this affair is the museum’s apparent jumping the gun in covering the mummies up before the consultation process was complete. This is a sure-fire way to offend the people whose opinions weren’t followed.
‘Consultation’ sounds very fluffy and open, but actually, it can end up being a very secretive and subjective process. Frankly they could have ‘consulted’ then announced that the consultation was complete and made whatever decision they wanted. Musems often talk of giving up their authority but in my opinion this is often a touch self-deluding – after all, someone still has to decide which opinions to give weight to.