2008
DOI: 10.1080/13576270801954419
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dead bodies: The changing treatment of human remains in British museum collections and the challenge to the traditional model of the museum

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Many of these collections have been secreted away or are restricted to the public. Some have been more recently destroyed, legally disputed, or repatriated when found to be of Indigenous origin (see Nelkin and Andrews 1998;Jenkins 2008;Hoffman 2010). Many more collections are opened to the public for education and entertainment, and are the sources of props for fashion shoots, art shows, books, and calendars.…”
Section: Cadaver Synodmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Many of these collections have been secreted away or are restricted to the public. Some have been more recently destroyed, legally disputed, or repatriated when found to be of Indigenous origin (see Nelkin and Andrews 1998;Jenkins 2008;Hoffman 2010). Many more collections are opened to the public for education and entertainment, and are the sources of props for fashion shoots, art shows, books, and calendars.…”
Section: Cadaver Synodmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Except for cases when remains are identified as Native or Aboriginal (see Jenkins 2008), or when their ownership is contested (see Nelkin and Andrews 1998), the vast majority of them remain part of what are considered important historical collections.…”
Section: History and Anthropology 227mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…be the result of a post-mortem taphonomic process on the bone (Niinimäki et al 2010). The displaying and studying of human remains has been the focus of a quite involved academic discussion (Ubelaker & Guttenplan Grant 1989;Klesert & Powell 1993;Jenkins 2008;Jenkins 2010;Svestad 2013) but it is interesting to note that this case has not led to debates among museum visitors. It should also be noted that in some cases, the reluctance to display human remains may be more of an academic concern than a reflection of the wishes of the locals (see e.g.…”
Section: Burialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second and more important, however, this particular excavation was organized at the instigation of The Richard III Society. Whereas early debates about reburial of the ancient dead pitted scientific archaeology against the identity politics of aboriginal groups (Fforde 2004), followed by an alliance between postmodern museum curation and the identity politics of Paganism (Jenkins 2008), the Leicester 'find' resulted from an alliance between archaeology and, not identity politics, but (Gray et al 2007) modern-day fandom in the form of the Richard III Society -Richard's fan club. Many of the Society's 3500 members would quickly have become aware of this news story, and very likely contributed a proportion of the several hundred comments and several thousand ratings.…”
Section: Analysis Of Online Commentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of recent events inside and outside of the heritage sector have triggered a lively and largely constructive debate about the excavation, display and conservation of human remains in the UK (see Sayer 2009Sayer , 2010aMoshenska 2009;Parker Pearson et al 2011;Jenkins 2008Jenkins , 2010Giesen 2013). Two events have been of particular significance: the reburial of human remains prompted by requests to museums from the Pagan community, and independently of these requests the Ministry of Justice decided to revisit its conditions for the excavation of human remains (Parker Pearson et al 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%