In the late 1980s, French President Francois Mitterand ordered a new look for a centuries old museum and palace – the Louvre, in the heart of Paris. Mitterand basically stuck a huge glass pyramid in front of a venerable building dating from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Today, you take the pyramid for granted. At the time – this modernist structure was loved and despised in equal measure. But nobody imagined that over a decade later, the Louvre pyramid would be depicted as the final burial place of Mary Magdalene – the companion of Jesus!
Thanks to American author Dan Brown, the glass pyramid attained a mystical significance that escaped everybody at its unveiling in 1989. Back then, it was one of the President’s grand projects to beautify the city. Costing an eye watering US$850 million at the currency value of the time and taking six years to complete. Designed by the Chinese-American architect I.M. Pei, it was intended to ensure that the Louvre would emerge as the biggest museum in the world.
Dan Brown, Mary Magdalene, and the Louvre
Now strictly speaking – before Dan Brown lovers scream me off the stage – Mary Magdalene, according to his novel The Da Vinci Code, is not buried under the pyramid you see soaring above ground but a sister pyramid that is inverted.
This is a nearby accompanying pyramid whose large glass base is in the Place Du Carrousel. So, at the end of the Da Vinci Code movie, when you see Robert Langdon (played by Tom Hanks) having his moment of realisation – it’s happening as he walks across glass panes that form the flat base of the inverted pyramid.
He has deduced that Mary Magdalene is buried under this chalice-like shape of a pyramid. Suggestive of the female womb as has been heavily hinted throughout with upturned V-shapes being male phalluses and the reverse being female. Its subterranean tip meets the top of another much shorter pyramid as you can see in my video below. It’s beneath THAT third pyramid, were you can find Mary Magdalene.
Must admit I’ve seen my fair share of dead bodies in museums. Like all children, when I was first taken to see the ancient Egyptian mummies in the British museum back in the 1970s – I was eyes out on stalks! Take for example this chap below they used to call the “orange man”. He dates from about 3,400BC – also in the British Museum – and from what we call the pre-dynastic period. Now, as a result of seeing him, that term was embedded in my mind aged seven or eight.
His excellent state of preservation is because in the pre-dynastic period – a thousand years before the pyramids you know and love – bodies were buried in the sand. And that was a great preserver! You can still make out his ginger hair.
However – informative though this may be – some think orange man should not be there for us to gawp at. And this issue is becoming ever more pressing.
About five years ago, I visited the Horniman Museum in south London and was unable to find a particular exhibit that exerted a ghoulish hold on me when I’d first come to the museum as a child in the 1970s. Back then, a large glass case displayed several shrunken heads.
When I asked a curator where they were on this recent outing, she grimaced and said: “We don’t really put that kind of thing out anymore.” The shrunken heads are still shown in graphic detail on the museum website but are labelled as being “in storage”.
And the Horniman isn’t the only museum vexing over the ethics of corpses in cases. There’s a very heated debate going on behind closed doors about the morals as well as the potential negative PR that is attaching to having heads and bodies for the public to ogle at.
Tribal groups demand their ancestors back– no more dead bodies in museums
Indigenous peoples, tribes and nations are increasingly animated about their ancestors being exhibits. Concerns have been raised from tribal nations in the United States to aboriginal peoples in Australia – and lots of places in between. And you have allegations of racism or colonialism attaching to the display of Ancient Egyptian mummies or Inca sacrificial victims.
Those hostile parties may not be – for example – Egyptian in the case of the mummies but ‘feel’ or believe they have an affinity with these remains. No matter how tenuous one may feel their claimed link is – it’s now becoming difficult to ignore.
Guidance on displaying dead bodiesin museums
The United Kingdom government has issued guidance in the past to museums on how to treat human remains. And since 1996, the UK has been committed to repatriating aboriginal remains to Australia and New Zealand. In one example in 2017, over a thousands remains including 13 skulls were sent back.
From Australia: Human skull (adult, male?), covered with pigment; with grass plug in nasal aperture
From Borneo: Decorated human skull made of bone (human), wood, cane, shell (cowrie), gum.
From Chile: mummified child’s foot with sandal
From China: a skeletal human hand with a bangle on the wrist
From Ecuador: shrunken head with feathers and beetle wings
From Egypt: Fragments of bone and two teeth from infant sacrifice.
And so it goes on…
Egypt’s recent public display of new mummies
In 2020, the Egyptian authorities invited the media to snap at 59 ancient coffins just discovered. One of them was opened up in a flourish to reveal the mummified body within. In a sign of changing attitudes, many people registered their disgust at this theatricality.
Catholic shrines and death
For many Catholic shrines, removing bodies from display would effectively end their pulling power for both tourists and pilgrims. For example, in Palermo, Sicily you have the Capuchin Catacombs where hundreds of bodies, many in their Sunday best, are hanging from the walls. They date from the 17th to the early 20th century.
The Capuchin Catacombs includes the body of a girl, Rosalia Lombardo, who died in 1920. And yes, she is exceedingly well preserved. I have seen her myself (in 2019). Visitors claim that she blinks at them. I got no blink in case you’re wondering.
But I have to admit this display possibly crosses a line. Why? I suppose the relatively short amount of time that has elapsed since her death; her very young age which is rather creepy in of itself and the fact that the 1920s were not Ancient Egypt.
We were not routinely mummifying bodies at that time. So why not put this poor girl where she should be? In the ground.
Dead crusaders on display
In 1976, I was taken to see the desiccated remains of several bodies in the crypt of Saint Michan’s church in Dublin, preserved by the very dry air underground. In those days, you were invited by the guide to shake hands with one of the bodies. And being a child who liked to show off a bit, I grasped the bony fingers of an 800-year-old crusader.
However, times really have changed. Because two years ago, that wasn’t enough for some vandals who broke through a steel door, stole the aforementioned crusader’s head and “desecrated” the body of a nun. I don’t even want to ask!
It does beg the question though whether these kinds of displays, which have an almost Victorian fairground quality, encourage boorish and despicable behaviour and if their time has been and gone.
Or are we getting too sensitive?
But maybe we’re all being way too sensitive. In 2010, a survey by English Heritage found that only 9% of the public opposed bodies being displayed in museums. I will bet that percentage has risen however. But for museums, it’s not just the wider public that are a concern – but those activist groups representing tribes and nations that feel enough is enough.
The cruise ship pulls into port. Everybody gets off and heads down to the designated museum or art gallery. They see the landmark painting or sculpture, take a selfie and tick it off the list. As they enter and leave – they completely ignore a host of other great works of art as they stampede towards that one well-known object.
I was at the Louvre in Paris last week and made a film – which you can see below – of the mass of people cramming in to see the Mona Lisa. Over the years, I’ve popped into the Louvre to see the enigmatic lady with her strange smile. In the old days, you could wander over to the Mona Lisa pretty quickly, have a look and then take in some other fine compositions.
But now – it’s the main event. You have to queue for ages to take your selfie. And there’s certainly no spiritual atmosphere or moment to linger and appreciate. This is a conveyor belt approach and you get your moment to admire the brushwork of Leonardo da Vinci and then move on.
Question I’d like to put is – does this matter or is it a problem? My only feeling is that for the museums and galleries, it’s a great money spinner. In effect, the Mona Lisa is subsidising everything else the museum is doing. But for the visitor – the tourist – it’s a very narrow view of a great institution like the Louvre.
In recent years on visits to museums I’ve been more and more taken by everyday items used by our ancient ancestors. This week, I was at the Louvre in Paris looking at the treasures of Ancient Egypt. But it wasn’t the mummies or sarcophagi that caught my attention – but the spoons!
In one cabinet, behind glass, were some exquisite spoons. One shaped as a woman being pulled along by a bird, possibly a swan or a duck. Another depicted a servant carrying a large sack.
I think it’s objects like these that give us real insights into the lives of people in Egypt under the pharaohs. And the state of preservation of tableware going back millennia is surprising.
Some of the spoons had a rather modern look about them. I put this down to the influence Ancient Egypt had on the 1930s art deco movement. The lady and the bird spoon could easily have graced a fashionable table in 1932 AD when in fact it dates back to around 1500 or 2000 BC.
The emergence of knives, forks and spoons is fascinating – honest! There’s nothing that dictates we MUST use utensils like these. I studied Japanese for several years and went to live in that country to practice my linguistic skills. I also had to use chopsticks 24/7.
And once you use chopsticks for a while, it becomes obvious that there are different ways of eating that are perfectly fine. By the way, if a Japanese person says ‘you are skilful at chopsticks’ – then my teacher warned me they’re just humouring your terrible form at the table.
Back to the ancient Egyptian spoons! Apparently, no spoons have yet been found in pre-dynastic Egypt – that is before the pharaohs. But they do pop up afterwards. Now I’ve read one academic paper stating that they were not used at the dinner table. In fact, no cutlery at all. Food was served and you dipped in with your hands. Please correct me if I’ve been misinformed.