I was in the Pitt Rivers Museum [1] a few days ago. I had heard that
they no displayed the famous and/or notorious shrunken heads, but they
also have a sign up instead:

Have you come to see the 'shrunken heads'

The human remains that used to be on display in this case have been
removed. Indigenous peoples have long argued against the public
display of their ancestors' remains.

Our audience research has shown that visitors often saw the Museum's
displays of humann remains as a testament to other cultures being
"savage", "primitive", or "gruesome". Rather than enabling our
visitors to reach a deeper understanding of each other's ways of
being, the displays reinforced racist and stereotypical thinking
that goes against the Museum's values today.

In the case about leather and related objects, I was surprised to see
a vellum scroll in Hebrew on display, but the label says it's of the
Book of Esther. I assume that's not a sensitive matter because (as
previously discussed here) the Hebrew text of that book does not
contain the Tetragrammaton.

[1] https://www.prm.ox.ac.uk/

--
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
---Abbie Hoffman

Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
>In the case about leather and related objects, I was surprised to see
>a vellum scroll in Hebrew on display, but the label says it's of the

I can only guess that you want to allude to the scroll
being a cultural heritage artifact that is sacred to a
contemporary community in a similary way as human remains
may be sacred to some contemporary community. Maybe the
cultural heritage artifacts are being displayed with the
permission of the relevant contemporary communities?

Adam Funk:
> I was in the Pitt Rivers Museum [1] a few days ago. I had heard that
> they no displayed the famous and/or notorious shrunken heads, but they
> also have a sign up instead:
>
> Have you come to see the 'shrunken heads'

No "?"?
--
Mark Brader | "What students seem to really need are on-demand signs
Toronto | that show up at the point of need exactly when they
msb@vex.net | need them, but..." --Michelle Eichelberger et al.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 11:15:36 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:

> I was in the Pitt Rivers Museum [1] a few days ago. I had heard that
> they no displayed the famous and/or notorious shrunken heads, but they
> also have a sign up instead:
>
> Have you come to see the 'shrunken heads'
>
> The human remains that used to be on display in this case have been
> removed. Indigenous peoples have long argued against the public
> display of their ancestors' remains.
>
> Our audience research has shown that visitors often saw the Museum's
> displays of humann remains as a testament to other cultures being
> "savage", "primitive", or "gruesome". Rather than enabling our
> visitors to reach a deeper understanding of each other's ways of
> being, the displays reinforced racist and stereotypical thinking
> that goes against the Museum's values today.

Good for them.

> In the case about leather and related objects, I was surprised to see
> a vellum scroll in Hebrew on display, but the label says it's of the
> Book of Esther. I assume that's not a sensitive matter because (as
> previously discussed here) the Hebrew text of that book does not
> contain the Tetragrammaton.

? What's your problem with vellum?

> [1] https://www.prm.ox.ac.uk/

Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> writes:
> I was in the Pitt Rivers Museum [1] a few days ago. I had heard that
> they no displayed the famous and/or notorious shrunken heads, but they
> also have a sign up instead:
>
> Have you come to see the 'shrunken heads'
>
> The human remains that used to be on display in this case have been
> removed. Indigenous peoples have long argued against the public
> display of their ancestors' remains.

Yeah, but we whiteys didn't kill them and shrink them - they were the
victims of some other imposition long prior to that. It's political
correctness gone mad! When the Great Returning takes place in UK museums,
to whom will these artefacts be returned? The tribe that they were
stolen from, or the tribe that that tribe stole them from whilst still
alive? I know an archivist at PRM; in order to simplify the problem,
I've asken him to simply make sure they mysteriously get 'lost', and
give them to me.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 9:57:11 AM UTC-6, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
> > I was in the Pitt Rivers Museum [1] a few days ago. I had heard that
> > they no displayed the famous and/or notorious shrunken heads, but they
> > also have a sign up instead:
> >
> > Have you come to see the 'shrunken heads'
> >
> > The human remains that used to be on display in this case have been
> > removed. Indigenous peoples have long argued against the public
> > display of their ancestors' remains.

> Yeah, but we whiteys didn't kill them and shrink them - they were the
> victims of some other imposition long prior to that. It's political
> correctness gone mad! When the Great Returning takes place in UK museums,
> to whom will these artefacts be returned? The tribe that they were
> stolen from, or the tribe that that tribe stole them from whilst still
> alive?

Presumably the victims' tribe on the principle that the disposition of
human remains should be up to the deceased or their family, or
failing that, the culture they came from. Which doesn't sound mad
to me.

If the tribe that took them tries to make a claim, I imagine some kind
of court or arbitrator will consider the matter gravely at great depth
and length before giving them to the tribe they were taken from.

> I know an archivist at PRM; in order to simplify the problem,
> I've asken him to simply make sure they mysteriously get 'lost', and
> give them to me.

Takes all kinds.

"Asken" is an odd typo, by the way.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 8:57:11 AM UTC-7, Phil Carmody wrote:
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
> > I was in the Pitt Rivers Museum [1] a few days ago. I had heard that
> > they no displayed the famous and/or notorious shrunken heads, but they
> > also have a sign up instead:
> >
> > Have you come to see the 'shrunken heads'
> >
> > The human remains that used to be on display in this case have been
> > removed. Indigenous peoples have long argued against the public
> > display of their ancestors' remains.
> Yeah, but we whiteys didn't kill them and shrink them - they were the
> victims of some other imposition long prior to that. It's political
> correctness gone mad! When the Great Returning takes place in UK museums,
> to whom will these artefacts be returned? The tribe that they were
> stolen from, or the tribe that that tribe stole them from whilst still
> alive? I know an archivist at PRM; in order to simplify the problem,
> I've asken him to simply make sure they mysteriously get 'lost', and
> give them to me.
>
The authentic shrunken heads, as far as I know, are from the internal
feuds of the people called Jivaro in (mostly) Ecuador. That is, shrinking
trophy heads was done by Jivaro to other Jivaro. Head-hunting is, on
the other hand, much more widely known. Even broadly in north west
South America. The Jivaro just added a special twist.

There is a medieval Arthurian romance that I call "Headhunters of the
Holy Grail" that seems, to me, pathologically fixated on head removal.
And Middle Eastern Terrorists like the build pyramids of heads.

History is not for the faint-hearted.

On Mon, 22 May 2023 13:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
Jerry Friedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 9:57:11 AM UTC-6, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
> > > I was in the Pitt Rivers Museum [1] a few days ago. I had heard that
> > > they no displayed the famous and/or notorious shrunken heads, but they
> > > also have a sign up instead:
> > >
> > > Have you come to see the 'shrunken heads'
> > >
> > > The human remains that used to be on display in this case have been
> > > removed. Indigenous peoples have long argued against the public
> > > display of their ancestors' remains.
>
> > Yeah, but we whiteys didn't kill them and shrink them - they were the
> > victims of some other imposition long prior to that. It's political
> > correctness gone mad! When the Great Returning takes place in UK museums,
> > to whom will these artefacts be returned? The tribe that they were
> > stolen from, or the tribe that that tribe stole them from whilst still
> > alive?
>
> Presumably the victims' tribe on the principle that the disposition of
> human remains should be up to the deceased or their family, or
> failing that, the culture they came from. Which doesn't sound mad
> to me.
>
> If the tribe that took them tries to make a claim, I imagine some kind
> of court or arbitrator will consider the matter gravely at great depth
> and length before giving them to the tribe they were taken from.
>

But see the case of the Moriori. The 'ethnic cleansers' (horrible phrase) are now getting help as
indigenous people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide

> > I know an archivist at PRM; in order to simplify the problem,
> > I've asken him to simply make sure they mysteriously get 'lost', and
> > give them to me.
>
> Takes all kinds.
>
> "Asken" is an odd typo, by the way.
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 2023-05-22, David Kleinecke wrote:

> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 8:57:11 AM UTC-7, Phil Carmody wrote:
>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>> > I was in the Pitt Rivers Museum [1] a few days ago. I had heard that
>> > they no displayed the famous and/or notorious shrunken heads, but they
>> > also have a sign up instead:
>> >
>> > Have you come to see the 'shrunken heads'
>> >
>> > The human remains that used to be on display in this case have been
>> > removed. Indigenous peoples have long argued against the public
>> > display of their ancestors' remains.
>> Yeah, but we whiteys didn't kill them and shrink them - they were the
>> victims of some other imposition long prior to that. It's political
>> correctness gone mad! When the Great Returning takes place in UK museums,
>> to whom will these artefacts be returned? The tribe that they were
>> stolen from, or the tribe that that tribe stole them from whilst still
>> alive? I know an archivist at PRM; in order to simplify the problem,
>> I've asken him to simply make sure they mysteriously get 'lost', and
>> give them to me.
>>
> The authentic shrunken heads, as far as I know, are from the internal
> feuds of the people called Jivaro in (mostly) Ecuador. That is, shrinking
> trophy heads was done by Jivaro to other Jivaro. Head-hunting is, on
> the other hand, much more widely known. Even broadly in north west
> South America. The Jivaro just added a special twist.
>
> There is a medieval Arthurian romance that I call "Headhunters of the
> Holy Grail" that seems, to me, pathologically fixated on head removal.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight?

> And Middle Eastern Terrorists like the build pyramids of heads.
>
> History is not for the faint-hearted.
>
>

--
We seem to understand the value of oil, timber, minerals, and
housing, but not the value of unspoiled beauty, wildlife,
solitude, and spiritual renewal. ---Calvin

On 2023-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 11:15:36 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> I was in the Pitt Rivers Museum [1] a few days ago. I had heard that
>> they no displayed the famous and/or notorious shrunken heads, but they

"no" -> "no longer"

>> also have a sign up instead:
>>
>> Have you come to see the 'shrunken heads'
>>
>> The human remains that used to be on display in this case have been
>> removed. Indigenous peoples have long argued against the public
>> display of their ancestors' remains.
>>
>> Our audience research has shown that visitors often saw the Museum's
>> displays of humann remains as a testament to other cultures being
>> "savage", "primitive", or "gruesome". Rather than enabling our
>> visitors to reach a deeper understanding of each other's ways of
>> being, the displays reinforced racist and stereotypical thinking
>> that goes against the Museum's values today.
>
> Good for them.

I'm not complaining (although I have seen them on a previous visit).

>> In the case about leather and related objects, I was surprised to see
>> a vellum scroll in Hebrew on display, but the label says it's of the
>> Book of Esther. I assume that's not a sensitive matter because (as
>> previously discussed here) the Hebrew text of that book does not
>> contain the Tetragrammaton.
>
> ? What's your problem with vellum?

Nothing. As I was approaching the case I could tell it looked like a
scroll in Hebrew [2] & was surprised it was on display since those are
usually sacred in some sense. The card explained how vellum was made
and:

This scroll of the Book of Esther (Megillah) is written in Hebrew
and dates from the 17th century. Donated by Miss Mercy Watson in
1967; 1967.29.53.

[2] To be fair, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between
Hebrew, Aramaic, & Yiddish, but scrolls in Hebrew are more
well-known.

--
Unix is a user-friendly operating system. It's just very choosy about
its friends.

On 23/05/2023 6:27 p.m., Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2023 13:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
> Jerry Friedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 9:57:11 AM UTC-6, Phil Carmody wrote:
>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>>>> I was in the Pitt Rivers Museum [1] a few days ago. I had heard that
>>>> they no displayed the famous and/or notorious shrunken heads, but they
>>>> also have a sign up instead:
>>>>
>>>> Have you come to see the 'shrunken heads'
>>>>
>>>> The human remains that used to be on display in this case have been
>>>> removed. Indigenous peoples have long argued against the public
>>>> display of their ancestors' remains.
>>
>>> Yeah, but we whiteys didn't kill them and shrink them - they were the
>>> victims of some other imposition long prior to that. It's political
>>> correctness gone mad! When the Great Returning takes place in UK museums,
>>> to whom will these artefacts be returned? The tribe that they were
>>> stolen from, or the tribe that that tribe stole them from whilst still
>>> alive?
>>
>> Presumably the victims' tribe on the principle that the disposition of
>> human remains should be up to the deceased or their family, or
>> failing that, the culture they came from. Which doesn't sound mad
>> to me.
>>
>> If the tribe that took them tries to make a claim, I imagine some kind
>> of court or arbitrator will consider the matter gravely at great depth
>> and length before giving them to the tribe they were taken from.
>>
>
> But see the case of the Moriori. The 'ethnic cleansers' (horrible phrase) are now getting help as
> indigenous people.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_genocide

I'm not sure what you mean here. Mokomokai (preserved, but not shrunken,
tatooed heads) were kept by various Maori groups. The head could be of a
revered ancestor, or of someone you had killed in battle. They did
become a Collectible in the 19th century, and many are in foreign
museums. Fakes were produced -- heads of slaves killed for no other
reason and provided with bogus tattoos. To make money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokomokai

But the Moriori (I think) did not wear facial tattoos, and were
notoriously pacifists. So their heads would have been worthless in the
collectors' market.

As for "now" -- since the 1970s the Moriori have been very successful in
getting their story told. Both conquerors and victims (or rather their
descendants) are recognized as indigenous, and live together more or
less harmoniously in the Chatham Islands.

>>> I know an archivist at PRM; in order to simplify the problem,
>>> I've asken him to simply make sure they mysteriously get 'lost', and
>>> give them to me.
>>
>> Takes all kinds.
>>
>> "Asken" is an odd typo, by the way.
>>
>> --
>> Jerry Friedman
>
>

On 22/05/2023 17:41, Phil Carmody wrote:
> When the Great Returning takes place in UK museums,
> to whom will these artefacts be returned? The tribe that they were
> stolen from, or the tribe that that tribe stole them from whilst still
> alive?

I hope that - in the case of the Elgin Marbles - it is not the latter.
That would mean returning them to the tribe of Britons, in whose
possession they still are.

I know an archivist at PRM; in order to simplify the problem,
> I've asken him to simply make sure they mysteriously get 'lost', and
> give them to me.

Being in possession of stolen property is still thieving.

Perhaps PRM (and the British Museum) can create new Departments to
secrete these artifacts: "Lost and/or Un-Found."

occam wrote:

> I know an archivist at PRM; in order to simplify the problem,
>> I've asken him to simply make sure they mysteriously get 'lost', and
>> give them to me.
>
> Being in possession of stolen property is still thieving.

Not in my book. It's fencing (if that is a verb) - receiving or handling
stolen goods. Under Danish law there has to be an economical motive, but
it's hard to construct a case where it is not present. In the case of
shrunken heads, the receiver saves the price of buying them.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 5:32:32 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2023-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 11:15:36 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:

> >> In the case about leather and related objects, I was surprised to see
> >> a vellum scroll in Hebrew on display, but the label says it's of the
> >> Book of Esther. I assume that's not a sensitive matter because (as
> >> previously discussed here) the Hebrew text of that book does not
> >> contain the Tetragrammaton.
> > ? What's your problem with vellum?
>
> Nothing. As I was approaching the case I could tell it looked like a
> scroll in Hebrew [2] & was surprised it was on display since those are
> usually sacred in some sense. The card explained how vellum was made
> and:

Ah. If there's a caution along those lines, it would likely apply to the
sort of Torah scroll kept in the ark. (Are scrolls of the Prophets and
the Writings also kept there? Are they also unvocalized if in liturgical
use?)
> This scroll of the Book of Esther (Megillah) is written in Hebrew
> and dates from the 17th century. Donated by Miss Mercy Watson in
> 1967; 1967.29.53.
>
> [2] To be fair, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between
> Hebrew, Aramaic, & Yiddish, but scrolls in Hebrew are more
> well-known.

You'd recognize Yiddish because the words are longer, there are
only two vowel marks and they can only be under Aleph (or flying
close to a double Yod), and if you puzzled over it briefly you'd see
it's mostly German spelled funny.

Aramaic has a lot more word-final Alephs, vs. Hebrew Hes.

On 2023-05-23, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 5:32:32 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2023-05-19, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 11:15:36 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> >> In the case about leather and related objects, I was surprised to see
>> >> a vellum scroll in Hebrew on display, but the label says it's of the
>> >> Book of Esther. I assume that's not a sensitive matter because (as
>> >> previously discussed here) the Hebrew text of that book does not
>> >> contain the Tetragrammaton.
>> > ? What's your problem with vellum?
>>
>> Nothing. As I was approaching the case I could tell it looked like a
>> scroll in Hebrew [2] & was surprised it was on display since those are
>> usually sacred in some sense. The card explained how vellum was made
>> and:
>
> Ah. If there's a caution along those lines, it would likely apply to the
> sort of Torah scroll kept in the ark. (Are scrolls of the Prophets and
> the Writings also kept there? Are they also unvocalized if in liturgical
> use?)

Interesting; I don't know.

>> This scroll of the Book of Esther (Megillah) is written in Hebrew
>> and dates from the 17th century. Donated by Miss Mercy Watson in
>> 1967; 1967.29.53.
>>
>> [2] To be fair, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between
>> Hebrew, Aramaic, & Yiddish, but scrolls in Hebrew are more
>> well-known.
>
> You'd recognize Yiddish because the words are longer, there are
> only two vowel marks and they can only be under Aleph (or flying
> close to a double Yod), and if you puzzled over it briefly you'd see
> it's mostly German spelled funny.

You're assuming I know enough Hebrew/Yiddish letters to "sound out"
the words & recognize some of them. I can do that with Greek (mainly
if it contains words used in scientific vocabulary) & to a lesser
extent with Cyrillic (I mainly remember the letters that look like
Greek ones).

(I can distinguish romanized Yiddish from other things, but that's
easy.)

> Aramaic has a lot more word-final Alephs, vs. Hebrew Hes.

Now that you've told me that, I might be able to spot it (since I
readily spot aleph because it's used in mathematics), although I don't
know where I'd accidentally run into Aramaic writing.

--
"Every national border in Europe," El Eswad added ironically, "marks
the place where two gangs of bandits got too exhausted to kill each
other anymore and signed a treaty. Patriotism is the delusion that one
of these gangs of bandits is better than all the others." --R A Wilson

Jerry Friedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 9:57:11 AM UTC-6, Phil Carmody wrote:
>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>> > I was in the Pitt Rivers Museum [1] a few days ago. I had heard that
>> > they no displayed the famous and/or notorious shrunken heads, but they
>> > also have a sign up instead:
>> >
>> > Have you come to see the 'shrunken heads'
>> >
>> > The human remains that used to be on display in this case have been
>> > removed. Indigenous peoples have long argued against the public
>> > display of their ancestors' remains.
>
>> Yeah, but we whiteys didn't kill them and shrink them - they were the
>> victims of some other imposition long prior to that. It's political
>> correctness gone mad! When the Great Returning takes place in UK museums,
>> to whom will these artefacts be returned? The tribe that they were
>> stolen from, or the tribe that that tribe stole them from whilst still
>> alive?
>
> Presumably the victims' tribe on the principle that the disposition of
> human remains should be up to the deceased or their family, or
> failing that, the culture they came from. Which doesn't sound mad
> to me.
>
> If the tribe that took them tries to make a claim, I imagine some kind
> of court or arbitrator will consider the matter gravely at great depth
> and length before giving them to the tribe they were taken from.

If it were the 70s, I'm sure I could base a sitcom on the renewed
rivalry between the two sides!

>> I know an archivist at PRM; in order to simplify the problem,
>> I've asken him to simply make sure they mysteriously get 'lost', and
>> give them to me.
>
> Takes all kinds.

At your service.

> "Asken" is an odd typo, by the way.

Indeed, I must have been influenced by all those shrunked heads.

On the topic of typos:
It's a bit far back now since the original hand-copied quote of the
sign in the museum, and I seem to remember that there was some question
about whether the transcription was 100% accurate and thus whether
the PRM employed doofera.

To help answer that question, the actual sign:
https://blooloop.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Shrunken-Head-removed-from-display-Pitt-Rivers.jpg
via:
https://blooloop.com/museum/in-depth/pitt-rivers-dan-hicks/

The 3 differences I spot are: Missing '?'; Duplicated 'n'; Added ','.

I shall probably now inform my contact there that he's no doofus.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/