Manchester Museum asks visitors if Egyptian woman's body should be taken off display
One of Europe's leading museums is asking visitors if it should continue to display the body of an ancient Egyptian woman 200 years after it was brought to the UK by cotton merchants, as it 'decolonises' some of its most famous exhibits.
Manchester Museum, which in May was named 2025's European museum of the year, is running a consultation on the future of Asru, a woman who lived in Thebes, the ancient city in the location of modern-day Luxor, 2,700 years ago.
A plaque at the museum asks: 'Should we continue to display the body of Asru?', inviting visitors to submit answers in a postbox underneath.
It adds: 'Asru's mummified body was unwrapped at the Manchester Natural History Society in April 1825. She has regularly been on display for the two centuries since. In that time, we have also changed as a museum and are thinking more about how we care for people.'
The story of Asru's body is one of several that show how the development of the UK museum sector benefited from colonialism and transatlantic slavery, at a time when the ethics of displaying human bodies and spoils from imperial expansion are being questioned.
In March a report by MPs from the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations called for bans on selling ancestral remains and publicly displaying them without consent.
Asru's finely decorated wooden coffin reveals a few biographical details. An affluent woman who was about 60 when she died, her father was called Pa-Kush, which means 'the Kushite', a Black man from modern-day Sudan. Pa-Kush worked as a scribe, a high-status role, when Egypt had Kushite pharaohs. Asru's name means 'her arm is against them'.
In the 19th century, Asru's sarcophagus was acquired by Robert and William Garnett, the sons of a former trader in enslaved African people, who had followed him into the cotton industry, research by one of the museum's curators, Campbell Price, found. The Garnetts donated Asru's body to the Manchester Natural History Society, the forerunner to Manchester Museum.
Alongside the Asru consultation, the museum has launched its Decolonise! Trail , named after the initiative in arts and culture that is being used to challenge stereotypical perspectives linked to empire and colonialism.
The trail links displays of items from Africa and Asia, subverting traditional 'Eurocentric' narratives about them through artworks newly displayed alongside them.
It is supported by a booklet that asks questions such as 'Should a desire for knowledge override the wishes of ancient cultures?', 'Do you know where the minerals in your technology come from?' and 'What is climate justice?'.
Sign up to The Long Wave
Nesrine Malik and Jason Okundaye deliver your weekly dose of Black life and culture from around the world
after newsletter promotion
Next to African spearheads – items that the booklet describes as having 'reinforced reductive and inaccurate ideas about African people' – is an LGBTQ+ comic strip story by the Congolese artist Edher Numbi.
A mural by the British artists the Singh twins in the museum's south Asia gallery examines the link between enslavement and India's colonisation. It features a 1928 quote from the then UK home secretary, William Joynson-Hicks, who, speaking of India as a major export market for 'Lancashire cotton goods', said: 'We did not conquer India for the benefit of the Indians … We conquered India as an outlet for the goods of Britain. We conquered India by the sword, and by the sword we shall hold it.'
Chloe Cousins, Manchester Museum's social justice manager, who created the trail, said: 'The trail is new but the concept of decolonising isn't new to Manchester Museum at all. Telling more accurate and nuanced accounts of the history of the collections is one of the ways we can care for the people and communities whose belongings, stories and histories are held here.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Protected 17th-century shipwreck damaged by fishing pots
For more than 330 years, the wreck of HMS Coronation has lain undisturbed at the bottom of the English Channel. Despite the powerful currents that buffer the ancient warship, it has remained remarkably well preserved, offering a fascinating window into Britain's maritime history. But now Devon and Cornwall Police have launched an investigation after the wreck sustained damage because of illegal fishing equipment being attached to the site. Divers, who have been granted special permits to explore the ship, noticed a number of lobster pots tied to the fragile timbers. Some of the equipment had caused damage to the ship and marine archaeologists are currently assessing the extent of the destruction. Officers from Devon and Cornwall Police's rural affairs team have been investigating who was responsible for attaching the pots and are trying to educate local fishermen about the importance of preserving wreck sites. Police sergeant Julian Fry said: 'The South-West is home to 21 of the UK's 57 protected wrecks. 'It's so important for us, and those out on sea, to play our part in keeping these historic sites safe from any damage. 'We're urging the fishing community to avoid placing any fishing equipment near the HMS Coronation, and indeed any other protected wreck sites around the UK. 'Whilst we fully support the local fishing industry, preservation of these nationally important heritage sites is essential. 'We thank the fishing industry in advance for their co-operation.' Police are investigating the incident along with Historic England's maritime archaeologists and heritage crime experts. HMS Coronation was a second-rate ship of the line that was commissioned by King Charles II in 1677 and launched at Portsmouth in 1685. A Royal Navy flagship It was part of the '30-ship programme' intended to significantly bolster England's naval defences and firepower. The Coronation was the last ship of the programme to be completed as money and materials became scarce in the early 1680s. With a 660 sailors and 94 guns, HMS Coronation was the Royal Navy flagship in the Battle of Beachy Head in 1690. But in September 1691 as the ship patrolled the English Channel she got caught in a gale, foundered on the rocks at Penlee Point, and sank with the loss of around 600 souls. Part of the wreck was discovered by divers in 1967 with a larger section revealed ten years later. The area is preserved under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, which prohibits any activity that could cause damage, obscure or interfere with the site.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
I do not need a £100 hairbrush. So why have I spent so long fantasising about one?
I recently found myself fantasising about buying a hairbrush that costs more than £100. It is a very beautiful hairbrush: it comes in a choice of seductive colours and it is fashioned from the keratin-rich fibres of south-east Asian boar and from biodegradable cellulose acetate (entirely free of petrochemicals). It was advertised to me on social media and I later sought it out, Googling it again and again, admiring photos of it from different angles and imagining the reassuring weight of its handle in my hand. If ever there were a hairbrush that could help me build a better life, I thought, this surely would be it. How disturbingly close I came to buying this hairbrush I really cannot say. However, I can tell you when I knew that it was never going to happen. It was just now, when I realised with shock, after months of Googling and ogling, that I don't use a hairbrush. I haven't used one in close to 25 years – not since I was old enough to understand that my hair is curly and terrible frizzy things happen when I brush it. I use a wide-toothed comb once a day in the shower. So, I now find myself wondering, what happened here? What purpose was served by this fantasy of buying an expensive hairbrush that I do not need? Regular readers will be unsurprised to hear that I think it probably has something to do with avoiding my feelings. For some people (hello, friends), buying things serves to neutralise an unwanted emotion. Another person might punch someone, or watch pornography, or do some work on the weekend, or eat a hamburger, or spend a whole night scrolling on their phone. You do it, then you feel a little bit better – and a little bit ashamed. What is the emotion I was turning away from? I don't know. And if I ever find out, it probably won't be for publication. But perhaps the answer is less important than the question. Many readers will think I am asking the wrong question and that the answer to the question I should be asking is: that's capitalism for you! And if ever there were a socioeconomic system that could sell a woman an exorbitantly priced and exquisitely fashioned hairbrush when she had no need for one, capitalism would be it. But I also think that shouting: 'That's capitalism for you!' does not build a better life. It may even take us further away from it. It is very tempting, when faced with something we don't understand about ourselves, to turn away from our own minds and towards our society. To shout about capitalism, about the internet, about social media – to find an answer in the outside world. But what has helped me to build a better life is noticing my tendency to do that and then, as a patient in psychoanalysis, to wonder what it is that I don't want to see in my inside world that makes me turn away from it so quickly. In other words, I think shouting: 'That's capitalism for you!' would, for me, serve the same function as drooling over an unnecessary hairbrush. It is all serving to close down a feeling. You could call it a kind of self-soothing. I remember as a fairly new mum, in the depths of sleep-deprived horror, reading and hearing a lot about self-soothing and wondering what people really meant by this. Experts seemed to think the solution to every difficulty was my baby learning to self-soothe. I was not able to think very clearly at that time, because my child was sleeping – or rather, as it felt to me, waking – in 45-minute cycles throughout the night and therefore so was I. We were going through something quite intolerable that nevertheless had to be tolerated. We both had a lot of feelings about this, which it felt as if everyone wanted to soothe away. Well, I think there is too much soothing going on, self and otherwise. This is why Netflix, social media, parenting experts, south-east Asian boar bristles and capitalism itself can have such power over us – because they feed our compulsion to self-soothe rather than nourishing our need to feel and to try to understand what is going on inside. Perhaps we don't realise that there is an alternative to soothing. This alternative is difficult to imagine if you have never experienced it, but it is something my analyst offers me and that I try to offer my patients. It involves developing a capacity to survive not self-soothing. Instead, bear whatever you are experiencing without trying to soothe it away, without trying to brush out the knots – including not knowing what feels wrong. Understand how enraging, frustrating, disappointing and frightening it can be not to know. This can be far more containing than reaching for an immediate answer to a question that actually takes us further away from a truer understanding. (That's capitalism for you.) Perhaps our crying babies, and the crying babies inside us, need something different from self-soothing. Perhaps we all need to develop a capacity to bear our distress and to realise that we can survive it and grow through it. This is something that can truly help us to build a better life, and a better society – far more valuable than a beautiful hairbrush that will sit in a drawer, never to be used. Moya Sarner is an NHS psychotherapist and the author of When I Grow Up – Conversations With Adults in Search of Adulthood Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Water in first or last? The perfect way to make a glass of squash
There are few certainties in life, but this much is true: if you want to start a row at a picnic, ask whether you should pour orange squash into the glass before or after the water. Like milk or tea first in a proper brew, or cream on a scone before jam, it's a point on which polite society starts to twitch. According to Robinsons, purveyors of squash since 1823 and likely the focus of many squash squabbles, it's water first. Yes, truly. 'Water first, and then you can add as much or as little squash as you want,' a Robinsons spokesperson says. 'Taste it and if you feel it needs to be a bit stronger, you can amend it that way.' The idea that water should precede the squash is, for many, hard to swallow. Niall Stuart, a Telegraph reader who jokingly floated the idea, might be surprised to learn that Robinsons recommends the method, the reason being that it's easier to get the taste just right if you add more squash rather than extra H2O. Whether that theory holds water (pardon the pun) is arguable, but Robinsons assures me it's not a niche concern. 'It's a long-standing debate,' the spokesperson says. 'People email in and call about that very question.' For those who insist that squash goes in first, it's a matter of control. Miriam Nice, a food and drink writer and co-author of The Art of Drinking Sober (Seven Dials, £12.99), is firmly in that camp. 'I've always put the squash – or cordial for that matter – in the glass first, because you can see how much you're adding,' she says. 'That for me would be the concern in terms of flavour.' But, intrigued by the prospect of upending a lifelong habit, she asked her obliging husband to run a mini experiment. He made two identical drinks – one starting with grenadine, a non-alcoholic syrup used in cocktails, the other with water – and Nice drank them not knowing which was which. She was expecting there to be no visible difference, but the syrup had sunk to the bottom of the drink made with water first. 'I'm sure if you stirred it up this wouldn't be an issue, but pouring [the syrup] in afterwards can inhibit the integration of the two liquids,' she says. 'But I had two lovely drinks made for me. So, yay science!' Pev Manners, managing director of Belvoir Farm which manufactures a wide range of fruit drinks and cordials, also adds water second. 'I always start with cordial in the bottom of the glass first because then you can see how much you are using,' he says. Manners has cordial in his blood. His mother, Lady Mary Manners, began making elderflower cordial from the family's garden flowers in the 1980s, long before it became fashionable. What started as a homegrown effort for friends and local farm shops evolved into Belvoir Farm, now one of Britain's best-known cordial producers, making drinks ranging from the original classic elderflower to cucumber and mint. And as someone who's spent decades working with both, he's well placed to weigh in on that other controversy: the pecking order of concentrated fruit drinks. Manners says there's typically 25 per cent to 55 per cent fruit juice in a cordial, while squash can contain as little as 10 per cent. 'That's why cordial turns up in cocktails,' he explains. 'The fruit content gives that wickedly fruity taste and doesn't dilute your drink.' It might also explain why cordial is often viewed as posher than squash. Nice, meanwhile, sees more creative potential in cordial because it tastes fruitier. 'I've made cordials with all sorts of fruits and spices, varied the type of sugar and used a whole variety of ingredients like beetroot or courgette in the mix,' she says. She has a top tip for the cordial connoisseur: try making the drink with still water, and carbonating it yourself. 'To my surprise the flavour was better integrated than if you add cordial to already carbonated water,' Nice says. There's also the matter of how much water to add. 'Cordial is usually one-part cordial to eight-parts water. Squash is one-part squash to four-parts water,' Manners says. Of course, as with everything else in this debate, feel free to choose your own adventure. But is it just the lower fruit content that gives squash… how to put it… a less sophisticated reputation? Many of us remember it as a staple of childhood, an inexpensive drink poured into plastic tumblers and served with a couple of custard creams if you were lucky. Nice remembers discovering her squash devotion early. 'I remember clearing out a drawer as an adult, at my parents' house and finding a certificate from the Vimto fan club that I had signed, probably aged four or five, which was a lovely discovery.' Is there a touch of snobbery in the mix too? Perhaps that's why Robinsons came up with Fruit Creations, a drink that contains more fruit than squash but less than cordial, neatly straddling the gap between playground staple and grown-up refreshment. 'It's slightly more exotic, with slightly more sophisticated flavours,' the Robinsons spokesman agrees. Who would have thought a splash of squash could cause so much trouble? Cordial or squash, water first or last, Britain's most unassuming drink might also be one of its most contentious.
