Latest news with #Afrikan
The Independent
22-04-2025
- General
- The Independent
Oxford academics used cup made from human skull at formal dinners until 2015
Oxford University academics used a chalice made from a human skull – potentially belonging to an enslaved Caribbean woman – at formal dinners until as recently as 2015, a new book has alleged. The chalice, created from a sawn-off skull adorned with a silver rim and stand, was used for decades as a drinking cup in the senior common room at Worcester College, according to Professor Dan Hicks, curator of world archaeology at the university's Pitt Rivers Museum. It was eventually repurposed to serve chocolates instead of wine after it began to leak, said Prof Hicks. The item's 'shameful history' is detailed in his forthcoming book Every Monument Will Fall, which explores the colonial origins of contemporary conflicts and the theft of ancestral human remains. The ritual at Worcester College was phased out in response to mounting dismay among fellows and guests, and in 2019 the college invited Prof Hicks to investigate the chalice's origins, he told The Guardian. Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, who chairs a cross-party parliamentary group on Afrikan reparations, told the outlet: 'It is sickening to think of Oxford dons, sitting in this bastion of privilege, itself enriched by the proceeds of centuries of colonial violence and extraction, swilling drink out of a human skull that may have belonged to an enslaved person and has been so little valued that it has been turned into an object.' Noting that the identities of colonial victims were often erased from history as a result of racist ideas about British and white supremacy, with this forming 'part of the dehumanisation and violence', Prof Hicks said he had been unable to find any record of who the skull belonged to. But carbon dating showed the skull was around 225 years old, and its size and circumstantial evidence suggests it came from the Caribbean and may have belonged to an enslaved woman, he said. Worcester College insists the latter suggestion 'cannot be substantiated'. Conversely, the chalice's ownership was thoroughly documented – with alterations to the item providing an example 'of how the legacies of empire persist', Prof Hicks told The Independent. Silver hallmarks suggest the skull was made into a chalice in the City of London in 1838, the year of Queen Victoria's coronation and of the emancipation of enslaved people in British colonies. It was sold at auction in 1884 by Bernhard Smith, an Oxford graduate who collected weaponry and armour. Prof Hicks believes that Smith may have been gifted the chalice by his father, who served in the Caribbean as a Royal Navy commander at the time of the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire. The chalice was purchased – for five pounds and five shillings – by the Victorian soldier and archaeologist Augustus Pitt Rivers, who founded the Oxford museum bearing his name in 1884. The Sotheby's auction listing showed it had a wooden stand inlaid with a Queen Victoria shilling and a Greek inscription carved into the bone. The shilling is no longer there and the broken wooden stand has been replaced with a silver one, but the inscription remains. The chalice was finally donated to Oxford in 1946 by the archaeologist's grandson, the eugenicist George Pitt-Rivers, in what Prof Hicks described as one of his first acts after being released from his internment during the Second World War as a Nazi sympathiser and follower of the British fascist Oswald Mosley. The younger Pitt-Rivers inscribed his name on the chalice's rim, echoing that of his grandfather which is carved above the entrance to the Oxford-based museum at which Dr Hicks works. As well as seeking to 'give some degree of humanity' to the woman to whom the skull belonged by piecing together her story, Prof Hicks said the overall aim of the book is to ask whether 'this is anomaly, or whether there is a wider conversation we need to have about human and ancestral remains in our museums and universities'. Prof Hicks is backing a fresh call from MPs to ban the sale of ancestral remains and prohibit their display in museums. An Oxford University spokesperson said: 'Worcester College can confirm that it is in possession of a vessel which is made from part of a human skull of unknown origin. 'The item was given to the College in 1946 by a former student, George Pitt-Rivers (1890-1966). In the 20th century, the vessel was sometimes on display with the College's silver collection and used as tableware. The College does not hold records of how often this was the case, but it was severely limited after 2011 and the vessel was completely removed ten years ago. 'The College's governing body sought expert scientific and legal advice to address whether the item should be retained, and if not, how it should be disposed of appropriately. DNA testing was unable to identify the geographic or ethnic origin of the skull and as such the suggestion that the skull is that of an enslaved woman from the Caribbean cannot be substantiated. 'As a result of this advice, the College resolved that the item should be stored in the college archives in a respectful manner, where access to it is permanently denied. As Dr Hicks acknowledges in his book, the College has dealt with the issue ethically and thoughtfully.'
Daily Mail
22-04-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Oxford dons at prestigious college drank from chalice made from a HUMAN SKULL until 2015
Oxford dons drank wine from a chalice made from a human skull until as recently as 2015, it has emerged. Academics at Worcester College used to drink from the chalice, which was fashioned from a polished skull adorned with a silver rim and stand, regularly at formal dinners, Professor Dan Hicks has revealed. Professor Hicks, the curator of world archaeology at the university's Pitt Rivers Museum, wrote about the discovery in a new book which explores the violent colonial history of looted human remains. He alleges the skull used to be used for drinking wine, until it began to leak and was then used to serve chocolates instead. In its last years, mounting concerns from fellows and guests meant the practice was ultimately stopped in 2015, the Guardian reports. The college invited Professor Hicks to investigate the skull's origins in 2019 and its journey to becoming a 'sick variety of tableware'. He could find no record of who the skull belonged to, but carbon dating showed it to be around 225 years old. Further research revealed it likely came from the Caribbean and could have been that of an enslaved woman. The cup was given as a gift to the college in 1946 by eugenicist and former student George Pitt-Rivers - whose name is also inscribed on the silver rim. Pitt-Rivers was a prominent anti-Semitic and supporter of the facist leader Oswald Mosley, leading to him being interned by the government for two years during the Second World War. The cup had been purchased at auction by his grandfather, and silver hallmarks show it was made in the year of Queen Victoria's coronation in 1838. Before being owned by the Pitt-Rivers family it belonged to a Bernhard Smith, a graduate of Oriel College, Oxford. Professor Hicks tells in his book how the legacy of colonialism has seen its victims erased from history, while those who profited from it were remembered and commemorated in detail. 'The dehumanisation and destruction of identities was part of the violence,' he writes. Labour MP and chair of the all-parliamentary group on Afrikan reparations, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, told the paper: 'It is sickening to think of Oxford dons, sitting in this bastion of privilege, itself enriched by the proceeds of centuries of colonial violence and extraction, swilling drink out of a human skull that may have belonged to an enslaved person and has been so little valued that it has been turned into an object.' A Worcester College spokesperson said: 'In the 20th century, the vessel was sometimes on display with the college's silver collection and used as tableware. 'The college does not hold records of how often this was the case, but it was severely limited after 2011 and the vessel was completely removed 10 years ago. 'After taking scientific and legal advice, the college's governing body decided the skull-cup should be stored in its archive 'in a respectful manner, where access to it is permanently denied', the spokesperson added. 'As Dr Hicks acknowledges in his book, the college has dealt with the issue ethically and thoughtfully.'
The Guardian
22-04-2025
- General
- The Guardian
Oxford academics drank from cup made from human skull until 2015, book reveals
Oxford academics drank from a chalice made from a human skull for decades, a book that explores the violent colonial history of looted human remains has revealed. The skull-cup, fashioned from a sawn-off and polished braincase adorned with a silver rim and stand, was used regularly at formal dinners at Worcester College, Oxford, until 2015, according to Prof Dan Hicks, the curator of world archaeology at the university's Pitt Rivers Museum. Hicks, whose forthcoming book, Every Monument Will Fall, traces the 'shameful history of the skull', said the cup was also used to serve chocolates after it began to leak wine. The archaeologist said mounting disquiet among fellows and guests put an end to the senior common room ritual and, in 2019, the college invited Hicks to investigate the skull's origins, and how it became what he calls 'some sick variety of tableware'. Hicks said debates about the legacy of colonialism usually focused on how the prominent Britons who profited from it, such as Cecil Rhodes or Edward Colston, had been memorialised by statues, objects or institutions bearing their names. But he wanted to show how the identities of the victims of colonial rule had often been erased from history because, due to racist ideas of British cultural and white supremacy, they were not considered noteworthy. 'The dehumanisation and destruction of identities was part of the violence,' the archaeologist added. Hicks found no record of the person whose remains the skull-cup was made from, although carbon dating showed the skull is about 225 years old. Its size and circumstantial evidence suggest it came from the Caribbean and possibly belonged to an enslaved woman, he added. In contrast, the chalice's British owners were well-documented. The cup was donated to Worcester College in 1946 by a former student, George Pitt-Rivers, whose name is inscribed on its silver rim. A eugenicist, he was interned by the British government during the second world war due to his support for the fascist leader Oswald Mosley. The cup was part of the lesser-known private second collection of his grandfather, the Victorian British soldier and archaeologist Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers, who founded the Pitt Rivers Museum in 1884. The elder Pitt Rivers bought the skull-cup at a Sotheby's auction that same year. The listing shows it then had a wooden stand with a Queen Victoria shilling inlaid underneath. Silver hallmarks indicate it was made in 1838, the year of her coronation. The seller was Bernhard Smith, a lawyer and graduate of Oriel College, Oxford, who mainly collected weaponry and armour. Hicks speculated that he received it as a gift from his father, who served with the Royal Navy in the Caribbean. The Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Afrikan reparations, said: 'It is sickening to think of Oxford dons, sitting in this bastion of privilege, itself enriched by the proceeds of centuries of colonial violence and extraction, swilling drink out of a human skull that may have belonged to an enslaved person and has been so little valued that it has been turned into an object.' A Worcester College spokesperson said: 'In the 20th century, the vessel was sometimes on display with the college's silver collection and used as tableware. The college does not hold records of how often this was the case, but it was severely limited after 2011 and the vessel was completely removed 10 years ago. After taking scientific and legal advice, the college's governing body decided the skull-cup should be stored in its archive 'in a respectful manner, where access to it is permanently denied', the spokesperson added. 'As Dr Hicks acknowledges in his book, the college has dealt with the issue ethically and thoughtfully.' The book also details other skulls looted from colonial battlefields by prominent Victorians, which were displayed in their homes or donated to museums. These include Field Marshal Lord Grenfell, after whom the tower in Kensington is named, who dug up the skull of a Zulu commander two years after he was killed by the British army in the battle of Ulundi in 1879.
Telegraph
14-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
The liberal elites are hypocrites in demanding our museums stop displaying mummies
Despite the clear and present danger of being cancelled, I have to fess up that I'd never heard of the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for Afrikan reparations until they called for a ban on Egyptian mummies. To be honest. I wish I hadn't because I was so konfused by that unexpected 'k' in Afrika, I felt obliged to dob myself in for unkonscious racism. It makes me feel uncomfortable, but I'm not sure why. It's somewhere on the same spectrum as international BBC reporters who insist on pronouncing words like 'Taliban' or 'Tehran' in an authentic Arabic accent when I've never once heard Clive Myrie refer to the French capital as 'Pareee'. So that's me guiltily triggered, even before I wholeheartedly disagree with the proposition that it should be illegal to display mummies in museums because it's 'unethical' and is disrespectful towards the 'wishes of the ancestors'. Come again? Lord knows what'll happen when someone tips MP Diane Abbott the wink that Europeans started grinding up mummies and consuming them as 'mumia' medicine in the 12 th century, a practice that continued right up into the Victorian era. Votive cat mummies were so plentiful that in 1890, an English company bought a job lot of 180,000 and sold them off as fertilizer. Oh and the Pre-Raphaelites were particular fans of a pigment known as Mummy Brown, made from pulverized mummies. By comparison, showing mummies in a museum setting – at the British Museum it's very respectful and sombre – seems entirely innocuous. The much-heralded 21 st century Grand Egyptian Museum on the Giza Plateau, next door to the Pyramids, is chock-full of them, as was the Egyptian Museum in Cairo when I visited. Does that mean exhibiting them is ethical or not? The likely explanation is that it's only unethical in Britain, where we are expected to hang our heads in shame about the way our remote ancestors dissed their even more remote ancestors. But the Egyptian death and the afterlife room is always rammed with visitors. People love looking at these artefacts and, yes, bodies. It's fascinating in a very human way, and I've never noticed anyone ridiculing them. If by some quirk of chance the APPG does get its way, what is the museum supposed to do with these human remains? It is prevented by law from repatriating cultural items unless they are deemed to be duplicates, damaged or no longer of public interest. And as it's fair to say public interest is as high as ever, that one won't wash. Which begs the question: why is this parliamentary group banging on about removing mummies from public view when they have zero chance of succeeding? My hunch is that it's all about changing the narrative as they say; essentially instilling us with so much generalised guilt about colonialism, slavery and the rest that we set up a direct debit for £200 billion and let Jeremy Corbyn (oh yes, he's involved) distribute it as he sees fit. So, with apologies to Africa and indeed Afrika, we'll be keeping our mummies where we can see them and respectfully sharing them with the world; after all, it's what our ancestors wished for.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The liberal elites are hypocrites in demanding our museums stop displaying mummies
Despite the clear and present danger of being cancelled, I have to fess up that I'd never heard of the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for Afrikan reparations until they called for a ban on Egyptian mummies. To be honest. I wish I hadn't because I was so konfused by that unexpected 'k' in Afrika, I felt obliged to dob myself in for unkonscious racism. It makes me feel uncomfortable, but I'm not sure why. It's somewhere on the same spectrum as international BBC reporters who insist on pronouncing words like 'Taliban' or 'Tehran' in an authentic Arabic accent when I've never once heard Clive Myrie refer to the French capital as 'Pareee'. So that's me guiltily triggered, even before I wholeheartedly disagree with the proposition that it should be illegal to display mummies in museums because it's 'unethical' and is disrespectful towards the 'wishes of the ancestors'. Come again? Lord knows what'll happen when someone tips MP Diane Abbott the wink that Europeans started grinding up mummies and consuming them as 'mumia' medicine in the 12th century, a practice that continued right up into the Victorian era. Votive cat mummies were so plentiful that in 1890, an English company bought a job lot of 180,000 and sold them off as fertilizer. Oh and the Pre-Raphaelites were particular fans of a pigment known as Mummy Brown, made from pulverized mummies. By comparison, showing mummies in a museum setting – at the British Museum it's very respectful and sombre – seems entirely innocuous. The much-heralded 21st century Grand Egyptian Museum on the Giza Plateau, next door to the Pyramids, is chock-full of them, as was the Egyptian Museum in Cairo when I visited. Does that mean exhibiting them is ethical or not? The likely explanation is that it's only unethical in Britain, where we are expected to hang our heads in shame about the way our remote ancestors dissed their even more remote ancestors. But the Egyptian death and the afterlife room is always rammed with visitors. People love looking at these artefacts and, yes, bodies. It's fascinating in a very human way, and I've never noticed anyone ridiculing them. If by some quirk of chance the APPG does get its way, what is the museum supposed to do with these human remains? It is prevented by law from repatriating cultural items unless they are deemed to be duplicates, damaged or no longer of public interest. And as it's fair to say public interest is as high as ever, that one won't wash. Which begs the question: why is this parliamentary group banging on about removing mummies from public view when they have zero chance of succeeding? My hunch is that it's all about changing the narrative as they say; essentially instilling us with so much generalised guilt about colonialism, slavery and the rest that we set up a direct debit for £200 billion and let Jeremy Corbyn (oh yes, he's involved) distribute it as he sees fit. So, with apologies to Africa and indeed Afrika, we'll be keeping our mummies where we can see them and respectfully sharing them with the world; after all, it's what our ancestors wished for. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
