I went to the Carnegie Museums in Pittsburgh a couple of weeks ago, and they had warnings for if an exhibit had human remains in them (even if they were not visible, I.e. in a mummy).
They also had a short blurb on the ethics of displaying human remains, especially if the remains on exhibit didn't/couldn't give consent. I found it very thought provoking honestly.
To extend it, I found it interesting that there was a lot of discussion on the ethics of showing human remains (taxidermy, in alcohol solution, bones, etc.), but then they showed a lot of animal remains and there was no discussion on that, especially when I would assume that many of the animals shown in the museum were killed for the specific reason of having them on a museum or for study.
Edit: I wonder what is downvoteable about my original comment. My Jewish colleagues do not eat pork, but they do not avoid depictions of it, such as photos in a menu. I guess it should be similar in the case of Kohanim being forbidden to come in contact with human remains. Direct contact is very different from a painting or description.
Lazy randoms who disagree also often feel entitled that they don't have to explain their displeasure or engage in meaningful discourse. Instead, they will try to silence you for having an opinion different than theirs. Also, sometimes I think it's passive aggressive social win-lose mentality or maybe even gaslighting. Best to not care about popularity and move on seeking discussions of valuable insight rather than dwelling on being clobbered for no apparent reason.
Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders get warnings that what they're about to view may contain depictions of people that have died. Not depictions of dead people, but depictions of people who have died since they were filmed or had their picture taken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_avoidanc...
> Please note that this article includes images of human remains.
I don't think I've ever seen a warning like this before in any anthropological publication, or even in a museum or exhibit. I can't say I've ever found looking at skulls to be particularly weird or shocking, especially if they are extremely old. But, is this a warning that people or the general populace are requesting or feel is necessary? Or, is it purely an editorial decision?