The recent revelation of Oxford University’s unsettling use of a human skull as a chalice provides insight into a sinister and violent period in its past. For decades, professors at Oxford drank from a cup carved from a human skull. Until 2015, this skull-cup—made from a sawn-off and polished braincase with a silver rim and stand—was used in formal dinners at Worcester College. Finding this relic has offered a glimpse into the terrible past of colonialism and the consequences of stolen human remains. Professor Dan Hicks, curator of international archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum, explores this sad legacy in his upcoming book Every Monument Will Fall, which marks the continuing erasure of the identities of colonized peoples and the residual influence of colonialism.
How did Oxford Academics use a human skull as a chalice for decades?
Oxford University professors conducted official dinner ceremonies at Worcester College using the skull-cup for decades. The skull, which had been fashioned into a chalice, was initially used to pour wine at these high-profile academic occasions. The skull was turned to serve chocolates when it started leaking wine instead. The fact that such an object, carved from a human skull, was used so nonchalantly as crockery indicates much about how colonialism’s terrible history was accepted and even celebrated in major academic institutions.
This custom continued until 2015, when rising discontent among the college’s students and visitors finally caused the custom to be stopped. 2019 saw Worcester College welcome Professor Dan Hicks to look at the origins of the skull and how it had become a tableware object. What Hicks discovered was a potent symbol of the negative consequences of colonialism, not only a bit of historical curiosity. Most likely, the skull belonged to a Caribbean enslaved lady who suffered the atrocities of colonial exploitation. According to Hicks’s research, the greater harm colonial powers committed included the dehumanizing and destroying of identities as part of their operations.
In what part does colonial violence fit into he history of the skull-cup?
The narrative of the skull-cup raises serious issues regarding the sometimes overlooked or forgotten nature of colonialism’s past. Many debates on colonial violence center on the well-known people who benefited from it, such as Edward Colston or Cecil Rhodes, whose names still appear on plaques, monuments, and structures. But Professor Hicks’s work seeks to center the victims—whose names were erased and whose pain was disregarded. The skull-cup itself represents this erasure; the person whose remains it preserves remains unidentified.
Based on Hicks’s research of the skull, it was probably from the Caribbean and roughly 225 years old. Although the exact individual whose skull is unknown from any specific records, circumstantial evidence points to an enslaved lady as the possible owner. In this sense, the skull-cup becomes a terrible reminder of the methodical dehumanizing of whole populations that colonialism involves, in addition to the theft of land and resources. Originally employed to serve scholars, the very object reflects the erasure of the identities of colonized peoples, who were often not seen as deserving of historical acknowledgment.
Hicks’s studies also show how colonialism helped to shape the way these people were seen at death. Once a live, breathing individual, the skull was turned into a tool for social and intellectual ceremonies. This technique reflected the contempt for the colonial era enslaved people’s lives. By converting the skull into a cup, it was objectified and deprived of its humanity, signifying the greater dehumanization that was crucial to colonial power.
The owners of the skull-cup and what legacy did they leave?
Unlike the anonymity of the skull’s source, the British owners of the skull-cup are thoroughly recorded. Former university pupil George Pitt-Rivers gave the cup to Worcester College in 1946. Pitt-Rivers was an outspoken eugenicist, a supporter of the fascist leader Oswald Mosley, and a contentious character in British history. During World War II, Pitt-Rivers was interned by the British government due to his support of fascism. Together with a larger heritage of colonial relics, his family had gathered over the decades, he contributed the skull-cup.
Originally belonging to the private collection of Victorian soldier and archaeologist Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers, who established the Pitt Rivers Museum in 1884, the skull-cup was Renowned in British archaeology. Augustus Pitt Rivers was instrumental in gathering and cataloging objects from colonial areas. Shortly after it was created, Augustus Pitt Rivers bought the skull-cup from an 1884 Sotheby’s sale. Auction records state that it was accompanied by a wooden stand featuring a Queen Victoria shingle inlay underneath. This information, together with silver marks on the chalice going back to 1838, suggests that it was created during early Queen Victoria’s rule.
The auction description also states that the skull-cup was sold by Bernhard Smith, a lawyer and Oxford graduate who had a particular interest in collecting firearms and armor. Hicks hypothesizes that Smith might have received the skull-cup as a gift from his father, who had traveled to the Caribbean serving with the Royal Navy. This family of collectors, all of whom were linked to the colonial enterprise, shows how colonialism and its effects were ingrained in British society, even inside its most revered establishments.
The legacy of the skull-cup: public response
The revelation of the source of the skull-cup infuriates some, especially those supporting justice and compensation following colonization. The practice disgusted Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on African reparations. “It is sickening to think of Oxford dons, sitting in this bastion of privilege, itself rich 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,” she said.
Her reaction mirrors the greater uneasiness over the continued usage and exhibition of colonial-era artifacts. The existence of the skull-cup forces us to face the unpleasant truth that institutions like Oxford, with enormous cultural and intellectual value, have profited from colonialism and still struggle with its legacy.
In what way has Worcester College addressed the controversy?
Worcester College has acted in numerous ways to resolve the debate around the skull-cup. A college spokesman verified that the chalice had been on show with the college’s silver collection in the 20th century, but its usage was strictly limited following 2011. The skull-cup disappeared from public notice totally by 2015. The college opted to keep the skull-cup in its archive following legal and scientific recommendations, where it will be respectfully stored with access permanently limited.
As Hicks in his book notes, the college has maintained that it has handled the matter deliberately and responsibly. Part of a larger attempt to come to terms with the unsettling history, the skull-cup reflects its removal from public exhibition and reclassification as an object to be stored with care.
In his book, what other colonial plunder has Hicks highlighted?
Hicks also looks at additional instances of stolen skulls and relics taken from colonial battlefields by British troops and collectors in Every Monument Will Fall. Often kept in private homes or donated to museums, these objects were souvenirs of colonial triumphs. One of the most well-known examples is the skull of a Zulu commander stolen by Field Marshal Lord Grenfell following the Battle of Ulundi in 1879, just two years after the commander’s death at the hands of the British Army. These remnants are agonizing reminders of the murder and exploitation that were fundamental to the growth of the British Empire.
What Does This Expose Regarding the Lasting Effects of Colonialism?
The narrative of the skull-cup emphasizes the ongoing influence of colonialism in British institutions, including Oxford University. Using stolen human bones as dinnerware exposes how, even in scholarly environments, the cruelty of the colonial era was sometimes accepted and institutionalized. It is very evident, as we face these histories, that colonialism still shapes our conception of culture, history, and identity now rather than being a historical issue.
Research such as that of Hicks reminds us that it is insufficient to just criticize the people who benefited from colonialism. We also have to accept and deal with the continuing consequences of colonial brutality and pursue restoring justice. One strong emblem of this required reckoning is the skull-cup at Oxford.
Add a Comment