Podkastlar tarixi

Mabel Tuk

Mabel Tuk

Mabel Lir, u uchta qizning to'ng'ichi, Richard Lir (1834-1894), 1871 yil 19 mayda Plumstedda tug'ilgan. Uning otasi Qirollik muhandislari bo'limida kotib bo'lgan.

Oila Lichfildga ko'chib o'tdi va 1895 yil 25 -fevralda u gaz muhandisi Jeyms Kvarton Braudvudga uylandi. Uning tarjimai holi Yelizaveta Krouford ta'kidlaganidek: "Bu nikoh taqdirini hech narsa bilan izlab bo'lmaydi, ehtimol bu erning o'limi bilan Janubiy Afrikada tugadi. 1901 yilda u turmushga chiqdi, ehtimol Janubiy Afrikada, Jorj Moxli Tuk, Janubiy Afrika konstruktsiyasi kapitani. " Erining erta o'limidan so'ng, u 1905 yilda Angliyaga qaytdi. Janubiy Afrikadan qayiqda u Emmelin Petik-Lourens bilan uchrashdi, u unga ayollarning ijtimoiy-siyosiy ittifoqi (WSPU) haqida gapirib berdi.

Mabel Tuk WSPUga qo'shildi va 1906 yilda u Klement Innda joylashgan tashkilotning faxriy kotibi bo'ldi. U, ayniqsa, Kristabel Panxurst va Emmelin Pankurstga yaqin edi. Yelizaveta Krouford ta'kidlaganidek: "U mehr bilan Pensi laqabini oldi, bu laqab uning porloq qorong'u ko'zlaridan ilhomlangan. Chiroyli, yumshoq va jozibali, u mashhur konsepsiyaga qarshi kurashish uchun Pankhurstlar targ'ib qilmoqchi bo'lgan ayol qiyofasini aks ettirgan. sufragetlardan ".

1912 yil 1 martda u Dauning -stritning 10 -uyidagi derazani sindirgani uchun hibsga olingan. U aybdor deb topildi va Xollouey qamoqxonasida uch haftalik jazo oldi. U qamoqda bo'lganida, u fitna uyushtirishda ayblangan. Biroq, bu ayblovlar bekor qilindi.

Qamoqdan chiqqanidan so'ng, Mabel Tukning sog'lig'i yomon edi, u Janubiy Afrikaga qaytdi. 1913 yilning yozida u Parijda Kristabel Pankhurst bilan yashar edi.

Muallif Elizabet Kroufordga ko'ra Suffragett harakati (1999): 1925 yilda Mabel Tuke Emmeline va Kristabel Pankhurst bilan frantsuz Rivierasidagi Jyul-les-Pinsda choy do'konini ishga tushirish sxemasida ishtirok etdi. Xonim Tuke poytaxtning ko'p qismini ta'minlab, non yopdi. "Bu tashabbus muvaffaqiyatsiz tugadi va ular 1926 yilning bahorida Angliyaga qaytib kelishdi.

Mabel Tuk 1962 yil 22 -noyabrda Durham, Nevilles -Kross, 12 -Sent -Jon yo'li, Ashbrook qariyalar uyida miya trombozidan vafot etdi.


Xabarlar Tagged Mabel Tuke

Bayramni nishonlash uchune -relizi 12 -oktabr kuni ‘Suffragette ’ (men tarixiy maslahatchi bo'lganman) men har kuni o'z qo'limdan o'tgan saylov huquqi haqidagi rasmni joylashtiraman.

Mening joriy katalogim uchun – № 189 –, unda ko'plab saylov huquqi materiallari, shuningdek, umumiy kitoblar va ayollar haqidagi efemeralar va bu erda qarang.

Miss Emmeline Pankhurst va Mabel Tuk xonim, ehtimol, 1910/11 yillarda Clements Inn -dagi Pankhurst xonimning ofisida suratga tushishgan.

Xonim Pankurst va Tuk xonim qog'ozli stol ustida o'tirishibdi. Mabel Tuk Ayollar ijtimoiy -siyosiy ittifoqining faxriy kotibi edi. Ko'rib turganimizdek, juda chiroyli – uning taxallusi ‘Pansy ’.

Bu fotosurat bizga atrofni dekonstruksiya qilish imkoniyatini beradi. P. xonimning devorlarida qanday suratlar bor edi? Saylov huquqi yarmarkasi afishasi bor va uning tepasida hozir Milliy portret galereyasida joylashgan Richard Metyusning Kristabel Pankxurstga o'xshash portret eskizi bor.

Bolaning kamida bitta fotosurati va bitta haykalli byusti bor, ehtimol Desiderio da Settignano. Va mantiya ustidagi kichkina gulli vaza. Ajoyib rasm.

Kartani nashriyotchisi X.S Serjant edi, 159 Ladbroke Grove –, u WSPU uchun ko'plab fotosuratlar oldi.


Fayl tarixi

Faylni o'sha paytdagi ko'rinishini ko'rish uchun sana/vaqtni bosing.

Sana/vaqtEskizO'lchamlariFoydalanuvchiSharh
hozirgi11:54, 2 oktyabr, 2016 yil5,074 × 3,256 (3,06 MB) Fæ (munozara | hissa) LSE kutubxonasi, 72157660822880401, ID 22910622782, asl nomi Frederik va Emmelin Petik Lourens, Emmelin Pankhurst va [Mabel Tuke] sudda, 1912 yil.

Bu faylni qayta yozib bo'lmaydi.


Suffragetta oq: 110 yillik tarixini ayollar tomonidan norozilik bildirish vositasi sifatida ishlatilgan.

Suffragett Uayt birinchi marta ommaviy ravishda 1908 yil iyun oyida Ayollar yakshanbasida, WSPU tomonidan Londonning Xayd -Parkida o'tkazilgan birinchi "hayvonlar uchrashuvi" da topshirilgan. 30,000 ishtirokchilar binafsha va yashil rangga bo'yalgan oq kiyim kiyishga da'vat etildi.

Nyu -Yorkda 1917 yildagi Sharqiy Sent -Luis qo'zg'olonlariga qarshi jim norozilik namoyishi. Surat: Kongress kutubxonasi The Conversation orqali

Mishel xodimlari tomonidan

"Suffragette white" - bu bayonot bermoqchi bo'lgan ayollar uchun mashhur moda tanlovi. Yaqinda, Avstraliya Postning sobiq bosh direktori Kristin Xolgeyt, senat uning tashkilotdan chiqib ketishi haqidagi tergov oldidan oq ko'ylagi kiydi.

Uning tanlagan tanlovi "Oq kiying 2 Birlashing" kampaniyasining bir qismini tashkil etdi, bu odamlarni Xolgeytni qo'llab -quvvatlash uchun rang tanlashga va ish joyidagi zo'ravonlikni to'xtatishga chaqirdi.

Bunda Xolgeyt, o'tgan oy Canberra March4Justice da Brittany Higgins singari, hozirgi kunda gender tengsizligiga e'tiborni qaratish uchun ayollar oq kiyim kiygan va ko'pincha saylov huquqi tarixiga murojaat qiladigan tendentsiyaga asoslanmoqda.

Amallar so'z emas

"Sufragetta" atamasi, ba'zida ayollarning ovoz berish huquqlari uchun kurashganlarning barchasiga nisbatan yanglish ishlatilgan. Lekin bu aslida ayollarning ma'lum bir guruhiga qo'llaniladigan belgi edi - dastlab kamsituvchi ma'noda.

Ayollarning Britaniyada saylov huquqi harakati 1860 -yillarda boshlangan. 20 -asrning oxiriga kelib, ayollar hali ham ovoz bera olishmadi.

Emmelin Panxurst, Kristabel Panxurst, Mabel Tuk va Emmelin Petik-Lourens, 1911 yil 17-iyun, toj marosimida mahbuslar tanlovi boshida. Raqamli tasvir mualliflik huquqi London muzeyi, The Conversation orqali

Bu Emmelin Pankxurstni 1903 yilda Ayollar Ijtimoiy -Siyosiy Ittifoqini (WSPU) tuzishga olib keldi. Uning oq tanli ayollar guruhi "so'zlar emas, amallar" shiori bilan yashab, o'zgarishlarga erishishning yagona yo'li ekanligiga ishonishdi.

Britaniya matbuoti mazkur ayollarni masxara qilib, ularni "qonunsizlashtirish" maqsadida, "-etta" kichraytiruvchi qo'shimchasini qo'shib qo'ydi. Ammo Pankhurstning guruhi to'xtamadi. U bu atamani qaytarib oldi, masxara qilish elementini yo'q qildi va uni "oliy sharaf nomi" deb qayta nomladi.

1908 yilda ozod qilingan mahbuslar vagonini Hollowaydan olib chiqqan WSPU jamoalaridan biri. Surat: London Iqtisodiyot va siyosatshunoslik maktabi kutubxonasi The Conversation orqali

Uning guruhining dramatik harakatlari - yig'ilishlarni buzishdan tortib, jamoat mulkiga zarar etkazishgacha - ayollarning saylov huquqi tarixidagi o'rnini mustahkamladi.

Poklik, qadr -qimmat va umid

20-asrning boshidagi saylov kampaniyalari asosan tomoshabinlar va tomoshabinlarga tayanib, matbuot va keng jamoatchilik e'tiborini jalb qilish uchun ajoyib vizual tasvirlar va ommaviy yig'ilishlardan foydalangan.

Ko'p saylov huquqi tashkilotlari o'z kun tartibini ifodalash uchun ranglarni qabul qilishdi. Britaniyada Ayollar saylov huquqi jamiyatlarining milliy ittifoqi o'z bannerlarida qizil va oq ranglardan foydalangan, keyinchalik yashil rang qo'shgan. WSPU oq, binafsha va yashil ranglarni tanladi: poklik uchun oq, qadr -qimmat uchun binafsha va umid uchun yashil.

Ayollar Ijtimoiy va Siyosiy Ittifoqining original pochta kartochkalari albomi, old tomonida binafsha binafsha, oq va yashil rangdagi WSPU naqshli. Fotosurat: London Iqtisodiyot va siyosatshunoslik maktabi kutubxonasi, The Conversation orqali

Suffragett oq birinchi marta taqilgan ommaviy ravishda 1908 yil iyun oyida Ayollar yakshanbasida, Londonning Xayd -Parkida WSPU tomonidan o'tkazilgan birinchi "hayvonlar uchrashuvi". 30,000 ishtirokchilar binafsha va yashil rangga bo'yalgan oq kiyim kiyishga da'vat etildi.

Marsh oldidan Emmelin Petik-Lourensning "Ayollar uchun ovozlar" gazetasi quyidagicha izoh berdi:

effekt London ko'chalarida hech qachon ko'rilmagan ajoyib harakatlanuvchi ranglar sxemasi bo'ladi.

Oq mato nisbatan arzon narxda edi, bu turli millatdagi ayollarning ishtirok etishini anglatardi. Rangning poklik bilan aloqasi, o'zlarini hurmatli va obro'li ayollar sifatida ko'rsatishga yordam berdi.

Sufragettaning London markazidan o'tib ketishi, 1911 yil 17 -iyun. London mualliflik huquqi raqamli muzeyi, The Conversation orqali.

Suffragett oqi WSPU namoyishlarining asosiy tayanchiga aylandi. 1911 yilda jangarilik uchun qamalgan ayollar oq tusda yurganlar qatorida Ayollar toj kiyish marosimida qatnashdilar.

Oq libos kiygan avstraliyalik sufrajist Vida Goldshteyn mashhur Avstraliya kontingentini boshqargan.

Keyinchalik Goldstein, WSPU ranglarini Avstraliyaga parlament saylovlari kampaniyasida olib keldi.

Ikki yil o'tib, 1913 yilda, WSPU a'zolari Epsom derbisida qirol otining tuyoqlari ostida vafot etgan hamkasbi Emili Uaylding Devisonning dafn marosimida oq kiyimda bo'lishdi.

Tez orada amerikalik sufragistlar bu taktikani tanladilar, bunda inglizlarning sufretlari, shuningdek, oq chiziqlar yordamida mo''tadil harakatlari ta'sir ko'rsatdi.

Vashington kabi shaharlar oq libosli ayollarning ko'chalarda yurishining xuddi shunday sahnalariga guvoh bo'lishdi va fotograflar uchun ajoyib material tayyorladilar. Saylov huquqidan ko'p jihatdan chetlatilgan zamonaviy qora tanli ayollar irqiy zo'ravonlikka qarshi norozilik namoyishlarida ham bu rangdan foydalanishgan.

Qora amerikalik ayollar norozilik yurishlarida oq libos kiyganidan ellik yil o'tgach, oq kostyumlar Kongress a'zosi Shirli Chisholmning tashrif kartasiga aylandi. Fotosurat: Kongress kutubxonasi The Conversation orqali

Feministik birdamlik

Oq rangga bo'lgan zamonaviy tendentsiya AQShda katta qiziqish uyg'otdi.

2019 yilda Donald Trump Ittifoqi shtatidagi manzilida oq rangdagi dengizga duch keldi. O'tgan yili Kamala Xarris oq shim kiyib, vitse-prezident etib saylangan.

Uyga yaqinroq, 4 -mart kuni Kanberrada bo'lib o'tgan Adliya mitingida, Brittani Xiggins, oq libosda, ishtirokchilar kiygan dafn marosimidagi qora rangdan farqli o'laroq, kutilmaganda paydo bo'ldi.

Oq kiyim kiyib, bu ayollar ongli ravishda ham, anglosferada ham feministik ajdodlari bilan aloqa o'rnatadilar. Ba'zida bu ayollarning saylov huquqining murakkab tarixini tekislashi mumkin. Shuni esda tutish kerakki, bu saylov huquqlarini asosan oq tanli, o'rta toifali ayollar boshqargan, ko'pincha rang-barang ayollar va boshqalarni hisobga olmagan.

O'zlarining feministik nasl -nasabiga asoslanib, bugungi kunda ayollar feminizmning o'tmish va hozirgi cheklanishlarini tan olishlari kerak - faqat yuz yil oldin bo'lgan munosabatni nishonlash va takrorlash emas.

Men bugun oldimda yo'l ochgan ayollarni va hali kelmagan barcha ayollarni hurmat qilish uchun oq rangda kiydim.

Sufragetlardan Shirli Chisholmgacha, agar bu harakatning onalari bo'lmaganida, men bu erda bo'lardim. ⬇️ https://t.co/GBfSSYxbek

& mdash Aleksandriya Okasio-Kortez (@AOC) 2019 yil 4-yanvar

Shu bilan birga, oq rangdagi supragetta kiyish - bu ayollarning qancha vaqt kurashganini eslatuvchi kuchli va ramziy jest.

Vaqt va makonda feministik hamjihatlik tuyg'usini o'rnatib, bu harakat ilhom va kuch -quvvat baxsh etishi va ommaviy axborot vositalarining e'tiborini tortishi mumkin. Oq rang kiyishni tanlagan ayollarni, ular tarixan chetlatilgan (va bundan keyin ham) harakatda o'z o'rnini tasdiqlash va o'zlaridan oldin kelgan rangli ayollarni hurmat qilish usuli sifatida o'qish mumkin.

20 -asr boshlaridagi supragettalar singari, bugungi kunda ayollar ham jamoatchilik e'tiborini jalb qilish uchun vizual tomoshaning kuchini ko'rsatmoqdalar. Bu, o'z navbatida, haqiqiy o'zgarishlarga olib keladimi yoki yo'qmi, buni hal qilish kerak.

Bu maqola Creative Commons litsenziyasi ostida The Conversation jurnalida qayta nashr etilgan. Maqolaning asl nusxasini o'qing.


Sufragetta mahbuslarining salomatligi: majburiy ovqatlantirish va qusish

Siyosiy tashviqotchilarning kamdan -kam guruhlari, e'tiborni tortish uchun qamoqdan foydalanish masalasida, sufregetlardan ko'ra kuchliroq edi. Buyuk Britaniya va Irlandiyada 1907-1914 yillarda qamoq jazosining qamoqdagi sufregetlarning sog'lig'iga ta'siri ularning kampaniyalariga alohida e'tibor qaratgan. Bu aniq, 1909 yildan boshlab, ba'zi sufrejetlar ochlik e'lon qilishgan. Bu taktikani qo'llashda bu ayollar o'z sog'liklariga ataylab xavf tug'dirishgan. Ular buni "siyosiy" maqomni olmaganliklariga yoki ozodlikka chiqishga urinishlariga emas, balki ularning asosiy talabi - ayollarga ovoz berishga e'tiborni jalb qilish uchun qildilar.

O'z navbatida, 1909 yil sentyabr oyida shtat, qamoqxona tizimi va ularning xodimlari-amalda qamoqxona tibbiy xodimlari, boshqa xodimlarning yordami bilan, hayratlanarli sufragetlarni oziqlantirishni boshladilar. Rasmiylar bu javobni sog'liqni saqlash va, eng muhimi, hayotni saqlab qolish uchun, shu asosda o'z harakatlarini sudda muvaffaqiyatli himoya qilish uchun kerak bo'lganda taqdim etishdi. Albatta, majburiy oziqlantirish, shuningdek, norozilikning samaradorligini cheklab qo'ydi, chunki bu hukumatga supragette mahbuslarni salomatlik holatida ushlab turishga imkon berdi, bu esa hech bo'lmaganda qisqa muddatda qamoqda qolishni davom ettirdi.

Sudlar qaroriga qaramay, supragettalar bu jarayonni shafqatsizlik, hujumning bir shakli sifatida ko'rsatib, kuch bilan oziqlantirishdan bir qancha afzalliklarga ega bo'lishdi. Shtat va shifokorlarning xatti-harakatlari juda ko'p salbiy e'lonlar mavzusi edi va Yan Miller o'zining so'nggi kitobida ko'rsatganidek, majburiy ovqatlantirish etikasi uni "terapevtik" deb hisoblaganlar bilan yaxshi munozaralarga sabab bo'ldi. bu "qiynoqli" deb bahslashdi. [1]

Kusish: "Menda bu o'z -o'zidan ishlab chiqarilganiga shubha bor"

Ammo, agar zo'ravonlik bilan oziqlantirishdan so'ng, davom etuvchi ta'sirni yumshatib, sufragetta qusishni boshlasa nima bo'ladi? Bu qanday izohlandi? Qusish o'zini majburan ovqatlantirish natijasida bo'lganmi? Agar shunday bo'lsa, bu mahbusning konstitutsiyasi va uning xavfsizligining yaqin istiqbollari haqida nima degan? Bu jarayon haqida yoki shifokorning malakasi haqida nima dedi? Shu bilan bir qatorda, agar qusish sufretning ataylab qilingan javobi bo'lsa -chi? Bunga qanday erishildi, uni to'xtatish mumkinmi va qanday vositalar bilan?

Meri Ley, taxminan 1010 yil.
Surat, bosma, qog'oz, Meri Leyning monoxromli studiya portreti, bosh va yelka, old profil, dumaloq format, har xil qo'lda (old tomonda) karta qo'lyozma yozuvlariga o'rnatilgan va Meri Ley (?) ’ (teskari tomonda) & #8216Meri Ley va#8217. Fotosuratshunosning taassurotlari ‘Norman, 26 [Tacket] ko'chasi, Ipsvich va#8217. LSE, 7JCC/O/02/148. O'shanda Birmingemning Winson Green qamoqxonasida sufragetlar guruhida bo'lgan Meri Ley 1909 yil 22 sentyabrda ochlik e'lon qildi. [2] U 26 avgustda, Liverpulning Uolton Gaol shahridan, ish tashlash paytida uning ahvoli "o'ta og'ir" bo'lganida, ozod qilingan edi. O'tgan oyda, shtat siyosati o'zgardi va shuning uchun u majburan oziqlangan birinchi sufregetlardan biri edi. Winson Green tibbiyot xodimi Ernest Xasler Xelbi buni 25 sentyabrdan boshladi. 2 oktyabrdan boshlab, Ley oziqlantiruvchi idishni ishlatishga qarshilik qilganda, Xasler Xelbi burun naychasidan doimiy foydalanishga o'tdi. Leyning so'zlariga ko'ra, "men naychani olib tashlaganimdan keyin birinchi marta juda kasal bo'ldim" [3], Xasler Xelbi esa 7 oktyabrda burun trubkasi bilan oziqlantirish paytida Ley birinchi marta orqaga qaytganini yozgan. Keyinchalik, Xasler Xelbi voqealarning bunday o'zgarishini naychani moylash uchun glitserin bilan zaytun moyi almashtirgani bilan izohladi. [4]

Glitseringa darhol qaytish muvaffaqiyatli bo'ldi, ammo Xasler Xelbi 10 oktabrda ovqatlanganidan so'ng "engil kasallik" haqida xabar berdi. Keyin, 18 oktyabrda, u Leyning ertalabki ovqatdan keyin qusganini aytib, "men buni o'z -o'zidan ishlab chiqarilganiga shubha qilaman" dedi. Gumon qilinishiga qaramay, Xasler Xelbi har ovqatlantirishda berilgan miqdorni kamaytirib javob berdi. To'rt kundan so'ng, u vazn yo'qotishni ko'paytirdi, u Leining dietasini "qusish majburiyati tufayli" oshirishga qodir emasligini ta'kidladi va "bunga umuman ishonmasligini" ko'rsatdi. Hassler Xelbi Leyning qusishi va vazn yo'qotishiga nisbatan sezgir bo'lib qolgani uchun, uning mas'uliyati borasida xavotirga tushganga o'xshaydi, chunki u unga va ichki ishlar vaziri Gerbert Gladstounga qarshi sud ishlarini boshladi. Bu hisobotning ertasi kuni u bunday ishga tayyorgarlik ko'rish uchun qonuniy dalolatnoma beradi.

Sog'likni saqlashning muvaffaqiyatsizligi

24 oktyabr kuni Xasler Xelbi Ley ertalabki ovqatdan so'ng yarim stakan qusganini va undan oldingi uchta ovqatdan keyin ozroq miqdorda qusganini aytdi. Bu vaqtda, qusish, shubhasiz, davom etdi, Xasler Xelbi buni "har ovqatdan keyin muntazam hodisa" deb ta'riflagan. "26 oktyabrdagi hisobotida. Ertasi kuni u buni "juda xijolat manbai" deb ta'rifladi. Majburiy ovqatlanish bunday bo'lmasligi kerak edi, bu esa uni "qusish uchun dori ichishga ko'ndirishga urinishni" boshlashiga olib keldi. Ammo u muvaffaqiyatga erisha olmadi va bu tartib uch kundan keyin ham davom etdi, 30 oktyabrda Davlat kotibi Leyni bo'shatishni buyurdi. U "oldingi qirq sakkiz soat davomida berilgan ovqatlarning hammasini yoki deyarli hammasini qusdi." [5] Qusish Xasler Xelbini hafsalasini pir qildi. U Leyning sog'lig'ini saqlab qololmadi va uning jazoni o'tashini ta'minlay olmadi.

Dekabr oyida sudlar uning harakatlarini qo'llab-quvvatlab, Xasler Xelbi Leyning hayotini saqlab qolish uchun harakat qilishga majbur bo'lgan, shu jumladan majburiy ovqatlantirishni ham qo'llashdi. Eshitish paytida, majburiy ovqatlantirishda qusish ehtimoli Ley guvohi Ser Viktor Xorsli bilan bir necha bor paydo bo'lgan va u "orqaga qaytish" oziqlantirish trubasining joylashishi va tortib olinishining natijasi bo'lishi mumkinligini ta'kidlagan. uzoq vaqt davomida kuch bilan ovqatlantirish paytida bemorning charchashining alomati. Tekshiruv chog'ida Xorsli qarshilik ko'rsatayotgan bemor "qusish uchun barmoqlarini bo'g'zidan pastga o'tkazib", qusishga olib kelishi mumkinligini tan oldi. Sudda Xasler Xelbi burun naychasini kiritish, ba'zida tirnash xususiyati va qichishishni keltirib chiqarganini tan oldi, lekin Leyning majburiy ovqatlantirish boshlanishidan oldingi kunlarda uning zarbasi uning konstitutsiyasini zaiflashtirgan bo'lishi mumkin bo'lgan, keyinchalik, muntazam ravishda qayt qilishini ko'rsatdi. Bu mantiqqa ko'ra, agar Ley qasddan qusmagan bo'lsa ham, qusish Hasler Xelbining majburan ovqatlantirish uchun emas, balki ochlik uchun javobgarligi edi. [6]

Emetika va sog'liq uchun javobgarlik

Emmelin Pankhurst Greys Ro bilan gaplashmoqda, 1912 yil. Emmelin Pankhurst va Greys Ru ko'chadagi qo'lyozma yozuvida Olive Bartelsning teskari tomonida gapirishmoqda va Xonim Pankhurst bilan Kristabelning kichkina iti Frantsiyadagi Greys Ru bilan gaplashmoqda (ehtimol Parij) ’. Rasmning bir qismi yirtilgan. LSE, 7JCC/O/02/148

Agar 1909 yilda Leyning qusishiga qanchalik javobgar bo'lgani haqida munozaralar uchun joy bo'lsa, 1914 yilda Greys Ro va Nelli Xollning ishi ancha aniqroq edi. 30 may kuni Xollouey qamoqxonasining nazoratchisi Artur Marshallning kotibi, Ayollar Ijtimoiy va Siyosiy Ittifoqi (WSPU) advokati Artur Barnettning Roga tashrifini nazorat qilib, Barnettning "kichik paket" ni Roga uzatayotganini kuzatdi. Tekshirilganda, paketda oltita kichik planshet borligi aniqlandi, u yo'riqnomasi bilan bir vaqtning o'zida uchtadan olishi kerak, agar shunday bo'lsa samarali emas to'rt, lekin yoqilgan hisob yo'q Qo'shimcha. "Eslatma muallifi davom ettirishdan oldin, Runing do'stlari uning azoblari haqida aniq bilishganini," biz sizni tashqariga chiqarishimiz kerak ", deb ta'kidladi. To'rt kun oldin, Marylebone politsiya sudining sud zalida va Nelli Xollning supragettasida paydo bo'lganidan so'ng, shunga o'xshash planshetli kichik naycha va boshqa yozuv rasmiylar tomonidan topilgan va saqlanib qolgan. Ko'rinib turibdiki, ba'zi planshetlar o'sha paytda muvaffaqiyat qozonishgan, chunki Ru, ayniqsa Xoll, ko'p miqdorda qusishni boshlagan. Xollning emetik tabletkalari borligini hali bilmagan holda, 27 may kuni Xollouey tibbiyot xollini davolash uchun mas'ul bo'lgan Frensis Forvard qo'lini bo'g'ziga qo'yib yubormaslik uchun majburan ovqatlantirgandan so'ng Xoll kamerasida nazoratchi ofitserni joylashtirdi. Keyingi kunlarda sinovdan o'tkazilganda, ikkala tabletkada ham "apomorfin gidroxloridi" borligi aniqlandi, bu esa kimyogarni shunday xulosaga kelishiga olib keldi.Tabletkalar qusish uchun aniq ishlab chiqariladi.’

Bu Marxsall va Barnettning Xollouey mahbuslariga tashrifini darhol taqiqlashga va Barnettni 1914 yil 13 iyunda (1865 yilgi qamoqxonalar to'g'risidagi qonunga binoan) ham pulni, ham giyohvand moddalarni noqonuniy olib o'tishga urinishlari uchun ayblash va ayblashga olib keldi. Ichki ishlar vazirligi bu ishni va uning atrofidagi oshkoralikni sufragetlarning qamoqxonani sog'lig'i uchun xavfli deb ko'rsatishga urinishiga qarshi targ'ibot zarbasi sifatida baholadi. Buning o'rniga, ular o'z sog'lig'iga ataylab putur etkazgan sufragetlar jamoatchilikka yana bir bor ko'rsatilishiga ishonishdi. Xususan, prokuror Archibald Bodkin ishdan foydalanib, WSPU gazetasidagi ayblovlarni rad etdi. Suffragetta, bu supragetta mahbuslarga uyqusizlantiruvchi dorilar berilib, ularni majburiy ovqatlantirishga qulayroq qilishdi. Uning so'zlariga ko'ra, bu holat mahbuslarning sog'lig'iga xavf solishi mumkin bo'lgan giyohvand moddalarni iste'mol qilganini isbotlagan.

Sufragettalar va ularning do'stlari nuqtai nazaridan, emetikani qabul qilish mahbuslarni ozod qilishni tezlashtirgan bo'lardi, bu hodisa mahbuslar to'g'risidagi qonun (sog'liqni saqlash uchun vaqtincha bo'shatish) joriy qilinganidan keyin tezroq sodir bo'lishi mumkin edi. 1913 yildagi "Mushuklar va sichqonlar to'g'risidagi qonun" nomi bilan mashhur bo'lgan. Bu yolg'iz hokimiyatni hafsalasini pir qilmagan bo'lardi-bu ularning nuqtai nazaridan yoqimli natija-lekin bu jarohatlar va Ro'zani kuch bilan boqish xavfini tezlashtiradi. Zal. Agar sufragettalar o'zlariga gipnoz beruvchi dorilar berilganiga ishonishganida, ularning fikriga ko'ra, qusishtiruvchi moddalar, bu dorilarni o'z tizimlaridan chiqarib yuborish ta'sirini ko'rsatgan bo'lar edi. [8]

Nelli Xollning Mabel Cappers WSPU mahbuslar albomida bag'ishlanishi, 1910 yil 28 -iyul. Jamoat mulki.

Qiynoqmi yoki o'z-o'zini xavf ostiga qo'yishmi?

Prokuratura bilan bir qatorda, ish supragette mahbuslarini yanada qattiqroq qidirish rejimiga olib keldi. Reverberatsiya Irlandiyada sezildi, u erda 11 -iyul kuni S.H. Irlandiya umumiy qamoqxonalar kengashi kotibi Duglas, emetik dori -darmonlar noqonuniy olib kirilishining oldini olish uchun, sufragetdagi barcha mahbuslarni qabul qilish joyida sinchkovlik bilan tekshirilishini buyurdi. [9] Ro va Xoll umumiy avf ostida, 10 avgustda, sufregetlar urush boshlanishi bilan kampaniyasini to'xtatganlarida ozod qilindi, lekin bu voqealarning bitta yakuniy oqibati bor edi. Qamoqxona komissarlariga buyumlarni noqonuniy ravishda qamoqxonaga olib kirish bo'yicha yangi va batafsilroq qoidani kiritish taklif qilindi. Bu 1915 yil aprelda kuchga kirdi.

Bu holatlardan ko'rinib turibdiki, sufragettada ochlik paydo bo'lganda, ba'zida majburiy ovqatlantirishdan keyin paydo bo'ladigan qusishning sabablari va ma'nosi tashvishlantiruvchi va kuchli raqobat edi. Buni o'rganib, bu ayollarning jasadi orqali olib borilgan janglar haqidagi bilimlarimizga yana bir qatlam qo'shamiz. Agar sufragettalar aytganidek, bu gijjalar majburiy ovqatlantirishning bevosita natijasi bo'lgan bo'lsa, bu ularning sog'lig'iga zarar etkazilgani, qiynoqqa solingani haqidagi da'volarini kuchaytirdi. Agar, aksincha, rasmiylar ko'rsatmoqchi bo'lganidek, qusish uchun supragettalar o'zlari aybdor bo'lishgan bo'lsa, bu nafaqat hokimiyatni bo'shatibgina qolmay, balki ayollarning o'zini o'zi xavf ostiga qo'yib, buzuq siyosat yuritayotganini tasdiqladi.

Tanlangan rasm: ochlik e'lon qilgan supragetta majburiy ravishda burun vannasi bilan oziqlanmoqda. Sufragetta, Silviya Pankxurst. Nyu -York: Manba kitoblari matbuoti, 1970. Birinchi marta Sturgis & amp Walton Company (Nyu -York) tomonidan nashr etilgan, 1911 yil. 433. Jamoat mulki.

Eslatmalar

[1] Yan Miller, Majburiy oziqlantirish tarixi: ochlik, qamoqxona va tibbiy etika 1909-1974 (Palgrave MacMillan, 2016), 35-66-betlar.

[2] Meri Leyning qisqacha tarjimai holi uchun Elizabet Kroufordga qarang. Ayollar saylov huquqi harakati: Ma'lumotnoma 1866-1928 (UCL Press, 1999), 338-340-betlar.

[3] Meri Leyning bayonoti, WSPUning faxriy kotibi Mabel Tukning, ichki ishlar vaziri Gerbert Gladstounga, 1909 yil 15 oktyabr, HO 45/10417/183577 (Birinchi qism), TNA, London.

[4] Ernest Xasler Xelbining MO hisoboti, 1909 yil 8 oktyabr, HO 45/10417/183577 (Ikkinchi qism) va Ernest Xasler Xelbi tomonidan Affadavit, 23 oktyabr 1909, HO 45/10417/183577 (Uchinchi qism), TNA, London.

[5] MO hisobotlari Ernest Xasler Xelbi, 11, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 va 30 oktyabr 1909, HO 45/10417/183577 (Uchinchi qism), TNA, London.

[6] Ley v Gladston va boshqalar: Tibbiy dalillar, Oliy sud, 1909 yil 9 -dekabr, HO 144/1320/252950, ​​TNA, London.

[7] Ro va Xollning qisqacha tarjimai holi uchun Kroufordga qarang. Ayollar saylov huquqi harakati, 258-9 va 604-6-betlar.

[8] BNN 144/1320/252950, ​​TNA, Londonda Barnettning jinoiy javobgarlikka tortilishi va uning transkriptiga qarang.


Foydalanish qoidalari

Yuqorida ko'rsatilgan kirish cheklovlari bo'lgan tadqiqotchilar uchun reprografiya xizmati mavjud. Hujjatning buzilishi xavfi mavjud bo'lsa, nusxa ko'chirilmaydi. Nusxalar Bortvik arxivlar institutining nusxalarini etkazib berish shartlari va tegishli mualliflik huquqi to'g'risidagi qonun hujjatlariga muvofiq taqdim etiladi. Bortvik institutida saqlanayotgan hujjatlar tasvirlarini ko'paytirishga ruxsat olish kerak.


Sommaire

1871 yildagi Plumstead, dans le Kent, troisème enfant d'une fratrie de six, Richard Lear, de la le département de ingénieurs royaux de l'arsenal de Woolwich, va de épouse, Emma Margaret [1] . Lichfilddagi anafillarni, Staffordshire shtatining, Plumstead shahridagi uy -joy, 1891 yil.

1895 yildagi uy -joy, Jon Kvarton Braudvud, ingliz tilini o'rganmagan [1] va Afrikadagi er -xotinlar. Meriage finit probablement du fait de la mort de son premier mari, va 1901 yil avgustda Jorj Moxli Tuke, Afrikadagi politsiya xodimi, er -xotin, ikkinchi o'g'il va o'g'il. 1905 yil [1]. Mabel Tukelle Angleterre la même année -ga qaytadi. 1903 yilda Frederik va Emmelin Petxik-Lourens va Emmelin Petxik-Lourens va Somers Taun va Ayollar Ijtimoiy-Siyosiy Ittifoqi (WSPU) kreslosi bilan tanilgan. Emmelin Panxurst va Manchester bilan. Tashkilot 1906 yilda Londresda bo'lib o'tdi va Mabel Tuke en secient la secrétaire honorifique [1].

Emmeline Pankhurst a béliminer son autorité absolue a résisté aux effort. 1907 yil, Teresa Billington-Greig bilan bir qatorda, WSPU da de réunions des des réunions talab qilingan. Pankhurst va admis être autocratique. WSPU navbatdagi konstitutsiyasini e'lon qildi. Bu 1907 yilgi WSPU faollashtirish tashkilotining muvofiqlashtiruvchisi. Emmelin va Kristabel Pankhurst Tuke va Emmelin Petxik-Lourens tomonidan tan olingan. WSPU, Billington-Greig va Charlotte Despard, shuningdek, Ayollar Ozodlik Ligasi [2] uchun eng yaxshi plyonkalar.

Pankhurst et les Pethick Lawrence, 1911 yil 17 -iyulda, Marjery Bryce va#160 (uz) habillée en Jeanne d'Arc, montrant la gamme des groupes de saylov huquqi. féminin et des femmes Historiques remarquables a travers Londres [3], [4]. Ta'kidlash joizki, Emeline va Christabel Pankhurst, Pethick-Lawrence va Mabel Tuke lagers de lancers de pierres, une ordonnance. Emmeline Pankhurst va Tuke avtomobillari Kitty Marshall va Downing ko'chasidagi 10 -sonli avtoulovlar uchun avtoulovlar bilan jihozlangan. Kristabel Pankhurst Frantsiyada o'qitilgan, Petxik Lourens WSPU -da o'qishni to'xtatgan. 1912 yil 28 -mart, Mabel Tuk, Kristabel va Emmelin Pankxurst va Petxik Lourens "Old 160" va "Beylli" so'zlariga qo'shilishdi. 1912 yil 4 -avgustda Mabel Tuke el -est -ekarte du -protsessi bo'yicha.

Bu WSPU kirish huquqiga ega bo'lgan jangarilarga qarshi kurashdir. Les Pethick-Lawrence, Pankhurst-dan farqli o'laroq, WSPU de la les expulser. Emmelin Petxik Lourens WSPU Tuke bilan tanishuvni boshlagan. Ta'kidlash joizki, Congé et est allée effectuer un voyage de convalescence en Afrique du Sud. 1925 yil, Emmelin va Kristabel Pankxurst, va Mabel Tuke aktrisa va boshqalar. Yaxshi umidlar ingliz choyxonasi (Bonne Espérance salonida), Kot d'Azur va Xuan-les-Pins. Mabel Tuke poytaxtning to'rtdan bir qismiga, shuningdek, pississeriyalarga, shuningdek, temps après -ga o'tdi.


Mabel Tuke 1908 yilda ayollar va ayollar ijtimoiy -siyosiy ittifoqining (WSPU) qo'shma faxriy kotibi.

Oson kirish (EZA) hisobingiz sizning tashkilotingiz tarkibiga quyidagi maqsadlar uchun tarkibni yuklab olish imkonini beradi:

  • Sinovlar
  • Namunalar
  • Kompozitlar
  • Tartiblar
  • Qattiq kesmalar
  • Dastlabki tahrirlar

Bu Getty Images veb -saytidagi harakatsiz tasvirlar va videolarga standart onlayn kompozitsion litsenziyani bekor qiladi. EZA hisobi litsenziya emas. Loyihangizni EZA hisobingizdan yuklab olingan material bilan yakunlash uchun siz litsenziyani olishingiz kerak. Litsenziyasiz, boshqa foydalanish mumkin emas, masalan:

  • Fokus -guruh taqdimotlari
  • tashqi taqdimotlar
  • tashkilotingiz ichida tarqatiladigan yakuniy materiallar
  • sizning tashkilotingizdan tashqarida tarqatilgan har qanday materiallar
  • jamoatchilikka tarqatiladigan har qanday materiallar (reklama, marketing kabi)

To'plamlar doimiy ravishda yangilanib borayotganligi sababli, Getty Images litsenziyalash paytigacha biron bir mahsulot mavjud bo'lishini kafolatlay olmaydi. Iltimos, Getty Images veb -saytidagi litsenziyalangan material bilan bog'liq har qanday cheklovlarni diqqat bilan o'rganib chiqing va agar sizda savol bo'lsa, Getty Images vakili bilan bog'laning. Sizning EZA hisobingiz bir yil davomida saqlanib qoladi. Getty Images vakili siz bilan yangilanishni muhokama qiladi.

Yuklab olish tugmachasini bosish orqali siz chiqmagan kontentdan foydalanish (shu jumladan foydalanish uchun zarur bo'lgan ruxsatnomalarni olish) uchun javobgarlikni o'z zimmangizga olasiz va har qanday cheklovlarga rioya qilishga rozilik bildirasiz.


Mabel Tuk - Tarix

Amerika Arxeologiya Instituti nashri

Frederik Mitchell-Xedjesning akasiga yangi sotib olish haqida yozgan maktubi uning hikoyani, hatto yaxshi hikoyani ham bezab turganidan boshlanganini ko'rsatadi. Mitchell-Xedjes "miloddan avvalgi 1800 yilgacha" qaerdan olganini bilish mumkin emas. sana, yoki uning besh avlod polishing haqidagi ertagi, lekin olti yil o'tgach, u Londondagi savdo xonasida emas, balki billur bosh suyagini o'zi kashf qilganini da'vo qilgandi. 1949 yil 31 mayda Eko, mahalliy Bornmut gazetasi, o'z to'plamida "Yomon ko'zli bosh suyagi" borligi haqida xabar berdi:

Mitchell-Xedjz o'z ipini yigirishda bu erda to'plangan ma'lumotlarga tayanishi mumkin Kristal Boshsuyagi, mashhur sarguzashtli hikoya Jek Maklaren tomonidan 1936 yilda yozilgan. Unda o'z tadqiqotini o'g'rilik bilan qo'llab -quvvatlaydigan etnolog Lyndon Kromer va u o'g'irlaydigan billur bosh suyagi tasvirlangan. Yangi Gvineyadagi mahalliy odam buni ko'rib: "Bu havoning bosh suyagi. Havoning bosh suyagi!" He then tells Cromer that, "He who holds the skull of air so that it looks at another man knows that other man's life. He knows all about that other man. That is the power that the skull of air gives to him who holds it." On his part, Cromer envisions the "tremendous interest that the arrival of this crystal skull in London would cause&mdashof the excitement of the British Museum experts, of the meticulous comparings between this newly-found skull of crystal and the one already there."

A novel about a larcenous ethnologist and a supernatural crystal skull might have inspired Frederick Mitchell-Hedges.

Five years after making these amazing claims, Mitchell-Hedges more or less repeated them in his fanciful memoir, Danger My Ally, although minus the part about his having found it in Central America. He writes (1954: p. 240),

Had he forgotten about Sotheby's?

When Mitchell-Hedges died in 1959, the crystal skull became the property of his adopted daughter, Anna. This was despite the fact that he may have had two sons, according to various sources. One was named John (aka Bumble) who is described in 1921 as a "crack shot" with pistol and rifle at age six (Times & Directory, April 23, 1921). The other was James, who was living with Mitchell-Hedges in Cape Hatteras in 1936, according to a newspaper account that described him as fighting off an attacking shark at the age of 13 (New York Times, August 26,1936).

Anna Mitchell-Hedges, née Anne Marie Le Guillon, claimed to have personally discovered the crystal skull, while accompanying her father on an expedition to Lubaantun. But the story of when and how she found the skull varies with the telling, and range from discovering it beneath the stones of a collapsed altar atop a pyramid to being lowered down into a cave, beneath or inside a pyramid, to retrieve it. These events are detailed in various sources as having taken place in 1924, 1926, 1927, and 1928, in contrast to her father's version of discovering it somewhere in Central America sometime in the 1930s.

I recently found a file of letters Anna Mitchell-Hedges wrote to Frederick Dockstader, then director of the Museum of the American Indian in New York City, between 1964 and 1973. This correspondence is housed in the Cultural Resource Center of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of the American Indian. Dockstader initially contacted Anna on March 4, 1964, writing,

Continuing, he wrote that he had exhibited some of the artifacts donated by her father, and that "it would be a distinct honor not only to show you what we have done, but also the degree to which we have made use of the Mitchell-Hedges collection." Dockstader may have been courting Anna, whom he assumed to be heir to Mitchell-Hedges's estate, and as her father had donated collections, perhaps he thought the daughter might do the same.

Anna Mitchell-Hedges in 1980, holding the "Skull of Doom" above the British Museum's crystal skull (Courtesy Jane M. Walsh)

Anna responded quickly on March 10, 1964, writing, "I am Sammy of the book, and I together with Jane, father's secretary, used to accompany father when he came to the museum. Were you there then and do you remember us?" This first letter (OC 276, folder #11) is mostly a four-page typed description of a Russian icon called "The Black Virgin of Kazan," which was exhibited at the New York World's Fair. (According to Daniel Loxton, editor of Junior Skeptic, it was a later copy of the original icon.) Anna noted that her father had begun negotiations with San Francisco art dealer Frank Dorland to promote and sell the icon, but "After father passed away Mr. Dorland and I commenced negotiations again and I eventually sent it to the States two years ago." In almost an afterthought, she adds:

The correspondence includes various typescripts of Anna's contracts with Dorland, the "Black Virgin of Kazan" promoter, who wrote Anna in November 1963:

In July 1964, Anna Mitchell-Hedges signed an agreement with Dorland to promote the skull for its eventual sale with an asking price of not less than $50,000.

Three months after the contract was signed, Anna sent Dockstader a typed statement, dated November 1, 1964, which was titled "Mitchell-Hedges Godshead [sic] Skull-Mayan Skull of Divine Mystery." The written description (OC 276, folder #11) avers that the skull is "estimated by the British Museum to be at least 3000 years old," and that it "was found by Anna Mitchell-Hedges in British Honduras in 1928 in the ruins of an abandoned Mayan complex." The document also claims the skull has special powers, including that it wards off "the evil eye and carries protection from heaven, being white crystal and highly polished, it defeats all evils of witchcraft and is a benevolent divine magic dealing with heaven and angelic forces." Apparently Dorland drew up this document as part of his promotional efforts. My research indicates that it is the first time Anna claims to have found the skull herself. The statement appears to have the intention of establishing a provenience (history and find spot) that could be verified solely by Anna Mitchell-Hedges, since all of the people involved in her adopted father's expeditions to Lubaantun were dead by then.

Dorland's estimate of age comes presumably from Frederick's newspaper descriptions, since no source indicates that the British Museum ever estimated the age of the skull. The British Museum's own crystal skull was previously thought to be Aztec, which if it had been true, would date it to around A.D. 1500, so 500 years old not 3,000.

Dorland distanced himself from the book Phrenology in a letter to Anna Mitchell-Hedges during a difficult time in their promoting of the crystal skull. (National Museum of American Indian Archives Collection)

By 1970, Anna Mitchell-Hedges, then 63, and Frank Dorland had a falling out, partly because of publications in which he clearly had a hand that detailed a variety of progressively outlandish claims for the skull and characterized him as its owner and keeper. The exaggerations and mythologies put out by Dorland and his surrogates seem less bothersome to Anna than the reports that the skull belonged to him, and that he still had not found a buyer. At this point Dorland proposed that he and Anna collaborate on a book of their own, to be written by novelist Richard Garvin:

Garvin's book, The Crystal Skull (1973), reports that "The skull, it is claimed, was discovered rather recently--in the Lubaantun Tomb, part of the abandoned ruins of an enormous Mayan citadel, in British Honduras. The year was 1927" (p. 13). As mentioned earlier, in correspondence and in published sources, the array of years given for the skull's discovery includes 1924, 1926, 1927, and 1928. "I am a little hazy about the exact date," Anna wrote in a note to Dockstader, "but we started the expedition in 1926 and left before the rainy season in 1927" (OC 276, folder #11 -9.20.1970).

Frederick Mitchell-Hedges, in the company of Lady Mable Richmond Brown, spent two very brief stays in Lubaantún, the first in 1924 and the second in 1925. They may possibly have had a third visit in 1926, but it is not entirely clear that they ever returned after 1925. In January 1927, Mitchell-Hedges was supposedly attacked and robbed in Bournemouth of a case with papers and five or six shrunken heads. But the much publicized assault was later proven to be a hoax. In 1928, Mr. Mitchell-Hedges was involved in a libel trial, the result of a suit he had brought against the Daily Express, the newspaper that had exposed the robbery hoax. He lost the suit. A New York Times article (February 15, 1928) noted that

Frederick Mitchell-Hedges was not at Lubaantun in 1928, nor was Anna. The British Museum archaeologist J. Eric S. Thompson was at the site in 1927 and 1928. Thompson wrote about Mitchell-Hedges in Maya Archaeologist (1963), and his characterization was not flattering (p. 73):

Anna eventually settled on the year 1924 for her great find, and specifically on January 1, which was, coincidentally, her 17th birthday. It seems odd that she would initially have such a hazy memory of such a momentous birthday discovery. Her father never mentioned that Anna found the skull, and his 1954 book Danger My Ally was the first account in which he said she even accompanied Lady Richmond Brown and him to British Honduras. According to Mitchell-Hedges's hometown newspaper, the Kundalik pochta had received a cable toward the end of March 1924 from the "explorer" to announce, "that, with Dr. T.W.F. Gann, of Liverpool University, the eminent archaeologist and authority on Honduran antiquities, he [Mitchell-Hedges] had discovered the ruins of a vast Maya city in the heart of British Honduras" (March 31, 1924). The paper quotes Mitchell-Hedges's cable describing the astounding find of a "vast truncated pyramidal mound. The stone structure reared to a height of 300 feet above the valley." A January 24, 1931, letter to the New York Times quotes Mitchell-Hedges as having

According to the article, the British Museum sent T.A. Joyce with the expedition in 1926 and then took over the work.

In response to questions posed by Frank Dorland about the connection of Anna's father to the Museum of the American Indian, Dockstader wrote:

By 1971, Dockstader was thinking about exhibiting the Mitchell-Hedges crystal skull at the Museum of the American Indian, but he was concerned about Phrenology (1970), a book with ties to Dorland, written by Sybil Leek, a British witch. Leek claimed that F.A. Mitchell-Hedges had brought the skull from London ga Central America, and that it may originally have belonged to the Knights Templar, whose main temple was in central London. This upset Dockstader, who wrote Anna asking about the skull's origins. I found no response from her.

In March 1972, Dockstader wrote to Anna that the Crystal Skull would be the centerpiece of an exhibition called "The Skull in Indian Art," but he still had questions:

Notes in British Museum files indicate that archaeologists and curators there worried about the director of the Museum of the American Indian exhibiting the skull without knowing its actual history. Although there was a great deal of hesitancy, it would seem, about calling into question the veracity of the Mitchell-Hedges family, the BM's Eric Thompson apparently found a way to get this information to Dockstader.

Anna's "Statement of Fact" (National Museum of American Indian Archives Collection)

Anna responded with a "Statement of Fact" on official-looking typed letterhead, "Anna Mitchell-Hedges F.R.G.S., F.L.S." Unda shunday deyilgan:

According to Mitchell-Hedges himself, writing in his 1931 book Land of Wonder and Fear (p. 16), the party who "first discovered" Lubaantun "consisted of Lady Richmond Brown, the late Mr. H.S. Tuke, who came with us in order to depict on canvas the true atmosphere of the tropics, Dr. Thomas Gann, and myself."

Gann, who had actually published notes about the ruins in 1903, presumably led Mitchell-Hedges and his party there in 1924. In his book Mystery Cities Exploration and Adventure in Lubaantun, published the following year, Gann noted (pp. 128-129) that Frederick Mitchell-Hedges and Lady Brown had arrived a few days ahead of him, but

One would suppose that if Gann saw fit to mention Michael, the couple's pet monkey, that he would have noted the presence of Mitchell-Hedges's daughter, Anna, but neither he, nor Mitchell-Hedges, nor Lady Richmond Brown ever mention her in connection with this visit. That is, until Frederick Mitchell-Hedges' 1954 book Danger My Ally in which he wrote or, perhaps more accurately, rewrote the history of his Lubaantun expeditions.

The above statements are fabrications. Numerous newspaper accounts describe Lady Richmond Brown and Mitchell-Hedges on expeditions from the early 1920s until the early 1930s. She bankrolled nearly all of their travels, she purchased their yacht, Cara, and donated their finds to the Heye Foundation's Museum of the American Indian. A June 11, 1930, New York Times article noted that Lady Richmond Brown was sued for divorce by her husband, Sir Melville Richmond Brown, naming Mitchell-Hedges as co-respondent. Despite her companion's marriage to Lillian Agnes (Dolly) Clarke, Mitchell-Hedges and Lady Richmond-Brown traveled together for at least a decade. The final split with Midge, as she called him, seems to have occurred when Mabs discovered he'd bigamously married a dancer named Dorothy Copp in New York in 1938. Ms. Copp quickly "divorced" Midge in New Jersey in April 1938, after a life-threatening jungle honeymoon, luridly reported in the Hearst newspapers in May, and written in the same style as Land of Wonder and Fear va Danger My Ally.

Within two months of the very public "divorce," Lady Richmond Brown wrote George Heye, the founder of the Museum of the American Indian, requesting the return of the Cuna collections from Panama that she had donated to his museum. Heye, on a trip to Alaska, responded politely, saying

George Gustav Heye, founder of the Museum of the American Indian (NMAI)

In December of that year, Heye wrote to Mitchell-Hedges,

Midge responded in a January 16, 1939, letter denouncing his former benefactor,

This may be why Mitchell-Hedges wrote Lady Richmond Brown out of his recollections of their expeditions after 1925 in Danger My Ally but since Mabs died in 1946, his version of events would not be contested.

Mitchell-Hedges not only recast Lady Richmond Brown's role in his memoir, but also sought to create more mystery about his Skull of Doom: "How it came into my possession, I have reason for not revealing" (Danger My Ally, p. 243). Anna's explanation of this statement to Dockstader was that her father bought the skull at Sotheby's because,

If Joyce introduced Mitchell-Hedges to Burney and if Midge had wanted to join Joyce's British Museum expedition to Lubaantun, then this would have taken place around 1927. If Burney bor edi lent him the money, then why didn't Mitchell-Hedges return to Lubaantun? Perhaps this was because of his unsuccessful liable suit? But then, why would he leave the skull for years before reclaiming it by purchasing it at the auction house? Another inconsistency is Anna's statement that Joyce introduced her father to Burney, since the Official Mitchell-Hedges Website (accessed 11/08) quotes Anna as saying that Mr. Burney was an old school chum of her father's. If the story about her father buying back his very own (or Anna's very own) artifact were true, why wouldn't he mention this fact in the proud announcement to his own brother? He reports on the collection that "grows and grows and grows," and tells his brother that the newest acquisition is a crystal skull from the Sydney Burney collection. He mentions the skull's close relative in the British Museum, but says nothing about Lubaantun, nor that he thinks it is Maya.


Fonds TUKE - Tuke Family Collection

The Tuke family owned a tea and coffee business in York, and this is where the main branch of the family remained. However, branches of the family were spread across England and Ireland: Sarah Grubb (née Tuke) moved to Clonmel, Ireland, in 1787 where she died in 1790 and Elizabeth Wheeler (née Tuke) and her family lived at Hitchin, Hertfordshire. William Alexander, Ann Alexander (née Tuke)’s husband, was a trader in corn and flour in Suffolk, but in 1808 the Alexanders moved to York, initially running the Trinity Lane School and in 1812 setting up a printing and bookselling business, which was taken over by the Sessions family in 1826. The Copsie family, the family of Henry Tuke’s wife Mary Maria, hailed from Norfolk: John and Favilla Copsie were farmers in Wacton, but the family also seem to have inherited property in Whitwell from John Copsie’s sister. The Hipsley and Priestman families both lived in Hull, at properties named Bellefield and East Mount respectively. Samuel Tuke’s children lived in a York, Hitchin, Scarborough, Sunderland, Newcastle, Saffron Walden, London, Falmouth and Torquay.

In addition to their business concerns, the family were also members of the Society of Friends (Quakers), active in the York Monthly Meeting and regular attendees of Quarterly and Yearly Meetings. Esther Tuke (née Maud), Sarah Grubb (née Tuke), Henry Tuke, Elizabeth Wheeler (née Tuke), Ann Alexander (née Tuke), Esther Priestman (née Tuke) and Samuel Tuke were all ministers, and William Tuke, Mabel Hipsley (née Tuke) and Maria Tuke acted as elders. Esther Tuke (née Maud), Henry Tuke, Sarah Grubb (née Tuke) and Ann Alexander (née Tuke) were all given certificates by their Monthly Meeting to travel around the UK as itinerant ministers, with Sarah also travelling to continental Europe, Henry to Ireland and Ann to Ireland, America and Europe. Henry and Samuel Tuke were notable religious writers, and Samuel Tuke also acted as editor of the Annual Monitor, taking over from its founder, his aunt Ann Alexander (née Tuke), who had established the Quaker journal in 1808.

The Tukes were involved in a range of philanthropic work, some linked to their Quaker faith but also broader reforming campaigns. William Tuke founded The Retreat asylum for Quakers in York in the 1790s, and the Retreat’s moral and humane treatment of the mentally ill became a template for the wider reform of asylums. The family continued to be involved in the administration of The Retreat into the nineteenth century. William and Samuel Tuke were also involved in the campaign to reform the York County Asylum in 1813-1815, and their work at The Retreat led them to be consulted by other asylum reformers: Samuel Tuke was involved in the design for Wakefield Asylum and published ‘A Description of the Retreat’ in 1813. He also visited a number of asylums in Paris on a visit to the city with his sister Maria in August 1824.

The Tukes were also involved in the foundation and management of several schools in Yorkshire. William Tuke and Esther Tuke (née Maud) were involved in the establishment of Ackworth School, a Quaker school founded in 1779 by John Fothergill, and members of the family served as committee members, visitors and examiners there. Esther Tuke (née Maud) went on to found a school for Quaker girls in York, the Trinity Lane School, in 1785. The staff at Trinity Lane School included three of William and Esther’s daughters, Elizabeth, Ann and Mabel, and members of the family served as superintendents until the school’s closure in 1814. Lindley Murray, an American Quaker who had moved to England in 1784 with his wife Hannah, was a close friend of the Tukes and was asked to compile a grammar for the Trinity Lane School, which was published in 1795 and became widely popular, earning him the title of ‘father of English grammar’.

Sarah Tuke (née Grubb) established the Suir Island Girls’ School near her home in Ireland, and the Tukes were involved in the establishment and/or administration of a number of other schools in York, including the British Girls’ School for non-Quaker girls (1812-1896), Bootham Boys’ School (1829-) and its predecessor run by William Simpson in the Retreat’s Appendage on Lawrence Street (1823-1828), Hope Street Boys’ School (1827-), and the Mount School (1835-).

The Quakers were significant supporters of the anti-slavery campaign, and York Quakers, including William Tuke, Henry Tuke, Lindley Murray and Samuel Tuke, supported William Wilberforce’s candidacy for Yorkshire in the 1807 General Election against Henry Lascelles, son of the 1st Earl of Harewood who had extensive plantation holdings in the Caribbean. The Tukes were also members of the Anti-Slavery Society, with a York branch established in 1823, and were active in the Bible Society movement, with Henry Tuke founding the York Auxiliary branch of the Society in 1813. They shared the wider Quaker and Evangelical concern for prisoners, temperance and vice. Samuel and Maria Tuke both visited Newgate Prison and were active in York’s Penitentiary Committee. And in 1822 Samuel Tuke founded a Vagrancy Office in York.

The Tukes were also active in their local community in York through involvement in local and parish government, philanthropy and the provision of financial services and public utilities. In 1845 James Hack Tuke accompanied the Quaker minister and philanthropist William Forster on a tour of North America, and he travelled to Ireland in December 1846, September 1847 and February 1848 at the height of the Great Famine, publishing observations of what he had witnessed. His elder brother, Henry Tuke Jr., also acted as a companion to William Forster, accompanying him on missionary work in France in 1844. Their brother William Murray Tuke was particularly interested in family history, and many of the family history materials within the collection were accumulated by him: he contributed to Joseph Foster’s Pedigrees series.

List of site sources >>>


Videoni tomosha qiling: Clean Bandit and Mabel - Tick Tock feat. S1mba UK Mix Official Lyric Video (Dekabr 2021).