3 ms·

Because it's a fundamentally historicidal act, it's destroying some past artifact solely on the ground of contemporary morality. While not on the same level as

Because it's a fundamentally historicidal act, it's destroying some past artifact solely on the ground of contemporary morality. While not on the same level as, it's the same though process that leads to the destruction of budda statues by the talibans, or the sanding of 13-century religious engravelling by french revolutionary.

stetrain 3y ago
But there is some distinction in the world between things we treat as historical artifacts and those we don't. I haven't seen anyone make a compelling case for why this particular item is a significant historical artifact, other than that it was already in the collection of Harvard Library. We pass up things that could be preserved all the time. Curation is an intrinsic part of preservation.
- mablopoule 3y ago
  Well, if it's not a significant item, does it need to be changed in the first place, then? I agree though about passing things that could be preserved, but it usually involves a tradeoff, when things are too costly to maintain, or old building needs to give place for new one. Even museums aren't the place for a collective diogen syndrom. The slightly heinous thing about this case though is that no tradeoff at all seemed to be involved for this book, no cost of preservation was cited, it's just modifying the past on the lights of very temporal values.
  - yowzadave 3y ago
    > it's just modifying the past I'm not sure what you mean by this; obviously the "history" of the book is known and not being suppressed. Nobody is denying the origin of the book; if it had been a significant historical artifact, I'm sure the judgment would have been different. "You're destroying history!" is a common refrain when Jim Crow-era statues commemorating confederate generals are removed, or when, e.g., the name of a military base is changed. This does not mean that history is being destroyed! Anyone is still welcome to learn anything they want about these historical figures & events.
    - mablopoule 3y ago
      So, with the same argument, nothing of value was lost when taliban destroyed the statues of Buddha, since we can read about those in books? There's value in physical artifact too, it's sad to destroy those out of righteousness. As for the statue, where those statue removed or destroyed/melted ? If it's the latter, then yes it's also historicidal, even if it's for the 'bad guys'.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    > The slightly heinous thing about this case though is that no tradeoff at all seemed to be involved for this book, no cost of preservation was cited The tradeoff is that we have two potential futures here: Option A: Someone's skin non-consensually remains used as the cover of a book. Option B: Someone's skin is returned to their family or buried, and the book is re-covered. What is the benefit of Option A?
    - mablopoule 3y ago
      The binding of the book is part of it's value. It's an almost 150-old piece of skin. Everyone who interacted with that poor woman is long since dead. Everyone who interacted with someone who interacted with that woman is either dead or in mid-to-late 70s, that's how far this is. I would be surprised if there was a 'family' who waited for this moment, and who would ask anything else than just to cremate the piece of skin. I'm parisian, and part of my family is in the region for a long time, and yet it's not like I'm mourning every day because potentially some ancestor's tibia is being used as decoration in the catacombe.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        It's balancing the value (of a human skin book cover) about substitution (a book cover of any other material). It's not that human skin is being used for a purpose: it's that the purpose is trivial and provides no benefit above substitution. The analogy would be if your great-great-grandfather's tibia were being used to hold a door open.
        mablopoule 3y ago
        Well at least I would brag that I have a great-great-grandfather at Harvard :D. Joke aside, I see your point.
        ethbr1 3y ago
        The one detail I was unable to find was "What is the book about?" Ironically, I think I'd be okay with my skin adorning an anatomy textbook!
dbingham 3y ago
No, it's not. This was against contemporary morality in the society in which it was done as well.
astura 3y ago
>it's the same though process that leads to the destruction of budda statues by the talibans I disagree with this. The thought process is "return stolen items" not "destroy stolen items." Harvard doesn't believe it owns the human remains because they were taken without consent (stolen) and wants to return them to the next of kin. This happened recently enough that there's a good chance there's close-ish relatives still living. If the remains were donated willingly for bookbinding it would not be a problem. So what's happening is Harvard is removing part of the book that it believes it doesn't rightfully own (and aren't even original to it!) and are trying returning that part to its rightful owner. They are rebinding the book, not destroying it. >After careful study, stakeholder engagement, and consideration, Harvard Library and the Harvard Museum Collections Returns Committee concluded that the human remains used in the book’s binding no longer belong in the Harvard Library collections, due to the ethically fraught nature of the book’s origins and subsequent history. The Library is now in the process of conducting additional provenance and biographical research into the book, Bouland, and the anonymous female patient, as well as consulting with appropriate authorities at the University and in France to determine a final respectful disposition of these human remains.

stetrain 3y ago

But there is some distinction in the world between things we treat as historical artifacts and those we don't. I haven't seen anyone make a compelling case for why this particular item is a significant historical artifact, other than that it was already in the collection of Harvard Library. We pass up things that could be preserved all the time. Curation is an intrinsic part of preservation.

mablopoule 3y ago
Well, if it's not a significant item, does it need to be changed in the first place, then? I agree though about passing things that could be preserved, but it usually involves a tradeoff, when things are too costly to maintain, or old building needs to give place for new one. Even museums aren't the place for a collective diogen syndrom. The slightly heinous thing about this case though is that no tradeoff at all seemed to be involved for this book, no cost of preservation was cited, it's just modifying the past on the lights of very temporal values.
- yowzadave 3y ago
  > it's just modifying the past I'm not sure what you mean by this; obviously the "history" of the book is known and not being suppressed. Nobody is denying the origin of the book; if it had been a significant historical artifact, I'm sure the judgment would have been different. "You're destroying history!" is a common refrain when Jim Crow-era statues commemorating confederate generals are removed, or when, e.g., the name of a military base is changed. This does not mean that history is being destroyed! Anyone is still welcome to learn anything they want about these historical figures & events.
  - mablopoule 3y ago
    So, with the same argument, nothing of value was lost when taliban destroyed the statues of Buddha, since we can read about those in books? There's value in physical artifact too, it's sad to destroy those out of righteousness. As for the statue, where those statue removed or destroyed/melted ? If it's the latter, then yes it's also historicidal, even if it's for the 'bad guys'.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  > The slightly heinous thing about this case though is that no tradeoff at all seemed to be involved for this book, no cost of preservation was cited The tradeoff is that we have two potential futures here: Option A: Someone's skin non-consensually remains used as the cover of a book. Option B: Someone's skin is returned to their family or buried, and the book is re-covered. What is the benefit of Option A?
  - mablopoule 3y ago
    The binding of the book is part of it's value. It's an almost 150-old piece of skin. Everyone who interacted with that poor woman is long since dead. Everyone who interacted with someone who interacted with that woman is either dead or in mid-to-late 70s, that's how far this is. I would be surprised if there was a 'family' who waited for this moment, and who would ask anything else than just to cremate the piece of skin. I'm parisian, and part of my family is in the region for a long time, and yet it's not like I'm mourning every day because potentially some ancestor's tibia is being used as decoration in the catacombe.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      It's balancing the value (of a human skin book cover) about substitution (a book cover of any other material). It's not that human skin is being used for a purpose: it's that the purpose is trivial and provides no benefit above substitution. The analogy would be if your great-great-grandfather's tibia were being used to hold a door open.
      - mablopoule 3y ago
        Well at least I would brag that I have a great-great-grandfather at Harvard :D. Joke aside, I see your point.
        ethbr1 3y ago
        The one detail I was unable to find was "What is the book about?" Ironically, I think I'd be okay with my skin adorning an anatomy textbook!

dbingham 3y ago

No, it's not. This was against contemporary morality in the society in which it was done as well.

astura 3y ago

>it's the same though process that leads to the destruction of budda statues by the talibans I disagree with this. The thought process is "return stolen items" not "destroy stolen items." Harvard doesn't believe it owns the human remains because they were taken without consent (stolen) and wants to return them to the next of kin. This happened recently enough that there's a good chance there's close-ish relatives still living. If the remains were donated willingly for bookbinding it would not be a problem. So what's happening is Harvard is removing part of the book that it believes it doesn't rightfully own (and aren't even original to it!) and are trying returning that part to its rightful owner. They are rebinding the book, not destroying it. >After careful study, stakeholder engagement, and consideration, Harvard Library and the Harvard Museum Collections Returns Committee concluded that the human remains used in the book’s binding no longer belong in the Harvard Library collections, due to the ethically fraught nature of the book’s origins and subsequent history. The Library is now in the process of conducting additional provenance and biographical research into the book, Bouland, and the anonymous female patient, as well as consulting with appropriate authorities at the University and in France to determine a final respectful disposition of these human remains.