Harvard University removes human skin binding from book(library.harvard.edu)
library.harvard.edu
Harvard University removes human skin binding from book
https://library.harvard.edu/statement-des-destinees-de-lame
106 comments
Absolutely indefensible position. Destroying artifacts and evidence of the past simply because we don't agree with what happened in the past is a vile sin that our descendants will never forgive us for.
As a Marine, you are probably aware Marines assisted the toppling of the famous Saddam Hussein statue?
And you are probably aware that Saddam was alive and had just been deposed at that time. It wasn't the past, nor was it an artifact. It wasn't in a museum or a library's special collection. And the Marines didn't destroy it (though the Iraqis appear to have).
Afaik Marines did burn his LM002, which is a piece of art and important historical artifact :-)
https://www.carscoops.com/2007/10/war-crimes-soldiers-destro...
https://www.carscoops.com/2007/10/war-crimes-soldiers-destro...
Would it be okay if the skin, instead of being from an anonymous hospital patient it were from Abe Lincoln, or Sitting Bull, Mahatma Gandhi or Susan B Anthony?
the book itself was re-bound.
I believe Harvard destroyed all the nude student photos, would you have insisted they kept those too? I don’t see much value in either.
I agree, destruction of important heritage with absolutely ridiculous claims. Taliban level shit.
If one were to slice the ear off of a dead body, mount it, and frame it on their wall, at what point does it stop being gross evidence of a crime and start becoming an important historical artifact and part of our heritage?
How many months, how many years? Does it matter if the person who did it is a respected scholar or a convicted serial killer?
How many months, how many years? Does it matter if the person who did it is a respected scholar or a convicted serial killer?
[deleted]
We are talking about human remains here.
If this was the skin of your grandmother’s grandmother, how would your grandmother feel about it being used a hazing ritual?
Using the balance of probabilities it is likely that the unidentified person’s family would not want that to happen and is likely they would want their grandmother back.
This being a woman is only relevant because, in that era it was more likely to be a woman, I.e. consent was not seen as important when do things to/with women’s bodies.
If this was the skin of your grandmother’s grandmother, how would your grandmother feel about it being used a hazing ritual?
Using the balance of probabilities it is likely that the unidentified person’s family would not want that to happen and is likely they would want their grandmother back.
This being a woman is only relevant because, in that era it was more likely to be a woman, I.e. consent was not seen as important when do things to/with women’s bodies.
So, the solution is to remove it from public access so it cannot be used in disrespectful practices. Not to destroy the artifact. Especially not by a university or any institution supposedly preserving knowledge and culture. (And yes, most of human history is nasty.)
It's a strange warping of preservation that means you'd rather the book be inaccessible but complete than accessible but complete in content.
It isn't a strange warping of preservation, it's EXACTLY what preservation means. Destruction is always and everywhere the opposite of preservation.
Especially when it is not the content, but the nature of the object that make it unique and historic. I could understand if this was only copy in the world of the text inside, but that does not seem to be case.
Certainly one of the stranger parts (to me) of visiting old Catholic churches is seeing the reliquaries [1].
Since I'm an atheist, I don't really have particularly strong feelings about what happens after I die (ideally: reasonably green, so composting seems better than cremation). And yet, it is weird to imagine my doctor or mortician taking some part of my body for their personal collection (imagine a tooth or finger).
With that in mind, I understand these posts. Harvard: "whoa guys this is skin!" To "sorry we called you all guys [2], and sorry we were shocked and sensational in our discussion of this artifact"
What should they do? It makes sense to have human attendants manage the book if you want it to be accessible in the collection. At least then they can warn would-be viewers (since that's a thing they want to do)
They could just donate the book to a museum? Then nobody really touches it and it's probably well-preserved. They could remove (but preserve) the skin. I imagine that's what they've done, which seems ok. Anyone can use the book, researchers can study the skin
The book-skin combo artifact doesn't seem particularly special to me - is it worth preserving as a whole unit? I'm surprised so many others in the comments think so
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliquary#:~:text=A%20reliqu....
[2] this is a joke
[3] thinking about this, I can't imagine human skin is the best binding for a book, but I do appreciate that it would be possible to say "I really don't care what happens to my skin" or to otherwise be ok with this. It doesn't seem like this was the case for this book, though.
Since I'm an atheist, I don't really have particularly strong feelings about what happens after I die (ideally: reasonably green, so composting seems better than cremation). And yet, it is weird to imagine my doctor or mortician taking some part of my body for their personal collection (imagine a tooth or finger).
With that in mind, I understand these posts. Harvard: "whoa guys this is skin!" To "sorry we called you all guys [2], and sorry we were shocked and sensational in our discussion of this artifact"
What should they do? It makes sense to have human attendants manage the book if you want it to be accessible in the collection. At least then they can warn would-be viewers (since that's a thing they want to do)
They could just donate the book to a museum? Then nobody really touches it and it's probably well-preserved. They could remove (but preserve) the skin. I imagine that's what they've done, which seems ok. Anyone can use the book, researchers can study the skin
The book-skin combo artifact doesn't seem particularly special to me - is it worth preserving as a whole unit? I'm surprised so many others in the comments think so
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliquary#:~:text=A%20reliqu....
[2] this is a joke
[3] thinking about this, I can't imagine human skin is the best binding for a book, but I do appreciate that it would be possible to say "I really don't care what happens to my skin" or to otherwise be ok with this. It doesn't seem like this was the case for this book, though.
While we're discussing flaying and I'm discussing catholicism, you all should look at the St Bartholomew statue: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_d%27Agrate
I think it’s a reasonable explanation to a reasonable moral decision. Good for Harvard
I don't understand some of the comments wanting to preserve "history". If you read the post you will find that it was the book's first owner who decided to alter the book and it's not the original work.
So what's your point, we should glorify some sick mind who thought it was a good idea to take and use human remains to decorate his library?
Removing the binding from the book was the right decision. Returning the victim's remains to their descendants and trying to find more context on how their loved one perished is also absolutely the right decision.
So what's your point, we should glorify some sick mind who thought it was a good idea to take and use human remains to decorate his library?
Removing the binding from the book was the right decision. Returning the victim's remains to their descendants and trying to find more context on how their loved one perished is also absolutely the right decision.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well at least I would brag that I have a great-great-grandfather at Harvard :D.
Joke aside, I see your point.
Joke aside, I see your point.
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!
Ironically, I think I'd be okay with my skin adorning an anatomy textbook!
Oh, I haven't realized that the name of the book wasn't in English! It's "Des destinées de l’âme", which translates to "Of the fates of soul".
From what I've gathered it's a writer/poet/actor striken by grief who ponders about what happens after death, and about the notion of a soul, both historically (he seems to be speaking a bit about hinduism and greco-roman conceptions of a soul), philosophically, and theologically.
While this still doesn't justify the initial act of using someone skins, knowing the title in french makes it clear that there is a posthumous thematic, I haven't realized that it may not be obvious to non-french speakers.
From what I've gathered it's a writer/poet/actor striken by grief who ponders about what happens after death, and about the notion of a soul, both historically (he seems to be speaking a bit about hinduism and greco-roman conceptions of a soul), philosophically, and theologically.
While this still doesn't justify the initial act of using someone skins, knowing the title in french makes it clear that there is a posthumous thematic, I haven't realized that it may not be obvious to non-french speakers.
Yeah, the title was easy enough to translate and mentioned in most English news, but I was disappointed that none of the articles (or anywhere else I could find on the internet) summarized the book's content.
That's definitely a bit more debatable, for thematic purposes as you said, but I think I (personally) would want some utility in the book (instead of a more artistic or philosophical work) to justify a skin cover.
That's definitely a bit more debatable, for thematic purposes as you said, but I think I (personally) would want some utility in the book (instead of a more artistic or philosophical work) to justify a skin cover.
> 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.
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.
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'.
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'.
No, it's not. This was against contemporary morality in the society in which it was done as well.
>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.
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.
Custodians are not supposed to destroy what is in their care. This is not about the book, this is about the artefact. The time, the reasons, the history behind it. If that is how it came to us, and that is how it has been preserved, then there is no point in changing it. They could have written their reservations, taken the opportunity to do some ethical pedagogy about it (by far not the only artefact made of human skin, by the way), contextualised it, explained it. But to destroy it? Totally unjustifiable decision.
I'm willing to bet that if the skin weren't from a random hospital patient but instead of one of France's ex-colonies' subjects, the move to remove this binding from the book would be met more positively --but because it's an anonymous patient, they can't connect to, it's more acceptable.
Numerous Holocaust museums and memorials are scattered across Europe, including former concentration camps, where high school students and adults visit to remember—and hopefully never forget—the lessons humanity learned during that period.
It's a soul-crushing experience that offers both small and large lessons, which should suffice to help people distinguish between right and wrong (and dispel any doubt that the book binding should be removed). Even for those who have never visited any of these sites, probably every corner of the world has had its share of historical lessons that (should) reinforce this understanding.
It's a soul-crushing experience that offers both small and large lessons, which should suffice to help people distinguish between right and wrong (and dispel any doubt that the book binding should be removed). Even for those who have never visited any of these sites, probably every corner of the world has had its share of historical lessons that (should) reinforce this understanding.
Aren't you implicitly acknowledging this is violent in some way? Of course not at the level you're brining up, but given the comparison, it would seem you're implying some wrong where keeping this is a reminder of the wrong done to an anonymous patient by a doctor?
I think we can have the reminder without the binding actually hanging there?
I don't know if was violent, it's not what I was trying to imply. In my mind it resonates with "this was a person and someone decided to use them for decoration". Knowing this happened is enough to take the appropriate action, there is no harm in documenting all this, of course.
I don't know if was violent, it's not what I was trying to imply. In my mind it resonates with "this was a person and someone decided to use them for decoration". Knowing this happened is enough to take the appropriate action, there is no harm in documenting all this, of course.
Would you say the same thing about items donated to holocaust museums? (https://www.timesofisrael.com/researchers-find-nazi-photo-al...)
It is well known that the Nazis created items like lamps, books and other items from human remains. Should all of them be buried? Or should we keep them in museums to remember the crimes?
I can see the justification for both sides, but I personally would prefer for the items to be preserved.
It is well known that the Nazis created items like lamps, books and other items from human remains. Should all of them be buried? Or should we keep them in museums to remember the crimes?
I can see the justification for both sides, but I personally would prefer for the items to be preserved.
Don't make personal attacks on HN. If you have an argument, feel free to voice it, even strenuously, but it's considered gauche here to address people who disagree with you directly and comment on them or their personal motives.
How is the parent comment a “personal attack”?
Who is being personally attacked? The first owner who decided to flay a human corpse and wrap their personal items with it? I think "sick" is an appropriate adjective.
Expressing an opinion you disagree with isn't a "personal attack."
"So what's your point, we should glorify some sick mind who thought it was a good idea to take and use human remains to decorate his library?"
Impugning the motives of people you disagree with is a personal attack, and it's unacceptable behavior.
Impugning the motives of people you disagree with is a personal attack, and it's unacceptable behavior.
No it's not, dude.
Yes, it inarguably is. There is no room for reasonable disagreement on this issue of objective fact. Attacking something personal—such as motive—is a personal attack.
"Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, MOTIVE, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (emphasis added)
Arguing against preservation of an artifact—based on the the opponent's ostensible motive that "we should glorify some sick mind" who created the artifact—is a personal attack. It is unbecoming, and it is prohibited on HN.
"Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, MOTIVE, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem (emphasis added)
Arguing against preservation of an artifact—based on the the opponent's ostensible motive that "we should glorify some sick mind" who created the artifact—is a personal attack. It is unbecoming, and it is prohibited on HN.
Have you considered going outside?
I fear we've elevated 'consent' to absurd proportions. Every country in the world was built by those who didn't consent to build it (by serfdom, slavery, ..).
I hope this is preserved; what a pointless waste otherwise. How are we to imagine the deceased here? A person outraged at the insult, or one now doubly outraged at the waste?
I hope this is preserved; what a pointless waste otherwise. How are we to imagine the deceased here? A person outraged at the insult, or one now doubly outraged at the waste?
I don't consider myself much concerned with my body after death.
But I'd feel some kind of way if someone flayed my skin off my cadaver to make a book cover.
Even being a skeleton in an anatomy class seems more purposeful.
But I'd feel some kind of way if someone flayed my skin off my cadaver to make a book cover.
Even being a skeleton in an anatomy class seems more purposeful.
But what about your family? How would they feel about your skin being used as a hazing ritual?
If it hasn’t been donated by the family, what right does the university have over it?
If it hasn’t been donated by the family, what right does the university have over it?
How would you feel if after a century of your skin being on a book, that was then 'disposed of'?
This 'disposing' isnt being consented to either. Why should it be that non-consentual creation is a sin, but not non-consentual destruction?
This 'disposing' isnt being consented to either. Why should it be that non-consentual creation is a sin, but not non-consentual destruction?
“Disposed of” is what we do with corpses usually. Society tends to put quite a lot of weight on doing it the right way.
If your home town was invaded tonight, everyone you know and love there killed, and their skin used to upholster the president’s favorite recliner, would that make their remains an artifact now? What more is there to learn in keeping a corpse unburied in this case?
If your home town was invaded tonight, everyone you know and love there killed, and their skin used to upholster the president’s favorite recliner, would that make their remains an artifact now? What more is there to learn in keeping a corpse unburied in this case?
Exactly.
I don't bill myself as an expert on early 20th-century burial practices in America, but I'm willing the hazard the default expectation was "ground" rather than "use to make a book cover."
Ergo, it seems in keeping with the deceased's likely wishes to properly bury their remains.
I don't bill myself as an expert on early 20th-century burial practices in America, but I'm willing the hazard the default expectation was "ground" rather than "use to make a book cover."
Ergo, it seems in keeping with the deceased's likely wishes to properly bury their remains.
But that’s not what happened or is happening with the skin.
>> The volume’s first owner, French physician and bibliophile Dr. Ludovic Bouland (1839–1933), bound the book with skin he took without consent from the body of a deceased female patient in a hospital where he worked.
That's... a thing you can do. Yeesh.
Bet he was a Lovecraft fan in his final years.
That's... a thing you can do. Yeesh.
Bet he was a Lovecraft fan in his final years.
This feels utterly symbolic and pointless, and part of a modern and misguided need to right the wrongs of the past (which is not actually possible to do) rather than just continuing to the make the present and future better.
Agreed that symbolic moves like this are often release valves for the pressure that ought to be applied to improving things really, but the pearl clenching about the loss of some remarkable piece of history in this thread is the hilarious mirror on the topic.
It’s certainly meaningful to acknowledge the past and alter the way we celebrate it, including by deciding the things we take forward with us.
It’s certainly meaningful to acknowledge the past and alter the way we celebrate it, including by deciding the things we take forward with us.
Book photo and more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/literature/s/TdIZ4ONtB2
I think it's pretty important that unholy grimoires remain bound in human skin as a warning to the fools who might read the book, thank you very much.
Seriously, look up the book. It sounds like a polite description of a necromantic grimoire.
Seriously, look up the book. It sounds like a polite description of a necromantic grimoire.
It's a pity for preservation of history. The act was bizarre and probably incorrect, but it happened. Why not put the book on some museal status and restrict access to serious researchers?
Fascinating stuff. While I can understand the decision and defend it, how is it really any different from making mummies 'properly' buried according to our current rituals?
I would hazard a guess that the remains of a mummy still present interesting research opportunities, whereas the skin here is just skin, and there’s no real value in keeping it around other than the sensational. IIRC last time I was at the Museum of History in Ottawa they had noted that many of the indigenous artifacts on display are replicas - for many artifacts where they felt everything that they could learn had been learned, they have returned the originals to the people they were taken from. I feel this is a similar story.
A physician binding a book in the skin of his patient seems like a sick psychopathic power move. This is similar to the recent case of a surgeon who branded a transplanted liver with his initials.
The removal of the skin binding is symbolic, and is a small initiative in the gestalt of righting historical wrongs and creating a just society.
The removal of the skin binding is symbolic, and is a small initiative in the gestalt of righting historical wrongs and creating a just society.
> This is similar to the recent case of a surgeon who branded a transplanted liver with his initials.
It’s not that similar, is it? Most people would object to the doctor flaying grandma, but there are interviews with that surgeon’s former transplant patients who don’t seem too bothered they may have been branded.
It’s not that similar, is it? Most people would object to the doctor flaying grandma, but there are interviews with that surgeon’s former transplant patients who don’t seem too bothered they may have been branded.
> surgeon who branded a transplanted liver with his initials
If anything, I'd be happy if the surgeon engraved his initials on my liver. This likely means he was proud of his work.
OTOH, I've seen people evading any mention of their name in the public releases of software code of horrendous quality by institutions, so I can relate this to my profession. Anonymous work correlates with bad work.
If anything, I'd be happy if the surgeon engraved his initials on my liver. This likely means he was proud of his work.
OTOH, I've seen people evading any mention of their name in the public releases of software code of horrendous quality by institutions, so I can relate this to my profession. Anonymous work correlates with bad work.
There is no such thing as a just society that does actions of this type. Destroying evidence of the past to fit your worldview is fundamentally unjust.
I guess time passed? There are no potential relatives to Tutankhamen that might make claims. I would be rather pissed if there was a book with my great grandmas mentally ill sister's skin on it.
In a similar vain, there are a lot of skeletons and organs collected from dead mental patients in universities that did not get proper consent.
In a similar vain, there are a lot of skeletons and organs collected from dead mental patients in universities that did not get proper consent.
Were mummies not usually aware of, and presumably consented, to mummification before death?
And then there’s the angle of sparing library staff from handling the human skin.
And then there’s the angle of sparing library staff from handling the human skin.
I am not an Egypt buff, but that contradicts my understanding of that civilization so I apologize in advance if that is not accurate.
Some pharaohs took their slaves to the other sides and as I understand, those slaves were mummified to travel to the next world.
As for the anguish, is it any different really than holding any other significant artifact with a story behind it ( executioner's sword, kingdom's crown that changed hands often )? Is the issue that skin is just too visceral and it was easier for university to 'remove skin' than hire less squeamish help?
Some pharaohs took their slaves to the other sides and as I understand, those slaves were mummified to travel to the next world.
As for the anguish, is it any different really than holding any other significant artifact with a story behind it ( executioner's sword, kingdom's crown that changed hands often )? Is the issue that skin is just too visceral and it was easier for university to 'remove skin' than hire less squeamish help?
[deleted]
Are mummies general kept in a general library where anyone can poke at it upon request?
I mean, the fact students spent decades challenging each other to touch it (and the library did nothing to prevent it) might be a start
There was no consent.
But why is the current value-set overriding historical curiosity owned by Harvard to the point that they effectively destroy some of its uniqueness due to current mores and focus on 'consent'.
I guess the real question is 'why do you think consent overrides everything else and, more importantly, should we disassemble pyramids, because they were built without the consent of its slave labor?'
I guess the real question is 'why do you think consent overrides everything else and, more importantly, should we disassemble pyramids, because they were built without the consent of its slave labor?'
I wish I could witness the dressing room discussions of the French authorities when they have to deal with these holier-than-thou Harvard "ethicists", while pretending to take them seriously so as not to upset them.
edit: next step, harvard ppl studying the consent about random ossuaires in France https://www.cntraveler.com/galleries/2014-10-24/10-creepiest...
edit: next step, harvard ppl studying the consent about random ossuaires in France https://www.cntraveler.com/galleries/2014-10-24/10-creepiest...
I honestly think the reason why these stories get press is that we all get to have an opinion, but it ultimately doesn’t matter.
It’s a historical artifact. The change adds a historical significance. The symbolic value is minimal vs the information.
It’s a book.
It’s a historical artifact. The change adds a historical significance. The symbolic value is minimal vs the information.
It’s a book.
gee i wonder why aliens never visit
I find the notion of using human skin for a book binding horrible and macabre even if consent was given. One would have to question the mind of anyone who found the practice acceptable.
Just reading the title alone heightened my sensibilities as it immediately reminded me of such Nazis atrocities where they made objects out of the skin of their victims.
That was my emotional self talking and I'd expect it would always be my initial reaction, but when my rational self kicked in moments later I immediately asked what motivated these Harvard idiots to so act, was it out of some kind of perverse political correctness? If not, then what was their motivation?
It seems to me these people are both unprofessional and irresponsible and should not be charged with the responsibility of housing and managing important historical items. The principal responsibilities of museums is to preserve historical artifacts in their original unaltered form as is best possible and keep them safely housed for posterity and for the benefit and education of future generations.
It is not the job of museums to alter museum pieces because they don't like some aspect about them, and to do so clearly smacks of vandalism. If an institution is so offended by some object in its collection then it can either remove it from normal viewing and make it only available to researchers, or alternatively, give it to another museum that does not take offense (there'll always be others willing to take the object off their hands).
Let's put this book into perspective. There are aspects about it that are deemed sordid by today's ethical standards but that does not devalue its historical significance, in fact a knowledge and understanding of how the object acquired these attributes make it all the more important from an historical perspective, ipso facto it will also be more valuable. Vandalizing it will make it less so on every account.
Now let's compare the historical aspects of this book with other objects commonly found in many museums that also could be deemed to have 'sordid' backgrounds. If other museums similarly applied Harvard's sanctimonious ethical attitudes to this class of items in their collections then many thousands of objects would have to be withdrawn from display.
For instance, modern and ancient weapons of war—guns, howitzers, Roman, Greek and Viking swords, and a myriad of other things whose very existence—their raison d'être—is based on ethical standards that many of us today would now consider abhorrent and repugnant but we don't alter or destroy them.
Similarly, after WWII we didn't destroy hideous places such as Auschwitz and Buchenwald but kept them for their great historical significance and to remind present and future generations of the horrors that took place there.
What I find outrageous is that these days many professionals find it acceptable to try to 'correct' history (as in the case of this Harvard book). Why they cannot see and just accept that ethical and societal values were very different in the past than now—and that every era had its own standards and ethical values, many of which were brutal.
Over recent decades there's a collective lemming-like cultural attitude developed amongst many professionals who ought to know better, they refuse to criticize idiocy and outright hypocrisy even at the expense of both their professionalism and their professions, and they often so act out of fear of being labeled politically incorrect.
I'm damned if I know how these people can ditch logic and reason and still live with their consciences.
Just reading the title alone heightened my sensibilities as it immediately reminded me of such Nazis atrocities where they made objects out of the skin of their victims.
That was my emotional self talking and I'd expect it would always be my initial reaction, but when my rational self kicked in moments later I immediately asked what motivated these Harvard idiots to so act, was it out of some kind of perverse political correctness? If not, then what was their motivation?
It seems to me these people are both unprofessional and irresponsible and should not be charged with the responsibility of housing and managing important historical items. The principal responsibilities of museums is to preserve historical artifacts in their original unaltered form as is best possible and keep them safely housed for posterity and for the benefit and education of future generations.
It is not the job of museums to alter museum pieces because they don't like some aspect about them, and to do so clearly smacks of vandalism. If an institution is so offended by some object in its collection then it can either remove it from normal viewing and make it only available to researchers, or alternatively, give it to another museum that does not take offense (there'll always be others willing to take the object off their hands).
Let's put this book into perspective. There are aspects about it that are deemed sordid by today's ethical standards but that does not devalue its historical significance, in fact a knowledge and understanding of how the object acquired these attributes make it all the more important from an historical perspective, ipso facto it will also be more valuable. Vandalizing it will make it less so on every account.
Now let's compare the historical aspects of this book with other objects commonly found in many museums that also could be deemed to have 'sordid' backgrounds. If other museums similarly applied Harvard's sanctimonious ethical attitudes to this class of items in their collections then many thousands of objects would have to be withdrawn from display.
For instance, modern and ancient weapons of war—guns, howitzers, Roman, Greek and Viking swords, and a myriad of other things whose very existence—their raison d'être—is based on ethical standards that many of us today would now consider abhorrent and repugnant but we don't alter or destroy them.
Similarly, after WWII we didn't destroy hideous places such as Auschwitz and Buchenwald but kept them for their great historical significance and to remind present and future generations of the horrors that took place there.
What I find outrageous is that these days many professionals find it acceptable to try to 'correct' history (as in the case of this Harvard book). Why they cannot see and just accept that ethical and societal values were very different in the past than now—and that every era had its own standards and ethical values, many of which were brutal.
Over recent decades there's a collective lemming-like cultural attitude developed amongst many professionals who ought to know better, they refuse to criticize idiocy and outright hypocrisy even at the expense of both their professionalism and their professions, and they often so act out of fear of being labeled politically incorrect.
I'm damned if I know how these people can ditch logic and reason and still live with their consciences.
[deleted]
Was expecting a similar rebinding
This is wrong approach. Correct would be to kick out and revoke degrees of anyone involved on hazing on both sides. And then limit the access to book. Set up some committee or something if you have trouble deciding who to allow access and who not.
By this reasoning, we should destroy all buildings that were constructed with slave labor; and all jewelry with gems acquired by similar means.
That's not actually the reasoning given in TFA.
It is a corollary.
Still, if the human remains are an issue, well - in numerous ritual burials of rulers, there are remains of servants or concubines. In most cases, we can assume it was not consensual.
In this case - should we cremate (or otherwise destroy, according to our contemporary customs) these human remains?
Still, if the human remains are an issue, well - in numerous ritual burials of rulers, there are remains of servants or concubines. In most cases, we can assume it was not consensual.
In this case - should we cremate (or otherwise destroy, according to our contemporary customs) these human remains?
It is a little curious that the skin was applied with consent, but not removed with it.
I was lead to believe that Harvard was where smart people were. The simple thing to do would be to remove the book from circulation, not destroy the thing that made it interesting.
I was lead to believe that Harvard was where smart people were. The simple thing to do would be to remove the book from circulation, not destroy the thing that made it interesting.
I err towards saying that this isn't quite the full story, and the people involved are reasonable and sensitive to issues we aren't privy to.
If not, then it seems that academia has jumped the shark. It was fine, in their own worlds, for academics to turn themselves into reverent peal-clutching guests of the King, pathologically afraid of disputation, insult and offence (or, how extreme: challenging students).
But the world isnt theres...
If not, then it seems that academia has jumped the shark. It was fine, in their own worlds, for academics to turn themselves into reverent peal-clutching guests of the King, pathologically afraid of disputation, insult and offence (or, how extreme: challenging students).
But the world isnt theres...