Summary Of Forensic Anthropology

Forensic anthropology complements humans rights work in many ways, as summarized in Burns’ article. Burns breaks apart forensic anthropology and human rights work, by describing what the fields are fundamentally as well as, describing the history of forensic anthropology and the steps a forensic scientist takes. Burns also shows how each discipline promotes each other, differ from one another, are enacted simultaneously and what they can accomplish. Altogether, Burns argues that human rights crimes are happening everywhere, specifically in places that are said to be dedicated to human rights, such as the citizens of the Philippines who are held at gun point. Forensic anthropology can help amend this worldly problem by providing physical evidence
and identifying the deceased individuals. These concepts will be further explained in the article evaluation. Forensic anthropology and human rights work mesh and work well together, but they still need to be treated and understood as separate entities. Human rights are freedoms which are believed to be necessary for the human race. Forensic anthropology means to identify a deceased body, which is done through careful excavation, obtaining records, interviewing living relatives, DNA analysis, analyzing remains and writing a report on the findings. As scientists, forensic anthropologists are trained to acknowledge, understand and interpret human rights, in their scientific method and techniques.
As Burn mention in the article, anthropologists are trained to have a broad and responsive perspective of cultural/linguistic differences. Cultural and linguistic viewpoints aid in death investigations, because an unbiased viewpoint of the deceased is provided along with physical evidence. In the article, with the mixture of physical evidence, an unbiased viewpoint, and identification of the decease forensic anthropology can greatly aid human rights work in the prosecution process. Whereas with human rights cases solely relying on “verbal testimony”, Burns argues the combination of verbal and physical evidence is more effective in human rights cases. This can all be seen through “professional organizations,” which Burns exemplifies The Minnesota Lawyers International Human Rights Committee. A committee who sees the importance of forming a group of scientists, to write the “Minnesota Protocol,” in order to aid death investigations throughout the
world. Though forensic anthropology complements human rights work, these disciplines also differ. They differ through who carries out the crime,— “psychopath in Chicago” and the “Camacho [the camp commander]”—cultural viewpoints and the length of work. Cultural viewpoint is a major factor in difference. Without the anthropological side, human rights work would be lacking in another viewpoint, that could make the perspective more broad and less bias. Forensic anthropology and human rights work are enacted simultaneously through “Human Rights Missions”, which consist of the preliminary, exploration and excavation stages.
The major people and entities needed in these missions are: families/NGO’s, consultants, international human rights groups, funders, scientists and local workers/students, all of which play a vital role in the process of identifying the body and trauma that it holds. Overall, the significance of Burns’ article is not only does forensic anthropology complement human rights work, but human rights work complements forensic anthropology. Moreover, human rights work complements anthropological work as a whole, and this interdisciplinary work can be seen throughout each of the other articles as
well. In Ousley etal.’s article, the idea of NAGPRA and repatriation is linked to human rights, to protect the graves and remains (“cultural affiliation”) of Native American ancestors. Through the NAGPRA, physical anthropologists can better understand Native American culture, and Native Americans can better understand physical anthropology motives. Ousley etal.’s also states in the article, that some Native Americans consequently show interest in the DNA analysis of who their ancestors really are. In Blakey’s article, the entire field of African American physical anthropology and biohistory initially was misconstrued due to lack of human rights of African Americans. The fields of physical anthropology and biohistory of African Americans, solely showed a caucasian male perspective and it took many years and many human rights case for it to be fully accurate, and less bias—from all perspectives. This is seen in the New York burials dating back to the 1600s, where a new knowledge of African diaspora was unearthed by forensic anthropologists. As seen in the Burns article, forensic anthropology can aid in prosecution of human rights. In this case of the New York burials, the discovery and excavation of this site brought forth new knowledge towards the human rights of African Americans and their diaspora in the Americas. In Kanz and Grossschmidt’s article, the forensic analysis of a believed Roman gladiator cemetery lacks of human rights work. Gladiators hold the aspect of honor and by excavating them, dishonor may arise in the present day culture of these people. If a Human Rights Mission was setup similar to Burns’ missions, the culture of these gladiators and present day people, would be better understood and less speculated today. In summation, one can see how the field and disciplines of anthropology can benefit and progress with the consistent use of human rights work.