Anthropology of Violent Death E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Serie: Forensic Science in Focus
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 911

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

The first book to specifically focus on the theoretical foundations of humanitarian forensic science Anthropology of Violent Death: Theoretical Foundations for Forensic Humanitarian Action consolidates the concepts and theories that are central to securing the posthumous dignity of the deceased, respecting their memories, and addressing the needs of the surviving populations affected. Focusing on the social and cultural significance of the deceased, this much-needed volume develops a theoretical framework that extends the role of humanitarian workers and specifically the actions of forensic scientists beyond an exclusively legal and technical approach. Anthropology of Violent Death is designed to inspire and alerts the scientific community, authorities, and the justice systems to think and take actions to avoid the moral injury in society and cultures due to grave disrespect against humanity, its memories and reconciliation. Humanitarian forensic science faces the role of mediator between the deceased and those who are still alive to guarantee the respect and dignity of humanity. Contributions from renowned experts address post-mortem dignity, cultural perceptions of violent death and various mortuary sites, the forms and critical effects of the so-called forensic turn and humanitarian action, the treatment of violent death in post-conflict societies, respect for the dead under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Islamic law, the ethical management of the death of migrants, and much more. * In an increasingly violent world, this volume, develops a theoretical component for death management in scenarios where humanitarian action is required * Facilities better understanding between the social sciences, the forensic sciences, and justice systems in situations involving violent death * Discusses the latest theories from leading scholars and practitioners to enhance the activities of forensic scientists and authorities who have the difficult responsibility of making decisions * It provides a better understanding of the humanitarian and cultural dilemmas in the face of violent death episodes, and the unresolved needs of the dignity of the deceased during armed conflicts, disasters, migration crises, including everyday homicides Anthropology of Violent Death: Theoretical Foundations for Forensic Humanitarian Action is an indispensable resource for forensic scientists, humanitarian workers, human rights defenders, and government and non-governmental officials.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

About the editors

List of contributors

Foreword

Notes

Preface

Notes

Series Preface

Acknowledgments

CHAPTER 1: The anthropology of violent death and the treatment of the bodies: an introduction

Notes

References

CHAPTER 2: The posthumous dignity of dead persons

2.1 Introduction: generations and posthumous dignity

2.2 The dead and posthumous dignity

2.3 Evidence for posthumous dignity

2.4 Duties flowing from posthumous dignity

2.5 The nature of posthumous dignity

2.6 Semantic debates about posthumous dignity

2.7 Breaches of posthumous dignity

2.8 Restoration of posthumous dignity

2.9 Conclusion: the impact of posthumous dignity

Notes

References

CHAPTER 3: Continuing bonds and social memory: absence–presence

3.1 What are continuing bonds and how are they experienced and expressed?

3.2 Continuing bonds and the well‐being of mourners

3.3 Implications for professional service providers

References

CHAPTER 4: The archaeology of disappearance

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Disappearance and power: concealment, dispersal, and virtualization

4.3 Material disappearance, human disappearance

4.4 The disappearance of disappearance

4.5 Concluding Remarks

Note

References

CHAPTER 5: Bioarchaeology of violent death

5.1 Introduction and background

5.2 Categories of group‐level violent death

5.3 Case studies illustrating integrative approaches to massacres in the past

5.4 Differentiating between kratophanous violence and ritualized death

5.5 Conclusions

References

CHAPTER 6: Destruction, mass violence, and human remains: Dealing with dead bodies as a “total social phenomenon”

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Understanding the forms taken by the Forensic Turn, and its effects

6.3 Understanding the genealogy of professional practices of disinterment

6.4 The blind spots of a total social phenomenon of great complexity

6.5 Conclusion

Notes

References

CHAPTER 7: Kill, kill again and destroy: when death is not enough

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Dehumanizing

7.3 When death is not enough

7.4 Dismembering/mutilating: the perspective from culture

7.5 Conclusions

Notes

References

CHAPTER 8: Mourning violent deaths and disappearances

8.1 Introduction

8.2 The conflictive mourning of the dead and missing after the First World War

8.3 Enduring bonds of the living, the dead, and the disappeared in Argentina

8.4 Oscillatory mourning of the dead and the disappeared by the bereaved

8.5 Conclusion

Notes

References

CHAPTER 9: Whose humanitarianism, whose forensic anthropology?

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Positionality of the authors

9.3 Reconceptualizing violent deaths

9.4 The dead as articipants

4

in forensic anthropology

9.5 What's missing from human rights

9.6 The continued expansion of forensic anthropology

Notes

References

CHAPTER 10: Battlefields and killed in action: tombs of the unknown soldier and commemoration

10.1 Introduction

10.2 Tomb of the unknown soldier

10.3 Mutilated victory

10.4 As an Epilogue

Notes

References

CHAPTER 11: Mass grave protection and missing persons

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Missing persons in mass graves: a worldwide phenomenon

11.3 The legal framework for mass grave protection

11.4 Practicalities of protection

11.5 Protection on a global scale

11.6 Conclusion: the need to do better

Note

References

CHAPTER 12: Respect for the dead under international law and Islamic law in armed conflicts

12.1 Introduction

12.2 The Legal Framework

12.3 Search for, Collect, and Evacuate the Dead without Adverse Distinction

12.4 Identification and Recording of Information on the Dead

12.5 Respecting the Dead and Dignified Treatment

12.6 Respectful Disposal of the Dead

12.7 Gravesites and Other Locations of Mortal Remains

12.8 Exhumations

12.9 Return of Human Remains and Personal Effects of the Dead

12.10 Conclusion

Notes

References

CHAPTER 13: Unmaking forgotten mass graves and honorable burials: engaging with the Spanish civil war legacy

1

13.1 Overture

13.2 On Funerary Militarism

13.3 Franco's Militarist Imprint Under Siege

13.4 Unmaking the

Generalissimo’s

Burial

13.5 Military disassemblage

Notes

References

CHAPTER 14: Dealing with bad death in post‐conflict societies: forensic devices, burials of exhumed remains, and mourning processes in Peru

*

14.1 Models for dealing with death: morphologies of “good death” and “bad death”

14.2 Contexts of mass violence through the lens of bad death

14.3 Transitional justice, the forensic turn, and the “dignified burial”: can we reverse bad death?

14.4 From the necropolitics to the necrogovernamentality of the Peruvian state

14.5 Exhumation of mass graves and the reactivation of bad death in the Andes

14.6 The task of identification or the process of rehumanization of ill‐treated bodies

14.7 The uncertain dates and stretched time of bad death

14.8 Body substitutes in the absence of any trace of remains

14.9 Conclusion

Notes

References

CHAPTER 15: Migrant death and the ethics of visual documentation in forensic anthropology

15.1 Introduction

15.2 Disciplinary ethics and social change: contextualizing forensic anthropology practices

15.3 Methods and scope

15.4 Making the case for a more socially aware practice of forensic anthropology

15.5 Closing

Acknowledgments

Notes

References

CHAPTER 16: Bedeviling binaries: an integrated and dialectical approach to forensic anthropology in northern Uganda

16.1 Introduction

16.2 Restless spirits and human remains in Acholiland, Uganda

16.3 The integrated approach

16.4 To excavate or not to excavate?

16.5 Conclusion: from binary to dialectical relationships

Acknowledgments

Notes

References

CHAPTER 17: Guiding principles for the dignified management of the dead in humanitarian emergencies and to prevent them from becoming missing persons

17.1 Why the need for these principles?

17.2 To whom are the guiding principles addressed?

17.3 Setting the scene

17.4 The preamble to the Guiding Principles

17.5 The Guiding Principles

17.6 The process of producing the Guiding Principles

17.7 Conclusions

Notes

References

CHAPTER 18: Epilog: Anthropology of violent death and forensic humanitarian action

18.1 Humanity and its less violent reactions?

18.2 Anthropology applied to forensic sciences and the notion of anthropology of violent death in the humanitarian context

Note

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 15

Table 15.1 Final search results.

Table 15.2 Articles with visual images.

Table 15.3 Articles with visual images

Chapter 17

Table 17.1 Humanitarian Emergencies: Diversity and Scale Equals Complexity....

Table 17.2. Response to a Humanitarian Emergency: A Natural Disaster Compar...

Table 17.3 Active armed conflicts with >10 000 deaths in 2021 and 2022.

List of Illustrations

Chapter 13

Figure 13.1 Exhumation of 45 Republican civilians executed by rebel militias...

Figure 13.2 Parading through the streets of Gavilanes...

Figure 13.3 Fausto Canales pins a home‐made print‐out with the faces of all ...

Figure 13.4 Digital memory. Use of mobile devices to record resources to be ...

Figure 13.5 The Valley of the Fallen. Front view.

Chapter 16

Figure 16.1 Map of Uganda with Acholi sub‐region highlighted.

Figure 16.2 Proper burial on a homestead.

Figure 16.3 Improper burial in former IDP camp.

Figure 16.4 Simplified diagram of traditional tasks (black) and roles (green...

Figure 16.5 Simplified example of an integrated approach (blue boxes) deeply...

Chapter 17

Figure 17.1 Bodies in body bags haphazardly disposed of by the authorities f...

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Series Page

Title Page

Copyright

About the editors

List of contributors

Foreword

Preface

Series Preface

Acknowledgments

Begin Reading

Index

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

Pages

ii

iii

iv

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvii

xxix

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

Published and forthcoming titles in the Forensic Science in Focus series

Published

The Global Practice of Forensic Science

Douglas H. Ubelaker (Editor)

Forensic Chemistry: Fundamentals and Applications

Jay A. Siegel (Editor)

Forensic Microbiology

David O. Carter, Jeffrey K. Tomberlin, M. Eric Benbow and Jessica L. Metcalf (Editors)

Forensic Anthropology: Theoretical Framework and Scientific Basis

Clifford Boyd and Donna Boyd (Editors)

The Future of Forensic Science

Daniel A. Martell (Editor)

Forensic Anthropology and the U.S. Judicial System

Laura C. Fulginiti, Alison Galloway, and Kristen Hartnett‐McCann (Editors)

Forensic Science and Humanitarian Action: Interacting with the Dead and the Living

Roberto C. Parra, Sara C. Zapico, and Douglas H. Ubelaker (Editors)

Disaster Victim Identification in the 21st Century: A US Perspective

John Williams and Victor Weedn (Editors)

The Forensic Evaluation of Burnt Human Remains

Sarah Ellingham, Joe Adserias Garriga, Sara C. Zapico, and Douglas H. Ubelaker (Editors)

Anthropology of Violent Death: Theoretical Foundations for Forensic Humanitarian Action

Roberto C. Parra and Douglas H. Ubelaker (Editors)

Forthcoming

AI In Forensic Science

Zeno Geradts and Karin Franke (Editors)

An Illustrated Guide to Forensic Skeletal Trauma Analysis

Donna Boyd

Anthropology of Violent Death

Theoretical Foundations for Forensic Humanitarian Action

EDITED BY

Roberto C. Parra

Technical Assistance Team, United Nations Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO),MONUSCO, Democratic Republic of CongoUnité mixte de recherche d'Anthropologie bio‐culturelle, Droit,Éthique & Santé (UMR 7268 ‐ ÁDES), Aix Marseille University,Marseille, France

Douglas H. Ubelaker

Smithsonian Institution, National Museum ofNatural History, Washington, DC, USA

This edition first published 2023

© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Roberto C. Parra and Douglas H. Ubelaker to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered Offices

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Office

The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data

Names: Parra, Roberto C., 1979– editor. | Ubelaker, Douglas H., editor.

Title: Anthropology of violent death : theoretical foundations for forensic

   humanitarian action / edited by Roberto C. Parra, Douglas H. Ubelaker.

Other titles: Forensic science in focus

Description: Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 2023. | Series: Forensic science in focus

   | Includes index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2022052849 (print) | LCCN 2022052850 (ebook) | ISBN

   9781119806363 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119806370 (adobe pdf) | ISBN

   9781119806387 (epub)

Subjects: MESH: Forensic Anthropology | Violence | Homicide | Body Remains

   | Sociological Factors

Classification: LCC RA1059 (print) | LCC RA1059 (ebook) | NLM W 750 |

   DDC 614/.17—dc23/eng/20230103

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022052849

LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022052850

Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Image: Courtesy of Roberto C. Parra

About the editors

Roberto C. Parra, MA, DLAF 005, is a Peruvian anthropologist who graduated from the School of Anthropology of the Universidad Nacional del Altiplano in Puno, Peru. He did an internship during his undergraduate studies at the Centro Mallqui, the Bio‐anthropology foundation of Peru, under the direction of Dr. Sonia Guillen and Dr. Marvin Allison. As a product of this experience, Roberto earned his graduation with a thesis linked to the field of bioanthropology. To complement his professional perspective, he reached the level of physiologist in the master's program in physiology at the graduate school of the Faculty of Medicine of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru. Currently, Roberto is a career forensic anthropologist and received his master's degree in forensic anthropology at the graduate School of Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, as well as a specialization diploma in forensic anthropology at the same university. Furthermore, he was certified as Forensic Anthropologist by the Latino American Board of Forensic Anthropology (DLAF in Spanish) of the Latino American Association of Forensic Anthropology (ALAF), of which he is an active member and was a former President for two years. He is a specialist in ISO 9001 Quality Management Issues and ISO 17025 Laboratory Quality Management and has focused on issues related to forensic sciences and quality management.

Roberto has 20 years of experience in the field of forensic sciences, humanitarian action, and human rights investigations, mainly in the management of the dead in armed conflicts, catastrophes, and migration crises. He has served as an expert witness, reporting on more than 1500 cases including air crash and shipwreck victims, human rights violations, and domestic criminal cases. He has testified in several legal proceedings in Peru.

In 2002, he began his forensic career in the Peruvian context as part of the forensic staff of the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences of Peru. In this institution, Roberto has been an assistant in the forensic anthropology department of the Central Morgue of Lima, later was the national coordinator of the Specialized Forensic Team, and was also the National Coordinator of the Peruvian Forensic Response System for Disasters, which includes the Peruvian DVI team. For several years, he was forensic analyst at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Forensic Genetics. Finally, Roberto reached the position of advisor to the Head of the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences of Peru for the Quality Management in Forensic Science. As part of his scientific advice, he was one of the founders of the Ibero‐American network of Institutions of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences.

Since 2012, Roberto has developed several international missions in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East as part of the Staff of the Forensic Unit of the International Committee of the Red Cross and as part of the staff of forensic scientists of the Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) of the United Nations where currently he is a staff of United Nations Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO), like forensic specialist for the Democratic Republic of Congo. Roberto has also been a Research Collaborator and Affiliate, Bioarchaeology and Stable Isotope Research Lab (BSIRL), at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. Roberto is currently academically linked to the Faculty of Medicine – Timone Sector, Biological Anthropology Service of the University of Aix‐Marseille where he is a PhD candidate.

Douglas H. Ubelaker, PhD, is a curator and senior scientist at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC, where he has been employed for nearly four decades. Since 1978, he has served as a consultant in forensic anthropology. In this capacity he has served as an expert witness, reporting on more than 900 cases, and has testified in numerous legal proceedings. He was for many years a Professorial Lecturer with the Departments of Anatomy and Anthropology at the George Washington University, Washington, DC, and is an Adjunct Professor with the Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Dr. Ubelaker has published extensively in the general field of human skeletal biology with an emphasis on forensic applications. He has served on the editorial boards of numerous leading scientific publications, including the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Forensic Sciences Research and Science and Justice, the Open Forensic Science Journal, International Journal of Legal Medicine, Human Evolution, Homo, Journal of Comparative Human Biology, Anthropologie, International Journal of the Science of Man, Forensic Science Communications, Human Evolution, and the International Journal of Anthropology and Global Bioethics. Dr. Ubelaker received a Bachelor of Arts degree and a Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Kansas. He has been a Member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences since 1974 and achieved the status of Fellow in 1987 in the Physical Anthropology Section. He served as the 2011–2012 President of the AAFS. He is a Fellow of the Washington Academy of Sciences and a Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Anthropology. He is a member of the American Association of Physical Anthropology and the Paleopathology Association.

Dr. Ubelaker has received numerous honors, including the Memorial Medal of Dr. Aleš Hrdlička, Humpolec, Czech Republic; the Anthropology Award of the Washington Academy of Sciences; the T. Dale Stewart Award by the Physical Anthropology Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences; the FBI Director's Award for Exceptional Public Service; the Federal Highway Administration Pennsylvania Division Historic Preservation Excellence Award; a special recognition award from the FBI; and was elected Miembro Honorario of the Sociedad de Odontoestomatologos Forenses IberoAmericanos and of the Asociación Latinoamericana de Antropología Forense (ALAF).

List of contributors

Ahmed Al‐Dawoody

Legal Advisory Service on IHL

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

Geneva

Switzerland

Élisabeth Anstett

UMR 7268 ADES anthropologie bio‐culturelle

droit, éthique et santé, Faculté des sciences médicales et paramédicales

Aix‐Marseille Université

Marseille

France

Valérie Robin‐Azevedo

University of Paris, Migrations and Society Research Unit (URMIS)

Paris

France

Co‐director of the research project “Transfunerary: Mass violence and funerary practices in Europe and Latin America.”

Antoon De Baets

Faculty of Arts

University of Groningen

Groningen

The Netherlands

Stephen Cordner

Department of Forensic Medicine

Monash University

Australia

Francisco Ferrándiz

Institute for Language, Literature and Anthropology (ILLA)

Center for Human and Social Sciences (CCHS)

Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)

Ryan Harrod

Academic Affairs

Garrett College

McHenry, MD

USA

Tricia Redeker Hepner

MA Program in Social Justice and Human Rights

School of Social and Behavioral Sciences

Arizona State University

USA

Jaymelee J. Kim

Forensic Sciences Program

Department of Justice Sciences

University of Findlay

Findlay, OH

USA

Melanie Klinkner

Department of Humanities and Law

Bournemouth University

UK

Krista E. Latham

Department of Biological and Anthropology

University of Indianapolis

USA

and

Human Identification Center

University of Indianapolis

USA

Avril Maddrell

Department of Geography and Environmental Science

University of Reading

UK

Debra Martin

Department of Anthropology

University of Nevada

Las Vegas, NV

USA

Alyson J. O’Daniel

Department of Anthropology

University of Indianapolis

USA

Anna Osterholtz

Department of Anthropology and Middle Eastern Cultures

Mississippi State University

Mississippi, MS

USA

Roberto C. Parra

United Nations Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO)

Specialized Forensic Team, MONUSCO

Democratic Republic of Congo

and

Unité mixte de recherche d’Anthropologie bio‐culturelle

Droit, Éthique & Santé (UMR 7268 ‐ÁDES)

Aix Marseille University

Marseille

France

Pierre Perich

Forensic Department, Hôpital de la Timone

Aix Marseille University

Marseille

France

Tanya Ramos

Department of Biology

University of Indianapolis

USA

Antonius C. G. M. Robben

Department of Anthropology

Utrecht University

Utrecht

The Netherlands

Adam Rosenblatt

International Comparative Studies

Duke University

Durham, NC

USA

Alfredo González‐Ruibal

Instituto de Ciencias de Patrimonio (INCIPIT)

Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC)

Madrid

Spain

Alexandra Ortiz Signoret

Legal Advisory Service on IHL

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

Geneva

Switzerland

Dawnie W. Steadman

Department of Anthropology

University of Tennessee

USA

Morris Tidball‐Binz

UN Special Rapporteur on Extra‐judicial

Summary or Arbitrary Executions

OHCHR‐UNOG

Geneve, Switzerland

Douglas H. Ubelaker

Smithsonian Institution

National Museum of Natural History

Washington, DC

USA

Digna M. Vigo‐Corea

Unité mixte de recherche d’Anthropologie bio‐culturelle, Droit

Éthique & Santé (UMR 7268 ‐ÁDES)

Unidad Medico Legal II Ancash

Instituto de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses

Ministerio Publico del Perú

Laura Wittman

Department of French and Italian

Stanford University

Stanford, CA

USA

Foreword

The loss of human life as a result of violence anywhere is a matter of central concern for my mandate as United Nations special Rapporteur of extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions. I therefore welcome this publication which stands as a testimony and a landmark of the remarkable evolution of knowledge and experience gained over the past 40 years in forensic anthropology applied to human rights and humanitarian action, for the investigation, documentation, analysis, and understanding of lethal violence.

During the first systematic use in the early 1980s of forensic anthropology and related forensic disciplines to investigate human rights violations in Argentina, few at that time could have foreseen the remarkable contribution which those investigations would make to the development of forensic science, human rights standards, and humanitarian action.

Also, when we carried out those pioneering forensic investigations into human rights violations in Argentina using forensic anthropology, there was no reference made to forensic science in existing international human rights standards and documents. Similarly, there was no reference made to human rights or humanitarian investigations in the forensic science literature of the time. This would change dramatically in the years, which followed and led to the growing intertwining of forensic science with human rights and humanitarian action.

The remarkable synergy which followed those first steps, between evolving forensic sciences and international human rights and humanitarian law, made these developments possible. This was triggered and is still guided by the plight of victims of violence, in particular the relatives of those killed or “disappeared.” Above all, they are the result of the extraordinary and innovative contribution from a growing community of activists, including families of victims, on one hand; and academics on the other, including jurists, social scientists, and, principally, forensic scientists from the world over.

Today, it would be inconceivable to carry out any large‐scale investigation into violent death resulting from violations of human rights, of international humanitarian law, or from natural causes, without the central concourse of forensic science, principally forensic anthropology; and the use of multiple human rights and humanitarian standards which have been developed since to guide such investigations. As a result, atrocities which in the past would have remained undocumented and often contested, with resulting impunity for perpetrators and the risk of recurrence, can today be reliably documented to help ensure the necessary reparatory and preventive measures.

Forensic science understandably plays a growingly important role in supporting the United Nations (U.N.) efforts to protect and promote human rights worldwide.

In particular, the Geneva‐based United Nations human rights bodies, including the Human Rights Commission and its successor the Human Rights Council, as well as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and many U.N. human rights Special Procedures have made growing use, since the early 1990s, of forensic expertise in support of many of their activities, from the investigation and documentation of human rights violations to technical cooperation and advice for governments to help enhance their forensic capacity and improving compliance with human rights obligations.

At the same time, the United Nations has been instrumental in developing, promoting, and helping implement important standards of forensic best practices applied to human rights investigations. Some of these, such as the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death, published by the United Nations in 2017,1 are today considered as universal standards and are positively impacting forensic practice, research, and training worldwide.

It is also fair to say that the forensic profession has been enriched by its incorporation of human rights standards to a range of fields of forensic research and practice. An example of this is humanitarian forensic action, a novel discipline of forensic sciences applied to humanitarian activities, the development of which is rooted in the experience gained from forensic human rights investigations. Humanitarian forensic action is today recognized as essential for ensuring the proper and dignified management of the dead from armed conflicts and disasters and their reliable identification. For example, the Guiding Principles for Dignified Management of the Dead in Humanitarian Emergencies and to Prevent them Becoming Missing Persons, published in 2021 by the International Committee of the Red Cross,2 reaffirms the central role of forensic science, in particular forensic anthropology, for the proper management, documentation, and identification of those who died a violent death.

In summary, against the background of the relatively recent upsurge of forensic knowledge, standards, and investigative capacity to document violent death, normative standards of justice included in national and international instruments also came progressively to the forefront, to help ensure truth, justice, accountability, and non‐repetition. Forensic anthropology's contribution to these developments has been paramount.

Reminding us all about the millions of children, women, and men who have been victims over the last century of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity, the Preamble of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court underlines the shared determination to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and to contribute to their prevention.3Combating impunity and preventing atrocities worldwide requires, first and foremost, effective and reliable investigations, made possible today by forensic science applied to human rights investigations and humanitarian action.

Forensic anthropology, with its practical understanding of violent death, plays an essential role in this noble endeavor, for which this important and welcome publication will undoubtedly stand as an important milestone.

Morris Tidball‐Binz4

UN Special Rapporteur on Extra‐judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions

Notes

1.

Available at:

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/MinnesotaProtocol.pdf

Last visited on March 1, 2022.

2.

Available at:

https://shop.icrc.org/guiding-principles-for-dignified-management-of-the-dead-in-humanitarian-emergencies-and-to-prevent-them-becoming-missing-persons-pdf-en.html

Last visited on March 1, 2022.

3.

Preamble of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Available at:

https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/preamble.htm

Last visited on March 1, 2022.

4.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; adjunct clinical professor in Forensic Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Australia visiting professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Ethics and Medical Law, University of Coimbra; visiting professor, Department of Biomedical Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Milano, Italy; directorate member of the University of Coimbra Centre for Humanitarian and Human Rights Forensic Research and Training.

Preface

“As damning as a signed confession left in the grave”: When the dead open the eyes of the living

Whenever we witness violent death brought about by contexts which fall outside the bounds of everyday experience – international crimes, extreme political violence, epidemics and natural disasters, the migration crisis – we find ourselves radically confronted with the realities of mass death and the complexity of the phenomena that give rise to it. These phenomena have been the subject of interdisciplinary research for some time now. It is only recently, however – in the last decade or so – that the social sciences have begun getting to grips in a thorough and systematic manner with the remains of the victims. For a long time, then, the complex issues surrounding dead bodies and their treatment were under‐explored, and all the more so when it came to dealing with corpses on a mass scale. For is it not the case that, in the west at any rate, death, accursed and repressed, has long been the “central taboo” of the modern world, following centuries of what Philippe Ariès described as “tamed death”?1

Following the end of the Cold War, the 1990s saw a proliferation of practices of transitional justice, the enshrining of the right to truth, the expansion of international criminal justice, the implementation of memory policies in the name of the “duty to remember,” the outlawing of genocide denial in most European states, to name a few. These developments went hand‐in‐hand with the theorization of the doctrine of the “fight against impunity” for massive violations of human rights, based on the famous Louis Joinet report of 1997.2 It was also in the mid‐1990s that what is now referred to as the “forensic turn,” to use the term employed by the historian Robert Jan van Pelt and reprised by Elisabeth Anstett and Jean‐Marc Dreyfus, came about.3 This “turn,” made possible by the emergence of new technologies (specifically DNA testing) to facilitate the identification of dead bodies, normalizes exhumations as a method of dealing with human remains en masse. It mobilizes interdisciplinary knowledge, brings together a wide variety of actors (experts, survivors and victims' families, civil society, NGOs, and national and international entities), and has unquestionably contributed to the expansion of human rights investigations and forensic humanitarian action across the globe. This should not surprise us given that, as the American forensic anthropologist Clyde Snow, a crucial figure who helped found the Argentinian Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF) in 1984, so aptly put it at the dawn of the forensic turn: “The bones don't lie and they don't forget.”4 Indeed, bones defy time, denial, and forgetting.

This turning point, marked in particular by the increasing prosecution of human rights violations in the name of the fight against impunity, has favored the adoption of normative texts (at both domestic and international levels) setting out the need to document violent deaths, provide a framework for the handling of human remains, and preserve the traces of disasters. This need is constantly reactivated by the reality of ongoing situations that force us to pursue new approaches not only in situ but also on the paths of exile and in the lands of refuge. On every continent, human remains are being searched for, exhumed, gathered, stored, (re)buried, and where possible identified, whether this is carried out in the context of judicial or extra‐judicial processes, by professionals or families, within or outside the scope of the law. First and foremost, the work carried out on and around these remains gives the families of the disappeared the opportunity to mourn their loved ones. Importantly, however, it also allows light to be shed on the causes of death, on the modus operandi of the perpetrators where applicable, and on a whole array of indicators that can tell us more about the specific and diverse character of the phenomena, whether criminal or natural, behind their presence.

This work takes on a unique dimension when carried out as part of investigations, such as those opened on March 2, 2022 by the office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and, in parallel, by the UN Commission of Inquiry on the situation in Ukraine stemming from the Russian aggression, with a view to launching future prosecutions. All perpetrators, as Clyde Snow put it, drop “a trail of clues which, when properly collected, preserved and analyzed, are as damning as a signed confession left in the grave.”5 In this respect, the Ukrainian situation will perhaps bring about a paradigm shift in the international (criminal) system. For here we are seeing the beginnings of a model that sets out explicitly to achieve “effective coordination and communication” at the international level in support of “forensic and investigative actions on the ground,” through close collaboration with national authorities in order to “strengthen the impact of [the] collective work in establishing the truth.”6

Violent death, and the transversal challenges created by dead bodies and their treatment in these extra‐ordinary contexts, is now at the center of multiple political, professional, and societal practices, sometimes working in synergy, sometimes at odds with one another, involving various instruments of hard and soft law, and a rapidly growing volume of scientific studies. Whether treated as a person, as a physical trace, or as a piece of evidence, the corpse – the legal status of which continues to raise many uncertainties – is the focus of much attention, of many demands, and of important strategic considerations. Whether present or absent, identified or anonymous, whole or fragmented, recognized or denied, exhibited or concealed, honored or desecrated, protected or instrumentalized, preserved or destroyed, it bears witness. At once an object and a means of investigation, it provides eloquent testimony of the inevitable, indissoluble link between the living and the dead. It is this link, the fundamental questions it poses, the manifold practices to which it gives rise, and the different ways in which these are regulated, that form the central thread running through the present volume. A volume that is not only timely but also crucial to a better understanding of how and why the dead are asked to open the eyes of the living.7

Sévane Garibian

May 2022

Faculty of Law

Département de droit pénal

University of Geneva

Right to Truth, Truth(s) through Rights: Mass Crimes Impunity and Transitional Justice

Notes

1.

Philippe Ariès,

The hour of our death

(transl. Helen Weaver), New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1981.

2.

Named after the French magistrate Louis Joinet, who produced the report for the UN High Commission on Human Rights:

Question of the impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations (civil and political)

, Final report prepared by Louis Joinet pursuant to Sub‐Commission decision 1996/119, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20, June 26, 1997.

3.

Elisabeth Anstett and Jean‐Marc Dreyfus ed.,

Human remains and identification: mass violence, genocide, and the ‘forensic turn’

, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2015.

4.

Interviewed by Jeff Guntzel, a

National Catholic Reporter

journalist (July 30, 2004, available online).

5.

Idem

.

6.

Statement of the ICC Prosecutor, Karim Khan, announcing the deployment of a forensics and investigative team to Ukraine (42 investigators, forensic experts, and support personnel), which “represents the largest ever single field deployment by [his] Office since its establishment” (May 17, 2022, available online).

7.

To quote the Bulgarian proverb: “The living close the eyes of the dead, the dead open the eyes of the living” (“Живите затварят очите на мъртвите, мъртвите отварят очите на живите”, transliterated “Zhivite zatvaryat ochite na mŭrtvite, mŭrtvite otvaryat ochite na zhivite”).

Series Preface

The forensic sciences represent diverse, dynamic fields that seek to utilize the very best techniques available to address legal issues. Fueled by advances in technology, research, and methodology, as well as new case applications, the forensic sciences continue to evolve. Forensic scientists strive to improve their analyses and interpretations of evidence and to remain cognizant of the latest advancements. This series results from a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) and Wiley to publish a select number of books that relate closely to the activities and objectives of the AAFS. The book series reflects the goals of the AAFS to encourage quality scholarship and publication in the forensic sciences. Proposals for publication in the series are reviewed by a committee established for that purpose by the AAFS and also reviewed by Wiley. The AAFS was founded in 1948 and represents a multidisciplinary professional organization that provides leadership to advance science and its application to the legal system. The 11 sections of the AAFS consist of Criminalistics, Digital and Multimedia Sciences, Engineering Sciences, General, Pathology/Biology, Questioned Documents, Jurisprudence, Anthropology, Toxicology, Odontology, and Psychiatry and Behavioral Science. There are over 7000 members of the AAFS, originating from all 50 States of the United States and many countries beyond. This series reflects global AAFS membership interest in new research, scholarship, and publication in the forensic sciences.

Zeno Geradts

Senior forensic scientist at the Netherlands Forensic Institute of the Ministry of Justice. Netherlands

Series Editor

Douglas H. Ubelaker

Senior Scientist, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC, USA

Series Editor

Acknowledgments

The editors wish to thank the chapter contributors and the American Academy of Forensic Science for supporting this volume. The editors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers who contributed greatly to the reading of the documents. All our thanks to Morris Tidball‐Binz and Sévane Garibian for their kind words for this volume.

CHAPTER 1The anthropology of violent death and the treatment of the bodies: an introduction

Roberto C. Parra1,2* and Douglas H. Ubelaker3

1Technical Assistance Team. United Nations Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO), MONUSCO, Democratic Republic of Congo

2Unité mixte de recherche d'Anthropologie bio‐culturelle, Droit, Éthique & Santé (UMR 7268 ‐ ÁDES), Aix Marseille University, Marseille, France

3Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC, USA

Anthropological approaches to death abound in the classical literature (Bloch and Parry 1982; Dreyfus and Anstett 2017; Ferguson 2006; Hertz 1960; Laqueur 2002, 2015; Martin et al. 2012; Metcalf and Huntington 1991; Carr 1995; Parker Pearson 2016; Robben 2018a, 2018b; Ucko 1969; Van Gennep 1960; Verdery 1999; Whitehead 2002, 2004a, 2005, 2007; among others). On the one hand, the anthropology of death has focused on elucidating how the dead continue to live in the collective imagination through a wide variety of mortuary and funerary rites. These rituals reinforce the meaning of death as an alternative way of living, prolonging their bonds, facing loss, and turning that death into a “good death.” On the other hand, the representation of the body carries a symbolic load of meanings, such as the “brute stuff of death itself”,1 and it sets up a wide range of traditions and customs for an appropriate commemoration. Hertz (1960) contributions have constituted the starting point to address both issues, and they have strongly driven the advancement of knowledge in the field of the anthropology of death. According to Engelke (2019, p. 31), “what we can take from Hertz is that the anthropology of death always begins and ends with the stuff of death, above all the materiality of the corpse, but more generally speaking the things that matter to making death good.” Additionally, Hertz's approach does not focus only on how people remember their dead but also on how the dead prompt the living to remember them (Robben 2018a). These memories can be good to think about, but they can also be damaging, disturbing, and intrusive, and they can even be politically used to dominate or destroy others (Anstett and Dreyfus 2014; Dreyfus and Anstett 2017; Stepputat 2014; Verdery 1999).

Throughout its history, humanity has been closely – and somewhat ironically – linked to violent episodes that have resulted in the death of millions of people (Fry 2013). In the twentieth century alone, between 170 and 230 million people have died violently as a result of human actions (Hobsbawm 1994; Leitenberg 2006; Robinson 1998; Rummel 1996). Between 1990 and 2017, lethal violence in the form of criminal activity in particular and armed conflicts in general have produced nearly 14 million victims as well as countless social, humanitarian, economic, and cultural consequences. Paradoxically, all this has happened during an era distinguished by the positioning of science and technology, as well as the solid defense of human rights, but at the same time, it is clear that profound issues of disrespect for life, death, and human dignity still persist. This reality does not concur with those arguments stating that we have become less violent as we have become more civilized, as proposed, for example, by Pinker (2011). Rather, as Whitehead (2004c) and Sorel (1999) have highlighted, there is no straightforward correlation between violence and progress; violence always takes different forms and emerges in diverse contexts, and anthropologists have been exploring these expressions for quite a long time (Domínguez 2018).2

Pinker's arguments gathered support from popular sources, such as the recommendations made by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg in 2018,3 but they also sparked opposing reactions, including the criticisms expressed in John Gray’s (2011) Delusions of Peace4 and later (2015) in “Steven Pinker is wrong about violence and war”.5 In both pieces, Gray offers a series of solid reasons to doubt that violence is declining. Ferguson (2013) also contradicted Pinker's thesis, arguing that what Pinker points out might be actually true but in the complete opposite direction. Other critiques point out Pinker's inappropriate use of statistical information to build his case (Cirillo and Taleb 2016; Falk and Hildebolt 2017) as well as the limitations and exaggerations in his use of data regarding violence in the prehistoric past (Ferguson 2013; Martin and Harrod 2015; Martin and Tegtmeyer 2017; Martin et al. 2012).

Historical documentation has played an important role in establishing and understanding the magnitude of violent episodes as part of armed conflicts (Hobsbawm 1994, 2002, 2008; Keegan 1976, 2012; Leitenberg 2006), and archaeology has contributed to the interpretive analysis of these events of prehistoric violence through the collection of data from the various bodies and contexts observed (Arkush and Allen 2008; Anderson and Martin 2018; Arkush and Allen 2006; Ferguson 2008; Martin and Anderson 2014; Ralph 2013; Redfern 2017; Nielsen and Walker 2009; Smith and Knusel 2014). Likewise, forensic anthropology6 has dealt with the analysis of violent events in recent history (Baraybar 2015; Doretti and Fondebrider 2001; Ferllini 2003, 2007; Fondebrider 2002, 2016; Kimmerle and Baraybar 2008; Komar and Lathrop 2012; Márquez‐Grant and Errickson 2021; Rosenblatt 2010; Schmitt 2002; Snow 1984; Snow et al. 1989; Ubelaker 1996, 2017; Ubelaker et al. 2019; among others). Other anthropological approaches have also formulated explanations regarding the meaning of violence dynamics (Domínguez 2018; Ferguson 1984; Ferguson and Whitehead 1999; Fry 2013; Riches 1986, 1991; Schmidt and Schroder 2001; Whitehead 2004a, 2005, 2007; among others). However, the dissemination of anthropological knowledge regarding death and endemic violence is still a pending challenge and highly relevant in order to inform the opinion of the non‐specialized public community (Buikstra 2019).

Evidence shows that the causes and processes behind violent deaths extend far beyond warfare; currently, intentional homicide due to criminal activities, interpersonal relationships, and a myriad of sociopolitical and cultural factors are the leading causes of death worldwide (UNODC 2019).7 Violent death, played out in all these different scenarios, has catapulted societies across the world into a humanitarian crisis, with tens of thousands of clandestine dump sites.8 In most situations, these places present a devastating image that is difficult to grasp due to the harshness of its cruelty and misery. Humans are experiencing a period of history that has accelerated to a “dizzying pace” and advancing at a speed that endangers our species (Hobsbawm 2008). All evidence indicates that political, ideological, racial, and religious motivations have been exacerbating our own destruction (Anstett and Dreyfus 2014). According to Parra and colleagues (2020, p. 79), “all these bloody episodes require new thoughts for humanitarian action to be conducted in an appropriate way. In many ways, social sciences and forensic sciences need to unite to face such humanitarian challenges”. Within this context, the anthropology of violent death aims to become a framework for understanding what we should avoid as humanity and what we should embrace in terms of humanitarian action looking forward. During the first decades of the last century, Boas (1928, p. 11) argued “that a clear understanding of the principles of anthropology illuminates the social processes of our own times and may show us, if we are ready to listen to its teachings, what to do and what to avoid”. Certainly, anthropology must keep contributing to this task by drawing attention to and explaining various events that have involved violent deaths, as well as their multiple forms of expression, the reasons behind them, and the meanings that these deaths hold within the affected communities (Anstett and Dreyfus 2014; Ferrándiz and Robben 2015; Fontein 2014; Kwon 2006, 2008; Robben 2018a, 2018b; Rojas‐Pérez 2017; Uribe 1990).

Cruel or extreme violence has been a predominant behavior in many different times and contexts, and it has caused a strong impact on the living, the dead, and their symbolic environment (Sémelin 2007; Sofsky 2006; Whitehead 2002, 2004a, 2005, 2007). Apparently, when people exert extreme violence, the biological death of their victims is not the end of their aggression, much less the types of behaviors expressing surrender and submission that in other species – even including chimpanzees, which have shown a high rate of intragroup lethal aggression (Wilson et al. 2014) – would stop the attack (Baumeister 1997; Smith 2020). Rather, among humans, it seems that the behaviors signaling submission and defeat become a strong force that empowers and drives the aggressor to initiate the destruction of his victim (Baumeister 1997; Sémelin 2007; Sofsky 2006; Whitehead 2004b). Why humans have the urge to destroy one another? Why is death not enough? Why should the body of the deceased also be attacked? There is certainly no single or simple answer to these questions.

Whitehead (2007) argues that violence should be understood as an important information exchange system modulated by cultural content, where there is a “recognition that violence is as much a part of meaningful and constructive human living as it is an imagination of the absence and destruction of all cultural and social order” (Whitehead 2007, p. 41). Cruelty – or extreme humiliation – continues to be the mechanism that contributes to the information exchange between the actors involved (victim and perpetrators, including witnesses), and its specific expressions depend on the characteristics of the local culture (Whitehead 2004a, 2004b, 2004c). Baumeister (1997) argued that the origin of these violent actions and limitless violent impulses could be explored within our own behavioral roots and the way we relate to each other. According to Baumeister, among the main triggers of these impulses and actions are, first, the yearn for material security, which includes access to money and the way to obtain it, in addition to the desire for power, in different social and cultural spheres. Second, if egotism is threatened, then resentment is activated and violence begins, and it can escalate to a higher level of aggressiveness when the “favorable image of the person is questioned or contested by someone else” (Baumeister 1997), through humiliation, lack of respect, or a direct attack upon one's honor and dignity. The response to these aggressions can turn into revenge, with extreme and limitless consequences depending on the injuries caused. Third is idealism: when people firmly believe that they are on the right side and are working to make this world a better place, they see the use of extreme force as justified to ensure that those interests are cared for. Fourth is the pursuit of sadistic pleasure, which encompasses the pathological pleasure derived from killing and seeing their victims suffer, something closely linked to pleasure, arousal, and sexual desire. Various documented examples, such as several forms of mutilation – both of living people and of corpses – as well as other expressions less common in modern times – such as cannibalism, framed as a sign of power – show us that the diverse combinations of factors that originate violence, such as cultural differences, damaged social relationships, and the intensity of the exchange of information have contributed to create a message that leads to extreme and violent deaths.

Some scholars argue that cruel actions are caused by a dehumanizing process, by which the minimization of the victims’ existence gradually escalates in intensity until the victims reach non‐human levels, making them comparable to cockroaches, rats, or chickens and therefore justifying – in the perpetrator's mind – their extermination (Smith 2020; Taylor 2004; Uribe 2018). All these specific forms of violence are not produced by a feverish excess of savage, dehumanized, or pathological minds but are rather cultural representations of meaning derived from the history and the sociocultural relationships endemic to a particular place, just as these signs are used performatively through time (Hinton 2002, 2005; Taylor 1999; Whitehead 2004b). Whitehead (2004b) has highlighted that violence is always a matter of intensity, degree, and cultural notions that drive the development of actions from vehement to violent. This approach:

“Is therefore intended to call attention to the way in which the meaning of a violent death cannot be entirely understood by reference to biological origins, sociological functions, or material and ecological necessities but has to be appreciated for the way in which it is also a cultural expression of the most fundamental and complex kind. Such cultural expression itself, if it is to be understood, must necessarily involve competence in the manipulation of signs and symbols” (Whitehead 2004b, p. 68).

The manipulation of signs and symbols referred to by Whitehead has led to an enormous capacity for the production of bodies and inert body parts, which are the result of a growing variety of sophisticated ways to destroy human lives (Anderson and Martin 2018; Anstett 2018; Dreyfus and Anstett 2017; Parra et al. 2020; Sofsky 2006; Uribe 1990) as well as the very essence of their human condition (Kristeva 1982; Sémelin 2007; Sofsky 2006). Anthropology has not only made substantial progress in understanding how the destruction of bodies has been integrated into the social and symbolic space of societies affected by violence but has also devoted abundant attention to contextualize the meaning and role of corpses, their parts, and their bodily fluids in those spaces of violence (Anstett and Dreyfus 2014). The body has been used as a mechanism for the transmission of cruelty that has a significant power to annihilate social structures and the social order (Uribe 1990); while the body can be an object of worship, loaded with symbolic charge and rituality, and could contribute to the construction of complex cultural processes, it can also be a powerful weapon of destruction (Sémelin 2007; Uribe 1990); the cruelty of these actions has extermination – understood as a way of kill, kill again, and over‐kill9 – as its main and final purpose. Aware of the profound significance that the manipulation of the victims' bodies carries, the perpetrators get encouraged by these cruel actions and facilitate their exposure according to their own interests, including the creation of sophisticated forms of representation. The body then becomes a means for the transmission and representation of messages that include, but are not limited to, spectacle, humiliation, power, terror, domination, and misery.

Cruelty is the common component underlying such violent expressions that do not cease until the destruction of all physical traces of their victim is complete – that is, until annihilation is achieved. Violent death threatens and damages the social order of the living and the dead, including violence against the “brute stuff of death itself”, and rearranges our worldview to transform these events into a bad death; in this new and negative context, the body and its own identity can be devalued or destroyed to the extreme point of social death (Engelke 2019; Parra et al. 2020), and therefore, it becomes an impure and dangerous entity that pollutes space (Kwon 2006, 2008; Korman 2014; Rojas‐Pérez 2017).

Social death goes beyond the biological realm, creating a situation where the social and cultural memory of the individual is consciously vanishing, where the dead lose their identity and their constructive social connection with the living, and where all traces of the existence of the individual are finally destroyed. Social death deals with the loss of all bonds of affection and commemoration, status, and moral positions, and taken to the extreme, it refers to the non‐recognition of the human condition (Králová and Walter 2017; Parra et al. 2020). Social death embodies entirely the opposite of what is defended by the principles of the anthropology of death, which, as we have already highlighted, imply the persistence and positive continuity of the social life of the deceased, “in one form or another, to the peace of human association” (Hertz 1960, p. 78), making death a good death and preserving the bonds between individuals and communities (Engelke 2019).

Douglas (1966), Turner (1969), and Kristeva (1982) agree on the need to resolve liminal perceptions of the body when death comes. Kristeva (1982) refers to this condition of the body as an “abject state”, Turner (1969) calls it “unclassified matter”, and Douglas (1966) relates this matter to something “dirty” and culturally “out of place”. In her pioneering work “Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concept of Pollution and Taboo”, Douglas introduced the concept of “matter out of place” to highlight everything that does not fit into a specific cultural category. Douglas argues that each culture perceives the world through a system of categories and that these categories define the natural order of their worldview. In a world in which everything has an assigned place, the notion of purity is reduced to a state where things are in their proper place within the scheme. However, things that do not fit in that order represent a system anomaly or a “matter out of place”, and as such, they are considered dirty, impure, and threatening. This is precisely what happens with a bad death and the deathscapes: when there is no mortuary ritual, the corpse and its body parts become abject (Kristeva 1982).

When the dead are not attended adequately, they do not resolve their liminal status; those who are socially dead become social specters that are culturally encoded and classified. All of them reflect negative qualities due to their seedy condition, so they are considered repulsive and dirty as well as powerful, threatening, and highly dangerous; they are bad phenomena to think about. The persistence of the bad death sets up negative deathscapes or impure places where these powerful specters haunt; these spaces remain in liminality with a strong polluting load if they are not addressed and culturally resolved. Impure and contaminated deathscapes cause the dead to threaten the social order of communities in various regions of the world. The ways in which corpses are disposed, hidden, manipulated, discussed, and exhibited are proportional to the perception of how deaths are understood and internalized by communities (Anstett and Dreyfus 2014