# data[].attributes.body
My favourite paper from this module was Armelagos (2003). I liked this paper because it gave a great explanation and timeline of how skeletal biology has evolved over time. I really appreciated how this article went into detail about each discipline that skeletal biology evolved from. For example, it was interesting to learn about the progression of how race is used in skeletal biology nowadays. I did not know much about historical skeletal biology, but after reading this article, I have a much better idea.

# data[].attributes.body
My favourite paper from this module was Armelagos (2003) as it did a really good job of discussing how archaeology has changed over the years. The paper was good overall for explaining how the field of archaeology shifted from focusing on the descriptive to adopting the scientific method. I enjoyed how clearly the paper discussed the changing techniques that came with adopting the scientific method and how these techniques help garner a greater variety of results.

# data[].attributes.body
The paper that struck me most this week was the Geller (2019) article. The author brings up many ethical issues in bioarchaeology that I had never considered before such as the power of naming and the inherent bias involved in facial reconstructions. In particular, the paper piqued my interest in the case of Henrietta Lacks, of which I did not know much about beforehand. The paper really made me think about the seemingly innocuous practice of naming human remains (or cell lines). Naming can have such a profound impact on how remains are perceived by researchers and by the public in ways that is sometimes detrimental to the respectful remembrance that that individual deserves. It also often fails to take into consideration the feelings of families or related communities. The ideas of bias and consent that the author invokes in this article will definitely affect the way that I read and critique articles as well as inform the way that I frame research questions in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
My favourite paper this week was the paper by Joanna Sofaer (2006). It was the most interesting to read because it made the reader think about how methods or anthropological and archaeological research and design could be elaborated on and developed further. It helps us to understand that the body very much needs to be part of the discussion when it comes to analyzing material culture. Archaeologists need to be reminded that the body can also hold insight into the way that people lived the same way that artifacts can tell a story and provide evidence for theories. By viewing the body as a social construct, we could also begin to develop new methods of testing, seek new interpretations into the disease and health of the individual, and analyze population level cultural variations. The combination of osteological analysis and material culture analysis of bones can only provide us with a more thorough analysis of the human body, and while it may lead to more questions, it may also be able to provide us with more answers.

# data[].attributes.body
Out of the six readings, I found Yellowhorn (2012) to be the most interesting one I read. This is because it demonstrates the inequalities faced by the first nations in regards to their ancestors and ancestral land, and the way they were treated in archaeological excavations. I like that the article doesn’t shy away from demonstrating the inequalities and oppressive nature experienced since colonization occurred and brings out the issues behind it. On a positive note, modern archeologists are taking precautions in an attempt to respect the beliefs and rights of the first nations, their land and their ancestors buried, prior to starting any on-site work whatsoever. 

# data[].attributes.body
The paper by Armelagos (2003) was most interesting to me primarily because of how race and the hierarchy surrounding race was explained and described. It was something that I had not thought of before and so it intrigued me to know how different races viewed each other so long ago. It shows how society always has to place a value on everything, even when it's something that we have no control over. It was also interesting to read the explanations, or lack thereof, for quantifying races. It was also interesting to know that dictating which race was superior depended on who was in power. This also shows that people are easily persuaded and don't really question why we are doing something as long as an authority figure tells us to do it. It brings in a little bit of psychology which I found enjoyable to read.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that from the six different papers I read, my favourite was the one by Geller (2019). The way that it outlines what serves as a starting point for a new bioethical perspective on the practices within biological anthropology really grabbed my attention. I have covered the case of Henrietta Lacks in other biology courses in the past, but I never looked at it in the light that Geller presents it in. Moving forward I hope to incorporate this practice of “bioethos” analysis when constructing my perspective in future situations like this. I also appreciated the way that the paper was concluded with the various questions that the author poses to the readers. I think keeping these questions in mind when designing and conducting research will ultimately only benefit it.

# data[].attributes.body
My favourite paper from this module's assigned readings was Geller (2019) due to the topic of bioethics in forensic investigation. I have always been intrigued by the ethics presented in the field of forensics due to time constraints, the court of law, and the differentiating ideas of what is considered ethical based on the country in which the investigation takes place. I found that this article grabbed my attention when generally claiming that facial reconstruction is unethical due to the idea of creative speculation. To me, facial reconstruction acts as a way of bringing personal identity back to the individual. However, I do agree with the author that the facial reconstruction of the Kennewick Man was unethical due to lack of permission from tribal claimants. Overall, facial reconstruction is a modern-day tool for increasing the investigation and personalization of human remains. With this technology readily available, ethical constraints must be carefully considered before remains undergo such advancements. I think it will be interesting to see how the ethics of facial reconstruction differ between countries.

# data[].attributes.body
MY favourite paper from the assigned readings was the paper written by Geller (2019).  This was the first paper of the readings to grab my attention, with it's focus on the ethics surrounding bioarcheology.  What really got me thinking was the discussion around the  facial reconstruction of Kennewick Man/Ancient One.  Prior to reading this article facial reconstruction were something I never thought twice about, to me they were a tool used to bring the humanity back to the skeletal remains being studies.  As it sometime easy to overlook that the remains were once a person too and not just a object of study.  After reading this article, I am now going to approach facial reconstructions more critically.  I'll be asking why was the face drawn this way since I know understand that the artist license taken can have problematic roots and lead to intended consequences like in the case of Ancient One.

# data[].attributes.body
My favourite reading from Module 1 was the paper written by Sofaer (2006). I was immediately interested by some of the first statements at the beginning of the chapter, which explained that bodies are the past personified and that we recognize ourselves in them (Sofaer, 2006). I agree that thinking about human remains in such a personal way allows us to recognize that they were once alive and see ourselves in them, rather than simply using them as a means to generate and answer questions in academia. Keeping these ideas in mind when conducting research is extremely important, as it can often be easy to view skeletal remains as something disconnected from ourselves.

# data[].attributes.body
The paper written by Geller (2019) I found to be the most thought provoking of all the assigned readings for this module. The perspective and interconnectivity between modern groups of people, scientific approaches, and the deceased grabbed my attention. I had never thought about the simple concept of naming as such an enormous issue before, but after reading this paper I can understand why it is. The way the author talked about these issues also made it more personal for the reader. It made me want to understand and change in order to better the people of the past as well as the present.

# data[].attributes.body
I found the paper by Riding In et al. (2004) the most intriguing to read. It was by far the most direct of the papers, and the language was both clear and easy to understand. Reading about NAGPRA and repatriation from people who are not directly affected by the issues associated with those is just a whole different experience, when the person speaking has been affected by the issues being discussed the discussion becomes far clearer. They did not hide behind language and convoluted sentences. They stated the issues plainly and explained them just as plainly. This brought a whole new understanding to just how difficult the process of repatriation has been designed.

# data[].attributes.body
The Watkins (2020) paper was my favourite reading from this module. Although I'd heard about the NYABG Project before, and it's relevance to a more socially and politically charged bioarchaeology, Watkins perspective as a BIPOC researcher provided insight into the impact of the project that I had never considered. I think that she raised many great points about the ethical future of the discipline, especially in regards to acknowledging the biases and perspectives that researchers can bring to analyses, and the importance of creating diverse research teams.

# data[].attributes.body
I found the final paper, that is Riding et al. (2004), to be my favourite, specifically because it presented such a different way of understanding repatriation of First Nations human remains. It was the first hand accounts of the panelists which really opened my eyes to the prospect that real people are affected by the inability of government policies to recognize agency or ownership of remains. Prior to reading this paper, I was always aware of NAGPRA and other historic aspects of repatriation, however it was always from a formal stand point, in which the severity of the subject is somewhat buried under 'academia jargon'. I think presenting the issue in this way, with personal examples, incites sympathy and thus a greater understanding of the matter.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that all of the papers assigned for this module were really interesting. However my favourite of the six was An Alter(ed)native Perspective on Historical Bioarchaeology by Rachel Watkins (2020). Watkins' perspective on historical bioarchaeology was really interesting, and her point about BIPOC being seen more as subjects than as knowledge producers really made me think. I especially think that this paper is very relevant in today's social and political climate. Something else that I really liked about the paper was the explanation about the Cobb laboratory and the New York African Burial Ground Project. I think that the NYABG Project was a successful example of a respectful and ethical excavation and analysis of human remains. While the legacy of the project is not as well-spread as it should be, the way the project was handled gives me hope for the future of bioarchaeology.

# data[].attributes.body
My favourite reading from module one was the paper written by Geller (2019) on the Bioethos of Osteobiography. I found the overall layout of the article to flow very nicely making it easy to read along and follow the ideas/concepts being presented. I appreciated the examples that were given throughout the paper as well as how the author presented the concept of ethical philosophy within anthropology. Whilst reading this paper, I found myself stopping to appreciate the importance of bioethics and bioethos, not only within the field of anthropology, but within any field of research. I especially enjoyed the sections which discuss the exploitation of the deceased person's rights and how commonly that can occur within the scientific community. Overall it was a great reading and I plan to refer back to it when conducting my own research in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
My favourite paper from module one is by Armelagos et al. (2003). The way that the authors explained the concept of "race" and how the idea of "race" was a main focus in anthropological research was interesting. It was fascinating to learn how anthropologists in the past made a large effort to place humans in specific racial categories based on the morphological features of skeletal remains. I think the move away from "race based" research embodies how anthropologists are now more focused on the culture to which people/skeletal remains are from rather then placing them in ranked racial categories.

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed the paper written by Sofaer (2006). The chapter that we read was entitled Bodies and Boundaries and I liked how she referred to skeletons as "real people" as this can often be forgotten. She described the attraction of osteoarchaeology as identifying remains as people and identifying the past through them. This is a very interesting concept and also why I have been attracted to the field of osteoarchaeology.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I really liked the Yellowhorn (2012) paper. I thought that the authors perspective on contract archaeology and how that has changed the field was interesting. His ideas about the danger of viewing cultural history as a resource to be exploited really put things into a different perspective for me. Reframing perceptions on antiquity from an Indigenous perspective was thought provoking because the way western culture perceives history is so ingrained in us from years of school.

# data[].attributes.body
My favourite paper from this module’s assigned readings was the paper written by Geller (2019). I thought this paper was very thoughtful in its presentation of ethical philosophy in practice in anthropological research. Many important points regarding the consent of the dead and the frequent exploitation of their rights, highlight the often deceptive nature of naming within scientific communities. Much of the information presented on the importance of naming was something that I had not considered to think about but will consider as I continue my studies.

# data[].attributes.body
My favourite reading was the paper conducted by Sofaer (2006). I found the idea of the body being a 'social construct'  really interesting. I find that thinking in this manner, allows for a set of human remains to be personalized, or individualized, making the life history of the individual come alive in a sense. In contrast, without this thinking, the remains are just another set of remains, and aren't seen for what they really are; a human being