Reflection on Readings for class on 9/22/10

In the second half of her ethnography on the use of DNA technology to identify the “missing” of Srebrenica, Sarah Wagner focuses first on the use of antemortem data in then identification process, then on the communal properties of the burial ceremonies for identified remains, and finally about the evolution in status Bosnian scientists with the ICMP have experienced.

The relationship between antemortem and postmortem data is especially interesting.  DNA evidence is not enough to identify skeletal remains, personal evidence such as old injuries or possessions found on the remains must corroborate the DNA evidence.  This often seems to be as much for the families of the identified as it is for the sake of identification; family members need tangible evidence that they can understand to fully trust the identification.  For someone not trained in science, it is difficult to say “these bones match what my husband’s bones should be on the molecular level, so these must be his bones.”  It is much more intuitive for the family members of the Srebrenica missing to say “they say these bones seem to be my husband’s, and I can see the tooth he chipped when my ring fell in the stew one day and there is the patch I sewed on his pants the day before he went missing and…”  The families need this tangible evidence to relate these cold, hard DNA-based facts and the unrecognizable remains to the man they once knew.  This need for antemortem data is also interesting because it establishes a limit for technology.  DNA-based technology can only do so much, after which more archaic forms of identification such as questionnaires and medical history must be used.

With regard to the burials at Potocari, it is intriguing that most of the families choose to participate in the communal burial instead of performing separate personal burials.  When the Serbs stripped the Bosniaks of any form of traditional identification, they forced the Bosniaks into a mass label that compounded their lack of individual identity.  However, by choosing to have communal burials, the Bosniaks are not only returning identity to the missing, but claiming the communal identity of the missing for their own.  In a way, they are removing any sign of control the Serbs had over the identity of the missing.  Control seems to be a powerful theme in this section of the ethnography.  By allowing the families to choose how the missing will be buried, the ICMP is giving control of the remains and all it entails back to the families, returning what the Serbs stole.

The fact that the Bosnian scientists have become experts in the field of DNA based identification is especially significant to this class.  It shows that current cultures of science and technologies are always changing.  When first starting out, the ICMP needed to call on help from the United States to make any progress; at one point they even outsourced all DNA work to the US.  However, within a few years the Bosnians experts were called on the help the United States and others around the world.  This shows how in a culture that honors and desires advancement and progress as much as the cultures of science and technology, the relative social order is constantly fluctuating as progress comes from different people.