Jones (2023) examines the historical and ethical concerns related to the India bone trade and the ongoing use of anonymized human skeletal collections. The article highlights how these bones were historically acquired, the cultural implications of their use, and debates the ethics of retaining such collections today. This source is crucial for understanding the complex ethics of anatomical study and museum curation, particularly concerning bones sourced from India. Jones argues that while pre-1985 bones were acquired under historically accepted norms, modern practices must weigh the ethics of continued use, repatriation, and digital alternatives.

Agarwal (2024) provides an in-depth bioethical critique of the global trade of Indian skeletal remains. She situates this trade within colonialism, caste exploitation, and scientific racism, underscoring the ongoing use of these remains in Western education and research. This article is significant for my research as it highlights how colonial power dynamics and necropolitics shaped the commodification of Indian bodies and how ethical frameworks need to incorporate these histories to move towards a more inclusive and respectful practice in biological anthropology.

Anastopoulou et al. (2021) introduce a semi-automated method for reassociating intermixed human skeletal remains using 3D shape analysis. Focusing on the hip joint, they demonstrate high accuracy in pairing bones, which is valuable for bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology. This work is relevant to my study of ethical osteology, as it showcases advanced digital techniques that minimize physical handling of remains, potentially aligning with ethical research goals while maintaining scientific rigor.

de Tienda Palop and Currás (2019) provide a philosophical exploration of human dignity as it pertains to archaeological human remains. They differentiate between “present” and “forgotten” dead, arguing for a broadened concept of dignity that extends beyond living persons. Their work challenges the Kantian exclusion of the dead from dignity and suggests that archaeological practice can confer moral status to the dead. This is foundational for my research on ethical frameworks for working with human remains.

In this commentary, Agarwal (2024) contextualizes the global trade of South Asian skeletal remains within colonial and racist frameworks and argues for a decolonized approach to biological anthropology. She underscores the need for inclusion of marginalized voices in ongoing discussions of skeletal curation and ethics. This source reinforces my understanding of how historical injustices persist in skeletal curation practices and supports my interest in ethical repatriation and 3D scanning as alternative approaches.