Your search
Result 1 resource
-
The study of the origin and causes of interpersonal violence and warfare in human prehistory has drawn the interest of anthropologists for over a century (Ember and Ember 1995; Ferguson 1984; Ferguson and Whitehead 1992; Gat 2000; Haas 1990; Keeley 1996; Kelly 2000; Lambert 2002; McCall and Shields 2008; Martin and Frayer 1997; Otterbein 1994; Turney-High 1971; Walker 2001; Wrangham and Peterson 1996). Over the past few decades, a plethora of research has provided unambiguous evidence for interpersonal violence and warfare in a vast number of prehistoric societies, countering the notion of a “pacified past” (Keeley 1996; Lambert 2002; Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 1998; Milner 1995; Walker 2001). This is particularly true in California, where the notion of idyllic, peaceful hunter-gatherer groups living in a bountiful temperate climate has been contradicted by numerous skeletal studies revealing evidence of cranial trauma, projectile point injuries and trophy-taking (e.g. Andrushko et al. 2005, 2010; Jurmain 1991, 2001; Jurmain and Bellifemine 1997; Jurmain et al. 2009; Lambert 1994, 1997; Nelson 1997; Walker 1989; Wiberg 2002). The study of human skeletal remains provides a unique perspective on trauma in pastsocieties that complements evidence from material culture, site context and ethnographic and ethnohistoric accounts (Jurmain 1999; Larsen 1997; Walker 1997). While early trauma analyses focused on single case studies or small samples, more recent studies have followed a population-based perspective, with greater emphasis on the examination of trauma patterns in larger and more representative skeletal samples (e.g., Lambert 1994, 1997; Lovejoy and Heiple 1981; Steadman 2008). This population-based perspective has allowed osteologists to recognize individual, temporal and geographic variation in traumatic injuries due to a wide range of cultural, biological and environmental factors. Over the past two decades, several studies have also increasingly focused on more definitiveindicators of violence, such as cranio-facial trauma and injuries associated with embedded projectile points or other types of weaponry (e.g. Andrushko and Torres 2011; Buzon and Richman 2007; Dawson et al. 2003; Fiorato et al. 2000; Jurmain et al. 2009; Kanz andGrossschmidt 2006; Lambert 1994, 1997; Lessa and Mendonça de Souza 2004, 2006; Murphy et al. 2010; Owens 2007; Paine et al. 2007; Smith, 1996, 1997, 2003; Standen and Arriaza 2000; Steadman 2008; Torres-Rouff and Costa Junqueira 2006; Tung 2007; Walker 1989, 1997; Webb 1995; Willey and Emerson 1993). Peri-mortem mutilation, including evidence of dismemberment and trophy-taking (e.g. scalping, body part removal), is also considered a corollary to interpersonal violence and warfare practices (Andrushko et al. 2005, 2010; Lambert 2007; Steadman 2008; Tung 2007, 2008; Tung and Knudson 2008; Verano 2003). When analysed together, these direct indicators of violence – cranio-facial trauma, projectile point injury and evidence of trophy-taking – provide powerful evidence for interpersonal violence in a society. Moreover, when these indicators of conflict are analysed from a population-based perspective, as described above and employed in the present study, a more accurate and nuanced understanding of violent conflict in the past can be achieved. © 2014 Christopher Knüsel and Martin J. Smith for selection and editorial matter; individual contributions, the contributors. All rights reserved.