The Bioarchaeology of Violence

3. Deciphering Violence in Past Societies: Ethnography and the Interpretation of Archaeological Populations

3 Deciphering Violence in Past Societies Ethnography and the Interpretation of Archaeological Populations Ryan P. Harrod, Pierre Liénard, and Debra L. Martin Introduction Research on violence and warfare has typically focused on modern populations and on ancient civilizations for which there are written records. However, a growing body of research focuses on interpersonal, collective, and organized violence among prestate and precontact societies. Research on violence in the past includes ethnographic work (Chagnon 1974; EvansPritchard 1968; Schmidt and Schröder 2001), historic and ethnohistorical accounts (Chacon and Mendoza 2007a, 2007b; Ferguson and Whitehead 1992; Gat 2006; Whitehead 2004), archaeological reconstructions (Arkush and Allen 2006; Haas 1990; Kelly 2000), and bioarchaeological analysis of skeletal remains (Bridges, Jacobi, and Powell 2000; Jurmain 1991; Lambert 1994, 2007; Lambert and Walker 1991; Liston and Baker 1996; Martin and Frayer 1997; Milner 1999; Milner, Anderson, and Smith 1991; Owsley and Jantz 1994; Walker 1989; Walker 2001). Violence has been documented from earliest times into the present, and there is no question that it has been a fundamental part of human existence. However, the lack of records for many prestate populations and the reliance on material culture in reconstructing such groups makes it challenging to investigate the motivation and cultural reasons behind violent interactions. Furthermore, the range of variability across cultures and 64 · Ryan P. Harrod, Pierre Liénard, and Debra L. Martin through time suggests that there is a lot yet to be learned about the role violence plays in human groups. Bioarchaeological Approaches to Violence Bioarchaeology is especially suited to understanding violent encounters because it often employs a biocultural approach and violence is a biological and cultural phenomenon (Walker 2001). Unlike archaeology that relies on indirect evidence of violence (e.g., defensive architecture and weapon-like artifacts), human remains provide direct evidence about the causes and consequences of violence for individuals through temporal and spatial variability in mortality and morbidity. Thus, analysis of human remains in conjunction with archaeological site data is a better method of identifying the presence of violence in the past. The presence of trauma by itself provides no insight into why and how violence occurs. For example, it is possible that some of the trauma on human remains may be the result of an accident or an occupational hazard . Violent encounters, accidents, and occupational hazards may result in similar injuries that are hard difficult to distinguish osteologically (Cybulski 1992; Grauer and Roberts 1996; Judd 2002; Judd and Roberts 1999; Kilgore, Jurmain, and Van Gerven 1997; Novak, Allen, and Bench 2007). In intragroup conflict, nonlethal violence is similar to lethal violence in that the desired outcome of confrontations is to gain status or resources through the submission of the other individual(s). However, small-scale conflict is typically nonlethal and can be repetitive. Victims often fall prey to numerous violent encounters over the course of a lifetime. This pattern of domination and exploitation is a successful strategy for the assailing party; they are able to secure and, more importantly, maintain access to resources (Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 1998). The challenge of analyzing nonlethal trauma in bioarchaeology is that although the methodology for identifying healed trauma in archaeological populations is well established, the interpretation of the evidence is complicated by many factors. Nonlethal trauma can be an indicator of intragroup conflict (e.g., one-on-one combat or domestic abuse). It can also provide insight into a reoccurring exposure to violence over an individual ’s lifespan (i.e., recidivistic injuries). Bioarchaeologists seek to use multiple lines of evidence that help confirm or reject various hypotheses about the causes and consequences of Ethnography and the Interpretation of Archaeological Populations · 65 violence. These lines of evidence come largely from the remains themselves , but they also come from a wide array of contextual information obtained from the archaeological site. One underdeveloped approach that could be extremely useful in bioarchaeological interpretations is the use of ethnographic analogy. Ethnography and Bioarchaeology Ethnography is an important potential source of information for bioarchaeologists . Ethnography uses real-time observations and can obtain a large body of information about things such as ideology, political structure , economic base, subsistence, kinship, and health. Thus, ethnography provides a set of models to be used to reverse-engineer the osteological and forensic evidence and to refine as well as test the claims made about systemic, structural, or random causes of that evidence (Halbmayer 2001). Gould and Watson (1982), who promote the incorporation of...