The Bioarchaeology of Violence

12. Biological Distance Analysis in Contexts of Ritual Violence

12 Biological Distance Analysis in Contexts of Ritual Violence William N. Duncan Introduction In the past decade, there has been a considerable increase in research by physical anthropologists and archaeologists that focuses on ritual violence (Andrushko et al. 2005; Andrushko, Schwitalla, and Walker 2010; Chacon and Dye 2007; Chacon and Mendoza 2007a, 2007b; Eeckhout and Owens 2008; Spence et al. 2004; Sugiyama 2005; Tiesler and Cucina 2007; Tung 2008). One question that has received particular attention is how to identify who was subjected to such treatment, through sacrifice , trophy taking, or other forms of mortuary violence. Researchers have used detailed taphonomic (Tiesler 2007), contextual (Weiss-Krejci 2005), theoretical (Duncan 2005), and methodological analyses (Spence et al. 2004) to this end. One area that has been largely absent from the discussion is biological distance (with notable exceptions; see Corruccini and Shimada 2002; Sutter and Verano 2007). This is surprising because physical anthropologists have long wrestled with whether or not and to what degree cultural boundaries influence biological relatedness and whether such boundaries are made on the basis of race (Brace et al. 1993; Edgar and Hunley 2009), ethnicity (Lai 2001), language (Chen and Sokal 1995; Simmons, Gajdusek, and Nicholson 1967), or other social divisions (Brewer-Carias, Le Blanc, and Neel 1976). Contexts that provide evidence of ritual violence are unique in this discussion because they illustrate cultural boundaries that were intentionally acknowledged and 252 · William N. Duncan Fig. 12.1. Petén lakes region. Modified from Duncan 2011. created. Assessing phenotypic variability with reference to these boundaries can thus provide some answers to questions such as whether those who practiced ritual violence were biologically distinct from those who were subjected to violence or whether victims were selected in whole or part because of kinship. Considering sacrifice in this context is important because it avoids (or attempts to avoid) the lamentable tendency for studies of ritual violence to be sensationalist without locating the violence within larger anthropological discussions (Knüsel 2010). This study presents a biological distance analysis of sacrificial victims from a Maya skull row to assess evidence of kinship among the victims and in doing so highlights the potential of and limitations of biodistance analysis in contexts of ritual violence. Prior to contact with Europeans, two social groups dominated the Petén lakes region, the Itzá to the west and the Kowoj to the east (Fig. 12.1). Ethnohistorical (Jones 1998), linguistic (Hofling 2009), and archaeological research (Rice and Rice 2009) around the Petén lakes in northern Guatemala over the last 30 years has worked to identify these groups and understand their relationships. This research has shown that the two Biological Distance Analysis in Contexts of Ritual Violence · 253 groups were locked in an ongoing struggle for control of territory around the Petén lakes. Warfare was conducted not by standing armies but by raiding groups fighting over land and resources. One strategy of this warfare was taking captives for sacrifice (Jones 1998). We know that kinship influenced the selection of rulers and military leaders, but no one has ever demonstrated whether victims of sacrifice who were taken through military action were related to each other. Ixlú-2023 Archaeological investigation of the Itzá and the Kowoj (as well as their relationships) recovered a series of skull pairs and rows around the lakes region at the sites of Ixlú and Nojpeten and Ixlú and Macanché (respectively ) that sheds light on this question (Fig. 12.1). The Ixlú sample is notable because it is the only site where skull rows and pairs were found in the same structure. Ixlú is best known for its Terminal Classic component, but excavations in the 1990s by Prudence and Don Rice identified a number of Postclassic structures, including Structure 2023, a small temple in the main plaza of the site. The building consisted of a platform and two associated altars, the temple itself, and a C-shaped bench placed on top of the temple (Fig. 12.2). Twenty-one skulls were found in Structure 2023; fifteen skulls were placed in rows in the middle of the temple and the remaining six skulls were placed in three pairs on the center line of the structure (Fig. 12.3). All of the skulls faced east. Four dismembered postcrania were placed perpendicular to the skull pairs on the western side of the temple (Fig. 12.4). Previous analysis has shown that the postcrania all belonged to...