The Bioarchaeology of Violence

2. The Bioarchaeology of Structural Violence: A Theoretical Model and a Case Study

2 The Bioarchaeology of Structural Violence A Theoretical Model and a Case Study Haagen D. Klaus Introduction Bioarchaeologists are uniquely positioned to explore the origins, nature, and variations in the expressions of human violence and nonviolence because of the cross-cultural, empirical, and diachronic perspectives that human skeletons can provide (Walker 2001, 574). The bioarchaeology of violence has advanced significantly over the past 30 years. Key methodological advances involved a long-needed standardization of descriptive protocols (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994; Lovell 1997) and the identification and differential diagnosis of traumatic injury within a biomechanical framework (Galloway 1999; Ortner 2003). These developments helped stimulate the other leading edge: thematic and theoretical advances focused on population-based and contextual studies of lifestyle, intergroup conflict, technology, ritual and symbolic systems, gender, ideology , human-environment interplay, cannibalism, and statecraft (e.g., Chacon and Dye 2007; Chacon and Mendoza 2007a, b; Eisenberg and Hutchinson 1996; Fiorato, Boylston, and Knüsel 2000; Klaus, Centurión, and Curo 2010; Larsen 1997; Martin 1997; Martin and Frayer 1997; Melbye and Fairgrieve 1994; Verano 2008; Walker 2001; chapters in this volume) along with forensic applications (Kimmerle and Baraybar 2008). Emerging from a synthesis of these developments is a history of human violence extending back into the Pleistocene that emphasize links between envi- 30 · Haagen D. Klaus ronmental deterioration, population size, and (perhaps most centrally) diminished access to resources (Larsen and Walker 2010, 387). The intrinsic and operational epistemology of violence in bioarchaeology is worthy of introspection, however. Since the pioneering work of Aleš Hrdlička and Earnest Hooton, physical anthropology’s engagement with violence has been intertwined with the study of skeletal trauma, and today it includes Walker’s (2001, 575–576) conservative term “violent injury ” to describe skeletal damage where there is relatively clear evidence of malevolent intent. Moreover, the search keywords “violence” and “trauma” yielded 65 papers from 1997 to 2010 in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology and the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology . In the simple count data of skeletal evidence of violence in these papers , the most frequently injuries are postcranial bone fractures, followed in decreasing frequency by reports of craniofacial fractures, sharp force trauma, blunt force trauma, projectile injuries, parry fractures, dismemberment /decapitations, dislocations, scalpings, firearm injuries, stabbing/ Fig. 2.1. Diagram showing the count data for the most frequently described skeletal evidence of violence. The Bioarchaeology of Structural Violence: A Theoretical Model and a Case Study · 31 perforation injuries, burns, and subperiosteal lesions (Fig. 2.1). And let there be no doubt—these forms of evidence are appropriate, productive, and insightful bases for bioarchaeological studies of violence. However, are broken bones and cut marks the only reflection of violence in human skeletons? Is this the only way to perceive and interpret violent human interactions in bioarchaeology? In this chapter, I propose a broadening of the concept of violence in bioarchaeology. I consider the applicability and extension of concepts of structural violence from social theory and medical anthropology, and I suggest that empirical studies of health outcomes, properly interpreted in their contextual frameworks, can serve as evidence of violence that is invisible or is not represented in the skeletal trauma record. The study of structural violence naturally complements data on interpersonal trauma. Through a case study of health in colonial Peru, I aim to illustrate that such trauma may often ultimately stem from acts more harmful, widespread , and enduring than those that produce broken bones and weapons injuries. Bioarchaeology and Structural Violence Violence represents just one component of a complex continuum of human interpersonal and intergroup behaviors. Sociologist Johan Galtung (1969) first coined the term “structural violence” more than four decades ago to describe social structures that suppress agency and prevent individuals , groups, and societies from reaching their social, economic, and biological potential. In other words, structural violence promotes the “avoidable impairment of fundamental human needs or . . . the impairment of human life, which lowers the actual degree to which someone is able to meet their needs below that which would otherwise be possible” (Galtung 1993, 106). The phenomenon is structural because its mechanisms are within the political and economic constructions of a social world, and it is violent because it causes direct injury or death to human beings (Farmer et al. 2006). Structural violence is often considered an invisible or subtle form of violence because it is embedded in long-standing and multigenerational social structures. Social institutions and the habitus of daily...