Bioarchaeological Contributions to the Study of Violence Debra L. Martin 1 * and Ryan P. Harrod 2 1 Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89119 2 Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Anchorage, AK 99508 KEY WORDS trauma; injury; osteology; burials; pathology ABSTRACT The bioarchaeological record has an abundance of scientific evidence based on skeletal indi- cators of trauma to argue for a long history of internal and external group conflict. However, the findings also suggest variability, nuance, and unevenness in the type, use, and meaning of violence across time and space and therefore defy generalizations or easy quan- tification. Documenting violence-related behaviors pro- vides an overview of the often unique and sometimes patterned cultural use of violence. Violence (lethal and nonlethal) is often associated with social spheres of influence and power connected to daily life such as sub- sistence intensification, specialization, competition for scarce resources, climate, population density, territo- rial protection and presence of immigrants, to name just a few. By using fine-grained biocultural analyses that interrogate trauma data in particular places at particular times in reconstructed archaeological con- texts, a more comprehensive view into the histories and experiences of violence emerges. Moreover, identi- fying culturally specific patterns related to age, sex, and social status provide an increasingly complex pic- ture of early small-scale groups. Some forms of ritual violence also have restorative and regenerative aspects that strengthen community identity. Bioarchaeological data can shed light on the ways that violence becomes part of a given cultural landscape. Viewed in a biocul- tural context, evidence of osteological trauma provides rich insights into social relationships and the many ways that violence is embedded within those relation- ships. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 156:116–145, 2015. V C 2014 American Association of Physical Anthropologists HUMANS HAVE A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE AND VIOLENCE HAS A HISTORY 1 This review provides a broad perspective on violence from studies looking at human skeletal remains (e.g., bioarchaeology, paleopathology, and forensic anthropol- ogy). Violence is a phenomenon that is found in varying expressions in all cultures stretching back to the Paleo- lithic (Bocquentin and Bar-Yosef, 2004; Estabrook and Frayer, 2014) and possibly farther (Ant on, 2003; Kimbel and Delezene, 2009). Having worked in the area of ancient violence for a number of years we approached this review as a way to offer new frameworks for think- ing about violence in the past from the perspective of biological or physical anthropology, which like all other fields of study in anthropology, is scientific, comparative, and cross-cultural in approach. Many researchers use a variety of terms interchange- ably such as violence, conflict, and aggression. Our own personal preference is to avoid using the term aggres- sion for humans because it is often used in animal stud- ies and does not imply a connection to culture or to meaning. This is an important distinction because aggression does not always translate into violent behav- ior. Definitions of violence often imply intentionality, motivation, and culturally defined meaning. What is con- sidered violence in one culture may not be in others. Vio- lence is often socially sanctioned and organized but aggression need not be. Violence can be individual or col- lective but aggression more often is analyzed at the indi- vidual level. Why is this important? Despite the best efforts of anthropologists and others to undue the years of ques- tioning if violence was solely shaped by nature (genetics) or nurture (cultural practices), or if early humans were instinctively more Hobbesian (violent) or Rousseauian (peaceful), this binary still foreshadows scientific schol- arship (Ahlstr€ om and Molnar, 2012) and is a major theme in many of the newest popular books that address the topic (e.g., Pinker, 2011; Chagnon, 2013; Diamond, 2013; Wade, 2014). Debates over whether societies are inherently violent or not were especially apparent with the emergence of the “killer ape” hypothesis in the 1950s and 1960s (Dart, 1953; Ardrey, 1961) and the reaction to Napoleon Chagnon’s (1968) work with the Ya˛nomam€ o. Both of these examples are highlighted because they have been heavily critiqued (see Ferguson, 1995 for a response to Chagnon’s assertion that violence was part of the Ya˛nomam€ o culture). This tension among anthro- pologists themselves suggests the slipperiness of nam- ing, studying and identifying violence in contemporary groups and it provides a cautionary note for those work- ing with ancient groups. In a recent blog (http://www. psychologytoday.com/blog/busting-myths-about-human- Grant sponsor: Lincy Foundation Research Award; Grant sponsor: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. *Correspondence to: Debra L. Martin, Department of Anthropol- ogy, University of Nevada, 4505 S. Maryland Parkway Box 455003, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5003, USA. E-mail: debra.martin@unlv.edu DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22662 Published online 19 November 2014 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). 1 Ray, Larry (2011) Violence and Society. SAGE Publications Ltd, New York, p. 3. Ó 2014 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 156:116–145 (2015)