Walker\u2019s (2001) article outlining a bioarchaeological view of violence in the past provides a good general overview of the work that had been completed prior to this point regarding bioarchaeological interpretations of skeletal evidence for interpersonal violence. Walker (2001) expresses the opinion that bioarchaeologists are in an ideal position to be able to examine potential causes for violent behavior in the past, given the strength of skeletal remains as a more \u201cdirect\u201d source of evidence that is not subject to the authorial biases of historical and ethnographic sources. Despite this somewhat optimistic picture of the potential contributions of bioarchaeological evidence, however, the author does outline many of the limitations that affect and limit the observation and interpretation of traumatic injuries in ancient skeletal material. One of the strengths of this review is the cautious and population-based approach Walker (2001) advocates for recognizing interpersonal violent actions in the past, as well as for interpreting the ultimate causes of this behavior.<\/p>\n
The review is organized in a way that first sets the scene by outlining the major methodological issues in defining violence and interpreting skeletal injuries. Walker (2001) provides an overview of clinical and forensic evidence for modern interpersonal violent behavior and patterns of modern assault injuries, and describes the major difficulties in applying this data to archaeological injuries. The author then tackles the major question underlying his review, namely the issue of what can be said regarding the prevalence of violence in past populations based on the available skeletal evidence, given the methodological issues outlined in the first sections of the paper. The review outlines the evidence available for traumatic skeletal injuries in the past, along with both the original interpretations of these lesions and those suggested by subsequent researchers who have re-examined many of the collections in question; this type of overview is provided for samples of early hominids, as well as for modern human populations in Africa, Europe, and North America. This is an excellent review of the literature that provides a comprehensive picture of trends within the field, although the regional foci are chosen based on the author\u2019s work and could be more inclusive of areas outside of Europe and North America.<\/p>\n
Walker\u2019s (2001) presentation of the modern clinical comparative data on interpersonal violence and patterns of violent injury, as well as his discussion of the many limitations inherent in the recognition and interpretation of skeletal evidence for interpersonal violent behavior in the past is thorough and relatively straightforward. It is in the second half of the paper, which reviews the contributions made by paleopathologists to the understanding of violent behavior in the past, that the structural and organizational decisions made by the author become much more important. Walker\u2019s (2001) presentation of the established evidence for violent injury in the past is structured both temporally and spatially. Data from Old World and New World sites are presented in two separate sections, and within each section the evidence for violent injury is organized chronologically beginning with the earliest available evidence from the region, this being early hominid remains in the Old World and the Kennewick material in the New. The development of patterns of interpersonal violence in the past therefore unfolds through time in a linear manner, following a narrative structure organized around Western conceptions of chronological progression. Walker (2001) does take care to avoid over-generalizing these patterns, and stresses that there is significant temporal and regional variation in patterns of violent injury, even between sites in relatively small geographic areas.<\/p>\n
This literature review is organized in a comparative manner designed very much to highlight similarities and differences between categories that may be extremely relevant to predominantly Western bioarchaeologists. Distinctions are made between the patterns of violent injury likely to be experienced by different species of early hominid, individuals living in different regions of the world both between the Old and New Worlds and within them, and individuals living in different time periods. However, there is no discussion of whether or not the categories used would have been relevant in the past. This relates to a trend observed within the review more generally, in that it is oriented very much toward the perspective of a Western bioarchaeologist. Patterns of violent injury in the past are presented as progressing toward the patterns observed in modern Western societies, especially given the advancement of various technologies used to inflict violent injuries. There is also significant emphasis placed on questions of origins within the review; in several sections special mention is made of the first evidence for a particular type of injury or behavior in a given region. This focus on finding the earliest known incidence of a particular phenomenon has been relatively common in archaeology and in bioarchaeology, and reflects the importance of concepts such as linear chronology and the progression of ideas and practices to bioarchaeological thought and theory. The orientation of the review toward a Western social scientific perspective is not unexpected or debilitating, as this is the article\u2019s primary audience. However, the potential relevance of the categories used in bioarchaeological analyses to the populations from which the individuals being analyzed derived is a relevant issue that should be discussed. Potential divergences in meaningful categories due to alternative understandings of concepts such as time, what constitutes violence or warfare, and the relations of \u201cself\u201d and \u201cother\u201d between sites within a region are worth mentioning in the context of discussing how differences between these categories illustrate the development of behavioral patterns.<\/p>\n
The main conclusion of this review is the culmination of a thread of reasoning that runs throughout its discussion, this being the refutation of the \u201cmyth of our pacifistic past\u201d (Walker 2001: 584) or the previously prevalent idea that interpersonal violent behaviors are the hallmark of a modern Western society. Walker (2001) uses evidence from paleopathological studies of violent injury to highlight that both kindness and cruelty have always existed in human societies, and that incidences of warfare and violence can be observed in all areas of the world during all time periods, from modern societies back to our early hominid ancestors. His most important message is that despite the many differences between modern and ancient patterns of violent skeletal injury, \u201cthere are no forms of social organization, modes of production, or environmental settings that remain free from interpersonal violence for long\u201d (Walker 2001: 590).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Walker PL. 2001. A bioarchaeological perspective on the history of violence. Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 573-596.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Walker\u2019s (2001) article outlining a bioarchaeological view of violence in the past provides a good general overview of the work that had been completed prior to this point regarding bioarchaeological interpretations of skeletal evidence for interpersonal violence. Walker (2001) expresses … Continue reading