Craniofacial trauma in the Prehispanic Canary Islands

Abstract

The current project is a study of craniofacial trauma in a large sample (n ¼ 896) of Prehispanic Canary Islanders (PCIs). The possible causes and social implications of the trauma found are considered, with reference to archaeological and historical data. Variables include the island, period and ecology, the sex and age of the individuals, the distribution of lesions across the skull (by side and by individual bone) and ante-mortem tooth loss. The results show a fairly high trauma rate (16%), a low prevalence of peri-mortem trauma (3.8% of all lesions), higher prevalence of trauma in males than in females (25% vs. 13% of all individuals), more cranial than facial lesions (8.9% vs. 3.5% of all elements) and more lesions on the left side of the skull (6.7% vs. 4.5% of all elements) which suggests that the lesions were sustained through intentional rather than accidental agency. There was no correspondence between trauma prevalence and ecology. The archaeological and historical data support the assertion that the lesions may be the result of skirmishing between groups, using weapons such as slingshots, stones and staves. The presence of edged-weapon lesions on some individuals suggests that these may have been the victims of contact-period European groups.

Possible relationship of cranial traumatic injuries with violence in the south‐east Iberian Peninsula from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age

“…The low frequency of cranial trauma in subadults is consistent with most reports (Walker 1989;Lambert, 1997;Roberts, 2000;Schulting 2006;Owens, 2007) and with results in current clinical practice (Beaty and Kasser, 2003). In general, children do not appear to have taken part in wars or high-risk activities in any historical and cultural contexts, although they can be victims of massacres and genocides.…”

“…The presence of weapons, ramparts, and their representations indicate the existence of conflicts (Carman and Harding, 2004). The presence of lesions on bones offers direct evidence of violence (Robb, 1997;Walker, 1997;Schulting, 2006;Owens, 2007) but does not indicate its prevalence. As pointed out by Guilaine and Zammit (2002), it is difficult to analyze violence in prehistory because there are only a small number of remains, and data on specific episodes do not necessarily reflect a broader historical reality.…”

Biocultural interpretations of trauma in two prehistoric Pacific Island populations from Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands

“…There is a rising body of literature on disease, climate, resource stress, and trauma arising from conflict in fragile island environments (Lambert, 1997;Field, 2004;Torres-Rouff and Junqueira, 2006;Owens, 2007;Lape and Chin-Yung, 2008;Steadman, 2008). Given the high prevalence of infectious disease at Taumako (Buckley, 2001) these factors may explain some of the trauma observed.…”

Violence and weapon‐related trauma at Puruchuco‐Huaquerones, Peru

“…hacking trauma) (Hutchinson, 1996;Humphrey and Hutchinson, 2001;Tucker et al, 2001;Symes et al, 2002;Williamson et al, 2003). Numerous archaeological examples of injuries from bladed or metal edged implements, such as swords, have been published (for examples, see Ingelmark, 1939;Anderson, 1996;Hutchinson, 1996;Novak, 2000;Weber and Czarnetzki, 2001;Williamson et al, 2003;Mitchell Owens, 2007;Paine et al, 2007;Jiménez-Brobeil et al, 2009). …”