Violence is something we always have with us, even if its presence and meaning fluctuates in different times and places. Debates continue and knowledge varies from country to country, but historians have greatly contributed to understanding the continuities and changes in this phenomenon. Painstaking archival research has produced broad statistical outlines of fatal aggression in the past. For example, homicide appears to have declined in Europe since the early modern period, a trend that has often, though not without contention, been interpreted as a 'civilising process' (Eisner 2001;Spierenburg 2008). In North America, the long-term trend is less straightforward (Roth 2009). But alongside important quantitative findings, the 'cultural turn' has directed historians' attention to the changing social meaning of violence.Since both the (largely quantitative) 'social' and (largely qualitative) 'cultural' approaches to the history of violence have their counterparts in criminology, it is surprising that, despite recurring calls for more interdisciplinary cooperation, the divide between history and criminology has remained so rarely crossed (Lawrence unpublished). In what follows I focus on historical studies of violence; however, my comments are intended to be relevant to historians and criminologists alike, given their common topical and theoretical interests. I will first consider historians' views regarding evolutionary psychology and violence, although there has been relatively little debate within the discipline on this issue; I will then leave the field of history to consider Darwinian views of two issues relevant to historical, cultural and criminological studies of violence-'social-role theory' and the notion of 'social construction'-focusing particularly on the different rates and contexts of serious physical aggression among men and women. Finally, I will reflect on how evolutionary psychology contributes to a better understanding of the social and cultural contexts of violence.