Identifying and Interpreting Domestic Violence in Archaeological Human Remains: A Critical Review of the Evidence

Abstract

This research reviews and discusses the clinical and social science datasets used to identify victims of domestic violence (DV) in the archaeological record. Clinical sources are skewed by law enforcement and cost issues, dominated by Western female data and suggest that DV is a well-documented form of abuse. Social science sources and perspectives, having arisen from activist movements, are more spatiotemporally diverse in breadth and perspective, and challenge the notion that DV is universal and well-documented, but are biased because they rely upon self-survey reports. Palaeopathology and bioarchaeology have adopted a clinical approach to DV, relying on a pattern of injuries (focussed on the head, face and neck), without critically evaluating whether such datasets are appropriate to the spatiotemporal and socio-cultural diversity present in the archaeological record. A case study evaluating the injury patterns in 964 post-medieval adult females from London (England) demonstrates that the majority of injuries that conform to the clinical model have robust alternative explanations, and only a small minority of females have injuries that may have been produced by interpersonal violence, not necessarily DV.In conclusion, the review highlights that the perspectives of the elderly and male victims are currently neglected in research, and evidence for injury, especially that which may reflect abuse, necessitates interpretation within a 'web of violence' approach, as DV does not occur in isolation from other violence in a community. It challenges the 'check-list' approach to interpretation and suggests that a closer examination of fracture mechanism combined with injury patterning may be a more informative approach with which to identify DV victims of both sexes and identifies the need to integrate other health data into the interpretation of violence and abuse. Overall, it concurs with the minority of clinical and forensic literature that it might not be possible to differentiate DV and assault victims.

Medieval Masculinities and Violence: Weapon-Related Trauma in Skeletal Assemblages from Two Religious Houses in Iceland and Sweden

“…In this study, SFT, facial fractures, and BFT above the hat brim line were interpreted as caused by violence and discussed along with WRT, although other causes cannot be ruled out (Guyomarc'h et al, 2010; Krakowka, 2017). For example, nasal fractures are often caused by accidents, and whether to include them in studies of WRT has been the subject of discussion (Brickley & Smith, 2006; Redfern, 2017a, 2017b: 81). Postcranial fractures have also been recorded and, although they may be caused by violence (Brickley & Smith, 2006; Waldron, 2009; Milner et al, 2015), they are not discussed further here, as it is difficult to determine the cause of injury in individual cases.…”

Anthropological Archaeology in 2015: Entanglements, Reflection, Reevaluation, and Archaeology beyond Disciplinary Boundaries

“…In archaeology, as in cultural anthropology, researchers have typically examined violence and warfare from one of three general perspectives: biology (violence as innate or not), materialism (resource gain and maintenance), and sociopolitical conditions (social inequality, hierarchy, gender, identity, etc.). Assumptions of widespread violence have been tested through the detailed examination of injury on human skeletons, as in the work of Aryel Pacheco and Rodrigo Retamal (), R. C. Redfern (), and Debra Martin and Ryan Harrod (). Pacheco and Retamal conclude that there is an inherent connection between long‐term stability and cooperation as well as acts of violence in the south central Andes during the Late Intermediate period, A.D. 1000–1450.…”

Prevalence of cranial trauma in Eurasian Upper Paleolithic humans

“…To examine the distribution of traumatic lesions across the skull to assess whether remains of the cranial vault (neurocranium) or the face (viscerocranium) were more likely to exhibit traumatic lesions. Although trauma distribution within a sample can provide insights into the circumstances of injury, such as violent encounters (Kremer, Racette, Dionne, & Sauvageau, 2008; Kremer & Sauvageau, 2009; Lessa & de Souza, 2006; Martin et al, 2015; Novak, 2006; Redfern, 2017a; Walker, 1989, 1997), little is known about the patterns of trauma in UP remains (Trinkaus, 2012). …”

“…Although trauma distribution within a sample can provide insights into the circumstances of injury, such as violent encounters (Kremer, Racette, Dionne, & Sauvageau, 2008;Kremer & Sauvageau, 2009;Lessa & de Souza, 2006;Martin et al, 2015;Novak, 2006;Redfern, 2017a;Walker, 1989Walker, , 1997, little is known about the patterns of trauma in UP remains (Trinkaus, 2012).…”