Craniofacial Injuries Among the Pre-Hispanic Subadult Population Of

Received: 15 January 2018 Revised: 1 March 2018 Accepted: 1 April 2018 DOI: 10.1002/oa.2662 RESEARCH ARTICLE Violence targeting children or violent society? Craniofacial injuries among the pre‐Hispanic subadult population of Gran Canaria (Canary Islands) J. Velasco‐Vázquez1 | T. Delgado‐Darias2 | V. Alberto‐Barroso3 1 Historical Sciences Department, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Abstract Gran Canaria, Spain The approach to Gran Canaria's pre‐Hispanic period has traditionally been dominated 2 El Museo Canario, Las Palmas de Gran by a romantic and propitious view of its indigenous populations advocating a histori- Canaria, Spain cal evolution on the margin of the conflicts and contradictions common to any soci- 3 Tarha Research Group, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran ety. Yet new data indicate that the ancient Canarians were subject to high rates of Canaria, Spain internal violence linked to the island's isolation and harsh biogeographical conditions, Correspondence Javier Velasco‐Vázquez, Historical Sciences as well as marked personal differences and a strong hierarchization of the social order. Department, University of Las Palmas de Gran However, the effects of such a degree of violence among the subadult population Canaria, Pérez del Toro St. s/n. E‐35003, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. remain unknown. The study of the assemblage of the victims, particularly the younger Email: [email protected] members of society, requires a global analysis of the historical conditions to determine whether this violence was exceptional or habitual. The findings of this study point to a prevalence of trauma among subadults (surpassing 20%), thus bolstering the notion of a society with widespread physical violence affecting the whole population or at least that above the age of 5 or 6 years. The data also suggest widespread violence within the framework of interpersonal relationships rather than violence directed specifically against the population's younger sector. KEYWORDS blunt force trauma, insular context, interpersonal violence, subadult, trauma 1 | INTRODUCTION activities, war, and labour) that can generate in each case different degrees of exposure to the different agents of injury. Thus, faced with The prevalence of trauma among subadults in archaeological popula- such a complex reality, it is not surprising to note significant differ- tions is usually lower than that of adults. There are several causes that ences of the percentage of traumatic injuries among adults and non‐ explain this situation. The two most common are subadults' osteolog- adults of different archaeological populations, as well as the variety ical characteristics and, above all, the type of activities carried out by of circumstances and events that prompt them (Lewis, 2014). these individuals before attaining maturity. It is well known that the Studies of violent injuries among subadults and their different ori- bone tissues of children respond external forces differently to those gins (abuse, confrontations, massacres, etc.) are compelling from the of adults giving way to different processes and recovery periods osteoarchaeological perspective. Recognizing and assessing victims (Bilo, Robben, & van Rijn, 2010; Frick & Jones, 2014; Green & leads to insight into the social and historical relationships giving rise Swiontkowski, 2003; Jiménez‐Brobeil, Al Oumaoui, & Du Souich, to these violent situations and, in this framework, their exceptional 2007; Lewis, 2007, 2014; Symes, Ericka, L'Abbé, Chapman, & or recurring nature. The number of publications devoted to these Dirkmaat, 2012). Furthermore, there is also a vast chronological and questions has increased significantly in recent years highlighting a seg- spatial variability as to the types of ventures that can result in recog- ment of the ancient populations not receiving due attention that, nizable injuries among the skeletons of subadults (play and learning nonetheless, offers an enormous potential of information. In this Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2018;1–9. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/oa Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1 2 VELASCO‐VÁZQUEZ ET AL. context, cranial injuries are especially informative and although it is concentrated in the southeast of Gran Canaria and that since the true that according to age and cultural context they may be associated end of the 19th century, this area of the island was subject to more with different social scenarios (Lewis, 2014), most clinical, forensic, intensive explorations aimed at increasing the collection of the El and bioarchaeological literature unanimously point to the head as Museo Canario. Most of the individuals (55/65) were discovered in the recurrent and preferred target in violent situations, both in adults the context of cave burials, whereas 10 originate from two cemeteries (Jurmain et al., 2009; Walker, 2001) and subadult individuals with pits and cist burials located in the south of the island (Bilo et al., 2010). (Maspalomas and Mogán). In the current case, the studied population is from an insular con- It is essential to point out that the materials under study consti- text that reveals a relatively high frequency of craniofacial trauma tute a large percentage of subadults surpassing the age of 1 year among adults, for the most part linked to interpersonal clashes. The recovered at archaeological sites throughout the island. The limited study's geochronological framework is ideal to undertake deeper number of subadults, compared with the collection of adult individuals research into this subject as it focuses on the North African popula- preserved in El Museo Canario, is due, among other reasons, to the tions that arrived in the Canarian Archipelago around the turn of the under‐representation of this age group in many of the cemeteries Common Era and that, at least in the case of Gran Canaria, remained explored to date. Yet it is very complex to pinpoint the reason for this isolated from the continent and the other islands for hundreds of lack of representation. Among the causes are differences of burial years. This scenario led to the development of a strongly hierarchical practices of certain age groups, taphonomic issues, and the limited socio‐economic model in Gran Canaria based on agriculture and interest in infant skeletal remains in Canarian archaeological research livestock, at least at the time close to the island's conquest by the until the last third of the 20th century. The early archaeologists were Castilians in the 15th century. In this context, conflicts between in fact more concerned with collecting adult skulls and long bones that groups must have been frequent as recorded by archaeological and served their raciological objectives (Delgado‐Darias, 2009; Estévez‐ ethnohistorical sources. Under these conditions, how was the subadult González, 1987). For this same reason only the remains from the cem- population affected? Did they live in an environment marked by wide- etery of Maspalomas (n = 8) and one of the individuals from Acusa spread violence? Were they victims? What ranges of age were mainly retain the postcranial skeleton thus obliging the current study to focus affected? The present study therefore attempts to collect data and exclusively in the craniofacial region. In any case, the bias introduced respond, as fully as possible, to these and other questions in the by the collecting pattern does not seem to affect the representation framework of a general project focusing on the forms of violence of the subadults population in the cemeteries analysed, as it is among the ancient Canarian islanders. deduced from the percentages of the two archaeological sites with the greatest number of individuals. In Guayadeque, where the remains were collected between the late 19th and the early 20th centuries, 2 | MATERIALS AND METHOD subadults represent 10.8% if they are quantified with an unselected sample of adults from this same place (Delgado‐Darias, Alberto‐ The study population comprised a total of 65 subadults ranging from 1 Barroso, & Velasco‐Vázquez, 2017). In the cemetery of Maspalomas, to 17 years from the osteological collection of El Museo Canario. excavated between 2009 and 2012, this same group of population Apart from age, the criteria serving to select the samples were preser- represents 11.72% of its total. In both cases, individuals older than vation of at least 75% of the cranium (including both the vault and the 3 years represent more than 85% of the overall subadults total. facial skeleton) and absence of alterations or surface erosion impeding According to current chronological sequences, the materials under direct observation of the skull's bone tissues. Although the assemblage study cover a large portion of the pre‐Hispanic occupation of Gran comprises individuals from nine archaeological sites of Gran Canaria Canaria (Table 1). Specifically, the datings cover long chronological (Table 1; Figure 1), the site of Guayadeque with 42 individuals is the sequences: Guayadeque from the sixth to seventh to the 12th–13th most represented (64.6%). This greater proportion can be explained century cal CE; Acusa from the sixth to the 10th century cal CE; and by two circumstances: the abundance of collective burials Maspalomas from the 12th to the 15th cal CE (Alberto‐Barroso, TABLE 1 Injury frequency per site No. of Presence of Absence of With injuries Site Context Date range individuals trauma trauma (%) Acusa Cave burials 6th to the 10th century cal CE 7 1 6 16.7 Andén de Tabacalete Cave burials — 20 2 0 Angostura Cave burial — 10 1 0 Guayadeque Cave burials 6th–7th to the 12th–13th century cal CE 42 9 33 21.43 Maspalomas Cists and pits 12th to the 15th century cal CE 8 1 7 12.5 Mogán Cists and pits — 21 1 50 San Andrés Cave burials — 1 1 0 100 Tirajana Cave burials — 11 0 0 Valerón Cave burials — 10 1 0 Total 65 14 51 21.54 VELASCO‐VÁZQUEZ ET AL. 3 FIGURE 1 Location of the Canary Islands, Gran Canaria, and the position of the archaeological sites with the studied materials 2014; Delgado‐Darias, 2014).

Load more