The use of forensic methods to analyse marks of violence in Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic periods

Abstract : Signs of trauma have been identified on several Upper Palaeolithic and Neolithic sites. Yet for many of them is it unclear if they were accidentai, intentional or post-depositional. What are the methods used for the identification of violence and what are their limits?

Over the past decade, forensic non-invasive methods have been increasingly applied to study violence in archaeological contexts. Forensic science is multidisciplinary involving anthropologists, archaeologists, and criminalists to investigate murders, identify victims of disasters, analyze pathology or trauma,  and reconstruct human remains. Forensics is based on 3D images, systems of imaging   and virtual reconstructions [1].

Marks of violence in Prehistoric periods cannot be called murder because the  contexts  is unknown. Therefore, the term "interpersonal violence" is preferable. There are three types of violence: between people belonging to the same group, between different groups and between different species [2]. However, in these periods hunting is a recurring activity causing accidentai deaths.

The debate between hunting accidents or acts of violence is recurrent. The distinction remains difficult, even at Neolithic sites, such as Aktopraklik (Turkey) [3] and Tell Mureybet (Syria) [4]. Bath sites reveal arrowheads in vertebra. Here, forensic methods are being used to study the different types of tools and injuries used. Nevertheless, the origin of the trauma is not always clear.

Taphonomy and excavation  can leave traces  like marks  of violence. A telling example is the Upper Palaeolithic  site of Cioclovina  (Romania)  where a skeleton with skull fractures was studied by virtual reconstructions (CT imaging, experimental  tests). The traumas were originally interpreted as an act of interpersonal violence [5], while they resulted from a bombardment in 1944 [6].

ln summary, forensic science can help with the analysis and differentiations between trauma and taphonomy, however, to identify accidents or interpersonal violence contextual information remains very important.