Osteological Evidence of Warfare and Violence ... - Wiley Online Library

International Journal of Osteoarchaeology Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 26: 767–777 (2016) Published online 14 August 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/oa.2476

The Paths of the European Conquest of the Atlantic: Osteological Evidence of Warfare and Violence in Gran Canaria (XV Century) J. SANTANA-CABRERA,a,b J. VELASCO-VÁZQUEZ,b* A. RODRÍGUEZ-RODRÍGUEZ,b M. C. GONZÁLEZ-MARREROb AND T. DELGADO-DARIASc a

INCYT-UPSE, Santa Elena State University, La Libertad, Santa Elena, Ecuador Historical Sciences Department, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain c El Museo Canario, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain b

ABSTRACT

European expansion in the Atlantic in the Late Middle Ages often implied the use of violence, involving tactics and weaponry unknown to some of the affected populations. Among the first places to suffer this violence were the Canary Islands, whose conquest lasted the whole of the 15th century. Documentary information about this historical episode is abundant, whereas archaeological evidence testifying to it is very rare. However, an individual from an indigenous funerary context of Gran Canaria (placed in a collective burial cave and wrapped in a shroud made of vegetable fibres) displays a large number of wounds, both on his skull and on the rest of the skeleton, probably caused by swords, suggesting a mortal attack conducted by one or more aggressors. Based on the study of injuries, it is considered a potential explanation of their origin, concluding that most likely this case may be associated with the process of the conquest of the Island. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key words: bioarchaeology; Canary Islands; conquest; forensic anthropology; perimortem; sharp force; trauma; violence

Introduction The European conquest and colonisation of the Canary Islands was one of the landmarks in the expansion in the Atlantic in the Late Middle Ages. This process took place over a long period of contact involving reconnaissance voyages and trading, religious conversions, military actions and acculturation of the natives. The inclusion of the Canary Islands within the European sphere has been studied from a variety of approaches, from the cognitive and legal aspects of the experience of alterity, to the range of strategies used that culminated in one of the first examples of colonial domination in the Atlantic, promoted by the Iberian kingdoms (Aznar, 2008). * Correspondence to: Javier Velasco-Vázquez, Historical Sciences Department, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Pérez del Toro St. s/n, E-35003, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain. e-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

After the failure of previous attempts, the Crown of Castile undertook the definitive conquest of Gran Canaria in the period between 1478 and 1483. It was a time of cruel warfare that decimated the island population: armed conflict, deportation, slavery and deaths caused by the transmission of new diseases or of famine brought on by the destruction of native crops. According to some calculations, this caused a drop of between 65% and 85% in the Gran Canaria population (Onrubia Pintado, 2003: 263). The negative consequences of these events were suffered particularly by the men, as genetic studies have shown, among other proofs. Thus, only about 10% of the modern Canary population descend from indigenous males, whereas the percentage increases to 50% in the case of the maternal lineage (Fregel et al., 2009). The conquest of the island involved numerous violent episodes. The presence of cavalry and infantry armed with the usual weapons of late mediaeval troops (swords, spears, crossbows, etc.) gave them a Received 15 September 2014 Revised 10 January 2015 Accepted 15 June 2015

J. Santana-Cabrera et al.

768 fundamental advantage over the ancient Canarians (name given to the pre-European population of Gran Canaria). In an island with no metal ores, their defence depended on the use of stones, sticks and fire-hardened wooden spears (Morales Padrón, 2008: 169). Despite the importance that ethnohistorical documents give to armed clashes, there is little archaeological evidence for them. One of the few clues to these events, known since the 1930s, is the existence of several wounds on an individual in a pre-Hispanic collective grave (Del Río Ayala & Doreste García, 1935–1936). To date, this case has only been studied partially (Bosch Millares, 1975; Owens, 2007) and therefore the wounds have never been the subject of a detailed study enabling their assessment within the historical context of the conquest of Gran Canaria. The information given here suggests that this case represents an early example of the interpersonal violence between Europeans and natives that became frequent on both sides of the Atlantic from that time onwards.

Materials and methods

Material The individual being studied here comes from Los Acarreaderos Necropolis, in the north-west of the island of Gran Canaria (Figure 1). This is one of several archaeological sites in the middle and final part of the Agaete valley, which is rich in natural resources and hosted a large pre-Hispanic population, from at least the 7th century AD onwards (Velasco Vázquez et al., 2012). As occurs at other locations on the island, at Agaete settlements and cemeteries are in close

association, with dwellings both in stone houses and in artificial caves, and burials in tumuli or in natural caves. Los Acarreaderos is a funerary space consisting of three natural caves, one of which was conserved intact until its discovery in 1934 as it had been completely sealed off with a stone wall (Del Río Ayala & Doreste García, 1935–1936: 42). Following the usual model in Gran Canaria, it was a collective grave in which the bodies of five individuals were deposited over a period of time that is difficult to determine. All the bodies were wrapped in shrouds made from a plant textile. Two phases were differentiated in the funerary use of the site (Del Río Ayala & Doreste García, 1935–1936: 42): first, two adults and a subadult were deposited and then, successively, a further two adults. Today, only the skeletons of the two adults from the second phase (Individuals 1 and 2) and one of the adults of the first phase (Individual 3) are preserved. Individual 2, the last body to be deposited in the cave, is the one who displays the injuries. In the previous description of the archaeological work, there is no data to suggest this individual was buried with a different funerary practice from that carried out by the indigenous population. On the contrary, it is described that all bodies were shrouded in the same way known for the prehispanic burial context. Individuals were sexed on the basis of cranial and pelvic morphology (Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994; Bruzek, 2002). Age was estimated using the physical appearance of the postcranial skeleton (pubic symphysis, auricular facet and ossification of the sternal extremity of the ribs) and dental wear (Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994; Schmitt, 2005; Klepinger, 2006). Individual 2 is male, with an estimated age of 20–30 years at death.

Figure 1. Location of the Acarreaderos site, Gran Canaria and Canary Islands.


Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 26: 767–777 (2016)

Osteological Evidence of Warfare and Violence in Gran Canaria (XV Century) The other two are also males, with ages of 30–40 years (Individual 1) and 35–45 years (Individual 3). The accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbons dates of Individuals 1 and 2 situate them in the 14th– 16th centuries cal AD (Table 1). This is precisely the time of increasing European pressure on the Canary Islands, the armed conquest of Gran Canaria and the establishment of a colonial regime in the archipelago between 1483 and 1526 (Aznar Vallejo, 2008).

Method Sharp force traumas on the skeleton are wounds caused by weapons that harm the bone tissue in a certain way, depending on the kind of weapon used, the bone involved, the direction and force of the attack, the victim and assailant’s position, and so on (Novak, 2000; Kimmerle & Baraybar, 2008; Lynn & Fairgrieve, 2009). In general, they are identified as linear wounds, with a V-shaped cross-section, well-defined edges and flat, smooth and polished surfaces. These characteristics are seen on two faces of the wound if the weapon affected the bone perpendicularly or, in cases when the blow followed any other direction, only on the wall of the wound that is at an obtuse angle. In such cases, it is usual to observe alterations to the bone tissue, like flaking, feathering, cracking, and so on, on the opposite wall (Bolyston, 2000; Humphrey & Hutchinson, 2001; Lewis, 2008; Šlaus et al., 2010). These lesion types are often studied in bio-anthropological and forensic literature, which means that many works of reference are available for their description and assessment, as well as a precise discrimination of the alterations caused by taphonomic factors (Lovell, 1997; Sauer, 1998). In this study, the identification and description of the sharp force injuries followed the procedures, terms and criteria given by J.E. Lewis (2008). The angle and modifications of the cuts were used as indicators of the direction of the attack (Bolyston, 2000; Novak, 2000; Humphrey & Hutchinson, 2001; Kimmerle & Baraybar, 2008). Table 1. Radiocarbon dating (Radiocarbon Calibration Program; CALIB REV7.0.1) Laboratory n° Beta361285 Beta370948

Sample

Radiocarbon age

Calibrated date range (95% confidence)

Individual 790 ± 30 BP 1210–1280 cal AD 1 Individual 280 ± 30 BP 1498–1504 cal AD (1%) 2 1513–1600 cal AD (56.6%) 1616–1666 cal AD (40.3%)


769

All the skeletal material was observed macroscopically and with a magnifying glass (10×). Alterations compatible with sharp force trauma on each of the bones were described individually, photographed and documented on a distribution diagram to establish possible continuities (Novak, 2000). The following traits were recorded for each injury: length (the lesions were measured with a digital calliper), shape, presence of bone feathering and flaking damage to the sides of the cutmark (unilateral or bilateral), cracking of the bone, breakage of the bone itself, presence of bone shards and the angle of entry of the weapon in the bone surface (Lewis, 2008). The depth of the injury, whether it was superficial or had penetrated the bone, was also recorded. In addition to the individual description of each affected bone, it was deemed that, in order to reconstruct the circumstances in which the aggression occurred, each injury should be assessed together with the others. In this way, all the injuries that were the result of the same violent action were studied together, whether or not this had affected one or more bones, and regardless of the seriousness of the alterations caused to each bone. All these variables were taken into account with the aim of reconstructing the position of the assailant, the direction and angle of the attack, and when possible, the circumstances of the victim’s position.

Results The individual’s skeleton displays a total of 13 lesions (Table 2, Figure 2), which appear from the skull to the pelvic girdle. They affect different bone units: cranium, mandible, vertebrae, scapulae, ribs, sternum, humerus and pelvis. All these lesions may be classed as sharp force trauma, very probably caused by blows made with long-bladed, sharp-edged weapons. Although it could not be clearly determined whether these were one or several swords, the wounds were inflicted from different positions and with different angles of attack and affected the individual in a single episode of violence. None of these lesions display signs of healing, and the seriousness of some of them indicates that they were the direct cause of death. Injury 1 (Figure 3). A longitudinal lesion affecting the right parietal and the frontal. The impact was so powerful that it completely split the cranium and generated at its ends two sinuous secondary fractures running towards the left antero-lateral region. The cutmark wall is smooth on the right side, while the other side displays flaking, feathering and, to a lesser Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 26: 767–777 (2016)


770 Table 2. Injuries to Individual 2 Injuries

Bone

N° 1 N° 2 N° 3

Cranium Cranium Mandible C3 C4 C7 C7 T1 T2 Scapula Humerus Sternum Humerus Scapula (r) Rib (2nd) Scapula (l) Scapula (l) Scapula (l) Rib (5th) Rib (6th) Rib (7th) Sternum (manubrium) Ilium (l) Ilium (r)

N° 4 N° 5

N° 6 N° 7 N° 8 N° 9 N° 10

N° 11 N° 12 N° 13

Length (mm)

Shape

Feathering

Flaking

Cracking

Breakage

Aspect

82.1 89.74 — — — 21.57 — 14.1 7 14 16.42 12 31.71 — — 4.5 14.7 — — — 9.37 8.5

Rectangle Trapezoid Triangle

Trapezoid Line Trapezoid — — Line Line Line Line Line Line Line

Unilateral Unilateral No Unilateral? Unilateral Bilateral Unilateral? Unilateral No Bilateral No Unilateral Unilateral No No Unilateral Bilateral No No No No No

Unilateral No No No Yes Unilateral No Unilateral No Bilateral Unilateral Unilateral Unilateral No Unilateral No Unilateral No Unilateral Unilateral Unilateral No

Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No

Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Perpendicular Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing Glancing

40.48 16,5

Rhombus Rectangle

Bilateral Unilateral

Bilateral No

Yes Yes

No No

Glancing Glancing

Triangle Triangle

extent, cracking. The lesion has an oblique entry angle (30°) and, together with the other characteristics, it may be proposed that the attack came from behind following a descending line from right to left (Figure 4). The assailant may have been in a higher position than the victim. However, it cannot be completely excluded that the attack came from the front, although in this case the victim would have had his head down. Injury 2 (Figure 3). On the left side of the cranium, it affects the ocular orbit and completely separates different parts of the frontal and facial skeleton. The cutmark wall is clean on the posterior side of the wound, with a bevel from the exocranium to the endocranium. The trajectory of the weapon was downwards and lateral, with its greatest force falling on the inferior part of the wound. This direction indicates that the assailant was probably positioned opposite the victim. Injury 3. This lesion affects the mandible, C3 and C4. In the former, it completely sectioned the mandible angle with a clean cut from lateral to medial and an oblique trajectory. The blow affected the lateroposterior region of the C3 and sectioned the right articular facet. The visible cutmark wall displays slight flaking and cracking, and an angle of about 40 or 45°, which reaches the posterior surface of the C4. The blow that caused this injury was struck from behind, from lateral to medial (Figure 5). Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Anatomical region Head (skull vault) Head (skull vault) Head and neck Neck Neck and torso (back) Upper limb (arm) and torso (chest) Upper limb (arm) Torso (back) Torso (back) Torso (back)

Torso (chest) Pelvis (coxae) Pelvis (coxae)

Injury 4. A cut of the left side of C7, affecting both the body and the transverse process. It was caused by a sharp force with a lateral and practically transversal trajectory. The lesion occurred during an attack where the assailant was opposite the victim and struck him sideways (Figure 5). Injury 5. It affects the C7, T1, T2 and probably the medial surface of the left scapula. In the C7, it completely sections the right inferior articular process and the spinous process, while in T1 it affects the left lamina with a maximum depth of 4.06 mm and of only 1 mm at its end. In T2, a small incision is observed in the posterior region of the transverse process. In the right scapula, the cutmark is located in the proximal part of the medial edge and completely crosses the bone (Figure 5). This injury could only have occurred if the victim was on a lower level than the assailant and probably exposing the posterior part of his body, where he received an attack with a downwards and slightly oblique trajectory. Injury 6. A wound on the proximal part of the left humerus, which sections practically two-thirds of the bone shaft. In its upper part, the cutmark has a smooth wall, marking an angle of 45° and a V-shaped kerf. On the opposite wall, cracking and intense flaking caused the loss of several bone fragments [Figure 6(A)]. The injury was struck by an assailant opposite the victim, who suffered a descending sideways blow while he Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 26: 767–777 (2016)

Osteological Evidence of Warfare and Violence in Gran Canaria (XV Century)

771

Figure 2. Skeletal injuries.

held his humerus in an anterior position, slightly in front of his body. According to its position and trajectory, it is likely that the left side of the sternum was affected in the same action. There is a narrow and shallow cutmark with a V-shaped cross-section on the anterior face, while on the edge the wound is deeper and more irregular in appearance. Injury 7. This affects the lateral and posterior surface of the middle part of the left humerus and, judging by the damage caused, was produced by a more forceful blow than the previous injury [Figure 6(B)]. The wound was struck with the assailant within a radius ranging from opposite the victim to his side, with a descending, sideways trajectory, while the victim held his arm raised. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The assailant must have been on a higher level than the victim. Injury 8. This involved the right scapula and the second rib on the same side. It completely sectioned the upper angle of the shoulder blade, producing a cutmark with smooth walls. The wound has a slightly bevelled edge, going from posterior to anterior. The second rib has completely lost its vertebral end. The trajectory of the attack was downwards from lateral to medial, with an oblique blow struck when the assailant must have been behind the victim. Injury 9. Located on the left scapula, which displays two cutmarks, one on the upper edge and the other on the lateral part of the spine (both with a width of 0.4 mm). They seem to be the result of the same blow, Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 26: 767–777 (2016)


772

Figure 3. Cranial injuries. Frontal and superior view.

inflicted from behind, following a medial to lateral direction and oblique trajectory (Figure 7). Injury 10. This wound affects three left ribs and the scapula on the same side. The fifth and sixth ribs are affected by an oblique cutmark that sections them completely, leaving a regular edge on the anterior side and an irregular one on the opposite side. A wound on the seventh rib maintains the same angle, although it only affects half of its body. The same action must have caused the lesion seen on the lower angle of the scapula, which was completely sectioned. It is very likely that the blow came from behind, in an attack from the victim’s left and with an oblique trajectory. Injury 11. Linear and regular lesion 0.2 mm wide in the upper right part of the manubrium, which did little harm to the bone (slight depression of the cortical

tissue next to the cutmark). It was the result of a frontal attack. Injury 12. Located in the upper and lateral region of the left ilium; this is a vertical cutmark wall affecting practically the whole thickness of the bone. On the opposite side, a portion of bone was lost as a result of intense flaking. It was produced by an extremely powerful blow as can be appreciated by the depth of the cutmark (20 mm) and above all by the long linear fracture, from the cutmark to the posterior part of the sacroiliac bone joint [Figure 8(A)]. The aspect of the wound means it is difficult to determine how the attack occurred, as it may have been from the front, side or back of the victim. Although the trajectory was downwards, if the attack came from behind, the assailant must have been on a higher level than the victim. Injury 13. A blow on the right iliac crest, with an oblique trajectory and seen on both the lateral and medial sides. The injury may be the consequence of an attack from the victim’s side, with a descending trajectory from posterior to anterior [Figure 8(B)].

Discussion

Figure 4. Cranial injury. Lateral view.


This case represents an extremely violent episode in which one or several assailants inflicted serious injuries with completely different weapons from those normally Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 26: 767–777 (2016)


Figure 5. Cervical and T1 injuries.

used by the indigenous population of Gran Canaria. The location and seriousness of the wounds, especially those on the head and neck, indicate that the attack caused the individual’s immediate death. Defensive lesions are missing from the remains that have been studied, unlike in other archaeological cases that have been described (Šlaus et al., 2010; Jiménez-Brobeil et al., 2012). This may be a clear indicator of the speed and aggressiveness of the attack, the likely participation of several assailants and the victim’s scarce possibilities of effective defence (Schmidt, 2010). All together, a pattern of lesions, which in other cases has been associated with surprise attacks, fighting in skirmishes, defence of property, and so on (Jordana et al., 2009). The attacks came from the front and from behind, although it must be considered that this kind of struggle is usually very dynamic; therefore, it is very difficult to deduce the position of the opponent, as a frontal attack may end up in an injury to the back or side of the victim. Apart from the lesions on the skull, it was impossible to determine the order of the blows. However, they are likely to have occurred in a single intense episode of Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

773

violence aimed at killing the individual. All the injuries are compatible with wounds caused by long-bladed, sharp-edged weapons, very probably swords that, held in one or two hands, struck the victim with great kinetic energy, judging from the injuries caused to the skeleton (Lynn & Fairgrieve, 2009). The swords that might have produced these wounds were a basic part of the weaponry of the troops who conquered Gran Canaria in the late 15th century, as described in the accounts of skirmishes between Castilians and Canarians. In these conflicts, the superiority of the Europeans’ weaponry generally gave them a great advantage, which compensated for the indigenous knowledge of the terrain. To give one example, and bearing in mind that these reports might be exaggerated, in a battle in 1478, near the Castilian camp of Real de Las Palmas, 30 Canarians were killed and 50 wounded, in comparison with only seven losses to the European troops (Morales Padrón, 2008: 200). The injuries described previously are similar to those published for other contexts of violence involving swords, where the most serious wounds are identified to the head and neck, and to a lesser extent, on the torso and limbs (Novak, 2000; Šlaus et al., 2010; Geber, 2012). In the present case, it is striking that lesions to the lower limbs are completely absent, as such injuries are not at all unusual in contexts contemporary with this case (Blakely & Mathews, 1990; Figueres, 2012). In these examples, it has been explained that the particular location of certain injuries was the consequence of protective armour covering the upper part of the soldiers’ body, so that some of the blows were aimed at less protected parts. The natives of Gran Canaria fought naked or with no protection apart from their usual garments made from skins and plant textiles. The absence of armour may explain, partly at least, that all the injuries were in the upper part of the body, on both anterior and posterior sides, affecting different anatomical regions and causing considerable damage. In addition, another aspect that should be considered is that the Canaries normally used a wooden shield. The trajectory and location of some of the lesions suggests that some of the sword blows might have aimed to disarm the victim by attacking his left arm, in which he might have held a shield. It could explain the serious injuries to the humerus and also the wounds inflicted to the left side of his torso, from behind. As described earlier, some of the blows must have been inflicted from a position above the victim. This might be explained by repeated blows after the individual had fallen or, probably, by the use of cavalry in the conflicts, which would also explain why most of the lesions are located on the upper part of the body. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 26: 767–777 (2016)

774


Figure 6. Humerus injuries: proximal (A) and middle (B).

The number of injuries that have been identified is higher than is usually found in other mediaeval and modern cases, both in Europe and in known cases during the conquest of lands in America (Blakely & Mathews, 1990; Murphy et al., 2010; Figueres, 2012; Gaither & Murphy, 2012; Geber, 2012). Added to the violence of the blows and the more than likely presence of two or more assailants who simultaneously attacked the individual from different positions, it is possible that the attack may be interpreted as a less Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

‘formalised fight’ than hand-to-hand combat (Bolyston, 2000; Šlaus et al., 2010). This model can be found in several accounts of the Castilian conquest of Gran Canaria, which describe how a number of European soldiers simultaneously attacked the leaders of the natives to strike them down or kill them and in that way demoralise the Canarian warriors and make them flee or surrender. One wellknown case in Canary historiography is that of the military leader Doramas, who was killed when attacked Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 26: 767–777 (2016)


Figure 7. Injuries in left scapula.

with several spears and then decapitated in order to exhibit his head in the Castilian camp (Morales Padrón, 2008: 145). In this respect, the distinction between tactical and strategic violence, made by G. Halsall (1999), is of interest. In the former, the use of violence is connected with the solution of a dispute through direct fighting between antagonists. In the latter, the violence is not only intended to put an end to a dispute but particularly to bring attention to it and display power. Attacks like the one described here match the second of these categories, as they aim not only to kill the victim but also to intimidate the enemy, as described in written sources contemporary with the conquest. Agaete, where the remains were found, was especially important at the end of the conquest process. The barons’ previous attempts to dominate the island were based on small armies of vassals who carried out small-scale operations from fortifications. In contrast, the invasions, promoted by the Crown of Castile, involved larger numbers of troops who acted in semipermanent campaigns with great mobility (Aznar Vallejo, 1986). In addition, the Crown enjoyed the support of military orders and the possibility of obtaining Crusade papal bulls for the conquerors (Aznar Vallejo, 1986, 2008). Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

775

A tower was built at the mouth of the Agaete valley in 1481. From there, the natives were besieged, in combination with the attacks from the Castilian camp at the other end of the island. This fortification was the base for raids on the settlement of Gáldar, the main political centre and largest town on that part of the island, as well as for penetrating into the interior, where the main resistance groups were located. The radiocarbon determination might situate the individual’s death in this episode of war, and it is possible that he died in the Castilians’ incursions in the Agaete valley from 1481 to 1483, when the conquest of Gran Canaria concluded. However, other possibilities may be considered. The range of the radiocarbon result could mean that the individual was buried after the island had been annexed by the Crown of Castile, also allows other alternative interpretations. In this case, he may have been linked to the small groups that maintained their traditions in an exercise of resistance against the cultural and ideological imposition of the conquerors and colonisers. There is evidence for the continuation of funerary practices and indigenous cultural elements after the conquest, at least until the early 16th century. To give an example, in a declaration made to the court of the Gran Canaria Inquisition, it is stated that the Canarians used several burial caves between 1502 and 1505 (Ronquillo & Viña, 2008). According to this hypothesis, the individual may have died during repression after the conquest, although this is not reported in contemporary documents. His death could equally have been a murder or the result of a violent encounter for unknown reasons, being a subject of a funeral treatment already banned. However, it is unlikely that the individual died in the period following the conquest of the island. The Agaete valley became an important economic and social centre after the conquest, especially in the first half of the 16th century. In 1486, the conquistador Alonso Fernández de Lugo founded a sugar factory there, on land he received as a reward for his participation in the conquest. Consequently, a large labour force arrived to work in the factory, and quite large amounts of goods were transported across this part of the island. This early impact on the land, economy and demography of the region means it is unlikely that indigenous groups maintained such important elements of their cultural identity in the face of the powerful European influence. Furthermore, other no less important data should be added such as the funerary context of provenance and the body treatment applied to the corpse, clearly of indigenous origin and even the pattern itself of the wounds that places the attack in a very violent context, similar to that referred in the written documentation about the conquest of Gran Canaria. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 26: 767–777 (2016)


776

Figure 8. Injuries in left ilium (A) and right iliac crest (B).

Conclusion As in America and on the Atlantic shore of Africa (Murphy et al., 2010), the troops of the Crown of Castile terrorised and massacred the indigenous population with their light infantry and cavalry, equipped with weaponry that gave them great military superiority. Among these, the sword stood out as the most lethal and powerful weapon in the numerous hand-to-hand skirmishes. The individual studied here is a good example of this circumstance and of the tactics employed by the European in a process of expansion in the Atlantic, of which the conquest of the Canary Islands was an early example. The bioarchaeological study of the remains has obtained new data with which to understand the most violent aspect of the conquest and colonisation of Gran Canaria. It complements the information in the documentation written by the victors with archaeological data provided by studying the remains of one of their victims.

Acknowledgements We wish to thank the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness for supporting this research financially (HAR2013-41934-P). Pro ID 20100180 was supported by ACIISI with FEDER funds. The authors also Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

want to thank the three anonymous reviewers who provided many valuable contributions. We also are very grateful to Verónica Alberto for her productive suggestions.

References Aznar Vallejo E. 1986. La colonización de las Islas Canarias en el siglo XV. In La España Medieval 8: 195–218. Aznar Vallejo E. 2008. Exploración y colonización en la configuración de la Europa Atlántica. Historia. Instituciones. Documentos 35: 45–61. Blakely R, Mathews DS. 1990. Bioarchaeological evidence for a Spanish-native American conflict in the sixteenthcentury Southeast. American Antiquity 55(4): 718–744. Bolyston A. 2000. Evidence for weapon-related trauma in British archaeological samples. Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science, M Cox, S Mays (eds.). GMM: New York; 357–380. Bosch Millares J. 1975. Paleopatología Ósea de los Primitivos Pobladores de Canarias. Ediciones del Cabildo de Gran Canaria: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Bruzek J. 2002. A method for visual determination of sex, using the human hip bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 117: 157–168. Buikstra J, Ubelaker D. 1994. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains, Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series, 44. Wayne State University Press: Fayetteville. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 26: 767–777 (2016)

Osteological Evidence of Warfare and Violence in Gran Canaria (XV Century) Del Río Ayala J, Doreste García A. 1935–1936. Contribución al estudio de la arqueología prehistórica canaria. Dos exploraciones en el Valle de Agaete. El Museo Canario 6: 33–49. Figueres R. 2012. Vers une paléopathologie de la Conquête Espagnole au Mexique et au Pérou. Pelobios 17: 1–21. Fregel R, Gomes V, Gusmão L, González AM, Cabrera VM, Amorim A, Larruga JM. 2009. Demographic history of Canary Islands male gene-pool: Replacement of native lineages by European. BMC Evolutionary Biology 9(1): 181. Gaither CM, Murphy MS. 2012. Consequences of conquest? The analysis and interpretation of subadult trauma at Puruchuco-Huaquerones, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science 39(2): 467–478. Geber J. 2012. Comparative study of perimortem weapon trauma in two early medieval skeletal populations (AD 400–1200) from Ireland. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. DOI:10.1002/oa.2281. Halsall G. 1999. Reflections on early medieval violence: The example of the “blood feud”. Memoria y civilización: anuario de historia de la Universidad de Navarra 2: 7–29. Humphrey JH, Hutchinson DL. 2001. Macroscopic characteristics of hacking trauma. Journal of Forensic Science 46(2): 228–233. Jiménez-Brobeil S, Roca MG, Laffranchi Z, Nájera T. 2012. Violence in the central Iberian Peninsula during the bronze age: A possible prehistoric homicide. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. DOI:10.1002/oa.2251. Jordana X, Galtés I, Turbat T, Batsukh D, García C, Isidro A, Malgosa A. 2009. The warriors of the steppes: Osteological evidence of warfare and violence from Pazyryk tumuli in the Mongolian Altai. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(7): 1319–1327. Kimmerle E, Baraybar J. 2008. Skeletal Trauma: Identification of Injuries Resulting from Human Rights Abuse and Armed Conflict. CRC Press: Boca Raton. Klepinger L. 2006. Fundamentals of Forensic Anthropology. John Wiley & sons, Inc.: Hoboken. Lewis JE. 2008. Identifying sword marks on bone: Criteria for distinguishing between cut marks made by different classes of bladed weapons. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(7): 2001–2008. Lovell N. 1997. Trauma analysis in paleopathology. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 40: 139–170.


777

Lynn K, Fairgrieve S. 2009. Microscopic indicators of axe and hatchet trauma in fleshed and defleshed mammalian long bones. Journal of Forensic Sciences 54(4): 793–797. Morales Padrón F. 2008. Canarias Crónicas de su Conquista. Las Palmas de Gran Canarua: Ediciones Cabildo de Gran Canaria. Murphy MS, Gaither C, Goycoechea E, Verano J, Cock G. 2010. Violence and weapon-related trauma at PuruchucoHuaquerones, Peru. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 142: 636–649. Novak SA. 2000. Battle-related trauma. Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461, V Fiorato, A Bolyston, C Knüsel (eds.). Oxbow Books: Exeter; 90–102. Onrubia Pintado J. 2003. La Isla de los Guanartemes. Ediciones del Cabildo de Gran Canaria: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Owens LS. 2007. Craniofacial trauma in the prehispanic Canary Islands. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 17(5): 465–478. Ronquillo M, Viña A. 2008. Pervivencias de rituales canarios tras la conquista bajomedieval en la documentación inquisitorial. Mummies and Science. World Mummies Research. Proceedings of the VI World Congress on Mummy Studies, P Atoche, C Rodríguez, A Ramírez (eds.). Academia Canaria de la Historia: Santa Cruz de Tenerife; 203–212. Sauer N. 1998. The timing of injuries and manner of death: Distinguishing among antemortem, perimortem and postmortem trauma. Forensic Osteology, KF Reichs (ed.). Charles Thomas Publisher: Springfield, IL; 321–332. Schmidt U. 2010. Sharp force injuries in “clinical” forensic medicine. Forensic Science International 195: 1–5. Schmitt A. 2005. Une nouvelle méthode pour estimer l’âge au décès des adultes à partir de la surface sacro-pelvienne iliaque. Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris 17: 89–101. Šlaus M, Novak M, Vyroubal V, Bedić Ž. 2010. The harsh life on the 15th century Croatia-Ottoman Empire military border: Analyzing and identifying the reasons for the massacre in Čepin. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 141(3): 358–372. Velasco Vázquez J, Martín Rodríguez E, Alberto Barroso V, de León Hernández J. 2012. Guía arqueológica de Gran Canaria. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Ediciones de El Cabildo de Gran Canaria.

Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 26: 767–777 (2016)