Andrushko et al - Trophy-taking and dismemberment as warfare strategies in Prehistoric Central California

8/7/2019 Andrushko et al - Trophy-taking and dismemberment as warfare strategies in Prehistoric Central California

1/14

Trophy-Taking and Dismemberment as WarfareStrategies in Prehistoric Central California

Valerie A. Andrushko,1* Al W. Schwitalla,2 and Phillip L. Walker3y

1Department of Anthropology, Southern Connecticut State University, CT2Department of Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento, CA3Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

KEY WORDS bioarchaeology; violence; cutmarks; Native American; trauma

ABSTRACT We document evidence for trophy-tak-ing and dismemberment with a new bioarchaeologicaldatabase featuring 13,453 individuals from prehistoriccentral California sites. Our study reveals 76 individu-als with perimortem removal of body parts consistent

with trophy-taking or dismemberment; nine of theseindividuals display multiple types of trophy-taking anddismemberment for a total of 87 cases. Cases spanalmost 5,000 years, from the Early Period (3000500BC) to the Late Period (AD 9001700). Collectively,these individuals share traits that distinguish themfrom the rest of the population: a high frequency ofyoung adult males, an increased frequency of associatedtrauma, and a tendency towards multiple burials andhaphazard burial positions. Eight examples of human

bone artifacts were also found that appear related totrophy-taking. These characteristics suggest that tro-phy-taking and dismemberment were an important partof the warfare practices of central Californian tribes.Temporally, the two practices soared in the Early/Mid-

dle Transition Period (500200 BC), which may havereflected a more complex sociopolitical system thatencouraged the use of trophies for status acquisition, aswell as the migration of outside groups that resulted inintensified conflict. Overall, trophy-taking and dismem-berment appear to have been the product of the socialgeography of prehistoric central California, where cul-turally differentiated tribes lived in close proximity totheir enemies. Am J Phys Anthropol 141:8396, 2010.VVC 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Dismembering warfare victims and preserving theirbody parts as trophies has occurred for thousands ofyears (Keeley, 1996; Walker, 2000) and throughout the

world (e.g., Bennike, 1985; Smith, 1993, 1997; Hoskins,1996; Frayer, 1997; Mensforth, 2001; Williams et al.,2001; Verano, 2003; Kellner, 2006; Chacon and Dye,2007a; Finucane, 2008; Tung, 2008). Trophy-taking anddismemberment were common warfare practices forindigenous groups throughout pre-Columbian NorthAmerica (Ewers, 1967; Seeman, 1988; Willey, 1990; Owsley,1994; Milner, 1995, 1998; Leblanc, 1999; Kuckelman et al.,2002; Chacon and Dye, 2007a). Both practices includedthe intentional removal of body parts, with one majordifferencetrophy-taking retained the body part forlater display (Gifford, 1955), while dismemberment leftthe body part in the burial pit with the victim (Willey,1990; Mensforth, 2001). Together, these practices servedas important warfare strategies, the former to providetangible proof of success and the latter to serve as avisual indication of defeat and intimidation to bewitnessed by the survivors (Mensforth, 2007).

In central California, human trophy-taking and dis-memberment for many years had only been documentedin the form of decapitation (Krieger, 1935; Wiberg,1997)no reports had confirmed long bones taken astrophies. This changed in 1998 at the CA-SCl-674 site inSan Jose, California, when individuals were discoveredmissing their forearms and exhibiting cutmarks on thedistal humerus. Radiocarbon dating of the burials indi-cated a clustering around the Early/Middle Period Tran-sition (500200 BC). Drilled forearm elements were alsorecovered at this site. These findings provided the firstconclusive evidence of forearm trophy-taking and subse-

quent bone modification in central California (Gradyet al., 2001; Andrushko et al., 2005).

The San Jose discovery, along with later ones at the

sites of CA-CCo-474 in Hercules and CA-ALA-328 nearFremont (Estes et al., 2002; Andrushko et al., 2005),prompted us to search for more cases of trophy-takingand for cases of dismemberment without trophy-taking.In central California, intensive archaeological work overthe past century has in fact produced a wealth of burialswith evidence of cutmarks, missing body parts, and asso-ciated perimortem injuries. Unfortunately, most of theseburial data derive from unpublished cultural resourcemanagement projects whose findings have not been syn-thesized in a regional perspective.

The present study is the first to synthesize central Cali-fornia burial data, using a new bioarchaeological databasedeveloped by the second author (Schwitalla, 2005). TheCentral California Bioarchaeological Database (CCBD) isa regional compendium of prehistoric cemetery popula-tions that contains archaeological records from 13,453individuals. The data span 25 counties and almost 5,000

*Correspondence to: Valerie A. Andrushko, Department of Anthro-

pology, Southern Connecticut State University, 501 Crescent Street,New Haven, CT 06515. E-mail: [email protected]

yDeceased.

Received 7 March 2009; accepted 12 May 2009

DOI 10.1002/ajpa.21117Published online 19 June 2009 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com).

VVC 2009 WILEY-LISS, INC.

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 141:8396 (2010)


2/14

years (3000 BCAD 1880), providing an unprecedentedview of prehistoric warfare practices in the central Cali-fornia region. The long time depth and wide geographicscope allow us to investigate trophy-taking and dismem-berment in central California at a level that has previ-ously been beyond reach.

Specifically, our study tests two hypotheses developed

from the San Jose CA-SCl-674 discovery: 1) Trophy-tak-ing and dismemberment in central California were notisolated incidents but instead were practiced as routinewarfare strategies over a long period of time; and 2) Tro-phy-taking and dismemberment patterns in central Cali-fornia changed over time with an evident increase in theEarly/Middle Transition Period (500200 BC). To supportthe first hypothesis, we would need to find multipleexamples of perimortem dismemberment and removal oftargeted skeletal elements from several different timeperiods, and would also need to definitively connectthese cases to warfare through an examination oftrauma patterns, age and sex distributions, and burialpractices. In regard to the second hypothesis, the trophy-taking and dismemberment cases would need to be

temporally patterned and show a statistically significantrise during the time span from 500 to 200 BC. To helpinterpret our results, we compare the social geography ofprehistoric central California against Southern Califor-nia, a region without evidence of trophy-taking anddismemberment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials: The Central CaliforniaBioarchaeological Database

The CCBD contains information on 13,453 individualscompiled from published and unpublished archaeologicalsite reports, osteological and chronological appendices,

burial records, and NAGPRA inventories. The CCBDrecords information on age, sex, burial attributes, patho-logical conditions, missing and detached body parts,modified human bone, antemortem and perimortemtraumatic injuries, and temporal assignments. The tem-poral assignments were based on artifact associations,obsidian-hydration values, radiocarbon dates, and strati-graphic superposition at sites with delineated temporalcomponents. Unfortunately, some individual profileswere incomplete due to site reports with limited orabsent osteological data. In addition, a second limitationof the database was the problem of comparing data col-lected by numerous researchers. To address this prob-lem, the data were either originally collected by theauthors of the present study, re-analyzed by the authors,or discussed with the researchers of the original sitereports (when possible).

For the purpose of the CCBD, the central Californiaregion is defined by Moratto (1984) and includes the SanFrancisco Bay Area, the Russian River/Clear Lakeregion to the north, the Central Coast Region to thesouth, the Central Valley Region, and portions of theSierra Nevada Region. The central California regionencompasses the ethnohistoric tribal territories of theCostanoan, Esselan, Salinan, Yokuts, Miwok, SouthernPatwin, Nisenan, Pomo, Wintun, Maidu, Paiute, andMono (Holmes, 1900; Kroeber, 1925; Driver, 1961;Powers, 1976[1877]). Temporally, the sites range fromthe Early Period (3000500 BC) through the Historic-Mission Period (AD 17001880).

Methods

To document trophy-taking and dismemberment evi-dence from central California, we searched for physicalevidence related to these practices as recorded in theCCBD (Schwitalla, 2005). Previous studies have beeninstrumental in revealing the physical evidence resulting

from trophy-taking and dismemberment (Owsley et al.,1977; Olsen and Shipman, 1988, 1994; Milner et al.,1991; White, 1992; Smith, 1993, 1997; Mensforth, 2001).The clearest evidence for trophy-taking is the presenceof cutmarks on bone adjacent to a missing body part(Smith, 1997). Cutmarks indicate that the severed bodypart was amputated around the time of death when softtissue was still present, especially if the cutmarksappear where muscles, tendons, and ligaments wouldhave needed to been severed (Hurlburt, 2000). Cutmarksare also useful for identifying the taking of soft tissuetrophies such as scalps, because the skulls of scalpingvictims usually exhibit a circumferential pattern ofcutmarks on the frontal, parietal, and occipital bones(Owsley and Berryman, 1975; Owsley et al., 1977; Allen

et al., 1985; Smith, 1995). While trophy-taking burialsshow an absence of targeted body parts, dismember-ment burials are characterized by detached, articulatedbody parts in proximity to individuals missing thesame parts (e.g., an articulated forearm and handdistinctly separated from the body) (Willey, 1990;Mensforth, 2001).

Guided by these previous studies, we documentedosteological data from the CCBD in four main categories:1) individuals missing specifically targeted skeletal ele-ments; 2) individuals found with detached and articu-lated body parts in the burial pit; 3) cutmarks associatedwith amputated body parts; and 4) isolated modifiedhuman bone mirroring those elements removed fromindividuals, possibly representing trophies.

While cutmarks provided the most conclusive evidencefor perimortem removal of a body part, we also examinedcases of missing or detached body parts without cut-marks, following Mensforth (2007). This was done incase the site report omitted cutmarks that were present,such as the case of CA-ALA-328 (Andrushko et al.,2005); or cutmarks were originally present but the bonesurface had degraded so that cutmarks were no longerpreserved; or the cutting tool had missed bone duringsoft tissue removal (Hamperl, 1967). Our determinationswere informed by burial descriptions, photographs, drawings,and skeletal inventories.

Cases were excluded if there was evidence that themissing or detached body parts resulted from post-depo-sitional disturbance. Post-depositional disturbanceoccurs from animal and plant activity, modern humanactivity from plowing or construction, and geomorphicprocesses (such as river action). While any of these activ-ities could result in the absence or movement of one ormore body part, there would also be disturbance to therest of the body and disarticulation of the skeleton. Evi-dence for this type of disturbance includes movement ofthe ribs out of anatomical position, rotation of the verte-brae, splaying of the pelvic and shoulder girdles, andloss of the small bones of the hands and feet (Haglund,1992; Haglund and Sorg, 1997; Roksandic, 2001). Caseswere thus excluded if such disarticulation of the bodywas documented, or if recent toolmarks from plows orconstruction machinery indicated modern postmortemdisturbance.

84 V.A. ANDRUSHKO ET AL.

American Journal of Physical Anthropology


3/14

Cases were also excluded if there was indication thata missing body part was due to prehistoric cultural prac-tices such as ancestor veneration. Native Californianmortuary practices did not usually include the practiceof memento mori, the retrieval of body parts of a vener-ated ancestor (Kroeber, 1922). Moreover, the retrieval ofbody parts for ancestor veneration would have typically

been done sometime after death, which would haveresulted in postmortem disturbance to the burial and noevidence of cutmarks (Fenton, 1991). Therefore, as notedabove, indication of postmortem disturbance was the pri-mary criterion used to exclude ambiguous cases. Yet thelack of postmortem disturbance alone cannot differenti-ate trophy-taking from ancestor veneration, since theirsignatures may overlap in some cases (Chacon and Dye,2007b). Therefore, a comprehensive analysis is requiredthat incorporates multiple variables including presenceand placement of cutmarks, targeting of specific elements,and recovery of modified bone representing trophies.

In statistically analyzing the data, since not all testsinvolved 2 3 2 tables we chose to remain consistent anduse the chi-square statistic for all cases. The only excep-

tion to this occurred when the temporal differencebetween the Early Period and Early/Middle TransitionPeriod was compared (see below). In this instance, therewere only two cases of trophy-taking in the Early Period.Since the number of cases was fewer than five, theFishers exact statistic had to be used.

RESULTS

A total of 76 individuals (0.56% of individuals in theCCBD) showed physical evidence consistent with trophy-taking and dismemberment (Table 1). Of these 76 indi-viduals, 59 (77.6%) showed cutmarks in association withtrophy-taking or dismemberment. Nine individuals hadmore than one type of perimortem body part removal

(e.g., Ca-Ala-613/H Burial 107 with forearm trophy-tak-ing and perimortem scalping), bringing the total numberof trophy-taking and dismemberment cases to 87 (bilat-eral cases of the same type of trophy-taking or dismem-berment were only counted once).

Of the 87 cases, 48 (55.2%) were of the upper limbregion. Thirty-nine cases involved the complete removalof the radius, ulna, and hand (see Fig. 1). In four addi-tional cases, the forearm bones were detached from theskeleton but remained in the burial pit. Finally, in fivecases the hands were detached from the forearms andleft in the burial pit. Two of these hand amputationscame from Ca-SJo-091, where a double-male burial (Bur-ials 5-22 and 5-26) was found with the right hands sev-ered and placed over the individuals faces (Hague,1976). Similarly, two cases of hand dismemberment weredocumented at Ca-CCo-235 in Lafayette, where bothindividuals of a double burial showed perimortem breaksto the radii and ulnae, with subsequent placement of thehands in the ribcage area (Andrushko et al., 2002).

Lower-limb trophy-taking and dismembermentaccounted for 12 of the 87 cases (13.8%). Five of thesecases involved the complete removal of the tibia, fibula,and foot. In six additional cases, the lower leg boneswere detached from the skeleton but remained with thebody. Finally, there was one case of foot dismemberment,in which the foot was detached from the body butremained in the burial pit.

Perimortem removal of the skull or scalp was seen in26 instances (29.9%). Complete decapitation with the

head missing from the burial was documented in eightcases, while four additional cases involved detachment ofthe skull which remained in the burial pit in a nonana-tomical position. Four cases were found of a separate tro-phy skull interred with a complete burial, and finally,scalping was found in ten cases. Of the ten reportedinstances of scalping, five cases showed evidence of heal-

ing (Lambert, 2004; Strother et al., 2005), indicatingthat individuals occasionally survived these attacks.

Finally, one case was found that suggested disembow-elment (1/87, 1.1%). This individual from San JoaquinValley, Ca-Mer-215 #23, exhibited an extensive list ofmutilations including foot dismemberment, rib cutmarks,and a severed spinous process of the 10th-thoracic verte-bra (Weber, 1978; Pritchard, 1979). The four cutmarksobserved on the ribs would have been consistent with anattempt to disembowel the individual.

The correlates of trophy-taking anddismemberment

Altogether, the individuals with evidence of trophy-taking or dismemberment (hereafter referred together astrophy victims) exhibited distinctive characteristicsrelated to warfare (Table 2). First, the remains of trophyvictims were almost three times more likely to be foundin a multiple burial context (47.9%) than non-trophy vic-tims (16.1%) (v2 5 52.0, P 0.0001) (Figs. 2 and 3). Sec-ond, the burial position of trophy victims differed signifi-cantly from other burials. The trophy victims were morelikely to be found in haphazard burial positions thannon-trophy victims (17.7% vs. 0.85%), a significant differ-ence (v2 5 179.3, P 0.0001). Haphazard burial referredto cases in which the limbs were splayed out and thusdeviated from the carefully positioned burial posturescommonly found in central California (see Fig. 3). The

disposition of the trophy victim sample favored a ventral(downward-facing) position (see Fig. 4), seen in 51.5% ofthe trophy victims compared to 41% of non-trophyvictims. However, this difference was not statisticallysignificant (v2 5 1.4511, P 5 0.228).

Age and sex distributions also differed significantlywhen comparing the group of trophy victims to non-trophy victims. First, males were more than three timesmore likely to suffer from these practices than females(71% males, 22% females among trophy victims), a stat-istically significant difference given that males andfemales were nearly equally represented in the non-trophy group (50.4% males, 49.6% females) (v2 5 20.5,P 0.0001). Second, young adults (1825 years) weremost often targeted; this group comprised 50.0% of thetrophy victims and only 17.6% of the non-trophy victims,a significant difference (v2 5 72.2, P 0.0001).

Trophy victims more frequently exhibited additionaltrauma (both blunt-force and sharp-force injuries) thanall other individuals (27.1 vs. 4.4%, respectively), a stat-istically significant difference (v2 5 64.7, P 0.0001). Inaddition, six trophy victims had multiple projectile trau-masthe first five individuals with three, four, five, six,and seven points (Ca-CCo-141 #3, Ca-Ala-309 #12-3801,Ca-Col-2 #47, Ca-Yol-13 #17, and Ca-Col-2 #3, respec-tively). The sixth individual (Burial 43 from Ca-Col-002)exhibited 23 embedded obsidian projectile points, four ofwhich were large, spear-sized blades (Krieger, 1935:p 4344). This phenomenon is known as pincushioning,described by Kelly (2000, p 150) as pincushioning the

85TROPHY-TAKING IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA



4/14


5/14


6/14

torso and head of a fallen enemy who is already dead orfatally wounded (see also Milner, 2005, p 149).

Temporal and geographical distributions

Our temporal results revealed that trophy-taking anddismemberment practices occurred over 5,000 years(Table 1), from the Early Period (3000500 BC) throughthe Late Period (AD 9001700), using the chronologicalschemes in Bennyhoff and Hughes (1987) and Groza(2002). Within this time span, the frequency of trophy-taking and dismemberment victims varied significantlyby period. In the Early Period, only two cases of trophy-taking/dismemberment were documented, for an overallfrequency of 0.17% (2/1212). In the subsequent Early/Middle Transition Period (500200 BC), there was adramatic increase in the frequency of trophy victims(31/1203, 2.6%). This marked increase in trophy-takingand dismemberment from the Early Period to the Early/Middle Transition Period is statistically significant(Fishers exact, P 0.0001). The frequency of trophy-taking and dismemberment then decreased into theMiddle Period (200 BCAD 700) (23/4592, 0.5%), Middle/Late Transition Period (AD 700900) (11/2182, 0.5%),and Late Period (AD 9001700) (9/3316, 0.28%). There

were no cases of trophy-taking/dismemberment in theHistoric Period (AD 17001880) (0/586). The 362 burialslacking a chronological designation were not included incalculating temporal frequencies.

A temporal pattern also appeared in the type of bodypart targeted. In the Early/Middle Transition Period andMiddle Period, the forearm and lower-limb bones were

the most common example of trophy-taking in our sam-ple (77.6% of all cases), while in the Middle/Late Transi-tion Period and Late Period, decapitation and scalpingwere slightly more common (51.7% of all cases).

The geographical distribution of sites with trophy-tak-ing and dismemberment cases was widespread in centralCalifornia (see Fig. 5). Of the 251 sites in the CCBD, 30sites (12.0%) in 13 counties contained burials with evi-dence of trophy-taking and dismemberment. Santa ClaraCounty had the highest number of sites at eight (2038,2137, 2194, 2478, 2674, 2690, 2732, 2806) (24.2% ofthe countys sites recorded in the CCBD), followed by Al-ameda County with seven (2042, 2309, 2328, 2329,2343, 2509, 2613) (29.2%). Next, Contra Costa County(2141, 2235, 2474) (12%) and Sacramento County

(2067, 2099, 2107) (7.5%) each had three sites with tro-phy-taking and dismemberment. Finally, nine countieshad one site with trophy-taking cases: San Francisco(204/H) (100%), Calaveras (214/405) (33.3%), Yolo(2013) (20%), Colusa (2002) (16.6%), Merced (2125)(12.5%), San Joaquin (2091) (9.1%), San Mateo (2023)(9.1%), Marin (2242) (8.8%), and Madera (2117) (5.9%).

Modified human bone as trophies

This study also identified 33 modified human elements(human bone artifacts) recorded in the CCBD (Table 3).A subset of these elements appeared to be related to tro-phy-takinga group of eight cut, drilled, and polishedradii and ulnae that were discovered at two sites in the

San Francisco Bay Area (see Fig. 6). These two siteswere relatively contemporaneous, with CA-SCl-674 datedto the Early/Middle Transition Period and Ca-Ala-613/Hdated to the Early Middle Period.

The first discovery occurred at the Rubino cemeterysite in San Jose (CA-SCl-674), where six human forearmbones (two partial adult ulnae and four partial adultradii) were discovered modified with drill holes, cut-marks, and polish (Grady et al., 2001; Andrushko et al.,2005). Four of the bones (two ulnae and two radii) werefound in a cache while the other radii were discovered intwo separate disturbed contexts. The modifications toeach bone were uniformly expressed as single drill holesand polish with cutmarks on six of the elements. Eachdrill hole perforated the medullary cavity, creating a con-tinuous longitudinal opening through the entire lengthof the bone.

At the second site of Ca-Ala-613/H in Pleasanton, alsofeaturing forearm trophy-taking (Strother et al., 2005), aradius and ulna were discovered with modifications simi-lar to those found on the Ca-SCl-674 forearm bones. Theforearm bones from Ca-Ala-613/H had been defleshed,polished, and cut, with the proximal and distal endsremoved and the medullary cavity hollowed out.

This assemblage of modified human elements sharedseveral notable characteristics. First, the bones mirroredthose most often missing from the burials of trophy-taking victimsradii and ulnae. Moreover, they werefound within cemeteries that exhibited evidence of tro-phy-taking, dismemberment, and a high prevalence of

Fig. 1. Cutmarks on the distal humerus of an individualwithout forearms. [Color figure can be viewed in the onlineissue, which is available at www.interscience.wiley.com.]




7/14

violent injury. The presence of cutmarks on the forearmbones indicated that soft tissue was removed from themuscle attachment sites, consistent with perimortem re-moval of the elements; also, the retention of the line offusion on two modified radii indicated that these bonesbelonged to young adult individuals, the same age groupas the majority of the trophy-taking victims. Thechronology of these modified bones is important, sincethe bones were found in Early/Middle Transition Period(CA-SCl-674) and Early Middle Period (Ca-Ala-613/H)contexts, the time span that featured the highest preva-lence of trophy-taking. Finally, all of the human boneartifacts appear to be modified for displaya hallmarkof trophy-takingby drilling and hollowing out themedullary cavity.

DISCUSSION

To reiterate, our study tests two hypotheses developedfrom the San Jose CA-SCl-674 discovery: 1) Trophy-tak-ing and dismemberment in central California were notisolated incidents but instead were practiced as routinewarfare strategies over a wide period of time; and 2) Tro-phy-taking and dismemberment patterns in central Cali-fornia changed over time with an evident increase in theEarly/Middle Transition Period.

To find support for the first hypothesis, we need toshow that trophy-taking and dismemberment occurredin several instances over a wide period of time and thatthese instances were related to warfare. Here, ourresults clearly support both of these inferences.

We found 76 individuals with evidence of trophy-taking and dismemberment. These individuals repre-sent 30 prehistoric sites and 13 counties in central

TABLE 2. Statistically significant burial attributes of trophy-taking and dismemberment victims

Trophy-takin g sampl e Unaffected individual s

Attribute n N % n N % P-value

Double/multiple inhumation 34 71 47.9 1,636 10,137 16.1 \0.0001Haphazard/unconventional burial 11 62 17.7 54 5,376 \1 \0.0001Male individuals 55 71 77.5 3,358 6,659 50.4 \0.0001

Young adult individuals 38 76 50.0 2,226 12,616 17.6 \0.0001

Fig. 2. Double burial with individuals exhibiting lower limbtrophy-taking and foot dismemberment. Photograph courtesy ofRandy Wiberg.

Fig. 3. Double burial with individual exhibiting forearmtrophy-taking. Photograph courtesy of Randy Wiberg.




8/14

California, dating from the Early Period (3000500BC) through the Late Period (AD 9001700). The wide-spread nature can further be seen in the type of casesdocumented, with scalping, decapitation, and forearmand lower-limb trophy-taking and dismemberment allpresent.

Next, there are multiple lines of evidence that indicatethese cases were related to warfare. Trophy victims were

more likely to exhibit blunt-force and sharp-force traumain a statistically significant pattern. Since skeletal evi-dence of perimortem trauma is one of the most convinc-ing indications of violence and warfare in prehistoricsocieties (Lambert, 2002), the traumatic injuries of thetrophy victims provide support for a warfare-relatedexplanation. Six trophy victims also showed multipleprojectile point wounds, and in one case, an individualwas pincushioned. Kelly (2000, p 151) states that. . . [pincushioning] is clearly associated with vengeancekilling in feud and war. Multiple wounds invariably indi-cate collective armed conflict, grounded in group respon-sibility to avenge a death.

A warfare explanation is further supported by the de-mographic patterns and burial practices of the trophyvictims. These individuals were predominantly youngadult malesthe same demographic group that typicallyengages in warfare activities (Seeman, 1988; Redmond,1994). Even so, women and old adults were not sparedfrom trophy-taking and dismemberment practices, whichsuggests a form of reciprocal violence involving the socialsubstitution of noncombatant individuals (Kelly, 2000;Mensforth, 2001). Burial patterns, meanwhile, revealthat trophy victims were more often found in multipleburials indicative of single events of violence (Kuck-elman et al., 2002). Trophy victims were also more oftenburied in haphazard burial positions, in contrast to thetypical burial position of a flexed position on the side orback seen throughout most of central California prehis-tory. The fact that trophy victims deviated from the typi-

cal burial position suggests a differential mortuary treat-ment accorded to warfare combatants killed away fromtheir homeland.

Eight modified human bones were also found thatappear to be trophies. These bones mirror those removedfrom trophy victims and were modified in ways to facili-tate display. The modifications, including drilling andhollowing of the medullary canal, may have served to

prepare the elements for stringing on a cord or garmentfor inclusion in warfare-related ceremonial rites (Kroeber,1925; Hrdlicka, 1941). The other 25 modified human bonesfound at central California sites may also be related to tro-phy-taking, but their links are less clear.

Ethnographic and ethnohistorical accounts provideeven more support for the warfare explanation, indicat-ing that dismemberment was common among the tribesof central California (Lambert, 2007). Mission records ofthe Costanoan from Santa Cruz reveal that when one ofthese [enemies] is killed in battle, they tear his limbs topieces (Kroeber, 1908, p 25). Also, historic reports of theSalinan Indians, a group located in what is nowthe counties of Monterey and San Luis Obispo, note thecustom of cutting off the heads and arms of the enemysbraves, so as to inspire them with valor (Mason, 1912,p 180). An ethnographic account of the northern Yokutsdescribes dismemberment as part of their warfare prac-tices: The Indians cut off their hands, laid open theirbreast, tore them asunder, and scattered the remains(Driver, 1937, p 135).

Ethnohistoric accounts also describe how human bodyparts were displayed as trophies. In one case, membersof the Nisenan tribe reportedly displayed a scalp atop aneffigy with ropes attached for manipulation, giving theappearance of a dancing figure (Beals, 1933). CentralMiwok scalp dances (sule yuse) included singing, danc-ing, drumming, ridicule of the slain warrior, and tossingthe scalp into the air (Gifford, 1955). These ethnographicand ethnohistoric accounts indicate that trophy-taking

Fig. 4. Ventral burial with forearm trophy-taking and embedded obisidian point in left rib. [Color figure can be viewed in theonline issue, which is available at www.interscience.wiley.com.]




9/14

and dismemberment were an important aspect of centralCalifornia warfare.

Our second hypothesis focuses on temporal changes introphy-taking and dismemberment, with the resultsshowing these patterns did change over time. Whilethere is little evidence for trophy-taking or dismember-ment in the Early Period, we see a statistically signifi-cant increase in the subsequent Early/Middle TransitionPeriodover 15 times as frequent. The frequency thendecreases through the Middle Period, Middle/Late Tran-sition Period, and Late Period to less than one-fifth ofthe previous period, until the practice eventually disap-pears in the Historic Period (AD 17001880).

There are two likely explanations for the proliferationof trophy-taking and dismemberment in the Early/Mid-dle Transition Period. First, this time period was one ofrapid cultural change featuring the emergence of a hier-archical social structure. Within this newly formed hier-archical system, trophy-taking may have functioned toincrease status by providing tangible evidence of braveryand prowess on the battlefield. This suggestion is backedby ethnohistoric evidence that connects prestigeenhancement and trophy-taking: He who possessed ascalp kept it as a trophy, and he who had the most was

considered the bravest and most worthy to be given thehonor of chief (Cook, 1962, p 203).

The connection between social mobility and trophy-taking has been noted in other North American studies(Mensforth, 2007). Smith (1993, 1997) argues that tro-phy-taking emerged as a means to increase social status,resource access, and marriage opportunities for NativeAmericans in the eastern United States during the Ar-chaic Period. Similarly, among the Northwest Coasttribes, those who participated in trophy-taking wereknown as terrifying killers (Ferguson, 1984, p 309), astanding that conferred compensation in ceremonialtitles and other privileges.

The migration of outside groups presents the secondexplanation for the increase in trophy-taking and dis-memberment seen in the Early/Middle Transition Period.During this time period, there was a series of migrationsinto the Bay Area of groups that were biologically dis-tinct from surrounding groups (Breschini, 1983; Gerow,1993). The chronology of these migrations between 500BC to AD 700 matches the timing of the trophy-takingincrease (Bennyhoff, 1994), suggesting that populationmovements may have disrupted intertribal relations andescalated occurrences of violent contact (Wiberg, 2002).

Fig. 5. Geographical distribution of trophy-taking cases in central California.




10/14

Conflicts likely arose from poaching and trespassing on adelineated territory, or for murder and wife-stealingleading to chronic intergroup aggression, revenge kill-ings, and trophy-taking (Kroeber, 1925; James and Gra-ziani, 1975).

We contrast these data to studies from the expansiveChumash area of Southern California which show a dif-ferent pattern. The Chumash region was chosen for com-parison because it is the only other area in Californiawhere large series of skeletal samples have been ana-lyzed. In Walkers (1989) study of 744 Chumash individ-uals, no evidence was found for trophy-taking or dis-memberment. Lambert (1994, 1997) also found no evi-dence for trophy-taking or dismemberment in a study of1,744 Chumash individuals from the Santa BarbaraChannel Islands region. The burial sites examined spanapproximately the same time periods as those sites fromcentral California and show similar demographics.

The lack of trophy-taking and dismemberment amongthe Chumash cannot be explained by lack of overall vio-

lence. In fact, violent trauma was common among theChumashaffecting up to 25% of individualsbut mostcases were nonlethal and consisted of healed depressedcranial fractures (Walker, 1989; Lambert, 1994, 1997).These cranial fractures, generally small and round,likely resulted from ritualized club fights like those seenamong the Yanomamo, Oro-Wari, and other South Amer-ican groups (Chagnon, 1992; Conklin, 2001; Tung, 2007;Walker, 1989). Chumash violence was often regulated,ritualized, and primarily nonlethal, providing an effec-tive means to alleviate social tension among individuals(Lambert, 2002).

Why then was violence more lethal and provocative incentral California than in Southern California? The an-swer may relate to differences in social geography. TheChumash nation featured multi-village polities with acollective Chumash identity (King, 1990). In contrast,central California was a culturally diverse region withsmall tribes living close together; these groups func-tioned independently of one another, with distinctive

TABLE 3. Modified human elements from central California sites

Site Modified human element Time period Reference

Ca-Ala-12 Tibia whistle Early Middle Period Rackerby, 1967Ca-Ala-328 Cut proximal femur Early Middle Period Davis and Treganza, 1959Ca-Ala-343 098 Modified human tibia

with perforations and

red pigment stain

Terminal Middle Period Marshall, 2001

Ca-Ala-613/H 080A;cat #115

Polished radius shaft withproximal and distal ends removedand multiple cutmarks/scrapemarks

Early Middle Period Strother et al., 2005

Ca-Ala-613/H 080B;cat #105

Polished ulna shaft withproximal and distal ends removedand multiple cutmarks/scrapemarks

Early Middle Period Strother et al., 2005

Ca-Cal-099 MNI17 Plate 1;2:3W

Human femur atlatl Early/Middle TransitionPeriod-IntermediateMiddle Period

Gonsalves, 1955

Ca-CCo-309 Burial 5 Cache of six human modified femoraand one modified fibula in cache

Early Period Price et al., 2006

Ca-CCo-548 Modified human calvariumwith smoothed edges

Early Period Schwitalla andFitzgerald, 2009

Ca-Sac-029 157X Worked left human femurwith cutmarks and a perforation

Late Period 2A-LatePeriod 2B

Nelson, 2003

Ca-Sac-107 S164a;(#16641)

Partial human calvarium withedges exhibiting cutting, chipping,and smoothing marks

Early Period Heizer andFenenga, 1939

Ca-SC l-137 #2250 Polished adu lt human r adius Earl y Mi ddle Peri od-LateMiddle Period

Cartier et al., 1993

Ca-SCl-674 #206 Partial radius with drillholeand polished shaft

Early Middle Period-Middle Period

Andrushko et al., 2005

Ca-SCl-674 Partial radius withdrillhole and polished shaft



Ca-SCl-674 #45 Cache of modified partial humanradii and ulnae (four total),with drillholes, polish, and cutmarks



Ca-SJo-056 53; 12-7016,(#L19273)

Human fibula dagger-liketool with 20 very small circular Haliotisornaments at the handle end

Early Period Heizer, 1949

Ca-SJo-068 Feature A Partial human calvarium withHaliotis beads inside the skull cap.

Early Period Ragir, 1972

Ca-SJo-068 024A; 12-7572 Worked human tibia Early Period Ragir, 1972Ca-SJo-091 100 (No. 03866) Ground human rib fragment Early/Middle Transition

Period-Early Middle PeriodJohnson, 1992

Ca-SJo-142 16; 12-5677 Human radius whistleand a long bone needle

Early Period Heizer, 1949

Ca-Sol-270 22C; 2-469, 472 Human bone whistle Early Middle Period McGonagle, 1966Ca-Sol-270 22B; 2-474 Human bone whistle Early Middle Period McGonagle, 1966Ca-Sol-270 22A;

2-468,470,471,473Human bone whistle Early Middle Period McGonagle, 1966




11/14

names, territories, dialects, and customs (Margolin,1978). The cultural attributes of the tribes emphasizedthe otherness of closely residing groups.

The concept of dehumanization is the ultimate linkbetween central California patterns of violence andsocial geography. Trophy-taking and dismembermentrequired a view of the enemy as the othera dehuman-ization that allowed one to treat an enemy as one mightbutcher an animal. The ability to dehumanize an enemy

emerges from the inherent ethnocentrism of the ingroup-outgroup bias: The more one dehumanizes the out-group, the less they deserve the humane treatmentenjoined by universal norms, and hence the greater theaggression (Struch and Schwartz, 1989, p 365; see alsoSumner, 1906; Dollard, 1938; Levine and Campbell,1972; Tajfel, 1982; Staub, 1989; Brewer, 1999; Hewstoneet al., 2002). The ingroup-outgroup bias would have pro-liferated in prehistoric central California, where closelyresiding groups maintained rigid ethnic identities inopposition to one another. Trophy-taking and dismem-berment would then have been able to occur in situa-tions of extreme social tension.

CONCLUSIONSOur analysis of trophy-taking and dismemberment

indicate that these practices occurred over both a longtime span and wide geographic area in central Califor-nia. The cases of trophy-taking and dismemberment arelinked to warfare by three categories: trophy victimsexhibiting multiple traumatic injuries and embeddedprojectile points, a demographic group featuring mostlyyoung to middle adult males (a draft-age demographic),and trophy victims more often haphazardly buried andinterred in mass burials with similar victims. Togetherthe evidence suggests a specific suite of practicesaccorded to these warfare victims. In corroboration,ethnographic and ethnohistoric documents relate that

trophy-taking and dismemberment were prominent aswarfare activities in central California.

From a temporal perspective, results suggest thattrophy-taking and dismemberment peaked in the Early/Middle Transition Period (500200 BC). During this timeperiod, the social system of central Californian groupsbecame increasingly stratified, possibly motivating indi-viduals to collect trophies as a means of status acquisi-tion. Migration occurring at this time also likely ampli-

fied friction and reciprocal violence between tribes.While trophy-taking and dismemberment flourished in

central California, there is no evidence for these prac-tices in native populations of Southern California. Differ-ences in social geography imply that this was a factorwith the territorial boundaries and intense tribal inter-actions of central California versus the collective identityof the Chumash of Southern California. The heightenedcultural differentiation of central California emphasizedthe otherness of closely residing groups and seeminglyallowed for trophy-taking and dismemberment to mani-fest and thrive.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The first and second authors dedicate this article toPhillip Walker, in memoriam, with respect and grati-tude. The authors thank the following people for theirinsight and contributions: Patricia Lambert, Tim D.White, Robert Jurmain, Clark S. Larsen, Tiffiny Tung,Randy Wiberg, Mark Griffin, Randall T. Milliken,Michele Buzon, Anna Engberg, Kate Latham, DianeGrady, Christine Marshall, Eric C. Strother, Heather A.Price, Colin Busby, Melody Tannam, Ann Peak, MelindaPeak, Jerald J. Johnson, William H. Olsen, Robert Cart-ier, Lisa Dietz, Denise M. Jurich, Erik A. Whiteman,Richard T. Fitzgerald, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal, James S.Nelson, Roger M. La Jeunesse, John H. Pryor, CarolynOrbann, Tamara Leher, Mitch Keur, Robert Jackson, Re-gina George, Joan Knudson, Lisa Pesnichak, Randall G.

Fig. 6. Modified forearm bones from CA-SCl-674, a site with forearm trophy-taking. [Color figure can be viewed in the onlineissue, which is available at www.interscience.wiley.com.]




12/14

Groza, Greg White, Kimberly Carpenter, and KennethBethard. The authors gratefully acknowledge Allen Pas-tron, director of the Rubino project, Andrew Gottsfield,principal photographer for the Rubino project, and theentire crew of field and laboratory researchers. Addi-tional thanks are also extended to the editors and anony-mous reviewers who provided extremely useful com-

ments on this manuscript. Viviana Bellifemine is grate-fully acknowledged for research assistance as is DeborahAndrushko for editorial assistance.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen WH, Merbs CF, Birkby WH. 1985. Evidence for prehistoricscalping at Nuvakwewtaqa (Chavez Pass) and GrasshopperRuin, Arizona. In: Merbs CF, Miller RJ, editors. Health anddisease in the prehistoric Southwest. Tempe: Arizona StateUniversity. p 2342.

Andrushko VA, Engberg A, Latham KA, Bellifemine V. 2002.Bioarchaeological investigations at CA-CCo-235, Contra CostaCounty, California. Report submitted to Contra Costa County,on file at the Northwest Information Center.

Andrushko VA, Latham KA, Grady DL, Pastron AG, Walker

PL. 2005. Bioarchaeological evidence for trophy taking inprehistoric central California. Am J Phys Anthropol127:375384.

Beals RL. 1933. Ethnology of the Nisenan. University of Califor-nia publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 31.Berkeley: University of California. p 335414.

Bennike P. 1985. Paleopathology of Danish skeletons: a compar-ative study of demography, disease and injury. Copenhagen:Akademisk Forlag.

Bennyhoff JA. 1994. Variation within the Meganos culture. To-ward a new taxonomic framework for central Californiaarchaeology. Contributions of the University of CaliforniaArchaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley. p 8189.

Bennyhoff JA, Hughes RE. 1987. Shell bead and ornamentexchange networks between California and the Western GreatBasin. Am Museum Nat Hist Pap 64(2).

Breschini GS. 1983. Models of population movements in central

California prehistory. Salinas: Coyote Press.Brewer MB. 1999. The psychology of prejudice: ingroup love or

outgroup hate. J Soc Issues 55:429444.Cartier R, Bass J, Ortman S, Jurmain RD. 1993. The archaeol-

ogy of the Guadalupe Corridor. San Jose: ArchaeologicalResource Management.

Chacon RJ, Dye DH, editors. 2007a. The taking and displayingof human body parts as trophies by Amerindians. New York:Springer.

Chacon RJ, Dye DH. 2007b. Supplemental data on Amerindiantrophy taking. In: Chacon RJ, Dye DH, editors. The takingand displaying of human body parts as trophies by Amerin-dians. New York: Springer. p 618629.

Chagnon NA. 1992. Yanomamo. New York: Holt, Reinhart &Winston.

Conklin BA. 2001. Consuming grief: compassionate cannibalismin an Amazonian society. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Cook SF. 1962. Expeditions to the interior of California: CentralValley, 18201840. Univ California Anthropol Records 20:151214.

Davis JT, Treganza AE. 1959. The Patterson Mound: a compara-tive analysis of archaeology of site CA-ALA-328. University ofCalifornia Archaeological Survey Reports, Vol. 47, p 192,University of California, Berkeley.

Dollard J. 1938. Hostility and fear in social life. Soc Forces17:1525.

Driver HE. 1937. Culture element distribution: VI, Southern Si-erra Nevada. University of California Anthropological Records1:53154.

Driver HE. 1961. Indians of North America. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Estes A, Strother E, Brown K, Summerlin N, Pilloud M, AllanJ, Self W. 2002. Report on the Catellus Hercules project data

recovery, burial removal, and construction monitoring at thesite Ca-CCo-474/H, Hercules, California. Report submitted toCRG Constructors LP, Newport Beach, California.

Ewers JC. 1967. Blackfoot raiding for horses and scalps. In:Bohannan P, editor. Law and warfare. New York: NaturalHistory Press. p 327344.

Fenton J. 1991. The social uses of dead people: problems andsolutions in the analysis of post mortem body processing inthe archaeological record. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York.

Ferguson RB. 1984. A reexamination of the causes of NorthwestCoast warfare. In: Ferguson RB, editor. War, culture, andenvironment. Orlando: Academic Press. p 267328.

Finucane BC. 2008. Trophy heads from Nawinpukio. Peru:physical and chemical analysis of Huarpa-era modified humanremains. Am J Phys Anthropol 135:7584.

Frayer DW. 1997. Ofnet: evidence for a Mesolithic massacre. In:Martin DL, Frayer DW, editors. Troubled times: violence andwarfare in the past. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach. p 181216.

Gerow BA. 1993. Implications of physical anthropology for Cali-fornia prehistory. There grows a green tree, papers in honorof David A. Fredrickson, Publication 11. Davis: Center forArchaeological Research.

Gifford EW. 1955. Central Miwok ceremonies. University of

California Anthropological Records Vol. 14, p 260318.Gonsalves WC. 1955. Winslow cave: a mortuary site in Calave-ras County, California. Reports of the University of CaliforniaArchaeological Survey 29. Berkeley: University of California.p 3148.

Grady DL, Latham KA, Andrushko VA. 2001. Archaeologicalinvestigations at CA-SCL-674, the Rubino site, city of SanJose, Santa Clara County, California, Vol.II. Human skeletalbiology of CA-SCL-674. Archives of California Prehistory 50.Salinas: Coyote Press.

Groza RG. 2002. An AMS chronology for central CaliforniaOlivella shell beads. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, San Francisco State University.

Haglund WD. 1992. Contribution of rodents to postmortemartifacts of bone and soft tissue. J For Sci 37:14591465.

Haglund WD, Sorg MH. 1997. Forensic taphonomy: the post-mortem fate of human remains. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Hague R. 1976. A physical and cultural analysis with a paleo-ecological reconstruction of an indigenous Indian populationof the Northern Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Deltaregions. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropol-ogy, California State University, Sacramento.

Hamperl H. 1967. The osteological consequences of scalping. In:Brothwell DR, Sandison AT, editors. Diseases in antiquity.Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. p 630634.

Heizer RF. 1949. The archaeology of central California, I: TheEarly Horizon. University of California AnthropologicalRecords Vol. 12. Berkeley: University of California. p 184.

Heizer RF, Fenenga F. 1939. Archaeological horizons in centralCalifornia. Am Anthropol 41:378399.

Hewstone M, Rubin M, Willis H. 2002. Intergroup bias. AnnRev Psychol 53:575604.

Holmes WH. 1900. Anthropological studies in California, Wash-ington, D.C.: United States Nature Museum. p 155188.

Hoskins J, editor. 1996. Headhunting and the social imagina-tion in Southeast Asia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hrdlicka A. 1941. Diseases of and artifacts on skulls and bonesfrom Kodiak Island. Smithsonian Misc Collec 101:4.

Hurlburt SA. 2000. The taphonomy of cannibalism: a review ofanthropogenic bone modification in the American Southwest.Int J Osteoarchaeol 10:426.

James SR, Graziani S. 1975. California Indian warfare. Contri-butions of the University of California ArchaeologicalResearch Facility 23. Berkeley. p 47109.

Johnson JJ. 1992. Ca-SJo-91 collection catalog verificationreport: Accession number 81-5. Unpublished report preparedfor Cultural Studies Branch, Environmental Division of theCalifornia Department of Transportation.

Keeley L. 1996. War before civilization. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.




13/14

Kellner C. 2006. Trophy heads in prehistoric Peru: Wari impe-rial influence in Nasca head-taking practices. In: BonogofskyM, editor. Skull collection, modification and decoration.Oxford: BAR International Series 1539. p 101111.

Kelly RC. 2000. Warless societies and the origin of war. AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press.

King C. 1990. The evolution of Chumash society: a comparativestudy of artifacts used in social system maintenance in theSanta Barbara Channel region before A.D. 1804. New York:Garland Publishing.

Krieger AD. 1935. Report on the excavations at Howells Pointmound, Colusa County, California: University of CaliforniaArchaeological Expedition of 1935. Unpublished Manuscript383-A, B, C, D. Phoebe A. Hearst Museum, Department ofAnthropology, University of California. Berkeley.

Kroeber AL. 1908. A mission record of the California Indians.Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8.Berkeley: University of California. p 127.

Kroeber AL. 1922. Elements of culture in native California.Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 13.Berkeley: University of California. p 260328.

Kroeber AL. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulle-tin 78 of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Kuckelman KA, Lightfoot RR, Martin DL. 2002. The Bioarch-aeology and taphonomy of violence at Castle Rock and SandCanyon Pueblos, Southwestern Colorado. Am Antiq 67:486513.

Lambert P. 1994. War and peace on the Western front: a studyof violent conflict and its correlates in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies of coastal southern California. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara.

Lambert PM. 1997. Patterns of violence in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies of soastal southern California. In: MartinDL, Frayer DW, editors. Troubled times: violence and warfarein the past. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach. p 77 110.

Lambert PM. 2002. The archaeology of war: a North Americanperspective. J Archaeol Res 10:207241.

Lambert PM. 2004. Trophy-taking in California: the historicand prehistoric evidence. Paper presented at the 70th An-nual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Mon-

treal.Lambert PM. 2007. Ethnographic and linguistic evidence for theorigins of human trophy taking in California. In: Chacon RJ,Dye DH, editors. The taking and displaying of human bodyparts as trophies by Amerindians. New York: Springer. p 6589.

Leblanc SA. 1999. Prehistoric warfare in the American South-west. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Levine RA, Campbell DT. 1972. Ethnocentrism: theories of con-flict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: Wiley.

Margolin M. 1978. The Ohlone way: Indian life in the San Fran-cisco-Monterey Bay Area. Berkeley: Heyday Books.

Marshall C. 2001. Emergency burial recovery at Ca-Ala-343Civic Center Drive Apartments project, City of Fremont,Alameda County, California. Vol. II: Skeletal biology. LosAngeles: Sun America Affordable Housing Partners.

Mason JA. 1912. The ethnology of the Salinan Indians. Publica-tions in American Archaeology and Ethnology 10: University

of California. p 97240.McGonagle RL. 1966. The Cook site: A Middle Horizon site in

central California. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, University of California, Davis.

Mensforth RP. 2001. Warfare and trophy-taking in the Archaicperiod. In: Prufer OH, Pedde SE, Meindl RS, editors. Archaictransitions in Ohio and Kentucky prehistory. Kent, Ohio:Kent State University Press. p 110138.

Mensforth RP. 2007. Human trophy taking in eastern NorthAmerica during the Archaic period: the relationship to war-fare and social complexity. In: Chacon RJ, Dye DH, editors.The taking and displaying of human body parts as trophiesby Amerindians. New York: Springer. p 222277.

Milner GR. 1995. An osteological perspective on prehistoric war-fare. In: Beck LA, editor. Regional approaches to mortuaryanalysis. New York: Plenum. p 221244.

Milner GR. 1998. Archaeological evidence for prehistoric andhistoric inter-group conflict in eastern North America. In:Bullock PY, editor. Deciphering Anasazi violence: with re-gional comparisons to Mesoamerican and Woodland cultures.Santa Fe: HRM Books. p 6991.

Milner GR. 2005. Nineteenth-century arrow wounds and percep-tions of prehistoric warfare. Am Antiq 70:144156.

Milner GR, Anderson E, Smith VG. 1991. Warfare in late Pre-historic west-central Illinois. Am Antiq 56:581603.

Moratto MJ. 1984. California archaeology. Orlando: AcademicPress.

Nelson C. 2003. Analysis of modified human bone and perimor-tem cutmark trauma identified from burials labeled 157 and158 at Ca-Sac-29. Unpublished updated inventory of humanremains and burial inventory records associated with Ca-Sac-29, The King-Brown site, Department of Anthropology, Insti-tute of Archaeology and Cultural Studies, California StateUniversity, Sacramento.

Olsen SL, Shipman P. 1988. Surface modification on bone: tram-pling versus butchery. J Archaeol Sci 15:535553.

Olsen SL, Shipman P. 1994. Cutmarks and perimortem treat-ment of skeletal remains on the Northern Plains. In: OwsleyDW, Jantz RL, editors. Skeletal biology in the Great Plains:migration, warfare, health and subsistence. Washington, D.C.:

Smithsonian Institution Press. p 377390.Owsley DW. 1994. Warfare in the Coalescent tradition popula-tions of the Northern Plains. In: Owsley DW, Jantz RL, edi-tors. Skeletal biology in the Great Plains: migration, warfare,health and subsistence. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Insti-tution Press. p 333343.

Owsley DW, Berryman HE. 1975. Ethnographic and archaeolog-ical evidence of scalping in the southeastern United States.Tenn Archaeol 31:4158.

Owsley DW, Berryman HE, Bass WM. 1977. Demographic andosteological evidence for warfare at the Larson site, SouthDakota. Plains Anthropol Soc Mem 13:119131.

Powers S. 1976 (1877). Tribes of California. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Price H, Arrigoni A, Price J, Strother E, Allan J. 2006. Archaeo-logical investigations at CA-CCO-309, Rossmoor Basin, Con-tra Costa County, California. Report prepared for the County

of Contra Costa Department of Public Works, Martinez, Cali-fornia by William Self Associates.Pritchard EW. 1979. Osteological analysis of burials 1825.

Archaeological investigations at the Wolfsen Mound, CA-Mer-215, Merced County, California: Addendum to 1978 Phase IIIreport prepared for City of Newman, Stanislaus County,California.

Rackerby F. 1967. The archaeological salvage of two San Fran-cisco Bay shellmounds. Department of Anthropology Occa-sional Papers in Anthropology 3. San Francisco: San Fran-cisco State College. p 191.

Ragir S. 1972. The Early Horizon in central California prehis-tory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeolog-ical Research Facility 15. Berkeley: University of California.

Redmond E. 1994. Tribal and chiefly warfare in South America.Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology 28. Ann Arbor: Uni-versity of Michigan.

Roksandic M. 2001. Position of skeletal remains as key tounderstanding mortuary behavior. In: Haglund WD, SorgMH, editors. Advances in forensic taphonomy: method, theory,and archaeological perspectives. Boca Raton: CRC Press.p 95113.

Schwitalla AW. 2005. The central California BioarchaeologicalDatabase (CCBD). Sacramento: Millennia Molding and Cast-ing Company.

Schwitalla AW, Fitzgerald R. 2009. Seventy years of hindsight:a reassessment of the cultural and behavioral traits thatdefine the Early Horizon in central California. Paper pre-sented at the Society of California Archaeology Meetings,March 15, 2009, Modesto.

Seeman M. 1988. Ohio Hopewell trophy-skull artifacts as evi-dence for competition in Middle Woodland societies circa 50B.C. to A.D. 350. Am Antiq 53:565577.




14/14

Smith MO. 1993. A probable case of decapitation at the Late Ar-chaic Robinson site (40SM4), Smith County, Tennessee. TennAnthropol 18:131142.

Smith MO. 1995. Scalping in the Archaic period: evidence fromthe eastern Tennessee valley. Southeast Archaeol 14:6068.

Smith MO. 1997. Osteological indications of warfare in theArchaic period of the Western Tennessee Valley. In: MartinDL, Frayer DW, editors. Troubled times: violence and warfarein the past. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach. p 241266.

Staub E. 1989. The roots of evil: the origins of genocide andother group violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Strother EC, Price J, Arrigoni A, Price H, Young T, KearneyK. 2005. Data recovery, burial removal and constructionmonitoring at the Canyon Oaks Site (Ca-Ala-613/H), Pleas-anton, Alameda County, California. Vol. 2: human osteology.Report on file with the Northwest Information Center,Sonoma State.

Struch N, Schwartz S. 1989. Intergroup aggression: its predic-tors and distinctness from in-group bias. J Pers Soc Psychol56:364373.

Sumner WG. 1906. Folkways. Boston: Ginn.Tajfel H. 1982. Social psychology of intergroup relations. Ann

Rev Psychol 33:139.Tung T. 2007. Trauma and violence in the Wari empire of the

Peruvian Andes: warfare, raids, and ritual fights. Am J Phys

Anthropol 133:941956.Tung T. 2008. Dismembering bodies for display: a bioarchaeolog-

ical study of trophy heads from the Wari site of Conchopata.Peru. Am J Phys Anthropol 136:294308.

Verano JW. 2003. Mummified trophy heads from Peru: diagnos-tic features and medicolegal significance. J Forensic Sci48:525530.

Walker PL. 1989. Cranial injuries as evidence of violence in pre-historic Southern California. Am J Phys Anthropol 80:313323.

Walker PL. 2000. Bioarchaeological ethics: a historical perspec-tive on the value of human remains. In: Katzenberg MA,Saunders SR, editors. Biological anthropology of the humanskeleton. New York: Wiley-Liss. p 339.

Weber T. 1978. Analysis of human skeletal remains of the Wolf-sen Mound (CA-Mer-215). Archaeological investigations at theWolfsen Mound, CA-Mer-215, Merced County, California. Reportprepared for City of Newman, Stanislaus County, California.

White TD. 1992. Prehistoric cannibalism at Mancos 5MTUMR-2346. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wiberg RS. 1997. Archaeological investigations at Site Ca-Ala-42 Alameda County, California. Final report prepared forStandard Pacific of Northern California, Pleasanton.

Wiberg RS. 2002. Archaeological investigations: Skyport PlazaPhase I (Ca-SCl-478), San Jose, Santa Clara County, Califor-nia. Report prepared for Spieker Properties, San Jose, Califor-nia.

Willey PS. 1990. Prehistoric warfare on the Great Plains: skele-tal analysis of the Crow Creek massacre victims. New York:Garland.

Williams SR, Forgey K, Klarich E. 2001. An osteological studyof Nasca trophy heads collected by A. L. Kroeber during theMarshall Field expeditions to Peru. Fieldiana Anthropology33. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.



Documents

Andrushko et al - Trophy-taking and dismemberment as warfare strategies in Prehistoric Central California