Archaeology “Signature Assignment”
Due no later than February 28, 2022
Maximum Score (Maximum Course Points): 100
This assignment consists of three parts. All three parts are required.
Associated materials to read/view:

Nature paper: See attached document associated with this assignment.
Burial Site Analysis: See Attached documents associated with this assignment.
Part 1 (15 points)
Watch the Pinker TED talk and fill out the worksheet (page 2 of this document).
Part 2 (15 points)
Read the Nature article and fill out the worksheet (page 3 of this document).
Part 3 (70 points)
Burial Site Analysis
This site is a graveyard of hunter-gatherers. The site is located in a desert, near a river. Fill out the table
(page 4 of this document) and answer the questions that follow (pages 5 & 6 of this document).
Pinker TED Talk Worksheet
Note: Be precise! The point is to indicate that you watched the video, so provide the exact
figures cited by Pinker for questions 1, 2, and 3.
1. In the slide with violent death (murder) percentages, the range for the traditional groups is from
_____% for the Gebusi to nearly _____% for the Jivaro. Pinker provides an estimate of 100 million 20th
century violent deaths. He states that if the 20th century death rate were comparable to the tribal rates,
instead of 100 million, the number would be what? ____________________
2. Pinker cites an approximate homicide rate given by Eisner for the Middle Ages of 100 per 100,000
people per year. According to Pinker, the modern rate is less than _____ per 100,000 per year for some
European countries.
3. On the slide with interstate wars, deaths per war per year is given as about __________ in the 1950s.
By the early 2000s, this number had dropped to fewer than __________ deaths per conflict per year.
4. List the five reasons Pinker gives for our impression that life is more violent today than in the past.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
5. List the four hypotheses Pinker suggests for why violence has declined in societies over time.
(Elaboration is not necessary.)
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
2
Nature Article Worksheet
1. What is the name of the archaeological site investigated in this report? ____________________
2. What type of subsistence did these people have? ______________________________
3. Were the people deliberately buried? (yes or no) _____
4. The authors propose a date for the site of ca. __________ to __________ years BP (before present),
consistent with dating of shells, harpoons, and charcoal.
5. Of the 12 articulated skeletons examined, _____ were males and _____ were females (as assessed by
the authors).
6. Of the 12 articulated skeletons found, how many show clear evidence of violent death? _____
7. How many of the bodies had embedded projectiles? _____
8. The articulated skeletons not showing clear evidence of violent death may still have been subjected to
violence. On the basis of what circumstantial evidence do the authors propose this?
_____________________________________________________________________________
9. What was found within the body cavity of no. 71255? ______________________________
10. What two hypotheses do the authors provide for the apparent massacre at this site?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
11. In Extended Data Figure 1, the human remains are shown to cover an area of space closest to which
of the following, for longitude (x axis) and latitude (y axis)?
a. 100 x 100 m.
b. 200 x 200 m.
c. 300 x 300 m.
d. 500 x 500 m.
12. In Extended Data Figure 2, the elevation for the indicated crania is ca. ___ m.
a. 105-106
b. 208-209
c. 342-343
d. 455-456
3
Burial Site Analysis
Table Instructions:
For Side Position, use L for Left, R for Right, B for on Back, or S for on Stomach.
For Head Position, use single or double capital letters to indicate direction (e.g., S for South, SE
for Southeast, etc.). Note: This is not the direction in which they are facing. Read carefully!
For Age Class, use 1 for Child, 2 for Adolescent, or 3 for Adult.
For Sex, use F for Female, M for Male, F? for Female?, M? for Male?, or U for Unknown.
Burial No.
Side Position
Head Position
Age Class
Sex
13
14
17
20
21
23
24
26
28
29
31
33
34
35
38
42
47
48
100
101
102
103
4
1. The majority of the skeletons were buried with the legs in a(n) extended / flexed position, lying on the
right / left side of the body. (Circle the correct answer for each choice.)
Why might they be positioned this way?
______________________________________________________________________________
2. The majority of skeletons were buried with the head positioned toward what direction? ____________
Why might they be oriented in this way?
______________________________________________________________________________
3. _____ burials are of adult males. (Give the number identified as such, including M?)
_____ burials are of adult females. (Give the number identified as such, including F?)
_____ burials are of non-adult individuals. (Give the number in categories 1 and 2 combined.)
4. List the burials that are associated (i.e., that are grouped together, with more than one skeleton), using
the burial numbers. List only burials for which you have descriptions for this assignment. (Be sure to read
the descriptions carefully. Do not simply rely on the figures.)
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
5. What might burials in multiples imply?
______________________________________________________________________________
6. How many of these burials have associated grave goods (e.g., pottery, jewelry, food items, etc.)?
__________
5
7. Do the descriptions of the lithics (i.e., stone tools) suggest clear “weapons”? _____ If yes, what kind;
or if no, then how can we infer violent death at this site?
______________________________________________________________________________
8. Four of the burials show no definitive evidence of violent death. List the burial numbers of these.
__________, __________, __________, __________
9. Does this site appear to provide evidence of “war” involving males only? _____ Why or why not?
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
10. Individual number 20 had a healed fracture in the right elbow region. Individual 26 had a healed
fracture on the midshaft of the right ulna (forearm). Individual 31 displayed arthritis in the elbow
joint, among other regions. Individual 34 had a healed fracture on the distal (wrist) end of the
right ulna.
What can you infer from this information?
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
6
Letter
doi:10.1038/nature16477
Inter-group violence among early Holocene
hunter-gatherers of West Turkana, Kenya
M. Mirazón Lahr1,2, F. Rivera1*, R. K. Power1*, A. Mounier1, B. Copsey1, F. Crivellaro1, J. E. Edung3, J. M. Maillo Fernandez4,
C. Kiarie2, J. Lawrence1, A. Leakey2, E. Mbua5, H. Miller1, A. Muigai6, D. M. Mukhongo1, A. Van Baelen1, R. Wood7,
J.-L. Schwenninger8, R. Grün7,9, H. Achyuthan10, A. Wilshaw1 & R. A. Foley1,2
The nature of inter-group relations among prehistoric huntergatherers remains disputed, with arguments in favour and against
the existence of warfare before the development of sedentary
societies1,2. Here we report on a case of inter-group violence towards
a group of hunter-gatherers from Nataruk, west of Lake Turkana,
which during the late Pleistocene/early Holocene period extended
about 30 km beyond its present-day shore3. Ten of the twelve
articulated skeletons found at Nataruk show evidence of having died
violently at the edge of a lagoon, into which some of the bodies fell.
The remains from Nataruk are unique, preserved by the particular
conditions of the lagoon with no evidence of deliberate burial. They
offer a rare glimpse into the life and death of past foraging people,
and evidence that warfare was part of the repertoire of inter-group
relations among prehistoric hunter-gatherers.
The origins of war are controversial. Although it is clear that intergroup violence, including intentional lethal attacks on individuals,
is part of the behavioural repertoire of chimpanzees4,5, evolutionary
explanations for human violence have been disputed1,2. This uncertainty arises because evidence that informs on the nature of relationships among groups in the past is scarce, and most models of prehistoric
inter-group relations rely on ethnographic information from smallscale societies. This information is very variable, partly because of
differences in the definition of war, partly because the circumstances
of modern hunter-gatherers are not analogous to the past, and partly
because of the inclusion of data on both intra- and inter-societal
warfare1,2,6–8. After numerous analyses of the scarce ethnographic data,
researchers remain deeply divided as to whether antagonistic relations formed a significant element of social life in prehistory2,6,7,9–18.
Antagonistic relations can be described as acts of aggression towards an
individual or a small foraging/scouting party, or as warfare. Prehistoric
cases of the former are difficult to differentiate from inter-personal
violence6, the most frequent form of lethal aggression among recent
foragers2; cases of large-scale violent encounters of two groups are
relatively common among settled societies6,19. It is evidence for intergroup violence among prehistoric hunter-gatherers, however, that is
extremely rare. The Qadan graveyard at Jebel Sahaba, Sudan, where 23
of 58 bodies show evidence of violence20, stands as the best example.
Although undated, the Jebel Sahaba remains were estimated to have a
late Pleistocene age (often quoted as 14,000–12,000 years) on the basis
of the character of the lithic industry20. The Jebel Sahaba individuals
were buried, individually or in small groups, presumably by their own
community, after the raids or feuds during which they died. The existence of such cemetery space suggests a level of sedentism that would
align the Jebel Sahaba violent deaths to later examples. In contrast, the
human remains from the site of Nataruk record the intentional killing
of a small band of foragers, and thus unique evidence of a warfare event
among hunter-gatherers in prehistory.
Nataruk is located near the reconstructed margin of the late
Pleistocene/early Holocene lake PalaeoTurkana, at the eastern edge of
a small depression that would have formed a lagoon during periods
of high precipitation (Extended Data Fig. 1a). In 2012, the remains
of a minimum of 27 individuals were discovered partly or completely exposed on the surface of a gravel bar ridge that runs parallel
to dunes for ~200 m east-northeast to west-southwest, rising ~1 m
above the rest of the plain, and on two mounds ~70 m to the northeast
(Fig. 1, Extended Data Fig. 1b, Extended Data Fig. 2 and Supplementary
Information 1). Small- to medium-sized gravel covers the surface of
the ridge and mounds, lying loosely over a layer of lake sediments.
The carbonates, nodules, and shells of gastropods and clams suggest
the area was once partly covered by the small lagoon. Most of the
fragmentary animal remains recovered are aquatic/lake-edge animals
(Supplementary Information 4). The site of Nataruk has relatively few
archaeological remains. The excavation of 12 skeletons in situ yielded
only 131 lithics; however, an area of approximately 6 m × 6 m at the
top of the ridge, overlying some of the skeletal remains, had a localized
concentration of 628 lithics, and may reflect an ephemeral later occupation of the site (Supplementary Information 5). The lithic industry is
similar to other Later Stone Age assemblages in the area21–23, including
fragments of barbed bone harpoons typical of early Holocene hunterfishers of Turkana24,25.
The human skeletal remains had no collagen. Two radiocarbon
dates were obtained from sediment samples collected from subsurface deposits above the skeletons, four from shells found next to
or in direct association with the human remains, and another one
from within an optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating sample collected from the lake sediments in which one of the skeletons
was found. As expected, the surface sediments above the skeletons
are younger (7,270–8,160 calibrated years before the present (cal. bp))
than the lagoon’s shells (9,030–11,750 cal. bp; Extended Data Table 1
and Extended Data Fig. 3a), and correspond to a later period of high
lake-levels in the area26. An OSL age of 9,680 ± 805 years obtained from
the lake sediments adjacent to one of the skeletons is similar to those of
the lagoon shells. Lastly, the majority of 15 uranium-series minimum
dates obtained from the skeletons also fall into an age range of
early to mid-Holocene, although some results extend back to about
40,000 years ago. Some of these older ages may have been affected
by uranium leaching (Extended Data Fig. 3b, c). Although a midUpper Pleistocene age for the remains cannot be fully excluded,
1
Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Street, Cambridge CB2 1QH, UK. 2Turkana Basin Institute,
Nairobi, Kenya. 3National Museums of Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta House, PO Box 152-30500, Lodwar, Kenya. 4Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueologia, UNED, c/ Paseo Senda del Rey, 7, 28040
Madrid, Spain. 5National Museums of Kenya, PO Box 40658-00100, Nairobi, Kenya. 6Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, PO Box 62000-00200, Nairobi, Kenya. 7Research
School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Building 142, Mills Road, Acton, Australian Capital Territory 2601, Australia. 8Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of
Art, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK. 9Research Centre for Human Evolution, Environmental Futures Research Institute, Griffith University,
170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Queensland 4111, Australia. 10Department of Geology, Anna University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600025, India.
*These authors contributed equally to this work.
3 9 4 | N A T U R E | V O L 5 2 9 | 2 1 j anuar y 2 0 1 6
© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Letter RESEARCH
Figure 1 | Spatial distribution of the human
skeletons discovered at the site of Nataruk.
Distribution of the remains of 27 individuals
found along a sandy ridge and on a small mound
at Nataruk; 15 exposed and fragmentary (black),
and 12 articulated skeletons (red) illustrated with
inset photographs of the position and direction
of the bodies as were found. Background image:
ArcGIS Online Basemap – World Imagery (source:
Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA,
USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,
swisstopo, and the GIS User Community).
KNM-WT 71253
KNM-WT 71255
North
KNM-WT 71252J
KNM-WT 71268
KNM-WT 71256
KNM-WT 71270J
KNM-WT 71258
KNM-WT
71266
KNM-WT
71257
KNM-WT 71251
KNM-WT 71254
KNM-WT 71269J
KNM-WT 71262
KNM-WT 71271J
KNM-WT 71277
KNM-WT 71261
KNM-WT
71267
KNM-WT 71263
KNM-WT 71275
KNM-WT 71273J
KNM-WT 71274
KNM-WT 71265
KNM-WT 71272J
KNM-WT 71259
KNM-WT 71264
KNM-WT 71260
Dune
KNM-WT 71276
Articulated skeletons
Shell samples prised from skeletons (KNM-WT 71258
and WT 71264), from the excavation of KNM-WT 71254,
from the deflated surface around KNM-WT 71274,
and from the OSL sample (KNM-WT 71251)
Fragmented skeletons
OSL sample from edge of KNM-WT 71251 excavation
Dune
100
0
metres
Sample of sediments above KNM-WT 71251 and
KNM-WT 71260, and from the deflated surface
around KNM-WT 71274
an age estimate of ~9,500–10,500 years bp for the people of Nataruk is
consistent with dates on shells, harpoons, and charcoal from sites in the
immediate vicinity, and corresponds to a phase of early Holocene high
lake-levels in Turkana3 (Extended Data Table 2 and Supplementary
Information 6).
Most of the remains of the people who died at Nataruk were found
fully exposed and fragmented, surviving in varying states of preservation and erosion; 12 individuals were partly preserved articulated
in situ. Among these, no burial pit was identified, and no standardized
orientation or position of head, face, or body was observed (Fig. 2). The
total number of individuals who died at the site is unknown, as only
those partly exposed were excavated. Of the 27 individuals recorded,
21 were adults (8 males, 8 females, and 5 unknown) (Supplementary
Information 2). Partial remains of six children were found comingled or in close proximity to the remains of four adult women and
of two fragmentary adults of unknown sex. The remains of a 6- to
9-month-old fetus were recovered from within the abdominal cavity
of one of the adult females, representing a 28th individual. No children
were found with or near any of the men. All except one of the juvenile
remains were children under the age of 6; the exception was a teenager,
aged 12–15 years dentally, but whose bones were noticeably small for
their age.
Ten of the 12 skeletons in situ show evidence of major traumatic
lesions that would have been lethal in the immediate- to short-term
(Table 1, Extended Data Figs 4–7, Supplementary Information 3
and Supplementary Fig. 1). These include five, possibly six, cases of
Table 1 | Distribution of observable trauma among the articulated human skeletons from Nataruk with more than 20% of the post-cranial
skeleton preserved
Individual
Sex
Age
Trauma and other relevant features
Position of lesion(s) and other features
WT 71251
Male
Adult
WT 71253
Male
Adult
WT 71254
Female?
Adult
WT 71255
Female
Adult
• Head
• Head
• Knee
• Head
• Neck (×2)
• Head
• Head
• Hand
• Hands
WT 71256
Female
Adult
WT 71257
WT 71258
Male
Male
Adult
Adult
WT 71259
Female
Adult
WT 71260
WT 71263
WT 71264
WT 71265
Male
Male
Male
Female
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
• Projectile embedded in cranium
• Perforating lesion on right parietal bone
• Possible knee depressed fractures
• Blunt force trauma on left temporal bone
• Perforating lesions on vertebrae
• Perforating lesion on frontal bone
• Sharp force trauma on mandible
• Hand fractures
• Bound?
• Pregnant or recently delivered (fetus/newborn)
• Perforating lesion on vertebrae
• Hand fracture
• Blunt force trauma on left temporal bone
• Projectiles within body cavity
• Bound?
• Consecutive rib fractures
• Possible knee depressed fractures
• Unnatural position of left foot
• Bound?
• Bound?
• Sharp force trauma on frontal bone
• Blunt force trauma on left temporal bone
• Blunt force trauma on frontal bone
• Neck
• Hand
• Head
• Thorax
• Hands
• Ribs
• Knee
• Foot
• Hands
• Hands
• Head
• Head
• Head
2 1 j anuar y 2 0 1 6 | V O L 5 2 9 | N A T U R E | 3 9 5
© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
RESEARCH Letter
b
a
KNM-WT 71251, male, head east-southeast, face down; hit by at least two projectiles to the
head, one embedded in the cranium, and with a blunt instrument on the knees,
falling
g face down into the lagoon
g
c
e
KNM-WT 71254, female, head south, face east; hit
in the forehead, received a sharp impact to
the right cheek that cut into the mandible,
and sustained a fracture on the palmar side
of the right hand, possibly while parrying a
blow,, or breaking
g a fall
d
KNM-WT 71255, female, face up; a woman in the
last stages of pregnancy; the hands, and
possibly the feet, may have been bound
KNM-WT 71256, female, head south, face up; hit by a
projectile to the back, and fractured the right hand
f
g
i
KNM-WT 71257, male, head north, face west/down; hit in
the head with a blunt instrument, and fell into the lagoon
probably with a broken neck
KNM-WT 71258, male, head southeast, face west; possible multiple arrow
wounds, with two microliths found within the pelvic and thoracic
cavities
h
KNM-WT 71259, female, head south, face down, chin on thorax;
this woman received one or more blunt-force blows to her thorax
and knees, which were fractured; the left foot was unnaturally
bent, suggesting it may also have been broken; her hands may
have been bound
KNM-WT 71260, male, head south, face west; no evidence of trauma,
but hands may have been bound
k
j
KNM-WT 71253, male, head south-southwest, face down; hit in the
front of the head fracturing the frontal bone, and by a sharp-pointed
weapon on the lower neck
KNM-WT 71264, male, head south, face down; severe
injuries to the head, to the frontal and left side of the head
with a blunt instrument, depressing and distorting numerous bones,
and creating a fracture across the back of the head, probably breaking
the neck; the body was found face down into the lagoon sediments
KNM-WT 71263, male, head northeast, face west/down; received a blow to the
face that either cut or fractured the underlying bone, and was
possibly hit by a projectile in the right side of the head
KNM-WT 71265, female, head north, face west: hit in the front of the head with a blunt instrument
that fractured and depressed the frontal bone (skeleton too poorly preserved for reconstruction).
l
Figure 2 | Schematic drawings illustrating the position of the 12 articulated skeletons from Nataruk. Details of lesions are shown in Extended Data
Figs 4–7 and Supplementary Fig. 1, and described in Supplementary Information 3.3.
sharp-force trauma to the head and/or neck probably associated with
arrow wounds, five cases of blunt-force trauma to the head, two cases
of possible ante-mortem depressed bilateral fractures of the knees, two
cases of multiple fractures to the right hand, and a case of fractured
ribs. Only two of the skeletons in situ show no apparent evidence of
peri-mortem trauma, although in both cases the position of the hands
suggests the individuals may have been bound at the time of death. In
all of the cases of cranial trauma, the compression of bones is localized and cannot be explained by taphonomic forces, as unaffected cranial elements retain the original size and shape around the fractured
portions. Three artefacts were found within or embedded in two of
the bodies (Fig. 3). The first of these was an obsidian bladelet found
embedded in one of the male crania; the others were two microliths,
a chert lunate, and an obsidian trapeze, found inside the pelvic and
thoracic cavities of a male skeleton; all three showed impact scars.
Interestingly, an obsidian lithic was also found embedded in the foot
bones of a skeleton at the nearby site of Lothagam27. The fact that
obsidian is relatively rare in other early Holocene Later Stone Age sites
of southwest Turkana may suggest that the two groups confronted at
Nataruk had different home ranges. The presence of projectile points
embedded in the skeletal remains or within the body cavity is considered diagnostic of inter-group conflict, while fractures resulting from
blunt and sharp force trauma, particularly to the head, neck, ribs, and
hands, are indicative of deliberate violent trauma28,29. A third diagnostic feature of warfare in the past, the presence of cut-marks associated
with dismembering and trophy-taking (such as scalping)29, was not
observed at Nataruk.
As one of the clearest cases of inter-group violence among prehistoric
hunter-gatherers, the event recorded at Nataruk offers information on
the socio-economic conditions that marked the presence of warfare.
3 9 6 | N A T U R E | V O L 5 2 9 | 2 1 j anuar y 2 0 1 6
© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Letter RESEARCH
b
a
c
d
Figure 3 | Lithics found in direct association with human remains at
Nataruk. a, KNM-WT 71251 cranium as found in situ, with obsidian
bladelet found embedded in the left parietal bone. b, Detail of obsidian
bladelet, showing impact scar at the tip. c, d, Microliths found within the
body of KNM-WT 71258, an obsidian crescent, with broken tip, found
inside the pelvic basin, and a chert microlith, also with a broken tip, found
inside the thoracic cavity. Scale bar units, 1 cm.
However, there are two interpretations of how this fact impinges on
our understanding of war among foraging societies. West Turkana
10,000 years ago was a fertile lakeshore landscape sustaining a substantial population of hunter-gatherers; the presence of pottery may be
indicative of some storage and so reduced mobility. Thus, the massacre
at Nataruk could be seen as resulting from a raid for resources—
territory, women, children, food stored in pots—whose value was
similar to those of later food-producing societies among whom
violent attacks on settlements and organized defence strategies became
part of life. In this light, the importance of what happened at Nataruk
would be in terms of extending the chronology and degree of the same
underlying socio-economic conditions that characterize early warfare
in more recent periods. Alternatively, Nataruk may offer evidence not
of changing conditions towards a settled, materially richer, and demographically denser way of life, but of a standard antagonistic response
to an encounter between two social groups. As such, Nataruk would be
important for the particular circumstances that preserved an ephemeral, but perhaps not unusual, event in the life of prehistoric foraging
societies. In either case, the deaths at Nataruk are testimony to the
antiquity of inter-group violence and war.
7.
Online Content Methods, along with any additional Extended Data display items and
Source Data, are available in the online version of the paper; references unique to
these sections appear only in the online paper.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
received 31 July; accepted 23 November 2015.
24.
1.
25.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Wrangham, R. W. & Glowacki, L. Intergroup aggression in chimpanzees and
war in nomadic hunter-gatherers: evaluating the chimpanzee model. Hum. Nat.
23, 5–29 (2012).
Fry, D. P. & Söderberg, P. Lethal aggression in mobile forager bands and
implications for the origins of war. Science 341, 270–273 (2013).
Garcin, Y. et al. Late Pleistocene–Holocene rise and collapse of Lake Suguta,
northern Kenya Rift. Quat. Sci. Rev. 28, 911–925 (2009).
Wilson, M. L. & Wrangham, R. W. Intergroup relations in chimpanzees. Annu.
Rev. Anthropol. 32, 363–392 (2003).
Wilson, M. L. et al. Lethal aggression in Pan is better explained by adaptive
strategies than human impacts. Nature 513, 414–417 (2014).
Bowles, S. Did warfare among ancestral hunter-gatherers affect the evolution
of human social behaviors? Science 324, 1293–1298 (2009).
26.
27.
28.
29.
Kelly, R. C. The evolution of lethal intergroup violence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
102, 15294–15298 (2005).
Thorpe, I. J. N. in Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory (eds Parker
Pearson, M. & Thorpe, I. J. N.) 1–18 (British Archaeological Reports,
2005).
Burch, E. S. Alliance and Conflict: The World System of the Inupiaq Eskimos
(Univ. Nebraska Press, 2005).
Ember, C. R. Myths about hunter-gatherers. Ethnology 17, 439–448
(1978).
Fry, D. P. Beyond War: The Human Potential for Peace. (Westview, 2007).
Goldschmidt, W. in The Social Dynamics of Peace and Conflict (eds Rubenstein,
R. A. & Foster, M. L.) 47–65 (Westview, 1988).
Hobhouse, L. T., Wheeler, G. C. & Ginsberg, M. The Material Culture and Social
Institutions of the Simpler People (Chapman & Hall, 1915).
Leavitt, G. C. The frequency of warfare: an evolutionary perspective. Sociol. Inq.
47, 49–58 (1977).
Otterbein, K. F. How War Began (Texas A&M Univ. Press, 2004).
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. The Andaman Islanders: A Study in Social Anthropology
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 1922).
Schapera, I. The Khoisan peoples of South Africa (Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1930).
Wright, Q. A Study of War (Univ. Chicago Press, 1942).
Keely, L. H. War before Civilization (Oxford Univ. Press, 1996).
Wendorf, F. in The Prehistory of Nubia (ed. Wendorf, F.) Vol. 2, 954–1040
(Southern Methodist Univ. Press, 1968).
Robbins, L. H. The Lothagam Site (Michigan State Univ., 1974).
Robbins, L. H. Lake Turkana archaeology: the Holocene. Ethnohistory 53,
71–93 (2006).
Beyin, A. Recent archaeological survey and excavation around the Greater
Kalakol area, West Side of Lake Turkana: Preliminary Findings. Nyame Akuma
75, 40–50 (2011).
Robbins, L. H. Bone artefacts from the Lake Rudolf Basin, East Africa. Curr.
Anthropol. 16, 632–633 (1975).
Barthelme, J. W. Fisher-Hunters and Neolithic Pastoralists in East Turkana, Kenya
(British Archaeological Reports, 1985).
Forman, S. L., Wright, D. K. & Bloszies, C. Variations in water level for Lake
Turkana in the past 8500 years near Mt. Porr, Kenya and the transition from
the African Humid Period to Holocene aridity. Quat. Sci. Rev. 97, 84–101
(2014).
Angel, J. L., Phenice, T. W., Robbins, L. H. & Lynch, M. M. Late Stone Age
Fishermen of Lothagam, Kenya (Michigan State Univ., 1980).
Sauer, N. J. in Forensic Osteology (ed. Reichs, K. J.) 321–332 (Charles C. Thomas,
1998).
Smith, M. O. Beyond palisades: the nature and frequency of late prehistoric
deliberate violent trauma in the Chickamauga reservoir of east Tennessee.
Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 121, 303–318 (2003).
2 1 j anuar y 2 0 1 6 | V O L 5 2 9 | N A T U R E | 3 9 7
© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
RESEARCH Letter
Supplementary Information is available in the online version of the paper.
Acknowledgements We thank the Office of the President of Kenya, the Turkana
Province government, and the National Museums of Kenya for permission
to conduct research (NCST/5/002/R/419), the Turkana people of Locher
Akwan, Lokwar Ankhaleso, Lotukumo, Eporon, and Natome for permission
to work in their area and assistance, the Turkana Basin Institute for logistical
and laboratory support, the British Institute in Eastern Africa, R. Leakey, M.
Leakey, and L. Martin for support and advice, the staff at the TBI Turkwell facility,
especially K. Onesmus Ngela, and the 2012 IN-AFRICA field team
(E. Murungi, J. Oltimbao, J. Lokuruka, D. Lomuria, M. Lokinei, J. Ekeno, J. Erupe,
J. Lopua, R. Ng’irotin, P. Amuk, P. Atadeit, M. Emusugut, F. Lowan, R. Ng’ichila,
S. Eperon, P. Eperon, T. Echulum), especially P. Ebeya who found the site.
We thank S. Black and C. Cunningham for advice on the foetal remains,
Beta Analytic for advice and assistance, and F. Lahr for assistance with
imaging and illustrations. Funding was provided by a European Research
Council Advanced Award to M.M.L. (IN-AFRICA, ERC 295907), the Newby
Trust, and the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of
Cambridge.
Author Contributions M.M.L. directed the study and fieldwork; M.M.L., F.R.,
A.M., A.W., J.E.E., J.L., H.M., D.M.M., A.Mu., B.C., H.A., and R.A.F. participated
in the fieldwork and excavations; M.M.L., F.R., J.E.E., J.L., H.M., and D.M.M.
excavated the Nataruk skeletons; M.M.L., F.R., R.K.P., A.W., A.L., and K.C.
cleaned, prepared, and reconstructed the fossils at the Turkana Basin Institute
research laboratories; M.M.L. and R.K.P. analysed and described the lesions
and pathologies; M.M.L. prepared the illustrations of Fig. 2 and illustration and
photographs of Extended Data Figs 4–7; A.W. prepared the archaeological
illustrations and samples for radiocarbon dating; A.M. prepared the threedimensional model of KNM-WT 71264 in Supplementary Figure 1; M.M.L.,
A.W., F.R., and F.C. performed the fauna identification; A.W. and J.M.M.F.
analysed the lithics following protocols developed by R.A.F., and A.W. wrote
the archaeology section of the Supplementary Information; A.V.B. prepared
the GIS maps; H.A., R.A.F., M.M.L., and A.M. performed the geomorphological
study; R.W. did radiocarbon dating; J.-L.S. did the OSL date; R.G. examined all
materials at the Turkana Basin Institute for dating, and did the uranium-series
dates; M.M.L. wrote the paper, with contributions from R.A.F., R.G., R.K.P., A.W.,
E.M., R.W., and J.-L.S.
Author Information The human remains from the site of Nataruk are curated for
the National Museums of Kenya (KNM-WT 71251-71277) at the Turkwel Station
of the Turkana Basin Institute, Kenya. Reprints and permissions information
is available at www.nature.com/reprints. The authors declare no competing
financial interests. Readers are welcome to comment on the online version of
the paper. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to
M.M.L. ([email protected]) or R.A.F. ([email protected]).
3 9 8 | N A T U R E | V O L 5 2 9 | 2 1 j anuar y 2 0 1 6
© 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
Letter RESEARCH
Methods
Core osteological assessment of the skeletal remains from Nataruk. Age at
death of juvenile remains was assessed through dental development and epiphyseal
fusion30–32. Adult remains were identified cranially by presence of the third molar
in occlusion and/or fusion of the spheno-occipital synchondrosis, and post-cranially by the fusion of epiphyses and size33,34. Adults were further grouped into
young, middle-aged, and old adults depending on degree of dental wear, cranial
suture obliteration, presence of degenerative joint disease, and other age-related
osteological changes (including pubic symphyses, auricular surfaces, and sternal
rib-end morphology)35–38. Sex was determined from pelvic and cranial features
following standard practice34. More details in Supplementary Information 2.
Identification of peri-mortem trauma in the skeletal remains from Nataruk.
Following standard practice28,29,39–43, the presence of projectile points embedded in the bone or within the body cavity, and peri-mortem fractures resulting
from blunt or sharp-force trauma were considered evidence of violence. Antemortem vs peri-mortem trauma was diagnosed on the basis of (1) evidence of
healing and/or periosteal reaction28,44 and (2) the context of the skeletons and
distribution of lesions, noting that violent injuries are most often observed in
ribs, scapulae, forearms, hands, and particularly in the head and neck45–48, and
that blunt-force peri-mortem traumatic lesions in the head can be considered
diagnostic of inter-group conflict in some contexts (for example refs 29, 49–51).
Peri-mortem fractures were identified by (1) presence of depressed adhering
bone fragments, (2) secondary linear and/or concentric radiating fractures,
(3) inner bevelling of the margins of the lesion, (4) irregular, sharp or splintered
edges (instead of shattered), (5) flaking of the internal fracture surface, and (6)
absence of discoloration (that is, the colour of the borders of the lesion is consistent with the surrounding bone)28,49,52–62. Perforating lesions were identified
by (1) a linear, circular, or ellipsoidal section, (2) well-defined edges and either
smooth or serrated/splintered margins, which may be polished, (3) a V-, semi-V-,
or U-shaped cross-section, (4) the presence of internal bevelling and/or parallel
striations, and (5) anatomical position consistent with a projectile’s trajectory.
Perforating lesions caused by non-sharp projectiles, such as a bone point or
polished arrow shaft, were identified by typically rounded or oval margins, with
rounded edges63. Further information on the traumatic lesions observed in
Nataruk in Supplementary Information 3.
Radiocarbon dating. Two sediment samples from above two of the skeletons
were dated by Beta Analytic. These were sieved to
Purchase answer to see full
attachment