Traumatic suffering is not recognized solely from the symptoms that follow an event. The type of index event to which symptoms are attributed may affect whether the event is accepted as a plausible source of trauma. This paper proposes a “Hierarchy of Trauma”: patterned differences in the presumptive traumatic legitimacy accorded to types of index events. The framework distinguishes four axes that shape this legitimacy: historical centrality, social legitimacy and power, collective salience, and perceived severity, from five interconnected domains in which recognition occurs: social, clinical, diagnostic, scientific, and institutional. Recognition in one domain may facilitate or constrain recognition in another but does not guarantee it. Axial positioning may therefore shape different recognition patterns and, through them, influence assessment, care, research attention, funding, and policy. The framework integrates established historical, sociological, cognitive, and diagnostic accounts around types of index events. We examine how these axes may jointly shape trauma recognition, distinguish trauma recognition from PTSD diagnosis, and compare the exposure boundaries of DSM-5-TR and ICD-11. The model provides a framework for empirical study of differences in trauma recognition while preserving meaningful diagnostic and contextual distinctions.