Introduction: Studying War Introduction The editors of a recent multidisciplinay anthology of wer and pace studies tte, "in spite ofthe goat promise anthropology holds in ore for peace resoarch .-. the perforinance of anthropologists has Bren on the whole iusignficant” (Falk and Kim 1080: 100). Falk and Kim or at lest partly coroct anthropology hes not yet made a great Contribution oa general understanding of war and poace, much less to tinderstanding war in contemporary industrial societies. Hut are they torrect sbout anthropology’ "geeat promise"? Can the special tools hd intrets of anthropology make sgaficent contribution to wer Sanding wr, including modern war ‘Gite possibly, glven two distinctive charactristics of the fea First anthropology emphasizes crosecaltaral comparison, An tiuopologsts adress wer unconfined by tho nazow boundaries f re tant western history, boundaries thet elfectivaly limit most peace re Sere (evo Boor 108%), Sacond, anthrapalegy Is alist, at Dest as an. ‘doa, Antheopologists can study the moltiple sociocultural connec tons of war in way that usualy i logistically Lmpsaibiein studs of ‘war in complex societies, From these (wo vantage points, anthropology Ihight discover what is "human” about war, and how war generally isWAREARE, CULTURE, AND ENVIRONMENT2 oes Pogo connoctd to os aspects of socal life. f anthropologists studying war could agre that certain statamants of eausal priorities and interections of factors wero valid crors-culturally, this consensis would provide am Invaluable freme of reforencs for studying the particular case of moder, wat. Unfortunately, any sich ansenaun sess long Wey Attho end ofthis chapter, I suggest afew possible ways of cont ulin to perc resoarch inthe neat term. Before reaching that pola, discuss what anthropology already has said about war, and what thie volume adds to it. My matheds of classifying and describing research, tnd ty theortisl orientation for evaluating it, undoubtedly will pire some disagooment, given the naturel conteatiousnoss of any thropologsts. My presont goal, however, is no to provide a detiled description of every anthropological appreacs to war, but rather to construct a coherent, intelligible overview ofthe field aad its majoe Aivisions. This goal is mandated by the ebisotc tat of the fold present. Apart from a few active caatoverses, moe of the research on war seems unconnected in any clar way to other lines of work. Exist, ing collections of essays on war (ohennan 1967; Fried ef al. 1967, Fukui and Thurlan 1979; Givens and Netleship 2976; Netlship ete 1975) can be bewildering becuse ofthe unaticulated diversity of ideas peepented. Rent textbook discussions of war are, to say the leas, very ferent from each other (eq, Alland 1080; Haris 1900; Hoebel and Weaver 1970; Moors 1978), The 10 ariginal says inthis volume are unted by one general proposition: ths occurrence and form of warfare are intimately elated ‘o processes af material production and other exigencies of survive Consequently, the study of war requires stention fo human interaction with the natural envienmont, to economic organization, and to the social, politcal, and military oarelates of bath. In vow of this unilying roposition, the perspective of this volume can be called inateralist although that label cover alot of ground. The scope of this volume: om Ingelyffom the fact that even though every materilis seems nclind to believe that she or he now what the “material conltions of life” are, no one has been able to define them in a way that is smnerallyaccoptabo to othor msterislists, How the material conditions far tobe studiod is even moe controversial. Yet even so, a common sdherence to this propasition distinguishes the studies inthis voluane feo = hast of other anthropological eppesackes that seas different concamns in thir explanations of war. Lf this chapter and ofthe volume a whole, sto dem: ot always peacetully) unde the ma tevialist banner, Another goal i to describe both materialist and aonropologiss studying war ‘oritis and interaction ingus would provide aa ‘articular case of moder rossile way’ of conte re reaching that point, 1 Sout war, and what this rnd dascubine research, it undoubledly ill in lousness of a 2 provide a detailed Th ta war, but rather to the Held and it major Wi stato ofthe field at rast ofthe research on ver Tinos of work, Exist 967; Feed ot al. 1987 > 1975; Natleship eta ated diversity of eas re toy the last, vary amis 1080; Hebel and united by one general 2 ae imately elated 2 to bumen intrecton sonzation and to the Ve called mateieioe scope ofthis volume tom in» way thit is te material conditions studios i tis volume hat tons wnuylcely 2s a whole, i to dem ~hully) under the ma materialist approschos in & way that demonstrates that much af the workin both etegores, including some that appears tobe contradicto Fy. is potentially eomplemoatary. This chapter has seven sections, The Fist discusses definitions of war. The second describes the belated rise Stntheopological inerest ia wer, The thied Satsfes and briety sur- ‘oye nontatvelit esearch on wat. The fourth chronicles in some {tel developments, nondovelopments, and cuzent conditions iam {evilist approachas to war. The fifth considers the relevance of mot vation in war studies favorite topicof mine. The sixth is a sequential Ulscussiom sad comporison ofthe cheptere inthis volume Inthe sev nth Try to extract sone genorel meaning fom tal Defining War Navdloss fo say, tho dafinitions of war are numerous. A few rp sentative ones include“ armed contest between two independent Political units, by means of organized miltary force, In the pursuit of « {riba or national policy (Malinowski 1964: 247) "public lethal group mat beeen feitoral tame” (Nall 1964; 286); "armed combat ‘etween polities] communities” (Otterbein 1968a: 278) and “the san tioned use of lethal wospons by mombers of one society aginst mem. hers of anothor (Wallace 1467; 170; also see Netlleship 1975; Richards 1975), These definitions have two elements in eoramon: all speciy {ype of behavior nd a war-making wat Both dloments pose problems “The specified behavior are problem hecause in each definition except Malinowski’ the reference isto actual fighting to combat, Yet ther is mote to wer than const. Waging war usually involves moi Tising people, matshaling roves, and a host of other processes hese usual concomitunts of open wafers can occur even inthe eb since of combat, ain "cold wars.” ar when two sides enter into & to of war" but somehow avotd bloodshed. Th militaristic displays fn the “nothing ight” ofthe Tie (Hart and Pilling 1060) or the Dani (Gleider 1972) may be better described as mobilized confrontation than combat, Vaya's view (1976, 1979) of combat as pant ofa range of tphaviors is useful here. On the other hand, violent conficts ean occur Diamond (1967) strasse thatthe Vietnatn wer quired rolatively ite nobilization of US. socely, and thot a nuclear death spasm would require none at all whe warsmeking units the definitions quod invale other probJems, because territorial politica, or sctetal boundaries ar often une loa In some stations, wven the existence of bounded units is ques onabie (Fried 1975), Yet these problematical Boundaries ur the Yasse of further definitions in the work of Naroll and Oesban whe ose ‘hom to distinguish war (conflict between units) from feud (eonflic within 8 unit). Such precise categorization is asential inthe staat ‘proaches Narcl and Otterbein favor, but vlolont group eonlet often Fesits such neat pigean-holing. Acts of blood revenge ot feng, often precede oF cocompany more Intense nd wider phases of combet, Feud and war can be stages ina continuum af conflict (Bennett Ross 1080 ‘Koch 1074; Vayda 1970;¢8 Schneider 1054 that shows no oapeet for any a priori eategoies we anthropologists may establish. la prnctic, the nature and boundeces of warmaking unite often ate structured by tho conflict tel Feuds, civil wars, rvolutions, end class wars invalve ‘opposed groups within a society. Confederacies and alleneas in wer tn oppose groups that maintain their unity only forthe duration hostilities, and then revert to Independance, Problems of definition are not peculiar to the topic of war, of ‘course, As with nature and vacuums, culture seems to abhor» defi tion. The basic problem, thinks that those cultural phenomena thet command anthropological ettantion are multifaceted, Anthropologists home interested when e numberof distinc! bekavios,inslutions, and beliefs cluster together ina szllar manner ina broad cros-sctton Of socities. The hitch is that, elthough the various aspecs of & phe ‘omenan tend tobe found tothe, the essocation is nave perfect nos lnvariont. range of configurations usually fs apparent, and thls diver sily makes definitions dificult. Facod with such probloms,soveral resaarchershevesuggrstad nove approaches to conceptualizing war, Fuki and Thutton (099 9; else ‘ste Vaya 1079; 199} fr instance, eschew definition, and agg that we should focus on “inspecting tho phenomene and not defining the word." A diferent approach is advocnted by Netleship (1975: 60} who thinks that sar proper isa “iviliondplhenomenoa,” but reomuonde that violent conflict be approechod as a continu including every. {hing from “individual antagonistic ations to its present thootetleally ‘maximum development in a mucisa holocaust.” Bath approaches have rerit, but obviously we must have some idea ofthe identity ofa phe nomenon betorw we can Inspect i. Moreover, It seems bata postble and usaf to distinguish tho clletive activity of wes fom “individual antagonistic actions." Trying to explain war and Individual act, sch 88 aggrossive genital presentation by !Ko Bushmen gals (bl-Fibeseldt 1975}, tn one body of theory dos not soem promising. I runs afoul offom fa oie oy oad ‘pret ing oth mote ey (Bonn ea tn Shane ineteg ve topie of wat, of 1S toabhor a elini- tal phenomens thet, 2d, Anthropologists 8viors, institutions, S aspects of a phe- Isnever perfect nor ‘nt and this diver "lon (2978 9; aloo lore that we wot dfn th ip (1975: 66}-who sent theoretical Iaporonches hove ‘enya ph one both poste from "individual vidal ats such Is (hibLeiestlt va runs afoul of | | | | cone simple fac: we, by ay definition, is a social activity, caried out by groups of peopl ven if nea, restitive definitions are not possible, believe that snhasie underlying phenotena characteristic of war can be descabod Grfollowe: organized, purposeful group action, dlected against an ‘ther group that may or may not be organized for similar action, involv fn tho actual or potential application of lethal force. Although this, formulation may be tov inclusive for some scholars, it does exclude Individual violenon, except as part of alxger mobilization of groups. It Heesoes the sociel nature of wer, withoUt making. any presumption Hout the social units involved tig nol restricted to military activities lone nor does i regi fatalities, but only the potential for ¥lligs 3s {vowull of the ection, Finlly, eal atenion to tho distinction of Whether or nota tget poptlation (tel Is organized for war,» dl Jeronce tht leeds to vory diffrent confit situations ‘The Development of Anthropological Interest in War the anthropological Iterature on war con Prior to World War sisted of brief accounts within general etnographies, few alzod studies (ee Otterbein 1978 for references), and a handful of Sythetic essays, some of which wore concerned primarily with the Felation of wer to sociocultural evolution (Davio 1066; Hobhouse etc 165; Johnson 1996: Sumner 2011; Wright 1965). Despite the early temples given to war by Tylor, who wrote (1888 221) "aftr tho quest for food, mnon's wext greet mead i to defend blisolf, most an hropologists virtually ignored the subject (04, Goldenwolser 1987 Krosbor 192%; Lowie 2020; Wissler 1920), Ottebein (3979) explains This meget as a result of two factors: th pacifist and humanitarian owe af many anthropologists ld thee interests sway from the study Df violent conflict, and the fact thot most fleld research occurred in troas where active warfare already had been Tong suppressed. 1 would {ALU thatthe study of war was not eonlatent with dominant research rncems of those decades, be they the atompts by Boos students to Salvage information about cultures wasting away on the reservation the search for social equilibrium pursued by the structural-fune onalist, or the relation of tho individual to society studied nthe porsonality aa culture sebool. Moreover, most researchers of whatever thooretical disposition were primarily laterested in the constant soand the collections of assays listed eatliee, The five divisions in this survey discus the role of human aggressiveness in war, paylioogieal approaches to war, and war in zoltin to socal, politeal ned mtitacy oraenization. Materialist perspectives are mentioned a3 hey ruete ‘ach of those areas, but tho min discussion of materialist appioeche ‘will follow this survey ‘Haman Aggressiveness and War Although war Is a social activity, it i, like any sociel activity, camied out by individual persons. Neiesbin’s suggestion that war bo placed on a continuum that includes individual aggressive acts seo stent with diverse studies emphasizing the hurvan capacity for vo lence asthe key to understanding war, Individual agtesaon has boon ‘nore goneral concern in ps¥chology and ethology than in anthroral ‘ony, but anthropologists heve had ta canfont the Issue because of the immense populasity of the “Kile instinct" ling ef thought, Ous sue Dosodly aggressive “nature” has been invoked repeatedly a tho root ause of wer 1m tho eariy pert of this contury, thove wes litle doubt that people fous because they were hom to fight. ln 1910, Janes (196425) wre ‘Our ancestors have bred pugnacty into our bone and mart, and thousands of yoars of peace won't bred it out af us. The popalae {inaginationfaily fatens on the thought of wats. Ll public opin, tosch a certain pitch, and no ruler aa withstend it” hn 1918, MeDex ful (1964: 2) adressod the Issue of the “chronic wstae” that ap vosedly plagued tribal societies: “This perpetual warlary, like tho Squabbles of roomful of quarelsome children, seem to be lancet wholly and directly due to tho uncomplicated operation a the instinct of pugnacity" (08 other selections in Branson and Goclhal [1904] for Viows). This "sclentific” version of the originel sin theme ton tnues to be a favorite topic ofthe poplar modi, Inthe asta, Willow Golding, Stanley Kubsick, and Sats Peckinpah have endomed it ox plicitly (Montagu 1976), bat thot wark nnesenisanly «faction of he ovels and films employing the Lillerurking-within-us molt. Ta the news media, Time magazine is by no means usuel in Saforting he ‘dre that man is “one of the world's most aggresive benste whe fundamentally enjoys torturing and kiling other animals, including hie fellowe man" (quoted in ib-Eibesfeldt 1972" 1) Sevonty years ago and today, such conchisions seem seltevident to many people, without nocd of further considezaion or prof (Denke ‘ite 1962), But this kind of innatist explanation could ‘not vetow divisions in this ‘war, psychological lita and ity sd os thoy relate to flalistapproachos ny socta sci tv festion thal war bo in expaclty for vio- session has been « than in anthropl- ssecaus afte thought. Our sup it. Our sup eatodly asthe oot + doubt that people fe (64: 29) wrote Jane meson, ond ‘t's, The poptlr Lat public apiaion 11938, MeDow ‘warane” that 80 at sup 1 ratiere, like the ono hasta oat (09 for mike, Wins aiyatacon of tl ion ts ‘linen his scam rell-evidont fon ar proof (Borke- could not have ro ned vable without sora sonic credential in ark of ea abe ity prove that backing, Dot bis efforts were £900 Bupa iy those of Freud ed a ee Fv repdlated his eis poiin hs ct uration ae 4 rl of Euston to explana, Prov 3071)-1 ts place, he oflered ane conse ceive by ho meat sept dete de re Fag ee ombeing (Pew 193,100) Teepe atu 1 ert atl, Feu 04: 7670 shred tS quer rm ee dertrton” oxplaned our “DFOROTAKY to agen oy anny ote rein OG. Ae! oun unten? ead rlo i subsequent dawelovens Pe ee Nay (ear 207; Beko 1068 roman £977 aay yt using 103}, ev toa erm 109% A Ee dives wore suggest by Frou (6, Paseo Sons eth ves alae as oven moss ZA Bee rae to ny Koowlage, onky Haney (068) fn TE ie th a rivet enpsiings War COND iy aa) atom to Tessa the consept 1 ao hour notes suoces 1s justification of innatist opinion did nat egnly the end of tho matter. Dr i is tine y oat bots felons ESF AH 1260s supporter ropolots (aries 2061, 3990, 1072, 107 Te a Eons 190, Otten 173; Son 1008). Fer eee. et 1959, 105 Lao My Lovo and Arde, the restive ofthe Fre ead by the roping of thelr books 2p Reratiags foal (rm anita t0 m0 on ee eo sant, 2 Kas of psyche ene Wf nat i ae ntl nally discharges against ony process is the ns didnot take hold, but that dike it ose again in the to erg that gases were handy. He claims that ths “drive-dischan thats handy. Ie Glolonce or qost of human history, We ‘olen trolled by te restatBiN8 sgressee Pty of movim encaly have rendered ines but the ving ola ass donrction as come the me thee inant ot no pols but in more interes ‘Ardy follows Holton Hs arges that war sa moe Lento proces of ota un deep fo ancient biogas for Wt! but ts behing based Hiller Instinct, As with the dats CF this formlation of fact has had oly Yimited x ths form opto commentary on cootrray manan Wafarm elthough Freeman (1973), Hallpike (1973), and Tiger and Fox (1971) endorse versions of tor rlated views (alo seo Chill 1970) Two distinct issues aro raised by Lorene, Andeey, snd the aio {nnstists, One ia th role of inrakumsn violence in hosed weaken Fascinating as this topic may be, it isnot directly rlevant to thy co tse. Iti suificient to note here that theorizing has am ace of hd fects, and none of the diverse opinions can claim to bo substation g {see Alexander 1979; Alexender and Tinkle 1968; Alland oo ait 41900; Hollowey 1957; isaac 1971; Jolly 1970; Krants 1979; Lacehis 497%; Leakey and Lewin 1977; Montag 1975; Polo 1076 Pht een Reynolds 1973), The second and more gormane ists is whether an aggressive in Stinct or fastincts can provide a moaningful explanation of war Tie ‘den that ican has withered under intense criticism rom poycholewra, au physiologists for ovesimplifying the complex phonmagnen oy fresslon, from physical anthropologists and blologt or fllciousts xtrpolating fom animals to humana, snd trom cutee thropologsts for ignoring observed eultral variation In rctersee ty Uiwoat and stress and for confusing the individual and the occa teens of analysis (Alland 1972; Fromm 1073; Holloway 1987; hott ey 28975: Montagu 1960, 1976; Moyer 1976; Otten 1873, Sahlice ser Sipss 1973) Hosides these direct erlicisms, meant oneal acs eee swetial advances have rendered simplistic views wn ageescry salete, Tho studies collated in Holloway (1974) for stones ae noe Sate a wido range of agpressivo behaviors in prituates, te lagen Gl ecological factors in shaping them, and significant qualities di forences that distinguish human agrosion froma that of ie aa Proponents of innate agsessive dives have bosome mieten temperate in recent statements. They stress counterdalancing tmclog fies toward cooperation and the influensn of sonal conditoniey Hunan nature is invoked primerly to explain aspects of tho tone of war YhL.kibanfoldt (1970) forwseample, suggests thet noe igs ea {p view enemies as something less than human, in ardor to orecores deep inhibitions egnust killing other humans This lou i net gone however, nor is it explainable only hy reference to ponatie pages (Gray 1973; Larson 1976; Wedgo 1973). Wilson [1970 meee ee ‘mans tre capablo of learning comsnunal forms of aggression, thet vs gften rsponl to thuoats with fear and force, and thatthe nee ot ‘human aperoasive behaviors is smaller than the sange of apo eeicn behaviors found in the animal kingdom. None of these revelations ore Pauticlaty stugorig, and if this were all Wilson sugreste pokaiia few enthropologiss would objet to his observations But Wiley,ger and Fox Tall 197 nd the oh {devotion to this vo head of aed abstantited 11972; Falk Laughlin 9: Pi 1974 of war. Tho Srchologiste tenon ofa Fallaciousy ula ‘cial levels akobi et Hine 1976; sland the ression ob fe, demon tative di auich more ng tenden vitioning the fone of Programs that 2 thet we range of probably ‘Wilken go, which lusiates 0 chupter on aggression carries another mesa eal objections to itis expiant Teme ata dee helt wrlings to oir ve often saceficod standards of logic a doing llusttton oF memorable quot. Even xopon of tho Di ge rocognze this fault (Brans 1974; Tinberaen 1873) innate reget practic continues, and Wilson proves 2 Prime Unfotin Joon (107s 90) ries tha "favorite question of Ole ame each party conversations.” which 8, “sre bumay seman ly egressive?™ ls anawer lt es 16 il 2 being igor tha wil bo romambered at he eins and cok axa Jo bs aps of quaifiations othe tepid manny aw raat, Flt statements make nice mowepepet hea above are 08 Von Times, January 20, 1963), but they sustain miso Maw out the elation of individual agressvenes Wor Maynard Sith ar oi lem is that most nats explanations discuss wasn oocal zma only, Thy have no way of explaining Why DaEBClS goer fe and where they do which wold seem to be he ae AP om In the past fer Yous, researchers essocated Wi ca aoe sg edsorsod this filing. Dyson-Hudaon and Smith social mm (1870)-—wwho 1s not x soiobolagat (Durham Las7a) ant nae work is endareed by socibiologies (use 1078: 3a7an) bu show jain war paler in particle societies by aang Wilson 247 etpo even seta ed ecological srcumstances, contbutes at a ei well-being of tho war makers. Because people wt tothe ee wad well ebviously will produeo at higher rata than Sr ay, war ie voun as contiting to thelr genetic fits those who cra af these argumsonts is understanding how culture ‘The contra rte mechanism, For tho study of wa, they offer some san a eaion and nsghseling the issue of motivation Heard below), but otharrze thay are wey similar © ot (enesyapptoachos to war (orlove 1980). Biology taf ads me mentally diferent aaa odieive ality. Chagnon bas taken a 0 eciblological course. Te (Cha tgnon and gos 197 ‘Silatng several processes rl ven warfare in terms of ‘ois formula dtnpeiton Hetwean rales for reproduc competi er als one motivated ose by considerations of material well: qe tas bythe numberof offspring they or he close relatives tein a ko themselves will have a chance of roproduelng. But eos not extand this model to explain Yanomaro vase cea lary o rons (1973), who claim that Chagnon bas developedgens eae ery of war More recently, Chagnon (0838 sug Bennet *feprodactivo ativing” i involved in Yanohanng, oo oe nor ouige Rot Prtet any sete hypothe about thereon the douse expla how reproductive ativing tam be eorenon aR meas eter the pote soverelgny of the wows week aig emphasizes in discussing wares desriba belog irae st Thy ay maa factors in uma aptresion have pot toch they ean bo used to explain the actual soomeeane ee fet caroblom ls he ability and apperent inte oft innate to ancl ttetion frm the politcal, economic: ang eee canaiagiuelved in modern war. They repeatedly ates het aa coment of Holey is essential for understandg un trate ah Staguaarey world cont, and they have aot hesitated cae Teall sound” solutions (eg, EbLEibeseld 107 Leesa coe dat 1873) What so riaikable about thee pronoueesas ee stare ft made with vitally no reference tothe soln witioge ology of movers war. One can sean tsi binge Hee pteniing a hint of i existence. ‘The military ina Hox! got about it the message sams to be, ay ate om ones into. cna tie nate and evolutionary background may help us caput 4 tai spect of war. As species umcstion a colli aazesion on an unparlilod seta. But ths career stare lence dows not explain the occurence of wt ee sBslon Js @ universal human tral, wae isnot “Worle oe aig Tape nly Ocasionaly nd many societies have no wero oat tat opin 2968: Fobbro 1840.1 is the cicumstanees ot ese irae sin this variation, as tho aude inthis Volume one ae Litt humanly. warped by bloodlust inevitably mae tae sit eet myth and en important prop af ee ie Faeg oem ack ofsctentic eed. thre wil gc he rac eels” wi continua to ballon castes the ar tie “courage to fac the truth,” resolutely tana the myth bohind thei "ati, 1 feroted so much space oth inatstviow because ofthe one. ana pebularnfluence ofthis perspective on hamenaspese nee ‘itowever only on of tree approches tthe subiecte ee ee ovina etaserentn cause by obstutton ertiustoher et ti ba ota. Freud's frst model of aggressions te de format uae (030) ato generally ceded ilk eae tear alatng the “tustation-aggression hypothesis Doig {20k no position on whether the saaossive response to hoster oe syclh dally Kuck! nal ge The of that Morph ae conic difica ated by that th The s0 prblet port Th learned Beles not ade Most [Soothagnon (2089: 86) aug In Yanomamo warfare, bout ho solani, tobe recaucied with of the group, och Ie below. tn sm, those ave yt o shoe how ston ofthe innatists to © and other cecum 9 stoas that an under Ing and desing with stated to offs bt ‘0 pronouncements the voluminous liter n thelr bibligeaphies Htary~indsteal com ‘pound sy help wx ior te ape fr sl” sche cower tall ste inca och fo lms dow Ba the “ly arg ot to vl sain hs chil ius acer Sooner tnnate or learned! (Miller 1969), bt they clearly dif fom innetsts in vomuing tbat aggression ie alays environmentally inducad. nol spo aR a imation aggrencion lypothesi= has roceived substan wid ewniieal support, but lt also has been extenstvalyrevisod (Derk sereribo2, L008; Larson 1476), Ceitice charge that the oxtnsive we elaions leave tho hypothesis to vague and nonpredictive that it 5 no longer tenable (Selg 1975) “Sevopal antheopoloysts translate this perspective on individual psychology into social tems, dacussing how aggression ganerated in Pai life can act ac emotional fuel for external wars (Elis 1051 ny ul 1949; Murphy 2957; Stowand and Faron 1959; Wedgewood Taio, se the subsequent discussion af ecological models). They de saree chologiet social, end ecological patterns that lee to intr Sah generation of tensions, and to thelr displacement outside tho group Mh gheerse ofthe dsplaced aggression Bypothests isthe proposition dst extomal confit can reinforce the interel solidarity of a group. arphy (1957), Wedgewood (2820) and many others endarse this idea Meee goin 1975; Bye 2066; Oterbein and Otterbein 1968: also ve (Sar foo8, 1467; Simmel 1964), with some going farther to argue that Chuflict eeates or defines a group's Boundaries (e, Tuston 1979) Probably nest snlropoloyists would argo that pent-up hostlites vwithina group oan bo reinected to outsiders, although some rect his Mut aoa cease of explanation of war (Hallpike 1979: Leeds 1968; Newcomb 1960) Probebly most also would acknowledgs that extol ‘ie can eefonee tho intemal olldanity of a group. 1t would be flificul to deny this afte witnessing the waves of chauvinism gone {id by the ian hostage evsis und the Falklands War Tho prob is {hat te verse also occurs, ¢ whea the Indochina War tore apart US. Teele, of when World Wor fproripitatod the Bolshevik revolution. The eebmingly contalictory eects of external conilict pose @ major Problem for peace research (Boer 1981). Anthropology could make an Rhnartnt contribution by klntiying general conditions that lead to fone or the other effort, The third approsch holds that huinen aggression ie entirely toarned, either through conditioning or role imitation (Bandura 1980 Ulnchor 14761 Moy 084 slsa ena Larsen 1070). Tis view isthe most ‘Chiat with the general node of anthropological explanation and sours impli in many studies, including those of this volume that ds fol acrece spoifically the ise of the ultimate basis of sazrossion Most anthcopelogiss, howover, are probably agnostics on the whole fosus, A round-table dlacussion on individual aggression and wer {Scot 1976} aid not even rales the thre atorative model ct. Sweet,1973), Anthropologists can disregard the issue because whothor aggre soa is innate, leaned, ora rsponse to frustration ot wlite ofeach, ns is theoraticaly possible (Plergen 1073; Moyer 1970} eu. ‘mous cross-cultural variation in aggresive behavior dommonstates that 1s always shaped by the secioewltaral syste. Even anthropologists who proposo psychological explanations of wa stress the socloculturl dboterminant of individual peychology. Ta use an analogy, one need not consider the ultimate soutce of an clectic current to study the ‘workings of machines. Pyschologieal Approaches to War ‘Within anthropology, psychologeal approaches to war tke sever al forms. The displacod-agression approach already has boot cussed. Another approach etttbutes the occurrence of war to the Drticulr values ofa culture, as expressed in the motivations of sar. "ors. BY far, this is the most common ofall andivopologeal explant tions of wat, especially within ethnographic monographs, In soite ‘works, the origin or fnetion ofthe value and motive receives further analysis: im others, i is simply reported and left at that, Numerous ~anyples canbe citad (Beals and Hoter 1965; Fetheuer 1054; Metts. 1903; Turmey-High 1971), but Lowe's (1018: 34) discussion of South “morican warfare is roprecentative: "Revenge seems to fave be th foremost mative for warlae, but the Pavintintin fought mainly for spot and tho Tupinara to gain prestige and to acguirovitims to be eaten Te craving for glory alo figures legely .... The Paros are unique i ‘heie wars of conquest. Another motive was the capture of individual fsnemies." Other ten citod motives Include the desie ta take a trophy head, to count coup, to acquire spirit power, and to be soon as feo cious. The revenge motive, in particular, igo often cited without fu. ‘her explanation that it ezinds one of instinct theories, The ise of motivation is discussed further below Another psychological spproac explains the aggressive actions of a group by reference toa pervosive cultural pattern (ore Benedict 1998) ox cognitive orientation. Burch (2973) attsaates Northwest Alaskan. sino warfare Iargnly fo thar "Spartan sthiy” wAeh roquted a to demonstrate his toughness and endurance, Haliplk (2977) doves the Tauade's propensity Tor war from thalr “Hereclitean cognitive rk fntation,” which led them to spo the world in tenms of perpetual change and conflict also see Benedict 1974: Codere 1950; Mead 196% ‘Speer 1987; Voget 1264) Personally types ar atuibutes engendered by « particular culture psy prot Tice amc aise th age ond ale aly file pati to> whether ager. waite ofeach, {096)—tho enon. bmotrates that \ anthropologists Tha sociocultural tly, onw need ft to atudy the wr has been die of wat to th ‘vations of war sical explana raps. In some recelves futher that, Numerous 11054; Rata ussion of South > have bean the isi for sport fim tobe eaten, ‘of individual fotake a trophy ve soon a8 foro ed without far The issue of Bonedict 1934} heat Alaska 19779) derives el perpetal So: Med 1964 are another focus (Boshes 1964; Leighton and Opler 1967), In social i logy, the sutheritarian personality (Adorno et al. 1950) and the Peeatar personality are wellknown examples using a similar ep ma aaa ope Larsen. 1076; Fromm 1873) Within anthropology, Wa Pi 907) makes the important point that modern wars require pes "ee ioe trained to subsmissive obedionce to authority, fascinating sonal by an eeeMarine (Eisenst 1975) reinfareas Wallace's polnt in ‘lecuslag the mixture of aggossion and obodionce required by mod. aecascat traning. Risenat makps a second poiat relevant to 2 fteopotogical studies of war in tropical epions n Vietnao, the most seaeaaives "gun ho® Marines eftn were the frst killed by ambushe we pouby-trap, Caution and calculation were more valuable assets hungle fighting (ls0 soe Duncan 1967) Tt lool peychological approach relates wat to patterns of child hnood development, Walsh and Scandals (1075) suggest that both wat tea pelt mae iiiation rte originale in unconscious atempts ia dost withthe tensions of the Ovdipus situation. J Whiting (969), although not discussing war spetfically, explains wgaessbve adult pr ‘Soules and other trail, inchuding severe male initiation rites, by @ Tong cause! chain leading through child-rearing practicns to spec ‘culogeal conaitions (alo see Koch 174; B. Whiting 1968). ‘The various psychological approaches are not mutually exclusive, at lust iv plneiple. Any number of models could incorporate child ‘toring pattern, edult persolity typos, wely held values, overall allual patems. and the need to channel hostility to outside the foup_ Any oral ofthese approaches also could be, in peincipe, recon Bred wi materialist appronches tower, Whiting’s ocolopcally based fxplanation shows hove ths can be done, Harris (1979, 1980) rein. frpets both Walsh and Seandalis’s and J, Whiting's workin ight of his own model of wardare; Vayda (1967, 1900a) discusses the sas tlon aggression response os a watfarerogulatge dopendent on resoutes eatcty, and tho adaptive consaquencas of certain warlike values, Some authors of psychological stadios might not care fr this prospec wconeilistion, since several take pains to deny the sigaificance of ‘conor or ecological factors inthe eases thoy discuss. Nevertheless, mratovalat and peychologieal approsebes are nol necessarily incom Dale, and the posslbity of Chole iteration offers a promising wes foc future resoreh Most anthropological studies of wer deal wih nonstate sociotes, in which Kinship isthe damit organizing principle of daily ie.16 2 te Ferg From this fact has developed a subetantial and fairly consistent body of Work relating war and other confit to paterne of descent, mortage, and postnatal residence The basic ideas behind thie resoarch are falily simple, War ise ‘cooperative male activity. Within sate, social insitations tha di vide rolated men's loyalia ("conflicting loyalties” or “erms-cutting fies") diminish the lalibocd that men will use force in setling dis tes. naittions that unto related men into discrete soidary group. Ings (“fraternal interest groups") make them more able and likly to ‘use foree whan their interests are threstened, Between societies, tis relationship is reversed. The :nallor fraternal intrest groups ae less pableof large-scale, long-distance war then are the broader groupings of men engendered by crse-culting ties. Cross-cutting tes eu foun a variety of intgeating institutions, and especially from matical Postmartel sidence (Colson 1083; Gluckman 1959; Murphy 1957; Von Velzci and van Wetering 2980), Fistral inferest groups ae ee sted by male-rlentod structures, sch as patilocality, patrlineality, and polygyny (Murphy 1957; Otterbein 1986; Otterbein and Otlerbei 1965; Van Velzen and van Wetering 19 ‘This association of forms of socal structure with fequancy and ‘ype of warfare has received substantial cross-cultural vetieation (i Vale eal 1976; Embor and Ember 1971; Otebeln 19684; Otterbein an Ontesbein 1065; Van Velzen and van Wetering 1960), and suveral event dies document th role of fraternal intrest groups in war (Chagnon, 7; Koch 1974; Meggitt 1077: Otterbsin 19680), Moreover, ths te search dovetallsnicaly with observations on the inverse relationship between in-group solidarity and aut group confit, keeping min! that thore are different vel of group Unfortunately, several necessary qualifications complicate this simple picture. The elements of tha agument are not always easy to ‘atogorizn or imple ino + intenal-external war distinction ‘often is problematic. Some cultures include different social institutions, ‘one of which unites wheraas the other divider men’s loyalties, for example, ratilcality combined with patclineality (Murphy 1957) Ceatain altura institions soon a have both efocts Ninultanousy a Aitferont loves, for example, men’s houses (Maybury-Lewis 1974) on tale age sets (Fuku! and Turlan 1975). Questions have arisen on the peace-keeping role of crose-cutting fies, Hallpike (1977) argues thet thoy can lead to an escalation of etal conflicts. Keng (1970) dram strates that the practice of marrying outside one's local group-—one way of establishing eross-cuting tss-is not coreated with an absence of War (alo see Dillon 1080) Here a clue might be taken from poeco alr pero ins fal the levels ship. D of cur list will d favors Long the wi theory octal tound Sabin jal or Rielimple, War isa tutions that de veoros-uting Sin ating di solidary 304 Sieand Iikely to i eocetis, this (groups ar less ‘onder groupings ties sult eom a from tatrlocal Murpy 1057: yy. pateilnealiy aud Otterbein 1 frequency and ‘erifleation (1 sOitesbein and wd several recent in war (Chagnon torwover, this ‘tse relationship feeplng in ind complicate this always oasyt0 I war distinction oe loyal, for Murphy 1957) Irmultaneosely Lewis 1074) ot we arisen 0 the ha) argues that (1970) demon ‘oup-ane way than absence of ‘hen from pasos + tne: Satins Ws evar, whic indicts Boe ons tha he baling of Geos on sosachy ms tte of nconsing este, Aine Ga sana ac, nonstate sities, lianen making Oo eros on b rom ora stg Hakingpaicls ous oe mao aha and Comal 107%; Chagnon 1877; Fexsueon it 1972; Peoples 1982) lo complicate the zlaton of soca set Sent a th ba evel of pital omen 6 tn etna sca struc he semen ee Tote paar Fae el groupe of male to uit in flrs ant OA as (te crosecoltal wu Indies a sa ome Kappes 0 wel, dockins 6 es the liane pntztion, Cohen (Chanter this vlan] levels of ott ses creamer tho miliary Tole fre 2 hiro akin to amin basi wos ia OUP aravoting sneations Any comparison of Pn sated rat must consider it (nar aspect ofthe Kin tes yori onaniation linkage is dscoed bolo) pata oration, the itt of forms of ost ae fe quency nd orm of wana remains comer are i poll oar on wa. 1s utazated wih 8 caren ney the work of Hana and Eber (1078) OES ali err (1977) Thay abut Uo extencs of We {2974 tc, ha aru that to frm, ts water ee mai OF frre of socal strcture. Coulis Detean BEIT val etm nent of ptocaity ad other ae-ointed jovetopmnary mare effective and efiiont im local Eiht o they, ave development of matilocality Becta of ang ists ed ctber advantages it brings This Tne fr 2 este growing soe of arin ah OS ee ming ob sem a aor vara coining” {hn Ma cera ie (aan sce Ember 1974 rber et. 17 0) a ak ifleronteousc i zeating war tosocil Ae orale oor va the study of oxchangs, and they aperon’ sur Ta PPro fact” involving a complex 9 of Sree ce ed meanings Tole intent 5 Test exis 9 op socal elaions Toe oppo of exchange For Maus (1967) om 1d wars assumed as «kindof background state of DST Sahline (1970) sacs which i ranscendd by exchane, For Mans tal ox ea Rel ent Roman (078 lo 400 Rosman 2 Strauss 04) anh terse of exchang, wih @ SUC Roll 1871, Wn eachangy gone bed ond oschans is ar swe sructute to war. Sah18 tesa Fxg ‘Although the assumption that war Is a “natural slate fs criticized blow in another context, the stucturalists have mace at lnnportont antribution by dravving atantion othe often intimate cosnocton be tween war and exchange. and they are cstainly corot In aeaing tea both can operate tgethor as parts of complex socfocultunalsyeteme These two key poins are compatible witha materialist perspoctve, ro argue that war, ar exchange, are efforts to solve basic problems of subs istonce and survival in not to dany thet an elaborate sociscltenal talon can rise upon these ectivitie, I sires this in anolon work (Berguson 1983) on veerfare and redistributive exchenge onthe Noni ‘west Const Brown (1879), a structural, also suggest that stntucaliet and materialist perspoctives age not nocessarily enithticl In a proaching trade and war Game theory (Boulding 1962; Rapoport 1965, 1974), ystems theory (MoCielland 1965), and conflict theory (LaVine 1900; alsa seo Colon 1078: 067-870, Coser 19 ) doa! with the structaras and processes af war and other confi situations. These approschor are techniques oF tiontations, a concern withthe logicof confrontation, more hans body of empirical research. They can be appliod to different domaine of Phonomens, and so could have gone wader anather heading i tis Chapter. They also can bo applied from diferent porspeives and to front conclusions. Kch (10748) and Vayda (1976) for instance, both, {raw on confit theory but find Uhamealves in opposite came oa he Importance of land shortage in ortaln war patterns, Systoms theoe hog ‘boon relaiod closely to the development of ecological spproschos ia anthropology, and 4 noalinesr, systems vow of causilfy endelice Several ofthe contebutons to this volume (soe discussions of sytense ‘ausality below; in Leds 1975; rice 1982, and Chapter 6 this volume} Political Organization and War “Anthropologists have long been interested in the relationship be tween war and levels ofpoiticel development. They have concentrated ‘on too conta iss: Wha isthe rola of war in the procea of political evolution? and, How doos the pructce of war diflor tlre ove ot Political developinent? Tho two tus have provoked more theorizing and debate than any othors in tho anthnyinlogy of war Asposts at cack ‘se discussed below, but no camplets summary ofthis lage and coor plicated literature can bo attempted hore. Interested testers shout consult the older classes inthe eld (Andeski 2972; Davie 1868; Hobe nse otal, 2965; Keller 1920; Sumner 1941; Wright 1965), mare econ udis (Adams 1975; Brumfiel 1983; Caneiro 1970: Cohan ud Son, Har: 1977) 1978 c telat hs point tat tn on fir fates sted of anc fits £ Kec but he ch ued tt Focal velo) prevent Chane the nortw is citcized an important in arguing that ural sytem verspoctve. To ‘bles of sub- soclocalttal nother work on the Noo at trctaralis ‘tial fn ap systems theory ro soe Colin 1 procosses of techniques or arethanabody at domains of fading inthis ‘otves and to Instance both camps on the ans theory bos spproachee fn ty underies wns of syste thiewolume) lationship be foncentated of political et levels ol pecs ofeach tre and cou dare should fhm and Sa vico 1976; Flannory 1072; Fried 1961, 2 ee gra; Krader 3906; Service 3075: Webl Haris 197%; fore by Claseeen sna Skank (2978), Otesben (2970 Soro), and Wright (1977) aan eal pln however, rust be mad becase oft relavanc to ln dicuusons Testud of war in relation to pola evoluton 10 amains¢atronghold of mates nas (tthoug 12 has bog Sipeciely itis sornetimes difficult to say what i o snot this are seoegooec). For the past two decades, however hore bas sae gutoroenmatrilat ude of pica evolution and of war con ae war's influence on politica evolution has been a con Pee ptret, the study of how politcal development ffiuenc ima oad concern in earlier Yoats—haslanguishod. retro this pein in later sections te ety. not everyone who studios war and politics isa mt se aaa he injor contemporary challenges to evologcal thors of ter oe ial Uneory. Koch's political explanetion of war (20748), le, Toaks ruc ike the socalstructral argument that fraternal intrest fad an absence of exos-calting ies are assoc ra eal aterm”) warfare But in discussing the Jlé and ober ang th thls type of social structure, he extend tho argument to ra ical nations of conflict resolution. ‘The Jal, he argue toc sted with blligetent attitude during childhood, Adults wil ee deer many tings (enough nothing Koch interprets ae cecal a ov hoe quarrels olten acalat nto wat, Escalation occurs xeon nora organization and psychology preciado the formation bwcaugn Jol ng ted pty institution to mediate oF SUPprESS Om Ba itn jal fight, acorn to Koch, cause thore arano politcal ao en op turn (oe Cole, Chapter 8, forenotier discussion of se Chagnon (1467) takes similar view in egerd tothe Yanomemo, Date and ater take the idea further: ‘Ghaunon (1007, 1874, 1977), bafore ls turn to saciobilogy, er quod tha the erste of war n'a rogon threatens the sovereignty of Fea ne Gem adaplation to preserve tele soveraignty, people Pa areeyeitantatitude, a suspicion of outsiders, anda tendency to SRIPRA Zgoe and sock roverge. They resort to war as a matter of Touro lignan, elong with Sahins (1888, an seo above) and Serve Goer 197th invokes Hobbos to argue that war ithe normal tate of veces fog "ulbal” peoples whe have no overarching autbory to Se an By lua inference or by deet aplication inthe case of Eigen (1974-208; 1977: 163}, thls proposition suggests that war Is Tenaeen Al io of existence forall sociotos, because even moder‘ations are not subject to an overarching power able to provent was, ‘Ad if wae is norma, then it equltes no special explanation, Chapnon states this view quite clesly in tho second elton of Yenamamer “Warfare among the Yanornamo—or any sovereign tribal people ivan sxpectable farm af political Ixhevier nd no More wines ope explanations than do religion or economy” (Chagnon 1977: 169) That Statement remains in tho tind edition of Yanomamo (1089: 213) ol ‘hough some ofthe supporting argument hes een cut, Given the wide sproud uso of Yanomame in Introductory anthropology courca, tho Dropesition is of more than theoretical concern. Thoussis of staciont, vty Year are learning that war betwen sovereign polls! grosre ie normal, expectable, and need not be quostioned. Because ofthe ede ‘vudionce, and because this hypothesis ie contrasted tn eealogical expla ‘ations by its proponents Itmeits more canaideration here (ote Bos ett Ross 1960 for anathereitque ofthe Hobbesian view) Tho point that a strong overarching ‘minis intonalwanfare is vl, hore concer the process of socio authority will prevent or die ut cbylous, The important questions political evolution: what conditions lend tothe development of supralocl authorities, and do socal ses "ros like those ofthe Jad relly provent thes emsergoace! lithe other sido ofthe argument that neods examination: do sctetioswithoutoren rchiag authorities make war simply and solely because lheve iso Institation to stop thom? Tore are two ways fo rsd this proposition. If thet authors mean that any type of eonliet may 1 to war between autonomous groups, and soi is thofact oftheir autonomy that is docsive in the outbrea of war, then they are correct. It would be absurd to assert that insult, tninor socal transgressions, jealousy, or whatever, have aaver ie and by themselves precipitated a war. If, however, they mean that ll types ‘of conflict are equally likely to load ta war, as if societies were fot alting far an excuse to “havo et 1,” then thor Ie zoom for major Asagzoemont. This isan empirical sua, and thie hypoets will oe inversely to ecological or other hypotheses that atibute ware locerata ‘ypes of underlying conflict, such az competition over srtonic ae Sources, The more a determinant pate ig established, the weahes wll be the “anything goot” iypethesis Even vithout reference to evidence, two problems can be ident, fied in the Hobbesian approach iet. it equates the lec ot Jose {institutions of conflict resolution vith the absence af any means a regulating conflicts other than the unstable Yet even tho “hero” Yanotname i is of reciprocal exchenge. ave their own itereal peace move. Individuals may strongly oppose star (Biocea 1970. 207,218, had lets week ser that y about for gt ‘embl ‘Alexa of we Malt this 8 pects fan post and b coal findin shed 3 mal i‘nation. Chagnon tof vanomema’ a pooplo-is an Toguirosspocial 1977: 163), That > (198s: 215), al- ‘Given the wid ogy cours, the sands of students litical groups is uae of the wide scologeal expla m hate (se Ben: iw). I prevent or srtant questions what conditions Mio social ste cu? Rletheother {es without over ‘ae authors mean the out ext that mn that all types tins wc js room for maj vothese wl are ver strategic to the weer will w can be ident- > ack of formal any mans of srocal exchange nal peace move "970" 207, 218, 221; Chagnon 1977; 04, at entio village may desert an oveogaresive Pea [Blocen 19702 197}, men couse fo fight (Chagnon 3967: 190 ea eio0), end patti wars ao channeled into substitute ou rary kelly (Chaguon 1977: 135, 128,121) Deseriptons of silat ee poate found in many accounts of nonstate war. Although pre vetetfa ef the Heblbesian view do not suggest any instinct for PUB Pont either do they consider that humans might be inclined en mac gward pease sot dus to any instinct, but because ofthe deal ‘Nifong. and wasted effort war ental ‘said. politcal extonomy explains only the potential for itsastaal securrence Been ive accep tho highly dubious proposition tt wen ean economy oF religion s normal fo all societies, vate ps much ae variations in one in wor patterns require explanation just senamie ar tligious systems. Hf ono considers all the politically a coareus groupe in the aeorld, what docs their autonomy exp rao a ckonmousdiferencescbarrved In the froqueney oftheir war seat the Hobbesian approach onl tlls us that groups ao capable of farting end Gus itis no more flminating tan the bunan capably renseis aggression stresoed by Snuatists. In fact there are stg re er ae atbetwoen the two views (eampace the Hobbesian view to ‘Mccaador 1079), and they uo fall within the samo tradition of wost Arenal thought (Nelson and Olin 1970) (A different politica theory Ut war is considered im lator context Military Organization and War rip structure of armed forces, military technology, strategy, end tuctcn ae described in meny etnographic accounts of war, Despite HenShandance af descriptive material, only afew studios analyze as vrai of itary ergenization in tele ov sight, Megs (1077), Otter Poe (toed, 1997), Turney tlgh (1971), and Vayda (1066, 2676) are Tiatstal de attention they ive to tactics, One Kind of erateic tare tory preparedness, is investigated by Naroll eto. (2978) pe by Otterbeia (2070), Thie work indicaes 2 dirootcorslation of vaiitety propaadness end the frequency of wer, supporting peace 1 caer alin that ond toward Uh same conclusion (Boer 1961). These Talude! Ieehdemally, are of obvious rlovance tothe curronty fon Tonsiting peeco by preparing for war, ther discussions taies of politic evolu "hn short uty organ ale dot! St mltary organization are found in many st tion although usually o a secondary eonoern. tition is weak aroa in the anthropology of war. Th Chapter 10, Goldberg and Pindlow make nn important contribtion by proposing a model to account for aspct of strategic postuos. They also provide a select but eubetantil bibliography of military se ence. Some anthropologists might bo disinclined to plunge into this Father cold:bloodod Iterature, but military sence may provide a ich souroe of ideas aalogous tothe role of frmal economics in econornie nthropology. We would, of cours, have to question the degtoe to ‘which military docttine applies to other cultures, bt st would be an {nforesting question in tol. A mare modoa introduction to that itera ture is provided by Brodie and Brodie (1973) and Preston and Wise (979), Miltary organization may comprise a distinct st of valle, with thei own determinants and consequances. Moreen (Chapter 8, thls volume) suggests that military effetiveness can vary considerably be tween two groupe with similar sociopolitical structures, and several chaptors Indicate that one group's military stanco wil affect slg cantly the stance of their oppanent(). Recognition ofthe significance of military relations may lead to greater attntion tothe organization and application of military forcoe. Understanding the uses, effective ness, and functional prerequisites of vaslous sltaegies end tactics ‘could lumina the study of teraction across frontiers, an could be spplied tothe stuly of objectives and functional altsrtatives of wae (soo Vayda 1978). 136 promising aoa for sveearch, the ist sop of hich might boo update Turney-High's compendium of ethnographic natal an strategy and tacts, Materialist Approaches to War This section describes past and present natesalist approaches to wor within enthropology. Aspects ofthese approachos ware discussed in the preceding section, to show that materialist vew fs nat neces ily opposed to other approcches to war, Substantial integration o findings may be possible. This does net meen that no contradictions exist. The diffrent approaches to war begin with different premises, \lerived from very diferent conceptions of society and culture Unques Uonably, they will end to specifically contradictory expectations about var. Specific theoretiealeantradictons ars har a fnd, hewn, since {vocates of one view tend to attack or disregard other approaches in toto, a fin order for war to have a politcal or paychologlea side, It cannot have an economle aspect as woll. Without recognizing that theories eddossing diferent expects of wat can beat least partly pee ho logic fade sl 190strategie postures, hy of miltary si may provide rich ‘ion the degree to "that woul be an ‘ion tthat trae rosin and Wise tof variables, ith 1 (Chapter 5, this ¥ considerably be tuzos, and several vel affect signif he sigaifcance > tho oxgonization xe uses, effective clos ai tactics lets, and eo be tornatves of war the frst atop of of ethnographic is approaches to ‘ia itopration of calture: Unquor ® approsches in rological sido, it oognizing that least pactilly complomontery, it will be difficult to isolate whore they are actually tontadictory. reese lis! approach to wer focuses on war's elation to the proctcal problems of maintaining Ife and living standards. Since sree s900, this usually has meant sidying war tn relation to loca logy. But ecology ie not everything, and bofore discussing the eco- Tepe euies, consider other ines of metetlistroscarch on war that {ald away. The theoretical reorenttions I describe represent an in ‘eeeting but complicated problem in the history of anthropology. The {Hite were subtle, and more often implicit than stated. Real under Sfunding ofthe changes would require consideration of factors far be ‘Yond the slagle topie of ar, including the politisl climate of the Toads and 1950s. Because I cannot atfempt that here, the following ‘contraction and interprtation mast be regarded as tentative A coview of materialist approaches to war can begin with the sa40e, when wer, belly, became an important topic within anthropat- Gay At iasue was the question of economic motivation, Previously, Genomic motives were thowght to underlie war only In sttelovel Societies, or societies epproaching that lavel. Both Malinowski (1964) snd Turney High (1971) shared this opinion, although beth recognized xceptions to this rule, Generlly, material gen was nol believed tobe su lmporeant motivating fore in war in simpler socitis, rik was, vias only ons of many iypesof motives. Spt, evengo, o prestige wete Thought tobe at least an Important Th the 1040, tis view was reconsidered, a8 matoraists asserted that even in politically simple sciotie, war was often s serous strug flo motivated by economic need. Mishkin (1940) and Lewis (1942), ejected Law's (1995) and Linton's (2036) dismissal of economic mo- tives in Plains lndiane wafer (See Bilsi, Chapter this volume raging thatthe warlike cultural values stossed by the latter autos ‘wate underainby a framoworkof waters need. Wegnor (1840) offered ‘thorougily economic telonal forth Bant’s desire to Kill adie tional enemins at every opportu. Swadesh 1948), analyzing Nootke vr texts, concluded het quest or tropes and revenge wor second my ralionallzations in a conscious strugle ova: resources (abe Ferg: tom. Chaptne this vom The biguest splash occurred when a hist Flan entoredeatropologial waters. Hunt (1640) explained the wats of {he trots (and by implication, wars of many other Native American ‘eoples) a. stugaleto contol te fr tr, touching offs debate with Teverberations down to taday [eee the roviw in Otterbein 1973: Gram by 1977, Trigger 1978; Blois and Ferguson [Chapters & and 6, thisvolume] both discus the impact of furtado on was). But as «general By the late 2940s, White's evolutionism was gaining influence ‘within anthropology. White (1969) axgued in principle apaietny Lind of “psychological explanation” of social pheremens Fes Whaat segs btn selon tan gee oc “cultrologica” lvol (White 1969: 343). Ine watombed pares Nec ‘om (1980) applied this view to Plains Indian wertare. i eeconted the older sparts- prestige view ofthe motive of warors butdiseioe Nowcomb, Plains tnen were warlike because thelr socie cated on twins obliged thei to bo" (Neweamb 1950: 920). The couses ot ee sociocultural imperstive were “powerful sconomis and hstets forces" (Newcomb 1950: 329) above and beyond the conscieunee individual ectors. Economie rationality was stl tthe hood of Uae ‘alter but now itis tobe calulated ona lovel above tat of seconearee mat” Newsom later (1960) elaborated on this point anguingthotieny usually ar fought over some economic good bu thea ee the gant is determinod by social foros. One cannot evon discover the acy {ng economic dive by talking to partilpants, he canted, boceaes willbe overlain by cultural values, distorted by retiouslzations aad st lous in blerarchcal societies, complicated by dvergont Ince tot sbscured by deliberate mystificaton Newcomb vas pat ofa trend aivay from “peycholgical explana: ‘quences. For one thing, it allowed explicitly entimatarilist reyes Gal interpretations of wer to stand unchallenged for docaile og, dere 1950; Fathauor 1054; see ciliquas of thelr positions te Sosecen {Chapter 6, this volume) and Graham 197s, respocively} That teen ted to a conclusion thatthe “ethnogzaphic faci” had rendered ths sconomic motivation hypothesis of warfare “perlyscculows™ (alt pike 1978: 455). otum to the Issue of motivation in lute sore Lack of inert in economic motivation probably combed ty the disassociation of war from economic studies in tedhrovoloey at {hough this lsassciation willbe seen latrto have boon partctersach larger reorientation, Prior to Word Wer I, have seems to have nee sss big Par of that, Compare for instanco, Iie dacasston of ena Ft (2928), Thurnwald (1832), Bunzel (2898) and Hosni (ace) Firth viualiy ignotes war in describing Maori economies, deagns th tzlity of war in that soley (se Vayda 1956). Thureal ave sain fee of has be ted aps, cou plex 1 youn, Muct Toma ¢ wit writ woe Pe Tation asec nck pecie mart26 A felanFegson ‘rather than a major topic requiring explanation itselt (The decline of ‘volutinary stages of war asa cantal cancun is ilusteaad by compac ing Fvied (2961, 1967] snd Carmsiv 11978). Cultural ecologists were nat likely to pick up tis topic that evolu Yionlts wore leaving. Asis discussed below, culture ecology dealt with populations adapting to local envizonmont. Issue like elite centralization or difeentiation ware of litle elevancs Inthe “imple acletie they typealy studied, and the stage approach may also Reve sounded too untlinsal Besides, «now wey of catogorzing warseome te ‘have pormeated anthropology around thes, which alan averted atten tion fom palitical inputs When Tirney-igh (1971) pubished his massive compendiv on ‘primitive war” in 1949, it towerod above everything sls In the fel specially given the added authosty of Turney High's own militay buckaround, He wrote that thors are two kinds of wor: primitive sec {rao or eivilized war. This detnction vecestonally had boom used he, fore, but Turney-High gave tow wight atl «technical leaning, The ‘wo were distinguished by the presence or abeence of lve tect f tues (Tumoy-High 1971: 30), and the distinction roughly coincides with the advent of features astocited with civilization fe, wating metal working, and so forth (Tusney-Migh 1971: x}, The primitive~civilized distinction was adoptod quickly. Hersko vits(1952b) endorse it almost mmmediately. Newcomb (1060) ted to Teooncile his four stages with it. Vayda, wito wes to bocome the most in ‘the 1960s, intograted the distinction and ‘many other aspects of Turney-High's wotk into bis disaration (1050) At the 1967 American Anthropological Astovation meetings “ivi, zn” was changed to “moden”, but otherwiso the distinction gener ally was eccopted(Fvied otal. 1967, especially Pat IV) I temas wide use although “tribal” has replaned “primitive”, end the disting tion aces to havo lst the technical meaning Turney High gavel, Alland 1900; 446; Plog etal. 1876: 430, ‘Use of this distinction encouraged the idea that all primitive or tribal war was move ot less tho sane (02, Koch 10744), and that Rubicon separated it from modara war, Relatively lite station has boo given to evolutionary changes in war (ef fa Biled et al, res Neuusip eal. 1479}. Yet Ouarbein (1970), whi has studied those ‘changes, finds neither uniformity nor Rubicon, but a graduel ence gence of more sophisticated milltsry practices, which explatne why Tumey-Iigh hed to acknowledge uo meny “exceptions. to Wie generalizations ‘Te msglect of evolution had partioulanly important consequences for materialist studies. Cambined with th interel nd ncles of altar al color tical pel Boris Hinkages snalyse Society Vaydad var, bu tively le bat Foie plant selene We stady 0 he ide thropal more § wat 1 evan studies ated Propo! comple igh 1 Me New ¢ further(The dectine of Hed by compar 2p that evo ecology dealt s lke political the “simple ‘may also have vgiwar seems to diverted atten inthe fel wn mtn Been wet bo ‘moaning, Tho tactical fo hy encldes (og, weling ck Hero 180 ed ton te) (remains tn Mt primitive or ‘nd that a tal. 1967; aid those sedual emer. sins why es ofeultur ecology tended to close of consideration of he sepact om Wal of <1 anaon ah szatred Inognty Terao Hh Ate ole ihat is work ends to gore thoseand ote seioeal) Ber ae gicanc ie acknowledged, but not integrated nto Nakane) v's scrtation contrasts Mos wax is hat of he anaes eatin isle the iter two oe "rus war and ae Soc Ad by the developed enthorty relations of those ar one those cass fom ler publications. Hazes Vere a lating that sete volition changs the bes of 1 par resoarch has boen on war atthe band end ville wero Mich politics ae not ¢ dominant consideraion Prod’ rhe leva tatussion of sages of war can ba cited asa countorexamphe ‘ively a ted Turmay igh’ two stago cetintion (1087: 09-100) tae artis restriceed conception ofa tora approach, fat unaphasizn class diferonces, political confit, wa bo vary different at even opposed to Planations of war th br similar concerns appear oO onten! explanations, ¢8 two examples wil bow Sei avs] does not connect his important and wery materialist seul et sCantpooant van athe eclogalerature on wr Rath, giady ot ioe Hane now Hind of undetaking—new, bacause acts bad ignored both ware within complex societies and the tare pi of political cleshes and power struglos. Despite aan ra sat study offers fr those who Uke thelr anthropology hat thi oe septs its potential for establishing a bag from War relevant oa gnomena such as revitalization movements bas geno studing U0 Piallow up. muateilist or otherwise. Only a few en aie ops ave focused om war and related topics fa conte Perey throncogi joe (Gnnen 1983, Cohn et al 170 Darbar 9708 Fed cor eed 1970, Mead and Metraux 1965; Neiteship el co eaatially Loos 1975; Staveniegen 1970: Parti Turnoy. High 1971: Aterword) More recent, sillitor ow Guinoa warfare, which wuoe scone arguments But silite is talking ie grm doision abot “collec= 1076) bas offered political explanation of Te contests expliitly to ecological re abot wat loads (0 far which he sys sults from 2 Do ree escate” tan bout hove big men manipulate exstng Mie a oltcal ambitions (Sito 1872: 254), | soe no necessary santa ion between this usdoublodly valid area ofresearch and np San ating wa fo enviommental problems In ft because i a porteis sues from tho same patchines o Suppor ae sito 1070 259) thot ors vet crite coogi ot tall unlikely that consideration of oth concerns vot sustainable explanations bxplenations, it ‘hight lend to{his ends the review of potential areas of materials approaches o ‘Marist were not developed. Contomporary implications cf hex nent trends” aisoin later discussion. The ontatfve raters oy tion again must bw iientioned, The sores following discussion of ecological apeneeeh, Somewhat firmer ground because the top ‘caveat is applicable to the hes although here I fal on is dovelopment that did The new direction that materialist stud sine evidon! when the gradvete students ofthe 1980s legen toa ib around 1960, They wero in implicit agreement with Watery Neyicomb that motives would not provide the ey to unfotandig ons jad with Tumey-High that there wo a valid eatogory tehenee ee be studied under the label primitive war. But the actual tend ee frnlics was determined by additional inlumness, naably stenege (1076) viow of toca lias an adaptation ta local eavicorens ee {fons Two other erly influences were sninal ethology which ore Cipsrisons about adaptive behavior ooo Sutlles WEN) andthe eo Gluckman snd hiscoleaguss, who had beensiudyingansiol ceri iorass contibuting to the presorvation of existing voclapciai cl ag pons te Vayda and Leeds 196%) Catal cology, as deta ‘hath 19608 dealt with how populations adapted fy aed wee oe {mselves within enviznmenal constants, Quo tactic weed sae flamonstration of hidden positive functions, inthe sol er nae {og materiel rationaliy in seemingly feratonal o daseuctng ney fallers. Waras topic Rited well into this orientation aed fortes, Jamawar became acental concer of asudisciplineafaneonolery oe Yyosts come, an ecological a ‘would be vietally synonymous The inital ocologiea! studios wore relatively unsophisticated a ants to show that war had adaptive consequanees, wih ede dung as being more advantgsous than dsadvantegens ec iding people with the means of acustmenttothegoopepeal aes Ean an lo ote basic conditions of ie” (Vale gah, ain te Bille (1961) discusses colic as» population spacing a ace Hickerson (1965) sees war as cresting bulfor sone thoy oo reserves for hunted animals. Swest (1965) deseribes hew wing ene dstetes camels aver «salon Vayda (10600) ces San Te Pitning how war can lead othe equsition of cata Kinde de smn arcultralists. Vayda ale oignally pablon tr intigtod a debate over and shortage and war tat Gsceaed Yolo} Zhotetical underpinnings of this new approach wen thea {feet by authors such as Leeds (1963) and Coline (1969) Dearie Hompeland systems teary, the lopc of fnctional enalysc wes econ las of war were to take ach and ematvalist approach owas owt thed Hen (ca stabl: torel cyber 1 form thet ogre Pop deter Chap Yum tions (roe: tle atlapproaches to ofthe "non thisreconsteuc plicable to the Ihe fect on pment that did ree histcatd at vi edaptiv rus" in "po ‘eal environ 209, 200) rnechanis. ach as game sv raliding re > models ex sol land or hed in 1961 ed below) filled in Dravingon vwasspelled suit tn syste of trl verabes, «given vasblo wil ba 2 ptt vals. moves begond the pes. the Sse dan pt in functional aystoms, other variables are activated Py destoye ge Ioan toa changin which eed back to compensa ts 2 oven finantain x within is accetablerange. Adhering 0 sheds eld that uctonl analgss coud pt account fo he I vasable, only forts operation within the syste ro gah the variables fanetfona yatemersntartinkad 8 the system is equilibria, that i (Greule,soll-segulating chain, the hres inenest in equiva systems revels the influence of struc ao nal, vie Gluckrian, although wes now enveloped in on aeinciogy. Loods {0063) hold that sable ub es cornet ay cannon, although both he and Vayda (19696) were ee sh procosses of change, Lois’ atic, aswell ws his Concer OGD, 1073), is noteworthy aso for is emphasis on fane ater wort one between purely social phenomena, e& well es aw ture-culture links. cana 1000s, ecological studies of war were divided betwern to ensues: ho origins of war andthe functions of war with he (od closely elated to tho earlier evolutionary statis (now fore teagan th later, Lathrap provides the best example of minus th ogre innTategrating Vayda’ (19600) model of expanding sree an Caney (1968) esearch on the agricultural poten caricultac spon are, Lara (1968) presents a sooneci for the ta of toe Arion of tho Amazon basin. He argues thatthe ichst turatcea ad animal raourees wore along the coats and iver. saath od to competition an wesfre over hese ands, with raat a eraor moving upstream or into the Interior, Tis eyo of eae ign ove preducive ecological zones oul dbecalled an adapt Here ee victors, but the explanation does not rely at ll on the {ie Ucar chains characteristic of most factional analyst Tn Haare fhe volume, Bale supponts Lathrap’ argument dacusy dee ea asco along themoarittn const of Braz Fete sae og jalso emphasizes thoimportanof vere, and eeperaly son (Chapter 8) isining one type of conflict. Graham (2075) explains Fumes tare by reference tthe eriultutal potential of ver ers ae ve etional appreazh arated more attention than did que sion Bf tuts, Divale and Harris (2970), Neting (2073), Rappaport tram vooet Siskind (1073), and Swet (1970) all hypothesize circular oo eopalting functional systems involving waF as eiical vat Te es rete ot these complex systems differ in each analysis, and ‘Chapter this volume] for an yes are fundamentally ‘anol be summarized hore. (Sec Haris oof the Divale-Hareis mode) The enaia a may not consider ot somtrast tothe more inited list epproaches dominated ecological studios af Nat nto the mid-1970s, al which tim ambitious madoluildine esse, asi for more introspective endeavors, Bo {hei premises, and they ind to face empirical and thooretial caller es from nonecologists, The empirical challenges, which contored or te role of resource scarcity in wat, are considered fet, One issue isthe significance of land shortage, or scanty of cota ‘ypes of aricultural land, in war patterns of tie mestera Paci na pers f Southeast Ass. Many clan wat over land Is camo is thong areas (Brookfield and Brown 2964; Brown and Brodklield aso, Ee 2982; Meggitt 1972, 1977; Peoples 1982; Rappaport 1968, 1079, Ste, 190th; Vayda 19698, 1875, 1979; also see Baylis Smith end Eesetos 1677), Others dismiss or downgrade land us an important factee na oe Wallptke 1073, 19772,b; Koch 19748 b Silitoe 1977, 1975), of theso apposed views is dificult becouse of land acquisition ae goal of warand its acquisition asa conseqnonno rar. Many peoples say that they fight to gel land, but many ating deny this youl Borndt 1964), This leads Hallpke (19770) oclas thet weary asin whlch land sa stated gal i only of sacondary mporanc nd the poople would fight evan if they bad plenty of lend, For the ‘culopists who focus onthe adaptive consequences of war however rhe tnt iso of motivation or goals is not of central concern: Wheihoe ‘sroups actully acquire land is mon i acquit land in war, logis were reconsidering valuation f th distinction between Important then whether they sock a this point, xtics note that lan acquisition ony occasionally follows war, and thal when a victorious group does ooripy lennon ‘often does so only gradually and ator the passage of concarieaal Yetimany groupe deacauie hand through war (Berndt dah Sateen the ecological interpretation of New Guinea wat hat recente ten ‘rovidd by en unexpected source. A eco the land shortage ae Iment presents (Sllitoe 1977) a compilation of data tht eogeoy refutes thet argument, However, astmple statistical teatment of thors deta shows a strong corslation between population density ond the ‘envdency of @ victorious group to accupy vacated land ates wor, thes fight ‘lai Mor Soph cont dabat South hag Yano 1168 finde Dash Sisk chal 1 adis (che appr ‘alm indebalance between Tospanse mecha: Intentions et not consider ot ver actions. The 18 to paople or {night be cated ‘nemo limited lel studies of bling asst, reconeldering tical challenge entered on the arity of certain 2m Paciie and mon in thove (2059; Ember 11978; Sains and Peachem st factr in 8). Evaluation tion between, fonsequencn of ay others deny "ympertance, Ind. For those however, the ern, Whatter ther they sak dorbl tine, } Supportfor secoally boon supposedly tent of thes ee wat thus 1 arson: Seng War m1 apport the eolaglcal vow (fiber 1982). Why low-density 04D Faeertcmaase quesin, rnb’ suggcsted test of overall resource Saha ae be applicable Her. Al ay Tale, cologite have ne sen Ti land i the only reason fr war in Nev Gulbea. One hopes four’ chapter inthis volume will push the Morne fod Tovel by demonstrating that conquost of ageculral lend aot of 4 more complicated end locally variable pattern of 5s omy vagnacs only (1940) ad insightful discussion of similar i cane a Central Arica context desorves to be considered in this dobat, scarcity of agrculturel land also was suggested asthe basis of ‘south Anerican warfare (Vayda 19600}. This may apply for the ero sate a ads (Lathrap 1968, 1970; Morey and Marwit 1975; Roosovelt eer ho proposition lst support forthe Interriveriu areas after Giethon (1967, 1077) documented an abundance of land forthe Geant (eto tne Carneiro 4064; Murphy 1970). Beologists ad to sa axotie limiting foctor. The listed amount of game and other in aetna protein in the Amaazon zegion had been noted by aot ot uicrors(Canneivo 1464; Denavan 1970; Hamer 1972;Lathrep sgh rote [or game) searesty soon was cited asthe limited resource ase ngaovorl South America war complones (Benet Ross 1971; aes ture, Grosh 1975; Hanis 1974, 1977, 198D; Ross 1978, 2079: Bashar ovo aleo see Johnson 1982), Not unexpectedly, ths view seas hat he proten-gnne scarcity dd aot hallongd by others who claimed cree shor could not explain watfare (Beckarman 1970; Chagnon 1974, Sony, Chagnon and Flames 1879: Hames 1979; Lot 1977, 1979; Nugent 1981), 1h ho third edition of Fanomamo, Chagnon (1882: 80-80) includes eae of the “great proton debate." Twill not go into specifics seer fis elaine: Most of them relate to matters taken up by Harri. {Chapter this volnme) and Hares is alo to take car of mse. It voarepeat, howover,t call attention to tho extraordinarily ad homie seer araier of Chagon’s discussion, and to his distortion of fs rae soeat positions, Does Horie eally ty toexplain the indian sacred caeemmple ak respons to protein scarcity, as Chagnon cllms (198 Fears hnaieates tat a "Colusabia erased” goes protein a8 area nyatical foresthatcan “explain most everythin” (1989:06), Many of thocontrigutosto this vakame areorkave een associated with cena dhe Gaiventy [wil loove ito the reader to decide if they are owessed with prota Te thts volume, Haris (Chaple 3) provides history ofthe protein is dseribos how positions and issues have changed. the the evidence, oftinga recent atop fd eppraisea he current state{© docamoat an abundance of game animals in the Amazon. Fo also species an empirical testo is postin. Case sds of Seuth Arse ¢an warfare by Bennett Rossa Bale offer support forthe pote gas scarcity hypothess, elthough they, like Merton, show that many ster facto must be considered in analying any concrete example of won Scatcites of good agricultural land and animal proton source have boon implicated as sufficiently general considera in war pet terns to warrant broader testing of their significance, However the focus on land and game has crated an oversimplified picture of cealog {cal explanations, War is nover a simple function of the tatu vironment. Whatever significance environmental phenomns have tea reoult of thei interaction with a society ofa given form, The aliont favironmental condition in any caso may be scncthing lle tht ‘scarce resource, a Morren in pscticular emphasizes (Chaptee 4, this volume). Nevertheless, competition for scarce rosoutoss very eerie the bass of war. What type of resource may be involved il ery from ‘one war pattem to another, and rect may be seat dete any rooosses besides population noiabers pressing on absolute supyling sin ensos when dematd i affected by trade, contac clreumstancos, o Political and economic differentiation. With higher levels of confic ‘nd political development, sctalsearcities of rsourees tay be only ‘one of several factors coutibuting to was Despite those qualifications, the hypothesis tht resource scarcity {sa primary cause of war in presale scioies classy may he contewticl to hypotheses that explain war without reference to any scarce se Source. In its specific applications the resource seacity hypothesis has bon supported by a substantial ammount of dota, and it has survived Several attampts a refutation. A hypothesis dees nt sand or fall x elusively on its own merits, however. It must be compared with alter, ative explanations. Several af the eitis listo ebove do affer explana: tans of war. Halk explains tho war patter of particular group by rforence ois particular values and institutions. Silitos exploine oo big mon manipuiste wars to furor their politcal ambitions. Roch and Chesson explain the potential for war by & lack of overarching eather ly strictures, But nether they nor the other cris for any nonpar 'Wularistic hypothesis to explain why wars occut when and whore hey o, and this lack of gonsralized allomative hypothoses washes the, Positions of the entice Before leaving empirical concarns, its worth mentioning thatthe ‘cent war literature has been dominated by roponts and hyputhess on warfare in New Guinea and lowland South Anerie a, There are signs of ‘rowing intrest in other rogions however, especially in war sub i} | | | Sahar 1072) wonder | cated Neral end 8 Riche senot tioned func of fur te. | onal fone analy Tevele h [chat whial 1 the = plied wrk, 1 foro | pathsazon, He alto South Ames repro gps Hat many ther sample of wt ‘However, the stu of colo he natural en mm The mallont goler than Shope 4 hie vary oon is ‘il vary fom site spl tle of confit Say be only Ue contrast ‘ypolheis hoe Wn survived ah fall ox td ith aor largo by explains how mt Koch snd ting exter! vdwhere they ‘weakens tho sing hat the ypotheses on ‘are signs of ssharan Avi (Coben, Chaptor this volume; Epstein 2075; Fadiman Schare iu and Turton 1970; Gamat 1908; Netting 1974a; Skinner 1982 Ee averse uns Fad In ie Aficam war trout 3072) tr comtinu to grow, andi doings may lead toa more general understanding of arartoretical controversies of the late 1970s and early 1980s veers pote wiesproed than the single topic of wer. They involve & re taormulaton of materialist studs in general, Researchers oo a ocology aud evolution went through a period of sl el (Adame 1975, 1975, 1081; Alland ond McCay 1975;Batos nd {PRE Gr Bohm 1078; Campbell 1973; Carino 1970bs Harts 1 vee ed Diva 1976, Nelling 1974e,b; Oslove 1980; Price 1982: Rap wart a7 Rone 1000, Rye 1973; Vayda 1970, 1970, 1082; Vayda Bane aay 1876), spurred on by ertcsm from otaers with differont a Meee. Diener 1980; Dioner and Robkin 1978; Diene ol, 1878, Cr nodinan 1974, Hllpiko 1973; Murphy 1970; Orans 1979 see we 1977, Saline 1976). Soveral things contributed to this st recat voormulation, and only a fow ofthe most relevant istues can [ert nod bona. There was @ sense of uncealiy i the long fenc aan rnc thove was dissatisfaction with the ahistorical nator of fone ona lle Cites contended that, dspite th logical separation EMfanetion and origin, practice the ecologists often confusod the corer sehen the distinction was respected, critics doubted func re Piet jematons beeause there offen sesmod to be no genertive verses that possibly could account for the existence f the posted Figuional complexes. Vague reforonces to an unspecified process of ABiton and snletive retention no longer would do. Functionalist Thalys often soemor to suggest saloction on the group ot even higher Treks nad such approaches came under severe attack within biology Wii support rout Biological models eroding the self-regulating fanc onic nrdals were ceitcizd for “the fallacy of migplaced teloology that conus wines purpose fs attributed to ent of orgenization on (ith no creative process is knowa to operate” (Richerson 1977: 4 thu respouse (0 all these problems focused on two intrrelatod issues ocras and individual strategies. One aspect ofthe procesaual inary models 10 “approaches 2p ted with the the study of war, Among the diferent evolotionar plied. two have recelved the most attention, one associ work of Harris, the thor with that of Vayda, oO g06 Divalent Haris published a cantroversilthoory of war faro (1970, alo see Divalo 1970; 1072; Haeis 1974), Theis conta hy. pothesis Is that war functions af @ means of regulating populationu A an Rp ‘row via the cretion of a “malo supremacist complex that leads in fam to selective fomale infanticide and thus reduces the growth lata (Detail of thie movdol ate povided in Tosa (hep ns volume) In its form, the original model is similar to other grand functionalist interpretations. Ils distinctiveness ein its gonorlity Ii nt intended as an explanation of any one particular war complex, but zather of recontact warfarin general i band and village socetes, Boceuso its ‘general ypothesis, i stacted considerable attention and eit, (For discussion ofthe statistical basis ofthe angunsent, sce Divalo and Harvis 1978; Divalo of al. 1978; Hirchfeld at ol. 1978: Howo 1970 Norton 1078, For alternative explanations of the practice of female Jnfunticide andlor skowed sex ratioe, ase Chagnon etal 1979 Dickerman 1970; Hawkes 1981, References in rogard to the protein star, city side of the argument already have boen pruvided, Algo see Parker snd Parker 1979, The generality of the model derives fran th authors interest in evolitionsry process, The 1970 model i essentially synchronic, a it more concerned with the operation of the system than its orgin, But by posting the model as explaining war al x given sociopolitical level, Diva and Hanis are suggesting a process of evolutionary convergence, Ia later publications (Haris 1977, 1970), and especialy in his curent chapter, Haris focuses on thet process (lao soe Price 1962; and Chapter 6, this Volume}. He arguos thet different band and village societies develop similar war patterns bocauso they faethe same prublem of population sgovth pressing on avalable resources (population precstre, S00 Farner 1970; cf Vayda 1076). The warfare-tale supremacist-fenale lnfanticide complex is repeatedly adopted, he continues, bacause its more effective and less peychologlally costly than some ltemative Solutions, and because it an defend itsalf, that i, groups that solve the Malthusian problem through means othe then war would be vulaer be to groups with the war complex. (Werner [1963] suguests a differnt dynamic through which warfare may depress population growth rates) Harris's intzet in goneral ovolutionary procoses nl steps els lead him to atttbutowory diferent causes and functions to wat In nonstate tnd state societis oe Harns 1978), Tha sama year tho Divsle Haris model appeased; Vayda pul lished (1976) bis most extensive discussion of warn this end other publications (Vayda 1979; Vayda and McCay 1978, Netting 1974) it became clear thet a major division had susfaced in ecological 8p. roaches to wat, and to proces in general. Far fom evolutionary con. vergence, Vayd stresses thet shnilerayetomie problems can be ad dressed by ulfferent solutions or functional alternatives, From his specifi tora for Vayda a event T niet, plctiy rection Include also call, preach, ‘Gr ind (16 plietly Aigplace studies cently, ther paport thie, Po tile d Nev pears to Histinet indie ood for stud: alongx that leds in the growth vate Sethis volume} Wd functionalist isnot intonded x hut eather of 1s Boge ii nnd eniicism, ‘soe Divalo and 1; Hows 197 tice of female Yet al. 1970 ho prota sear ‘luo a Patket om the author nore concemed by posting the ra, Divale and gence. In later tnt chapter Chapter 6 this sities develop 2 of population maciet-ferale 5. ecause te alternative that solve te tld be wulners fstsa different Crete, sages lao louds 4, Vayda pub this end other Wing 19740) i cologioal ap Tutionary con: as can be a 1 sue, Sng Wat 38 smicroovolutionry point of view, Veyda argues that one cannot pret i cultural rxponsos to euvisuaentalproblome is iter! i peecudying the process ough which human groups use existing cul eee to ope” with hazardous environmental perturbations Quo afsesreses that wat itaelf should be studied a process:not a Navel The gals of war, for instance, can change from one phase of ceric to the next. Moreen (Chapter 5, this volume) employs an eX erly simllae perspective, Dut other authors rake similar oF elated Pty cena, Other new directions in Vayda and McCay (1975) are tho Chat on of equilibria models and stress on multiple levels of analysis, sa that of tho indivi, Hatre (2970; Chapter 2, dls wolume) BSNS for aention tote Individual, which brings up the other key $2no of the theoretical reformation: the significance of individusl veetizing, (Soe Vay 1962 for 4 rocent reformation of his ap Tench, which has not yet been appiod ta warfare. ‘eran fanctlonalsl models of war generally included a. component sccousting for individual motives a fighting. Rappaport (1988), Si Meee TroPS), and vale and Harris (2976) discuss iow pressure on wawateos leads to tensions writin the group, which Wiggers new il reson easy (2967) makes @ general statement about Is. eX iy ning sesource scareites to the fustration~aggression and sea redtaggeanion hypotheses, Gensrally, however, fonctionlist feaios wate not very concarted with individual decision-making eeityy gover! of the sume authors have rfoeased on the individu, ites theoretical reappraisals (Harris 1979; Notting 29740; Rap suport 97% Vayda and McCay 1975), or inthe coneat oftheir empl re euanptions, as does Meggitt (1977) ina book that deserves spocil ‘peation asthe finest athnogrphic scription of war cusrently aval ‘Rie, Peoples (1882) offre an inctvidasly oriented reanalyis of Rap seca study (1968) ofthe Baring. Th coraments following Poopless nlele discuss many of tho issues raised here viraterst In the individual iva response tothe general cat scisine af functional evalogy listed above. Indvidaal stoning op Hee (offer a way of going beyond tho fsoublesome funetion—rigin Fear ony doa stnsltencously with procesenof change and the setae caneeylonces of Behavior. 1 also isa sponse to disatisfc Tee lth the Beetment of individuals in earlier work, fm which an Individual’s behavior stemed 19 se, too subservient 10 lager social rode, und tag uniform within a seco. A focus on individuals allows Toe shady of bras] social confit, and itis flexible enough easily novtposate socal, econovbic, nd politisl constraints on bekaviot dlong with eonstrints imposed by the natural environment.Orlov (1900) sees the focus on individuals end process as tho teat transformation af ecology ofthe 1970s. Many nowerstulee, he States, “examine the rationality of individual actors and the manner in hich extemal consiains shape theit choices” overtime (1980: 260), Tho natural environment is aly ane type of external constraint alle 4 vory portant one: Orlove eantinues to note « crresponiog Seees phasis on concepts such as carrying capacity an homecstsis Aaapt tion and function, would add, also have considerably less cure ‘Thove terms Involved ecologists in endless and not very productic obstes over definition, which age often avoidable by wsing mate poo ‘ise terminology. in many newer stidios, the, the material envivon ‘mont ie invited ia, but much ofthe functionalist baggage i let on the stoop, M the function-orign distinction no longer hes the force it once hd, other differences are now apparent in ecoogically oriented sp roaches to wat. Sie who have gone in now dections have sone fa diferent directions, as" with Harrie and Vayda, Alongstde the new spproaches, sometimes within the same work (see Fukui and Turton 1879), moditied versions of the ealier adaptation approach remain lable and in use. Ganeally, ecological studies now vaey realy the ‘types of problems or questions addressed, the level of eualyai om ployed, the kinds of models usod, and the eative importance argu fo the natural environmoat versus rocioultural factors all of whch of cours, ar related. They differ also on the concoption of hua motivation, a point | discuss shorty ‘The growing diversity of these studies has led! to some talk ofthe ccological perspective cracking apart, This nood not happen Hf Ii ‘ecognized that the situation within the perspective now resembles the situation dascibed as existing between perspectives, Diforentveslog, «al approaches ta war aro not theoretically contradictory rather, they tuidress different problems, or diferent aspects of the seme problon, tnd so thay canbe complomentary. The next pategtaph is enaempt sk syathosizing the various ecological approaches deserted theoughsut this soction. No position ia taken on the explanatory uly of aay ‘omponent ides. My only point isto show that they tan be combine ‘he natural environment ofa peoples diecty or indiosty linked ‘e aspect of thelr subsistence sitcteay and sacioclturel oranzaton, {Changos within either the natural or oclocultral spheres tan proce stro fox save iividuals. They wil tempt to canis the cove Tho unit tha acts to roieve the stress (individual, amy, village, class, or whatever, andthe action taken al any point, will depend oath nature of the problem and the already existing sociocultural context he boh compen pated ot secioeul which 0 cesta tated an pettive hinge pox the be rende sm camp he Qu » Althous hold tot would b Vayda the indi Whe satel political tol va Thevver studies, he td the manner in fine (1980: 260), onstraint, albelt sponding deen ‘oasis. Adapt very productive sing more pre sateril envio ‘ge i eto the he force it once lly rlented ap wus hove gone in ngside the neve that and Tuston pproseh remain ny poaly in tho ance asigned Pall of which btion of human some talk of th Tappon isi verormbles th ilerent ool sp rather, hey same problen Bed thug vty of any net ake nih this sts. Yella lass “ispend op the lta conte + taco: Seating War ee ‘The bohaviors end idoes comprising thei response, oF the response To te wll have consoquonces, some of which may not be anti carter even recognized by the actor. These consequences ean re rae go the elation af the population to the natural environment serra gtermal soctonlturalarrangemonts. By chance ox BY plan, a wane complex may in some stations result «eoixogulating eePepattrel subsystem that is capable of absorbing and relieving fa aeiecnite ata similar nature, and x0 pests in time. fo situations in Wh other, sunilar social units are experiencing similar stres, suc ran reapcuse complexes, sol-repuleting oF nol, ace lable to be im ‘Bead and fo spread! by diffusion. In stuations in which tho source of see cna searer strategic resource hat puts sinarunlls 3a compet ‘tro ia cae euher, e response complex that gives one anit 8 com tet advantge over other unite ean spread through selection, othor Pei being equal. Where force, particulary, s part of «response com th the potential for selective replacement nay be a gest stimulus for Petivoulfusion. Other successful exponses toa Souter of toss may te tandoned untenable by th presence of unit that relies on violence in competition. ‘The Question of Motivation During the heyday ofthe functionalist approack, the old issue of econo otivtion in wa lay dormant (cl, Marey and Marwit 1978) ‘sthough material gain could resul rom war, it was not necessity ald tobe the goal af war makers, People might igh or eny murber of Pixone I the fighting worked ta their advantage, then theso goals ‘would be maintained or spread within local populations (Hares 1980 Vayda 19003), mplicit in this view wes the troubling propettion that vctoct were amare of or unconcerned with the advantageous conso quence of thei actions identi by the analyst. With now attention to the individual, such premises must be reconsidered. What motivates people to go to wu? Harris (1979: 62) emphasizes suaterial ed, nthoush not exclusively, na rebent discussion of mot- ‘ation, Rappspert (197%; 40), conta senses that itl obligations Tan compel behaviors that go against material Inorests. Othor rot “ations proposed in rotnt explanations of war were mentionod ari: politcal ambien, the neod to vent fusteation or anger, particular cul Ural vlucs, andl pethape even caleulation of productive auccoss These ellerent vows, combined with the growing importance ofactor based models, suggest that the issue of economic motivation in \war azn will move fo centr stage. For anyone failar withthe seem ingly endless controversies aver maximising and related coneopts ta ‘anomie anthropology, confronting thi quoston Iss enticing ss a plonic on quicksand. 1 i, nonethelss, important. Sooner or later we will have to confoat the question of whethor the mative of material sin is fundamental im socal pro To adross this ise, thero ust be some epeciication of material soils, Provisonaly, thre can be offered: (1) maintenance a prove mont of existing aubsstencs standards (2) energie effliency, or move sparifically, maintenanen af labor requirements within sesnpa ls: (8) protection against ifethroutoning hazards, ether environmen: ial or human. Number (3} may encompate potential threats to (1) ana (2) This list might be expanded. Sex fs another baske motivation th ‘aay figure into some types of conflict involving aiding to capture women, However, it seems of less ganealimportenc in wa tha he others, do not think it valgar to posit these considerations es a basic human tootvational substrate, of at least ab port of one, because they Toate to th ability of any oxgantem to survive If one doubts the abisty ‘of socal roups to act a adaptive mechanisms, and if one also denies {hat individuals act to maintain subsistence, energetic, sad security aramstors when they are threatened, then one has ft hammans mith fut any means of tacking the envionment and responding ta prom re that the caso, It would be dificult to understand we ave warvived, expect that many antbropologste would agroo that these material considerations sometimes undeelio war, provided they coud siptlats ‘hat sometimes nonmaterial motives dominate Is not as easy, howe” to maintain this view in regard to wear a it mty be for ater areas of Social ie, for war itsolfinvolvos both definite cots and threats to le 1 the motivational promise is valid, and in contrast to the Hobbes view of war, we should find nonwar, the absence of active fighting, the absence of challages to matarlal well boing if material considerations do underlie war making, a numbsr of ciel and psychological factors will regularly camplicte rsa] ‘expression as aoted by Neweomb (1960), Material deprivation Is relative, with levels of tolerability dependent on prior cincumst tnd on comparison with one's powrs. One grop's misery may be a father’s comfort, so fltnueds wil vary with each ease. Circumstances also will dictate whether people can choose nonmiltary means ofa dressing the source oftheir problenss, such es productive intensfien. ion ( biter £ aly T be date by his m8 the pal fervor the pal pign ( nd 1 Tprore fureon volume Po nay Pr festa rently Or tial © maybemotivation in with the seem ner of lar wo we of material ton of ators seco le rons (i) and bnoivton thot Ung to capt in war tha the ions as x basi because they vabts the ability on lao denies rand security ‘humans with ling to promote to understand {these materia ould stipulate 7 howe ‘other areas of 5 throat oie the Hobbesian | tiv fighting, in 1b a number of fate or conceal Teoprivation is ery may be an 1y moans ofa Toe intonation thon (498 Morzen and Price (Chapters 5 and 6, this volume}. Specific Wi (Sal (sul es feritorial gan, plunder, and slave aking) ar not sete nce prot but depend on tho local ecology, economy, end rredicible ¢ By the contribution to this volume demonstrate epee a ie aiglficance of military evccess fran individual warsior will cdl ned as mrch by existing socal relations within hls ou a8 a uuccoas in battle. Battle spoils tay flow away ftom a combstant ts vo be componsted for by other material rewards from within is * Hee of poliial development add other dimensions to mot: ston Differentiation ofa society into groups with different postions in weebidteal end economic scture rises the possiblity of divergent the pots in wer, A dominant segment say attempt myatify orconcedl (ater atoretaby wrepping them in 9 cloak of potrotism or religious ear tr ecual goals may involve politcal control within or beyond tre eiy' frontier more than any direct economic benelts of ca ea ese Cohen, Goldberg and Findlow, and Melman [Chapters 0, 10 ele fs wolume) This canbe elated tothe third of the basic motives Taoposed, as rulers séek to preserve and strengthen the politica true caeee eich thet privileged if tyle depends, With theadvent of the sary on oe can compel poople to fght fr then. In tates the potential act cont or fighters ay derive mare from Internal social arango ra than Irom the hazards of bale (see Cohen, Chapter 9 volume) olftcs! structure is enong the factors thet influence the signif cancoaf the revenge motivation in war, Lanteipat that an objection to ee oposed soateriel motives will bo that they do not include the wees engeance, a motivation prominent in so many accounts of sear as note earlier, revenge often as boon oflored as an iredeible iusic motivation, Pethaps itis, a some degree, but it needs mate com dulation, although a deste to strike back at someone who hes wrong SSE iy soous no aerstondable that it needs no further discussion, {ho pret cone cultural varltion in permissible revenge reactions, and Invatuations thet cal fr revenge, indicate that this motive is an em nenfly variable Tesponse. ‘Gor aay to approech this topic would be to investigate the mate rial Cousoquendas of King OF Hot Liking revenge in a piven aoc ‘intext, Stull stacks and counteratacks can constitute «probing fr Weaknesses in more serious confrontations, Largoe retaliatory sikes May bo nasestated ore by questions of survival than sentiment (Fer x Chapter this volume), Whatever the iadepondent role of pure rnge mexivtion t sees to decline in importance as war comesInvolve larger and more eomplox social groups, When hostiltion tn valve only afew individual acting on thar own, revengois prominent, eventhough material factors stil clay affect the willingness of se ‘ondary partioe to oupport the iil ellagaents (se Boat Rot an Biolsi, Chapters 2 and 4, this volume) The ebsence of overarching authors clearly is an important factor a this vel, bocaugo war tay ‘be only slightly more orgeniznd than mutter, (Revenge feuding may be ‘eon a3 & transition belweon murder and war) As larger and more socisly diverse groupings must be mobilized for battle, tetera pala vl be a more ganerally effective incentive, especially ox these lager szoupings often will bring In multiple crosscutting tie to the lars ‘group, (See Morren’s discussion in Chapter of ov a death ftom any use triggers a group reappelsal of the fol sitvation.) With devel, ‘opment ofthe stato, revenge taking anay be suppressed entirely by the ‘ovornment (Cohen, Chapter 9). A similar progression of motives was 1oted by several of the stage theorists diseased shave, although they ‘doomphasized material incentives excapt at th higher political levels (eg, Malinowski 1964; Newcomb 1060; Tumnoy-High 1971; Wright Revenge is certainly not the only nonmaterial motive in wer. tt often is stated that wats enjoyed as an exiting. spat like aetviy (eg, Turney-High 1971}. Bo that as it may, it seers implausible thet ss lone would motivate someone to risk his life. Whon wer involves sous costs end risks to lf, individuals are ale to bo veluctant to move tothe front line, So soiotes relying on the mult capacity of thet adult malos may be expect to bolstr thet resolv though on haneing the esteem of wariors. Saccssfl fighters will have prestige, Many will internalize, oF atleast projet the combative values they exon tionaization can powerfully influence expnessed motives In war. Conflict over esouteas can oppose groups that previously had been linked by tics of kinship, exchange, and affect, cresting a situation Df exteme cognitive dissonance. Need may coxtpel actions that grossly violate existing norms aad relations. Conflict can pit individuals, agaist others for whom they feel no personal animosity. This is a ificult situation, for one may fight over a resource, but on fights tothe person. Finations must be haracetad to that endy a ntespe sonal hostility, or atleast distance, mast be erento ft doesnot eta. suspect this is why the intaton af wae between two formerly Hnked ‘groups isso often preceded by a breekdwn of socal tes, by secs. ions of witchcraft or theft. These may be only symptoms of deoper conic ‘alan in obliga would Tow} tials | Haris foals} ‘ire teks, terved consid fred 1 would Fightin «prob alhde Mt this ve the pe facut infact consi poople the athe hostilities in sngotsprominent sling of sc ionnete Ross and cova overarching ae fouding maybe arated more the, aera gain ly a thos laepor test th target death fom any thon) With deve ential bythe weg they politica levels ie a973; Writ motive In war. I “like aetiviy (eg lustble that this san a nl to be woluctant to itary eepacity of salve though en il have prestige tive vaes the sseed motives in previously had watinga situation tions that goss pit indivicnals nosity This Is 2 @, but one fights ti and tnterper {dooe not exit Taxmcey inked ties, by accuse toms of deeper confit, eventhough they may apps tobe the cxuse of subsequent lence (ote Marwick 1970) mur, factors such a8 pres bling ean be expected to surf tn ws bligations entrada the motivational pepectve that [ susset Wat oars cared out fr these motives i te absence of materia eal thou tayors of notation piled ontop, how can material ee [rated out so that tht sgnticasce can be ovate? Ne goals bo) daub tat they could 1 think tha ther area east two ‘ teat baaed om inferonces from observed behavior (se arse 1979 He 7a total social context of a single group, the expectele contact ef vastows military postures ci be defined and asessed co et Fadividuls act in as That conform to expectations of todo epalit, (Catan, critical evalution ofthe thee material vag would bo appropriate in any eripsical study) 44 8 al ee of analyts, one could assess whether e regional war ferent evel. changing intensities of confit, who initiates at pattern io fe tuackod, conforms te expectations based on ans tas cede: I mateval coniderains do eccount for the ob aac itor type of enalis,the most parsimonious op Serve Pane tat tho patcipants themselves are acting on these aig ions, Other motives offered by informants would be consi coat nomena, unless could be shown tha these lber motives cr aemadont of material noed, produce the sctial puter of Weil Tata to demonstrate the feast ofthe second approach fing Nonorest Coast wafers Inferting motive ftom action it tients tak, pt the difficulties are no insurmountable, After aaa inten rom behovior has boon a bass of our legs systout revenge, and unfulfilled for tong tne a a with motivation is not shared by all he contsibutors to thio whe Recdors will fin stateroonts in dizect dlangrement with Ihe Rovpaative Indore. Soro author disnegard te (sue ently. reepina ead on processes ebove the level of the individsl. Price se ly (1982) hes made a strong axgument aginst the need to {a fac re ion, but | belive thatthe differences between our con et anne re ferent inert, ether than frm any conrad Boston os a pocaune ee i intrested. primarily in trajectories of a ea evolution, Price teally hes no nced to worry about why ecete do what they do, thong run, what mettrsin ber esearch is Pelideccntal survivbility of what they do. For researchers con2 ian Forge ‘comed with e society atone paticulae time period onthe other hand Understanding how and why people react in certain ways te ota ‘question, and one that may be dificult ta aaswer fully without addres ing tho Issue of motivation, Comparing the Chapters: Similarities in Diverslty The comperison of my viows on motivation with those af ric ‘ustrates agin a theme of this chapter: appacently contalictory ows may bo reconcilable. [stressed tht pont in discussing materia {st and aanmaterilist views on wat ad in syathesiing soclogiel approcches to war. Inthe following discussion end gorpataun ofthe chapters of this volume, fow real contradictions butween euthors femergo. Most apparent diferencasarw shown to bo differences of tn tora, emphasis, and presentation, Meatly, Uhsit arguments ane in teriocking and mutually supportiva But they do seen to be quite dif cent, end that is not an aocident Given recent public clashes betwoon self-identified materialists (@doms i902; Vaidyanathan etal. 1982) and all thet alesly as been Said inthis chapter, iis probably not necessary to reiterate that see {hropolosical materialism is not ¢ monolithic school or approach Tho Point bear stating, however, because recognition and derstanding of the diversity of materiale! vinws may be a procondltion for thee vontual unification. Tis volume aims to cover a much ofthe mate, alist spectrum as possible It also aime to cower the range of poles Aovelopment of societies. The chaptas are ordered by lovee of s, lopolitcal complexity, besinning with egalitarian socetes and en Ang with empires. Naturally, this reult i grect differences baseven the war pattorns that are described. This theoretical and empiscal di versity may create the impression thatthe chapters are too diferent fiom each other ta lead to ny gonstal conclusions Some conclusions are posible, however, and aro dlscseo! a the final section, For nove, the questions are: What are the individual chapters about ans Hove de ‘hey rete to other chapters? Ta. Chapter 2, Bonnatt fogs examines (wu stat levels of conttict among the Porovian Achuara: warfare on the regional level, base on historical sourees, and revengo hostilities, or feuding, om a local love base on her oven fieldwork, The two involve a stil inteclay twoen Tocal ecology, Ac multiple fe sot of tical poll the conta the desta and Bal6 diseeos Bent the frst shanges posteont fact, lea altered © land wo fnfluene the game resell function cuit nds of style, ne telng ar ar tt ina popula ‘ata di We not be two relatedSond as a casein which the circumstances of contact apparently have ‘ot resulted in fundamental alteration ofthe precontact war pattern. ‘8 consaquance ofthat persistance there isa greater possi of ne tional relationships seaulating thasa ware than sna nf the othecs de sevibed in this volume, As Hates doseribes, his view of war doveloped during the functinalist period of ecological studies. His movel still Portays a functional sysam-—a citeulr self-regulating system of var ales. But Harris addresses the probes of many past fenctionel analy tes, namely, an inability to explain the creation of the systom. In a ‘theoretical appendix, Hares charges he cities with mistakenly apply. ‘ng biological models toculteral evolutionary processes. He edvoctes ew approach to cultural evolution, which would encompass ind vidual, group, and regional taoctties, not just af distinc levels of analysis, but as iterating fields this new approsch s adequate, could eliminato one ofthe biggest objections to functional anelyats, ‘Chapter is on of tnoe rests inthis volume, Biol and lator Balée and Ferguson, use writen sourcos on extingt war potters 0 challenge staing interpretations of those patterns, Biol'scholee of the Gret Plains ars is particulaly intresting because of its cotelity ‘nan earlier period of war studies, a discussed abuve, Bole rojects the existing opposition of ether ecological or cultural explanations Plains warfare and seesss that both are needed, He and Cohen are the ‘ost adamant of tho contibutorssbout keeping their explanatory op: Biol argues that the bifalo herds wore at issue in Plains warfare, but not because of absolute shortages, as others had argued. Ho ident fies more subile agpocts of buflalo availability that wore involved in conflicts, along with factors such as the histocial contingencies Of migration, cultural rales for behavior towards enemies, and, especie ast military interaction betreen groups. Another necessary considere Non fs a separate pattem of horse ending. This raiding had its own dynamic, especially in response to changing Weston trade deman It Contsbutod toa developing economic inoquality between individusls, which in tur led to more raiding—an example of seonomale sractare influencing war, Bolt explains tha this raiding operated as one com ponent ofthe largar war syst, sa It eo provides an example ofthe Interaction of local and segional processes that Haris discusses. ‘On the Great Plans, there is no question of contrasting po- and Postcontact war patterns, cause almostall uz nformaton dates from ater tho shocks of early contact, With the addition of Bio's chapter tho preceding tv, thers emerges the outlines of «peltem of dering, ‘pacts of contact on war, which will hold fr thioe ater case ste that fo tabefo ike—o Inthe ing i Hisels both d chang o shan ised tion to types « bath conic proces Moan own h vony and ol most Yano i's p sonal testing ‘Mluste of =)‘apparently have te war pattern A vossbllty of func Of the others de ‘of war doveloped s. Hie model sll rg ston of vari functional analy the system. [n'a mistakenly apply " Hosdvocites a encompass indi Aisne levels of veh i adequata It tonal analysis, 2-Bols, end lator ‘war patterns to Biol choice of se of ts conteality Biola rjets the explanations of ind Coben are the explanatory op In Plans warfare, raved, He Ident were Lavolved in ontngeacies of ‘sand, especially, sesary pana. Hing had its own rae demand, It ‘wen individuals, td as one com. a example of the rasting pre-and tation dates from Tol chapter ta torn of differing ther cave studies 1 dneodia: Sahn We 4“ that follow. The dffornce is about whether posteontact wars continue vi foul over essentially traditional causes—food resources and the Theor ever now kind of scurcity derived from the contact staation. tio haters by Donnell Row and Pergucon, most postontnct fh ‘Rais linked divectly to native-Westero lterection. In the chapters by iigits and Morten, wers tht orcur after initial Wastor contact stil inter on more traditional subsistene and survival problems assoc ‘od with the natural environment, although newly introduced dix ‘ites may have mosifed warfare even in these ares. Biol and Baléo otk describe intermediate cases in which geting food from nature maine contal, but the szuctores af conflits over food have been tdhanged markedly by Western contact. Morren's cas sus of the Mountain Ok of New Guinea represents «a sharp change in-gongsaphic lees, but a continuation of themes Sulsed in provious chapters. Like Biol, Momcen advocates fines atm tion to details of local ecology, and stresses the Interaction of eiferent types of military action, with past encounters an important dete BB of current stelony and tactics, Like Bennett Ross, Morren uses ath extensive writen sources and his own field materiel to describe tonite a vaious level, with the field descriptions emphasizing the procesmual aupocts of war, But wheteas Bennett Ross places her field “uorvntons primarily in context of long regional history of conta ‘Moron's main context is synchronic compasison with war in offer feslone of New Guinea, His doailod doscripion of warfare in the Nountala Ok ogion, and among the Miyanmin within it—which Mor- wees sue wor in Turney High's sense includes attention to thee bw history of hostilities, The history of Westara contact, however, I Sey ti, and with the exception of the zoguts of introduced seas, the afc of contact sve portrayed mainly 2s an overlay suppressing nd obgctsing nboriginel wer patterue. tn thi, Morren's chapter in {ost like Harris's and the Mountsin Ok are tho only group besides the YYenomamo inthis volume that eppoar to fll within the scope of Har. He's proposed mode, Sigaifieanly, thoy do appear tobe pressing 02 tvalablerosources, aad they do have an unbalanced sex ratio, 28 Hae firs thoory would predic. Dut Morn is not concerned here sith testing thal ory. His intrest aro more in tune with Vayda's work on cote and ao thie contrast between Hegre amd Marran provides Ilstetion ofthe dlvengence of Interests described easier ‘Moreen distances himself from environmental determinism by stressing thet ecological challenges aro atleast partially antheopogonie in origin. People interacting with telr environment produce a variety of aurvvelahonteniag problems. A shortage of agicultural land IsImportant, but it dows not stand alone. These challenges can be rat through a varity af cultural sponses, Waris one of these responses, or rathar war i a subiot of responses that can be broken dawn farther {uo varying stratogies, jst os tho stratgins are divisible lato diffrent tactics Different responses or diferent strategies and tactis, ean dom: ‘nae different phases ofthe sane conflict The type of generaliz. tions that ean emerge from this way of viewing wor eo evident in ‘More's comparion ofthe predominant stategioe adopted fn ier ‘nt ecological zones. Beside providing this opportunity for camper Son, the proximity of diffrent zones i tell an important factor ia the hotilitiee within any one zone, The significance a interaction betweon ecological zones i toasad also by Prive, Bale, Ferguson, and Caen ‘After four chapters dealing with particular cases of war, Pico’ ‘thoocetical essay isa change of pace, eecantuated by hee different ps tion in the matzelist theoretical spect, Price comes from th ei tion af evolutionary theory rather than from acolog. Consistent with ‘hat tradition, her intrest isn explaining hor war aes as ane factor ka, processes of sociocultural evolution, This chaptor deals with develop teat of inoquaity and sociopolitical complexity inthe range botworn (yalitanan and stte societies Bocaure this range covers sever ofthe fives desribed in the vlusme, this chapters more than the stl homer of links to ater chaptrs, Despite th fect that they occupy very diferent niches in mate tale theory, Morten and Prige ae similar in viewing war as one typo ‘of response to existential problems, wilh other options including move ‘ment, exchange, and modification of subsistence tochniques. Both rer- ‘mize various possible strstagies within each option. Hol secognize sociopolitical organization as another set of variables impinging on faction, although political concams ae less important for Récrten, Who is dealing with groups of similar and reatvely unchanging poiical ‘orgenization, the they are for Prin. More generelly, Prins hooretical teeatment ofthe complexity of wa systema addeesses concerns that ae broadly shared in the volume, Her discussion of eystem causality, her rejection of prime movers, ov har discussion of within group-betweon ‘group interaction (which is another way of looking at interaction of Tevels of phenomena) can be applied to mst, fn all of the chepters ‘Mow specifi connections link this chapter to thoso of Haris and of Goldberg and Findlow. With Harris, she shares a central interest in ovolutionary regulate, in rq convergence or dive havior patterns. Whereas Haris focuses on the model sccounting for tvolutionary chango, Pre is more concemed with some of the eve onary trajectories. With Goldberg aad Findlow, she agrees on the in area betwoon takes UP chapter spec esbod ry ofthis ‘aes consider for mu rales, th ethics of ing thes! Bale cond buted tora ‘pina the hao otk ot afc fifeanges can be met af thee responae, tse ito diffrent states, can dom ‘ype of goer tpt infer vat for compart ovtant ator i he seractin betwoon susan, and Cohen, ier dilleent pst stom a Consistent with Gisas one factor sn ith develop th ange betwece crea ofthe than the waned 8 war as ane type Sincluding move niques. Bat ec 2 Both ssengntae 2s impinging on for Move, ova hanging pein "res theoretial concaas that are 2m causality, her "group -betvsen at interaction ef othe chapters, Ut Haris and of nial intrest kn vergence of be accounting fo sue ofthe evo agrees om the continaum of evolutionary forms, on the comparably of ‘Shots by reference to energetic eitera, and on tho value of inte ag archaculoglcal findings ino evolutionary research. Price's focus on sociorultra evolution expecially on the relation: tween politics, production, and war, lads to ofber comparisons. Sh {ikse up soveral ot the themes alreeay discussed, and shares suasy ‘Bhamon concerns with Cokua's chapter on politcal volution. Price’ Chapter provides « brood evolutionary parspecive in which to place nd compere the chapters on particular cases and tho political pro- on dered in several of thos cass. Two particular areas deserve Spovil mention, One is the discussion ofthe elects of contact between etetios of dissimilar palitial complexity. Western contac Serbo in several chapters, can be seen as ah important special ct ofthis mere genezal process, The sacond area rocelves less attention ‘lkewhero tn the voluse, Price argues thal, under eotain conditions, {nbor rather than environmental sources may be the extical scarcity int aystem, Competition over labor may lead 6 war. Ths suggestion is Considered to limited degree by Ferguson, and the volted idea of ‘rutting warriors is found in other chaptas- But Price has taken the os much furtet, using it to explain evolutionary variations fn social fand ceonora organization, sich 98 unllinoal versus bilateral descest ful, the celative significance of rodisebution tn economies, and the ‘tes of sober lavesiant vores conspicuous consumption Indra: fag esp connections, she extends xr understanding of how weno! fe prime mover but in interaction with other factors and ote forms tf competition lends to davalopments in other areas of social life alte's chapter on the Tupinab of the Brazilian coast i the second of the restudies, He criticizes an eaior explanation that a tributed thelr warfare to revenge, not bocause ofa particular terest in Inotivtion, but because ho fle revenge simply falls to explain the yltorn of conflict Instead he focuses on the ological dimensions of ars atthe time of contact nd heve tho warfaro changed under Eso psn inlucnee. His discussions of ecology ato very soloven to recent fontroversies about South American warlar reviowed previously aud toreleted decussions in Beant Rose and Hares. Baléo argues that the Tupinomb did not fight for agricultural land, but they did fight fo ntol of coastal and river ateas, and accesso protoin sources was at he hnart of the conflicts, Two basse types of confit are identified Born ot wife find parallels a th uloquest chapter by Ferguson: (2) conflict between sizilarly sitvated groups over contol a particularly important but restricted, resource: and 2) conflict betweer groups in tiffsent cologicel zones over aovons to moro productive areas. ThaJatter tok the form of wor betwoon inland and coastal peoples. Contact brought substan modifications of war patterns, one aspect of which distinguishes this case from oller cages of contact the baleful conse ‘auentoe(dicoaee snd sla ride) of living tha Weetrneos ‘hast Led to a reverse of the Former destabilitis of site, so asta ‘peoples began to bate their way inland Bolée takes the top of tade and war, discussed in some way in ‘ost ofthe preceding chapters, and considers it isolation tothe stra turales Idea that exthange I the obveres of war. Like Prot he argues that exchange can mitigate hostilities its capable of amoliorating the nource iabelances. Then he goes a stp frthor by suggesting how the Alovelopment of type of luxury teade may have Ealitatd th conduct ofa seasonally alternating tudo in necessities. Ferguson's chaptr oa teatudy of warfare on the Northwest Coast ‘of North Amora, Tho wars of the soven main clturl divisions ofthis region have been etaibuted toa number of different factors. Ths chap ter tis to show that the wafage was similar in that gonezally (and i tontradiction to some previous views) all were motvated by materiel intorest Tho emphasis on motivation, a well a the approach toi vin {inference from group behavior, are oth wnusual. Ia other ways, ths chapter is consistent with overall thomes and intorests of this volume. Teesomblos Biols end Baldo in its rliance primatily on information shoul group behavior, and Morn In the use of cross-cultural com parison Tip similar to Moron, Price, and others in emphasizing malt ple causal factor, end to Haris and Prien claiming predctsly ro lla reponse to sila constellations of factors. Mast af the chapter Alegre how several rita factors vied overtime and location and tho correspondence ofthe changing patterns of warfare. Kdntifieation ofthe specific factors supports parallel sdenifctions and ergumonts fn othor chapters. By shoving som warae to bo related to diforencts in productivity betwoon ecological zones, or pntcula sites within & ‘zone, it parallels arguments in Meson and aldo, By stressing the over Wweliing significance of Western contact in transforming war pa tern, i resembles Bennett Ross Infact, the impact of contect—in werins cof tho depopulation, tho introduction of gums, and the new trade and politcal davelopments--cannot be overemphasized, By including past Ihlations of military opposition or alliance es impottant dotexninants ‘of behavior, this chapter takes up a theme recurrent in several essay’, slthosgh relations of hostility and alliance seem to have boon much Tess permanent, an! more manipulable, matter on the Northoveat Coast ‘han what Bilsi describes forthe Plains “Aspects of war in elation ta eeanomie and political structures ae Aoveribe product dovelop from co area fone « teving iy, Tx baand hythos thore subseg mph laste ‘Alrica’ fasily¢ torpley ‘cay dosent iad rel tiplee cent Ce ent die polite fenele Galion inate and ©peoples, Contact aupedt of which lu baleful cons Vesterners on the 1 in some way in ston tothe stuce Pree, he argues ameliorating the wanting how tho fated the conduct Northwest Coast {divisions ofthis ‘etre. Ths chap temarally fend in fated by material ‘ppreech to ft ia cher ways, th ‘eof this volume seltural com hasizing mult rdictably 20g ‘at of the chapter ‘and location and entfcation ‘and arguments to difference te ites within a resing the over fnming war pat Syrincluding pat in soverl esau, ave been a mich ‘Northwest Coast 1 tarot Sing War eserbod. Ax Pes suggests, the ne edition leds dry to gins Peto of rdistdbutin to atract nd Pongposal instances, a combination of war end othe ‘sclopments in economic and poi petitions of both Price and Cohen. 1 rere of subeaquent wr patiogns, Another point about ffom compasing Baléo and Ferguson. gueagaint a taxonomic approach fiyng to eronge thos asays by asce 1. found their arguement to be appli ‘snd Notthrest Coast societies, By Dye tame eiteria applied to dilfre hhc of the two could be conside there vo chapters could exlly have ‘Cohen's chapter concerns the role of ulbseguent development of sates. 1 pasts on thoory, and falls beter ilustative matesal, 28 Cohen focus ifioa end feudal Buzope. His theoretical prsp tssions in Price, although cuily to di Gite goneral throughout th Atopy of factors, without any one tance, He emphasizes process over ‘Soeny an important sides of process ‘lesen, both ba terms of center dint lations botwewn differnt poli tiple evolutionary trajectories, with canivalizod states rerinisoant of P ‘Comparison of Haris, Price, and entaisagrepmentsectally may be m tis, the fou political orguatzation. Naturally, Eonclusions end these may seem to Cohen distances hiraslf fom the 1 for manpower for wat and for fe daca af lav ra, and 1 8 idl followers and ally groups factors loads to eal oewanization that follow ex to moi Thos changes sol Puce and Goldberg and Flndlow sociopolitical evtation in favor procostas. In ding order of polities! comple cable in eomparing the Tuplinam ‘ferent criteria, nd sometimes at instances within tho to case ol nore advanced. The order of bean revert Teorfgre ia the formation and follows Hats and rice in its those to in tho speciiesty of zon ease vxamples fom centeal ris compared most Pany ofthe thermos rlsod a2 having preeminent causal sign fat types, with instability and tornalvextornal interaction fe rriphery clations within poli von Ho soes the possibility of mul iis contest of eentalind and de vice’ conteast of land and Tabor & Cohen also slusrats how appar ros ferences in interest. In Har w the interaction of popsations with the natural eof priduction; and i Clea, ferent intros fead to different [contradict each other- Fr instance, frotein hypothesis” of Pris, a en tive from the encrptie crittion of distinguishing Haportant types of competition endorsed by P {elm scart nota universal factor, tnd confliet over materially triviel ice. But, as discussed eatior, Ero ‘sd the possibility of competion sues does nok necessarily neso en Fegan tate the greatr probability of sfc aver critical resourcos. On the ether hand, the substantial similarity batweon thesa three guthors becomes ar'in Colin's discusions of populations impinging on esouteas and of evolutionary convergence. ike Price and others whose interests are more evolutionary than ‘scologcal Cohen is interested mainly in tho role war in suclopalit ¢al evolution. His discussion picks up where Prica’'s ended the origin of states—and continues with evolutionery tends within sate. fle srs that i is aot war itself that ean eat tate formation, bat rather the ability ofa central agency to cnteol war. ‘This leads hi to vlan favorably Koch's theory of war, and to dlscussion of how emergent sates most gain control over etnaic hostilities, tho miliary indepen dence of kin-besed groups, and the fondo of individuals or group to Lndertake revenge misstons. (This chapter comploments the preceding literature review by discussing not only Koch's but othor theories from tho perspective of war and politcal evolution.) Onc states came into boing, military pressures create tendencies toward convergonce in thle ‘ganization. Cohn discusses the tendencies of military oops (o exe and, to become more aulonomous, aad to appropriate tote of the "osouten of stale He also nots the tendency of states to become mane similar asa rvull of military interaction, Those themes aro taken Up ‘gain by Goldberg and Findlow sn, specially, by Menan ‘The final two chapters are each difecent in thie own ways from the genorel potters ofthe chapters in this back, One hopes they will expand the horizons of materialist studies of wer in eathropolony. Goldberg and Findlow analyze aspects of the Roinan occupation of Batu. Their centeal question is how to explain the factuating bound ares ofthe Roman tertitory. What makes thor analysis unique in ths volume is that tis quantitative. They develop and apply predictive ‘mode, including sit major variables, in conformity with established nilitary thinking, They assr that this mod ie pplicee te ny soe ‘ty. and 39 its application to Roman Blain i akin lo Fate's applying hs model to the Yanomama. The cross-cultural pplicabity of this ‘ode, its basis in enorgtes, it eschew of nominal eategsion, ad its amenabilty to incorporation of erchaologieal data, skein a swans « realization of the type of approach sagsaated by Price. The ‘concern with strategy and tactics inthis chapter seals elted deus sons in Morten. This chaptor stande as an example of what eat Bo gained through groater attention to how the lita is ong aed ‘opertes. One aspect of thet organization tris further considereion here, The aspect of military organization identified asthe most cic variable by Turey-High (1971: 20) 1s adequate supply of milltary forces teal of seale of thatthe back, am Togisticn ‘Ths. tt made th drawing force, Molinos ft thre not incl The R Th Tong st militar volume Finding aiferet tka vit compat soclty primar by th extend combi ies Forthe have e sothes mites 18. On tho other nuthors becomes -oltionary than tds the ogi ‘thin sate. He atom, biter is him to evi itary indepen tals or groups to the preceding ergo nthe te move ofthe S ar talon up pe they will thropoogy tusting bound ‘algun this Wa predictive th osablishod letoany och sapling sui ofthis oer) rank iin by Pie, The wate be viva wna consideration ost cate yf military fon: Suing War a cas, Goldber, and Finlow relate that one Roman legion consumed ne of pain pet day, reminding us that pre echanized military forces sual hed to draw supplies from their cat operation, ot well as get thoss applies to th tops. Loss Tee igpunization becomes increasingly important with increasing eile of epecations, (This suggests greater atation to contrasts such a8 {hatte Achunrt walkod to was, whereas Plans fighters went on hors bck, and Northyrest Cosst warriors wavoled in canoes} More elborste Togistcal organization, however, also is more vulnerable to disruption. Thus it wes the highly uncentalized, simple logistics ofthe Celts that rtegy rather than a0 fon more than twelve to thade the Roman roly on a costly attional {nerdietional one, and ultimately put @lait on Roman expansion. By ‘Eeowing atenton to the costs an internal constraints in felding a {oven Goldberg end Findiow support discussions in Price, Cohen, and olin They oso llustratea change in war which bas become appar watthrough the chapters proteding tle one, and that will be empha ‘toad in Moliman: whelever factors affected Roman movement, they d fot include any srategie resources associated withthe disputed areas. The Romane wore tot fighting fo conquer now resource terion. The closing chapter was writen by en industrial engineer who hos tong studied the politcal and economic connections of contemporary tlitry machines. Melmen’s chapter was write aftr the rest of the Tolume hed been completed. He ar asked to summatize his own Tivings and compat them tothe analyses and ideas inthis book, The frances he sees between industrial and. preindustial war are Whesees preindusteal war may have boon rogulred by, oF a leas compatible with, the gods of survival and economic well-being of foctey, industrial warfare i nt Rejecting the idea that moder wari primarily a struggle for resoores, he argues Instead that iis generated ly the constant efforts of suling groups to increase their power and fetend tholr areas of contra. ‘The ascendant military complex in Cresingly diverts scatce resources away from production for human tne to produce insteed for hutnan deetrvction. This debilitating dal, Combined with the inceeasing destuctive capacity of bth nuclear end hhonnulear weapons, means that war machines, tye survival, have teenmm » means of bringing society to an end Furthermore, Walman argues that these cancarous military complexes have come to characterize all industual societies, even now ones, and fo they constitu a presenta major obstaci to economlc growth inthe tnderdaveloped world. At this point, understanding the evolution of malta systems has ceased to be a merely seadomie concern The general ideas af Melman's chapter, plus his many speci‘contrasts of industrial and proindustrial wat, suggest 5 introsting ees for ressaech Molman is concemed with military complexes as they exist today. We can ask: how did they evolve? how far back can me tec their rooter#rom Puce, Ferguson, Goldberg aul Findlow, and ‘specially from Cahn, itis clear that ruling groups seeking power vis rity action didnot cxiginate with industrials. The eatlier chap to ofthe book sow that diversion of resources to war appens to bea ven older phenomenon. By pursuing these leads, stlhropologiss right bo able to contribute to understanding moder wat, Eve in is volume, Colin appears to contradiet Melman in suggesting that de ontralzation may bean emerging evolotionary trend. Anthropologists atv in postion to ask otha very relevant questions, Ae thee sttos industrial or not. thet have avoided the trend toward bocorigpatison ates? What iste significance of an industll production rege wer. sus the existenoe ofa sate military buresueracy in promoting militar. ism Gancrlly, what factors promote star, or modify the teva ‘mont of military comploxes? What ie the role among these talons of tompatition for reaourves and markets, of variations in base yes of industil organization, end ofthe structure of international velatons 18a factor independent of tho economic enganiation of Individual Summary and Conclusions The chapters inthis volume differ i thee aims, inthe thooretical concepts employed and in the kinds of socetios thay cover Yet asthe ‘comparison of chapters shows, have fa attong degresof closure tothe book. Themes raised in one chapter are often picked up agai in other albeit im different combinations and argued in diferent ways In this final section, attempt to extract some general points fom the volume ssa whole. Neclless to say, these are my intorpotations, and probably ‘to not represent the views of ll the conebutos. This section beyins with « bl review ofthe earlier diseusston of materialist approaches tower Thon, {discuss the central themes of his "olun fteealing with aspoets othe form of analyse, then meg nto Issues of causation. Both are camplomtontary to the synthesis of cologtal approaches offered previensl, but whsteas that was aather ahstrct amalgam of diferont Curent views on function an evolution, this discussion i more detailed and conerote review of matters di rwcly roleva nt to this text. I also incazporater new theres raised or for unit tthe The de oft tesla nd in tion tha period + ‘dios idoas ( Ts stadie isnot proces Iyresic this ek unit of ily sstabl calling This ¥coments thy iow tt bach cae reve Findon ond Sn the ee cap a Rate we anthesis toll the deter on ended in the theoretical Ov cower, Vota the eof elosura tothe up agai i others, erent ways. In this 1s fom the volume fons, and probably llr discussion of Iyses, then moving (o the synthesis of ws thet was ethor ion and evolution, Tow of mater di themes raised ar te by this wolume,the most important of which i the potential suggest tie} evolution wings of materialist {br ifying the ecoogical an ‘Modes of wor hts essay conc Slike anthropology of war to pen The interest in economic motives in wer ws spall around 1990 as anthropelogieal mat so of maw inuances and changing Intrests. in the ea ie oical approach emergod es the dominant materialist approach t seretid f continued for about 15 yoars in a period of inc UHaboration and probiean solving In th mid-1970s, outside ext wei Sntanal divisions led to another period of theoretical rformul ie the 1930s, sa a decline wn new analyeos of war. This lst us, but the common themes that Yolume suggest that materialist ort of base, shared nue gm o h Pete! of reformulation ts still with foce throughout the essays in thi ies again snayazevo ata roatvelystble plat ise (unt the next period of roformolation), Those ideas are ost diverse than the Tas tinpe around, however, whichis why earful ‘Retew andl comparison will be recessary to bring them togsther Tr curteat themes of the volume represent applicalion and extol of the "now dizections" noted by Vayda and NCay (1875): increased {iy a rocogaition of muliple lovels of analysis, and (2) 8 tonceam with process. The chapters vaty by which oF how many explore individual, village, egion, or whatever But throughout, there Sains tobe a general recogetion that different levels exit and can be fuahd to answer different questions. Furthermore, in several contexts itienoted that processes occuring om one level interact with and affect recone nother levels. The internal dynamics of village may mod Pyvoptena paters of confit end vice wees, an individual raider may Chablis entire bend infighting, ad oo forth. Earlier discussions in flue chapter saved the established trend toward the individual as & tim of sudy bat tet is only one option. Staes in tis volume act lly pay mate attention fo pattras tht are most comprehensible at Ia} or even interregional leva, suchas tends in ade, large-scale itary relations. aerate adios always have consid intusuolly gular stable ones, such as or longterm evolutiosry trends. These levels of analysis they mnigation, and general tsteblishnd repeating eve rain of great interest, but they have been joined by ince tion to mare open-ended, aspredictabl processes, Vayda hs been talling attention to open-ended coping suatepes for some time now. ‘This valumo ads an emphasis on tho sgnifleance of contingent, hs5 sen Pepin {eal processes The prime example of this s the attention given to eae of contact nalfectng native conflict pattems soveeh Battoma described in this book would no! be lntalighie ange Sidering the Weston imac feommpeg ‘ore stabilty-riented discussion Maori warfare) 32 stuos to Vayda (1970) f persistent process in postcontact {hterest in regional tends and in history and contac alle what ‘Rag bneane a much larger eurientation af anthropelgieal ose ity Uroud spectrum of work, moat vividly in studio associated at (epional anavsis (eee Smith 1076, word-ystem theowy eer et pen gee, 2980), and dependency theory {Frank 1009 Tobe threpelogss are investigating how local social arangemnnts oe yore jnined partially by suptalocal forces and processes, whee ie tarolvo tntraction batwean diferent socates (eq Wolf 1964) ee roed sacietal interaction perspective ie much mone extensive deat ne wena eld of war stues, and cannot be pursued fuse: hace oe Sead the following discussion aim at, 8 statesnent about causal p ‘tes in war, involving bo th ecological and other factors, especiiy politcal ones, which is consistant with the analyses in hie oe 1 was nover tru, although ft was occasional ly alloged, thet colo. Bats sought to reduce “eultan"to" cology. Even the eats ecolgt analyses of war steasod tho importance of existing ercornne ee ‘ations. We would probably be better af ifthe enti ndae ot serene ecolony was dropped. tis no more valid then the vppentn ny {sones versus envitonment both are absolutely neceestny Pe ease Ghent ofan organisa (see Gould 1983), We shoul be aguine ery trons sophistlented olationships beteeen culture ond celeron inary ibe causal arows that one side draw from cntann tces {pntoraction with nature, and the athe side draws lout soy mptomment to cultara patterns, may wel be wo Toute in ete Tinkage The cheptes inthis volume teat the natural environment as Ltmpottant set of factors, but iti ail only ons of several i considered in understinding wat, Opeauoss to multe ot mean, howover, an accoptance af tndlesiplion (tide pelouty or rjula elatonshipe are established kee need tobe factors does eclecticism, in {265 Rasen this collotion of stds, thnk tis posse reed j aneral statement about the significance of ecaloy tht oes {ate takes Into account sociocultural dynamics, ak specie as Ficor of inequality and powor—both of which have bese cea Past cological studies more concerned. vith whe Intesaen, he pr rete Large ord ‘toma vwhlct result ‘may | touch and ¥ ‘ti ‘Trade right ot ar, 4 J do ras thon bead and tlsible without con. to Vayd's (1975) es In posteontact nat reflect wit ogical rasearch, in 2s associated wih oy (ne Waller 1800), an ements are deter 5, which ten Wolf 1082), This onsve than the further here. Ine abot causal pa ‘efors, especial eed, that ecolo- > earliest ecolog og sociocultural @ idea of culture he opposition 0 ary fer the devel ve arguing about tology thon "et tural teditions om the natal ns eybernetc het nao be ve factors does eclecticism, in sd between foc ‘Blot produce batt the san pecially, the sn neglected in todo Sealing War People depend on resources from the naturel environment 108 oR radltonelly acceptable stmdatds, With agiven econo. sie using ochnoloy, th ganization of work, Mawods my owtion process, nd 0 foqth—thore wall be finite amounts of the progres in a given area. This Js not simply a matior oftheir ‘ence, but also of thr avaiaiity under all existing conditions Pitter aumvel harvests of animal poten, for instance, might be sus lati under rstrucured endo Intnsified labor fepime, or as tai and anit be scarce only because disease or sve other haz- ca takes Tage areas to costly (o exploit, Any chngp that increases ard for oF docressea supply af csiical resource tn situation in dem pvoar ala is near the effctve init ofthat resource, can rt in problema such es dined per capita consumption, de eal J ietur for production effort, insreased opportunity costs of ‘Getssement, or depletion and degradation ofthe resource ase Under use circumstances, « popaatton ean opt for one oF a com bination of three basic alternatives to alleviate the probloms. 2} They eaaartecify application of existing production techniques, but this aby hve Knited potential and/or potentially adverse consequences Teadn'as depletion). (2) They can shill to now econome organization, ste new effective environ tnd with a new economy essentially cre at This ia-mot something done overnight, however. shift in pro uction fe uaully a gradual, Tong-tenn pracess, often involving sub sett ake a dtine i living standards, basic modifications of daily suttce aud social institutions, and sometimes insuperable environ- vrata ebatacles for agiven technologialststing pobst (9) They can seni moreaf the acres resoure fom ouside their original testy. rr somatmies ean succend in thls or miration fo uninhabited areas TRllove all pressure, But when teade in the needed resources is Tot feanible, and neighboring areas are not vacant, but populated by ‘Joupe in atailar clreumstances hen acquiing more of resource my fr tibute, despite al its haz~ Team going to ra. War to gun teritory tnd, ay ba the most viable of the altemetves ‘he ircumstance of resource scarity seams common enovgh, and 1 does wat, One reason for ths is that population numbers gonerate = tman for reuoutces Populations tel to grow although they may wo Slways gow until they hit some envizonmental limit. Thre may be vinious feasons or mes for stabilizing numbers wel botow this list “ough, as Hels notes, not all such saeans may be equally likely to tondopted of possible to sustain. At any zat, if nonstatfied popu on sot upinging o environmental limits of subsistence resoures ved thor Is no other factor such as trade or conspicuous conramption{hat promotes demand seltive to avatlable supplies sources, then they will not regulanly be expected fo Inia wary {hough they may have to respond to attacks fom others whore cneer fencing scrctios, This view contreta with these tet Explan ee {enerated by cain values, soclal structure, nnd au forth nto Senco of any material rationale. Such factors do affect the cone) [wat and thresholds of violence. They can be very sgnifcent ae analysis, as several ofthe chapters demonstiate. Bua tstenalet nae 19 irected at explaining the occurrence of war mt bold thee ey to bosecondary, and not regularly capainafynerling and seeing ‘war pater in themselves. if that heory is tobe subject to laste The presenco af war in an area and, probably, the presence sag, fons of group competition~conllct a2 well sdds a new nomena ‘lizueasion tothe effective environment, War i one of those ron ca like disoase or exposure to dificult climatic eondllonn that dhe {ota costs of living in and exploiting a given atea. ier in cant ‘one would probably rather not live in an area of active warkers wo ‘would remove oneself if t were possible In ancthorseneo wee ont unlike naturel hazards, bocause iis a hezaed controled cod aoa ted by other human. I involves qualities not nonally emccope tn dealing with the natura nvirontent, such os the nee to aicets ‘ther rational actrs, and the way cotellations of fren ea che Avernght. Although war {snot a parpetual motion machine gang es and on by tall, whero te going on it wil be taken inte acrovat be od fhose who wish to eurvive, So war lf becomes lator shapiog future wars, st also affects othor areas of oa le Cheng in soe those other arens—politial orgnteation—will add a tind dimen delining war. (The following discussion is based al The ena but especially on Price, Ferguson, Cohen, Goldberg aad Fladlest sed Melman) Of al the sociocultural changes that can be inducod by war, the moe significant in terms of futher modifying war ls the develograey ‘Gf inoqalty in soclosconomc postion and power, which Tvsiey ig the somowhat broader leading of political evolution, War co itself, the cause of political evolution although iis ous eeaae athe, combined with other ncassary circumstances and wens The presen combination(s) of all these facts tndariying politied oot hotly debetod, and Thave no wish to duplicate the discussione es haptits ore, But afew significant political consequenses of en be ot In combination with other cieumstances, wer can promote dove pment of recognized laders, andor of «group of milhery ecco whe do thle y anotl relation valving fat outs indepen Eve always factors wo lnfratr thet polities ‘al ndvort the ewor varled ovolutio Ine clear so. othe siatelew ot post the nog. seed romicales of extcal ro. fs who ar exper exper ath, i the a the conduct of ‘gniiant tn on amet the hold these fate Ato falsifcation, Dresence of ethor “ow nomaatural tf those hesards, ‘that affect the her things equa ive warfare, ted led ead manip ily encountored toantciate chine, going on @ account bya factor thaping bind dimension 1 the chapters, 1 Fiadlom end fe by war, the ® development befor toby War is not, y cause, when ‘The proce V evolution is 15 of wat ca romote devel 2 spocilisis tasks, and who may be mn ou War leaders Hl to at cvecively against members of tho wee Scena thei afas of control beyond the conduct of « military “umpetg into daily activites, somtimas including tho ability to ad Sulfate or suppress Internal confit, to direct aad intensify produc ‘onan distbtion of goods, and to dec tho “foreign policy” of a avy, Who wat resulta inthe conquest and domination of one group ranatertsrole in the devslopment of unoqual economic and power istions may bo dramatic ond vious. Finally oer ints Yo an tyulngattution, such ss accslerated trade and te supper f poser {tleutede patrons orm to promote both wat an political evolution lly also tond to ore Bren these general stelenente must be qualified. War does not always load to political evolution of any sor Limited ecological poten til social arrimgemonts such as thaso discussed by Koch, of other acfors may Curtal severely any strtural impact of war, War can even, work against centralization, ae did the Komen action against the Celt ‘War may lee to more complex politcal ystoms, but ones that lack the Infostuctar to persit after hostilities end, or which contain within thomacives contradictory tendencies that aventoallyTead t reversion nally, military organiation al capabilites to almpler structures. P politcal stractre ‘All comploxitios andl qual cioveonomic ineguelity combined ‘with paw tnifor between groups, ads a third eal dimension to war (to josa tho ouonomfe an military dimensions) Toot above the emphasis of uration on how goals, organization, and conduct of war tavied by evolutionary Teves. Reading the fllowing chapars in ve tqence, ene sees what they were talking about. Only few of these in eglitorian and ranked sorietes, Lat tho point at which clear social strata emerge and some people can exercise power vet cies, a politcal leader may have sels intoross to advance Sa war, Sut he oun do wo ony if thote fly agro to fight Ae one apache State evel orpnizaton, in which politcal leader have recourse fo Ineans of diteet compulsion as well ideological manipulation, a lack ff positive incontiva for a commoner to fight may be outweighed by the negative consequences of not fighting, The carrot may be super betad by the stick’ A stale may engege tn a war thal boncits oco nomically all the population, but different positions within the soci fcnnorne structure tnvaribly willed to diferont maxes of costs and cations aside, the davelopmant of so Gifferonces, within |Penal rsulting fom malta plicy oration It hecomes eminently Fosible tat urs and raled wil have contaictry ines aes In eonfict. With the emengonc of sated roups, and ven in ave lading upto tha, allocation of availabe sous thins ee an ates virtue of editing socal erongementstindotataigeny sorve the nontuling population. Phe later to, willieseth ae ale rosousces according tothe place nthe socal ones Gee aay sociocultural sytem, sod or not, the efotvewetineig sources will depend in parton tho socal oes, Wiel ee Stlction ls that maloe divisions within secltybeneit urea ad that continuation of the unogual bens depends sea ee, rules ability to malntsin the established eles Hecause its the rules whe have the mest say in military dec} sions the environment bocomes only one ofa somglen nada Contributing to wa. This is «qualitative change, meaning fg ind oter socal conf, the principal aes sako ag et {ut ather tothe intemal oder of society” A ruling group a tny eect material benoit forthe rules, In eres te nee ‘Renan the sociopoiicalstuctne that Is the bast a ee nged postion, Mao wrote tha pliical power grow sat aces ey $f3 gun, ut tho foundation of that power isa socopslicl esa that Loops tho guns (r spears) fom bag turned ae acest rulers. Often it docs not take much to produce thls rns eyes ‘Rey clon the potnta of «future that other ogee et {ints are oxernal, such as border harasoment bu tie oe oe win, tule may launch e war to co-pt and alee are {Eiution to weaken the forces of potential vive by sending the front or as part of «lage lor to expand the alee ea ‘vailable resources. Jn reviewing nonmateralist approschos to wat above, Irsered to ope demonstrating tha polteat evolution lands tox dele te {nuenc of soil structun on the condi of wat Now fewest {hat political voltin sso lint tho alniiancs of seslegs, eee tsacding new factors, in wars gue Ail ths gg a cea concerns i wat is a ansdual development that may feel oa Sstmplos forms of scioaconomic diferentation and berehin en atetio tothe rol of politics at al Ievels auld leat cies son of ¢ Ret politica to mucl i, even the Ach the part veoh yal undest Tae Tog cond wlkimat to anag h potent wold « Topics = the psy secial¢ lit An strug ‘locus betes sel* becom mes eminently ony intrest a stake ‘hat dé not similar What Is new with benefit unoqually nas largely ot Blox mix of factors ning that in war al environment, 2 whole or even sis oftheir pve Sout ofthe bere Joitea severe "4 Wained on the “apany. Some Sending then to 20, Teer to audecline i tho WT have engued clog, aswell obviods by the nce of political begin wi the detship. Great doa uaiicn. tlon of ecological and evolutionary approsches to wat, and so make for ‘Songer materials theory, ending through the cheptere m sequence suggests ono othor gan sralizaton about the evolution of war. As one moves up the seale of plitcl evaution, military activity dramsatiealy increase in scale and mizaional complexity Another important characteristic of this fntiagum may not bo so obviods: as one moves fram Ach’ feuding to nuclear atvike foreos, the social institution of war becomes pro fpessively more autonomous. Ite nat enly lees constrained by eocal Strctire end ecology it becomes less embedded in socal fein gener al, even including nonmilitary aspects of the political syster. Ameng the Achuara, the conflicts are insaparable rom ae constrained by the forge obec of dally lf, With nuclear weapons, war ean occ with the participation of only a minute fraction ofthe populace other than tits vietims. Far from being an intogral part of social if, this Kind of ‘ar can bring society ton end, When hundveds of thousands of people recently marchod in opposition to th nuclear arms ecm they were told by military spectalists that the issues were too complicated for ther ta understand, The modern malitsry not only has its own nique tech nology, social ongenization, and ideology, Bu it follows its own pec je (660 Bannatt and Dando 1983}~® logic that is eld to tra seend any contrary social needs or humanitarian concems, The ultimata cansaquancos of leting this tend toward sll direction by the naltay to continue eannot be forsen, and fadoed mey bo to hozible ‘0 imagine Tho last point brings this chapter back to where i begun withthe Potential contributions of anthropology toward understanding moder world conflicts. One say of contebuting wel be throwgh work on toples ith direct relevance to contemporary peace research, such se the psyehologial dynamies of poople in wat, the coalitions favoring social cohesion or division a test of external confit, cr the several political inues Tale on page 2 athropologists could also address themselves divectly to cutont struggls inthe Thid World. Perhaps no academe discipline fs better rl to explain the social dysamics of popular uprisings orto le hues coumeyucmene uf perpower eayreslon, ra betwoou Third World states, and intemal state policies of tbel, thai ss oppresion. Anthropology may bless obviously relevant tthe = surounding buclear war, but ove thoory and tachniquos may sill make a coataition, euch as through cooperation with other sc ces to develop « pictur of shat lfe would be like alter a nuclear tack (ifany still existed), or through etinographie investigation of the0 A an Begun subcultures ofthe powexfu! and how thalr subcultures may influence tho policies they davalop (gee Bunel and Persons 1964: Mead. nnd Motu 1964), It would be dangerous, however, to undextake any ofthis research without fall consideration of the ethical questions that mey be ta volved. Tis one thing to all ttetion tothe actlvities of death squads, and auother to advise a government which condones their sctiities ‘one thing ta document and make public the ideology of military policy ‘makers, and anothoro asset them in amplementing thor policies more siliciently and effectively f there is tobe an applieg anthropology of var, it must confoat the ethiel iste fron the slat or ele wl be Thuited by thetn Ines, Another way of contebuting would be to put mor effort Into syn thesizing and generalizing anthropological findings on war, thus mak. fing the work more accessible and comprsbensible to outsiders, and 30 ‘more likely to influence thos thinking, It has baen difficult Tor non Specialist to got any sense of what anthropology has to say about wat, Worse, the fsequent pessimistic seltapprasals aprikled throughout the anthropological Iterture has probably consineed many not to fry. Bt the anthropology of war has been growingfast. Anathes decade ik the past two and thare will be no need ta apologize for its lack of substance. I researchers would be more careful to distinguish real the- ‘oretical disagreements foam dlflerences in seaearch intrests, int sated, holistic theories of war might be possible, Anthropological thoory on war isnot of only academic interost, (ur siteady existing knowledge enuldfelp dispel some popelat mis. ‘conceptions by making clear what war fe not While preparing this volume, tried trough informal eanversstlons sod attention to themes {nthe media, to ascertain popular conceptions about wat found three ‘common views, al f which make war aoera inevitable, The supposed ols of war are: innate human aguressiveness, human gnovance and intolerance, and the noverending battle for nsources needed. to The anthropological literature on war contains statoments support ng each ofthese ideas, and indoed, each of tham ean be considered valid in some sensor ctcamstanvas. The Mterature dos wot however ofr such suppor fot any of them as 4 suicentexplanstion fora wt, hich appears to be how they are undsrstood, or asa factor that somehow makes war inevitable this despite the fact that popular Satements of these idees azo often accompanied by reference to the imagined behavior of “primitive man” 48 lluszation. Much of the Public itseems, believes that anthropology has shown that humanity doome the dis irene sonpn pate tie w Ack: Refer1964; Mead end vy ofthis esearch that may be in +f death squads, 2s their activites ‘at millery policy hei polite mo 1 anthropology of or else it wll be re ffort nto ey vn war, thus mak outsiders and 90 dificult for non loa at wa ad throughout Finny not to ty other dacade ike 2e for ite lack of tinguish ral the dee intros. one popular mis- Jo proparing this ation to temas var. ound threo The supposed n jgnexance end cos needed to loments support ‘abe consiered ves not howe planation for all Papa Tator that det that popular aa. Much of the that humanity 1 meatusion: Sung Woe doomed to war. ty matong war saam unavoidable, those misconeep ponmmanay weskonafforks to work for pasce. They are dangerous ideas. Antropalogy could emphasize a very diffrent message. Despite the dlngrooments within the field ova the relative significance of the soe oe actors involved in wat, probably few anthropologists would (ike issue with one inference from this volume: understanding war in tak cocltts requires attntion to the economic and politcal interests Stihoso who decide military policy. The costs and benofite of war eet states ave unequally distributed. The powerful may rosp the uot, wheseas the powetlese pay tho costs. And the cost of mover ware awesome. This i hardly a now ka, but itis often ignored oF NMpornwsed in public debater, e¢ tn the reckless military buildup in arebres a the Ue of this writing, Ths dae also offers some hope that ererait eventually be controlled. I the hidden stakes in modera ‘Wars were laid bao, stepped of convenient myths of human aggresive Tes en ofinevitbiity, then perhaps those who ae called t Kill and ‘nd domand that conflicts be addressed oe iasrament gh instruments of poor Acknowledgments ‘rv il a, Roterences6 1p dg den one ref opanee Cae Newth) Ate sae mk oso tty, ihn of he un ray te eof See what lanes toa eats in nat Alea. Ae os Agen Mon. Sess, Wye Sat ee ne on of Wa Ais Cl Sty. Otain The Fee Foe, Nee York: Hoh lab adsr Wn he ctl pray ne Th gf mat Binmnd, Suey, Dal yee, Hor Leck Aly Mota Rena Rap, ed ic Dd Joicon Kis be Hl wna om Wha An Ont Hiay of al Ware: Th Mer of Kay Athen, O oo Antiscvaoay ication of Mohave ware, Soathorstern Journal of Seats a eg oa LY Paring ays hch tnd Clr Naw York Mele Bok ieelena Vp. Hina: er Mock aymence, ame aw, 2 Broce aie Hosa Ato ath acer Pe nes Pr. The Anthropology of Arm oni and presen obese Hore]ton of Mo esd In Pcl Aoteply, & Meege a Fh tutions of wr. Vile nd Wr, with fezsod Papo Val 0 | Maso to Yo ee to Authopalogy and he sy of coal. The Wer Spe1988 Thesntholgy fh conn The Net of amon Cog. ee ea : nisin hor et a St er 2a (in) Man an Arson, Be York: Oslo Unter Pre187 War aed Boma ein enlton Journal of Tht! log Plog, Fred, Clan Jelly and Dani! Mats ‘i I Ar History of Ware and nia ih este 2 Game teary a hana ani. fn The Neer of ure Cf Do Eagles’ Cle Pree al Pa th ed. Laxinglon MA: ot Calpe Paling, Pp. 190 a8"Tea of Cle Chang: Ta Makayla Steward, fen, ad Louie Pon Nar ltr ond Animas te Mle ran Besogical 1 Animal Nee Ya Ha, Rn ad Wt,a0 te Fomine ira)” Th indi, the wou, end wat tn Feehloa ass of Wir, H ‘el Barr: Beaopea Stan Cult Antoopalny, be Bt