The first article I read was on the Capuchin monkeys called “Violent coalitionary

attacks and intraspecific killing in wild white-faced capuchin monkeys (Cebus

capucinus)” by Gros-Louis, Manson and Perry. It took five different case studies on the

capuchin monkeys over a twelve-year period at the Lomas Barbudal Biological Reserve

in Costa Rica. The article goes into detail of each of the five cases. In three of the five

cases the researchers observed the lethal coalitions, and two cases where they inferred

by finding aftermath of dead or dying monkey. Although the last case they were not able

to do an autopsy to find out whether the capuchin died of sustained injuries from the

fight or from falling out of the tree. What I found interesting about this article was that

they took the statistics from capuchin monkeys that they have studied at that reserve

and then compared it to violence crimes in humans by using statistics from law

enforcement in Washington DC. I also found in interesting that in all five cases the

aggressor capuchins never actually killed the victims on the spot unlike what is seen in

chimps. In capuchins most interactions between groups aggression is normally no

physical contact.

The next article I read was New Intercommunity Infanticides by the

Chimpanzees of Ngogo, Kibale National Park, Uganda by Sherrow and Amsler. This

article talked about the coalitionary intergroup violence between chimpanzees that

resulted in infanticides and cannibalism of those infants. In cases discussed a group of

males on border patrol find a smaller group, with a female and an infant where they

attack the female to get her infant and then kill it and eat parts of the infant normally

leaving parts of the body behind. These cases both support the range expansion and
imbalance of power hypotheses by overpowering a smaller intergroup with females. The

females don't usually return to the area where they were attacked for a while thus the

attacking group successfully gaining territory.

“The evolution of coalitionary killings” by Wrangham focuses on the evidence that

supports the imbalance of power hypothesis through looking at evidence in

chimpanzees, wolves and other animals where there has been evidence of lethal force

in coalitionary intergroups. What I liked about Wrangham’s article was that he started

off with a table of contents to outline his article nicely. I also liked that I haven’t seen in

other articles is that he gives the history of the former proposed theories in this case the

killer ape theory, and explains why it has been thrown out because of the new theory of

Imbalance of power. I also thought that its was interesting contrast to the other articles

because it didn't talk about one case specific but took data from many other published

articles to try to explain why imbalance of power hypothesis seems to hold its ground.

“Intergroup Relations in Chimpanzees” by Wilson and Wrangham article talks

about the main three objections that researchers face in studying intergroup conflict in

chimps to extrapolate about the evolution of warfare in humans. The three main

objections are that chimps that aren't violent normally but when researchers feed them

they fight over the food, in other words researchers cause chimps to be violent. There’s

not enough data about all chimps everywhere to be sure that they are violent. Lastly

chimps have nothing to do with human warfare. Of course throughout the article Wilson

and Wrangham refute these points similarly to how we did in class this past week.

“Raiding Parties of Male Spider Monkeys: Insight into Human Warfare?” by Filippo
Aureli article is about how spider monkeys like chimpanzees and humans have now

been observed raiding in neighboring communities. What I found interesting about this

article was that spider monkeys are mainly arboreal monkeys and when they go on raids

they get out of the trees and in a single file line silently creep up on the other un-

expecting monkeys. Although no lethal raids have been reported in spider monkeys the

striking similarities between spider monkey patrols and chimps are interesting.

Douglas Fry’s Beyond War

Fry starts chapter one by telling the reader that he was going to reexamine the

“man the warrior” concept of human nature to try to construct a new interpretation of

human aggression. What I liked about this book is that Fry takes the pessimistic

approach and tries to make it positive by saying “warfare is not inevitable and that

humans have a substantial capacity for dealing with conflicts nonviolently.” (Fry 2).

Therefore if we don't assume that warfare is a natural part of the human experience

people can’t justify war by saying; why try and go against our natural urges to fight

when it comes naturally to us? Instead we can think of other means of conflict

resolution. What I do disagree with is that he seems to discount the relevance of

studying chimps our closest relative evolutionarily to learn about our common

ancestors. “Similarly, another finding that has been played but as having the utmost

relevance for understanding the origin of human warfare is that chimpanzees at Gombe

Reserve in Tanzania killed off members of a neighboring group one by one… In any case,

why should this type of behavior among chimpanzees be repeatedly touted as so

important for understanding humans ” (Fry 7). What I think is that studying chimps and
other animals that actively participate in lethal coalitions may not be considered war

because the victims are normally very few but to say there isn't a connection between

war and coaltionary violence in chimps is like saying that they aren’t related at all. It’s

like taking the intelligent design theory seriously oh look at that; war just showed up

one day.

In chapter two Fry defines what he describes as war. Then goes on to explain to

make it more lucid, “war entails relatively impersonal lethal aggression between

communities” (Fry 17). Although I would agree with his definition, it is so specific that it

throws out almost all instances of coaltionary violence in most instances in any society

smaller than chiefdoms by calling it feuding or homicide. So my question so feuding

doesn't count for anything cause the death count isn’t high enough?

Overall what I did like about Fry’s book was that he gave examples of how there

are communities that don't participate in war but use other mechanisms for dealing

with issues. Fry persuades the reader to believe that we aren’t the just the killer man,

but we are capable of problem solving are way out of most things and we don't always

seek violence, like the old adage says ‘An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.’

Since we’re still a thriving species and haven’t killed ourselves off yet I would say that

we that on the whole we know that this seems to be the case.