The Pattern of Fighting in Simple, Small-Scale, Prestate Societies

Author(s): Azar Gat

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Winter, 1999), pp. 563-583
Published by: University of New Mexico
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631615 .
Accessed: 24/01/2013 07:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Anthropological Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PATTERN OF FIGHTINGIN SIMPLE,
SMALL-SCALE,PRESTATE SOCIETIES
AzarGat
ofPolitical
Department Science,TelAvivUniversity,
TelAviv69978Israel
Thisarticleshowsthatthepatternof humanfightingamonghunter-gatherers andsimple
wasnotverydifferent
horticulturalists fromthatprevailingamonganimalsspecies;indeed,
it is explainedbya similarevolutionary logic.Thearticleaddressesall scalesof bothinter-
and intragroup fighting,forfightingandkillingtakeplacebothwithinandbetween groups.
Thispatternis morecomplexthanthesimpleingroupcooperation/outgroup rivalrysug-
gestedbyHerbertSpencerand W.G.Sumner.Thedistinctionthathas beenmadebetween
"blood feuds"and "warfare," "homicide," and "warkilling,"whileof coursenot wholly
arbitrary, our
largelyreflects pointof view as members of moreorlessorderlysocieties.The
phenomenon dealtwithhereis deadlyaggression,whoseformsdifferlittlewithinorbetween
groups,in individualfeudsor in large-scale fighting.

THE 1960SANDEARLY1970s,a widespreadmisconception

DURING prevailed,fos-
tered by KonradLorenz(1966),thatintraspecificfightingin naturewas "ritu-
alized,"thatis, consistedmainlyof displayanddemonstration, and,in anycase,
rarely involved This
killing. misconception has been dispelledby laterresearch
thathasfounda greatdealof intraspecifickillingtakingplacein manyspecies.1
The reasonfor the earliererrorwas that serious violencewas initiatedonly
underconditionsthatminimizeda protagonist'sprospectsof beinghurtitself.
Hence the relativerarityof serious"openbattle"-our customarymeasureof
fighting-in nature,as opposedto other,less conspicuousformsof intraspe-
cifickilling.Violencebecomesa moreattractivepropositionthe lowerthe risk
of heavy costs to oneself. Thus, the principleof deadlyviolence in natureis
fightingagainstweakness and fightingonly at highlyfavorableodds-asym-
metricalfighting(Pitt 1978;Wrangham andPeterson1997:159-62).
The patternof violentconflictbetweentwo adultanimals(see referencesin
note 1) often consists of displayanddemonstration,intendedto impressthe
othercombatantwithone's strengthandferocityin orderto persuadeit to give
up the fight.Some seriousfightingregularlytakes placeto provethe pointif
mere demonstrationis not enough.In this fighting,severe and often lethal
woundscan be inflicted.However,once one side recognizesdefeatandwith-
draws,the winnerin most (thoughnot all) cases does not persist to finishoff
its adversary.The reasonforthis is not intraspecific
benevolence,as anearlier
generationof scholars,followingLorenz,believed,especiallywhen the fight
does not involveclose kin or same-groupmemberswho benefitfrommutual
cooperation(Dawkins1989:66-87;de Waal1996:27).Rather,the reasonis the
risk of seriouswoundsto oneselffroma continuationof a fightwitha defeated,
butdesperateandstill armed,opponent.Suchwoundsmaynot onlybe danger-

Research,vol. 55, 1999

JournalofAnthropological
Copyright? by The Universityof New Mexico

563

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
564 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH
ous in themselvesbut can also reducethe winner'sabilityto obtainfoodand
weakenit vis-a-visotherrivalswhomighttakeadvantageof its plight.Conspe-
cificsarescaredoffandsometimesfightin competitionformatesorfood.Thus,
once the objectof the fighthas been securedwith the rival'sdefeatandwith-
drawal,the cost/benefitcalculuschangesin most cases againstthe continua-
tion of the fight.The validityof this rationaleis demonstratedby the factthat
fightingto the finishagainstadultcompetitorsfromotherspecies as well, or
even preyingon very powerfulherbivoressuchas pachyderms,whichare also
dangerouslyequipped,is highlyirregularamonganimals.Killingin natureis
regularlydone againstanimalswhichare overallweakerthanoneself. (Con-
traryto appearances, thispatternalsoappliesevento humanshuntingelephants,
not onlyto leopardshuntinggazelles.)Indeed,animalshardlyhaveinhibitions
aboutriskless killingof the muchweakerand helpless of their own kind,as
well as of competitorspecies. They regularlykill defenselesscubsandchicks
of theirown species andof competingspecies,eitherforreproductivereasons
or to weed out futurecompetitorsfor food.
The reasons for humanfightingin simple, small-scale,prestate societies
willnotbe dealtwithhere.Anthropological accountsandtheoriesspecifyhunt-
ing resources,trespassing,women,revenge, accusationsof sorcery,mutual
suspicion,the pursuitof socialesteem, andsheer pugnacity-all of whichwill
be discussedin a separatestudy(Gatn.d.).Instead,this articlefocuses solely
on the patternor formof humanfighting.Amonghunter-gatherers andsimple
horticulturalists,as in intraspecificfightingamonganimals,most serious at-
temptsat killingandmost killingsare donewhenthe victimsof the attackcan
be caughthelpless,relativelydefenseless,and,aboveall,littlecapableof effec-
tivelyharmingthe attackers.Hencethe patternof so-calledprimitivewarfare,
whichis in factremarkablyuniformandmanifestsitself regularlyin any soci-
ety of hunter-gatherers or primitiveagriculturistsstudied.
Thereis some tendencyin anthropology forparticular, recentlystudied,and
well-publicized cases to dominate scholarlyattentionat a giventime.Thus,an-
thropological on
thinking hunter-gatherers, and on hunter-gatherer violence,was
biasedfora whileby the focuson the Kalahari Bushmenin the 1950sand1960s
(WilmsenandDenbow1990;Shott 1992).Furthermore, the patternof "primi-
tive warfare" hasbeen "rediscovered" independently,withlittleif anyvariation,
generationaftergeneration,by variousscholarsobservingdifferentsocieties:
the most notableexamplesare the Australian Aborigines,the NorthAmerican
Indians,theAlaskanEskimo,theHighlanders ofNewGuinea,andtheYanomamo.2
Indeed,even beforeanthropologists tookover,this patternof warfarehadbeen
widelydiscernedby Europeansduringthe periodof Westerndiscoveryandex-
pansion.As AdamFergusonwrotein hisAn Essayon theHistoryof CivilSociety
(1995[1767],pt. 2, sec. 2:90),referringto "therudenationsof America":

Theirordinarymethodof makingwaris by ambuscade;andthey strive,

by overreachingan enemy,to committhe greatestslaughter,or to make
the greatestnumberof prisoners,with the least hazardto themselves.

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OFFIGHTING
THEPATTERN 565

They deemit a follyto exposetheirownpersonsin assaultingan enemy,

anddo not rejoicein victorieswhichare stainedin the bloodof theirown
people. They do not value themselves as in Europe,on defyingtheir
enemy uponequalterms.

BATTLE,AMBUSH, RAID

AboriginalAustralia
Australiais our largest,continent-size,"pure"laboratoryof simplehunter-
gatherers,whobeforeWesternarrivalwere virtuallyunaffectedby contactwith
farmersor herders.The focuson the KalahariBushmenhas resultedin a rela-
tive neglectof this methodologically andempirically farsuperior"laboratory" in
recentanthropological literature.The Europeansarrivedin Australialate in co-
lonialterms, with settlementbeginningin 1788, expandingslowly,andbeing
even slowerto affectremoteareasofthe interiorandnorth,despitethe spreadof
Western-brought epidemics.The continentwas the homeof an estimatedthree
hundredthousandhunter-gatherers, distributedamongfourhundredto seven
hundredregionalgroupswhichaveragedfive hundredto six hundredpersons
each (but see Lourandos1997:36-38,for considerablylargerestimates).The
Aborigines'hunter-gatherer way of life was of the simplestsort there is. Be-
cause of their isolation,they did not even have the bow. Of trulylong-range
weapons,the boomerangwas, of course,used in Australia,butit was barelyle-
thalagainsthumans.Forallthat,warfare, withspear,club,stoneknife,andwooden
shield(unlikethe otherweapons,a specializedfightingdevice;forillustrations,
see SpencerandGillen1899:28,583;Abbie1969:117-18,128;Lourandos 1997:33,
63), hadbeen widespreadin Australia.Indeed,fightingscenes with this whole
rangeof armamentareextensivelydepictedin Aboriginal rockartdatingbackat
leastten thousandyears(TaconandChippindale 1994).
Warner(1930-1931,1958[1937]),studyingthe AboriginalMurnginhunter-
gatherersof ArnhemLandin Australia's NorthernTerritories,fullylaidout the
patternof "primitive warfare." onthe subjecthassincebeen
Littleof significance
addedto his excellentaccount.Warnerdescribeda whole scale of violentcon-
flicts,rangingfromindividual feudsto small-group, clan,andseveral-clan(tribal)
conflicts.To summarizehis findings,onallscalesthe patternwasthe same:face-
to-faceconfrontations were usuallymostlydemonstrative andlow in casualties,
buta greatdealof killingwas doneby surprise,mostlyduringunilateral actions.
Amongthe face-to-faceconfrontations, feuds by individuals,often aidedby
kin,were very frequent.Bothsides were armed,andstrongwordswere often
followedby club blows and spear throwing.However,both sides were held
backby their kin andfriendsandthus were preventedfromgettingto grips
with or seriouslyhurtingeach other.In fact,

The contestants usually depend upon this, and talk much "harder"(dal)
to each other than they would if they knew they were going to be allowed
to have a free play at each other.... They are able, by remonstratingwith

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
566 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH
theirfriendsandstrugglingto get free fromthem,to vent theiroutraged
emotionsandproveto the communitythatno one canimpingeupontheir
rightswithouta valianteffortbeingmadeto preventthis fromhappen-
ing. Obviouslythere is a certainamountof bluffin the conductof the
contestantsonsomeoccasions.... fewkillingseverresult.(Warner1930-
1931:467)

Conflictbetween localgroups("clans")or regionalgroups("tribes")could

also leadto face-to-faceconfrontations, or battles,whose placeandtime were
normally agreedupon in advance.Here as well,the combatants hardlyeverclosed
in on eachother.The two opposingdispersedlines stoodat spear-throwing dis-
tance,aboutfiftyfeet, hurlingspears at one another while the
dodging enemy's
spears.In some cases, suchbattleswere intendedin advanceto putan endto a
conflictandwere thus truly"ceremonial," with the spearthrowingrestrained
and mixedwith ceremonialdances.Oncebloodwas spilt or even before,the
grievanceswereseen as settled,andthe battlewasterminated. However,some-
timeseven these ceremonialfightscouldescalateintorealbattles,eitherin the
heatof conflict,by accident,or by treachery.Furthermore, in manyothercases,
truebattleswere intendedfromthe start.Still,sincethe opposingpartieskepta
safe distancefromeachother,casualtieswere normallylow even in these real
battles.Anexceptioncouldoccurwhentrickerywasused,as, forexample,when
onepartyhida groupofwarriorswhothenattackedthe otherpartyfromambush
on the flankor rear.Then,heavycasualtiescouldensue.
However,the most lethalandcommonformof warfarewas the raid,using
surpriseandmostlytakingplaceat night.Raidswere carriedoutby individuals
or smallgroupsandwere intendedto kill a specificenemy,or membersof a
specificfamily,usuallywhenthe victimswere asleepin camp.Althoughthese
raidswere small-scaleaffairs,they oftenresultedin casualties.The raidcould
also be conductedon a largescale,by raidingpartiescomingfromwholeclans
or tribes.In such cases, the campof the attackedpartywouldbe surrounded,
andits unprepared, oftensleeping,dwellerswere massacredindiscriminately
(exceptforwomenwho couldbe abducted).These raids,bothlargeandsmall,
resultedin the mostkillingsinAborigine"primitive warfare."InWarner'sstudy
(1930-1931:457-58),thirty-fivepeoplewerekilledin large-scaleraids,twenty-
seven in small-scaleraids,twenty-ninein largebattlesin whichambusheswere
used, three in ordinarybattles,andtwo in individualface-to-faceencounters.
Both battlesandraidswere preparedfor andendedwith elaborateritualistic
andshamanistactivity.Peoplepaintedthemselvesin warcolors,bothas part
of this activityandin orderto terrifythe enemy.
WhileWarner'sstudyis singularin being specificallydedicatedto warfare
andanalyticallystructured,the evidencefromotherstudiesof the Aborigines
indicatethatthe patternhe describesheldtrueall overAustralia,in bothwell-
watered and arid environments.3For example, Meggitt studied the Walbiriof
the Central AustralianDesert, among the simplest hunter-gatherers in exist-
ence, whose populationdensity was as low as one person per thirty-five square

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THEPATTERN
OFFIGHTING 567
miles.Relationsbetweenthe Walbiriandsome of the otherdeserttribesin the
surroundingterritorieswere friendly;with others, like the Warramunga and
Waringari,they were hostile. Constantraidingandcounterraiding took place
betweenthem,involvingconsiderable killing,especiallyin nightraidsoncamps.
Meggittalso refersto a battlewith substantialcasualties,but detailsare lack-
ing, for example,on whetherit involvedambushor any othersort of surprise
(Meggitt1962:38,42).
WilliamBuckley(1790-1856)providesanother,specialtestimony,the earli-
est substantialethnographic reporton Aboriginallife. In 1803 he was brought
to the new continentwith the first convictship arrivingat the penaltysettle-
ment at PortPhilip(nowMelbourne).He escapedshortlyafter,andforthirty-
two years, until 1835, he lived with an Aboriginaltribe.Duringthat time, he
learnedto speakits languageandparticipatedin its dailyactivities.Afterre-
turningto "civilization,"
Buckleyrelatedhis experienceson severaloccasions.
His accountappearsto be authenticwith respect to everythingthat can be
verifiedconcerningthe natives'life. In additionto numerousraids,ambushes,
andfeuds,he describessome dozenmajorface-to-faceencountersamongAb-
originaltribes.These were conductedmainlywith throwingspearsandboo-
merangs,andalthoughlastingforhours,they regularlyresultedin onlyone to
three peopledead.Casualtiesin raidswere similar,unless a whole campwas
surprised:"The contests between the Watouronga,of Geelong, and the
Warrorongs, ofthe Yarra,werefierceandbloody.I haveaccompanied the former
in theirattackson the latter.Whencomingsuddenlyuponthem in the night,
they have destroyed without mercy men, women and children"(Morgan
1980[1852]:189,also 40, 41, 42, 49-50, 60, 68, 68-69, 76-77, 81, 82).

TheNorthwestCoastIndians
Whileterms obviouslychangeand anthropologists'descriptivecategories
can vary slightly(I have not stuck to Warner'soriginalones either),the pat-
tern of "primitivewarfare"manifestsitself independentlyeverywhere.The
maindifferencefromAboriginalAustraliais that peoplein other partsof the
worldhadthe bow,whose onlyeffectwas to increasethe rangeof engagement
even further.The AmericanNorthwestis anothervast "laboratory" of "pure"
hunter-gatherers. Here the canoe a
played major role as a means of move-
ment, and settlements were more and
permanent fortified, but the overall
pat-
tern of warfareremainedthe same. The followingare some select citations
fromotherwisefairlysimilaraccountsof NorthwestCoastwarfare.
The Germangeographersand ethnographersAurel and ArthurKrause
(1970[1885]:169-72) notedin 1878-1879"thealmostendlessenmitiesbetween
individualsas well as tribesandclans."They observedthat "theTlingitdoes
not have personalcourageto face obviousdanger."Thus, "openwarfarewas
usually avoided, but if one tribe made war on another, it was done mostly by
setting up an ambush or attack by night." "Ceremonial"battles were some-
times agreed upon to bring a conflict to an end. Accordingto Boas (1966:110),
"The Indians avoided open warfarebut endeavored to surprise the helpless or

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
568 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH

unsuspectingandunarmedvictim.... Individuals also attackedtheirenemies,

notin openbattle,butfromambush."The mainformof warfarewas the raidon
the enemy's village,whichwas frequentlydevastatingeven thoughvillages
were oftenfortified:"Theenemy was attackedearlyin the morning,when it
was stilldark.... The attackingpartyrarelymet withresistance,becausethey
alwaystriedto surprisethe enemywhileasleep.... Whenthe menwerekilled,
theirheadswere cut offwith theirwaraxes. They burnedthe village.Women
whopleasedthe warriors,andchildren,were takenas slaves"(Boas1966:108).
The Kwakiutlwordfor war,"wi'naincludesnot onlyfightsbetweentribesor
clansbutalso deedsof individualswho set out to killa memberor membersof
anothergroup"(Boas 1966:108).
Drucker(1951:337-41,1965:75-81)also describeswarfareon the North-
west Coast.He notes that "weapons,tactics,trophies,andotherdetailswere
alike in feuds andwars"(Drucker1965:75)."Thefavoritetacticswas the fa-
miliarAmericanIndiannightraid"(Drucker1951:337;see also R.B.Ferguson
1984:272;Donald1997:27).Frontalattackswere only madeout of necessity,
when a raidingpartywas itself surprisedandcameunderdevastatingfirewith
the waterto its backandlittle optionof retreat."Otherandmore successful,
tacticswere variationson the encirclementtheme"(Drucker1951:337).

Anothersort of tacticswas thatof out-and-outtreachery.... The tech-

niqueusuallyconsistedin offeringpeace,andsuggestinga marriagebe
arrangedto cementthe new tranquility. At some stage of the festivities,
the plottersarrangedto have theirmen distributedamongthe foe, each
tryingto maneuverhimselfinto a placeon the rightof his intendedvic-
tim so that he wouldbe able to whipout a daggeror clubto strike him
downwhen the warchiefgave a certainsignal.(Drucker1951:338)

As Druckerconcludes(1951:341),"Ifwe evaluateNootkanwarfareon the ba-

sis ofits effectiveness,we mustgrantit considerable
efficiency.The Hisau'ishth
andthe Otsosatwere exterminatedwithinrecenttimes;the groupsinhabiting
MuchalatArmwere reducedfromseveralhundredto less thanfortypersons,
andothergroupsare saidto havebeen wipedout completelyin ancientdays,
all by the type of warfaredescribed."
Some anthropologists, suchas R.B.Ferguson,havesuggestedthatWestern
goodshadalreadybegunto penetratethe regionby indirectroutesin the eigh-
teenthcenturyandthatthey hadbeen partlyresponsibleforgrowingcompeti-
tion andfor the belligerencyevidentin the accountsof old nativeinformers
regardingthat period.Still, as Fergusonhimselfstresses, in agreementwith
all other research,warfarein the NorthwestCoast was very old, predating
"protocontact." Warfareis recordedin the archaeologyof the region,withlittle
apparentvariation,for no less thanfourthousandyears (Ferguson1984:271-
74, 278, 285, 298, 312, relying on MacDonald1979;Yesner 1994:161-62; Hayden
1994:237; Burch and Correll 1972:24; Burch 1974:1; Donald 1997:27). In fact,
the natives' use of body armor made of several layers of hide or of wooden slat

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THEPATTERN
OF FIGHTING 569

androd-a specializedfightingdeice, extensivelyreportedby the firstEuro-

peanexplorersin the late eighteenthicenturyandcurrentlydisplayedin muse-
ums-actually seems to have declinedafter the white man's arrival.It was
rendereduseless by musket fire (Gunther1972:14,43, 114, 133, 159, 187;
Nelson1983[1899]:330; Spencer1959:72;Oswalt1967:186,188;Burch1974:5).
A similardevelopmenttook place with the Plains Indians'shields and skin
armor,andforthe samereason(see, e.g., Secoy 1953;Ewers 1975:390,401).4

TheAlaskanEskimo
Eskimowarfareon the Alaskancoast followeda patternsimilarto the In-
dian.Accordingto Nelson (1983[1899:327):

Previousto the arrivalof the Russianson the Alaskanshore of Bering

sea the Eskimowagedanalmostconstantintertribal warfare;at the same
time, alongthe line of contactwith the Tinndtribes of the interior,a
bitter feud was always in existence. The people of the coast . . . have
manytales of villagesdestroyedby warpartiesof Tinne'.

SeveralTinndwere killed by Malemutwhile huntingreindeeron the

strip of uninhabitedtundralyingbetween the districtsoccupiedby the
two peoples.... a favoritemodeof carryingon theirancientwarfarewas
to lie in ambushneara villageuntilnightandthen to creepup andclose
the passage-wayto the kashim,thusconfiningthe men within,andafter-
wardsshootingthem with arrowsthroughthe smoke hole in the roof.
Sometimesthe womenwere putto death,at othertimestheywere taken
homeby the victors;but the men andthe boys were alwayskilled.

Normally,the men "wouldset out stealthilyto surprisethe enemyduringthe

night.If they failedin this an openbattleensued"(Nelson1983[1899]:327).
Oswaltportraysa similarpicture(1967:185-88),as does Burch(1974:2,4),
who writes that "thegeneralpatternof warfarewas the same throughoutthe
NorthwestAlaskanarea"(p. 2). Again,raidingwas the principalmethodof
warfare.Openface-to-facefightingwas only enteredinto underconditionsof
clearsuperiorityorwhenthe sides accidentally bumpedintoeachother,mainly
en route to a raid.BothNelson andBurchagree that in such cases a missile
fight began:"the early stages of these confrontationswere ratherritualized
affairsin whichthe menjumpedaboutwithstiff-leggedmovementsandtaunted
one another,arrowsnockedandpoisedforfiring"(Burch1974:10-11;see also
Nelson 1983[1899]:328-29). This couldgo on forhours,with intervalsforrest
sometimesdeclared.Accordingto Burch,the sides couldthen close on each
other,thoughthere seems to be some disagreementbetweenhim andhis in-
formants on how serious things really became at this stage. He specifically
acknowledges that they told him that their ancestors had much preferred mis-
sile to shock tactics in these battles. Still, he speculates that the closing-in
stage "must have" involved close-quarters fightingwith clubs and similarweap-

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
570 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH

ons,whichled to seriouskilling.Nelson,forhis part,writesaboutbattlealmost

exclusivelyin terms of arrowshooting.Whilehis descriptionsometimesmay
also give the impressionof substantialcasualties,he neverspecificallysays so.
Accordingto Spencer(1959:72),"such'battles'seem alwaysto havebeen in-
decisive."

TheGreatPlainsIndians
The GreatPlainsIndians'tacticalmethods,bothbeforeandaftertheiradop-
tion of the horse and gun, have becomea worldwidefolklore."Accordingto
MarianSmith(1938:436),"Whethera warpartyconsistedof one warrioror a
man and one or two of his most intimatefriends,or of one to fourhundred
warriors,or even of the wholetribethe purposeandgeneralformof its proce-
dure did not change."The nightraidand dawnattackwere the norm."The
mortalityin Plainsfightingwas highest when attacktook the enemy unpre-
pared.... In suchcases the weakergroupswere oftencompletelyannihilated.
The mortalityof pitchedbattles,whichwas of morefrequentoccurrencethan
is generallysupposed,was considerablylower"(Smith1938:436).The reason
for this was that "Unnecessaryendangeringof lives was ... avoided"(Smith
1938:431).Accordingto Mishkin(1940:2),"theformof warfarepreferredon
the Plains [was] the surprise attack. . . . Such surprise attacks ... did not
permitconcerteddefense.... One side attackedstealthilyandthe otherside
was moreor less compelledto sufferthe attackandretaliatelater,if possible,
when the victorswere themselvesunprepared andunsuspecting."
Ewers (1975:401),documentingthe historicalandarchaeological evidence
for PlainsIndianwarfarebeforecontact,writes:

The greatest damagewas done when a large war partysurprised,at-

tacked,andwipedout a smallhuntingcamp.... casualtieswere few in
pitchedbattlesbetweenrelativelyequalnumbersof warriors.Therewas
no close contactin these largebattles.The opposingforcesformedlines
facingeachother,barelywithinarrowrange.Theyprotectedthemselves
behindlargerawhideshields,andshotarrowsfromtheirlongbows.They
also wore body armor of several thicknesses of rawhide. . . . Darkness
generallybroughtan end to the battle.

Secoy (1953:34-35)describesthe samepatternof prehorse/pregun fighting.

There was the generallypreferreddestructiveraid,andthere was the battle,
whichwas a two-stageaffair.In the firststage,the sides confrontedeachother
in two long lines for hours,shootingarrowswhile protectingthemselvesbe-
hindtheir shields.Next, they couldclose in. As in Burch'sAlaskanEskimo
case, Secoy andhis sourcedisagreeon whathappenedthen. Secoy suggests
thatusuallya briefandbloodyhand-to-hand struggletookplace.However,ac-
cordingto his sole source, the famous seventy-five-to-eighty-year-oldBlackfoot
Saukamappee,testifying in 1787-1788, "Onboth sides several were wounded,
but none lay on the ground; and night put an end to the battle without a scalp

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OFFIGHTING
THEPATTERN 571

beingtakenon either side, andin those dayssuch was the result, unless one
partywas morenumerousthanthe other.The greatmischiefof warthen,was
as now,by attackinganddestroyingsmallcampsof ten to thirtytents"(Secoy
1953:35)."6

The Yanomamo
NapoleonChagnonattractedgreatattentionto the patternof "primitivewar-
fare"with his studyof the Yanomamo. The Yanomamo were huntersandhor-
ticulturistsratherthan pure hunter-gatherers, but their methodsof warfare
were notverydifferent.In fact,thoughthe Yanomamo were dubbed"thefierce
people"by Chagnon, theirwarfare-atleastas describedby Chagnon(1977:113-
37) for the time he stayedwith them-was even more small-scalethanelse-
where.Theirrhetoricaside,the "fiercepeople"were very reluctantto expose
themselvesto danger(Goldschmidt1988:49-50).Face-to-faceconfrontations
were stronglyregulated,takinga tournament-like form,to avoidfatalinjuries
as muchas possible.The antagonistsin a conflict,eitherindividuals or groups,
facedone another,exchangingblowseachin turn.Dependingon the gravityof
the grievancethathadignitedthe confrontation, the exchangeofblowsescalated
in form.The mildestform,withbarehands,was chest pounding,whichthe an-
tagonistsinflictedin rotationon eachother.Next cameside slapping,also with
barehands.Then camethe clubfight,whichobviouslyresultedin muchmore
severe injuriesbutrarelyin fatalities.Finally,formal,prearranged spear-throw-
ing battleswere veryrare,let alonethose involvingarrowshooting.
Again,it is the fearof beingkilledratherthankill thatrestrictedthe Yano-
mamoinface-to-faceencounters.Killingwasprincipally donebystealth.Accord-
to
ing Chagnon(1977:122),the raidwas "warfareproper,"carriedout mostly
at nightandunleashedat dawn.The large-scale,encirclingraidto annihilatea
campor a village,that we saw elsewhere, does not figurein Chagnon'sac-
count.Instead,the Yanomamoexperiencedincessantraidsandcounterraids,
which even if involvingsubstantialnumbersof warriors,usuallyended in a
hastyretreatafterthe raidingpartyhadsucceededin killingone or few indi-
vidualswho stayedout of campor hadmanagedto shootarrowsinto it. How-
ever, if killingsin each raidwere few, they accumulatedrapidly.As Chagnon
writes (1977:40),the villagewhere he stayed "wasbeing raidedactivelyby
abouta dozen differentgroupswhile I conductedmy fieldwork,groupsthat
raidedit abouttwenty-fivetimes in a periodof fifteenmonths."Sometimes,
the pressureof warandcasualtiesforcedthe inhabitantsof a villageto leave it
andfind shelter in other villages (obviouslyat a price).The enemy then de-
stroyedtheir dwellingsandgardens.Finally,extensivekillingcouldalso take
place in "treacherousfeasts" of the kind we have alreadyseen (Chagnon
1977:78-79,102-3).

Papua New Guinea

The world's largest and most isolated concentration of primitive agricultur-
ists is the Highlands of Papua New Guinea. The native people constantly had

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
572 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH
to facethe threator the actualityof warfare.Hereagain,warfaretookthe form
thatwe have seen only too well, describedindependentlyby anthropologists
moreorless contemporaneously withChagnon'sstudyoftheYanomamo (Vayda
1976:9-42; Berndt 1962;Rappaport1967;Heider1970;Koch 1974;Meggitt
1977; Hallpike1977; Brown 1978;Lewis 1995). The familiarformal,prear-
rangedbattlesbetweencommunitiesinvolvedarrowshootingor spearthrow-
ing fromafar,with the combatantstakingcover behindlargeshields. Called
"smallfights"or "nothingfights"by the Maring,these battleswere noisyand
couldlastdaysandevenweeks;buttheyweremuchlike"tourneys," and"deaths
or serious injuriesin them were rare."'7 Sometimes,"nothingfights"could
escalateto "truefights"involvingclose-quartersweaponslikespearsandaxes.
Still, the combatantsrarelyclosed in to come to gripswith one anotherin a
true melee. The battleremainedstatic,with the sides exchangingblowsbe-
hind their shields, while keepingbackand takingcare not to expose them-
selves or be caughtisolated.
Thus, warfarecouldproceedfor weeks or even for monthswithoutheavy
casualties.Battleswouldbe abandoned whenit rainedorwhenthe combatants
felt thatthey neededa rest. Often,the battleswere a vent forgrievancesand,
throughthe verbalcommunication madepossibleby the concentrationof the
people on the battlefield,opened wayto an armistice.As we saw in Austra-
the
lia, substantial casualtiesonly ensued in those relativelyrarecases in which
the enemywas surprisedfromthe backbyan ambushor by approaching allies.
In suchcases, a "rout"couldoccur,withthe warriorsandtheirfamiliesescap-
ing theirvillage,whichwas then destroyedby the victors.
But again,the most lethalformof warfarein HighlandNew Guineawas the
raid.This couldbe carriedout by individualsor smallgroupssettling"private
affairs"or by wholecommunities.Conductedmostlyat nightandclimaxingat
dawn,the raidersstroveto catchthe enemyasleepandkillas manyof themas
possible,particularly the men but also womenandchildren.In most cases, if
the raidingpartywas not largeenough,the raidersquicklywithdrewbefore
the enemycouldregainits nerveandfightback.However,sometimes"these
tactics couldannihilatethe manpowerof an enemy clan"in one stroke and
literallydriveit to extinction(Vayda1976:23).As in the NorthwestCoastof
America,the villagesin Highland New Guineawere surrounded bypalisadesand
by obstacles forprotection, andin somecases watchtowers were built.Sites that
were difficultto accesswere favored.Strangerswerefearedandsuspected,and
trespassingbetweencommunitiescarriedthe risk of deathandwas generally
avoided.Treacherieson visitsalsooccurredandcouldresultin manycasualties.
Whena "rout"or a devastatingraidtook place,the defeatedside, whichwas
drivenoutof its homevillage,couldeitherrecoveraftera whileandreturnback
with the supportof its allies, perhapslosing some land,or sometimesit was
permanently decimated,withits landannexedby the victors.
Studies of other "tribal"societies, such as the Higi of the Nigerian-Cameroon
border area (Otterbein 1994) and the Montenegrins (Boehm 1984), draw a re-
markablysimilar picture. In all the cases described and everywhere else, as

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 OFFIGHTING
THEPATTERN 573
with the AboriginalAustraliansmentionedfirst, elaborateritualisticactivity
took placebefore,after,andoftenduringwarfare-to enlist supernatural sup-
port,to let the deadknowthey were beingavenged, andto purifythe warriors
who hadkilled.Peoplepaintedthemselvesfor warandoftenwore a specially
adornedwardress.

ASYMMETRICAL,FIRST-STRIKEKILLING

Thus,in fundamental respectsthe patternof fightingin simplehumansoci-

eties paralleledthat prevailingin other animalspecies. In both humansand
animals,serious,deadly,face-to-facefightingwas rare,notbecauseof intraspe-
cificbenevolencebut to avoidthe risk to oneself andto one's close kin who
were enlistedin support.Considerableintraspecifickillingdidtake place,but
it was carriedout againstthe weak anddefenselesswho couldnot fightback
effectively.Deadlyfightingwas normallyasymmetrical,with the casualties
overwhelminglyconcentratedon the receivingend. However,at this point,
there was a differencebetweenhumansandotheranimalspecies.Amongani-
mals,the youngmostlystandatthe receivingendofintraspecific killing,whereas
adults-although sometimesfatallywoundedin a fight-are relativelymore
secure. By contrast,amonghumans-althoughwomenandchildrenwere of-
ten killed-it was mainlythe fightingmen themselveswho sufferedmost of
the casualties.Amonghumansas well, deadlyfightingwas asymmetrical,in
the sense thatit wasconductedunderconditionsinwhichthe enemywascaught
helplessandunableto fightback,mostlybythe aidof surprise.However,among
humans,the asymmetryregularlyrotated,withthe receivingandinflictingends
changingplaces;the helpless victimof today'sraidwas himselfthe raiderto-
morrow.Thus, the adulthumanfightersthemselvesborethe bruntof the ca-
sualties,thoughnormallynot simultaneouslybut eachside in its turn.Whatis
the sourceof this differencebetweenhumansandotheranimalspecies?

Weapons, Surprise,and theStrainon Deterrence

Mutualdeterrence,whichis generallyeffectiveamongadultanimals,failsin
humansundercertaincircumstancesspecifiedabovebecause of that classic
threat to deterrence:first-strikecapability.Why do humanspossess it to a
muchlargerdegreethanotheranimalspecies?It is becauseof thatmost dis-
tinctivehumancapability-toolmaking.The moreadvanceddidthis capability
evolve,the morelethaldidhumansbecome,while,at the sametime,the more
didtheirphysiquebecomeslenderbecausetools replacedmuscles,bones,and
teeth;Homosapiensis moreslightlybuiltthanthe NeandertalsorHomoerectus,
who in turnwere less muscledthanthe australopithecines,ourratherapelike
ancestors, or our the In
cousins, livinggreatapes. short, growthin human
the
offensive capabilitywas linked with a steady decrease in our naturaldefenses.
Some scholars have already sought a connection between human intraspe-
cific lethality and the unique human tool-making capability.Initially, however,
this was done in the wrong way. Lorenz (1966:206-9), Morris (1967:174-75),

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
574 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH
and Eibl-Eibesfeldt(1979:123),for instance,suggestedthat the development
of weaponsin humanevolutionwas so rapidthatit overtooknormalinhibitions
against intraspecific killing. However, in the first place, humans are
archaeologically documentedto have been using stone tools for at least two-
and-a-halfmillionyears, in all probabilityalso as weapons,more thanample
time foranyevolutionaryadaptation to takeplace-we havechangeddramati-
callyover that time no
period.Second, inhibitionsagainstinstraspecifickilling,
of the sort presumedby LorenzandMorris,do, in fact,exist in nature.Third,
theirweaponsnotwithstanding, humansin simplesocieties continuedto avoid
serious face-to-faceencounters,as do animals.Nor was it the abilityto fight
froma safe distancethatchangedthings,as some scholarshave suggested.In
face-to-facefighting,mutualdeterrencecontinuedto workquiteeffectively,as
it does with animals,with the increaseddistancewhichthe fighterskept be-
tween themselvesandthe enemy ensuringtheirrelativesafety.
Wherehumanspecialintraspecificvulnerabilitymostlyrevealeditself was
when the attackcameby surprise.This circumstancewas very differentfrom
the conditionsprevailingamonganimals.Not only is it more difficultamong
most animalspecies to get close to a rivalwithoutbeingnoticed,becauseof
moreacutesenses, butit is, aboveall,moredifficultto finishoffa conspecificin
one stroke even if surpriseis achieved.Animalsare more stronglybuiltbe-
causetheirbodiesaretheirweapons.Furthermore, theirweaponsare"onthem"
and, therefore,are constantlyreadyfor use. By contrast,if humanscan be
caughtunarmed,they are at a tremendousdisadvantageand are extremely
vulnerable.Humansthus became quintessentialfirst-strikecreatures.Like
otheranimalspecies, they normallydidnot seriouslyfightconspecificson the
openbattlefieldfor fearof beinghurtthemselves.However,unlikeotherani-
mal species, they were able to kill adultconspecificsby surprise,when their
adversarieswereunarmedandvulnerable(SmithandPrice1973;Pitt1978:571;
BaerandMcEachron1982:82;Ridley1996:164-65).

KillingRates
Andkillthey did.As with otheranimalspecies,mortalityfromintraspecific
violencewas very substantialamonghumansin simple,small-scalesocieties.
Estimatesof hunter-gatherers' mortalityratesin fightingbeforethe comingof
state authorityare inherentlytenuous,butthey neverthelesstallyremarkably
withone anotherandmakeit possibleto forma reasonablygoodpicture.Dur-
ing a periodof twentyyears,Warner(1958[1937]:157-58)estimatedthat the
deathrate for the Murnginwas 200 men out of a totalpopulationof 3,000 of
both sexes, of whomapproximately 700 were adultmales. This amountsto
approximately 30 percentofthe adultmales.Violentmortalityamongthe women
andchildrenis not mentioned.Pilling'sestimate(1968:158)of at least 10 per-
cent killed amongthe Tiwi adultmales in one decadefalls withinthe same
range.Kimber'sCentralAustralianestimate(1990:163),fora generation,of 5
percentmortalityin fightingin aridareas and about6.5 percentin well-wa-
teredonesrefersto violentmortalityinrelationto the entirepopulation's
overall

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THEPATTERN
OF FIGHTING 575

mortalityrates. These figuresalso suggest a very highviolentmortalityrate.

The PlainsIndiansshoweda deficitof 50 percentfor the adultmales in the
Blackfoottribein 1805anda 33 percentdeficitin 1858,whileduringthe reser-
vationperiod,the sex ratiorapidlyapproached 50:50(Livingstone1967:9).The
Eskimoof the CentralCanadianArcticlackedgroupwarfare,becausethe re-
gionalpopulationwas extremelydiffusedand resources were impossibleto
monopolize.Still, violentdeathamongthem, in so-calledbloodfeudsandho-
micide,was estimatedby one authorityat one personper thousandper year,
ten times the 1990U.S. rate (Symons1979:145;Knauft1987:458).As Briggs
(1994:156)has revealinglywritten,"Readersof CanadianInuitethnography,
my ownNeverin Anger(1970)in particular,have sometimesconcludedthat
Inuitare alwaysand everywherepacific.Nothingcouldbe fartherfromthe
truth."Withrespect to the !Kungof the KalahariDesert, another"harmless
people,"Lee himselfreports(1979:398,1982:44)thatin his studyareain the
period1963-1969,there were twenty-twocases of "homicide." This amounts
to a rate of 0.29 personsper thousandper year andhadbeen 0.42 beforethe
comingof firmstate authority.
The somewhatbetter datawhichexist for primitiveagriculturistsbasically
tell the same storyas those for the hunter-gatherers.Amongthe Yanomamo,
about15 percentof the adultsdiedas a resultof inter-andintragroup violence:
24 percentof the males and7 percentof the females(Dickemann1979:364).
TheWaorani (Auca)ofthe Ecuadorian Amazonholdthe registeredworldrecord:
more than 60 percentof adultdeaths over five generationswere causedby
feudingandwarfare(Yost1981;RobarchekandRobarchek1992).In Highland
New Guinea,independentestimatesare againvery similar:amongthe Dani,
28.5 percentof the men and2.4 percentof the womenhavebeen reckonedto
have died violently(Heider1970:128);amongthe Enga,34.8 percentof the
adultmaleshavebeen estimatedto havemet the samefate (Meggitt1977:13-
14, 110);amongthe Hewa,killingwas estimatedat 7.78perthousandperyear
(Symons1979:145);amongthe Goilala,whosetotalpopulationwasbarelyover
150, there were 29 (predominantly men) killedduringa periodof thirty-five
years (Hallpike1977:54,202);andamongthe LowlandGebusi,35.2 percentof
the adultmalesand29.3 of the adultfemalesfell victimto homicide-the high
rateforthe femalesmaybe explainedby the factthatkillingwas mainlyrelated
to failureto reciprocatein sister exchangemarriage(Knauft1987:462-63,470,
477-78). In tribalMontenegroin 1901-1905,violentdeathwas estimatedat 25
percent(Boehm1984:177).Archaeologyunearthssimilarfinds.Inthe latepre-
historic site of Madisonville,Ohio,22 percent of the adultmale skulls had
woundsand8 percentwere fractured(Livingstone1967:9).In the prehistoric
No. 36 cemeterysite of NorrisFarmin Illinois,16 percentof the individuals
buriedtheremet violentdeath(Milner,Anderson,andSmith1991:583;Keeley
1996:66-67).8
All this suggests that average human violent mortalityrates among adults in
simple societies may have been in the order of 15 percent (25 percent for the
men). Extremely sparse populations living in areas where resources could not

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
576 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH
be monopolizedprobablyoccupiedthe lowerpartof the scale,butnotbya very
widemargin.This situationshouldnotbe takento meanthatall simple,small-
scale societies were equallyand uniformlywarlike.There were differences
amongthem,as therewouldlaterbe differencesin this respectamongstates.
Still,as also withstates in historicaltimes, a fundamentalconditionof unregu-
latedcompetitionandpluralitymadefightinga normthatvery few communi-
ties could escape or fail to be preparedfor, no matterwhat their particular
inclinationswere. At least in this respect,Hobbeswas closerto the truththan
Rousseauregardingthe human"stateof nature."
But didthe comingof the state reduceviolentmortalityrates?In contrastto
the Rousseauitebelief,some scholarshaveclaimedthatmodernwars,despite
their massive deathtolls, have a muchless lethaldemographiceffect overall
thandidprestatefighting(Livingstone1967;Keeley 1996;EmberandEmber
1994:190).Statewarfaresurelyalteredthe patternsof fightingand,at least by
significantlyreducingintragroupviolence,that is, "bloodfeuds"and "homi-
cide,"seems also to havereducedoverallviolentdeathrates. Statisticalcom-
parisonsareagainverytenuous.Butthe key factorseems to be the level of the
population'sexposureto war,eitherby direct(male)participation or through
violence againstnoncombatants. Violentmortalityhas thus been a factorof
warfare'stotality.The moretotalthatstate warfarehasbeen, the morehas its
deathrate approached prestatelethality.
In the SecondPunicWar(218-202 B.c.),ancientRome'smost devastating
conflictfor whichwe have relativelygoodcensus andotherdemographic sta-
tistics, Rome lost
(andItaly) according to one minimalist
estimate at least 17, if
not morethan20, percentof its adultmalepopulation(Brunt1971:54,63, 84).
But a calamityof such magnitudewas exceptional.Some parts of Germany
experiencedeven greaterdemographic losses duringthe ThirtyYearsWar.In
relationto the generalmortality,deathin warin France,one of the mostwar-
like nationsin Europe,is estimatedby one source(Wright1942,vol. 1:665)at
1.1 percentin the seventeenthcentury,2.7 percentin the eighteenthcentury,
3 percentin the nineteenthcentury,and6.3 percentin the firstthree decades
of the twentiethcentury.In the AmericanCivilWar,1.3percentof the popula-
tion was eitherkilledor wounded.In WorldWarI, about3 percentof boththe
FrenchandGermanpopulationsdied,representingroughly15 percentof the
adultmales.InWorldWarII,morethan10 percentof the SovietUnion'spopu-
lationperished,and about5 percentin Germany.However,when averaged
over time,even the dreadfulfiguresfromthese cataclysmiceventsfallshortof
those for primitivesocieties.
Still,as we have seen, possessinga uniqueintraspecificfirst-strikecapabil-
ity, the humanadultfighterswere rotationallyon the receiving,as well as on
the inflicting,end of nature'snormalasymmetricalkilling.They were gener-
ally different in this respect from other animal species. But then, if in nature
fighting is mainly constrained by the consideration of self-preservation, why
did the human fighters, who refrained from serious face-to-face fighting, nev-
ertheless engage in the sort of high-casualty stealth warfare in which today's

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THEPATTERN
OFFIGHTING 577
killercouldbe tomorrow'svictim?Predominantly, the answerseems to lie in
the inherentinstabilityof first-strikecapability,whichhas attractedso much
attentionin the nuclearage. True first-strikecapabilitygives an enormous
advantageto the side that strikes first andthus, theoretically,almostforces
one to preempt.For in the absenceof a higher,regulatingauthority,or other
securitymechanisms,the protagonistsare lockedin a Prisoner'sDilemma,in
whichnone of them canbe guaranteedthatthe otherwouldnot strikefirst if
one refrainedfromdoingso. Now, if annihilationor a majorreductionof the
enemy'sstrengthis in factachieved,as it oftenwas, so muchthe better.If not,
then tit fortat mightfollowuntilmutualdeterrenceis reestablishedandkilling
is stoppedby agreement.

CONCLUSION

Theories of the 1960s, especiallyLorenz's,drew a sharpdividebetween

humans-who regularlykilledeachotherin fighting-andallotheranimalspe-
cies thatallegedlydidnot.Consequently, humanviolenceappearedto be unique
and, therefore,enigmatic and for
calling some specialexplanation.The idea
that"wearethe mostruthlessspeciesthathas ever marchedthe earth"(Storr
1968:9)becamevery popular.The Rousseauiteview thathumanfightingand
killingwere relativelyrecent productsof culturalevolutionseemed to tally
withthe findingsof ethologyandto explainhumanuniquelethality.This view
still lingerson, especiallyamongnonspecialists(e.g., Montagu1976:164-80;
LeakeyandLewin1978:22,276-80; Dyer 1985;O'Connell1995).
However,as researchon animalintraspecificviolence(includingthe chim-
panzee)has allbutreversedsince the 1960s,humanshavelost theirsupposed
uniquenessand are no longerregardedas an exceptionin killingtheir own
kind.There is no longeranythingparticularly unusualto explain.In fact,the
similaritybetween animalsand humansin simple societies is striking:most
killingin the animalkingdomis carriedout forprey,as it is withhumans(ani-
mal hunting).But there is also substantialkillingof cospecifics-in competi-
tion forthe opportunityto prey,mate,andperformothervitalactivities-as it
is with humans.Indeed,some leadingauthoritieshave claimedthat humans'
intraspecifickillingis in factmuchsmallerthanthatof anymammalian species
studied (Johnson 1972; Wilson 1978:103-5; George Williamsin Dennet
1995:478).They referredto the violent mortalityrates of modem societies.
Tellingly,the gapbetweenhumansandotheranimalspecies appearsto close
when we go to simple,small-scale,prestatesocieties. Furthermore,not only
the scale,but also the form,of humanintraspecifickillingamonghunter-gath-
erersandsimplehorticulturalists no differentfromthatwhich
is fundamentally
takes placeamongotheranimalspecies. Killingis regularlydone againstde-
fenseless opponentswhoare unableto fightbackeffectivelyandthus seriously
jeopardize their assailants.
Human intraspecific killing differed only where humans were truly unique.
We have seen how developed tool-making capacity tilted the human offense/

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
578 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH
defense relation, thus exposing the adult warriors themselves to surprise vio-
lent death. Furthermore, as culturaldevelopment accelerated after the advent
of agriculture,warfaretook increasingly organized and large-scale forms, sim-
ply because human societies themselves became increasingly organized and
larger. While strongly fortified sedentary settlements made the surprise raid
on dwellings much less effective, authoritative political systems, as well as
great investments in stationaryproperty,forced humans into greater and more
deadly face-to-face fighting. The pattern of human warfare now appeared in-
creasingly different from that which prevails in the animal kingdom.

NOTES

1. Numerousstudiesof individualspecies are convenientlysummarizedin Carpen-

ter 1974;HausfaterandHrdy1984;Huntingford andTurner1987;VanHooff1990;and
DennenandFalger1990.The pointhadalreadybeenclearlymadeduringthe heydayof
Lorenz'sideasby TigerandFox 1971:209-10.Similarly,for our chimpanzeecousins,
see Bygott1972;Teleki 1973;Goodall1986;Itani1982;de Waal1996;andWrangham
andPeterson1997.
2. Ardantdu Pick 1947[1868]was probablythe first to have madethis patternthe
cornerstoneof his theoryof war.The conceptwas moreor less generalizedby Wright
1942;Turney-High1949;Otterbein1970;Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1979;andBoehm1984.The
only good generalizedaccountis Keeley 1996:59-69;where I mainlywish to addto
Keeley'sexcellentbookis in suggestingthe evolutionaryrationaleforwhyhumanvio-
lence patternsare so structured.Forparticular cases, see below.
3. Wheeler(1910:118-19,141-59) extensivelyincorporatesthe earliestanthropo-
logicalworks on the subject;see also Strehlow1970:124-25;Pilling1968:158;Roth
1899:15.
4. Expanding inCentralandSouthAmerica,Ferguson
theirargumentto horticulturists
andothershaveclaimedthatWesternarrivalsignificantly alterednativewarfarein a so-
calledtribalzone.The stir they createdwas in factlargelyoverblown.Althoughall but
one of these scholars(Blick1988)havewell recognizedthatthe originalnativewarfare
couldbe very brutaland none of them arguedfor a "pacific"nativepast (Ferguson
1992:225,1995:14;Whitehead1990:160),they have been erroneouslyregardedas
Rousseauite(Keeley 1996),whichwas natural,becauseotherwisetheirpointis very
narrowindeed.
5. Again,althoughEuropeancontactgreatlytransformed andmuchproliferated the
PlainsIndianbison-hunting way of life, no scholaron the subjectholdsthat they had
livedpeacefullybeforeWesterncontact.Forthe archaeology of the millennia-old
evolu-
tionof buffalohunting,andwarfare,in the region,see Ewers1975:399;Keyser1979:41-
48; Frison1987:177-223;andSchlesier1994.
6. Secoy(1953:10-12)mayhavesimilarlyerredwithrespectto the southernseden-
taryandmorecomplexhorticulturists confronting the De Sotoexpeditionin 1539-1543.
He speaksof an Indian"massedinfantry"battleof arrowfiringandthen shock.How-
ever, the more detaileddescriptionsthat he himselfcites, most notablythose of the
expeditionitself,emphasizeencirclement,ambush,dawnsurpriseattack,andthe famil-
iarline of arrowshootingratherthanseriousface-to-facefighting.
7. QuotationsarefromMeggitt1977:17andVayda1976:15,butallauthoritiesrepeat
the samewords.

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THEPATTERN
OFFIGHTING 579
8. Foranothercomprehensivesurveyof prestateandstate "wardeaths,"whichgen-
erallyarrivesat similarconclusions,see Keeley 1996:88-94,195-97.

REFERENCESCITED
Abbie,A.A.,1969,The OriginalAustralians.London:FrederickMuller.
ArdantduPick,CJ.JJ.,1947[1868],BattleStudies.Harrisburg, Pa.:MilitaryService
PublishingCompany.
Baer,D., andD. McEachron,1982,A Reviewof SelectedSociobiological Principles:
Application to HominidEvolution.Journalof SocialandBiologicalStructures5:69-90.
Berndt,R.M.,1962,ExcessandRestraint:SocialConflictamonga New GuineaMoun-
tainPeople.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Blick,J., 1988,GenocidalWarfarein TribalSocietiesas a Resultof European-Induced
CultureConflict.Man23:654-70.
Boas, F., 1966, KwakiutlEthnography(ed. by H. Codere).Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
Boehm,C., 1984,BloodRevenge:The Anthropology of Feudingin Montenegroand
OtherTribalSocieties.Lawrence:UniversityPress of Kansas.
Briggs,J., 1970,Never in Anger:Portraitof an EskimoFamily.Cambridge, Mass.:
HarvardUniversityPress.
Briggs,J., 1994,"WhyDon'tYouKillYourBabyBrother?" The Dynamicsof Peacein
Canadian InuitCamps.Pp. 155-82 in The Anthropology of PeaceandNonviolence(ed.
by L.E.SponselandT. Gregor).London:LynneRienner.
Brown,P., 1978, HighlandPeoples of New Guinea.Cambridge,Eng.: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Brunt,P., 1971,ItalianManpower,225 B.C.-A.D.14. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Burch,E.S., 1974,EskimoWarfarein NorthwestAlaska.Anthropological Papersof
the Universityof Alaska16:1-14.
Burch,E.S., andR. Correll,1972,AllianceandConflict:Inter-Regional Relationsin
NorthAlaska.Pp. 17-39 in Alliancein EskimoSociety(ed. by L. Guemple).Seattle:
Universityof WashingtonPress.
Bygott,J.D., 1972,Cannibalism amongWildChimpanzees. Nature238:410-11.
Carpenter, C.R.,1974,AggressiveBehavioral
Systems.Pp.459-96in PrimateAggres-
sion,Territoriality,andXenophobia (ed.by R.L.Holloway).New York:AcademicPress.
Chagnon,N.A., 1977,Yanomamo: The FiercePeople.2nded. New York:Holt.
Dawkins,R., 1989,The SelfishGene.2nd ed. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Dennen,J. van der, and V. Falger,eds., 1990, Sociobiologyand Conflict.London:
Chapman.
Dennet,D., 1995,Darwin'sDangerousIdea.New York:SimonandSchuster.
de Waal,F., 1996, GoodNatured:The Originsof RightandWrongin Humansand
OtherAnimals.Cambridge, Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.
Dickemann,M., 1979,FemaleInfanticide, Reproductive Strategies,andSocialStrati-
fication:A PreliminaryModel.Pp. 321-73 in EvolutionaryBiologyandHumanSocial
Behavior(ed. by N. ChagnonandW. Irons).NorthScituate,Mass.:Duxbury.
Donald,L., 1997,AboriginalSlaveryon the NorthwestCoastof NorthAmerica.Ber-
keley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Drucker,P., 1951, The Northernand CentralNootkanTribes.Washington,D.C.:
SmithsonianInstitution.
Drucker,P., 1965,Culturesof the NorthPacificCoast.SanFrancisco:Chandler.

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
580 JOURNAL OFANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Dyer,G., 1985,War.London:BodleyHead.
Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I., 1979,The Biologyof Peace andWar:Men,AnimalsandAggres-
sion (trans.by E. Mosbacher).New York:VikingPress.
Ember,M., and C.R.Ember,1994, Cross-Cultural Studiesof Warand Peace. Pp.
185-208 in StudyingWar:Anthropological Perspectives(ed. by S.P. Reynaand R.E.
Downs).Langhorne,Pa.:GordonandBreach.
Ewers,J., 1975,Intertribal Warfareas the Pre::ursorof Indian-White Warfareon the
NorthernGreatPlains.The WesternHistoricalQuarterly6:397-410.
Ferguson,A., 1995[1767],An Essay on the Historyof CivilSociety(ed. by F. Oz-
Salzberger).Cambridge, Eng.:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Ferguson,R.B., 1984,A Reexamination of the Causesof NorthwestCoastWarfare.
Pp. 267-328 in Warfare, Culture, and Environment (ed. by R.B. Ferguson).Orlando,
Fla.:AcademicPress.
Ferguson,R.B.,1992,A SavageEncounter:WesternContactandthe Yanomami War
Complex.Pp. 199-227in Warin the TribalZone(ed. by R.B.FergusonandN. White-
head).SantaFe, N.M.:Schoolof AmericanResearchPress.
Ferguson,R.B., 1995,Yanomami Warfare.SantaFe, N.M.:Schoolof AmericanRe-
searchPress.
Frison,G., 1987,Prehistoric,Plains-Mountain, Large-Mammal, CommunalHunting
Strategies.Pp. 177-223in The Evolutionof HumanHunting(ed. by M. NiteckiandD.
Nitecki).New York:PlenumPress.
Gat,A.,n.d.,The HumanMotivational Complex:Evolutionary Theoryandthe Causes
of Hunter-Gatherer Fighting.Unpub.MS in author'spossession.
Goldschmidt, W., 1988,Inducementto MilitaryParticipation in TribalSocieties.Pp.
47-65 in The SocialDynamicsof PeaceandConflict(ed.by R. RubinsteinandM. Fos-
ter). Boulder,Colo.:Westview.
Goodall,J., 1986,The Chimpanzeesof Gombe.Cambridge, Mass.:BelknapPress.
Gunther,E., 1972,IndianLifeon the NorthwestCoatof NorthAmerica,as Seen by
the EarlyExplorersandFurTradersduringthe LastDecadesof the EighteenthCen-
tury.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Hallpike,C.R.,1977, Bloodshedand Vengeancein the PapuanMountains.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Hausfater,G., andS.B. Hrdy,eds., 1984,Infanticide: Comparative andEvolutionary
Perspectives.New York:Aldine.
Hayden,B., 1994,Competition,Labor,andComplexHunter-Gatherers. Pp. 223-41
in Key Issues in Hunter-Gatherer Research(ed. by E.S. BurchandL.S.Ellanna).Ox-
ford:Berg.
Heider,K., 1970,The DugumDani.Chicago:Aldine.
Huntingford, F.,andA.Turner,1987,AnimalConflict.LondonandNewYork:Chapman
andHall.
KillingamongNon-Human
Itani,J., 1982,Intraspecific Primates.Journalof Socialand
Biological Structures 5:361-68.
Johnson,R.N.,1972,Aggressionin ManandAnimals.Philadelphia: Saunders.
Keeley,L., 1996,WarbeforeCivilization. New York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Keyser,J.D., 1979,The PlainsIndianWarComplexandthe RockArtof Writing-on-
Stone,Alberta,Canada. Journalof FieldArchaeology6:41-48.
Kimber,R.G.,1990,Hunter-Gatherer Demography: The RecentPastin CentralAus-
tralia.Pp. 160-75 in Hunter-Gatherer Demography(ed. by B. MeehanandN. White).
Sydney:Universityof Sydney.

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THEPATTERN
OFFIGHTING 581
Knauft,B., 1987,ReconsideringViolencein SimpleSocieties:Homicideamongthe
Gebusiof New Guinea.CurrentAnthropology 28:457-500.
Koch,K-F.,1974,WarandPeaceinJalemo:The Managementof Conflictin Highland
New Guinea.Cambridge, Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.
Krause,A., 1970[1885],TheTlingitIndians:Resultsof a Tripto the NorthwestCoast
of Americaandthe BeringStraits(trans.by E. Gunther).Seattle:Universityof Wash-
ingtonPress.
Leakey,R., and R. Lewin,1978, Peopleof the Lake:MankindandIts Beginnings.
New York:AnchorPress.
Lee, R., 1979,The !KungSan.New York:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Lee, R., 1982,Politics,SexualandNon-Sexual,in Egalitarian Society.Pp. 37-59 in
PoliticsandHistoryin BandSocieties(ed.by E. LeacockandR. Lee).New York:Cam-
bridgeUniversityPress.
Lewis,G., 1995,PaybackandRitualin War:New Guinea.Pp.24-36 in War:A Cruel
Necessity?(ed. by R.A.HindeandH.E.Watson).London:Tauris.
Livingstone,F., 1967,The Effectsof Warfareon the Biologyof the HumanSpecies.
Pp.3-16 in War:The Anthropology of ArmedConflictandAggression(ed.by M. Fried,
M. Harris,andR. Murphy).GardenCity,N.Y.:NaturalHistoryPress.
Lorenz,K., 1966,OnAggression.London:Methuen.
Lourandos,H., 1997, Continentof Hunter-Gatherers: New Perspectivesin Austra-
lianPrehistory.Cambridge, Eng.:CambridgeUniversity Press.
MacDonald,G., 1979, KitwangaFort NationalHistoricSite, SkeenaRiver,British
Columbia:HistoricalResearchand Analysisof StructuralRemains.Ottawa:National
Museumof Man.
Meggitt,MJ., 1962, Desert People:A Studyof the WalbiriAboriginesof Central
Australia.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Meggitt,M.J.,1977,BloodIs TheirArgument:Warfareamongthe MaeEngaof the
New GuineaHighlands.PaloAlto,Calif.:Mayfield.
Milner,G.,E. Anderson,andV. Smith,1991,Warfarein LatePrehistoricWest-Cen-
tralIllinois.AmericanAntiquity56:581-603.
Mishkin,R., 1940,RankandWarfareamongthe PlainsIndians.Seattle:Universityof
WashingtonPress.
Montagu,A., 1976,The Natureof HumanAggression.New York:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Morgan,J., 1980[1852],The Life andAdventuresof WilliamBuckley:Thirty-Two
Yearsa Wandereramongthe Aboriginesof the UnexploredCountryroundPortPhilip.
Canberra: AustralianNationalUniversityPress.
Morris,D., 1967,The NakedApe.London:JonathanCape.
Nelson, E.W., 1983[1899],The Eskimo about Bering Strait. Washington,D.C.:
SmithsonianInstitution.
O'Connell,R., 1995,Rideof the SecondHorseman:The BirthandDeathof War.New
York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Oswalt,W., 1967,AlaskanEskimos.SanFrancisco:Chandler.
Otterbein,K., 1970, The Evolutionof War:A Cross-Cultural Study.New Haven,
Conn.:HRAFPress.
Otterbein,K., 1994,Higi ArmedCombat.Pp. 75-96 in FeudingandWarfare(by K.
Otterbein).Longhorne,Pa.:GordonandBreach.
Pilling,A., 1968,Discussioncomments.P. 158in Manthe Hunter(ed.by R. Lee and
I. DeVore).Chicago:Aldine.

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
582 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH
Pitt, R., 1978,WarfareandHominidBrainEvolution.Journalof TheoreticalBiology
72:551-75.
Rappaport, R.,1967,PigsfortheAncestors.NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress.
Ridley,M., 1996,The Originsof Virtue:HumanInstinctsandthe Evolutionof Coop-
eration.New York:Viking.
Robarchek, C., andC.J.Robarchek, 1992,Culturesof WarandPeace:A Comparative
StudyofWaorani andSemai.Pp.189-213in AggressionandPeacefulnessin Humansand
OtherPrimates(ed.byJ. SilverbergandJ.P.Gray).New York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Roth,H.L.,1899,The Aboriginesof Tasmania.Halifax,Eng.:F. King.
Schlesier,K., ed., 1994, PlainsIndians,A.D.500-1500:The Archaeological Past of
HistoricalGroups.Norman:Universityof Oklahoma Press.
Secoy,F.R.,1953,Changing MilitaryPatternsontheGreatPlains.NewYork:Augustin.
Shott,M.J.,1992,OnRecentTrendsin the Archaeologyof Foragers:Kalahari Revi-
sionismandIts Archaeological Implications.Man27:843-71.
Smith,J.M.,andG.R.Price,1973,The Logicof AnimalConflicts.Nature246:15-18.
Smith,M., 1938,The WarComplexof the PlainsIndians.Proceedingsof the Ameri-
can Philosophical Society78:425-64.
Spencer,B., andF.J.Gillen,1899,The NativeTribesof CentralAustralia.London:
Macmillan.
Spencer,R., 1959,The NorthAlaskanEskimo.Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Insti-
tution.
Storr,A., 1968,HumanAggression.London:PenguinBooks.
Strehlow,T.G.H.,1970,Geography andthe TotemicLandscapein CentralAustralia.
Pp.92-140 in Australian AboriginalAnthropology (ed.by R.M.Berndt).Nedlands:Uni-
versity of Western AustraliaPress.
Symons,D., 1979,The Evolutionof HumanSexuality.New York:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Tacon,P., andC. Chippindale, 1994,Australia'sAncientWarriors:ChangingDepic-
tionsof Fightingin the RockArtof ArnhemLand,N.T. Cambridge Archaeological Jour-
nal 4:211-48.
Teleki, G., 1973, The PredatoryBehaviorof WildChimpanzees.Lewisburg,Pa.:
BucknellUniversityPress.
Tiger,L., andR. Fox, 1971,The ImperialAnimal.New York:ReinhartandWinston.
Turney-High, H.H.,1949,PrimitiveWarfare.Columbia: Universityof SouthCarolina
Press.
Van Hooff,J.A.R.A.M.,1990, IntergroupCompetitionand Conflictin Animalsand
Man.Pp. 25-54 in SociobiologyandConflict(ed. byJ. van der DennenandV. Falger).
London:Chapman andHall.
Vayda,A., 1976,Warin EcologicalPerspective.New York:Plenum.
Warner,W.L.,1930-1931.MurnginWarfare.Oceania1:457-94.
Warner,W.L.,1958[1937],A BlackCivilization: A SocialStudyof anAustralian Tribe.
New York:Harper.
Wheeler,G., 1910, The Tribeand IntertribalRelationsin Australia.London:John
Murray.
Whitehead,N., 1990,The SnakeWarriors-Sonsof the Tiger'sTeeth:A Descriptive
Analysisof CaribWarfare,ca. 1500-1820.Pp. 146-70 in The Anthropology of War(ed.
byJ. Haas).New York:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Wilmsen,E.N., andJ.R.Denbow,1990,The Paradigmatic Historyof San-Speaking
PeoplesandCurrentAttemptsat Revision.CurrentAnthropology 31:489-525.

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THEPATTERN
OFFIGHTING 583
Wilson,E.O.,1978,OnHumanNature.Cambridge, Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.
Wrangham, R., andD. Peterson,1997,DemonicMales:Apes andthe Originsof Hu-
manViolence.London:Bloomsbury.
Wright,Q., 1942,A Studyof War.2 vols. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Yesner,D.R., 1994, Seasonalityand Resource"Stress"amongHunter-Gatherers:
ArchaeologicalSignatures.Pp. 151-68 in KeyIssuesin Hunter-Gatherer
Research(ed.
by E.S. BurchandL.S.Ellanna).Oxford:Berg.
Yost,J.A.,1981,TwentyYearsof Contact:The Mechanismof Changein Wao(Auca)
Culture.Pp.677-704 in CulturalTransformation andEthnicityin ModemEcuador(ed.
by N.A.Whitten).Urbana:Universityof IllinoisPress.

This content downloaded on Thu, 24 Jan 2013 07:00:39 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions