HISTORICALESSAY

KEITH F. OTTERBEIN
Departmentof Anthropology
University Buffalo
at
StateUniversityof New York
Buffalo,NY 14261

A History of Research on Warfare in Anthropology

I identifyfourmajorperiods:Foundation
In thisbriefhistoryof warfareresearch, Period,ClassicalPeriod,GoldenAge,
andRecentPeriod.Themythof thepeacefulsavagearosein theClassicalPeriodratherthaninthelaterperiods,as argued
by Lawrence Keeley.Themythhasitsoriginsin anearlyevolutionaryapproach aswellasin cultural
relativism.
Itcontin-
uesto playa majorrolein warfare researchwithsomeanthropologists
arguingforthepeaceable natureof man,whileoth-
ersarguethatmanhasengagedin warfarefromthebeginningof prehistory. [war,theories
of warfare,historyof warfare
research,mythofpeaceful savage]

Warfare researchin anthropology

has become
prominentin the past decade, both within and
outside the field. Science writerBruce Bower
(1988, 1991, 1995) has broughtanthropologicalresearch
on violence and war to the attentionof the generalpublic,
while two anthropologists(one an archaeologist,the other
a primatologist)have publishedbooks thathave been re-
viewed in bothscholarlyjournalsandpublicationsoutside
the academic disciplines (Keeley 1996; Wranghamand
Peterson1996). Moreover,scholarsoutsideof anthropol-
ogy have recentlyfamiliarizedthemselves with research
on warfarein anthropology:therehave been majorexcur-
sions into anthropologyby historians,political scientists,
and biologists seeking and utilizing informationon war-
fare,in particularprehistoric"war"andthe warof nonliter-
ate peoples (e.g., Dawson 1996; Ehrenreich1997; Ferrill
1985, 1997;Gabriel1990;Keegan 1993;McRandle1994;
O'Connell1995).
This "history"is not intendedto be comprehensive,but
to lay out in broadbrushstrokeswhatI believe arethe four
major periods in the study of warfare.I have accepted
Stocking'sClassicalPeriod(1920-1960) as one time seg-
ment (1989:210), automaticallycreatingthree segments.
The segmentbeforethe ClassicalPeriodI have called the
FoundationPeriod,andthe segmentafterthe ClassicalPe-
riod I have dividedat 1980. My reasonfor selectingthis
date is that the frequencyof publicationson warfarerap-
idly increasedduringa 20-year period,then plateauedat
1980 (data,not interpretation,from Ferguson 1988). Di-
viding the thirdsegmentcreatedtwo periods,the Golden
Age andthe RecentPeriod,for a totalof fourperiods.
A brief, accuratehistoryof researchon warfarein an-
thropologyis requiredto counterthe inaccuratetreatment
presentedin LawrenceKeeley's book, WarBefore Civili-
zation (1996). Keeley arguesthat a myth of the peaceful
savagearoseafter1960 andbecamethe dominantperspec-
tive in anthropology.The task he sets for himself is to re-
fute the myth.The historypresentedhereshowshis history
to be incorrect.It does not attemptto show thattherewas
no myth,nordoes it challengethe accuracyof the "mythof
the warlikesavage"(my term),which he substitutes.How
he createda new mythand why I believe it also is inaccu-
rate,I havedescribedelsewhere(1997).
My approachto constructinghistoryis to considerthe
receptionof publishedworks.I am concernednot withthe
validityof researchresultsas we view themtoday,buthow
a person's contemporariesviewed the results (DeNora
1995:123-129). (Althoughat some pointsin the presenta-
tion I felt it was appropriate
to make "corrections.")In my
previous publicationson the history of warfareresearch
(1973, 1994b),I have triedto hold this perspective.I also
tryto elucidatehow the largerworldimpactedthese works.
For warfarestudies,colonialexpansion,WorldWarII, and
the Vietnamwar in particularstronglyinfluencedthe re-
search undertakenas well as the results obtained.Cur-
rently,ethnicwarsand the breakupof statesare influenc-
ing researchactivity.Eachof the majorperiodswas shaped
by one of these events. I have also not hesitatedto use

AmericanAnthropologist 101(4):794-805. Copyright? 2000, AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation

This content downloaded from 131.130.165.107 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:58:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

myself as an "informant"for the last two periods,since I
was a graduatestudentin anthropologyat the end of the
ClassicalPeriodanddecidedin 1961 to focus my research,
in part,on the studyof warfare(1994b:xvii).
Foundation Period (c. 1850-c. 1920)
I have chosen to begin with the mid-nineteenthcentury;
it is at this time thatethnographicdatacollectedin the field
become availableto scholarswhom we later deem to be
anthropologists,such as Lewis H. Morgan,EdwardB. Ty-
lor, andFranzBoas. The studyof warfarewas not a central
concernfor these early anthropologists.I have suggested
threereasonswhy it was not (Otterbein1973:926):(1) War
was not an ongoingphenomenonwhile they wereconduct-
ing theirfieldwork;(2) they were morallyopposedto war,
some pacifists;and (3) they failed to appreciatethe impor-
tantrole thatwar can play in the affairsof nativepeoples;
they appearnot to have focusedtheirreadinguponhistori-
ans andpoliticalscientists.
Although warfareitself was not a centralconcern to
these earlyanthropologists,warfarepracticeswere often a
partof ethnographicdescriptions.Notes and Queries,first
publishedby the Royal AnthropologicalInstitutein 1874,
containeda section on war (Vincent 1990:58).This book
providedguidelinesfor amateurethnographers. Although
many of the peoples encounteredby ethnographershad
been "pacified"in the processof colonialexpansion,older
informantswere able to provideaccountsof theirmilitary
exploits.Indeed,by the time Tylorwrotehis famouspaper
"Ona Methodof Investigatingthe Developmentof Institu-
tions"in 1888, now consideredto be the firstcross-cultural
study,therewere enoughdatafor him to includemarriage
by capture,often the outcomeof a raid,as one of his vari-
ables: "Whenthe accountsof nationalcustom are classi-
fied they show that capture(which belongs to over one
hundredof the peoples scheduled)can be moreor less ac-
curatelydividedinto threekinds":hostile capture,connu-
bial capture,and formalcapture(1888:258).Tylor's theo-
reticalframeworkwas explicitlyevolutionary."Theeffect
of capturein breakingup the maternalsystem,and substi-
tutingthe paternalfor it, has thus to be takeninto account
as a seriousfactorin socialdevelopment"(1888:259).
By 1915, more data were available to Hobhouse,
Wheeler,andGinsberg,who includedboththe presenceof
war and the treatmentof captives in their cross-cultural
study.Again, the theoreticalframeworkwas evolutionary:
their majorindependentvariablewas the level of subsis-
tence technology(LowerHunters,HigherHunters,Incipi-
ent Agriculture, Lower Pastoral, Agriculture-Pure,
HigherPastoral,HighestAgriculture).Two of theirmajor
findingspertainto war:(1) Onlya few societieswere with-
out war (13 of 298) and only about 12%of hunterswere
peaceful (7 out of 56); (2) the killing of captivestakenin
war declined with increasingtechnologicallevels. In all
This content downloaded from 131.130.165.107 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:58:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OTTERBEIN / RESEARCH ON WARFARE 795
but the highest agriculturalists,the killing of captives,in-
cludingnon-combatants, occurredfor about75%of the so-
cieties. Slaveryat the highestlevel accountsfor the decline
(1915:228-233).' Besides Tylor and Hobhouse,Wheeler,
and Ginsberg,otheranthropologistsin the FoundationPe-
riod arrangedcustomsin evolutionarysequences.For ex-
ample,Lane-FoxPitt-Riversplacedweaponsin a develop-
mental sequence from simple to more complex
(Pitt-Rivers1906;Vincent 1990:61-63). He also wrotethe
section on war for Notes and Queries(Vincent 1990:58);
the sixth edition has five pages on war and 12 pages on
weapons(RoyalAnthropologicalInstituteof GreatBritain
andIreland1951).
The two salientcharacteristicsof the FoundationPeriod
were:(1) a strongethnographicdatabasebecameavailable
thatincludedinformationon warfare,and(2) themajorand
indeed only theoreticalframeworkutilized for studying
war and military practices was evolutionary.Customs,
practices,or weapons were placed in sequencesor they
were linkedor relatedto stages of an evolutionarytypol-
ogy, such as levels of subsistencetechnology.The evolu-
tionaryapproach,in particularthe use of a developmental
typology,in spite of the anti-evolutionismof Boas andhis
studentsin the earlypartof the twentiethcentury,persisted
as the primarytheoreticalapproachused by anthropolo-
gists to studywar. Strangely,it dominatedthinkingabout
warduringthe secondof the fourmajorperiods.
Classical Period (c. 1920-c. 1960)
This periodizationis takendirectlyfromthe writingsof
GeorgeStocking,who refersto this 40-yearspanof timeas
the ClassicalPeriod(1976, 1989:210).It is, of course,the
period in American anthropologydominatedby Franz
Boas and his students.Anti-evolutionismreachedits peak
and culturalrelativismflourished.It was also the periodin
which "themyth of the peacefulsavage"emerged,to use
the subtitle of archaeologistLawrence Keeley's book
(1996). The mythis describedby Keeley as the erroneous
belief thatprimitivewarfare-a termused by Keeley-is
desultory, ineffective, "unprofessional,"and unserious
(1996:11).The myth includesthreeaspects:the notionof
prehistoricpeace or the "pacifiedpast"(prehistoricpeo-
ples did not have warfare)(1996:17-24), the belief that
hunter-gatherers or band-levelsocieties did not engage in
warfare(disputedby Ember [1978] and Dentan [1988]),
and the assumptionthatwhen war occurredamongtribal-
level societiesit was ritualistic,game-likein nature-with
the first wounding the battle would stop (Chappleand
Coon 1942:616,628-635; ChappleandCoon,however,do
not considerthese assertionsto be a myth). Perhapsthe
most succinctstatementof the thirdaspectof the mythap-
pearsin the nextperiod(Naroll1966:17):
surpriseis not a universallyappliedmilitarytactic.Some
primitivetribessimplyline up at extrememissilerangeand
796 * VOL. 101, No. 4
AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST
workup fromhurlinginsultsto hurlingrocksat eachother;
warusuallyendswhenthefirstenemyis
thistournament-like
killed. This kind of combatis a prearrangedtryst,like duels
undertheEuropean
codeduello.
I know of no tribethatfits thisdescription.
Keeley is correctthat a "mythof the peaceful savage"
developed,buthe is incorrectwhenhe attributesit to Harry
Hoijer, working for Quincy Wright, and to Harry H.
Turney-High(1996:11). Hoijerdid a cross-culturalstudy
of war in 1929, using a sampleof over 650 peoples,which
was incorporatedinto Wright's massive A Studyof War
([1942]1964:53-100, 412, 527-557). Hoijer showed that
only 8% of huntershad no war (he used the technological
levels developed by Hobhouse,Wheeler,and Ginsberg);
on the other hand, he showed that 75% of huntershad
"social war"([1942]1964:556)definedas "mildwarfare"
where "no indicationwas found of fighting for definite
economic or political purposes" ([1942]1964:546).
Slaughterof enemy could be an object of social war, but
the objectwas morelikely to be trophiesandhonors(what
I have called a prestigegoal of war,Otterbein1970:63-67,
146). Keeley furtherinforms us that Hoijer "later co-
authoredthe most widely used anthropologytextbookof
the 1950s and 1960s (Beals and Hoijer 1965 [1st ed.
1953]). Thus anthropologistsdid not need to consult
Wright'smassivebook to be influencedby it (1996:203)."
In theirtextbook,however,Beals andHoijerdo notdiscuss
war, but only political organization.Their first stage or
"provisionalcategory"of a three-stagesequencewas "no
true political organization,no organized warfare,"not
peaceful hunters.2The othertwo stages were "politically
organizedas bands, tribes, or confederacies"and "con-
quest states"([1953]1959:502-503; 524). Thus it is un-
likely thatany anthropologistslearnedthe myth from this
textbook. Hoijer should not be blamed for the myth.
Strangely,Wrightgives WilliamLloyd Warnercreditfor
readingthe chapteron primitivewar (Wright[1942]1964:
vii, 53-100), while not giving Hoijer credit for the re-
search.If a textbookis to be blamedfor the myth,a much
bettercandidateis PrinciplesofAnthropology,by Chapple
andCoon (1942:628-635), whichis notcitedby Keeley.
Although the Beals and Hoijer textbook was widely
read, Turney-Highseldom was (1949). The forewordto
the second edition by political scientist David Rapaport
tells us thatPrimitiveWarwas rejectedby Tumrney-High's
colleagues (Tumrney-High 1971:v). I think the book was
largely unnoticed;anthropologists,like everyoneelse, do
not readwhatthey arenot interestedin, andtherewerefew
anthropologistsinterestedin war. The pictureof a Jivaro
shrunkenhead on the dustjacket of the firsteditionmight
have turnedaway many anthropologists.(The dustjacket
on the secondeditionhas no picture.)The only anthropolo-
gists I know of who readandcited Tumey-Highwere my-
self, Melville Herskovits(1948:330,344),3 AndrewVayda
This content downloaded from 131.130.165.107 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:58:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
* DECEMBER
1999
(1956:3, 250-252, 256, 258, 261), W. W. Newcomb Jr.
(1960:322-323, 328), MortonFried (1961:137, 140), and
RaoulNaroll(1966:17).4I can speakonly for myself, butI
did not derive the notion from readingTumey-Highthat
bandandtriballevel peopleswereeitherpeacefulor waged
warin a desultoryway; whathe said was thatthey did not
wage war efficiently, they had not passed "the military
horizon."I knew of examplesof bandsandtribesthathad,
yet I tested the notion and found thatwhile therewas no
clear "militaryhorizon,"his generalizationswere essen-
tiallycorrect(Otterbein1970:70-76, see table17 on p. 74).
Turney-Highhas recently been cited by Joan Vincent
(1990:254-255), John Keegan (1993:89-94), and
LawrenceKeeley (1996:9-17), and has been creditedby
Keeley withbeinginfluential.
If the myth of the peaceful savage shouldnot be attri-
buted to Hoijer,as filteredthroughWright,and Tumey-
High, what is its "origin"?I believe the myth has deep
rootsin theFoundationPeriod,for it canbe directlyrelated
to the evolutionaryapproachthat was employed during
thatperiod.5The mythof the peacefulsavageis embedded
in the developmentaltypology.By definitionan evolution-
ary sequencemust show change. If war was a monstrous
scourgein the twentiethcentury(rememberthe Classical
Periodfollows WorldWarI andencompassesWorldWar
II), it must have been less common and less lethal in the
past. Although the Classical Period is viewed as anti-
evolutionary,the developmentalframeworkpersisted.A
primeexamplecomes fromanti-evolutionist RobertLowie,
who, in TheOriginof theState(1927), seeks the genesis of
statehoodin the recognitionof obligationsto unrelated
membersof the samecommunity.This establishedterrito-
rial ties, which later came to take precedenceover blood
ties. Exampleswere drawnfrom the Yurokof California
andthe Ifugaoof Luzon.
Major figures in the field of anthropologywriting on
warfare subscribedto the evolutionarytypology. Ruth
Benedictprepareda paperin 1939 thatdescribesthe fight-
ing of manyprimitivepeoples as being of the "non-lethal
species of warfare,"while modem warfareis describedas
being of the "lethalvariety."The paperwas not published
until afterBenedict's death, but I presumeit was circu-
lated.In 1959MargaretMeadselectedit for inclusionin an
anthology of Benedict's writings. Bronislaw Malinowski
in 1941 presented a developmental sequence in which the
first three phases of war are nonserious; the third phase is
armed raids for sport (1941b). Malinowski argued that
warfare only slowly evolved as a mechanism of organized
force for the pursuit of national policies. He described six
types of armed contest: (1) fighting between group mem-
bers-the prototype of criminal behavior, (2) fighting as a
juridical mechanism for the adjustment of differences, (3)
armed raids for sport, (4) warfare as political expression of
early nationalism, (5) military expeditions of organized
pillage, and (6) war as an instrument of national policy.

Each type was an entirelydifferent"culturalphase"in the
developmentof organizedfighting.This articlewas an ex-
panded version of an earlier presentation(Malinowski
1941a).
At approximatelythe same time, Eliot Chapple and
CarletonCoon (1942) publisheda textbookin which they
arguedthatprimitivewar is more closely relatedto game
behaviorthanto warfarewagedby modemnations.The ar-
gument is based in partupon the notion that warfarebe-
tween tribalpeoplesis oftenarrangedmutuallyin the same
mannerthat sportingevents, such as lacrosse games, are
arranged(1942:616, 628-635).6 Leslie White (1949) in a
similarfashionarguedthattribalpeopleshad nothingseri-
ous to fight over, while a followerof White,W. W. New-
comb Jr. (1960), largelyreiteratedWright'ssequence.An
avowed culturalevolutionist,White (1949) arguedthatas
man's culturalheritageincreased,economic and political
goals became the causes of war. According to White
(1949:131),"warfareis virtuallynon-existentamongmany
primitive tribes."When cultureshave progressedto the
point where it is worth fighting over huntingor fishing
grounds,grazinglandsor fertilevalleys, warfareemerges.
Newcomb (1960), buildinguponWhite's analysis,deline-
ated four types of warfare, correspondingclosely to
Wright's types. Type 1 warfareconsisted of brief skir-
mishes betweenhuntingandgatheringbands.Type 2 war-
fare was designatedas primitivewarfare(Wright's"social
war"). Newcomb informed us that primitive war was
"crude, sportive, brief, generally unorganizedconflicts"
(1960:328), and that "small bands of warriorscan be
sparedfrom time to time for a few days or weeks, to en-
gage in the sportof war"(1960:328-329). (This is an ex-
cellent statementof the mythandit is not citedby Keeley.)
Type 3 warfarewas "true"warfare,involving economic
causes.And finally,Type4 warfareconstitutedworldwars
based upon the industrial revolution. Benedict, Mali-
nowski,andChappleandCoon surelywere not influenced
by Wrightor Tumey-High,since they were writingbefore
the appearanceof the works of the lattertwo. Newcomb,
however,cites Tumey-High(1960:322-323, 328).
In additionto the logic of the developmentalsequence
thatassumeswarfareto be simplerat the lower levels, it is
possible that the major figures listed above, as well as other
anthropologists, were unfamiliar with the findings of Hob-
house, Wheeler, and Ginsberg (1915) and Hoijer in Wright
([1942]1964), reviewed above, namely that only from 8%
to 12% of hunters had no war, and that killing of captives
occurred in 75% of simpler societies (Hoijer's social war
by definition included the killing of the enemy as a goal). It
is also possible that they had encountered the evidence, and
distorted it, perhaps in the following manner: since the
only peoples without war are hunter-gatherers, hunter-
gatherers are classified as peaceful, and since about 25% of
tribal peoples do not kill captives, nonliterate peoples-in
This content downloaded from 131.130.165.107 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:58:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OTTERBEIN / RESEARCH ON WARFARE 797
contrastto modem nationswho bombedcivilian popula-
tion centers-engage in nonlethalwarfare.Majorfigures
were probablyfamiliarwith Notes and Queriesandmight
have read that "amongthe simplest societies warfareis
often limited to sporadic conflicts between contiguous
groups"(Royal AnthropologicalInstituteof GreatBritain
andIreland1951:141).
Another possible-and I think likely-reason for the
emergenceof the myth of the peacefulsavagein the Clas-
sical Period was the developmentof culturalrelativism.
For culturalrelativismto succeedas a liberalizing,human-
izing point of view, nonliteratepeoples had to be gentle
and benign, not savage andbrutal.The inclinationof eth-
nographersto ignore the meanbehaviorof "theirpeople"
while describingthem in admirableterms is called "the
bias of romanticism"(Rohneret al. 1973:286-288). This
romanticizingof nonliteratepeoples went hand-in-hand
with culturalrelativism.Edgertonrefers to this as "the
myth of primitiveharmony"(1992). Thus peoples known
to have had warfare are described as peaceful. The
Arapesh,who were indeed warlike(Fortune1939), were
describedby Mead as childlike;her Samoanslikewise do
not have war.The Zuni,also witha historyof seriouswar-
fare, are described by Benedict as Apollonian (1934).
Moreover,I suspectthe nearabsenceof treatmentof war-
fare in anthropologicaltextbooksderives from the influ-
ence of culturalrelativism.Crimeand otherforms of vio-
lence, includingcapital punishment,also have not made
theirway into most textbooks.(Emberand Ember[1996:
430-456] is an exception.)But this is slowly changing-it
is hard to exclude the now famous, warlikeYanomamo
fromtextbooks.Yet, therehavebeeneffortsto describethe
Yanomamoas unwarlike(Sponsel 1998), and their pri-
mary ethnographerhas droppedthe subtitle"The Fierce
People"from the 4th and 5th editionsof his book (Chag-
non 1992 and 1997).
Throughoutthe ClassicalPeriod,however,"solid"eth-
nographicstudies, publishedas both articles and mono-
graphs, made their appearance.Among the descriptive
studiesof this periodwere a seriesof publishedColumbia
University Ph.D. dissertationsthat utilized a diffusion-
acculturationor culturecontactapproach.Examinationof
a list of ColumbiaUniversitydissertationsfrom 1938 to
1955 reveals 10 that dealt directly with warfare and 8 that
partially did. Archaeologist William D. Strong appears
from introductions to have been the major influence on
many of these ethnohistorical studies. They included stud-
ies by Mishkin (1940) on Plains Indian Warfare, Bram
(1941) on Inca Militarism, Lewis (1942) on the Blackfoot
and the fur trade, Codere (1950) on Kwakiutl potlatching
and warfare, Jablow (1951) on Cheyenne traders, and Se-
coy (1953) on changing military patterns on the Great
Plains. All six were published as monographs of the Amer-
ican Ethnological Society. Together with the ethnographic
798 AMERICAN * VOL. 101, No. 4 * DECEMBER
ANTHROPOLOGIST 1999

data on warfarefrom the FoundationPeriod, the ethno- Table 1. Theories of the Causes and Effects of War.
graphicstudiesof the ClassicalPeriodformedthe database
Turney-Highdrewupon,as well as thatused laterby cross- Causes of War Effects of War Common Variable
culturalresearcherswho chose probabilitysamples (see
GoldenAge, below).Thesestudiesshouldhave led anthro- (War as a Dependent (Waras an
Variable) Independent
pologiststo rejectthe mythof the peacefulsavage,butthey Variable)
did not. They becamea smorgasbordfromwhichthe theo-
rists could pick to construct their developmental se- Innateaggression On species Biological man
quences. Frustration-aggression Ethnocentrism Hatredof enemy
The salientcharacteristicof the ClassicalPeriodwas the
Diffusion Acculturation Spreadof invention
myth of the peacefulsavage.People with no war or ritual
waroccupiedthe lowerlevels of developmentalsequences. Physical Ecological Natural
The mythis a directoutgrowthof evolutionarythoughtthat environment adaptation environment
became firmly rootedin the FoundationPeriod.Once the Goals of war Patternsand theme Values of men
myth sproutedin the ClassicalPeriod it was nurturedby Social structure On social Social groupings
culturalrelativism.Well established,the mythcame to in- organization
fluenceresearchin the nexttwo majorperiods.
Militarypreparedness Survivalvalue Efficient military
organization
Golden Age (c. 1960-c. 1980)
Culturalevolution Originof the state Level of
Publicationsby anthropologistsdealing with war dra- sociopolitical
maticallyincreasedin the 1960s. For this reasonI have la- complexity
beled this decade and the next a Golden Age. Ferguson's
bar graphshowing numberof publicationsper yeardocu-
ments the increase(1988: facing i). Not until about 1980 me now thatI movedprogressivelyfromgeneticto cultural
do heightsof the barson the graphlevel off. Althoughthe theories.As the 1970sproceeded,one theoryon the list be-
numberof publicationsdropsfor the years 1980-85, then came singularlyimportant-ecological adaptation(Otter-
rises in 1986, I have interpretedthis as a plateau.I am fit- bein 1977:695-696; Vayda 1976). Those anthropologists
ting a curve to the bar graph.Fergusoninterpretsthis pe- who used an ecologicalapproachviewed warfareas an im-
rioddifferently(personalcommunication,1997): portantaspectof social life. Those who were criticsof the
I see thelaterperiodsa littledifferently
thanmightbeinferred approachviewed warfareas dysfunctional,not functional
fromthegraphin my bibliography. Ratherthana rise,thena (Hallpike 1973). Sides were beginning to form; by the
plateau,I see a rise,fall,andriseagainof interest.Warstudies 1990s they had crystallized(see RecentPeriod).The eco-
grewthroughthesixtiesandintothemidseventies.Thelate logical approachremainswithus todayin RobertDentan's
seventiesI see as declininginterest.Theecologicalparadigm studiesof peacefulpeoples(1992).
hadlostitsheadof steam.... I thinkif my bibliography were Ethnographicclassics of bothwarlikeandpeacefulpeo-
extended,we wouldseeanother majorincreaseinthelate80s. ples were produced. The warlike groups included the
Theadventof "ethnicwarfare" around1992prevented a simi- Yanomamo(Chagnon1968),the Maring(Rapaport1968),
larfalloff of interestwiththeendof thecoldwar,andas you andthe Dani (Heider1970, 1979).The peacefulgroupsin-
note,createda newsubdisciplinary focus. cluded the Bushmen(Thomas1958), the Pygmies (Turn-
Divale's bibliography([1971]1973)andmy reviewarticles bull 1961), andthe Semai (Dentan1968). Some of anthro-
(Otterbein 1973, 1977) provide references, while Fer- pology's best known films were made about the lives of
guson's introduction(1984) and bibliography(1988) in- these peoples: e.g., The Feast (Yanomamo) (National
clude most of those references and additional ones from AudiovisualCenter,1970), Dead Birds (Dani) (Contem-
the next 15 years. porary Films/McGraw-Hill, 1964), and The Hunters
During this period, theories of the causes and effects of (Bushmen) (ContemporaryFilms, 1958). The warlike
war proliferated, classic ethnographies were produced, and groupsstruckat the heartof the mythof the peacefulsav-
cross-cultural studies, some using a developmental ap- age- herewere tribalpeopleswho annihilatedenemy vil-
proach similar to those used in the previous two periods, lages, while the peacefulgroupsseemedto substantiatethe
flourished. In my first review article, I identified 16 theo- mythat least for hunter-gatherersandsimplehorticultural-
ries or approaches. Each pair of theories focused upon a ists. The peacefulnessof thesethreegroupshas been ques-
common variable (see Table 1), which was either the cause tioned. The Bushmen once waged war, and they lost. It
of or the effect of war (Otterbein 1973:927, 1994b:165). was pointedout as earlyas 1962by ElmanServicethatthe
Although in that review I stated "there is no inherent logic Bushmenwere a "defeatedpeople"(p. 49). The Pygmies
to the orderin whichthe pairsarepresented,"it appearsto long ago lost theirpolitical independence.They are well

This content downloaded from 131.130.165.107 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:58:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

knownto be in a symbioticrelationshipwith Bantuvillag-
ers (theydo not even have theirown language).The Semai
have been raidedby their neighborsfor decades.Indeed,
their peacefulnessis seen by their primaryethnographer,
RobertDentan,as a responseto slave raids (1992). Fur-
thermore,Dentanhas periodicallypointedout thatthe Se-
mai can be violent (1995). These threecultures,neverthe-
less, have been the stock-in-tradefor those who arguethat
man's fundamentalnatureis to be peaceful(i.e., not to go
to war)(Sponsel1996:107-113).
Anotherethnographicclassic fromthe beginningof this
periodis The Tiwi of NorthAustralia,by C. W. M. Hart
andArnoldPilling(1960). The book was one of the "best-
sellers"from the Holt, Rinehartand Winston paperback
ethnographyseries. Although not a peaceful society, the
Tiwi enteredthe anthropologicalworld as a society with
"ritualwarfare."Thejuniorauthorhas spentyearstryingto
dispel the incorrectimpression.The book containsa well-
known accountof spear battles in a section titled "War-
fare"(1960:83-87). The examplegiven is from 1928. It is
a classic "ritualbattle"that I believe helped contributeto
the perpetuationof the myth of the peacefulsavage.Hart,
the seniorethnographer, wrotethe section.However,in an-
othersectionwrittenby Pilling,we areinformedthat"Tiwi
treatmentof outsiderspriorto 1900 had been to robthem,
spearthem,kill them"(1960:99).To avoid problemswith
authorities,startingabout 1925, the Tiwi switched from
spearsto throwingsticks(1960:83).The implicationis that
spearbattleswereaboriginal.This,however,is a veryinac-
curatepictureof Tiwi warfare.Pilling,in commentsat the
Man the Hunterconference,informsus thatnightraidsoc-
curreduntil 1912 (1968:158):
to note the incidenceof fatalitiesassociated
It is important
withtheoldpatternof sneakattacksandthewayof life with
whichit wascorrelated. In one decade(1893-1903),at least
sixteenmalesin the25-to-45age groupwerekilledin feud-
ing;eitherduringsneakattacksor in arranged pitchbattles.
Thosekilledrepresented over 10 percentof all malesin that
agecategory.
Thus we learnedthatthe Tiwi warfarepatternwas based
on bothambushesand lines. A fieldworkeditionappeared
in 1979; no new data on warfarewere provided.A third
editionof the ethnography,appearingin 1988 (Hartet al.),
containsa new section by Pilling titled "SneakAttacks"
(pp. 93-95). Here he notes thathis cases listed 54 deaths
and 19 injuriesfrom sneak attackers.A recentethnogra-
phy, which focuses on a single Tiwi homicide, reviews
Pilling's research (Venbrux 1995:16-17). Perhapsnow
Tiwi "ritualbattles"will drop from the anthropological
lexicon. It has taken Pilling since 1968 to unpacifythe
pacifiedpast.
Two cross-culturalstudies, independentlyconducted,
showed that Wright's (or was it Hoijer's?) sequence of
types fromdefensivewar,to social war,to economicwar,
This content downloaded from 131.130.165.107 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:58:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OTTERBEIN ONWARFARE799
/ RESEARCH
to politicalwarwas incorrect.Guttmanscales providedthe
evidence.Both Naroll(1966) and Otterbein(1970:63-70)
demonstratedthateconomic goals of war underlaysocial
goals in that when social goals were present,economic
goals were also, whereaseconomic goals could be found
without social goals being present.Defensive goals were
alwayspresent.In otherwords,by showingthe primacyof
defensiveandeconomicgoals, these studiesshow the war-
fareof nonliteratepeoplesto be serious,not a game.
Why was this perioda golden age for the studyof war-
fare?I offer, tentatively,threethoughts.First,the number
of anthropologistsgrew rapidly, beginning in the late
1950s. These studentsneeded to find researchtopics and
field sites.In the early1960s,I soughta topicthathadbeen
little researched-and found warfare(1977:706, 1994b:
xvii). Second,the warin Vietnam,unlikethe KoreanWar,
had aspectsresembling"primitivewar."Althoughguerilla
warfare,which is waged withinor betweenstates,andthe
warfareof peoples who have uncentralizedpoliticalsys-
tems arenot the same,manyof the tacticsare-in particu-
larthe raidandthe ambush.Third,some unacculturated ar-
eas openedto field research.These includedhighlandNew
Guinea,the Amazon,and areasof west, central,and east
Africa.I endedup in northeastNigeriain a regionthatwas
classified as an "unsettleddistrict"until Nigerian inde-
pendence in 1960. At the beginning of my fieldworkin
June 1965, the Nigerianpolice preventeda battle in the
northernMundaraMountainsby parkingtheirLandRover
betweentwo lines of opposingwarriors.I arrivedat the site
thatevening.
The mythof the peacefulsavagecontinued,as it had in
the Classical Period, to influence research.Naroll's de-
scriptionof ritualwar (1966:17), quoted in the previous
section,alongwiththe findingthathunter-gatherers didnot
go to war-the Bushmen,Pygmies, and Semai (the Tiwi
had ritualwar)-became supportfor the myth.The intro-
ductionto Divale's bibliographycontainsa generalizedde-
scriptionof the warfareof nonliteratepeoplesthatincludes
a passagethathas beenused,takenout of context,untilthe
present by historiansas an accuratedescriptionof what
they are still calling primitive warfare7(Divale [1971]
1973:xxi-xxii;Keegan1993:98-99):
the pitchedbattle..,. involvedanywherefromtwo hundredto
two thousand
warriors
andwasheldin a pre-defined
area...
along the bordersof the warringgroups.... Even though
largenumbers of warriorswereinvolved,herewaslittleorno
militaryeffort;instead,dozensof individualduelswereen-
gagedin. Eachwarriorshoutedinsultsat his opponentand
hurledspearsor firedarrows.... Regularlyoccurringpitched
battlesweregenerallyfoundamongadvancedtribalpeoplein
fairlydensepopulations.... Inspiteof thehugearrayof war-
riorsinvolvedin thesepitchedbattles,little killing took place.
... In the event thatsomeonewas badlywoundedor slain,the
battlewouldusuallycease for thatday.8
800 * VOL. 101, No. 4
AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST
The passage,however, proceedsand a totally different
view of the warfare of tribal peoples emerges (Divale
[1971]1973:xxii).
Groupsthatfoughtin pitchedbattlesalsoconducted raidsor
ambushes, andit washerethatmostof thekillingoccurred.In
the past,manyanthropologists viewedthesepitchedbattles
and,notingthe smallnumberof casualties,concludedthat
muchor all of primitivewarfarewasa ritualor game.How-
ever,thisperspectiveis now questioned,
andit is suggested
that such warfarewas extremelyeffective,perhapseven
in thesensethatmanyculturalcontrolsexisted
overeffective,
whoseprimary aimwastheregulation andlimitationof war-
fare.
Ambushesand lines form a two-componentwarfarepat-
ternforbandsandtribes,a patternthatprobablywas devel-
oped as earlyas the Paleolithic.Battles,in which warriors
confrontedeach otheralong a line, werea meansof testing
the strengthof an adversary,while ambushesandraidson
settlementswerethe meansof killing largenumbersof en-
emy. The Tiwi appearto be an example(Otterbein1997:
255-262). Ritual war, if it ever has occurred,would be
only one componentof the basic warfarepattern.
The mythappearslaterin an attackuponE. O. Wilson's
Sociobiology:TheNew Synthesis(1975) by the Sociobiol-
ogy StudyGroupof Science for the People(1976:184):
"Primitive"warfareis rarelylethalto morethanone or at
most a few individualsin an episodeof warfare,virtually
withoutsignificance
geneticallyordemographically (Living-
stone1968).Genocidewas virtuallyunknownuntilstate-or-
ganizedsocietiesappearedin history(as faras canbe made
outfromthearchaeologicalanddocumentary records).
At the time of the compositionof the articletherewere 35
membersof the organization;they areidentifiedby one in-
itial precedingthe surname,hence it is not possible to as-
certainwhetherthereareanthropologists in the group.9The
articlecited contradicts
the above description
Livingstone
of "primitive"war (1968:8-11); statementafterstatement
describeshigh casualtyratesfor the warfareof prehistoric
andnonliteratepeoples.Wilson replies(1976:187):
militaryactivityandterritorial havebeenconcomi-
expansion
tantsthroughout and
history atall levelsof socialorganization
(Otterbein1970), and they can hardlyfail to have had signifi-
cantdemographicandgeneticconsequences.
Two salient characteristics of the Golden Age were: (1)
A dramaticincrease occurred in the number of publications
on warfare, both theoretical and ethnographic. Sixteen dif-
ferent theories were identified and over a half dozen classic
ethnographies were written; and (2) sides were formed by
those who believed that band and tribal peoples were war-
like and those who believed they were not. Ethnographic
data were now available to support either position.
This content downloaded from 131.130.165.107 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:58:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
* DECEMBER
1999
Recent Period (c. 1980-)
Outputof publicationson warfarein thisperiodplateaus
(see Ferguson'sbar graph,1988: facing i), in spite of the
ever increasingnumber of anthropologists.Two trends
characterizethe researchof recent years: first, theories
converged,with only 7 of the original16 surviving;a sin-
gle model with variantsemerged(Otterbein1994b).Sec-
ond, researchis now going in several,but related,direc-
tions: origin and seriousness of war, ethnic wars and
genocide,and studiesof peacefulpeoples.The theoretical
model thathas emergedcontainsthreecomponents;it can
be depictedas follows'0(the original7 theoriesareordered
undertheirrespectivecomponents):
MaterialCauses-+EfficientCauses-> Consequences
Physical Goalsof war Effectsonsocial
environment organization
Social
structure Military Survivalvalue
preparedness
Originofthestate
The writings of nine anthropologistson war have been
shown to closely correspondto this paradigm(Otterbein
1994b). They include Andrew Vayda, Keith Otterbein,
William Divale, Marvin Harris, Napoleon Chagnon,
Robert Carneiro,Ronald Cohen, Raymond Kelly, and
Brian Ferguson.The paradigmhas been used with case
studiesas well as with comparativestudiesthatemploy a
developmentalapproach.
"Thisconvergencein the anthropologicalstudyof war"
seems to stem from a naturalprocess identifiedfor social
evolution by Hallpike (1987; Otterbein1988b:444-445)
and for paleontology by Gould (1989:49); specifically,
thereis a decreasein disparityof theories,structuralforms,
or body plans followed by an increasein diversitywithin
the few surviving theories, forms, or plans (Otterbein
1994b:172). This approachto the historyof researchsug-
gests that theories neither accumulatenor replace each
other,butratherthata processoccursthatinvolvesbothat-
tritionand combination(1994b:178).However, since the
publicationof thisreport(1994), severalof thetheoriesthat
I thoughthadbeen set asidehave made a comeback.They
include innate aggression,diffusion-acculturation (tribal
zone theory), and cultural evolution (the origin of war)."
These three approaches are discussed below. In the social
sciences there seems to be no such thing as extinction!
The origin and seriousness of war has become a keen in-
terest once again as it had been in the Foundation and Clas-
sical Periods. Primatologists and archaeologists have
joined in the inquiry. The killer ape/innate aggression the-
ory, both in its professional and popular manifestations,
had given way in the 1970s to the view that man's ancestor
was a scavenger (Cartmill 1993:1-27; Otterbein 1973:
927-928), but recent observations of chimpanzee bands

attackingone anotherhas resurrectedthe idea thatthe an-
cestorof manattackedhis own kind.WranghamandPeter-
son (1996) arguethatsince earlymanandthe chimpanzees
are similar,and chimpshave changedlittle in five million
years(pp. 46-47), it can be inferredthatbehaviorpatterns
currentlyobserved in chimpanzeegroups were charac-
teristicof the common ancestorof both man and chimps.
Thus, accordingto Wranghamand Peterson,the originof
war lies neitherin the Neolithic nor Paleolithic,but five
million years ago. Furthermore, if they are correct,Paleo-
lithic man engaged warfareand so did hunter-gatherer
in
peoplesin recentcenturies.
To attackthe myth of the peaceful savage, or pacified
past,Keeley (1996) assembledarchaeologicalfindingsthat
he believes show that warfaredestructiveof human life
was a common occurrence in prehistory.Keeley also
amassed a voluminousnumberof ethnographiccases of
warringpeoples, as had Turney-High(1949); he also uti-
lized the frequencyof warfarestatisticsavailablein cross-
culturalstudies, primarilyfrom Otterbein(The Evolution
of War[1970]).Thusthe evolutionof warhas resumedim-
portance in research on warfare in anthropology,with
Keeley claiming victory over those who believe in the
mythof the peacefulsavage.Unanticipatedsupportfor the
evolutionary approach has come from primatology.
Wrangham'stheory, however, has been challenged by
RobertSussman,for bothits logic andthe datausedto sup-
portit (1999).
The above approachcontrastswith anotherview that
seeks to understandthe origin and seriousnessof war by
employing a world-systems approach(Wolf 1982), or
whatcan be calledtribalzone theory(FergusonandWhite-
head 1992). This approachis stronglylinkedto the diffu-
sion-acculturation or culturecontactapproachof the Clas-
sical Period.Warin tribalzones is generatedby expanding
states.Threecategoriesof warcan occur:(1) Warsof resis-
tance and rebellion, (2) Ethnic soldiering,and (3) Inter-
necine warfare.This approachchallengesthe notion that
war occurredearly in man's developmentby arguingthat
the presumedpristineand violentwarfareof such cultures
as the Yanomamiis causedby stateexpansion(Ferguson
1995). In other words, the issue with us is whetherob-
servednativewarfarehas an indigenousdevelopmentor is
the result of culture contact.'2
Lawrence Keeley considers tribal zone theorists Brian
Ferguson and Neil Whitehead to be the chief proponents of
the myth of the peaceful savage (1996:20-21, 203, 205),
while Ferguson vigorously denies the charge (1997:424).
The bifurcation that has arisen among those who study the
origin and seriousness of war had led me to distinguish two
groups of scholars-Hawks and Doves (1997:251-252,
266-270). Keeley heads the Hawks and Ferguson the
Doves. Hawks include anthropologist Robert Carneiro,
military historians Arther Ferrill, John Keegan, James
This content downloaded from 131.130.165.107 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:58:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OTTERBEIN / RESEARCH ON WARFARE 801
McRandle, Robert O'Connell, primatologist Richard
Wrangham,and biologist BarbaraEhrenreich.Doves in-
clude anthropologistsElman Service, C. R. Hallpike,
Leslie Sponsel, and Thomas Gregor, political scientist
RichardGabriel,andarchaeologistJonathanHaas.In spite
of Keeley's allegationsthat Fergusonand Whiteheadare
believersin the mythof the peacefulsavage,it wouldseem
more appropriate to view Sponsel and Gregoras the lead-
ers of the Doves (see below). Their researchis not re-
viewed by Keeley. My positionis thatthe evidence from
prehistorysupportsneitherof theseidealtypes (1997:252).
Anotherrecentinterestof anthropologistshas been eth-
nic warsandgenocide.Not only can theybe seen as result-
ing fromexpandingstates,they canbe viewedas a resultof
the breakupof the state. Since the end of the "cold war"
therehave been an ever-increasingnumberof ethnicwars,
often accompanied by genocide (Nietschmenn 1987).
CarolynNordstromandAntoniusRobbenhave assembled
a numberof articleson the topic(1995), whileMaryFoster
and Robert Rubensteinhave been concernedwith how
peace can be achieved (1986). Jack Eller describeshow
culture or tradition-remembered, interpreted,or in-
vented-is transformedinto an ethnic identity and then
how ethnicityis transformedinto conflict(1999).
Studies of peaceful societies have recently flourished
(Gregor1996; Howell andWillis 1989; Sponseland Gre-
gor 1994,).LibrarianBruceBonta (1993) has compiledan
annotatedbibliographyof 47 peaceful peoples. Thomas
Gregor(1994:242-243) acknowledgesthatpeacefulsocie-
ties are rarebut believes they are worth studyingfor the
guidancetheycan give as to how peacemightbe achieved.
Robert Dentan (1994) points out that peaceful societies
usuallyfit one of two social types:they areeitherenclaved
societies,such as the Amish, or very small-scalesocieties,
manyof themhunter-gatherers, such as the Semai.Peoples
like the Semaihave adaptedto slave raidsby theirabilityto
disperseandregroup.In their"geographicrefuge"theybe-
come nonviolentanddevelop valuesof peaceability(Den-
tan 1992:215-220). More recently Thomas Gregor has
pulledtogetherthe findingsof himself,Sponsel,andothers
intoA NaturalHistoryof Peace (1996).
The RecentPeriodhas two salientcharacteristics. (1) A
single theoreticalmodel, which focuses upon both causes
and consequences of war, characterized the works of nu-
merous researchers working on the Anthropology of War.
(2) A controversy has developed between those who be-
lieve thatit is man'snatureto be warlikeandthosewho be-
lieve his nature is to be peaceable. One side sees war as
part of human nature, the other as the result of state organi-
zation, whether the state is expanding, warring with other
states, or dissolving into warring ethnic groups.
Over the past 150 years the ethnographic database on
warfare has increased. It includes many excellent descrip-
tions of warringpeoples and a few descriptions of peaceful
802 * VOL. 101, No. 4
AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST
peoples. A developmentalsequenceusing stages of war,
what I call the evolutionof war or culturalevolutionap-
proach, has been the dominant theoretical perspective
throughoutmuch of this time. The myth of the peaceful
savage grew out of this evolutionarythoughtandwas nur-
tured by cultural relativism. Contrary to Lawrence
Keeley's contentionthat the myth arose after 1960, this
historyof researchon warfarehas shownthatthe mythde-
velopeddecadesearlier.His replacementmyththatnonlit-
erate peoples were bellicose has set up a polarizationbe-
tween HawksandDoves.
Fromthe ClassicalPeriodonwardnumerousothertheo-
retical approacheshave been tried,but none gatheredthe
numberof adherentswho have used an evolutionaryap-
proach.However,for bothcase and comparativestudiesa
paradigmthatexaminescauses(materialandefficient)and
consequenceshas come to be employed. This paradigm
has shownitself to be usefulin studyingthe conditionsun-
der which war and other forms of violence occur. Some
conditionslead to war,some do not.I see greatvariationin
the natureandfrequencyof war.It is this variationandthe
reasons for it that researchersshould be investigating
(Dentan and Otterbein 1996; Otterbein 1987, 1988a,
1991a, 1991b, 1993, 1997,in press).
Notes
Acknowledgments.I am indebted to my wife, Charlotte
Swanson Otterbein,for her careful editing of this paper.My
colleague, Robert Knox Dentan, has made both content and
editorial suggestions. R. Brian Ferguson, Andrew P. Vayda,
and my colleagues SaurnasMilisauskasand TimothyPauketat
have read the manuscriptand made helpful suggestions. Four
anonymousreviewerslikewise provideduseful comments.
1. Recently in a cross-culturalstudy I have found some of
the conclusions of Hobhouse,Wheeler,and Ginsbergto be in-
correct(Otterbeinin press). While 93% of the societies in my
sample killed captured enemy warriors, only 26% killed
women and children. Contraryto Hobhouse, Wheeler, and
Ginsberg, uncentralizedpolitical systems are unlikely to kill
women and children.Indeed, the higher the level of political
complexity, the more likely that women and children will be
killed-from 15%to 44%.
2. R. LauristonSharpat this time (1958) describedthe Yir
Yoront of Australia in these terms when he called them "a
people without politics." Yet his account mentions "fighting
spears"being traded(p. 6) and "a spearjust thrownin a gen-
eral fight"(p. 5). Sounds like war!
3. Herskovitscites a 1942 version, which Turney-Highde-
scribes as a portionof the 1949 work (1949:xiv).
4. Naroll's own copy of Turney-High'sPrimitive Warfare,
now in the libraryof the AnthropologyDepartmentat the Uni-
versity at Buffalo, has been markedin red pen as far as page
31, where a 4 x 6 white page markerlies.
5. Robert Dentan "suspects that its wider origin is in the
peasant Golden Age myth, embodied in a fraudulentdocu-
ment, 'The Epistle of Clement,' and activatedin every peasant
This content downloaded from 131.130.165.107 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:58:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
* DECEMBER
1999
uprisingin Medieval/RenaissanceEurope"(personalcommu-
nication, 1997). Lawrence Keeley placed the origin of the
myth in the writingsof Rousseau(1996:5-8).
6. I tested the notion that warfarebetween tribalpeoples is
often arrangedmutually and found it lacked support. In a
cross-culturalstudy I found thatonly 4 out of 28 uncentralized
political systems initiatedwar by eitherannouncementor mu-
tual arrangement;the other 24 used surprise (Otterbein
1970:33).
7. MilitaryhistorianDoyne Dawson, who cites otherpub-
lications of Divale, emphasizes the ritualizationof primitive
war in The Origins of Western Warfare (1996:13-24). He
readilyaccepts the myth of the peaceful savage. His first foot-
note approvinglycites Wright,Malinowski,andTurney-High.
8. As indicated by the ellipses, Divale's description is
longer than this; Keegan shortenedthe originalstatementto a
more modest degree.
9. The members of the Sociobiology Study Group of Sci-
ence for the People listed are: L. Allen, B. Beckwith, J. Beck-
with, S. Chorover, D. Culver, N. Daniels, E. Dorfman, M.
Duncan,E. Engelman,R. Fitten, K. Fuda, S. Gould, C. Gross,
R. Hubbard,J. Hunt,H. Inouye, M. Kotelchuck,B. Lange, A.
Leeds, R. Levins, R. Lewontin, E. Loechler, B. Ludwig, C.
Madansky,L. Miller, R. Morales, S. Motheral,K. Muzal, N.
Ostrom, R. Pyeritz, A. Reingold, M. Rosenthal, M. Mersky,
M. Wilson, and H. Schreier.
10. James McRandle informs us that this paradigm is
standardin the studyof militaryhistory(1994:ix):
My choice of history as a majorin college was much influ-
enced by these experiences [service in World War II]; I
learnedto analyze such things as immediateand underlying
causes of particularconflicts, the conductof the campaigns,
and the changes occasioned by the outcome of the various
wars.
Allan Millett has noted that the traditionalfocus of academic
militaryhistorianswas on the three"Cs"-the causes, conduct,
andconsequencesof warfare(1992:15).
11. In 1988 (p. iii) Ferguson could write that "in recent
years there has been relatively little attentionto the signifi-
cance for war of socioculturalevolution. This was once the
majorfocus of anthropologicaltheoryin war, and its greatim-
portancehas been demonstratedby Otterbein1985 (Evolution
of War)."
12. For a detailed analysis of the tribalzone approachsee
my article "EthnicSoldiers .. ." in Reviews in Anthropology
(1994a).
References Cited
Beals, RalphL., andHarryHoijer
[1953]1959 An Introductionto Anthropology.2nd edition.
New York:TheMacmillanCompany.
Benedict,Ruth
1934 Patternsof Culture.Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
1959 The NaturalHistoryof War. In An Anthropologistat
Work.M. Mead,ed. Pp.369-382. Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
Bonta, Bruce
1993 Peaceful Peoples: An AnnotatedBibliography.Me-
tuchen,NJ:ScarecrowPress.
 OTTERBEIN / RESEARCH ON WARFARE 803

Bower, Bruce Edgerton,RobertB.

1988 Murderin Good Company:Cooperation,Camaraderie
and a Dizzying Homicide Rate Distinguisha Small New
GuineaSociety.ScienceNews 133:90-91.
1991 Whys of War: Anthropology:Human Beings Have
FoughtOne Anotherfor Thousandsof Years,butThereAre
ManyTheoriesas to theCauses.Los Angeles Times,Febru-
ary18,B9.
1995 UltrasocialDarwinism:CulturalGroupsMay Call the
EvolutionaryShots in Modem Societies. Science News
148:366-367.
Bram,Joseph
1941 An Analysisof IncaMilitarism.AmericanEthnological
Societymonographno.4.
Cartmill,Matt
1993 A View to a Deathin theMorning:HuntingandNature
throughHistory.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Chagnon,Napoleon
1968 Yanomamo:TheFiercePeople.New York:Holt,Rine-
hartandWinston.
1992 Yanomamo.4th edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart
andWinston.
1997 Yanomamo.5thedition.New York:Holt,Rinehartand
Winston.
Chapple,Eliot, andCarletonS. Coon
1942 Principlesof Anthropology.New York:HenryHolt.
Codere, Helen
1950 Fightingwith Property:A Studyof KwakiutlPotlatch-
ing andWarfare,1792-1930.AmericanEthnologicalSociety
monographno. 18.
Dawson, Doyne
1996 TheOriginsof WesternWarfare:MilitarismandMoral-
ity in theAncientWorld.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.
DeNora, Tia
1995 Beethoven and the Constructionof Genius:Musical
Politicsin Vienna,1792-1803. Berkeley:Universityof Cali-
forniaPress.
Dentan,RobertK.
1968 TheSemai:A NonviolentPeopleof Malaya.New York:
Holt,RinehartandWinston.
1988 Band-LevelEden:A MystifyingChimera.CulturalAn-
thropology3:276-284.
1992 The Rise, Maintenance,and Destructionof Peaceable
Polities:A PreliminaryEssayin PoliticalEcology.InAggres-
sion andPeacefulnessin HumansandOtherPrimates.James
SilverbergandJ. PatrickGray,eds. Pp.214-270. New York:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Men: PeaceableEnclavesin the Post-En-
1994 Surrendered
lightenmentWest. In The Anthropologyof Peace andNon-
violence. Leslie E. Sponsel and Thomas Gregor,eds. Pp.
69-108. Boulder,CO:LynneRiennerPublishers.
1995 Bad Day at Bukit Pekan. American Anthropologist
97:225-250.
Dentan,Robert,and KeithF. Otterbein
1996 Letterto Editor.InTheseTimes,November11:5.
Divale, William T.
[197111973 Warfarein PrimitiveSocieties:A SelectedBibli-
ography.Los Angeles:CaliforniaStateCollege, Centerfor
the Studyof ArmamentandDisarmament.
1992 Sick Societies:ChallengingtheMythof PrimitiveHar-
mony.New York:TheFreePress.
Ehrenreich,Barbara
1997 BloodRites:OriginsandHistoryof thePassionsof War.
New York:Metropolitan Books/HarryHolt& Co.
Eller, JackDavid
1999 FromCulturetoEthnicityto Conflict:An Anthropologi-
cal Perspectiveon International
EthnicConflict.Ann Arbor:
Universityof MichiganPress.
Ember,CarolR.
1978 Myths aboutHunter-Gatherers. Ethnology17(4):439-
448.
Ember,CarolR., and Melvin Ember
1996 Anthropology.8th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
PrenticeHall.
Ferguson,R. Brian
1984 Introduction:StudyingWar.In Warfare,Culture,and
Environment.R. B. Ferguson,ed. Pp. 1-81. Orlando,FL:
AcademicPress.
1988 The Anthropologyof War: A Bibliography.(With
Leslie E. Farragher).New York:NumberOne, Occasional
Papersof theHarryFrankGuggenheimFoundation.
1995 YanomamiWarfare:A PoliticalHistory.SantaFe,NM:
Schoolof AmericanResearchPress.
1997 Review of War Before Civilization:The Myth of the
PeacefulSavage.AmericanAnthropologist99:424-425.
Ferguson,R. Brian,andNeil L. Whitehead,eds.
1992 Warin the TribalZone:ExpandingStatesand Indige-
nousWarfare.Seattle:Universityof WashingtonPress.
Ferrill,Arther
1985 TheOriginsof WarfromtheStoneAge to Alexanderthe
Great.New York:ThamesandHudson,Inc.
1997 TheOriginsof WarfromtheStoneAge to Alexanderthe
Great.RevisedEdition.Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.
Fortune,Reo
1939 ArapeshWarfare.AmericanAnthropologist 41:22-41.
Foster,MaryL., andRobertF. Rubenstein,eds.
1986 Peace and War: Cross-CulturalPerspectives.New
Brunswick,NJ:Transaction Books.
Fried,MortonH.
1961 Warfare,MilitaryOrganization,and the Evolutionof
3:134-147.
Society.Anthropologica
Gabriel,RichardA.
1990 The Cultureof War:InventionandEarlyDevelopment.
New York:GreenwoodPress.
Gould, StephenJay
1989 WonderfulLife: The BurgessShale and the Natureof
History.New York:W. W. Norton.
Gregor,Thomas
1994 SymbolsandRitualsof Peacein Brazil'sUpperXingu.
In The Anthropologyof Peace and Nonviolence.Leslie E.
SponselandThomasGregor,eds. Pp. 69-108. Boulder,CO:
LynneRiennerPublishers.
Gregor,Thomas,ed.
1996 A NaturalHistoryof Peace.Nashville,TN: Vanderbilt
UniversityPress.

This content downloaded from 131.130.165.107 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:58:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
804 AMERICAN * VOL. 101, No. 4 * DECEMBER
ANTHROPOLOGIST 1999
Hallpike,C. R.
1973 FunctionalistInterpretationsof PrimitiveWarfare.Man
8:451-470.
1987 The Principlesof Social Evolution.New York:Claren-
don/OxfordUniversityPress.
Hart,C. W. M., andArnoldR. Pilling
1960 The Tiwi of NorthAustralia.New York:Holt,Rinehart
andWinston.
1979 The Tiwi of NorthAustralia:FieldworkEdition.New
York:Holt,RinehartandWinston.
Hart,C. W. M., ArnoldR. Pilling, andJaneC. Goodale
1988 The Tiwi of NorthAustralia.3rd edition.New York:
Holt,RinehartandWinston.
Heider,Karl
1970 TheDugumDani:A PapuanCulturein theHighlandsof
West New Guinea.VikingFundPublicationsin Anthropol-
ogy No. 49. New York:Wenner-Gren Foundation.
1979 GrandValleyDani:PeacefulWarriors.New York:Holt,
RinehartandWinston.
Herskovits,Melville J.
1948 ManandHisWorks:TheScienceof CulturalAnthropol-
ogy. New York:AlfredA. Knopf.
Hobhouse,L. T., G. C. Wheeler,andM. Ginsberg
1915 The MaterialCultureandSocialInstitutionsof theSim-
plerPeoples.London:ChapmanandHall.
Howell, Signe, andRoy Willis, eds.
1989 Societiesat Peace:AnthropologicalPerspectives.Lon-
don:Routledge.
Jablow,Joseph
1951 The Cheyenne in Plains Indian Trade Relations
1795-1840. AmericanEthnologicalSocietymonographno.
19.
Keegan,John
1993 A Historyof Warfare.New York:Knopf.
Keeley, LawrenceH.
1996 WarBeforeCivilization:TheMythof thePeacefulSav-
age.New York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Lewis, Oscar
1942 The Effectsof WhiteContactuponBlackfootCulture,
withSpecialReferenceto theRoleof theFurTrade.American
EthnologicalSocietymonographno.6.
Livingstone,FrankB.
1968 The Effects of Warfareon the Biology of the Human
Species.In War:The Anthropologyof ArmedConflictand
Aggression.M. Fried,M. Harris,and R. Murphy,eds. Pp.
3-15. GardenCity,NJ:NaturalHistoryPress.
Lowie, RobertH.
1927 TheOriginof theState.New York:RusselandRussel.
Malinowski,Bronislaw
1941a War-Past, Present,andFuture.InWaras a SocialIn-
stitution:TheHistorian'sPerspective.J. ClarksonandT. Co-
chran,eds.Pp.20-30. New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
194lb An AnthropologicalAnalysisof War.AmericanJour-
nalof Sociology46:521-550.
McRandle,JamesH.
1994 TheAntiqueDrumsof War.CollegeStation:TexasA &
M UniversityPress.
Millett, Allan R.
1992 AmericanMilitaryHistory:Clio andMarsas"Pards."In
MilitaryHistoryandtheMilitaryProfession.DavidA. Char-
This content downloaded from 131.130.165.107 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:58:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ters,MarcMilner,andJ. BrentWilson,eds. Pp. 3-21. West-
port,CT:Prager.
Mishkin,Bernard
1940 RankandWarfareamongthePlainsIndians.American
EthnologicalSocietymonographno. 3.
Naroll, Raoul
1966 Does MilitaryDeterrenceDeter? Trans-Action3(2):
14-20.
Newcomb, William W., Jr.
1960 Towardan Understanding of War.In Essaysin theSci-
ence of Culture.G. Dole andR. Carneiro,eds. Pp. 317-335.
New York:Crowell.
Nietschmann,Bernard
1987 Militarizationand Indigenous Peoples, Introduction:
The ThirdWorld War. CulturalSurvivalQuarterly11(3):
1-14
Nordstrom,Carolyn,andAntoniusRobben,eds.
1995 FieldworkunderFire: ContemporaryStudiesof Vio-
lence andSurvival.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
O'Connell, RobertL.
1995 Ride of the SecondHorseman:The BirthandDeathof
War.New York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Otterbein,KeithF.
1970 The Evolutionof War:A Cross-CulturalStudy.New
Haven,CT:HumanRelationsAreaFilesPress.
1973 The Anthropologyof War.In Handbookof Socialand
CulturalAnthropology.JohnJ.Honigmann,ed.Pp.923-958.
New York:RandMcNallyandCo.
1977 Warfare:A HithertoUnrecognizedCriticalVariable.
AmericanBehavioralScientist20:693-710.
1985 Evolutionof War:A Cross-Cultural Study.2ndedition.
New Haven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.
1987 Comment.CurrentAnthropology28:484-485
1988a Comment.CurrentAnthropology29:633-636.
1988b Review of Principlesof Social Evolution.American
Anthropologist90:444-445
1991a Comment.CurrentAnthropology32:245-247.
1991b Comment.CurrentAnthropology32:413-414.
1993 Comment.CurrentAnthropology34:244.
1994a EthnicSoldiers,Messiahs,andCockalorums.Reviews
in Anthropology23:213-225.
1994b FeudingandWarfare:SelectedWorksof KeithF. Ot-
terbein.Langhorne,PA:GordonandBreach.
1997 TheOriginsof War.CriticalReview 11:251-277.
In press The Killingof CapturedEnemies:A Cross-Cultural
Study.CurrentAnthropology41.
Pilling, ArnoldR.
1968 Discussion:PredationandWarfare.In MantheHunter.
R. Lee andI. Devore,eds.P. 158.Chicago:AldineAtherton.
Pitt-Rivers,A. Lane-Fox
1906 The Evolutionof Cultureand OtherEssays. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Rapaport,Roy A.
1968 Pigs for the Ancestors:Ritualin the Ecology of a New
GuineaPeople.New Haven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.
Rohner,RonaldP., Billie R. DeWalt,andRobertC. Ness
1973 Ethnographer Bias in Cross-Cultural
Research:An Em-
piricalStudy.BehaviorScienceNotes4:275-317.

Royal AnthropologicalInstituteof GreatBritainandIreland
1951 Notes and Queries on Anthropology.London:Rout-
ledgeandKeganPaulLtd.
Secoy, FrankR.
1953 ChangingMilitaryPatternson the GreatPlains.Ameri-
canEthnologicalSocietymonographno.21.
Service, ElmanR.
1962 PrimitiveSocial Organization:An EvolutionaryPer-
spective.New York:RandomHouse.
Sharp,R. Lauriston
1958 People withoutPolitics:The AustralianYir Yoront.In
Systemsof PoliticalControlandBureaucracyin HumanSo-
cieties:Proceedingsof the 1958AnnualSpringMeetingof the
AmericanEthnologicalSociety.VerneF. Ray,ed., Pp. 1-8.
Seattle:Universityof WashingtonPress.
Sociobiology Study Groupof Science for the People
1976 Sociobiology-Another BiologicalDeterminism.Bio-
science26(3):182, 184-186.
Sponsel, Leslie E.
1996 The NaturalHistoryof Peace:A PositiveView of Hu-
manNatureandIts Potential.In A NaturalHistoryof Peace.
ThomasGregor,ed. Pp. 95-128. Nashville,TN: Vanderbilt
UniversityPress.
1998 Yanomami:An Arenaof ConflictandAggressionin the
Amazon.AggressiveBehavior24:97-122.
Sponsel, Leslie E., andThomasGregor,eds.
1994 The Anthropologyof PeaceandNonviolence.Boulder,
CO:LynneRiennerPublishers.
Stocking,GeorgeW., Jr.
1976 Ideas and Institutionsin American Anthropology:
ThoughtsTowarda Historyof theInterwarYears.In Selected
Papers from the American Anthropologist,1921-1945.
George W. Stocking,Jr., ed. Pp. 1-50. Washington,DC:
AmericanAnthropological Association.
Stocking, GeorgeW., Jr.,ed.
1989 RomanticMotives:Essays on AnthropologicalSensi-
bility.Madison:Universityof WisconsinPress.
Sussman,RobertW.
1999 The Myth of Man the Hunter/Manthe Killerand the
Evolutionof HumanMorality.InTheBiologicalBasisof Hu-
manBehavior.RobertW. Sussman,ed. Pp. 121-129. Saddle
River,NJ:PrenticeHall.
This content downloaded from 131.130.165.107 on Thu, 08 Oct 2015 12:58:11 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OTTERBEIN / RESEARCH ON WARFARE 805
Thomas,ElizabethM.
1958 TheHarmlessPeople.New York:RandomHouse,Inc.
Turnbull,Colin M.
1961 TheForestPeople.New York:SimonandSchuster,Inc.
Turney-High,HarryH.
1949 PrimitiveWar: Its Practiceand Concepts.Columbia:
Universityof SouthCarolinaPress.
1971 PrimitiveWar:Its Practiceand Concepts.2nd edition.
Columbia:Universityof SouthCarolinaPress.
Tylor, EdwardB.
1888 Ona Methodof InvestigatingtheDevelopmentof Insti-
tutions:Appliedto Lawsof MarriageandDescent.Journalof
the RoyalAnthropologicalInstituteof GreatBritainandIre-
land18:245-270.
Vayda,Andrew
1956 MaoriWarfare.Ph.D. Dissertation,ColumbiaUniver-
sity.
1976 Warin EcologicalPerspective.New York:Plenum.
Venbrux,Eric
1995 A Deathin theTiwi Islands:Conflict,RitualandSocial
Life in an AustrailianAboriginalCommunity.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Vincent, Joan
1990 Anthropologyand Politics: Visions, Traditions,and
Trends.Tucson:Universityof ArizonaPress.
White, Leslie A.
1949 TheScienceof Culture.New York:GrovePress.
Wilson, EdwardO.
1975 Sociobiology:The New Synthesis.Cambridge,MA:
HarvardUniversityPress.
1976 AcademicVigilantismandthe PoliticalSignificanceof
Sociobiology.BioScience26(3):183,187-190.
Wolf, EricR.
1982 EuropeandthePeopleWithoutHistory.Berkeley:Uni-
versityof CaliforniaPress.
Wrangham,RichardW., and Dale Peterson
1996 DemonicMales:Apes andthe Originsof HumanVio-
lence.Boston:HoughtonMifflinCompany.
Wright,Quincey
[1942]1964 A Studyof War.Chicago:Universityof Chicago
Press.