FERGUSON - THE CAUSES AND ORIGINS OF ‘‘PRIMITIVE WARFARE’’ ON EVOLVED MOTIVATIONS FOR WAR

Main: U:\LREV\ANQU\505492 Current: U:\LREV\ANQU\50549207 18-DEC-00 11:01 SEQ: 49

Darby Printing Company VAX/VMS Job 1 PADAMS /20200C05/SYSTEM 18-DEC-00 11:01 Style: $1$DKA0:[PAGER.STYLES]ANQU.BST;7 File: USER1:[PWVN$VOL1.LREV.ANQU]505492.;1 Seq: 49 Color: 0 Free lead 30D*points, Next lead 110D, Vjust JC1:1

THE CAUSES AND ORIGINS OF ‘‘PRIMITIVEWARFARE’’

ON EVOLVED MOTIVATIONS FOR WAR

R. BRIAN FERGUSONRutgers University, Newark

Azar Gat’s argument represents a major advance to- with material well-being.ward realism in neo-Darwinian theory on war. Con- I have several major disagreements with Gat.sistently reasonable, plausible, with substantial evi- First, throughout his arguments runs the assumptiondence (on some points), his basic argument is that athat humans practiced war throughout the hunter-wide range of reasons for war are all part of an inte- gatherer past. I believe that assumption is unsustain-grated motivational complex, evolved to deal with able. The question of the antiquity of war has beenproblems of survival and reproduction in our species raised but clouded by Keeley (1996), whose rhetoricpast. Some, clashes of material (somatic) or repro- exceeds his evidence in implying war is as old asductive interests, are ‘‘root causes’’ of conflict. humanity. The earliest accepted evidence for war-Others are secondary or derived, ‘‘second floor’’ fare, Site 117, near Jebel Sahaba, Nubia, is a ceme-elaborations necessary for coping with more basictery dated to 12,000 to 10,000 B.C., in which 24 ofcompetition, including an impulse toward revenge, 59 well-preserved skeletons are associated with stonesensitivity to status, fear of sorcery, quest for power, artifacts interpreted as projectile microliths (Wendorfeven predilection toward sadism. His point is that 1968: 90-93; Wendorf and Schild 1986: 818-824).cultural anthropologists have been mistaken in tryingThough late Paleolithic in standard periodization,to identify one versus another as explaining war, be- these people had been experimenting with wild cropcause they all are involved, non-reductionistically, harvesting thousands of years before the develop-stamped into our species’ mind by their complemen- ment of agriculture elsewhere. This experiment wastary contributions to our evolutionary success. brought to a crashing halt by climatic change which

In approaching war, he avoids the more dubiouswould have put extreme pressure on all peoplesevolutionary constructs, such as ‘‘instincts to kill’’ throughout the region, especially those in favorable(Ghiglieri 1999: 178), ‘‘Darwinian algorithms’’ for locales like Site 117 (Hoffman 1993: 86-90).collective aggression (Tooby and Cosmides 1988), Northern Australia, a favorite illustration forand unconscious tracking of reproductive advantages Gat, is a unique area in terms of the depth and con-of violence (Chagnon 1979; 1987). I do not know tinuity of collective violence among mobile hunter-how he categorizes his approach, but in emphasizing gatherers, with rock art images suggesting individualmaterial self- interest and behavioral plasticity, alongand small group combats from about 8,000 B.C.,with directed efforts to maximize inclusive fitness, it and larger group confrontations beginning aboutappears to me as a development of evolutionary4,000 B.C. (Tacon and Chippindale 1994). This wasecology. Evolutionary ecology has a great deal of a time of massive ecological crisis, with rising seaoverlap with ecological approaches that do not in- levels drowning the rich plain that once connectedclude reproductive interests. So Gat’s view (Part II: Australia to New Guinea. Socially, we see signs of79) of reasons for war on the Pacific Northwest increasing complexity and cultural divisions (JonesCoast is much like my (Ferguson 1984a) pre-contactand Bowler 1980:23; Schrire 1982: 7; Tacon andmodel, though he brings in evidence of women cap- Chippindale 1994: 217, 224, 227). Why war becameture which, as he notes (I: 28), I ignore. And there such an institutionalized pattern is suggested by his-are major correspondences with the Divale and Har- toric observations: their reliance on water holes inris (1976) model regarding female scarcity and fight-dry seasons, sources that sometimes disappear ining over women, although without the population- droughts, gave them an extremely concentrated andregulation element. The primary difference between valuable resource to fight over (Meggitt 1962: 24,evolutionary ecology and ‘‘regular’’ ecology is the 42), as Gat notes (I: 23). This is the classicformer posits that human behavior is evolutionarily imagined scenario for group violence (as in thedesigned to maximize reproductive success alongopening of 2001: A Space Odyssey), but not expect-

159


Darby Printing Company VAX/VMS Job 1 PADAMS /20200C05/SYSTEM 18-DEC-00 11:01 Style: $1$DKA0:[PAGER.STYLES]ANQU.BST;7 File: USER1:[PWVN$VOL1.LREV.ANQU]505492.;1 Seq: 50 Color: 0 Free lead 90D*points, Next lead 110D, Vjust J4:3

160 ANTHROPOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

able in the vast majority of hunter-gatherer erence to the rapid proliferation on human popula-environments. tions in uninhabited regions is a point well taken

against assumptions of prehistoric population stabil-Gat (I: 25) suggests that upper palaeolithichunters in Europe from France to the Ukraine may ity, the idea that paleolithic hunter-gatherers filledhave experienced territorial conflicts and warfare up all available niches is a ‘‘they must have’’ argu-like that of historic North American buffalo hunters.. ment, which are always suspect. Although he notesNew overviews of archaeological evidence show nothat relative closure and defense of territory is a va-indications of war whatsoever through the Upper riable dependent on density of resources and otherPalaeolithic, in contrast to clear evidence in somefactors (I: 23, 25), he does not consider that accord-Mesolithic sites (Chapman 1999:140; Dolkhanov ing to optimal foraging theory—itself closely associ-1999: 77; Vencl 1999: 58). Summarizing information ated with evolutionary ecology—open networks andfor early prehistoric North America, Haas (1999: 14) sharing is often the most rational strategy, especiallyconcludes: when resources are patchy and unpredictable. Which

applied more, where, and when in our past, is any-The archaeological record gives no evidence of territorial one’s guess. Even when people are spread all over,behavior on the part of any of these first hunters and gath-exit may remain an option to war. Among the Ya-erers. Rather, they seem to have developed a very open

nomami, who he grants hunter-gatherer-like status,network of communication and interaction that spreadeven in the most densely settled and conflicted ar-across the continent.eas, people deal with violent conflict by movingaway, or in with someone else (Ferguson 1995: 47),So it is around the world: the multiple archaeologi-a pattern found throughout Amazonia (1989: 196).cal indicators of war are absent until the develop-

Such simple ecological explanations of warment of a more sedentary existence and/or increasingwere advanced in the 1960s, and generally aban-sociopolitical complexity, usually in combinationdoned with greater scrutiny. The volume Warfare,with some form of ecological crisis and/or steepCulture, and Environment (Ferguson 1984b) was aecological gradients. Then, signs of war becomerecognition of this, and an effort to keep ecologicalmultiple and unambiguous (Carman and Hardingconsiderations viable by recognizing the greater1999; Ferguson 1997, n.d.; Haas n.d.; Milner 1995;complexity of their role in war. Most ecologicallyRoper 1975). This is not to suggest that war neverminded analysts still are interested in possible rela-happened in more ancient hunter-gatherer times, buttionship between growing populations and conflict,the global pattern of actual evidence indicates thatbut the data just does not support a direct associa-war as a regular pattern is a relatively recent devel-tion of increasing density and increasing war (Kee-opment in human history, emerging as our ancestorsley 1996: 118-120). The statistical research of Carolleft the simple, mobile hunter-gatherer phase.and Melvin Ember, which earlier dispelled theWar developed in more places and diffused out-‘‘myth of the peaceful hunter-gatherer,’’ (C. Emberward as time went on, even to simple hunter-1978) found that chronic, ordinary resource scarcitygatherers. But there is good reason to wonder if thewas not a significant predictor of war (Ember andhigh casualty rates reported, as for northern Austra-Ember 1992). When you get down to cases, Ya-lia in the decades before anthropological visitationnomami (and other Amazonian) warfare cannot beand description, had not been impacted by ‘‘warrify-explained as a result of conflicts over game (Fergu-ing’’ tribal zone effects (Ferguson 1990a; Fergusonson 1989; 1995: 343-353).and Whitehead 2000). Certainly, the early contact

More problems are brought in with sociobio-experience of Northern Australia (Cole 1975; Meg-logical concepts related to the pursuit of reproduc-gitt 1962) is of the type that generated more war intive success. The endlessly repeated idea that it is inother parts of the world. Such high levels of killingmale’s genetic interest to spread those genes around,might be due to purely local causes, but that shouldwhereas women seek to snag and hold one malenot be assumed to be so without investigation of

other possibilities. That is precisely the error that tri- provider—though asserted with relative caution bybal zone theory is intended to address. Gat (I: 27)—disregards one tremendously salient

fact: to procreate, a man must eat. Unlike other ani-Having posited the widespread existence of warmals, for humans that requires being an acceptedamong prehistoric hunter-gatherers, Gat sets out tomember of a cooperative group of food producers.explain it. His ecological arguments also rest onAny behavioral proclivity that interfered with thatquestionable assumptions. Although Gat’s (I: 22) ref-


Darby Printing Company VAX/VMS Job 1 PADAMS /20200C05/SYSTEM 18-DEC-00 11:01 Style: $1$DKA0:[PAGER.STYLES]ANQU.BST;7 File: USER1:[PWVN$VOL1.LREV.ANQU]505492.;1 Seq: 51 Color: 0 Free lead 90D*points, Next lead 110D, Vjust J4:3

‘‘PRIMITIVE WARFARE’’ 161

would face severe selective pressure. To pursue re- Rosaldo 1981; Ferguson 1988; Harris 1984; Knauftproductive success with multiple partners within 1991; Wolf 1987). An evolutionary perspective thusone’s immediate group could endanger acceptanceprovides only an ex post facto explanation of a well-within the group and the solidarity of the group it- known phenomenon, explainable without referenceself. It would compete with other men who are close to reproductive striving. But more importantly here,genetic relatives or potential ‘‘wife givers’’—thus does conflict over women offer an explanation ofgoing against kin selection and reciprocal altruism. war comparable to conflict over material issues? GatPlus, as Gat emphasizes (I: 27), one of the main rea- says, ‘‘I think this question is in fact pointless. It ar-sons for violence and killing is sexual affairs, and tificially isolates one element from the wholeness ofthere is nothing like being dead for cutting down on the human motivational complex that may lead tolifetime reproductive success. Thus it is by no means war’’ (I: 27). But the question is hardly pointless.self-evident that the putative male reproductive strat- Whether warfare among Yanomami, for instance, isegy would, on average over thousands of genera- over women, game, or Western manufactures leadstions, increase rather than curtail genetic success. to an entirely different set of expectations and

proofs—and totally different understandings of theGat (I: 27) follows the neo-Darwinian (see Bussreality of their war. In my analysis of actual cases,2000) line in explaining why women have affairs asconflict over women among Yanomami, though cer-an effort to get additional male support, or lay intainly prominent, is not an independent cause of war‘‘insurance’’ against future loss of their husbands.(Ferguson 1995: 355-358), but one manifestation ofWhy would women need insurance, if men are sorelationships that are severely strained by antagonis-eager to add another mate? Is there any evidencetic interests regarding exogenous trade goods.from tribal societies that widows go to men with

whom they have had affairs? If males are innately It is in this inclusive frame that Gat (II) dis-jealous about paternity, and predisposed to violencecusses a range of secondary reasons for war, consid-and even killing at any suspicion of infidelity (as erations of status, revenge, power, insecurity, the su-Buss especially emphasizes), extra support from apernatural, cannibalism, play. True enough, suchlover would have to be so limited as to be unnotice-factors are clearly involved in processes leading toable by a wary husband. Is it likely that such limited war in many situations. I too see many of them asbenefits outweigh the costs of being beaten or killed,part of an integrated motivational complex, but in aregularly over thousands of generations? very different light than Gat. Rather than separate

Gat (I: 31) also invokes what Wilson and Daly traits, each capable of leading to war, joined by(1985) call the ‘‘young male syndrome,’’ the intui- common selective advantage in an imagined past, Itively reasonable proposal that young unmarriedsee them as part of holistic relations between socialmen, peaking at twenty-five, are most prone to vio- groups in the present, with ideas of status, revenge,lence because in an evolutionary perspective suchwitchcraft, etc. brought into play in ways structuredrisk taking may be most crucial for their reproduc- by underlying material interests (Ferguson 2000:tive success. But Napoleon Chagnon’s data contra- 222-225). By claiming these all should be seen asdict this idea, demonstrating that among Yanomami, equally valid explanations of war, because of theira maximum of 5 out of 83 men under 25 years old assumed evolutionary advantages, Gat side-steps the(1988:989), and possibly none of them (1990: 50 main issues in the anthropology of war, which is,n.1), have participated in a killing. Moreover, Cha- what factors or conditions explain why people fight?gnon (1968: 115, 129-130) reports that young men His answer seems to be, ‘‘they all do.’’ This rendersare among the least willing to engage in risky physi- his theory irrelevant to efforts to explain variationscal violence. Among Yanomami, killers are generally in war. If in an evolutionary perspective, the ques-middle-aged married men with children. Logical and tion of what factors best explain the occurrence ofempirical problems such as these abound in the sex- war is ‘‘pointless,’’ does that not make an evolution-ual selection models of neo-Darwinian thought. ary perspective ‘pointless’ for those who think the

question is important?Gat (I: 27-29) makes a good case that conflictover and capture of women plays an important role In anchoring explanation in an unknowablein many reported cases of warfare. Many have com- past, the theory becomes unfalsifiable. If some fre-mented before on the prominence of fighting over quently noted reason for war does not contribute di-women in simpler societies, including authors quite rectly to reproductive or somatic success, then it en-distant from sociobiology (for example, Collier and hances social status, which itself contributes to such


Darby Printing Company VAX/VMS Job 1 PADAMS /20200C05/SYSTEM 18-DEC-00 11:01 Style: $1$DKA0:[PAGER.STYLES]ANQU.BST;7 File: USER1:[PWVN$VOL1.LREV.ANQU]505492.;1 Seq: 52 Color: 0 Free lead 420DCpoints, Next lead 440D, Vjust R :3


success. If that cannot be posited, then it is a ‘‘mal- 1984c: 37-39; 1990b: 29-31). (In more sophisticated,adaptive outgrowth and deviation from an evolution- often hermeneutic, theorizing, this remains a majorshaped behavioral pattern’’ (II: 84). Is there any pos-approach in the anthropology of war [see Haassible motivation that could not be explained in this 1990], which is not addressed by Gat). Both Harrisway? (1979: 62-63) and myself posited a limited number

In discussing prisoner’s dilemmas and related of evolved psychological propensities oriented to-ideas, Gat (II: 78-79) lets game theory run away ward maintaining material well-being. Combinedwith him. Yes, such logic of insecurity is definitely a with other elemental, uncontroversial dimensions offactor, but heavily tempered by other considerations. human nature—such as a sex drive, a desire to beTake the Yanomami, about whom he quotes E.O.esteemed by others, an ability to bond with young,Wilson on their inability to stop fighting. But Ya- behavioral flexibility, reliance on learning, and thenomami, in practice, do end their wars. Active fight- capacity for cooperation—taking care of materialing between two groups rarely if ever lasts morewell-being (rather than doing whatever culture tellsthan two years, lingering hostilities and suspicions you to do, or being directed by a multitude of Dar-notwithstanding (Ferguson 1995: 47-48). It is signifi- winian predispositions) can account for the spectacu-cant how light this extended discussion is on ethno- lar evolutionary success of our species. But Gat isgraphic citations, relying critically on two realist the- correct that we did not speculate on how these basicorists writing on recent global international relations. psychological orientations evolved. Speaking for my-One could take this as an effort to naturalize the re- self, on the topic of war, that seemed far less impor-alist paradigm, making arms races as natural as treetant than formulating and testing hypothesis abouttrunks (II: 79). Structural realism is heavily criti- the causes of war in the present.cized in international relations theory today. Does it For others, such as Gat, that is not enough.make sense to uncritically import it into They seek an ultimate answer for war, one that fore-anthropology? grounds the fact that human beings are animals, that

To summarize, I have four main areas of disa- our species’ behavioral capacities did come into be-greement with Gat. First, available evidence contra- ing via natural selection. In Gat’s work I see a pos-dicts the assumption that warfare was a regular part sibility of developing common ground between theof our ancestral environment of evolutionary adap- two interests. His theory does not need to posit wartion. Second, simple population-to-resources ecologi- throughout our hunter-gatherer past. Most or all ofcal explanations of war such as Gat suggests have the behavioral predispositions he proposes are muchbeen investigated in ethnographically known socie- broader in significance than the restricted area ofties, and generally disconfirmed (although more group conflict, and could evolve without it. Wecomplicated and situationally limited ecological ex- share a similar perspective on the importance of ma-planations are supported). Third, the common neo- terial goals. If he would put more emphasis on theDarwinian hypotheses on reproductively motivated proximate goal of sexuality without a reproductivebehavior suffer from serious logical and empirical calculus, on his point that ‘‘people widely desiredeficiencies. Fourth, I would put material self- love and sex for their own sake’’ (II: 75), we wouldinterest as superordinate to any and all the other mo- be close to agreement there. I do accept that manytives Gat discusses as a general, primary reason be- of the ‘‘second floor’’ factors he discusses are rea-hind war. That last point requires some elaboration, sons for war, which though structured by materialwhich in the end may establish substantial common concerns do have some autonomy and independentground between Gat and myself. explanatory value. I see no reason Gat should object

Early in his argument Gat (I: 21) criticizes cul- to the proposition that how explanatory any or all oftural materialists for taking the motive of material them are for explaining war is a significant questiongain as simply a fact of life. Some history is needed for empirical investigation. How acceptable any ofhere. Material goals in war were posited as part of a this will be to Gat I cannot predict. But regardlessgeneral shift from systemic to actor-based models, of his reaction, I believe this article has advancedand against the dominant orientation that people will the possibility of dialogue between materialist andfight for whatever culture tells them to (Ferguson evolutionary explanations of war.


Darby Printing Company VAX/VMS Job 1 PADAMS /20200C05/SYSTEM 18-DEC-00 11:01 Style: $1$DKA0:[PAGER.STYLES]ANQU.BST;7 File: USER1:[PWVN$VOL1.LREV.ANQU]505492.;1 Seq: 53 Color: 0 Free lead 60D points, Next lead 90D, Vjust J1:2

‘‘PRIMITIVE WARFARE’’ 163

REFERENCES CITED

Buss, David. 2000. The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: The Free Press.Carman, John, and Anthony Harding, eds. 1999. Ancient warfare: Archaeological perspectives. Trowbridge, Wiltshire, U.K.: Sutton

Publishing.Chagnon, Napoleon. 1968. Yanomamo: The fierce people. New York: Holt Rinehart Winston._____. 1979. Mate competition, favoring close kin, and village fissioning among Yanomamo Indians. In Evolutionary biology and

human social behavior: An anthropological perspective, ed. N. Chagnon and W. Irons. North Scituate MA: Duxbury._____. 1987. Male Yanomamo manipulations of kinship classifications of female kin for reproductive advantage. In Human reproductive

behavior: A Darwinian perspective, ed. L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, and P. Turke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press._____. 1988. Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science 239: 985-992._____. 1990. On Yanomamo violence: Reply to Albert. Current Anthropology 31: 49-53.Chapman, John. 1999. The origins of warfare in the prehistory of Central and Eastern Europe. In Ancient warfare: Archaeological per-

spectives, ed. J. Carman and A. Harding. Trowbridge, Wiltshire, Great Britain: Sutton Publishing.Cole, Keith. 1975. A history of Oenpelli. Darwin, Australia: Nungalinya Publications.Collier, Jane and Michelle Rosaldo. 1981. Politics and gender in simple societies. In Sexual Meanings, ed. S. Ortner and H. Whitehead.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Divale, William and Marvin Harris. 1976. Population, warfare, and the male supremacist complex. American Anthropologist 78: 521-

538.Dolukhanov, P.M. 1999. War and peace in prehistoric Eastern Europe. In Ancient warfare: Archaeological perspectives, ed. J. Carman

and A. Harding. Trowbridge, Wiltshire, Great Britain: Sutton Publishing.Ember, Carol. 1978. Myths about hunter-gatherers. Ethnology 17: 439-448.Ember, Carol and Melvin Ember. 1992. Resource unpredictability, mistrust, and war: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Conflict Resolu-

tion 36: 242-262.Ferguson, R. Brian. 1984a. A reexamination of the causes of Northwest Coast warfare. In Warfare, culture, and environment, ed. R. Fer-

guson. Orlando FL: Academic Press._____, ed. 1984b. Warfare, culture, and environment. Orlando FL: Academic Press._____. 1984c. Introduction: Studying war. In Warfare, culture, and environment, ed. R. Ferguson. Orlando FL: Academic Press._____. 1988. War and the sexes in Amazonia. In Dialectics and gender: Anthropological approaches, ed. R. Randolph, D. Schneider,

and M. Diaz. Boulder CO: Westview Press._____. 1989. Game wars? Ecology and Conflict in Amazonia. Journal of Anthropological Research 43: 179-206_____. 1990a. Blood of the leviathan. American Ethnologist 17: 237-257._____. 1990b. Explaining war. In The anthropology of war, ed. J. Haas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press._____. 1995. Yanomamo warfare: A political history. Santa Fe NM: School of American Research Press._____. 1997. Violence and war in prehistory. In Troubled times: Violence and warfare in the past, ed. D. Martin and D. Frayer. Amster-

dam: Gordon and Breach._____. 2000. A savage encounter: Western contact and the Yanomami war complex. In War in the tribal zone: Expanding states and

indigenous warfare, ed. R. Ferguson and N. Whitehead,Santa Fe NM: School of American Research Press._____. n.d. Anthropological perspectives on war. In The study of war, ed. R. Kohn and A. Roland. Manuscript in files of the author.Ferguson, R. Brian, and Neil L. Whitehead, eds. 2000. War in the tribal zone: Expanding states and indigenous warfare, 2d ed. Santa

Fe NM: School of American Research Press.Ghiglieri, Michael. 1999. The dark side of man: Tracing the origins of male violence. Reading MA: Perseus.Haas, Jonathan, ed. 1990. The anthropology of war. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press._____. 1999. The origins of war and ethnic violence. In Ancient warfare: Archaeological perspectives, ed. J. Carman and A. Harding.

Trowbridge, Wiltshire, Great Britain: Sutton Publishing._____. n.d. Warfare and the evolution of culture. In Archaeology at the Millennium, ed. G. Feinman and D. Price. New York: Plenum,

forthcoming.Harris, Marvin. 1979. Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. New York: Random House._____. 1984. A cultural materialist theory of band and village warfare: The Yanomamo test. In Warfare, culture, and environment, ed.

R. Ferguson. Orlando FL: Academic Press.Hoffman, Michael. 1993. Egypt before the pharaohs. New York: Barnes and Noble Books.Jones, Rhys and Jim Bowler. 1980. Struggle for the savanna: Northern Australia in ecological and prehistoric perspective. In Northern

Australia: Options and implications, ed. R. Jones.Canberra: The Australian National University.Keeley, Lawrence. 1996. War before civilization: The myth of the peaceful savage. New York: Oxford.Knauft, Bruce. 1991. Violence and sociality in human evolution. Current Anthropology 32: 391-428.Meggitt, M.J. 1962. Desert people: A study of the Walbiri aborigines of Central Australia. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Milner, George. 1995. An osteological perspective on prehistoric warfare. In Regional approaches to mortuary analysis, ed. L. Beck.

New York: Plenum.Roper, Marilyn. 1975. Evidence for warfare in the Near East from 10,000-4,300 B.C. In War: Its causes and correlates, ed. M. Nettle-

ship, D. Givens, and A. Nettleship. The Hague: Mouton.


Darby Printing Company VAX/VMS Job 1 PADAMS /20200C05/SYSTEM 18-DEC-00 11:01 Style: $1$DKA0:[PAGER.STYLES]ANQU.BST;7 File: USER1:[PWVN$VOL1.LREV.ANQU]505492.;1 Seq: 54 Color: 0 Free lead 4460DMpoints, Next lead 0D, Vjust R :2


Shrire, Carmel. 1982. The Alligator Rivers: Prehistory and ecology in western Arnhem Land. Canberra: The Australian National Univer-sity Press.

Tacon, Paul and Christopher Chippindale. 1994. Australia’s ancient warriors: Changing depictions of fighting in the rock art of ArnhemLand, N.T. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4: 211-248.

Tooby, John and Leda Cosmides. 1988. The evolution of war and its cognitive foundations. Institute for Evolutionary Studies TechnicalReport 88-1.

Vencl, Slavomil. 1999. Stone age warfare. In Ancient warfare: Archaeological perspectives, ed. J. Carman and A. Harding. Trowbridge,Wiltshire, Great Britain: Sutton Publishing.

Wendorf, Fred. 1968. Site 117: A Nubian final paleolithic graveyard near Jebel Sahaba, Sudan. In The prehistory of Nubia, vol. II, ed. F.Wendorf. Dallas TX: Fort Burgwin Research Center and Southern Methodist University Press.

Wendorf, Fred and Ramuald Schild. 1986. The prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya. Dallas TX: Southern Methodist University Press.Wilson, Margo and Marin Daly. 1985. Competitiveness, risk taking and violence: The young male syndrome. Ethnology and Sociobi-

ology 6: 59-73.Wolf, Eric. 1987. Cycles of violence: The anthropology of war and peace. In Waymarks: The Notre Dame inaugural lectures in anthro-

pology, ed. K. Moore. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Documents

FERGUSON - THE CAUSES AND ORIGINS OF ‘‘PRIMITIVE WARFARE’’ ON EVOLVED MOTIVATIONS FOR WAR