War, Anthropology of

War is armed combat (fighting with weapons) between warriors or soldiers from two different political communities. This definition puts emphasis on learning to use weapons because learning to use weapons is socialization for armed combat. Warfare by definition is differentiated from other forms of killing—those that occur within political communities; these are, namely, homicide, political assassination (unless it is the leader of another polity), feuding, capital punishment, dueling, and human sacrifice. The study of war should focus upon pairs of political communities or pairs of alliances (of course, a single political community could be at war with an alliance). The warfare that occurs over a period of time between two rival entities (political communities or alliances) constitutes a “warfare system.” An intergroup relations approach is useful in analyzing warfare systems: how relationships between polities influence relationships within polities and how these in turn influence relationships between polities. Each warfare system is unique.

Examination of the best-known warring societies makes it clear that warfare systems are so different that their comparison as wholes is difficult. Famous warring societies in the ethnographic record include the Alaskan Eskimo, Andamanese, Balona, Cherokee, Cheyenne and Sioux,Dani, Figi, Higi, Iban, Ifugao and Kalinga, Iroquois and Huron, Jivaro,Kofyar, Kwakiutl, Maori, Maring, Mohave, Montenegro, Mundurucu, Murngin,Navaho, Nuer and Dinka, Pima and Papago, Tausug, Tibetans, Tiwi, Tonga,Waorani, Western Apache, Yanamamo, Yoroba, and Zulu. Archaeologically known warring societies include the Aztec, Easter Islanders, Greek Hoplites, Inca, Maya (once considered peaceful), Moche, Samurai Japan,Shang Chinese, Sumerians, and Zapotec. For comprehensive bibliographies see Divale (1973) and Ferguson (1988).

Anthropologists who study war have found that war is a near universal; it occurs with great frequency at all levels of sociopolitical complexity. Societies without war are rare. Even societies without war may be part of a warfare system. For example, a hunting–gathering people such as the peaceful Semai of Southeast Asia have been attacked so frequently that they have become a refugee group or enclaved people. The two most common reasons why a few societies are peaceful are that, at the time they were studied, they had been conquered and become a dependent native people or they had long lived in an isolated area or been recently driven to one. Otterbein found four such societies in his cross-cultural study of war: Copper Eskimo, Dorobo, Tikopia, and Toda.

Hunting–gathering bands have been erroneously considered by numerous anthropologists to be peaceful. The belief is held so widely that it can be called a myth. Numerous cross-cultural studies, however, have shown that the percentage of warring bands ranges from75–92%. This result is based on a review of six cross-cultural studies, two of which focused on bands. Peaceful hunter-gatherers, thus, are only 8–25% in these samples. The myth of the peaceful band grew out of evolutionary or developmental theory that arose in the Foundation Period (c. 1850–c. 1920),flourished during the Classical Period (c. 1920–c. 1960), and persisted to the present.

To dissect warfare systems it is necessary to select several key variables or dimensions. The goals of the combatants or the reasons that the military organizations or polities go to war are appropriately examined first. Comparative studies have identified four goals or causes of war: defense (including revenge), plunder (including spouse capture),prestige (for individuals and polity), and political control (which includes either hegemonic or territorial control). These studies show that defense and revenge are universal, if war is present. Defense and revenge are universally found because those who are attacked must respond in some manner: fight, flee, or surrender. And fight, if able, is the first response. The aggressors are likely to attack for one to three reasons: sustenance, sites, or spouses (the plunder goal)—the three Ss of war. Resources, including (according to may cultures) women, are seized, or land is taken for hunting territories, fields for crops, or habitation sites. The goals form a Guttman scale with plunder being more important than prestige; in other words, where [Page 2299]prestige is found plunder is also, but where plunder is found prestige may not be. Thus material reasons for war, although not universal, are nevertheless more commonly found than prestige reasons. Thus, the sequence is defense– revenge, plunder, prestige, and political control. The four goals are related to level of political complexity. Indeed, only centralized political systems go to war for political control.

...