Warfare, Aggression, and Resource Problems: Cross-Cultural Codes

Ember, Carol R.; Ember, Melvin

doi:10.1177/106939719202600108

Cited by 81 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cutting points are 1, 25, 100, and 100 persons per square mile for hunting-and-gathering, simple horticultural, advanced horticultural, and agrarian societies, respectively. Warfare is from Ember and Ember (1995). L 2 1.7739, p 0.1829, phi 0.1219.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an Ecological-Evolutionary Theory of the Incidence of Warfare in Preindustrial Societies

Nolan

2003

Sociological Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prompted by the lack of attention by sociologists and the challenge of materialist explanations of warfare in “precivilized” societies posed by Keeley (1996), this paper tests and finds support for two materialist hypotheses concerning the likelihood of warfare in preindustrial societies: specifically, that, as argued by ecological-evolutionary theory, dominant mode of subsistence is systematically related to rates of warfare; and that, within some levels of technological development, higher levels of “population pressure” are associated with a greater likelihood of warfare. Using warfare measures developed by Ember and Ember (1995), measures of subsistence technology originally developed by Lenski (1966, 1970), and the standard sample of societies developed by Murdock and White (1969), this study finds evidence that warfare is more likely in advanced horticultural and agrarian societies than it is in hunting-and-gathering and simple horticultural societies, and that it is also more likely in hunting-and-gathering and agrarian societies that have above-average population densities. These findings offer substantial support for ecological-evolutionary theory and qualified but intriguing support for “population pressure” as explanations of cross-cultural variation in the likelihood of warfare.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an Ecological-Evolutionary Theory of the Incidence of Warfare in Preindustrial Societies

Nolan

2003

Sociological Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In chimpanzees, the primary proximate mechanism driving lethal coalitionary aggression appears to be local imbalances of power which lead to group-level benefits such as larger territories, more food, and greater reproductive opportunities to the aggressors (11,12,15). Anthropologists, on the other hand, have postulated a number of mechanisms responsible for lethal intergroup conflict in small-scale societies that span a variety of causal levels and empirical support, such as population regulation (18,19), within-culture individual rewards (status and reproductive opportunities) (20,21), between-group competition (22,23), and novel response to contact with the Western world (24). One mechanism that conforms to the homology hypothesis-the fraternal interest group model-highlights how particular social structures modulate the emergence and intensity of lethal coalitionary aggression in tribal-level human societies (25)(26)(27)(28)(29).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lethal coalitionary aggression and long-term alliance formation among Yanomamö men

Macfarlan

Walker

Flinn

et al. 2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some cross-cultural evidence suggests lethal coalitionary aggression in humans is the product of residence and descent rules that promote fraternal interest groups, i.e., power groups of coresident males bonded by kinship. As such, human lethal coalitions are hypothesized to be homologous to chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) border patrols. However, humans demonstrate a unique metagroup social structure in which strategic alliances allow individuals to form coalitions transcending local community boundaries. We test predictions derived from the fraternal interest group and strategic alliance models using lethal coalition data from a lowland South American population, the Yanomamö. Yanomamö men who kill an enemy acquire a special status, termed unokai. We examine the social characteristics of co-unokais or men who jointly kill others. Analyses indicate co-unokais generally are (i) from the same population but from different villages and patrilines, (ii) close age mates, and (iii) maternal half-first cousins. Furthermore, the incident rate for co-unokai killings increases if men are similar in age, from the same population, and from different natal communities. Co-unokais who have killed more times in the past and who are more genetically related to each other have a higher probability of coresidence in adulthood. Last, a relationship exists between lethal coalition formation and marriage exchange. In this population, internal warfare unites multiple communities, and co-unokais strategically form new residential groups and marriage alliances. These results support the strategic alliance model of coalitionary aggression, demonstrate the complexities of human alliance formation, and illuminate key differences in social structure distinguishing humans from other primates.internal warfare | male coalitions | fraternal interest groups | strategic alliances | Yanomamö T he evolution of lethal coalitionary aggression remains a pivotal topic across the biological and social sciences (1-12). Revealing the ultimate and proximate factors responsible for the emergence and dynamics of warfare is of practical and theoretical importance across a wide range of contexts, including the evolution of human ultra-sociality, coalitionary psychology, ethnic identity, leadership, and political behavior. Surprisingly few detailed analyses exist concerning the social composition of lethal coalitions in small-scale societies. This lack is problematic, because the particular form that lethal coalitions take sheds light on the adaptive function of this behavior and the phylogenetic roots of coalitionary aggression with chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).Humans, like chimpanzees, demonstrate a capacity to coordinate behavior with others to kill conspecifics (11)(12)(13)(14)(15). Although the scope of lethal coalitionary aggression is far greater in humans, a number of similarities exist between the two species, namely coordinated groups of adult males defending home territories and aggressing against individuals from other communities with low-cost but ...

show abstract

“…We had the following reasons for choosing a 25-year focal time period. First, our previously available codes (Ember & Ember, 1992b) measured frequency of war for a 25-year time span. Second, because many societies were pacified (forced to stop fighting by colonial or other authorities) around or shortly before the ethnographic present, we wanted a time span that gave us a chance to reach back into prepacification times.…”

Section: Time and Place Focusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…) It should be noted that about 50% of the societies that are known to anthropology (at the times they were first described) had no political organization beyond the local community;' that is, such societies had as many independent polities as they had communities (bands, villages). In Ember, Ember, and Russett (1992), we restricted our analysis to what has been called &dquo;internal&dquo; war (Ember & Ember, 1992b), that is, war between territorial units that speak the same language. (Many societies in the ethnographic record also had &dquo;external&dquo; war.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Political Participation and Peace: Cross-Cultural Codes

Ember

Russett

Ember³

1993

Cross-Cultural Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents and discusses cross-cultural codes that were used to test the hypothesis that more "democratic" (more partici patory) polities in the ethnographic record fight with each other less often than do less participatory polities. The codes measure frequency of internal and external war, and various aspects of political participation on the local and multilocal levels, among other variables.

show abstract

Warfare, Aggression, and Resource Problems: Cross-Cultural Codes

Cited by 81 publications

References 13 publications

Toward an Ecological-Evolutionary Theory of the Incidence of Warfare in Preindustrial Societies

Toward an Ecological-Evolutionary Theory of the Incidence of Warfare in Preindustrial Societies

Lethal coalitionary aggression and long-term alliance formation among Yanomamö men

Political Participation and Peace: Cross-Cultural Codes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About