Chapter XIV Fortunes of War: From Primitive Warfare to Nuclear Policy in Anthropological Thought

Barton C. Hacker

Anthropologists have regularly revised their viewpoints about the cultural meaning of war and peace since the late nineteenth century. For the discipline’s formative years, from the last half of the nineteenth century through the first quarter of the twentieth, war and military institutions fit well into the social evolutionary paradigm that dominated all the social sciences.

Although Plato’s Republic (1945 [c. 350 BCE]) and Aristotle’s Politics (1946 [c. 340 BCE]) had anciently recognized the central role of military institutions in the state, the modern version of that idea emerged from eighteenth-century reflections on the secular bases of human society and the fundamental importance of social (including military) in­stitutions. Enlightenment social philosophers regularly noticed that the rise of military in­stitutions appeared to link the origins of war with the origins of the social order (Hacker 1993: 2—4; Hacker 1994). But what they observed, chiefly in passing, about the founda­tional importance of military institutions became a major theme in nineteenth-century so­cial thought.

Through most of the nineteenth century, anthropology remained merely part of a largely undifferentiated and historically oriented social science (Ross 1991).

Military institutions also held vital roles in Max Weber’s unfinished and posthu­mously published masterwork of comparative historical sociology, Economy and Society (1968). Weber, who died in 1920, was a serious economic historian whose theory sprang from systematic analysis (Frank 1976); Spencer, in contrast, tended to rely on selected

ethnographic and historical example (Carneiro 1967). Spencer was not, however, We­ber's primary rival. It was Karl Marx, whose social theory Weber devoted his greatest efforts to amplify (Zeitlin 1968, chapter 11; Collins 1974, 1986; Vitkin 1981). Like We­ber's Economy and Society, Marx's masterpiece, Capital (1906), had remained unfin­ished at his death in 1883 and his Grundrisse (1973 [1939]) had not even been intended for publication (Oakley 1983). Unlike Marx, Weber insisted on paying explicit attention to material means of social functions other than production, violence among them. “Separation of the warrior from the means of warfare” seemed to Weber no less signifi­cant than separation of the worker from the means of production, “the concentration of the means of warfare in the hands of the warlord” as freighted with meaning as the con­centration of the means of production in the hands of the capitalist (Weber 1968: 2: 1155).

Marx had noticed the military origins of discipline (Marx 1906, chapter 13), which became a subject of Weber's close study. Vital to the social order, discipline was the key to shifting the basis of social action from charisma to bureaucracy, from ephemeral en­thusiasm to stable routine, from passion to reason (Weber 1968, chapter 14. 3. 1). And it began with the army. “Military discipline gives birth to all discipline,” Weber (1968: 2: 1155) asserted. “It has always in some way affected the structure of the state, the econ­omy, and possibly the family.” The barracks-like men's houses widespread among pre­state societies maintained warriors apart from family, and it was this so-called warrior communism that accounted for such allegedly pristine social phenomena as universal promiscuity, marriage by capture, or matriarchy (Weber 1968: 2: 1153-1154).

By the end of the nineteenth century, the idea that government ultimately originated in military institutions had become widely accepted. Some believed with Spencer that militarism declined as industrialism advanced; others shared the social Darwinist view that military institutions still dominated social evolution. Even those who rejected war as a positive good could still allow it as a necessary role in civilized life. Either way, virtu­ally no one questioned the historical primacy of military institutions. “All state organiza­tion was originally military organization, organization for war,” commented one of Ger­many's most eminent historians, Otto Hintze (Simon 1968; Gerhard 1970) in a 1906 Dresden lecture. “This can be regarded as an assured result of comparative history” (Hintze 1975: 181).

A decade later in England, R. R. Marett (1920 [1915]: 36) in his presidential address to the Folk-lore Society about “War and Savagery” termed it “a commonplace of anthro­pology that at a certain stage of evolution... war is [read: military institutions are] a prime civilizing agency.” To the extent that a field discernable as the anthropology of war existed in the half-century before the First World War, however, it comprised cata­logues of weapons arranged to demonstrate a hypothetical cultural evolution.

The World War inaugurated dramatic changes in every aspect of culture and society, not least in intellectual life (Winter et al. 2000). Revulsion against the experience of war fed into disciplinary reactions against the excesses of social evolutionism to sharply re­duce the study of war (Becker and Barnes 1961: chapter 20; Hawthorn 1976: chapter 8). Social science fragmented into separate disciplines, each stressing a more narrowly con­ceived scientism focused on structure, function, and behavior (Anderson 1990, Moore 1978). When war again forced itself on the attention of social scientists in the 1940s, their structural-functional approach contrasted sharply with the evolutionary orientation of such thinking before and during the First World War (Benedict 1946, 1959 [1939]; Malinowski 1941; Childe 1941; Swanton 1943). Conceptually, war displaced the mili­tary as the social institution to be studied by anthropologists and other social scientists (Mead 1940, Clarkson and Cochran 1941, Bernard 1944). The new approach also en­joyed significant government support during World War II (Dower 1986).

Through the 1940s and 1950s, even into the early 1960s, however, the anthropology of war never attained any clear identity as a field of study in its own right. As they had for decades, war or weapons usually appeared as a topic in ethnographic studies (La- Barre 1948, Duff 1952, Lewis 1955, Cunnison 1959) or might briefly cross the pages of a general survey (Hoebel 1949, Jacobs and Stern 1952, Bates 1955, La Barre 1955, Honigman 1959). Diligent readers could find published accounts of indigenous warfare as formerly practiced in such widely scattered regions as the Great Plains (Newcomb 1950, Smith 1951, Secoy 1953), the Pacific Northwest (Swadesh 1948, Codere 1950), or the desert Southwest (Stewart 1947, Spicer 1950, Woodbury 1958) of North America, in South America (Fernandes 1949, 1952), Africa (Jeffries 1956, Evans-Pritchard 1957), or Oceania (Tippett 1958, Glasse 1959).

That began changing in the 1960s, stimulated at least in part by the trauma of Viet­nam. Two substantial anthologies of previously published material appeared in the mid- 1960s (Bramson and Goethals 1964; Bohannon 1967), but the crucial event was an un­precedented plenary symposium at the 1967 meeting of the American Anthropological Association, which became a book the following year. Edited by Morton Fried, Marvin Harris, and Robert Murphy, War: The Anthropology of Armed Conflict and Aggression (1968) helped define the anthropology of war as a distinct subfield.

Strongly reinforcing that definition in 1971 was the second edition of Harry Holbert Turney-High's study of Primitive War, a book scarcely noticed in its first edition two decades earlier (Rapoport 1971). Anthropologists had also largely ignored a still earlier (and less polemical) argument for a qualitatively distinct “Primitive War” in Quincy Wright's otherwise influential Study of War (1942); its 1965 edition attracted little notice either. Wright was a jurist and political scientist, of course, while Turney-High was an anthropologist, which may explain why their work received such different receptions.

Turney-High argued strongly for the priority of organization over weaponry in de­termining the course and outcome of war. He also forcefully insisted that “primitive war­fare” differed qualitatively from “civilized warfare,” although his assumption that then- current U. S. Army doctrine somehow represented the last word on military correctness seemed odd for an anthropologist (Turney-High 1971/1949, 1981). Notwithstanding the book's highly polemical tone and other flaws that have largely vitiated its latter-day rele­vance, it clearly played a major role in launching the anthropology of war (Roland 1991).

Another factor in forming the anthropology of war was the reopening of highland New Guinea for ethnographic fieldwork, scarcely begun before interrupted by World War Two (Watson 1964: 1-2). Anthropologists for the first time in recent memory could observe nearly pristine primitive warfare and a series of field reports in the late 1960s and 1970s did much to provide the anthropology of war with a more persuasive empiri­cal basis (Rappaport 1967, Gardner 1968, Koch 1974, Vayda 1976, Hallpike 1977, Meggitt 1977; cf. Puma 1987). Functional approaches of various kinds dominated the emergent anthropology of war, all viewing war as a product chiefly of culture, despite evidence of its ubiquity (Otterbein 1970, Harrison 1973, Divale 1973, Nettleship et al. 1975). That war is chiefly a product of culture, not genes or human nature, has remained the dominant anthropological viewpoint (Ferguson 1984, Ferguson and Farragher 1988, Robarchek 1989, Haas 1990a, Knauft 1991; Reyna and Downs 1994).

To others, the ubiquity of war suggested a genetic basis for weaponry and killing, an idea popularized by Robert Ardrey in African Genesis (1961) and several later books (Ardrey 1966, 1970, 1976). Popularizers with better credentials than Ardrey, such as Konrad Lorenz (1966) and Desmond Morris (1967, 1969), reinforced the claim. They rediscovered the social Darwinist view, as Greta Jones (1980: 174) phrased it, “of the es­sential unchanging character of the structure of human society showing how its natural basis reflected war, acquisitiveness, property, aggression and inferiority of the female.”

In the 1970s, the more or less popular treatises written by scientists in the new field of sociobiology, most notably Edward O. Wilson (1975, chapter 27; 1978, chapter 5), usually included a chapter that argued from innate human aggressiveness to explain the origins of war (Barash 1979, chapter 6; Alcock 1979, chapter 13; Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1979). With few exceptions, anthropologists and other social scientists sharply criticized socio­biology's implied or overt reductionism (Montagu 1968, 1976; Alland 1972, chapter 6; Bock 1980; Howell and Willis 1989; Hunter 1991). Accordingly, sociobiological claims, if not entirely withdrawn, became muted or at least more nuanced (Hinde 1992, Howe 1992, van der Dennen and Falger 1990, van der Dennen 1991, cf. Morris 1983, chapter 7).

More recently, the same claims that genes determine a wide variety of social and cul­tural behavior, including warfare, have been reasserted (admittedly minus some of the worst sociobiological excesses) under the rubric of evolutionary psychology (Barkow et al. 1992, Plotkin 1998, Buss 1999). Although most of the “evidence” drawn from non­primate behavioral studies has been expunged, evolutionary psychology remains no less suspect than sociobiology (Wilson 1994, Dusek 1999).

Questionable or not, the supposed genetic basis for war attracted the interest of some anthropologists. Archaeological evidence for prehistoric death by artifact became all too easily transmuted into evidence for war (rather than, say, murder), ambiguous rock draw­ings into evidence for armies (Tiger 1969, chapter 4; 1993; Holloway 1974; Chagnon and Irons 1979; Shaw 1985; Shaw and Wong 1989; Manson and Wrangham 1991). For the most part, however, before the mid-1990s few archaeologists gave much thought to just how one might identify war as distinct from other forms of violence in the archaeo­logical record, or what record military organization might leave, and the conclusions were by no means clear-cut (Roper 1969, 1975; Behrens 1978; Vencl 1984, 1991; Tkac- zuk and Vivian 1989; Haas 1990b).

Such concerns remained unresolved through what Roberta Gilchrist (2003: 1) de­scribed as the mid-1990s “explosion of interest in the archaeology of warfare.” Just as the Vietnam War stimulated the emergence of the anthropology of war, the moral impact of the late twentieth century's bloody ethnic wars may have influenced the rise of the ar­chaeology of war (Vankilde 2003). The specific catalyst was the 1996 publication of War before Civilization, Lawrence J. Keeley's polemical assessment of archaeology's unwarranted pacification of the past. Neither Keeley nor some of those who followed in his footsteps seemed much concerned with distinguishing war from other forms of vio­lent behavior in the archaeological record (Martin and Frayer 1997, Carman and Red­mond 1997, Walker 2001). Yet the distinction matters, as a recent exchange between po­litical scientist Azar Gat (2000a, b) and anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson (2000) in the pages of Anthropological Quarterly clearly demonstrates.

The Gat-Ferguson argument falters upon their failure to address the qualitative dif­ferences between warfare and other forms of individual or intergroup violence. People may have always fought with each other, but war belongs to complex societies. As H. S. Harrison (1929: 9), the curator of London's Horniman Museum and Library, long ago observed in his handbook of the museum's weapons collection, “fighting has its roots in defensive rather than offensive instincts, whilst warfare proper is a refinement of civilisa­tion.” Exactly when war began has evoked a range of answers from modern scholars, but many share the view that at some point 10,000 and 5,000 years before the present a new kind of violent human interaction emerged, qualitatively different from past forms of vio­lent behavior. The origin of war was a historic event, not part of the human condition (Dawson 1999, Kelly 2000; Thorpe 2003).

War has also attracted growing interest from historical archaeologists. Documentary evidence, even if indirect, allows them to finesse the problems of identifying warlike re­mains. They can determine when they have found a battlefield (Scott et al. 1989, Fiorato et al. 2000) or another manifestation of military presence (Cocroft 2000, Hill and Wile­man 2001). The study of twentieth-century military structures on the land has lately be­come an especially lively enterprise, emphasizing the World Wars and the Cold War (Foot 2000, Schofield et al. 2002, Dobinson 2003, Cocroft and Thomas 2003). Anthro­pological and sociobiological attempts to account for war simply reflected another facet of the long-running and inconclusive debate over nurture versus nature as primary de­terminants of human behavior (Cravens 1978; Degler 1991, Dawson 1996). In a sense, it hardly mattered whether war was a function of sociocultural imperatives or an expression of innate human biology. Both sides took war as a central human activity, widespread though seemingly maladaptive, and assumed that what needed explaining was fighting and killing. Neither paid much attention to the more significant topic of military organi­zation and its consequences.

The 1960s saw a third approach to the problem of war that sidestepped the nature­nurture debate and focused on institutions. Modern political anthropology developed around the question of the origin of the state (Service 1985). It made war a dependent variable, the product of social organization, specifically military institutions. This had been one of the central themes of nineteenth-century social evolutionism, which also en­joyed a new lease on life. Three important books reopened the old question and force­fully stated a modern case for social evolution. Elman Service laid the groundwork with a textbook of case studies first published in 1962 (with several later editions): Primitive Social Organization. His later monograph, Origins of the State and Civilization (1975), addressed the question more directly. Meanwhile Morton Fried in 1968 published The Evolution of Political Society. Although neither Service nor Fried made war a crucial factor, both addressed war as a central topic in social evolution.

Robert Carneiro became the key figure in moving military institutions back to center stage when he gave coercion the starring role in state formation. “A Theory of the Origin of the State” appeared in 1970, though its thesis had been foreshadowed in an earlier, less widely noticed article (Carneiro 1961). Drawing on a wealth of anthropological and ar­chaeological data, he persuasively argued that only in circumstances that allowed con­quest through armed force could states be formed. Carneiro's thesis has been immensely influential (Roscoe and Graber 1988) and he has continued to expand his views (Carneiro 1992, 1994). Other anthropologists have followed his lead in discussing the general problem (Webb 1970; Webster 1975; Lewis 1981; Haas 1982; Cohen 1984, Redmond 1998), but also in studying the role of armies in specific instances of state for­mation, especially in Africa (Law 1980; Roberts 1980a; Siran 1980; Barnes and Ben- Amos 1983; Tymowski 1981, 1987).

Carneiro (2003) has lately published a critical history of evolutionism in cultural an­thropology and contributed to a recent reappraisal of Herbert Spencer's work (Caneiro and Perrin 2002). That Spencer's sociocultural evolutionism strongly influenced Carneiro's thinking emerges clearly from Carneiro's 1967 edition of Herbert Spencer for modern readers. The same seems true of Stanislav Andreski (1969), who also edited Spencer for moderns. Despite its conventional tagging as sociology, Andreski's 1954 study of Military Organization and Society rests squarely in the comparative, sociocul­tural evolutionary tradition that antedated the First World War. Like Turney-High's Primitive War, Andreski's book received little notice when first published. Its real im­pact upon the social sciences—sociology, political science, and history, as well as an­thropology—followed the publication of a second edition (1968), and even more its ap­pearance in paperback three years later.

By the 1970s the nascent field of ethnohistory began to meld findings from the an­thropology of war and political anthropology. The seminal work was Jack Goody's 1971 essay on Technology, Tradition and the State in Africa. Following Max Weber, he ar­gued that any attempt to understand society demanded paying attention not only to the material means of production (as Marx advocated) but also to the material means of other social functions, violence among them. Discussing nineteenth-century state formation in the Sudan, Goody (1971) explicitly addressed “Polity and the Means of Destruction,” a theme others found persuasive (Smaldone 1977, Roberts 1980b, Winzeler 1981).

Ethnographers also noticed that armed force was not limited to state formation. In due course, some began to infringe on sociological territory with studies of civilized mili­tary institutions, most notably in pursuing the ethnography of nuclear decision-making and other aspects of military-technological policy in late twentieth-century America (Mandelbaum 1984, Rubinstein and Foster 1988, Turner and Pitt 1989, Gusterson 1996).

Anthropological approaches to war have taken three tacks. Anthropologists of war mostly address the warlike activities of non-state and pre-state peoples as observed in the field. This has always posed problems, for a number of reasons. The rise of fieldwork as a professional rite of passage coincided with the growing efforts of colonial powers to suppress primitive warriors. And, as we have learned in recent years, the practice of war among non-state peoples has never been observed in a truly pristine environment (Fergu­son and Whitehead 1992). Military influence, if not direct pressure, from states almost certainly distorted normal practices beyond all recognition.

Sociobiologists claim to find war springing from human genes. In its extreme posi­tion, the argument is ludicrous, leading some to equate ant and human societies (O'Connell 1995, chapter 2; cf. Topoff 1984). Moderation, however, still leaves war as an expression of innate human aggression. There may, in fact, be some case to be made for a genetic component in human warfare. People are, after all, capable of bellicose be­havior. But bellicosity, although it may be an asset for warriors, only hampers soldiers, whose primary virtues are discipline and obedience. However uncomfortable the termi­nology has become in recent decades, primitive warfare really is distinct from civilized warfare, and the difference between bellicosity and obedience is crucial.

Social evolutionists have been most consistent in recognizing the enduring influence of military activity on social organization. In the discourse of social evolution, war tends to be peripheral to the central inquiry, which concerns military institutions. Unfortu­nately, social evolutionists regularly attempt to use the term “militarism” neutrally to la­bel normal military activities and organization. In doing so, they neglect the term's pejo­rative connotations and the studies that have identified militarism as an aberration of the military order (Vagts 1959, Berghahn 1982).

Military institutions are species of social institutions, patterned social relationships between individuals and groups that organize and control the achievement of enduring social purposes. Unlike more commonly recognized social institutions present in all hu­man societies, military institutions exist only in those that have attained state or near-state organization; indeed, they have shaped the state from its origins at the dawn of history. The social purposes they serve center on wielding coercive force toward several ends: warding external threats, seizing resources, quelling internal dissent. Military institutions comprise more than uniformed men. Ultimately, they encompass the state itself and their influence pervades the entire social system (Hacker 1994).

Social scientists have too often failed to acknowledge, perhaps even to recognize, the distinction between the social action of war and the social structure of military institu­tions. Distinguishing clearly between war, even war conceived as a social institution, and military institutions is essential. Armies are complex, hierarchal, and disciplined social organizations of soldiers, not ephemeral gatherings of more-or-less independent warriors. And the kind of war fought by armies is qualitatively different from the other kinds of inter-group conflict that has sometimes been termed primitive war. “War,” in short, la­bels several very different activities and our language betrays us when we unthinkingly apply the same word to all.

The issue is not merely the impact of a specific war or wars, or even of war in gen­eral. That war serves as potent cause of change is an old idea. But war is also sporadic, making it difficult to discern as a shaper of development. Thus war appeared as a natural catastrophe or divine retribution, an agent of social disruption rather than a motor for so­cial change. Military institutions, in contrast, are powerful and persistent social struc­tures. As major nexuses of social values, ideas, and interests, they clearly play large and constant historical roles.

But social scientists seldom grant the subject the attention its importance merits. An­tiwar or antimilitarist sentiments, rather than spurring efforts to understand the evil, in­stead seem chiefly to evoke revulsion and to condone, if not to justify, ignorance. War will not go away because we deny its existence, but we may be able to do something about it if we learn enough about the social, especially military, institutions from which it derives.

References

Aho, James Alfred. (1975). German Realpolitik and American Sociology: An Inquiry into the Sources and Political Significance of the Sociology of Conflict. Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Bucknell University Press; London: Associated University Presses.

Alcock, John. (1979). Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach. 2nd edition. Sun­derland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates.

Alland, Alexander, Jr. (1972). The Human Imperative. New York: Columbia University Press.

Anderson, Stephen K. (1990). Social Evolutionism: A Critical History. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Andreski, Stanislav. (1954). Military Organization and Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

-----. (1968). Military Organization and Society. 2nd edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

-----, editor. (1969). Principles of Sociology, by Herbert Spencer. Hamden, Connecti­cut: Archon Books.

Ardrey, Robert. (1961). African Genesis: A Personal Investigation into the Animal Ori­gins and Nature of Man. New York: Atheneum.

-----. (1966). The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of Property and Nations. New York: Atheneum.

-----. (1970). The Social Contract: A Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary Sources of Order and Disorder. New York: Atheneum.

-----. (1976). The Hunting Hypothesis: A Personal Conclusion Concerning the Evolu­tionary Nature of Man. New York: Atheneum.

Aristotle. (1946). The Politics of Aristotle. Translated by Ernest Barker. London: Oxford University Press.

Bannister, Robert C. (1979). Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Thought. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Barash, David. (1979). The Whisperings Within. New York: Harper and Row.

Barkow, Jerome H., Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby, editors. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barnes, Sandra J., and Paula Ben-Amos. (1983). Benin, Oyo, and Dahomey: Warfare, state building, and the sacralization of iron in West African history. Expedition 25 (Winter): 5-14.

Bates, Marston. (1955). The Prevalence of People. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Becker, Howard, and Harry Elmer Barnes. (1961). Social Thought from Lore to Science: A History and Interpretation of Man's Ideas about Life with His Fellows. 3rd edi­tion, 3 volumes. New York: Dover.

Behrens, Hermann W. (1978). Der Kampf in Steinzeit (Ein Diskussionbeitrag vom Aspekt des Prahistorikers). Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 108: 1-7.

Benedict, Ruth. (1946). The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Cul­ture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

-----. (1959 [1939]). The natural history of war. In An Anthropologist at Work: Writ­ings of Ruth Benedict, edited by Margaret Mead, pp. 369-382. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Berghahn, Volker R. (1982). Militarism: The History of an International Debate, 1861­1979. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Bernard, L. L. (1944). War and Its Causes. New York: Holt.

Bock, Kenneth. (1980). Human Nature and History: A Response to Sociobiology. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bohannon, Paul, editor. (1967). Law and Warfare: Studies in the Anthropology of Con­flict. Garden City, New York: Natural History Press, for the American Museum of Natural History.

Bowler, Peter J. (1984). Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley: University of Cali­fornia Press.

Bramson, Leon, and George W. Goethals, editors. (1964). War: Studies from Psychol­ogy, Sociology, Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.

Buss, David M. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Carman, John, and Elsa L. Redmond, editors. (1997). Material Harm: Archaeological Studies of War and Violence. Glasgow: Cruithne Press.

Carneiro, Robert L. (1961). Slash-and-burn cultivation among the Kuikuru and its impli­cations for cultural development in the Amazon Basin. In The Evolution of Horti­cultural Systems in Native South America: Causes and Consequences, a Sympo­sium, edited by Johannes Wilbert, pp. 47-65. Antropologica (Caracas), supplement 2:

-----, editor. (1967). The Evolution of Society: Selections from Herbert Spencer's “Principles of Sociology.” Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

---------. (1970). A theory of the origin of the state. Science 169: 733-738.

-----. (1992). The role of warfare in political evolution: Past results and future projec­tions. In Effects of War on Society, edited by Giorgio Ausenda, pp. 87-102. San Marino: AIEP Editore, for the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Social Stress.

-----. (1994). War and peace: Alternating realities in human history. In Studying War: Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Stephen P. Reyna and R. E. Downs, pp. 3-27. Langhorne, Pennsylvania: Gordon and Breach.

-----. (2003). Evolutionism in Cultural Anthropology: A Critical History. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Carneiro, Robert L., and Robert G. Perrin. (2002). Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Soci­ology: A centennial retrospective and appraisal. Annals of Science 59: 221-261.

Chagnon, Napoleon A., and William Irons, editors. (1979). Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective. North Scituate, Massa­chusetts: Duxbury Press.

Childe, V. Gordon. (1941). War in prehistoric societies. Sociological Review 33: 126­138.

Clark, Linda L. (1984). Social Darwinism in France. University: University of Alabama Press.

Clarkson, Jesse D., and Thomas C. Cochran, editors. (1941). War as a Social Institution: The Historian's Perspective. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cocroft, Wayne D. (2000). Dangerous Energy: The Archaeology of Gunpowder and Military Explosives Manufacture. Swindon: English Heritage.

Cocroft, Wayne D., and Roger Thomas, editors. (2003). Cold War: Buildingfor Nuclear Confrontation. Swindon: English Heritage.

Codere, Helen. (1950). Fighting with Property: A Study of Kwakiutl Potlatching and Warfare, 1792-1930. Monographs of the American Ethnological Society 18. Seat­tle: University of Washington Press.

Cohen, Ronald. (1984). Warfare and state formation: Wars make states and states make wars. In Warfare, Culture, and Environment, edited by R. Brian Ferguson, pp. 329-359. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.

Collins, Randall. (1974). The empirical validity of the conflict tradition. Theory and So­ciety 1: 147-178.

-----. (1986). Weberian Sociological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cravens, Hamilton. (1978). The Triumph of Evolution: American Scientists and the He­redity-Environment Controversy, 1900-1941. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl­vania Press.

Crook, Paul. (1994). Darwinism, War and History: The Debate over the Biology of War from the “Origin of Species ” to the First World War. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­versity Press.

Cunnison, Ian. (1959). The Luapula Peoples of Northern Nigeria: Custom and History in Tribal Politics. Manchester: Manchester University Press, for the Rhodes- Livingstone Institute, Northern Rhodesia.

Dawson, Doyne. (1996). The origins of war: Biological and anthropological theories. History and Theory 35/1: 1-28.

-----. (1999). Evolutionary theory and group selection: The question of warfare. His­tory and Theory 38/4: 79-100.

Degler, Carl N. (1991). In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Dar­winism in American Social Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.

Divale, William Tulio. (1973). Warfare in Primitive Societies: A Bibliography. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio.

Dobinson, Colin. (2003). Building Radar. London: Methuen, for English Heritage.

Dower, John W. (1986). War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War. New York: Pantheon Books.

Duff, Wilson. (1952). The Upper Stalo Indians, of the Fraser Valley, British Columbia. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.

Dusek, R. Valentine. (1999). Sociobiology sanitized: Evolutionary psychology and gene selectionism debates. Science as Culture 8.2: 129-170.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenaus. (1979). The Biology of Peace and War: Man, Animals, and Ag­gression. New York: Viking.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1957). Zande Warfare. Anthropos 52: 239-262.

Ferguson, R. Brian, editor. (1984). Warfare, Culture, and Environment. Orlando, Flor­ida: Academic Press.

-----. (2000). On evolved motivations for war. Anthropological Quarterly 73: 159­164.

Ferguson, R. Brian, and Leslie E. Farragher. (1988). The Anthropology of War: A Bibli­ography. New York: Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.

Ferguson, R. Brian, and Neil L. Whitehead, editors. (1992). War in the Tribal Zone: Ex­panding States and Indigenous Warfare. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of Ameri­can Research Press.

Fernandes, Florestan. (1949). A analise Iuncionalista da guerra: possibilidades de aplica- cao a sociedade tupinamba. Ensaio de analise critica da contribuicao etnografica dos cronistas para o estudo sociologico da guerra entre populacaos aborigenes do Brasil quinhentista e seiscentista. Revista doMuseu Paulista, new series 3: 7-128.

-----. (1952). A I’uncao social da guerra na sociedade tupinamba. Revista do Museu Paulista, new series 6: 1-425.

Fiorato, Veronica, Anthea Boylston, and Christopehr Knusel, editors. (2000). Blood Red Roses: The Archaeology of a Mass Grave from the Battle of Towton AD 1461. Ox­ford: Oxbow Books.

Foot, William. (2000). Landscape of war. British Archaeology no. 54.

Frank, R. I. (1976). Translator’s introduction. In The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civi­lizations, by Max Weber, 7-33. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press.

Fried, Morton H. (1968). The Evolution of Political Society: An Essay in Political An­thropology. New York: Random House.

Fried, Morton H., Marvin Harris, and Robert Murphy, editors. (1968). War: The Anthro­pology of Armed Conflict and Aggression. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.

Gardner, Robert, and Karl G. Heider. (1968). Gardens of War: Life and Death in the New Guinea Stone Age. New York: Random House.

Gat, Azar. (2000a). The human motivational complex: Evolutionary theory and the causes of hunter-gatherer fighting, part II: Proximate, subordinate, and derivative causes. Anthropological Quarterly 73: 74-88.

---------. (2000b). Reply to Ferguson. Anthropological Quarterly 73: 165-168.

Gerhard, Dietrich. (1970). Otto Hintze: His work and his significance in historiography. Central European History 3: 17-48.

Gilchrist, Roberta. (2003). Introduction: Towards a social archaeology of warfare. World Archaeology 35: 1-6.

Glasse, Robert M. (1959). Revenge and redress among the Huli: A preliminary account. Mankind 5: 273-289.

Goody, Jack. (1971). Technology, Tradition, and the State in Africa. London: Oxford University Press.

Gusterson, Hugh. (1996). Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Haas, Jonathan. (1982). The Evolution of the Prehistoric State. New York: Columbia University Press.

-----, editor. (1990a). The Anthropology of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

-----. (1990b). Warfare and the evolution of tribal politics in the prehistoric South­west. In The Anthropology of War, edited by Jonathan Haas, pp. 171-189. Cam­bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hacker, Barton C. (1993). Military institutions and social order: Transformations of Western thought since the Enlightenment. War and Society 11: 1-23.

-----. (1994). Military institutions, weapons, and social change: Toward a new history of military technology. Technology and Culture 35: 768-834.

Hallpike, C. R. (1977). Bloodshed and Vengeance in the Papuan Mountains: The Gen­eration of Conflict in Tauade Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Harrison, H. S. (1929). War and the Chase: A Handbook of the Collection of Weapons of Savage, Barbaric, and Civilised Peoples. The Horniman Museum and Library. 2nd edition. London: London County Council.

Harrison, Robert. (1973). Warfare. Basic Concepts in Anthropology. Minneapolis: Bur­gess.

Hawthorn, Geoffrey. (1976). Enlightenment and Despair: A History of Sociology. Cam­bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hill, Paul, and Julie Wileman. (2001). Landscapes of War: The Archaeology of Aggres­sion and Defence. Stroud, England: Tempus.

Hinde, Robert A. (1992). Aggression and the institution of war. In The Institution of War, edited by Robert A. Hinde, pp. 1-8. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Hintze, Otto. (1975 [1906]). Military organization and the organization of the state. Lec­ture at the Gehe Stiftung, Dresden. In The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze, edited by Felix Gilbert with Robert M. Berdahl, pp. 180-215. New York: Oxford Univer­sity Press.

Hobhouse, Leonard T. (1956). The simplest peoples, part II: Peace and order among the simplest peoples. British Journal of Sociology 7: 96-119.

Hoebel, E. Adamson. (1949). Man in the Primitive World: An Introduction to Anthro­pology. New York: MacGraw-Hill.

Holloway, Ralph L., editor. (1974). Primate Aggression, Territoriality, and Xenophobia: A Comparative Perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Honigman, John J. (1959). The World of Man. New York: Harper and Row.

Howe, Henry, et al. (1992). The rhetoric of sociobiology. Social Epistemology 6: 107­240.

Howell, Signe, and Roy Willis, editors. (1989). Societies at Peace: Anthropological Per­spectives. London: Routledge.

Hunter, Anne E., editor. (1991). Genes and Gender VI. On Peace, War, and Gender: A Challenge to Genetic Explanations. New York: Feminist Press.

Jacobs, Melville, and Bernhard J. Stern. (1952). General Anthropology. 2nd edition. New York: Barnes and Noble.

Jeffries, M. D. W. (1956). Ibo warfare. Man 56: 77-79.

Jones, Greta. (1980). Social Darwinism and English Thought: The Interaction between Biological and Social Theory. Sussex, England: Harvester Press; Atlantic High­lands, New Jersey: Humanities Press.

Keeley, Lawrence H. (1996). War before Civilization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, Raymond C. (2000). Warless Societies and the Origin of War. Ann Arbor: Uni­versity of Michigan Press.

Knauft, Bruce M. (1991). Violence and sociability in human evolution. Current Anthro­pology 32: 391-428.

Koch, Klaus-Friedrich. (1974). War and Peace in Jalimo: The Management of Conflict in Highland New Guinea. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

La Barre, Weston. (1948). The Aymara Indians of the Lake Titicaca Plateau, Bolivia. American Anthropological Association, Memoir 68.

La Barre, Weston. (1955). The Human Animal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Law, Robin. (1980). The Horse in West African History: The Role of the Horse in the Societies of Pre-Colonial West Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leeds, Anthony. (1963). The functions of war. In Violence and War: With Clinical Stud­ies, edited by Jules H. Masserman, pp. 69-82. New York and London: Grune & Stratton.

LeVine, Robert A. (1961). Anthropology and the study of conflict: An introduction. Journal of Conflict Resolution 5: 3-15.

Lewis, Herbert S. (1981). Warfare and the origin of the state: Another formulation. In The Study of the State, edited by Henri J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalnik, pp. 201­221. The Hague: Mouton.

Lewis, I. M. (1955). Peoples of the Horn of Africa: Somali, Afar and Saho. Ethnographic Survey of Africa, North-Eastern Africa, part 1. London: International African Insti­tute.

Lorenz, Konrad. (1966). On Aggression. Translated by Marjorie Kerr Wilson. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. (1941). An anthropological analysis of war. American Journal of Sociology 46: 521-550.

Mandelbaum, David G. (1984). Anthropology for the nuclear age. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 40 (June/July): 11-15.

Manson, Joseph H., and Richard W. Wrangham. (1991). Intergroup aggression in chim­panzees and humans. Current Anthropology 32: 369-390.

Marett, R. R. (1920 [1915]). War and savagery. Presidential address to the Folk-lore So­ciety. In Psychology and Folk-lore, by R. R. Marett, pp. 27-48. London: Methuen.

Martin, Debra L., and David W. Frayer, editors. (1997). Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.

Marx, Karl. (1906). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1: The Process of Capitalist Production. Translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling from the 3d German edition, edited by Frederick Engels. Revised by Ernest Untermann ac­cording to the 4th German edition. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr.

-----. (1973 [1939]). Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. Translated by Martin Nicolaus. New York: Random House.

Mead, Margaret. (1940). Warfare is only an invention—not a biological necessity. Asia 40: 402-405.

Meggitt, Mervyn. (1977). Blood Is Their Argument: Warfare among the Mae Enga of the New Guinea Highlands. Palo Alto, California: Mayfield.

Montagu, M. F. Ashley, editor. (1968). Man and Aggression. London: Oxford Univer­sity Press.

---------. (1976). The Nature of Human Aggression. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moore, Wilbert E. (1978). Functionalism. In A History of Sociological Analysis, edited by Tom Bottomore and Robert Nisbet, pp. 321-361. New York: Basic Books.

Morris, Desmond. (1967). The Naked Ape: A Zoologist’s Study of the Human Animal. New York: McGraw-Hill.

---------. (1969). The Human Zoo. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Morris, Richard. (1983). Evolution and Human Nature. New York: Seaview/Putnam.

Murphy, Robert F. (1957). Intergroup hostility and social cohesion. American Anthro­pologist 59: 1018-1035.

---------. (1958). Reply to Wilson. American Anthropologist 60: 1196-1199.

Nettleship, Martin A., R. Dale Givens, and Anderson Nettleship, editors. (1975). War: Its Causes and Correlates. The Hague: Mouton.

Newcomb, W. W., Jr. (1950). A re-examination of the causes of Plains warfare. Ameri­can Anthropologist 52: 317-330.

Oakley, Allen. (1983). The Making of Marx’s Critical Theory: A Bibliographical Analy­sis. London: Routledge.

O'Connell, Robert L. (1995). Ride of the Second Horseman: The Birth and Death of War. New York: Oxford University Press.

Oldroyd, D. R. (1980). Darwinian Impacts: An Introduction to the Darwinian Revolu­tion. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press.

Otterbein, Keith F. (1970). The Evolution of War: A Cross-Cultural Study. Philadelphia: HRAF Press.

Pear, T. H. (1948). Peace, war, and culture-patterns. John Rylands Library Bulletin 31: 120-147.

Pitt-Rivers, A. H. Lane-Fox. (1906 [1867-1869]). Primitive warfare. Journal of the Royal United Service Institution 11-13. Reprinted in Pitt-Rivers, The Evolution of Culture, and Other Essays, edited by J. L. Myres, pp. 45-185. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plato. (1945). The Republic of Plato. Translated by Francis MacDonald Cornford. New York: Oxford University Press.

Plotkin, Henry. (1998). Evolution in Mind: An Introduction to Evolutionary Psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Puma, Edward Li. (1987). War in the New Guinea Highlands: Theory and ethnography in conflict. In Dominance, Aggression and War, edited by Diane McGuinness, pp. 180-196. New York: Paragon House.

Rapoport, David C. (1971). Foreword. In Primitive War: Its Practice and Concepts, by Harry Holbert Turney-High, pp. v-xi. 2nd edition. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Rappaport, Roy A. (1967). Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Redmond, Elsa M., editor. (1998). Chiefdoms and Chieftaincy in the Americas. Gaines­ville: University Press of Florida.

Reyna, Stephen P., and R. E. Downs, editors. (1994). Studying War: Anthropological Perspectives. Langhorne, Pennsylvania: Gordon and Breach.

Robarchek, Clayton A. (1989). Primitive warfare and the ratomorphic image of mankind. American Anthropologist 91: 903-920.

Roberts, Richard L. (1980a). Production and reproduction of warrior states: Segu Bam- bara and Segu Tokolor, c. 1712-1890. International Journal of African Studies 13: 389-419.

-----. (1980b). Warfare, technology, and the state. Canadian Journal of African Stud­ies 14: 334-340.

Roland, Alex. (1991). Introduction. In Primitive War: Its Practice and Concepts, by Harry Holbert Turney-High, pp. vii-xi. 2nd edition, 3rd printing. Columbia: Uni­versity of South Carolina Press.

Roper, Marilyn Keyes. (1969). A survey of the evidence of intrahuman killing in the Pleistocene. Current Anthropology 10: 427-459.

-----. (1975). Evidence of warfare in the Near East from 10,000-4,300 B.C. In War: Its Causes and Correlates, edited by Martin A. Nettleship, R. Dale Givens, and Anderson Nettleship, pp. 299-343. The Hague: Mouton.

Roscoe, Paul B., and Robert B. Graber, editors. (1988). Circumscription and the evolu­tion of society. American Behavioral Scientist 31: 403-511.

Ross, Dorothy. (1991). The Origins of American Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rubinstein, Robert A., and Mary LeCron Foster, editors. (1988). The Social Dynamics of Peace and Conflict: Culture in International Security. Boulder, Colorado: West­view Press.

Russett, Cynthia Eagle. (1976). Darwin in America: The Intellectual Response, 1865­1912. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Schneider, Joseph. (1950). Primitive warfare: A methodological note. American Socio­logical Review 15: 772-777.

Schofield, John, William Gray Johnson, and Colleen M. Beck, editors. (2002). Materiel Culture: The Archaeology of Twentieth Century Conflict. London: Routledge.

Scott, Douglas D., Richard A. Fox, Jr., Melissa A. Connor, and Dick Harmon. (1989). Archaeological Perspectives on the Battle of Little Big Horn. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Secoy, Frank Raymond. (1953). Changing Military Patterns on the Great Plains (17th Century through Early 19th Century). Monographs of the American Ethnological Society 21. Locust Valley, New York: J. J. Augustin.

Service, Elman R. (1962). Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective. New York: Random House.

-----. (1975). Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: W. W. Norton.

-----. (1985). A Century of Controversy: Ethnological Issues from 1860 to 1960. Or­lando, Florida: Academic Press.

Shaw, R. Paul. (1985). Humanity’s propensity for warfare: A sociobiological perspec­tive. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 22: 158-183.

Shaw, R. Paul, and Yuwa Wong. (1989). Genetic Seeds of Warfare: Evolution, National­ism, and Patriotism. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Simon, W. M. (1968). Power and responsibility: Otto Hintze’s place in German histori­ography. In The Responsibility of Power: Historical Essays in Honor of Hajo Hol- born, edited by Leonard Krieger and Fritz Stern, pp. 215-237. Garden City, New York: Doubleday.

Siran, Jean-Louis. (1980). Emergence et dissolution des principautes guerrieres voute. Socicte des Ajricanistes, Journal 50: 25-57.

Smaldone, Joseph P. (1977). Warfare in the Sokoto Caliphate: Historical and Sociologi­cal Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, Marian W. (1951). American Indian warfare. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2nd series, 13: 348-365.

Sorokin, Pitirim A. (1928). Contemporary Sociological Theories: Through the First Quarter of the Twentieth Century. New York: Harper.

Spencer, Herbert (1876-1896). Principles of Sociology. 3 volumes. New York: D. Ap­pleton.

Spicer, Edward H. (1950). The military orientation of Yaqui culture. In For the Dean: Essays in Anthropology in Honor of Byron Cummings on His Eighty-ninth Birth­day, September 20, 1950, edited by Erik K. Reed and Dale S. King, pp. 171-188. Tucson: Hohokam Museums Association; Santa Fe: Southwestern Monuments As­sociation.

Stewart, Kenneth M. (1947). Mohave warfare. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 3: 257-278.

Swadesh, M. (1948). Motivations in Nootka warfare. Southwestern Journal of Anthro­pology 4: 76-93.

Swanton, John R. (1943). Are Wars Inevitable? War Background Studies 12. Washing­ton: Smithsonian Institution.

Thorpe, I. J. N. (2003). Anthropology, archaeology, and the origin of warfare. World Ar­chaeology 35: 145-165.

Tiger, Lionel. (1969). Men in Groups. New York: Random House.

-----. (1993). Biological antecedents of human aggression. In Primate Social Conflict, edited by William A. Mason and Sally P. Mendoza, pp. 373-386. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Tippett, A. R. (1958). The nature and social function of Fijian war (focus—1739-1846). Transactions and Proceedings of the Fiji Society 5: 137-55.

Tkaczuk, Diana Claire, and Brian C. Vivian, editors. (1989). Cultures in Conflict: Cur­rent Archaeological Perspectives. Calgary: Archaeological Society of Calgary.

Topoff, Howard. (1984). Social organization of raiding and emigrations in army ants. Advances in the Study of Behavior 14: 81-126.

Turner, Paul R., and David Pitt, editors. (1989). The Anthropology of War and Peace: Perspectives on the Nuclear Age. Granby, Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey.

Turney-High, Harry Holbert. (1971/1949). Primitive War: Its Practice and Concepts. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

-----. (1981). The Military: The Theory of Land Warfare as Behavioral Science. West Hanover, Massachusetts: Christopher.

Tymowski, Michal. (1981). The army and the formation of the states of West Africa in the nineteenth century: The cases of Kenedugu and Samori State. In The Study of the State, edited by Henri J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalnik, pp. 427-442. The Hague: Mouton.

-----. (1987). LArmee et la formation des etats en Afrique occidentale au XIX^e si¸cle—essai de comparaison: L 'Etat de Samori et le Kenedougou. Warsaw: Wy- dawnictwa Uniwersystetu Warszawskiego.

Vagts, Alfred. (1959). A History of Militarism, Civilian and Military. Revised edition. London: Hollis and Carter.

van der Dennen, Johan M. G. (1991). Studies of conflict. In The Sociobiological Imagi­nation, edited by Mary Maxwell, pp. 223-241. Albany: State University of New York Press.

van der Dennan, Johan M. G., and Vincent S. E. Falger, editors. (1990). Sociobiology and Conflict: Evolutionary Perspectives on Competition, Cooperation, Violence and Warfare. London: Chapman and Hall.

Vandkilde, Helle. (2003). Commemorative tales: Archaeological responses to modern myth, politics, and war. World Archaeology. 35: 126-144.

Vayda, Andrew P. (1976). War in Ecological Perspective: Persistence, Change, and Adaptive Processes in Three Oceanian Societies. New York and London: Plenum Press.

Vencl, Slavomil. (1984). War and warfare in archaeology. Translated by Petr Charvat. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3: 116-132.

-----. (1991). Interpretation des blessures causees par les armes au Mesolithique. LAnthropologie (Paris) 95: 219-228.

Vitkin, Mikhail A. (1981). Marx and Weber on the primary state. In The Study of the State, edited by Henri J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalnik, pp. 443-454 The Hague: Mouton.

Walker, Phillip L. (2001). A bioarchaeological perspective on the history of violence. Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 573-595.

Watson, James B. (1964). Anthropology in the New Guinea Highlands. In New Guinea: The Central Highlands, edited by James B. Watson, pp. 1-19. American Anthro­pologist Special Publication, vol. 66, number 4, part 2.

Webb, Malcolm C. (1970). The flag follows trade: An essay on the necessary interaction of military and commercial factors in state formation. In Ancient Civilizations and Trade, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 155-209. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Weber, Max. (1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Translated by Ephraim Fischoff, et al. 2 vol­umes. New York: Bedminster Press.

Webster, David. (1975). Warfare and the evolution of the state: A reconsideration. American Antiquity 40: 464-470.

Wilson, David Sloan. (1994). Adaptive genetic variation and human evolutionary psy­chology. Ethology and Sociobiology 15: 219-235.

Wilson, Edward O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard Uni­versity Press.

---------. (1978). On Human Nature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, H. Clyde. (1958). Regarding the causes of Mundurucu warfare. American An­thropologist 60: 1193-1196.

Winter, Jay, Geoffrey Parker, and Mary R. Habeck, editors. (2000). The Great War and the Twentieth Century. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Winzeler, Robert L. (1981). The study of the Southeast Asian state. In The Study of the State, edited by Henri J. M. Claessen and Peter Skalnik, pp. 455-467. The Hague: Mouton.

Woodbury, Richard B. (1958). A reconsideration of Pueblo warfare in the Southwest U.S. Proceedings of the International Congress OfAmericanists 33, part 2: 24-33.

Wright, Quincy. (1942). A Study of War. 2 volumes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

-----. (1965). A Study of War. 2nd edition, with corrections. 2 volumes in 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zeitlin, Irving M. (1968). Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory. Engle­wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.