Intra-societal Violence versus Warfare

As noted, it is hard sometimes to distinguish between intra-societal violence and inter-group warfare among small-scale societies. For such societies, we have considerable ethnographic evidence but not much information derived from early contact.

Most early historic accounts do not benefit from writers having had the close interactions that ethnographers do, and so they almost always describe inter-group violence. As a result, they provide us with little useful informa­tion on intra-group violence. For example, William Buckley discusses warfare extensively among Australian Aborigines, but barely mentions intra-societal conflict.^[79] Similarly, Burch, in his reconstruction of Inupiaq conflict before meaningful European contact, focuses on inter-group fighting but sees any intra-societal conflict as not nearly as important.³¹

These differences are probably extremes. The Yanomamo exhibit an interesting mix. There is ample real warfare with the usual high death rates. There are conflicts between allied groups where presumed allies are invited to feasts, then attacked and killed. Which is this: warfare or intra- societal conflict? Then there are axe fights where fighting among the men of the same village takes place and heavy dangerous blows are exchanged. Yet, there is a strong attempt to make sure no one gets killed.

A final form of intra-societal violence that is very significant is the collec­tive killing of one male by the other males of the group. The rationale for such killings seems to be that the male singled out for killing has become so violent and dangerous that he must be eliminated in order to protect the group from further episodes of unnecessary intra-group violence or dominat­ing behaviour. As far as one can tell, such individuals are typically very good warriors. They seem to authenticate their value to the community by displaying their fighting ability. They bully and injure or kill other males in the group, they likely access other men's women (although that is likely played down in the accounts of such incidents to the recorders), and their behaviour is so intolerable that they become more dangerous to the com­munity than their value as a good warrior warrants. Because they are dangerous, killing them needs to be done carefully. Moreover, if not done properly, their relatives may feel it was unjust and seek revenge. In some cases, the community instructs the individual's close relatives to kill him in order to eliminate any basis for revenge. In others, it is a community act. There is one account given to me directly by a Yanomamo tribesman visiting the United States of a Yanomamo dangerous warrior who, it is decided, must be killed. He is tricked into climbing a tree, and by necessity leaves his weapons behind. As he climbs down, weaponless, he is beset by all the males and killed.