Conflict, Violence, and Conflict Resolution in Hunting and Gathering Societies

TOTEM 43

William Lomas

The study of hunter-gatherers is of our perceptions of hunter-gatherers: these fundamental to the discipline of new models suggested that hunter-gatherers anthropology. All major and powerful are industrious, intelligent, and peaceful. anthropological models and theories that Moreover, it was found that they spend most purport to explain human variability were of their time not engaging in subsistence developed largely through data and practices, but in socializing and relaxing observations of hunter-gatherers (Ellis (Sahlins 1972). Some anthropologists, such 2008). In fact, one could argue that the field as Marshall Sahlins (1972), even went as far of anthropology could not exist without the as to characterize hunter-gatherers as “the study of these groups (Ellis 2008). For this original affluent society”. These new reason, critically examining the ranging concepts completely erased any former stereotypes about conflict, violence, and thoughts about hunter-gatherers being fierce, conflict resolution in hunter-gatherer unintelligent, and spending all of their time societies is necessary. This assessment is engaged in subsistence activities. important because historical character- The new picture offered by izations of hunter-gatherers have run the anthropologists of a peaceful people was gamut between peaceful “noble savages” to quickly adopted; however, increasing brutish and solitary “beasts”, and many of archaeological and ethnographic evidence these thoughts have persisted into modern suggests this is not always the case of studies (Ellis 2008). Evaluation of these hunter-gatherers of both the present and the stereotypes is needed to establish an past. More recent evidence suggests that accurate portrayal of hunter-gatherers. This these characterizations may be too general analysis will reveal that conflict and and do not account for the vast observed violence does exist, that hunter-gatherers variations within these societies. utilize effective conflict management and Undeniably, while anthropologists were resolution mechanisms, and that modern attempting to discount previous myths they hunter-gatherers cannot be used as have created new fallacies, such as all representatives of the past. hunter-gatherers are peaceful and non- Until recently, these stereotypes have aggressive. been based solely on ethnocentric personal beliefs and biases; however, anthropologists Studies of Modern Hunters and Gatherers of the 1960s revolutionized the manner in Studies of modern hunter-gatherers which evidence was collected. They chose are primarily performed so that we may gain to perform field work to directly examine, an insight as to how humans existed before observe, and measure the methods in which hunter-gatherers invented agriculture. modern hunter-gatherers lived. With this Through the archaeological record and new empirical evidence and data, new ethnographic data, it has been discovered models were formulated, new hypotheses that the term “hunter-gatherer” does not were tested, and new theories were define a homogenous group, but a vast proposed. This has led to a radical change continuum of differing societies. However, TOTEM 44 two main categories of hunter-gatherers are On the other hand, Bruce Knauft generally accepted: “simple” and (1990) argues that conflict and violence are “complex” (Woodburn 1982). Woodburn precipitated by status levelling and adult (1982) defines simple egalitarian hunter- male status differentiation. Status levelling gatherers as being mobile and flexible in is the attempt to maintain egalitarianism residence, having aversions to accumulation within a band, whereas, adult male status of personal goods, and creating a focus on differentiation is the attempt, by males, to sharing resources. For the purposes of this develop leadership roles within the group. paper, simple hunter-gatherers, where Knauft (1990) also suggests that status egalitarianism is paramount, will be levelling was the primary form of conflict emphasized. This defining feature will allow management within nomadic foragers. In a more focused approach to this analysis. It addition, he states that status levelling should be noted that these dichotomous results in fewer social aggressions and categories are not absolute and no hunter- behaviours but a higher frequency of lethal gatherer society fits perfectly within them. violence in the few aggressive incidents that occur (Knauft 1990:1013). Regardless of Causes of Conflict their differing views, both Knauft (1990) It is widely debated what the and Kent (1989, 1990) believe escalations of ultimate causes of conflict are within hunter- conflict and violence occur within the gatherer societies, but it has been well context of sedentism and aggregation. established that conflict and violence Clearly, Knauft (1990), and Kent escalate as the shift from foraging practices (1989, 1990) both make valuable toward pastoralism and agriculture contributions to the studies of conflict subsistence increases (Ellis 2008). More- aetiology. Additionally, it appears that they over, a correlation exists between the level have common ground among their of stratification of a society and the latter disagreements. Sedentism and aggregation two subsistence practices. This stratification are prime factors that precipitate conflict; is a precursor to competition and status however, the effects of resource competition hierarchy. In addition, according to tend to be overlooked. It should be noted evolutionary ecologists “conflict and that sedentism increases pressure on fighting in the human state of nature, as in resources and hence, competition. Sedentism the state of nature in general, was also allows an individual to collect more fundamentally caused by competition” (Gat personal possessions, adding to social 2000:84). stratification. Certainly, if resources are Besides competition, Susan Kent plentiful, conflict will be mitigated, but as (1990) argues that conflict and violence nearby resources become depleted or escalate with sedentism and aggregation of stressed, conflict will inevitably rise. populations. Kent (1989) notes that newly sedentary societies engage in more intra- Preventing Social Stratification – Putting group conflict than when they were Down the Aggressor nomadic. It has been widely documented Egalitarian societies appear to have that conflict rates within hunter-gatherer less intra-group conflict compared to groups increase when smaller groups join to socially stratified societies. According to form larger aggregates at various times of Bohem (1999:68), hunter-gatherers are not the year. focused on complete equality, but instead attempt to gain mutual respect that maintains

TOTEM: vol.17 2008-2009 Copyright © 2009 TOTEM: The U.W.O. Journal of Anthropology TOTEM 45 individual autonomy. He adds hunter- including sedentism and reduced subsistence gatherers are driven by the desire to territory due to encroaching neighbours maintain personal freedoms. This primary (Ellis 2008). For these groups, different drive allows them to make egalitarianism mechanisms are used to resolve intra-group take place despite competition, dominance, issues. For example, the !Kung have and submission that often leads to social utilized a headsman of the neighbouring stratification (Bohem 1999:65). Self- Tswana tribe to mediate conflicts that cannot proclaimed leaders are not tolerated and are be resolved within the group (Lee 1984). often ostracized by the group. In addition, This deviation from traditional methods of humility is highly regarded and deemed managing intra-group tensions may be the necessary within these groups. The !Kung beginnings of the implementation of a are a widely studied hunter-gatherer group stratified system to preside over conflicts. from the Kalahari desert, and their tradition In addition to the use of fission and of insulting the meat is a prime example of fusion to manage hunter-gatherers‟ conflict, modesty. In this practice, the hunter of the social and cultural pressures are of a prized game is often the subject of ridicule paramount significance. Draper (1978:31) by the group, and the hunter himself states that hunter-gatherers rely on informal ridicules his successful hunt (Lee 1984). methods of social control such as gossip, shunning, ridicule, ostracism, and public Non-Violent Conflict Resolution and debating which lead to group consensus. Management These methods of conflict management are Simple hunter-gatherer societies are extremely effective at ensuring that quarrels typically acephalous, meaning that they are and violence are avoided, or, if they should without a leader or central authority to arise, they are dealt with swiftly within the preside over the group. As such, conflict group to return the group back to the status resolution and management is collectively quo. dealt with within the band. Historically, intra-group conflict was managed by fission Ostracism and Shunning and fusion (Ellis 2008). This favoured Because the livelihood of each concept is simple: if you have a conflict person within the band is dependent on with a member of your group, you split sharing and cooperation, collective band (fission) from that group and join another ostracism and shunning is of prime (fusion). For this to be an effective mode of importance when discussing hunter-gatherer conflict resolution two things are essential. conflict management. For example Bonta First, land and resource territoriality must be (1996:409) states, absent or minimal. Secondly, and likely of prime importance, ease of mobility is when a member of a G/wi band does necessary (Ellis 2008). Both of the above not heed the consensus judgment of conditions are related to the straight- the group about a conflict, and he forwardness of leaving one group and ignores the barbed comment from joining another without incident. However, others and does not mend his ways, current hunter-gatherer settlement patterns, the people may have to ease the such as reduced mobility, are rapidly offender out. This is done not by undergoing a change that can complicate overt antagonism, but rather by fission and fusion. This reduction of subtly frustrating the offender, by mobility can be caused by various factors misunderstanding his wishes on

purpose, by not hearing him: by, in is heavily practiced and emphasized, as a effect, rejecting him without causing loss of self control will often lead to ridicule him to feel rejected or offended. The from the group (Bonta 1996:406). process prompts the offender to feel It is evident that these verbal disgusted with his life in the band, so methods of social control are exceedingly that he‟ll leave of his own accord effective and are also relied upon heavily in without feeling a need for revenge. hunter-gatherer groups. However, it should be noted that the ultimate purpose of these This behaviour highlights the need for controls is to prevent violent conflict from individual conformity. Collectively, the arising. In a sense, their function is twofold: band has a tremendous influence on to allow grievances to be aired, and to elicit individual behaviour, and if a member is a response from the offender that will shunned from the collective group his usually persuade them to conform. livelihood may be endangered (Bohem 1999:59). Clearly, conforming to the greater Public Airing and Debate wishes of the band makes for an easier and According to Draper (1978), the more successful life. nature of hunter-gatherer settlement patterns suggests a lack of privacy. Typically, Joking, Ridicule, and Gossip residences are all located within close In most hunter-gatherer societies, proximity. Therefore, any loss of control or direct confrontation is typically avoided, and display of anger is immediately noticed by the goal of conflict management is to keep fellow residents. This type of arrangement intra-group social relations running allows for all of the members of the group to smoothly. For example, according to Briggs witness, and participate in, conflicts that (2000), the Inuit take great steps to avoid may arise within the camps. For example, conflict. Personal wishes are typically Draper (1978) states the huts of expressed through hints and joking, approximately forty or so people are ordered allowing an individual to ignore the in a circular arrangement, and this allows the allusions and jokes should they so choose subtlest acts of antisocial behaviour to be (Briggs 2000:111). witnessed promptly. When an individual of In addition to joking, Lee (1984:30) the group feels slighted, he or she will talk mentions the importance of the design of the about it so that others will hear the !Kung camp for socializing, and this complaint. This behaviour allows the includes gossiping about fellow band grievance to be publicized which reduces the members. Lorna Marshall (1976:67) adds burden of frustration on the individual that it is discussed among the group if (Draper 1978:47-48). Clearly, this lack of someone has not reciprocated gift giving, in privacy acts to moderate conflicts by a timely manner. Marshall (1967:71) defusing them before they become too continues, however, to state that gossip that serious. may cause trouble is avoided. Gossip flows According to Marshall (1976), the freely among band members, and this can be !Kung use songs for discipline measures. a strong deterrent for inappropriate conduct. They feel that the sharing of a late night In addition to the aforementioned points, song is an effective manner of repositioning Bohem (1999:75) adds that when a hunting social deviates back in line (Marshall leader becomes overassertive, criticism is a 1976:67). Similarly, the Inuit developed a way of expressing annoyance. Self-restraint ritual known as the song duel to publicly

TOTEM: vol.17 2008-2009 Copyright © 2009 TOTEM: The U.W.O. Journal of Anthropology TOTEM 47 address interpersonal grievances (Briggs found that the !Kung can be scrappy and 2000). According to Briggs (2000:111) the violent, and the violence sometimes leads to song duel was resorted to in exceptional fatal results. Between 1922 and 1955 there circumstances when conflict was difficult to were 22 incidents of homicide (Lee 1984: resolve, and the two affronted individuals 91). When analyzing these numbers, first exchanged contemptuous songs while an impressions may lead one to believe that this amused audience watched. Briggs (2000) is a low figure for homicides. At such a low also states that these musical confrontations population density of the !Kung, however, are hidden among festive gatherings where this number could be interpreted as high. the songs of antagonists are easily confused The !Kung characterize three levels with good-humoured and playful songs that of conflict: talking, fighting, and deadly friendly parties share. Furthermore, the fighting. Lee found that the majority of details of the conflict are avoided, or are fights were between men and women alluded to in an ambiguous manner. This (1984:91). This observation presents a mode of conflict management allows the pattern that contradicts Knauft‟s (1990) antagonists to confront each other while above assertion that conflict arises due to pretending to be non-adversarial. The song status levelling and active male status duel is not judged by the validity of the differentiation. This is evident because hidden arguments but by the artistic more conflicts appear to occur between qualities of the song, so the conflict is males and females, rather than between deemed to be complete when the festivities males. In addition, Lee (1984) reported that end (Briggs 2000:110). most violent conflict between males was due Clearly, ostracism, shunning, joking, to disputes over the rights to marry females. ridicule, gossip, and public debating are Violent encounters especially escalated very common in hunter-gatherer societies. when females were scarce, and females as When examining these methods of non- young as eight years old have been violent conflict resolution and management, betrothed to males to prevent such violent it becomes very clear how the band conflicts (Lee 1984). In this sense, females collectively manages individual deviants are considered a resource for reproductive within the group. Moreover, these methods means for males, and the effects of highlight the interdependency among competition become evident when this individuals and how social compliance is resource is strained. vital for individual survival. For this reason, In addition to intra-group !Kung collective social pressures are incredibly violence, Woodburn (1982) asserts that the strong at ensuring social norms are adhered Hadza, a group in Tanzania, recognize the to, and respected. Even though these non- threat of public violence, the hazard of being violent conflict resolution methods are killed in their sleep by retaliation, and the extremely effective at regulating behaviours, threat of being ambushed while hunting violent conflict and aggression does, alone in the bush. Woodburn also reports nonetheless, arise. that the weapons of violence are the same tools that men use for hunting (1982:92). Violent Conflict and Aggression Presently, weapons are not typically To blindly accept previous assertions fashioned for violent purposes in modern that hunter-gatherers are resistant to hunter-gatherer groups (Woodburn 1982). engaging in violence and aggressive Display of strong emotion is often an behaviours would be a mistake. Lee (1984) indicator of imminent aggression. According

TOTEM: vol.17 2008-2009 Copyright © 2009 TOTEM: The U.W.O. Journal of Anthropology TOTEM 48 to Briggs (2000), the Inuit have a tradition Environment of controlling their emotions, including Presently, most hunter-gatherers live unhappiness and irritation, because they feel in what many would consider harsh that people who experience these emotions environments (LeBlanc 2003). It is of are dangerous, and that such people may considerable debate as to whether this is a resort to aggression to change their negative chosen residential locale or whether hunter- feelings. Stories are told of individuals who gatherers have been pushed to these extreme have killed, or threatened to kill, in grief environments because, as in the case of over the death of a loved one (Briggs desert groups, of agriculturists and 2000:111). Europeans encroaching on their area of Violence and aggression are readily subsistence (Ellis 2008). It can be assumed recognized within these groups, and this that hunter-gatherers of the past would have evidence contradicts the myth of the also resided in resource rich areas and not peaceful and non-aggressive hunter- only in harsh environments. This variation gatherer. With this evidence a clearer picture of past residential environments creates is formed of the methods employed by vastly different population pressures upon hunter-gatherers to manage intra-group the respective groups. LeBlanc (2003) conflict and violence. However, care must mentions that modern hunter-gatherers be taken to not make the common maintain low reproductive rates to maintain assumption that these modern groups are a stable population. This low reproductive representative of past hunter-gatherers. rate has a survival advantage in that it Further analysis is needed to establish the enables women to forage long distances extent of conflict and violence, and the from camp while still carrying a child. methods of conflict resolution of past However, if resources were more plentiful hunter-gatherers. and closer to the camp the need to space the births of children farther apart would be less The Present is Not the Past important and population growth rates The ultimate purpose of studying would increase (LeBlanc 2003:113). modern hunter-gatherer groups is to gain an LeBlanc‟s (2003) argument clarifies that insight and understanding of past human previous hunter-gatherers experienced existence before the development of population pressures in a manner that does agriculture. When attempting to develop not occur in modern groups. Past these thoughts, one must be careful not to environments and resources were conducive treat these modern hunter-gatherer groups as to a relatively rapid population growth rate, remnants of the past or as if they have not as historic hunter-gatherers managed to evolved. Modern groups have changed with explode in numbers and populate the world. the rest of the world. Nonetheless, the LeBlanc (2003) argues that when population environments in which modern hunter- growth is positive, resources become gatherers currently subsist are likely depleted quickly, and competition, conflict, dissimilar to the previous residential and aggression ensue. Therefore, because of environments and according to the past, rapid population growth rates of “environmental determinism” model, the historical hunter-gatherers, modern hunter- environment is a primary determinant in gatherers seldom experience the same shaping the behaviours of hunter-gatherers population pressures, and, consequent (Ellis 2008). The examples below illustrate resource competition. this point.

Weapons and Warfare control. This method is effective because This historical versus modern each individual is interdependent and referential conundrum presents difficulties conformity is necessary for the livelihood of when attempting to reconstruct the past. each member. However, the archaeological record is In addition to utilizing social control available to lend insight into the past and for conflict resolution and management, bolster our understanding of these historical modern hunter-gatherers live in vastly societies. In fact, LeBlanc (2003:115) states different environments than their counter- that “archaeology reveals burials with parts did in the past (LeBlanc 2003). The evidence of violent deaths and even present residential environments are massacres, and specialized weapons useful primarily harsh and modern groups have only for warfare have been found”. LeBlanc low birth rates that maintain stable (2003) also mentions that warfare between resources. This combination allows for neighbouring groups was not uncommon. adequate resources to be shared within the For example, the Herero (a group that group, generally reducing resource neighbours the !Kung) invaded !Kung competition. The differing residential areas territory in the 1800s, and they were of the past, however, provided great defeated with raids and warfare (LeBlanc resources, and high population growth rates 2003:116). LeBlanc (2003) also provides ensued. This combination eventually evidence that the early Arctic provides a strain on resources and anthropologists observed occurrences of competition naturally follows. Conse- warfare and were told stories about warfare quently, evidence of historical violence and among the Inuit. Researchers know that the warfare are common in the archaeological Eskimo had tools used exclusively for and ethnographical record. One must look warfare (LeBlanc 2003:117). This evidence at the data and evidence both objectively suggests that historical warfare was much and critically to dispel these perpetuated more prevalent in previous groups as myths of the “noble savage” or brutish compared to modern counterparts. In solitary “beast”. This is vital for a clear, addition, this emphasizes that caution should concise representation of what humans were be taken when deriving impressions of the like prior to the development of agriculture past. which transformed the current global human condition. Conclusion Conflict appears to occur at a lower References Cited incident rate amongst hunter-gatherers of a “simple” form. However, through this Bohem, Christopher. 1999. Hierarchy in the analysis it has become evident that Forest: The evolution of Egalitarian archaeologists have unduly created a myth Behaviour. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard of the “peaceful hunter-gatherer”. It has University Press. been made clear that conflict is prevalent and healthy within these groups. Bonta, Bruce D. 1996. Conflict Resolution Furthermore, the method in which conflict is among Peaceful Societies: The Culture of managed and resolved is much different Peacefulness. Journal of Peace Research. than what Westerners are accustomed to. 33:403-420. Simple hunter-gatherers are acephalous and conflict is dealt with by collective social

Briggs, Jean L. 2000. Conflict Management Marshall, Lorna. 1976. Sharing, Talking, in a Modern Inuit Community. In Hunters and Giving: Relief of Social Tensions of & Gatherers in the Modern World: the !Kung. In Limited Wants, Unlimited Conflict, Resistance, and Self- Means, ed. Gowdy, 65-85. Washington, Determination, ed. Schweitzer, Biesle, and D.C./Covelo, California: Island Press. Hitchcock, 110-124. New York: Berghahn Books. Sahlins, Marshall D. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine. Draper, Patricia. 1978. “The Learning Environment for Aggression and Anti- Woodburn, James. 1982. Egalitarian Social Behavior Among the !Kung”. In Societies. In Limited Wants, Unlimited Learning Non-Aggression: The Experience Means, ed. Gowdy, 87-110. Washington, of Non-Literate Societies, ed. Montagu, D.C./Covelo, California: Island Press. 31-53. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, Chris. October 15, 2008. Hunting and Gathering Societies. Lecture Notes, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.

Gat, Azar. 2000. The Human Motivational Complex: Evolutionary Theory and the Causes of Hunter-Gatherer Fighting. Anthropological Quarterly. 73:74-88.

Kent, Susan. 1989. And Justice for All: The Development of Political Centralization among Newly Sedentary Foragers. American Anthropologist. 91:703-712.

. 1990. Kalahari Violence in Perspective. American Anthropologist. 92:1015-1017.

Knauft, Bruce. 1990. Violence among Newly Sedentary Foragers. American Anthropologist. 92:1013-1015.

LeBlanc, Steven A. 2003. Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin‟s Press.

Lee, Richard B. 1984. The Dobe !Kung. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.