Game Wars? Ecology and Conflict in Amazonia

Bibliographic Data

ID3033464
AuthorsR Brian Ferguson (corresponding author)
Year1989
Volume45
Issue2
Pages179-206
Publication date1989-07-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Anthropological Research (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0091-7710 • E-ISSN: 2153-3806
PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1086/jar.45.2.3630333
OpenAlexW2323925149
LanguageEN
Citations received11
References cited59

This paper suggests a resolution of the long-standing controversy concerning game scarcity and warfare in Amazonia. The "protein hypothesis" is evaluated against extensive, mostly recent, literature on relationships between individuals, society, and nature. The findings indicate that those who say game scarcity does explain war and those who say it does not are both correct, but in different senses of "explanation." Game is found to be a nutritional necessity for many interriverine peoples, a necessity that in some circumstances can be quickly depleted by hunting. Increasing game scarcity does lead to increasing interpersonal hostility and social conflict. However, the connection between these hostilities and war is qualified and tenuous. Most game scarcity leads to movement rather than war, and most warfare does not seem attributable to game scarcity. The protein hypothesis, then, is largely correct in identifying a dynamic that can lead from game scarcity to war, but it is inadequate as a general explanation for Amazonian warfare

Amazon rainforest · Biology · Economics · Game theory · Hostility · Microeconomics · Scarcity · Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory · Ecology · Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation · Primate Behavior and Ecology · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub