Chiefdom and tribal societies differ in many ways but they both seem to have violent characteristics where pillaging is a common theme. They both are motivated to commit violent acts whether it be politically driven or based on blood revenge. Both societies  have supernatural beliefs that can be enhanced  through war or raids.Both societies were most likely introduced to foreign commodities or technological advances that were either introduced to their society or taken from  trade raids.Both types of societies practiced  sacrificing that would be fueled by political conquest or rituals that provided food or water with supernatural beliefs.In Chiefdom societies these acts of war enhance the status of the chief and are motivated by territorial expansion and seem to be conquest oriented with  personal ambitions where in tribal societies they are motivated by revenge. Chiefdom societies seem to also spread fear through raids where resources are seized along with slaves that can built up labor forces and increase agricultural production.”The purpose of chiefly warfare is expansionist: the seizing of land , resources,and captives takes precedence over avenging dead kinsmen”(Junker,1999),Chiefdom societies could partner up with mercenaries who could  plunder or escort ships on trade routes to benefit the chiefdom.Raids on trade routes eventually superseded formal trade.Early Spanish records suggest that many coastal populations in the contact period Philippines found that maritime piracy and the seizure of the luxury commodities from ships passing through the archipelago were a more attractive alternative than formal trade to gain access to wealth objects(Junker,1999). The economy is fueled by the political desires that in turn provide agricultural growth, wealth through trade raids, more power to the leader, more control over more territory in Chiefdom societies and in tribal societies the economy is almost non existent as the work collectively to survive.In tribal societies prestige can determine who is the most respected where as in chiefdom it can motivate warriors, maintain morale and also make people fear the king.The Hobbesian theory is the most logical selection of all that are in “The Origins of War: Biological and Anthropological Theories.” Human conflict is bound to occur if humans feel threatened . Disagreements get heated and egos and shame get the best of humans where we  react in defensive manners. These causes may be stemmed from territory disputes, the desire to steal out of hunger, or Alpha males in groups .We have fear installed in us much like birds and fauna. This fear or adrenaline  causes us to  stand and protect  what we hold dear or flee.Hobbes starts with the deterministic  assumption about human nature :all people are uniformly egotistic controlled by animus dominandi comprising the three passions mentioned above, which puts them eternally at odds with one another (Dawson, 1996). This theory in my opinion can be  shown through a cultural universal perspective.One thing that i don’t like of this theory is that Hobbes mentions little if any about religious ideologies or nationalism as a cause for war. Rousseaueans are fixated on pacifism when it comes to origins of war ,while Hobbesians are more concerned with the actual causes of war.War is caused by many things and really can’t be determined why. War is a lot like an argument but on a more severe scale. How many times have you had an argument with out really knowing the cause? There will always be war , because people and territories  distinguish themselves with huge facades funded by politics ,worship different gods, possess different ideologies and are usually always proud to defend their culture or group.

Junker, Laura Lee(1999). Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu,HI