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.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 57 citations exist upstream.