This article tests a series of hypotheses differentiating internal warfare and external warfare. Results support the theory that internal warfare is a population control mechanism more common in patrilocal societies, whereas external warfare occurs between two societies, one of which recently migrated and adopted matrilocal residence. Based on these findings, the authors assert that internal warfare can be regulated while external warfare cannot.

This article tests a series of hypotheses differentiating internal warfare and external warfare. Results support the theory that internal warfare is a population control mechanism more common in patrilocal societies, whereas external warfare occurs between two societies, one of which recently migrated and adopted matrilocal residence. Based on these findings, the authors assert that internal warfare can be regulated while external warfare cannot.

This article tests a series of hypotheses differentiating internal warfare and external warfare. Results support the theory that internal warfare is a population control mechanism more common in patrilocal societies, whereas external warfare occurs between two societies, one of which recently migrated and adopted matrilocal residence. Based on these findings, the authors assert that internal warfare can be regulated while external warfare cannot.

This article tests a series of hypotheses differentiating internal warfare and external warfare. Results support the theory that internal warfare is a population control mechanism more common in patrilocal societies, whereas external warfare occurs between two societies, one of which recently migrated and adopted matrilocal residence. Based on these findings, the authors assert that internal warfare can be regulated while external warfare cannot.

This article tests a series of hypotheses differentiating internal warfare and external warfare. Results support the theory that internal warfare is a population control mechanism more common in patrilocal societies, whereas external warfare occurs between two societies, one of which recently migrated and adopted matrilocal residence. Based on these findings, the authors assert that internal warfare can be regulated while external warfare cannot.

Author proposes and presents evidence in support of the theory that most societies practice virilocal or patrilocal residence (this is the "normal" pattern" and that matrilocal residence is adopted when societies migrate to an already populated area.

This article tests a series of hypotheses differentiating internal warfare and external warfare. Results support the theory that internal warfare is a population control mechanism more common in patrilocal societies, whereas external warfare occurs between two societies, one of which recently migrated and adopted matrilocal residence. Based on these findings, the authors assert that internal warfare can be regulated while external warfare cannot.

This article tests a series of hypotheses differentiating internal warfare and external warfare. Results support the theory that internal warfare is a population control mechanism more common in patrilocal societies, whereas external warfare occurs between two societies, one of which recently migrated and adopted matrilocal residence. Based on these findings, the authors assert that internal warfare can be regulated while external warfare cannot.

Several theories on the development of matrilocal residence are tested. The main argument put forth predicts that matrilocal residence will develop in response to a need to break up fraternal interest groups that encourage internal war and instead encourage a pattern of external war that is more beneficial in populated regions with additional group migration.

Author proposes and presents evidence in support of the theory that most societies practice virilocal or patrilocal residence (this is the "normal" pattern" and that matrilocal residence is adopted when societies migrate to an already populated area.