Larson´s (1972) hypothesis that warfare during the Mississippian period in the Southeast was primarily a struggle over the fertile silt and sandy loam bottomland soils is summarized. This is then contrasted with Gibson´s (1974) thesis that, at least in the Lower Mississippi Valley, warfare was caused by the "asymmetrical" nature of the kinship systems found there. Such systems led to status decline over several generations and forced individuals to attempt to offset the decline vy achieving success in warfare. The Larson Gibson dispute is essentially an ontological argument which pits the mateiralist´s view of reality against that of the idealist. This dispute is compared to a similar one between Harris and Lizot concerning, the explnation of Yamomamo warfare in South America. Following this, the basic material conditions of Mississippian warfare are suggested. The importance of mehcanisms such as Gibson has proposed for understanding Mississippian warfare at the "tactical" level is recognized. Finally, primacy is given to Larson´s materialism at the "strategic" level.