whom to groom. Association can be measured by proximity and by behaviours; the most
striking behaviour of associating males is grooming, which can be intense, prolonged
and mutual. One form of association can be called ‘tactical’ because, as the name sug-
gests, there is more to the association than just interpersonal affiliation (or, to be more
anthropomorphic, friendship). Behind tactical association is a goal the individual wants
to achieve. Males forming tactical associations are generally called alliance partners.
Together they can achieve a goal that neither could achieve alone. That goal is tied up
with gaining higher status, or holding on to high status. DN and VN had been alliance
partners for some time before DN moved against MG; DN’s strategy had been there all
along. VN did not have such a strategy, he showed no signs of trying to topple MG, and
neither did he display against or have any conflict with DN during the time DN was
gaining power. The alliance had no clear advantages for VN and presumably it was
mainly driven by DN. We cannot know when DN developed the intention^54 to defeat
MG and become the alpha male, but we do know that DN was forming an alliance with
VN during 1994 and that he moved against MG at the end of 1994 and in early 1995,
finally defeating him in April of 1995.
Newton-Fisher (1997, 1999d) made a detailed study of the strengths and fluctuations
of association between the males of the Sonso community during 1995. He divided the
associations (represented as clusters) into the four quarters of the year (Fig. 6.7).
We can see that in the first quarter MG was associating closely with DN and VN (DN
was interacting with MG frequently, aiming to depose him, and VN was accompanying
DN). Most of the males seemed to recognize the DN–VN alliance as dominant to MG
during the first quarter but MG, who, judging from the genetic evidence,^55 had been
alpha male for some time, had yet to accept the situation. In the second quarter MG was
not with DN and VN at all, instead he was interacting with a different set of males (BK,
JM, ZF and ZT) lower down the hierarchy. By the third quarter he had started associat-
ing with DN and VN again and by the final quarter his rate of association was somewhat
higher with them. I was at Sonso in April and again in September of that year, and
I recall seeing MG in April just after his fall from power, when he spent much time sit-
ting looking crestfallen in day nests, with the juvenile male BB nearby as a companion,
nursing a bloody finger (probably bitten by DN though we did not see a fight). That was
in the second quarter, the time he mixed with the subordinate males only. By September
I was very pleased to see that MG had recovered his sense of pride and was strong again,
moving and interacting confidently with the dominant males DN, VN, MA and BY, call-
ing to them with vigorous pant-hoots and feeding close to them. He had been displaced
with a minimum of bloodshed and not long after had been accepted back into the
dominant clique, wholly subordinate to DN but nevertheless, I felt, a respected member
Tactical association and alliance partners 127(^54) I use the language of intentionality purposely. Chimpanzee social life is cognitively organized and
individuals have intentions towards one another. I concur with Takahata when he writes ‘Male chimpanzees
of a unit-group cannot recognize their paternal kinship. Thus, lacking established kinship connections, they
intentionally form complicated relationships in which they simultaneously associate and compete with one
another through social interactions’ (Takahata 1990 55 b).
See Appendix C.