While i can't make absolute statements of what he may or may not have said in every lecture he ever gave, i doubt Sapolsky would claim that honor killings and hospitality are the flip sides of the same coin. In "Behave The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst" Sapolsky differentiates "honor killings" as inwards violence, whose victims are usually young women, from "retribution" against animal thieves, and links it to social power structures in families and to religious laws, not ethnicity or nomadic origins.

Here’s a piece that I found, I vaguely remember there was more in that lecture on the topic:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz3hBuq-Huk

While it’s possible to differentiate these two things like you mentioned, if you look at honor as a concept, it’s useful function is about curbing higher cost of distrust. And that Sapolsky does explain in the linked video.

Well Sapolsky sure seems to love to make dubious absolute statements and oversimplifications in his lectures, and yet he still says that pastoral nomadic honor cultures foster strict rules of hospitality, which is not the same as hospitality in and of itself, even if it can be an amplyfiyng effect. I would be more inclined to agree that "strict rules (of hospitality)" and "violent enforcement (of subservience)" are flip sides of a coin. Note that "honor killing" is a very loaded term and quite different from domestic violence and retribution.

Interesting. Does that mean there's a low level of petty crimes like theft?

yes