DuranSCCS

From InterSciWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Overview

Here's your answer: half the cases with polygyny have joking or sexuality with Bother's Wife.

79.  POLYGAMY
    2    1 = Polyandry - primarily monogamous with some plural husbands
   31    2 = Monogamy
   96    3 = Polygyny < 20% plural wives (if more frequent than polyandry)
   67    4 = Polygyny > 20% plural wives (if more frequent than polyandry)
table(dx$v1234.56,dx$v79) Polygamy r=.42 n=49 eBW/yBW
   1  2  3  4 Polygamy 3-4
0  1  6 14  9
1  0  0  6 13 n=49 eBW/yBW
corr.test(dx$v1235.56,dx$v79) Polygamy r=.35 n=46 yBW/eBW
p=.02
table(dx$v1235.56,dx$v79)
   1  2  3  4 Polygamy 3-4
0  1  3 13  6
1  0  0 11 12 n=46 yBW/eBW
70. LINEALITY (dichotomized)
40% of the cases with Matriliny have joking or sexuality with Bother's Wife. But the significance is p=.13
corr.test(dx$v1234.56,dx$v70.d1) Matrilineal
p=.13 r=0.22  Has a positive value for eBW/yBW but not quite significant
table(dx$v1234.56,dx$v70.d1)
    0  1
 0 26  4
 1 13  6 n=49 eBW/yBW
corr.test(dx$v1234.56,dx$v70.d3) Patrillineal
p=.02 r=-.32  Has a negative value for eBW/yBW that is significant
table(dx$v1234.56,dx$v70.d3)
    0  1
 0 14 16
 1 15  4 n=49 eBW/yBW

Only 8% of the cases with Patriliny have joking or sexuality with Bother's Wife significant absence at p=.02

Details

corr.test(dx$v1233.56,dx$v68)
p=0.02
matrilin<-mkdummy("v70",1)
patrilin<-mkdummy("v70",3)
68.  FORM OF FAMILY (SEE 79, 80)
     7    1 = Monogamous, no polygyny
    42    2 = Monogamous, < 20% polygyny
    26    3 = Polygynous, > 20%
     2    4 = Polyandrous
     9    5 = Stem family, monogamy
     7    6 = Stem family, < 20% polygyny
    10    7 = Small extended, monogamy
    30    8 = Small extended, < 20% polygyny
    19    9 = Small extended, > 20% polygyny
     5M  10 = Large extended, monogamy
    17N  11 = Large extended, < 20% polygyny
    12P  12 = Large extended, > 20% polygyny
corr.test(dx$v1233.56,dx$v68) FZD
p=0.02
corr.test(dx$v1234.56,dx$v68) eBW
p=0.08
corr.test(dx$v1235.56,dx$v68) yBW
p=0.12
corr.test(dx$v1234.56,dx$v72) Endogame
p=.14
corr.test(dx$v1234.56,dx$v73)
p=.10
corr.test(dx$v1234.56,dx$v74)
p=.09
corr.test(dx$v1234.56,dx$v78)
p=.09
corr.test(dx$v1234.56,dx$v79) Polygamy r=.42 n=49
p=.00
79.  POLYGAMY
     2    1 = Polyandry - primarily monogamous with some plural husbands
    31    2 = Monogamy
    96    3 = Polygyny < 20% plural wives (if more frequent than polyandry)
    67    4 = Polygyny > 20% plural wives (if more frequent than polyandry)
table(dx$v1234.56,dx$v79) Polygamy r=.42 n=49 eBW/yBW
    1  2  3  4 Polygamy 3-4
 0  1  6 14  9
 1  0  0  6 13 n=49 eBW/yBW
corr.test(dx$v1235.56,dx$v79) Polygamy r=.35 n=46 yBW/eBW
p=.02
table(dx$v1235.56,dx$v79) 
    1  2  3  4 Polygamy 3-4
 0  1  3 13  6
 1  0  0 11 12 n=46 yBW/eBW
corr.test(dx$v1234.56,dx$v80)
p=.13
matrilin<-mkdummy("v70",1)
patrilin<-mkdummy("v70",3)
corr.test(dx$v1234.56,dx$v70.d1) Matrilineal
p=.13 r=0.22
table(dx$v1234.56,dx$v70.d1)
    0  1
 0 26  4
 1 13  6 n=49 eBW/yBW
corr.test(dx$v1234.56,dx$v70.d3) Patrillineal
p=.02 r=-.32
table(dx$v1234.56,dx$v70.d3)
    0  1
 0 14 16
 1 15  4 n=49 eBW/yBW
corr.test(dx$v1235.56,dx$v70.d3) 
p=.76
corr.test(dx$v1236.56,dx$v70.d1)
p=.74

Duran's Ch2 on Matriliny

I'm on to your chapter 2 The critique of Marshall is great.

Service's backing off a purported absence of matrilineality in NoAm was a good start for your argument.

My SCCS data just sent has a minority of foragers. Matrilineality tends to occur in midrange complexity. Binford is all foragers. Small minoriy of matrilineal societies

My PhD on 90 NoAm societies showed that more complex technologies accompanied more integrative socio-political-dance-and religious structures, and matrilineality was often among the more complex and integrative options.

Very unlikely there was a period in prehistory that matrilineality was predominant. I dont think you need this assertion. Enough there are a significant number of matrilineal societies.

What my data just sent show is that there is sexuality among close affines, from BW brother's wives outward to wives of other consanguineals, predominantly with polygyny, often with matrilineality. Rare with elder brother's (male cousin's, etc.) wives if patrilineal. More flexible with any brother's or cousin's wives if matrilineal.

Binford's book and dataset offers little about lineages. His introduction should be read re: your controversies. Look at the codebook at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9256203/LRBcodebook.txt btw here is what you were looking for re territoriality: its about even between yes and none owners. Ownership of resource locations ; (Table: 9.01); (Binford 2001:426) Class=numeric; Type=categorical; Number non-missing=339; Number of unique values=4 Freq Value Description 166 1 None reported

63    2    Local groups claims exclusive rights over resource locations, residential sites and home range
81    3    Local group claims hunting areas, dominant animals, fishing sites and animal drive locations
29    4    Elite ownership of land and resources

in passim my thesis recognizes precisely this: intform. Form of integration. Class=numeric; Type=categorical; Number non-missing=339; Number of unique values=2 Freq Value Description 221 1 Cellular segmentation 118 2 Cross-cutting network <- more complex kinds of production here

Interesting: No hereditary succession at this level headm. The patterns of succession of acknowledged leaders in the maximal politically integrated unit represented by the case. Class=numeric; Type=categorical; Number non-missing=339; Number of unique values=3 Freq Value Description 64 1 Absence 169 2 Non-hereditary succession to an acknowledged leadership role 106 3 Non-hereditary succession through influence

kinder. Kinship derived units are classes of kinspersons that are identifiable as higher order classes which are consistent with the cognitive conventions of the kinship system Class=numeric; Type=categorical; Number non-missing=339; Number of unique values=3 Freq Value Description 179 1 Absent 149 2 Kindreds or sibs

 11    3    Clans or desent-sets <-- very few !!

kinbia2. Codes the bias in the (KINDER) variable as regards the filiation of persons in kindreds, sibs, clans, etc Class=numeric; Type=categorical; Number non-missing=339; Number of unique values=3 Freq Value Description 178 1 Bias absent 123 2 Patrifilial bias

 38    3    Matrifilial bias <-- very few !!

I think you're way too absolutist at times to claim some period in prehistory when human societies were matrilineal.

This article and show orders of higher levels of association

============================================================
SOURCE: Hamilton, M. J., Milne, B. T., Walker, R. S., Burger, O., & Brown, J. H. (2007). The complex structure of hunter-gatherer social networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274(1622), 2195-2203.  
doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0564
-----------------------------------------------------------

numfam. Number of families in society (Equation: tlpop/famsz) (Hamilton et al. 2007)
Class=numeric; Type=ordinal; Number non-missing=128; Number of unique values=126
Stat    Value
nobs    128
mean    277.27
min    7.5
max    3153.2
sd    401.6

numg1. Number of group1 units in society (Equation: tlpop/group1) (Hamilton et al. 2007)
Class=numeric; Type=ordinal; Number non-missing=227; Number of unique values=196
Stat    Value
nobs    227
mean    82.964
min    2.4
max    1250
sd    129.502

numg2. Number of group2 units in society (Equation: tlpop/group2) (Hamilton et al. 2007)
Class=numeric; Type=ordinal; Number non-missing=297; Number of unique values=217
Stat    Value
nobs    297
mean    27.589
min    1
max    371.3
sd    36.91

numg3. Number of group3 units in society (Equation: tlpop/group3) (Hamilton et al. 2007)
Class=numeric; Type=ordinal; Number non-missing=216; Number of unique values=117
Stat    Value
nobs    216
mean    8.102
min    0.1
max    107.1
sd    11.25

branchrat. Horton-Strahler branching ratio, produced as slope in regression (Hamilton et al. 2007:2197)
Class=numeric; Type=ordinal; Number non-missing=339; Number of unique values=208
Stat    Value
nobs    339
mean    3.868
min    1.93
max    6.85
sd    0.896