# DuranSCCS

## Overview

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

79. POLYGAMY2 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)Matrilinealp=.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