Printer Friendly

Cross-cultural correlates of the ownership of private property: Two samples of Murdock's Data.

Floyd Webster Rudmin (*)

INTRODUCTION

The 1990s are likely to see a resurgence in theorizing on property. Several developments in the 1980s suggest this possibility. The collapse of communist political unions and their economies means that those societies will be engaged in examining property systems and in developing property regimes suitable to their social and economic contexts (e.g., Radaev & Shkaratan, 1991; Sajo, 1990; Soos, 1990). The collapse of communism also may release Western scholars from latent "red scare" inhibitions on property theorizing (Rudmin, 1990a). Quite independently of political changes in Eastern Europe, a new interest in materialism and its dynamics (e.g., Rudmin, 1991a; Rudmin & Richins, 1992; Rudmin & Kilbourne, 1995) has arisen from environmentalist and anticonsumerist movements. Within the field of law, feminist scholarship has been challenging the foundations of traditional legal theory on property (e.g., Coontz & Henderson, 1986; Rose, 1990; Rudmin, 1994) and new commercial technologies have made intellectual prop erty law a growth industry (e.g., Berenbeim, 1989; Cunningham, 1991; Peterson, 1992). Property theory is also being excited by the new mixing of economics into legal and political theorizing on ownership (e.g., Barzel, 1989; Malloy, 1990; Posner, 1980). Finally, there has been a sudden growth in research on property in the behavioral sciences (e.g., Beggan, 1992; Dittmar, 1992; Prentice, 1987; Rudmin, 1991a; Rudmin, Belk, & Furby, 1987).

Historically, property theorists of various ideologies have sought evidence in cross-cultural data (Rudmin, 1988). Aristotle was probably the first to do this when he studied the political constitutions and property regimes of 158 circum-Mediterranian societies in order to critique Plato's advocacy of a communist property regime (Jaffa, 1963). Other property theorists who have made reference to cross-cultural evidence include Blackstone (1766/1969), Demsetz (1967), Engels (1884/1920), Ensor (1844), Locke (1690/1952), Marx (1972), Rousseau (1754/1964), Spencer (1879/1893), Schopenhauer (1859/1964), and Veblen (1898). Typically, these traditional uses of cross-cultural evidence have been selective, anecdotal, and rhetorical rather than systematic and scientific. For example, Locke (1692/1952) made frequent reference to North American Indians even though his knowledge, it seems, was based on hearsay and surmise. In the late nineteenth century, there was a to-and-fro mustering of ethnographic evidence to support or refute Marxist theories of property. Called comparative sociology, largely French, it included: Fustel de Coulanges (1885, 1891a, 1891b); LaFargue (1895, 1905, 1907), who was Karl Marx's son-in-law; Laveleye (1878, 1891), Letourneau (1892); and Guyot (1895). However, if property theorizing is to be more than mere rhetoric, then it must be based on secure empirical foundations where that is possible. Holding up the practices of selected cultures to "prove" some point in property theory should be unacceptable. Cross-cultural evidence should meet established social science standards of sampling, statistical testing of inferences, and replication of findings.

Hobhouse, Wheeler, and Ginsberg (1915) were the first to try to bring some scientific objectivity to the cross-cultural study of property. Their study opened with the observation:

The data offered to the theorist by the voluminous results of anthropological inquiry on the one hand, and by the immense record of the history of civilization on the other, are so vast and so various that it must be an unskilled selector who is unable, by giving prominence to the instances which agree and by ignoring those which conflict with his views, to make out a plausible case in support of some general notion of human progress. On the other hand, if theories are easily made, they are also easily confuted by a less friendly use of the same data. That same variety of which we speak is so great that there is hardly any sociological generalization which does not stumble upon some awkward fact if one takes the trouble to find it (Hobhouse, Wheeler, & Ginsberg, 1915, p. 1)

They introduced and argued for worldwide sampling of large numbers of cultures and for the use of statistical techniques. They examined multiple ethnographic and travelogue accounts of their sampled societies, which they then categorized into seven subsistence-types, from primitive hunters to advanced agriculturalists. The proportions of each subsistence-type that exhibited a characteristic of interest were computed and graphically displayed. In 1915, this was called "correlation." They thus demonstrated that societies with more sophisticated and social means of subsistence also exhibited less communal collective ownership and more ownership by chiefs and nobles.

Hobhouse, Wheeler, and Ginsberg's 1915 study was a prototype for social and behavioral science research based on sampling cultures and statistically examining characteristics belonging to those cultures. This is now called holocultural research and is considered an established subfield of anthropology. Variables of interest are identified in ethnographies of the sampled cultures and are quantified so that the reliabilities of the measures can be determined and the correlations between the measures can be calculated. Holocultural methodology is used to examine a wide diversity of topics. However, property has not been prominent among them. In a 1949 review, Murdock commented that "a really adequate study of property rights and inheritance in cross-cultural perspective still remains to be made" (p. 39). In a 1980 review of holocultural research, Levinson and Malone cited Murdock's comment and added that "some thirty years later, the situation has hardly changed" (p. 135).

This present study is part of a program of research to remedy this distressing lack of factual information about the cultural correlates of private ownership. Two studies have been completed to date. The first (Rudmin, 1992a) examined Simmons' 1937 database of 109 variables measured on 71 societies. The second (Rudmin, 1992b) examined Swanson's 1960/1966 database of 39 variables measured on 50 societies. Because of the long history of abuse of cross-cultural information on property, these archival studies employed conservative standards of sampling, reliability, replication, and statistical significance. It should be noted that McClelland's 1961 measure of the "percentage of individual ownership" of capital equipment in 45 tribal societies has been found to be unreliable, and any inferences based on it are doubtful (Rudmin, 1993).

This program of research is atheoretical in the sense that the goal is to establish correlational observations from data available in archived sources. There is no apriori expectation of finding evidence for or against any particular property theory. Because the creation of a holocultural database is so costly, it would be wasteful and inefficient not to fully exploit existing databases before compiling new data. Because all holocultural data rest on the accumulated ethnographic record, archived data are not faulty merely because they are old. However, it should be understood that the variables were originally selected and the data compiled to serve goals other than determining the correlates of private ownership. After the existing cross-cultural databases have all been examined, then there will exist a replicated record of observations upon which to speculate, to theorize, and to commission new studies designed to examine specific issues and to test specific apriori hypotheses about the social institution o f private ownership.

METHOD

Sampling

In the 1960s, George Peter Murdock began publishing in the journal Ethnology his codings of cultural variables for a great many societies, eventually to reach 1,264 in number (Murdock, 1962a, 1962b, 1962c, 1962d, 1963a, 1963b, 1963c, 1963d, 1964a, 1964b, 1964c, 1964d; Murdock & Spoehr, 1965a, 1965b, 1965c, 1965d, 1966a, 1966b, 1966c, 1966d, 1967a). From this, he compiled and published in 1967 his Ethnographic Atlas, presenting data on 44 topics for each of 862 societies. These societies were grouped into 412 "clusters" of cultures related by common derivation, linguistic similarity, or close contact. The concern was that the societies in a sample should be independent of one another and that there not be multiple representation from the same "culture cluster." Among the measures available in the Atlas were two property variables: "Inheritance of Real Property," meaning land, and "Inheritance of Movable Property," meaning chattel.

This database was reduced still further for Murdock's 1981 Atlas of World Cultures. Here, Murdock presented data on only 26 of the original 44 topics and for only 563 of the original 862 societies. Another change was to group societies, not into "culture clusters" but into "cultural provinces," thus emphasizing global geographic sampling symmetry. With 25 "cultural provinces" for each of six global regions (Africa, Circum-Mediterrania, East Asia, Insular Pacific, North America, and South America), 150 "cultural provinces" could be defined. Unfortunately, in the preparation of this revised Atlas, the variable "Inheritance of Real Property" was eliminated. Also unfortunate was the introduction of transcription errors. For example, the Nyakyusa are coded "T" for "Type of Animal Husbandry" found in data column 39, but there is no animal coded "T" for that variable. In the original 1967 Atlas, the Nyakyusa were coded "B" on this variable, meaning "bovine animals." The worst transcription error encountered thus fa r in the 1981 Atlas is that data columns 7 through 30 for the Buka Kurtatchi were copied from the data columns for the Trobriand Islanders, which are adjacent entries in the 1967 Atlas.

Because of these problems, the 1981 Atlas was used in this study only to organize a sampling of cultures. For societies sampled from the 1981 Atlas, data were drawn from the 1967 Atlas or from supplements published in the journal Ethnology. The sampling was done by using a random numbers table to select one society from each "cultural province." Duplicate representations of "culture clusters" as defined in the 1967 Atlas were not permitted, nor were inclusions of societies with missing values on both of the property variables. As shown in Table 1, this resulted in a sample of 147 societies. For three provinces-I01 (Sea Gypsies or Boat People), S07 (Eastern Arawakan Peoples), and S17 (Guarani and Coastal Tupi Peoples)--all of the available societies had missing data on both property variables and thus could not be used in this study.

A second random sample of cultures was drawn on the basis of one culture from each of the 1967 Atlas's "culture clusters." As before, only societies with coded data on at least one of the property variables were considered. There was a further restriction that no society selected for the first sample could be included in the second sample. Thus, the two samples, one drawn from the 1981 Atlas and one from the 1967 Atlas, are mutually exclusive. The first sample is geographically stratified and thus gives equal representation to world regions. The second sample imposes no stratification restrictions on the number of cultures from each region and thus gives equal representation to world "culture clusters."

As shown in Table 2, this second sample consists of 312 unrelated societies. Of the 412 culture clusters defined by Murdock, 50 were without representation in this second sample because no culture in the cluster had data for at least one of the two property variables and 50 were omitted because the only culture with property data had already been included in the first sample.

Murdock had argued: "No world sample should include any two societies located geographically so close to one another that diffusion is likely to have jeopardized the essential independence of their cultures" (1967, p. 4). He advocated use of the "three-degree" heuristic, which requires that societies be separated by at least three degrees of latitude and three degrees of longitude, more nearer the poles. However, the three-degree heuristic was not employed in this study for a number of reasons. First, Murdock's "culture clusters" already grouped together societies that had experienced "intimate and prolonged culture contact" (1981, p. 4). Second, societies occupy geographic areas, sometimes very large areas, and cannot be realistically represented by single points on the globe. Third, "errors" in Murdock's latitude and longitude data were too frequent and too large to reasonably make decisions to reject societies that are within two degrees of each other. Of the 265 societies from both samples for which it wa s possible to compare the 1967 Atlas and the 1981 Atlas tabulations of latitude and longitude, changes were evident in 75 societies, representing 28% of the cases. In 34 instances, the differences were two degrees or more. For the Toba, the difference was 30 degrees; for the Nyakyusa, 28 degrees; and for the Koreans, 24 degrees. Clearly, the presumptions and the practicalities of the three-degree heuristic show it to be untenable.

Data Transformations

The transformations of Murdock's data for the statistical analyses required for this study were guided by four principles. First, since the goal of the study was to identify the correlates of private ownership, the data had to be made suitable for correlation computations. Thus, the data ultimately had to be at least ordinal in scale, meaning that a higher number indicates a greater degree or a stronger presence of the characteristic being measured. Second, where feasible, the range of the ordinal scale was maximized since an attenuated range diminishes the sensitivity of correlational statistics. Third, it was necessary to reduce the sheer number of correlations examined in order to reduce as much as possible the accumulative Type 1 error. That is, correlations were accepted as "significant" if the probability that they were zero was small. These probabilities accumulate such that the more correlations examined, the greater the chance that one will be accepted as significant that should not have been. Fourth , for an archival study directed to the observation of correlations, the transformations should be as literal and noninterpretive as possible.

Murdock's data are of two types: categorical and ordinal. Four topics were coded by Murdock as numeric ordinal measures. These four are identified in Table 3 by the absence of any nominal categories. They are: Subsistence Economy (percentage of food from gathering, hunting, fishing, husbandry, agriculture), Mean Size of Local Communities (population), Jurisdictional Hierarchy (number of levels locally and supra-locally), and Post-Partum Sex Taboo (duration). None of these were transformed.

It should be noted that Male Genital Mutilations in column 37 uses numeric categories from 0 to 8 to indicate the age of circumcision in progressive categories but loses ordinality when category 9 is defined to mean "Circumcision customary, but the normal age is unspecified or unclear" (Murdock, 1967, p. 53). The transformation of this variable will be explained shortly. It should also be noted that an ordinal measure of Size of Population was made from census data contained in Murdock's description of each society. This was tabulated for this study as:

0 = missing data

1 = fewer than 1,000

2 = 1,000 to 9,999

3 = 10,000 to 99,999

4 = 100,000 to 999,999

5 = 1 million or more

It should also be noted that Subsistence Economy includes ordinal measures for each of the five sources of food. These five measures are ipsative with one another, meaning that as the percentage dependency on one source of food increases, then it must necessarily tend to decrease for the others. Thus, under the null assumption of no relationship, these five measures will have intercorrelations not of r = .00 but rather of r = -.25. Ipsative measures cannot be used in multivariate analyses since they are not independent of one another.

All other of Murdock's measures were coded as nominal scale data, also known as categorical data. This means that letters and numbers identify mutually exclusive categories, only one of which will be characteristic of the society in question. For example, data column 74 presents codes for Inheritance of Real Property and data column 76 presents codes for Inheritance of Movable Property. The nominal scale coding categories for these two variables are as follows (Murdock, 1967, p. 59):

C = Inheritance by children of either sex or both.

D = Inheritance by children, but with daughters receiving less than sons.

M = Matrilineal inheritance by a sister's son or sons.

N = Inheritance by matrilineal heirs who take precedence over sisters' sons.

O = Absence of individual property rights or of any rule of inheritance governing the transmission of such rights.

P = Patrilineal inheritance by a son or sons.

Q = Inheritance by patrilineal heirs who take precedence over sons.

Murdock employed two mechanisms to handle instances in which a society was not well described by a single category. One mechanism was to insert an asterisk in the data column directing the reader to refer to special notes. For the two property measures, eight societies (Belu, Cubeo, Kurtatchi, Ontang-Javanese, Punjabi, Sinkaiet, Tillamook, and Vanua Levu) were so marked. In this study, the property measures for these cases were coded "S," meaning "Special inheritance practice." The other mechanism was to include a postpositioned letter to code alternative or secondary categories that might apply. But many variables did not have such secondary codings. Where secondary codings were used, there was a high frequency of no data entry. For these reasons, secondary codings were, with few exceptions, not utilized in this study.

All nominal scale data had to be transformed to make them amenable to correlational analysis. Three types of transformations were employed. First, for five measures, the categories were collapsed to a single ordinal binary variable with a range of 0, 1. For example, for the property measures, a data entry of "0" (the letter "0") became a value of 0 (zero), meaning that there was no practice of inheritance transfer of ownership rights. All other categories became 1, meaning that there was some mechanism of inheritance transfer. Murdock's data on Male Genital Mutilations were similarly collapsed to a binary 0, meaning circumcision was not practiced, and 1, meaning that it was. Murdock's coding of Type of Animal Husbandry included a prepositioned codings for whether and how early animals were used for plow cultivation. Here the absence of a code was transformed to 0, meaning no evidence of plow usage, while "P," meaning aboriginal plow usage, and "Q," meaning plow usage at contact period, were both transformed to 1. For Shape of roof, the categories of "Beehive shaped," "Conical," "Domed," "Semi-hemispherical," and "Rounded" all became 1, indicating rounded roofs of some sort. The other categories of "Flat," "Gabled," "Hipped," and "Shed" all became 0.

The second type of transformation was based on evident ordinal progressions in the categories. These are shown in Table 3 by the transformation arrow pointing to a single ordinal scale with a range greater than 0, 1. For 21 topics, it was possible to identify a single ordinal dimension in the nominal categories. For example, for High Gods in column 34, a "O," meaning "High god absent," was transformed to 0 (zero). A code letter "A," meaning "High god present but otiose or not concerned about human affairs," became a value of 1. Code "B," meaning "High god present and active in human affairs but not offering positive support to human morality" became a value of 2. Code "C," meaning "High god present, active, and specifically supportive of human morality" became a value of 3. Thus, the four nominal categories were transformed to a single ordinal measure of the degree to which high gods were present, were active, and supported human morality. The other 20 of these one-dimensional variables were similarly transfo rmed.

For another three of Murdock's topics, more than one ordinal dimension was evident in the nominal scale categories. In Table 3, these are indicated by a transformation to fewer ordinal scales than nominal categories but not to only one ordinal scale as just discussed. For example, Settlement Pattern in column 30 coded both the permanence of settlements and the density of settlements. Types of Games in column 35 included information on the presence of games of skill, games of chance, and games of strategy. Murdock's 11 economic activity topics in columns 42 to 62 carried a postpositioned code with "a" meaning "Senior age specialization," "b" meaning "Junior age specialization," "c" meaning "Craft specialization," and "i" meaning "Industrial specialization." These codings were each transformed to an ordinal binary scale of 0, 1 for each of the 11 economic activities. These binary scales were then summed, creating four ordinal scales with a range of 0 to 11 that represented the degree to which economic activity overall was specialized by "Senior Age," "Junior Age," "Craft" and "Industrial Techniques." These four measures are ipsative with one another.

The third type of transformation of the nominal scale categorical data was used with the remaining 14 of Murdock's topics. For these variables, no discernible ordinal progressions were evident in Murdock's codings. The transformation consisted of giving each coding category an ordinal value of 0 if that category did not apply and 1 if it did apply. For example, Mode of Marriage was transformed into seven binary ordinal variables representing the original seven nominal scale categories: "B" meaning "Bride-price," "D" meaning "Dowry," "G" meaning reciprocal "Gift exchange," "S" meaning "Bride-service . . . by the groom to the bride's kinsmen," "T" meaning "Token bride-price," and "X" meaning "Exchange . . . of a sister or other female relative of the groom." Murdock's coding of Type of Animal Husbandry included a postpositioned coding indicating whether or not "Animals are milked other than sporadically." This, too, was transformed to an ordinal binary scale.

Reliability

The reliability of Murdock's codings of cultural characteristics can be attested to from several perspectives. First, the 862 societies selected for inclusion in the 1967 Atlas were those that had substantially better ethnographic sources and more complete data than those that were rejected (Murdock, 1967). Second, the initial tabulations of these data were made publicly available in Ethnology and corrections were actively solicited from the anthropological community. Most of those corrections were included in the 1967 Atlas and others were subsequently published in Ethnology in installments (Murdock & Spoehr, 1967b, 1968a, 1968b, 1968c; Brudner et al., 1971). All identifiable corrections were incorporated into the present study. Third, where it has been possible to check reliability against other scholars' codings of comparable variables, Murdock's codings have been found to be adequately reliable. For example, 17 of Swanson's (1960/1966) variables could be checked against Murdock's data for reliability (Ru dmin, 1992b). All showed positive correlations ranging from r = .26 (n 47) to r .85 (n 34), all statistically significant atp < .05. Of Simmons' (1937) variables, 29 could be checked against Murdock's data for reliability (Rudmin, 1992a). All showed positive correlations, ranging from r = .22 (n = 44) to r = .82 (n = 27), and all reached statistical significance except for the measure of "Dowry" (r = .22;n 44; p > .05). It is not possible from this alone to determine whether Simmons or Murdock, if either, were at fault. But, to be conservative, "Dowry" from "Mode of Marriage" in column 12 was deleted from this study.

The reliability of Murdock's codings of his two property variables is important since they are central to this study. Murdock himself expressed doubt about the reliability of his codings of inheritance practices:

In actual application the codes for Columns 74 and 76 have proved inadequate, and the coded data in these columns should consequently be used only with great circumspection (Murdock, 1967, P. 59).

Of the two inheritance measures, the deletion of column 74 data from the 1981 Atlas suggests that Murdock had least confidence in his data on land ownership.

However, for a number of reasons, Murdock's codings of inheritance practices are more than adequate for the present study. Murdock's inheritance codings were transformed into a binary report of whether or not there are inheritance practices for property: a coding of "O" became a value of 0 and all other letter codings became a value of 1. Thus, the details of inheritance practices were not used. As will be shown, that seems to have avoided the problems that Murdock had with his codings of these variables.

For the combined samples, Table 4 presents the correlations of Murdock's transformed inheritance variables with property variables from two other data-bases. Swanson's (1966) coding of Individually Owned Property showed a positive correlation with Murdock's transformed Ownership of Land (r = .55; n = 29; p = .001) and Murdock's transformed Ownership of Movables (r = .56; n = 29; p = .001). Similarly, Simmons' (1937) coding of Private Property in Land showed a positive correlation with Murdock's Ownership of Land (r = .73; n = 28;p <.001) and his Ownership of Movables (r = .34; n = 28; p < .05). Simmons' (1937) coding of Private Property in Objects (Not Land) showed a positive correlation with Murdock's Ownership of Land (r = .45; n = 34; p < .01) and his Ownership of Movables (r = .55; n = 34; p < .05). Murdock's transformed property variables were correlated with each other (r = .57; n = 403; p < .001). This all indicates that Murdock's inheritance variables as transformed for this study are reliable measur es of the existence of a regime of private ownership.

Furthermore, it is an asset to have codings for inheritance practices rather than for private ownership per se. Ownership is a social institution that is invisible and must be inferred from other practices and behaviors (Snare, 1972; Speck, 1915). A report that a society engages in private ownership of land must be based on observations of occupation, trespass restrictions, exchange transactions, boundary marking, norms of permission, inheritance practices, and so on. In other holocultural data bases with property variables (e.g., Simmons, 1937; Swanson, 1960/1966), it is often not known on what observations the inferences of ownership were based.

RESULTS

Thus, there were two measures of private ownership to be related to 146 measures of other cultural characteristics for two mutually exclusive random samples of independent societies. Because me transformed data were ordinal in scale, parametric correlations could not be used. Of the nonparametric correlations, the Kendall correlation was preferred over the Spearman because the former is directly interpretable and is an unbiased estimate of the population correlation (Hays, 1973). Multivariate procedures were not pursued because much of the data were ipsative, which would confound multivariate algorithms.

Following the conservative standards of analysis used in two prior studies (Rudmin, 1992a, 1992b), a variable was considered to be a correlate of private ownership only if two independent conjunctive criteria were met: (1) there must be the same sign for the correlation coefficients for both property measures in both samples, and (2) at least three of these four correlation coefficients must achieve statistical significance at p < .05. Under null hypothesis assumptions, the probability that four correlation coefficients would be all positive or all negative is p = .125. Under null hypothesis assumptions, the probability of getting three of four correlation coefficients significant is p = [.05 X .05 X .05] x 4 ways of choosing them, yielding p = .0005. The probability of getting four of four correlation coefficients significant is p = [.05 X .05 X .05 X .05] = .00000625. Thus, the probability of getting at least three of four correlation coefficients significant is p (.0005 + .00000625) = .00050625. Since the sign of a correlation coefficient and its likelihood of significance are independent and free to vary, the probability that a cultural characteristic would by chance be declared a correlate of private ownership in this study is p = [.125 X .00050625] = .0000633.

With 146 cultural characteristics being examined for correlation with private ownership, the accumulated probability of Type 1 error is p = [.000063 3 X 146] = .01 Thus, it is very unlikely that claims of correlation in this study could arise due only to random patterns in the data. One-tailed estimates of probability for individual correlation coefficients were used because of expectations that all four coefficients would have the same sign. Those who think that these criteria of significance are too lenient or too ad hoc may wish to further tighten significance criteria to four significant correlations of the same sign. This would yield a probability of p = [.00000625 x .125] = .0000008, which would seem to be excessively stringent.

As shown in Tables 5a--5d, this study identified 51 correlates with private ownership. These have been grouped into 14 subsistence variables, 13 family structure variables, 9 social stratification variables, and 15 governance and community variables. If the more stringent criteria of four correlations of the same sign and all of them significant were used, then only 38 of these would stand as significant.

DISCUSSION

As explained in some detail in the first of these reanalyses of archival data looking for correlates of private ownership (Rudmin, 1992a), several cautions are necessary before beginning discussion of the findings. Correlations are simply statistical observations of relationship, devoid of information allowing inferences of temporal priority or causality. Any discussions in that direction are speculation. Furthermore, while there is evidence of reliability in these data, there always remains a possibility that some societies have been misrepresented by the ethnographic sources or by the secondary codings of societal characteristics based on those sources. Confidence in the findings of studies such as this will ultimately rest on replication. With these caveats in mind, the results of this study do contribute in an important way to theorizing on property.

First, it is noteworthy that one-third of the variables examined were found to be significant correlates of private property. This outcome is most unlikely by chance alone. That a large proportion of the variables examined showed significant correlations is even more remarkable when considering: (1) that the variables examined in this study were not selected for any theorized relationship to private property, and (2) that the conservative significance criteria of p < .0001 tends to reject claims of correlation. On the other hand, the relatively large samples of societies in this study tend to enhance the statistical power of the analyses relative to other studies with samples of 100 or fewer societies. That is, the large samples used here tend to increase the likelihood of identifying true correlations.

That such a varied assortment of measures descriptive of cultures were related to measures of private ownership testifies to theories that property practices are integral to the nexus of practices that define a culture (e.g., Spencer, 1893; Sumner, 1907; Sumner, Keller, & Davie, 1927; Simmons, 1937). To characterize this in linguistic terms, a society's regime of ownership appears to be part of its cultural "deep structure" rather than "surface structure." Private ownership is not something that can be easily appended to a culture or deleted without ramifications throughout the culture.

The second observation of importance is that of replication. As shown in Table 6, the findings of this study substantially replicate the findings of two earlier studies using different archival data bases. Table 6 lists the variables that were found to be significant correlates of private ownership in at least two of the current three studies. All three studies used similar conservative methodology, with statistical significance at p < .0003 for the Swanson study and p < .0001 for the Simmons study and the present study. The three studies are independent of each other in that the data were compiled by different scholars for different purposes. While the large samples from Murdock data bases have substantial overlap with the Simmons' and Swanson's smaller samples, these latter two have only eight societies in common.

The presence of Castes and Classes, and the reliance on Agriculture for food, particularly Cereal Grains, were correlates of private ownership in all three studies. An absence of Hunting and Gathering were correlates of private property in the Swanson and Murdock data, but had statistically weaker replication in Simmons' data. Slightly less secure, but still a replicated correlate of property, is Exogamy, which means marriage outside of the local social group. Exogamy was negatively correlated with private ownership in Swanson's and Murdock's data, while in Simmons' data it showed a negative correlation with private ownership of objects (r = -.35, n = 23, p < .05) and a lack of correlation with private ownership of land (r = .09, n 19, p > .05). However, these last two correlations are based on relatively few societies and are thus an inadequate test of replication. Abundant Food, Patrilocal Residence, Permanent Residence, Slavery, Size of Population, and Sovereign Organization were replicated as correlates of private ownership in two of the three studies, with the third having no measure available for these variables.

As a set, these correlations do not fit with many of the theorized archetypal images of private property--for example, Locke's (1690/1952) savage collecting acorns in a forest wilderness, Veblen's (1898) warriors displaying booty, or Rousseau's (1754/1964) nuclear family building a mud hut. More accurate, perhaps, is Rousseau's grain farmer driving in fence posts:

It was iron and corn which first civilized men. From the moment one man began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous to any one man to have enough provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced, work became indispensable and ... slavery and misery were soon to germinate and grow up with the crops. (Rousseau, quoted in Schlatter, 1951, p. 208)

For the Western reader, trying to get a little interpretive distance from which picture private ownership in the context suggested by the replicated correlations Table 6, it might be illustrative to consider the Biblical Old Testament world. There private property is pictured in the context of a settled, permanent, sovereign, populous, agricultural society, with social stratification, slavery, and little exogamy. The Biblical image is provocative, because it is culturally remote b still familiar through popularized Christian literature. It is also provocative b cause the protagonists had themselves been slaves, dispossessed of their pastor heritage and tribal territories. It is remarkable that all of the replicated correlations with private property are evident in the book of Leviticus in the covenant of the Jubilee Year. There, Moses proclaimed that every 50 years, property acquired by debt foreclosure must be returned to its original owners. This includes the release of debt slaves to their freedom:

[S]o you shall hallow the fiftieth year and proclaim liberation in the land for all its inhabitants. You shall make this your year of jubilee. Every man of you shall return to his patrimony, every man to his family ...

You must not victimize one another, but you shall fear your God, because I am the Lord your God. Observe my statutes, keep my judgements and carry them out; and you shall live in the land in security. The land shall yield its harvest; you shall eat your fill and live there secure. If you ask what you are to eat during the seventh year, seeing that you will neither sow nor gather the harvest, I will ordain my blessing for you in the sixth year and the land shall produce a crop to carry over three years. When you sow in the eighth year, you will still be eating from the earlier crop; you shall eat the old until the new crop is gathered in the ninth year ...

No land shall be sold outright, because the land is mine, and you are coming into it as aliens and settlers. Throughout the whole land of your patrimony, you shall allow land which has been sold to be redeemed.

When one of you is reduced to poverty and sells part of his patrimony, his next-of-kin who has the duty of redemption shall come and redeem what his kinsman has sold ... But if the man cannot afford to buy back the property, it shall remain in the hands of the purchaser till the year of jubilee. It shall then revert to its original owner, and he shall return to his patrimony.

When a man sells a dwelling-house in a walled town, he shall retain the right of redemption till the end of the year of the sale ... If it is not redeemed before a full year is out, the house in the walled town shall vest in perpetuity in the buyer and his descendents; it shall not revert at the jubilee ...

When your brother is reduced to poverty and sells himself to you, you shall not use him to work for you as a slave. His status shall be that of a hired man or a stranger lodging with you; he shall work for you until the year of jubilee. He shall then leave your service, with his children, and go back to his family and to his ancestral property: because they are my slaves whom I brought out of Egypt, they shall not be sold as slaves are sold. You shall not drive him with ruthless severity, but you shall fear your God. Such slaves as you have, male or female, shall come from the nations round about you. From them you may buy slaves. You may also buy the children of those who have settled and lodge with you and such of their family as are born in the land. They may become your property, and you may leave them to your sons after you; you may use them as slaves permanently (Leviticus 25: 10-46, as quoted in Porter, 1976, pp. 195-204).

The Jubilee Year covenant of manumission and property redemption was an attempt to maintain the egalitarianism of traditional Hebraic nomadic pastoral culture in the face of the social stratification inherent in private ownership in a settled society (Yoder, 1972). Some would argue that the Hebrews, as pastoral people, first encountered private property regimes during the Egyptian captivity, that they learned about property by being property and by building property m Egyptian cities (Ellul, 1970). While the Jubilee Year text makes it clear that rural and urban property were differentiated, the evidence from this present cross-cultural data, as shown in Table 5a, is that variables pertaining to pastoral subsistence, including Large Domestic Animals, Husbandry, Bovine Husbandry (but not Equine Husbandry), and Milking of Livestock, are positive correlates of private ownership. The Hebraic tribes were on their way to private ownership before arriving in Egypt.

However, this study did find multiple evidence that social stratification is part of the propertied society: egalitarianism and private property do have difficulty coexisting. If rights of redemption might work to retain tribal egalitarian ideals in rural regions, private ownership was unimpeded in the larger walled communities and cities. Furthermore, in practice, the Jubilee Year covenant was rarely honoured or enforced (Yoder, 1972). This demonstrates again that private ownership comes in a package of cultural correlations that cannot easily be undone, not even by Moses commanding with the voice of God.

It is tempting to speculate about the dynamics of these core correlations. Grain agriculture has a number of social implications: (1) it yields wealth in the form of surplus beyond the laborers' needs; (2) grain wealth retains value over years; (3) instabilities in grain wealth due to weather, pests, and market fluctuations cause wealth differentials within communities and between communities; and (4) the care of fields and the storage of grain require that the population be geographically settled. Thus, with grain agriculture, land tenure is a primary concern of the population, and some social mechanism of assured possession of agricultural land is necessary. According to Bentham and Litwinski, that is just what property is--socially assured possession, "a basis for expectation" (Rudmin, 1990b, p. 313). Furthermore, a regime of private property requires that the population be self-restraining with respect to other people's property. One mechanism of self-restraint is fear of an all-seeing, all-powerful god. Another is organization of a Hobbesian sovereign state with rule of law.

This grain agriculture account of property encompasses all of the replicated correlates of private ownership, except Patrilocal Residence and absence of Exogamy. It may be that the security and protection of land entails a priority on men being retained and proximate to other male relatives. The Simmons study found Warfare to be a correlate of private property and showed Warfare to have clustered intercorrelations with other variables related to Use Grain for Food and to Permanent Residence (Rudmin, 1992a). Or, it may be that the wealth and free time created by grain agriculture release male tendencies to dominate, to accumulate wealth, and to maximize power (Rudmin, 1987; Hayden, 1992a). Gould (1982) and Hayden (1992a) have presented evidence that as security and subsistence surplus increase in hunting-gathering societies, there are corresponding increases in interpersonal dominance and in the private control of resources. This is further supported by the Simmons study, where Patrilocal Residence clustered with the social stratification variables (Rudmin, 1992a).

George Mead (1982) has argued that Exogamy encourages the development of private property, which he theorized to be an abstract rule system induced by the intrusion of alien people into the organic community. The replicated finding that Exogamy is a negative correlate of private property certainly discounts that line of thought. More appealing is Hayden's (1992a, 1992b, 1993) explanation that resource sharing within one's group and alliances with peoples outside one's group both function as survival mechanisms for hunting-gathering peoples. Resource sharing, of course, is absence of private ownership, and outgroup alliances are most strongly secured by the kin bonds of exogamy. Hayden (1993) hypothesizes that other alliance strategies that should have negative correlation with private ownership are interband visiting, interband rituals, and interband gift giving. There may also be pressures against exogamy in propertied societies. For example, private ownership in concert with social stratification may drive an interest in wealth accumulation, which may be threatened by marriage alliances with outsiders.

These last two correlates--Patrilocal Residence and absence of Exogamy--raise concern about gender. As discussed in more detail in the two earlier studies (Rudmin, 1992a, 1992b), nineteenth-century social theorists (e.g., Engels, 1884/1920) and current feminist theorists (e.g., Lerner, 1986) have argued that private property is a patriarchal, misogynous regime directed to the subjugation of women. However, the empirical findings thus far have not supported this view. In the Simmons data, more than one-third of variables were gender defined, including (1) Subjection or Inferiority of Women and (2) Property Rights in Women (Rudmin, 1992a). But these, in fact, were uncorrelated with private ownership. Only two gender variables-Patrilocal Residence and Marriage by Capture-correlated with property, and the later was a negative correlation suggesting that private ownership coincides with better treatment of women. Although the Swanson data had only two usable gender-defined variables, neither of them correlated wit h private property (Rudmin, 1992b). The tentative conclusion of the two studies was that private property was not instrumental in the oppression of women.

However, the present study, with greater statistical power due to the large numbers of societies sampled, did find numerous gender-related correlates with private ownership. Although interpretations of these are speculative, they do not appear to paint private property as a misogynous regime. For example, as shown in Table 5b, Bride-Price is a positive correlate of private property, indicating women are commodified. However, Bride-Service is a negative correlate of property, suggesting that even in the absence of private property, women are commodified, but the transaction entails service-in-kind rather than an exchange goods. Nonsororal Polygyny with Separate Quarters is a positive correlate of private property, again suggesting women are property. But another variable, Nonsoral Polygyny with Common Quarters, showed no tendency for positive correlations with private property, either in land or in movables in the 1981 Atlas sample (r = -.10, n = 140, p > .05; r = -.06, n = l38, p > .05) or in the 1967 Atlas s ample (r = .00, n = 291, p > .05; r = .07, n = 289, p > .05). This suggests that polygyny per se is not the characteristic causing the correlation; more likely, the correlation rests on private property being a means of accumulating wealth sufficient to afford separate quarters for multiple wives.

In another example, Patrilocal Marital Residence is a positive correlate of private property, suggesting that property is a male regime. However, Matrilocal Marital Residence was not a negative correlate of property, but Ambilocal Marital Residence (residence near husband's or wife's kin), Uxorilocal Marital Residence (residence near wife's kin when they are not aggregated), and Virilocal Marital Residence (residence near husband's kin when they are not aggregated) were negative correlates of property. Furthermore, Patrilineal Kin Groups and Exogamy, and Patrilineal Sibs or Clans (lineages comprised of residents from more than one community), were positive correlates of property, and Bilateral Descent was a negative correlate. This all suggests that the issue is not males versus females but rather the aggregation of patrilineal kin. Lineage is the identification of a person (male or female) with a set of historical persons, whether biologically related or not. Lineage identification thus extends people beyond their own life-spans and makes a larger immortal "person." It is a kind of natural incorporation and, like the modem corporation, lineage may serve to accumulate wealth and to maintain extended and concentrated ownership by the fictional "person" (Hayden, 1992a). The preference for male lineage and the concentration of male kin may serve to defend accumulated wealth.

Gender-defined variables also appeared among the social stratification correlates of private ownership, as shown in Table 5c. Surprisingly, these did not appear among the subsistence activities. Rather, Male Dominance in Pottery and Male Dominance in House Building were the two gender-differentiated variables that correlated with practices of private ownership. This clearly is not explained by the common argument that men are stronger and more daring than women and, therefore, do the heavier, riskier work. Agriculture, Hunting, and Fishing surely must exceed Home Building and Pottery as tasks requiring brawn and daring. Furthermore, pottery probably served pantry storage and cooking functions, placing it in traditional female domains. These two correlates are without easy explanation. It seems that Rousseau's (1754/1964) focus on the archetypal father building the archetypal family home was a true insight into the social dynamics of private property.

Male Genital Mutilations is the last gender-defined correlate of private ownership in Table 5d. Corporal mutilations are often considered to be brands, signs that something "belongs," either as the property of an owner or as a member of a group. That it is males who suffer the mutilation weighs in as evidence that private ownership is not uniquely abusive of women. Nonetheless, there are no ready explanations for this correlation. Male circumcision is a widespread and varied practice, with explanations that include health, enhanced fertility, suppression of passions, fraternal blood membership, symbolic child sacrifice, punishment for Oedipal hostility, and so forth (Bryk, 1934). It is possible that male circumcision relates to private ownership via intervening variables, thus frustrating direct explanations.

The last set of correlates of private ownership in Table 5d includes variables of settlement and governance. The correlations show that propertied peoples live in houses with strong walls, raised floors, and angular ground plans and roofs, all built in permanent settlements. In the abstract, private property is a system of boundary making and boundary marking (Sack, 1983, 1986). To wrap a strong wall around a space and cover it top and bottom is to make a boundary par excellence.

Two further variables in the governance and community set are curious and invite speculation. First, Games of Strategy, in contrast to Games of Chance and Games of Skill, is a positive correlate of private ownership. This finding is counterintuitive since Games of Chance and Games of Skill both would seem to have more direct positive relationships to private ownership than would Games of Strategy. The former often entails wagers and expectations of easy material gain; the latter entails the garnering of prizes and the display of prowess in activities that have economic or military value. Veblen (1898, 1899/1912) has argued that symbolic display of prowess is the primary function of private property. The positive correlation of Games of Strategy with private property may arise from the fact that private ownership is less a private relationship between owners and their property than it is a complex, abstract, sociocognitive relationship between people with respect to rights to resources (Mead, 1982; Rudmin, 199 0b, 1991b). Popular literature and drama depict lawyers, business executives, and others of wealth thinking about property as a kind of interpersonal scheming, with complex cognitive attributions about other peoples' intentions, loyalties, plans, capabilities, and so forth, all within the given restrictions of social norms and laws. It may be that living in a propertied society encourages strategic competition with other people and that this extends to recreational activities.

Finally, there is the curious finding that Headman Chosen by Consensus is a negative correlate of private ownership while Headman Chosen by Election is a positive correlate. In both cases, the community is collectively selecting its leader. Where this is informal and consensual, private ownership tends to be absent. Where this is formalized, private ownership tends to be present. Several speculative explanations seem plausible. First, there is both theory and empirical evidence that private ownership is apiece with individualism. Macpherson (1962) and Macfarlane (1978) have both tied the development of Anglo-American liberal property theory to the development of individualism. Rudmin (1988) has presented cross-cultural evidence from 15 national societies showing that favorable attitudes toward private ownership correlate with preferences for individual dominance and with preferences for nonconformity. It may be that formal election processes and private ownership both serve to articulate individuals, differen tiate them from the social collective, and empower them. An alternative explanation is that elections may entail social stratification criteria of wealth accumulation, such that only property owners are allowed to vote. Formal elections would, thus, be part of the social stratification inherent in societies with private wealth.

Of course, such speculation should best walt for confirmation that the correlations being discussed are indeed valid. Further replications of the correlations discussed here are necessary. The present program of research is directed to producing such replication. Several more archival databases will be examined for correlates of private ownership: (1) Hobhouse, Wheeler, and Ginsberg (1915) present data on hundreds of societies and include multiple measures of ownership; (2) Beaglehole's 1931 dissertation on ownership was published in 1932 and includes a set of cross-cultural data which has yet to be subjected to statistical analysis; (3) Simmons (1945) expanded his 1937 database to include gender differentiated measures of the participation of the aged in society and of the treatment of the aged in different social contexts; and (4) Zelman's 1974 dissertation on womanpower and reproductive ritual also includes gender-defined variables as well as several measures of property. These four cross-cultural database s, as well as others that might be found to include measures of private ownership, will be examined using conservative statistical procedures. Once the archival record has been fully exploited, then a new cross-cultural study might be commissioned to examine correlations and issues identified by the archival studies and by solicitations to the community of scholars researching topics of ownership and property. Once there is a secure base of empirical facts about the social and cultural ecology of private ownership, then theory can proceed with new confidence.

Acknowledgment: During the preparation of this article, funding was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and by Queen's University's School of Business.

(*.)Direct all correspondence to: Floyd Webster Rudmin, Faculty of Law, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6. e-mail: rudminf@qucdn.queensu.ca

REFERENCES

Barzel, Y. (1989). Economic analysis of property rights. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Beaglehole, E. (1931). Rights to property: A psychological study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, London School of Economics and Political Science.

Beaglehole, E. (1932). Property: A study in social psychology. New York: Macmillan.

Beggan, J.K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 229-237.

Berenbeim, R. (1989). Safeguarding intellectual property. New York: Conference Board.

Blackstone, W. (1969). Commentaries on the laws of England. South Hackensack, NJ: Rothman Rcprints. (Originally published 1766.)

Brudner, L.A., Murdock, G.P., Schorr, T., Spoehr, A., & Tuden, A. (1971). Ethnographic atlas XXVII. Ethnology, 10, 122-127.

Bryk, F. (1934). Circumcision in man and woman: Its history, psychology and ethology (D. Berger, Trans.). New York: American Ethnological Press.

Coontz, S., & Henderson, P. (Eds.). (1986). Women's work, men's property: The origins of gender and class. London: Versa.

Cunningham, A.B. (1991). Indigenous knowledge and biodiversity: Global commons or regional heritage? Cultural Survival Quarterly, 15(3), 4-8.

Demsetz, H. (1967). Towards a theory of property rights. American Economic Review, 57, 347-393.

Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Engels, F. (1920). The origin of the family, private property, and the state (E. Untermann, Trans.). Chicago: Kerr. (Originally published 1884.)

Ellul, J. (1970). The meaning of the city. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Ensor, G. (1844). Of property and its equal distribution. London: Effingham Wilson.

Fustel de Coulanges, N.D. (1885). Recherches sur quelques problems d'histoire [Research on some problems of history]. Paris: Hachette.

Fustel de Coulanges, N.D. (1891a). The origins of property in land (M. Ashley, Trans.). London: Sonnenschein.

Fustel de Coulanges, N.D. (1891b). Nouvelle recherches sur quelques problems d' histoire [New research on some problems of history]. Paris: Hachette.

Gould, R.A. (1982). To have and have not: The ecology of sharing among hunter-gatherers. In N.M. Williams and E.S. Hunn (Eds.), Resource managers: North American and Australian hunter-gatherers (pp. 69-91). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Guyot, Y. (1895). Propriete: Origine et evolution [Property: Origin and evolution]. Paris: Delgrave.

Hayden, B. (1992a). Conclusions: Ecology and complex hunter/gatherers. In B. Hayden (Ed.), A complex culture of the British Columbia plateau (pp. 525-563). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Hayden, B. (1992b). Introduction: Ecology and culture. In B. Hayden (Ed.), A complex culture of the British Columbia plateau (pp. 146). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Hayden, B. (1993). Archeology: The science of once and future things. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Hays, W.L. (1973). Statistics for the social sciences. 2nd edition. Toronto: Halt, Rinehart and Winston.

Hobhouse, L.T., Wheeler, G., & Ginsberg, M. (1915). The material culture and social institutions of the simpler peoples: An essay in correlation. London: Chapman and Hall.

Jaffa, H.V. (1963). Aristotle. In L. Strauss & J. Cropsey (Eds.), History of political philosophy (pp. 64-132). Chicago: Rand McNally.

LaFargue, P. (1895). Propriete: Origine et evolution: These communiste [Property: Origin and evolution: Communist thesis]. Paris: Delagrave.

LaFargue, p. (1905). The evolution of property from savagery to civilization. London: Swan Sonnerschein.

LaFargue, P. (1907). Le communisme et l' evolution economique [Communism and economic evolution]. Paris: Conseil National.

Laveleye, E.L.V., de (1878). Primitive property (G. Marriott, Trans.). London: Macmillan.

Laveleye, E.L.V., de (1891). De la propriete et de ses formes primitives [On property and its primitive forms]. London: Macmillan.

Lerner, G. (1986). The creation of patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Letourneau, C. (1892). Property: Its origins and development. London: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Levinson, D., & Malone, M.J. (1980). Toward explaining human culture: A critical review of the findings of worldwide cross-cultural research. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press.

Locke, J. (1952). The second treatise on government. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. (Originally published 1690.)

Macfarlane, A. (1978). The origins of English individualism: The family, property and social transition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Macpherson, C.B. (1921). The political theory of possessive individualism: Hobbes to Locke. London: Oxford University Press.

Marx, K. (1972). The ethnological notebooks of Karl Marx (L. Krader, Ed. and Trans.). Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

Malloy, R.P. (1990). Law and economics: A comparative approach to theory and practice. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

McClelland, D.C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Van Nostrand.

Mead, G.H. (1982). The individual and the social self: The unpublished work of George Herbert Mead. (D.L. Miller, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Murdock, G.P. (1949). Social structure. New York: Macmillan.

Murdock, G.P. (1962a). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 1, 113-134.

Murdock, G.P. (1962b). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 1, 256-286.

Murdock, G.P. (1962c). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 1, 387-404.

Murdock, G.P. (1962d). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 1, 533-545.

Murdock, G.P. (1963a). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 2, 109-133.

Murdock, G.P. (1963b). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 2, 249-268.

Murdock, G.P. (1963c). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 2, 402-405.

Murdock, G.P. (1963d). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 2, 541-548.

Murdock, G.P. (1964a). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 3, 107-116.

Murdock, G.P. (1964b). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 3, 199-217.

Murdock, G.P. (1964c). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 3, 329-334.

Murdock, G.P. (1964d). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 3, 420-423.

Murdock, G.P. (1967). Ethnographic atlas. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.

Murdock, G.P. (1981). Atlas of World Cultures. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.

Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1965a). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 4, 114-122.

Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1965b). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 4, 241-250.

Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1965c). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 4, 343-348.

Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1965d). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 4, 448-455.

Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1966a). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 5, 115-134.

Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1966b). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 5, 218-231.

Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1966c). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 5, 317-345. Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1966d). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 5, 442-448.

Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1967a). Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology, 6, 103-107.

Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1967b). Ethnographic atlas XXIII. Ethnology, 6, 481-487.

Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1968a). Ethnographic atlas XXIV. Ethnology, 7, 106-111.

Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1968b). Ethnographic atlas XXV. Ethnology, 7, 218-224.

Murdock, G.P., & Spoehr, A. (1968c). Ethnographic atlas XXVI. Ethnology, 7, 327-329.

Peterson, K. (1992). Recent intellectual property trends in developing countries. Harvard International Law Journal, 33, 277-290.

Posner, R.A. (1980). A theory of primitive society with special reference to law. Journal of Law and Economics, 23, 1-53.

Porter, J.R. (1976). Leviticus: Commentary by J.R. Porter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Prentice, D.A. (1987). Psychological correspondence of possessions, attitudes, and values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 993-1003.

Radaev, V.V. & Shkaratan, O.I. (1991). Authority and property. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, 1, 50-65.

Rose, C.M. (1990). Property as storytelling: Perspectives from game theory, narrative theory, feminist theory. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 2, 37-57.

Rousseau, J.-J. (1964). Discours sur l' origine et les fondemens de l'inegalite parmi les hommes [Discourse on the origin and the foundations of inequality among men]. In Oeuvres completes (Vol. 3). Paris: Gallimard. (Originally published 1754.)

Rudmin, F.W. (1987). Ownership as interpersonal dominance: A history and three studies of the social psychology of property. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.

Rudmin, F.W. (1988). Dominance, social control, and ownership: A history and a cross-cultural study of motivations for private property. Behavior Science Research, 22, 130-160. [Note: The first two galley pages were reversed during printing. The paper should begin on paragraph 5 on page 132. Paragraphs 1 through 4 should follow paragraph 8 on page 133.]

Rudmin, F.W. (1990a). William James and the instinct theory of property: How science worked, sort of. Paper presented at the XXII Annual Meeting of Cheiron, Westfield, MA, June.

Rudmin, F.W. (1990b). The economic psychology of Leon Litwinski (1887-1969): A program of cognitive research on possession and property. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 307-339.

Rudmin, F.W. (Ed.) (1991a). To have possessions: A handbook on ownership and property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6, Special Issue). Corte Madera, CA: Select Press.

Rudmin, F.W. (1991b). "To own is to be perceived to own:" A social cognitive look at the ownership of property. In F.W. Rudmin (Ed.), To have possessions: A handbook on ownership and property. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(6, Special Issue), 85-104.

Rudmin, F.W. (1992a). Cross-cultural correlates of ownership of private property. Social Science Research, 21, 57-83.

Rudmin, F.W. (1992b). Cross-cultural correlates of ownership of private property: A look from another data base. Anthroplogica, 34, 71-88.

Rudmin, F.W. (1993). Ownership of economic property: McClelland's 1961 cross-cultural data. Psychological Reports, 73, 794.

Rudmin, F.W. (1994). Gender differences in the semantics of ownership: A quantitative phenomenological survey study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 15, 487-510.

Rudmin, F.W., Belk, R.W., & Furby, L. (1987). Social science bibliography on property, ownership, and possession: 1580 citations from psychology, anthropology, sociology and related disciplines. Monticello, IL: Vance.

Rudmin, F.W., & Kilbourne, W.E. (1995). The meaning and morality of voluntary simplicity: History and hypotheses on deliberaterly denied materialism. In N. Dholakia & R.W. Belk (Eds.), Consumption and marketing: Macro dimensions (pp. 166-206). Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing.

Rudmin, F., & Richins, M. (Eds.) (1992). Meaning, measure and morality of materialism. Proceedings of a Research Workshop on Materialism and Other Consumption Orientations, Kingston, Ontario, June 25-28, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Sack, R.D. (1983). Human territoriality: A theory. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 73, 55-74.

Sack, R.D. (1986). Human territoriality: Its theory and history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sajo, A. (1990). The struggle for ownership control: The new content of state ownership forms in Eastern Europe. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 18, 429-443.

Schlatter, R. (1951). Private property: The history of an idea. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Schopenhauer, A. (1964). The world as will and idea (Vol. 3). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Simmons, L.W. (1937). Statistical correlations in the science of society. In G.P. Murdock (Ed.), Studies in the science of society (pp. 493-517). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Simmons, L.W. (1945). The role of the aged in primitive society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Snare, F. (1972). The concept of property. American Philosophical Quarterly, 9, 200-206.

Soos, K.A. (1990). Privitization, dogma-free self-management, and ownership reform. Eastern European Economics: A Journal of Translations, 28(4), 53-62.

Speck, F.G. (1915). The family hunting band as the basis of Algonkian social organization. American Anthropologist, 17, 289-305.

Spencer, H. (1893). The principles of sociology. New York: Appleton. (Originally published 1879.)

Sumner, W.G. (1907). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Sumner, W.G., Keller, A.G. & Davie, M.R. (1927). The science of society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Swanson, G.E. (1966). The birth of the gods: The origin of primitive beliefs. 2nd printing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. (Originally published 1960.)

Toennies, F. (1957). Community and society [Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft] (C.P. Loomis, Trans.). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. (Originally published 1887.)

Veblen, T. (1898). Beginnings of ownership. American Journal of Sociology, 4, 352-365.

Veblen, T. (1912). The theory of the leisure class. New York: Macmillan. (Originally published 1899.)

Yoder, J.H. (1972). The politics of Jesus: Vicit agnus noster. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Zelman, E.A.C. (1974). Women's rights and women's rites: A cross-cultural study of womanpower and reproductive ritual. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
Table 1.

Sample of One Society Per Cultural Province

(re: Murdock, 1981)


African Societies
(of 25 cultural provinces, 25 sampled)

Ambo
Banda (*)
Bari
Baule
Bemba
Fon
Hadimu
Konkomba
Kuba
Kung
Madi
Malinke
Matakam (*)
Mbuti (*)
Nama
Ngombe
Nyakyusa
Nyoro
Otoro (*)
Shilluk
Tanala
Tiv
Tukulor
Wolof
Zulu

Circum-Mediterranean Societies
(of 25 cultural provinces, 25 sampled)

Arusi Galla
Babylonians (*)
Bulgarians
Cheremis
Dutch
Egyptians
French Canada
Gheg
Greeks
Hebrews (*)
Hutsul
Icelanders (*)
Irish
Kabyle (*)
Kanuri (*)
Khevsur
Kunama
Lebanese
Lithuanians
Neapolitans
Regeibat
Shluh
Spaniards
Tigrinya
Turks (*)

East Asian Societies
(of 25 cultural provinces, 25 sampled)

Andamanese
Annamese
Cambodians
Gilyak
Hazara
Japanese (*)
Kazak
Kohistan
Kol
Koreans
Koryak
Lamet
Lolo
Maria Gond
Miao (*)
Min Chinese
Monguor
Negri Sembilan (*)
Ob Ostyak (*)
Pahari
Purum
Sema Naga
Semang
Sinhalese
Yukaghir

Insular Pacific Societies
(of 25 cultural provinces, 24 sampled)

Aranda
Arapesh
Atayal
Belu
Chamorro
Dobuans
Ellice Islanders
Iban
Ifugao
Javanese (*)
Kaoka (*)
Kimam
Lau Fijians
Makin
Manus
Maori (*)
Minangkabau (*)
Mota
Murngin
Ontong-Javanese
Raroians
Siane (*)
Subanun
Trukese(*)

North American Societies
(of 25 cultural provinces, 25 sampled)

Agaiduka
Aleut
Caribou Eskimo
Chilcotin
Fox
Gros Ventre
Iroquois
Jicarilla
Kiowa
Klamath
Maricopa (*)
Miwok
Mixe
Nabesna
Naskapi
Omaha
Papago
Santa Ana
Sinkaiet
Sinkyone
Southern Ute
Timucua
Tlingit
Twana (*)
Yana

Central and South American Societies
(of 25 cultural province, 23 sampled)

Amahuaca
Aweikoma
Aymara (*)
Cagaba
Callinago
Choco
Djuka (*)
Guahibo
Jivaro
Lengua
Mapuche
Mataco
Mundurucu
Nambicuara
Ona
Quiche
Shavante (*)
Taino
Trumai
Waiwai
Yagua
Yahgan
Yaruro

Note: (*)Indicates data from Ethnology
Table 2.

Sample of One Society Per Culture Cluster

(re: Murdock, 1967)


African Societies
(of 85 culture clusters, 84 sampled)

Alur
Amba
Anaguta
Azande
Bajun
Bambara
Bamum
Banen
Basari
Bena
Bende (*)
Bergdama (*)
Birifor
Bozo
Bunda
Bwaka
Chokwe
Coniagui
Didinga
Diola
Diula
Dogon
Dorobo
Edo
Efik
Egba
Ewe
Fanti
Futajalonke
Hatsa (*)
Iwa
Jukun
Jur
Kamuku
Kipsigis
Kota (*)
Kpelle
Kuku
Kundu (*)
Kutshu
Lese
Lozi
Luapula
Luba (*)
Luguru (*)
Mao
Masa
Mbundu
Meban (*)
Meru
Minianka
Moro (*)
Mossi (*)
Mumuye
Mundang
Nankanse
Naron
Ndebele
Ndoko
Ngere
Ngonde
Nupe
Nyaneka
Nyanja
Plateau Tonga
Podokwo
Pokomo
Popoi (*)
Poto (*)
Rundi
Sapo
Sara
Serer
Shona (*)
Soga (*)
Sonjo
Tatoga (*)
Turkana
Turu (*)
Venda
Wute
Yako
Yao
Yombe

Circum-Mediterranian Societies
(of 55 culture clusters, 40 sampled)

Algerians
Amhara
Arbore (*)
Armenians (*)
Asben (*)
Bako
Barea
Basques (*)
Bisharin
Bororo Fulani
Brazilians
Buduma (*)
Cherkess
Dilling (*)
Druze
Fur
Guanche
Hasania
Iraqw
Jimma
Kanembu
Konso (*)
Kurd
Lapps
Madan
Mutair
New England
Osset
Riffians
Romans, Imp. (*)
Shawiya (*)
Sidamo
Siwans
Somali (*)
Songhai
Svan (*)
Teda (*)
Tera
Ukrainians
Zazzagawa

East Eurasian Societies
(of 67 culture clusters, 46 sampled)

Abor
Ainu (*)
Akha
Angami
Antandroy
Basseri
Bengali (*)
Bhil (*)
Burmese (*)
Chahar Mongol
Chakma
Chain
Chekiang (*)
Chenchu*
Chin (*)
Chukchee
Coorg
Garo
Kachin
Karen
Kashmiri
Ket (*)
Khasi (*)
Lepcha
Li
Malays
Manchu
Minchia
Mnong Gar
Moghol
Muong
Nicobarese
Nuri
Okinawans
Oraon
Pathan
Santal
Senoi
Shantungese
Sherpa
Siamese (*)
Sindhi
Tibetans
Toda
Vedda
Yakut

Insular Pacific Societies
(of 69 culture clusters, 51 sampled)

Ambonese (*)
Aua Island
Banaro
Batak
Bunlap
Choiseul
Dusun
Enga (*)
Hanunco
Ili-Mandiri
Kalinga (*)
Kapingamarangi
Kei Island
Keraki
Kubu
Kurtatchi
Lakalai
Lesu
Lifu
Mailu
Majuro (*)
Marquesans (*)
Mentawei
Muju
Onotoa
Paiwan
Palauans
Ponapeans
Purari (*)
Rennell Is. (*)
Siuai
Sugbuhanon
Sumbanese
Tanimbarese
Tannese
Tasmanians
Tikopia
Tiwi
Tobelorese
Tokelau
Toradja
Trobriands
Ulawans
Ulithians
Vanua Levu
Walbiri (*)
Wantoat
Wikmunkan
Wogeo
Wongaibon
Yapese (*)

North American Societies
(of 69 culture clusters, 64 sampled)

Acoma
Antarianunts
Apache, West. (*)
Assinboin
Atsugewi
Attawapiskat
Aztec (*)
Bannock
Beaver
Bellabella
Blood
Cahuilla
Chichimec
Chimariko
Chinantec
Chiricahua
Cocopa
Comanche
Coos
Creek
Crow
Delaware
Diegueno
Eskimo, Polar
Eyak
Haida
Haisla
Huichol
Ingalik
Isleta
Karankawa
Kaska
Kutchin (*)
Kutenai
Lillooet
Makah
Modoc
Monachi
Nunamiut
Nunivak
Pawnee
Penobscot (*)
Pima
Popoluca
Rainy River
Sanpoil
Seri
Shawnee
Sia
Stalo
Tarahumara
Tarasco
Tenino
Tillamook (*)
Tlaxcalans
Tubatulabal
Wappo
Washo
White Knife
Wichita
Winnebago
Wintu
Yavapai
Zapotec

Central and South American Societies
(of 67 culture clusters, 27 sampled)

Alacaluf
Botocudo
Bribri (*)
Camayura
Carinya (*)
Chibcha
Chirigua
Choroti
Chorti
Conibo
Cubeo (*)
Goajiro
Haitians (*)
Inca
Main
Paez
Piapoco
Ramcocamecra
Saramacca
Siriono
Tehuelche
Tenetehara
Toba
Tucuna
Tunebo
Warrau (*)
Yanomamo (*)

Note: (*)Indicates data from Ethnology.
Table 3.

Variables, Scales, Transformations, and Ordinal Ranges

Column  Domain of Cultural Activity             Nominal
Number  Coded by Murdock (1967)                Categories

--      Size of Population                         --                 --
7-11    Subsistence Economy                        --                 --
12      Mode of Marriage                            7      [right arrow]
14      Family Organization                        10      [right arrow]
17      Marital Residence                          10      [right arrow]
19      Community Organization                      6      [right arrow]
20      Patrilineal Kin Groups & Exogamy            6      [right arrow]
22      Matrilineal Kin Groups & Exogamy            6      [right arrow]
24      Cognatic Kin Groups                         7      [right arrow]
25      Cousin Marriage                            13      [right arrow]
27      Kinship Terminology for Cousins             8      [right arrow]
28      Type & Intensity of Agriculture             6      [right arrow]
29      Principle Type of Crop                      5      [right arrow]
30      Settlement Pattern                          8      [right arrow]
31      Mean Size of Local Communities             --      [right arrow]
32      Jurisdictional Hierarchy                   --      [right arrow]
34      High Gods                                   4      [right arrow]
35      Types of Games                              8      [right arrow]
36      Post--Partum Sex Taboos                    --      [right arrow]
37      Male Genital Mutilations                   10      [right arrow]
38      Segregation of Adolescent Boys              5      [right arrow]
40      Type of Animal Husbandry                    7      [right arrow]
39        Plow Cultivation                          2      [right arrow]
41        Domestic Animals Milked                   1      [right arrow]
42      Metal Working                               9      [right arrow]
44      Weaving                                     9      [right arrow]
46      Leather Working                             9      [right arrow]
48      Pottery                                     9      [right arrow]
50      Boat Building                               9      [right arrow]
52      House Building                              9      [right arrow]
54      Gathering                                   9      [right arrow]
56      Hunting                                     9      [right arrow]
58      Fishing                                     9      [right arrow]
60      Animal Husbandry                            9      [right arrow]
62      Agriculture                                 9      [right arrow]
42-62   Other Economic Specializations             11      [right arrow]
67      Class Stratification                        5      [right arrow]
69      Caste Stratification                        4      [right arrow]
71      Slavery                                     5      [right arrow]
73      Succession to Office of Local Headman      10      [right arrow]
74      Inheritance of Real Property                7      [right arrow]
76      Inheritance of Movable Property             7      [right arrow]
78      Norms of Premarital Sex Behavior            6      [right arrow]
80      Ground Plan of Dwelling                     6      [right arrow]
81      Floor Level                                 4      [right arrow]
82      Wall Material                              11      [right arrow]
83      Shape of Roof                               9      [right arrow]
84      Roofing Material                           11      [right arrow]
           Total

Column  Ordinal  Maximum
Number  Scales    Range

--         1      1, 5
7-11       5      0, 9
12         6      0, 1
14        10      0, 1
17        10      0, 1
19         6      0, 1
20         6      0, 1
22         6      0, 1
24         7      0, 1
25        13      0, 1
27         8      0, 1
28         1      0, 5
29         5      0, 1
30         2      0, 5
31         1      1, 8
32         2      0, 8
34         1      0, 3
35         3      0, 4
36         1      0, 5
37         1      0, 1
38         1      0, 4
40         7      0, 1
39         1      0, 1
41         1      0, 1
42         1      0, 4
44         1      0, 4
46         1      0, 4
48         1      0, 4
50         1      0, 4
52         1      0, 4
54         1      0, 4
56         1      0, 4
58         1      0, 4
60         1      0, 4
62         1      0, 4
42-62      4      0,11
67         5      0, 1
69         4      0, 1
71         1      0, 4
73        10      0, 1
74         1      0, 1
76         1      0, 1
78         1      0, 5
80         1      0, 5
81         1      0, 3
82         1      0, 4
83         1      0, 1
84         1      0, 4
         148
Table 4.

Reliability of Murdock's Property Measures

(Kendall correlations, all significant p < .05)

                                           Murdock (1967)
                             Ownership of Land  Ownership of Movables

Murdock (1967)                    r = .57
Ownership of Movables             n = 403
  (N = 459)

Simmons (1937)                    r = .73              r = .34
Private Property in Land          n =  28              n =  28
  (N = 71)

Simmons (1937)                    r = .45              r = .55
Private Property in Objects       n =  34              n =  34
  (N = 71)

Swanson (1960)                    r = .55              r = .56
Individually Owned Property       n =  29              n =  29
  (N = 50)
Table 5a.

Subsistence Correlates of Private Ownership (Kenall
correlations, significant at p < .05 unless (*)p > .05)

                                                        Sample 1
Correlations of private                                 N = 147
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlatin                                     Land
Column                   Variable                     r        n

39.                      Large Domestic Animals     .53      141
 7.                      Gathering                 -.46      141
 8.                      Hunting                   -.55      141
10.                      Husbandry                  .45      141
28.                      Intensive Cultivation      .59      141
11.                      Agriculture                .49      141
40.                      Bovine Husbandry           .50      141
39.                        Plow Cultivation         .43      141
41.                        Milking of Livestock     .34       83
29.                      Vegetable Crops           -.20      111
40.                      Equine Husbandry          -.18      141
29.                      Cereal Grain Crops         .24      111
29.                      RootCrops                 -.29      111
 9.                      Fishing                   -.21      141

                                                        Sample 1
Correlations of private                                 N = 147
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlatin                                   Objects
Column                   Variable                    r         n

39.                      Large Domestic Animals     .47      139
 7.                      Gathering                 -.45      139
 8.                      Hunting                   -.43      139
10.                      Husbandry                  .44      139
28.                      Intensive Cultivation      .32      139
11.                      Agriculture                .37      139
40.                      Bovine Husbandry           .45      139
39.                        Plow Cultivation         .31      139
41.                        Milking of Livestock     .30       83
29.                      Vegetable Crops           -.25      111
40.                      Equine Husbandry          -.14 (*)  139
29.                      Cereal Grain Crops         .20      111
29.                      RootCrops                 -.17      111
 9.                      Fishing                   -.12 (*)  139

                                                       Sample S
Correlations of private                                 N = 312
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlatin                                    Land
Column                   Variable                        r    n

39.                      Large Domestic Animals        .51  289
 7.                      Gathering                    -.53  292
 8.                      Hunting                      -.50  292
10.                      Husbandry                     .45  292
28.                      Intensive Cultivation         .49  290
11.                      Agriculture                   .47  292
40.                      Bovine Husbandry              .41  289
39.                        Plow Cultivation            .25  292
41.                        Milking of Livestock        .20  187
29.                      Vegetable Crops              -.17  236
40.                      Equine Husbandry             -.29  289
29.                      Cereal Grain Crops            .19  236
29.                      RootCrops                    -.17  236
 9.                      Fishing                      -.18  292

                                                        Sample S
Correlations of private                                 N = 312
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlatin                                   Objects
Column                   Variable                    r         n

39.                      Large Domestic Animals     .44      287
 7.                      Gathering                 -.47      290
 8.                      Hunting                   -.40      290
10.                      Husbandry                  .39      290
28.                      Intensive Cultivation      .33      288
11.                      Agriculture                .37      290
40.                      Bovine Husbandry           .31      287
39.                        Plow Cultivation         .15      290
41.                        Milking of Livestock     .20      185
29.                      Vegetable Crops           -.30      240
40.                      Equine Husbandry          -.28      287
29.                      Cereal Grain Crops         .02 (*)  240
29.                      RootCrops                 -.02 (*)  240
 9.                      Fishing                   -.11      290
Table 5b.

Family Structure Correlates of Private Ownership (Kendall
correlations, significant at p < .05 unless (*)p < .05)

                                                          Sample 1
Correlates of Private                                     N = 147
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlation                                      Land
Column                  Variable                            r

24.                     Bilateral Descent                 -.25
17.                     Uxorilocal Marital Residence      -.18
12.                     Bride-Price                        .19
17.                     Patrilocal Marital Residence       .26
20.                     Patrilineal Kin Groups and         .22
                         Exogamy
19.                     Exogamous Communities             -.26
27.                     Descriptive Cousin Terminology     .23
17.                     Ambilocal Marital Residence       -.16
20.                     Patrilineal Sibs or Clans          .21
19.                     Segmented Communities              .17
14.                     Nonsororal Polygyny,               .16
                         Separate Quarters
12.                     Bride-Service                     -.24
17.                     Virilocal Marital Residence       -.15

                                                         Sample 1
Correlates of Private                                    N = 147
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlation                                     Land
Column                  Variable                         n

24.                     Bilateral Descent               141
17.                     Uxorilocal Marital Residence    141
12.                     Bride-Price                     l40
17.                     Patrilocal Marital Residence    141
20.                     Patrilineal Kin Groups and      141
                         Exogamy
19.                     Exogamous Communities           134
27.                     Descriptive Cousin Terminology  126
17.                     Ambilocal Marital Residence     141
20.                     Patrilineal Sibs or Clans       141
19.                     Segmented Communities           134
14.                     Nonsororal Polygyny,            l40
                         Separate Quarters
12.                     Bride-Service                   l40
17.                     Virilocal Marital Residence     141

                                                          Sample 1
Correlates of Private                                     N = 147
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlation                                    Objects
Column                  Variable                            r

24.                     Bilateral Descent                 -.27
17.                     Uxorilocal Marital Residence      -.24
12.                     Bride-Price                        .18
17.                     Patrilocal Marital Residence       .17
20.                     Patrilineal Kin Groups and         .03 (*)
                         Exogamy
19.                     Exogamous Communities             -.25
27.                     Descriptive Cousin Terminology     .16
17.                     Ambilocal Marital Residence       -.12 (*)
20.                     Patrilineal Sibs or Clans          .08 (*)
19.                     Segmented Communities              .17
14.                     Nonsororal Polygyny,               .14
                         Separate Quarters
12.                     Bride-Service                     -.23
17.                     Virilocal Marital Residence       -.15

                                                         Sample 1
Correlates of Private                                    N = 147
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlation                                   Objects
Column                  Variable                         n

24.                     Bilateral Descent               138
17.                     Uxorilocal Marital Residence    139
12.                     Bride-Price                     138
17.                     Patrilocal Marital Residence    139
20.                     Patrilineal Kin Groups and      139
                         Exogamy
19.                     Exogamous Communities           131
27.                     Descriptive Cousin Terminology  124
17.                     Ambilocal Marital Residence     139
20.                     Patrilineal Sibs or Clans       139
19.                     Segmented Communities           131
14.                     Nonsororal Polygyny,            138
                         Separate Quarters
12.                     Bride-Service                   138
17.                     Virilocal Marital Residence     139

                                                          Sample 2
Correlates of Private                                     N = 312
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlation                                      Land
Column                  Variable                             r

24.                     Bilateral Descent                  -.51
17.                     Uxorilocal Marital Residence       -.34
12.                     Bride-Price                         .40
17.                     Patrilocal Marital Residence        .33
20.                     Patrilineal Kin Groups and          .37
                         Exogamy
19.                     Exogamous Communities              -.19
27.                     Descriptive Cousin Terminology      .21
17.                     Ambilocal Marital Residence        -.20
20.                     Patrilineal Sibs or Clans           .27
19.                     Segmented Communities               .22
14.                     Nonsororal Polygyny,                .22
                         Separate Quarters
12.                     Bride-Service                      -.15
17.                     Virilocal Marital Residence        -.20

                                                         Sample 2
Correlates of Private                                    N = 312
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlation                                     Land
Column                  Variable                         n

24.                     Bilateral Descent               291
17.                     Uxorilocal Marital Residence    288
12.                     Bride-Price                     292
17.                     Patrilocal Marital Residence    288
20.                     Patrilineal Kin Groups and      291
                         Exogamy
19.                     Exogamous Communities           273
27.                     Descriptive Cousin Terminology  226
17.                     Ambilocal Marital Residence     288
20.                     Patrilineal Sibs or Clans       291
19.                     Segmented Communities           273
14.                     Nonsororal Polygyny,            291
                         Separate Quarters
12.                     Bride-Service                   292
17.                     Virilocal Marital Residence     288

                                                          Sample 2
Correlates of Private                                     N = 312
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlation                                    Objects
Column                  Variable                            r

24.                     Bilateral Descent                 -.43
17.                     Uxorilocal Marital Residence      -.31
12.                     Bride-Price                        .25
17.                     Patrilocal Marital Residence       .23
20.                     Patrilineal Kin Groups and         .26
                         Exogamy
19.                     Exogamous Communities             -.10
27.                     Descriptive Cousin Terminology     .15
17.                     Ambilocal Marital Residence       -.25
20.                     Patrilineal Sibs or Clans          .17
19.                     Segmented Communities              .15
14.                     Nonsororal Polygyny,               .15
                         Separate Quarters
12.                     Bride-Service                     -.03 (*)
17.                     Virilocal Marital Residence       -.07 (*)

                                                         Sample 2
Correlates of Private                                    N = 312
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlation                                   Objects
Column                  Variable                         n

24.                     Bilateral Descent               290
17.                     Uxorilocal Marital Residence    289
12.                     Bride-Price                     290
17.                     Patrilocal Marital Residence    289
20.                     Patrilineal Kin Groups and      290
                         Exogamy
19.                     Exogamous Communities           272
27.                     Descriptive Cousin Terminology  227
17.                     Ambilocal Marital Residence     289
20.                     Patrilineal Sibs or Clans       290
19.                     Segmented Communities           272
14.                     Nonsororal Polygyny,            289
                         Separate Quarters
12.                     Bride-Service                   290
17.                     Virilocal Marital Residence     289
Table 5c.

Social Stratification Correlates of Private Ownership (Kendall
correlations, significant at p < .05 unless (*)p > .05)

                                                          Sample 1
Correlates of Private                                     N = 147
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlation                                      Land
Column                  Variable                       r        n

42-62.                  Craft Specialization          .50      141
   67.                  Presence of Classes           .34      139
   52.                  Male Dominance in             .45      100
                         House Building
   71.                  Slavery                       .17      136
   48.                  Male Dominance in             .35       57
                         Pottery
   67.                  Class Stratification by       .33      139
                         Occupation
   69.                  Presence of Castes            .19      134
   69.                  Despised Occupational         .23      134
                         Groups
   67.                  Dual Class Stratification     .05 (*)  139

                                                         Sample 1
Correlates of Private                                     N = 147
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlation                                    Objects
Column                  Variable                       r       n

42-62.                  Craft Specialization          .40     139
   67.                  Presence of Classes           .34     137
   52.                  Male Dominance in             .34     98
                         House Building
   71.                  Slavery                       .27     134
   48.                  Male Dominance in             .26     58
                         Pottery
   67.                  Class Stratification by       .22     137
                         Occupation
   69.                  Presence of Castes            .17     132
   69.                  Despised Occupational         .16     132
                         Groups
   67.                  Dual Class Stratification     .23     137

                                                          Sample 2
Correlates of Private                                     N = 312
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlation                                      Land
Column                  Variable                       r        n

42-62.                  Craft Specialization          .42      292
   67.                  Presence of Classes           .30      276
   52.                  Male Dominance in             .31      163
                         House Building
   71.                  Slavery                       .30      275
   48.                  Male Dominance in             .17      125
                         Pottery
   67.                  Class Stratification by       .17      276
                         Occupation
   69.                  Presence of Castes            .26      277
   69.                  Despised Occupational         .21      277
                         Groups
   67.                  Dual Class Stratification     .24      276

                                                          Sample 2
Correlates of Private                                     N = 312
Ownership Rank Ordered
by Average Correlation                                    Objects
Column                  Variable                       r        n

42-62.                  Craft Specialization          .30      290
   67.                  Presence of Classes           .26      275
   52.                  Male Dominance in             .13      159
                         House Building
   71.                  Slavery                       .23      274
   48.                  Male Dominance in             .13 (*)  128
                         Pottery
   67.                  Class Stratification by       .12      275
                         Occupation
   69.                  Presence of Castes            .16      274
   69.                  Despised Occupational         .14      274
                         Groups
   67.                  Dual Class Stratification     .14      275
Table 5d.

Governance and Community Correlates of Private Ownership

(Kendall Correlations, significant at P < .05 unless *p > .05)

Correlates of Private                                    Sample 1
Ownership Rank Ordered                                   N = 147
by Average Correlation                                     Land
Column                  Variable                           r

30.                     Permanent Settlement              .53
31.                     Populous Communities              .64
82.                     Wall of Substantial Materials     .48
--                      Large Population                  .38
33.                     Higher Jurisdictions              .41
35.                     Games of Strategy                 .25
30.                     Dense Settlement                  .37
73.                     Headman Chosen by Consensus      -.15
81.                     Raised Floors                     .22
37.                     Male Genital Mutilations          .08 (*)
34.                     Judgemental High Gods             .29
73.                     Headman Chosen by Election        .34
32.                     Local Jurisdictions               .22
80.                     Angular Ground Plan               .17
83.                     Rounded Roofs                    -.17

Correlates of Private                                   Sample 1
Ownership Rank Ordered                                  N = 147
by Average Correlation                                    Land
Column                  Variable                        n

30.                     Permanent Settlement           141
31.                     Populous Communities           98
82.                     Wall of Substantial Materials  135
--                      Large Population               111
33.                     Higher Jurisdictions           140
35.                     Games of Strategy              74
30.                     Dense Settlement               141
73.                     Headman Chosen by Consensus    127
81.                     Raised Floors                  138
37.                     Male Genital Mutilations       132
34.                     Judgemental High Gods          117
73.                     Headman Chosen by Election     127
32.                     Local Jurisdictions            140
80.                     Angular Ground Plan            140
83.                     Rounded Roofs                  134

Correlates of Private                                    Sample 1
Ownership Rank Ordered                                   N = 147
by Average Correlation                                   Objects
Column                  Variable                           r

30.                     Permanent Settlement              .37
31.                     Populous Communities              .43
82.                     Wall of Substantial Materials     .41
--                      Large Population                  .39
33.                     Higher Jurisdictions              .35
35.                     Games of Strategy                 .41
30.                     Dense Settlement                  .18
73.                     Headman Chosen by Consensus      -.30
81.                     Raised Floors                     .22
37.                     Male Genital Mutilations          .23
34.                     Judgemental High Gods             .18
73.                     Headman Chosen by Election        .19
32.                     Local Jurisdictions               .08 (*)
80.                     Angular Ground Plan               .27
83.                     Rounded Roofs                    -.23

Correlates of Private                                   Sample 1
Ownership Rank Ordered                                  N = 147
by Average Correlation                                  Objects
Column                  Variable                        n

30.                     Permanent Settlement           139
31.                     Populous Communities           94
82.                     Wall of Substantial Materials  134
--                      Large Population               107
33.                     Higher Jurisdictions           138
35.                     Games of Strategy              72
30.                     Dense Settlement               139
73.                     Headman Chosen by Consensus    125
81.                     Raised Floors                  137
37.                     Male Genital Mutilations       131
34.                     Judgemental High Gods          116
73.                     Headman Chosen by Election     125
32.                     Local Jurisdictions            138
80.                     Angular Ground Plan            139
83.                     Rounded Roofs                  132

Correlates of Private                                    Sample 2
Ownership Rank Ordered                                   N = 312
by Average Correlation                                     Land
Column                  Variable                           r

30.                     Permanent Settlement              .59
31.                     Populous Communities              .42
82.                     Wall of Substantial Materials     .45
--                      Large Population                  .46
33.                     Higher Jurisdictions              .41
35.                     Games of Strategy                 .28
30.                     Dense Settlement                  .32
73.                     Headman Chosen by Consensus      -.27
81.                     Raised Floors                     .30
37.                     Male Genital Mutilations          .34
34.                     Judgemental High Gods             .26
73.                     Headman Chosen by Election        .17
32.                     Local Jurisdictions               .32
80.                     Angular Ground Plan               .15
83.                     Rounded Roofs                    -.12

Correlates of Private                                   Sample 2
Ownership Rank Ordered                                  N = 312
by Average Correlation                                    Land
Column                  Variable                        n

30.                     Permanent Settlement           290
31.                     Populous Communities           174
82.                     Wall of Substantial Materials  265
--                      Large Population               233
33.                     Higher Jurisdictions           278
35.                     Games of Strategy              127
30.                     Dense Settlement               290
73.                     Headman Chosen by Consensus    252
81.                     Raised Floors                  285
37.                     Male Genital Mutilations       276
34.                     Judgemental High Gods          209
73.                     Headman Chosen by Election     252
32.                     Local Jurisdictions            287
80.                     Angular Ground Plan            286
83.                     Rounded Roofs                  269

Correlates of Private                                   Sample 2
Ownership Rank Ordered                                   N = 312
by Average Correlation                                   Objects
Column                  Variable                           r

30.                     Permanent Settlement              .43
31.                     Populous Communities              .27
82.                     Wall of Substantial Materials     .35
--                      Large Population                  .35
33.                     Higher Jurisdictions              .30
35.                     Games of Strategy                 .27
30.                     Dense Settlement                  .20
73.                     Headman Chosen by Consensus      -.26
81.                     Raised Floors                     .25
37.                     Male Genital Mutilations          .25
34.                     Judgemental High Gods             .16
73.                     Headman Chosen by Election        .15
32.                     Local Jurisdictions               .20
80.                     Angular Ground Plan               .16
83.                     Rounded Roofs                    -.17

Correlates of Private                                   Sample 2
Ownership Rank Ordered                                  N = 312
by Average Correlation                                  Objects
Column                  Variable                        n

30.                     Permanent Settlement           288
31.                     Populous Communities           171
82.                     Wall of Substantial Materials  264
--                      Large Population               228
33.                     Higher Jurisdictions           277
35.                     Games of Strategy              128
30.                     Dense Settlement               288
73.                     Headman Chosen by Consensus    252
81.                     Raised Floors                  285
37.                     Male Genital Mutilations       275
34.                     Judgemental High Gods          207
73.                     Headman Chosen by Election     252
32.                     Local Jurisdictions            285
80.                     Angular Ground Plan            287
83.                     Rounded Roofs                  272
Table 6.

Summary of Replicated Correlates of Property Ownership

                        Simmons, 1937   Swanson, 1966   Murdock, 1967
                        (Rudmin 1992a)  (Rudmin 1992b)  (this study)
                            n = 68          n = 49         n = 459
                          p < .0001       p < .0003       p < .0001

Agriculture                   +               +               +
Cereal Grain                  +               +               +
Castes and Classes            +               +               +
Hunting                      (-)              -               -
Gathering                    (-)              -               -
Exogamy                      (-)              -               -
Abundant Food                 +               +              ...
Patrilocal Residence          +              ...              +
Permanent Residence           +              ...              +
Slavery                       +              ...              +
Size of Population           ...              +               +
Sovereign Organization       ...              +               +

Notes: +, - signification correlation

()sign of nonsignificant correlation

... no comparable measure
COPYRIGHT 1995 JAI Press, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1995 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Rudmin, Floyd Webster
Publication:The Journal of Socio-Economics
Geographic Code:00WOR
Date:Jun 22, 1995
Words:13687
Previous Article:Suicide intention and suicide prevention: an economic perspective (*).
Next Article:JBE/JSE - the first 30 years. (Editorial).
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |