CURRENT
ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
O 1988by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved o o 1 1 - ~ ~ 0 ~ / 8 8 / ~ ~ o ~ - o o o ~ $ ~ . o o
Rethinking Polygyny
Co-Wives, Codes, and Cultural
by Douglas R. White
A new set of codes is offered to begin to unpack the dimensions of
polygyny. Included are measures of frequency and statistical distributions of multiple wives, cultural rules, residential arrangements and kin relations among co-wives, male stratification, and
marriage of captured women. Problems of coding and measurement are extensively illustrated. A series of hypotheses is supported regarding two types of polygyny: wealth-increasing and
sororal. In the first, women's labor generates wealth and (if warfare allows) female captives are taken as secondary wives. Here
polygyny stratifies males by wealth and most men are able to become polygynists with age. Residential autonomy of wives is an
elaboration of this pattern. The second is marked by coresidence
of husband and wives and dependence of the family mostly on
resources generated by the husband. Here polygyny is usually dependent on the exceptional productivity of particular men such as
hunters or shamans. The regional-historical adaptations of these
types differ markedly. Neither fits the model of resource-defense
polygyny found in other species. Explanations of polygyny, particularly of the first type, require close attention to resource and demographic flows within regional ecologies. The second type requires further functional and historical analysis. Both require
more consideration of the way polygyny operates from the female
point of view, a task only partially begun here.
R. WHITE is Professor in the School of Social Sciences
and the Program in Comparative Culture at the University of
California, Irvine (Irvine, Calif. 92717, U.S.A.). and editor of the
electronic journal World Cultures. Born in 1942, he was educated
at the University of Minnesota (B.A., 1964; Ph.D., 1969)and
taught at the University of Pittsburgh from 1967 to 1976. His publications include, with G. P. Murdock, "Standard Cross-cultural
o~~
with Michael Burton and Lilyan
Sample" ( ~ t h n o l 8:329-69);
Brudner. "Entailment Theorv and Method: A Cross-cultural Analysis of the Sexual Division oi Labor" (Behavior Science Research
I~:I-24);with Michael L. Burton and Malcolm M. Dow, "Sexual
Division of Labor in African Agriculture: A Network Autocorrelation Analysis" (American Anthropologist 83:824-49); and, with
Michael L. Burton, "Sexual Division of Labor in Agriculture"
(American Anthropologist 86:568-83) and "Cross-cultural Surveys Today" (Annual Review of Anthropology 16:143-60) He is
co-editor, with Linton C. Freeman and A. Kimball Romney, of
Research Methods in Social Network Analysis (Chicago: NelsonPaul Publishers, in press) and the author of "The World Cultures
Database" (Advances in Computer Archaeology 4 [Spring]:4-31).
The present paper was submitted in h a 1 form 4 111 88.
DOUGLAS
I. The assembly of the research materials for coding the standard
sample on polygyny and studies of the division of labor, female
status, and world-system linkages were supported by NSF grants
BNS #8023904, 8304782, and 8507685 to Douglas R. White and
Michael L. Burton. John W. M. Whiting, Michael L. Burton, and
Lilyan A. Brudner provided invaluable advice and extensive criticism, but any faults in coding decisions are mine alone.
Polygyny presents a fascinating comparative problem
that requires an examination of both cultural practices
and historical and ecological features. An earlier paper
(White and Burton 1988) examined ecological, economic, kinship, and warfare variables as factors affecting
types and rates of polygyny. This one focuses on internal
relationships in the organization of polygynous systems.
From coded ethnographic data on systemic features of
polygyny in the standard sample of 186 of the world's
societies (Murdock and White 1969) and other crosscultural codes, three complexes of polygynous variables
are identified. The theoretical goal is to interpret these
complexes, begin to understand how they are differentially situated in historical and ecological context, and
delineate the kinds of problems posed by the tendency to
treat them under a common rubric (Boas 1896). For example, Darwinian evolutionary arguments have recently
been advanced that link wealth to polygyny and polygyny to reproductive success. If modern evolutionary
comparativists are to avoid treating polygyny as a unitary phenomenon, they will have to grapple with the
various culturally and ecologically constituted systems
of polygyny and the key parameters and world historical
factors that constitute their systemic boundaries.
The codes presented here are based on a rethinking of
the comparative dimensions of polygyny as cultural
practice. They reflect three shifts in the paradigm of
cross-cultural research: an intention to make clear the
problematics of working with multiple, complex ethnographic texts, where an array of models and theories at
different levels can be constructed from the data; recognition of the need for more historically sensitive analysis; and an analytical goal of unpacking the comparative
dimensions of phenomena in a way that allows them to
be more closely linked with regional, ecological, and culture-historical contexts. With respect to the analysis of
the historical context of polygyny, the goal of this paper
is modest: it is not to perform such an analysis but to set
the stage for one.
Considering Polygyny in the Nexus
of Multiple Systems
One of the great advantages of ethnography over comparative research is that it makes it possible to see how
practice is embedded in many parts of a local system. As
comparative studies themselves begin to be richly layered, we can begin to see cultural practices as multiply
embedded. This article is not an attempt to give a full
account of all pertinent variables, but it does restore several critical dimensions to the comparative study of polygyny.
It is important to distinguish at least three different
aspects of polygyny. The first of these is its demographics-the rates of men and women married polygynously.
For example, Whiting and Whiting (1975) have argued
that, to the extent that married women are polygynous
and living in separate quarters, a distinctive childrearing pattern is created whereby children tend to live
530 1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
in a women's world somewhat set apart from that of the
father. The percentage of polygynous married women
will always exceed that of men in a society by at least
2 : I and sometimes more than zo : I. The percentages of
married men and women who are polygynous vary independently to the degree that relative distributions for
men classified by the number of their wives differ from
case to case. Spencer (1980)proposes that the statistical
distribution of men bv their numbers of wives indexes
social differentiation among polygynists or elders (because older men usually have more wives), while the
mean number of wives indexes the age bias or extent of
gerontocracy that polygyny may bring about by creating
a scarcity of dives for younger men. But there are many
factors that might affect the demographics of polygyny,
either indirectly through the adult sex ratio or directly
through the relative proportions of adult males and adult
females who are married (White and Burton 1988).Factors that affect the adult sex ratio include the natal sex
ratio, relative malelfemale mortalities, relative rates of
labor migration, and relative movement of men or
women in or out of communities at puberty or marriage,
including movements associated with bridewealth payments or capture of prisoners in war. Proportions of
adult males and females married are affected by relative
age at marriage, relative ease of divorce or remarriage,
rates of bachelorhood or spinsterhood, and so forth. In
order to distinguish the effects of these factors, it is helpful to have separate ethnographic codes on the relative
frequencies of polygyny for married men and women.'
Second, apart from a consideration of frequencies of
polygyny, we need to distinguish which categories of
men or women are polygynously married. Murdock
(1949)noted that polygyny is associated with "moveable
property or wealth which can be accumulated in quantity by men" (p. 206) and that within societies with surpluses it is the wealthier men who are more polygynous
(p. 28); van den Berghe (1979) argues that surplus resources permit males to provide for multiple wives.
These are instances of the common argument that polygyny is associated with rank or stratification among
males. Marriage systems, however, contrast significantly on this dimension. Moreover, polygyny may also
be associated with rank or stratification amonn females
in competition for mates, as, for example, with the ranking among women characteristic of bridewealth systems
(Ogbu 1978).
Third, it is important to note how multiple wives are
recruited (e.g., sororal or nonsororal) and how they are
distributed residentially (e.g., in the same or separate
habitations). Another aspect of the recruitment of cowives that has been neglected is the marriage of female
captives and/or the adoption of girls captured in war and
their subsequent marriage within the society. Equally
important but not undertaken in the present study is
examination of how recruitment of wives affects local
and regional systems of alliance and exchange.
Other major aspects of polygyny that require comparative treatment but cannot be addressed here are ( I )
stratification: frequency distributions of multiple wives
for elites as opposed to commoners and prerogatives of
rulers (see Betzig 1986); (z)rights and status: religious
and legal codes as a source of restrictions on the number
of wives; extent of widow inheritance and/or levirate as
a source of secondary wives; types of ranking or differentiation among co-wives; legal status accorded to the
second wife; marriage of concubines and status of children by different types of marriage; degree of formality of
marriage; and bridewealth; (3)advantagesldisadvantages
of polygyny and solidarity vs, competition among cowives: attitudes of women and of men towards polygyny
(including that of parents towards a daughter's polygynous marriage); whether co-wives cooperate in a variety
of tasks; degree, function, and impact of solidarity
among co-wives; extent of jealousy among co-wives;
whether the first wife often encourages a man to take a
second wife or her permission is required or she helps to
recruit kin or non-kin as wives; and so forth (a related
topic, linked to reproduction, is the economic value of
children in the household economy [Bradley 19871);and
(4) reproductive aspects: fertility and family size (although good data are difficult to obtain); barrenness as a
reason for taking a second wife; and confidence of paternal and veiling and claustration, recently reviewed by
Dickemann (1981). Investigations of each of these factors need also to bear in mind questions about boundaries and regional distributions.
Shifts in the Cross-cultural Paradigm
u
z. Some aspects of polygyny are particularly difficult to code or
measure accurately in standard ethnographies or samples: fertility,
for example, or even family size. Imbalance in the sex ratio is
another factor that is difficult to code. Many ethnographers offer
low sex ratios as an explanation for polygyny, but importation of
wives from other communities automatically lowers the sex ratio.
Combined with difficulty in determining birth years in nonliterate
populations and settling on "adult status" definitions that are comparable for males and females, as well as in overcoming the tendency to overestimate ages of younger married women, it is nearly
impossible to measure sex ratios independently of rates of polygyny. For similar reasons-lack of accurate censuses, difficulty in
determining ages or cohort membership in a community, and possible absences through migration-it is difficult to measure the
proportion of adult males who are unmarried.
How one treats polygyny depends in part on how one
sees the relations between cultural practice, history, and
ecology. This is particularly evident in cross-cultural research, where the relations between these domains have
been reexplored in each generation.
The more one specifies the marriage system of a particular society in terms of features such as those listed
above, the more the regional patterning of marriage systems becomes evident. This is an inevitable feature of
the diffusion and ecological adaptation of particular patterns of social organization. In contrast, Murdock's coding of polygyny obscures marked differences in the upper
ranges of frequency. The societies of sub-Saharan Africa,
for example, are typically much higher in rates of polygyny than societies with "general polygyny" in the rest of
the world. His monogamy/limited polygyny/>zo% po-
w H I T E Rethinking Polygyny I 5 3 I
y scale also obscures regional differences among
@limited"
types. Indeed, one of the salient motiva-
tests for Galton's problem. This article (Murdock and
White 1969) conclusively demonstrated to Murdock the
tions for coding the additional features of polygyny pre- impossibility of avoiding historical effects in crosssented in this paper was to be able to test hypotheses cultural research. Sampling four domains of study (politabout the historical and ecological character of marriage ical structure, economy, language, social organization)
systems. Such hypotheses have been offered in the spirit and applying a test for the effects of propinquity on
of critique of functionalist theories ever since Boas's similarities between sample societies, we found that if
(1896)critique of the comparative method. Among the one wanted a sample entirely free of historical or remany advances since his time is our ability to test his- gional similarities among sample cases, the spatial samtorical, ecological, and functional hypotheses simulta- d i n g interval would be at ~ . o o omiles or more and the
neously (e.g., White, Burton, and Dow 1981, White and maximal sample size for statistically "independent"
Burton 1988).
cases between 10 and 20 cases, too small for work on
Cross-cultural research from Tylor (1889)to Murdock multivariate ~roblems.In 1980, in his treatment of theo(1949) attempted to view cultural practices as autono- ries of illnesi, Murdock completed his first study commous at the level of society-independent, that is, of bining historical and macroregional with functional
larger patterns of history and somewhat oblivious to the analysis. Murdock "converted," as it were, from the Tyinterdependent nature of larger ecological systems and lorian approach to cross-cultural studies to the type of
to the complementarity of local and larger systems, as if combined historical-functional approach advocated by
the societies sampled represented independent experi- Driver ( I95 6; Jorgensen I 974, White I 975). To cement
ments bv means of which functional relations could be the gains in his perspective, Murdock in his late eighties
identifieh. This approach is not entirely invalid but is went on to reconstruct his world sampling provinces and
systematically biased towards a particular range of the- Atlas of World Cultures (1981) around greater cogniory and needs to be supplemented by analysis of local, zance of historical problems. In response to a query by
regional, and world historical interdependencies.
Hartung (1982:3),for example, Murdock judged his poMurdock's approach was to avoid historically related lygyny codes accurate but only a crude beginning in the
clusters of societies by sampling at intervals of 200 miles cross-cultural treatment of the topic.
A more integrated approach to the study of cultural
in the absence of large-scale political systems. He
treated large-scale societies such as China, Hindu India, practice, history, and ecology has been the focus of a
or the European nations as "single" cases equivalent for series of papers by myself and Michael Burton on the
sampling purposes to societies one-thousandth or one- sexual division of labor (Burton and White 1,
9 8 ~White.
:
millionth their size. Moreover, in his early work Mur- Burton, and Dow 1981).w e found a number of factors i i
dock (1949) restricted the subject matter of cross- the intensification of agriculture that predicted a shift
cultural research to avoid havine" to deal with the towards a greater contribution of male over female labor
problems of historicity, regionality, and diffusion. He in nondomestic agricultural tasks. Although these preasserted that functional hypotheses could best be tested dictions were borne out in different world regions, two
for those phenomena that were so often independently regional effects were observed: greater female participainvented that societies s a m ~ l e dat intervals of 200 miles tion than predicted in Bantu Africa and failure of populaor so could be assumed to 6e functionally independent. tion density to predict greater male participation, as in
He maintained that features of social organization were Boserup's (1970)model, outside the Old World. One of
sufficiently variable over these relatively short distances these papers examined polygyny in Africa as a possible
to permit Galton's problem of the nonindependence of consequence of female agricultural participation, patcases to be safely ignored. But to make his approach rilocal residence, and the absence of a moralistic high
work, he had to concentrate on the more abstract fea- god (White, Burton, and Dow 1981:840-46). Again, very
tures of social organization, ignoring characteristics that strong regional clusterings of the exceptions were obshowed more obvious patterning over larger regions.
served: less polygyny than predicted in North Africa, for
The general distinctions about different types of polyg- example, and more than predicted in the African savanyny (common/limited, sororallnonsororal, separate1 nah.
The cross-cultural research tradition that combines recommon residence of co-wives) that Murdock established in 1949 were carried fodard in his Atlas (1967) gional and historical with functional analysis is not new
codes, but it was increasingly clear that these features as a general approach (e.g., Boas 1896, Driver 1956,
exhibited large-scale regional clustering. His next set of Jorgensen 1980, Murdock 1980).While the specific concodes (Murdock and Wilson 1972) was less rather than tents of this approach will vary as advances are made in
more specific, tending to obscure regional differences general anthropology as well as cross-cultural methods,
it is a general approach that can play an integrative role
rather than throwing them into relief.
From 1969 forward, however, Murdock's work under- in the discipline. New perspectives that are currently
went a transition in the opposite direction, towards rec- being absorbed into this approach have to do with ( I )
ognition first of the possibility and then of the impor- what we mean by historicity and historical interdepentance of treating historicity and regionality. The first is dencies, ( 2 )the importance and role of symbolic and beevident in our joint work of 1969, in which we in- lief systems in large-scale interconnected systems, (3)
troduced both the standard sample and a set of stringent the possibilities of multilevel analysis of how local comA
w
8 ,
532
1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
General polyandry
Exclusive monogamy3
2a Polygyny permitted but incidence below 20% for
married males3
zb Sororal polygyny permitted but incidence below
20% for married males
3a General polygyny, nonsororal or unspecified
3b General polygyny, with some preference for the
Cross-cultural Research on Polygyny to Date
sororal form
3c General polygyny, exclusively sororal
The codes presented here for the standard sample are The three-point scale above for the frequency of polygoffered as a step towards a more comprehensive under- yny is retained in the World Ethnographic Sample
standing of polygyny and related phenomena. It must be (Murdock 1957)~the Ethnographic Atlas (Murdock
stressed, first, that the standard sample provides an early 1962, 1967)~
and the standard sample codes of Murhistoric baseline for comparative ethnographic study. dock and Wilson (1972):
The societies in it represent each of 186 major world
I
Monogamy (no polygyny permitted or encultural provinces (Murdock and White 1969, Murdock
~ouraged)~
1967).Most of them are pinpointed to the earliest date
z Occasional or limited polygyny (less than 20% of
at which a full ethnographic description is provided,
married malesI3
whether by anthropologists, historians, envoys, travel3 Polygyny comkon or general (incidence 20% or
ers, missionaries, teachers, or native texts. Further, each
above)
is pinpointed to a particular local group. In consequence, This is the classification of frequency of polygyny in
the materials coded are not necessarily typical of the current use in cross-cultural studies. A supplement to
larger ethnic units of which each pinpointed group is a the scheme by Whyte (1978)expands the monogamy-vs.part. These are not global descriptions of ethnic units limited-polygyny distinction into three types: monogbut highly specific accounts. The society chosen for each amy prescribed, monogamy preferred but with limited
province is typically the one offering the fullest descrip- polygyny, and polygamy preferred but of low incidence.
tive coverage.
As for kin relations between co-wives, Murdock's
While most of the societies in the standard s a m ~ l e 1949 typology (a, b, c in the first of the scales above)
show the impact of the modern world system ( ~ b l f distinguishes nonsororal, preferentially sororal, and ex1982)~they are typical of the premodern period more clusively sororal. Exclusively nonsororal polygyny is not
than of the contemporary horizon, in which some of distinguished (seeMurdock I 9 5 9 for ethnographic examthese groups are virtually extinct and nearly all the re- ples). His World Ethnographic Sample (1957)attenuates
mainder are impacted by modem educational, religious, the distinction between preferred and exclusive sororal
governmental, and economic institutions.
polygyny, and his Ethnographic Atlas (1962, 1967) disAn advantage of taking early ethnographic accounts of penses with the distinction altogether. The Atlas treats
polygyny is that such features as local warfare patterns form of marriage under the same code as form of family.
can often be observed prior to Western colonial pacifica- In condensing the coding scheme, Murdock distintion. Intervening relationships between warfare and po- guishes kin relations among co-wives only for the case of
lygyny may include the effects of male mortality in war- general polygyny (20% or greater).Dropped from the Atfare (Spencer 1876, Ember 1974)or the capture of women las codes is the distinction between sororal and nonand of plunder for bridewealth (Murdock 1949); con- sororal polygyny for the cases of limited polygyny. In the
versely,~byincreasing the ratio of unmarried males, po- polygyny codes for the standard sample (Murdock and
lygyny may fuel warfare and the capture of women Wilson 1972) the distinction between sororal and non(Whiting and Whiting I 975).
sororal is abandoned.
Polygyny has been coded several times for the stanBeginning with the Ethnographic Atlas, Murdock also
dard sample: first by Murdock (1967) in his Ethno- distinguishes, in the case of general polygyny, whether
graphic Atlas, by Murdock and Wilson (1972))by Whyte co-wives occupy the same or separate dwellings or apart(1978)for half the sample, and by Betzig (1986).The At- ments. There is a strong correlation between nonsororal
las codes distinguish whether polygyny is sororal or general (nonsororal) and whether co-wives have separate
habitations. These codes are less than satisfactory: in 3. "We shall classify a society as polygynous whenever the culture
and public opinion encourages, a man to have more than
Murdock's, for example, rates of polygyny are distin- permits,
one wife at a time, whether such unions are common or comparaguished only as to whether the proportion of polygynous tively rare, confined to men of outstanding prestige or allowed to
married men is less than or greater than 20%; Whyte anyone who can afford them." "The dividing line" between limited
makes only one further distinction among types of "lim- and full polygyny "has been set arbitrarily at 20 per cent" (Murdock
1949:28). The same criteria are used by Murdock and Wilson
ited" polygyny.
(1972:261). Coder instructions for the latter study make it clear
Murdock's codes follow a scheme that he established that the 20% refers to the percentage of married males with more
in Social Structure (1949:28, 226) in defining a scale for than one wife. Murdock's Atlas (1962, 1967) presumably follows
these same criteria.
form of marriage:
munities are embedded in and interact with larger systems, and, to some extent, (4)the new Darwinian evolutionism (where a great deal of debate and criticism by
cultural anthropology is warranted).
o
I
WHITE
Rethinking Polygyny 1 5 33
rect association between the current number of wives
and the likelihood of adding another. This distribution
indeed predominates for Spencer's African sample, in 34
of his 50 societies. General polygyny under one roof (e.g.,
Bemba commoners), on the other hand, ought to fit the
true binomial distribution, in which having successive
wives lessens the likelihood of taking another-a model
of conformity inhibiting further polygyny (additional
wives perhaps, for example, experiencing increasing
levels of discord).In Spencer's sample, seven cases fit the
true binomial pattern. This distribution has an inverse
association between the number of current wives and
the likelihood of adding another. (Nine cases of his 50
societies fit the indeterminate Poisson model, in which
neither tendency prevails.)
Three pieces of information are important in assessing
the different measures of polygyny extracted in analyses
of frequency distributions (Spencer 1980). First, cases
that fit the negative binomial poorly reveal discontinuities in the population from which the sample was
drawn, which Spencer attributes to "a successful elite
with a large number of wives and an underprivileged
majority." Nine of the 34 societies in his sample that fit
may have been invented and diffused as a concomithe negative binomial do so imperfectly; each shows evitant of the need for warriors, which in turn may be
dence of elites1practicing polygyny at rates discontinurelated to the presence of a substantial capital invest- ously high compared with those for commoners. Second,
ment that needs to be protected. If this assumption is
Spencer regards the mean rate of polygyny, which varies
correct, then the husband aloof pattern should occur
independently of the shape and variance of the distribumore commonly among farmers and herdsmen than
tion, as a measure of the imbalance in the distribution of
among hunters, gatherers and fishermen since the for- wives between old and young. High mean rates of polygmer have more property to protect.
yny generally index gerontocracy; generally older men
In testing this hypothesis, they show that nearly all the have access to greater numbers of wives. One exception
societies in which wives have separate habitations also is the Konso, who have age-grade marriage rules that
have capital-intensive subsistence economies (i.e.,based limit polygyny for older men. Third, the variance in the
on herding, horticulture, or agriculture), although only rate of polygyny and the shape of the distribution are
about half of the latter have the separate-habitations pat- linked. If the ratio of variance and mean is greater than
tern.
one, the shape of the distribution approximates the
Codes on separate habitations for wives are given by gamma function or negative binomial; if less than one, it
Whiting and Whiting (197s). Hartung (1982) has pub- approaches the true binomial. As the ratio of variance to
lished Whiting and Whiting et al.'s 1964 codes on the mean approaches one, the shape of the distribution apfrequency of polygyny for married women. Their soci- proaches Poisson. The ratio indexes degree of social difeties overlap with the standard sample but often are ferentiation among polygynists or elders.
Betzig (1986)codes maximum harem size, at the high
coded for a different focal date or unit. The original
Whiting codes on polygyny also included frequency of end of the scale of social differentiation among polygypolygyny for married men, ethnographic dates, and esti- nists, for 106 societies in the standard sample that are
politically autonomous or have de facto autonomy as an
mates of data aualitv.
For African societies, Spencer (1980) compares coded unadministered unit within an area subject theoretically
ethnographic data on the relative proportions of married to alien (e.g., colonial) sovereignty. Her interest is in
men with one, two, three, four, or more wives. He fits testing the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis that
the statistical distribution of polygyny (i.e.,frequency of power (specifically despotic rule) is exploited in the inmales by number of wives) to one of two statistical mod- terest of male reproductive success. Maximum harem
els that differ in whether the likelihood that a man will size includes concubines and wives for the individual at
acquire another wife varies directly or inversely with the the head of the social hierarchy or, in the absence of
number of his current wives. If having extra wives is hierarchy, for the most polygynous man.
In most of the world, accurate polygyny censuses are
connected to the ability of wives to generate wealth, the
African compound pattern ought to be associated with unavailable even for the comparatively well-described
the negative binomial distribution, in which having societies in the standard sample. A world sample cannot
wives begets having more wives-a competitive model hope to emulate Spencer's (1980)study for Africa, where
whereby polygynous success breeds further success. In such censuses are frequently available. Better measures
the negative binomial or gamma function there is a di- of the extent and features of polygyny can be provided,
polygyny and occupancy of different apartments by cowives. In traditional Africa, separate habitation for
wives is associated with the polygynous compound and
separate apartments for the husband.
Whiting and Whiting (197s)approach the study of polygyny in terms of effects of socialization and family
structure on gender identity. Polygynous compounds
and separate habitations for wives, for example, promote
separate spheres of activity for males and females. The
Whitings identify a general pattern of "aloofness" between husband and wife, associated with young men's
moving in with their fathers and brothers as they come
to sexual maturity (Whiting and DIAndrade 1959) or
moving off to bachelor, warrior, or age-mate organizations (e.g., Maasai age-groups). Separate habitation for
wives "thus is conducive to the formation of 'fraternal
interest groups' which have been shown by recent studies to be associated with feuding . . . [and] a high value
placed on military glory, with hyperaggressive males"
(Whiting and Whiting 197~:194).They further hypothesize that the custom of wives1residing in separate
quarters
534 1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
however, from the available ethnographic reports. The the polygyny variable to identify various sources of difWhiting and Whiting et al, codes (unpublished except for fering polygyny frequencies and allow a fresh look at the
Hartung 1982)are useful in this respect but apply to less various polygyny "complexes" but also to address issues
than one-third of the sample and require checking and of social rank and stratification, residential arrangerecoding to provide comparable pinpointing to the spe- ments, and mode of recruitment of wives. Separating
these dimensions yields improved variables for more
cific times and local groups of the standard sample.
While separate habitation for wives is reliably coded comprehensive tests of theories about possible causes
by the Whitings (1975)for the standard sample, a code is and consequences of various forms of polygyny.
needed for separate habitation for the husband. Separate
habitation for wives does not entail that the husband D E F I N I T I O N O F C O D E S
will have his own apartments. Whereas in traditional
Africa this is the case, in other parts of the world the Twenty items of information for each society are sumhusband resides primarily with one wife and visits the marized in as many columns in table 1. In the discussion
of coding categories that follows, codes bear the cumulaothers or rotates among the wives.
Existing polygyny codes do not provide data on rank or tive codebook numbers for standard-sample variables, as
stratification among males, such as whether polygyny is published in World culture^.^ To the right of each codassociated with ( I ) class or rank that is ascribed or ing category is the number of societies in the sample
achieved; ( 2 ) achieved wealth, with additional wives as coded for it.
The first code typifies the cultural rules underlying
source of wealth or additional wealth needed to support
extra wives; (3) differential achieved status, including polygyny, with categories ordered along an implied dithat of exceptional hunter or cultivator, leader, chief, or mension of permissible frequencies of polygyny. The
headman, shaman or medicine man, warrior who cap- code stems from debate with John W. M. Whiting over
tures women in warfare or battle, and warrior who re- the predictability of rules vs, behavioral frequencies in
explaining polygyny. These rules are coded from ethnogceives female captives as booty.
raphers' descriptive generalizations. While they probably reflect social norms held by each society, the culNew Comparative Measures of Polygyny
tural rules for polygyny (Categories 2-5) are often
contingent rather than prescriptive.
Polygyny can be approached in two complementary
ways. One is to ferret out the differences in types of
I . Cultural rules constraining the frequency of polygpolygyny and account for the regional differences. An- yny (860)
other is to emphasize common features, such as overall
. = Missing data
3
frequency of polygyny or features that recur widely in
I = ~ o n o G m
prescribed
~
(children or condifferent regions, in order to test models of worldwide
cubines or mistresses, if any, do not inherit
similarities or effects. The first strategy is employed
27
intestate]
here. To facilitate worldwide comparisons, a modifica2 = ~ o n o ~ preferred
a k ~ but exceptional cases
tion of Murdock's polygyny scale is provided that is
of polygyny
32
based on the cultural rules that constrain the frequency
3 = Polygyny limited to individual men with
of polygyny, taking into account social norms and
leadership attributes (chiefs, medicine men,
stratification. Cultural rules governing polygyny are
outstanding hunters, et a1.-often no more
likely to be more stable and intelligible than polygyny
than one such man per community)
45
frequencies, and a cultural-rule-based code is less likely
4 = Polygyny limited to men of a higher social
than one employing arbitrary categories such as 20% or
class (men of wealth, inherited rank, nobilmore polygyny to produce misleading similarities beity, etc.)
33
tween societies in different regions. Whereas Murdock's
5 = Polygyny prevalent and preferred by most
three-point scale obscures major regional differences in
men and ~racticedbv most men of sufficient
the frequency levels of general polygyny, the five-point
age or wealth to obtain wives. Thus ( a )older
scale offered here is sensitive to regional variants in marmen usually have more wives, (b)polygyny
riage systems. It thus enables researchers to test hypothis generally based on the accumulation of
eses about culturally generated variations in polygyny
wealth, and (c)extra wives are an economic
on a worldwide basis without obliterating regional difasset in terms of labor.
46
ferences. Codes on normative vs. statistical aspects of
polygyny might also allow testing of hypotheses about
The second code is Murdock's (1949, 1967)three-point
factors that have differential effects on polygyny rules or scale of polygyny, plus his category for polyandry,
polygyny frequencies for a specific gender and bring us modified by the distinction between categories of limcloser to testing the notion, complementary to the view ited polygyny (Categoriesz and 3) used by Whyte (1978).
that rules generate behavior, that cultural rules may also
be viewed as the culturally negotiated outcomes of be- 4. World Cultures is an electronic journal of cross-cultural studies
havioral interactions and proclivities.
published quarterly on diskettes for MS-DOS and Macintosh miIn sum, these codes are intended not only to "unpack" crocomputers and in other selected formats (see CA 27:83-84).
w H I T E Rethinking Polygyny 1 5 3 5
TABLE I
Coded Data on Forms and Frequencies of Polygyny
Men by Number
of Wives
Society
Nama
z Kung
3 Thonga'
4 Lozi
5 Mbundu'
6 Suku
7 Bemba
8 Nyakyusa'
9 Hadza
10 Lugurn
I I Kikuyu
12 Ganda'
13 Mbuti
14 Nkundo
I 5 Banen
16 Tiv
17 Ibo
18 Fon
19 Ashanti
20 Mende
2 1 Wolof
22 Bambara
23 Tallensi'
24 Songhai'
25 Wodaabef
26 Hausa
27 Massa
28 Azande
29 Fur
30 Ot010
3I Shilluk
32 Mao
33 Kafa
34 Maasai
35 Konso'
36 Somali'
37 Amhara
38 Bogo
39 Nubians
40 Teda'
41 Tuareg'
42 Riffiansf
43 Egyptians'
44 Hebrews'
45 Babylonians
46 Rwala'
I
Focal
Date
I 2
34 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12
13 14 15
16
17 18 19
1860 3 3 2 3 1 1 C P o o o 5 1 2 D C 1860 . I I
1 9 5 0 3 3 3 2 1 1 0 H 0 0 0 1 0 1 9 0 B 1952To4
1865 5 4 3 5 2 z C o L o C 4 0 6 6 o B 1895 . 6 o
1900 5 4 2 5 2 2 A o o o C 4 0 . o C
.
. 6 o
1890 5 4 2 5 I I C 0 L 0 C 2 7 4 5 0 B I 9 4 O N 3 I
1920 ( 5 4 2 5 2 2 . o o o . 27 41 B A <1945 N 6 o
1897 3 3 3 3 1 1 A o L o C z 7 ? A 1897 T I I
1 9 3 4 5 4 3 5 z z C o L o o 4 4 7 o B A 1934 . 6 0
1 9 3 0 2 2 2 4 1 1 0 o o o o 6 1 2 0 A 193oT 0 1
1925 3 3 2 5 2 2 . o L o . . . . . . . 6 o
1 9 2 0 ( 5 4 2 5 2 2 . 0 0 0 C . 32 0 A 1935 . 6 o
1875 5 4 2 5 z z C o L o C 5 5 8 o o B 1 8 7 5 N 6 0
1950 3 3 2 4 1 1 o H o o o 6 1 2 B A 1955 N o I
I930 15 4 2 3 2 I . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0
1935 15 4 2 5 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 6 o
1 g 2 0 ( ~ 4 2 ~ 2 2 0 0 0 0 C 2 0 ~1 29 40 9~N 6 0
1935542522Co o o C2446o A
.
. 6 0
1890 5 4 2 5 2 2 . o L o C .
. . . . . 6 o
1 8 9 5 5 4 2 5 2 2 C o o o C 4 9 7 2 o A 1945N6o
1945 5 4 2 5 2 2 C o L o C g o 9 7 o A 1945 N 6 o
1 9 5 0 ( 5 4 2 5 2 2 . o o o C 3 9 6 1 o A 1948 . 6 o
1902 [s 4 2 5 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 6 o
1 9 3 4 5 4 2 5 2 2 C o o o C 4 0 6 2 o A 1934N6o
19402325110 0 0 0 C I 2 E C
.
. 0 1
1 9 5 1 5 4 2 5 2 2 C o o o C 3 5 5 4 o A 1953N6o
1 g o o 5 4 z 5 2 z o o o o C 4 0 5 9 o B 1949N 6 o
1910(542522. 0 0 0 C .
. . . . . 6 o
1905 5 4 2 5 2 2 C o L o C 3 2 5 7 ? B 1954 . 6 o
188oj332522. . . . C .
. . . . . 6 o
193054252zCo L o C6077B A
.
N 6 0
1910(543321CoooC2337BA
.
. 4 0
1 9 3 9 4 . 2 3 I I C . . . . 5IOE E
.
. I I
1905 5 4 2 5 2 2 C o L o C . . . . .
N 6 o
1900 5 4 2 5 2 2 C o o o C ~ I o ~ A I 1935 N 6 o
1935 3 3 2 6 2 2 C o o o o 1 0 2 4 o A 1965 . 5 o
1 9 o o 5 4 2 4 1 1 C P o o o 4 3 6 5 o A
1955N31
1 9 ~ 3 I I I I I I O O0 0 0 0 0 0 .
.
. 0 1
1855j322.11Co L o o .
. . . . . I I
1 g o o j 3 3 2 5 2 2 . . . o . . . . . 1900 . 6 o
1 9 5 0 4 3 2 4 1 1 C o L o C 1 0 2 2 0 C 1g3oN 2 I
1 9 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 o o C o o o A 1940. 0 1
1926 4 3 2 2 1 1 C 0 L 0 0 1 1 2 5 0 A 1926 T I 2
195022 . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 O A 1 9 3 7 T . O
621 5 4 2 2 1 1 C o L o C . .
. . . . 3 2
I750 2 2 . . 1 1 . 0 0 0 c . . . . -1750 . I I
1913(542321. . . o o .
. . . . . 4 0
20
I
79
2
3 4 56 7
Comments
9
wives; a few chiefs many wives
'50% men
1-2
27 9 0
80 14 5
33 I
1
I
1958 est.
jest.)
up to 8 wives: commoners
57 4
low rate of polygyny
33 o
I
702461
jest.]
2-3 for many commoners
712361
2 8 6 4 0 0 7
6730671
12755
??
??
912
53
mostly I or 2
3143105201
2,
3 + wives; king 9 in separate houses
5928 8 4 1 1
7237126
slaves not married
90 7 3
7
97
jest.] some men 2-3 wives
3
3
extensive; slaves not married
NOTE: j indicates uncertainty in coding; dot indicates absence of information; indicates anomalous cases or details (sources identified in table 21, as
follows:
3 Thonga, r r : capture of women in war, killing of men ([1'27]runod'62:g1z).
5 Mbundu, 5. 6: only spirit hut for man.
8 Nyakyusa, I : higher rates of polygyny after Pax Britannica due to breakup of girls' houses, earlier age at marriage for boys and girls, less age difference
at marriage, and greater number of cattle for bridewealth; 3, 4: sororal and wife's brother's daughter polygyny preferred but unclear as to whether it is
numerically predominant.
12 Ganda, I , 1 7 : king has hundreds of wives, petty chief ten or more, many peasants have two, three, or more but often can afford bride price for only one
([b]Murdock'34:~40);
in 1931 62% of households were mother-child j[1~]Southwold'6~);
1 1 : wage war chiefly for captives and plunder
([b]Murdock'34:534-35).
23 Tallensi, r r : marriage of captured women but no plunder.
24 Songhai, 5, 6 : compound pattern, co-wives live apart, but low rate of polygyny.
25 Wodaabe, I : disfavored by women but tolerated because of long postpartum sex taboo.
35 Konso, I : age-grades function to prevent older men from monopolizing wives.
36 Somali, I : considerably higher rates of polygyny among Dolbahanta pastoralists than among neighboring more agricultural Somali; 8 : second wife often
takes herds to southern pastures, so it is not male skill per se in pastoralism that supports polygyny.
40 Teda: wives very independent and usually dominate their households.
41 Tuareg: monogamy a strong part of original Berber culture in spite of Islamic overlay; female slaves as concubines.
42 Riffians: monogamy a strong part of original Berber culture in spite of Islamic overlay; polygyny results from preferential levirate.
43 Egyptians, I : strong decline of polygyny since 1920.
44 Hebrews, I : counting concubines, whose children are legitimate.
46 Rwala, 5, 6 : husband and wife room apart (Whiting and Whiting 1975:191].
+
536
1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
TABLE I
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
(continued)
Men by Number
of Wives
Focal
Date
Society
47 Turks
48 Gheg'
49 Romans'
5 o Basques
51 Irish
5 2 Lapps
5 3 Samoyed
54 Russians
5 5 Abkhaz
5 6 Armenians
5 7 Kurd'
58 Basseri'
59 Punjabi
60 Gond'
61 Toda
62 Santal
63 Uttar Pradesh'
64 Burusho
65 Kazak
66 Khalka
67 Lo10
68 Lepcha
69 Garo'
70 Lakher
71 Burmese
72 Lamet
73 Vietnamese
74 Rhade
75 Khmer'
76 Thai'
77 Semang
78 Nicobarese
79 Andamanese
80 Vedda
81 Tanala'
82 Negri Sembilan'
83 ravanese
84 Balinese
85 Iban
86 Badjau'
87 Toradja
88 Tobelorese
89 Alorese
90 Tiwi'
91 Aranda
92 Orokaiva
93 Kimam'
94 Kapauku'
95 Kwoma
96 Manus'
-
-
-
I 2
34 5 6 7 8 9
10 I I 12
13 14 15
19502222110 o o o o 3 6 0 A
1 9 1 0 1 5 4 2 2 2 2 . . . 0 0 2441 0 A
I I O I I I I I I O O 0 0 0
0 O O A
1 9 3 4 I I I I I I O O 0 0 0 0 O O A
I932 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A
I ~ ~ O 1 1 1 I I I O0 O0 0
0 O O A
1 8 9 4 2 2 . . 1 1 . . . . 0 o o o A
1955 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 o o o o o 0 0 A
1880 3 3 . . I I . . . . . . . . .
1843 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 o o o o o 0 0 A
1951332211Coo o o 4 7 B C
1 9 5 8 4 3 2 2 1 1 C o L . 0 713 0 B
I 9 ~ 0 I I I I I I O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A
1938 . 4 3 2 2 2 . . . . . . . . .
1900 2 0 1 0 1 1 o o o o o I I o A
19402222110 0 0 0 0 2 4 E C
1945 2 3 . 5 2 2 . . . . 0 . . . .
1 9 3 4 2 . 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 . . . .
1 8 8 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 C o o o o I O I ~ BC
1920 1 1 1 1 1 1 o o o o o o 0 0 .
1910422311CoL o C 3 5 E C
1937 2 2 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2135 0 B
1955 4 2 3 2 I I C 0 0 0 0 9 1 7 0 B
1 9 3 0 2 2 . . 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 . . . .
1965 I I I I I I O o o o o o o E C
1940 (2 2 . . I I 0 . 0 . . . . . .
1930 3 3 2 3 I I c 0 L 0 . . . . .
1962 (2 . . . I I C . . . . . . . .
1292 4 3 . . . . A o L o o . . . .
195523.411Co o o o I 2 E A
1925 2 2 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 I 2 0 c
1870 12 . . . I I . . . . . 0 0 0 C
18601111110 o o o o o o o A
1860 I I I I I I o o o o o o o o .
1925 5 4 2 3 2 I c 0 0 0 . 3152 ? c
1 9 5 8 4 3 2 . 2 2 B o L . .
IS? E
1 9 5 4 3 3 . . I I C O O O 0 2 4 0 A
1 9 5 8 4 3 2 . 1 1 A o L o o 1835 o B
1 9 ~ 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 A
1 9 6 3 1 1 . . 1 1 o o o o o o o o B
1910332411c0 L . c . . . .
1900 1 1 1 1 1 1 o o o o o o 0 0 .
1938442321C o o o 027440 A
1929 5 4 2 2 I I C 0 L 0 C 7 0 9 0 0 B
1896 5 4 3 2 1 1 C o L o C 6 0 7 8 o B
1925432311Co o o C 51oE C
1 9 6 0 2 3 2 . 1 1 0 C O M o 153oB B
1955 5 4 2 2 2 2 C 0 L 0 0 3150 0 B
1960542211Coo o o3859CB
19372222110 0 0 0 N 2 4 B C
---
- -
-
-
--
16
17181920
I
2
3 4567
Comments
at one time
chiefs in older times
10, 11, 12 wives plentiful
uncommon, rarely >2
-
48 Gheg, 5. 6: husband and wife room apart [Whiting and Whiting 1975:191).
49 Romans, I: while the nobles were monogamous among themselves, slave concubinage (and likely manumission of children) was very extensive.
57 Kurd, 7: extremely wealthy only, chiefs in older times.
58 Basseri, 7: wealthy herd owners, with additional labor needs, frequently have plural wives who "extend a man's fecundity in a way that saps his
wealth" [[a]Barth'61:107).
60 Gond, 5, 6: wife aloof [Whiting and Whiting 1975:187),although Murdock 11967)indicates co-wives live together.
63 Uttar Pradesh, 6: men's quarters (Whiting and Whiting 1975:187).
69 Garo, 4: some widowldaughter marriage by wealthy men; also widowed mother-in-lawnominally not sexually a wife.
75 Khmer, I: king had 5 principal wives, over 500 concubines, nobility also many concubines; 11: slaves taken in war but despised and neither married
nor taken into concubinage; concubines evidently given by lesser families to nobility.
76 Thai, 5: different house, sometimes in same compound.
81 Tanala, 6: husband rotates among wives' houses.
82 Negri Sembilan: I, 7: uncorroborated statement that different ranks of leaders are allowed four, three, and two wives respectively; monogamy predominates; 5, 6: a married man lives not with wife but with family of orientation and visits wife.
86 Badjau: limited by small size of boats as living quarters.
90 Tiwi, I: males start to take first and second wives only in their late thirties.
93 Kimam, I: polygyny always rare because of sister exchange and male gardening and obligations to wife's brother whereby extra wives drain rather than
contribute to subsistence production; also considerable outlet for extramarital sex; rate may also have declined with missions and government administration.
94 Kapauku, 6: common male dormitory within the house (heie).
96 Manus, 11: captured women used as prostitutes [[l]Mead'30:118, 172, 177).
WHITE
TABLE I
Rethinking Polygyny 1 537
(continued)
Men by Number
of Wives
Society
97 Lesu'
98Trobrianders'
99 Siuai'
IOO Tikopia
IOI Pentecost'
102 Mbau Fijians
103 Ajie
104 Maori
105 Marquesans'
106 Samoans'
107 Gilbertese
108 Jaluit
109 Tmkese'
I I O Yapese'
I I I Palauans'
112 h g a o '
I I 3 Atayal
I 14 Chekiang
I I 5 Manchu
I 16 Koreans'
I 17 Japanese
118 Ainu'
119 Gilyak'
120 Yukaghir
121 Chukchee'
122 Ingalik
123 Aleut
.
124CopperEskimo
125 Montagnais
126 Micmac
127 Saulteaux
I 2 8 Slave
129 Kaska'
130 Eyak'
I 3I Haida
I 32 Bellacoola
I 33 Twana'
Focal
Date
I 2
34 56 7 8 9
10 11 12
13 14 15
16
17 18 19
1 9 3 0 4 3 z 3 z 2 . o L o o 1 z z 1 o A
1 9 z g T . o
1 9 1 4 3 3 2 5 2 1 C o L M o 3 3 9 o B 1914. . o
1 9 3 9 3 3 z 3 1 1 C o L o N 1 4 2 8 o B
1948N21
1 9 3 0 4 3 2 3 I I A O L o o 5 7 D B 1929. 0 1
1953 4 3 3 3 z 2 C o o o . 12 30 o C 1953 N 5 o
184033 . . . . A o L o C I 3 E C
.
. o .
1845 . . . . 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 5 o
1820 3 4 3 2 1 1 A o L o C I 5 o A
. T o 3
1 8 o o z o z z 1 1 C o o o o o o o A 1920. 1 2
1 8 2 9 3 3 3 2 1 1 A o L o C o O O A 1829. 0 3
.
. 0 3
1890324 . . . B o L o C I z E C
1 g 0 0 [ 4 3 2 5 1 1 A o L o . . . . . 1900. 1 1
1947 2 2 . 3 3 1 1 o o L o o o o o A 1950 . o 3
1 9 1 0 3 . . . 1 1 . O L O C ~ I O ?C 1 9 4 9 . 1 1
1 9 4 7 4 2 2 3 1 1 C o L o o 1 2 E C 1947. I I
1 g 1 0 2 2 2 3 1 1 C 0 o o o 2 4 E C 1910. I I
1 9 3 0 I I I I I I O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 1930. 0 1
1 9 3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 o o o o o o A 1936. 0 1
1915 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .
.
. 0 1
1 9 4 7 1 1 z z 1 1 o o o o o o o E A 1947. 0 2
I ~ ~ O I I I I I I O0 0 o o
o O O A 1950. 0 1
1880322311CoL o C I 2 0 C
.
. I I
1890334.11CH. . C I 3 0 C
. N z 5
1 8 5 0 2 2 2 3 1 1 o H o M C I 2 E C 1850. 0 1
1900 4 3 2 3 2 1 . H o o . 3349 C C 1890 . I o
188533zz11CHo o C 4 8 E C
. T 1 2
18oo332211CHL o C . . . . . . 1 2
1915 2 2 2 2 I I o H o o o 5 10 B C 1915 . o z
1910 [z 2 . . . . C . . . o . . . . . . I .
1650 3 . . . I I C H . . . . . . . . . I 4
1 9 3 0 3 2 2 2 1 1 0 o L M o 2 4 E C 1930. 0 2
1 g 4 0 3 2 . . 1 1 o H o M o 2 4 E C 1940. 0 4
1 9 0 0 3 3 4 2 1 1 o H o o C 2 4 E A 1900. 0 5
18903422110HL o o . . . . . . 0 2
1875 4 3 3 2 1 1 B o L o C . . . . . . o 3
18804.2211B. . . . 5 1 o E .
.
. 0 2
1860433z11B o o M N 2 5 . .
. . . 0 3
20
I
2
Comments
3 4 56 7
8812
21026
701
70 4 3
2 I
99 z
jest.)
jest.)
rare
300 3
0 1
two wives only
some over 3 wives
might have 2-3 wives
97 Lesu: the 1929 situation reflects European influence of declining polygynyi many middle-aged polygynists have given up one wife to become monogamous; I: five formerly; 5, 6: men's house for married men [Whiting and Whiting et al. unpublished 1964 data), but it is unclear if they sleep there; have
assumed they do since Whiting and Whiting 11975) code as rooming apart; 12: 60% formerly; 13: 70% formerly.
98 Trobrianders, 6, 7: two [rooming apart) for chiefsi 39% of females between ages 15-45 polygynously married to chiefs 13% of married men); monogynists room together (Whiting and Whiting 1975).
99 Siuai, 5, 6: husband rotates among wives with great difficulty, over many objections of wivesi 11: captured women used as prostitutes.
I O I Pentecost: polygyny in marked decline with European influence; 90% of older men polygynous, frequency diminishing from nine to two wivesi
considerable number of bachelors waiting to amass bridewealth.
105 Marquesans: pekio [male secondary husbands) numerous in chiefs' households and common in all families; female pekio very rare even in chiefs'
householdsi men greatly outnumbered women; purpose of pekio was to obtain assistance in work.
106 Samoans, 4: wife's brothers' daughters brought as concubines of chief; 5: separate mosquito nets in open household act as separate bedrooms.
109 Tmkese I, 4: polygyny [rare)the result of customary remarriage of widow, resulting in mother and daughter married to same man.
I I O Yapese, I: polygyny rare by 1949, 39 years after pinpoint date; 11: bachelors capture mistresses for their bachelors' house, pay fines to captured girl's
kin group, polyandrous concubinage, with marriage to one of the bachelors resulting from pregnancy ([1o]Fumess'10:36-~~).
111 Palauans, I, 7: polygyny traditionally a right of rank, e.g., a chief was expected to have at least four wives from different locations to reflect rank and
wealth; rare by 1947; for earlier date would code 7 as B.
112 Ifugao, 7: wealthy force polygyny or concubinage [with commoners) against social norms, "make it legal" by paying a substantial fine to the first wife's
family.
116 Koreans, I: concubines occasionally, in separate room but same house; legally only one wife.
118 Ainu, I: concubines from warfare occasionally, in separate hut; legally only one wife; not uncommon to bring //small wives" to trading posts.
119 Gilyak, 7, 8: wealthy fur tradersltrappers several wivesi 11: female captives and children incorporated into clan of the conqueror, long-distance
romantic intrigue, abductions, conflict over women important to warfare and revenge skirmishes.
121 Chukchee, 5, 6: sometimes separate house in community for second wife; among wealthy with two or more herds, sometimes a different wife living at
each herd sitei probably 30% of married women living apart.
I29 Kaska, I: "no limit to the number of wives so long as you can support them, but of late years . . . there are very few with more than one wife" [[c]P.
Field MS'I 3Ii poor hunters polyandrous, must team up with another mani 4, 8: "even a widower had trouble securing permission to many a woman
other than the deceased wife's sister, parents-in-law showing particular possessiveness about a man renowned as a hunter. To bring an unrelated
8: good hunters and
woman into the family constituted a signal for the first wife to quit her husband and go home" [[6]Honigmann154:~32-33)i
(salmon)fishermen polygynous.
130 Eyak, I: an old or barren wife was not divorced; the husband would take a young wife and the old woman would live with them and do the hard work.
133 Twana, 7: upper-class status involves manipulation of rank, wealth, personality; much more frequently polygynousi 10: shamans often upper-class,
thus infer polygyny; however, with the new Shaker religion, //theother Indians did not believe such a one [with two wives] to be a fit leader in religion"
[[c]E1ls'8~:436Ji
11: slaves taken in war stigmatized and not married.
538
1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
TABLE I
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
(continued)
Men by Number
of Wives
Society
134 Yurok'
135 Pomo'
136 Yokuts
137 Wadadika
I 38 Klamath
I 39 Kutenai
140 Gros Ventre
141 Hidatsa*
142 Pawnee'
143 Omaha'
144 Huron
145 Creek'
146 Natchez*
147 Comanche'
148 Chiricahua*
149 Zuni
I 50 Havasupai
I 5 I Papago
I 5 2 Huichol*
153 Aztec*
I 54 Popoluca
I 5 5 Quiche
156 Miskito*
I 5 7 Bribri*
158 Cuna
159 Goajiro'
160 Haitians'
16 I Callinago'
162 Warrau
163 Yanomamo*
164 Carib'
165 Saramacca'
Focal
Date
I 2
34 56 7 8 9
10 11 12
13 14 15
1 8 5 0 2 2 4 . 2 . B o o o o 4 8 0
1850 2 2 3 2 2 2 o o o o o 2 4 o
1850 2 3 2 4 1 1 o o o o o 5 1 0 o
1870333211Co o M o 1 5 2 7 B
1 8 6 0 1 4 3 3 2 1 1 B . . . . 2035 o
1890 2 2 2 . I I . . . . . 1019 o
1880 5 4 3 2 1 1 c H L o ' 2 4 0 6 0 !
1836543211CHo o Cgo97E
1867544211CHL ON54700
1 8 6 0 4 4 4 2 1 1 C H o o C3555 ?
163411111100 o o o o 0 0
1800 4 3 3 4 . . C o o o N . . .
1718443211Ao L o C . . .
1870 5 4 3 2 1 1 . o o M C . . .
1 8 7 0 4 4 4 2 1 1 C H o o o 18300
188011111100 o o o o 0 0
1918 3 3 2 2 1 1 C o o o C I O I ~
1 9 1 0 4 4 3 2 1 1 C o L M o 2 7 4 9 0
1890322211Co L M o . . .
I5203322IICO L 0 C . . .
I940[4432II. 0 0 0 0 . . .
1 9 3 0 I I I I I I . 0 0 0 0 . . .
19213332110 o L M N 2 4 E
1917332.11COL 0 0 S I O ?
1 9 2 7 2 2 3 . I I O O L O 0 I 2 B
1947 5 4 2 5 2 2 C 0 L 0 0 4 0 9 0 ?
1935 5 4 2 4 1 1 0 0 O M O 2 5 . !
1650 4 4 2 6 2 2 C o L o C 3 0 6 0 ?
1935 5 4 3 2 1 1 C o L M . 6 0 9 5 !
1965 5 4 3 3 2 1 o H L o C 3 8 5 6 o
I932 3 2 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 N 2 0 3 7 0
1928 5 4 2 4 2 1 C o o o o 6 0 8 5 ?
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
A
.
.
.
.
C
A
O
B
B
.
.
.
.
C
c
C
E
C
E
E
B
B
C
16
17 18 19
1850 . o 3
1850 . . 3
1850 . o I
1890 T I 3
.
. 0 3
I940 . I I
1880 . 3 4
1836 T 3 4
1867 . 3 5
1860 T I 5
1634 . o I
.
. I .
0 3
1870 N 3 3
1870 . I 5
1910 . o I
1928 . I 2
1870 . I 3
20
I
II
2
2
higher in 18go!
10
50 30 6 3
65 30 5
90
10
? ?
60
22 1 2
4
2
. I 2
. I 2
. I 3
.
. I 1
1921 . o 3
0
I935 T
0
.
.
,
I
I
[est.)
jest.)
extreme ease of divorce
jest.)
jest.)
I 5-20% marriages
most old men 2-4 wives
.
.
.
1917 .
I940 .
Comments
3 4 5 6 7
upper class, some commoners
"common"
I
3
6 o
I
. 5 0
. 3 3
. 4 4
I932 . 0 3
1928 N 4 o
up to 20 wives
75 22 3
40 30
20
8
jest.)
2
not common
jest.]
134 Yurok, 11: debt slaves only, not captured in warfare or married; 6: husband and wife room apart [Whiting and Whiting 1975:191).
135 Pomo, 6: husband and wife room apart [Whiting and Whiting 1975:191).
141 Hidatsa: monogamy rare; sex ratio 1:2.
142 Pawnee, I : polyandry also common: girls marry older man, then one closer to own age [[14]Weltfish'65:464n)iboy becomes second husband to wife's
brother's wife; younger brother is given sexual access to elder brother's wife if he resides with them and there is a close bond between the brothers [not
a definite regular practice); greatest number of wives eight [four sisters in two families); 4, 7, 8 : where occasional nonsororal polygyny, man must make
labor contribution to each of the separate wives' householdsi 4, 9: chief or great/successful warrior occasionally married more than one wife who were
not sisters [otherwise exclusively sororal); 11: captive girls sought for sacrifice, not taken as wives.
I43 Omaha, 11: captives sent home after peace, although they could remain voluntarily and be married.
145 Creek, 11: captives adopted but not taken directly as wivesi principal wife usually does not allow polygyny, men must go to great lengths to get her
approval.
146 Natchez, 11: captives replace the slain through adoption, then marriage.
147 Comanche, 4: strong hostility among co-wives where nonsororal.
148 Chiricahua, 4: second wife often a suggestion of first; j : same house for defense in war, different house in peacetime.
152 Huichol, I : Zingg reports concubines of officials, elders, and shamans as "new," contrasting with the morality of earlier days, and argues that this
could not have been overlooked by Lumholtz, who reported that "a man who wants to become a shaman must be faithful to his wife for five years";
polygynous concubinage pattern probably older, however.
15 3 Aztec, 11: concubines.
156 Miskito, 5: different hearths, not different housesi 11: prisoners sold as slaves to whites, not taken as wives.
157 Bribri, I : heavy influx of cattle since 1914 altering social structurei 11: warfare for captives and sacrifice, unclear whether women married.
159 Goajiro, J: unlike African compound, houses are temporary lean-tos; 11: prisoners of war not married.
160 Haitians, I : no multiple wives or concubines now 11935)kept in town but are kept in separate houses outside of Mirabalais; polygyny openly practiced
in the hinterlands.
161 Callinago, I : fathers presented their daughters to successful warriors after each raid, and the captors would also marry the women they had taken
captive; 5 : each wife lived in a separate hut in her own village, often on a different island; 6 : men's house, otherwise residence matrilocal, except for
the chief.
163 Yanomamo, I : "norms which regulate a husband's obligations to his different wives . . . are relatively undeveloped" [[d]Shapiro172:~07);
j : a man with
more than one wife is likely to build and maintain a separate household for each, but not always [[c]Smole'76:189).
164 Carib, 11: male captives married to daughters of captors under a "son-in-law" institution; female captives, however, apparently not married, although
it is not clear if they are resold as slaves.
165 Saramacca, I : extensive (50%) wage-labor emigration of men; scarcity of men, and girls marry early; well over half the women in their later years,
widowed or divorced, are unable to remarry; j : the hypothesis suggested by the discussion of [e]Price184is separate houses where the woman is more
dependent on the husband [i.e., wives competitive, as among the Saramacca) and same house where the man is more dependent on the wives [i.e.,
wives cooperative); 6: husband builds a separate house for himself and for each wife; 7: polygyny only for men of position [wealthier] reported by
[lIHerskovits and HerskovitsJj4:~~g,
but not wealth-increasing; women significantly more dependent on husbands than men are on wives
[[e]Price184:78).
WHITE
TABLE I
Rethinking Polygyny I 539
(continued)
Men by Number
of Wives
Society
166 Mundurucu'
167 Cubeo*
168 Cayapa
169 Jivaro'
170 Amahuaca'
171 Inca*
172 Aymara*
173 Siriono
174 Nambicuara*
175 Tmmai'
176 Timbira*
177 Tupinamba'
178 Botocudo*
179 Shavante*
180 Aweikoma*
I 8 I Cayua
182 Lengua
183 Abipon*
184 Mapuche*
185 Tehuelche
186 Yahgan
Focal
Date
I
z 34 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12
13 14 15
18503322110 O L M C 7 1 5
193932..11. O L o . 3 6 ?
1908 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 o o o o o o o
1920 5 4 2 2 2 2 o o L o C 5090 C
1960 5 4 3 3 1 1 o H o o o 5070 ?
1 5 3 0 4 3 2 2 I I C C L O C I O 2 7 B
1940 I I I I I I A O o o o o 0 0
1942 13 4 3 2 I I . . . . . I I 38 o
194043321IBHLM03155 0
1938334211CoLMo12220
1915 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 o o o o o 0 0
I ~ S O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I B O
?
1884343z11oHLMo3355?
1958 5 4 3 2 I I C o L o . 24 49 o
I932 3 4 2 2 1 1 0 H 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 0
1890 (3 2 . . I I . . . . 0 . . .
18893323110 o L M C 3 6 ?
17504324IICOL O N 5 I O ?
1950 4 3 2 3 2 1 C o L M o 6 1 0 o
1870 2 3 . . I I . . . . . I z E
186522421100 o o o ~ I o
~c
C
A
C
C
A
A
B
B
B
A
EL
B
A
B
.
16
A
C
E C
20
I
2
.
. I
1895 . o
men of rank
I
I
no mention
only few old chiefs 4 wives
1946 N 5 o
.
. 3 4
.
.
I
1940. o
1941 . o
1939 . 1
1939T 1
1929. 0
IMS S C
O N~4
1939T 0
1958 T 3
. T 0
.
.
.
.
1750.
1948 .
1849 N
.
Comments
3 4 56 7
1850. o z
E
E
17 18 19
2
I
monogamy now
3
4
5
8
I
1
IO
4
3
2
I I
0 1
I I
z I
z I
. 0 3
~
67
O 15 8 5 3
13 5 I
104 31 13
7 3
I
I man:14 lest.)
lest.)
up to 3 wives
300 o o
I
166 Mundurucu, 4: younger wives sometimes solicited voluntarily by elder wife; 5, 6: men's house slept in by unmarried men only in 1850, but 11 presume
following the shift from patrilocal to matrilocal residence that was associated with the rise of rubber trade in the 19th century) all men use it as
residence by 1950; 7: no social class ranking-individual leadership rolesi 9: polygynous chiefs exempt from matrilocality, more patrilocal, but
polygyny increasingly resisted by potential wives; 10: shamanic polygyny inferred from "men of rank polygynous" and "each communal house has its
house chief and shaman."
167 Cubeo, 11: warfare waged for revenge or to capture women and children as slaves, unclear whether taken as wives.
169 Jivaro, 6: husbands and wives sleep at opposite ends of longhouse.
I70 Amahuaca, 5: mostly sororal or leviratic polygyny with common habitation likely (Whiting and Whiting [1975]and Murdock [1967]agree), but one
case of nonsororal polygyny mentioned ([h]Huxley& CapaJ64:39)with separate huts for wives, placed end to end.
I71 Inca, I: commoners monogamous with rare exceptions; rulers have legitimate concubines (servants)in proportion to wealthi women distributed to war
captains.
172 Aymara, I: nobility polygynous in former times.
I74 Nambicuara, 9: chief, important men, and sorcerers polygynous; first wife tends house, others are younger and act as assistants to leader; deficiency of
women from polygyny compensated by homosexuality between adolescent male cross-cousins.
I75 Tmmai, I: less formal unions for second wives; not enough men to go around; polygyny must be approved by first wife, who often breaks up such an
arrangement in the first few days; 11: mention of "plan to capture women" as sheer bravado, no actual evidence of capture of wives.
176 Timbira: polygyny ruled out due to strict matrilocality and no sororate.
I77 Tupinamba, I: chiefs up to 30 wives, commoners may have several; j, 6: commoners initially matrilocal, often remaining so, with wives in different
communitiesi chiefs and influential men establish patrilocality, wives inhabiting different quarters in longhouse; 11: female captives taken as secondary wives but unless they belonged to an influential man who became fond of them they were eventually ritually sacrificed.
178 Botocudo, 8, 9: common among chiefs, who require supernatural power, and highly energetic hunters; some up to 12 wives.
179 Shavante, I: customary for men to take second wives if they can; 7, 9: economic contributions of wives not needed for exercise of authority; 4: wives
like the help co-wives provide.
180 Aweikoma, I: all marriages highly informal; often occurs with more isolated men.
183 Abipon, I, 4: first wife, when no longer young, often welcomes a companion to relieve her of part of the work; 11: female captives treated as slaves,
Abipon refuse to marry them or take them as concubines, as they "lose caste" in the military societies by so doing.
184 Mapuche, I: once prevalent (through mid-19th century); declined with land scarcity [wives had their own garden plots), insufficient production to
acquire bride price; polygyny remains a male ideal connected with ancestral worship: the more offspring, the more propitiation of the departed soul; 6:
traditionally, husband and wife roomed apart in polygynous households: each wife had her own apartment and shared her husband's bed in turn; at
focal time, however, it might appear that husband and one wife share apartments, second wife in separate apartments; husband and wife room apart
I ~
10:I polygyny
) ~
practiced by caciques, curers, men of wealth /[1o]Hilger'57);inspecting size of landholdings,
[Whiting and Whiting I ~ ~ S ~7. 9,
([11]Faron'61)remarks that polygynists are poorer than others and that polygyny requires and depletes wealth.
Discrepant ratings were recoded for consistency with
the primary ethnography.
3 = Limited polygyny, < 20% of married males 54
4 = Full polygyny, 20% or more of married males 60
2. Standard polygamy code: Whyte, Murdock and Wilson, Murdock (861)
. = Missing data
10
o = Polyandry
z
I = Monogamy prescribed
27
z = Monogamy preferred but exceptional cases
of polygyny
33
The third code is the sororal/nonsororal distinction,
adapted from Murdock (1949). Not all of the possibilities
of drawing valid distinctions have been exploited here;
there are sufficient data in ethnographies to code exclusively nonsororal polygyny (see Murdock 1959) and to
distinguish a category of "sororal polygyny preferred but
not predominant."
540 1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
3. Recruitment of wife's kin as co-wives (sororal polygyny) (862)
. = Missing data
24
I = No polygyny (M)5
25
2 = Most secondary marriages not to wife's kin
(predominant nonsororal polygyny) (Atlas
93
3 = Secondary marriages to wife's kin (including
sororal polygyny) strongly preferred or predominant (Atlas RS)5
35
4 = Nearly all secondary marriages to wife's kin
(including exclusively sororal polygyny)
9
The fourth code, habitations for co-wives, is new.
4. Habitations for co-wives (863)
. = Missing data
32
o = One wife, multiple husbands
I
I = One wife (Atlas M)5
25
2 = Coresidence for multiple wives (Atlas PR)' 59
3 = One wife resides with husband, others in
25
separate houseslrooms
4 = One wife resides with husband, others in
12
separate communities
5 = Separate housing in compound for every
wife (Atlas QS)'
30
6 = Separate housing in village for every wife
(as might occur, for example, with men's
2
houses, e.g., Otoro)
The fifth code is Whiting and Whiting's (1975)wife'shabitation code and paraphrases their wording. Their intent was to indicate whether wives commonly (e.g., in
30% or more of the households where children were
raised) roomed apart from their husbands.
5 . Habitations for wives vis-a-vis husband (864)
.
I
Missing data
6
Wives share one room with husband, or
less than 30% of married women are polygynous and the husband has no separate
130
bedroom
= Husband in separate bedroom, hut, or
men's house, or married women, if 30% or
more are polygynous, have separate bedrooms for co-wives (e.g., 39% of Trobriand
women as chief's wives)
50
=
=
The sixth code is new and clarifies the husband's habitation.
6. Habitation for husband vis-a-vis wife or wives
(865)
5. Murdock (1967:47) distinguishes M, Monogamy; N, Limited polygyny; P, General polygyny, not preferentially sororal, co-wives
same dwelling; Q, General polygyny, not preferentially sororal, cowives separate; R, General polygyny, preferentially sororal, cowives same dwelling; and S, General polygyny, preferentially
sororal, co-wives separate.
.
= Missing data
I
=
2
=
Husband usually has no room apart (as a
predominant pattern, e.g., for Trobriand
commoners), even if he rotates among
wives
Husband has a room apart, even if he rotates among wives
7
141
38
Codes 7-1 I are new and deal with rank, stratification,
and capture.
7. Higher rates of polygyny for men of wealth, inherited rank, nobility, or higher social class (866)
. = Missing data
33
o = No stratified polygyny
63
A = Hereditary upper social class
10
B = Achieved rank connected with groups
9
C = Achieved wealth
7I
8. Multiple wives for skilled hunters (867)
. = Missing data
0 = No
I = Yes, exceptionally skilled hunters have
more wives than others
25
I39
22
9. Multiple wives for leaders, headmen, chiefs (868)
. = Missing data
26
0 = No
95
L = Yes, leaders have more wives than others
65
Multiple wives for medicine men or shamans
10.
(869)
.
o
M
=
=
=
Missing data
No, polygyny rate no higher than average
Yes, higher than average rate of polygyny
26
140
20
Marriage of captive women (Code 11) includes concubinage where the children of the union are legitimate
and adoption of female captives if they later become
wives. In many cases the captive has slave status; usually she or her children attain freedom as a consequence
of the marriage (Patterson 19823228-30).
11. Additional wives or concubines from slavery or
capture in warfare (870)
. = Missing data
28
o = No female captives
92
N = Women taken as captives but not married
8
C = Captives in war or slaves taken as wives or
concubines
58
Codes 12, 13, and 15 are adapted from Whiting and
Whiting et al.'s unpublished codes, which included ratings on the two percentage-polygyny variables for 60 of
the standard-sample societies. These have been crosschecked and edited for about 40 societies (in other cases,
the requisite sources were unavailable) to bring them in
line with focal time, group, and source criteria for the
standard sample. I rated another IOO societies, bringing
the total to over 140.
WHITE
Rethinking Polygyny 1 541
12. Percentage of married men with more than one
wife (871)
. = Missing data
40
= Percentage given
146
13. Percentage of married women polygynously married (872)
. = Missing data
42
= Percentage given
I44
Code 14 was developed anew to provide additional
data on reliability.
14. Reliability of data for percentage polygynously
married (873)
. = Missing data
39
o = Direct percentages: good quantitative data 87
B = Direct percentages for male polygyny; female polygyny estimated for minimum of
two wives per man, where if P = % men
married polygynously then Q = zP 1
IOO + P is % women married polygynously
13
D = Percentage female polygyny estimated from
ratios of men with different numbers of
wives, provided by ethnographer
z
C = Lower of two or more censuses used, or estimates where there is some other reason
to believe that true percentages are higher
for both males and females
3
E = Estimates from o to 5% male polygyny inferred from statements about limited polygyny; these are doubled for female percent23
ages (a minimal estimate)
2 = Uncertain coding
19
15. Polygyny data source (874)
.
=
46
A
B
=
=
55
Missing data
Sample of over IOO married men
Sample of less than IOO married men but
of an entire settlement
C = Estimate from ethnographer statements
E = Estimate from ethnographer statements involving a high degree of inference or extrapolation
29
48
8
Code 16 is the date of the polygyny census. It is chosen
to be as close to the focal date for each society as the
ethnographic sources allow.
16. Date for polygyny data (875)
= Missing data 64
- I750 = - I750 B.C.
I
-620 = - 620 B.C.
I
I10 = A.D. I10
I
1 5 5 0 = 1550-59
I
I
1630
I750
1820
1830
=
=
=
=
1630-39
1750-59
1820-29
1830-39
I
I
I
Code 17 is based on the best statistical fit of the distribution of number of married men with successive numbers of wives (Code 20) to either the binomial or the
negative binomial distribution (Spencer 1980). A negative binomial indicates social differentiation among
polygynists, or a tendency for additional wives to beget
more wives. It is hypothesized to reflect the ability of
wives to generate added wealth, as in the African compound pattern. Of the societies coded in the current
study that are also found in Spencer's (1980) sample,
eight fit the negative binomial and have dwelling compounds where wives have separate habitations. One
(Bemba) fits the true binomial and lacks compounds
and separate habitations. Two Islamic societies fail
to show the expected association: the Hausa have
compounds and separate habitations but fit the true
binomial, and the Somali lack both but fit the negative
binomial.
17. Social differentiation among polygynists (876)
. = Missing data, including cases of monog- 135
amy
T = Minimal differentiation (fits true binomial
distribution)
25
N = Differentiation (fits negative binomial distribution)
26
Codes 18 and 19 are Guttman scales derived by analysis after all of the other coding was completed. Each has
a coefficient of reproducibility of .97.
18. Male-stratified polygyny with autonomous cowives (877)Guttman scale
. = Missing data
5
o = None of the following
72
I = Stratified polygyny (866) only
50
z = Differentiation among polygynists (876)
plus I above
5
3 = Polygyny common (860)plus I and 2 above 12
4 = Wife has separate habitation (864)plus 1-3
above
7
5 = Husband has separate habitation (865)plus
1-4 above
9
6 = Polygynous compounds (863)plus 1-5
above
26
542
1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
V O ~29,UNumber
~ ~ 4, August-October 1988
clarified where possible. Samoan mosquito-net compartments in a single open housing arrangement do not qualify as separate habitations, nor do the different hearths of
Miskito co-wives. Tanala men rotate among their wives,
and this is coded as "wives in separate habitations" but
"husband without a separate habitation." Sometimes
the codes obscure important differences in context. A
Goajiro "compound," unlike its African counterpart, is a
seminomadic lean-to, but the functional similarity in
the pattern of polygyny is striking.
Where possible, definitions of codes are operational
ones that make relevant comparative distinctions. For
example, in societies where marriage is formal, conCode 20 contains distinct columns for the numbers (or cubines are recognized as a separate category. The Kopercentages) of men married concurrently to I, 2, 3, 4, 5, rean case is prescriptively monogamous and coded as
6, 7, or more wives. Where indicated as "(est.)" state- such, although occasional concubinage is reported. The
ments by the ethnographer were used to estimate this Romans are prescriptively monogamous, and concubinage with slaves is publicly repudiated though extensive;
distribution.
children by slaves do not inherit. In these cases, in
which concubinage is treated as strictly outside mar20. Distribution of married men by number of wives
riage, publicly denied, and lacking in rights of inherMost of the codes herein are derived from the original itance for offspring, concubines are excluded from the
ratings of polygyny. (By this criterion, restrictions on
ethnographic sources shown in table 2.
sociological fatherhood are not necessarily good indicators
of biological fatherhood.) In many societies where
C O D I N G PROBLEMS
marriage is informal, however, there is no such distincThe coding of ethnographic data for comparative re- tion. In the ethnographies, numbers of co-wives are alsearch poses a great many problems. As many have most never broken down to distinguish concubines. It is
noted, and as Clifford (1986:7)reiterates, "ethnographic only in some state societies that monogamy, if practruths are inherently partial, committed [to a particular ticed, is prescriptive or legally enforced, in which case
paradigm] and incomplete." Texts are not inevitably the offspring of concubines typically do not legally incommensurate one with the other, and, as when work- herit. In pre-state societies ethnographers usually regard
ing with any body of text, it is important to avoid the concubine as another type of secondary wife, and
"smoothing" the representation. Many problems generic Patterson (1982)has shown that female slaves taken as
to the coding process are encountered in this work, concubines usually attain free status through such
among them ( I ) ambiguity, ( 2 ) conflicts in sources, (3) unions and their children are normally regarded as legitiinsufficient evidence, (4)inference, ( 5 ) observer bias, and mate. Unless otherwise indicated by the ethnographer,
I treat concubines in pre-state societies as secondary
(6)meaning or measurement validity.
Ambiguity. Coding categories may not always mirror wives and include the frequency of concubinage within
the actual situation or may themselves require clarifica- that of polygyny generally. Thus, for example, the wife's
tion. For example, the Garo take secondary wives (e.g.,a brothers' daughters who come as "concubines" with a
widowed mother-in-law)who are not sexually activej for marriage to the Samoan chief are treated as lesser wives
coding purposes this has little effect except in minor via a variant of sororal polygyny. This kind of "inadjustments to the frequencies of polygyny. Captive formed" coding decision also minimizes the European
girls among the Omaha are sent home after peace settle- observer bias towards viewing secondary wives as "conments unless they elect to stay (and marry) among the cubines."
Omaha. This I regard as "wives obtained through capCoding categories may be clarified by a comparative
ture in warfare." The Creeks adopted their captives; perspective even when the definition of categories seems
since the rate of polygyny is low and the first wife's obvious. In the Gilyak case, one must ask whether popermission to take a second wife is required and only lygynous hunters include the wealthy fur traders. The
exceptionally given, it is likely that captured women are parallel with the Plains and subsequent analysis of the
occasionally taken as first wives after adoption but are codes help to confirm that the traderlhunter roles ought
not significant secondary wives. In a similar situation, not to be separated: even if many of the hunters in these
the Natchez replace their slain through adoption; societies are not wealthy, some are highly involved in
women who were captives are thus likely to be taken as trade and production for trade, and such producer1
secondary wives. These two cases, in which similar traders may be polygynists.
Some distinctions cannot reliably be made in the codpractices are coded differently because of context, represent the kinds of inferences I considered justifiable, al- ing process. In the "exceptional hunter" code I note
cases in which exceptional fishermen, herdsmen, or culthough they might lower intercoder reliabilities.
Contexts that might affect the meanings of codes are tivators are reported as polygynists, but since many
19. Male-ranked polygyny with related co-wives (878)
Guttman scale
. = Missing data
3
o
None of the following
44
I = Husband and wife coresident (864)
73
2 = Co-wives share habitation (863)plus I
above
26
3 = Wife's kin as co-wives or sororal polygyny
(862)plus I and z above
25
4 = Polygynous hunters (867)plus 1-3 above
9
5 = Exclusive wife's kin as co-wives (sororal)
(862)plus 1-4 above
6
-
WHITE
Rethinking Polygyny 1 543
TABLE 2
Source Bibliography for Polygyny Coding
Nama
Kung
3 Thonga
4 Lozi
5 Mbundu
6 Suku
7 Bemba
8 Nyakyusa
9 Hadza
I 0 Luguru
I I Kikuyu
12 Ganda
I
2
I 3 Mbuti
14 Nkundo
15 Banen
I 6 Tiv
17 Ib0
18 Fon
19 Ashanti
zo Mende
2 I Wolof
22 Bambara
23 Tallensi
24 Songhai
25 Wodaabe
26 Hausa
27 Massa
28 Azande
29 Fur
30 Otoro
31 Shilluk
32 Mao
33 Kafa
34 Maasai
35 Konso
36 Somali
37 Amhara
38 Bogo
39 Nubians
40 Teda
41 Tuareg
42 Riffians
43 Egyptians
44 Hebrews
45 Babylonians
46 Rwala
47 Turks
48 Gheg
49 Romans
50 Basques
5 I Irish
52 Lapps
5 3 Samoyed
54 Russians
55 Abkhaz
56 Armenians
57 Kurd
5 8 Basseri
59 Punjabi
60 Gond
61 Toda
62 Santal
63 Uttar Pradesh
64 Burusho
[d]Murdock134:498;[z]Schapera130:z5~-5%
Murdock(195g:~~)
[a]Marsha11176:262-63;[f]Lee179:245;[ab]Shostak18~:~70;
Murdock(1959:55)
[1'27]Junod'62:282-89, 512; Murdock(1959:377)
[z]Gluckman1g~:7g,
83, 65; [6]'50:180; [8*If65:30,69; Murdock(1959:367)
[~]Childs'qg:jo,40; [3]Hamblyf62:~23-24;Murdock(1959:372)
[a]Kopytoff165:452;Murdock(195g:zgg)
[a]Richards'g1:181; [2]'39; [7jRichards'40:46, 89; [q]Whitely15o:~8;
Murdock(1959:zgg)
[a]Wilson'77:115; [d]'51a:15; [b]'51b:260; Murdock(1g~g:362)
[b]Woodbum'64:108~Whiting and Whiting(1975:zoz); Murdock(1959:62)
[a]Beidelrnan167:31;[d*]Fosbrooke'54:ms; Murdock(1g5g:310)
[a]Leakeyf77v.z;Murdock(1959:345)
[ I 5]Southwold165:1o5-6; [z]Roscoel~
I:IO, 87, 93-95, 205; [8]Kagwa134:68;[b]Murdock134:525,534-35,
539-40; Murdock(19~9:35a)
[z]Tumbull'65: 181-83, 204, 207, table 4(Efe);[31162:35;[e*]Schebesta'33:128-29;~urdock(1959:50)
Murdock(1959:287)
Murdock(1959:241)
[d]Bohannan165:527-+ [18]'54a:64-65; [~glBohannan& Bohannan153:70, 74, 35; Murdock(1g59:g~)
[z]Uchendu165:50,54; [3]Green164:152;[b]Nzimirof62:zo8;Murdock(1959:246+)
[a]Herskovitz138v.~:339;
[aIf38v.z:~o,
38, 45-46; [h]Murdock134:582;Murdock(1g~g:z55)
[5]Fortes1~o:28~,
215; [8'70 2nd ed.If7o:16-17, 24; [z]Rattray1z7:95;[4]Manokianf64:z~5;
[b]Lystad158:16;
Murdock(1959:z~s)
[2'51]Little'67:140-44; Murdock(1959:262)
Murdock(1959:269)
Murdock(1959:75)
[3]Fortes'qg:6~,
71; Murdock(1959:83)
[c153]Miner'65:z~3-14;Murdock(1959:143)
[c]Dupire163:63-70; [e]Stenningf65:385-87; [d]'59:183-93; [f]'58:108-10; [g]Hopen'58:141-45;
Murdock(1959:419)
[I 5]Smith160:z56;[17]'65:143-44; [z]Greenberg146:16in Minerf65; Murdock(19~9:143)
Murdock(1g~g:236);[blde Garine164:16~,172
[~6]Baxter
and Butt153:69-70, 63; [68]Evans-Pritchard'71:197,
250; [3]Legae1z6:160-63, 179;
Murdock(1959:236)
[a]Felkin 1885:234; Murdock(1ggg:143]
[a]Nade1147:116-17, 147; Murdock(1959:166)
[z]Seligmann'32:40, 55, 68; Murdock(1959:173+)
Murdock(19~9:173+ )
[z]Huntingford155:~~4-15,
120-21; [d]Gmhlf35:233;Murdock(1959:189)
[13]Huntingford'53:11~,122; [1]Hollis'o~:303;Spencer(1980:131); Murdock(1959:335)
[a]Hallpike17z:5 5, 105, 182, 190, I 3; [42]Cemlli1~
6:58; Murdock(1959:zo1)
[18]Lewis'61:138-43, 103, 60-71; [aI165:342-43; Murdock(1959:322)
Murdock(1959:186)
Murdock(19~9:317)
[glal-Katshain Kennedyf78:173; Murdock(1959:16a)
[1]Cline'~o:42,
46-47; Murdock(195g:130)
[d]Briggsf60:~5
8; Murdock(1959: I 17)
[1]Coon'31:142, 120; [3]Hart176:zzg,232; Murdock(1959:117)
[3]Ayrout'45:118; [1]Ammar'54:zo1
[b]DeVaux16~:zs;
[h]Moscati157:~59-60;[aIDeuteronomy 17:17; [alcorinthians 6:8; [a]z Samuel 3:~-5, 5: 13,
19:6; [alchronicles I I : ~ I [a11
;
Kings II:I-3
[a]Saggsf62:~85,
214
Murdock(19~9:399)
[7]Stirling'65:196-97
Murdock(1949:235)
[1]Carcopin0'40:1oz; [d]Balsdon'69:107, 198, 215, 230 [concubinage]
monogamous (not requiring new coding]
monogamous (not requiring new coding)
monogamous (not requiring new coding)
[1]Hadju'63:zg
monogamous (not requiring new coding)
[a]Benet174:79
[j*]Villaand Matossianf82:7~-88
[z]Masters1g~:230;
Murdock(1gqg:234)
[a]Barth161:1z,107
[a]Eglarf60:no mention
Whiting and Whiting(1975:187); Murdock(1967:194)
[6]Murdock134:~zo-21;[1]Rivers'o6:5a1
[5]Culshaw14g:~z~,
146; [f]Kochar170:86
Whiting and Whiting(1975);[*]Gore165in Nimcoff and Middleton165:zzo-z~
[z]Lorimer139:182
544
1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
TABLE 2
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
(continued)
65 Kazak
66 Khalka
67 Lo10
68 Lepcha
69 Garo
70 Lakher
71 Burmese
72 Lamet
73 Vietnamese
74 Rhade
75 Khmer
76 Thai
77 Semang
78 Nicobarese
79 Andamanese
80 Vedda
81 Tanala
82 Negri Sembilan
83 Javanese
84 Balinese
85 Iban
86 Badjau
87 Toradja
88 Tobelorese
89 Alorese
90 Tiwi
9 I Aranda
92 Orokaiva
93 Kimam
94 Kapauku
95 Kwoma
96 Manus
97 Lesu
98 Trobrianders
99 Siuai
IOO Tikopia
I O I Pentecost
102 Mbau Fijians
103 Ajie
104 Maori
105 Marquesans
106 Samoans
107 Gilbertese
108 Jaluit Marshallese
109 Trukese
I 10 Yapese
I I I Palauans
I I 2 Ifugao
I I 3 Atayal
I 14 Chekiang
I I 5 Manchu
I I 6 Koreans
I 17 Japanese
I I 8 Ainu
I 19 Gilyak
I 20 Yukaghir
121 Chukchee
122 hgalik
123 Aleut
124 Copper Eskimo
I 2 5 Montagnais
126 Micmac
127 Saulteaux
128 Slave
129 Kaska
130 Eyak
I 3 I Haida
I 32 Bellacoola
I 33 Twana
[d]Kraderf63:z~5(not
247); [e]Kraderf66:136,141, 146, 15 I; [a]Murdock134:~~7;
[1z]Hudson'64:40, 58, 79-80
monogamous (not requiring new coding)
[1]Linf61:76-77; '47:62
[1'67]Gorer'67:166; [z]Morris138:263;Murdock(1949:235)
[1]Burling'63:128, 142, 148; [a]Nakane167:77-78
[a]Parryf32:340
[a]Nash165:247-67
[b*]Izikowitz'85:165-67,
174
[a]Hickey164:I 12-13; [c]Donoghue164:42
[g']Hickey182:35
[i]Briggsfg~:245;
[147(AM1]Aymonier'oo:76;
[k*]Audricf72:82,90-91
[elsharp and Hanks'78:115
[e]Evans'jz:z50, 253-54; [c]Murdock1j4:gg-IOO
not coded
monogamous (not requiring new coding)
monogamous (not requiring new coding)
[1]Linton'33:132-33, 304-5, 249; [aIf39:26o
[d'IJosselin de J o n g ' ~
I: 10-1 I, 125
[zo]Geertz'61:131-32
[d]Geertz and Geertzf75:13I; Murdock(19qg:zz8)
[6]Freeman17I :29
[1]Nimmo'72:18
[3]Adriani and Kruijtf~z:35g,413, 431, 471-73, 483
monogamous (not requiring new coding)
[1]DuBois'44:zg, 97, 100, 110-11, 513; [a]DuBois145:~43-44
[ ~ I H a rand
t Pilling160:16-17
[~ISpencerand Gillin1z7:g, 15, 39, 467, 469-70, 583 [16]Murdock'34:38
[1]Williams'30:83, 92-93, 130-31
[a]Serpenti'65:131-32, 175
[1]Pospisil'~8:10~,
135; [51163:37
[~IWhiting'q~:
129
[1]Mead130:18,47, 105, 175, 197, zoo, 207, 173, 118, 172, 177-78
[1]Powdermaker'33:z26
[~IMalinowski'zg:
I 30
[a]01iver155:zz3-26, 149
[z]Firth1s7:~32,
470-78, 565-72; [2]'36:132; Murdock(1949:235)
[a]Lane and Lane ms, part II:9-12
[h]Roth153:75; [e*]Toganivaluf12: I
[a]Leenhardt130;[b]'37
[ h ] B e s t ' g a : ~ ~[1I124,i:447-49
z;
[1o]Linton'39:1~5-57;[1]Handy'z3:1oo-102, 123-36
[16]Tumer 1884:96-97, 155, 175-76; [a]Murdock134:7~,
64
[k]Sabatier177:80,~30?
[2] Kramer100:z58, 264; [3]Erdland'14:go-91
[ I '5 ~]Goodenough'gI: 1% [z]Gladwin and Sarason'~
3: I 3I
Murdock(1949)for 1935; [f']Lingenfelderf7~;[10]Furness'10:36-55
[c]Bamett14g:~4~-44;
[d']'60:50; [d*If79:6o;[1]Smith'83:145
[1z]Barton'j0:30, 253; [2'69]'69:10; Murdock(1949:229)
[alokada
[14]Fei
monogamous (not requiring new coding)
[zz]Osgood'5I :I I 3 [concubinage]
monogamous (not requiring new coding)
[c]Hilger'71:161-62; [7]Munro163:~47;
[d*]Batchelor 1892:288; [g]Murdock'34:181, 176
[f]Ivanovet a1.'64 in Levin and Potapov164:778;Murdock(1gqg:239); [1]Shtemberg'33:156
[a]Jochelson126:
I 10-1 I ; [clstepanova et a1.'64 in Levin and Potapov164
[~g]Antropova
et a1.'64 in Levin and Potapov164:820; [1]Bogoras'og:gg8
[aIOsgood'~
8200-203
[b]Lantis170:zo8-10, 245; [alveniaminov 1840:60
[13]Jenness'13-18:158, 161
[2'771Speck'77
[3]Denys108:4~o-11;[a]Bock166:6
[zz]Dunningfgg:181-82; [ z ~ ] H a l l o w e l5:300
l'~
[e]Masonf46:32
[6]Honigmann154:~32-33;[1]Honigmann'4g:194; Murdock(1gqg:247); [c]P.Field M S ' I ~
[a]Birket-Smith138:133,147, 139
[e]Niblack 1890:367; [b]Murdockf34:242,252; Murdock (1949:247)
[1]McIlwraith'48:144; Jorgensen(1980:453+ )
[a]Elmendorff160:3~8,
367, 509; [c*]Ells'85:zg3-94, 341, 436; Driver and Massey (1957:map 153)
WHITE
TABLE 2
(continued)
134 Yurok
135 Pomo
136 Yokuts
I 37 Wadadika
138 Klamath
I 39 Kutenai
140 Gros Ventre
141 Hidatsa
142 Pawnee
143 Omaha
144 Huron
145 Creek
146 Natchez
147 Comanche
148 Chiricahua
149 Zuni
I 50 Havasupai
I 5 I Papago
I 52 Huichol
153 Aztec
I 54 Popoluca
I 5 5 Quiche
I 56 Miskito
I 5 7 Bribri
158 Cuna
I 5 9 Goajiro
I 60 Haitians
I 6 I Callinago
162 Warrau
163 Yanomamo
164 Carib
165 Saramacca
I 66
Rethinking Polygyny 1 545
Mundurucu
167 Cubeo
Cayapa
169 Jivaro
I 70 Arnahuaca
I 7 I Inca
I 68
172 Aymara
173 Siriono
174 Nambicuara
175 Trumai
176 Timbira
I 77 Tupinamba
178 Botocudo
I 79 Shavante
180 Aweikoma
I 8 I Cayua
182 Lengua
183 Abipon
184 Mapuche
I 8 5 Tehuelche
I 8 6 Yahgan
NOTE: Sources keyed
[g]Kroeber'z5:31; [ff76]Powers'76:56;[zlwaterman & Kroeberf34:283; Murdock(1g4g:230);
[~IHeizerand Mills'5 2: 128; Jorgensen(1980:454);also Twana[a]Elmendorff'60:318, 367
[~ IKroeber'z~
:25 5; [3]Loeb1z6:243;Jorgensen (1980:454)
[1]Gayton'48:94; [z]Kroeber1z5:493; Jorgensen(1980:453 )
[7]Whiting150:~g,
IOO
[1]Spier'30:49: Jorgensen(1980:453-54)
Murdock(1949:228)
[zIFlanne~'~3:73-74,
171-73, 98
[a]Bowers165:~42,
114, 260, 155; [b]Matthews 1877:53
[14]Weltfish'65:17, 464; [~IDorseyand Murie140:84, 107-9; [b]Lesser130:98-IOI
[~IFletcher
and LaFlesche'~1:326, 615; [z]Dorsey 1884261, 332; Murdock (1949:240)
monogamous (not requiring new coding)
[1]Swanton'28:371, 373, 167; [a]'46:704; Murdock(1949:247)
[d]Swantonf46:708;[a]'11:97, 100, 102, 124
[a*]Linton'45:59;[3]Wallaceand Hoebe1152:138,141, 2
[a]Opler137:zo4;[ I ] ' ~ I : I151,
~ , 416-20, 55-56
[a]Eggan15o:~93
[c']Dobyns and Euler174:23; [3]Jamesfo3:zzg;[a']Whiting185:97; ['IKroeber et al.'35
[z]Underhillf3g:I 79, 182; [b]'65 in Nimcoff and Middleton165:I 5 2
[a]Zingg138:114, 136; [b]Lumholtz1oz:236
[33]Soustelle'55:103, 184-88; [a']Diaz del Castillo'10:60; [b]Murdockf34:38~;
[c*]Bandelier 1880:613
[a]Foster142:7I
monogamous (not requiring new coding)
[1]Conzemius'32:14g-50, 83-84; [z]Kirchhoff'48:zzg, 227
[a]Johnson148245, 247
[4*]Wass6n14g:88;[1o*]Stout'48:27,260, 263; Murdock(1949:229)
[8]Armstrongand MCtrauxf48:375-76, 379; [b*]Wilbertlg8:6o; [7]Bolinder157:61
[1]Herskovitz'37: I 16-20; [3]Leyburn14~:~g5ff.
[5]Rouse148:556,8; [4]Du Tertre 1667:16; Murdock(19qg:232); [11]Taylor'46
[3]Kirchhoff148:874,880; [6]TurradoMoreno145:z54
[c]Smolef76:~89,
75; [11]Chagnon'68:63-64, 75; [d]Shapiro172:~07,
108
[a]Gillenf48:8~o
[e]Price184:78-79, 58, 14, 20, 42-44, 50-57, 168, 203-5; [e]deGroot169:~32;
[~IHerskovits
and Herskovits134:I 59
[a]Y R Murphy'74: I 18, 146; [a]'85:144, 172; [1z]R,Murphy'60:88; [ I1]'58:30; [4']Horton148:274-75,
277-78
[a]Goldman148:782,786
[z]Murra148:no mention
[1]Karsttn'35:186; [~glstewardand Mttrauxf48:624; [e]Service'71:196
[h]Huxley & Capaf64:71-73, 111, 39, 58
[3'61]de la Vegaf61:48, 132, 135; [3]1871:299-300, 306-7; [z]Cieza de Le6n159:41;
[ ~ z * ] P o mde
a Ayalaf36:184; [k]KarstCn'~o:gg,142; [g]Murdock'34:419; [1]Rowe'48:z53, 274
[1]Tschopik'46:543
[a]Holmberg148:457,461, 58-59
[~ILtvi-Strauss148:366,
67; [a'61]'61:303-7; [6]'43; Murdock(1949:232)
[a]LCvi-Strauss148:336-37,
340, 345; [1'66]Murphy and Quain166:89,45, 47, 56
[f]Lowie146:492;[1]Nimuendaju'46:1zo-21,
124-25
[24]Mttraux'48:111-13; [1]Staden'z8:142-43; [z]Thevet 1878:64-66
[b]MCtraux146:5 36-37
[a]M.Lewis167:336-37, 47, 76-78, 87, tables 4-5
[z]Henry'41:z13-15, 21, 39-30
[3]Watson152:I 17
[d]MCtraux146:326,183, 327, 315, 303; [a]Grubb'13:z14-15
[z]Mttraux146:326,316-17, 309; [~IDobrizhoffer1822
[11]Faron'61:150-52, 178-79, 127?; [aIf68:35;[1o]Hilger'57:31, 125-27, 327; [zlCooper'46:721, 707 (earlier,
traditional Mapuche)
[1]Cooper'46:149; [z]Musters'71:187
[z]Cooper'46:gz; [d]Servicef7~:34;
Murdock(1g49:230)
+
+
to White (1986);numbers in brackets identify HRAF sources, letters other souces, asterisks sources added to
bibliography for this study. Comparative sources not in the 1986 bibliography, which appear in standard form, are listed with the other
references cited.
546
1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
cases of this sort have certainly gone unreported I did not rilocality and common nonsororal polygyny by wives'
report these distinctions in the final codes. The same maintaining separate houses in their own villages while
problem occurs in distinguishing polygyny stratified by men reside in men's houses.
wealth vs. class (e.g., nobility) or rank. This distinction
Finally, aberrant patterns sometimes present themis feasible but involves a high degree of inference; a selves in their own terms, particularly when a variant
proper study would require careful examination of the cultural practice-like secondary marriage-is achieved
nature of social rank and stratification. While there are only at great "frictional" cost in terms of social norms.
good codes in the literature for types of stratification, The Siuai husband's rotation among wives, for example,
rank is nowhere well coded. Thus, distinctions as to type is bitterly attacked by the wives themselves. Among the
of stratification were dropped from the cultural-rules Burusho and the Ifugao the polygynist must pay a heavy
scale. By far the greatest number of cases in the stratified fine or compensation to his first wife's family or his own
category, however, are wealth-stratified. I am unable at children by the first wife.
this time to distinguish ascribed from achieved polygyConflicts in sources. Discrepancies in the evidence
nous statuses.
from different, or sometimes the same, sources can usuVariability within a society often generates ambiguity. ally be resolved by temporal and spatial pinpointing,
The code for proximity of co-wife habitations, for ex- evaluating the authoritativeness of sources, or underample, is set up for the usual case, in which there is no standing the larger context. An interesting example is
internal variability. In some cases there is such variabil- the Mapuche, for whom Hilger (1957)reports polygyny
ity, but not sufficient to merit changing the coding cate- practiced by caciques, curers, and men of wealth but
gories, and the exceptions are treated in the notes. Inter- Faron (1961) remarks that polygynists are more landnal variability also takes the form of differing practices poor than others, reflecting the requirement for and dein stratified populations. It is important to note for the pletion of wealth by polygyny. Both reports are true in
first code that where polygyny is preferred within a par- the context of increasing land scarcity and restriction in
ticular class or status, it is generally not prohibited but available land for women's garden plots and a major demerely infrequent for other groups that lack the requi- cline in polygyny over the past century. Hilger's observasite wealth or status. The husband's-habitation code, on tions are more indicative of older traditions, although
the other hand, simply excludes internal variability in both reflect aspects of the situation at the focal date.
favor of coding the predominant tendency in the populaInsufficient evidence. I have avoided weak inferences.
tion. The Trobrianders exemplify stratification in this For example, I code reports of female slaves with no
respect; commoner husbands reside with their wives but indication of whether they were married as missing data
(usually, however, ethnographers do report presence or
chiefs apart.
A careful consideration of the semantics of the codes absence of concubinage or marriage to freed slaves).Failalso helps to resolve what appear to the coder as aberrant ure of the ethnographer to report the absence of polygor contradictory combinations of features. For example, yny is occasionally a problem in coding a society as moco-wives may reside together and the husband sepa- nogamous or near-monogamous.
Inference. I have not avoided reasonable inferences
rately; such is the case among the Jivaro, where men and
women reside at opposite ends of the longhouse, and (see the notes to table I ) . For example, I inferred MunBarry and Paxson (1971)~Whiting and Whiting (1975)~ durucu shamanic polygyny from ethnographer stateand I code this as "husband rooms apart," although I also ments that "men of rank are polygynous" and "each
code it as "coresidence for multiple wives." This is also communal house has its house chief and shaman." A
the case in some societies with married men living in Trumai individual's "plan to capture women," on the
men's houses. It is such possibilities that require the other hand, regarded by the ethnographer as sheer
separate codes for wives' and husband's habitation. Nor bravado and not supported by any evidence of the actual
are the numbers of men and women living in these ar- capture of women, was treated as the absence of marrangements symmetric, since different frequencies of riage to captured women.
Inference is also involved in temporal extrapolation
married men and women are polygynous. The Trobriand
case, with a chiefly 2% of the men married to 39% of the and the assessment of change relative to a focal date. For
married women, dramatizes the difference: wives (that the Huichol, for instance, Zingg (1938)reports concubinis, the 39% who are chiefs' wives) commonly live apart age of officials, elders, and shamans, contrasting with
from their husbands, while husbands (the 98% common- the morality of earlier days when they were observed by
ers) live with their wives.
Lumholtz (1902)~
who he says could not have overlooked
Reconciling polygyny patterns with other social fea- this pattern if it had occurred then. Lumholtz, however,
tures such as matrilocal residence is sometimes required does not allude to the topic but does report that "a man
in making coding judgments. If these were regarded as who wants to become a shaman must be faithful to his
uniform societal "rules" they might be seen to conflict; wife for five years," which makes sense if experienced
that they are context-specific behaviors, however, can shamans would normally be adulterous or take conbe seen in cases such as the generally matrilocal cubines. I infer that Zinggls observations are more indicTupinamba of I 5 50 and Mundurucu of I 850, among ative of the situation even for the focal date of 1890. This
whom polygynous chiefs resided patrilocally. The Cal- is supported by distributional evidence.
Temporal inference is often required, and I have aslinago resolve the apparent contradiction between mat-
WHITE
sessed polygyny for the focal time period. Declines in
polygyny are indicated for Egyptians, Kurds, Kimam,
Lesu, Pentecost, Yapese, Mundurucu, Aymara, Mapuche, and many others, but in cases such as the
Nyakyusa and several other African societies the
changes prior to the focal date are towards higher rates of
polygyny. In the case of the Bribri, where a heavy influx
of cattle since 1914 is reported as altering the social
structure in major ways, temporal inferences are difficult, since it is not clear how far the changes had gone by
the focal date of 1917. Sometimes resolving problems of
temporal inference provides evidence of change. Mundurucu polygyny of chiefs and shamans, coded for 1850,
is one of several features of social structure that apparently shift after the rise of rubber tapping in the 19th
century: ( I ) from patrilocal to matrilocal residence, ( 2 )
from residential use of men's houses by younger unmarried warriors to use by all adult men, (3)from a positive
attitude of women towards polygyny, illustrated by occasional solicitations for younger wives by the elder
wife, to one of active resistance, even towards second
wives of chiefs. In the transitional period, with incompatible practices of matrilocal residence and nonsororal
polygyny, chiefs tended to establish patrilocal residence.
Quantitative inferences are involved in the numerical
extrapolations that are often needed to assess rates of
polygyny. While good polygyny censuses are available
for about one-sixth of the sample, I have used ethnographer statements about relative frequencies of men
with one, two, three, or more wives to estimate polygyny distributions. The problem is ubiquitous in the
Americas, where there are few polygyny censuses and
much retrospective ethnography. In providing either precise or estimated polygyny distributions, one is often
aware of how skewed is the baseline of "married men"
in societies in which marriage is long delayed by the
scarcity of potential wives for younger men. It is neither
feasible nor desirable, however, to compute the percentage of polygynously married men over the pool of "adult
men." For one thing, it is too difficult to assess the ages
and numbers of young men or to determine a cutoff age
at which to consider young men "adult." For another,
unmarried males often emigrate or suffer high mortality
in warfare and other activities. Finally, the percentage of
polygynously married men and the very size and length
of the tail of the polygyny distribution are the best indicators of the process by which, as a function of polygyny,
wives become scarce for bachelors.
Different degrees of inference are required in the various codes. Codes 1-6 involve low inference in that they
are based on highly visible behaviors marked by spatial,
customary, or legal arrangements. High-inference codes
such as 9-1 3 and 17 typically require the various kinds
of extrapolations discussed above. Similarly, ethnographer or demographic inferences about the causes or
consequences of polygyny in particular societies, unless
properly tested, may present a problem. We know from
quantitative studies (see White 1988) that in many instances it is difficult to determine, for example, whether
wealth attracts wives or wives augment wealth. And
Rethinking Polygyny 1 547
whereas attempts to identify the reproductive costs
or benefits of polygyny to wives have often led to the
conclusion that polygyny decreases female fertility,
Borgerhoff Mulder (1985)has shown that the accumulation of infertile wives in polygynous marriages may be a
major confounding factor.
Observer bias. Perhaps the most pervasive observer
bias is the description of polygyny as if the males were
the principal actors, "acquiring" wives (e.g., via bridewealth), rather than taking a more gender-balanced view
in which women (as brides, wives, and kinswomen of
brides) also actively "acquire" husbands and manipulate
wealth flows.
Meaning or measurement validity. A further problem
has less to do with the coding itself than with what
certain codes might be seen to index. For example, frequent polygyny might be expected to create and therefore index a shortage of wives, but it does not always do
so: among the Pawnee, with high rates of polygyny,
polyandry was also common and allowed mature
women who had married young as second wives to take
younger men as second husbands, while providing a first
wife to young men who would not otherwise have one.
The interpretation of wealth-stratified polygyny poses
a more serious problem. Does one interpret the code as
wealth "required" or establishing the "prerogative" for
polygyny or as wealth "generated" by polygyny? For the
Shavante, for example, where polygyny is common and
rates are higher for leaders and important men, we learn
that economic contributions of wives are not needed for
exercise of authority. For the Kapauku, acquisition of a
second wife is an important investment in production,
and a first wife may divorce her husband if he has the
money for bride price and refuses to remarry. While successful Kapauku men teach the behavior that leads to
wealth and polygyny, the wealth does not follow without the productivity of extra wives. If ethnographers do
not always clearly specify whether wealth leads to wives
or wives to wealth, it may be because the two are often
circularly linked, with the position of secondary wives
offering investment opportunities (for both the wives
and the husband) for productivity exceeding that of monogamous marriages. The investment analogy is often
an apt one: wealth may be needed to initiate the investment, but the investment may enrich the family. Both
males and females may be investors in polygyny, even
in bridewealth systems, since both often manipulate
wealth flows.
Problems of indexing wealth considerations also occur
for hunting societies. Where polygyny is associated with
exceptional hunters it is not always possible to infer that
the hunter must support additional wives, since in some
cases the wives make major economic contributions.
When wives are reported as often suggesting that the
husband acquire another wife (which I noted but did not
code systematically), a wealth-generating pattern of polygyny is likely indicated.
Dorjahn (1959) was the first to raise the problem of
confounding variables in interpreting the causal linkages
between wealth, polygyny, and fertility, for example,
548 1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
within particular societies. Borgerhoff Mulder (1987:
617-19, 624-25) has shown that even ethnographers directly concerned with testing the causal relationship between wealth or leadership and reproductive success or
polygyny find it difficult to establish the direction of
causality. Cross-cultural codes on economic productivity and the sexual division of labor, exchange, and consumption need to be brought into play to identify further
aspects of polygynous systems. We need to incorporate
more focused ethnographic insights and materials into
comparative analysis, but sensitive comparative study of
the problem may also have a contribution to make first
to raising and ultimately to resolving some of the issues.
The generation and expenditure of wealth by both cowives and husbands is centrally important to the study
and eventual understanding of polygyny. Hartung (1982)
has shown a close connection between polygyny,
bridewealth, and male-biased inheritance of wealth and
attempted an equation of the wealth element in polygyny with the type of territorial resource defense that is
one of two characteristic forms of polygyny in other
species. Commentators such as Pospisil (1982), Scott
(1982))and Dickemann (1982)noted that human polygyny often augments wealth and power via the labor and
exchange of wives and thus does not clearly constitute
resource defense by males; polygyny is also accompanied by mate-defense elements such as wife capture in
warfare, kidnapping, enslavement, or sale of women,
rape, veiling, female claustration, and mutilation. Similarly, bridewealth is not an indicator that wives are acquired by men, since it is often the result of women's
labor in polygynous households and in any case is not
implied by resource defense. It is not at all clear that
polygynous males control the resources that attract females to their territories. Even bridewealth, as Pospisil
notes for the Kapauku, may be lent in expectation of
return insofar as it is an investment in production. Judging from these critical reactions, Gray (1985:32-33, 75)
suggests that the next step in the study of polygyny is a
search for ecological conditions. Several critics, and Hartung himself, indicate that some term other than either
resource-defense or mate-defense might be more appropriate for the type of polygyny he describes.
Burton and I (Whiteand Burton 1988)have shown that
the key ecological conditions of high-frequency polygyny are environmental quality, ecological homogeneity,
and access to new lands for expansion, as found in tropical savannahs. The results of our regression analysis
suggest that it is not movable property, as hypothesized
by Murdock (1949))that predicts polygyny but movable
productive units in the absence of fixed property in land,
fishing, insular environments, or land-intensive technologies such as the plow.
Schneider's (1979:106-7) description of the polygynous house-property complex of East Africa is apt for the
broader region of high-frequency polygynous systems: "a
man heads a household and allows his wife or wives to
conduct their own production operation, passing the
proceeds to their sons. . . . The glue in the H-P [house-
property] complex is the kind and amount of property
which a husband can confer on his wife when he marries
her." The linkages in this complex would explain the
association that Hartung (1982) finds between malebiased inheritance and polygyny. The sons have direct
economic payoffs in this system via their polygynous
mothers, and while extended bachelorhood is a byproduct of this system, it is the sons as warriors who
provide the defense of it. Variants of the family estate
system in central Africa, discussed by Gray (1964) and
contributors to Gray and Gulliver (1964), would be a
useful starting point for studying polygyny as it relates
to property. In contrast to the resource-defense and
mate-defense polygyny of other species, this polygyny
complex might be characterized as wealth-increasing
fraternal-defense polygyny. Indeed, the other factors
that predict high-frequency polygyny are male-centered
kin groups (patrilocal, with bridewealth) and warfare for
plunder or captives (Whiteand Burton 1988).It would be
useful to subject the idea of a wealth-increasing type of
polygyny complex to further empirical examination.
Borgerhoff Mulder (1987) has argued for malegenerated wealth as a cause of greater reproductive success of men, and clearly there are monogamous societies
in which this is the case (e.g., the modem Ifaluk studied
by Turke and Betzig 1985). What is neglected in
Borgerhoff Mulder's analysis of the polygynous Kipsigis
is that the wealth generated by female co-wives (not
simply by children) may create a spurious correlation
between wealth and number of offspring (even among
younger cohorts of married men) and that such wealth
passes through the father in sponsoring the bridewealth
for the son's first marriage. Failure to see polygyny as a
potential source of wealth creates the illusion that it is
male wealth that attracts multiple wives and leads to
reproductive success.
Testing the Theory of Polygyny Complexes:
Scales and Validity Issues
The various features of the polygyny codes developed
here fall into several clusters that constitute elaborations of fundamentally different types of polygyny. An
entailment analysis (see White, Burton, and Brudner
1977, White and McCann 1988)of dichotomous features
of polygyny from the codes above reveals two major
clusters of variables. One cluster consists of husbandwife residential separation, prevalent polygyny, and
wealth-stratified polygyny, as well as marriage of female
captives. These are likely traits of the wealth-increasing
fraternal-defense polygyny identified above. The other
consists of sororal polygyny (recruitment of wife's kin as
co-wives), coresidence of co-wives, and polygyny for exceptional hunters or for shamans. Each of these clusters
contains a cumulative Guttman scale. Two other
smaller clusters of polygyny traits (leadership or despotic polygyny and wealth-depleting polygyny) are independent of these complexes.
WHITE
Rethinking Polygyny I 549
TABLE ?
WEALTH-INCREASING POLYGYNY
correlaGons among Scale Items i n Wealth-Increasing
PO~Y~PY
Six items form a cumulative Guttman scale that can be
labeled "male-stratified polygyny with autonomous cowives." This is hypothesized to be wealth-increasing polygyny. The features of this scale and their frequencies
in the standard sample are as follows:
1. Polygynous compounds (863)
21%
2. Husband has separate habitation (865)
21%
3. Wife has separate habitation (864)
27%
25%
4. Prevalent polygyny (860)
5 . Negative binomial distribution of polygyny
(876)
5 0%
6. Stratified polygyny (866)
56%
Four hypotheses link the items in this scale:
Hypothesis I . The residential autonomy of co-wives
(from one another and from the husband, with the most
elaborate form in contiguous polygynous compounds)
predicts a polygyny pattern with a negative binomial
distribution, in which the addition of each wife increases the likelihood of the acquisition of another. This
is presumably because added co-wives augment wealth,
facilitate the acquisition of other wives, and in doing so
enhance their own material well-being and the chances
of their progeny's success.
Hypothesis 2. If the first hypothesis is true, then the
negative binomial distribution of wives (indicating
greater social differentiation among polygynists) should
predict a ranking of polygynists by wealth, since ( I )additional co-wives will augment wealth and ( 2 ) there is a
biological incentive for women to increase fitness by
marriage to men who are or have the potential to be
wealthy.
Hypothesis 3 . If the above hypotheses are true, then
the residential autonomy of co-wives should also predict
higher rates of polygyny and cultural preferences for all
or most men to seek plural wives.
Hypothesis 4. If the above hypotheses are true, then
each of the variables in this complex (autonomous residence, prevalent norms and frequencies of polygyny, the
negative binomial distribution of polygyny, and wealth
stratification of polygynists) should be correlated with
higher female contribution to wealth, including subsistence.
polygyny
Residence
6 Compound
5 Husband apart
4 Wife apart
Polygyny
3Prevalentpolygyny
2 Negative binomial
I Stratified polygyny
Residence
I
2
3
4
5
6
.22
.23
.26
.53
.51
.53
.54
.53
.57
.67
.85
-
.77
-
-
.24
.14
-
.53
-
-
-
-
-
Table 3 shows correlational tests in matrix form of the
first three hypotheses. For Hypothesis I, the phi correlations between three measures of residential autonomy
and the negative binomial distribution are .53, .5 I, and
.5 3. For Hypothesis 2, the correlation between the negative binomial distribution and stratified polygyny is .14.
For Hypothesis 3, the correlations between three measures of residential autonomy and the prevalence of polygyny are .54, .5 3, and .5 7 All these correlations are
statistically significant (p < .oI).For Hypothesis 4, table
4 shows the correlation between the six items of the
scale and female contribution to subsistence. Each of the
traits in the cluster varies moderately but concomitantly
with female contribution to subsistence. We should also
expect the scale itself to be associated with relative subsistence autonomy of co-wives. The Guttman scale constructed from these items (table 5 ) is linearly related to
female contribution to subsistence (r = 26; p < .oI).
The interpretation that the items of this scale index a
wealth-increasing polygyny complex is strongly supported. In general, the pattern is more common in the
Old World, with more elaborate forms in Africa. Its most
elaborate feature is the polygynous compound, found
mostly in the African savannahs, the Sahel, and the
Ethiopian highlands but also in northeastern Africa,
4
Correlation between Scale Items in Wealth-Increasing Polygyny and Female Contribution to Subsistence
TABLE
Female Contribution
Scale Item
Stratified polygyny
Negative binomial
3 Prevalent polygyny
4 Wife apart
5 Husband apart
6 Compound
I
2
Correlation
1%
)
0-2
3
4
5
6-8
.24
.29
.29
34
43
16
I4
9
58
40
.21
12
55
30
16
I9
I4
15
64
63
42
36
30
32
89
67
54
61
38
33
.2S
.22
22
25
24
I9
Type of
Relation
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
Linear
550
1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
TABLE
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
5
Correlation between Wealth-IncreasingPolygyny Scale and Female Contribution to Subsistence
Female Contribution ( % )
Guttman Scale
0-2
3
4
5
6-8
Mean
S.D.
N
0
I
2-3
4-6
Total
among societies of the Cushitic and Chadic Afro-Asiatic actually aloof from one another, however, is still a matlanguage families and the Nubians of Chari-Nile. The ter of interpretation and may reflect a Eurocentric view
compound entails the second feature, separate habita- of African polygyny, although Whiting and Whiting
tion for the husband, which is also found in a number of (1975) show that sleeping apart is also correlated with
Oceanic societies but without polygynous compounds eating apart and husbands' not attending childbirth or
because of the presence there of men's houses. Separate helping with child care.
habitation for the husband entails the same for the wife,
The wealth-increasing polygyny complex thus indexes
the more widespread third feature of the scale. This in the addition of polygynous wives to the ranks of the
turn entails the fourth feature, a prevalent male prefer- wealthy, who take women to increase their human capience for polygyny, normally attained by older men. Such tal. These are not additional "de~endents"in the modgeneralized polygyny is also found in Australia and the ern sense, as they may add to wealth and productivity.
New World-notably in the Plains-and a few Circum- With stratification and a long tail on the distribution of
Caribbean ~ o c i e t i e sIt. ~entails the fifth feature, a direct the number of wives, co-wives gain autonomy from their
association between taking another wife and the likeli- husbands that may be augmented by the husband's havhood of taking yet another (the negative binomial distri- ing a separate habitation. Without autonomous female
bution of polygyny). The extended tail on the distribu- productivity, however, such expanding polygynous systion of number of wives (indexing social differentiation tems are im~ossibleto maintain. Where thev exist, such
among polygynists) in turn entails the sixth feature. Ap- engines of &oductivity and stratification db indekd bepropriately, this feature is stratification of polygynous come the ideal pattern sought by the majority of males,
marriages, or greater frequency of polygyny among men and women's bargaining position is strong. The African
polygynous compound is typically an industrious conof wealth, rank, nobility, or higher social class.
The higher levels of this scale indicate co-wife resi- sortium of highly productive and autonomous co-wives.
The capture of wives is strongly associated with the
dential autonomy (residential separation of husbands,
wives, and co-wives from each other). This fits Whiting wealth-increasing polygyny complex, as hypothesized
and Whiting's (1975) conceptualization of polygynous by Whiting and Whiting (1975).As a scale item, wife
husband-wife aloofness and Schneider's ( I 979) concep- capture (found in 37% of the sample) would fit between
tion of the house-property complex in which wives Items A and < of the scale. It has been excluded for two
,
colonial pacification inhibits
"conduct their own production operation, passing the reasons. ~ i r s ihistorically,
proceeds to their sons." Whether husbands and wives are warfare and wife capture, and while rates of polygyny
often fall subsequently they are often maintained, especially where conditions favor extensive coo~erativefe6. The Saramacca or "Bush Negroes" were ex-slaves who set up a male labor and males are engaged in wage laior. Second,
society in the interior of Dutch Guiana. The Goajiro show obvious
African influences, including an extensive black-market trade in the marriage of captive women has a different relation(curvilinear instead of linear] to female subsistence
the Caribbean, and are the only "Indian" cattle herders in South s h i ~
America. The Caribs were driven from 13 of the Lesser Antilles by coit;ibution than the other iteAs in the scale and the
the end of the 17th century, with bastions remaining in St. Vincent correlation between marriage of captive women and
and Dominica. The arrival of shipwrecked Negro slaves on St. Vin- rates of polygyny goes from near zero to positive with incent ca. 1675 and possibly on neighboring islands as early as 1632
(Steggerda 1g48:107] led to intermarriage with the Indians. The creasing female contribution.
intermarried population of Negroes and Island Caribs was moved
to a reservation in Dominica at the end of the 19th century (Rouse
1948:548) The 1675 focal date for the Callinago falls in the middle
of the period from 1650 to 1700 when missionaries and other observers provided the basis for the historic ethnographic description
and is well after the earliest date of 1632 suggested for the beginnings of intermarriage. See White (1986)for sources.
SORORAL POLYGYNY
Five items form a cumulative Guttman scale that can be
labeled "male-ranked polygyny with wife's kin as cowives" or more simply "sororal polygyny." The features
WHITE
Rethinking Polygyny I 5 5 I
TABLE 6
Correlation between Scale Items in Sororal Polygyny and Female Contribution to Subsistence
Female Contribution ( % )
Correlation
Scale Item
5 Husband-wives together
4 Co-wives together
- .29
-.I2
3a Shamans
3 Sororal
Hunters
I Exclusively sororal
-.II
NOTE: Frequencies
.OI
-.16
.12
0-2
93
40
15
19
[23]
2
3
4
5
6-8
86
1511
1191
33
14
0
76
35
66
23
6
16
3
3
54
33
10
1381
10
1131
o
[33]
[zo]
1161
Type of
Relation
Linear
Curvilinear
Curvilinear
Bimodal
Bimodal
Bimodal
Intercorrelation
Matrix
.28
.19
.IS
.zo
.IZ
.23
.47
.29
.26
.18
.08
.oo
.29
.40
.31
in brackets are those that do not fit a monotonic ally decreasing or increasing pattern either for rows or for columns.
support the additional wife. Traits in this cluster will be
expected not to vary positively with the percentage of
female contribution to subsistence.
Hypothesis 5 is supported by a correlation of r = .22
between the true binomial distribution for wives and
husband-wife coresidence (but gamma = .88; there are
only two exceptions to the first part of the hypothesis).
For cases in which husband and at least one wife
3a. Polygynous shamans (869)
12% coreside, Hypothesis 6 is weakly supported by correlaThe taking of second wives by shamans is an auxiliary tions (r = .I 5, .12) between co-wife coresidence and low
element in this cluster that entails co-wives' sharing a female contributions to subsistence or male-dominated
dwelling (i.e., entailing Scale Items 4-5 but not 1-3). types of subsistence (hunting, fishing, pastoralism, permanent agriculture), and Hypothesis 7 is supported by
Four hypotheses link the items in this scale:
Hypothesis 5. Where the husband must generate the the correlation (r = .28) between sororal polygyny and
wealth (indexed by the true binomial distribution of multiple wives for skilled hunters. Hypothesis 8 is
number of wives) to support one or more wives, husband strongly supported by the data (tables 6 and 7).As might
and wife (orwives) will coreside. Conversely, where hus- be expected, the features of this second scale are negaband and wife coreside, the wife is usually insufficiently tively related to those of the first.
Items of this scale support an interpretion of maleautonomous in terms of generating her own wealth to
reside independently. If so, then where husband and at dependent polygyny quite different from the resourceleast one wife are coresident, nonsororal co-wives are in defense polygyny of other species in which females have
competition either over household resources or, if in dif- independent territories within a larger male territory.
ferent households, over the division of the husband's The sororal polygyny pattern is most common among
food collectors (especially hunters) of the New World.
time among them.
Hypothesis 6. With potential competition between The most elaborate feature is exclusive "sororal" polygnonsororal co-wives (i.e.,where the husband dwells with yny, or secondary marriage to wife's kin. This feature
one or more wife), co-wives will tend to dwell apart from entails exceptional hunters' taking second wives, rarely
one another where women contribute at least as much more than two. This in turn entails at least predominant
to subsistence as men (e.g.,in gathering or shifting culti- "sorwal" polygyny, which entails that co-wives occupy
vation) and to dwell together where women contribute the same dwelling. Occupancy of the same dwelling by
less to subsistence than men (e.g., in hunting, perma- co-wives in turn entails that husband and wife or wives
nent cultivation, and pastoralism) or where polygynous share a dwelling. The sororal pattern is most frequent in
wives depend on an occupational specialization of the areas with elaborate food-collecting technologies, usually on rich resource bases, such as in Paleo-Siberia
husband such as shamanism.
Hypothesis 7. Where co-wives are in potential compe- (Gilyak-fishing), on the Northwest Coast (Kaskatition (as above) and women contribute less than men to fishing), in the northern Plains and the Southwest (Pawsubsistence and co-wives coreside, the predominant nee, Omaha, Chiricahua-buffalo and agriculture), and
form of polygyny (if any) will be sororal. This will be the occasionally in the tropical savannah of South America
case where polygynous wives depend on a male-domi- (Trumai).In these cases, social relations are dominated
by warfare/hunting/shamanic patterns and close relanated subsistence mode such as hunting.
Hypothesis 8. In the sororal polygyny complex, the tionships between wives' families and their husbands.
requirements are mostly on the husband to attract and Among the buffalo-hunting, warring, and agricultural
of this scale and their frequencies are as follows:
6%
I . Exclusively wife's kin as co-wives (862)
2. Polygynous hunters (867)
I 3%
3. Wife's kin as co-wives or sororal polygyny
(862)
28%
4. Co-wives same dwelling (863)
38%
5. Husband and wife coresident (865)
79%
552
1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
TABLE
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
7
Correlation between Sororal Polygyny Scale and Female Contribution to Subsistence
Female Contribution ( % )
Guttman Scale
0-2
3
4
5
6-8
Mean
S.D.
N
0
I
2-3
4-5
Total
Pawnee, for example, the incidence of polygyny, while
nearly exclusively sororal, reached something like 5 5%
for men and 75% for women. A good hunter/warrior
might lay claim to a family of sisters whose cooperative
activity in agriculture and hide preparation was of great
value. This case, however, illustrates a feature of this
pattern that ties it in with the first: the extremes of this
type, including those that are exclusively sororal, nearly
always entail wealth or rank stratification among polygynists. None of the extreme cases are simple hunters:
they are mostly hunter/traders, often with horses, in the
extractive peripheries of the world economy.
Thus, from intensive hunter-gatherers through the
mid-range of food producers, polygyny is again involved
in strategies of resource intensification. It is some form
of rank or stratification-skill, wealth, or position-that
connects the two variant patterns of polygyny. The differences between Old World and New may reflect different dominant types of subsistence regimes (food production vs. collection). The Old World pattern of co-wife
autonomy, bridewealth, and marriage of war captives
shows strong intersocietal flows of women and wealth
in large regions that are almost certainly long-term
ecological adaptations to savannah agriculture, the cattle complex, and other features (White and Burton 1988).
For hunters and fishers in the New World the pattern is
that of limited polygyny dependent on the exceptional
productivity of certain men; rarely do co-wives generate
substantial wealth.
The two polygyny scales are thus differentiated in
terms of both male and female roles. The basis of female
differentiation is relative autonomy in the one case and
assistance from female relatives in the other; the alternative bases of male differentiation are ascribed stratification (often hereditary and/or class-based) and/or
wealth (often generated by co-wives) as opposed to
achieved male rank (lacking the differential access to
resources typical of stratified systems).
Maps of the distributions of these features are more
informative than cross-tabulation by region (figs. I and
7
2.'
7. Maps of individual features are readily generated by the
MAPTAB program published through World Cultures.
OTHER CLUSTERS
The linking of stratification with polygyny seen in these
two complexes is also manifest in the distribution of
societies in which political leaders take multiple wives.
This pattern is found, sporadically, in West, East, North,
and South Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia,
Melanesia, Polynesia, Australia, and North and South
America. These societies also usually show stratification of polygyny by wealth, rank, or class. Polygynous
leadership also shows weak associations with other features: negative with exclusive sororal polygyny, as befits
the nonsororal nature of most political alliances, and
positive with marriage or concubinage of captives.
Extreme stratification of polygyny is not an extension
of the wealth-increasing pattern. The standard sample is
not particularly long on representation of elite groups in
premodern states or empires, where polygyny is often a
means of extending and stabilizing political alliances.
Betzig (1986),however, analyzed all 106 societies in the
sample that were de facto or politically autonomous at
the pinpoint date to test the hypothesis that despotic
groups have greater reproductive success via harem polygyny. She identified 14 "despotic" societies, defined as
societies in which "conflicts of interest among individuals are resolved with extreme bias, one individual being
immune from sanction . . . while the other may incur
severe punishment . . . for trivial offenses or no reason at
all." Of these, 8 (Ganda, Fon, Ashanti, Azande, Khmer,
Mbau Fijians, Aztec, and Inca) had a maximal harem size
in excess of 1 0 0 ~ (Bemba,
4
Kafa, Samoans, and Natchez)
a maximum of 11-99, and 2 (Lozi, Fur) an unspecified
large number. None had harems smaller than 10. The
complex of traits identified with large harems (Betzig
I 9862-3,
I 35-36) includes despotic rule (exercised
rights by the heads of societies to murder their subjects
arbitrarily and with impunity, but particularly in the
capacity of conflict resolution) and exploitative perquisites (the exploitation of positions in the jurisdictional
hierarchy in the form of bribes, fees, fines, and confiscations in connection with conflict resolutionl. There is no
correlation between this complex and eithe; of the other
two complexes above. Seven of Betzig's despotic societies (Bemba, Khmer, Mbau, Samoans, Natchez, Aztec,
w H I T E Rethinking Polygyny 1 5 5 3
F I G . I . World distribution of scale values of male-stratified polygyny with autonomous co-wives. Each code
entails that all or most of the lower-numbered features on the scale are also present. Dots of decreasing size,
polygynous compounds; husband has separate habitation; wife has separate habitation; prevalent polygyny;
negative binomial hstribution; stratified polygyny; -, none of the above.
554 1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
Inca) are associated with low levels of co-wife autonomy
or wealth-increasing polygyny (0-1 on Code 18) and 7
(Lozi, Ganda, Fon, Ashanti, Azande, Fur, Kafa) with high
levels (6 on Code 18).
Dickemann's (1979)investigation of polygyny in caste
societies shows fertility strategies that allow the highest
groups to prevent downward marriage of their women
and investment strategies of somewhat lower groups to
foster upward (hypergamous)marriages. These systems
are often associated with dowry. These societies are not
well represented in the standard sample and require separate study.
In three cases in the standard sample, polygyny is
specifically described by the ethnographer as wealthdepleting. Among Basseri pastoralists, the limited polygynous marriages of wealthy herd owners, with additional labor needs. "extend a man's fecunditv in a wav
that saps his wealth" (Barth 1961:1o7). The ~ a s k a ,
hunter-gatherers and salmon fishermen, had "no limit to
the number of wives so long as you can support them,
but of late years . . . there are very few with more than
one wife" (P. Field, MS, Ross River, Feb. 8, 1911, Peabody Museum, New Haven). Parents-in-law showed
particular possessiveness about a man renowned as a
hunter, and poor hunters were often polyandrous, needing to team up with another man (Honigmann 1954:
132-33). The agricultural Mapuche had prevalent polygyny through the mid-19th century, but polygyny declined with land scarcity, as wives required their own
garden plots. Agricultural production became insufficient to acquire bride price. The total incidence of polygyny for males is estimated at 7% for the Basseri, 2% for
the Kaska, and 6% for the Mapuche. Although it may be
a valued ideal for men in some of these cases, the incidence of polygyny is low in comparison with that in
many of the societies in the wealth-increasing complex.
The Saramacca (Price 1984) are a fascinating intermediate case in which there are elements of both
wealth-increasing and wealth-decreasing polygyny.
Throughout this century, boys have been taken by their
fathers at the age of eight or ten to work for wages on the
coast, leaving an extreme shortage of men in the villages. Girls marry early, and polygyny is very common,
although each co-wife sets up her own independent and
self-supporting household. Once divorced or widowed at
middle ages, women's opportunities for remarriage are
very constrained. Wives are significantly more dependent on men (especially for benefits of wage labor) than
the men are dependent on them. Jealousy and hostility
are rife among co-wives, although they live apart. Although only men of position and relative wealth can
afford multiple wives, a majority of the men who return
from wage labor have sufficient means to support polygynous marriages.
Reliabilities of the Codes
The assumption in Code I of a greater frequency of polygyny associated with stratification (Category 4) than
8
Relationship between Frequencies and Cultural Rules
Governing Frequency of Polygyny
TABLE
Percentage of Polygyny
Men
Cultural Rule
Monogamy
Exceptional polygyny
Limited polygyny
Class polygyny
Prevalent polygyny
Mean
Women
S.D.
0.0
4.2
7.3
15.5
43.2
Mean
S.D.
N
9.1
14.8
18.0
17.9
25
35
45
30
45
0.0
5.1
8.1
10.8
17.0
8.1
15.7
27.4
64.7
with exceptional characteristics of individual men (e.g.,
leadership, shamanism, hunting skills) is one that can be
tested empirically against the percentage frequency variables (Codes 12 and 13). Table 8 shows the mean percentage of polygyny for married men and women, respectively, in each of the five categories of the code. The
ordering of frequencies is monotonically increasing, and
the differences at each step are sufficient to justify the
distinctions. Starting with exceptional polygyny, the frequency of polygyny (either for men or women) nearly
doubles with each step in the cultural-rules code. The
code, however, is in several respects not unidimensional. Stratified and gerontocratic polygyny (Categories
4 and 5 ) are conceptually independent, and each might
best be measured by a separate scalee8Neither conceptual nor temporal or evolutionary progression from limited to stratified to prevalent polygyny is implied.
To estimate the intercoder reliability of the new polygyny codes in comparison with previous ones, four
codes were trichotomized using the following categories :
I = No polygyny
= Limited polygyny, <2o% for married males
3 = Full polygyny, 20% or greater for married males
The four codes were Code (codedby me), Murdock and
Wilson's (1972)polygyny variable (World Cultures Variable 79, coded by Wilson); Murdock's (1967) Ethnographic Atlas polygyny variable (World Cultures Variables 21 I and 212); and Whyte's (1978)polygyny variable
(World Cultures Variables 606 and 607, with Category I
defined as "monogamy preferred and multiple spouses
not allowed"). My Code I, while not strictly comparable, was also recoded as follows:
I = No polygyny (Category I )
= Exceptional, limited, or class-specific polygyny
(Categories 2-4)
3 = Prevalent polygyny (Category 5 )
In table 9 these five codes are labeled A through E. Pear8. Stratified and gerontocratic polygyny are, however, not empirically independent, in the sense that polygyny is not likely to be
gerontocratic when polygyny is practiced within a particular social
class unless that class is also endogamous or castelike.
WHITE
Rethinking Polygyny 1 5 5 5
TABLE 9
Reliabilities of Polygyny Codes
Percentage of Agreement
Code
A
B
C
A Code
B Murdock and Wilson (1972)
.88
C Ethnographic Atlas (1967)
37
97
91
.81
95
91
91
91
-
.90
.82
.79
D
E
Average
Adjusted
E
Adjusted
Average
D Whyte (1978)
E Code I
Pearson Correlation
intercode agreement for Categories I vs. and 3; lower, intercode agreement for Categories I and 2 vs. 3.
"Average" is average percentage of agreement of each code with the four others; "adjusted E" is computed by dividing the preceding E
scores by 98% and 93% (the maximum possible agreement between E and the other codes), and "adjusted average" reflects this adjustment.
NOTE: Upper percentage,
son correlations in the lower diagonal indicate the pattern of reliabilities among the three-point scales. A is
more strongly correlated with B and C than they are
with one another. E, while conceptually different, is
about equally correlated with B and C as they are with
one another. The new codes A and E appear highly reliable by all measures.
A more fine-grained indication of the reliabilities of
these codes is given in the pair of percentages above the
diagonal in table 9 for each pair of variables-the intercode agreement for Categories I vs, 2 and 3 and Categories I and 2 vs. 3. (The same definitions are used for A,
B, and C while D differs modestly in the operational
instructions for identifying monogamy [no multiple
spouses allowed].) E defines Category 3 differently, on
the basis of a generalized ideal of polygyny for all men,
usually attained with age, rather than an arbitrary 20%
cutoff for polygynously married men. The agreement between A and El differing only on this distinction, is 93%.
This is the upper,limit of the reliability of E with B, C,
and D. E also defines Categories I and differently by
ignoring polyandry, which is lumped with Category I in
the other scales. The agreement between A and E on
monogamy vs, polygyny is 98%. The Toda and Marquesans, with polyandry, are treated in Category I of A,
but with exceptional cases of polygyny they fall in Category 2 of E. The highest reliabilities are achieved by A
(90-95%), followed by E (89-95%)) then B (89-92%), C
(87-89%), and D (83-86%). The lower reliabilities of C
are probably due to minor differences in pinpointing and
those of D, coded on the pinpointed societies and dates,
to the somewhat lower ethnographic familiarity of the
coders.
The percentage of agreement on sororal versus nonsororal polygyny (Code 3) versus the Ethnographic Atlas
(World Cultures Variables 210 and 211) for 65 cases
coded in the Atlas as having full polygyny is 92% (r =
.82).
To evaluate the reliabilities of the codes for husband
and wife habitations, which are closely related empirically, six codes from three distinct sets of coders were
constructed and correlated. One set deals with whether
the husband and one or more wives reside in the same
room or the husband has a separate room or dwelling:
my Code 6, an independent coding by Barry and Paxson
(1971)) recoded from World Cultures Variable 23, and
my Code 4. A second set deals with whether the "typical" wife has a room with or separate from the husband:
Code 5, from Whiting and Whiting (1975). The third
deals with whether co-wives reside in the same or different rooms or quarters: Code 4 codes this distinction together with whether a single wife resides together or
apart from the husband. Murdock's Atlas codes this distinction where over 20% of the males are polygynous.
The reliabilities cluster as expected (table IO), with
9 I-97% agreement and correlations between .74 and .g I
for separate habitation for husband (F, G, H), separate
habitation for wives agreeing 87-92% with this cluster
(r = .70-.81), and 94% agreement (r = .88) for the two
measures of co-wife separation (J, K). These findings
show co-wife separation variables (J, K) to be poor indicators of husband or wife separation (F-I). They also suggest that the recoding in H of the co-wife separation
Code 4 is not a strong surrogate for the direct measure of
separate habitation for the husband.
Whiting and Whiting (1975:185-87) rated societies for
husband-wife habitations and noted 92% agreement
with Barry and Paxson (1971) in 76 societies rated in
both studies. Combining their scores with those of Barry
and Paxson resulted in a sample of 159. There is 97%
556 1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
TABLE I 0
Reliabilities of Wife and Husband Habitation Codes
Percentage of Agreement
Code
F Code 6
GBarryandPaxson(1971)
H Code 4 (0-4 vs. 5 and 6)
I Code 5
J Code 4 (0-2 vs. 3-6)
KAtlas (Murdock 1967)
F
G
H
I
J
K
.91
.85
.81
.54
.45
97
.74
.79
.53
.49
95
91
.70
.57
.58
93
92
87
.61
.54
75
75
75
79
.88
71
74
83
77
94
-
Pearson Correlation
agreement between the Whitings' codes and the present
ratings9
Additional correlations among selected polygyny
codes are shown in table I I. E x c e ~ for
t correlations between a composite scale and two items used to construct
9. Discrepancies between the Whiting and Whiting (1975)roomingarrangements variables and the present habitation code can also be
checked against Barry and Paxson (1971) and Atlas codes. I disagree
with both the Whitings and the Barry and Paxson codes in three
cases. First, husband and wife occupy opposite sides of the same
room in the Alorese lineage house, but separate households are
established by the Alorese for plural wives. The Whitings did not
code this case as "polygynous wives room apart," since they computed the rate of polygyny for married women as 22%. Du Bois
(1944:97), however, indicates 93 married men, 2 5 of whom have
second wives, thus a 50/118 = 42% polygyny rate for women (the
Whitings seem to have used the male polygyny rate). Thus, I code 5
as "wife rooms apart" and 6 as "husband has no room apart,"
which also differs from Barry and Paxson's coding of sleeping arrangements as "mother and father in the same room." Second, the
Whitings and Barry and Paxson code the Mundurucu in 1850 as
having separate habitations for husbands and wives, which is a
later pattern, perhaps because they missed that the men's houses at
that date were only for unmarried males. Within the longhouse, at
that time, families had partitioned quarters. Third, the Whitings
and Barry and Paxson follow Chagnon (1983) in coding the
Yanomamo as "husband and wife occupying the same dwelling,"
but Chagnon's data are not specific in this regard. Analysis of
Smole's (1976) data shows that while classificatory sororal polygyny is common, men usually build separate dwellings within the
shabono for adult second wives, although not for their secondary
"child" wives.
In six cases (Songhai, Shilluk, Gheg, Tanala, Chukchee, and
Pomo), my codes agree with the Whitings', contra Barry and
Paxson's. The Songhai are an interesting exception to the co-wife
autonomy Guttman scale in that they have low rates of polygyny
but the African compound pattern. By the definition of Code 5, I
agree with the Whitings that this does not register as separate habitations for wives. According to Whiting and Whiting et al.'s unpublished data, the Pomo and Gheg have men's houses.
In two cases (Manus and Lepcha) the Whitings appear to be
wrong and Barry and Paxson correct. Polygyny is unusual in
Manus, where a married man ceases to sleep in the men's house,
sleeping on the opposite side of the longhouse from his wife but not
in a separate room. This is a judgment call, however, since the
Manus husband keeps his distance from the wife. In a comparable
case, for the Jivaro, where husband and wife reside at opposite ends
of the longhouse (presumably at an even further "distance"), all of
the independent coders-myself, the Whitings, and Barry and Paxson-coded "wife rooms apart."
the scale, shown in brackets, the highest correlations are
above the line, among independent measures of polygyny. Within this set, the highest is between the percentage measures of polygyny. Of these, it is the percentage
of polygynous married females that correlates best with
other measures of polygyny, among them, in order of
strength of correlation, the new Codes I, z, 17, and 18
and Murdock's original Atlas code. Among the other
features of polygyny, shown below the line, stratified
polygyny shows the highest correlations with the new
Codes I and z and Murdock's Atlas code. Separate habitation for the husband shows the strongest correlations
with the negative binomial distribution and the percentage measures.
Wheeler's (1974) ratings of warfare for plunder or the
capture of women and/or slaves (World Cultures Variable 895) provide a reliability check on the present ratings of marriage of women captured through warfare.
There are only 5% exceptions to the expected entailment relationship: in societies with marriage of women
captives (50 cases), warfare for plunder will be present
(43 cases; 7 exceptions).The converse is not expected to
be true. Thus, not all societies with warfare for plunder
(77 cases) marry female war captives (43 do; 44 do not).
The phi correlation of .36 is relatively low because of
cases with plunder lacking marriage to women captives.
Finally, the reliability of temporal inferences regarding
polygyny is indicated by a correlation of r = .97 between
the pinpointing dates for each society and the dates of
the polygyny census materials (table 12).
Findings and Discussion
The purpose here has been to rethink the knowledge
base from which anthropology makes and tests its
generalizations and to reconceptualize and test various
theories about the dimensions of polygyny. At the same
time it shows the compatibility of alternative theories.
The hypotheses and results of this paper confirm, in
sharper detail, a number of things ethnographers have
long known about polygyny that have been somewhat
obscured by comparative studies using Murdock's polygyny codes.
World regions differ markedly in type of polygyny, revealing major world-historical and ecological patterns.
The notion of "macroculture" helps to conceptualize
the anthropologist's knowledge about the wider areal
distributions of cultural institutions. It is not helpful to
try to classify whole societies into culture areas on the
basis of a totality of features, as was once attempted for
material culture as a basis for museum collections. But
it is clearly of major importance to examine the differing
areal distributions of features in institutional complexes
and ascertain the relationship of these distributions to
ecology (climate, natural resources, production systems,
and other patterns), intersocietal trade and conflict systems, and processes of diffusion. The determination of
these and related regional patterns constitutes study of
macroculture.
w H I T E Rethinking Polygyny 1 5 5 7
TABLE I I
Correlations among Major Polygyny Codes
Cultural basis of polygyny
Revised Atlas-Whyte code
- Original Atlas code
I 3 % female polygyny
12 % male polygyny
I 7 Negative binomial
I 8 Autonomous co-wives scale
.88
.80
.81
.76
.65
.73
.86
.78
.72
.64
.70
7 Stratified polygyny
Captives as wives
6 Separate husband habitation
9 Leaders polygynous
.60
.47
.43
.35
.54
.46
.43
'3 5
I
2
II
.70
.65
.65
.65
.97
.76
.7I
-.69
.68
.74
-
-
-
-
.49
.41
.40
.3I
.38
.38
.S 1
.26
,35
.38
.47
.23
.38
.5 5
.I4
.52
1.751
1.691
.30
.36
.22
.4I
.35
.3I
.09
-
TABLE I 2
Decade of Polygyny Census Relative t o Pinpoint Date
Relative
Decade
Frequency
Society Number
105
5, 19, 28, 36, 139, 178
26, 41, 79
3, 34, 35, 110, I49
6, 16, 48, 137, 158, 169
11, 67, 99, 109, 150, 176
all not elsewhere listed
21, 77, 96, 97, 100, 121, 168,
174, 184
40, 43, 76, 84
95,185
151
The two major complexes revealed in the present
study and several smaller ones match very closely the
anthropological knowledge base about polygyny. Com~ a r a t i v estudies that illuminate rather than obscure regional patterns and differences clearly can play a major
role in translating anthropological knowledge bases into
a form that can be more widely utilized. Coded variables
and areal distributions offer the possibility for testing
hypotheses using statistical methods and for relating anthropological findings to those of related disciplines.
While peoples at the food-collecting level in the New
World have largely been displaced and despotic harems
leveled, the Old World pattern of wealth-increasing polygyny is still intact. That this complex in particular
should have survived is no accident, as its wealthgenerating properties at the extended-household level
have made it an economically viable production system-a point that is often lost in contemporary development planning. At the time that these societies had de
.20
facto or political autonomy, women were captured in
warfare and taken as wives because of their economic
value. With loss of autonomy and indigenous patterns of
warfare, polygyny did not disappear in those areas where
co-wives contributed to wealth. However, systems of
wealth-increasing polygyny are likely to be undermined
with the loss of new lands for expansion. Thus, this cultural pattern is important in understanding ecological
adaptations and development processes in the Third
World.
The wealth-increasing Dattern is found in its fullest
elaboration in sub-~ah&anAfrica and outliers such as
the creolized cattle-keeping Goajiro of the Caribbean.
Hypotheses about the relationships implicated in this
complex have been strongly supported: co-wife residential autonomy predicts that polygynous wives generate
wealth, that there is wealth differentiation among polygynists, that polygyny is more likely to become a preference of most men (and, by further implication, most
women). What has been least well known to date is how
warfare patterns, particularly marriage or concubinage of
female captives, and negative binomial (long-tailed)distributions of the number of wives are part of a generic
substratum from which the other features in this pattern
emerge.
The areal clustering of this polygyny complex has
rather obvious macrocultural aspects. The area includes
African settled savannah agriculture and pastoralism, or
the cattle complex. Not coincident with the Bantu language family or Bantoid phylum, it excludes the tropical
forest as well as the desert nomads, or the camel com~ l e x It
. corres~ondsto the classic bridewealth area, in
which wives flow between groups with counterflows of
cattle. Cattle typically flow from cattle-rich areas, helping to prevent overgrazing and tending to equalize
wealth differences among the most pastoral societies
while contributing to wealth stratification among the
agricultural societies, where co-wives form highly productive units (Schneider I 979, Turton I 980). Wives
flowing to cattle-rich areas assist in the pastoral division
558
1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
of labor but cannot provide the levels of productivity of
women seen in the societies in which women contribute
agricultural labor. A second major process of convection
for both women (through the marriage of captives) and
cattle, based not on exchange but on direct expropriation, operates through raiding and warfare. Reflections
of the general pattern are found in the CircumCaribbean, most fully among the Goajiro but to a lesser
extent in other societies.
The complex of wealth-increasing polygyny supports
the plausibility of functional explanations of Whiting
and Whiting (1975)and others who stress the separation
of habitations in general polygyny and its possible association with fraternal interest groups, capital goods,
male warriors, military glory, hyperaggressive males and
the child-training patterns that produce them, male initiation, the capture of wives or concubines in warfare,
and tendencies for older and wealthier males to monopolize marriage ties. The present database provides a
more concise and comprehensive set of variables for the
testing of such hypotheses, some of which has been done
by White and Burton (1988).
The second pattern, sororal polygyny, is found in
hunting societies of the Plains, the Northwest Coast
(Kaska), and the South American savannahs (and to a
lesser extent the Kalahari) in conjunction with shamanism or exceptional hunting abilities. The more generic
"predominantly sororal" pattern expands to contiguous areas in the Americas, southernmost and outlier
Oceania, and Tibeto-Burma. The ecological or macrocultural aspects of this pattern are less well understood.
However, in the nomadic societies that are typically shamanic and food collectors, it has been noted that sisters
assist one another in packing and unpacking for moves
and setting up temporary houses. The coresident pattern
is an excellent one for defensive reasons. Chiricahua cowives, for example, were coresident in time of war but
separately housed in time of peace.
While the historical-ecological aspects of polygyny are
emphasized here, it is not at all unlikely that, in further
analysis of these distributions, additional functional explanations for variation in type and rates of polygyny
may be found. Comparative research has come a long
way from the days when Murdock, justifiably wary of
problems raised by Galton of artificial inflation of correlations due to common historical origin and diffusion, declared that it was possible to use cross-cultural
methods of testing functional hypotheses only when historical effects had been culled from world samples by
careful selection of "independent" cases or when the
phenomena under study showed a great number of
widely distributed independent inventions.
Polygyny is not a single syndrome but is produced by
diverse strategies under a range of different conditions
and comprises different systems of meaning and function. Although a great diversity of specific marriage arrangements may give rise to polygyny (ability to take
second wives on the part of leaders, shamans, hunters,
nobles, wealthy menj taking a second wife because of
widow inheritance, levirate, wife capture, sororate, barrenness, bride price, male mortality, fluctuations in the
sex ratio, male labor emigration, etc.; allowing a co-wife
because of postpartum sex taboos, economic assistance
from co-wives, and so forth), the overall rates and distributions of polygyny are equally worthy of careful measurement and study. Measurements on this dimension
allow us to transcend the older comparative notion that
a practice is either present or absent to say more about
its centrality to the cultural system. They also allow for
the testing of multivariate models of contributions to
the overall polygyny rate of a variety of demographic and
cultural factors. To this end, in following Spencer's
(1980) pioneering work on a much better quantitative
database, it is remarkable that the present effort is nonetheless relatively successful in extracting from particular ethnographies estimates, although varying in precision, of the percentage of married males and married
females polygynously married and the distribution of
the numbers of wives. Ideally, these efforts may lay
the base for further investigations and a deeper understanding of the forces shaping social and cultural practice.
Reopening some of the issues in the study of human
polygyny calls attention to some unfinished business.
There remains a need to examine polygyny from a female-oriented perspective as well as the male-oriented
one that has dominated such interpretations to date. In
exploring female incentives to polygyny it will help to
have at hand comparative codes on many of its multifarious aspects, only some of which are provided here.
In reviewing the topic, and in the process of doing the
coding, a number of other variables were discovered that
might be pertinent to a more balanced view of polygyny.
Having data on many types or aspects of polygyny may
also prove advantageous in testing other hypotheses
about the different types of polygyny and determining
whether they are responsive to some of the same effects
or generate the same consequences. These multivariate
problems, in a large sample, can be explored by subjecting hypotheses to multiple tests using regional replications to try to disconfirm recurrent relationships.
The problem of representation, modeling, and testing
of complex data and hypotheses dealing with multifarious institutions such as polygyny also requires recognition of the fact that there is no sharp division between
external factors and internal strategies that shape sociocultural phenomena. In the case of polygyny this is seen
in the extent to which marriage choices reach out to
involve intersocietal linkages and transactional flows of
people and wealth (e.g., bridewealth and dowry), warfare
and capture, group fission and expansive migration
(White and Burton 1988). These flows operate in the context of larger historical systems to stratify a population
in terms of wealth, power, and reproductive strategies. A
historically sensitive representation of such phenomena
consequently often requires not only multiple theories
but multiple models and tests of multivariate hypotheses.
w H I T E Rethinking Polygyny 1 5 59
Comments
LAURA BETZIG
Evolution and Human Behavior Program, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 48x09-1070, U.S.A.
22 IV 88
This paper is part of an imperative attempt, on the part
of White and a few others, to make the comparative
record on human societies accessible to tests of general
theories about human social behavior. Though the vast
majority of such tests have been done in single societies,
the most general test of any general theory must be by
the comparative, or Darwinian (Ghiselin 1969)~
method.
The usual advantage in studying single societies is that
richer data can be gathered on the question at hand. In
this paper, in others, and in World Cultures, White is
trying to enrich the data accessible from the comparative record.
Richer data means data on historical, cultural, and
ecological forces. As White points out, any complex human phenomenon, including polygyny, is bound to be
determined by many different kinds of factors. Some of
these will sort out regionally; some will correlate evenly
across all culture areas (discussion in Dow 1987). The
big problem will be, as it may always have been, distinguishing functional from diffusionist explanations. Regional associations may indicate two things: ( I )Historical factors may have overpowered present cultural and
ecological constraints; this is the diffusionist model. ( 2 )
Similar local conditions may have favored similar local
adaptations; this is the functional model. This problem
is shared by biologists who try to determine whether
common phylogenetic constraints or common social
and ecological conditions are responsible for similarities
among close taxonomic groups (e.g., Clutton-Brock and
Harvey 1978). The models can be distinguished where
specific factors likely to have produced regional effects,
such as food extraction and consumption, are common
across the region in question.
Richer data means not just data on more causal variables but more and better definitions of variables to be
explained. As White, again, points out, complex behaviors like polygyny can be defined in many different
ways. Depending on whether the question at hand concerns, for example, its advantages and disadvantages for
women (e.g., Borgerhoff Mulder n.d.), its association
with male reproductive variance (e.g., Low 1 9 8 8 ~or) ~its
correlation with dominance (e.g., Betzig 1986), different
measures will be appropriate. White provides an unprecedented number of polygyny measures. It is likely,
though, that people interested in polygyny, or any other
variable, will have to generate codes of their own, sometimes on samples of their own. In my own study, I found
that a completely different set of factors explained
harem polygyny in politically autonomous traditional
societies and in modern societies and their colonies (Betzig 1986).I also found that none of the existing codes on
polygyny directly measured what I wanted to measurethe reproductive assets available to dominant men. Consequently, I limited my sample to politically autonomous societies and combed through the ethnographic
record myself to measure polygyny as the number of
women in dominant men's harems.
Having congratulated White on doing what I think is
the most important methodological job to be done in
anthropology-improving
the comparative record-I
want to make a small critical point about his theory.
Here and elsewhere, he has found that polygyny is more
prevalent in societies in which women have more to
offer the household economy. It is undoubtedly true that
men find women more attractive-and more affordable-when they bring wealth with them, but, as White
notes himself, it is just as true that women are attracted
to wealthy men. That under these circumstances we
find polygyny much more common than polyandry may
be explained by biology. Along with the males of the
vast majority of other species, men gain more reproductively from collecting a harem of women than women do
from collecting a harem of men (e.g., Trivers 1972).It is
exceedingly difficult to determine whether wives, or
anybody else, are net economic assets or costs. It seems
likely that men have evolved to like to collect wives but
find it easier to collect them when they pay at least part
of their own way.
MONIQUE BORGERHOFF MULDER
Evolution and Human Behavior Program, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 48x09-1070, U.S.A.
25 IV 88
White has two aims: to unravel the diverse marriage
systems that are labelled "polygynous" and to determine
the various contexts in which polygynous marriages occur. The new codes he develops are an extremely valuable contribution to anthropology, particularly insofar as
they identify aspects of polygyny that are important to
males and females, including means of recruitment, residential patterns, and links between stratification and
marriage. Recognizing that there are many different
kinds of polygyny can only improve the quality, resolution, and rigor of cross-cultural studies. Furthermore, it
is reassuring to see the problems of coding so explicitly
discussed: such practice should help to dispel some of
the widespread mistrust among anthropologists of crosscultural codes.
I question, however, White's emphasis on major regional complexes, in particular, "wealth-increasing" polygyny, most characteristic of African agriculturalists
and pastoralists, and "sororal" polygyny, common
among food collectors of the New World. Clearly such
regional complexes of clustered features exist, but what
do they tell us about the sources of behavioral diversity
or the causes of different marriage patterns? Insofar as
there are major dissimilarities within regional complexes and intriguing parallels between complexes, it
560 1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
may be more useful to focus on the socio-ecological correlates of various aspects of polygyny than on the existence of regional types. I will use the apparent oddity of
polygyny among Kenyan Kipsigis, which should fall into
the "wealth-increasing" category but does not, to illustrate the distortions that can result from trying to fit
specific cases into regional types.
Although Kipsigis women make major contributions
to maize production and animal husbandry, close ins ~ e c t i o nof data from the ~ o ~ u l a t i oI nstudied shows
&at land and cattle (whethe; i h e r i t e d or independently
acquired) are important determinants of a man's polygyny potential: ( I )marriage requires the payment of substantial bridewealth (a third of an average man's livestock holding [Borgerhoff Mulder 1988a1);( 2 )the number
of a man's wives is correlated with the number of cattle
he inherits (Borgerhoff Mulder 1988b), a quantity that is
independent of his wives' productivity; (3)wealthy men
can attract more wives (my interviews with parents revealed a preference for wealthy sons-in-law [Borgerhoff
Mulder 1988~1);and, most important, (4)very little land
has become available since Kipsigis settled as squatters
on Maasai land in the 1940s because of interethnic tensions over cultivation rights (Manners 1967). In this particular case, then, it is difficult to see how a polygynist is
likely to marry subsequent wives as a result of his current wives' productivity: cattle (for bridewealth) are acquired primarily through inheritance and raiding, and
land (required for settling a wife) is simply not available
(see Borgerhoff Mulder 1988d for further arguments). In
short, White is right to point out that the costs, and
hence incidence, of polygyny will vary between subsistence types (cf. Irons 1983) but wrong to assert (at least
without auantitative datal that wives in some societies
are a net iconomic benefit'and that this benefit accounts
for the high levels of polygyny.
More generally, I doubt whether the poor fit of the
Kipsigis with White's African complex is unusual. Comparative studies of African family life suggest that economic autonomy, conflict, and cooperation among colLeVine
wives varv markedlv, even within local regions
"
1962)~
prikarily becyuse of sex differences in the'control
of resources (Brabin 1984). White clearly recognizes this
variability, which is central to the study by Spencer
(1980) that he cites, but its significance is rather obscured by his focus on regional complexes; this is unfortunate, because carefully controlled cross-cultural comparisons within regions are often more valuable than
global contrasts (Eggan I 9 5 4).
An interesting parallel arises when we compare the
polygyny of the Mapuche, New World agriculturalists,
with that of the Kipsigis. With increasing land scarcity
in both contexts, polygyny becomes costly because each
wife demands an adequate-sized agricultural plot;
wealth-increasing polygyny is likely to be undermined
by the loss of new lands for expansion, whether in the
New or the Old World. This parallel suggests the value
of identifying the critical ecological and social factors
that constrain changes in marriage practices in all parts
of the world rather than focussing too narrowly on regional types.
Finally, I think it is important to note that although
hypergynous polygyny may not be well represented in
the standard sample, upward mobility of women must
characterize all systems in which the rich and powerful
accumulate wives.
GARRY CHICK
Department of Leisure Studies, University of Illinois a t
Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, 111. 61820, U.S.A.
19 IV 88
For some time the use of the cross-cultural comparative
method in anthropology has been declining. Although
articles using cross-cultural data and methods are occasionally published in Ethnology and the journal of the
Society for Cross-Cultural Studies, Behavior Science Research, is published occasionally, cross-cultural psychology has usurped much of the domain, and reports appear
in sociology journals from time to time as well. This
paper is part of a revitalization of cross-cultural research
in anthropology, led largely by a relatively small group
including White and several of his colleagues at Irvine.
There appear to be several reasons for anthropologists'
decreasing use of cross-cultural comparative methods.
One may be the recent paroxysm of phenomenology
and/or hermeneutics and the concomitant abandonment
of the search for cross-cultural patterns and regularities.
While the rejection of positivism is justified in social
science, what is not justified is the renunciation of techniques and data that, with care, can be utilized to good
purpose in favor of epistemological standards that have
their own problems, including the banality inherent in
relativism and the paradoxes of reflexivity.
Part of the problem may also stem from the competition among the several cross-cultural samples -(see
Levinson and Malone 1980: I 6), including the World Ethnographic Sample (Murdock I 95 7), the Ethnographic Atlas (Murdock 1967)~the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample
(Murdock and White 1969), and the Human Relations
Area Files Probability Sample (Human Relations Area
Files 1967, LagacC 1979). This competition may lead to
unnecessary duplication of effort and to the observation
by critics that sampling in cross-cultural research is
largely haphazard and samples are selected so as to support the hypotheses of researchers. As indicated by Burton and White (1987)~existing samples underrepresent
societies at the upper end of the cultural-complexity
scale, and the development of a standardized sample
would provide a valuable cumulative data base of separate studies having more than 900 variables.
The major contribution of White's paper is to recode
polygyny in a more useful and meaningful way, especially in emphasizing cultural rules that constrain the
practice rather than arbitrary categories such as the
20%-or-more polygyny code of the Ethnographic Atlas.
White's codes move toward a rapprochement with more
WHITE
Rethinking Polygyny I 561
interpretive paradigms in anthropological research while lineations and his established reputation for accuracy,
maintaining a realist conception of the world that per- the codes presented in this article are building materials
mits the comparison of cultures and provides a possible for the future. Indeed, they are likely to prove a lasting
basis for understanding and explanation. As humans, we and valuable contribution independent of the empirical
express ourselves in culture in a myriad of ways. An- and theoretical framework in which they are presented.
thropologists must attempt to give some unifying acGood thing, because, in contrast to Murdock (who alcount of this if we are to do more than just catalog the ways bowed out gracefully when his data did not support
various human ways of life.
his hypotheses), White has engaged in a series of contrivCross-cultural comparative research using standard ances which suggest that he has contributed far more
samples and variables is extremely cost-effective than building materials. The most embarrassing of these
(though not necessarily inexpensive) when compared is his contention that "sons as warriors" defend their
with comparative projects such as the Six Culture Study. mothers' (their fathers' mates') abilities to pass earned
Further, White and his colleagues, among others, have wealth to them (the warriors) and this constitutes
been developing statistical methods of ever greater wealth-increasing ' fraternal-defense polygyny, which
sophistication that effectively deal with many of the contrasts with resource-defense polygyny and matecriticisms that have traditionally been leveled at cross- defense polygyny. It is true that warriors defend commucultural research. In particular, they have dealt with nity wealth and generic mothers (and females and males
Galton's problem using spatial autocorrelation (see, e.g., of all description, including potential mates). At a groupDow et al. (19841)and approached the inference of cau- selection level this could be construed as a combination
sality through multivariate models instead of the simple of resource-defense polygyny and mate-defense polygyny
cross-tabulations of an earlier day. Of course, no meth- that is distinct from either of these forms alone. Howodological advances or improved coding schemes will ever, such a system would not lead to any kind of polygcompensate for information that is wrong in the first yny unless individual warriors converted their valor into
place, but that problem is not unique to cross-cultural individually held resources (resources they could use to
research.
obtain mates) or mates were captured directly (e.g.,
Indeed, as I have suggested, some of the research para- Chagnon 1988).Either way, when wealth-increasing fradigms from which criticism of cross-cultural compara- ternal-defense polygyny gets down to cases, what's new?
This theoretical muddle aside, White has committed a
tive research is most likely to emerge, such as the various humanistic traditions, have their own interesting serious breach of the rules of empiricism. He has done a
problems. Moreover, when a research tradition is re- cogent and admirable job of data exploration, which has
jected because of the dogma that certain matters are in- resulted in the identification of interesting clusters (asexplicable, unresolvable, or unworthy of study, the vic- sociations), but after poking and pinching these clusters
tors may feel smug about it, but somebody else is going he discusses his findings as tests of hypotheses. This is
to take the rubric and run.
like announcing a logic, after the fact, for having picked
While it may be possible to criticize some of White's a winning lottery ticket.
A less serious empirical faux pas is White's characteriinterpretations, it is clear that this new set of codes on
polygyny represents an advance over previous codes and zation of my 1982 work as "unsuccessful" on the
adds to the collection of variables available for research- grounds that Dickemann and Pospisil voted against it.
ers working with the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. Science is not a democratic process. Lf any of White's
Those who deny the virtue or the possibility of making polygyny codes could be used to partition the variables
generalizations about human societies will remain un- in my analyses so as to dissolve the reported associations
convinced, but to those who feel that the attempt is (by controlling for a factor previously obscured in a reworthwhile these codes will be welcome.
ductionistic oversimplification), I would welcome the
elucidation. As it is, White has merely parasitized an
extraordinarily robust and powerful relationship by
showing that it holds for even finer breakdowns of polygTOHN H A R T U N G
Department of Anesthesiology, State University of
yny. In fact, Dickemann's complaints resulted from a
N e w York Health Science Center at Brooklyn, 450
creative misinterpretation of my presentation of MurClarkson Ave., Box 6 , Brooklyn, N. Y. I 1203 -2098,
dock's codes (see Dickemann 1982 and Hartung 1983)~
U.S.A. 21 IV 88
and Pospisil's Bongo-Bongo argument (1982; see Hartung
1985) is best refuted by his own monograph on the
White deserves anthropology's gratitude for following in Kapauku (1963).Pospisil argued (1982:9)that "the conhis mentor's footsteps. Murdock always encouraged tention that a mother and her son would oppose her
elaboration and refinement of his cross-cultural codeshusband's spending of his fortune upon himself and prefer
a far nobler response to their inadequacies than hand- to save the resources for the son's inheritance is conwringing and niggling complaints. Of all the variables tradicted by empirical evidence from the Kapauku culcoded, none has greater potential for elucidating the ture. There a woman urges her spouse to spend money
mysteries of human evolution than polygyny. Given the on pigs and an additional wife . . . [who] is not only a
astuteness of White's typological and quantitative de- source of prestige for her husband, but primarily an im-
562 1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, ~ u g u s t - ~ c t o b e1988
r
Dortant investment in ~roduction." However, in his
Lonograph (1963: esp. 2;-28) he states that a feature of
every Kapauku inheritance is that a man's main heir is
his first wife's first son and that wealth is shared with
that son's siblings only at the heir's discretion. Given
this rule, if there is a substantial material advantage to
having additional wives, second wives are an investment
in first wives' first sons, which explains the urgings of
first wives to become co-wives. In short, Pospisil's account of the Kapauku indicates that even this variation
on the theme of resource-defense polygyny supports my
argument. (I badgered Pospisil with this in private correspondence in 1983 but received only thick descriptions
in return.)
White's unsubstantiated criticism of Borgerhoff Mulder (1985, I 987) and Betzig (1986) stems fro& the intensity of his attachment to the realization that a wife often
enhances a man's ability to advance his economic status
and thereby gain an additional wife. This is true, but it is
not a blinding insight. Ray Charles, in his musical version of the old adage "Them as has gits," says, "If you
gotta have somethin' before you can get somethin', how
you get your first is still a mystery to me." In this case it
is not so mysterious. Fortunate men get bride-price and
inherited wealth from their fathers, who got the same
from their fathers, etc. These are the men who become
polygynous. Wives beget wives as capital begets capital
as capital begets wives as wives beget capital: hence the
association between polygyny, bride-price, and inherited
wealth (Hartung I 982).
Those who pontificate against reductionism should be
sentenced to maintain an old British car. When they begin to doubt that complexity is a virtue in itself, they
should be rewarded with a German car. When they begin
to see that simplicity is, ceteris paribus, a virtue in itself,
they should be forced to rethink concepts like wealthincreasing fraternal-defense polygyny. Then they should
be allowed to read Williams's "A Defense of Reductionism in Evolutionary Biology" ( I98 5 ).
WILLIAM IRONS
Department of Anthropology, Northwestern
University, Evanston, 111. 60201, U.S.A. 22 IV 88
White is to be congratulated for an important contribution to the study of polygyny. He has convincingly demonstrated that the category "polygyny" encompasses
several distinct patterns of marriage. He has also demonstrated that we must seek both ecological and historical
explanations of the development and maintenance of
these patterns. The new codes he has given us will be an
important resource for future research on polygyny, and
his analysis of the newly coded data will be the starting
point for much future work.
I have only a few minor criticisms of the work presented in this paper. First, I suspect that close examination of the economics of marriage in a number of
the societies White identifies as practicing "wealth-
increasing" polygyny will reveal that polygyny is not
wealth-increasing but merely inexpensive. This is my
reading of Borgerhoff Mulder's (1987, 1988a) Kipsigis
data, to which White refers specifically. For a Kipsigis
man to marry he needs cattle for a bridewealth and land
that can be placed in the hands of the woman so that she
can support herself and her children. Thus contracting a
marriage is costly and easier for wealthy young men
than for poorer ones. Once established, a wife does make
a substantial economic contribution through her agricultural labor, but it is not clear to me from the available data how much of this contribution is also absorbed
by her and her children. My guess is that the geographic
Dattern White has identified is real but the distinction is
basically one between expensive and inexpensive polygyny. A situation in which wives are expensive to acquire
but inexpensive to maintain combined with late age at
first marriage for men could generate the negative bionomial distribution discovered by Spencer (1980)as easily
as a situation in which wives are wealth-increasing, It is
also worth noting that if wives are in fact initially expensive but inexpensive thereafter, there is no reason to
question Borgerhoff Mulder's view that, among the Kipsigis, male wealth is translated into multiple wives
rather than the reverse.
The concept of macroculture used by White is a valuable one that reflects a robust empirical phenomenon.
However. I think it is necessarv to make clear what a
macroculture consists of. There is considerable variation within a single society in such variables as the economic costs and benefits of marriage for a man. Within a
large region such as East Africa or all of sub-Saharan
Africa, this variation is going to be greater, and the reasons for the variation will also be variable. On the other
hand, whenever one compiles statistics on large regions
sharp contrasts emerge. Macrocultures are real, but
they are, in my view, statistical tendencies rather than
types. As such they have ecological and historical
causes, and White's analysis helps us to understand
these causes. There is danger, I think, that some anthropologists will tend to see things such as "wealthincreasing polygyny" as a relatively invariant pattern
manifest throughout sub-Saharan Africa and consider
the presence of a reified macroculture an adequate explantation of this pattern. As far as I can tell, White
would agree that macrocultures are sharply dstinct statistical patterns associated with different regions, but I
wish he had been explicit on this point.
I do not think that the presence of polyandry alongside
of polygyny is good evidence against a scarcity of potential wives as White argues using the case of the Pawnee
as a example. A shortage of potential wives is well documented for the Yanomamo (Chagnon 1979, 1983;
Melancon 1981) yet they combine occasional polyandry
with polygyny.
All of these criticisms are, in my view, minor and
should not detract from the generally high quality of the
work presented here. I am very pleased to see White's
research appear and think that it does a great deal to
improve our understanding of polygyny.
WHITE
BOBBI S. LOW
Evolution and Human Behavior Program and School of
Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Mich. 48109-1115, U.S.A. 27 IV 88
With many others, I welcome White's new codings of
variations on the theme of polygyny. It has been clear for
some time that previously existing codes are inadequate
for tackling a variety of biological and anthropological
questions. White's codes and his treatment of the patterns found in them highlight major differences between
biological (really behavioral ecological) and anthropological approaches to analyzing polygyny, and consideration of these differences may be useful. Anthropologists inay define polygyny as a social institution, but its
biological impact is great, influencing important patterns including differential investment in offspring (e.g.,
review by Trivers 1985) and physical (e.g., Alexander et
al. 1979) and behavioral (e.g., Trivers 1972, LOW1978)
sexual dimorphism.
For a biologist, the crucial aspect of polygyny is the
fact that male reproductive success varies much more
than female reproductive success (Bateman 1948, Clutton-Brock, Guinness, and Albon 1982).This asymmetry
reflects the relative intensity of sexual selection (Wade
and Arnold 1980; cf. Falconer 1981). The greater the
variance in male compared with female reproductive
success, the more intense the sexual selection. As a result, in polygynous species, the curves of return in offspring for effort expended are strikingly different for the
two sexes. Males of polygynous species must expend
much more effort to get even a single mating; additional
matings typically cost comparatively little additional effort. Females are likely to have little trouble getting matings, but each offspring imposes as much additional cost
as the first.
When return curves differ as a result of sexual selection, highly dimorphic behavior is predicted for males
and females, with the degree of difference reflecting the
differences in potential reproductive payoff and the differences in variance. Measures summarizing the percentage of marriages polygynous and maximum number
of wives are not really adequate to reflect this fact (cf.
Low 1 9 8 8 ~although
)~
they roughly reflect variance. The
actual distribution of offspring (ideally) or at least of
wives (more pragmatically) among men in a population
is necessary. This is a vital step. Much behavior, particularly behavior leading to male mortality, looks like sexual selection in operation to a biologist, but without
measures of the intensity of sexual selection-most
simply as distribution of wives among men-we can
only speculate. Data like Chagnon's (1988)and Spencer's
(1980) are all too rare.
The importance of the ecological system is as a selective pressure "filtering" the relative survival and reproduction of individuals and thus, over time, the relative
persistence, increase, and decrease of competing genetic
lineages. Nothing has more impact on this process than
the distribution of mates and age-specific fertility (cf.
Fisher I 930, Williams I 966), and any ecological or social
Rethinking Polygyny 1 563
factor that exacerbates variation in male quality or ability to compete is important (cf. Flinn and Low 1986, Low
1988b). One predicts, for example, that major biological
uncertainties such as pathogen stress may exacerbate
the impact of sexual selection, increasing the degree of
polygyny (Hamilton 1980, Hamilton and Zuk 1982, LOW
198827).As another example, men's ability to reap reproductive gain by sexual striving can be limited by institutionalized stratification. White's codes help greatly
in factoring out different issues, allowing better testing
of hypotheses.
White criticizes Murdock and others for viewing cultural practices as autonomous at the societal level, independent of larger patterns of history and ecology. Yet it
is not clear that we have come much farther with these
new variables; it seems as though White views cultural
practices as autonomous at the cultural level. In other
species, mating systems (polygyny, polyandry, monogamy) and their resource bases (resource control competition, status competition, and so on) have clear ecological
correlates. White's treatment of wealth-increasing and
sororal polygyny shows no awareness of these larger patterns. We seem to have some distance to go in integrating biological and anthropological views of polygyny.
In fact, I am unclear about the origin of a number of
White's hypotheses. If they are suggested by patterns in
the new codes, clearly the codes do not provide tests. If
they are suggestions or assertions made in the past, there
are clearly alternative and additional hypotheses, arising
from evolutionary theory, that ought to be explored. For
example, yes, one might expect different child-rearing
practices if wives occupy separate or conjugal dwellings,
and one might also predict, on the basis of very different
confidence of paternity depending on whether husband
and wives live together or apart, very different male investment patterns (e.g., in own or sister's children
[Alexander 19791). Similarly, why, in the discussion
of the advantages and disadvantages of polygyny for
women and the cooperative patterns among wives, is
there no mention of the obvious prediction that when
wives are sisters, genetic confluence of interests makes
cooperation more probable (and thus there is no surprise
when sororal co-wives occupy the same dwelling more
often than unrelated co-wives)?This is surely a very basic prediction, much more basic than the observation
that sororal polygyny is common among food collectors
in the New World. It is time to assemble hypotheses,
both true alternative hypotheses and noncompeting
ones, so that testing can proceed in an organized fashion.
Fortunately, White's new codings, if not his analysis of
their patterns, will be very helpful in this endeavor.
KEITH F. OTTERBEIN
Department of Anthropology, State University of N e w
York at Buffalo, Buffalo,N.Y. 14261, U.S.A. 10 IV 88
The central contribution of this article is the refinement
of existing and the development of new polygyny variables. This is an accomplishment long overdue. Ethno-
564 1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
graphic studies of social organization for years have described the various facets of polygyny, but the basic
marriage-system variable has had for its categories simply polyandry, monogamy, limited polygyny, and general polygyny. The richness of the ethnographic record
was not captured by a basic variable that arbitrarily used
a cutting point of 20% to distinguish between limited
and general polygyny. In the treatment of marriage in a
1977 textbook that summarized much of the crosscultural literature and set forth a series of 34 questions
for each of 32 topics, I described the desirability of distinguishing marital groups, "the social groups which are
formed when individual men and women enter into one
or more marital unions," and computing the frequency
of each type of group (1977:84, 86). Sororal polygyny, the
levirate, and the sororate were also discussed. Nevertheless, the section concluded with the above basic marriage-system variable. Thus, both ethnographic accounts
and general theoretical discussions of polygyny offered
data and analyses that would have allowed the development of a substantial number of variables of theoretical
significance, but until now no such set of refined variables has ever been developed. White has performed that
service for the profession. His codes and bibliography
will be utilized repeatedly in future cross-cultural studes.
The situation of polygyny, where despite a plethora of
data and theory there have been no well-developed variables for hypothesis testing, is not the usual case. Typically cross-cultural research stimulated ethnographers
to collect data that previously were seldom gathered. For
example, pre-1940 ethnographies seldom have rich information on child rearing and personality. Focus on these
topics began under the influence of neo-Freudian theory
in the 1930s~and the publication of the cross-cultural
study Child Training and Personality (Whiting and
Child 1953) led to further field research. Again, prior to
the late 1960s ethnographies contained few or no data on
lethal group conflicts; the publication of The Evolution
of War: A Cross-cultural Study (Otterbein 1970) was
followed by numerous ethnographic treatments of
armed combat. Divale's (1970) cross-cultural study of
infanticide, by demonstrating its widespread nature,
stimulated both further theoretical work and more thorough data collection on the topic. I hope that my recent
study of capital punishment (1986)will have the same
effect. In all of these instances the ethnographic data on
the topic were so scant at the time that comparativists
often failed to find codable data for even the simplest
variables. Today a comparativist conducting research on
child rearing, warfare, or infanticide can utilize more
refined variables thanks to the better data base generated
by the initial cross-cultural studies.
PAUL C. ROSENBLATT
Department of Family Social Science, University of
Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn. 55108, U.S.A. 28 111 88
I respect and value White's many contributions to crosscultural research, and I think this newest contribution is
important, useful, and wise. However, I worry about the
limitations of attempts to break new ground through the
analysis of old ethnographic texts. Feminist critiques of
ethnographies raise questions about the body of literature on which cross-cultural research is based, particularly research on gender-connected topics such as polygyny and male status. New developments in analyzing
the rhetoric of ethnography raise questions about the
meaning and validity of ethnographic assertions. Developments in the emics of languages and cognitive systems raise questions about the theoretical categories we
use in attempting to understand cultures. Scholars who
argue for the importance of sensitivity to history argue
for over-time data. The consistencies and patterns found
in the ethnographic literature may arise at least in part
from consistency and pattern in biased observation, interpretation, and reporting. White has enormous methdological and theoretical sophistication and knows full
well the limitations of the sources with which he must
work. I would like to have more of his thoubts on why
it seems to him safe and useful to go aheid with thk
comparative work he reports here and how he decides
whether the literature is adequate or inadequate to address a given research topic.
The new codes and the commentary and theorizing
that went into them enrich the literature on polygyny
and ~rovideresearchers with new tools with which to
stud; the embeddedness of a number of aspects of polygyny in cultural systems. The discussion of coding decisions, comparatively rare in cross-cultural reporting of
codes, is enlightening and will help all who use the
codes to understand more fully what it is they are using.
With my appetite whetted, I wish White had given us
more. Does he have a more com~leteversion of his coding notes? Perhaps cross-cultural researchers need booklength reports of the coding process in important projects like this one in order to evaluate the codes and the
research on which they are based. That would help to
clarify how given ethnographies were understood and
also what codes actually mean. I do not fully understand
all of White's codes. Ouestions
that arise for me include
.
the following:
In Code I, what is meant by "rules"? We need more
information to know what actually went into the
codes-what was done, for example, with a report of a
single occasion or an ethnographer's undocumented assertion. Category 5 seems more a behavior assessment
than a rule. And what should the reader make of the
assertion that the rules of polygyny are often contingent? Why not code the contingencies?
For Code z, are there additional words that might further differentiate Point z from Point 32
In Code 5, the "or" for both scale values makes it unclear what is being coded. Can White say more to clarify
what the coded freauencies mean?
In Code 7, can w i be sure that evaluations of wealth,
inherited rank, nobility, or social class were independent
of polygyny? If not, perhaps this code is tautological.
For Code I I, a question that arises in comparative research dealing with marriage is the extent to which the
w H I T E Rethinking Polygyny 1 5 65
rights and duties are the same for women who become
mates in the various ways. Do glosses like "wives" and
"concubines" obscure important cultural differences?
White's discussion is helpful, but I would like more
clarity.
The reliability estimates are useful, but there is an
obvious question that I would like answered. To what
extent were the new codings done in ignorance of the
older codings with which they were correlated?
In the discussion of validity, it seems to me that there
could be a tautological relationship between co-wife residential autonomy and relative subsistence autonomy of
co-wives. To what extent were the two sets of codings
based on the same sentences in the same ethnographic
sources?
I want to emphasize that I consider the paper important and worthwhile. Cross-cultural research has too often ignored the ecological and historical forces that have
influenced the matters being studied. While enriching
our understanding of the worldwide complexity of polygyny, White offers an understanding of the influence of
ecological and historical forces of polygyny, a foundation
for further understanding of those forces, and a model for
evaluating such forces in the study of any other phenomenon of interest.
wives' living apart subsequently. Nevertheless, it
seemed worth reexamining my earlier sample for comparable data on residence patterns. This proved both
time-consuming and inconclusive, and there were so
many gaps in relation to White's categories that I abandoned the search.
Of more direct relevance for my earlier exercise is the
pattern of distribution of wives among elders, which is
summarised as "N" or "T" in column 17 of table I . This
is central to White's discussion on Old World polygyny
and suggests a far wider availability of data on this topic
than I had realised. In my original analysis, "Nu (a negative binomial distribution) suggests a situation of runaway competition for wives: successful polygynists appear poised for more success. "T" (a true or positive
binomial distribution), on the other hand, suggests a
strong element of conformity, as if a handicap were imposed on successful polygynists, making it increasingly
difficult for them to obtain more wives. By no means all
sets of polygyny data conformed to one or the other type.
Where the sample was small or the average polygyny
rate low, and especially towards the "T" end of the scale,
the statistical test for significance left room for doubt.
Polygyny rates based on genealogical data which included completed marriages introduced an unsatisfactory bias into the analysis. The aggregation of elite and
commoner marriage patterns in certain societies led to a
bimodal distribution of polygyny and a divergence from
PAUL SPENCER
a negative binomial. The developing thrust of my article
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, School
was the anthropological interpretation of these deparof Oriental and African Studies, Malet St., London
tures from a negative binomial profile, and this has a
W C I E 7HP, England. 21 IV 88
bearing on the present article, which glosses over these
Some intriguing points arise from this reanalysis of Mur- refinements.
My concern here is with the accuracy of the author's
doch's HRAF sample, and had there been time I would
have liked to replicate White's findings with a similar Sub-Saharan data in table I, column 17. The HRAF
exercise based on my own sample of 50 Sub-Saharan sample and my own sample overlap in 11 cases. Of
societies, to which he refers (Spencer 1980). The two these, White and I appear to agree on 5: ( 5 ) Mbundu, ( I6)
samples are complementary, each with its strengths and Tiv, (34)Maasai, (36)Somali, and (23)Tallensi each apweaknesses. The HRAF sample can claim a greater rep- pear to have a negative binomial distribution of polygyny, implying competition for wives. However, in anaresentativeness in its global spread, but it is inconsister
lyzing Fortes's Tallensi data further, I pointed out that
in the extent to which it provides adequate data on pc
this competitive profile hardly exists among younger ellygyny. The Sub-Saharan sample (as White notes) has
stronger quantitative data base. A certain geographic;
ders but increases with age (Spencer 1980:136-37). This
clustering is evident (Spencer 1980: I 19), however, and points again to the relativity of competition, and it also
the sample is only plausibly random inasmuch as it was suggests that one should be cautious in interpreting podetermined by the arbitrariness of various authors in re- lygyny data that are not broken down by age. Of the
cording relevant data and the haphazardness of my own remaining 6 societies shared by the two samples, we
search through the literature. The following paragraphs agree that (30) Otoro is "N," but I also noted that the
indicate the extent of my assessment of this article primary data were unsatisfactory and to this extent the
within the time available.
finding could be distorted. We agree that (7) Bemba is
White's findings on polygyny in relation to patterns of "T," but I also noted that the exercise was statistically
residence are clearly worth pursuing, especially as he trivial and therefore "T" might be questionable. White
links them with the types of polygyny profile that I had identifies (26)Hausa as "N," whereas I interpreted more
explored. I would, however, note that my interpretation reliable data as "T" but again noted that the exercise was
of competition and conformity related to the context of statistically trivial. He identifies (19) Ashante and (20)
obtaining wives and explicitly denied that this reflected Mende as "N," whereas I noted a significant divergence
a distinction between "competitive" and "conformist" from "Nu in each instance. He appears to have oversocieties (Spencer 1980:139).Thus I would question the looked the (21) Wolof data, which I noted as "Nu
suggestion that any competition between elders for (Spencer 1980:146-52).
White reports "T" or "Nu profiles for a further eight
wives has a necessary bearing on the reasons for these
566 1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
tion allow us to undertake projects that would not have
been possible several decades ago.
My own strategy, because of the intricacy of the data
and methods, has been to construct a number of concatenated models (White 1974)rather than to depend on
typologies and correlations of the characteristically
Murdockian type. My general position is that systems
interpenetrate and are embedded in one another and that
we need to hold this complexity in awareness while we
attempt to identify the best model or models for capturing critical relations in a specific comparative problem.
Many of the keys to the understanding of complex systems lie not in the theory of homeostatic functionalism
but in the exploration of their embedding in other structures and systems, sometimes larger (as in the embedding of local in regional and regional in larger systems),
sometimes of one institution or activity within a larger
field, and sometimes at different systemic levels (as in
the embedding of cultural systems in different types of
environments and in human biology). Increasingly we
are relying less on typology and more on formal testing
of multiple relations, features, and variables. This movement is not only a logical progression but follows from
the necessity of looking beneath surface structure to the
intent of theory itself. The activity of coding data is of
critical importance, and I obviously feel that theories of
coding should be explicit. It is at this rudimentary and
deceptively commonsensical level that major biases and
errors can be inadvertently introduced into our research.
The nature of the coding itself may make it impossible
to test critical alternative theory or fail to identify distinctive features of different systems or strategies. I
thank the commentators for their positive comments on
the value of the extended coding process in the present
paper.
My paper deals, on the face of it, with polygyny, yet
my deeper concern among other things has been to look
for evidence not only of regional differences but more
specifically of macrocultural organization in the regional patterning of clusters of variables. More important, in focusing on subsystems in cross-cultural comparison based on the standard sample the paper marks a
break from prior approaches in the Murdockian tradition, since I agree with Sahlins (1981)on the weakness of
D O U G L A S R. W H I T E
Irvine, Calif., U.S.A. 26 v 88
that tradition with regard to the central problem of h s torical contextualization. I have argued that phenomena
The recent period in anthropology has been one of re- such as polygyny may have subsystems embedded quite
markable intellectual ferment for comparative research. differently one from the other. It is not so much, for
For one thing, the sharp dichotomy between history and example, that polygyny or other practices are culturally
science has begun to break down. My own agenda has specific or that human nature is infinitely variable as
increasingly included addressing a basic problem noted that varied histories of connection and the adaptive preslong ago by Boas (1896)-attempting to reconcile the sures imposed by specific types of contexts tend to estabconcerns of historical particularism with those of world lish the range of possibilities and shape the internal relahistorical processes and the search for more universal tions among subsystems.
regularities in human systems of adaptation. CrossIn particular area studies, many anthropologists have
cultural studies are, as Chick notes, undergoing revitali- pointed to the significance of regional variability, and
zation. Recent developments that contribute to the fer- certainly region is an important unit of analysis within a
ment occur because our cumulative literature and comparative perspective, especially if we are to build
databases, theoretical advances, increasing sophistica- upon well-supported insights in the anthropological littion in modeling and computing, and reconceptualiza- erature. I agree with Irons, Borgerhoff Mulder, and
Sub-Saharan societies in the HRAF sample. Of these,
two add new and useful sources to my original sample:
( 2 5 ) Wodabe (Hopen 1958:144)~
has a clear "N" profile
close to that of the Samburu, and ( 2 ) !Kung (Marshall
1958:144) is cited as "TI" although by my calculation
the data indicate a very similar profile to that of the
Hima, with a Poisson distribution-poised between "Nu
and "T"-but
again statistically trivial. Fitting "N" or
"T" to the remaining six samples is problematic. White
cites (9)Hadza as "T" and (13)Mbuti as "N," but the
data are statistically trivial for both samples. Such numerical data as exist for (40) Teda could be interpreted
either way, and therefore one would question that they
are necessarily "Nu as he suggests. The sources he cites
for (12) Ganda and (33) Kafa would lead one to expect
bimodal distributions because of the highly polygynous
elites rather than "N" as he suggests, but again numerical data appear to be entirely absent in both cases. The
resources of London Universitv have been unable to unearth numerical data for (6)~ ; k u .
In sum, of the 18 polygyny profiles that I have been
able to check, we appear to agree unquestionably in relation to 6 and arguably in relation to another A . We disagree over 8. T ~ leads
S
one to question the labeling of
"T" or "N" for 33 societies outside Sub-Saharan Africa,
where the data on polygyny are generally thinner. It
would be reassuring to have independent views of the
other columns of table I . If this appears to be a negative
assessment of what White has done, it should not be
taken as a criticism of what he is trying to do. The main
problem, I suggest, is the huge investment that underpins the HRAF sample. Samplewise, it has an undeniable logic, but its strengths and weaknesses in relation
to specific topics are necessarily variable. Polygyny is
one such topic, and I would place my money on a sample
that is ethnographically strong for the research topic in
question and examine the weakness of sampling bias as
a subsidiary issue.
WHITE
Spencer on the significance of variability within regions,
including sub-Saharan Africa, and the usefulness of
within- as well as across-region comparisons. The clustering of the polygynous compound pattern around the
African savannah (fig. I ) indicates not homogeneity but
the possibility that polygyny may be organized around a
systemic axis of variability in this region. With Borgerhoff Mulder, I think that detailed explanations of much
of the variation in polygyny are to be found in ecological
and organizational factors (White and Burton 1988).
Within this aspect of the more general comparative
problematic, I have suggested that the concept of the
macroculture represents a viable systems approach to
the problem. Several commentators have asked for clarification.
The concept of the macroculture is a relational or systems concept. It emerges from the work of systemsoriented theorists, and perhaps I did not make it
sufficiently clear that it expresses the idea of a system of
linked variables (Przeworski and Teune 1970) based on
identifiable patterned variability, not a typology of constant or homogeneous features. For example, I have elsewhere (White 1967) sought to identify distinctive sets of
correlations among bridewealth, lineage organization,
divorce frequency, return of bridewealth, rights over
children at termination of marriage, etc., and found major regional associations that hold in the African polygyny area but not in other areas. Consequently, I more
than agree with Borgerhoff Mulder and Irons that "macroculture" should not be equated with regional
homogeneity. I have not yet done a macrocultural analysis of polygyny. Such an analysis would involve identifying interactions between key parameters and internal
relations among system variables (White, Pesner, and
Reitz 1983, Przeworski and Teune 1970, White and Pesner 1983). Parameter values help to define membership
in or boundaries of specific subsystems. Such systems
are often localized, since networked or linked units in
social fields often come to have similar or complementary functional relations (if not localized, they may represent parallel or independent functional systems). A
localized system of this kind may constitute a macroculture in the sense of a system of local variants developed
in historical, interactive, or ecological relationshp to one
another. There is no necessary correspondence between
macroc~lltureand region-it is possible, for example,
for there to be several macrocultures in a region. Macrocultures can be given names, but this does not constitute explanation (see again Przeworski and Teune 1970).
The immediate conceptual framework of my study
seeks to unpack some key variables associated with a
possible range of polygyny complexes. Polygyny complexes are systems and as such need to be understood in
the context of a larger totality. In this regard my work
collides head-on with the shibboleths of evolutionary
biology, although there are numerous points of agreement with each of the proponents of this perspective.
(For a critique of the extreme adaptationist or sociobiological view of evolutionary biology, see Lewontin
1978, 1979.)
Rethinking Polygyny 1 567
I have no quarrel with some applications of evolutionary biology to the polygyny problem, such as ( I ) that
males have greater variance in reproductive success than
females (Darwin 1859, 1871)~( 2 ) that wealth is often
decisive in securing mates in polygynous societies, (3)
that the reproductive-success value of transferable
wealth in polygynous societies is probably maximized
by leaving it to male offspring (Hartung 1976, 1977,
1982), and (4) that bridewealth is an alternative way of
transferring wealth so as to increase one's offspring's reproductive success in polygynous societies. Low's discussions of polygyny from the biological perspective (see
also Low 1988b) are also very useful and a model of
clarity, even if I disagree on some details. But some key
insights are missing.
I use the term "wealth-increasing polygyny" to raise
the central problem with the concept of resource-defense polygyny. Hartung, who has done some excellent
studies on polygyny, misunderstands key aspects of my
arguments and manages to obscure the best points of his
own. To clarify: in wealth-increasing polygyny, what is
likely to make a male more polygynous and more reproductively successful is not that some males produce
more wealth than other males or than females or that
they defend their wealth individually against all comers
but that some males, in addition to their own productivity, acquire more wealth through ( I ) inheritance (e.g.,
Hartung 1982)~( 2 ) productivity of wives and father's
wives, and (3)bridewealth stemming from sisters' or female relatives' marriages. There is an element of control
here, but extensive control of resources also devolves on
women, as men typically divide acquired wealth among
their wives (and ultimately their sons). Sons defend the
father's wealth because it devolves both onto their own
mothers as producers and onto themselves through inheritance and/or bridewealth paid for their wives.
Women also retain control over much of what they produce. Hartung's reading misses the tendency in the precolonial period for the activity of warriors in these societies to include-not surprisingly, given their likely
shortage of wives-extensive taking of female captives
as wives, thus providing direct reproductive benefits.
The logic of this system of circular effects, including
exchange, pooling, and redistribution, is moderately
complex in comparison with the case of a single male
bird that by defending a richer territory acquires a disproportionate share of mates (an example of resourcedefense polygyny).
Hartung's objections notwithstanding, I see nothing
inaccurate, even according to other sociobiologists, in
my rejection of his 1982 arguments for human polygyny
as resource defense. It is surprising to find him deriding
the notion of circular or self-reinforcing systems while
at the same time intimating that the entire systems argument is already contained in his 1982 article, which it
is not. Even more surprising is the nature of his objection to the possibility of replication of his correlation
between polygyny and patrilineal inheritance with a
new polygyny measure. Yet I agree with the thrust of his
1982 arguments predicting this correlation.
568
1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volme 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
As Betzig notes, "it is exceedingly difficult to determine whether wives, or anybody else, are net economic
assets or costs." It follows from my presentation of the
codes, in which I noted the difficulty of drawing direct
measures from ethnographies of economic costs and
benefits of polygyny, that I agree with Irons and Borgerhoff Mulder that my scale for male-stratified polygyny with autonomous co-wives (Code 18)predicts some
conditions under which wives might be net economic
assets but does not unequivocally identify them. A systems-oriented examination of the ethnographies would
be required for this assessment, and this has not yet been
done. Nonetheless, just as Caldwell (1976) changed the
theoretical debate over demographic-transition theory
by introducing the theory of wealth flows, it may be
important for us to change the terms of the debate over
polygyny even if the ethnography on the standard sample may not resolve all of the issues.
The evidence presented here supports the assumption
that polygyny in which co-wives play a major role in the
production and exchange of wealth is dissimilar in some
basic critical features from either resource-defense or
harem-defense polygyny (see also Borgerhoff Mulder
1988d).Hartung (1982:11),in reply to critiques of his use
of the comparative ethological label of resource-defense
polygyny for the human case, stated, "the respondents
. . . have caused me to agree with Scott [p. IO] that a new
phrase or term should have been coined rather than overextending 'resource-defense polygyny1-which has generated more confusion than clarity, even to the point of
obscuring the central hypothesis." Although I have offered contrastive type characterizations of polygyny, it
will obviously be more useful eventually to recast all of
these type distinctions in terms of dimensions such as
resource control and defense (asfor components of reproductive effort, see Kurland and Gaulin 1984).
Borgerhoff Mulder is quite right to note the difference
between cases in which wives are a net economic benefit
and cases in which wives' productivity (as with their
contribution to Kipsigis maize production and animal
husbandry) makes them less costly but men must accumulate the additional wealth needed to sustain polygyny. There are a number of pastoral societies in the present sample (e.g., Wodaabe, Basseri) in which wives are
more or less costly although they still make important
economic contributions. But, for the Kipsigis example,
with bridewealth as high as a third of an average man's
holdings and with a man's lineage acquiring bridewealth
through the marriage of his female relatives, the mediation of wealth through women may still be an important
part of the complex by which men acquire wives.
Borgerhoff Mulder has shown a number of links that
condition the relationships between wealth and polygyny, not the least of which is the availability of land (see
also White and Burton 1988). There are many demonstrations to this effect in her work and in reports on
other societies. She has not as yet demonstrated, however, that it is the male component of wealth rather than
the component mediated by females (ultimately deriving from their labor productivity and passed on
from the father's to the son's generation through
bridewealth, with female relatives playing a mediating
role in attracting bridewealth) that causes some men to
acquire more wives and reproductive success. To establish the causal argument, she must test or control for the
rival hypothesis (in reply to my questioning on this
point [White 19881, Borgerhoff Mulder [1988d] has provided evidence that is convincing in this regard on a
number of points). To do so properly, one needs to look
at the series of wealth exchanges processually as they
affect different parties in different ways over time
(Borgerhoff Mulder's more recent arguments still do not
make clear whether bridewealth receipts for daughters
and cattle stocks held bv women are not used to helu
finance their sons' marriages). I do agree that the ~ i i sigis, certainly at the present time with land scarcity, are
not a type case of wealth-increasing polygyny.
The type cases of wealth-increasing polygyny in subSaharan Africa are likely to be found where women's
contribution is dominant through agriculture and the
domestic economy and often in trade and marketing,
even though it may not be recognized as equal to men's
in terms of formal economic institutions. Blumberg
(1979; 1981a, b; 1984)has documented the vast extent of
bias in underreporting women's labor contributions and
examined the implications of the facts that women contribute the bulk of locally consumed food crops in Africa, that separate accounts and expenditures are typical
of African polygynous households, and that women's expenditures are devoted to a much greater extent than
men's to the well-being of their children and familiesincluding their husbanchs.
By applying Darwinian theory to polygyny without
reckoning properly the couplings of human behaviors to
exchange, pooling, and redistribution systems (in which
women as well as men control resources), sociobiologists omit the crucial point that women (as co-wives,
sisters, mothers, lineage members, etc.) may mediate
both the wealth and (through wealth) the reproductive
success of their sons (and themselves) through a system
of exchanges. The complexity and circular linkages of
the wealth-increasing system of polygyny, as opposed to
the simple formula "males control and defend (wealth,
resources, territory, etc.) and the more successful attract
more mates and are reuroductivelv more successful." is
one of its key definingieatures. ~ h u sI,have argued ;hat
it is useful to examine polygyny as a "complex" or system of interrelated variables and interactions rather than
as a simple set of attributes. Also, rather than present
composite scales to show the elaboration of these complexes and their regional clustering (as in figs. I and 2),
the hypotheses I offered attempted to explore some of
the relationships among the elements in these complexes.
A primatologist's expression of my view that polygyny
and related reproductive strategies must be analyzed
from a female as well as a male viewpoint and a critique
of the male-dominated biases of various extreme Darwinian positions are found in Fedigan (1982:269-85,
300-306). While the sociobiological approach can poten-
WHITE
Rethinking Polygyny I 569
tially add new dimensions and explanations to a com- on the "T" coding (although statistically trivial) on two
parative perspective, such approaches need to take care- cases (7, 9).Both of us fit (19)Ashanti and (20)Mende to
fully into account the complex cultural and social "N," although I did not attempt to compute discrepanfactors that organize, distinguish, and differentiate sub- cies in fit. The two cases (12, 33) of bimodal distributypes of systems and their characteristic relations and tions with highly polygynous elites (Ganda and Kafa) fit
transactional processes. It is not sufficient for evolution- within my use of "N," since I did not compute disary biologists simply to amend their arguments, for ex- crepancies. He fit ( 2 ) !Kung to the Poisson (intermediate)
ample, by regarding multiple wives as "expensive" or distribution, which I treated as "T," so our disagreement
"inexpensive" for a man to acquire or keep-the re- there is not serious. His data on (21) Wolof and (26)
sponse of Betzig and Irons. This insufficient mod- Hausa are from different sources and pinpointed groups;
ification clings to a definition of the advantages of I did not code the Wolof and got a different result for my
polygyny solely from a male viewpoint and ignores the Hausa sample.
critical role of female mediations. Even if women do
Random errors such as those just mentioned usually
produce extensive wealth in some polygynous systems, act to lower correlations. In a valid model, correction of
more to the point would be to ask, as did Hartung (1982)~ random errors ought to raise correlations. Indeed, the
whether it is not to the women's reproductive advan- corrections above did reduce the Guttman-scale errors,
tages to pass their wealth through their sons. Wealth increase the contrast between regions, and increase supthus transmitted increases the sons' reproductive advan- port for Hypotheses I and 3 (the former correlations
tage through acquiring multiple wives and thereby their were .38, .41, and .52 for one and .26, .so, and .58 for the
mothers' reproductive advantage as well. Bridewealth other). Support for Hypothesis 2, however, decreased
may have a similar function from the sisters' point of from . z to
~ .14. It would appear that this is because the
view of increasing the brothers' reproductive success in negative binomial distribution (when correctly compolygynous societies; bridewealth brought into a lineage puted) includes the "Nambicuara" phenomenon (e.g.,
through the marriage of the sister may be used to finance Mbuti, Tehuelche) of a single polygynist with three or
her brother's acquisition of an additional wife.
more wives.
The comments of Spencer, Low, Betzig, and others are
Chick may be correct that those new to cross-cultural
extremely valuable both for integrating debates on the research are often confused by the alternative postopic and for refinement of the particular study. I also sibilities for sampling, but the current sample has bethank Otterbein; Rosenblatt, and Chick for very useful come the standard for the majority of the cross-cultural
comments on cross-cultural methods and substantive data published in the last two decades. The Murdock and
problems. Some points need technical clarification.
White standard sample was not originally a sample of
In response to Rosenblatt, there was little if any societies in the Human Relations Area Files, but the
tautological relationship or semantic confusion between percentage of HRAF coverage of materials relevant to
the codes on stratification (Code 7) and polygyny or be- this sample has increased in this period from about 70%
tween those on co-wife residential and subsistence au- to 85%. Ethnographers are welcome to send me materitonomy. The codings for these pairs of variables were als on well-described ethnographic cases to assist in the
almost entirely based on different statements and evi- compilation of a bibliographic listing of the larger unidence. My comments above and details of the text verse of cases from which revised and additional samples
should be consulted to clarify most of Rosenblatt's other might be drawn.
questions.
A more general conclusion of the polygyny study reSpencer pointed out that I had miscollated the polyg- lates to Ember's critique in these pages of the work of
yny distribution (Code zo) for (13) Mbuti (Tumbull Guyer. According to Ember (1988:261),
1965:table 4), and indeed I had miscounted one polygynGuyer seems to rejoice in some cross-culturalists'
ist as having two rather than three wives. This also
having found regional differences, as if that somehow
changed the binomial distribution (Code 17)from "T" to
brought comparativists and particularists closer to"N." In the interests of accuracy, both of these changes
gether. I don't think that this is so. . . . the finding of
have been made in proofs. His critique also helped me to
regional differences may simply be a temporary state
locate an error in the algorithm that I had used to fit the
of affairs, researchers having so far failed to find an
polygyny distributions to the negative (N)or the true (T)
important contingent factor that is more frequent in
binomial. Fortunately, I had taken pains to include the
one region than in another.
raw distributions (Codezo),and recomputations (involving computing a variance, mean, and checking whether Ember seems not to allow for the possibility that systheir ratio exceeds I ) altered Code 17 for some societies tems and subsystems might be nested and that a systems
and some scale values for Code 18. Again, these correc- approach might provide a valid means for linking histortions have been made in table I, and I am indebted to ical, regional, and worldwide comparative theory. Yet,
him for his careful observations. On the binomial codes decades of documentation in the anthropological literafor sub-Saharan Africa, Spencer and I are in agreement ture support the basic axiom of important regional difon the "N" coding for eight cases (5, 13, 16, 23, 25, 30, ferences that are more than differences in trait frequen34, and 36), some of which are statistically trivial. We cies. The fact that at some levels of integration there are
also agree on indeterminate data for two cases (8, 35) and also profound and more general processes occurring does
a
570 1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
not negate the importance of modeling and explaining
regional or macrocultural differences. At the very least
this is a research question close to the heart of anthropological theory.
References Cited
A L E X A N D ER.
R ,D . 1979. Darwinism and human affairs. Seattle:
University of Washington Press. [BSL]
ALEXANDER, R. D., J. L. HOOGLAND, R. D . HOWARD, K. M.
N O O N A NA,N D P. W. S H E R M A N1979.
.
"Sexual dimorphism
and breeding systems in pinnipeds, ungulates, primates, and humans," in Evolutionary biology and human social behavior.
Edited by N. A. Chagnon and W. Irons. North Scituate: Duxbury Press. [BSL]
B A R R YH, E R B E R T
111,
, A N D L E N O R A P A X S O N . 1971. Mancy and
early childhood: Cross-cultural codes 2. Ethnology 10:466-508.
BARRY, HERBERT, 111, L. JOSEPHSON, E. LAUER, A N D C. M A R S H A L L . 1976. Traits inculcated in childhood: Cross-cultural
codes 5 . Ethnology 15 :83-114.
B A R T HF, R E D R I K1961.
.
Nomads of South Persia. Boston.
B A T E M A NA.
, J. I 948. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredi t y 2249-68. [BSL]
B E T Z I GL, A U R A L. 1986. Despotism and differential reproduction: A Darwinian view. Hawthorne, N.Y.: Aldine.
BLUMBERG
R A, E L . 1979. Rural women in development: Veil of
invisibility, world of work. International Iournal of Intercultural Relations 3:447-72.
, 1981a. "Females, farming, and food: Rural development
and women's participation in agricultural production systems,"
in Invisible farmers: Women and the crisis of agriculture.
Edited by Barbara Lewis, pp. 24-100. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
. I 98 I b. "Rural women in development," in Women and
world change: Equity issues i n development. Edited by Naomi
Black and Ann B. Cottrell, pp. 32-56. Beverly Hills: Sage.
. 1984. "A general theory of gender stratification," in
Sociological theory. Edited by Randall Collins, pp. 23-191. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
BOAS,F R A N Z1896.
.
"The limitations of the comparative method
in anthropology," in Race, language, and culture, pp. 271-304.
New York: Macmillan.
B O R G E R H O F F M U L D ER, M. 1985. Polygyny threshold: Application to a Kipsigis case study. National Geographic Research
21:33-37.
. 1987. On cultural and reproductive success: Kipsigis evidence. American Anthropologist 89:617-34.
. 1988a. "Kipsigis bridewealth payments," in Human reproductive behavior: A Darwinian perspective. Edited by L. L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, and P. W. Turke, pp. 65-82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [MB,WI]
. 1988b. "Reproductive consequences of sex-biased inheritance," in Comparative socioecology of mammals and man.
Edited by V. Standen and R. Foley. Oxford: Blackwell. In press.
[MBI
. 1988c. "The relevance of the polygyny threshold model to
humans," in Matingpatterns. Edited by C. G. N. Mascie-Taylor
and A. J. Boyce. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In
press. [MB]
. 1988d. Polygyny and the extent of women's contributions
to subsistence. American Anthropologist. In press. [MB]
. n.d. Marital status and reproductive performance in f i p sigis women: A reevaluation of the polygamy-fertility hypothesis. MS. [LB]
B O S E R U PE,S T E R . 1970 Woman's role i n economic development.
New York: St. Martin's Press.
B R A B I NL.
, 1984. Polygyny: An indicator of nutritional stress in
African agricultural societies? Africa 54:3 1-45. [MB]
BRADLEY
CA
, N D I C E . 1987. Women, children, and work. Ph.
diss., University of California, Irvine, Calif.
B U R T O NM, I C H A E L L. A N D D O U G L A S R. WHITE.1984. Sexual
division of labor in agiiculture. American Anthropologist
86:568-83.
. 1987. Cross-cultural surveys today. Annual Review of Anthropology I 6: 143-60. [GC]
C A L D W E LJLO, H N C. 1976. Toward a restatement of demographic
transition theory. Population and Development Review
2:321-66.
C H A G N O NN,. A. 1979. "Mate competition, favoring close kin,
and village fissioning among the Yanomamo Indians," in Evolutionary biology and human social behavior: A n anthropological perspective. Edited N. A. Chagnon and W. Irons. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press. [WI]
. 1983. 3d edition. Yanomamo: The fierce people. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
. 1988. Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal
population. Science 239:985-92. [JH]
C L I F F O R DJ A
, M E S1986.
.
"Introduction: Partial truths," in Writing culture. Edited by James Clifford and George E. Marcus.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
CLUTTON-BROCK, T . H., F . E. GUINNESS, A N D S. D. A L B O N .
1982. Red deer: The ecology of two sexes. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press. [BSL]
C L U T T O N - B R O C K . T. A N D P. H. H A R V E Y 1078. "Primateecolow
and social organization," in Readings i n sGiobiology. Edited
T. H. Clutton-Brock and P. H. Harvey. San Francisco: Freeman.
b;;
[LBI
DICKEMANN
M ,I L D R E D . 1979 The ecology of mating systems in
hypergynous dowry societies. Social Science Information
181163-95.
. 1981. "Paternal confidence and dowry competition: A
biocultural analysis of purdah," in Natural selection and social
behavior. Edited by Richard D. Alexander and Donald W.
Tinkle, pp. 417-38. New York: Chiron Press.
. 1982. Comment on: Polygyny and inheritance of wealth,
by john Hartung. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 23:8-9.
DIVALE,
W I L L I A M T. 1970. An explanation for primitive warfare:
Population control and the significance of primitive sex ratios.
The N e w Scholar 2:173-92 [KFO]
D O R J A H NV ,E R N O N R. 1959. "The factor of polygyny,"in Continuity and change i n African cultures. Edited by William R.
Bascom and Melville j. Herskovits, pp. 87-112. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
D O W ,M. 1987. Subsample replication in cross-cultural surveys.
American Anthropologist 89: 125-3 3. [LB]
DOW, M A L C O L M M., M I C H A E L L. BURTON, D O U G L A S R.
.
Galton's problem as netWHITE,A N D K A R L P. R E I T Z1984.
work autocorrelation. American Ethnologist I 1:754-70. [GC]
D R I V E RH, A R O L D E . 1956. A n integration of functional, evolutionary, and historical theory b y means of correlations. Indiana
University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics
Memoir 12.
D R I V E RH, A R O L D E., A N D W I L L I A M C. M A S S E Y . 1957 Comparative studies of North American Indians. Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society 47(2):165-45 6.
E G G A N , F. 1954. Social anthropology and the method of controlled comparison. American Anthropologist 56:743-63. [MB]
E M B E RM
, E L V I N1974.
.
Warfare, sex ratio, and polygyny. Ethnology 13:197-206.
. 1984. Alternative predictors of polygyny. Behavior Science
Research 19: 1-23.
E M B E RC, A R O L R. 1988. Comment on: The multiplication of
labor, by Jane I. Guyer. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 29:261.
FALCONER
D., S. 1981. 2d edition, Introduction to quantitative
genetics. London and New York: Longman. [BSL]
F A R O NL,O U I S . 1961. Mapuche social structure. Illinois Studies
in Anthropology I .
F E D I G A NL,I N D A M. 1982. Primateparadigms. Montreal: Eden
Press.
S H E RR.
, A. 1930. Thegenetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon. [BSL]
F L I N NM.
, v., A N D B O B B I S. L O W .1986. "Resourcesdistribution,
social competition, and mating systems in human societies," in
WHITE
Ecological aspects of social evolution. Edited by R. W. Wrangham and D. I. Rubenstein, pp. 217-43 Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
G H I S E L I NM.
, T . 1969 The triumph of the Darwinian method.
Berkeley: University of California Press. [LB]
GRAY,J . P A T R I C K . 1985. Primate sociobiology. New Haven:
HRAF Press.
G R A YR, O B E R T F. 1964 "Introduction," in The family estatein
Africa. Edited by R. F. Gray and P. H. Gulliver. Boston: Boston
University Press.
G R A YR, O B E R T F., A N D P. H. G U L L I V EEditors.
R.
1964. Thefamily estate in Africa. Boston: Boston University Press.
G U Y ER,J A N E I. 1988. The multiplication of labor: Historical
methods in the study of gender and agricultural change in mode m Africa. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 29:247-72.
H A M I L T O NW.
, D. 1980. Sex versus non-sex versus parasite.
Oikos 35:282-go. [BSL]
H A M I L T O NW.
, D., A N D M. Z U K .1982. Heritable true fitness and
bright birds: A role for parasites? Science 218:384-87. [BSL]
H A R T U N GJ,O H N .1982. Polygyny and inheritance of wealth.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 23: 1-1 I.
. 1983. In defense of Murdock: A reply to Dickemann. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 24: 125-26. [JH]
-.
1985. Matrilineal inheritance: New theory and analysis.
The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8:661-88. [JH]
H I L G E RI,N E S .1957. The Araucanian childlife a n d i t s cultural
background. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections I 33.
HONIGMANN
J. , J . 1954. The Kaska Indians. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology 5 I .
H U M A N R E L A T I O N S A R E A F I L E S1967.
.
The HRAF quality control sample universe. Behavior Science Notes z:81-88. [GC]
I R O N SW.
, 1983. "Human reproductive strategies," in Social behavior of female vertebrates. Edited by S. K. Wasser, pp. 169213. New York: Academic Press. [MB]
J O R G E N S E JNO,S E P H J. 1974. Comparative s t u h e s by Harold E.
Driver and essays in his honor. New Haven: HRAF Press.
. 1980. Western North American Indians. San Francisco:
Freeman.
KURLAND
J E, F F R E Y A., A N D S T E V E N J . C. G A U L I N1984.
.
"The
evolution of male parental investment: Effects of genetic relatedness and feeding ecology on the allocation of reproductive
effort," in Primate paternalism. Edited by David M. Taub, pp.
259-308. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
L A G A C ER,O B E R T 0. 1979. The HRAF probability sample: Retrospect and prospect. Behavior Science Research IQII-29. [GC]
L E VINE,R. 1962. Witchcraft and co-wife proximity in southweste m Kenya. Ethnology 1:39-45. [MB]
LEVINSON
DAVID,
,
A N D M A R T I N J . M A L O N E . 1980. Toward explaining human culture. New Haven: HRAF Press. [GC]
L E W O N T I NR., C. 1978. Adaptation. Scientific American
239:212-30.
. 1979 Sociobiology as an adaptationist program. Behavior
Science 24:s-14.
L O W ,B O B B I S . 1978. Environmental uncertainty and the parental
strategies of marsupials and placentals. American Naturalist
112:197-213. [BSL]
.1988a. Measures of polygyny in humans. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 29:189-94. [BSL]
. 1988b. "Pathogen stress and polygyny in humans," in Human reproductive behavior: A Darwinian perspective. Edited
by L. L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, and P. S. Turke, pp. 11527. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
L U M H O L T ZC ,A R L . 1902. Unknown ~Mexico.2 vols. London.
M A N N E R SR,. A. 1967 "The Kipsigis of Kenya: Cultural change in
a 'model' East,African tribe," in Contemporary change in traditional societies, vol. I, Introduction and African tribes. Edited
by J. Steward, pp. 207-359 Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
[MBI
MELANCON
T., 1981. Marriage and reproduction among the
Yanomamo Indians of Venezuela. Ph.D. diss., Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pa. [WI]
M U R D O C KG,E O R G E P. 1934. Our primitive contemporaries.
New York: Macmillan.
Rethinking Polygyny I 571
. 1949. Social structure. New York: Macmillan.
1959. Africa. New York: Macmillan.
-.
. 1957. World ethnographic sample. American Anthropologist 59:664-87.
. I 962. Ethnographic atlas (1st installment). Ethnology
1:III-ld.
:196~.Ethnographic atlas. Ethnology 9:122-225.
. 1980. Theories of illness. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
-.
1981. Atlas of world cultures. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
MURDOCK, G E O R G E P., A N D D I A N A 0 . M O R R O W . 1970. Subsistence economy and supportive practices. Ethnology 9:30230.
MURDOCK, G E O R G E P., A N D D O U G L A S R. WHITE. 1969 Standard cross-cultural sample. Ethnology 8:329-69.
M U R D O C KG ,E O R G E P., A N D S U Z A N N E F. W I L S O N1972.
.
Settlement patterns and community organization: Cross-cultural
codes 3. Ethnology I 1:254-95.
o G B U ,J O H N 1978.
.
African bridewealth and women's status.
American Ethnologist 5:241-62.
OTTERBEIN
KE
, I T H F. 1970 The evolution of war: A cross-cultural study. New Haven: HRAF Press. [KFO]
. 1977. zd edition. Comparative cultural analysis: An introduction to anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston. [KFO]
. 1986. The ultimate coercive sanction: A cross-cultural
study of capital punishment. New Haven: HRAF Press. [KFO]
PATTERSON
OR
, L A N D O . 1982. Slavery and social death: A comparative study. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
P O S P I S I LL,E O P O L D . 1963. The Kapauku Papuans of West New
Guinea. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
. 1982. Comment on: Polygyny and inheritance of wealth,
by John Hartung. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 23:9-10.
P R I C E S.
, 1984. Co-wives and calabashes. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
R O U S EI,R V I N G1948.
.
"The Arawak," in Handbook of South
American Indians, vol. 4. Edited by Julian H. Steward. Bureau
of American Ethnology Bulletin 143(4).
S A H L I N SM, A R S H A L L . 1981. Culture andpractical reason.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
SCHNEIDER
HA
, R O L D K. 1979. Livestock andinequality in East
Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
S C O T TE, U G E N I E C. 1982. Comment on: Polygyny andinheritance of wealth, by John Hartung. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
23:10.
S M O L EW, I L L I A M J. 1976. The Yamoama Indians: A culturalgeography. Austin: University of Texas Press.
SPENCER
S I,R H E R B E R T . 1876. Principles of sociology. Vol. I .
London: Appleton.
SPENCER
P ,A U L1980.
.
"Polygyny as a measure of social differentiation in Africa," in Numerical techniques in social anthropology. Edited by J. Clyde Mitchell. Philadelphia: Institute
for the Study of Human Issues.
S T E G G E R DM
A ,O R R I S1948.
.
"Mestizos of South America," in
Handbook of South American Indians, vol. 6. Edited by Julian
H. Steward. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143(6).
T R I V E R SR,O B E R T . 1972. "Parental investment and sexual selection," in Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971.
Edited by B. Campbell. Chicago: Aldine. [LB,BSL]
, 1985. Social evolution. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings.
[BSLI
T U R K EP,. w., A N D L . L . B E T Z I G1985
.
Those who can do:
Wealth, status, and reproductive success on Ifaluk. Ethology
and Sociobiology 6:79-86.
T U R T O ND, A V I D . 1980. "The economics of Mursi bridewealth: A
comparative perspective," in The meaning of marriage payments. Edited by John L. Comaroff, pp. 67-92. London: Academic Press.
T Y L O RS,I R E D W A R D B . 1889. On a method of investigating the
development of institutions applied to the laws of marriage and
descent. Iournal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
18:245-69.
572
1
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 29, Number 4, August-October 1988
WHITE, D O U G L A S R., A N D H. G I L M A N M C C A N N . 1988. "Cites
BERGHE, P I E R R E L. 1979. Human family Systems: An
and fights: Material entailment of the eighteenth-century chemevolutionary view. New York: Elsevier.
ical revolution," in Social structures: A network approach.
W A D EM.
, J., A N D S. J. A R N O L D1980.
.
The intensity of sexual
Edited by Barry Wellman and Steven Berkowitz. Cambridge:
selection in relation to male sexual behavior, female choice, and
Cambridge University Press.
sperm precedence. Animal Behavior 28:446-61. [BSL]
D O U G L A S R. A N D R O B E R T P E S N E R . 1983. IntemalrepliWHEELER, V A L E R I E . 1974. Drums and guns: A C ~ O S S - C U ~ ~ U ~ ~ WHITE,
~
cation and the systems concept in non-experimental research.
study of the nature of war. Ph.D. diss., University of Oregon,
Behavior Science Research 18:26-44.
Eugene, Ore.
W H I T ED, O U G L A S R. 1967. Concomitant variation in kinship sys- WHITE, D O U G L A S R., R O B E R T PESNER, A N D K A R L R E I T Z . 1983.
An exact significance test for three-way interaction. Behavior
tems. M. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of
Science Research 18:1o3-22.
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.
W H I T I N GJ,O H N W. M., A N D I R V I N G C H I L D . 1953. Child train. 1974. "Mathematical anthropology," in Handbook of soing and personality: A cross-cultural study. New Haven: Yale
cial and cultural anthropology. Edited by J .J. Honigmann, pp.
University Press. [KFO]
369-446. Chicago: Rand McNally.
W H I T I N GJ,O H N W. M., A N D R O Y G. D ' A N D R A D E . 1959. A
. 1975. Process, statistics, and anthropological theory: An
cross-cultural study of residence from infancy through marriage.
appreciation of Harold E. Driver. Reviews in Anthropology
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American An21295-314.
thropological Association, Mexico City.
. 1986. Focused ethnographic bibliography for the Standard
WHITING, J O H N W. M., A N D B E A T R I C E B. W H I T I N G . 1975.
Cross-Cultural Sample. World Cultures ~ ( 1 ) .
Aloofness and intimacy of husbands and wives: A cross-cultural
. 1988. Questioning the sociobiological evidence for wealth
study. Ethos 6:183-207.
as cause of male reproductive success among Kipsigis: Is polygWHYTE,M. 1978. Cross-cultural codes dealing with the relative
yny not a cause of both wealth and children! MS.
status of women. Ethnology I ~ : Z I I - 3 7 .
WHITE, D O U G L A S R., A N D M I C H A E L L. BURTON. 1988. Causes
W I L L I A M SG.
, C. 1966. Adaptation and natural selection. Princeof polygyny: Ecology, economy, kinship, and warfare. American
ton: Princeton University Press. [BSL]
Anthropologist. In press.
. 1985. A defense of reductionism in evolutionary biology.
WHITE, D O U G L A S R., M I C H A E L L. BURTON, A N D M A L C O L M M.
Oxford Surveys i n Evolutionary Biology 2: 1-27 [JH]
D O w. I 98 I . Sexual division of labor in African agriculture.
American Anthropologist 83:824-49.
W O L FE
, R I C .1982. Europe and the people without history. Berkeley: University of California Press.
WHITE, D O U G L A S R., M I C H A E L L. BURTON, A N D L I L Y A N A.
Z I N G G ,R O B E R T M. 1938. The Huichols: Primitive artists. New
BRUDNER
1977.
.
Entailment theory and method: A cross-culYork: G. E. Stechert.
tural analysis of the sexual division of labor. Behavior Science
Research 12:1-24.
VAN DEN
Calendar
October 17-20. 6th Inuit Studies Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark. Write: Jens Dahl, Institute of Eskimology, Fiolstraede 10, I I 7 I Copenhagen K, Denmark.
December I 3-15. Theoretical Archaeology Group, 10th
Conference, Sheffield, England. Themes: Archaeology: An Independent Discipline at Last?
Intensification of Social Organisation, Politics and the
Future of World Archaeology, Presentation of the
Past, Gender, The Myth of Egalitarianism, The Individual in Social Reproduction, Ethnicity, Language,
and People, Post-Processual Archaeology, The Implications of Literacy. Write: TAG Organising Committee, Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, The
University, Sheffield SIO 2TN, England.
March 30-April 2. Society of Ethnobiology, 12th Conference, Riverside, Calif., U.S.A. Deadline for papers
December I 5 . Write: Elizabeth Lawlor or Sharon
Rachele, Department of Anthropology, University of
California, Riverside, Calif. 9252 I, U.S.A
May 7-11. 8th International Symposium on Dental
Morphology, Jerusalem, Israel. Themes: The Evolution, Differentiation, Function, and Genetics of
Teeth. Write: Patricia Smith, Hebrew University
Hadassah School of Dental Medicine, P.O.B. I 172,
Jerusalem 9 IOIO, Israel.
October 3-5. 3d International Conference of Food Science and Technology Information, Budapest, Hungary. Themes: Utilization and Deficiencies of Databases in Food Science with Special Reference to
Marketing Aspects, Information Systems in Food Science and Technology, Computer Control in Food Production. Write: Udo Schiitzsack, International Food
Information Service, Herriotstr. 5, 6000 Frankfurt am
Main 71, Federal Republic of Germany.
September 3-9. International Association for the History of Religions, 16th Congress, Rome, Italy. Theme:
The Notion of "Religion" in Comparative Research.
Write: XVI International Congress of the History of
Religions, Dipartimento di Studi Storico-Religiosi,
FacoltP di Lettere e Filosofia, UniversitP di Roma "La
Sapienza," Piazzale Aldo Moro, 5,I-OOI85 Rome,
Italy.