worldwide cross cultural studies ember and ember (1)

Journal of Archaeological Research, VoL 3, No. L 1995

Worldwide Cross-Cultural Studies and Their Relevance for Archaeology

Melvin Ember 1 and Carol R. Ember 1,2

Archaeological inference based on ethnographic analogy may or may not be correct. What is worse, there is no systematic way to tell. With certain provisos, it is better to generate archaeological inference from the results of worldwide cross-cultural tests of relational hypotheses. Such tests may provide more benefits than within-region comparisons. This paper discusses a number of ways in which worldwide cross-cultural research may be used in archaeological inference, including: generalizing about societal types, inferring from presumed causes, inferring from material correlates, and inferring from noncausal associations. The paper concludes with a discussion of how comparative archaeology could help cross-cultural researchers test causal theories diachronically.

KEY WORDS: inference; archaeology; cross-cultural; indicators.

INTRODUC~ON

Archaeologists often rely on ethnographic analogy to make inferences about the materials they collect and excavate. Descendant or similar cultures may suggest parallels in archaeologically known cultures, but such inferences may or may not be correct. What is worse, there is no systematic way to tell. We suggest here that, with certain provisos, a better way to generate archaeological inference is to use the results of worldwide cross- cultural studies that test relational hypotheses. We admit at the outset that not many of the kinds of things we suggest here have been done yet. We

1Human Relations Area Files, P.O. Box 2054, Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut 06520-2054.

2Department of Anthropology, Hunter College, CUNY, 695 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10021.

87

10594}161/95/03004)087507.50,t0 © t995 Plenum Publishing Cortx)ration

PC User

Sticky Note

salvedades

PC User

Sticky Note

principio

88 Ember and Ember

hope that our discussion, and our examples, will encourage more such work and more interchange between cross-cultural researchers and those archaeologists who want to generalize to and about the archaeological record. Cross-cutturalists have accumulated a large number of statistically significant findings about the worldwide ethnographic record (Ember and Ember, 1993; Ember and Levinson, 1991). The question we address here is, How could archaeologists use those findings, and future ones, to draw reliable inferences about the archaeological record?

We begin with a brief review of the assumptions of the cross-cultural research strategy. Then we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of within-region versus worldwide comparisons. While archaeologists tend to be regionalists, and therefore might be most comfortable with within-region comparisons [e.g., Feinman and Neitzel's (1984) study of middle-range societies in the New World], we discuss how worldwide comparisons may provide more benefits than within-region comparisons. Then we examine the types of inferences that might be drawn from worldwide cross-cultural research. The literature of cross-cultural research is quite large now; nearly a thousand studies have been published, most in the last 20 years or so. So our discussion of the relevance of cross-cultural research for archaeology is far from exhaustive.

THE STRATEGY OF CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH

The fundamental assumption of a cross-cultural test is that if an explanation (theory or hypothesis) has merit, measures of the presumed causes and effects should be significantly and strongly associated synchronically (Whiting, t954). A synchronic association (correlation) describes a relationship between two or more variables that are measured for each sample case as of a brief time period (which may vary considerably across the cases, from some time in the 18th century or even earlier to some time in the 20th century). When we make a cross-cultural test, then, we are examining a series of ethnographic "snapshots," each capturing some features of a culture or society as of a particular time and usually a particular locality. (By a society we mean a territorial population whose members speak a language that is different from those of neighboring societies.) Re- gardless of the different time loci across the sample cases, a statistically significant result should be obtained if there is a systematic or quantitatively describable relationship between or among the measured variables,

Most cross-culturalists assume that it is possible to falsify a theory on the basis of hypothesis-tests using cross-cultural data. If the meaning of a causal theory is 'clear and internally consistent, and if the theory logically

PC User

Sticky Note

inferencias que pueden extraerse

PC User

Sticky Note

Muchos trans-culturalistas asumen que es posible falsificar una teoria en la base de pruebas e hipotesis usando datos transculturales. Si el significado de una teoria causal es clara e internamente consistente, y si la teoria logicamente sugiere o implica hipotesis comprobables

Worldwide Cross-Cultural Studies 89

suggests or implies testable hypotheses, then the hypothesis-tests could provide inconclusive or contradictory statistical results that would falsify the theory. If the hypothesis-tests produce results that are contrary to predictions derived from the theory, or if the results are not significantly different from chance results, we are obliged to conclude that parts or all of the theory are probably false too. We say "probably" because all understanding in science is tentative, subject to possible revision on the basis of future research. But statistical support for implied hypotheses cannot be said to "prove" a theory. This is because logically incorrect premises could lead to correct predictions. Consider the syllogism, "Humans are unicorns; unicorns eat meat; therefore, humans eat meat." The derived hypothesis, "Hu- mans eat meat," may be true, but it is a fallacy to affirm the premises from the consequent. Although we can never prove a theory, we can be more confident about it the more its implications are supported statistically, that is, the more there are confirming or supportive tests in the absence of non- supportive tests. [For how cross-cultural research to test theory compares with other types of comparative research, see Ember (1991).]

The typical cross-cultural study compares all types of society, from small hunter-gatherer societies, with bands of fewer than 75 people and total populations in the hundreds, to large societies dependent on intensive agriculture with cities and populations in the millions. To be sure, the typical cross-cultural sample contains few or no modern industrial societies; so cross-cultural research is typically not as broadly comparative as it could be. (But that will change as accounts of modern cultures continue to be added to the ethnographic record.) Despite not being as broadly comparative as it could be, the cross-cultural type of study has a better chance than other kinds of comparison of coming close to the goal of discovering that an observed relationship has more or less universal validity, which is what we seek when we do science. That is, the general scientific strategy is to seek more and more comprehensive explanations. The results of a single field study or a within-region comparison may or may not be applicable to other places, and the results of a cross-national comparison may or may not be applicable to the world of preindustrial cultures. But the statistically significant results of a worldwide cross-cultural comparison are probably applicable to most societies and most regions.

To be sure, although most cross-cultural or comparative studies involve a worldwide sample or a sampling of all types of society, not all do. How you sample depends on what you are interested in, what population or universe of societies you want to generalize your results to. You could choose to sample only foragers, or only horticulturalists, or only societies from a particular world region. The most important thing is to sample in an unbiased way, so that your set of cases accurately represents the statis-

PC User

Sticky Note

esto es, que la estrategia cientifica general busca explicaciones muchi mas comprensivas. Los resultados de un solo estudio de campo o de comparasiones dentro de una misma region pueden a su vez ser aplicables a otros lugares, y los resultados de comparasiones trans nacionales pueden de igual forma ser o no aplicables a las culturas mundiales preindustriales. Pero los resultados estadisticos significantes de comparasion transcultural son probablemente aplicables a gran numero de sociedades y regiones. Para estar seguros, A pesar de que muchos de los estudios transculturales o comparativos involucran muestras a nivel mundial o un muestreo de todo tipo de sociedades, no todos lo hacen. La forma de muestreo depende que en que se esta interesado, la poblacion o universo de sociedades para las que se quiere generalizar los resultados. Se puede elegir solo una muestra de forrajeros, de horticultores o de sociedades de una region particular del mundo. Lo más importante es tomar muestras de manera imparcial, para que su conjunto de casos representa con precisión estadistica la poblacion

90 Ember and Ember

tical population (of societies) to which you want to generalize your results. Using cases that are widely known, or using cases you have books on in your own personal library, is biased sampling. Other things being equal, random sampling from a more or less complete list is the best way to sam- pie representatively, because random sampling (e.g., choosing a simple random sample of cases with the aid of a table of random numbers) is the best way to protect against biased results. [For a general discussion of cross- cultural sampling strategies, see Ember and Otterbein (1991).]

The cross-cultural study typically uses qualitative (full-text) ethnographic information and codes it nominally or ordinally. It is often presumed that the coding of qualitative information is likely to introduce error, because of coder mistakes or false statements in the ethnography. However, error is not as serious a problem as some might think, if the sample is representative, and if the investigator uses ways to test for and minimize error (Ember et al., 1991). In any case, errors are not likely to produce falsely significant results; if you have sampled randomly, errors are usually random and therefore usually make it more difficult to find systematic relationships. In our own research on war, for example, we found that results improve substantially when our statistical analyses do not include cases about which two independent coders disagreed substantially in their initial ratings (Ember and Ember, 1992b, p. 172).

The coding of variables for a society in a cross-cultural study is generally based on the ethnographic information that is available for at least one community or locality in the society. Thus, most cross-cultural studies are really comparisons of localities in different societies, as John Whiting (1954, pp. 526-527) noted years ago. Most ethnographers conduct their fieldwork in a single community, and it is that group they mostly write about, despite the titles of books and articles referring to the society as a whole. This would be a problem if cross-culturalists were interested in es- tablishing the typical values (on variables) for a given society. But cross- cultural researchers are usually interested in discovering relationships between and among variables across societies, rather than inferring what is characteristic of communities in a particular society. So the fact that the community described in the ethnography may or may not be representative of the society is not a serious problem for statistical inference about cross- cultural relationships among variables, because we can assume that the fo- cal communities in the ethnographic record were not selected for study according to some single biased plan. The hundreds of ethnographers who contributed to the ethnographic record, who came from many different countries at many different times to make observations according to many different theoretical perspectives, are not likely to have chosen their field sites in the s a m e ~oiased way. Therefore, we can assume that any errors in

PC User

Sticky Note

El estudio transcultural tipicamente usa informacion etnografica cualitativa (texto completo) y la codifica nominal u ordinalmente. A menudo se presume que la codificacion de informacion cualitativa tiene probabilidad de introducir errores, devido a errores del codificador o a declaraciones falsas en la etnografis. Sin embargo, el error no es un problema tan serio como algunos pensarian, ya que si la muestra es representativa, y si el investigador usa diverdad formas de evaluar y minimiza el error. En cualquier caso, los errores probablemnte no producen resultados significantemente falsos; si se ha realizado una muestra aleatoria, los errores son usualmente aleatorios y por ello usualmente hacen mas dificil encontrar relaicones sistematicas. En su propia investigacion sobre la guerra, por ejemplo, encontramos que los resultados mejoran substancialmente cuando los analisis estadisticos no incluyen casos acerca de como dos codificadores independientes esta substancialmente en desacuerdo con sus valores iniciales.

PC User

Sticky Note

la codificacion de variables para una sociedad en un estudio transcultural esta basado generalmente en informacion etnografica que esta disponible para por lo menos una comunidad o localidad en la sociedad. Ademas, muchos estudios transculturales son realmente comparaciones de localidades en diferentes sociedades, como John Witting senalo anos atras. Muchos etnografos dirigen su trabajo de campo en una cola comunidad, y es acerca d eeste que escriben en la mayoria de los casos, a pesar de los titulos de libros y articulos que hacen referencia a la sociedad como un todo. Esto seria un problema si los transculturalistas estuvieran interesados en establecer los valores tipicos (de variables) para una sociedad dada. Pero los investigadores transculturales suelen estar interesados en el descubrimiento de las relaciones entre dos o más variables a través de las sociedades, en lugar de inferir lo que es característico de las comunidades en una sociedad determinada. Entonces, el hecho de que la comunidad descrita en la etnografia pueda o no ser representativa de la sociedad no es un serio problema para la inferencia estadistica sobre las relaciones transculturales entre variables, ya que se puede asumir que las comunidades focales en el registro etnografico no fueron seleccionadas para ser estudiadas de acuerdo a un plan sesgado unico. Los cientos de etnografos que han contribuido al registro etnografico, que llegaron de diversos paises en muchos momentos diferentes para hacer observaciones de acuerdo a muchas perspectivas teoricas direfentes, probablemente neligieron

PC User

Sticky Note

no seleccionaron sus sitios de campo de la misma forma sesagada. Por lo tanto, Podemos asumir que cualquier error en


the data provided by those ethnographers are likely to be randomly dis- tributed, and hence a random sample of the ethnographic record is probably an unbiased or representative sample of recent cross-cultural variation.

Societies for which we have a lot of ethnography are generally described for only one or at most just a few points in time. This fact may at least partly explain why there has been little cross-historical research using ethnographic data, and it is probably no accident that most cross-cultural researchers think it is more efficient to test explanations nonhistorically (synchronically for each case) first. But the ethnographic record may now provide more opportunity for diachronic research than we think. For example, the full-text database known as the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) contains information on two or more points in time for a sub- stantial proportion of its sample cases. 3

It should be noted that, contrary to what many both in and outside anthropology still believe, the HRAF database does not provide coded information. Rather the full-text database provides sections from ethnographic documents that have been indexed (by topic) and grouped (by culture) for easy retrieval of the desired kinds of information. If users of HRAF want to code its full-text information to measure variables, they must do so themselves!

Nearly a million pages of ethnography have been processed so far for inclusion in the HRAF database. (About 750 of the 8000 or so sources were originally written in languages other than English; the English trans- lations can be found only in the HRAF database.) Each file on a culture includes hundreds or thousands of pages of ethnographic text, the sections of which have been are indexed for the topic(s) covered therein. The in- dexing system used is the Outline of Cultural Materials by Murdock et al. (1982), which comprises about 700 different, often cross-referenced, cate- gories of information.

The HRAF database facilitates information retrieval because you do not have to do hours of research to construct bibliographies for each of your sample cases, you do not have to chase down the books and other materials you need to look at (which might otherwise have to be obtained by interlibrary loan), and you do not have to search through every page of a source (that may lack an index) to find all the locations of desired information. The HRAF database gives you all of the information on a

3Retrieving and coding information from the ethnographic record is greatly facilitated by the annually growing HRAF database. Complete and incomplete sets of the database, which currently covers more than 350 societies past and present, are located at more than 300 institutions in the United States, Canada, and 24 other nations. Now usually available in microfiche format, the HRAF database wilt be converted over the next decade to electronic format, which will gr6atly facilitate comparative research.

PC User

Sticky Note

los datos provistos por esos etnografos estan probablemente distribuidos aleatoriamente, y asi una muestra aleatoria de un registro etnografico seguramente seria una muestra representativa e imparcial de variaciones transculturales recientes. Las sociedades para les que se tienen bastante etnografia son generalmente descritas para solo uno o unos pocos puntos al tiempo. Este hecho puede explicar parcialmente porque se han dado pocas investigaciones trans-historicas usando informacion etnografica, y probabablemente no es accidental que muchos de los investigadores transculturales piensen que es mas eficiente no evaluar explicaciones historicamanete ( sincronicamente para cada caso) primero. Pero el registro etnografico puede ahora proveer de mayor oportunidades para investigaciones diacronicas que lo pensado. Por ejemplo, la base de datos completa de un texto conocido como los archivos de area de las relaciones humana contiene informacion de dos o mas puntos al mismo tiempo para una proporcion substancial de sus casos de muestra. Se debe senalar que, contrariamente a lo que mucha d ela antropologia dentro y afuera todavia cree, la base d edatos de HRAF no provee informacion codificada. Mas bien, la base de datos de texto completa ofrece seccciones de documentos etnograficos que se han indexado (por tema) y agrupados (por cultura) para un facil acceso a la clase d einformacion deseada. Si los usuarios de HRAF quieren codificar la informacion completa de un texto par amedir variables, ellos deben hacerlo por si mismos.

PC User

Sticky Note

Recuperar y codificar informacion del registro etnografico se ha facilitado por el crecimiento anual d ela base de datos del HRAF. Conjuntos de base de datos completos e incompletos, que actualmente cubren mas de 350 sociedades del pasado y presente, estan localizados en mas de 300 instituciones el los estados unidos, canada y otras 24 naciones. Actualmente se encuentran disponibles en formato de microfilm, y esta base datos sera convertidas a formato electronico en la proxima decada, lo cual facilitara ampliamente la investigacion comparativa.

92 Ember and Ember

particular topic, from all of the sources processed for that culture, in a single place. Up until now, that place has been one or more microfiche (with some 200 pages on each). Beginning in 1994, with the first installment of the Electronic HRAF, that place will be your computer screen, where you will be able to search and scroll through the texts of interest to you, and call up other things at the same time, in a Windows platform. We trust that this fact will become more widely known in the future, which may translate into more cross-historical hypothesis-tests in the future.

In any case, it seems advisable to look for cross-historical and perhaps cross-archeological data (to test for a presumed sequence) only after an explanation has successfully survived a comparative nonhistorical test. We return to the latter point toward the end of this paper, when we discuss how cross-archaeological as well as cross-cultural research could test causal explanations of cultural variation and change.

WITHIN-REGION VERSUS WORLDWIDE COMPARISONS

Because individual anthropologists specialize largely in the study of particular regions, it is likely that when they think of comparisons the focus is on a particular region. If that region is all that the researcher is interested in generalizing to, a within-region comparison is all that is called for. A within-region comparison offers a significant advantage to the investigator who specializes in that region. He or she is likely to be throughly familiar with the complex of cultural and historical features found in that region. These features may generate an intuitive awareness of the context of certain phenomena of interest, and therefore comparing within a region may be a good way to generate hypotheses.

However, when the investigator is looking to test hypotheses, within- region comparisons can be disadvantageous. In general, we can expect that the smaller the region, the less the variation on a given variable. This fact by itself may minimize the possibility of discovering a relationship that is true (if we look only at the data from one region). Hypotheses are usually tested with some measure of correlation or association. Any measure of association will be zero or close to zero (suggesting no relationship) when there is no or little variability on a crucial variable. In the bivariate case, if there is no variation on either the independent or dependent variable, the correlation has to be zero. Even if there is some variability, but only a limited amount, that would also reduce the likelihood of obtaining a significant result, even when the true association is strong cross-culturally. For example, suppose that the researcher is interested in the strength of the relationship betWeen economic and political development. We know that


there is a strong relationship cross-culturally (Abrahamson, 1969; Ember, 1963; Hill, 1979). But the cases within a region may show little variation on one of the variables of interest (e.g., little or no variation on the economic side), and therefore it will be difficult or impossible to see any relationship within the region even if there is some political variation. There is another way we may be misled by the results of a within-region comparison. When there is considerable variability in a few cases, in a region with only a small number of cases, those few variable cases may falsely suggest the presence of a relationship that is n o t true cross-culturally, or the absence of a relationship tha t / s true cross-culturally.

In evaluating the possible generalizability of the results of a within- region analysis, it is also important to consider two other factors: the form of the relationship being considered and the strength of that relationship. For example, if we are dealing with a bivariate relationship which is linear, any part of the range on one variable should be linearly related to the other variable. But if the relationship is curvilinear and the researcher looks at the variation within a small region, the results may be misleading. Con- sider the example of a parabolic relationship between two variables. The correlation between the variables may look very different in one region versus another; in some regions it might look positive, in others negative, and in still others there may seem to be no relationship at all. All these problems are exacerbated if the true relationship of interest is weak. If there is not much there, and the variability you examine is limited, you will see nothing.

How do we deal with such problems? Ideally, we could do both worldwide and within-region comparisons. The worldwide comparison need not involve a large number of cases (and therefore may not be too expensive in time and coding) if the cases are selected randomly; and it gives us the opportunity to avoid conclusions based on the peculiarity of a given region. If the worldwide comparison does not provide a strong result (e.g., a high multiple regression coefficient), a within-region comparison may suggest (particularly to a specialist in that region) additional predictors that might also predict cross-culturally. What is true for a region may or may not be true for the world, but a within-region analysis might add to what we know from a worldwide analysis. [For more discussion of the advantages of within-region comparisons, see Burton and White (1991).]

When we (Ember and Ember, 1971) used a worldwide sample to test Murdock's (1949) theory that the division of labor by sex determines marital residence (particularly matrilocal versus patrilocal), we found no significant relationship. [Our results were replicated by Divale (1974, 1975); cf. also Hiatt (1970) and White (1967).] But when we examined the relationship within large regions (e.g., Oceania, South America), we got sometimes

PC User

Sticky Note

(Nuestros resultados fueron replicados por Divale (1974, 1975); cf tambien Hiatt(1970) y White(1967). Pero cuando examinamos la relacion wntre grandes regiones (ej: Oceania, Sur America), algunas veces

94 Ember and Ember

opposite results from one region to the next (Ember and Ember, 1971). Previously, Driver and Massey (1957), looking just at North American societies, had found a moderate association between division of labor and residence, which seemed to support Murdock's theory. (Our own results for North America were like Driver and Massey's.) However, without the worldwide findings, we would not have discovered that North America is unusual! So why does North America show a relationship? Ember (1975) found that division of labor did predict residence for hunter-gatherers, so North America may be unusual (cross-culturally speaking) because the ethnographic record for North America includes a high proportion of hunter- gatherers. Keeley (1992, p. 30) gives us another example of how regional analyses can yield misleading results, as compared with worldwide analyses. He found a strong relationship between population density and socioeconomic complexity (sedentism, storage, class distinctions, money) in a worldwide sample of hunter-gatherers, but Schatk (1982, referred to by Keetey) found a negative relationship among Northwest coast groups, probably because those groups did not vary very much socioeconomically.

In short, a within-region analysis may be misleading about the direc- tion, as well as existence, of a worldwide relationship. On the other hand, a worldwide study may not tell us enough to account for most of the variation within a particular region.

INFERENCES THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM CROSS-CULTURAL STUDIES

There are several types of inferences that can be drawn from cross- cultural studies. One type of inference is to presume that extant or recent cases will tell us something about traits of cases in the past. So, the rea- soning goes, if we want to understand hunter-gatherers of the past, we should look at hunter-gatherer groups in the ethnographic record. We discuss immediately below how this type of inference by itself is ill-advised, even when based on systematic cross-cultural surveys. But even more ill-advised is generalization without systematic surveys at all!

Generalizations about Societal Types

Most anthropologists know that we should not generalize from our own society to others. We call this ethnocentrism. It is not as often under- stood that we should not casually generalize from one or a few societies to a class of supposedly similar societies (past and/or present). For example,


some have generalized from the !Kung San as if they were typical of past and present hunter-gatherers (Lee, 1976; Lee and DeVore, 1968). If we generalize from the !Kung (in the 1950s and 1960s), we might expect that most recent hunter-gatherers would have bilocal residence, depend mostly on gathering, and lack intercommunity fighting. But these generalizations are wrong. Before we say why, we should first make some general remarks about when generalization is justified.

Generalization from one or a few cases is never warranted. One reason is that classic or well-known cases are not necessarily (or even likely) to be representative of a type of society. As we should know by now--from the history of science as well as from the postmodernist critique--cases may become classics for other reasons than representativeness. In the example of the !Kung San, they are n o t like most recent hunter-gatherers (as we will see). Second, a culture is not unchanging. It is unreasonable to expect even a single case to remain invariant over a short, never mind a long, time period. For example, a perusal of the materials in the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) on the San (formerly called Bushmen) re- veals that in the 1920s there was frequent armed combat between bands. [See Source 3 (Lebzelter) in the San file in the HRAF database; page 30 of the HRAF translation from the German.] Indeed, some researchers have suggested that the San were only sometime foragers who relied mainly on herding in the not-so distant past (Schrire, 1984; Wilmsen, 1989). The lesson from this example is that we should not generalize from cases that may be untypical of some set of societies. The only valid way to establish that a trait or correlation is typical for some set of societies is on the basis of systematic research that measures variables for a representative or very large sample of that particular set (e.g., hunter-gatherers).

So what do we know about recent hunter-gatherers? How do we know it is wrong to generalize from the !Kung (as of the 1950s and 1960s)? A survey of foraging societies in the ethnographic record (Ember, 1978) shows that, in contrast to the bilocal, mostly gathering, and peaceful !Kung of the 1950s and 1960s, described foragers of the last few hundred years were mostly patrilocal, derived most of their calories from fishing (with hunting generally next in importance), and went to war fairly frequently!

So should we generalize from these results for recent hunter-gatherers (or, more precisely, "fisher-hunter-gatherers") to foraging societies in the past? We could, and it would probably be more likely to be valid than generalizing on the basis of a few cases, but we would still suggest that such generalization or inference may be ill advised. Why? Because even if we know that something is likely to be true for the ethnographic record, that does not necessarily make it true for the archaeological record. This

96 Ember and Ember

is because few if any societies described in the ethnographic record, even those described shortly after first contact with the West, were pristine in the sense of being completely unaffected by that contact (cf. Trigger, 1981, pp. 12-13). Whatever the earliest time of description, many societies had already been subject to a variety of forms of culture contact with a variety of effects, including serious depopulation due to introduced diseases (C.R. Ember, 1975; Ember and Ember, 1972; M. Ember, 1975), pacification (Em- ber and Ember, 1992a, 1992b), depletion of resources by exploitative West- ern agents (Bodley, 1990), and changes in subsistence patterns (Bradley et

al., 1990). Moreover, the social and physical environments of foragers in the past

were sometimes if not often different from the environments of recent foragers. For one thing, many recent hunter-gatherers lived in marginal environments (deserts, the Arctic, and tropical forests). So what we observe among them should not be casually extrapolated to the past, especially if you consider that recent foragers have been interacting with, and often run- ning away from, certain kinds of societies (e.g., agriculturalists, pastoralists, expanding states) that did not exist until after 10,000 years ago (Myers, 1988; Schrire, 1984). Some have suggested that humans did not live in deserts, polar regions, and tropical forests until after 30,000 years ago (Cohen, 1977; Hassan, 1981). And Bailey et al. (1989) have argued that foragers were unlikely to live in tropical forests until after the rise of agriculture. Thus, the adaptations of recent foragers in marginal regions may not be particularly relevant to inference about archaeologically known or knowable foragers.

The effects of Western expansion in the ethnographic record may suggest to some that cross-cultural comparisons of cases in that record will not help archaeological inference at all. But that view assumes it is impossible to discount or control on the effects of Western expansion. On the contrary, we argue that contact conditions (as well as other conditions) can be measured for their degree of effect on cultural variation; those conditions can then be controlled statistically to remove their effects (see, e.g., Ember, et al., 1992, 1993). Moreover, we suggest that cross-cultural results can best help archaeological inference if those results tell us about relationships between or among variables.

We now turn to the kinds of archaeological inference we can draw from cross-cultural (comparative ethnographic) tests of relational hypotheses. But--and this is a major caveat--to infer from the results of cross-cultural hypothesis-tests, we must have a way of archaeologically inferring at least one of the variables in the relationship. Some examples we discuss below will spell out why this is so.

PC User

Sticky Note

Los efectos de la expansion occidental en el registro arqueologico pueden sugerir para algunos que las comparaciones transculturales de casos en ese registro no ayudaran en nada a la inferencia arqueologica. Pero este punto de vista asume que es imposible no tomar en cuenta los efectos de la expansion occidental. Por el contrario, nosotros argumentamos que las condiciones de contacto ( asi como otras condiciones) puede ser medida por su grado de efecto en la variacion cultural; esas condiciones pueden entonces ser controladas estadisticamente para remover sus efectos ( ver, ej:, Ember, et al., 1992,1993). Ademas, sugerimos que los resultados transculturales pueden ayudar mejor la inferencia arqueologica si dichos reusltados dicen algo acerca de las relaciones entre variables. Ahora, nos dirigimos a la clase de inferencia arqueologica que puede ser generada de las pruebas transculturales (etnografia comparada) de hipotesis relaionales. Pero- y esta es una advertencia importante- para inferir a partir de los resultados de las pruebas de hipotesis transculturales , debemos tener un medio de inferir arqueologicamente por lo menos una de las variables en la relacion. Algunos ejemplos que discutimos a continuacion explicaran porque esto es asi.


Inferring from Presumed Causes

Just because patrilocality is the most typical residence pattern in a sample of recent foragers (Ember, 1978) is not sufficient reason to infer that it was probably so in the past. That inference would be more justifiable if we had material indicators of the various patterns of residence (validated by cross-cultural studies) that could be applied to the archaeological record. We return to this possibility later; suffice it to say here that we have not yet discovered material correlates of all five major patterns of residence (patrilocal, matrilocal, bilocal, avunculocat, and neolocal).

But we do have cross-cultural studies of what predicts variation in residence. If we could infer those predictors archaeologically, we could infer the likelihood of a particular pattern of residence. For example, cross-cultural research on foragers suggests three predictors (and presumed causes) of bilocal residence: sudden and drastic depopulation, usually because of introduced European diseases; small community size (under 50); and high rainfall variability around a low mean (Ember, 1975; cf. also Ember and Ember, 1972; Service, 1962). The theory is that couples in a foraging band might have to move to other bands (with wife's or husband's relatives) because it had become difficult or impossible to continue practicing unilocal residence. Given that couples in foraging noncommercial societies had to live and work with or near kin, they would have to move to another band if an appreciable number of kin in their original band had died because of introduced diseases, or if the adult sex ratio had been severely skewed (which can happen by chance in a small community), or if there had been a shortfall of rain in an already arid environemt (which might compel the band to split up). In non- foraging societies, disease-produced depopulation by itself seems to predict bilocal or, more accurately, multilocal residence (Ember and Ember, 1972).

People from Europe, and their diseases, spread into distant parts of the world only in the last 500 years. Therefore, we can expect that sudden and drastic depopulation and hence bilocal residence was probably less likely in the distant past than in recent centuries. Although Ember's (1975) cross- cultural study of foragers did not test for the independent and combined effects of the three predictors of bilocality (depopulation, small community size, and rainfall variability in an arid environment), multiple regression analysis using the cross-cultural data could be used to generate an inference about the likelihood of bilocality in a particular site, if the causal conditions can be measured archaeologically. Similarly, Ember's (1975) study suggests that the likelihood of matrilocality versus patrilocality could be estimated for foragers from the importance of fishing (a predictor of patrilocality), the importance of gathering (a predictor of matrilocality), and the overall con- tribution of men to'subsistence (which predicts patrilocality only among fora-

98 Ember and Ember

gers). Although we do not currently have a material correlate of internal warfare (within the society), it would help us infer residence in an archaeological site because such warfare is the strongest predictor of patrilocality in the ethnographic record (Ember and Ember, 1971).

Could we know for sure what the residence pattern was in a particular site, if we had the results of the appropriate multiple regressions and some archaeological indicators of the presumed causes? The answer is no, not for sure. But statistical analysis allows us to estimate how much of the variation is explained by the predictors, and it also allows us to compute the degree of confidence we can justifiably place in our conclusions. Statistically based conclusions are more likely to be true than generalizations based on a few nonrepresentative cases.

In our discussion so far, we speak of presumed or likely causes. But, given that the hypotheses at issue have been mostly tested synchronically, there is room to question whether we have got the causality right. Still--and this is an important point (particularly for archaeological inference)--if the presumed causes are environmental or ecological variables, it is doubtful that the causality is the other way around. For example, high rainfall variability around a low mean is more likely to be a cause of bilocality among foragers than an effect. It would be difficult to argue that bilocality may be a cause of rainfall! So, if we can link cultural variables to environmental or ecological variables, it is likely that the latter are the causes, rather than vice versa.

Inferences from Material Correlates

Since inference from the present to the past requires at least one of the conditions to be estimated, archaeologically recoverable material correlates are an essential part of the enterprise we are discussing here. We do not discuss inferences made by archaeologists about past environments, subsistence patterns, etc., for which archaeologists certainly have more expertise than we do; rather, we concentrate on material correlates that are suggested by existing cross-cultural comparisons of the ethnographic record. Much more cross-cultural work remains to be done, of course. But the findings so far point to the great potential of cross-cultural research in this connection.

Population of a Site

Naroll (1962) was the first cross-culturalist to look for an archaeologically recoverable correlate in ethnographic data. He suggested that the population of a 'site could be estimated from the total living floor area

PC User

Sticky Note

INFERENCIAS a partir de MATERIAL CORRELACIONADO Como la inferencia desde el presente hasta el pasado requiere por lo menos una de las condiciones para ser estimada, el material recuperable arqueologicamente correlacionado es parte esencial de la empresa que discutimos aqui. No discutimos las inferencias hechas por los arqueologos acerca de los ambientes del pasado, patrones de subsistencia, etc. Para lo cual los arqueologos son mas expertos que nosotros, por lo que nos concentramos en material correlacional que es sugestivo por la existencia de comparaciones transculturales del registro etnografico. Sin embargo, aun falta mucho trabajo transcultural por hacer. Pero los hallazgos hasta ahora apuntan al grna potencial de la investigacion transcultural en esta conexion. Poblacion de un Sitio Naroll(1962) fue el primer investigador transcultural en buscar un correlato recuperable arqueologico en informacion etnografica. El sugirio que la poblacion de un sitio puede ser estimada a partir de del area total del suelo de vivienda


(summing over all dwellings or extrapolating from a sample thereof), using the formula 10 m 2 = 1 person. This formula has been widely used by archaeologists. However, it was based on a small, nonrandom sample. Brown (1987), trying to replicate Naroll's findings, found some serious errors in Naroll's codings; when Brown substituted his corrections of those errors, the formula for estimating a site's population turned out to be 6 m 2 per person, and he got the same result in a larger and more representative sample. Interestingly, controls for climate, Western influence, and size of settlement had little effect on the result. Brown's replication suggests that archaeologists can confidently estimate the magnitude of a site's population from the floor area of a typical dwelling multiplied by the number of dwellings, using the formula of 6 m 2 per person.

Marital Residence

We noted above that we do not yet have material correlates of all the patterns of marital residence, but two cross-cultural studies (Brown, 1987; Divale, 1977) have now replicated Ember's (1973) finding that matrilocal societies have significantly larger houses than patritocal societies. Extrapolating from Murdock's (1949, p. 31) observation that sororal cowives usually live in the same house (but nonsororal cowives do not), Ember (1973) expected that sisters would be likely to live together in the same house if residence were matrilocat, but unrelated women would not do so if residence were patrilocal.

Combining Ember's data and his own, Divale (1977, p. 114) computed a mean floor area of 28.6 m E for patrilocal societies versus a mean of 175.0 m 2 for matrilocal societies. Judging 2 by the results, if the archaeologically known floor area is 14.5 to 42.7 m , we could be 95% confident that the society was patrilocal rather than matrilocal. If the area is 79.2 to 270.8 m 2, we could be 95% confident that the society was matrilocal rather than patrilocal. Assuming that archaeologists could rule out bilocality as a possibility (unlikely unless the society had recently been depopulated, or its communities included fewer than 50 people, or there was high rainfall variability around a low mean), and assuming the unlikelihood of neolocality [which is associated cross-culturally with commercial exchange (see Ember, 1967)], only avunculocality would still be a possible inference. However, avunculocality is relatively rare; it occurs in only about 4% percent of recent societies (Ember, 1974; see also Keegan and Maclachlan, 1989). So know- ing the floor area of the average dwelling in a site would entitle the archaeologist to infer the pattern of marital residence with a measurable degree of confiderlce.

PC User

Sticky Note

Residencia Marital Se menciono anteriormente que aun no tenemos correlaicon de material de todos los patrones de residencia marital, pero dos estudios transculturales ( Brown, 1987; Divale, 1977) han replicado el hallazgo de Ember (1973) donde las sociedades matrilocales presentan vivendas significativamente mas grandes que en sociedades patrilocales. Extrapolando a partir de la observacion de Murdock (1949, p.31) las esposas companeras fraternas ( por afinidad) usualmente viven en la misma casa ( pero las no fraternales no lo hacen), Ember (1973) esperaba que las hermanas probablemente vivieran juntas en la misma casa si la residencia era matrilocal, pero las mujeres sin vinvulos familiares no lo harian si la residencia fuera patrilocal. Combinando la informacion de Ember y la suya, Divale(1977, p.114) computo un promedio de area de suelo de 28.6 metros cuadrados para sociedades patrilocales frente a una media de 175.0 metros cuadrados para sociedades matrilocales. Juzgando por los resultados, si el area de suelo conocido arqueologicamnte es de 14,5 a 42,7 metros cuadrados, nosotros podriamos estar 95% seguros que la sociedad era patrilocal en vez de matrilocal. Si el area es de 79,2 a 270,8 metros cuadrados, podriamos estar 95% seguros de que la sociedad era matrilocal. Suponiendo que los arqueologos pudieran excluir la posibilidad de bilocalidad (poco probable a menos de que en la sociedad haya disminuido la poblacion recinetemente, o que su comunidad incluyera menos de 50 personas, o hubiese una alta variabilidad de lluvia alrededor de una media baja), y suponiendo la poca probabilidad de neolocalidad ( la cual es asociada transculturalmente con intercambio comercial ( ver Ember, 1967)), solo la avuncolocalidad podria aun ser una posible inferencia. Sin embargo, la avuncolocalidad es relativamente extrana, ya que solo ocurre en cerca del 4% de sociedades recientes (Ember, 1974; ver tambien Keegan y Maclachlan, 1989). Entonces, conociendo el area del suelo de la vivienda promedio en un sitio, permitiria al arqueologo inferir sobre el patron de residencia marital con un grado de seguridad mesurable.

I00 Ember and Ember

Mobility

House type appears to be related significantly to degree of permanence of communities. Whiting and Ayres (1968) found that 80% of societies with rectangular, quadrilateral (four-sided with an inner court), or elliptical house shapes are fully sedentary. (The elliptical are not as strongly sedentary.) Seventy-eight percent of societies with one or more of those three shapes as well as curvilinear shapes are seminomadic. Robbins (1966) found 84% of rectangular, quadrilateral, and elliptical house-types to be permanent. While curvilinear shapes predict less sedentary settlements, the Whiting/Ayres and Robbins studies differ somewhat in regard to the pro- portions of cases that are correctly predicted by curvilinearity. Whiting and Ayres found 65% of the circular floor plans to be nomadic, whereas Rob- bins obtained an 88% proportion. Given that Binford (1990, p. 123) found the same relationship (although it was not statistically evaluated) among hunter-gatherers, house-type may be a fairly robust indicator of permanence of communities. In addition, Binford (1990) found that other features of the house (such as surface placement of structures, roof and walls of the same material) as well as warmer temperatures also predict mobility. Another aspect of mobility is the number of moves foragers make per year, which Kelly (1983) found is predicted by resource accessibility and com- muting time. If the features mentioned in this paragraph were examined among nonforagers, and if the various predictors were combined in a mul- tivariate analysis, we might have much stronger predictors of permanence of community which archaeologists could use to draw inferences about sites.

Family and Marriage

Whiting and Ayres (1968) also found that frequent polygyny is associated with curvilinear floor plans. Most societies that have only curvilinear plans have polygyny; however, the converse (that most rectilinear societies have monogamy) is not true. Since curvilinearity is also related to nomadism (see above), it may be that if nomadism could be ruled out we could link polygyny to curvilinearity of house more strongly. Whiting and Ayres also found that multiroom dwellings almost always predict either extended families or wealth distinctions. However, single-room dwellings are sometimes associated with extended families, particularly if they are clus- tered into compounds. These loose ends could be tied up with just a little more cross-cultural research.

PC User

Sticky Note

Ademas, Binford (1990) encontro que otras caracteristicas d ela viviendo ( como posicion superficial de estructuras, techos, paredes de el mismo material) al igual que temperaturas calidas tambien predicen la movilidad. Otro aspecto de movilidad es el numero de movimientos que los cazadores-recolectores hacen por ano, lo cual Kelly (1983) concluyo como predecible por la accesibilidad a los recursos y el tiempo de desplazamiento. Si las caracteristicas mencionadas en ese parrafo fueran examinadas entre grupos no forrajeros, y si los diversos indicadores fueran combinados en un analisis multivariado, podriamos obetner predicciones mas solidas de permanencia de una comunidad, la cual podria ser usado para formular inferencias acerca de los sitios.

PC User

Sticky Note

Familia y matrimonio Whiting y Ayres (1968) tambien hallaron que la poliginia frecuente esta asociada con plantas de suelo curvilineales. Muchas sociedades que solo tienen plantas curvilineales presentan poliginia; auqnue lo inverso no es correcto (que muchas sociedades rectilineales son monogamas). Ya que la curvilinealidad igualmente esta relacionada al nomadismo (ver arriba), puede ser que si el nomadismo puede descartarse, podriamos asociar poliginia a la curvilinealidad de la vivienda suertemente. Whiting y Ayres encontraron tambien que viviendas con varias habitaciones casi siempre predicen familias extensas o distinciones de riqueza. Sin embargo, viviendas de una sola habitacion son asociadas algunas veces con familias extensas. particularmente si ellos estan agrupados dentro de organizaciones. Los cbos sueltos podrian unirse con un poco mas de investigacion transcultural.


Warfare

Archaeologists are beginning to infer warfare on the basis of the probable causes of death in skeletal populations. Since we do not always have skeletal populations, a newly discovered indicator of war may turn out to be more useful. Peregrine (1993) has suggested that the degree of settlement "permeability" may be a very accurate indicator of warfare frequency. Using graph theory, Peregrine counts the number of "steps" it takes to enter the innermost part(s) of the settlement from outside the settlement. This is the index of permeability. If it takes one step to enter any one-room dwelling (i.e., move from the outside to the inside through one entrance), the permeability index is 1. If there is an outer fence around the dwelling or the community, the permeability index is 2. If there is a trench in addition, the permeability index is 3. If houses have inner rooms that can be gotten to only from outer rooms, additional steps are added to the score (see also Blanton, 1993). Cross-culturally, societies that have a permeability index of 3 or more almost always have war at least once every 2 years; those that have one or two steps almost always have little or no war. [The ratings of war frequency were taken from our cross-cultural study of war [Ember and (Ember, 1992a, b).]

As we noted above, it would also be useful to have separate archaeologically recoverable correlates of internal and external warfare, because internal war is not only a very strong predictor of patrilocality (Ember and Ember, 1971); it is also a strong predictor of the presence of territo- rially contiguous unilineal descent groups, and descent groups (lineages) with known links to the common ancestor (Ember, et al., 1974). And, of course, purely external war is a strong predictor of matrilocality and ma- trilineality (see Ember and Ember, 1971; Ember and Ember, 1983, Chap. 1).

Relations Between Regions

A possible guide to future research on indicators of relations between regions is Blanton's (1994) comparative work on house decoration. He suggests (p. 122) that regions with more household involvement in long-distance trade or other economic activities beyond the local community are more likely to have elaborate decoration on the outsides of their houses. Thus, the degree to which the outside of a house is decorated may tell us a lot about the external relations of an archaeological site or region.

PC User

Sticky Note

La Guerra Los arqueologos estan empezando a inferir las guerras sobre la base de causas probables de muerte en poblaciones de esqueletos. Dado que estas no siempre ocntamos con estas, un nuevo indicador descubierto de guerra puede resultar muy util. Peregrine 91993) ha sugerido que el grado de permeabilidad de asentamientos puede ser un indicador muy exacto de la frecuencia de guerras. Usando la teoria de grafos, Peregrine cuenta el numero de "pasos" necesarios para entrar en la parte más interna (s) del asentamiento desde afuera de este. Este es el índice de permeabilidad. Si toma un paso entrar a alguna de las habitaciones de la vivienda (ej: desplazarse desde afuera hasta adentro a traves de una entrada), el indice de permeabilidad es 1. Si existe una cerca exterior alrededor d ela vivienda o de la comunidad, el indice de permeabilidad es 2. Si ademas existe una zanja, trinchera, el indice de permeabilidad es 3. Si las viviendas tienen habitaciones interiores a las que solo se puede acceder desde habitaciones exteriores, se anaden pasos adicionales al puntaje (ver tambien Blanton, 1993). Transculturalmente las sociedades que tienen un indice de permeabilidad de tres o mas casi siempre tienen guerra por lo menos una vez cada dos anos; mientras que los que presentan uno o dos pasos pocas veces tienen guerras o son totalmente ausentes. ( las calificaciones de frecuencia de guerra fueron tomados de nuestro estudio transcultual de guerras Ember y Ember, 1992a, b). Como hemos senalado anteriormente, seria util separar los correlatos recuperables arqueologicamente de la guerra interna y externa, ya que la guerra interna no es solo un fuerte indicador de patrilocalidad (Ember y Ember, 1971); sino que tambien es un indicador importante de la presencia de grupos de filiacion unilineal territorialmente contiguas y grupos de filiacion (linajes) con vinculos conocidos con un ancestro comun (Ember, et al., 1974). Y, por supuesto, la guerra puramente externa es un fuerte indicador de matrilocalidad y matrilinealidad (see Ember y Ember, 1971; Ember y Ember,1983, Chap. 1).

PC User

Sticky Note

Relaciones entre regiones Una posible guia para investigaciones futuras en indicadores de relaciones entre regiones es el trabajo comparativo de Blanton (1994) sobre la decoracion de las viviendas. El sugiere (p.122) que las regiones con una mayor participación de los hogares en el comercio a larga distancia u otras actividades económicas más allá de la comunidad local, son más propensos a presentar elaborada decoración en el exterior de sus viviendas. Asi, el grado en que el exterior de la casa esta decorado puede decirnos mucho acerca de las relaciones externas de un sitio arqueologico o region.

102 Ember and Ember

Foragers' Dependence on Plant Foods

Since the estimation of the plant component of prehistoric diets is barely developed (Keeley, 1988), inferences based on cross-cultural comparisons may be useful. Using a sample of 94 hunter-gatherer groups, Keeley (1988) finds in a stepwise regression analysis that latitude accounts for 70% of the variation in dependence on gathering, low annual precipi- tation accounts for 9%, and his measure of population pressure accounts for an additional 3% of the variability. Although the effect of latitude would have to be adjusted for climatic variability in earlier time periods, it and a measure of availability of water may provide fairly robust indicators of reliance on plants.

Inferring from Noncausal Associations

We do not have to understand the causality of a relationship in order to use the measured value of one variable to infer the value of another. For example, if the average living floor area of dwellings is 200 m E , we can infer matrilocal as opposed to patrilocal residence (as discussed above); we do not have to consider matrilocal residence the cause and size of dwelling the effect. The important point is that size of dwelling, whatever the reason, predicts matrilocal versus patrilocal residence quite well. We can use such predictive relationships, assuming they are strong, to predict the presence of something in the ethnographic record, as well as in the archaeological record.

There are other kinds of predictive relationships based on cross-cultural research that may have import for archaeologists. Some of the most important relate to cultural complexity.

Cultural Evolution and Complexity

Cross-cultural researchers have created at least eight different scales to summarize (and compare) societies at different levels of cultural corn- plenty [Bowden, 1969; Carneiro and Tobias, 1963 (also Carneiro, 1970); Freeman and Winch, 1957; Lomax and Arensberg, 1977; Marsh, 1967; McNett, 1970b; Murdock and Provost, 1973; Naroll, 1956]. One of these scales (Carneiro, 1970) counts how many of 618 traits are present in a society; other scales use just three variables (Naroll, 1956) or two (Marsh, 1967). Levinson and Malone (1980, p. 34) point out that the various scales are highly correlated with each other (the correlations range from 0.78 to 0.95). Hence archaeologists who want to infer the degree of complexity of

PC User

Sticky Note

Infiriendo a partir de asociaciones no causales No tenemos que comprender la causalidad de una relacion para usar el valor de medido de una variable para inferir el valor de otra. Por ejemplo, si el promedio de area del suelo de la vivienda es 200 metros cuadrados, podemos inferir una residencia matrilocal en oposicion a una residencia patrilocal ( como discutimos anteriormente); no tenemos que considerar la residencia matrilocal como la causa y el tamano de la vivienda como el efecto. El punto importante es que el tamano d ela vivienda, por cualquier motivo, predice bien la matrilocalidad frente a la patrilocalidad. POdemos usar dichas relaciones predictivas, suponiendo que son significativas, para predecir la presencia de algo en el archivo etnografico, al igual que en el archivo arqueologico. Existen otras clases de relaciones predictivas basadas en investigacion transcultural que pueden ser importadas para los arqueologos. Algunas de las mas importantes estan relacionadas con la complejidad cultural.

PC User

Sticky Note

Evolucion y complejidad cultural los investigadores transculturales han creado por lo menos ocho escalas diferentes para resumir ( y comparar) sociedades en diferentes niveles de complejidad cultural (Bowden, 1969; Carneiro y Tobias, 1963 (tambien Carneiro, 1970); Freeman y Winch,1957; Lomax y Arensberg,1977; Marsh,1967; McNett, 1970b; Murdock y Provost, 1973; Naroll,1956). Una de estas escalas (Carneiro,1970) analiza cuantos rasgos de 618 establecidos estan presentes en una sociedad; otras escalas usan solo tres variables (Naroll, 1956) o dos (Marsh,1967). Levinson y Malone (1980, p.34) senalan que las diferentes escalas estan altamente correlacionadas entre ellas ( el rango de correlacion va desde 0.78 a 0.95). Por lo tanto, los arqueologos que deseen inferir el grado de complejidad de


sites or areas could use the scale for which they can find the most archaeological indicators. In addition, because the intercorrelations are strong, one could infer one aspect or dimension of complexity from another. For example, one could infer number of types of craft specialist from community size (Clark and Parry, 1990), or vice versa, depending on which variable can be measured from archaeological information.

The various scales are relevant to archaeological inference for several reasons. First, the items and variables used in these scales (assuming they could be assessed on the basis of archaeological information) would allow archaeologists to make systematic or quantitative comparisons of the cultural complexity of different sites, areas, and time periods. Second, the scales can help us evaluate which attributes are not particularly useful for comparative purposes. For example, type of subsistence, used by itself, is not a good predictor of complexity (Levinson and Malone, 1980, p. 33). Third, certain scales suggest evolutionary sequences that can be checked against the archaeological record.

In the latter context, we think one of the the most useful scales is a Guttman-type scale that involves a hierarchical and presumably evolutionary ordering of traits (see Freeman and Winch, 1957). The purpose of a Guttman scale (if one can be found in the data) is to order traits hierar- chically, such that if a case has a particular scale score it almost always has all the traits lower on the scale. The classic example of a Guttman scale is one that measures prejudice. If people say that they do not mind if their son (or daughter) marries a person of X group, they almost certainly would not mind if a person of X group lives on their street, or goes to their children's school, etc. A Guttman scale is very efficient because it does not require information on all items to locate a case on the scale.

If a Guttman scale can be found with items that measure cultural complexity, we might expect that such an ordering reflects an evolutionary sequence of acquisition or development. Such a sequence could be checked against the data from stratigraphically known sites. If confirmed, the findings from one time period might suggest what one would find in subsequent or earlier time periods.

Freeman and Winch (1957) developed a Guttman scale with cross- cultural data. The starting point (for selecting items) was Redfield's (1947, 1953) discussion of the folk-urban continuum. Eleven items formed an almost perfect Guttman scale. In order of most to least complex, the items or traits were the following: presence of a complex, unambiguous written language; presence of towns exceeding 1000 in population; presence of a state of at least 10,000 population; presence of a standard medium of exchange with a value fixed at some worth other than its commodity value; presence of full-tirfie craft specialists; presence of secondary tools; presence

PC User

Sticky Note

Si la escala de Guttman puede ser encontrada con elementos que miden la complejidad cultural, podriamos esperar que tal ordenamiento refleja una secuencia evolutiva de adquisicion o desarrollo. Tal secuencia puede ser revisada frente la informacion de sitios estratigraficamente conocidos. Si es confirmado, los resultados de un periodo de tiempo pueden sugerir lo que podriamos encontrar en periodos posteriores o mas tempranos. Freeman y Winch (1957) desarrollaron una escala de Guttman con informacion transcultural. El punto de inicio (para elementos seleccionados) fue la discusion de Redfield sobre la relacion de lo rural (pueblo)-urbano. Once elementos conformaban una escala de Guttman casi perfecta. En orden de mayor a menor complejidad, los rasgos fueron los siguientes: presencia de un complejo, una lengua escrita no ambigua; presencia de pueblos que excedieran una poblaciond e 1000 personas; presencia de un estado de por lo menos 10,000 individuos; presencia de un medio estandar de intercambio con un valor fijado a uno diferente del valor de la mercancia; presencia de artesanos especializados de tiempo completo; presencia de herramientas secundarias; presencia de espacialistas religiosos o magicos de tiempo completo

104 Ember and Ember

of full-time religious or magical specialists; presence of full-time govern- mental specialists; presence of social stratification or slavery; presence of an economy based on agriculture or pastoralism; and presence of trade with other societies. According to this scale, if a society has a written language, it almost always will have all the other traits. If it has towns of 1000 people, it may not have a written language, but it will almost always have all the other traits below it. Guttman scales can now be fairly easily con- structed with the help of computer programs. However, they should be tested for statistical significance; if there are only a few items, the ordering of the items by frequency may be attributable to chance and therefore the scale may be untrustworthy (Ember et aL, 1991).

In addition, there are aspects of culture that relate to complexity curvilinearly. In the following list, the first attribute we mention is most likely to be found in the middle of the range of cultural complexity: extended families (Blumberg and Winch, 1972; McNett, 1973; Nimkoff and Middle- ton, 1960; Osmond, 1969), polygyny (White, 1988; White and Burton, 1988), unitineal vs. bilateral kinship (Murdock and Provost, 1973); male initiation ceremonies (Precourt, 1975; Schlegel and Barry, 1980), and positive treatment of the aged (Balkwell and Balswick, 1981; Ishii-Kuntz and Lee, 1987, Lee, 1984).

Cross-culturally, we know that various measures of cultural complexity predict variation in many cultural realms that are not obviously related to cultural complexity. We have already mentioned house shape. Perhaps also of interest to archaeologists are the findings in regard to religion and art.

A large number of aspects of religious belief and practice seem to be related to a high degree of cultural complexity, including the following (this is not an exhaustive list): belief in a high god (Davis, 1971; Lenski, 1970; Swanson, 1960; Underhill, 1975), lack of belief in animism (Davis, 1971), oaths and ordeals (Roberts, 1965), possessio~ trances (Bourguignon, 1973; Bourguignon and Evascu, 1977; Winkelman, 1986b), religious hier- archy (Davis, 1971; McNett, 1970a), priests (Davis, 1971; McNett, 1970a, b; Winkelman, 1986a, 1990), number of types of religious practitioner (Winkelman, 1986a, 1990), calendrical rites (Davis, 1971), frequent group ceremonies (McNett, 1970a), and more elaborate funerals (McNett, 1970a). The importance of active ancestral spirits and belief in the immanence of the soul are curvilinearly related to complexity--with the highest incidence in nonintensive agricultural societies (Davis, 1971). [See Ember and Levin- son (1991) for other religious correlates of complexity.]

Although there are relatively few worldwide, cross-cultural studies of art, certain features of art style are strongly linked to cultural complexity. Fischer (1961), for example, using Barry's (1957) coding of art styles, found that egalitarian 'as opposed to stratified societies were significantly more


likely to have simple repetitive elements, a lot of empty space, symmetry, and few enclosed figures, in their graphic art. In support of Fischer's theory, Dressier and Robbins (1975) found that Athenian vase painting became more complex, more crowded, and more enclosed when Athens became more socially stratified. While variation in music and dance may not be as interesting as art to archaeologists, there are remarkable parallels in the findings across these different areas of expressive culture, largely relating to variation in cultural complexity. Art styles are not the only kinds of expressive culture that relate to complexity. [For a review of these findings see Ember and Levinson (199t, p. 100).]

Even when it comes to art styles, then, there may be connections to other aspects of culture. Some may assume that art is more free to vary than other aspects of culture because it is seemingly unrelated to matters of life and death, unconnected to survival or adaptation. It may be assumed for this reason that art styles are more likely than other aspects of culture to diffuse, as if by chance. But the fact that we can now predict some aspects of stylistic variation suggests that in the future, as research continues, we may be able to predict even more. There is no a priori way to estimate how our quest for predictability may be limited in any area of culture. And so we encourage archaeologists to join in this quest by starting to think and design their research with cross-cultural issues and knowledge in mind.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We have suggested a number of ways that worldwide cross-cultural research may be useful for archaeological inference. Some of these types of inference are weaker than others. The weakest is generalizing about societal types (e.g., hunter-gatherers) from a representative sample of ethnographic cases. While this strategy is far better than generalizing from a few cases chosen opportunistically, it is still a weak form of inference because it presumes that recent cases are like past cases. But few if any societies described in the ethnographic record, even those described shortly after first contact with the West, were completely unaffected by that contact. Still, even though many societies when first described had already been subject to the effects of culture contact, these effects can be measured and controlled statistically.

Stronger forms of inference use results of cross-cultural (comparative ethnographic) tests of relational hypotheses. If we have strong predictors (causes or correlates) of some aspect of ethnographic variation and there is some way of inferring (from archaeology) at least one of the variables in the relationship,' the inference to archaeology will be stronger than an

106 Ember and Ember

inference derived just from the prevalence of a trait in some set of cases in the ethnographic record. Inferences using cross-cultural associations and archaeological indicators do not depend on the frequency of a trait in the ethnographic record; as long as there is one strong predictor that can be measured archaeologically, we can use a strong cross-cultural association to infer the archaeological likelihood of correlated traits. And the stronger the relevant statistical associations, the more confidence we can have in the inferences. In this paper, we have described some material indicators of cultural traits that have emerged from cross-cultural tests of relational hypotheses. These can be used now for archaeological inference. We presume more such will be found in the future, if we look for them.

Cross-cultural researchers who study cultural variation are also often studying culture change (if they test causal theories). After all, what is culture change if not cultural variation viewed over time? The variations we see cross-culturally are the products of change processes. Hence the study of cultural variation, past and present, may also be the study of culture change, past and present. To be sure, when cross-culturalists test causal theories of culture change, they usually do so synchronically; but they assume that if the theory is true, the causes and effects should be highly correlated synchronically. We conduct synchronic tests of causal theories because they are economical in time and money, but even if a causal theory survives such tests it still needs to be tested diachronically.

This is an important interface between cross-cultural research and archaeology. Cross-culturalists who test causal theories about why cultures vary have much to gain from archaeologists. For it is archaeology, particularly comparative archaeology, that could provide diachronic data to help us evaluate many causal theories. [Ethnohistory can also provide such data; but archaeology can or could provide much more (Ember, 1973).] If we had archaeological indicators of the cultural (and other) variables of interest, we could test the temporal orderings suggested by our causal theories against the data from archaeological sequences. For example, we (Ember and Ember, 1992a) have presented cross-cultural evidence consistent with a theory that fear of resource scarcity (suggested by a history of unpre- dictable disasters that destroy food supplies) is the major cause of war. The temporal priority presumed in our theory could be tested in a sample of archaeological sequences, using Peregrine's (1993) indicator of warfare and some still-to-be discovered indicator of aperiodic resource scarcity. If the theory is correct, more war should occur after the appearance of signs of aperiodic resource scarcity. [Haas and Creamer (1993, p. 133) have suggested a similar explanation of warfare among the Kayenta Anasazi of the 13th century A.D.]


If cultural anthropologists and archaeologists are to do complemen- tary research on the same problems of cultural process and variation, we must explore, systematically and comparatively, how the behavioral and material realms may be correlated. The more we do so, the more archaeologists will have a firm empirical foundation for interpreting the cultural significance of the materials they collect and excavate. And if we are suc- cessful in discovering archaeological indicators of different aspects of cultural variation, cross-cultural and other comparative researchers will have a new way to test the priorities they assume in attempting to explain synchronic cross-cultural correlations. (If we could build an archaeological equivalent of the HRAF database, we could do such research very easily.) Thus, the possibility of using archaeological data to test causal hypotheses will supplement the tests we can make using documentary data. Indeed, the archaeological record will forever be more useful than the ethnohistorical record for the testing of causal theories, since the archaeological record will always be more extensive than the ethnohistorical record, particularly of course in regard to nonliterate cultures.

We hope that this paper encourages comparative archaeologists to join with comparative cultural anthropologists in separate and joint studies of cultural process and variation.

REFERENCES CITED

Abrahamson, M. (1969). Correlates of political complexity. American Sociological Review 34: 690-701.

Bailey, R. C., Head, G., Jenike, M., Owen, B., Rechtman, R., and Zechenter, E. (1989). Hunting and gathering in tropical rain forest: Is it possible? American Anthropologist 91: 59-82.

Balkwell, C., and Balswick, J. (1981). Subsistence economy, family structure and the status of the elderly. Journal of Marriage and the Family 43: 423-429.

Barry, H., III (1957). Relationship between child training and the pictorial arts. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 54: 380-383.

Binford, L. R. (1990). Mobility, housing, and environment: A comparative study. Journal of Anthropological Research 46: 119-152.

Blanton, R. E. (1993). Houses and Households, Plenum, New York. Blumberg, R. L., and Winch, R. F. (1972). Societal complexity and familial complexity:

Evidence for the curvilinear hypothesis. American Journal of Sociology 77: 898-920. Bodley, J. H. (1990). Victims of Progress, 3rd ed., Mayfield, Mountainview. Bourguignon, E. (1973). Religion, Altered States of Consciousness, and Social Change, Ohio

State University Press, Columbus. Bourguignon, E., and Evascu, T. L. (1977). Altered states of consciousness within a general

evolutionary perspective: A holocultural analysis. Behavior Science Research 12: 197-216. Bowden, E. (1969). An index of sociocultural development applicable to precivilized societies.

American Anthropologist 71: 454--461. Bradley, C., Moore, C. C., Burton, M. L, and White, D. R. (1990). A cross-cultural historical

analysis of subsisten6e change. American Anthropologist 92: 447--457.

108 Ember and Ember

Brown, B. M. (1987). Population estimation from floor area: A restudy of "Naroll's constant." Behavior Science Research 21: 1--49.

Burton, M. L., and White, D. R. (1991). Regional comparisons, replications, and historical network analysis. Behavior Science Research 25: 55-78.

Carneiro, R. L. (1970). Scale analysis, evolutionary sequences, and the rating of cultures. In Naroll, R., and Cohen, R. (eds.), A Handbook of Method in CulturalAnthropology, Natural History Press, Garden City.

Carneiro, R. L., and Tobias, S. F. (1963). The application of scale analysis to the study of cultural evolution. New York Academy of Sciences, Transactions, ser. 2. 2a: 196-207.

Clark, J. E., and Parry, W. J. (1990). Craft specialization and cultural complexity. Research in Economic Anthropology 12: 289-346.

Cohen, M. N. (1977). The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Davis, W. D. (1971). Societal Complexity and the Nature of Primitive Man's Conception of the Supernatural, Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Divale, W. T. (1974). Migration, external warfare, and matrilocal residence. Behavior Science Research 9: 75-133.

Divale, W. T. (1975). The Causes of Matrilocal Residence: A Cross-Ethnohistorical Survey, University Microfilms, No. 75-7742, Ann Arbor, MI.

Divale, W. T. (1977). Living floor area and marital residence: A replication. Behavior Science Research 12: 109-115.

Dressier, W. W., and Robbins, M. C. (1975). Art styles, social stratification, and cognition: An analysis of Greek vase painting. American Ethnologist 2: 427--434.

Driver, H. E., and Massey, W. C. (1957). Comparative studies of North American Indians. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 47: 165-456.

Ember, C. R. (1974). An evaluation of alternative theories of matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. Behavior Science Research 9:135-149 [Reprinted in Ember and Ember (1983).]

Ember, C. R. (1975). Residential variation among hunter-gatherers. Behavior Science Research 10: 199-227. [Reprinted in Ember and Ember (1983).]

Ember, C. R. (1978). Myths about hunter-gatherers. Ethnology 17: 439--448. [Reprinted in Ember and Ember (1983).]

Ember, C. R., and Ember, M. (1972). The conditions favoring multilocal residence. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 28:382-400 (Reprinted in Ember and Ember, 1983).

Ember, C. R., and Ember, M. (1992a). Resource unpredictability, mistrust and war: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Conflict Resolution 36: 242-262.

Ember, C. R., and Ember, M. (1992b). Warfare, aggression and resource problems: Cross-cultural codes. Behavior Science Research 26: 169-226.

Ember, C. R., and Ember, M. (1993). Anthropology, 7th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Ember, C. R., and Levinson, D. (1991). The substantive contributions of worldwide cross-cultural studies using secondary data. Behavior Science Research 25: 79-140.

Ember, C. R., Ember, M., and Pasternak, B. (1974). On the development of unilineal descent. Journal of Anthropological Research 30: 69-94. [Reprinted with "Afterthoughts" in Ember and Ember (1983).]

Ember, C. R., Ross, M. H., Burton, M., and Bradley, C. (1991). Problems of measurement in cross-cultural research using secondary data. Behavior Science Research 25: 187-216.

Ember, C. R., Ember, M., and Russett, B. (1992). Peace between participatory polities: A cross-cultural test of the "democracies rarely fight each other" hypothesis. World Politics 44: 573-599.

Ember, C. R., Russett, B., and Ember, M. (1993). Political participation and peace: Cross-cultural codes. Cross-Cultural Research (formerly Behavior Science Research) 27: 97-145.

Ember, M. (1963). The relationship between economic and political development in nonindustrializdd societies. Ethnology 2: 228-248.


Ember, M. (1967). The emergence of neolocaI residence. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 30: 291-302. [Reprinted with "Afterthoughts" in Ember and Ember (1983).]

Ember, M. (1973). An archeological indicator of matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. American Antiquity 38:177-I82 (Reprinted in Ember and Ember, 1983).

Ember, M. (1974). The conditions that may favor avuncutocal residence. Behavior Science Research 8: 203-209. [Reprinted with "Afterthoughts" in Ember and Ember (1983).]

Ember, M. (1975). On the origin and extension of the incest taboo. Behavior Science Research 10: 249-281. [Reprinted with "Afterthoughts" in Ember and Ember (1983).]

Ember, M. (1991). The logic of comparative research. Behavior Science Research 25: 143-153. Ember, M., and Ember, C. R. (1971). The conditions favoring matrilocal versus patrilocal

residence. American Anthropologist 73:571-594 (Reprinted with "Afterthoughts" in Ember and Ember, 1983).

Ember, M., and Ember, C. R. (1983). Marriage, Family, and IO'nship: Comparative Studies of Social Organization, HRAF Press, New Haven, CT.

Ember, M., and Otterbein, IC (1991). Sampling in cross-cultural research. Behavior Science Research 25: 217-233.

Feinman, G., and Neitzel, J. (1984). Too many types: An overview of sedentary prestate societies in the Americas. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory, VoL 7, Academic Press, Orlando, FL, pp. 39-102.

Fischer, J. L. (1961). Art styles as cultural cognitive maps. American Anthropologist 63: 79-93. Freeman, L. C., and Winch, R. F. (1957). Societal complexity: An empirical test of a typology

of societies. American Journal of Sociology 62: 461--466. Haas, J., and Creamer, W. (1993). Stress and Warfare Among the Kayenta Anasazi of the

Thirteenth Century A.D., Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Hassan, F. A. (198I). Demographic Archaeology, Academic Press, New York. Hiatt, B. (t970). Woman the gatherer. Australian Aboriginal Studies 32: 2-9. Hill, K. Q. (1979). Political institutionalization in primitive societies: A hologeistic analysis.

Behavior Science Research 14: 277-292. Ishii-Kuntz, M., and Lee, G. R. (1987). Status of the elderly: An extension of the theory.

Journal of Marriage and the Family 49: 413-420. Keegan, W. F., and Maclachlan, M. D. (1989). The evolution of avunculocal cbiefdoms.

American Anthropologist 91: 613-630. Keeley, L. H. (1988). Hunter-gatherer economic complexity and "population pressure": A

cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7: 373-411. Keeley, L. H. (1992). The use of plant foods among hunter-gatherers: A cross-cultural survey.

Prehistoire de l'Agricutture: Nouvelles Approches Experimentates et Ethnographiques, Monographie du CRA, No. 6, CNRS, pp. 29-38.

Kelly, R. L. (1983). Hunter-gatherer mobility strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39: 277-306.

Lee, G. R. (1984). Status of the elderly: Economic and family antecedents. Journal of Marriage and the Family 46: 267-275.

Lee, G. R., and Kezis, M. (1979). Family structure and the status of the elderly: A preliminary study. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 10: 429--443.

Lee, R. B. (1976). !Kung spatial organization: An ecological and historical perspective. In Lee, R. B., and DeVote, I. (eds.), Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the /Kung San and Their Neighbors, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 73-97.

Lee, R. B., and DeVore, I. (eds.) (1968). Man the Hunter, Aldine, Chicago. Lenski, G. (1970). Human Societies: A Macrolevel Introduction to Sociology, McGraw-Hill, New

York. Levinson, D., and Malone, M. J. (1980). Toward Explaining Human Culture: A Critical Review

of the Findings of Worldwide Cross-Cultural Research, HRAF Press, New Haven, CT. Lomax, A., and Arensberg, C. (1977). A worldwide evolutionary classification of cultures by

subsistence systems. Current Anthropology 18: 659-708. Marsh, R. M. (1967). Comparative Sociology: A Codification of Cross-Sectional Analysis,

Harcourt, Brace &'World, New York.

110 Ember and Ember

McNett, C. W., Jr. (1970a). A cross-cultural method for predicting nonmaterial traits in archaeology. Behavior Science Notes 5: 195-212.

McNett, C. W., Jr. (1970b). A settlement pattern scale of cultural complexity. In Naroll, R., and Cohen, R. (eds.), A Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthropology, Natural History Press, Garden City, pp. 872-886.

McNett, C. W., Jr. (1973). Factor analysis of a cross-cultural sample. Behavior Science Notes 8: 233-257.

Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social Structure, Macmillan, New York. Murdock, G. P., and Provost, C. (1973b). Measurement of cultural complexity. Ethnology 12:

203-225. Murdock, G. P., Ford, C. S., Hudson, A., Kennedy, R., Simmons, L., and Whiting, J. W. M.

(1982). Outline of Cultural Materials, 5th rev. ed., Human Relations Area Files, New Haven, CT.

Myers, F. R. (1988). Critical trends in the study of hunter-gatherers. Annual Reviews of Anthropology 17: 261-282.

Naroll, R. (1956). A preliminary index of social development. American Anthropologist 58: 687-715.

Naroll, R. (1962). Floor area and settlement population. American Antiquity 27: 587-589. Nimkoff, M. F., and Middleton, R. (1960). Types of family and types of economy. American

Journal of Sociology 66: 215-225. Osmond, M. W. (1969). Toward monogamy: A cross-cultural study of correlates of type of

marriage. Social Forces 44: 8-16. Peregrine, P. (1993). An archaeological correlate of war. North American Archaeologist 14:

139-151. Precourt, W. (1975). Initiation ceremonies and secret societies as educational institutions. In

Brislin, R., Lonner, W., and Boohner, S., (eds.), Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Learnin~ Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 231-250.

Redfield, R. (1947). The folk society. American Journal of Sociology 52: 293-308. Redfield, R. (1953). The Primitive World and Its Transformation, Cornell University Press,

Ithaca, NY. Robbins, M. C. (1966). House types and settlement patterns. Minnesota Archaeologist 28: 2-26. Roberts, J. M. (1965). Oaths, autonomic ordeals, and power. American Anthropologist 67:

186-212. Schalk, R. (1982). Land use and organizational complexity among foragers of northwestern

North America. In Koyama, S., and Thomas, D. (eds.),Affluent foragers. Senri Ethnological Studies 9, pp. 53-76.

Schlegel, A., and Barry, H., III (1980). The evolutionary significance of adolescent initiation ceremonies. American Ethnologist 7: 696-715.

Schrire, C. (1984). Wild surmises on savage thoughts. In Schrire, C. (ed.), Past and Present in Hunter Gatherer Studies, Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

Service, E. R. (1962). Primitive Social Organization: An Evolutionary Perspective, Random House, New York.

Swanson, G. E. (1960). The Birth of the Gods: The Origin of Primitive Beliefs, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Trigger, B. G. (1981). Archaeology and the ethnographic present. Anthropologica 23: 3-17. Underhill, R. (1975). Economic and political antecedents of monotheism: A cross-cultural

study. American Journal of Sociology 80: 841-861. White, D. R. (1967). Concomitant Variation in Kinship Structures, Master's thesis, University

of Minnesota, Minneapolis. White, D. R. (1988). Rethinking polygyny. Current Anthropology 29: 529-558. White, D. R., and Burton, M. L. (1988). Causes of polygyny: Ecology, economy, kinship and

warfare. American Anthropologist 90: 871-887. Whiting, J. W. M. (1954). The cross-cultural method. In Lindzey, G. (ed.), Handbook of Social

Psychology, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA, pp. 523-531. Whiting, J. W. M., and Ayres, B. (1968). Inferences from the shape of dwellings. In Chang,

K. C. (ed.), Settlement Archeology, National Press Books, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 117-133.


Wilmsen, E, N. (1989). Land Filled with Flies: A Political Economy of the Kalahari, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Winkelman, M. (1986a). Magico-religions practitioner types and socioeconomic conditions. Behavior Science Research 20: 17--46.

Winkelman, M. (1986b). Trance states: A theoretical model and cross-cultural analysis. Ethos 14: 76-105.

Winkelman, M. (1990). Shamans and other "magico-retigious" healers: A cross-cultural study of their origins, nature and social transformations. Ethos 18: 308-352.

B I B L I O G R A P H Y O F R E C E N T L I T E R A T U R E

Ember, C. R. (1990). Bibliography of cross-cultural research methods. Behavior Science Research 24: I41-154.

Ember, C. R. (with the assistance of Page, H., Jr., Martin, M. M., and O'Leary, T. J.) (1992). A Computerized Concordance of Cross-Cultural Samples, Human Relations Area Files, New Haven, CT.

Ember, C. R., and Ember, M. (1988). Guide to Cross-Cultural Research Using the HRAF Archive, Human Relations Area Files, New Haven, C-q'.

Ember, M. (1970). Taxonomy in comparative studies. In Naroll, R., and Cohen, R. (eds.), A Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthropology, Natural History Press, Garden City, NY, pp. 697-706.

Ember, M. (1988). The Human Relations Area Files: Past and future. Behavior Science Research 22: 97-104.

Levinson, D. (1988). Instructor's and Librarian's Guide to the HRAF Archive, Human Relations Area Files, New Haven, CT.

Levinson, D. (1990). Bibliography of substantive worldwide cross-cultural studies. Behavior Science Research 24: 105-140.

worldwide cross cultural studies ember and ember (1)

Documents