1. Abiha Bilgrami Anthro 174AW 11/19/09

2.  The first time marriage arrangements for a female were influenced by her parental and kin approval.  The bride’s age, exogamy/endogamy, and attitudes to pre marital sex would all influence how and who arranged her marriage.  I set out trying to prove that a young female has relatively little control over mate selection.

3.  740. Marriage Arrangements ( Female)  35. = Missing data  12 1 = Individual selects and/or courts partner autonomously:  approval by parents or others unnecessary  40 2 = Individual selects and/or courts partner autonomously:  parental, kin, and/or community approval necessary  or highly desirable  4 3 = Individual suggests partner to parents or others;  arrangements for courtship or marriage then proceed  if choice is approved  OR parents ask approval of individuals to initiate  a match  OR individual is approached by parent or others on  behalf of suitor and can accept or reject the match  27 4 = Individual choice and arranged marriages are  alternatives  35 5 = Parents choose partner: individual can object  33 6 = Parents choose partner: individual cannot easily  object or rarely objects in fact

4.  603. Role of Older Generation in Arranging Marriage  604. Voice of Potential Bride and Groom  612. Relative avg. age of 1 st marriage  282. Norms of Premarital Sex Behavior of Girls  220. Community Marriage Organization  209. Mode of Marriage  72. Intercommunity Marriage  634. Control of Sex Scale

5. R2:final mode 1 R2:IV (distance) R2:IV (language) 0.37357360.91016400.9012827 When I ran my unrestricted model, I got some interesting results. coefFstatddfpvalueVIF cultints0.3162.9804523.8500.0845.682 cereals-1.5673.9258010.6490.0489.040 exogamy0.2212.6241035.4250.1061.541 pctFemPolyg0.0196.354199.0490.0122.124 agrlateboy0.1903.26797.3300.0741.724

6. depvar = arranged marriages coef Fstat ddf pvalue VIF (Intercept) -0.107 0.001 36901.816 0.975 NA fyll 1.113 1.984 10745.185 0.159 1.280 dateobs * -0.001 2.448 40445.967 0.118 1.101 cultints 0.186 2.813 17850.507 0.093 2.255 cereals * -0.876 6.767 13234.615 0.009 1.749 bovines 0.840 5.103 14865.559 0.024 1.877 foodtrade 0.027 3.967 77497.447 0.046 1.246 popdens * -0.204 3.236 7830.208 0.072 1.973 exogamy 0.242 4.954 105534.447 0.026 1.118 localjh 0.490 4.396 24655.067 0.036 1.184 fempower * -0.169 5.149 749.082 0.024 1.057 pctFemPolyg 0.014 7.107 205.293 0.008 1.083 agrlateboy 0.140 3.313 173.884 0.070 1.084 r2 0.2451251 (Courier New Font) Depvar diminishes with asterisked variables Depvar somewhat clustered within language families

7. R2:final model R2:IV(distance) R2:IV(language) 0.2451251 0.9108772 0.9008883 <--good R2 Fstat df pvalue RESET 0.371 1252.574 0.542 <--good diagnostic, no significant nonlinear transformations of independent variables Wald on restrs. 2.233 1016.628 0.135 <--good diagnostic, no significant excluded variables NCV 1.630 763.710 0.202 <--good diagnostic, no bunching of autocorrelation errors SWnormal 5.108 47610.956 0.024 <--diagnostic ok, don’t expect normality lagll 1.756 556755.724 0.185 <--good diagnostic, no language residuals lagdd 0.651 146180.887 0.420 <--good diagnostic, no distance residuals

8.  The likelihood of arranged marriage is increased by intensive cultivation, cattle, trade in food, exogamy, jurisdictional hierarchy within the community, percentage of polygyny, and aggression of late-age boys. This likelihood is decreased by date of observation, cereal agriculture, population density, and power of females, i.e., Sanday’s v663 for low Female Power in a Guttman Scale for variables 657-662:  11 1 = all items absent  9 2 = flexible marriage mores only (657)  5 3 = plus female nondomestic production (658)  13 4 = plus demand for female produce (659)  23 5 = plus female economic control (660)  41 6 = plus female political participation (661)  31 7 = plus female solidarity groups (662)  There is a tendency for arranged marriage and perhaps some of these traits to cluster in the same language family. All these effects are statistically significant in the range.07 > pvalue >.008. They indicate smaller-scale, exogamous, male- dominant societies with polygyny and high adolescent male aggression and local community complexity with complex characteristics of intensive cultivation, cattle, trade in food, exogamy, and jurisdictional hierarchy within the community.

9.  Seven highly significant (p <.05) predictors for arranged marriage:  cereals * -0.876 6.767 13234.615 0.009 1.749  bovines 0.840 5.103 14865.559 0.024 1.877  foodtrade 0.027 3.967 77497.447 0.046 1.246  exogamy 0.242 4.954 105534.447 0.026 1.118  localjh 0.490 4.396 24655.067 0.036 1.184  fempower * -0.169 5.149 749.082 0.024 1.057  pctFemPolyg 0.014 7.107 205.293 0.008 1.083  agrlateboy 0.140 3.313 173.884 0.070 1.084  Four close to significance:  fyll 1.113 1.984 10745.185 0.159 1.280  dateobs * -0.001 2.448 40445.967 0.118 1.101  cultints 0.186 2.813 17850.507 0.093 2.255  popdens * -0.204 3.236 7830.208 0.072 1.973  agrlateboy 0.140 3.313 173.884 0.070 1.084  Islam is a predictor & displaces some above