1. Dante Anton Anthro 174AW Winter 2010
SCSSv1721: “Wealthy”
Dante Anton
Anthro 174AW
Winter 2010

2. Why Investigate Wealth?
Current social prevalence
Globally applicable
Human Nature of categorizing
SCSSv1721=number of “rich” people

3. Question: What increases the amount of wealthy within a society?
Hypothesis: The number of wealthy people will be increased by availability of natural resources (SCCSv857 “ecorich”) and absence or negative correlation of chronic resource problems (SCCSv1685 “foodscarc”)
depvar: Wealthy
Indepvar: Same ones as Polygamy *see results*
Why use the same indepvars as polygamy?

4. Unrestricted Results R2:final model R2:IV(distance) R2:IV(language)
<=
Fstat df pvalue
RESET
Wald on restrs
NCV
SWnormal
lagll
lagdd
mnb fst v pval VIF
(Intercept) NA
fyll
fydd
pre_mar_sex
money
foodstress
femctrldwellg
fratgrpstr
marrcaptives <=
plunder
cultints HIGH VIF
roots
cereals HIGH VIF
gath
plow
hunt
fish

5. Unrestricted Results (cont.)
anim HIGH VIF
pigs <=
milk HIGH VIF
bovines HIGH VIF
tree
foodtrade
foodscarc NO
ecorich NO
popdens <=
pathstress
exogamy
ncmallow
famsize <=
settype
localjh
superjh
moralgods
fempower
femsubs
sexratio <=
war
himilexp
wagelabor
"27" "41" "27" "3" "98" "Wealthy"

6. Unrestricted Results after reconfiguration
Hypothesis nullified
ecorich is negatively correlated and foodscarc is positively correlated; high p-values
New indepvars to investigate for restricted model:
marrcaptives <=
pigs <=
popdens <=
famsize <=
sexratio <=

7. Restricted Model Results
coef Fstat ddf pvalue VIF
(Intercept) NA
fyll
fydd
marrcaptives
pigs
popdens
famsize
sexratio <= NO!
R2:final model R2:IV(distance) R2:IV(language)
Fstat df pvalue
RESET
Wald on restrs
NCV
SWnormal
lagll
lagdd
"27" "41" "27" "3" "98" "Wealthy"

8. Restricted Model Results (cont.)
R2:final model R2:IV(distance) R2:IV(language)
Fstat df pvalue
RESET
Wald on restrs
NCV
SWnormal
lagll
lagdd
mnb fst v pval VIF
(Intercept) NA
fyll
fydd
marrcaptives
pigs
popdens <= signif
famsize
"27" "41" "27" "3" "98" "Wealthy

9. Interpretation of Results
fyll
Neg. correlation: differentiation from language family
fydd
Poss. correlation: more neighbors, more effects on wealthy
marrcaptives
Poss. correlation: more married or concubine slaves from warfare, more wealthy
pigs
Neg. correlation: lack of pigs as largest form of animal husbandry, more wealthy
popdens <= signif
Poss. Correlation: Most significant indepvar; more people increases probability of more wealthy
famsize
Neg. coreelation: the smaller the family size, the more wealthy
Notice the low p-values (randomness) and VIFs

10. Interpretation of Results (cont.)
R2:final model R2:IV(distance) R2:IV(language)
R2 value(% predictor) is %

11. What about the “Poor” (SCCSv1723; restricted results)?
DRW “Poor is positively correlated with Wealthy.”
mnb fst v pval VIF
(Intercept) NA
fyll
fydd
marrcaptives
pigs
popdens
famsize
Discrepancies between Wealthy and Poor:
1. fydd is more signif in Poor
2. marrcaptives is neg. correlated in Poor
3. All other indepvars besides popdense have high P-values

12. Conclusions
After running various models through R, I have come to the conclusion that my original hypothesis was incorrect; ecorich and foodscarc were respectively negatively and positively correlated with Wealthy, and had p-values too high to consider them as indepvars for my restricted model.
Instead the effect of neighbors fydd and popdense turned out to be the most significant indepvars. Because of the possitive correlation between “Wealthy” and “Poor,” the restricted model results for “Poor” reaffirmed popdense as the most significant depvar while simultaneously highlighting marrcaptives and famsize as inversely related indepvars with respects to the relationship between Wealthy and Poor.
Taking these results into consideration, I will focus my study of the prevalence of a wealthy population in relation to a society’s population density as well as the occurrence of taking wives and concubines from neighboring conquered societies.

13. Points of Contention: What is “Wealth”?
Subjective
The poor may view the middle class as “Wealthy” while the ultra rich view them as “Poor”
Culturally and Socially prescribed values and fetishized commodities
Trobrianders vs. US citizens vs. !Kung
FINAL THOUGHT: Can marrcaptives be a form of polygamy if the concubines are added to an existing marital relationship? I hypothesize that more wealth/resources are needed to sustain polygamy/marrcaptives (and therefore a larger family size); so a higher prevalence of marrcaptives should see a higher concentration of wealthy people.