Although the statement that female status correlates negatively with cultural complexity is generally true, the real relation between these two groups of variables is much more complicated. Some important female status variables are characterized by significant positive correlation with cultural complexity within its certain ranges. There are some grounds for attributing this correlation to the rise of female status brought about by the transition to agriculture. On the other hand, contrary to the currently prevalent view, female contribution should be regarded as a significant positive predictor of some important dimensions of female status. The absence of significant correlation between cultural complexity and monopolization of information among societies of low midrange complexity (8-15 on Murdock’s scale) can be connected to the rise of female status with the transition to agriculture.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Artemova, O. (2003). Monopolization of knowledge, social inequality, and female status: A cross-cultural study. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(1), 62-80.
2.
Artemova, O., & Korotayev, A. V. (2003). Monopolization of information and female status: A cross-cultural test. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(1), 81-86.
3.
Berezkin, Yu. E. (1994). Apatani i drevnejshij Vostok: al’ternativnaja model’ slozhnogo obshchestva [The Apa Tanis and the ancient Near East. Alternative model of complex society]. Kunstkamera: Etnograficheskie Tetradi, 4, 5-19.
4.
Berezkin, Yu. E. (1995a). Vozhdestva i akefalnye slozhnye obshchestva: arheologicheskie dannye i ethnograficheskie paralleli [Chiefdoms and acephalous complex societies: Archaeological data and ethnographic parallels]. In V. A. Popov (Ed.), Rannie formy politicheskoj organizatsii: ot pervobytnosti k gosudarstvennosti (pp. 62-78). Moskva, Russia: Vostochnaja literatura.
5.
Berezkin, Yu. E. (1995b). Alternative models of middle range society. “Individualistic” Asia vs. “collectivistic” America? In N. N. Kradin & V. A. Lynsha (Eds.), Alternative pathways to early state (pp. 75-83). Vladivostok, Russia: Dal’nauka.
6.
Berezkin, Yu. E. (1997). Amerika i Blizhnij Vostok: formy sotsiopoliticheskoi organizatsii v dogosudarstvennuiu epohu [America and the Middle East. Forms of sociopolitical organization in the prestate period]. Vestnik drevnei istorii, 2, 3-24.
7.
Berezkin, Yu. E. (2000). Once again on horizontal and vertical links in structure of the middle range societies. In N. N. Kradin, A. V. Korotayev, D. M. Bondarenko, V. de Munck, & P. K. Wason (Eds.), Alternatives of social evolution (pp. 220-224). Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
8.
Blümchen, S. I. (Ed.). (1989). Lingvisticheskaja rekonstruktsija i drevnejshaja istorija Vostoka [Linguistic reconstruction and the most ancient history of the Orient] (Vol. 3). Moscow, Russia: Nauka.
9.
Boas, F. (1940). The limitations of the comparative method of anthropology. In Race, language, and culture (pp. 261-283). New York: Macmillan. (Originally published 1896)
10.
Boserup, E. (1970). Women’s role in economic development. London: Allen & Unwin.
11.
Brown, J. K. (1970). Economic organization and the position of women among the Iroquois. Ethnohistory, 17, 151-167.
12.
Burton, M. L., & White, D. R. (1984). Sexual division of labor in agriculture. American Anthropologist, 86, 568-583.
13.
D’Andrade, R. G. (1966). Sex differences and cultural institutions. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 174-204). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Diakonoff, I. M. (Ed.). (1983). Istorija drevnego Vostoka. Mesopotamija (Pt. 1). Moskva, Russia: Nauka.
15.
Ember, C. R. (1983). The relative decline in women’s contribution to agriculture with intensification. American Anthropologist, 85, 285-304.
16.
Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (Eds.). (1996). Cross-cultural research for social sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17.
Ember, C. R., & Ember, M. (1998). Cross-cultural research. In H. R. Bernard (Ed.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 647-690).Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
18.
Ember, C. R., & Levinson, D. (1991). The substantive contributions of worldwide cross-cultural studies using secondary data. Behavior Science Research, 25, 79-140.
19.
Ember, M., Ember, C. R., & Russet, B. (1997). Inequality and democracy in the anthropological record. In M. I. Midlarsky (Ed.), Inequality, democracy, and economic development (pp. 110-130). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
Engels, F. (1902). The origins of the family, private property and the state. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr.
21.
Frantsouzoff, S. A. (1995). The inscriptions from the temples of Dhat Himyam at Raybun (Tables I-II). Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 25, 15-27.
22.
Frantsouzoff, S. A. (1997). Regulation of conjugal relations in ancient Raybun. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, 27, 47-62.
23.
Frantsouzoff, S. A. (2000). The society of Raybun. In N. N. Kradin, A. V. Korotayev, D. M. Bondarenko, V. de Munck, & P. K. Wason (Eds.), Alternatives of social evolution (pp. 258-265). Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
24.
Friedl, E. (1975). Women and men: An anthropologist’s view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
25.
Goldenweiser, A. A. (1937). Anthropology. New York: Macmillan.
26.
Gray, J. P. (1987). Do women have highest social status in hunting societies without high gods? Social Forces, 65, 1121-1131.
27.
Korotayev, A., Kazankov, A., Dreier, L., Dmitrieva, N., & Kedrovskaja, J. (in press). An apologia for the comparative evolutionary method of anthropology. Cross-Cultural Research, 37, 2.
28.
Low, B. S. (1990). Sex, power, and resources: Ecological and social correlates of sex differences. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 27, 49-73.
29.
Mandelbaum, M. (1971). History, man, and reason: A study in nineteenth-century thought. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30.
Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure. New York: Macmillan.
31.
Murdock, G. P. (1967). Ethnographic atlas: A summary. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
32.
Murdock, G. P., & Provost, C. (1973). Measurement of cultural complexity. Ethnology, 12, 379-392.
33.
Murdock, G. P., & Provost, C. (1985). Measurement of cultural complexity. World Cultures, 1(1), Files STDS06.DAT, STDS06.COD.
34.
Murdock, G. P., Textor, R., Barry, H., III, & White, D. R. (1986). Ethnographic atlas. World Cultures, 2(4), Files ATL.COD, AT01-08.DAT.
35.
Murdock, G. P., Textor, R., Barry, H., III, & White, D. R. (1990). Ethnographic atlas. World Cultures, 6(3) (second computer version).
36.
Murdock, G. P., Textor, R., Barry, H., III, White, D. R., & Divale, W. (1999-2000). Ethnographic atlas. World Cultures, 10(1), 24-136, Files AT01-09.SAV; 11(1), EA10.SAV (third computer version).
37.
Nisbet, R. A. (1969). Social change and history: Aspects of the western theory of development. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
Pasternak, B., Ember, M., & Ember, C. (1997). Sex, gender, and kinship: A cross-cultural perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
39.
Ross, M. (1983). Political decision making and conflict: Additional cross-cultural codes and scales. Ethnology, 22, 169-192.
40.
Ross, M. (1986). Political decision making and conflict: Additional cross-cultural codes and scales. World Cultures, 2, Files STDS30.DAT, STDS30.COD.
41.
Sacks, K. (1979). Sisters and wives: The past and future of sexual inequality. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
42.
Sanday, P. R. (1973). Toward a theory of the status of women. American Anthropologist, 75, 1682-1700.
43.
Sanday, P. R. (1974). Female status in the public domain. In M. Z. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere (Eds.), Women, culture and society (pp. 189-206). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
44.
Sanderson, S. K. (1990). Social evolutionism. A critical history. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
45.
SCCS. (1999). Standard cross-cultural sample variables. World Cultures, 10(1), File STDS01-83.SAV.
46.
Stover, R. G., & Hope, C. A. (1984). Monotheism and gender status: A crosssocietal study. Social Forces, 63, 335-348.
47.
White, D. R. (1986). Female contribution to subsistence. World Cultures, 2(3), Files STDS39.COD, STDS39.DAT.
48.
Whyte, M. K. (1978a). Cross-cultural codes dealing with the relative status of women. Ethnology, 17, 211-237.
49.
Whyte, M. K. (1978b). The status of women in preindustrial societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50.
Whyte, M. K. (1985). Cross-cultural codes dealing with the relative status of women. World Cultures, 1(4), Files STDS23-24.DAT, STDS23-24.COD.
