th this research and is the main correlation variable. (Taken in terms of livestock wealth/units) Other Hypothesis/PropositionsTo start his article, Cronk attempts to test William Iron’s hypothesis “that in most human societies cultural success consists in accomplishing those things which make biological success . . . probable, and that therefore success in achieving culturally defined goals should tend to correlate with reproductive success” [(Irons 1979: 258) from (Cronk 1991: 345).] This proposition is proven by numerous anthropologists in Cronk’s study, particularly White and Burton, in lieu of a cross-cultural perspective. Finally, the results that become increasingly evident to the main proposition of this paper, “support Iron’s (1979) hypothesis”; and aid the author’s argument. Iron’s (1979) hypothesis, “that the culturally defined and valued goal of livestock accumulation is proximate to the ultimate goal of reproduction,” (Cronk 1991: 348) is both valid and practical.Borgerhoff Mulder’s (1987, 1989) hypothesis, “that the productivity of children and wives causes the correlation between wealth and reproductive success” (Cronk 1991: 351,) substantially fits into an interesting comparative example for the Mukogodo, due to their similar qualities. Ultimately, however, Mulder’s proposition used in conjunction with Cronk’s reseach only serve to show that the correlation between wealth and reproductive success are not due to the productivity of (men’s) children and wives. Generally all the minor hypothesis brought to use in this article bore upon confounding variables that affected “wealth and reproductive success, creating a spurious correlation between them” (Cronk 1991: 348.) As stated, the ‘other propositions’ were simply for reference and statistical accuracy, often attaining no value in context of the act...
