A case study of a historical matrilineal community from an evolutionary perspective.

Abstract

The historical mating practices of a South Indian community, the Nayars, have often been cited as an example of matriliny and polyandry. Little attention has been given to puritanical aspects of their conjugal unions involving endogamy and hypergamy. We adopt an evolutionary psychology perspective to reexamine these practices. We outline key historical events to situate the Nayar case in the broader Indian context and compare different evolutionary psychology models of sexual strategies to determine the most befitting one. The unique mating arrangements provide a novel opportunity to appraise the focal points of the different models involving fitness-indicators, resource provisioning, parenting, and the temporality of the mating context. This exercise helps in revealing the primacy of assortative mating and perceived mate quality based on prestige-markers, despite the incertitude about resource provisioning or other direct benefits.

Canadian Brides’-to-Be Surname Choice: Potential Evidence of Transmitted Bilateral Descent Reckoning

“…This would provide an explanation for brides' parents approving of their daughters undergoing marital surname change: something for which no potential motivation has previously been provided in the literature to the author's best knowledge. Any utility of such investment recruitment should vary depending on practices governing resource transfer to younger generation(s) (e.g., in one of the few societies following matrilineal inheritance, children's surnaming is matrilineal (Karthikeyan and Fisher 2023); more educated Chinese women not from a matrilineal ethnic minority, who presumably are less dependent on male partners or the parents of these for financial support, are more likely to surname their children for themselves (Li et al 2021)). Any utility of such investment recruitment should also be greater in the case of (wealthier) parents transferring more resources to male than to female offspring (Smith et al 1987; see also Chagnon 1979;and Dickemann 1979).…”