Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evolutionary Contributions to Solving the “Matrilineal Puzzle”

A Test of Holden, Sear, and Mace’s Model

  • Published:
Human Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Matriliny has long been debated by anthropologists positing either its primitive or its puzzling nature. More recently, evolutionary anthropologists have attempted to recast matriliny as an adaptive solution to modern social and ecological environments, tying together much of what was known to be associated with matriliny. This paper briefly reviews the major anthropological currents in studies of matriliny and discusses the contribution of evolutionary anthropology to this body of literature. It discusses the utility of an evolutionary framework in the context of the first independent test of Holden et al.’s 2003 model of matriliny as daughter-biased investment. It finds that historical daughter-biased transmission of land among the Mosuo is consistent with the model, whereas current income transmission is not. In both cases, resources had equivalent impacts on male and female reproduction, a result which predicts daughter-biased resource transmission given any nonzero level of paternity uncertainty. However, whereas land was transmitted traditionally to daughters, income today is invested in both sexes. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Paternity confidence refers to a man’s assessment of the likelihood that he is the genetic father of a given child. The studies referred to here may include other people’s assessments of likely parentage rather than the putative father’s per se. Paternity certainty as used in this paper refers to the actual probability of paternity, which may differ from paternity confidence (e.g., Anderson 2006).

  2. I retain Holden et al.’s explanation here, but throughout the paper, when I say “parents,” “mothers” would be more appropriate to the Mosuo context, as explained above. Note that in their test of MDBI, Holden et al. compare the matrilineal Chewa to the patrilineal Gabbra. According to Holden et al., among the Chewa, 75% of land is inherited directly from mother to daughter. Moreover, marriage among the Chewa was historically uxorilocal (Phiri 2009). Thus, the Chewa correspond to panel C of Fig. 1, satisfying the conditions of Holden et al.’s transmission process.

  3. Cattle are rare among matrilineal societies. Though the Mosuo keep cattle, they do so in insignificant numbers, such that one head of cattle is often shared among multiple households. Moreover, cattle apparently are not used as bridewealth payments or for consumption, but as draft animals.

References

  • Aberle, D. (1961). Matrilineal descent in cross-cultural perspective. In D. M. Schneider & K. Gough (Eds.), Matrilineal kinship (pp. 655–727). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. D. (1974). The evolution of social behavior. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 5, 325–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, R. D. (1977). Natural selection and the analysis of human sociality. In C. E. Goulden (Ed.), Changing scenes in the natural sciences (Vol. 12, pp. 283–337). Philadelphia: Academy of the Natural Sciences, Special Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfred, J. (2002). Flagging non-paternity. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3, 161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K. G. (2006). How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Current Anthropology, 47(3), 513–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K. G., Kaplan, H., & Lancaster, J. B. (2006). Demographic correlates of paternity confidence and pregnancy outcomes among Albuquerque men. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 131, 560–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bachofen, J. J. (1967). Myth, religion, and mother right: selected writings of J. J. Bachofen. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Originally published in German in 1861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, M., & Sperber, D. (2002). Kinship and evolved psychological dispositions. Current Anthropology, 43(5), 723–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1998). Brothers and sisters: how sibling interactions affect optimal parental allocations. Human Nature, 9, 119–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, H. (2001). A society without fathers or husbands: the Na of China. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervino, A. C. L., & Hill, A. V. S. (2000). Comparison of tests for association and linkage in incomplete families. American Journal of Human Genetics, 67, 120–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coale, A. J., & Banister, J. (1994). Five decades of missing females in China. Demography, 31(3), 459–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronk, L. (1989). Low socioeconomic status and female-biased parental investment: the Mukogodo example. American Anthropologist, 91(2), 414–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Divale, W. T. (1974). Migration, external warfare and matrilocal residence. Behavior Science Research, 9(2), 75–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1969). Is matriliny doomed in Africa? In M. Douglas, P. M. Kaberry, & C. D. Forde (Eds.), Man in Africa (pp. 121–135). London: Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, H. E., & Schuessler, K. F. (1967). Correlational analysis of Murdock’s 1957 ethnographic sample. American Anthropologist, 69(3/4), 332–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ember, M. (1974). The conditions that may favor avunculocal residence. Behavior Science Research, 9(3), 203–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ember, M., & Ember, C. E. (1971). The conditions favoring matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. American Anthropologist, 73(3), 571–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flinn, M. (1981). Uterine versus agnatic kinship variability and associated cross-cousin marriage preferences: an evolutionary biological analysis. In R. D. Alexander & D. W. Tinkle (Eds.), Natural selection and social behavior: Recent research and new theory (pp. 439–475). New York & Concord: Chiron Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortunato, L., & Archetti, M. (2009). Evolution of monogamous marriage by maximization of inclusive fitness. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23, 149–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R. (1983). Kinship and marriage: an anthropological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaulin, S. J. C., & Schlegel, A. (1980). Paternal confidence and paternal investment: a cross-cultural test of a sociobiological hypothesis. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 301–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gluckman, M. (1950). Kinship and marriage among the Lozi of Northern Rhodesia and the Zulu of Natal. In A. R. Radcliffe-Brown & D. Forde (Eds.), African systems of kinship and marriage (pp. 166–206). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goody, J. (1962). Death, property and the ancestors: A study of the mortuary customs of the LoDagaa of West Africa. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, K. (1961a). Variation in residence. In D. M. Schneider & K. Gough (Eds.), Matrilineal kinship (pp. 545–576). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, K. (1961b). The modern disintegration of matrilineal descent groups. In D. M. Schneider & K. Gough (Eds.), Matrilineal kinship (pp. 631–654). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, P. (1978). Promiscuity, paternity, and culture. American Ethnologist, 5(1), 151–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour, parts I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrell, S., Wang, Y., Han, H., Zhou, Y., & Duro dos Santos, G. (2011). Fertility decline in rural China: a comparative analysis. Journal of Family History, 36, 15–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartung, J. (1976). On natural selection and the inheritance of wealth. Current Anthropology, 17(4), 607–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartung, J. (1981). Paternity and inheritance of wealth. Nature, 291, 652–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartung, J. (1982). Polygyny and inheritance of wealth. Current Anthropology, 23(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartung, J. (1985). Matrilneal inheritance: new theory and analysis. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 8, 661–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, K., et al. (1998). Grandmothering, menopause, and the evolution of life histories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 1336–1339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, K. (1993). Life history theory and evolutionary anthropology. Evolutionary Anthropology, 2, 78–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden, C. J., & Mace, R. (2003). Spread of cattle led to the loss of matrilineal descent in Africa: a coevolutionary analysis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B: Biological Sciences, 270(1532), 2425–2433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holden, C. J., Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2003). Matriliny as daughter-biased investment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(2), 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: A history of mothers, infants, and natural selection. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, B. R., & Breedlove, W. L. (2007). Evolutionary theory, kinship, and childbirth in cross-cultural perspective. Cross-Cultural Research, 41(2), 196–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. (2011). The matrilineal tribe: An organization of demic expansion. Human Nature, 22 (1&2). doi:10.1007/s12110-011-9108-6.

  • Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. M. (2000). A theory of human life history evolution: diet, intelligence, and longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9, 156–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keegan, W. F., & Maclachlan, M. D. (1989). The evolution of avunculocal chiefdoms: a reconstruction of Taino kinship and politics. American Anthropologist, 91(3), 613–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keesing, R. M. (1975). Kin groups and social structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, C. (2008). Early human kinship was matrilineal. In N. Allen, H. Callan, R. I. M. Dunbar, & W. James (Eds.), Early human kinship (pp. 61–82). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, K. L. (2005). Children's help and the pace of reproduction: cooperative breeding in humans. Evolutionary Anthropology, 14, 224–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurland, J. A. (1979). Paternity, mother’s brother, and human sociality. In N. A. Chagnon & W. Irons (Eds.), Evolutionary biology and human social behavior (pp. 145–180). North Scituate: Duxbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, J. B., & Kaplan, H. S. (2000). Parenting other men’s children: costs, benefits and consequences. In L. Cronk, N. Chagnon, & W. Irons (Eds.), Adaptation and human behavior: An anthropological perspective (pp. 179–201). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavely, W., & Freedman, R. (1990). The origins of the Chinese fertility decline. Demography, 27(3), 357–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonetti, D. L., Nath, D., Hemam, N., & Neill, D. B. (2005). Kinship organization and grandmother’s impact on reproductive success among the matrilineal Khasi and patrilineal Bengali of N.E. India. In E. Voland (Ed.), Grandparenthood: The second half of life (pp. 194–214). Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévi-Strauss, C. (1969). The elementary structures of kinship, revised ed.. Boston: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace, R. (1996). Biased parental investment and reproductive success in Gabbra pastoralists. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 38, 75–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mace, R. (2000). Evolutionary ecology of human life history. Animal Behaviour, 59, 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Malinowski, B. (1930). Kinship. Man, 30, 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malinowski, B. (1932). The sexual life of savages in north-western Melanesia: An ethnographic account of courtship, marriage, and family life among the natives of the Trobriand Islands, British New Guinea. London: Routledge. Originally published in 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. W. (1999). Male care and mating effort among Hadza foragers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 46, 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marlowe, F. W. (2000). Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behavioral Processes, 51, 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattison, S. M. (2006). Pilot project: the behavioral ecology of sex-biased parental investment among the ethnic Na of Southwest China. Unpublished data in the author’s possession.

  • Mattison, S. M. (2010a). The economic impacts of tourism and erosion of the visiting system among the Mosuo of Lugu Lake. Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 11, 157–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattison, S. M. (2010b). Demystifying the Mosuo: The behavioral ecology of kinship and reproduction of China’s “last matriarchal society.” PhD dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1964). Group selection and kin selection. Nature, 201, 1145–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, L. H. (1964). Ancient society. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Originally published in 1877.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure. New York: Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, G. P., & White, D. R. (1969). Standard cross-cultural sample. Ethnology, 8(4), 329–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolin, D. (2011). Kin preference and partner choice: Patrilineal descent and biological kinship in Lamaleran cooperative relationships. Human Nature, 22 (1&2). doi:10.1007/s12110-011-9113-9.

  • Pelto, P. J., & Pelto, G. H. (1975). Intra-cultural diversity: some theoretical issues. American Ethnologist, 2(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phiri, K. (2009). Some changes in the matrilineal family system of the Chewa of Malawi since the nineteenth century. Journal of African History, 24, 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poewe, K. O. (1978). Matriliny in the throes of change: Kinship, descent and marriage in Luapula, Zambia, part one. Journal of the International African Institute, 48(3), 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pusey, J. (2009). Global Darwin: revolutionary road. Nature, 462, 162–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, R. J. (2006). Gender and risk in a matrifocal Caribbean community: a view from Behavioral ecology. American Anthropologist, 108(3), 464–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Development Team (RCDT). (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 2.9.0). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

  • Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1924). The mother’s brother in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 21, 542–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, A. I. (1950). Some types of family structure amongst the Central Bantu. In A. R. Radcliffe-Brown & C. D. Forde (Eds.), African systems of kinship and marriage (pp. 83–120). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. M. (1961). The distinctive features of matrilineal descent groups. In D. M. Schneider & K. Gough (Eds.), Matrilineal kinship (pp. 1–29). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. M., & Gough, K. (Eds.). (1961). Matrilineal kinship. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sear, R. (2008). Kin and child survival in rural Malawi: Are matrilineal kin always beneficial in a matrilineal society? Human Nature, 19, 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2008). Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, C.-K. (1993). The Yongning Moso: sexual union, household organization, gender and ethnicity in a matrilineal duolocal society in Southwest China. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

  • Shih, C.-K. (2000). Tisese and its anthropological significance: issues around the visiting sexual system among the Moso. L’homme, 154–155, 697–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih, C.-K. (2010). Quest for harmony: The Moso traditions of sexual union & family life. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shih, C.-K., & Jenike, M. R. (2002). A cultural-historical perspective on the depressed fertility among the matrilineal Moso in Southwest China. Human Ecology, 30(1), 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieff, D. F. (1990). Explaining biased sex ratios in human populations: a critique of recent studies. Current Anthropology, 31(1), 25–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, W. J., Henderson, M., & Yuan, J. (2000). China’s fertility transition through regional space: using GIS and census data for a spatial analysis of historical demography. Social Science History, 24(3), 613–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. A., & Smith, S. A. (1994). Inuit sex ratio variation: population control, ethnographic artifact, or parental manipulation? Current Anthropology, 35, 595–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stack, C. (1974). All our kin: strategies for survival in a black community. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A. D. (1989). Screening for cystic fibrosis. Nature, 341, 696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. Nature, 112, 164–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L., & Willard, D. E. (1973). Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science, 179, 90–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turke, P. W. (1988). Helpers at the nest: Childcare networks on Ifaluk. In L. L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, & P. Turke (Eds.), Human reproductive behavior: A Darwinian perspective (pp. 173–188). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voland, E. (1998). Evolutionary ecology of human reproduction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 347–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, E. R. (2001). The Mosuo—beyond the myths of matriarchy: gender transformation and economic development. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.

  • Walsh, E. R. (2005). From Nü to Nü’er Guo: negotiating desire in the land of the Mosuo. Modern China, 31(4), 448–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weng, N. 1993. The mother house: The symbolism and practice of gender among the Naze in Southwest China. PhD Dissertation, University of Rochester, New York.

  • Xing, Y., Xia, Z., & Dai, J. (2009). Conservation and tourism development of house settlements in Mosuo matriarchate in Lugu Lake. Frontiers of Architecture and Civil Engineering in China, 3(2), 204–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, R. (1984). A living fossil of the family: a study of the family structure of the Naxi nationality in the Lugu Lake region. Social Sciences in China, 3(4), 60–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, K. (1990). Family marriage and fertility in a matriarchal society: Social survey of the Naxi nationality in Ninglang County, Yunnan Province. Chinese Journal of Population Science, 2(3), 247–256.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to co-editor Mary Shenk for collaborating on the AAA session that led to this special issue and to general editor Jane Lancaster for all her assistance and encouragement. This research was supported by a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (BCS 0717918) and a China Studies Program (Fritz Endowment) grant from the University of Washington. Pilot studies were supported by the American Philosophical Society and the Department of Anthropology at the University of Washington. Software and administrative assistance was provided by the Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology at the University of Washington. Eric A. Smith, Donna Leonetti, Stevan Harrell, Brian Wood, David Nolin, and four anonymous reviewers provided useful comments and criticisms on drafts of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology and Morrison Institute for Population and Resource Studies, Stanford University, Main Quad, Building 50, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305–2034, USA

    Siobhán M. Mattison

Authors
  1. Siobhán M. Mattison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siobhán M. Mattison.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mattison, S.M. Evolutionary Contributions to Solving the “Matrilineal Puzzle”. Hum Nat 22, 64–88 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-011-9107-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-011-9107-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation