The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary

Psychology and Romantic

Relationships Justin K. Mogilski
(Editor)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-evolutionary-psychology-and-
romantic-relationships-justin-k-mogilski-editor/
The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary
Psychology and Romantic Relationships
 OX F O R D L I B R A RY O F P S YC H O LO G Y

The Oxford Handbook

of Evolutionary
Psychology and
Romantic Relationships
Edited by
Justin K. Mogilski and Todd K. Shackelford
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2023

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Mogilski, Justin K., author. | Shackelford, Todd K. (Todd Kennedy), 1971- author.
Title: The Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology and romantic
relationships / Justin K. Mogilski & Todd K. Shackelford.
Description: 1 Edition. | New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2023] |
Series: Oxford library of psychology series |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022031994 (print) | LCCN 2022031995 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197524718 (hardback) | ISBN 9780197524749 | ISBN 9780197524732 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Evolutionary psychology. | Intimacy (Psychology) |
Interpersonal relations—Psychological aspects.
Classification: LCC BF698.95 .M64 2022 (print) | LCC BF698.95 (ebook) |
DDC 155.7—dc23/eng/20220729
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022031994
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022031995

DOI: 10.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780197524718.001.0001

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by Marquis, Canada
A B O U T T H E E D I TO R S

Justin K. Mogilski I research how evolution has shaped brain computa-

tion to adaptively guide the decisions that people make to initiate, maintain,
and dissolve intimate relationships. I have published original research within
peer-​reviewed evolutionary, social, personality, and sexual psychology journals
on topics spanning mate poaching, infidelity, cross-​gender friendship, inti-
mate partner conflict, moral decision-​making, morphometric cues of partner
attractiveness, and multivariate statistical analyses of human mate preference.
My current program of research examines (a) conflict resolution within con-
sensually nonmonogamous (CNM; e.g., polyamorous, swinging, and open)
relationships, (b) how sexual conflict shapes moral decision-​making, and (c)
individual differences in predatory relationship behaviors.
Todd K. Shackelford received his Ph.D. in evolutionary psychology in 1997
from the University of Texas at Austin. Since 2010, he has been Professor and
Chair of the Department of Psychology at Oakland University in Rochester,
Michigan. Shackelford has published around 400 journal articles and his work
has been cited around 28,000 times. Much of Shackelford’s research addresses
sexual conflict between men and women, with a focus on men’s physical, emo-
tional, and sexual violence against their intimate partners.
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Contributors xi

Introduction 1
Justin K. Mogilski and Todd K. Shackelford

Part I: Relationship Initiation

1. The sexual selection of human mating strategies: Mate preferences and
competition tactics 15
David M. Buss
2. Physical cues of partner quality 42
Ian D. Stephen and Severi Luoto
3. The three Cs of psychological mate preferences: The psychological
traits people want in their romantic and sexual partners 74
Peter K. Jonason and Evita March
4. Partner evaluation and selection 94
Norman P. Li and Bryan K. C. Choy
5. Hormonal mechanisms of partnership formation 127
Anastasia Makhanova
6. Human intersexual courtship 158
Neil R. Caton, David M. G. Lewis, Laith Al-​Shawaf,
and Kortnee C. Evans
7. Intrasexual mating competition 182
Jaimie Arona Krems, Hannah K. Bradshaw, and Laureon A. Merrie
8. Initiation of non-​heterosexual relationships 212
Jaroslava Varella Valentova, Bruno Henrique Amaral,
and Marco Antonio Correa Varella
9. Relationship initiation among older adults 243
Chaya Koren and Liat Ayalon
10. Cross-​cultural variation in relationship initiation 267
Victor Karandashev
Part II: Relationship Maintenance
11. Sexual conflict during relationship maintenance 307
Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, Trond Viggo Grøntvedt, Andrea Melanie Kessler, and
Mons Bendixen
12. Jealousy in close relationships from an evolutionary and cultural perspective:
Responding to real and feared rivals 333
Abraham P. Buunk and Karlijn Massar
13. Hormonal mechanisms of in-​pair mating and maintenance 360
Amanda Denes, John P. Crowley, and Anuraj Dhillon
14. Mate guarding and partner defection avoidance 397
Valerie G. Starratt
15. Intimate partner violence and relationship maintenance 413
Gordon G. Gallup, Jr. and Rebecca L. Burch
16. Parenting and relationship maintenance 427
Elizabeth M. Westrupp, Emma M. Marshall, Clair Bennett, Michelle Benstead,
Gabriella King, and Gery C. Karantzas
17. Maintaining multipartner relationships: Evolution, sexual ethics, and consensual
nonmonogamy 461
Justin K. Mogilski, David L. Rodrigues, Justin J. Lehmiller,
and Rhonda N. Balzarini
18. Evolutionary perspectives on relationship maintenance across the spectrum of sexual
and gender diversity 487
Lisa M. Diamond and Jenna Alley
19. Relationship maintenance in older adults: Considering social and evolutionary
psychological perspectives 507
Ledina Imami and Christopher R. Agnew
20. Cultural variation in relationship maintenance 528
Lora Adair and Nelli Ferenczi

Part III: Relationship Dissolution

21. Relationship dissatisfaction and partner access deficits 565
T. Joel Wade, James B. Moran, and Maryanne L. Fisher
22. In-​pair divestment 586
Simona Sciara and Giuseppe Pantaleo
23. Mate poaching, infidelity, and mate switching 611
Joshua Everett Ryan and Edward P. Lemay, Jr.
24. Menstrual cycle variation in women’s mating psychology: Empirical evidence and
theoretical considerations 643
Jan Havlíček and S. Craig Roberts

viii Ta b l e of C on ten ts
25. Affective reactions to divorce or spousal death 675
Jeannette Brodbeck and Hans Joerg Znoj
26. Affective self-​regulation after relationship dissolution 698
Leah E. LeFebvre and Ryan D. Rasner
27. Post-​relationship romance 730
Michael R. Langlais and He Xiao
28. Evolutionary perspectives on post-​separation parenting 748
Lawrence J. Moloney and Bruce M. Smyth
29. Dissolution of LGBTQ+​relationships 779
Madeleine Redlick Holland and Pamela J. Lannutti
30. Relationship dissolution among adults 797
Dimitri Mortelmans
Limitations and future directions in the evolutionary study
   of romantic relationships 826
Justin K. Mogilski and Todd K. Shackelford

Index 831

Table of Conte nts ix

 CO N T R I B U TO R S

Lora Adair Michelle Benstead

Department of Life Sciences, Brunel School of Psychology, The Centre
University London for Social and Early Emotional
Christopher R. Agnew Development, Deakin University
Department of Psychological Hannah K. Bradshaw
Sciences, Purdue University Department of Psychology,
Jenna Alley Washington & Jefferson College
Department of Psychology, Jeannette Brodbeck
University of Utah Department of Psychology University
Laith Al-​Shawaf of Bern, University for Applied
Psychology Department, University Sciences and Arts Northwestern
of Colorado Switzerland
Bruno Henrique Amaral Rebecca L. Burch
Department of Experimental Department of Human
Psychology, University of São Paulo Development, SUNY Oswego
Liat Ayalon David M. Buss
Louis and Gabi Weisfeld School of Department of Psychology,
Social Work, Bar Ilan University University of Texas, Austin
Rhonda N. Balzarini Abraham P. Buunk
Department of Psychology, Texas University of Groningen,
State University The Netherlands
Mons Bendixen Neil R. Caton
Department of Psychology, School of Psychology, The University
Norwegian University of Science and of Queensland
Technology Bryan K. C. Choy
Clair Bennett School of Social Sciences, Singapore
Columbia University Department Management University
of Psychiatry, Columbia University John P. Crowley
Irving Medical Center, New York Department of Communication,
State Psychiatric Institute, La Trobe University of Delaware
University Amanda Denes
Department of Communication,
University of Connecticut
Anuraj Dhillon Gery C. Karantzas
Communication Studies School of Psychology, The Centre
Department, California Polytechnic for Social and Early Emotional
State University, San Luis Obispo Development, Deakin University
Lisa M. Diamond Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair
Department of Psychology, Department of Psychology,
University of Utah Norwegian University of Science and
Kortnee C. Evans Technology
Psychology Department, Murdoch Andrea Melanie Kessler
University Department of Psychology, Norwegian
Nelli Ferenczi University of Science and Technology
Department of Life Sciences, Brunel Gabriella King
University London School of Psychology, Deakin University
Maryanne L. Fisher Chaya Koren
Department of Psychology, The School of Social Work and the
Kinsey Institute, Saint Mary’s Center for the Study of Society,
University University of Haifa
Gordon G. Gallup, Jr. Jaimie Arona Krems
Department of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Oklahoma
University at Albany Center for Evolutionary Analysis
Trond Viggo Grøntvedt (OCEAN), Oklahoma State University
Department of Psychology, Michael R. Langlais
Norwegian University of Science and Department of Educational
Technology Psychology, Florida State University
Jan Havlíček Pamela J. Lannutti
Department of Zoology, Charles Center for Human Sexuality Studies,
University Widener University
Madeleine Redlick Holland Leah E. LeFebvre
Department of Communication Department of Communication
Studies, The University of Texas Studies, University of Alabama
at Austin Justin J. Lehmiller
Ledina Imami Kinsey Institute, Indiana University
Department of Psychological Edward P. Lemay, Jr.
Sciences, Purdue University Department of Psychology,
Peter K. Jonason University of Maryland, College Park
Department of General Psychology, David M. G. Lewis
University of Padua and University of Discipline of Psychology,
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński Murdoch University
Victor Karandashev Centre for Healthy Ageing,
Department of Psychology, Aquinas Health Futures Institute,
College Murdoch University

xii C o n tr ibutor s
Norman P. Li Ryan D. Rasner
School of Social Sciences, Singapore Department of Communication
Management University Studies, Louisiana State University
Severi Luoto S. Craig Roberts
School of Population Health, Division of Psychology, University of
University of Auckland Stirling
Anastasia Makhanova David L. Rodrigues
Psychological Science, University of Centre for Social Research and
Arkansas Intervention, Iscte-​Instituto
Evita March Universitário de Lisboa
Department of Psychology, Joshua Everett Ryan
Federation University Australia Department of Psychology University
Emma M. Marshall of Maryland, College Park
School of Psychology Deakin Simona Sciara
University UniSR-​Social.Lab, Faculty of Psychology,
Karlijn Massar Vita-​Salute San Raffaele University
Work and Social Psychology, Bruce M. Smyth
Maastricht University Centre for Social Research and
Laureon A. Merrie Methods, Australian National University
Department of Psychology, Valerie G. Starratt
Oklahoma Center for Evolutionary Department of Psychology and
Analysis (OCEAN), Oklahoma State Neuroscience, Nova Southeastern
University University
Justin K. Mogilski Ian D. Stephen
Department of Psychology, NTU Psychology, Nottingham
University of South Carolina Trent University
Salkehatchie Jaroslava Varella Valentova
Lawrence J. Moloney Department of Experimental
School of Psychology and Public Psychology, University of Sao Paulo
Health, La Trobe University Marco Antonio Correa Varella
James B. Moran Department of Experimental
Department of Psychology, Tulane Psychology, University of São Paulo
University T. Joel Wade
Dimitri Mortelmans Department of Psychology,
Department of Sociology, Antwerp Psychological Adaptations Research
University Consortium, Bucknell University
Giuseppe Pantaleo Elizabeth M. Westrupp
UniSR-​Social.Lab, Faculty of School of Psychology, The Centre
Psychology, Vita-​Salute San Raffaele for Social and Early Emotional
University Development, Deakin University

Contributors xiii
He Xiao Hans Joerg Znoj
Department of Educational Department of Psychology,
Psychology, University of University of Bern
North Texas

xiv C o n tr ibutor s
 Introduction

Justin K. Mogilski and Todd K. Shackelford

Abstract
Evolutionary social science is having a renaissance. What started with a collection of
estimates by Charles Darwin and colleagues about biological change and diversity has
manifested a theoretical powerhouse incorporating varied disciplinary perspectives
and methodologies. In this chapter, we introduce these advancements and provide an
overview of how evolutionary perspectives have enriched the scientific study of intimate
relationship initiation, maintenance, and dissolution. We highlight several areas of
research that feature prominently throughout this handbook, including studies of gender
and sexual diversity, social neuroendocrinology, personality science, and international
trends in human mating. We conclude with a brief editorial note to current and future
relationship scientists, to whom this volume is dedicated.

Key Words: Evolutionary science, intimate relationships, romantic relationships, gender

and sexual diversity, social neuroendocrinology, personality science, international

Psychologists who adopt the evolutionary paradigm (see Nettle & Scott-​Phillips, 2021)
seek to document how information processing of the mind has been engineered to address
the unremitting challenges of survival and reproduction. Its predictive framework has
been broadly adopted within the social sciences, including anthropology (Fessler et al.,
2015; Gibson & Lawson, 2015), sociology (Tanskanen & Danielsbacka, 2018), con-
sumer research (Otterbring, 2021; Saad, 2017), decision science (Morris et al., 2021),
animal behavior and cognition (Vonk, 2021), political science (McDermott & Hatemi,
2018; Petersen, 2020), and law and social policy (James et al., 2020; Palomo-​Vélez &
van Vugt, 2021). Natural selection of genes is a popular level of analysis at which to pro-
pose and test evolutionary hypotheses because DNA is the fundamental unit of inheri-
tance in sexually reproducing organisms (see Williams, 1966). Biological evolution occurs
when populations undergo cross-​generational change in heritable trait frequency. These
traits are pitted against the reproductive and survival demands of life, and those which
better promote self-​replication compared to competing alternatives become more preva-
lent. However, evolutionary change occurs in any cyclic system where modification by
competitive replacement occurs over time, such as in neural network modeling (Badcock
et al., 2019; Hasson et al., 2020; Stanley et al., 2019), cellular growth (Aktipis, 2020),
decision-​making (Morris et al., 2021), or multilevel selection (Hertler et al., 2020; Wilson
& Coan, 2021). Each application shares the common premise that if you study how evo-
lution has engineered a system, you will discover that system’s functional design.
The evolutionary study of romantic relationships has accordingly uncovered the adapted
psychology underlying intimate relationships (Bode & Kushnick, 2021; Buss & Schmitt,
2019; Durante et al., 2016). For example, it is well documented that reproduction entails
unique adaptive challenges for men and women (e.g., paternal uncertainty and minimum
investment in gestation), which create unique mating optima for each sex (Trivers, 1972;
see Mogilski et al., 2021). These optima can conflict (see Kennair et al., this volume)
causing sexual selection for different ideal mating strategies for men and women (Buss &
Schmitt, 1993; Luoto 2019; Puts, 2016). Understanding how attraction and competition
occurs between the sexes thus becomes a useful framework for predicting how people
initiate, maintain, and dissolve their relationships. That is, the collaboration and conflict
that people experience within their relationship(s) may follow computationally adaptive
scripts that—​at least across deep evolutionary time—​alleviated the exigencies of men’s
and women’s unique reproductive challenges. These foundations and their empirical sup-
port are reviewed in Chapter 1 and referenced throughout this volume.
Of course, good theory reliably and expansively predicts the phenomena that it
explains. Relationship researchers who use the evolutionary paradigm have rapidly inte-
grated it with gender and women’s studies (Fisher et al., 2020; van Anders, 2013), sexual-
ity (Diamond, 2021; Sommer & Vasey, 2006), marriage and family studies (Aspara et al.,
2018), neuroendocrinology (Welling & Shackelford, 2019), mating cognition (Joel &
MacDonald, 2021; Lenton & Stewart, 2008; Miller & Todd, 1998), intelligence (Baur
et al., 2019; Miller, 2000), and comparative psychology (Fraley et al., 2005). This well-
spring of novelty has matured to create robust, replicable models of mate choice (Conroy-​
Beam et al., 2019, 2021; Walter et al., 2020), same-​sex competition (see Krems et al.,
in this volume; also Ayers, 2021; Bradshaw & DelPriore, 2022; Reynolds et al., 2018),
friendship (Seyfarth & Cheney, 2012; Williams et al., 2022), jealousy (Buss, 2018;
Edlund et al., 2018), face and body perception (Antar & Stephen, 2021; Brown et al.,
2021; Fink et al., 2018), and interpersonal deception (Desrochers et al., 2021; Redlick
& Vangelisti, 2018; Trivers, 1991). Research once dominated by self-​report and forced-​
choice paradigms has developed multivariate solutions for describing the logic of partner
choice (Brandner et al., 2020; Csajbók and Berkics, 2022 Li et al., 2002; Mogilski et al.
2014, 2017, 2018; Jones, 2018; Stephen et al., 2017), relationship maintenance (Vowels
et al., 2021). Behavioral genetics (e.g., twin studies) have disentangled the contributions
of genes and environment to variation in human development (Kupfer et al., 2022), and
applied sciences, such as medicine and mental health (Nesse, 2019; Giosan et al., 2020;
Hollon et al., 2021) have advanced how knowledge of evolutionary design can improve
personal and relational outcomes.
This diaspora has developed alongside larger trends within relationship science, such
as the rising utility and rigor of personality measurement (Del Giudice, 2017; Durkee

2 J u s t in K. Mogilski an d Todd K. Shacke lford

et al., 2022; Lukaszewski et al., 2020). Personality science has become central to relation-
ship science because it models how natural variation between individuals impacts interper-
sonal functioning across time and ecology. Life history theory, for example, meaningfully
explains how human cognition is altered by environmental unpredictability and harshness
(Simpson et al., 2017). When environments are less predictable, planned investments are
unsteady and cost prone. This favors immediate over delayed reward and thereby disposes
individuals to present-​oriented decisions (Frankenhuis et al., 2016; also see Fenneman
& Frankenhuis, 2020; Fennis et al., 2022), less deliberation (Wang et al., 2022), more
unrestricted sociosexuality (Szepsenwol et al., 2017), greater interpersonal antagonism
and detachment (Jonason et al., 2017), and poor emotional control (see Szepsenwol et
al., 2021)—​traits which may aid lone survival amid environmental irregularity. As an
exemplar of evolutionary theorizing, life history has been successful in integrating findings
from varied disciplines (Nettle & Frankenhuis, 2019) and across cultures (Pelham, 2021),
but it has accordingly inspired controversy and revision (see Dinh et al., 2022; Woodley
et al., 2021; Zeitsch & Sidari, 2020).
Neuroendocrinological research has complemented evolutionary relationship science’s
focus on individual differences (Baugh et al., 2017; Trillmich et al., 2018) because hor-
mones mediate sex/​gender differences and the intimate processes that develop within and
between people (Edelstein & Chin, 2018; Roney & Simmons, 2018; also see Welling &
Shackelford, 2019). Corticosteroids guide responsivity to relationship stressors (Mogilski
et al., 2019b), oxytocin promotes pair-​bonding formation (Walum et al., 2012), and sex
hormones shape the morphological and psychological characteristics that systematically
differ between men and women (Gurvich et al., 2018; Rehbein et al., 2021)—​traits to
which people are sensitive when assessing a potential intimate partner (Jones & Jaeger,
2019; Marcinkowska et al., 2014). Indeed, morphometric analyses have allowed research-
ers to quantify developmental change in sex/​gender to study how its fluctuation impacts
relationship process (e.g., Stephen et al., 2017). Others have documented how sexual
behavior and preferences shift with hormone deficiency (Shirazi et al., 2021), hormonal
contraception use (Hill, 2019), and temporal fluctuations in hormone levels, such as
across the menstrual cycle (see Havlicek & Roberts, this volume). Endocrinology has thus
become a fundamental level of analysis for the evolutionary study of romantic processes
(Denes et al., this volume; Makhanova, this volume).
International differences are a substantial source of natural variation in relationship
behavior (Kline et al., 2018; Segall et al., 1990; Silan et al., 2021). Evolutionary theoriz-
ing has revealed pervasive, culture-​sensitive psychological effects related to gender (Lippa,
2010), kin favoritism (Schulz et al., 2019), game theory (Pan, Gelfand, & Nau, 2021), and
social organization (see Henrich & Muthukrishna, 2021). Broadly, relationship behaviors
are expected to adaptively shift to address local and historical demands on individuals’
survival and well-​being. This thereby influences how people initiate (see Karandashev,
this volume) and maintain (Adair & Ferenczi, this volume) relationships across cultures.

Int roduction 3
 Studies of sexually and gender diverse people (e.g., those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, queer, etc.; i.e., LGBTQ+​) have revealed unique variation in human bonding
and competition (see Holland & Lannuti, this volume; Pachankis et al., 2020; Semenyna
et al., 2021; Valentova et al., this volume). For example, Diamond and Alley (this
volume) argue that safety concerns are salient among LGBTQ+​relationships because
same-​sex attraction and gender nonconformity are targeted more often for condemnation
and violence. Eliminating prejudice and wrongful discrimination against LGBTQ indi-
viduals (Blair & Hoskin, 2019) may be aided by a technical knowledge of which adaptive
concerns these beliefs and attitudes have historically addressed—​and whether they still
do. Computation that ancestrally enhanced reproduction may be mismatched to modern
circumstances (Li et al., 2020). Similarly, studying how people form and maintain mul-
tiple, concurrent intimate relationships (i.e., consensual nonmonogamy) (Mogilski et al.,
this volume) may reveal novel strategies for managing extra-​pair romance (also see Brady
& Baker, 2022; Hunter & Stockwell, 2022).
By harnessing the insights of interdisciplinary collaboration, evolutionary relationship
scientists have identified novel features of human mating, have expanded durable theories
and perspectives of human development, and strengthened the methodological robustness
of its core predictions. The editors assembled this handbook to showcase the empirical
and theoretical progress of the evolutionary study of intimate relationships. We dedicate
this volume to future generations of relationship scientists. It is our intent that this collec-
tion will be a primer for those seeking to incorporate contemporary evolutionary reason-
ing and methodology into their research program. Many of its contributors self-​identify
as evolutionary psychologists. Others do not but are familiar with the evolutionary sci-
ences and have successfully incorporated its reasoning into their work. All have challenged
orthodoxy to improve how evolutionary psychology studies intimacy. The authors’ words
are their own, but the editors offered feedback for improving the interdisciplinary scope
of their writing. Our reflections on each chapter precede each of the three major sections
of this handbook: relationship initiation, maintenance, and dissolution.
We hope that readers of this volume walk away feeling that their views on intimacy and
interpersonal relationships have been enriched.

References
Aktipis, A. (2020). The cheating cell. Princeton University Press.
Antar, J. C., & Stephen, I. D. (2021). Facial shape provides a valid cue to sociosexuality in men but not
women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 42(4), 361–​370.
Aspara, J., Wittkowski, K., & Luo, X. (2018). Types of intelligence predict likelihood to get married and
stay married: Large-​scale empirical evidence for evolutionary theory. Personality and Individual Differences,
122, 1–​6.
Ayers, J. D. (2021). Competitive scenarios increase competition in women: A meta-​analysis. Evolutionary
Behavioral Sciences. Advance online publication. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​ebs​0000​278
Badcock, P. B., Friston, K. J., Ramstead, M. J., Ploeger, A., & Hohwy, J. (2019). The hierarchically mechanistic
mind: an evolutionary systems theory of the human brain, cognition, and behavior. Cognitive, Affective, &
Behavioral Neuroscience, 19(6), 1319–​1351.

4 J u s t in K. Mogilski an d Todd K. Shacke lford

Baugh, A. T., Senft, R. A., Firke, M., Lauder, A., Schroeder, J., Meddle, S. L., Meddle, S. L. Meddle; van Oers,
K., & Hau, M. (2017). Risk-​averse personalities have a systemically potentiated neuroendocrine stress axis:
A multilevel experiment in Parus major. Hormones and Behavior, 93, 99–​108.
Baur, J., Nsanzimana, J. D. A., & Berger, D. (2019). Sexual selection and the evolution of male and female
cognition: A test using experimental evolution in seed beetles. Evolution, 73(12), 2390–​2400.
Blair, K. L., & Hoskin, R. A. (2019). Transgender exclusion from the world of dating: Patterns of acceptance
and rejection of hypothetical trans dating partners as a function of sexual and gender identity. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 36(7), 2074–​2095.
Bode, A., & Kushnick, G. (2021). Proximate and ultimate perspectives on romantic love. Frontiers in Psychology,
12, 1088.
Bradshaw, H. K., & DelPriore, D. J. (2022). Beautification is more than mere mate attraction: extending evo-
lutionary perspectives on female appearance enhancement. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51, 43–​47.
Brady, A., & Baker, L. R. (2022). The changing tides of attractive alternatives in romantic relationships: Recent
societal changes compel new directions for future research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16(1),
e12650.
Brandner, J. L., Brase, G. L., & Huxman, S. A. (2020). “Weighting” to find the right person: compensatory
trait integrating versus alternative models to assess mate value. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(4),
284–​292.
Brown, M., Sacco, D. F., Boykin, K., Drea, K., & Macchione, A. (2021). Inferences of parental abilities
through facial and bodily features. In V. A. Weekes-​Shackelford & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of evolutionary psychology and parenting (pp. 453–​467). Oxford University Press.
Buss, D. M. (2018). Sexual and emotional infidelity: Evolved gender differences in jealousy prove robust and
replicable. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 155–​160.
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mat-
ing. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–​232. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0033-​295X.100.2.204
Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D.P. (2019). Mate preferences and their behavioral manifestations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 70, 77–​110.
Conroy-​Beam, D. (2021). Couple simulation: A novel approach for evaluating models of human mate choice.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(3), 198–​228.
Conroy-​Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Aavik, T., Akello, G., Alhabahba,
M. M., Alm, C., Amjad, N., Anjum, A., Atama, C. S., Duyar, D. A., Ayebare, R., Batres, C., Bendixen,
M., Bensafia, A., Bizumic, B., Boussena, M. . . . Zupančič, M. (2019). Contrasting computational models
of mate preference integration across 45 countries. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–​13.
Csajbók, Z., & Berkics, M. (2022). Seven deadly sins of potential romantic partners: The dealbreakers of mate
choice. Personality and Individual Differences, 186, 111334.
Del Giudice, M. (2017). Integration in personality research: Evolution is the missing catalyst. European.
Journal of Personality, 31, 529–​595.
Desrochers, J., MacKinnon, M., Kelly, B., Masse, B., & Arnocky, S. (2021). Sex differences in response to
deception across mate-​value traits of attractiveness, job status, and altruism in online dating. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 50, 3675–​3685.
Diamond, L. M. (2021). The new genetic evidence on same-​gender sexuality: Implications for sexual fluidity
and multiple forms of sexual diversity. The Journal of Sex Research, 58(7), 818–​837.
Dinh, T., Haselton, M. G., & Gangestad, S. W. (2022). “Fast” women? The effects of childhood environments
on women's developmental timing, mating strategies, and reproductive outcomes. Evolution and Human
Behavior, 43(2), 133–​146.
Durante, K. M., Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2016). Pair-​bonded
relationships and romantic alternatives: Toward an integration of evolutionary and relationship science
perspectives. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 1–​74.
Durkee, P., Lukaszewski, A., von Rueden, C., Gurven, M., Buss, D. M., & Tucker-​Drob, E. (2022). Niche
diversity predicts personality structure across 115 nations. Psychological Science, 33(2), 285–​298. https://​
doi.org/​10.1177/​095679​7621​1031​571
Edelstein, R. S., & Chin, K. (2018). Hormones and close relationship processes: neuroendocrine bases of
partnering and parenting. In O. C. Schultheiss & P. H. Mehta (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of
social neuroendocrinology (pp. 281–​297). Routledge.

Int roduction 5
Edlund, J. E., Heider, J. D., Nichols, A. L., McCarthy, R. J., Wood, S. E., Scherer, C. R., Hartnett, J. L., &
Walker, R. (2018). Sex differences in jealousy: The (lack of ) influence of researcher theoretical perspective.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(5), 515–​520.
Fenneman, J., & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2020). Is impulsive behavior adaptive in harsh and unpredictable envi-
ronments? A formal model. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(4), 261–​273.
Fennis, B. M., Gineikiene, J., Barauskaite, D., & van Koningsbruggen, G. M. (2022). Acute stress can boost
and buffer hedonic consumption: The role of individual differences in consumer life history strategies.
Personality and Individual Differences, 185, Article 111261.
Fessler, D. M. T., Clark, J. A., & Clint, E. K. (2015). Evolutionary psychology and evolutionary anthropology.
In D. M. Buss (Ed.), the handbook of evolutionary psychology, volume 2: integrations (pp. 1029–​1046). John
Wiley & Sons.
Fink, B., Liebner, K., Müller, A. K., Hirn, T., McKelvey, G., & Lankhof, J. (2018). Hair colour and skin
colour together influence perceptions of age, health and attractiveness in lightly pigmented young women.
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 40(3), 303–​312.
Fisher, M. L., Garcia, J. R., & Burch, R. L. (2020). Evolutionary psychology: Thoughts on integrating feminist
perspectives. In L. Workman, W. Reader, & J. H. Barkow (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of evolution-
ary perspectives on human behavior (pp. 378–​391). Cambridge University Press. https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​
978110​8131​797.032
Fraley, R. C., Brumbaugh, C. C., & Marks, M. J. (2005). The evolution and function of adult attachment: a
comparative and phylogenetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 731.
Frankenhuis, W. E., Panchanathan, K., & Nettle, D. (2016). Cognition in harsh and unpredictable environ-
ments. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 76–​80.
Gibson, M. A., & Lawson, D. W. (2015). Applying evolutionary anthropology. Evolutionary Anthropology:
Issues, News, and Reviews, 24(1), 3–​14.
Giosan, C., Cobeanu, O., Wyka, K., Muresan, V., Mogoase, C., Szentagotai, A., Malta, L. S., & Moldovan, R.
(2020). Cognitive evolutionary therapy versus standard cognitive therapy for depression: A single-​blinded
randomized clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76(10), 1818–​1831.
Gurvich, C., Hoy, K., Thomas, N., & Kulkarni, J. (2018). Sex differences and the influence of sex hormones
on cognition through adulthood and the aging process. Brain Sciences, 8(9), 163.
Hasson, U., Nastase, S. A., & Goldstein, A. (2020). Direct fit to nature: An evolutionary perspective on bio-
logical and artificial neural networks. Neuron, 105(3), 416–​434.
Henrich, J., & Muthukrishna, M. (2021). The origins and psychology of human cooperation. Annual Review
of Psychology, 72, 207–​240.
Hertler, S. C., Figueredo, A. J., & Peñaherrera-​Aguirre, M. (2020). Multilevel selection: theoretical foundations,
historical examples, and empirical evidence. Springer Nature.
Hill, S. (2019). This is your brain on birth control: The surprising science of women, hormones, and the law of
unintended consequences. Penguin.
Hollon, S. D., Andrews, P. W., & Thomson Jr, J. A. (2021). Cognitive behavior therapy for depression from an
evolutionary perspective. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, Article 667592.
Hunter, G., & Stockwell, A. (2022). Toward a behavior-​analytic understanding of jealousy and compersion in
romantic and sexual relationships. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 23(1), 78–​108.
James, L., Todak, N., & Savage, J. (2020). Unnecessary force by police: Insights from evolutionary psychology.
Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 14(1), 278–​291.
Joel, S., & MacDonald, G. (2021). We’re not that choosy: Emerging evidence of a progression bias in romantic
relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25, 317–​343.
Jonason, P. K., Zeigler-​Hill, V., & Baldacchino, J. (2017). Before and after: Personality pathology, childhood
conditions, and life history outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 38–​43.
Jones, A. L. (2018). The influence of shape and colour cue classes on facial health perception. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 39(1), 19–​29.
Jones, A. L., & Jaeger, B. (2019). Biological bases of beauty revisited: The effect of symmetry, averageness, and
sexual dimorphism on female facial attractiveness. Symmetry, 11(2), 279.
Kline, M. A., Shamsudheen, R., & Broesch, T. (2018). Variation is the universal: Making cultural evolu-
tion work in developmental psychology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
373(1743), 20170059.

6 J u s t in K. Mogilski an d Todd K. Shacke lford

Kupfer, T. R., Sidari, M. J., Zietsch, B. P., Jern, P., Tybur, J. M., & Wesseldijk, L. W. (2022). Why are some
people more jealous than others? Genetic and environmental factors. Evolution and Human Behavior,
43(1), 26–​33.
Lenton, A. P., & Stewart, A. (2008). Changing her ways: The number of options and mate-​standard strength
impact mate choice strategy and satisfaction. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(7), 501.
Li, N. P., Bailey, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Linsenmeier, J. A. (2002). The necessities and luxuries of mate prefer-
ences: testing the tradeoffs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 947.
Li, N. P., Yong, J. C., & Van Vugt, M. (2020). Evolutionary psychology’s next challenge: Solving modern
problems using a mismatch perspective. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 14(4), 362.
Lippa, R. A. (2010). Gender differences in personality and interests: When, where, and why? Social and
Personality Psychology compass, 4(11), 1098–​1110.
Lukaszewski, A. W., Lewis, D. M., Durkee, P. K., Sell, A. N., Sznycer, D., & Buss, D. M. (2020). An adapta-
tionist framework for personality science. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 1151–​1174.
Luoto, S. (2019). An updated theoretical framework for human sexual selection: From ecology, genetics, and
life history to extended phenotypes. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 5(1), 48–​102.
Marcinkowska, U. M., Kozlov, M. V., Cai, H., Contreras-​Garduño, J., Dixson, B. J., Oana, G. A., ... &
Rantala, M. J. (2014). Cross-​cultural variation in men's preference for sexual dimorphism in women's
faces. Biology Letters, 10(4), 20130850.
McDermott, R., & Hatemi, P. K. (2018). To go forward, we must look back: The importance of evolutionary
psychology for understanding modern politics. Evolutionary Psychology, 16(2), 1474704918764506.
Miller, G. (2000). Sexual selection for indicators of intelligence. In G. R. Bock, J. A. Goode, and K. Webb
(Eds.), Novartis foundation symposium (pp. 260–​270). John Wiley & Sons.
Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(5), 190–​198.
Mogilski, J. K. (2021). Parental investment theory. In T. K. Shackelford (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of evolution-
ary psychology (pp. 137-​154). SAGE.
Mogilski, J. K., Mitchell, V. E., Reeve, S. D., Donaldson, S. H., Nicolas, S. C., & Welling, L. L. (2020).
Life history and multi-​partner mating: A novel explanation for moral stigma against consensual non-​
monogamy. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 3033.
Mogilski, J. K., Wade, T. J., & Welling, L. L. M. (2014). Prioritization of potential mates’ history of sexual
fidelity during a conjoint ranking task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 884–​897.
Mogilski, J. K., & Welling, L. L. M. (2017). The relative importance of sexual dimorphism, fluctuating asym-
metry, and color cues to health during evaluation of potential partners’ facial photographs: A conjoint
analysis study. Human Nature, 28, 53–​75.
Mogilski, J. K., & Welling, L. L. M. (2018). The relative contribution of jawbone and cheekbone prominence,
eyebrow thickness, eye size, and face length to evaluations of facial masculinity and attractiveness: A con-
joint data-​driven approach. Frontiers in Psychology: Section Evolutionary Psychology, 9, Article 2428.
Mogilski, J. K., Wysocki, A., Reeve, S. D., Mitchell, V. E., Lunge, J., & Welling, L. L. (2019b). Stress hor-
mones, physiology, and behavior. In L. M. Welling & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
evolutionary psychology and behavioral endocrinology (p. 351). Oxford University Press.
Morris, A., Phillips, J., Huang, K., & Cushman, F. (2021). Generating options and choosing between them
depend on distinct forms of value representation. Psychological Science, 32(11), 1731–​1746.
Nesse, R. M. (2019). Core principles for evolutionary medicine. In M. Brüne & W. Schiefenhövel (Eds.),
Oxford handbook of evolution and medicine (pp. 3–​43). Oxford University Press.
Nettle, D., & Frankenhuis, W. E. (2019). The evolution of life-​history theory: a bibliometric analysis of an
interdisciplinary research area. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 286(1899), 20190040.
Nettle, D., & Scott-​Phillips, T. (2021). Is a non-​evolutionary psychology possible? https://​doi.org/​10.31234/​
osf.io/​wky9h
Otterbring, T. (2021). Evolutionary psychology in marketing: Deep, debated, but fancier with fieldwork.
Psychology & Marketing, 38, 229–​238.
Pachankis, J. E., Clark, K. A., Burton, C. L., Hughto, J. M. W., Bränström, R., & Keene, D. E. (2020).
Sex, status, competition, and exclusion: Intraminority stress from within the gay community and gay and
bisexual men’s mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(3), 713.
Palomo-​Vélez, G., & van Vugt, M. (2021). The evolutionary psychology of climate change behaviors: Insights
and applications. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 54–​59.

Int roduction 7
Pan, X., Gelfand, M., & Nau, D. (2021). Integrating evolutionary game theory and cross-​cultural psychology
to understand cultural dynamics. American Psychologist, 76(6), 1054.
Pelham, B. W. (2021). The husband-​older age gap in marriage is associated with selective fitness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 121(3), 601.
Petersen, M. B. (2020). The evolutionary psychology of mass mobilization: How disinformation and dema-
gogues coordinate rather than manipulate. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 71–​75.
Puts, D. (2016). Human sexual selection. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 28–​32.
Redlick, M. H., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2018). Affection, deception, and evolution: Deceptive affectionate mes-
sages as mate retention behaviors. Evolutionary Psychology, 16(1), Article 1474704917753857.
Rehbein, E., Hornung, J., Poromaa, I. S., & Derntl, B. (2021). Shaping of the female human brain by sex
hormones: A review. Neuroendocrinology, 111(3), 183–​206.
Reynolds, T., Baumeister, R. F., & Maner, J. K. (2018). Competitive reputation manipulation: Women strategi-
cally transmit social information about romantic rivals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 195–​209.
Roney, J. R., & Simmons, Z. L. (2018). Ovarian hormone fluctuations predict within-​cycle shifts in women’s
food intake. Hormones and Behavior, 90, 8–​14.
Saad, G. (2017). On the method of evolutionary psychology and its applicability to consumer research. Journal
of Marketing Research, 54(3), 464–​477.
Schulz, J. F., Bahrami-​Rad, D., Beauchamp, J. P., & Henrich, J. (2019). The church, intensive kinship, and
global psychological variation. Science, 366(6466), Article eaau5141.
Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1990). Human behavior in global perspective: An
introduction to cross-​cultural psychology. Pergamon Press.
Semenyna, S. W., Gómez Jiménez, F. R., & Vasey, P. L. (2021). Women’s reaction to opposite-​and same-​sex
infidelity in three cultures. Human Nature, 32(2), 450–​469.
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2012). The evolutionary origins of friendship. Annual Review of Psychology,
63(1), 153–​177.
Shirazi, T. N., Self, H., Dawood, K., Welling, L. L., Cárdenas, R., Rosenfield, K. A., Bailey, J. M.,
Balasubramanian, R., Delaney, A., Breedlove, S. M., & Puts, D. A. (2021). Evidence that perinatal ovarian
hormones promote women’s sexual attraction to men. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 134, 105431.
Silan, M., Adetula, A., Basnight-​Brown, D. M., Forscher, P. S., Dutra, N., & IJzerman, H. (2021). Psychological
science needs the entire globe, part 2. APS Observer, 34(6).
Simpson, J. A., Griskevicius, V., Szepsenwol, O., & Young, E. (2017). An evolutionary life history perspective on
personality and mating strategies. Praeger/​ABC-​CLIO.
Sommer, V., & Vasey, P. L. (Eds.). (2006). Homosexual behaviour in animals: An evolutionary perspective.
Cambridge University Press.
Stanley, K. O., Clune, J., Lehman, J., & Miikkulainen, R. (2019). Designing neural networks through neuro-
evolution. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(1), 24–​35.
Stephen, I. D., Hiew, V., Coetzee, V., Tiddeman, B. P., & Perrett, D. I. (2017). Facial shape analysis identi-
fies valid cues to aspects of physiological health in Caucasian, Asian, and African populations. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8, 1883.
Szepsenwol, O., Griskevicius, V., Simpson, J. A., Young, E. S., Fleck, C., & Jones, R. E. (2017). The effect
of predictable early childhood environments on sociosexuality in early adulthood. Evolutionary Behavioral
Sciences, 11(2), 131.
Szepsenwol, O., Simpson, J., Griskevicius, V., Zamir, O., Young, E. S., Shoshani, A., & Doron, G. (2021).
The effects of childhood unpredictability and harshness on emotional control and relationship quality:
A life history perspective. Development and Psychopathology. Advance online publication. https://​doi.org/​
10.1017/​S09545​7942​1001​371
Tanskanen, A. O., & Danielsbacka, M. (2018). Intergenerational family relations: An evolutionary social science
approach. Taylor & Francis.
Trillmich, F., Müller, T., & Müller, C. (2018). Understanding the evolution of personality requires the study
of mechanisms behind the development and life history of personality traits. Biology Letters, 14(2), Article
20170740.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the
descent of man (pp. 136–​179). Aldine.
Trivers, R. (1991). Deceit and self-​deception: The relationship between communication and consciousness.
Man and Beast Revisited, 907, 175–​191.

8 J u s t in K. Mogilski an d Todd K. Shacke lford

van Anders, S. M. (2013). Beyond masculinity: Testosterone, gender/​sex, and human social behavior in a
comparative context. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 34(3), 198–​210.
Vonk, J. (2021). The journey in comparative psychology matters more than the destination. Journal of
Comparative Psychology, 135(2), 156–​167.
Vowels, L. M., Vowels, M. J., & Mark, K. P. (2021). Uncovering the most important factors for predicting
sexual desire using explainable machine learning. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 18(7), 1198–​1216.
Walter, K. V., Conroy-​Beam, D., Buss, D. M., Asao, K., Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Aavik, T., Akello, G.,
Alhabahba, M. M., Alm, C., Amjad, N., Anjum, A., Atama, C. S., Duyar, D. A., Ayebare, R., Batres, C.,
Bendixen, M., Bensafia, A., Bizumic, B. ... Zupančič, M. (2020). Sex differences in mate preferences across
45 countries: A large-​scale replication. Psychological Science, 31(4), 408–​423.
Walum, H., Lichtenstein, P., Neiderhiser, J. M., Reiss, D., Ganiban, J. M., Spotts, E. L., Pedersen, N. L.,
Anckarster, H., Larsson, L., & Westberg, L. (2012). Variation in the oxytocin receptor gene is associated
with pair-​bonding and social behavior. Biological Psychiatry, 71(5), 419–​426.
Wang, X., Zhu, N., & Chang, L. (2022). Childhood unpredictability, life history, and intuitive versus deliber-
ate cognitive styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 184, 111225.
Welling L. L., M., & Shackelford, T. K. (2019). The Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology and behavioral
endocrinology. Oxford University Press.
Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press.
Williams, K. E. G., Krems, J. A., Ayers, J. D., & Rankin, A. M. (2022). Sex differences in friendship prefer-
ences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 43(1), 44–​52.
Wilson, D. S., & Coan, J. A. (2021). Groups as organisms: Implications for therapy and training. Clinical
Psychology Review, 85, Article 101987.
Woodley, M. A., Luoto, S., Peñaherrera-​Aguirre, M., & Sarraf, M. A. (2021). Life history is a major source
of adaptive individual and species differences: A critical commentary on Zietsch and Sidari (2020).
Evolutionary Psychological Science, 7(3), 213–​231.
Zietsch, B. P., & Sidari, M. J. (2020). A critique of life history approaches to human trait covariation. Evolution
and Human Behavior, 41(6), 527–​535.

Int roduction 9
 PART
I
Relationship
Initiation

Relationship initiation refers to how people find and choose a

relationship partner. In ­chapter 1, Buss reviews the foundations
of evolutionary science and its application to the study of human
mating. He focuses on the processes of sexual selection and how it
has shaped men’s and women’s partner preferences and selection
criteria. He highlights the fundamentals and premises of sexual
strategies theory, including the sex-​specific challenges recurrently
faced by those seeking long-​and short-​term partners and the adap-
tations that men and women have evolved to heuristically address
these challenges. He considers alternative explanations for varia-
tion in men’s and women’s mate preferences (e.g., the good genes
hypothesis and the mate-​switching hypothesis) and strategies of
contest competition. Moreover, he integrates recent evidence for
how individual and environmental variations (e.g., mate value dis-
crepancies, operational sex ratio, and parasite load) shape expres-
sion of these adaptations. He concludes with a discussion of future
directions in the study of sexual coercion (i.e., behavior aimed at
securing reproduction by bypassing mate choice) and men’s and
women’s adaptations and counter-​adaptations for enacting and
resisting this type of mating.
In ­chapter 2, Stephen and Luoto review how humans and other
animals use morphological cues (e.g., face and body condition) to
assess partner qualities that are of consequence to successful mat-
ing and reproduction. Their review includes a balanced discussion
of traits associated with immune functioning, health status, and
desirable personality traits, including cues of developmental health (e.g., symmetry and
sexual dimorphism), current health (e.g., adiposity and skin color and texture), genetic
quality (e.g., major histocompatibility, height, and muscularity), and personality. They
discuss the myriad strategies for augmenting these cues with nonbodily ornamentation,
such as luxury items, cosmetics, and other conspicuous superstimuli that exaggerate cues
of phenotypic quality. They conclude by discussing how modern technology, such as
social media and online dating, has decoupled the evolved psychology underlying partner
evaluation from the adaptive behavior that it has historically produced, thereby creating
evolutionary mismatches.
In ­chapter 3, Jonason and March review the psychological traits that people assess in
potential mates and argue that these qualities can be organized into three superordinate
traits: competence, compassion, and compatibility. Competence includes traits that assist
in goal pursuit and attainment (e.g., intelligence, education, and income), compassion
reflects traits that signal a partner’s willingness to invest in a partner or shared offspring,
and compatibility refers to similarity in interests and belief. They outline differences and
similarities among men’s and women’s preferences for these traits and draw on sociocul-
tural (i.e., social role theory, structural powerlessness, and social learning theory) and
evolutionary models (i.e., sexual strategies theory and life history theory) to explain how
and when people vary in these preferences. They conclude with the importance of study-
ing how these preferences generalize to non-​Western and sexual/​gender minority popula-
tions and how researchers might begin to appraise their “three Cs” model of psychological
preferences.
In c­ hapter 4, Li and Choy review the mechanisms of mate choice, including the evolved
algorithms that humans employ to weigh and prioritize competing partner traits. They
assess these mechanisms within the context of sexual strategies theory, agent-​based simula-
tion models (e.g., Euclidean algorithmic mate value integration), modern platforms for
courting partners (e.g., social media and online dating), and speed-​dating experimental
paradigms. They conclude by discussing sources of evolutionary mismatch caused by the
emergence of supernormal stimuli, such as sexual technology and pornography, potential
partner abundance, and anonymity, that which be altering how mate choice mechanisms
guide peoples’ relationship decisions.
In c­hapter 5, Makhanova synthesizes the experimental and cross-​species evidence
for how hormones mediate sexual behavior and partnership formation. She reviews
the general functional design of gonadal hormones, including testosterone, estrogen,
and progesterone, and the physiological systems through which these hormones influ-
ence the development and expression of male-​and female-​typical mating behavior.
Throughout, she emphasizes how these hormonal effects are sensitive to context (e.g.,
social status, ovulatory fluctuation, and presence of rivals) to produce situationally mal-
leable adaptive responses. She concludes by discussing sources of individual difference in

12 R e l ation sh ip In itiation
hormone-​mediated relationship formation and identifies methodological advancements
that are yet needed within this field of study.
In ­chapter 6, Caton, Lewis, Al-​Shawaf, and Evans catalogue the diverse courtship sig-
nals and behaviors that humans and other animals employ to attract partners and promote
their reproductive success. Discussion is organized around the five senses to showcase
how courtship is guided by sensory input and the adapted cognition that processes each
sensory mode (i.e., visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, and gustatory). Throughout, they
maintain focus on cutting-​edge research on psychophysical cues of mate quality, including
neck musculature, lumbar curvature, and sebum detection. They conclude by discussing
future directions for studying how humans use each sensory modality to assess potential
partners.
In ­chapter 7, Krems, Bradshaw, and Merrie provide an overview of the major theories
and evidence underlying research on intrasexual competition in humans. They discuss
the contributions of parental investment theory and sexual strategies theory as well as the
influence of biological markets and ecological factors (e.g., sex ratios and income inequal-
ity) that shape same-​sex competition within men and women. They bridge historical and
recent work to identify unresolved gaps in the empirical study of contest competition and
spend considerable time identifying future directions in the study competition among
women, sexual and gender minorities, and parents and older adults.
In ­chapter 8, Valentova, Amaral, and Varella give an authoritative summary of mate
preference, mate choice, and relationship initiation research among hetero-​and non-​
heterosexuals and evaluates how evolutionary scientists have approached the study of
relationship initiation among LGBTQ+​individuals. They note which sex differences
appear to be robust with LGBTQ+​samples and which features of attraction and courtship
diverge from findings among heterosexual individuals. They identify several current limi-
tations, including a largely restrictive focus on Western samples, insufficiently nuanced
measures of sexual orientation, and interactions between sexual attraction and gender (a)
typical developmental process.
In ­chapter 9, Koren and Ayalon consider how relationship initiation varies across age
and the unique challenges that individuals must resolve to form partnerships later in life.
They consider the roles of individualistic versus collectivistic cultural values, the influence
that children and grandchildren exert on mate choice and repartnering, and the barri-
ers that later-​life health and living conditions can introduce. Throughout, they reference
prominent models of socioemotional functioning and successful aging to highlight the
importance of studying the diversity of relationships among older adults, the intersect-
ing effects of culture and parent–​offspring interactions and expectations, and the roles of
physical and emotional togetherness/​apartness. They conclude with research on LGBTQ+​
populations, extreme old age, and emerging technologies for helping older individuals
find and achieve relational satisfaction.

Re lations hip Init iat ion 13

 In ­chapter 10, Karandashev concludes the first section by describing the influence
of biological, ecological, and cultural selection processes on cross-​cultural variation in
relationship initiation. Throughout, he focuses on distinctions between traditional and
modern societies’ courtship customs. In doing so, he highlights international differences
in beauty standards and their relation to socioeconomic status, infant mortality rates,
sex ratio, and individualism/​collectivism, the importance of physical appearance versus
expressive behavior, survival and self-​expression values, education and reproductive rate,
wealth concentration and women’s access to financial resources, social rituals and sym-
bolic gestures of love and commitment, dating customs, and the role of parental oversight
(e.g., arranged marriages). He concludes by critiquing methodological customs in cross-​
cultural research and provides several fruitful avenues for future directions.

14 R e l ation sh ip In itiation
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
imperfect contrivance. The ancient monarchy never seems to have
made use of flat signets. The impression of one has been sought for
in vain on those contracts of the time of Hammourabi, where so
many cylinders have left their mark. The oldest document on which
the trace of a circular seal has been recognized belongs to the
northern kingdom, and dates from the reign of Bin-Nirari, who
occupied the throne of Assyria towards the end of the ninth century
B.C. From this moment the use of the cone becomes rapidly
common. Under the Sargonids, and still more during the second
Chaldee monarchy and under the Achæmenids, it superseded the
cylinder. The dates inscribed on the tablets prove their age; the
space on the cones themselves was too narrow, as a rule, for a
legend. On a few specimens we find one or two characters
engraved, generally a divine monogram or the traditional emblems of
the sidereal powers. A few cones have inscriptions in Aramaic
characters (see Fig. 157); on the example figured we again
encounter the strange composite beast we have already seen upon
a stone tablet and a cylinder (Figs. 87 and 141). In spite of the
alphabet employed, this cone must have been engraved either in
Nineveh or its neighbourhood.
The narrowness of the field explains the want of variety in the
subjects. In a small circle like this there was no room for more than a
single figure with a few accessories, or, at most, for two figures. We
cannot expect to find scenes as varied and complicated as those
upon the cylinders. A very small number of the simplest themes
formed the stock-in-trade of the engraver.
There are about four hundred specimens in the British Museum,
and as many more in Paris, in the Louvre and the Cabinet des
Antiques. In the presence of them all we can only confess to a
feeling of embarrassment. They are never arranged in chronological
order; Assyrian intaglios are mixed up with those from Chaldæa,
from Phœnicia and Persia. Certain types were reproduced and
copied in this region even as late as the Arsacids and Sassanids.
We shall choose a few, however, which we may with some certainty
attribute to Assyria. There is in the first place one on which two
winged figures seem to be adorning the sacred tree (Fig. 158). We
find the impression of an almost exactly similar cone on a contract
dated 650 B.C. The only differences lie in the more careful execution
of the latter seal and in the substitution of the radiant disk of the sun
for the crescent moon.[331] In another impression we find the radiant
disk changed into the winged globe.[332] The shape and fringe of the
Assyrian robe may be recognized in the intaglio in which a man with
long hair and beard does homage to a winged genius (Fig. 159). The
worshipper is standing, but behind him appears a kneeling figure.
This posture is rare, but it is met with in a few instances on
monuments from this period, and is always used to suggest the
profound respect with which a man does obeisance either to his god
or his king.[333]
We need not hesitate to ascribe to the second Chaldæan
monarchy a cone with a bearded individual standing before an altar
on which lies a fantastic animal (Fig. 160); above his head appear
the sun, the moon, and a star. We have already mentioned two
examples of this theme, which begins to appear in the time of
Nebuchadnezzar and remains in fashion until the Macedonian
conquest.[334]

Fig. 159.—Amethyst cone.

National Library, Paris.[335]
 Fig. 160.—Agate cone. National
Library, Paris.[336]
Among the themes in most frequent use under the Sargonids we
might have quoted the single combat of the king with a lion, the god
standing upon a lion’s back, the king over whose head a servant
holds an umbrella, the heads and bodies of different animals, and
others.[337] We cannot pretend, however, to enumerate them all. It is
sufficient to show, as we have done, that after the ninth century at
latest both cylinders and cones were produced in the same
workshops, and that the differences in their figuration are to be
explained by the dimensions and form of the new surface. Those
who have supposed that the use of flat seals only commenced under
the Achæmenids are mistaken. All that we can say with truth is that
intaglios cut upon sections of cones, spheres and pyramids are less
ancient than the cylinders of Ur, Erech, Accad and Sippara.
This is proved by the dated contracts to which we have already
so often had to refer; but supposing no such contracts to have been
in existence we could have arrived at the same conclusion by
another path. Cones in calcareous stone, in marble, or even in pietra
dura are either wanting altogether, or very few and far between; they
are almost all in precious stones, most of them in carnelian and
chalcedony. Sapphirine chalcedony, with its fine bluish tint, seems to
have been most in favour.
In Egypt we found intaglios upon metal as well as upon lapidary
substances.[338] This use of metal was a result of mounting seals in
circles of gold or silver. Precious stones were rare and difficult to cut;
what could be more natural than to substitute metal for them and to
make the bezel of a ring of the same material as its hoop. For its
engraving neither lathe nor diamond dust was wanted; the burin
alone was necessary, and the figures cut by it gave a result no less
satisfactory than those obtained by the slower process and in the
more stubborn material. The temptation was great for the Egyptian
artist, and we are not surprised that he succumbed to it, but it did not
exist for the Chaldæan engraver. The latter had only to deliver a
stone which his client could wear fastened to his wrist, or hung round
his neck by a cord. He had no direct and intimate relations with the
worker in metal; he was not compelled to call in the latter to mount
his creation. Sometimes, under the influence perhaps of foreign
models, he may have attempted to substitute metal for stone, but
isolated attempts did not make a school. We can point to only one
example of such work. The British Museum possesses a silver
cylinder, but the only interesting thing about it is its material.[339] The
composition of the type is naive and its execution rough. All this
allows us to believe that metal seals were very rare and never came
into general use.
Oriental artists, at least during the period of which we are now
speaking, hardly ever practised any kind of gem-cutting but intaglio,
but there are two stones in existence in which first attempts at a
process that must have led in time to the production of cameos, may
be traced. “In one of these gems, an onyx, the upper layer is cut
away from the one below it and an inscription left. In the other the
eyes and neck of a serpent are rendered with the aid of three
different tints in the stone.”[340]

§ 9. The General Characteristics of Chaldæo-Assyrian Sculpture.

We have now reached the end of our inquiry into the history of
Mesopotamian sculpture—an inquiry that we have endeavoured to
make as complete as the existing remains would allow. So far as
Chaldæa is concerned, these are very few in number. On the other
hand, the three centuries over which the Assyrian power extended
are pictured in such a vast number of reliefs that we are
embarrassed by their number as much as by their want of variety.
Our difficulty in the case of Assyria has been to make a selection
from a vast quantity of objects that tell us the same thing again and
again, while, in the case of Chaldæa, it has been to insure that none
of the scanty salvage from so great a wreck should be lost. We have
more than once had to make induction and conjecture take the place
of examination and assertion before we could complete even a
rough sketch of the development of Chaldæan art.
There is one question that must have been asked by many of our
readers before these pages came in their way, but is now, we
venture to hope, fully answered, and that is, whether the Semites of
Chaldæa drew their first inspiration from a foreign source, or whether
it was an original result from the natural aptitudes of the race.
Ancient as civilization may have been in the Euphrates valley, it was
still more ancient, to all appearance, in the valley of the Nile. And yet
all who have examined the figures we have placed before them must
acknowledge the originality and independence of Chaldæan art. No;
the sculptors of Memphis and Thebes were not the masters of those
of Babylon and Nineveh; they preceded them indeed, but they left
them no teaching and no models to copy.
This is proved in the first place by the difference, we might say
the opposition, between the two styles. The Egyptian sculptor
simplifies, abridges, and summarizes form; the Assyrian amplifies it
and accents its details. The former seems to see the human body
through a veil of gauze, which hides the accidents of the surface and
the secondary forms, allowing nothing to be clearly grasped but the
contour and the great leading lines. One would say that the second
studied nature through a magnifying-glass; he insists upon what the
first slurs over.
This is not the only difference between the two methods and the
two interpretations. The Egyptian artist can seize the character of a
movement with much justice and vivacity, but he endeavours to
ennoble it by giving it a general and typical value. This he does, for
example, in the gesture of the king who brandishes his mace or
sword over the head of his conquered enemy while he holds him by
the hair with his other hand.[341]
 He thinks more about elegance in arranging the posture of his
figures; look, for instance, at the men and women carrying offerings,
at the dancers and musicians who abound in the reliefs and pictures.
His favourite attitude, however, is one expressive of force in repose.
We cannot deny that in his figures in the round the Mesopotamian
sculptor showed the same predilection, but his choice was
suggested, or rather imposed, by the resistance of the materials he
employed and the necessity of avoiding certain executive difficulties
over which he could not triumph. We can hardly see how he could
have given his figures more animation or have better expressed the
freedom of their limbs and the swing of their bodies; the stones he
used were either too hard or too soft, and he was without the needful
skill in the management of his tools.
It is in the reliefs, where he is more at his ease, that he allows us
to see whither his natural inclinations would lead him. They contain
hardly any seated figures. Man is there always on his feet and in
action. Movement, to interest the Mesopotamian artist, need not be
the expression of an idea, or the cause of graceful lines. It pleases
him for its own sake by its freedom and unexpectedness, I am
almost tempted to say, by its violence.
This feeling is visible chiefly in the battle pictures and hunting
scenes. In these, no doubt, the drawing of limbs, &c., often leaves
much to be desired. The hand has been unable to render all that the
eye has seen. The unveiled human body has not been displayed
often enough to the sculptor for him to know thoroughly the
construction of its framework and the mode of attachment of its
limbs. On the other hand, when animals have to be treated, with
what singular power and complete success the same artist has often
represented the tension of the contracting muscles, the speed of the
horse as he stretches himself in the gallop, the spring of the lion as
he throws himself upon the spear (see Fig. 161), and, finally, the
trembling of the flesh in the last struggle against suffering and death!
It is in the Assyrian monuments that these things are treated with the
greatest success. A people of soldiers and hunters, whose truculent
energy gave them the empire of all western Asia, they had neither
the mild humour nor the fine taste of the Egyptians, they were less
easily moved, and we find ourselves wondering that they never hit
upon the fights of gladiators as a national pastime. They were
touched and interested by force passing from repose into action, by
force putting forth all its energies in contempt of danger and in spite
of the most determined resistance.

Fig. 161.—Assurbanipal attacked by lions. British Museum.

Drawn by Saint-Elme Gautier.
 The temperaments of the two nations were, then, vastly different,
and by the time their mutual relations became close and continuous,
each had thought too much, had worked too much, and created too
much for itself to be in any great danger of losing its originality under
the influence of the other. Moreover, the two civilizations never
penetrated within one another. Their moments of contact were short
and superficial. Under the great Theban conquerors of the
eighteenth dynasty, the Egyptian armies advanced to the Euphrates,
and the princes of Mesopotamia may, for a time, have recognized
the suzerainty of the Pharaohs; this is proved to some extent by the
numerous scarabs engraved with the name of Thothmes III., which
have been found in the valley of the Khabour,[342] but after the
nineteenth dynasty their hold upon these distant conquests must
have been lost. Their access to them was barred by the Khetas, in
Syria, and, a few centuries later, it was the Sargonids who invaded
Egypt and admired its monuments so much that they carried some of
them away, such as the lion found at Bagdad. It bears the oval of a
Pharaoh who is believed to be one of the shepherd kings.[343] In the
interval the importation of objects of luxury, which was carried on
through the Phœnicians, had introduced a few foreign motives into
the repertory of the Assyrian artists, such as the crouching sphinx
and the lotus flower; the winged globe may also be Egyptian; but
these borrowings never go beyond details; even if they were far
more numerous than they are, they would not deprive the sculpture
of the Mesopotamian Semites of its right to be considered an
independent and autonomous form of art, whose merits and defects
are to be explained by the inborn genius of the race, by its manner
and beliefs, by the natural conditions of its home, and the qualities of
the different materials employed.[344]
It is in the same order of ideas that we must seek a reason for the
differences we have remarked between the art of the early
Chaldæan monarchy as it has been revealed to us in the
monuments recently discovered, and Assyrian art as we have known
it ever since the explorations at Khorsabad, Nimroud, and
Kouyundjik. In all this there is a most interesting question for the
study of the historian. Of what nature was the bond by which the
sculptors of Calah and Nineveh were allied to those who had
chiselled the Sirtella statues, perhaps a thousand years before?
What place does the brilliant and prolific art of Assyria occupy in the
series of phases whose succession was governed by the laws that
have presided over the development of human societies in every age
and place? Until within the last few months we should have found it
difficult to give a satisfactory answer to this question. Assyrian art
offered contradictory features to the observer, and it was not easy to
understand how, with so lively a feeling for form, and especially for
movement, it could have admitted so much conventionality and
repeated itself with so much insistence and prolixity. The
combination of skill and awkwardness, of energy and platitude, was
more than surprising. But the problem resolves itself as soon as we
go back to the art of Chaldæa, the first-born of the two sister nations,
and the pioneer of Mesopotamian civilization.
Assyrian art, even in its most ancient productions, was not, as we
once believed, a primitive or even an archaic art; neither was it what
we call a classic art, an art employing the skill it has acquired for the
renewed study of nature and the sincere imitation of its beauties. We
shall not call it a debased art or an art in its decadence; to do so
would be to exaggerate our meaning; but it was an art no longer in
its progress, an art that, for the sake of rapid and ample production,
made use of conventional formulæ invented by deceased masters
and handed down by tradition.
Perhaps we may give a clearer notion of what we mean by a
comparison.
Under all the reserves implied by such collations, we should say
that Chaldæan art was to that of Assyria what the Greek art of
Phidias, Praxiteles, and Lysippus was to the Alexandrian and
Græco-Roman art which we now call Hellenistic. In the studios of
Nineveh, as in those of Pergamus, of Rhodes, of Antioch, of Rome,
great activity, great skill, and no little science were to be found; even
originality was sought for, but it was sought rather than won. Thus
we find in Macedonian and Roman Greece, here a school drawing
attention by audacious and perhaps theatrical execution, there
another devoting its skill to pathetic subjects, and attempting to
render physical agony by contracted muscles. So it is in Assyria. The
ease with which alabaster and soft limestone could be cut allowed
the artists who worked for Assurnazirpal to give to the ornamentation
of the rich stuffs they figured a delicacy and refinement that were
impossible in the stubborn stones of Chaldæa. Two centuries later
the sculptors of Assurbanipal sought a new element of success in
the complication of their scenes, in the grace of their execution, in
the picturesque details of their landscape backgrounds, in the
increased slenderness of their figures, and in a certain elegance
spread over their compositions as a whole.
It is certain that neither the Greek of the later centuries nor the
Assyrian invented and created in the proper sense of the word. The
Greek sculptor, thanks to a deeper comprehension of the true
conditions of art and to the necessity under which he laboured of
reproducing the nude, certainly did not remit his care for modelling,
but he looked at the contours and the significance of the human
body rather with the eyes of his masters and predecessors than with
his own. It was to those masters that he was indebted for his
propensity to see one set of features rather than another, and to give
that interpretation to form that, taken altogether, constitutes the
Greek style.
The Assyrian sculptor was in much the same case, but as his
figures were draped, almost without exception, it was much easier
for him to put nature aside altogether and to fall into manner and
routine. It is only when he has to represent animals that he seems to
work from the living model. The human body, hidden under its long
and heavy robes, did not discover enough to awake his interest; all
that he sees—the features and the profile of the face, the throat, the
lower parts of the arms and legs—he treats after the examples left to
him by his Chaldæan leader. In the whole of Assyrian sculpture there
is no passage studied from nature with faith and sincerity, like the
hand, the shoulder, and the back in the statues of Gudea. The
Chaldæan sculptor had a taste for strong modelling, and in this his
Assyrian pupil copied him with such an excess of zeal that he arrived
at exaggeration and pure convention. He knotted the knees of his
figures, he gave them knee-caps standing out like huge bosses, and
muscles so stretched and salient that they look like cables rather
than flesh and blood. It is an early edition of what is now an old story.
The master is betrayed by the pupil, who copies his mannerisms
rather than his beauties and turns many of his fine qualities into
defects.
We may now see how much the Chaldæan excavations and the
collection which the Louvre owes to M. de Sarzec are calculated to
teach the historian of art. These discoveries, by their intrinsic
importance and by the light they have thrown on the origin of a great
civilization, may almost be compared to those of Lepsius and
Mariette, to the systematic researches and happy finds that have
revealed the Egypt of the ancient empire to us. Assyrian art is no
longer a puzzling phenomenon. Like the Egyptian art of the Theban
epoch, it was preceded by a realistic and naturalistic, an inquisitive,
simple-minded, and single-hearted art, which had faithfully studied
the human form and had thus created one of the original styles of
antiquity, a style, perhaps, in which Greece at its first beginning
found the most useful lessons and the most fertile suggestions.
As we have already confessed, we can form but a very imperfect
notion of what the art of Chaldæa was in its best days, in its period of
youth and freshness. The remains are few and small; they are heads
separated from the bodies to which they once belonged, chips from
broken reliefs and a few small bronze and terra-cotta statuettes.
Even supposing that new discoveries come to fill up the gaps, so
that the development of Chaldæo-Assyrian art may be embraced as
a whole, even then it would, we believe, be interior to that of Egypt.
No doubt it possesses certain qualities not to be found in the latter.
The statues from Tello have a freedom and vigour of modelling in
certain parts that can hardly be prized too highly, and the Memphite
artist never chiselled anything so full of intense life and movement as
the animals at Kouyundjik; but without again referring to faults
already treated at length we may say that the supreme defect of
Mesopotamian sculpture is its want of variety.
It is a powerful but monotonous art. For each class of figures it
had but one mould. It seems never to have suspected how unlike
men are to each other when they are looked at closely; we are
tempted to believe that it never made a portrait in the true sense of
the word. It held through many centuries to the general and abstract
types created at first, and repeated them with a constancy that
inevitably causes some weariness in the spectator. It also committed
the mistake of spreading a single colour, speaking metaphorically,
over all its pictures; as a musician would say, all its compositions
were in the same key; it was always serious; it did not understand
how to laugh or unbend. In the elaboration of its demons it certainly
cast about for as much ugliness as it could find, but that was to
frighten and not to amuse. In all the remains of Assyrian art there is
no trace of playful humour, of the light-hearted gaiety that is so
conspicuous in more than one Egyptian monument. In the
subordinate parts of some of the reliefs from the Sargonid period we
find certain groups and scenes belonging to what we should call
genre, but neither here, nor in the bronzes, nor in engraved gems,
nor even in the terra-cottas, do we find anything that approaches
caricature. The comic element, without which no representation of
life can be faithful and complete, is entirely wanting.
A final defect of Assyrian art is the almost total absence of
woman from its creations. In Chaldæa we found her in the small
bronzes and in a few clay figures; the canephorus with bare arms
and bust, the nursing goddesses who bear a child in their arms or
who press their breasts with their open hands, will be remembered,
but it would seem that such subjects were treated only in figures of
very small dimensions. In the fragmentary reliefs and statues from
Chaldæa there is nothing to suggest that female forms, either wholly
or partially nude, were either cast or chiselled in anything
approaching life size. Still less were such things made in Assyria,
where no terra-cotta figure even of the deity to whom the names of
Istar, Beltis, Mylitta, and Zarpanitu have all been given, has yet been
found. It was, however, at Kouyundjik that the only nude female torso
yet discovered in Mesopotamia was dug up. It bears the name
Assurbilkala, and is now, as we have said above, in the British
Museum.[345] Among the ivories, indeed, we find female statuettes in
which we are tempted to recognize the same goddess; but where
were those ivories carved? We have good reason to believe that not
a few are of Phœnician workmanship.
The real national art of Assyria must be sought in the palace
reliefs, and in that long illustrated chronicle of the court, the chase,
and the royal campaigns, woman plays a very subordinate part. It
has been thought that a tall, beardless individual who occurs near
one of the doorways of Assurnazirpal’s palace, in the place generally
reserved for divinities, should be accepted as a goddess (Fig. 162).
[346] She is winged, and her hair is gathered together at the back of
the neck, one long knotted and tasselled tress falling nearly to her
loins. Her right arm is raised, her left lowered; in her left hand she
holds a small wreath or garland. A wide girdle at the waist confines a
long robe falling to the feet, and a fringed and flounced mantle.
Nothing is seen through this drapery, such as amplitude of bosom or
hips, to suggest the female sex, while the jewels that may be noticed
on the neck and wrists and in the ears are also to be found on
figures that are certainly male. In fact there is nothing to suggest a
woman but the arrangement of the hair and a certain unwonted
refinement in the execution of the features. And it is only by external
signs like these, by the pose and the costume, that the few women in
the bas-reliefs are to be recognized. This observation holds good for
the queen of Assurbanipal as well as for the musicians who
celebrate his victories and the captives led into slavery by the
Assyrian armies.
 Fig. 162.—Figure of a goddess. British
Museum. Drawn by Wallet.
We can hardly say then that woman had any place in Assyrian
art; she was represented, if at all, only by her robes. In the long
series of reliefs you find none of the charming variety given to
Egyptian art by the slender forms of goddesses, queens, dancers,
and players on the mandolin, who crowd the pictures and allow the
graceful contours of their youthful bodies to be seen through their
transparent robes. In spite, then, of all its merits, the art of the
Assyrian sculptor is far from complete. His neglect of the soft
nobleness inherent in the beauty of woman deprived him of a
precious resource; his works are without the telling contrasts that
nature has set up between the forms of man and those of his mate.
We have endeavoured to do him justice; we have sought to put in full
light the merits by which he attracts our admiration, but we cannot
help seeing that he lacks something that we have found in Egypt and
shall find again in Greece; he is without the charm of grace and light.
 CHAPTER III.
PAINTING.

In the inventory we are compiling of the various methods used by

the Semites of Mesopotamia to address the intellect through the
eyes, we shall consecrate a chapter to painting for form’s sake. The
kind of representation we call by that name was no more known to
the Assyrians and Chaldæans than it was to the Egyptians.[347] They
loved brilliant colours, but they only made use of them for what was,
in fact, illumination; they coloured figures and ornaments, but they
never painted, as the word is understood in all modern languages.
In our endeavours to explain how the Mesopotamian architect
disguised, under a robe of gay tints, the poverty of the materials with
which he was forced to work, we showed that he employed colour in
two different ways, according to the place occupied in the building by
the wall he had to cover.[348] In the interiors of rooms he was, in
most cases, satisfied with spreading upon the plaster a coat of some
pigment that could be easily renewed when it began to fade; but in
those parts of the building that were exposed to the weather, and
even in some rooms that were the objects of particular care, he had
recourse to the solidity of enamel. We have pointed out the favourite
motives both in the distemper paintings and in the kind of mosaic
given by the glazed or enamelled bricks; we have yet to say what
tints the enameller used and how he used them. Our coloured plates
will give a better idea of this decoration than we can give in words
(Plates XIII., XIV., and XV.).[349]
In the carpets still woven in Asia Minor, Kurdistan, Khorassan and
Persia there are colours at once brilliant and soft that are a constant
delight to the eye of the connoisseur. We may point, for instance, to
certain reds and greens at which the manufacturers of Europe gaze
in despair, in spite of the resources of modern chemistry. This
freshness and solidity of tint is explained by the almost exclusive use
of vegetable dyes. These the Kurd or Turkoman extracts from
mountain plants, sometimes from the stem or the root, sometimes
from the blossom or the seed.[350] These inventions and recipes
have been handed down from generation to generation through
many ages; the secret of many dyes must have been discovered
long before the fall of Nineveh or the beginning of the Babylonian
decadence. Down to the very last days of antiquity the dyers of
Mesopotamia were famous for their processes and the harmonious
splendour of their colours. Since the days of Nebuchadnezzar the
people of that region have forgotten much, while they have learnt
nothing, perhaps, but how to hasten the depopulation of their country
by the use of gunpowder. All the professional skill and creative
activity of which they still can boast they owe to the survival of this
ancient industry, whose traditions and practical methods are
preserved in the hut of the mountaineer, under the tent of the nomad,
and in those bazaars where so many agile weavers repeat, with
marvellous rapidity of hand and sureness of eye, the designs and
motives of thirty or forty centuries ago.
Among the colouring materials still in use in the woollen fabrics of
the Levant there can be very few with which the ancients were not
acquainted, and perhaps they used some of them in their distemper
paintings; but the latter were no more than feeble shadows when
discovered, and they soon vanished when exposed to the air. It was
different with those that had been subjected to the action of fire.
They could be removed and analyzed. But the enameller confined
himself almost exclusively to mineral colours, of which alone we can
now describe the composition.
The two colours most frequently used were blue and yellow.
Backgrounds were nearly always blue (Plates XIII. and XV.), and
most of the figures yellow. Certain details were reinforced by touches
of black and white. In the brick representing the king followed by his
servants (Plate XIV., Fig. 1), the royal tiara is white, the hair, beards,
bows, and sandals are black. Red only appears in a few ornamental
details (Ibid., Fig. 2). Green is still more rare. It has been found at
Khorsabad. In a fragment of painting upon stucco it affords the
ground against which the figures are relieved;[351] and in the
enamelled brick decoration on the harem wall (Vol. I., Fig. 101), it is
used for the foliage of a tree that looks at first sight like an orange
tree; its leaves however are rather those of an apple (see Plate XV.,
Fig. 3).
According to Sir H. Layard, the blue which was spread in such
great quantities on the enamelled bricks was given by an oxide of
copper mixed with a little lead, the latter metal being introduced in
order to render the mixture more fusible.[352] This analysis applies
only to the bricks of Nimroud. In the Sargonid period another
process, borrowed, perhaps, from Egypt, seems to have been
employed. Place tells us that in the course of his excavations he
found two blocks of colour in one of the offices at Khorsabad. One of
these blocks, weighing some two pounds and a little over, was blue.
An artist was at the time engaged in copying in water-colours the
decoration of one of the walls covered with enamelled bricks. In
order to get as near as possible to the tint of the original the notion
occurred to him to make use of the Assyrian blue. But the latter was
stubborn and would not mix; it left a vitreous deposit at the bottom of
the cup. At first it was supposed that its long sojourn in the earth had
deprived it of some of its qualities, but later analysis explained the
difficulty in a more satisfactory manner. Its unfitness for use as
water-colour was not the result of any alteration. Being intended for
use as a glaze or enamel upon pottery, it was composed of lapis-
lazuli reduced to powder.[353]
PLATE XIII

From Layard Sulpis sc.

ENAMELLED BRICK FROM NIMROUD
British Museum