Women were the providers for most of human prehistory. This is what the archeological evidence suggests. Most calories were provided by women, thus it was mostly women who defined the level of subsistence in prehistorical human settlements. Nor were men "hunters" and women "gatherers." The division of labor was more that men hunted higher risk game and also provided protection against other men whereas women sought more reliable sources of calories.

This also clearly points to the fact that patriarchy is absolutely not some state of nature: men only dominated within their respective lane until modern governments and agriculture were established where capital goods provided a greater boon to the rate of production of food than gender differences and governments stratified how men organized themselves as agents of violence. We didn't need to rely on women as much for food with these innovations, and governments could mobilize large portions of male youth toward war where resources could be acquired en masse via force (and importantly the reproductive resources of women conquered to produce more grunts for war).

Hypergamy then was an adaptation on behalf of women in patriarchal society to use their reproductive resources to bid for security and resources provided by elite men as they were no longer relied upon for maintaining economic subsistence and women's purpose was more narrowly relegated to reproduction. However, it is even a stretch to say that women had individual autonomy to be hypergamous until the late industrial revolution: most men were not selected by individual women, but rather it tended to be heads of households who determined couples through most of history. Ironically, men historically have probably benefited more from hypergamy from women. Often entrepreneurial men would marry themselves to aristocratic women to solidify their legacy (Barry Lyndon is a great movie about male hypergamy).

The idea that nature shows that men are providers and women are hypergamous is absurd.