There are two issues here. The first is the old romantic idea that societies in ancient times went through some kind of matriarchal phase, which they presumably outgrew. This further implies that matriarchal setups are somehow less advanced (but perhaps more natural and/or idillic) than patriarchal ones. That has indeed been discredited.

The other is the argument that there never in known history has been a true Matriarchal society. To me this argument is an argument over definition, with more than a passing resemblence to the No True Scottsman argument. For instance, known societies (eg: Tuareg) where women run families and inheritence runs through the female line only are renamed Matrifocal or somesuch. So in this case, it depends how you define "Matriarchal".

There are two issues here. The first is the old romantic idea that societies in ancient times went through some kind of matriarchal phase, which they presumably outgrew. This further implies that matriarchal setups are somehow less advanced (but perhaps more natural and/or idillic) than patriarchal ones. That has indeed been discredited.

The other is the argument that there never in known history has been a true Matriarchal society. To me this argument is an argument over definition, with more than a passing resemblence to the No True Scottsman argument. For instance, known societies (eg: Tuareg) where women run families and inheritence runs through the female line only are renamed Matrifocal or somesuch. So in this case, it depends how you define "Matriarchal".