Expert: John Shea - 6/13/2006

Question
I've begun to do some light research about Matrist and Patrist
societies in early history and pre-history. My basic question
concerns whether it is true that societies were more matrist in
pre-agricultural times and then were "usurped" by more
aggressive patrist societies. There are obviously several different
views about this, however, the information on the Web about
this topic is somewhat less than scholarly, seemingly dominated
by male chauvinist or feminist slants. What is the real academic
consensus on whether an actual 'revolution' of this sort
happened in most human cultures with the advent of agricultural
society.

Answer
David,
This isn't really my main area, but I do touch on it in a few lectures and I know a reference that will do the trick, if you need a more authorititative source, Cynthia Eller's book, The Myth of a Matriarchal Prehistory, is a good one.
Origin of the issue: 19th Century anthropologist Emil Bachoffen proposed that prior to the rise of warlike states in the Bronze age, early European and Near Eastern societies had been ruled by a primitive matriarchy.  This society was said to have been peaceful, stable, etc.  The change to more patriarchal societies was thought to have reflected increase warfare over agricultural land, trade goods, status.
Current status:  There are no known modern day societies nor historically known states that are in the strict sense matriarchies.  This is not to say that there are no societies in which women were powerful (League of the Iroquois/Houdenosaunee is a good example).  It is just not the case that we have evidence for societies in which political power was institutionally concentrated primarily in the hands of women to the exclusion of men.  It could be argued that warlike patriarchal states systemically overthrew matriarchal ones in recent time periods (say the Bronze Age), but there is increasingly evidence for warfare in what were thought to be "peaceful" matriarchal Neolithic societies.
FWIW: My own take on this is kind of sociobiological, -that the cross-cultural concentration of power in the hands of men reflects variation in the limits of male and female reproductive success.  No matter what she does, a woman has a number of possible children constrained by the number of pregnancies she can have in her lifetime.  Male reproductive success is more variable.  Some men have no offspring, others many, depending on the number of women they can impregnate.  This difference in male vs. female variability means that males evolution should favor males who can convert social/polititical power into increased reproductive success (more mates or better quality mates, or both in some combination).  So, it's  not a question of males being intrinsically better at gaining power or using it once they have it, it is a question of their having undergone millions of years of selective pressure for them to pursue it.  As with any aspect of human behavior, however, there are a lot of complicating factors and variability in this.  Any basic text in human sociobiology can guide you in current thought about the matter.  Daly and Wilson's book, Sex Evolution and Behavior is a good entry-level text.
I hope this helps.  For the prehistory stuff, Eller is a good bet.  She also  writes very engagingly.  Her bibliography will help you identify some of the pro-matrist researchers.  Probably the most prominent among the latter is the late Marija Gimbutas.  
Cheers,
John Shea