I definitely got the idea well embedded in my head, that our ancestors had valued and respected women, which made dealing with the Romans problematic to say the least! Back when, before stock breeding, all anyone could be sure of was that females had the babies and the only certainty was who your mother was, so if you wanted to hand something on to the next generation, mother to daughter was the way! Some (Egyptians at one stage??) mated brothers and sisters in the hope that this really was how babies were made and really keeping it in the family, but I guess the disadvantages of that came clear. Even when the mechanism of baby production became generally agreed, the idea of expecting fidelity didn't, I think, catch on for a while! So, you still traced mother to daughter. But not in many cultures which wanted fierce strong butch rulers. (Difference between Britain and Ireland?) What with recessive genes which can lurk for generations and then pop up, I don't blame the ancients for being confused! But the male dominant societies had to lock up and subdue their women folk. Our ancestors, or at least some families, did not and, if their Queen was pregnant or otherwise not able to fight, a war leader could be nominated - probably a brother or lover!
But none of that is relevant to time!