Has the existence of a matriarchal society really been discredited?

Actually that statement is not all facts we have several tribes and groups that show Matriarchal systems. They try and hide evidence but more and more comes out every day. Statues of the Mother Godess for one were denied by now we have found so many that they cannot deny that they used to worship a Godess so early in man's history. The British usually try and argue against it because they have a queen but in a true Matriarchal society you do not pass belongings or names through the male you do it through the female line. Just having a female ruler would not be so, you would also have to have priestesses and female warriors who did not care about endogamy. as well as admire the womb and claim its superiority to anything male.I see several myths on both sides. Those that do admit try and claim more equality among practicers but the reality is, that it is normally anti-male rhetoric all over again. That is why Feminists are so attracted to it. They cannot write all the Godess Worshipers out of history no matter how hard they try. They are trying harder than ever to cover up the fact that these societies existed and are destroying more and more information all the time. We know that this is the case we can even see it in the Bible with the prophet Jeremaih when he is talking to Israel about worshiping the Queen of heaven and here many different idols under her. Solomon or the writer or writers of proverbs talks a little about it in his proverbs on wisdom.I would like to say though that matriarchal systems where not always built around the GOdess only but that is where the real evidence is most abundent. There were fazes were men played more and more of a part. I will say this they were not more peaceful that is where the feminists are wrong and men were not treated as equals. although I do not agree with my sources 100% I can tell you the proof is there but is just being covered up and for what reason the most childish of all. http://www.matriarchiv.info/?page_id=34&lang=en http://www.belili.org/marija/eller_response.html

I always thought that there was proof of the existence of matriarchal society in the ancient times but apparently, according to Wikipedia this hypothesis is mostly discredited today. Why?

No, it hasn't been discredited, just not proven, as mother-god states:

One frequently hears comments to the effect that "the once-popular theory of ancient matriarchy has now been discredited by scholars". The truth behind this statement is simply this. Scholars have declared, rightly, that there is no evidence that earlier civilisations were actually ruled by women. This is perfectly true, for there are no written records extant for these periods (which constitute a length of history many times greater than the whole era of patriarchy) and it is impossible to be certain what their social institutions were. What is quite clear is that in their iconography they were almost exclusively feminine-oriented.

Ah. The issue is Marija Gambutas, a well-respected anthropologist, archaeologist and scholar of linguistics. She did some groundbreaking work on the dissemination of Indo-European languages and the history of the baltic and slavic peoples, and was pretty near the top of her profession.

Then she went a little nuts.

She became involved in Second Wave Feminism and Environmentalism, which is in and of itself no bad thing (most of her colleagues were as well - it was the '60s), but then she started making some ahistorical claims in support of her politics not validated by archaeological or linguistic evidence, which is kind of a bad thing. Her "Goddess" books became real popular with New Age movements of all descriptions, and real unpopular with other experts in the field.

Here is a good article in the New York Times that explains the controversy.

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".