> agriculture led to many inequalities

Given the starkly different physical strengths between the genders, it's hard to believe that gender roles did not exist before agriculture.

Pre-agricultural societies certainly had a clear division of labor between the genders, but could still have had a high degree of equality in the sense that both women and men had roughly equal power in the communal decision-making.

Well, if you think about it from a reductionist perspective, in non-monogamous societies children were by definition primarily socially familiar with their mothers, because they were the only family actually known.

Evidence of matriarchy includes living matriarchal societies (eg. the Mosuo people). I am no expert, though. If you look at Wikipedia's matriarchy page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#Asia I actually live in Yunnan, which is smack bang in the middle of all of the Asian examples.

What do you mean? what makes you think there is any distinction between family and community outside of incest taboos, which may not have even existed in prehistory? What does an identification of a mother as family have to do with matriarchies? You haven't even made an argument.

> what evidence

Archaeological evidence

Evidence from literate civilizations writing about their uncivilized neighbors, which goes back to the earliest known works

Evidence from writers encountering such societies up to the modern day, although they're almost extinct outside of the deep Amazon and the like.

Logical conclusions - without a food surplus, there is no class system and other results

>Logical conclusions - without a food surplus, there is no class system and other results

That would make humans the only mammal out of ~5,500 species to not have a social hierarchy and those other species didn't develop hierarchies because they had a surplus of food.

> Logical conclusions - without a food surplus, there is no class system and other results

Even hunter-gatherers have chiefs and elders.

> Even hunter-gatherers have chiefs and elders.

Hunter-gatherer bands do not have chiefs. Looking at the Wikipedia article for "Tribal chief" it says "Historically, tribal societies represent an intermediate stage between the band society of the Paleolithic stage and civilization with centralized, super-regional government based in cities." I couldn't put it better.

Even with regards to Indian chiefs, and it's not hard to see how there are misconceptions about them if they're still referred to as "Indians", modern anthropology acknowledges that European notions about Indian bands and tribes in the 15th and 16th century were often wrong. Europeans saw parallels of European society in the New World which weren't there (of course there were different kinds of societies in the Americas, from Montezuma's Aztec empire, to humter gatherer bands).

To be fair, you don't have to refer to them as "Indians". Most serious academic anthropologists would refrain from doing so, preferring Native American instead. So to label them as "Indians" yourself and then to state that "it's not hard to see how there are misconceptions about them if they're still referred to as 'Indians'" is a bit disingenuous. I'm sure there are misconceptions but I don't take as evidence the fact that you chose to call them "Indians".

I said they're still referred to as Indians because they're still referred to as Indians. The point is the very name shows the nature of the ingrained misconceptions about them - the idea that they're from India for one. Yes, I know they're not from India, you seem to have missed the point.