Stands to reason that as migratory bands gave way to cities, and wars became the norm, that the protection that a king could offer to women would be worth a lot. Attack the neigboring city, kill all the males, bring the women back, repeat.
How many “wives” did King Solomon have?
Monogamy is a far more stable structure, because the incentive to kill the king is so much lower if everyone has a chance to pair up, but clearly there were other phases.
City-states had large standing armies precisely because they had agricultural surplus. As is usual and understandable, the real estate was owned by older men. The women were traded like baseball cards to keep the landowners tied to each other and to some extent to the ruling regime, but there were no other marriage prospectes without that. Sons who survived and/or distinguished themselves in battle disproportionately acquired the inheritance. They continued the pattern, and everyone was on board. Not all got served.
Lots of wars before agriculture.
Just smallers scale.
Lots of tribes wiped out other tribes, killed the men and kept the women and children.
Five to 7,000 years ago is when the Asian tribes swept into Europe and began the shift from matralineal to patriarchal societies. This is reflected very strongly in the Old Testament Bible. Early Jewish history had important goddesses as did the Greeks and others. Patriarchal rulers would have multiple wives and concubines, and prevent lesser males from breeding. I saw a National Geographic article some decades ago about digging out a 50 foot high Bulgarian settlement mound. Before 5,000 years ago the pottery was bright and colorful. After that time it was made more precisely, but basically colorless and without joy. Women as slaves making pottery??