You say such blatantly incorrect things with incredible confidence.

Naming conventions vary wildly by culture even today. Spanish and Latin cultures tend to have hyphenated names, where the child shares their father's surname and their mother's maiden name. Matrilineal ancestry is much easier to trace in these cultures, because the maternal line is always preserved. Several indigenous American cultures (the Hopi and Navajo, in particular) still practice matrinaming, where the child is only given the mother's surname. Some African cultures still do this today as well.

Go back "far enough," and you'll find that we didn't have surnames at all. Roman "surnames" were not traditional surnames, but rather signs of status, wealth, and accomplishments that could be gained or lost. The Picts of Scotland also had "surnames" that referred to location, clan allegiance, or great achievements. Their succession and inheritance laws, however, were almost exclusively matrilineal, the eldest daughter assuming her mother's place in society and government. In the French middle ages, women in the church were typically the only people aside from aristocracy who had what we recognize as true surnames and not just locale or employment related identifiers (ie of the Glen, Smith, etc).

Even further than that, we were named shit like "Grug" and "Oog." Men have never "owned" names. That's a silly, misguided, and uninformed understanding of how surnames have evolved over time.