I’m sorry but this is nonsense. The luitenant would kill you? Is this how you think social animals live? I’m not saying elephants are casting ballots but what you’re missing here is the social structures are not just reinforced by threat of death.

This is pretty much nonsense. We have a lot of knowledge of forager societies (there are none now that live in a 'pre-contact' way), and none were run like dictatorships. A very common pattern is that any male who tried that path was killed - usually by the entire band so that no one person was responsible. There were people - mostly male - who were acknowledged as the best warrior or shaman or hunter, but they had to be careful not to push the boundaries. Not that societies were equal - arrangements varied, but males were ahead of females, and elders over the younger, and adults over children.

Egalitarian hunter-gatherers are extremely well established across the global archaeological record, and the pattern for how populations go from that to state-level societies is equally well trodden scholarly soil.

Generally speaking, societies went from having decision-making power shared between individuals and family units; to recognizing one "big man," typically a charismatic leader figure who pops up during crises. His family didn't retain recognition after he died, but once they did, chiefdoms arose. State-level societies arise as the needs of a population become too complex to handle with just crowd logic.

The apes are an even worse analogy. Bonobos, who as far as primatologists are concerned are more closely related to us than Chimpanzees are, live in massive polycules and are well recorded to be non-violent. While we can get some evolutionary info about ourselves based on their modern behavior, we're just working on a different wavelength.

Take an intro to anthropology course.

Show us where these records show this is a universal form of governance in hunter-gatherer societies.

> They live in a dictatorial hierarchy, just like the apes they are

That is completely wring on so many levels. Least of all the fact that many of humanity's closest relatives are either matriarchal and/or egalitarian.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bonobo-sex-and-society-2006-06/

You should tell the Hadza that their society is defined by hierarchy.

source?

Not sure why somebody hasn't said this yet, but it doesn't follow that even if 100% of all known hunter gatherer groups lived in the same way today (they don't!), we could then be certain about the ways in which any have lived besides that.

But even disregarding that, this is not supported by the evidence

We have all the records of aboriginal people? Of people that did not posses scripture? Where all traditions are transmitted orally from generation to generation. Provably never changed a bit in human history. And even then, it wouldn’t mean that this was an universal truth. What might be the case in modern Australia might be different in other parts of the world because of various factors…

You’re talking about one stage earlier where it was all about competition for survival. Civilized societies are the next stage, the result of cooperation