I notice that some anthropologist believe all humans were egalitarian in the past, and others believe inequality was more common they we currently we think with hunter gathers.
This seems to along with anthropologist using modern hunter gathers as way to look at the past which is now considered not a best practice from what I read. Which this influenced the egalitarian hunter gathers idea even more.
I'd argue no. The state of organization is largely a product of material conditions with some local quirks/tradition mixed in randomly. In hunter gatherer groups, there would have been somebody with clear advantages over others, or just a random disposition to violent risk taking that fate made into a ruler which allowed them to accumulate more than others. Even on a micro level within a tribe, there's going to be certain people who are favored for some reason, even if just by pure chance, who will accumulate more and be able to assert economic dominance and further their advantage.
deleted by creator
Sure they do. Someone is gonna be bigger and stronger or just luckier and get access to better hunting grounds, more fertile patches for horticulture, etc. The primitive accumulation process starts before people settle permanently.
deleted by creator
Nooooot really. Most hunting and gathering societies use a relatively straightforward toolkit of techniques and technologies that are learned by most or all members of the society. Most people will learn to make any of the tools needed for survival and resource gathering, and those tools will rely on relatively simple to acquire resources in their territory.
And hierarchy in a hunting and gathering society is difficult to enforce. If you're in a resource situation where the average person can meet their own caloric needs by hunting and gathering then there's not much you can hold over their heads. !Kung people are well known for having very little social violence do to the simple reality that they can carry all the stuff they need, so if someone in their camp is being a jackass they can simply leave and go stay in another camp. From what I remember they also have a lot of social norms that emphasize community achievements and de-emphasize individual achievements. Like successful hunters will be gently chided that their kill isn't that big or that impressive, with the goal being to defuse individual ego.
Just to restate it, because it's important; It's very hard for one individual to take control of a hunting and gathering group because everyone has equal access to the same tools and resources, accumulation of resources and surplus is nigh impossible, and if anyone doesn't like your leadership they can just leave and go live with relatives or by themselves and do perfectly fine.
Edit: I did a quick re-read and it seems like most societies that were hunting and gathering societies in recent history are becoming increasingly settled due in large part to the intrusion of global economies and agricultural practices in to more and more marginal land. The !Kung people who have been protrayed as the "model" hunting and gathering society are now increasingly settled as a result of the expansion of agriculture and the intrusion of cattle ranching in to their traditional lands.