It has been my experience that most people will reject the described idea, regardless of being unable to present a substantive reason for doing so. When I decided to post here, I did not expect a much different outcome from most readers, but I did hope to get feedback from at least few, who would take some time to scrutinize the argument honestly. Of course the proposal might be not even wrong, which would explain the lack of will to go beyond just downvoting (if even).

I enjoyed this post. Thanks.

Re. the question where and why the governance pattern transitioned from stateless to hierarchical. This has been traditionally placed into times and places when foragers (hunter-gatherers) became farmers. There is a more modern school of thought that places the transition into locations abundant with natural resources, for example along the salmon-rich rivers in the Pacific Northwest. Canadian anthropologist Hayden is one of the proponents of the idea. See for example here:

Hayden, B., 2011. Big Man, Big Heart? The Political Role of Aggrandizers in Egalitarian and Transegalitarian Societies. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230116269_7

An interesting aspect of the stateless societies from the modern economics point of view is the observation that exceptional producers of resources (like a talented hunter) would continue to asymmetrically provide resources to the group, regardless of the group members not being ever able to reciprocate in kind. There are a bunch of theories why this behavior is stable, but I like the one which argues that reciprocity in fact exists in this case also, but the talented hunter gets a non-monetary, psychological reward (reputation) instead.