Ok, Colin, I'll stop pulling yer leg...No need, I find humour often acts as a catalyst for new thoughts, ideas.
We can see from the first link that there is evidence that early man was far more advanced, far earlier than has been previously thought... We are talking pre-Neolithic here and pre-dating the advent of post Neolithic by some 480 000 years,The point I was trying to make is that there is a huge time span for these developments and a wide range of options and behaviours. Earliest stone tools 2.6m yrs ago http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/tools/early-tools
which leaves a long time until pre-Neolithic.
During this time we would see a mix of gathers only, gatherers + some hunters, and more uniform hunter/gatherer. But tools were well advanced and probably specialised well before arrow and spear tips were developed.
I think it is easy to idealise these early societies, but I'm not convinced they were much different to present day.
My point being that we as humans are hard wired in every aspect of our psyche to be attuned to this social structure. It's our natural state. My point being that the imbalance that we see in the division of resources in our modern day society would not occur in a hunter gatherer social structure unless the groups leader had gone completely insane, in which case the other group members would smash his head in with a rock while he slept! A leader who was not taking care of the interests of the group as a whole would be at risk.
If we look at the chimp hunter gatherer group, there is a big incentive for the alpha to hold onto and control the meat resource as it gives a big advantage. Any challenge to his authority is usually in the open, so everyone can see how powerful the challenger is, and usually results in swapping one despot for another. The leader doesn't have to take care of the interests of the whole group, only sufficient number to ensure support, the rest are kept in their place by threats or favours. This situation is little different to modern revolutions, and I doubt it was much different in early societies.
Therefore, under this structure, and in light of their nomadic nature, we see that despite a hierarchal social structure, there will be no greatly unequal or widening division between the amount of resources available individually within this group.Archeologist would disagree with you. There is a lot of evidence for very wealthy ruling group with lots of bling, and a mass of poorer workers who benefit from the protection of the powerful.
Like the chimps, leaders retain control by using a favoured in-crowd and controlling resources while offering protection from the even greater threat outside - at least that's what they tell everyone and they soon hire priests to reinforce the message that the leader is a god, and evil ghosts inhabit the rest of the world.
Sorry, there seem to be 2 threads running in this so I'll leave it at that.