They certainly were "stateless", but I'm not sure about "egalitarian" or "marketless".
I think there is a lot of evidence suggesting cultural hierarchies based on gender, age and heredity -- apart from the implications of individual physical strength.
The predominant forms of exchange may have been non-market, but exchange did occur. Moreover, forms like potlatch have a clear potential for petty accumulation.
Apart from these, there were also forms of "landed property"; the notion that hunter gatherers were "propertyless" was certainly convenient for settlers in the Americas, Africa and the South Pacific. However studies of Australian hunter-gatherers have shown inequalties in access to hunting grounds/animal populations/foraging areas, based on heredity.
When the English diarist Watkin Tench met the famous Aboriginal leader, Bennelong sometime around 1790, Bennelong pointed out the islands that he _and_he_alone_ owned in Sydney Harbour. "They have their real estates", Tench commented.
I also think you're quite right about the "quality of life" indicators like life expectancy, diet, lesiure time and so on, in comparison to Europeans of the early modern era, anyway.
Brett wrote:
What's attractive is the fact that foraging societies were egalitarian, marketless, stateless societies. And as such, they are useful examples of alternative social arrangements, and perhaps there are aspects of these societies that we could imitate to make our lives better.