I would contend that early human societies do represent a relative kind of egalitarianism, but one that had to contend with gender, age, kin, etc. as Grant points out. The kind of equality that did exist can serve as a benchmark of sorts, tho the material circumstances that gave rise to it are not really applicable to us now. Organizing people around virtue isn't humans strong suit.
I'm not sure about the primordial nature of the market and I don't think that its productive to equate social exchange with a market. Likewise, a notion like landed property may be in evidence in some cases, but this can blur the distinction between territorial control and property ownership. Group size and resource scarcity play important roles in shaping power, hierarchy, and exchange. The important lesson we can learn is that when faced with conditions of harsh scarcity, humans can fashion a less harsh society. When humans have to contend with the prospect of producing and distributing a surplus, we brutalize one another with something under different circumstances would be called progress.
I don't think 17th century Europeans settlers would have behaved any differently even if they saw foragers and horticulturalists as holding an advanced theory of property ownership.
Dennis Breslin
From: "Grant Lee" <grantlee at iinet.net.au>
>
> 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...