This still feels more like an opinion than facts/proof. I was hoping for actual cited papers or studies, it feels like you just reiterated what you said above but adding "In anthropology..."
Some interesting texts: * The Harmless People (a classic) * Hierarchy in the Forest * Hunter-Gatherers of the Congo Basin * The Foraging Spectrum
While they talk about egalitarianism and resisting domineering members, and various organizational structures, they don't establish that people followed "correct" individuals or that violence increases with increased population growth/agriculture/weapons.
I think I'm safe to say that there is plenty of evidence for violence that predates agriculture and modern society, even if agriculture and nation-states increased the scale and visibility of such violence overall.
I think replacing "nasty, brutish, and short" with its opposite "noble savage" ideal is probably just as mistaken of a projection from literature. Human nature doesn't seem to change much throughout history, tools might just make that violence more efficient and more visible.
I don't think your thesis is fully wrong, but I don't think it is fully right either, which was my point in pushing back against the earlier statements you made.
The hints of egalitarian structures are found deep in enthographic interviews of tribes which have no visible hierarchy: it is invisible, if so how does it operate?