Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Yeah, I think that's true. There's an emphasis on the things that break the seeming mold - SO MUCH of history is about kings that when you get the story of a female revolutionary - or a region where female revolutionaries are more than just one example - it becomes something notable. It's a spotlight to say "here is what's possible," rather than saying "here is how it normally was."
I've been recently reading David Graeber's fantastic The Dawn of Everything, and I can see a bit of similarities here. Graeber really pushes for an idea of Neolithic republics or democratic systems in ways that are both compelling, but also need to be taken in the same way - this isn't how every Neolithic society was, just how one possibility was realized in more than one place (Tlaxcala, Teotihuacan, Sumerian, ancient Ukraine). He makes for an interesting tension between upland foraging societies focused on kingship and honor and larger urban cultures focused on an egalitarian civic life in ways that totally upend the everyday explanation for things. It's effective, especially in showing how the "rise of agriculture leads to an authoritarian state" narrative simply has no basis, but it is weak in that it could be interpreted as making too much of disparate examples. Perhaps the correct thing to say re: Graeber is "an egalitarian, urban Neolithic is possible," rather than "the urban Neolithic was egalitarian". . .
Will have to add Graeber to my reading list - unfortunately, it will have to be after I finish translating a few more of Khazanov's chapters on the air war in front of Moscow in October 1941 (from Russian) and the VIII FliegerKorp's journal on the same period (from German) - that 'Free Time' that's supposed to come with retirement is a *&$%^ Myth!
It does sound like he's touching on something I started noticing a few years ago, though: there are a lot of early 'urban agricultural' societies that show little or no sign of hierarchial leadership at all: Catal Huyuk and the Cucuteni -Trypillia cities (in both cases, all homes in the city are virtually identical in size and there is no central plaza, mound, or Ceremonial Place from which to proclaim anything), for example, and others in the more traditional hierarchial pattern in which the basis for Leadership appears to have been religious and not political/bureaucratic - case in point, Uruk, which was founded around a pair of religious sites. Add to that what we already discussed elsewhere on these Forums that many "Indo-European" societies from Greece to Rome to the German tribes and pastoral groups had strong traditions in the historical period of Consensual King - or Chieftainship and many Native North American societies had 'ephemeral' chiefs - you were put in charge temporarily because you were good at doing something specific like diplomacy or leading raids, but there was no tradition or even concept of an individual having overall general authority over the group.
And, of course, there are a lot of examples of 'Separate Authority/Influence' patterns between men and women: the Haudenosaunee in which the woman 'owned' the Longhouse and a womens' council made almost all decisions regarding internal affairs in parallel wth the men's "Senate" so loved by Franklin that only had authority over external matters, or the rigid separation of mens' and womens' religious rites and 'mysteries' in Classical Greece. Not to mention the very strange (to traditional patriarchial patterns) examples of Goddesses with Military Influence, like Athena (who is probably pre-Greek, since 'Athens' the city predates the arrival of Greeks in Greece) or Artemis/Diana the Huntress usurping a traditionally-male role . . .
Another peculiarity is that the supposedly Classic Arch-Imperialist, Kipling, summed it up most neatly and succinctly:
"There are nine and twenty ways
of constructing Tribal Lays
And each and every one of them is Right!"