I have to say Rex, this strikes me as a Gish Gallop. The stuff you're picking at is so tertiary or so incidental to the main points that it seems to be a spiteful but largely baseless attack. And when you say something like, "I linked two instances of skeletons" as if that is indicative of anything whatsoever - except perhaps that skeletons showing signs of trauma were so scarce that only a few were ever found. You complain that she doesn’t go into enough of an explanation about egalitarianism but then she’s linked you other stories that talk about exactly that. Again, you seem to want to have books worth of information all in a 7 minute story, and that’s just not reasonable.

This isn't my area of expertise, so I'll not dive into the specifics too deeply, but after several years of reading and talking with Elle, what I do know is that

A) she makes few claims about human nature other than that we are a highly social species,

B) There's a lot of evidence to support that Paleolithic peoples used enforced egalitarianism as a survival strategy - keeping any anti-social or violent impulses largely in check via group pressure.

C) Other than sporadic flares of jealousy or other hot-blooded violence, there seems to have been no reason to engage in violence as a matter of course in the Paleolithic, since it would have been maladaptive and was purposely kept in check by the group(s) - the one someone lived in as well as neighboring groups who also depended upon each other as a survival strategy.

D) Elle has never once said that we can somehow return to some sort of hunter-gatherer lifestyle in modern societies, only that there are things we can learn about how we organize ourselves from them. And how, in fact, that is the latest trend in business because it offers greater agility.

This all reads like it came from someone who didn't actually pay attention to what was actually said and instead has a kind of petty vendetta against the author. As I've said before, that is not intended to be combative, but simply to give you my impression of how it comes off. I may be biased since she's my friend, but I feel like I understand all sorts of things about this topic now thanks to her, because it's laid out in a very clear, concrete, and well-supported manner. You seem to be looking for a way to challenge that without actually going head to head but by bringing in ancillary what-about questions that seek to undermine without actually addressing the main points directly. At least that's my impression.... sorry.