I'm not glossing over anything. I'm pointing out (using facts, data, and quotes from experts) that you are perpetuating a fable that has no scientific basis, by linking resources that don't speak to the time frame in question and then generalizing them.

In response to your comments

1. Yes, and all of those current partnership oriented societies are purposefully peaceful and egalitarian - unless they have been corrupted by warlike patriarchal ones.

Anthropologist Dr. Peter Gray says this:

"During the 20th century, anthropologists discovered and studied dozens of different hunter-gatherer societies, in various remote parts of the world, who had been nearly untouched by modern influences. Wherever they were found—in Africa, Asia, South America, or elsewhere; in deserts or in jungles—these societies had many characteristics in common. The people lived in small bands, of about 20 to 50 persons (including children) per band, who moved from camp to camp within a relatively circumscribed area to follow the available game and edible vegetation. The people had friends and relatives in neighboring bands and maintained peaceful relationships with neighboring bands. Warfare was unknown to most of these societies, and where it was known it was the result of interactions with warlike groups of people who were not hunter-gatherers. In each of these societies, the dominant cultural ethos was one that emphasized individual autonomy, non-directive childrearing methods, nonviolence, sharing, cooperation, and consensual decision-making. Their core value, which underlay all of the rest, was that of the equality of individuals."

2. I don't really understand what you are saying here. Agriculture began about 12 thousand years ago. So did any sort of mass violence, whether due to war or otherwise. Ergo, your chart indicates only what happened after the agricultural revolution. In other words, pre-agriculture, humans did not live in a more violent time. Semantics doesn't change that.

3. I already spoke to this in my previous reply with quotes from subject matter experts.

“There is really no actual scientific support for warfare in the Paleolithic era, and there is an overwhelming indication that pervasive violence and mass conflict only becoming prevalent in the past 8,000 years or so. R. Brian Ferguson, an anthropologist who studies war says that after studying the published work of dozens of other researchers he finds no evidence of war in the Stone Age, prior to 13,000 years ago. His findings were published in 2013 as a chapter in the book, War, Peace and Human Nature. “Views of human nature as inherently warlike stem not from the facts but from cultural views embedded in Western thinking.”

There is zero evidence of anything other than minimal, occasional interpersonal violence prior to that time. Which means, that no, pre-patriarchal cultures were not a lot more violent. Their entire survival strategy was one that used group pressure in order to maintain peace and order and to keep any tendencies towards violence in check, just as they do in true band hunter-gatherer groups today. Dr. Gray goes on to say:

"If just one anthropologist had reported all this, we might assume that he or she was a starry-eyed romantic who was seeing things that weren't really there, or was a liar. But many anthropologists, of all political stripes, regarding many different hunter-gatherer cultures, have told the same general story. There are some variations from culture to culture, of course, and not all of the cultures are quite as peaceful and fully egalitarian as others, but the generalities are the same. One anthropologist after another has been amazed by the degree of equality, individual autonomy, indulgent treatment of children, cooperation, and sharing in the hunter-gatherer culture that he or she studied. When you read about "warlike primitive tribes," or about indigenous people who held slaves, or about tribal cultures with gross inequalities between men and women, you are not reading about band hunter-gatherers."

Continuing to link me to resources that don't speak about the time frame in question (prior to 12 or 13 thousand year ago) does not move the ball or reinforce the point you are trying to make. I'm sorry, but clinging to your ideology doesn't make it so. Failure to understand how your assertions do not line up with the actual science can only be attributed to cognitive dissonance.