I've already linked to you quotes from scientists about why that wasn't the case, and how patriarchy spread due to the fact that it was so disruptive, but one more time, and then I'm done with this discussion.
Patriarchy spread because it was destabilizing. “Egalitarian populations are eventually able to stabilize, not because of density-dependent growth but because fertility, mortality, and resource productivity achieve a balance.” Counterintuitively, the fact that when inequality arose it was so destabilizing caused these patriarchal societies to spread by creating an incentive to migrate in search of further resources.
All the archeological data does support the fact that pre-agriculture revolution didn't have "alphas" because you had societies that affirmatively enforced egalitarianism, as I just fucking quoted to you from the head of the the Jane Goodall center. How stubborn and or dense do you have to be? He just said that suppressing our ancestor's hierarchies was a central element of human evolution!
Çatalhöyük was a large proto-agricultural settlement in what is now Turkey, existing from approximately 7100 BCE to 5700 BCE. At its height, the population numbered around 10,000, but all evidence is that the inhabitants lived a very peaceful and egalitarian existence. We know this is the case because Çatalhöyük is one of the most thoroughly excavated archeological sites in the world.
But whether or not the religion was centered on the Queen of Heaven, enforced egalitarianism was the norm. It wasn’t until near the end of the settlement’s existence that more hierarchical societal mechanisms come into evidence. Ian Hodder (current archeological director of the site) does believe that it was this highly developed system of beliefs and rituals that helped the settlement to be cohesive in the absence of leaders.
The settlement was on a wide and open plain on either side of a river, with no defensive properties and although they were the first to smelt ore to make lead, no thrusting weapons have been found. In other words, this large settlement existed for over two thousand years without defensive capabilities or weapons that could have been used to fight off invaders. This would hardly have been possible if warfare were a common part of life in that part of the world at that time.
Archeological evidence indicates that most large scale violence occurred in the world around 8,000 BCE or earlier, with a few instances that took place later, with none older than 13,000 BCE. So it was really only around the time that this part of the fertile crescent was thriving that the first vestiges of systematic violence began creeping into the human experience. By way of context, Sumer would not be established until 4000 BCE, nearly two thousand years after Çatalhöyük declined and disappeared.
It also seems highly unlikely that this large proto-agricultural society would have been able to maintain order and to enforce egalitarianism if it had evolved from a social system that came out of a dominance hierarchy. If the people had been used to chieftains, social classes and wealth disparity, it doesn’t seem possible that they would have been able to successfully embrace this very different kind of organizational structure for such a sustained period of time. It is infinitely more likely that this was a continuation of the social structure used by Paleolithic hunter-gatherer bands, who even as they grew in numbers and began to acquire more belongings still maintained the cooperative evolutionary strategy that had brought them this far.
FOR 5000 years, humans have grown accustomed to living in societies dominated by the privileged few. But it wasn’t always this way. For tens of thousands of years, egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies were widespread. And as a large body of anthropological research shows, long before we organized ourselves into hierarchies of wealth, social status and power, these groups rigorously enforced norms that prevented any individual or group from acquiring more status, authority or resources than others.
Decision-making was decentralized and leadership ad hoc; there weren’t any chiefs. There were sporadic hot-blooded fights between individuals, of course, but there was no organized conflict between groups. Nor were there strong notions of private property and therefore any need for territorial defense. New Scientist
This culture was not a lone outlier in an otherwise warlike and stratified world. Rather, it was a snapshot of what the world had been like until that time, when increasing population density as well as greater personal property that came with a larger reliance on agriculture combined with natural disasters and incursions from more warlike Proto-Indo-European tribes changed the social dynamics forever.
