From modern-era studies of existing hunter-gatherers, as well as nomads. They're a lot more egalitarian (though of course there are some status differences) as there is less scope for specialisation. Agrarian societies are much larger, allow for much more specialisation, and as such have much more power on offer. Think about all the power levels in an agrarian society. At the macro level, we have working, middle, and upper classes. Each of these is divided again into more and more levels.
Look at the different titles for British peers for example - from Baron, through Viscount and Earl, Marquis, Duke, Prince, King, plus the female versions of all of these, plus that all peers above Baron are also Barons, and all of these titles means different roles and privileges. Then you go down the ladder and you get knights and dames of the various orders, awards, and so forth. Then you can start looking at the middle classes...
It's an extreme example, but it isn't hard to see similar in other places. Take a 'new world' anglo country, and compare how seriously people take the word of a senator versus a teacher versus a homeless person.
The simple counter to the statement in question is: "people in agrarian societies are primarily concerned with social standing, making sure they're not the ones doing the back-breaking work in the fields". Field work is gruelling, and requires a lot of labour. In comparison, hunter-gatherers historically only needed to work ~2 hours/day to meet their needs.
Look at the different titles for British peers for example - from Baron, through Viscount and Earl, Marquis, Duke, Prince, King, plus the female versions of all of these, plus that all peers above Baron are also Barons, and all of these titles means different roles and privileges. Then you go down the ladder and you get knights and dames of the various orders, awards, and so forth. Then you can start looking at the middle classes...
It's an extreme example, but it isn't hard to see similar in other places. Take a 'new world' anglo country, and compare how seriously people take the word of a senator versus a teacher versus a homeless person.
The simple counter to the statement in question is: "people in agrarian societies are primarily concerned with social standing, making sure they're not the ones doing the back-breaking work in the fields". Field work is gruelling, and requires a lot of labour. In comparison, hunter-gatherers historically only needed to work ~2 hours/day to meet their needs.