But it is. It's not _proof_ of absence, but it's certainly _circumstantial_ evidence of absence.
> people tend to make is looking at the current population and using it to fill in the gaps in the archaeological record.
Well, ok, but that's not the same as opposing the principle you cited.
> tempting to read this as evidence for having no hierarchy
You're again switching up arguments. What you're demonstrating is that evidence to the absence of some expression of X is weaker than evidence for the absence of any aspect of X. (And at the same time conceding that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.)
But it is. It's not _proof_ of absence, but it's certainly _circumstantial_ evidence of absence.
> people tend to make is looking at the current population and using it to fill in the gaps in the archaeological record.
Well, ok, but that's not the same as opposing the principle you cited.
> tempting to read this as evidence for having no hierarchy
You're again switching up arguments. What you're demonstrating is that evidence to the absence of some expression of X is weaker than evidence for the absence of any aspect of X. (And at the same time conceding that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.)