It doesn't mean no social hierarchy ever, it means low levels of permanent social inequality. You'd be closer to imagine what a society with gini coefficient near zero would look like. That's actually one way people commonly try to measure "hierarchy", even though it doesn't perfectly capture the idea.
mostly because all the bones of all the dead were mixed in with all the others. implying no concept of "this guy was THE guy in my lifetime". but they presumably still had a meritocracy because while the bones were mixed in with all others of all generations, not everyone would have their bones were mixed in upon death. it was likely only the craftsmen or shamans that achieved that honor. but being honored is different from the "divinely ordained" hierarchy of god-kings that came later.
So this person is at the top of the social hierarchy, dresses, eats, lives better than everybody else, then their child dies and they shrug and throw the body away in a common grave?
"The full jhator procedure (as described below) is elaborate and expensive. Those who cannot afford it simply place their deceased on a high rock where the body decomposes or is eaten by birds and other animals."
Why are we assuming that the top of a hierarchy must dress better and eat better than everyone else? They could just be leaders who command everyone, but still an assumption of equality when it comes to good.
Also hierarchy doesn't mean that there is a single individual that's at the top. There could be a series of caste hierarchies, where groups of people were considered "better" than others.
We don't know if everyone from the tribe was in the common grave or a select group of people.
You're building a narrative based on your knowledge of other civilizations histories and understanding of modern day social structures, and assuming those traits must apply to this civilization. The truth is, we don't, and likely won't ever, know how their social hierarchy was built. Anything said is speculation. This isn't the case where you can be 80% confident something is true, more like 2% confident based on the discovered evidence.
That's an extraordinary claim since every group of humans in written history, not to mention chimps, whales, and probably all social vertebrates, form social hierarchies.
If that's an accepted idea in the field, hopefully it comes with a lot more evidence than bones being mixed, as future archaeologists might find in many of our cemeteries of today.
This is my main problem with archeology. They take a small amount of evidence for something and use it confidently for their conclusion. There are so many other possibilities why something could be true, but those are ignored for whatever theory appeals to them.
The above comment also illustrates their biases. They map their knowledge to history that came much later to the Tepe sites. Stating that it was "was likely only the craftsmen or shamans" is a prime example of that.
