I think it reminds us that the modes of social organization are far larger than our imagination. What is possible is far greater than what our society lets us think what is practical.

Examining early social arrangements doesn't give us a moral rulebook, but it does demonstrate that human nature possesses a deep capacity for egalitarianism and self-regulation that modern hierarchies often treat as impossible.

And while early societies aren't a blueprint for the modern world, understanding the environments we evolved in helps us recognize the human scale, social needs, and physiological constraints that modern institutions often overlook.

I haven't read many people seriously putting forward retVrn to monkeh but knowing what has come before is useful for understanding what might come after.

In both the sense of what undesirable social arrangements are likely to arise and how they have been avoided, and which that are desirable have been realised and may be easier than some other desirable ones for which there is no evidence of.