From my little bit of knowledge of history and monarchies, I can only see ponerological ruling classes. Just look at the Egyption, French and the British kings for example.
Also I think there is a romanticism of Native Americans where people think that they had peaceful and spiritual lives. Maybe a very few bands of "the people" did, but for the most part they did have wars with each other and at times wiped complete bands of people out. The Iroquois of New York State had a kinda mafia way to their processes. Join our group, pay us for protection or we kill you. But if you did belong to their confederate, and payed up, there was peace to be had. In north eastern Ohio, a band of people called The Cat People, was massacred by another group. And then there was the Pawnee, who were scouts for the American army and flushed out other tribes. Before that they were marauders.
I don't know anything about the aboriginal tribes of the South Pacific, but my thinking is that there were warrior nations as well. Liking councils and the whole council process the best with constant voting in of members of this council to prevent power struggles and the like.
I think this is a very important point. There were no perfect people, or perfect society. So this whole idea/ideal must be somewhat built from scratch..or maybe remembered in some way.
I do think that hunter and gatherer people were somewhat more resistant to ponerization and psychopathy which may explain why it was necessary to exterminate then wherever they were found. So that might bear careful consideration as to why. Was it genetic? Was it cultural? Was it environmental constraints? These things are so intertwined it is very difficult to tease apart.
One group that might be worth examining is the !Kung, who at first contact were dubbed 'The Gentle People'. But it is impossible to make blanket statements about hunter and gatherer or tribal cultures. Each is very unique to it's own time and circumstances and all are flawed.