Final answer:
The statement about state-level civilizations being organized on an egalitarian basis regarding wealth, power, and prestige is false. They are marked by significant social stratification with a hierarchical organization where those with more resources and power are distinct from manual laborers who face hardships.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement 'State-level civilizations are usually organized on an egalitarian basis with regard to wealth, power, and prestige' is false. State-level societies, or civilizations, are characterized by significant social stratification and unequal distribution of wealth, power, and prestige. This is because such societies have developed highly centralized leadership structures, bureaucracies, and systems of social control. As civilizations grow in complexity, they tend to develop layers within their social hierarchy, which is evident in the distribution of wealth and power among their populations. Over time, rulers and elite classes often accumulate significant wealth and power, further separating them from the laborers and manual workers at the bottom of the social hierarchy who often endure hardship.
In essence, the formation of states often coincides with the creation of social classes, where those with greater access to resources and power rise above the others, creating a hierarchical society. This process is sometimes supported by religious or economic ideologies that justify the prevailing inequalities. Through historical examples like Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, India, and Central and South America, we see that empires and kingdoms have organized around centralized rule, not egalitarian principles.