3.) If it reflects the preferences of hegemons, what happened in societies where the hegemons had the same general physical appearance as the common man? Was some other trait then deemed inferior? For example language/accent, dress, religion, etc…? I ask because it seems that every “tribe” of humans seems to feel the need to show that they’re superior to others in some way.

People map identity onto bodies in a lot of different ways. An important subset of this are social identifiers…the “where do I fit in social scheme” indicators. These serve a very simple function: you know who you’re approaching, and thus how you’re going to interact with them. Sort of like how military insignias structure an interaction between servicemen. Basically, you can have social interactions without knowing the person: you know their position, relative to your position [NB: This is not necessarily hierarchical.]—that’s pretty much the key to having a society that encompasses a lot of space and a lot of people.

The how and why of “pretty is as the powerful do”—I can’t give an authoritative answer. Humans make unwarranted associations between intangible qualities and physical objects, wash rinse repeat. I’m tempted to go to a Foucalt place with it all—Power=Sex, Power Symbol=Sex Symbol, but really can’t back that up.

Everywhere there’s hierarchy, there’s display rules: who can wear what, do what, consume what, speak how to whom. We live in a comparative madhouse where almost everything can be had for a price: for most of history, goods and services…even intangibles such as etiquette…could be and were marked—if you are of X status, you can have Y. Purchasing power had an imposed ceiling…though this barrier was routinely cracked and patched, to continue a metaphor.

The examples are myriad and sometimes effin’ crazy.