First off, how do you understand "hierarchy"? Without you telling the rest of us what you mean when you use the term, we are bound to misunderstand one another.
Which biological structures are you invoking?
Which family setting?
What encourages one person, or a small group to possess more than others? What compels people to take what they want from others? What keeps people practically, or literally worshiping others?
These questions become absurd outside the context of a class-based society where the ideology of private property extends to personal property. If you make a distinction, spell it out. Most anarchist theorists have already dealt with that distinction. Since you like wikipedia, why not do a little more research here (especially the very first sentence):
And here's the relevant footnote: "The revolution abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people."
You assert that voluntary exchange creates the conditions for certain people amassing more stuff, which leads to a class system. This is absurd. Class society forms when people have the power to compel others to work for them - or more properly, to steal from them - not when they have more stuff. Wealth derives from power, not the other way around, despite what the pro-capitalists say.
And then you make this amazing leap from those who "end up with too much stuff" (you're presuming that there will be people who can amass stuff that has permanence in order to be understood as wealth, which is also absurd) to "people who gain to [sic] much or receive more prestige and attention from others." Hold on there! How does the amassing of "too much stuff" create prestige? You are presuming the cultural values of a class system and imposing them on a hypothetical society where class doesn't (yet) exist.
If you are open to the idea that some people in a non-class system might amass "too much stuff," then surely you must be aware of the logical fallacies that come from assuming/presuming "too much stuff."
Glibness aside, your presentation of this list of nonsense does nothing to show that hierarchy is either natural or inevitable. Besides, the issue isn't really hierarchy (if by that we understand a difference of power/ability between and among individuals), but about power (the ability to compel actions of others who may not want to engage is such activities, both individually and across society) and its institutionalization in permanent hierarchies.