Being quite interested in this matter, and noting that the thread has been a bit inactive, I allow myself indulge a bit:
I think, @EchelonMirror, that the obvious solution, and the most realistic one, albeit not very easily implemented one, is to divide the evolution of our society in a few distinct phases, which deal with both economy and law, politics and sociology (which means it touches upon subjects in this thread about civil unrest: Social cohesion and tribal breakdown ).
In the beginning, the tribe would own all, and everyone would work for the tribe, and be fed by the tribe. There would be no point in hogging resources when it’s clear that everyone needs to share everything to even stay alive. Complete communality.
I think it was @Icewolf and @louis.mervoyer who brought up that at a certain population, humans biologically cannot sustain the closeness that smaller numbers offer. The bigger our group, the less we feel truly a part of it. This of course depends on why we are in the same group at all. The original settlers of our village and their descendants might share more than the traders and lone tribesmen that have joined us since then. Furthermore, at this certain limit, it is quite possible, and even likely in some cases, that out fledgling village would be moving away from fighting to survive, to more… living. Even thriving. If food is plentiful, and security not an issue, and we have our huts… at that point, a new economic system could come into being, albeit slowly at start, one of specialisation, in which supply and demand set prices. This naturally requires predictability and protection from that which is power, has a monopoly on violence: the player.
One way could be to change it, gradually, to a tax. Instead of the state, the tribe, taking 100 % of the produce, it could be lowered by a series of events, to 80 %, then 50 %, then 30 %, or something like that. It would have little impact there and then, since in such early times, and such a small group, most people still do the same things, and produce a bunch of different goods at home at a low level. But it will almost immediately lead to more specialization, a few tribesmen would to a greater extent than earlier put aside hunting and gathering and farming, and specialise something they’re good at, like carpentry, pottery, clothes-making, and other crafts. I’m sure @lotus253 has a whole book of inspiration in the practicalities.
The important thing is that it be done in accordance with the laws and the “elders” or “great leader”: the player. When a certain tribesman has crossed over entirely into making pots or thatched objects or something like that, and thereby is on the verge of turning his home into a workshop, an even could fire: “Great leader, tribesman Ugga-bugga has become a great craftsman of pots, shall we declare him a potter?” Then, the household would no longer be the household of “Ugga-bugga”, but of “Ugga-bugga the potter”!
As @EchelonMirror writes, in games like the Sims, Children of the Nile, Tropico and Banished, the citizens have meters for different needs, and fulfil these needs as they want, whenever they want. In Children of the Nile, citizens who cannot get food in normal ways, will forage the land, and finally leave. But while citizens can definitely fulfil their needs, I am a bit more sceptical towards their being able to handle everything. Sure, if there is a church, in Tropico, the citizen will tend to their spiritual needs whenever they want, with our without the player watching them. But what if there is no church? Will they somehow band together and build it? I believe the player should be slightly more than what @EchelonMirror suggests, more than an architect.
If a wall needs to be built, the player will naturally lead the people to this goal. The same is true if a forest needs to be cut down for new farms, or marshlands drained, or any other great project. But also if a potter’s kiln or a metalworker’s furnace are to be built. In fact, I would like to argue that such a things as organising irrigation and the mining and melting and trading of metals and certain other items, would be where the player truly gets to lead the tribe. Any tribesman can sell a few thatch mats from his or her doorstep, but build and administer a foundry, a mine? Trade with the foreigners (at a larger scale)? Protect us against barbarians? Lead the troops? Drain the swamps? Cut down the forests? Not to mention zone (à la Simcity) for new areas to be farmed, settled and so forth. Also roads, bridges…
Of course, I am also assuming that there is a proper skill system in the game, a stronger version of what was in Tropico, more like Dwarf Fortress (oh how valuable you “legendary” cook, or brewer, or weapons smith were!), a quality aspect in items, from bad to legendary, and that therefore there would be a reason for specialisation, but also paying for the superior product. In Pharaoh, Caesar III and the other games, as in Tropico, you could pay your citizens different wages. While “Ugga-bugga the potter” and his household won’t get paid by the tribe, Zog, Mog, Rog, and their leader Og, from the tribe militia, who keep watch over the palisade at night, and fend of dangerous animals, would get paid by the tribe. Enough to survive, and a bit more, to keep it an attractive profession. Maybe an honour - eating at the elders’ table…?