The short answer is that we simply do not know.

The longer answer is that there are very few source categories we could use to understand Bronze Age social organisation. The best archaeological case is probably the battlefield of Tollense, in Northern Germany. The bones of the warriors who died at this river crossing indicate that there were definitely roaming armies in this period, who must have been made up of communities larger than your average household group. The fact that this warband was in some way effectively resisted suggests also that they must have been confronted by a group of similar size, so again probably a collective of many households.

Other monuments from earlier periods (Middle Bronze Age, for example) also suggest cooperation between families across a widely dispersed area, such as the clear labour division evident in the construction of Skelhøj in Denmark, corresponding to landscape areas. Similar 'task forces' from different geographical areas can also be seen in the much earlier Neolithic megalithic structures, so there is little reason to assume regional organisation would be impossible to the Late Bronze Age as well. However, the absence of such multi-community cooperation monuments in particularly the Urnfield Culture has been suggested to be a sign of the dissolution of these regional networks, where people instead seem to have been more independent than before.

The community focus for the Urnfield culture seems to have been the collective cemetery, or the urn-field, itself. Households moved throughout a settlement area every 20-30 years or so, dependent on probably soil exhaustion or build-up of parasites at old farmsteads. However, people moved through the landscape in fairly cyclical manners, so all the time within a shared territory, with the burial ground at the centre. This is also the period in which field boundaries first arise as broader territorial markers, rather than the simple farmstead stockades of earlier periods. So people started to feel the need to demarcate 'theirs' from 'ours', and the widespread character of these dividing lines through the landscape must imply that somehow these boundaries were respected across communities. Just as a boundary separates, it also connects in the collective respect for a boundary. A relatively densely settled area like Eastern Jutland would have been entirely 'divided' up between communities in this way, and it would seem reasonable that communities that in this way were connected, would also intermarry or establish friendships or alliances among each other. Just the fact that somehow, bronze could be transported across the continent from Sardinia or Cyprus to Sweden must imply there were still negotiated and safe transport routes available.

So while the concept of kingship or territoriality as it existed in the Near East might not have existed, this does not mean that Europe was simply a 'wild west' where each man or woman was on their own. What form of social organisation existed is however uncertain, but just looking at the wide variety in which non-state communities worldwide had organised themselves before colonial times gives a hint of the possibilities.