I think your question is poorly defined, but I suppose I'll give it a shot.

This depends on what you mean by central state and interaction. The Inca and Aztecs had very highly centralized empires. The Aztecs actually had a very developed system of social control. The Inca had a state monopoly on metal, and the Aztecs were pretty much like Saudi Arabia on a bad day if you misbehaved.

Then there's China which had an organized state bureaucracy since maybe the Tang dynasty which had a census listing 50 million families. And this was in the 7th to 10th centuries. Same goes for the Khmer empire in southeast Asia - Angkor Wat is a feat not only of art and engineering, but think of the logistics!

I suppose you could say that any society that can raise and organize armies (supply chain and all) or can build organized things can also touch everyone. But even the Pharaohs could do that at the height of their power. So maybe it's always been true that people, if they live in an organized society, have always been within the reach of the state.

Or maybe by interactions you mean courts, zoning laws, or permits, or driver's licenses? I live in the US and there's a huge administrative state here. Lots of states today don't have alphabet soups of agencies at the state, federal, and local level.

I will say that the Westphalian nation-state is largely independent of the centralized administrative state. We have cuneiform tablets that basically complain about contractual performance that were preserved in libraries. So someone felt that these things were worth complaining about and preserving. And you know this someone had a supervisor.

I'll stop here to say that the all-powerful state is also maybe a loaded term as well? But I'll stop before I get in trouble.