I don't know where to begin telling you how wrong you are. Hammurabi's code has plenty of examples of a punishment of being put to death because you didn't have witnesses, a contract, or a receipt for paying for something. (It's easy for someone else to accuse you of stealing.)
Even in Hammurabi's code, receipts for agents, witnesses, and contracts, were only used for settling disputes in court where fraud may have been committed. Those instances with conflicting claims were a tiny minority of overall transaction volume, meaning receipts were optional and not required for the vast majority of transactions; especially between trusted parties.
As far as that "state" was concerned, all transactions were anonymous until a dispute was brought to court.
Incorrect. The reason fraud was rare was because of the general insistence on documentation. Court challenges were rare because people did in fact KYC.
False. What Hammurabi's code describes is a customer keeping proof of agreement for settling disputes which is Know Your Seller (KYS) not KYC, and it was not required.
Wrong. The transactions everyone is talking about here (whether Bitcoin or conventional financial transactions) fall under the banking laws, not the ones about simple purchases.
It seems you have abandoned your original argument.
How long do you believe KYC has existed? How long do believe believe banks have existed?
When Mansa Musa decimated the global gold market for atleast a century by distributing large sums of money to millions of people on his Hajj (possibly the single largest event of anonymous value transfer in human history), what regulation or law did he violate?
This was a relatively recent event where human history is concerned.
Most of human history. People were born with this right.