"But they were violent and prone to never ending small wars and fights." It's funny you should say that since prior to 13k years ago, there is no archeological evidence of that being the case.
And as I've already pointed out to you once before, personal vendettas are not the same thing as war.
"Violence can take many forms, and since these forms can have different proximate causes, it is important to sort them out. Keeley (1996), for example, classifies Australian Aboriginal society as warlike egalitarian foragers, but Fry (2006) demonstrates that most of this fighting was rare, and usually fell under the category of feuding or revenge killings rather than warfare (we will get to a definition of warfare in a moment). Previous cross-cultural studies of war or “intergroup aggression” (e.g., Ember, 1978; Keeley, 1996) do not separate deaths from interpersonal homicide from those resulting from war or raiding."
Fry, Douglas P.. War, Peace, and Human Nature (p. 154). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
In fact, the massacre at Jebel Sahaba, about 13,000 years ago is widely recognized as the first site of mass armed conflict. Therefore, those who are making assertions about pervasive warfare before that time are basing it not on archeological evidence, but on notions that fit their preconceived ideas and that ignore realities that do not mesh with that preconception.
“Many social arrangements impede war, such as cross-group ties of kinship and marriage; cooperation in hunting, agriculture or food sharing; flexibility in social arrangements that allow individuals to move to other groups; norms that value peace and stigmatize killing; and recognized means for conflict resolution. These mechanisms do not eliminate serious conflict, but they do channel it in ways that either prevent killing or keep it confined among a limited number of individuals.
People are people. They fight and sometimes kill. Humans have always had a capacity to make war if conditions and culture so dictate.
But those conditions and the warlike cultures they generate became common only over the past 10,000 years — and, in most places, much more recently than that. The high level of killing often reported in history, ethnography or later archaeology is contradicted in the earliest archaeological findings around the globe.”
Unrestrained aggression is exceedingly rare among mammals. Read this story for more on that.
"Particularly for very social species, such as primates, the pro-social aspects of non-lethal behavior are also a factor as well as the cost-benefit analysis of probable victory for engaging in it. To say that humans are inherently warlike or inherently peaceful is to oversimplify. However, there is significant evidence that even cultures that are considered to be quite violent still have mechanisms for avoiding lethal interactions. Sometimes those involve simply avoiding each other and sometimes they are more elaborate, including singing contests or ritualized battles where conflicts may be resolved without any significant bloodshed. Periods of peace may be agreed upon to allow for trade as well."
