Except that there is zero evidence of wide-scale violence before the massacre at Jebel Sahaba 13k years ago and most evidence is from 8k years ago or sooner. And there is ample evidence of the things I've described - from a vast variety of scientific disciplines.
I haven't eliminated human history before 5k years ago - in fact, the complete opposite. That's mostly what I study and write about. And what we know from a wide variety of scientific disciplines is that the population was so small and there is so much available land, so there was absolutely no reason to fight your neighbors. In fact, a lot of your brothers, sisters, and friends live in neighboring tribes (because they routinely traded members to keep genetic diversity -something we can tell from DNA) and you and your tribe spend a lot of time cultivating mutual support and friendship because that's the best way to survive in a harsh environment - to all be good to each other. We see this in Intuit communities today - you survive tough weather and environment with a web of interpersonal and mutual support. In fact, there is so much evidence of this human history that I'm about to write a story about it.
I know a huge amount about what life was like before 5 thousand years ago because I've studied it for years and you know absolutely nothing. You are just assuming it must've been like the 1950s in America, which is just preposterous and absurd. The theories I support at least have substantial scientific backing, while yours have nothing except extrapolating recent Western social conditions to the rest of human history. And why would H/G tribes in the past be significantly different than they are today? That doesn't even make any sense. But even so, on top of that, we have all sorts of other scientific disciplines that confirm all of the things I'm saying.
Imagining that Paleolithic life was pretty much like today just without the modern technology is just silly. It's a fairy tale and a pretty lame one at that. All primates avoid each other rather than fight, unless they absolutely have to. Why would humans be any different - particularly when pro-social behaviors are so integral to innate human socialization?
"The overwhelming takeaway that I got was that most animals, particularly mammals, including ones who are considered to be highly aggressive such as chimpanzees, only kill each other under very specific conditions. In general, unless they can be virtually assured of doing so at very low risk to themselves, both human and non-human animals are much more likely to engage in alternatives to violence. Both have extensive conflict avoidance techniques as well as reconciliation habits." ~Frans de Waal, Primatologist
“Destabilization of the social resource network decreases group stability and efficiency and lowers the average fitness benefit derived from cooperation. When group stability is important for individual advantage, selection will favor active peacemaking and cooperation in our closest relatives and ourselves.”
In other words, I know a whole lot about all this, and you are someone who just likes to argue...
