Have you seen this new PBS show "The First Peoples" (http://www.pbs.org/first-peoples/episodes/)? What I could grasp in relation to violence is that there were no issues among the same group, for example in the first immigrations from northern asia to the american continent. But when later immigrations met older immigrants, they found evidence of conflicts, if not total annihilation of the older ones by hand of the newer ones (I think the older ones were the first ones ap. 15k years ago, and the newer ones 8k years ago).
But in another episode (africa's first people) they show a peaceful "meeting" of african people moving north and neanderthals moving south. I don't know why they were so sure about peaceful meetings (maybe interbreedings, lack of evidence of conflict, etc)
Could the general rule to a conflict be to have at least two ethnic groups meet, with an unfair balance of power (paleolithic weapons, skills, body size, headcount) between them, and resources under the control of the weakest? I see this happening every time in human history, and maybe pre-history.
Could it be reasonable to hypthesize that what drived early human migrations were displacements for loosing territorial/resource conflicts with stronger groups that stayed in place? The bering strait migrations were all steps into colder and harder climates before finding a way south after crossing to america, what else could have driven such efforts? If it happened, that peaceful groups escaped conflictive ones, it makes sense that they had peaceful meetings when they met, or at least, they were equally strong/weak and a peaceful meeting was the smartest choice.
Last... anyone know if there ever were a case, or evidence of, a group that outpowered another one, wich was in posession of resources needed by the first, but did not engage them and took another course of action but to take it by force?
Thanks a lot!