[Redcloak]

My anthropology teacher said that warfare is something agricultural people do. It makes sense. A hunter-gatherer, while he may have a few favorite spots, can hunt or gather anywhere. If he's chased out of a particular area by others, he can still feed himself. A farmer, on the other hand, is tied to a piece of ground until his crops are in. If the farmer is chased off of his land, he'll starve. He has to defend a stationary asset in order to survive. This, understandably, makes the agriculturalist and his neighbors more prone to violence. They learn quickly that they may have to fight if they want to eat. And they eventually learn that warfare not only defends a field, it can get new ones.

[Noachian]

A hunter-gatherer, while he may have a few favorite spots, can hunt or gather anywhere. If he's chased out of a particular area by others, he can still feed himself.

What you're saying is: There's always another hunting ground around the corner so why defend this one? That doesn't wash. Ancient hunting grounds weren't like McDonalds.

Most likely ancient hunting grounds were fiercely defended precisely because good ones were scarce and when hunters found one they fought to keep it.

Fighting over hunting grounds the way American Indians did, before the advent of the white man, is a more likely scenario, and probably the source of warfare itself. By the time agriculture came along warfare was most likely a well developed skill that farmers used to defend their land.