The number of human remains that show evidence of death via weapon beg to differ. I'd also ask our other human species about that, but they're not around anymore to speak for themselves.
Sure, you can find plenty of evidence of violence in prehistoric humans pretty much going back to the origins of our species, homo sapiens, but homo sapiens aren't just physically modern humans, they're behaviourally modern humans. Early homo sapiens may have lacked some of our capacity for language and abstract thought, but they were absolutely nothing like animals. They lived in a complex society where they could share ideas, not just through proto-language but also through art. A lot of the earliest evidence we find for violence or "warfare" between human groups is from artistic depictions, not evidence of injury. It's also worth noting that there's enormous evidence for widespread exchange and trade among early homo sapiens as well as violence.
Early homo sapiens were not inherently violent, they were inherently clever. They were perfectly capable of either cooperating or competing, and of weighing up and choosing which strategy to follow. That is why they were the most successful creatures on the planet, their intelligence and complex social organisation made them limitlessly adaptable.
But earlier humans were more instinctive, they were more like animals, and these early humans show very little evidence of violence, certainly no evidence of organised warfare between bands. Had early humans been driven by instinct to fight each other because of "tribalism" or dominance, they wouldn't have survived the paleolithic because, even without our behaviourally modern intelligence, humans are one of the most deadly animals on the planet.
USA
