Research into hunter gathering has major issues to the point where we can't really say much about their life. Most studies tries to find surviving hunter gathering that looks like they have not been influenced by non-hunter gatherers, but they are very few that still exist and those that do tend to be semi-hunter gathering rather that true hunter gathering, and they are useally located in very specific environments which limits how useful observations are.
What those studies do find in common is is that hunting is an minority part of the diet and both sexes spend most time gathering. Hunting is more an act of opportunity or desperation.
When it comes to violence there is/was two camps with the research community, one claiming major violence in hunter gathering and the other arguing very low level of violence. One side accuse the other of pacifying the past, and the other side claims people are warifying the past. More modern consensus seems to lean towards less violence since the majority of time spent for all members of a hunter gathering group is on gathering. There just are not time to spend on violence when 75% of waking hours is spent on creating food for the day.
Farming is historically the mechanism which allowed people to spend less time per day on food and more time on social interaction and social fighting over dominance. It also made people more vulnerable, as crops can be destroyed and weather can cause disruption, which then has a direct connection to increased violence. When people started domesticating animals they further increased their food source vulnerability since animals can be stolen, and there is research linking ancestry of herding with increased biological response to aggression with the hypothesis of increased risk being the primary factor behind greater aggression.
I know a good book if you want to dig into all the different theories around this subject, but it is a pretty complex area of research.