Tadpole said:Hunting and gatherers followed the herds, so they didnt have to worry about how much land they covered; they followed the animals up and down the land. If the worst came to the worst, the few that survived would have to do the same, land ownership would not (could not) come into it. For a nation of hunter gathers to survive, they would all have to be hunter-gathers. As soon as some people settle down to farm the land, that would be when the conflicts would resume. Large groups of people following wild animals across farm land tends to upset the people who have spent six months looking after plants that are needed to last them until the next harvest is in.
That doesn't mean that the farmers would neccesarily win.
And also your assumption of that hunter gatherers followed the animal herds is wrong. Humans would be unable to move along with herds of for example bison or reindeer as they couldn't keep that pace all year. Different groups would prey on the animals on different places of the migration route. Some places are better for hunting animals than others, and overpredation would not be desirable, so groups would fiercely defend their "territory" from neighbours wanting a part of the cake.
The concept of ownership of land was existant among H/Gs, but instead of being devided down to the single farmer it was devided between groups. As such groups tend to be autonomous, these borders could fluctuate a lot, all dependent on who had the upper hand militarily.