Been playing Far Cry, by any chance?

I wouldn't recommend Sapiens for this. It's decent broad strokes overview of prehistory, but doesn't say much about the details at all. I also don't think reading novels is the way to go if you really want accuracy, since you're essentially relying on someone else's fictionalisation of the research. I'd recommend first doing some research on modern hunter-gatherers (foragers) to find out what that way of life is like. Then look at some prehistory textbooks to get a sense of the different kind of environments that prehistoric foragers would have faced and what technology they had. The book list here and in /r/AskAnthropology might help.

One thing that does immediately sound off to me when reading your summary is this idea about women and children not being able to leave the village. We don't know exactly how risky prehistoric foragers lives were. Certainly they would have been unwise to ignore the threat of pack predators like wolves. But you have to remember that modern humans (I'm assuming you're not thinking of writing about our archaic species like the Neanderthals) were apex predators even in prehistory. They would have had an arsenal of sophisticated weaponry, an encyclopaedic knowledge of their natural environment and an ability to coordinate that outmatched any other predator. As a result we have little evidence that humans were preyed upon by other species after about 2 million years ago. Modern foragers typically feel quite at home in "the wild".

In fact, I think the idea that prehistoric foragers would have any conception of "the wild" as opposed to the domestic is flawed. Archaeologists generally think this dichotomy developed with the invention of farming and settled life. Foragers need to keep moving between temporary camps in order to follow seasonal shifts in the availability of the food. They wouldn't spend more than 6-8 weeks in one place, and so "home" would never be much more than a campfire and a couple of brush huts. In other words, foragers dwelt in and moved around "the wild", rather than carving out a place within it and trying to keep it out.

Which leads on to the most glaring problem with this idea. Prehistoric foragers very well might have had a division of labour (e.g. men hunt, women gather, or vice versa), but confining women to the camp would have been economically disastrous. Foragers need to have most of their population out obtaining food at any given time, and unlike farmers (who have to mill their crops, maintain buildings, look after large families, etc.) their weren't a lot of stationary "domestic" jobs to do back at camp. It'd be simply untenable to half their population sat at home twiddling their thumbs. Besides, why would the women agree to that? Foraging societies tend to be significantly more gender egalitarian than we're used to, and very resistant to the idea that one person can constrain the actions of another.

PLease ask /r/AskAnthropology, I'm so curious what theyll tell you :D

A somewhat counterintuitive, and quite interesting thing about the Stone Age is the comparison between hunting-gathering and agriculture. Being a hunter-gatherer you had, perhaps surprisingly, generally a longer and healthier life than as an early farmer. This is due to several factors. Hunter-gatherers had a far more varied diet, for one. Additionally, their lower population density compared to agricultural peoples meant diseases spread much less easily; this difference between them was increased by the fact that the permanent inhabitations and availability of food in agricultural cultures allowed pests like rats to thrive. Agricultural peoples are also thought to have been more vulnerable to famine, as crops tend to fail all at once, while in the absence of one food source, hunter-gatherers could switch to others. Finally, farming is very hard work, and while hunting is certainly not a safe job, it does take less time by comparison. All these factors added up mean agricultural people may have had as much as twenty years shorter life expectancy than hunter-gatherers.

This all of course begs the question why humans ever switched to agriculture. I know there are several hypotheses about this, which I'd rather leave the explanation of to those more familiar with them.

My premise is to do with a female protagonist who wants to become part of a group known as the Wolf Hunters. The problem is, women are not allowed to hunt. It is part of the tribe's tradition to forbid women and children from leaving the village and being exposed to the dangers of the wild. Only a group of the Wolf Hunters are allowed to leave the village and pursue prey.

If we're dealing with prehistory, most evidence points towards a more egalitarian society. Hunting certainly happened- though you didn't typically hunt a predator like a wolf so much as something like gazelle or an isolated, weakened bison- but the backbone of the pre-historic human diet tended to be reliably foraged foodstuffs. Nuts, berries, fruits- nothing like what we have today though; everything from oranges to bananas were the product of generations of intentional breeding, bugs, etc. Men only hunted because women as a group constituted a massive source of man power at home. If your idea of a stone age human was some caveman running around with a giant hunk of meat on a bone as their primary mode of nutrition, you'd be wrong. Meat was certainly important, but it was kind of like the modern Sunday Dinner. Though hunting may have had broad ranges- lacking any sort of complex weapons it is believed that hunts commonly ended not when the humans killed their prey, but rather when the animal collapsed from exhaustion- it isn't as though women stayed cooped up at home with the children.

What are things I should take into consideration when working on this novel?

I'd start by reading ethnographies on the subject. The Dobe Ju/'hoansi are a very common group taught in undergraduate anthropology. Otherwise something on Mongol / Steppes nomads or something a bit more environmentally dictated- Eskimos, Inuit- may also be worth a look.

And if you missed it, anthropologists would probably be the ones to ask, not historians.

A more material misconception given the name is that the stone age was an age of mostly stone artifacts. Pretty much like we imagine classical Rome and Greece as being cities made of white stones and marbles. In fact wood was still probably the most common material used in the stone age. Unfortunately wood isn't the easiest material to preserve in natural environments.