Admittedly my attempt at this isn’t too far from the typical “they just eat fish” solution, but I thought it would be interesting to play with how they acknowledge their respective statuses as predators and prey.
The two species have different but complimentary funeral rites. When a prey animal dies, it is ritually butchered and its meat consumed by a predator. When a predator dies, seeds are buried with the body so their remains fertilize crops that are eaten by members of the prey species. Specific individuals or families are chosen by the deceased in their will to carry out this task, and the relationship is treated like being a godparent.
Prey doesn’t mean defenseless. Lots of prey animals have gnarly defenses.
Or maybe the prey animals were the first to develope tools and a war was raged in prehistory before they started domesticating each other. Realizing they could accomplish more working together than apart.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard it claimed that a large herbivore is more dangerous than a predator. No idea if that’s true, and I’m too lazy to verify it, but intuitively I’d think predators won’t spend more energy acquiring a meal than that meal provides, so if they’re full or don’t think you’re worth it they won’t go after you. But prey animals attack out of fear and are thus less predictable.
That’s what happens in nature, but you brought up a society in which a predators and prey live with each other. If the prey developed first and developed a military advantage over predators, why would prey allow predators to live?
cf : all the predators now extinct like mountain lions in Europe
Is there a case in nature where a symbiotic relationship has developed between predator and prey that wasn’t initiated by the predator?