Why didn't the Native Americans advance beyond Stone

File: images.jpg (5KB, 194x259px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 194x259px

hah, got em

>who were the nephites and lamanites

>>2039838
pls no Dorvan V

>>2039840
pls no Mormons

>>2039840
Israelites don't count

lack of animals fit for domestication

> this triggers /his/ and /pol/

long story short: there might be some civ's that had had metalurgy but bronze or iron alone doesn't make an empire

if the aztecs had bronze then maybe we'd have seen a difference but by then it was too litle too late

they did have bronze.
>Tlaximaltepoztli

>>2039891
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_mining_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_sources_and_trade_in_ancient_times#Americas

Copper and Tin both existed in the Americas. They had plenty of time since the Ice Age to make copper. Why didn't they?

>>2039865
There were plenty of animals they could have domesticated. Why didn't they?

>>2039922
Olmecs did

>>2039922
>There were plenty of animals they could have domesticated
Such as?

>>2039865
Yeah, no.

I've never understood the Jared Diamond "lack of animals" meme given that there WERE several quite advanced civilizations in the Americas, and they were still actively developing. The Nahua were well on their way to developing a fully-fledged writing system, for instance -- give 'em another century or two and they'd have gotten there.

They got a later start than the Old World civilizations but there's no reason to believe that they'd reached a plateau when they got conquered. The Americas would've kept developing.

As to why American civilization was centered on Mexico and the Andes, while nobody knows for sure, I think it's fair to say it probably had a lot to do with where high-density crops like maize, squashes, and potatoes originated and were first domesticated -- who got an earlier start, basically. Civilization was also developing north of the US-Mexico border, but it was centuries behind.

>>2039933
Olmecs did what?

Buffalo, Deer, Turkey, Wolf off the top of my head

>>2039950
they did domesticate turkey and wolf tho

>>2039950
olmecs alredy used copper

>Buffalo, Deer, Turkey, Wolf off the top of my head
2/10 not even trying

>>2039950
Turkeys and wolves yes. You do know they had dogs right?

Buffalo was more complicated, but they were somewhat hearded. They were basically a patchwork of huge hunting parks created through controlled burnings over a wide stretch of land in the US.

"Rather than domesticate animals for meat, Indians retooled ecosystems to encourage elk, deer, and bear. Constant burning of undergrowth increased the numbers of herbivores, the predators that fed upon them, and the people who ate them both. Rather than the thick, unbroken monumental snarl of trees imagined by Thoreau, the great eastern forest was an ecological kaleidoscope of garden plots, blackberry rambles, pine barrens, and spacious groves of chestnut, hickory, and oak... Incredible to imagine today, bison occurred from New York to Georgia. A creature of the prairie, Bison bison was imported to the East by Native Americans along a path of indigenous fire, as they changed enough forest into fallows for it to survive far outside its original range. When the Haudenosaunee hunted these animals, the historian William Cronon observed, they

'were harvesting a foodstuff which they had consciously been instrumental in creating. Few English observers could have realized this. People accustomed to keeping domesticated animals lacked the conceptual tools to recognize that the Indians were practicing a more distant kind of husbandry of their own.'

... Carrying their flints and torches, Native Americans were living in balance with Nature---but they had their thumbs on the scale. Shaped for their comfort and convenience, the American landscape had come to fit their lives like comfortable clothing. It was a highly successful and stable system, if "stable" is the appropriate word for a regime that involves routinely enshrouding miles of countryside in smoke and ash..." - Charles Mann, "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus

>>2040007
As for the deer, the Maya semi domesticated them, read de Landa's Relaciones de Yucatan.

He described how Maya women would breastfeed the deer, so they kept coming, keeping them close by and easier to hunt.

>>2039922
>>2039825

which animals?

fucking lamas? cavias?

dogs are great but you can't build a civilisation from them, dogs are a multiplier, not a static, dogs are great for hunting and herding but herding need something to herd and the only herdable animal was in the fucking mountains of south america, not where the wolves/dogs are

>>2040012
Was thinking about buying 1491, this makes me wanna buy it a lot. Any more you can tell me about this book?

>>2040018
Not that guy, but honestly it's not a great book, there are better ones to spend your money on. Don't have time to write a substantive reply right now but I'll drop back in later -- sorry.

>>2040018
I can upload it if you want it.
Pretty great book. Well written and full of things you probably know but never connected.

>>2040018
My favorite segment personally is the part of the Amazon of which I was not aware of much. The book goes through regions of the Americas, primarily the Andes, Mesoamerica, the Mound cultures of North America, the northeast of the US and the Amazon. I would recommend it, and if you are looking to investigate more into a particular segment or region there's a nice bibliography. I personally already had been investigating Mesoamerica, but I was not too knowledgable of the cultures in the north and south so it was insightful for me at least.

File: nouvelle-route-de-la-soie_1920-2.png (139KB, 1920x1358px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1920x1358px

>>2039825
Isolation

>>2040033
An upload would be much appreciated

>>2040040
I'm particularly interested in the aztecs, about to start broken Spears. If anyone knows any good books on the aztecs that would be much appreciated too

>>2040058
I recommend you start with the Aztecs by Michael E Smith or the Aztecs from Thames and Hudson. Both are great introductions. Of course I also recommend the codices (Florentine, Duran's, Chimalpopoca). As well as the written account of the Anonymous conquistador, Bernal Diaz de Castillo, and Cortes' letters to the King. But read these with caution, especially when you get to the religion parts. At times theres blatant bias like when they refere to the gods as demons or inject their own weird theories like Quetzalcoatl was really St, Thomas. As for academic books outside of the two I mentioned, if you are interested in a particular topic I can suggest specific books to you.

>>2040085
Not him but do you have any other recommendations for books on mesoamerica in general or other groups like the Maya or Inca?

>>2039825
Tbh most of /his/ doesn't seem to get this, but like genetic evolution, cultural evolution is not a straight line. Civilization does not make you any more "advanced", it's just that given our current environment, it happens to be the most viable method of cultural propagation. Many tribes practiced metal working, but they didn't need to use metal outside of ceremonial or religious uses because of their well developed lithic technology. Why would you abandon tech that you've used effectively for millenia to pursue a tech that hasn't proven it's effectiveness? Even in Europe/Middle East, people nearly exclusively used bronze for tools, for thousands of years, and it wasn't till the bronze age collapse (collapse of trade routes due to bronze shortages) that people got desperate enough to move to iron, which was still really shitty up until much later when they developed better smithing technology. Also a large factor is probably isolation, how civilization was only a viable thing in certain, concentrated areas. Outside of those areas, there wasn't enough competition/trade to spur further growth. Civilizations kinda play off each other through competition, and without that, you have a loss of advancement, and if that civilization ever gets destroyed it'll be much more difficult to re-invent it.
Forgive me if I'm not making any sense, I'm tired as fuck.

>>2039945
I don't think Diamond was arguing that the lack of animals to domesticate meant the civilizations had reached a plateau, more so that the lack of animals meant their development was slower.

If you think about it, it makes sense. When you have animals that you can domesticate, it increases productivity and output in a variety of ways, which naturally would translate to an increased rate of development.

>>2040085
This is a little different but I'm interested in how modern mexico has used aztec history in nation building. Not sure if I'm phrasing it

File: 1469103634406-1.gif (505KB, 1152x775px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 1152x775px

>>2040058
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BygGBt33rrTdSURpU0lkQ2QyMjg

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BygGBt33rrTdREdSZURvN0pEakk

>>2040154
Thanks my man

>>2039825
>relatively small concentrations of people
>hugely available resources in a temperate climate
>entire religion and belief system was a deeply spiritual connection to nature
>nomadic or semi permanent lifestyle and homes

There was really no need to. Even the tribes that fought with each other weren't in direct competition. they knew how to live off the land in a way that would not interfere with it. When the Europeans first came there was really nothing that the natives wanted to trade with them because most tribes felt they already had everything they needed. It wasn't really until the tribes became dependent on European goods that their lifestyle was compromised.

>>2040102
For the Maya the Chronicle of Maya Kings and Queens is very good to understand the politics and hsitory of the Classical period. The Maya by Robert Sharer and Maya by Michael D Coe are both good, especially the former. Make sure to get the latest editions of both. Maya art and architecture by Mary Ellen Miller is another must. A forest of kings, maya cosmos by barbara tedlock, star gods of the maya, the chontal maya of acalan tixchel, the quiche maya of utatlan by robert carmack, the tzutujil maya by sandra orellana, the chorti maya by charles wisdom.

Now as for primary sources, defintitely the Popol Vuh, Christenson or Tedlocks versions are both good, I like Tedlocks a little more. The relacion de yucatan by Diego de Landa is also good (yes this is the same friar that burned over 2000 maya books, And he regretted this so much later in life he wrote down this book as an attempt to preserve some knowledge of the people). Other good ones are the Annals of the Cakchiquels and Titles of Totonicapan.

>>2040122
Mmmm not my area really so I can't suggest.

File: Aztecs.jpg (109KB, 1024x541px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1024x541px

>>2039825
They did! Pic related.

Even the primitive ones were far beyond what you'd consider 'stone age'.

>>2039922
Dude Yellowknives and Copper Cree mined and crafted copper

Inuit crafted meteorites that were of iron and likely expanded their exploration of the far north.

Metal outside of areas were excessive were pushed into luxury and religious goods. Outside of float copper areas the limitations of dispersal to only upper caste people made technological diffusion highly unlikely beyond ornamentation.

All you people are dumb.

there where indians that build walled settlements and grew corn
why didn't they dominate their plain cousins?

as it now shows the plains were excellent for growin corn

>>2040248
not without extensive irrigation it's not!

Besides, it took Eurasia how many centuries to beat back the steppes peoples? Walled settlements don't make you invincible, especially if you're far enough into their territory to try and 'dominate' them.

>>2040248
All farm societies in the plains were riverine. Without plows they couldn't break through the root masses of perennial grasses.

>>2040307
Why didn't they develop plows then? They had plenty of time.

>>2040212
Thanks anon!

>>2040318
As a different OP said, they didn't need 2. real life isn't like civ, there's not some set path you advance up. You do what makes sense for you at the time. Calling different societies who never interacted more or less advanced, ie comparing europeans in 1300 to Indians in 1300, is literally a meme you fell for

>>2039933

Buffalo

>>2040337
Buffalo aren't truly domesticated, bison cow hybrids are. Pure bison are ranged and penned like emu.

>>2040285

it took them so long before they found someone interested and strong enough to take thr whole of them

look at what the poles did with the cossacks near the crimea

If any historian says there was a single reason for it, they know nothing about history.

>>2040353

Cattle became domesticated, why couldn't the natives do it for buffalo?

>>2040366
Because the conditions of North America aren't the same as Eurasia and the world isn't a video game.

>>2040401

The guy asked for examples that they COULD have domesticated. Buffalo is one.

>>2040418
But they aren't. The descriptions of bison by colonizers proclaimed large swaths of land filled with them. They were not easily tamed nor could they by agrarian society.

We see in cattle herd of some size, but never has the remains shown anything to the degree of.Plains bison.

As a result of megafaunal extinction bison took over but accelerated beyond the pass of human populations. This is not so much the case of Eurasians who killed megafauna long before domestication and cattle never fulfilling quite the same.niches.

Secondly the behavior of wild cattle and bison are extremely different. The way they interacted with animals is far removed from Eurasian proto herders.

Beyond that the exploitation of farmland expanded into animal husbandry, that was carried to Europe where no such event occurred. In North America there was independent domestication of plants, however by the transmission of corn no additional beast was brought about because society developed without them.

We can see the capacity to utilize animals was quickly adopted without direct European contact by mustang, farmers abandoned their old mode of being and became plains hunters of bison but when the animal is sacred the idea of owning it and breaking it down could seem preposterous.

So stud dumbass

>>2040360
That's why you don't ask historians about matters of social evolution.

>>2040446
Stfu

Because there was no environmental pressure and need to do so.

>>2040401
That's not really a reason.

Bison are capable of being domesticated. There are domesticated bison now on ranches in the United States and Canada.

Natives tribes may have chosen not to domesticate because the bison were simply so abundant, or for any number of cultural reasons, but they could have. This is especially true considering that natives had dogs and other domestic animals. They understood the concept and chose not to do it for an animal which could have provided meat, milk, and draft power.

>>2040446

It's possible, but probably not a good idea for the people attempting in the first place.

>>2040446
Bison and cattle are essentially the same. The animals are so similar that they can interbreed. If Eurasians could domesticate cattle, Amerindians should have been able to domesticate bison.

Their agricultural revolution happened in 1000 bc as comepared to 10,000 bc in afroeurasia. Id say the aztecs are about on par with the ancient mesopotamians, and civilization only had about as much time to progress.

>>2039825
Most were dumb, didn't have good enough animals, and the smartest were in the fucking arctic, farther north than even Nords.

>>2040489
That still begs the question why?

Why did it take people in the Americas so long to adopt agriculture, stoneworking, roadbuilding, etc?

>>2040471
They are not domesticated. They are ranched and in the long process of domestication.
>>2040477
The conditions of humans in North America and Eurasia and the behaviors of bison and cattle are not the same

I'd argue the same.reason why Europeans were unable to domesticated cattle but mean they didn't even domesticated plants even though they were there much long than any time of the Americas

>>2040500
Bison are ranched like cattle. These aren't hunting ranches I'm talking about... these are commercial operations producing meat in a similar fashion to cattle ranches. I live within a few miles of several such places.

Also... are you really sure you want to say that Europeans did not domesticate plants?

>>2040498
Well how long did it take them to walk their asses there? Lel

But nah, its because they had shittier plants and had to learn how to plant beans, squash, and corn all in the same fields. The three foods work together to be calorie efficent or something. Look it up. Wheat and to a lesser extent rice are ez to farm though and more importantly ez to think to farm...

File: Lascaux_painting.jpg (95KB, 720x472px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 720x472px

>>2040500

I'm sure Aurochs were pleasant to tame.

>>2040515
Beans, squash, and corn are shitty plants?

That trio provides a pretty whole diet, even without meat. There's a reason that the agricultural cultures of the Americas were so numerous. Places like Tenochtitlan were so large and densely populated that they were described as greater than any European city the Spanish had ever seen.

Yet these people still couldn't build metal weapons or tools. They didn't develop phonetic writing. They didn't have currency. They didn't have firearms or telescopes or metal armor. They were by most measures less advanced technologically and culturally.

>>2040514
There are domestic cattle that are ranged on ranches

The bison are tamed nondomesticates and ranched
>>2040520
No memes please

File: images.jpg (5KB, 330x153px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 330x153px

>>2040538

Aurochs being the forerunner to modern cattle is a meme now?

>>2040538
What are your criteria for "domesticated"?

Bison are pretty much raised just like cattle. They're bred in captivity. They're corralled by fences. They're culled for meat. They're milked for dairy.

They're basically fucking furry cows.

>>2039825
Eurasia simply had more civilizations for a longer time so information could travel around

What the Americas did independently is honestly pretty impressive

File: lascaux4b.jpg (125KB, 525x336px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 525x336px

Don't mind me, just memeing.here.

>>2039825
They didn't need to, they were prosperous

>>2040542

desu I want to see someone doing a backflip over a charging bison

we know the cretan could do it over an aurochs and you guys are better then some lousy greeks aren't you? and after all bison and auroch are the same thing

>>2040542
Oh you're new to this thread. The first meme here was Europeans domesticating auroch (they didn't)
>>2040543
Domestication has.a series of physiological markers in relation to their undomesticated kin.

You can look it up.

>>2040577
Board I mean

File: 54457782efd2a6e3d0d62b0da0891899.png (3MB, 1360x804px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1360x804px

>>2040565

Well, auroch domestication leading to taurine cattle is around 8,000-10,000 years old and the bull leaping fresco is only from 1450BC...........

File: catal.jpg (141KB, 800x529px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 800x529px

>>2040577

Oh ok. Anyways, some people are attempting to bring back the Auroch look.

>>2040603
The auroch can never be brought back. You'll have a cow that looks like an as auroch.

>>2040646

....which is what I said.

File: Copper_knife,_spearpoints,_awls,_and_spud,_Late_Archaic_period,_Wisconsin,_3000_BC-1000_BC_-_Wisconsin_Historical_Museum_-_DSC03436.jpg (99KB, 1024x864px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1024x864px

>>2039825
They had metallurgy before the Europeans did...

...and yet, oddly, no wheel, or bronze.

>>2039825
poor agriculture, lower populations, unlike the old world which had the fertile crescent, indo-gangetic plain and the north china plain and a higher likelihood of stumbling across things like bronze and iron

>>2039825
Stone age is maybe harsh therm, ut technically it is correct since the main technological material was flintstone.
It is interesting that metallurgy was not very advanced in precolumbian high civilizations of the Americas. More so since they had plenty or, advanced pottery and every basic metallurgy , gold silver copper, was known. They even had casting and cold working technologies developed to a high level.
So it is correct to call even the high civilizations neolithic and to locate some north American tribes at the start of the copper age.
Bit puzzling, since many other technologies where highly developed. What could the reasons be? Metal tools would have been highly useful for farming cultures like Inca or Maya or Aztecs.

>>2039825
The evolution of a civilisation is like regular evolution, it follows the path of least resistance. If you survive by embalming babies with their faeces but enough survive, you'll keep on doing that until a more advanced civ comes along

>>2040722
No iron deposits near the Aztecs. Can't speak for the other two. Though the northern American tribes apparently were working copper before they were, and certainly had iron deposits about. However, most of those cultures were dedicated to following state-sized herds of buffalo from place to place, and thus didn't set up long term settlements, let alone mines, but there were certainly a number of exceptions.

>>2040686
Agriculture is one of their high points actually, they domesticated so many plants and in the amazon invented one of the worlds richest soils to make an ungrowable tropical rainforest suitable to grow orchards, crops and gardens of many fruits and vegetables. I won't even get into the Andes and Mesoamericam agriculture.

>>2040733
>No iron deposits near the Aztecs
Iron is the most common metal ore, it is found virtually anywhere. Here have some old school smelting from Africa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuCnZClWwpQ
Interestingly the west Africans directly went from stone age to iron age, which is remarkable, because iron smelting is much more complex than copper or bronze.
I read that there was bronze made in certain places in the Americas, yet for some reason the technology did not catch on. Bit of a mystery to me.

>>2040784
The more I read, I come to the conclusion that they knew about at least bronze, but for some reason did not really use the material much. At least for the Inka.

>>2039838
coochie mama

>>2040018
It's a popsci book about precolumbian America. A good overview if you want to go into the subject and know nothing about it.

>>2039922
>There were plenty of animals they could have domesticated. Why didn't they?
Good luck domesticating a buffalo without mans best friend and a horse to help you

>>2039825
Mayans had the highest pre industrial population density, so calling them stone age is kinda off.

>>2040108
Underrated post

File: main-qimg-59129f47b2a9b5d58f5c784939061475-c.jpg (66KB, 572x394px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 572x394px

>>2039865
> lack of animals fit for domestication

>>2040811
It it perfectly fine to call the Maya stone age, since it only classifies what their main technical work material was. Thats how archeology works.

>>2040664
>no wheel
Seriously? Why?
Did they have bad wood or something?

>>2040827
Taming a few individuals =/= domestication. Don't act dumb.

>>2039891
The Nazca, Moche and later even the Incas had bronze, it's only than it wasn't that widespread. Heck, even the Nahua had some copper weapons and used them as a currency.

>>2040923
Not him but taming is a good step. Some English explorer in the late 19th century even where planing to breed some sub-races of zebras than were easier to tame to domesticate them, but with the invention of the automovile it was abandoned. Heck, foxes were domesticated in 50 years, if it can be done with solitary predators why not with herd animals, even herd as small as zebras have?

>>2040108
What people also need to take into consideration is that at least in Eurasia there was a lot of cultural exchange. Not sure about Africa, but the Americas and Australia didn't have as much cultural exchange - they (more) were isolated.

I think frontiers ala Peter Turchin style are important as well. They force cultural adaption so to speak.

>>2040923
The first horses were wild like zebras, they had to be tamed and domestication took many generations of selective breeding. The same could be done with zebras if it were economically viable.

The domestication of the zebra failed because Africa has a shitty environment for pastoralism and cattle needed to be domesticated elsewhere and even so disease limits productivity. However liberals are so afraid of racists they flip out whenever someone so much as points out a minor error in the gospel of Jared Diamond and refuse to alter their position, falsely accusing good wholesome historians such as myself of racism even if our correct position is infallible and would utterly disprove actual racists.

Leftists are a blight.

>>2040961
>why not with herd animals, even herd as small as zebras have?
It seems possible in theory to just select for those least anxious about humans and breed those.
There remains a possibility that zebras are all too anxious to select this trait but I am not so sure.

>>2040974
How are they different than donkeys?

>>2040961
Anything can be domesticated given enough excessive resources. That does not mean they could or.would have without an entire colonial system providing that.
>>2040965
God you're a dumbass.

Pastoralism is documented before grain cultivation in Africa

Horses and Zebra do not have the same behavior

The animals in Africa have the longest time of conditioning human hunting and behaviors

Zebra are not good candidates

However their closest relatives the Donkey are, those were domesticated in Sudan and Somalia.

But. Even though Donkey have been domesticated it is clear their behavior and rooted group dynamic influences them still.

The donkey and horse both domesticated one from Western Asia and one from Africa are very different. That's why mules have been bred for thousands upon thousands of years, because they are the best of both creatures characteristics.

Shut the fuck up, stop talking about things you know nothing about. Liberals aren't to blame for your stupidity.

>>2041051
>How are they different than donkeys?
I am not a zoologist who specializes in Equus.

File: 48c13369fb8edf817cd53347de3b44f2.jpg (19KB, 236x232px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 236x232px

>>2040789
Well, they knew about the wheel too, they just didn't use it, aside from toys (much like the Romans and the steam engine - save they had the excuse that they lacked the metallurgy to make large boilers). Granted, for the civilizations south of the border, the terrain wasn't really suited for primitive wheels, particularly with the way they farmed (either flooded patties or verticals). The stone anchors they made, however, looked a whole lot like wheels, and if they used wooden wheelbarrows you wouldn't have any archeological evidence besides such stone wheels.

The Andeans used a whole lotta bronze though. The Mayans had some bronze trinkets as well. The Ozette apparently used some iron - though the iron artifacts are dated just before the first European contacts.

The Aztecs did do *some* bronze work though. They've found several bronze needles in dig sites and other minute tools. Seems they knew about the stuff, but whatever method they used to make it must have been too intensive to make larger objects with (or they may have traded for it).

I suppose, if we all go up in nuclear fire, some future civilization may say the same of us and our use of ceramic steel and carbon tubes. Does leave one to wonder what technologies we have that we aren't using to their fullest potentials.

File: zebra_undomesticatable.png (2MB, 1176x854px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1176x854px

>>2040974
Zebras, unlike horses, don't form social hierarchies. There's no leading stallion, they just kinda herd as a matter of collective chaos. For instance, it's sorta typical behavior, among the males, to kill the young offspring of other males, and there's no consequence for this, unlike among horses, where that sorta behavior brings the wrath of the core alphas down upon you. Non-social mammals are harder to domesticate.

Though, as pic related suggests, probably not impossible.

File: Aurochss3.jpg (36KB, 400x214px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x214px

we domesticated fucking aurochs

and the fucking africans couldn't domesticate a fucking zebra? Come on.

>>2041205

You didn't, Middle easterners did.

>>2041161
???:
>The plains zebra is a highly social species, forming harems with a single stallion, several mares and their recent offspring; there are also bachelor groups.
From Wikipedia tho.

What is your source for your claim?

>>2041161

Diamonds explains the difference between taming and domesticating an animal.

>>2041205
While I don't entirely buy Jared Diamond's theory on the subject, what you've pictured there is a bull, and well, the bulls still aren't exactly domesticated, which is why you don't breed a lot of them.

But even the auroch was purportedly slow, unwieldy, and wild cows do form social hierarchies around a core set of bulls in mid-sized herds. So, unlike buffalo and zebra (which have no such hierarchies, form huge herds, and are agile and temperamental as fuck), they are prime candidates for domestication, and, as far as megafauna work animals go, the horse and the oxen are about the only other one we've had real success with. (Camels aren't really domesticated, and sled dogs don't really count.)

As someone else said, advancement usually takes the path of least resistance, and while the zebra may have been domesticable, if you really tried, it only takes a few more degrees of effort before it's not worth it. Particularly if you consider that domestication usually results in a smaller, weaker animal, and the zebra is already almost too small to be a very useful workhorse. If you truly domesticated them, you'd probably wind up with a pet, rather than a beast of labor. (Though I suppose you could go the clydesdale route from there.)

>>2041239
They form families, but there's no hierarchy within the herd. Unlike horses, it's not like one stallion chooses a direction and they all follow, it's more of a mob rule situation, and also unlike horses, these bastards are pretty damn nasty to each other. All in all, they act much more like deer than horses or cattle.

>>2041205
You dondon't Southern Europeans did>>2041232

>>2041320
There are several subspecies of auroch, so maybe there was more than one time domestication?
You have both the Indian and European, I think.

>>2039825
natural born barbarian whose routine consisted in slaughtering each other... just like Europe during the stone age.

>>2040017
>lamas
>not llamas
this is when burguers try to name things

>>2039950
>Domesticate deers
has anyone managed to do that?

>>2041344
Arctic Eurasians

>>2041280

to quote ccpgrey

>zebras are bastards

>>2041344

carribou are a sort of deer

>>2041326

They were independently domesticated in western Asia and India.

>>2040471

but you're asking why something -didn't- happen. everything offered is going to at best be a hypothesis constructed within negative conditions of inquiry—and thus "not really a reason" by your standards.

Their nomadic mode of production met their social needs. They had no interest in "advancing" according to European standards of progress, which, before you say it, cannot by any standard of truth be said to be "objective" save for those constructed within European epistemological constraints.

>>2041661
>native americans were na'avi
so why did they trade pelts and tobacco for european cloth and iron

>>2040017
Actually, some andean cultures like the inca or chiribaya used herding dogs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_dogs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiribaya_Dog

>>2041684

because they saw it and wanted it? are you dim?

exchange begins on the outskirts of society, and then spreads into its core like a virus.

>>2039825
I subscribe to the baseless fringe theory that the shape of the continent is wrong and held back development. All the major eurasian cultures (plus the african Egypt) in antique inhabited the same range of latitudes and the eurasian continent is wide as fuck rather than tall like the Americas. In fact the same effect is at work for both the Americas and Africa, there's a lot of space 'wasted' because it's in the tropical (or subarctic) zone that is not ideal for human activity or technological development. The mesoamerican civilisations were the only ones who occupied the right spot, and it's laughably narrow compared to how fucking wide Eurasia is. There wasn't enough space for greater diversity of cultures that would've exchanged ideas, which I would say is a pretty significant component.

>>2040806
The people in the Old World managed to tame the aurochs.

>>2041280
The Asians have domesticated different species of large mammals, like water buffaloes, bantangs, Gaur , Yak and other cattle. And heck, Cats don't form herds either, are carnivorous and are domesticated, like the Russians did with another solitary, carnivorous animal, the fox. Other animals than are domesticated for example is the raindeer be the Laps and some asian tribes, Moose are on the way of domestication in Russia and Funland, and Asses/Donkeys, than are like Zebras, were domesticated long ago (and donkeys are very smart and vicious when you cross them). Also horses started as ponies, and were breed for size and all that during centuries, plus Zebras are well adapted to the African illnes than wreak havoc with horses, so there was a huge incentive to domesticate them.

>>2042443
Most of those are variants of the beasts already mentioned or are not work animals. You can domesticate some small lone carnivorous animals, but unlike pack animals, they tend to form little to no loyalties and are difficult to train. Most are useless as anything but pets.

Although cats, contrary to popular belief, are not descended from solitary hunters, but from colony animals - females gather together and form colonies with hierarchies, kicking the males out, which then demonstrate behavior more akin to the stereotype, as they wander from colony to colony, singing for literal and figurative pussy. (Though, occasionally, feral tom cats will form bonds and hunt together for life - but usually they are siblings kicked out at the same time.)

When you have everything you need in abundance you don't need to advance the tools required to have the edge over nature.

Why can't people understand this?

Show me one society which had abundances of everything (security and food) which developed technology, it simply doesn't happen.

>>2041733
Maybe true of South America but north America has areas so wide and flat you could fit half of Europe into them, yet they, with a few brief exceptions, "advanced" less than the South and Central American civilizations.

Granted, those same flat areas did have the problem of herds of buffalo the size of states constantly migrating across them. (More of a constant food source than a problem, but if you're following migrating buffalo, you aren't going to settle in one place long enough to build a real civilization.)

>>2041746
Source?

A quick pleb search gave me ancient claims of how it was untamable.

Regardless, it's smaller than the bison and in the old world you had more tools to work with, like the aforementioned dog and horse.
And taming isn't domesticating.

File: source.jpg (28KB, 450x389px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 450x389px

>>2043121
>Source?
<-

But yes, they were smaller, slower, had little long term stamina, and formed smaller herds with clear leadership (or the modern variant does when they go feral at least). Though, even today, the males of the species are too aggressive to really be considered domesticated. The females, on the other hand, have been bred so lethargic that they are pretty much only good for food stock, rather than beasts of burden, though there's offshoots where this isn't the case.

>>2039865
But they did domesticate several species of animal? Guinea Pigs, various species of alpaca and similar (can't remember the name). And they sorta domesticated Turkeys up in NA, IIRC.

>>2043211
><-
How silly of me.
I thought cows were domesticated from another smaller species.
If I had just searched for "dome" instead of "tam" in my pleb search and I would've seen how foolish I was.

Reading up more on it.
Cows were domesticated before horses, so old worlders had dogs to aid them not humans.

The size difference isn't that big, but maybe it was enough, or the difference in herd size was the game changer.

>>2040916
Nothing domesticated that could pull it well, as well as the fact that the biggest roadbuilders (Inca) built their roads mostly for humans (which was one of the issues conquistadors had, getting their horses up the stairs everywhere)

>>2039838
>chakotay appears
>native american flute theme plays
imagine if they had african drums play every time sisko got on screen or asian string pentatonics with sato.

File: WheeledToy-Tul-18-HR.jpg (257KB, 1600x1240px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1600x1240px

>>2040916
>>2043300
The South/Central Americans had shit wood and shit terrain to boot. In North America, it's more of a mystery, as even without beasts of burden, it would have been useful for hauling carcasses about.

They both had the concept of the wheel and axil, mostly using them for toys and ritual objects, and in a few rare cases, as grinding tools and simple mechanisms, they apparently just didn't build large wagons. Some of the mesoamericans may have made small wheelbarrows and the like, but there's no direct evidence, only the existence of stone wheels that, in most cases, seem to be used as anchors and weights.

>>2043332

akoocheemoya

>>2043332
>French national anthem when Picard appears on the bridge.
>God Bless America every time Riker gets laid.
>Riverdance every time O'brien takes a drink.

I-I would watch this. Someone needs to redub Star Trek fast!

Although TOS's theme might have well been The Star Spangled Banner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsRo-m9muFE

>>2041161
You do realize that those are tame zebras and not domesticated ones right? Get all of those 'domesticated' zebras together and they will not form any social system to exploit for domestication. They will just kick and bite each other.

>>2043339
I dunno why the NA tribes didn't. Several plains groups used dog-pulled sledges.

>>2043389
Yes, I realize these are not domesticated beasts, it just suggests it is possible - but like I said, probably too much effort, especially considering the potential uselessness of the end result ( >>2041280 ). I doubt anyone had such long term vision to think they could go through that effort, and then take the useless pet and upsize it, given that the effort would be so long term that it wouldn't happen in their lifetimes or their children's lifetimes, and they likely had never been exposed to such an example as to make a precedent to even consider the possibility.

>>2040542
The domestication of Aurochs is literally the first /his/ meme, newfriend.

>>2043408
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2822870/

On the other hand...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01117218

Maybe, "We wuz ranchers".

>>2040965
>However liberals are so afraid of racists they flip out whenever someone so much as points out a minor error in the gospel of Jared Diamond and refuse to alter their position, falsely accusing good wholesome historians such as myself of racism even if our correct position is infallible and would utterly disprove actual racists.
>Leftists are a blight.
Any reason for this spergout?

>>2041205
WE

File: not_an_argument_camp.jpg (50KB, 520x336px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 520x336px

>>2043445
Anyone who accuses /his/ of being left wing suffers from terminal /pol/itis. No need to feed the all consuming disease by calling him out on it.

>>2040366
The same reason why Europeans didn't domesticate the auroch, but Middle Eastern, North African, and South Asian people did.

They didn't have to.

>>2041205
Isn't there a subspecies native to Africa that was domesticated into what is now the African landrace of cattle?

I hate this meme, whoever started it last year didn't even try.

>>2043889
There is evidence of penned undomesticated cattle in Africa. In all likelihood they could have been keep poo the for thousands of years but if people were unable to limited wild bulls coming in to fuck cows the physical manifestations found in domestication may not be all that apparent.

But yes short horn humpless cattle have African cattle genes, that's why in Fouta Djallon they have the greatest resistance to tsetse.

>ITT people try to apply linear development from one isolated landmass to another

You all are retaded

>>2044078
Most of us aren't clearly

>>2044112
I don t see a single post in the thread pointing out that it's a fallacy to assume that technology would or was developing in the americas along the same path that it did in eurasiafrica, or that it would even devolp in eurasiafrica the same way if you "rerolled" history.

Maybe I missed it.

>>2039922
>Copper and Tin both existed in the Americas. They had plenty of time since the Ice Age to make copper. Why didn't they?

They did have copper though? Plenty of the mesoamericans and south americas used copper

>>2044123
I know the Purepechas, Aztec rival empire in the west used copper weapon and BTFO'd them in an invasion the Aztecs attempted.

It is easier to advance a civilization when their is less hurdles for a civilization to overcome. Around the meditarainian, North Africa, and Mesopotamia there where much more avaliable animals to domesticated and less shit to kill you compared to the Americas. So thanks to less hurdles people were able to focus on not getting killed and more on philosophy and reason. So the the Greek philosophers helped create a better way of governing and living ones life. Which helped progress civilization in that area. Also, being able to trade with Asia really helped with advancing civilization as a whole. The Americas couldn't get the ball rolling, because it was harder to live and start making it easier to live.

>>2039825
They had little or no animals to domesticate.

The resources weren't easily obtain.

>>2039945
>They got a later start than the Old World civilizations
To put this in perspective, China already had agricultural societies about on par with post-Columbus "Indians" before any human had ever been in most of the western hemisphere. Two thousand years later China, Sumer, and Egypt were building cities, while in the Americas people kept wandering around and finding completely empty land. Since land pressure is a key driver of developing agriculture, this slowed down development in the Americas for thousands of more years until they finally reached a point where they had to build to grow.

File: 1470261803117.jpg (104KB, 797x599px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 797x599px

>>2040041
>this meme
B-b-b-but multicultural mercantilism is truely the reason for societal advancement... dont ask me why all cultures involved in this trade didnt advance at the same rate considering said trade routs totally effected a large enough population to make a difference from Europe to Asia. Cultures have nothing to do with it! Dont you dare assert that political or religious structures might actually be unequal! Or GOD FORBID people might actually have biological advantages or disadvantages due to being isolated in different environments!!!

EVOLUTION DOESNT EFFECT HUMANS >;(

File: 1477514121771.jpg (59KB, 423x480px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 423x480px

>>2040108
> "Many tribes practiced metal working, but they didn't need to use metal outside of ceremonial or religious uses because of their well developed lithic technology. Why would you abandon tech that you've used effectively for millenia to pursue a tech that hasn't proven it's effectiveness? "


And this niggas typing on a fucking computer.

File: 1479313086281.gif (2MB, 251x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 251x240px

>>2044280
You have got it wrong.
Native Americans very much ahead in agriculture compared to Europe or even Asia.
The plants they use allow for much effective use of land and allow for a healthy diet.
On this time Europe were in constant threat of hunger. No even kidding.
Americas were pretty tight populated before Columbus arrived.
But with Europeans come deadly diseases and they literally wipe out natives and their civilization.
What you call completely empty land was rapidly depopulated by diseases. Sometimes Europeans witness this(in the case of Spaniards in Mexico). More often not.
The English and French colonization attempts in NA meet remnants of the Mad Max style apocalypse.

>>2039825
They didn't need to evolve so they didn't. Food was plentiful and they were nomadic so they left the area when winter came. No need to be crafty, to make new and better clothing, shelter, and tools. They just stuck with sticks and sharp rocks.

The need to adapt to survive winter is what made certain cultures great.

>>2044320
No you just have shit reading comprehension. The post you're responding to is referring to the Americas pre-migrations as being empty, which they were. Not that they were empty before Europeans discovered it. The plants they cultivated had nothing to do with how advanced they were, they were just what was native to the land.

>>2044320
"Americas were pretty tight populated before Columbus arrived."
Then where are all the graves, stonework, roads, and writings man? Like if they were so adept at agriculture and had such a plentiful food supply and population where are all there works? Surely if you have enough people you will eventually hit the genetic lottery and a Da Vinci,Copernicus, Plato, ect will eventually be born?
Im not trying to be a dick or anything but it just doesn't make sense that a ultra powerful continent with tons of food wouldn't have extra time to invent a few things to make life easier.

>>2044313
You're painting a straw man that is incorrect.

Trade undoubtedly is a reason for societal advancement, because it comes with the transfer of ideas. Culture plays a part as well. If the Qing had not been obsessed with viewing the world in sino centric manner China may have have industrialized and we might even still have a Qing monarchy in china today

>>2044313
>>2044390
Also to further illustrate my point; look at Ming China and the Tokugawa shogunate. Both cultures actively sought to isolate themselves from the world and you see huge stagnation in growth as a result.

>>2044390
You never touched on biology anon. Are humans exempt from Darwinian theory? Are some religions more helpful for the advancement of society when compared to others? If so why?

>>2043395
Because a Travois or sled is enough, even better in rough terrain then the wheel in terms of manufacture time and likelihood of getting stuck arguably.

Cuz they had to walk too far

File: alpinirope.jpg (4MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3264x2448px

>>2044421
t. Guy who has never pulled a sled or a wagon

Ive done both over forested terrain when collecting lumber and theres no competition what so ever. No matter how strong you are or what you are hauling wheels always win out - even over bushes and underbrush much less force is used. You have to think about the weight of the sled/wagon in relation to the forward movement, you eventually get to a point where "being stuck" is not really a thing unless you are going up insane inclines or sand.

>>2041746
Yeah but the old world had rivers amongst desert where animals were forced to congregate, and therefore forced to tolerate other animals such as humans. The range of buffalo didn't really have this.

>>2044444
Nice

File: teno sdfdssdf.jpg (248KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1200x1200px

>>2044371
Not him, but

>Then where are all the graves, stonework, roads, and writings man?

South of what is now texas. The aztecs had the 5th most populated city in the world when the spainish came, built only 200 years pior with some of the most advanced hydro-engineering in the world at the time, and they did so "only with stone age" tools and without beasts of burden.

Which is why the """"stone age""""" thing is just a meme, as I said in >>2044078 : History and technology doesn't devolp linearly, especially between two isolated landmasses. The native americans were certainly less adept at metalworking but were ahead of or at least devolping in other areas far more rapidly then europe if you do try to compare them linearly.

>>2044444
he may have no idea what he's talking about, but I recall reading a study that actually supported that the weight you can carry on your back is more then effective then using wheelbarrows given the materials the natives had.

I think there was diminsihing returns the larger the wheelbarrow is, and by the time the wheelbarrow was large enough to actually support more stuff then you could carry on your back, it requires more people to transport which cancelled out it's advantage, and is then so large it's unwieldy to move around

>>2039825
Technology doesn't develop the same. I presume they had better agriculture tech.

>>2039825

>What is environmental determinism?

You know what? You put so little effort into this, I'm not even going to give you enough meme arrows for a way back home.

>>/pol/

File: tumblr_m7j63tjIbw1qdnodmo1_1280.jpg (78KB, 850x672px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 850x672px

>>2044577
Hey there, wagon v sled anon here.
I think what that study may have forgotten is the labor or strain that carrying things manually inflicts on the human body. Like for instance - Imagine you have to carry a large amount of clay in order to make pottery or brick, you can definitely carry it by hand or use a sled as long as it doesn't take to many trips. However there is a limit of clay that when transported is more efficient (as far as caloric expenditure and risk of injury) when using a wheel ESPECIALLY over a distance - say if you were collecting said clay far from camp.

This use of clay is just an example but imagine the transport of a buffalo carcass, lumber for warming a longhouse in the winter, or even the transport of people (infants and elderly who cannot make the trip by foot for the changing of the seasons). Sure sleds do the trick for small quantities or maybe a large quantity for one or two trips, but large heavy weights are always moved in a more ergonomic and efficient way by use of wheels.

>>2044618
> :( grr i dont like people who ask questions!
> You dont know things I know and must be an internet nazi
> evolution of technology is definitely as cut and dry as environmental determinism
> What is South African geography? which is rich in mega fauna, fish, fresh water, and has a huge as fucc wall of desert preventing efficient large scale invasion not to mention a fuckton of gold and oil yet somehow wasnt as advanced as Europe or Asia before colonization
(no im not from /pol/ and i dont have a hate boner for Africa im just bringing out a contradiction in the idea of "muh environmental determinism" is the only reason why nations develop differently)

>>2043072
All the bovini, than not Bos, are used for work or meat. The Raindeer/caribou was used for transport, work, ride and milk. The Moose was even proposed as war animal first with the swedes (than before trying to implement the domestication nearly made them extinc in they country) and later the Russianl, but it's now used for his milk for ailling patients. For little predatory animals than don't have herd, the polecat is another one, used as a pet now but extensively used for hunting in Europe even now, like another solitary little predator like the Genet, very used in the Iberian peninsula of the medieval aga, again, for hunting and as a pet.

>>2040965
I thought leftists hate Jared Diamond because geographic determination equals racism in their tiny disfunctional brains.

File: 3292f36d77b764e88af353d79c68c744.jpg (50KB, 474x332px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 474x332px

>>2045162
And a pic of the Reindeer.

>>2043100
The best crops were native in Meso-America though and took hundreds of years to reach North-America. The spread was really slow because they had to be re-domesticated to the different latitude according to Diamond.

File: mesopotamia-wheel_e538bdcd-c65e-43c2-9836-b03bc75bf2bd.jpg (7KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x169px

>>2044698
>I think what that study may have forgotten is the labor or strain that carrying things manually inflicts on the human body.
Think about the Aztec or Mayan civilizations for a bit. Warlike, slave taking, overpopulated, and extremely hierarchical. Now, if such a civilization has to choose between efficiency, and saving their worker's backs - workers who they don't pay, mind you, and may not even need to feed - which do you think they are going to choose.

Wheels suck in steep mountain areas, they suck in mud, they suck in jungles, they suck in snow, they suck in rough terrain. They suck in pretty much anything that isn't relatively flat, solid, and/or roaded. (On top of that, we're talking primitive wheels made of crappy wood and either crappy metal or no metal - while modern monster Humvees get stuck in all these situations.)

They clearly had the concept of the wheel, had it, used it for all sorts of things, ( >>2043339 ). They had farming methods, irrigation, and architecture on par with, and sometimes even beyond anything anywhere in the world, back when it was built (some of the mechanics of which involved, yes, you guessed it, wheels). Do you really think they chose not to build wagons to use in their shit terrain with their shit wood because they were somehow retarded in this one aspect? Or is because, just maybe, it woulda been a waste of effort for they had better ways to suit their needs?

>>2044398
Haha woops! You feel outta /pol/!

>>2044052
It's a shame that damn fly took over most of the potential land for pastoralists.

>>2045177
>six legs

That is some advanced breeding.

I know I know, I saw it at a glance and couldn't resist.

>>2044398
>Are humans exempt from Darwinian theory?
obviously not. I would be very surprised if there were no differences between human populations with regard to intelligence or sociability. I have yet to see a convincing model of how these differences have affected the development of societies or any direct theories regarding the interplay between racial and cultural forces on actual historical events, and I'm not smart or knowledgeable enough to write one that would be worthwhile. In fact, I've most often heard seen race used as an attempt to ragequit or suppress any discussion of history.

>Are some religions more helpful for the advancement of society when compared to others?
I would say in general yes, with a few reservations. First of all, most mainstream religions are "big tent" parties with so much variation within them that talking about specific sects is more useful. Second of all I wouldn't limit this to religion. Ideology and other aspects of culture are influential in more or less exactly the same way as religion, only on a deeper and more fundamental level than the largely cosmetic conception of religion most people argue about.

>If so why?
Religion, as with all culture, influences human behaviour. Behaviour in turn changes material circumstances.

My question to you is, can you stop sperging out like a child if you want to have an actual conversation?

>>2046152
Religion is a pretty amorphous thing though. Your religious text and tenants can say nearly any damn thing, yet it seems circumstance, convenience, and expedience will override any and all of the original author's and founder's intentions, which are eventually, as a result, lost to time.

People will commit atrocities in the name of Buddha nearly as readily as they will in the name of Jesus, Allah, or Huitzilopochtli. In the end, evil people will twist even the most benign of loyalties to their own ends, and just as often, reality simply forces the twist upon them. At which point religion becomes, more than anything, yet another excuse for the same old story.

>tipsfedora.webm

File: 1441048267885.png (22KB, 207x239px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 207x239px

>>2039840

>>2046293
That's often true but not always. There is a conflict between culture, material concerns, expedience etc. and sometimes culture and ideology win, though I'd argue that even at the best of times the original authors intent will be lost.

>>2046122
It's obviously a descendant f Sliepnir.

>>2046152
> "You never touched on biology anon. Are humans exempt from Darwinian theory? Are some religions more helpful for the advancement of society when compared to others? If so why?"
How is this sperging? I literally just asked you a few questions. If assuming you thought that humans were exempt from Darwinian theory sounded rude you can see by the 1 other reply to my original post that the majority of /his/ often avoids information or ideas that are contradictory to their social beliefs.

>>2046774

this
>>2044313

is pure aspergers, assuming you're the same poster. If not I apologise.

File: 1464898255243.png (301KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 800x600px

>>2046293
>Religion is on all levels except physical.. amorphous
"People will commit atrocities in the name of Buddha nearly as readily as they will in the name of Jesus, Allah, or Huitzilopochtli"
>except they dont
the crusades and inquisition all added together adds to a pittance when compared to other conflicts driven by religion by say the Aztecs or Ottoman Empire (and dont say "but anon desperation leads to violence no matter what the religion" because there are plenty of times in christian and Buddhist dominated cultures there was disease and famine yet no outberst of Jihad)
>TLDR Comparative Religion 101: People who say religions are all the same or effect societies in the same way are often times misinformed or worse - trying to reaffirm their idea that post modern secularist theology is some how superior to ancient cultures.

File: 1474666849920.jpg (87KB, 600x390px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 600x390px

>>2046819
Nope im
>>2044444
and
>>2044698
But i was commenting/agreeing with
>>2044313
because anon seemed to have some points about /his/ avoidance of anthropology and biology. Also I feel like "they had trade with other peoples and thats the reason why they advanced" seems to be a bad excuse because its not like the entirety of native American tribes were "one people" they must have had trade and mercantilism between them and if so why did they not grow? There has to be a better explanation than "just A" or "just B" seems to me to be more likely the difference is a combination of environment, biology, culture, and trade in more of an equal spread.

>>2040233
>beyond the stone age
>only had stone tools

Ummmm.... right.....

>>2040318
nothing to pull the plows with. No horses or oxen.

>>2046824
Actually, I'm less saying that all religions are the same, and more saying that all religions are equally ignored. No religion to date has prevented any civilization from committing massively destructive acts for gain or simple survival, and, most often, people will alter the very meaning of their religions to justify such acts.

There are few truly religious wars, usually, religion is simply fuel for the fire regarding something much more tangible.

>>2048173
The thread has clearly become too long to read.

>>2046905
>Also I feel like "they had trade with other peoples and thats the reason why they advanced" seems to be a bad excuse because its not like the entirety of native American tribes were "one people"
Meh, while I believe genetics does play some role in the potential of a people to advance in specific ways, both individually and collectively, the old world did have a distinct advantage that there were several, separate, large, advanced civilizations competing and trading at the same time. None of the mesoamerican civilizations had this, only one such civilization was in existence at any given time, and the only trade was among extended tribes each eeking out of an existence, not between cities under different leadership and cultures. In this respect, it's kind of impressive that they advanced as much as they did. They also had many advancements well before those in the "cradle of civilization", so, in this case, it seems the impact of any genetic deficiencies were minimal, especially when one considers, of all the continents mankind spread to, they were among the last to be populated, thus they should have been, intuitively, tens of thousands of years behind the rest of the world, rather than hundreds in some respects, none at all in others, and actually ahead of the game in still others.

Natives not only started developing way later than the Old World, they also were almost completely on their own. Practically aliens in earth.

Everytime there was a technologic advance in the OW it reached almost every region in a relatively short time, not only improving it but finding places were the the resources for such discovery.

The geography of both OW and New World were highly influential over this

>>2048173
They had copper and in some cases bronze tools, but that's not even relavent, see

>>2044078 and >>2044604

They were behind in metalurgy but were on par or ahead of europe in other ways. There's no actual thing as "the stone age", that's just a somewhat arbitratry time period we make in hindset to how eurasia happened to devolp.

>>2040233
The aztecs didn't build teotihaucan, it was already abandoned by it';s original creators by the time the empire came around, they merely just occupied it themselves.

>>2048739
All that means is that they developed their technologies even earlier, so you're just bolstering his point.

...or maybe that was the intent? I dunno, I spend too much time here, and find it hard to imagine two people agreeing on anything anymore.

File: near artic knives2.jpg (97KB, 663x761px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 663x761px

>>2039825
They fuck you talking about? There were plenty of copper age, early bronze age, and in a few instances, iron age tech tribes.

Hell, the Tlingit did that funky thing like some African cultures, where they jumped from copper to iron with no noticeable transition

The ones that didn't progress, were all located in massively resource rich locations, where the need to develop was not immediately required. Same goes for domestication on animals. Game was plentiful.

dumping

File: DSC05318.jpg (83KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1024x768px

>>2048974

File: 1447012034246.jpg (18KB, 474x279px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 474x279px

>>2048996

>>2045255

Except that's nonsense, which is why no academic in the relevant fields subscribes to environmental determinism. And no, Diamond isn't relevant, he's an ornithologist with no training or apparent knowledge of history, agriculture, or anthropology.

>>2048739
As a matter of fact whe original builders of Teotihuacan are is still a mystery. All we know is they were a mutli ethnic cosmopolitan city and probably ruled by more than one ruler at a time.

I think a fairer question to ask is how is it that there are still uncontacted tribes in South America who still use technology inferior to that of even for example the Aztecs? They are LITERALLY stone age

>>2040965
>the first horses were wild like zebras

The "first horses" adhered to a primitive form of hierarchy while zebra herds are all around disorganized. Horses were simply naturally a better fit for domestication than zebras were.

Also, bonafide "leftists" oppose the theory of environmental determinism, you slack-jawed idiot.

>>2050722
There are no *truly* uncontacted tribes in South America, that we know of (which, kinda goes without saying - the term is kind of a misnomer). Closest you get to that in is the Funai, who are fully aware, in some cases have contacted, and feel threatened by the surrounding civilization encroaching on their land. Suffice to say, small isolated tribes don't advance much, regardless of skin color or location, and, in the postcolonial world, can't advance much before they come into conflict with civilization and are either annihilated or absorbed by it. In the few cases where those tribes that retain their existence and primitive ways, it's the same reason that the Amish, Ainum, Berbers, Sami, and the smattering of Siberian tribes exist as they do - they looked at the modern world and said, "fuck that shit", and the rest of the world, thus far, has let them be. In most cases, even defending their right to exist as a sort of curiosity.

It seems, in this fashion, modern civilization, with its excess of resources, likes to keep pets. Their time is limited, however, as whenever such generous civilizations can no longer afford to keep their pets, they tend to eat them.

...or, in the case of a certain violent island tribe in the Indian Ocean, probably just eventually get drowned due to climate change, assuming no one finds anything of value on said island first.

>>2050899
I'll add to what anon here said by also saying, that amazonian tribes also underwent an apocalypse event similar to their kin throughout the continent. They used to be more urban, but the collapse of their societies led many to go back to hunter gatherer life styles.