>Build this >No wheels/carts I don't get it. I mean

>no horses
There you go.

>>3217159
Slaves

File: Pyramid_of_sneferu_Meidum_01.jpg (33KB, 310x172px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 310x172px

not saying it isn't impressive, but a step pyramid is basically just a huge pile of stones. They didn't have carved interiors like the Egyptian pyramids, just a single room built on the top.

>>3217205
Considering they had an offset of 15000 years of arrival, it is impressive desu

>>3217222
not really

>>3217230
Oh yeah. Europe 15000 years ago was literally worse than niggerland.

>>3217237
australian aboriginals have had more time than that, so what?

>>3217242
Yet they accomplished anything. Europeans had 15000 years more to develop yet they were just 4000-3000 years away of mesoamerican civs. They even had some better tech than middle ages europe though.

>>3217254
>They even had some better tech than middle ages europe though.
such as?

>>3217262
2500AC venturi effect structure
3000AC seismic resistant structures
1400AC Colosal andean irrigation systems all over the Inca empire
1400AC The biggest hydro-engineered city of the world: Tenochtitlan

>>3217159
Without beasts of burden to do shit for them, beta-boy eurocucks can't even compete..

>>3217254
real life isn't a game of civilization, its not about how much they leveled up their science skill over x years

>>3217272
>building your city on a giant mosquito infested swamp
>this is somehow a good thing

>>3217315
Because the cities of Europe looked so much grander around the same time, huh?

>>3217315

Worked for Venice.

>>3217313
If there is a concept of superior ethnic group, that is the one which had a greater development rate. All civilizations suffer similar circumstances such as population growth, competition between tribes, coastal settlements, plateau settlements, agricultural spread, trad between pacific tribes, artistic manifestation of the events or daily life, abundance and pillage, certain intermarriages unite tribes, and all of this under the constant need of better weapons. Civilization is a process of development that some tribes didn't need to do, but others had to do. On europe and mesoamerica there were tribes which had to develop to survive.

>>3217242
>>3217237
>it s a hedonists rate a bunch of people by how comfortable they make their life episode

>>3217330
>but whatabout

I will repeat
>building your city on a giant mosquito infested swamp
>this is somehow a good thing

>>3217344
so you're saying Iraq is the master race?

>>3217353
When was Iraq populated?

>>3217351
It's the same as wasting resources so a building could look "better".

>>3217159
Just because they didnt use wheels doesnt mean they didnt know what a wheel could do. Since they didnt have horses wheels were pretty useless

File: redpyramidinside.jpg (342KB, 1063x1600px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1063x1600px

>>3217159
No, read this

>>3217205
Correct, pic related was made by Egyptians around 2590 bc

>>3217159
>Mayans were definitely a high tier civilization

They lived like ancient egyptians at a time when the rest of the world sailed around the globe and had science and stuff.

They were about 3-5k years behind any other civilisation.

>>3217474
>the rest of the world

Just Europeans: Africans were mudhut tards, arabs didn't have real science and neither did chinks

>>3217491
>Just Europeans: Africans were mudhut tards, arabs went retard because Mongolians and neither did chinks
Ftfy

File: 1502101551572.png (2MB, 800x3857px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x3857px

>>3217254
WE

>>3217474
Considering they reached America 15000 years after europeans settled on yurop, reduced the chronologival offset from 15000 to 3000, and had some better technology than middle ages europe, it's truly impressive desu.

>>3217474
>Implying the Ancient Egyptians weren't more advanced then Europeans and Muslims in the 15th century.

>>3217474
But the peak of their civilization was around the Fall of the WRE. By the time the Spanish met them, they had badly regressed.

File: copan-rosalila.jpg (305KB, 1000x752px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1000x752px

>>3217205
>They didn't have carved interiors like the Egyptian pyramids
Not because they couldn't, but because pyramids were built on top of other pyramids, thanks to that we can trace the evolution of the architecture through time, the astronomic and the symbolic importance of the pyramid's position.

File: pakaltombsteps.jpg (103KB, 418x663px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 418x663px

>>3217205
>a step pyramid is basically just a huge pile of stones
Next thing you are going to say is that they couldn't built them as tall as the ones at egypt, despite having more volume and materials. Again, not because they couldn't, pyramids were supposed to be more wide than tall for them.

>>3217159
Technically they are built in a different way than Egyptian pyramids, which is a factor.

>>3218092
>Piattabanda

ahahahahaahahahahhaha

File: Cenote under Kukulkan's Temple of Chichen Itza.jpg (347KB, 924x1120px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 924x1120px

>>3218102
>no structures built on an area whose surface is +60% water, non acoustic nor calendrical features
have fun with your copy pasted arches, not even invented by italians

>>3218176
>have fun with your copy pasted arches, not even invented by italians

Come again?

File: copy pasted arches.jpg (61KB, 628x472px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 628x472px

>>3218187

>>3218196
Superior to anything done by native americans

>>3218208
But that's wrong.

>>3217712
They reached America with the same technological level as the rest of the world...
British isles were inhabited even later, and they managed to be somehow successful.

>>3218196
wow a bunch of stacked pillars

>>3217159
>No wheels/carts
>definitely a high tier civilization
Anime_girl_with_a_confused_face_and_an_interrogation_point_above_her_head.jpg

>>3219610
That's wrong, though. They started again as nomad populations, and thousands years later showed some primitive tools. They even lived in caves and showed similar characteristcs as europeans.

>>3219665
>15000 years of offset
Umm...If we coincide the start dates of every civilization... They had all of that technology that even surpassed middle-ages europe in 13500BC...

Nice try, though.

>>3219678
>That's wrong, though. They started again as nomad populations
As everyone at that time.
Sedentarization in Europe (semi sedentarization) began thousands of years AFTER the first arrivals in America. They all started at the same level.
I've read a theory about why America was "retarded" compared to the rest of the world but it deserves its own thread.

>>3219737
Do you have a link to that theory? or...? I'd like to read that.

>>3219737
That's wrong though. The nomadic population density had to start over and the constant acumulation of oral tradition was reset in America. Let's not forget about the environment modification that humans made to nature making it possible for larger populations to grow over time.

As History demonstrates. There is no "miracle" when it comes to progress. Tribes were competing each other the same as europeans in 40000AC, the difference was the offset of 15000 years between the two groups.

This isn't the Civ series, you don't need to check off arbitrary things to be advanced. I think you can be a nuclear nation without ever discovering pottery.

>>3218176
>no structures built on an area whose surface is +60% water
venice

>non acoustic
concert halls

>calendrical features
sundials

All these things are superficial and thus not evidence of superiority. If you look at objective superiority you can see Europeans were light years ahead,capable of far more than native Americans. Euros could have done the same as NatAms if they chose to, NatAms could not do the same as Euros as they lacked the technology.

I am talking about technological superiority not inherent genetic superiority by the way, this is not about which team or race is better, just the fact. Also it is moral to place the truth above ego and you made your mistake anonymously so it shouldn't hurt your ego to do what I am about to tell you.

I will now accept your apology and admission of NatAm technological inferiority in the year 1492.

>>3218176
>acoustic

Greece, 500 bc, well before you sad little retards began stacking those rocks

>>3219823
That's wrong though. Amerindians started the civilization race 15000 years after europeans settled on europe.

File: adios-tierra-del-fuego-le-livre-de-poche-livre-occasion-50022.jpg (33KB, 230x380px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 230x380px

>>3219754
It's in this book. A must read I'd say. The theory concerns the indians of Patagonia, but it could apply to the whole continent, and also the abos, and other ethnicities.
I'd call it "the ultimate losers theory". The reason why people migrated again and again always further is not because they were adventurous or curious, it's because they lost every competition, losers of clan wars, banished etc... Little by little, by selection, the ones who reached the most distant lands were inevitably the worst kind.
(apparently the Pataginians were really shit)

>>3219759
>The nomadic population density had to start over and the constant acumulation of oral tradition was reset in America.

Thoudands of years anon, do you realise what it means? It's more than enough.

>>3219846
Doesn't make sense because Europeans expanded around the world and lost their colonies to their "loser" descendants.

>>3219846
Yep. It was enough, yet europeans didn't develop much until 10000BC. They were 30000 years lurking around.
Meanwhile, amerindians reached NorthCanada in 25000 and didn't move south until 15000BC. Then in 6000BC started showing major progress.

Let's compare:
-European lurking around: 30000 years
-Amerindians lurking around: 9000 years

Umm...isn't it interesting?

>>3219867
Also, the semi-sedentarization was possible due to already morphed land which other past tribes had used. Jungles and woods aren't good spots to settle you know. Another reason why the savage land of America had to be morphed, and Amerindians had to start over again.

It's pretty good considering the Aztec Empire was only what, less than 90 years old when the Spanish destroyed it? That's a lot in a very short amount of time, your grandparents potentially were alive at the founding.

>>3219866
You compare primal migrations to colonisation anon...

>>3219737
>I've read a theory about why America was "retarded" compared to the rest of the world
No Central Asians to give them horses, no Mesopotamians to give them ironworking, no Egyptians to teach them seafaring and religion, no Indians to give them mathematics and astronomy, no Greeks no give them science and their thinking, no Romans to give them engineering and law, no Chinese to give them gunpowder and compass, and a long etc.
You can also see it in the amount of diseases developed in the Old World.

Diseases introduced from the New Wolrd to the Old World:
- A bedbug infection
- Syphilis (disputed)

Diseases introduced from the Old World to the New World:
- Bubonic plague
- Chicken pox
- Cholera
- Diphtheria
- Influenza
- Leprosy
- Malaria
- Measles
- Scarlet fever
- Smallpox
- Typhoid
- Typhus
- Whooping cough
- Yaws
- Yellow fever

>>3219846
>The theory concerns the indians of Patagonia, but it could apply to the whole continent
not the whole continet is equally as productive jesus christ is basic logic

>>3219954
why does it matter? all the ex-colonies have economic and politicial systems that descend from the colonial period. everything pre-colonial only exists on the fringes of society.

>>3219974
In fairness we didn't introduce that shit on purpose outside of that one time in the 19th century. We didn't know we were an army of Typhoid Maries.

>>3219846
>people didn't migrate because of lack of resources and environment/climate change like thousands of archaelogical findings show in europe
>they got btfo by their neighbours and migrate finally to one safe place
Umm...I wonder if that's true. If I remember correctly, there has always been different tribes all over the world, also if we analyze both continents, America and Europe had a lot of tribes to compete with. Also, there are a lot of examples of original cultures who got BTFO by the neighbours who "migrated" further.
Scytians who got BTFO by north-eastern asians, Hitites, literally all the ancient middle-easter civilizations and paleolithic tribes, niggers, Romans... I wonder why do people tend to trivialize and omit the details so they could form holistic garbage...

>>3219988
Nobody is bashing europeans over here, though. But there are some people in denial over these facts...

>>3219988
not blaming you pham

>outside of that one time in the 19th century
the blanket story? wasn't made up?

>>3217159

Having the most advanced Stone Age civilization in history during the Renaissance is like showing up to the Indy 500 in the world's fastest donkey cart.

>>3220050
They had some better technology than middle-ages europe though.

>>3220053
and that renaissance's europe aswell but there will always be something to shit on

>It has also been suggested that the Spanish conquest of Mesoamerica influenced the history of the botanical garden[14] as gardens in Tenochtitlan established by king Nezahualcoyotl,[18] also gardens in Chalco (altépetl) and elsewhere, greatly impressed the Spanish invaders, not only with their appearance, but also because the indigenous Aztecs employed many more medicinal plants than did the classical world of Europe.[19][20] Hernando Cortés reportedly told the Spanish monarch that the Aztec physicians were superior to those in Spain, so superior, in fact, that the king need not bother sending Spanish physicians to the New World. Statement later confirmed in an early letter by the personal physian of the Spanish monarch who spent 7 years studying the Aztec medicine in a research trip that was expected to last 6 months: ‘"I marveled, in this and in innumerable other herbs, which are nameless among us, how in the Indies, where people are so uncultured and barbaric, there are so many herbs, some with known uses and some without, but there is almost none, which is not known to them and given a particular name".

>>3220053
>muh illiterate subhuman shitskins with their twigs and rocks were more advanced than the flower of Evropa

"& Humanities" was a mistake.

>>3220019
Pretty sure we did actually do that, but it was one time.

>>3220076
2500AC venturi effect structure
3000AC seismic resistant structures
1400AC Colosal andean irrigation systems all over the Inca empire
1400AC The biggest hydro-engineered city of the world: Tenochtitlan
Umm...isn't it interesting?

>humanities
So you agree to report all kind of nigger-baiting and shit that violates the 25-year rule, too?
Umm...

>>3219980
>why does it matter?
Being the first to migrate in the area has nothing to do with colonizing an already populated land, dummy, obviously the mechanism can't apply.

>>3219974
>No Central Asians to give them horses, no Mesopotamians to give them ironworking, no Egyptians to teach them seafaring and religion, no Indians to give them mathematics and astronomy, no Greeks no give them science and their thinking, no Romans to give them engineering and law, no Chinese to give them gunpowder and compass, and a long etc.
Every things that happened far AFTER the settlement in America. They could have discover this themselves. But they didn't.
And you really don't realise what thousands of years of adaptation means in regard of diseases. Actually the indians were immune to all of this, proof that it was not an issue.

>not the whole continet is equally as productive jesus christ is basic logic
Migration in Patagonia has nothing to do with productivity, obviously. They simply had no choice.

>>3220108
All wrong, look.>>3220017

>>3220095
>isn't it interesting
Why would it be?
It's all shit that Europe had mastered a thousand years previous.

There's literally NOTHING to learn from these savages.

>>3217342
>mosquitos
>saltwater

>>3220118
All wrong. Venturi effect wasn't discovered till 1700 approximately. Seismic resistant structures exist since the Roman times, maybe some centuries before.
The andean irrigation system is incomparable hehe. Nothing equal to anything on europe regarding agricultural systems. Tenochtitlan is literally Venice improved techonologically several times in middle-ages europe.

Also, europeans had 15000 years more to develop...

Umm...isn't it interesting?

>>3217159
This is the strategy game way of viewing history.
How 'advanced' a civilisation is is not only subjective, but also dependent on many factors. A civilisation doesn't just move in a linear fashion and the Mesoamerican societies show this perfectly.

>>3220017
>I remember correctly, there has always been different tribes all over the world, also if we analyze both continents,
You don't remember correctly, there was no one in every continent before the first arrivants. When people came in America it was empty, same in Australia, and Asia before...
I wonder why people forget the simpliest basic facts...

>>3220135
>montezuma pro baits don't attract replies anymore so you adopt a tumblr typing pattern
pathetic. Melanin Warrior was better than you.

>>3220148
>arrivants
The principle the book seems to postulate is that there was no competition between tribes, after the migration. There has always been pressure between ethnicities. The "human" selection has always happened.

Also don't skip the amount of evidence that contradicts the book, there are a lot of examples of original cultures who got BTFO by the neighbours who "migrated" further.
Scytians who got BTFO by north-eastern asians, Hitites, literally all the ancient middle-easter civilizations and paleolithic tribes, niggers, Romans... I wonder why do people tend to trivialize and omit the details so they could form holistic garbage...

>>3220152
I learnt it from /pol/ years ago desu.

>>3220135
Hey, if you wanna venerate baby slaughtering cannibals as having anything to contribute to human civilization, then be my guest.

You won't see me following anyone down that road.

Don't you think if there was anything worth learning from these "people" maybe they would have stuck around, straightened up, and maybe developed a useful technology?

>>3220189
>venerate baby slaughtering cannibals
3 of those characteristics weren't from Aztec culture.

>worth
I think I'll need some examples...let's wait till europeans get wiped out from the earth's surface by mongrels and muslims. Then I could judge with at least similar circumstances from different ethnic groups...

>sacrifice
So you agree middle-eastern and europe from the calcolithic and the early bronze age should have been genocided leaving there only the """"pacific"""" tribes? hehe

>>3220167
>The principle the book seems to postulate is that there was no competition between tribes, after the migration.
No. The principle is that , in the example of America, people arrived by the north and those who migrated all the way to the south were the losers of the competition, or else they would have remained where they were. Those who settled in Patagonia had literally zero interest to be there, it's highly hostile, it tends to prove that they had no choice. By extension we can assume that the same principle applies to those who migrated from Siberia to Alaska: if they had the choice they wouldn't have done that.

>>3220217
>No. The principle is that , in the example of America, people arrived by the north and those who migrated all the way to the south were the losers of the competition, or else they would have remained where they were.
And that gets refuted by the numerous examples such as: Scytians who got BTFO by north-eastern asians, Hitites, literally all the ancient middle-easter civilizations and paleolithic tribes, niggers, Romans... I wonder why do people tend to trivialize and omit the details so they could form holistic garbage...

>Those who settled in Patagonia had literally zero interest to be there, it's highly hostile, it tends to prove that they had no choice. By extension we can assume that the same principle applies to those who migrated from Siberia to Alaska: if they had the choice they wouldn't have done that.
That would imply an immediate "lost" war, but as the constant contact with hostile neighbour tribes kept putting pressure on their "human" selection, the process of development shouldn't have been stopped unless they had no need to stop being nomads.

>>3220232
>And that gets refuted by the numerous examples such as...
BUT THERE WAS NOBODY IN FUCKING AMERICA!

>>3220249
After the migration the whole land got populated. There were tribes everywhere to put pressure on the "human" selection.
Unless you imply that it only counts when they migrated first, however the examples prove that those tribes who migrated further at the beginning BTFO the original tribes many times as I quoted.

>>3220076
They were. Their agriculture is proof of that. Compile a list of domesticated european plants pre 1500s to pre 1500s america. Also the fact that precolumbian crops yielded more and were more efficient than colonial and even contemporary ones now is proof of it.

>>3220076
>Evropa
Le_based_god_emperor_shadilay_kek_fasheave.jpg

>>3220262
>Unless you imply that it only counts when they migrated first,
OF FUCKING COURSE!!! THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!!!!

>>3220300
...But that gets refuted by these examples over here.>>3220167
If you want examples from America:
-Patagonian tribes BTFO Inca campaign which makes them stop till Santiago
-Incas BTFO Chancas
-Moche invaded northern tribes
-Chimu invaded the area of the Moche
-Southern tribes had been a dangerous treat for centuries to the north of South-America. Tiwanaku seems to have invaded from Bolivia to Ecuador
I don't know about mesoamerica though.

File: Screenshot_20170730-235806~2.png (1MB, 1080x721px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x721px

Edzna archaeological site

>>3220290
>>3220275
For the life of me I will never understand pseuds like this who get themselves off on slapping their heritage in the face. It's disgusting and cringey.

>>3220337
Buddy, those are facts...Calm down...

>>3220345
What's factual about >>3220290 ? It's just a desperate attempt to spew memes and discredit things that hurt his widdle feelies.

>>3220275
Neat citation, friend.

>>3220351
>muh illiterate subhuman shitskins with their twigs and rocks were more advanced than the flower of Evropa
>just a desperate attempt to spew memes and discredit things that hurt his widdle feelies.

Accurate description. hehe

>>3217159

I didnt read any post in this thread. But the answer is that humans can be treated like cattle if there are no other options.

>>3220337
Haha what a shtory mark.

The Mayas went the civilization route and decided that wasn't for them. How gangsta is that?

>>3220324
>But that gets refuted by these examples
In what language do you want me to write it?
>it only counts when they migrated first
What happened after does not fall under the theory you fucking autist, don't act as if you misread my posts.

>>3220367
Incas were superior to europeans though.

>>3220431
>Little by little, by selection, the ones who reached the most distant lands were inevitably the worst kind.
That's the conclusion, right? False.
>>3220324
>>3220167
All the examples which disproves your conclusion.

The guy postulates that the worse tribe loses and migrates, that's actually debatable knowing the great example of the bronze age collapse. If we imply that he is right, that the worse tribes migrate, the examples I posted contradict the hypothesis.

>>3220465
>All the examples which disproves your conclusion.
These examples happened when the land was already occupied, these were territorial conflicts. The Alakalufs ended in Patagonia because there was no one there. By extension we can assume that those who crossed the Bering strait followed the same fate.

>>3220563
The judgement you made refers to a moment after such occupation:
>Little by little, by selection, the ones who reached the most distant lands were inevitably the worst kind.
Do you still support your conclusion?

>>3220587
Yes? What confuses you?
You're banned from your clan, you go further where no one lives, you meet other banned, found another clan, in which some losers are banned, who go further where no one lives, etc... Little by little, by selection, the further you go the more the people are the heirs of the inadapted, the losers.

File: Machu_Picchu.jpg (466KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1600x1200px

>>3220351
>Neat citation, friend.

Not him, but where do you think potatoes, corn, beans, pumpkin and tomatoes come from?

Also show me one european culture that managed to build a city at a 2400m mountaintop, terrace it and grow food there.

>>3217189
Human slave labour could easily be used as a substitute for horse labour.

Before cows were tamed they were aurochs, as wild and beastly as any buffalo.
So why were buffalos not tamed for beasts of labour?

>>3218338
Prove it

>>3220644
Because the migration happened while they still had influence between their neighbours. The banned clans weren't isolated.
>Little by little, by selection, the further you go the more the people are the heirs of the inadapted, the losers.
This claim imply that the losers were untouched literally and didn't a change or an influence which isn't true because the raids between clans were usual knowing that they were nomads. The areas they rotated changed over time (deglaciation, Niño, climate change, decades of cold, Species depopulation, etc).

>>3220717
are they fuccing?

if migrants are the losers why did aztec migrants take over central mexico and build an empire?

>>3220725
Horse domestication:
Europeans settled on europea since 40000BC.
Horses were domesticated near 3000BC approximately.
37000 years of constant horse population morphing.
Amerindians reached America and populated it in 15000BC approximately. In 1500AC they met the Spaniards. 16500 years of constant camelid population morphing. They domesticated several species. The lama could bear till 50 Kg at the time.

>human slave labour
The wheel was already invented. How would someone carry an additional weight over lakes, mountains and narrow bridges?
The wheel wasn't used widely until the horse was domesticated.

>Buffalos
I don't know about North-American cultures. Why only some tribes of the Anatolian zone managed to domesticate the horse?

>>3220717
>tfw no qt lama to fuck in glorious ruins
Terraced crops existed of course in the Alps, and Machu Picchu was just a whim, no one really has lived here for long.

File: La_Rinconada_Peru.jpg (69KB, 693x678px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 693x678px

>>3220783
Oh yeah they lived there. Just check the highest permanent settlement in the world. At 5100m, superior to the Mont Blanc hehehe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Rinconada,_Peru

>>3220217
So no tribe ever travelled in hope of greener pastures?

The belief that things can be better over the next hill, in the next valley, across the next river is an innate human characteristic that is partly why we dominate the earth and not any other homo species.
Neanderthals were stronger and thought to be more intelligent, but when the mammoths migratory paths changed the homo sapiens would move on, whilst the the Neanderthal would stay.

To say tribes only ever migrated because they lost their land to a neighbouring tribe is absolutists nonsense.

>>3220751
>This claim imply that the losers were untouched
You have to remember that these land were uninhabited, Once you leave an area because you lost a conflict, you are the first man on the territories you reached. You have no contact with anyone because precisely you fled the ones behind you and there's no one ahead of you. You're at the edge of mankind, a low grade pioneer, your chances to acquire knowledge are the lowest of the scale. A century passes, and your grand grand son, offspring of a loser makes mistakes and becomes a loser himself and is banned. He flees and repeat the cycle. At the end of the trip, those who settle in the last land are very probably the lowest scum ever.

>>3220861
And all that story omits the circumstances such as I mentioned.>>3220751
You even imply that the clan who migrated first is the one who had to migrate further again. That's wrong. As you said, there were pioneers, then there were neighbour clans. The neighbour clans weren't from the clan who lost (pioneer).

Implying all the right circumstances (literally fiction) and your claim that the clan who lost the war was inferior (not proven), so the hypothesis remains at least possible, the last clan who migrated further would literally get extinct'd immediately by neighbour tribes.

It's pretty much fiction.

>>3220891
>You even imply that the clan who migrated first is the one who had to migrate further again.
wtf? Not at all. The theory implies small groups one after the other over millenaries... Do you even into chronology?

>>3220937
The small groups which discovered the land hadn't have to be the loser ones. The supposed loser ones who discovered new lands wouldn't have to be related to the clans which discovered newer lands, nor with their later neighbours. The immediate neighbours didn't have to be loser ones. The "increment" of the "loser" lineage, is fiction because it implies that the population of the most further away lands had "loser" ancestors, or even more ridiculous, had a lineage of losers.

It's a circumstancial situation, that implies so many certain situations, which are unproven and there are facts that propose the opposite, that it can be called fiction.

>>3218196

>extremely complex system of elevators and trapdoors and maze-like dungeon beneath the arena to spawn new fighters and beasts anywhere at any time
>ergonomic design that conducts the flow of crowds with efficiency up to modern standards, outstanding evacuation speed
>can be turned into a literal indoor sea for naval combat

nothing like it.

>>3220991
We're talking about pre civilization times (by far). There's no reason to think that humans moved other than under necessity.
>>3220849
>So no tribe ever travelled in hope of greener pastures?
Nomads always travel according to a seasonal plan, like wildebeests or geese.

All in all we can't know, but given the state of mankind nowadays I'm prone to think that only 1% of the population was curious (like the nobel prices of that time) and they were certainly not the leaders of their clan.
Think about all other species, look how they behave and conquer territories, it's always the losers who are rejected to the edges and need to adapt.

>>3221071
>pre-civilization times
So, another premise? All superior-paleolithic cultures are able to organize themselves with a few exceptions at this point. The nomadic movement was spread all over the world, and the cycle interactions between tribes was constant. The migration to Americas happened just 25000 years ago, even then they stayed in Canada until the deglaciation increased then completely populating the continent 10000 years later. The process of cultural development was already happening in europe, yet it started again in America.

>>3220773
because the autist spewing that shit doesn't actually know shit about history

>>3220725
Pure bred buffalo are impossible to tame, even white ranches won't try it.

PROTIP: The ones you see in the ranches are cattle hybrids.

>>3222269
He is an apegentinian probably. He reports everything that burns his ass, even though it follows the rules.

>>3222284
>>3220725

The key to domestication is that the animal must have some kind of social hierarchy that humans can supplant. The reason you can domesticate horses but not zebras is that horses run in small-ish herds with strict internal hierarchies, while zebras congregate in vast herds with no "chain of command" or overall leader. Aurochs were social animals living in small packs, buffaloes are asocial animals who congregate in vast herds.