Veeky Forums...

People moved around by canoe along the coasts too. It was actually the preferred form of travel in long distances. Maya jade is found in the Caribbean, Tarascans may have cone from south america, huastec gulf coast shell ornaments resemble those of spiro oaklahoma, and theres been suggested links between the huave and Colombians. Theres even suggestions of Nahua colonies in Panama.

Why are North American Indians taller than Mexican and South American indians?

>In fact, you don't even build any roads

But that's wrong.

(not either of you)
They built roads, but there weren't long roads between civilisations. Like, there were inter-aztec roads, but not roads that went up to Pueblo or down to Inca. Those projects were beyond the state of its day.

Inca roads were pretty big if one considers the size of their empire. There were definitely roads too that connected civilizations.

Tbh I was thinking of the Central Americans when I wrote that. I hadn't even considered that.

Nonetheless, Inca was huge. They absorbed every organised administration around them despite their use of just footmen on roads. They had no horse.

>There were definitely roads too that connected civilizations.
Which ones?

Alaska fag here, I think it was back in the early 2000s some of the Tlingit elders were talking about trade down to southern California, but were quick to stress it was nothing more than a few canoes that would be gone for years at a time. Any contact was minimal at best and I haven't been able to find a non-oral source

>tfw pops is from Ecuador, he was 5'4" and I am too
>tfw my mom is Cuban so my dick is above average at least

Weird post

People from Spanish Speaking countries are hung

It's not always true. The western natives were small like the Navajo. Desert people gotta be small. The Woodland environment of the northeast and deep south provided lots of space, lots of ways to cool off, lots of food, and tons of natural resources. Being bigger had basically no disadvantages. That said, could just be a quirk of genetics like how germanics are bigger than most other indo-europeans.

Depends which one.

Since most North American tribes were quasi-incestuous, there was/is radical variation, even between tribes. The Pima, for example, look like fucking Samoans.

This. 5'10" Venezuelan packing 8.5 inches here. Only date Asians too so the difference is magnified.

As a man who's spent more time than regular investigating average penis size, that's not true.

You know what strikes me about this? I helped excavate and study the Windover site in florida, and did my graduate thesis on the remains found. There is striking sexual dimorphism. The average male height is something like 6'1" in 5000 BC, and the average female height is 5'3". I'm personally of the opinion that in a hunter-gatherer society that has more food than it could eat (these natives had an abundance of game, shoreline fish, shellfish, and wild plants to eat) men will get bigger. Like you said, if there is no disadvantage they will get bigger. This also has the side effect of women getting wider hips to be able to give birth to the bigger baby boys, so they shoot down in height.

Yep, this is true. Mayans are really tiny, but Nahua are freaking huge, in today's populations at least.

quick random question what is the argument against having post IDs on boards like Veeky Forums?

I wanna know why there are no uncontacted tribes in Canada but there are in SA

Rainforest is thick and hard to manuever in if you don't know the land.

None. It astounds me that a board like /pol/ get's IDs but Veeky Forums doesn't.

>High level discourse

Because the Amazon.
and because Canada is largely uninhabitable

It would completely kill the false-flag shitposting market.

I don't think there's much of one.

I think it's because people on /pol/ are bm and would go out of their way to troll and pretend to be other people. I'd like IDs on Veeky Forums, but it's not really a problem for us either.

Tfw there are no forest niggers living like tolkien elves/rangers up North.

>>contact between mesoamerican and northamerican native cultures
>There might have been.

There absolutely was.

Goods can make their way through a series of intermediary traders. There was a Viking burial chamber in Sweden that had a statue of Buddha in it ca 900 or so. There is no way the Norse interacted with North Indians, so it probably got traded around a lot. I say might have because this may have been how the mesoamerican artifacts made their way to northern cultures. Remember, their boatbuilding was pretty primitive.

It's pretty dependent on the country desu.

N.American Woodland Indians were working copper as far as 3000 B.C. but you can’t get pic related thru intermediary traders.

Clearly there was continued contact between N.American Woodland Indians and Mesoamerican Indians.

There was. Mexica figurines have been found pretty far up the Mississippi.

Valley of the Headless Men.

I know there is a pepe of this

Because of their environment. It's one of the reasons elephants and other large mammals are found in steppes and savannas instead of jungles.

What are you on? Aztecs and other related peoples were literally from north america.

Are you dumb? The mayans had a very complex road system through their kingdom.

It might not seem as big as other deserts, but it must be hard to travel through it on foot.

...

post IDs would be good on Veeky Forums

Flags on the other hand would not.

Is this a Mesoamerican god?

t.leaf

Hey OP check out Chapter One "Follow The Corn" from An Indigenous Peoples' History Of The United States for some insight into this topic

Mayans were regularly 6'0 before the Spanish, but encomiendas turned their diet to shit so they just continued to shrink.

Do Tula = Chichimecs?

No, they *do* claim descent from them but they are genetically unrelated, based on recent population samples. That's just them wanting to be associated with a fierce warrior people.

>Aussie spotted

Can anyone confirm this?

Many major cities also received the Tula title, so, which one was considered in the samples? The lost-Tula that founded the lineage of Culhua from which the Aztec royalty claimed heritage?

I don't think they based their research on where was considered to be tula, only on where verifiably chichimec people lived.

Whole of Aridoamerica? Is there a link?

>They didn't have domesticable animals,
O really?

>they didn't use the wheel
'They' ('The American world' is pretty fucking vague) didn't use it for transport, but instead for mills and astronomical calendars.

>no uncontacted tribes
bullshit. Most so-called 'uncontacted tribes' have had more than enough contact for their liking, that's why they move away. Hunter-gatherer societies have very loose 'societies' to begin with. Imagine your dad's brother is tired of being second fiddle, and gets several women and a few other betas to run off with him 20 miles east and across the river. 100 years pass, there's the occasional hello or stick fight with the original relatives and suddenly it's an 'uncontacted tribe'

They are almost never totally unique language isolates, but splinter groups from other known tribes.

I was told that was the case when I went to Guatemala, but I may have been fed misinfo.

WE WUZ GIANTS N SHEEEEITTT

Diego de Landa the Spanish friar remarked that the people of the Yucatán in his relación written in the late 16th century, were very tall and robust. He theorized that the people grew tall because they were breastfed until late in age due to not having animal milk to feed on. So the people grew large. He also mentioned 3 times throughout the same document that the Maya women in the Yucatán had large breast.

Most European women at the time would have been quite flat due to poorer nutrition and little protein

amazon rainforest is much bigger and more dense than the canadian ones

But there was!!

The Aztecs and other central Mexican peoples had direct contact with their neighbors to every direction. North of them lived the Chichimecs (or "dog people") who were nomadic hunter-gatherers. Their relationship with the Aztecs was not unlike the Germanic tribespeople and the Romans. Chichimecs, despite lacking cities, were seen as proud warriors who the Aztecs actually claimed descent from, and their large warrior population made them great auxiliaries.

Further north, the Aztecs were linguistically related to many peoples of the American Southwest, and there were direct trade networks between Puebloan cities and Mexican cities.

To the South, the Aztecs and other Nahua peoples interacted frequently with the Maya states, frequently subjugating them as vassals and demanding gold or slaves as tribute. There's some evidence that Maya craftsmen were employed or enslaved in Nahua cities.

To the east, it becomes increasingly clear that Mesoamerican peoples (both Central Mexican and Mayan) had extensive contact with Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Jamaica. The Taino peoples, traditionally assumed to be mostly nomadic, actually had permanent towns with Maya-style ball courts and paved pavilions. But because their homes were built of wood, ruins don't remain.

In addition, there's some slight evidence that indirect networks from Mexico all the way up to the Great Lakes gave the Mississippian people and potentially Northeastern societies some knowledge of the great kingdoms to the South.

Diet and lifestyle. The genetics are so similar that it really can't be anything else.

On a similar note, second-generation Mexicans are almost invariably taller than their parents.

The Dutch, who are the tallest human beings after Central-East Africans, were once stereotyped as diminuitive

Actually the Canadian boreal forest is larger than the Amazon.

>Mayans are really tiny, but Nahua are freaking huge, in today's populations at least.

You're so right, it's really odd. Is there a dietary difference between their cultures?

My guess is that because the Nahua people are much more Spanish-influenced, they eat more wheat rather than just corn. But I could be wrong!

recommend me some good history books on prehispanic america Veeky Forums, mayan, aztec, incaic, everything goes.

Im learning spanish so untranslated works wont be a problem

How north are we talking, here? In Arizona, some of the settlements had ball courts.

damn that's a good idea

The Amazon jungle is incredibly thick, and more densely-populated than Canada.

But "uncontacted" is basically a meme. Usually what happens is that a region becomes depopulated due to disease or modern deforestation, but certain people in more isolated pockets remain. These people would have previously had contact with the outside world through more incorporated indigenous people, but lose this contact when these intermediate peoples move to cities or die off.

No, dude, it's a statue.

>tfw when meeting Mexican ex-girlfriends' grandparents first time they came north.
Holy shit, they were almost literally midgets but not. I'd say the grandpa was something around 4'10'' (girlfriend was 5'3'' and she stood a good half-head taller than him), and the grandmother was a few inches shorter. I guess their age didn't help appearances, but I remember being astonished that people could be so small and not have a genetic flaw.

1491 and 1493, Charles Mann. Almost don't want to recommend him lest he became meme fodder for /pol/ trolls.

There was
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uto-Aztecan_languages#
Is entirely likely that Aztecs had their origin somewhere up northwards.

Of who?

it is know that Aztecs were originally (just a few hundred years before their first role as local hegemons) hunter-gatherers. This is what their own legends say, and what archeology seems to support. Probably they were from just immediately north, though.

It was the location (water, valley) that granted power. The region around Tenochtitlan had variously competing/allied city-states for centuries. Usually some environmental collapse occurred and the most powerful city-state imploded or was weakened and ripe for attack. The numbers of people may have shrunk, but they never really disappeared. The Aztecs were simply the ones in power when the Spanish showed-up.

Judging by the distribution of their tongue kindred, I imagine that they'd have their urheimat farther northwards. It still shocks me that the Comanche are a related ethnicity.

Doesn't mean the Comanche were always there either, though. They then likely moved north, too. In fact, the whole North American native-language distribution maps are a Balkan-style shuffled up checker-board (except in the extreme north of the Arctic/Sub-Arctic). Colonialism had something to do with that, but tribes did migrate around before whitey showed up. If a tribe split, then founder and settler groups could also shuffle around.

Based on the map, one might make a reasonable guess of somewhere in Sonora or Chihuahua as a linguistic 'heimatland'.

They also periodically pushed one another off of the best areas.

A bit off topic, but has anyone read this series?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_North_Americans

thoughts?

living through the pleasure that you give to a few women

yep, people from Spanish Speaking countries are truly plebs.

This isn't true about the Aztecs at all. They were a small tribe, indigenous to the geographic locality, and other, neighboring tribes didn't like them, because every time they made some agreement, the Aztecs would find a reason to break it based on some spiritual dilemma or vision. Then the Aztecs would come around capturing people, and the ones they didn't eat would be ritually sacrificed.

Surrounding tribes actually allied against the Aztecs and pushed the Aztec "home domain" far into a swamp-infested terrain no one else really wanted. The Aztecs adapted quickly to their new home and over a few short generations were masters of swampland agrarianism, producing enough (non-human) food to support a healthy, strong population. The Aztecs then came out of the "corner" into which they'd been pushed and proceeded to wtf pwn everything nearby.

this was always the funniest part of the Aztec.
>Thank you for considering our alliance and giving your daughter to our chief in marriage.
>NP. Where she btw?
>Oh here come the happy couple now :DDD
>Some guy wearing your daughter's skin dancing around the fire.

>They were a small tribe, indigenous to the geographic locality, and other, neighboring tribes didn't like them, because every time they made some agreement, the Aztecs would find a reason to break it based on some spiritual dilemma or vision.
You are talking about the Mexica, which were the last tribe to migrate. Many other city states also shared an Aztec origin, for example the Tlaxcalans who were famous enemies of the Mexica. The king of Azcapotzalco who lost a daughter to the Mexica was ruler of the Tepanecs, who also had an Aztec origin.

>Then the Aztecs would come around capturing people, and the ones they didn't eat would be ritually sacrificed.
According to Sahagún (Historia General, 2nd book, chapter 2) the captives were sacrificed and then eaten. In the chapter 21 he mentions that the warrior who captured the enemy didn't eat the flesh, because since the moment of the capture that was considered his own flesh, instead, he shared it with his superiors, friends and relatives.

I just don't feel some of the Aztec cultural myths are entirely accurate, a little like understanding Torah in a literal fashion (Not to take away from it at all, I really feel there's 100% truth in a round-about way, but incomplete) mostly because of archaeological evidence of the primary structures in those cities (which were built and abandoned long before those people to whom you refer started to occupy the area) but also because some of it just doesn't make sense. The implication some (or any) groups migrated "from the north" as hunter-gatherers is a bit bleak, unless they were subsisting off chupacabra and tarantulas. (trippy cactus ftw), but most importantly no one around there had any cultural history to tell about some group of nomads who would wander about and eat/sacrifice people. It's not how the southwestern american natives were and this would, I think, have been a significant aspect of their own cultural development, pre-aztec era, enough to be noteworthy.

I think there was a sizeable empire, I think drought or some other natural event (could have even been spiritual) caused the population to scatter to surrounding areas, I believe it's true some returned to the lakes sooner than others, but I don't believe the "Mexica" were as disparate from the rest of these people the way the legend implies. I think they were many tribes in a loose confederacy against outside threats, and this group which would eventually culturally and militarily dominate the region were as I depicted above.

inb4 calling me Mormon. Please don't, I don't believe those stories, either.

Tell me about Tlaloc, why does he wear the mask?

>why was there no contact between mesoamerican and northamerican native cultures even given their proximity?

But there was contact, Iroquois people adopted some aspects of mesoamerican religion like ritual human sacrifice and cannibalism for example.

Also Aztecs or Mexicas were one of the several native immigrant cultures from North America that moved to central Mexico and that were collectively called "Chichimecas" by the Spaniards.

I don't know that Tlaloc was a "he" rather than a "they". I know the tribes in the Yucatan had a similarly named deified being. People speculate the reason for the odd appearance of these, but I don't know anyone really has the answer.

>Also Aztecs or Mexicas were one of the several native immigrant cultures from North America that moved to central Mexico and that were collectively called "Chichimecas" by the Spaniards

yeh, see, this kind of statement doesn't make sense to me at all. The Spaniards weren't around in the 13th century to collectively call anyone anything and the locality of Mexico City is in North America. I know it's what you'd read in an encyclopedia, but it's a bit revisionist.

Unlike the largest civilizations like Maya, Aztec and Inca whose some conquistadors showed admiration because of their architecture, arts and technical achievements (an Spaniard colonist which name I don't remember right now said the Inca Empire was equal to the Roman Empire), Spaniards considered hunter-nomads the worst kind of people they ever witnessed, they were un-godly savages that deserved to be put down and they didn't even imagined they were different peoples with unique languages or cultures so they just put them all in the same "chimicheca" category.

Well, it's probably good they didn't have the full understanding that those huge temples around which the Aztecs dwelt weren't built by them, but they later occupied.

The Inca, though, yeh... damn, they had some amazing architecture all over the tops of mountains.

Someone needs to make a version of the Jew meme with an Aztec murdering people and saying "Why do they persecute us so?"

FFS they thought it would only rain if they tortured and killed screaming and terrified crying children

>those huge temples around which the Aztecs dwelt weren't built by them
??

Citation needed on that Iroquois part

there actually was contact between Meso-America and Oasis-America(region where the Pueblo come from)

>The Spaniards weren't around in the 13th century to collectively call anyone anything
No, but they were around in the 16th century when they adopted the exonym with which the Aztecs referred to the tribes in Aridoamerica.

Sauce is this book, it may be biased because it was written by Mexican historians but they are schoolars from Latin America's best college, UNAM, don't know if there is an English translation yet