Amerindian development

Your butthurt doesn't change the fact that they got obliterated by superior European technology. Their 'superior developmenet' didn't even reach close to what Europeans had.

>Had a higher development rate
>90% of the continent was still in a hunter-gatherer State

Armerindians superiority right there

>I hear people say constantly Amerindians had a higher rate of development than Europeans.
It's just one fucking guy. Literally one guy who won't stop posting that. He's trying to make it into a sort of a meme and I guess he's actually succeeding.

It's not that it's wrong, exactly, it's just an unfalsifiable, borderline-meaningless statement.

I give them an 8 in agriculture, 10 in building and 9 in textiles. They didn´t care much for metallurgy and warfare in general.
Also they knew a good deal about drugs

See, if you weren't an Euranguatan subhuman, you'd realize that it's perfectly valid to point to a single bronze artifact somewhere as being indicative that theentire double continents of the New World was in the bronze age, but not hold the same standards for the Old World unless and until something is widespread.

Now brb, I need to sacrifice some people or the sun won't rise tomorrow. I know you won't understand this with your primitive Eurangutan brain.

They got obliterated by diseases, mongrel. Most South-American battles were won by imperial Incas.

its those stories about how they've been here for 10,000 years. Then they show some peice of garbage as proof of the story. Imagine falling for this shit.

Quite like giving chimps guns, against a child genius that lived in 1000AC. One's blood will achieve more than the other in pretty much less time. That's what civilization potential is refering to, chimpie.

>The fact that Amerindians used bronze is just unfalsifiable.
Of course, because it has been demonstrated already.

they really sucked at warfare to be honest
do you know that Spain lost more men conquering the wild hunter niggas in the southern cone than against civilized quechuas?

You’re an idiot.

Amerindians achieved every developmental milestone thousands of years after Europeans.

>most battles were won by imperial Incas
>actually not
Keep denying consensus.
?
There were a lot of hunter-gatherer tribes in the european and bronze age chalcolithic.
America's craddles of civilization were in the early bronze-age. Even the use of bronze in South-America (which started in 1000AD), spread all over the Inca empire from Colombia to Chile. I'll check it up how did bronze spread all over MENA and europe from 3800BC to 3200BC, and how did the technology spread in just 500 years compared to Amerindians.

As I said before. Amerindians achieved what europeans achieved until 3000BC in less time compared to europeans. Even some technology was superior to middle-ages europe.

The monkey-Human comparison is the most intuitive comparison. Try again.

Amerindians achieved every developmental milestone thousands of years after Europeans.

Amerindians never advanced past the Bronze Age, which they never properly reached in the first place, and was only limited to certain regions.

As I mentioned before Amerindians achieved what europeans achieved until 3000BC in less time compared to europeans. Even some technology was superior to middle-ages europe.
And, as before, the monkey-human comparison is the most intuitive comparison which leads to the same conclusion as Amerindian superiority. Who is superior? A chimp with a gun or a child genius? The conclusion is Amerindians are superior to europeans.

>never advance past the bronze age
The same as europe in 3200BC.
>properly reached
Compared to whom/what year?
>limited to certain regions
Compared to whom/what year?

Amerindians achieved every developmental milestone thousands of years after Europeans.

Amerindians never advanced past the Bronze Age, which they never properly reached in the first place, and was only limited to certain regions.

>achieved
As I mentioned before Amerindians achieved what europeans achieved until 3000BC in less time compared to europeans. Even some technology was superior to middle-ages europe.
And, as before, the monkey-human comparison is the most intuitive comparison which leads to the same conclusion as Amerindian superiority. Who is superior? A chimp with a gun or a child genius? The conclusion is Amerindians are superior to europeans. Try again.

>never advanced
>never advance past the bronze age
The same as europe in 3200BC.
>properly reached
Compared to whom/what year?
>limited to certain regions
Compared to whom/what year?

Keep trying.

I won't be posting this again.

Amerindians achieved every developmental milestone thousands of years after Europeans.

Amerindians never advanced past the Bronze Age, which they never properly reached in the first place, and was only limited to certain regions.

Amerindians achieved every developmental milestone thousands of years after Europeans.

Amerindians never advanced past the Bronze Age, which they never properly reached in the first place, and was only limited to certain regions.

the earth is 3000 years old savage.

Amerindians achieved every developmental milestone thousands of years after Europeans.

Amerindians never advanced past the Bronze Age, which they never properly reached in the first place, and was only limited to certain regions.

>achieved
As I mentioned before Amerindians achieved what europeans achieved until 3000BC in less time compared to europeans. Even some technology was superior to middle-ages europe.
And, as before, the monkey-human comparison is the most intuitive comparison which leads to the same conclusion as Amerindian superiority. Who is superior? A chimp with a gun or a child genius? The conclusion is Amerindians are superior to europeans. Try again.

>never advanced
>never advance past the bronze age
The same as europe in 3200BC.
>properly reached
Compared to whom/what year?
>limited to certain regions
Compared to whom/what year?

Keep trying.

This will never change. Go on.
How does this refute Amerindian superirity, chimpo?

Amerindians achieved every developmental milestone thousands of years after Europeans.

Amerindians never advanced past the Bronze Age, which they never properly reached in the first place, and was only limited to certain regions.

First European copper artifacts= roughly 7,500 years old.
Time from first copper artifacts to first iron artifacts= about 4,000 years.

First Amerindian copper artifacts= Roughly 7,000 years old.
Which is why we expect to find ironworking in the Americas by about 1,000 B.C. Instead, we find it..... oh that's right, NEVER.

Imagine being unable to refute two short lines of text lmao

They didn't reach reading comprehension yet, despite that better developement.

>eurangutans:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to solutrean:10000 years (30000BC-20000BC)
>from aurignacian-antelian to neolithic: 15000 years(30000BC-15000BC)
>from neolithic proto-agriculture societies to neolithic revolution: 6000 years (15000BC-9000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze: 4000 years (9000BC-5000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to bronze age and tin bronze: 5200 years (9000BC-3800BC)

>Amerindians:
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to clovis: 4000 years (15000BC-11000BC)
>from aurignacian proto-gravettian to the start of crop development: 7000 years (15000BC-8000BC)
>from neolithic proto-agriculture societies to neolithic revolution: 5000 years (8000BC-3000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to copper and arsenical bronze independently: 2000 years (3000BC-1000BC)
>from neolithic revolution to bronze age and tin bronze: 4000 years (3000BC-1000 AD)
Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, Amerindians had more civilization potential than europeans. Amerindians are superior to europeans. Deal with it.
A culture who didn't spread copper culture through all America won't affect the other cultures. North-America had a better headstart compared to the rest Amerindians, yet the outburst floods and inestable crop zones fucked them up retarding their neolithic phase for 1000 years

>achieved
As I mentioned before Amerindians achieved what europeans achieved until 3000BC in less time compared to europeans. Even some technology was superior to middle-ages europe.
And, as before, the monkey-human comparison is the most intuitive comparison which leads to the same conclusion as Amerindian superiority. Who is superior? A chimp with a gun or a child genius? The conclusion is Amerindians are superior to europeans. Try again

>never advance past the bronze age
The same as europe in 3200BC
>properly reached
Compared to whom/what year?
>limited to certain regions
Compared to whom/what year?

Well of course not, they never indigenously developed an alphabet.

Amerindians achieved every developmental milestone thousands of years after Europeans.

Amerindians never advanced past the Bronze Age, which they never properly reached in the first place, and was only limited to certain regions.

So you agree with Amerindian superiority? Great for you.

Amerindians achieved every developmental milestone thousands of years after Europeans.

Amerindians never advanced past the Bronze Age, which they never properly reached in the first place, and was only limited to certain regions.

Can you try actually refuting my point instead of bringing up irrelevant shit? Or is that too hard for your mighty intellect?

Also, your dating is ridiculously wrong, because you are again cherrypicking for the Americans, most of whom never actually got to crop development.

>having to resort to a stale pasta that has been disproved countless times
>doesn't take into account that Amerindians never made it past the Bronze Age which they never fully developed anyway
>oh yeah and literally says it right there that Europeans were thousands of years ahead of Amerindians at every instance
ppfpfffffAHAHHAHAHAA

>developed alphabet
Compared to whom/what year?
And this is the last answer for the monkey spammer. See>cherrypicking
>archeological dates consensus
Wrong.
>most
Wrong again. Most populations were already agrarian or semi-agrarian. The same as there were hunter gatherers in asia and eastern europe in the early bronze age, and I'm not comparing them with chalcolithic eurasia.
>refuting my point
The point was the spread of technology which didn't happen. The exceptions of development continuity are copper use in Canada and South-America, venturi principle discovery and seismic resistant structures, which can be explained by huge environmental and geological differences, alongside diet and lifestyle.

Yet the holistic continuity of social, civic, and technological development follows a consequential necessity of changes. And this isn't implying dialectic materialism validity.
>General relativity fact texts are pastas
>doesn't take into account
Amerindians reached the early bronze age in less time than europeans.
>ahead of
Actually Amerindians were relatively ahead of europeans at every instance. How is this even a question?

Amerindians achieved every developmental milestone thousands of years after Europeans.

Amerindians never advanced past the Bronze Age, which they never properly reached in the first place, and was only limited to certain regions

european bronze age starts in 3200BC

I put the frame of reference in 3800BC as the technology from the ME for 500 years was traded with european neolithic inhabitants. In other words, 500 years of bronze age technology was directly put into early european bronze age.

Yes, cherrypicking. Show me a bronze tool or evidence of agriculture where the Clovis tools were located. Or anywhere in what's now Brazil, or Alaska.

>Wrong again. Most populations were already agrarian or semi-agrarian.
And yet there is no evidence of this, not by the dates you're giving. Where is the evidence for crop development all over the Americas by 8,000 B.C.?

>The point was the spread of technology which didn't happen.
No, that was not the point. Try again, this time, with your reading glasses on. The point was that you are being incredibly dishonest by ceasing use of your little milestone yardstick the second it becomes inconvenient for you, as well as treating "THE AMERICAS" as one large developmental bloc, but not doing the same for the old world.

>The exceptions of development continuity are copper use in Canada and South-America, venturi principle discovery and seismic resistant structures, which can be explained by huge environmental and geological differences, alongside diet and lifestyle.
Funny how you won't use those for lithic stuff. The ice age certainly didn't have any sort of evening of things, or any impact on European development, would it?

>Yet the holistic continuity of social, civic, and technological development follows a consequential necessity of changes.
Not in the Americas they don't. If we're going outside the realm of pure craftsmanship, they fall even further behind the rest of the world, who had concepts like "Professional Militaries", "Alphabets", "Theology", "Political science","Coinage" , "Post-arithmetic mathematics", etc. that the Amerindians you fellate never thought of.

>cherrypicking
How is this cherrypicking? Europe in the bronze age had hunter gatherers too, and America was in the chalcolithic/early bronze age. And as the bronze age occurred, the bronze age usage didn't spread to the rest of europe until hundreds of years later. American bronze age (tin) started in 1000AD as the generalized use of tin bronze by the andeans spread in 500 years all over the Inca empire from Colombia to Maule River in Chile.
>no evidence of this
The consensus put the majority of populations of the Americas in the agrarian centers of America, the andean zone had 15 millions of people, meanwhile the mesoamerican zone were even more. The evidence is that crops are capable of supporting huge populations compared to the hunter-gatherers.
>the americas as one large developmental bloc
>not doing the same for the old world
Actually the comparison is considering the "old world" MENA influences that were developed for thousands of years before europe got that technology, the example is that MENA got into the bronze age 500 years before europe. And europeans, through trade, inherited that 500 year bronze age technology.
cont.

I think what theyre probably referring to is that amerindians developed agriculture independently, but around 8000 years after snowniggers stole it from the middle east who invented it first.

However in the roughly 4000 years between ddveloping agriculture and europeans arriving the amerindians made fucking ridiculous strides in advancement going from the most basic agriculture to irrigated, terraced multi crop agriculture with selective breeding of animals and pretty advanced administrative and communicative techniques aswell

In terms of advancements over time this is a hell of a lot faster than pre indusdrial europe

That said they never developed proper writing (they had some thing with colored string but it probably wasnt capable of holding complex information) and they also didnt have money, which is actually fucking mindblowing being able to trade and buiod empires without currency, would have been cool to see how it would have developed but the spanish had to chimp the fuck out and conquer everyone

Also the reason europeans btfo them is pretty much entierly disease and the rest was luck

They were stupid enough not to be able to write. If they did we would be for certain they were as subhuman as other america's cultures but now some we wuzzer's can speculate they were actually higher advanced because they placed stone on a stone perfectly or some shit lmao

>lithic stuff
The glacial area covered northern france and germany. The glacial age ended in 8000BC yet the first european crop presence is dated from 10000BC with lentils in Hellas.

>not in the americas
Yes they did, as I mentioned in the comparison, the year delay of every development is real, even the sucesion follows an apparent rule. It may be not necessary, yet the process happened in less time.
>professional
>alphabets
>theology
>political science
>coinage
>post arithmetic math
Compared to whom/what year?
Amerindian superiority is based on their higher development rate compared to europeans. In other words, they have more civilization potential.

Forgot pic.

>Amerindian superiority is based on their higher development rate
You mean because they developed alot in short notice? I'm not following

See

>How is this cherrypicking?
Because you're claiming a chain of devleopment without demonstrating that the people who reached point A are in any way technologically connected to the people who reached point B.

>The consensus put the majority of populations of the Americas in the agrarian centers of America, the andean zone had 15 millions of people, meanwhile the mesoamerican zone were even more.
You really are illiterate, aren't you? Good job writing off all of North America, and all of South America east of the Andes. "A tiny proportion of the Americas had agriculture" is so much less impressive than your idiot claims, isn't it?

>The glacial area covered northern france and germany. The glacial age ended in 8000BC yet the first european crop presence is dated from 10000BC with lentils in Hellas.
You ever think that maybe, just MAYBE, the fact that you had huge sheets of ice covering a good chunk of the continent, and then the subsequent climate domino effects that would have further south, might affect things? Nah. It's just an accident that the furthest north you have evidence of agriculture in the americas is a good 20 points of latitude further south than Hellas, isn't it?

>Yes they did, as I mentioned in the comparison
No retard. LEARN TO FUCKING READ. There is 0 evidence of things like the Clovis culture materially interacting with the cultures that developed bronze or agriculture. You have no pattern of development.

>Compared to whom/what year?
Any year. The Americas never had any of it. Therefore, the rate of development cannot even meaningfully be compared because the Americans never got on the proverbial boat to begin with; they had no development in these fields at all.

>reached point A
Actually I'm considering such influences which were relevant for the zone trades.
The proto-gravettian phase spread all over europe. The antelian phase was refered to the MENA inhabitants as the neolithic spread was thanks to them, so considering their development, is more relevant than the cro-magnon that "inherited" not developed themselves the neolithic transition.
The proto agrarian societies is the same, as the craddles of civilization were the ones with a headstart and spread their technology all over the rest of their surrounding zones. The bronze age ocurred in MENA too.

The comparison is considering the continuity of such technologies.

The same with the craddles of civilization of the Americas.

>a tiny proportion of the Americas
The spread of technology doesn't happen by "proportions" but area. For example, the agrarian lifestyle revolution of South-America and MesoAmerica started in 3500BC-3000BC, in 2500 years it spread all over these areas, the bronze age spread occurred at a similar rate compared to europeans though. In 500 years, the bronze tools were used all over the Inca empire.

>further south than hellas
>maybe
I read about the outburst floods on doggerland and the surroundings of the eastern lakes, the same happened in North-America, yet their development rate keeps being higher than europeans. Also, the comparison is considering the inherited technology from MENA.And the stage post 8000BC development, shows the result of Amerindians having a higher development rate too.
>clovis
>11000BC
How does this refute the bronze tin from 1000AD andean cultures?
>any year
As Amerindians had an offset of 15000 years, it's obvious the comparison have to be made with such offset. Go ahead, mention a date and place.

That is clearly not what I was calling unfalsifiable. That's also not what unfalsifiable means.

A fact being unfalsifiable is irrelevant to Amerindian superiority.

Is this thread a glimpse into the mind of the insane?

Yeah maybe history attracts donkeys?
All refuted.

>STILL being illiterate and retarded.
>Actually I'm considering such influences which were relevant for the zone trades.
And since the trade zone of Europe included areas that were under the ice sheets during the ice age, you're being dishonest by claiming that the ice age had no impact on places like modern day Greece.

>The comparison is considering the continuity of such technologies.
You have not demonstrated any continuity in the Americas. Do so.

>The spread of technology doesn't happen by "proportions" but area.
Yes, now calculate the area that was covered by agricultural zones and divide it by the total area of North and South America. YOu come to the conclusion that the vast AREA of the Americas never developed agriculture. Thus, we can say that your claim that "The Americas" developed agriculture, not by 15,000 B.C, but NEVER.
Meanwhile, all of Europe eventually transitioned to agriculture, a feat that your precious pre-columbian monkeys never managed.

> For example, the agrarian lifestyle revolution of South-America and MesoAmerica
So again, why did it never expand out of Mesoamerica? Is "Mesoamerica" all of the Americas? Is the Inca Empire the entiretyy of the Americas? If they had such "civilizaiton potential" how come the civilization didn't spread outside of a few enclaves? You know, how it did with the old world? Oh that's right "environment", that you casually ignore when it's inconvenient.

>further south than hellas
>maybe
There's a little thing called a "Map" that yo might not be familiar with. We can use it to look up latitude lines. It's really quite amazing. That's how I know that Athens is at 37.98 degrees north, while Mexico City is at 19.4
1/2?

>I read about the outburst floods on doggerland and the surroundings of the eastern lakes, the same happened in North-America, yet their development rate keeps being higher than europeans.
Try to hold the point in your tiny bean-brain. Ice sheets and doggerland flooding actually interfered with European trade networks. You can point to a very clear material continuity between places that eventually developed agriculture and places that that procued artifacts that got fucked over by the ice age.

In Mesoamerica? Nope. Trade networks never extended that far. There is not evidence of them even being in contact. Whoops.

>How does this refute the bronze tin from 1000AD andean cultures?
It refutes the notion that there is continuity. There was no chain of development, just isolated advances in cultural vacuums.
2/3

>As Amerindians had an offset of 15000 years, it's obvious the comparison have to be made with such offset.
No, as you yourself point out, technological pace is derived from environment and necessity. You should be tracing the development from the nearest immediate point; so for instance, you would expect the rise of urbanization to lead to the organization necessary for a professional military and the resources to produce one.

Tlapacoya is about 500 years older than the oldest comparable "urban" cite in Europe at Choirokoitia. That means, if developmental rates are the same, we should see a professional army sometime in Mexico at around 1,300 B.C. instead of...... never.

But let's try something else. Alphabets. Alphabets are a fairly normal progression of writing. Your first writing systems in Europe are again Minoan ones; and actually already have an alphabet right then and there (or at least Linear B does, A is still undecipherable). Time between writing and alphabet? Assuming A is not in fact an alphabetic system, 400 years, tops.

Meanwhile, we have writing in the New World in the form of the Zapotec stuff, or maybe the Cascajal block if you think it's real. That's writing between 900 and 600 B.C. which blossoms into an alphabet...... never. Whoops.

Get the point? If, as you assert, that these Beaner "civilizations" had greater potential to advance, then why don't they keep advancing at this rate right up to the point

>had no impact
The fact that the mountainous zones of South-America suffered floods thanks to the deglaciation also explains their retardness compared to mesoamerica, I already mentioned northamerican consequences. Also, the entire coast of South-America since neolithic times have suffered constant and tempestous climate called Niño, which has been the main reason of the decay of one of the SouthAmerican craddles of civilization, and the reason all crops's origin in SouthAmerica are from the mountainous side, due to the hostile coastal environment.

>any continuity
Every craddle of American civilziation has its own continuity. Is that your point? The interactions between both of those are important for bronze presence in mesoamerica though.
>divide it
How so? If the neolithic revolution of the andes started in 3500BC approximately, let's see how much area agriculture covered south-america, i'll post the map and area comparisons on the next posts.
>maybe the chunks of ice
That's the purpose of the remark, chill.
>developed agriculture
Are you stupid? Agriculture started spreading on europe 8000BC and the ice age already finished it. The consequences of ice age europe finished in 8000BC as the maximum iec sheet is dated from 20000BC. Why don't you read the consensus? Too hard for ya?
>isolated advances
So that was your point. The point is that each craddle of civilization has its own continuity, as the 3 reached neolithic and went through the other phases, 2 of them reached empire dimensions, and the bronze age of south-america clearly hints that the bronze general use needs easily accesible veins, for extraction, a case that mesoamerica lacks, yet you see how mesoamerica even reached middle-ages level engineering quickly.
>environment and necessity
Europe and America has a variety of climates and geography. The circumstances and changes can be compared as both were isolated from each other. Even their q-soil is worse than europe.
cont

>muh amerindians had better technology
still got conquered, kek

A higher rate doesn't mean they were higher up. For example if you make three dollars a day and I make four but I start making money ten years later than you it will be quite a while before I have more money than you. The difference here is "rate of developement" is completely subjective.

The idea is they started later brainlet, I'm not saying this is correct but it's not hard to understand the argument they're trying to make.

>their
Of south American civilizations.

>oldest comparable
A pre-agrarian big settlement which can be easily explained by necessity, yet urban planning are said to need an already developed hierarchy and social differences compared to hunter gatherers. The craddles of civilization represent such features and manifestation of agriculture's consequences on social stratifications, even then the comparison of urban planning which is itself, the frame of reference, incomplete, as the tlapacoya contains many remnants of various eras prepottery and classical periods. The influence of such "urban planning" would come in the classical period, meanwhile the human settlements were there before. Jericho is one of the earliest settlements from the world, and its prepottery technology and features resembles Caral "craddle of civilization" more than the other ones, as Caral and Jericho occurred when the neolithic revolution spread all over the concordant cultures, both were pre-pottery cultures, both were direct descendants of pre-agrarian cultures (natufian and proto-agrarian south-american settlements), the hierarchy and social stratifications were enough developed to plan monuments and communal huge projects. It even seems that there were monuments from hunter-gatherers on GoblekiTepe. The preclassic era coincides with such urban planning both in South-America with Caral/Norte Chico and mesoamerican cultures. The pottery general use is also an example of agrarian consequences, as the neolithic revolution from both groups of continents coincide with the development of agriculture, it also seems that fluvial zones were the ones with pottery earliest uses, as the amazonian zones developed pottery at least 1000 years before andeans. China seems to be an exception.
Also you can see how Incan empire developed a professional army of officers in 1500AD when the bronze age started 500 years before that period. Sargon of Akkad stablished the first standing army in 2300AC.cont

incatard deliberately obfuscates and invents cultures, pretends the LGM didn't matter to everybody living in Eurasia, and thinks paleolithic peoples ~15,000 BP can be meaningfully differentiated technologically.

"development rate" as he's presented it isn't valid and is videogame tech tree tier, his continued insistence on genetic superiority and shitposting about Europeans being apes belies his acute mental illness.

>posts the same pasta every single time because no argument
>d-deal with it
leftypol turns people into this

This picture includes mongrels. Amerindians have higher cheekbones, bigger nose, and mighty protuberant lips.

>mongrels
how convenient for you

>eurangutan mongrels are convenient
How so?

>false accusations
>leftypol
United statians...

I really like how you don't actually answer the points against you, and like some kind of chimpanzee, spray up a shower of irrelevant shit in the hopes of hiding your lack of point in a wall of nonsense.

Just to take one point (because I have to be going soon and I can't be bothered to dissect your idiocy line by line), you compare the development of a proffessional officer corps (citation needed, by the way) among the Incas to the bronze age development of metalleurgy.

So we already have a number of problems. There's a big difference between a professional army force and a professional officer corps. But even ignoring that, the developments that lead to a professional army are social, not metalleurgical; you can have a professional army with stone age, bronze age, iron age, or even modern degrees of technology, and you can have that lack.

By tying everything to your own retarded, arbitrary "development" indices, you deliberately overlook how such developments actually have, with the obvious purpose of making your monkeys look good.

Mesomaerica and the Andes certainly had conflict, and they certainly had urbanization and specialization of labor. THOSE are the building blocks of a professional army, not metals. And yet they lagged far, far behind Europe. Why is that, monkey boy?

>invents cultures
Wrong. All well known cultures.
>LGM didn't happen
See>paleolithic peoples different
Except they developed and the transition period is relevant, hence the paleo-comparison; yet the comparison includes neolithic periods too.
>
>don't answer
Except I corrected your accusations. Wrong accusation based questions... Why do you hate black people?
>wall of nonsense
It literally explains how you comparing simple human remnants to urban planning is simply stupid. As the mesoamerican place you mention only contains such human remnants. The urban structures are from the classic-preclassic periods. In other words, after 3500BC.
>compare
I didn't bother to study the circumstances of the permanent armies and the scale of population increment of both sides, but it seems to be social and demographic density dependant. I'm probably wrong on that line.
>the development that lead
You are probably right. I was wrong. :(
>arbitrary
Actually this is the unique example you have, meanwhile the comparison is actually valid. I'll check the circumstances of both sides, maybe I'll post it in this thread.
>not metals
Yes. Do you know pre-bronze age permanent armies?

The urbanization progress was consequence of the neolithic revolution, as I explained before over here The craddles of civilization on Americas, resemble MENA Jericho and later settlements.

And Jericho communal monumments ocurred circa 9500BC.

>lagged far behind
Actually Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans.

I mentioned how the comparison shows similar technology and time spent after the social and technological changes before in the great greentext.

Now I'll mention the writing comparison and the agrarian spread and bronze technology spread comparison, as some ignorant user said that the spread of culture is better explained by percentages instead of areas.

>European peninsula settled by Cro-Magnon ~40,000 BC
>Americas settled ~13-16,000 BC although there is some debate over the fact that people were there earlier than that
>this means Americans develop faster than Europeans

retard

Hey it's another incatard thread? How did I miss it, they're my favorites. Go on guys make him "argue" he's so funny.

>muh stone tech is advancing faster than yours, stupid Euros

>United statians.

Do you mean Mexicans? You know, people from the United States of Mexico?

Actually my last picture was more accurate as it's the latest model of LGM.

I already compared both cultures when they reached America. They showed proto-gravettian cultures. If tomorrow I get to use my laptop and this thread is still alive, I'll post it.
>incatard
I started the meme. Though, I'm not the only one posting such stuff :^)
If you consider USA, mexicans, then we can agree.
The comparison also mentions neolithic and early bronze age.

West.... easy on the carrots

>superior injuns get access to LITERALLY ALL MODERN EURO TECHNOLOGY like guns, farms, horses, metal working
>keep sitting around eating dogs and smoking peyote all day instead of adopting the technology and wrecking the "inferior" colonists
Really sparks my macadamia nuts

When you compare development in different regions it only makes sense to use the beginning of settled agriculture as your 'starting point'. That's when higher forms of civilization, urbanism, technology, specialisation become possible. Sure there are some comparatively advanced hunter-gatherers, but they're limited to a few environments and can't develop into true civilizations without agriculture. When you compare development in different regions which were suitable for the rise of civilization (ie. not waterless deserts and tundra) you get roughly the same result from the rise of agriculture.

>The Middle East as a whole
Neolithic c. 8300-8000 BC - civilization c. 3300-3000 BC - 5000 years to civilization

>Egypt and Sumer specifically
Neolithic c. 6000 BC - civilization c. 3300-3000 BC - 3000 years to civilization (sped up because of earlier developments in the rest of the Middle East)

>Indus Valley
Neolithic c. 7000 BC - civilization c. 2500 BC - 4500 years to civilization

>Crete
Neolithic c. 7000 BC - civilization c. 2000 BC - 5000 years to civilization

>Western Europe
Neolithic c. 5000 BC - civilization c. 500 BC (Gallic proto-states) - 4500 years to civilization

>China
Neolithic c. 6000 BC - civilization c. 1500 BC - 4500 years to civilization

>Mesoamerica
Neolithic c. 6000 BC - civilization c. 1500 BC - 4500 years to civilization

>West Africa
Neolithic c. 1600 BC - civilization c. 800 AD - 2400 years to civilization (sped up because of contacts with North Africa)

I don't see how any of this makes anyone superior. Nowhere developed especially fast, except when stimulated by outside contacts. Amerindians are only 'superior' if you take the first human presence in a region to be a 'starting point' for development, which is stupid.

Post more :3

barely any Amerindians even came close to the bronze age, but you lump them all together

Well, I'm implying the "Amerindians" which shared hugely similar genes reached early bronze age, as you see, if such people reached x, then extremely similar people would obviously reach x too.

oh yeah? Well not all Amerindians reached the Neolithic or practiced agriculture you know.

Well, it seems that the patagonians and taiga/tundra inhabitants of north-america didn't practice agriculture. It makes sense as also there were hunter gatherer tribes in europe in the early bronze age. Also considering the north american neolithic revolution happened in 1500-1000BC, it would make sense that 2500 years of spread, would only reach that much area too ( also south americans).

>which is stupid
I think you get the point.

Amerindian neolithic characteristics is pretty much studied, yet their classification is completely better explained in spanish language university books and research compilation notebooks. I'm too sleepy to post the details of the debated Amerindian neolithic which would actually be 8000BC, 6000BC and i don't know about N.America, their beginning, as they started consuming future crops to be developed and used microliths (hence the "neo-lithic" name).

The greentext comparison is a holistic judgement.
Facts can be stupid?

>Facts can be stupid?
>facts

The Maia had the number 0.
Romans didn't

THE PERUVIAN: DURING HIS CHILDHOOD, IS REQUIRED TO ORDAIN
GOATS, COWS, AND CLEANING STABLES. THE PERUVIAN `` PRODUCES`` POTATOES, ONIONS, AND DOES
AGRARIAN WORK! THE PERUVIAN DOES NOT BATHE, DOES NOT STUDY,
DOES NOT GO TO SCHOOL, DOES NOT GO TO COLLEGE, DOES NOT GO TO A UNIVERSITY, AND CONTINUES BEING AN IGNORANT DULLARD,
HE IS CLOSED, GROSS, STUPID, PROFANE, AND REPUGNANT.

-WHAT IS PERUVIAN IN "LATIN ???

* `` INDIUS HEDIONDUS MONUS``

HOW TO RECOGNIZE A PeruviANUS IS THE EASIEST THING TO DO, HERE WE CALL OUT THEIR MAIN CHARACTERISTICS:

0 - THEY ARE UGLY, HORRIBLE, ABJECT, INSIGNIFICANT HEDONICS.
1 - THEY ARE BROWN, AND OF CRAP COLOR, TAKEN FOR COPPERED ONES, AND APPEAR TO BE LIKE CAIRNS.
2 - THEY ARE DWARVES, 150 CENTIMETERS TO 160 CENTIMETERS, LIKE ANDEAN GOBLINS.
3 - THEY ARE SHORT QUEERS OR BOW-LEGGED QUEERS, THEY TRULY ENGENDER NATURE.
4 - THEY DO NOT HAVE AN ASS, MEN NOR WOMEN.
5 - THEY DO NOT HAVE A NECK, THEY LOOK LIKE WORMS IN THE MUD.
6 - THEY HAVE A TREMENDOUS NOSE, LIKE THAT OF A CONDOR OR TOUCAN.
7 - THEY ARE BIG EARED, AND THE SPANISH CALLED THEM THIS.
8 - THEY ARE SLANT EYED AND HAVE NO EYELIDS.
9 - THEY HAVE PROTRUDING CHEEKS.
10 - THEY HAVE A ROUND AND SWOLLEN FACE, GUANACO-LIKE FACES.

WE