Given that the Out of Africa theory is correct, and the first Native Americans arrived to America via the Bering Strait, how were Mesoamericans more developed than the North Americans? The Mesoamericans had floating gardens, and terrace farms and advanced astronomical techniques while their supposed predecessors were still living in trival bands. It doesn't make much sense. Theoretically, the North Americans who've been their for much longer would have more time to develop, not to mention the abundance of the Mesoamerican jungles would probably stagnate development of civilizations.
>>1233449
Why would how long people have been living there be in any way related to how technologically advanced they are?
HOLD
>>1233458
Well more time means more chances to develop. It seems that the Mesoamericans developed incredibly quickly upon migrating down there, what with the Zapotec and Olmec ancestors setting a precednt for civilization.
>>1233449
>how were Mesoamericans more developed than the North Americans
A few of them. The ones who started civilizations. There are also a lot of mesoamericans alive today that aren't even settled peoples.
And it's not like you didn't have large settlements in North America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
Also, about the jungle: a lot of it probably wasn't there before people started farming. The soil includes bits of ceramic. So, it's more like the jungle claimed much of the people's farmland overtime.
>>1233462
Go home, /pol/. I'm not arguing that the Americans were black.
>>1233468
Europeans ended up being more advanced than subsaharans, geography is pretty important. Some people in the northern tribes also did settle down though while a lot of southern natives aren't settled. Or weren't, I should say.
>>1233468
>Well more time means more chances to develop.
What more time? In that particular area? So what? Do you forget everything you know when you travel to a new place?
>>1233449
>Given that the Out of Africa theory is correct
Stopped reading there
>>1233470
Cahokia at its height is theorized to be between 6000 and 40000 people, compared to Tenochitlan which held 1 million people at the height of ita emprie
>>1233491
Do you have a better theory?
>>1233480
I thought that was because subsahara was more abundant in resources than Europe, thus the need for civlization is lessened. North America has plains and forests, but Mesoamerica has bountiful jungle so I figured North America would develop agriculture first.
>>1233516
There's no better theory until they figure out what's the deal with the homo florisensis and the Denisova man.
Another theory is the multiple origin of man.
>>1233449
I think it has alot to do with devastating environmental events and significant lack of climate consistency. It's my understanding there's geological evidence for some severe natural events that happened in wave over the period between 12k ya and 7k ya, and any significant foundation just failed to launch. So I don't think the western hemisphere got the same "running start" as City States along the latitudinal parallel between Egypt and Mesopotamia, to the Indus River Valley (which may have been another example of environmental catastrophe, but at the time might have been close behind those of Sumer). Sure, other places had their flood and famines, and for the people there at that time it was probably pretty horrible, but it just wasn't so severe to make the structure collapse.
>>1233671
I was poking around for examples for what I'd read before, which led me to this line of thinking. I came up with this immediately, and there are similar (terrestrial) events I understand happened at other times, as severe, decades-long droughts or periods of extreme flooding instigated by waxing and waning climactic effects off the west coast in the Pacific ocean (as the modern el Nino/la Nina)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis
>>1233671
Yeh, it would be hard to get something going if you and everyone around you, for whatever reason, was "knocked back into the stone age" time and again, compounded by the death of most animals over 100kg.
>>1233449
North Americans weren't "there much longer". Depending on reckoning, humans migrated into the Americas at the tail end of the Pleistocene, so 14k to 11.5k ya, via the natural "land bridge" from modern Siberia (which incidentally was at a latitude more akin to the northern continental United States, accounting for the revolving axis of the Earth), and migrated south, hit in the process by the Dryas Impact event.
Considering this, and arguing "out of Africa", humans had been regularly occupying the Egypt/Middle East area for hundreds of thousands of years, not that every era of this are significant, but surely the most recent 16k years they'd have been free from the post glacial period at an earlier time for proximity to the Equator.
