what were white people doing in the andes in pre-columbian south america???

>>17791523 (OP)
Nigga that's a bleached bone, not skin.

Eumelanin has a shorter half life than phoemelanin, which is why mummies almost always have red or brown hair. This is why retards think ancient Egyptians, Chinese, etc. were white.

>>17791541
I'm talking about the red hair

>>17791546
Ancient Egyptians were white though

>>17791561
Yeah, but pre-columbian andean societies, which have a massive wealth of remakarbly well-preserved artwork, a lot of which was remarkably naturalistic in style, universally represented themselves with black hair when possible and/or local amerindian facial features, so it's probably safe to say that anon's explanation is much more likely to be the case here

>>17791546
no, they had the genes for it.

>>17791546
Native Americans have strong Ancient North Eurasian DNA. Light hair genes originate from ANE. It's possible that there were a couple of light haired Amerindians in Pre-Columbian times, not many but still present. And also 90% of Amerindians died after 1492 so that definitely created a bottleneck in their genes.

>>17791813
>so it's probably safe to say that anon's explanation is much more likely to be the case here
my explanation that they were nordic?

>>17791864
No, this >>17791546

>>17791866
Ramesses II was found to have the roots of his hair red too so he was definitely a redhead >>17791561

>>17791869
Okay but if it wasn't clear from my post (not his) i was specifically talking about ancient Peruvians

>>17791885
So Ancient Egyptians were Nordic, right?

>>17791894
Idk, maybe, not really my area

>>17791561
>that nose
>white
Ancient egyptians were egyptians you wignat tranny

what if people can just have red hair without being white and then they lost the trait due too miscegenation

>>17791523 (OP)
hanging out with jesus and fighting injuns and dinosaurs

>>17791546
a. ancient egyptions were white
b. even if they weren't Cleopata was literally a greek incest baby

>>17792052
they were jews. there was some book that got posted to /pol/ with a bunch of accounts of cleopata from different romans and they all said she looked like a jew and had a massive jew nose and that they would prefer to fuck her brother

>>17792457
That's my theory

You rang, gentlemen?

Why yes, I have been monitoring this event for years. No, things haven't changed one bit.

>>17793858
She was Greek, not Egyptian

>>17791523 (OP)
White people have dark, thick hair with luscious curls, not that thin snowchimp hide.

>>17793870
That looks like half the construction workers in Tennessee after the summer season lol

>>17793881
No Mexicans don't look like that.

>>17793892
I beat you to the joke: That's why I said half.

>>17791523 (OP)
I guess red hair on skeletons isn't white

>>17791894
No, same issue. All long deads have red hair.

The evidence is out...

>>17792461
What were ancient egyptians aka ancient swedish, doing in ancient Peru!?!

>>17794242
The evidence is out that pre British china and pre-Columbian peru were western european because red hair?

Why are we to think that when Europeans conquered the entire world that it was the first time it had ever been done?

>>17794246
Pajeets have the same y chromosomes as polish people. Therefore pajeets are 99% european

>>17794252
People who died and got deposited underground before Columbus came to south america have blond hair due to half life physics and therefore they are british or french or something.
I'm glad to discussing this with someone as educated as you.

>>17794255
Are you referencing ancient Aryans in the east with ancient Aryans in the west?

>>17794256
Well yeah people migrated from central asia to south america at least 20k years ago, why wouldn't they have traces of arab and european dna?
You think you're really smart aren't you?

>>17794268
>from central asia to south america

>>17791894
the facts are the following there are several red haired and blond egyptian mummies, ramses II specifically (red haired) has been tested and confirmed to be originally red haired, he and/or other pharoahs belonged to the MAIN dinasty, the old original one.
despite that there will be posts like this one:
>>17794235
that get BTFO'd by merely reading Wikipedia's entry on Ramses II

>>17794266
dump your folder on us like this is a landfill.

I think you meant Europe and the south Pacific to Americas.

>>17794274
Get wrecked chudcel. You have nothing.

>>17794243
there's a documentary about it but it is really hard to find, they were fleeing from genocide, they were persians and aryans. they were genocided in persia, peru and finally in the polynesian? islands, where the last traces left of them were, no I'm not trolling

>>17793869
Good old Thor Heyerdahl and the goold old leyends about the white Gods. You should examine your critical thinking if you believe that shit. Bet you think Motecuhzoma thought Cortez was a god, too.
>>17794256
Brian Foerster is not a geneticist though.

>>17794271
I'm not interested in the conspiracy theories of an individual, I am interested in consensus.
If your theories can't break into the mainstream then they're probably fake lies.
If Oppenheimer was a retard who was spewing lies instead of results, scientists would not have taken him seriously and there would be no nukes.

He proved he wasn't a liar so he was given funding to make nukes.

Is it consensus that europeans are native to south america despite every faggot repeating it like it's the truth? Not at all. Therefore it never happened.

>>17794286
You really can't complain about genetics if you're going to fondle your base mixtures, overrate their values, and market them as "admixtures". Use mixtures or abmixtures but ffs stop trying to obfuscate results.

>>17794285
>but it is really hard to find
It's not considered truth by the scientific community? Even the Fox News conservative sphere is ignoring it?
Never happened then.

>>17794273
Black hair bleaches blond in the sun.

>>17794291
>I am interested in consensus
Good luck with that chudcel. What you're really gambling on is that there will be white people who make accomodations for the delusions of grandeur held by irrelevant ghetto dwellers from Turkey to India.

What I'm presenting aren't even theories- it's raw data. It's direct evidence where the facts speak for themselves. Notice I haven't really said much of anything related to narrative. I'm just showing you things.

somebody is shilling, and the best part, there's scientific evidence that they're full of shit, and that is folklore, quotes and genetic evidence

have a good one

Terrible example btw. Oppenheimer didn't get results through consensus- he got them by being on the cutting edge of unproven theories.

>>17794293
I'm not doing that. I'm stating that Brian Foerster believes in ancient aliens. Anyway the Solutrean doesn't really apply to this because Europeans in 200 000 BC are barely even related to modern Europeans

>>17794305
>because Europeans in 200 000 BC
You added an extra zero. Was that on purpose?

>>17794307
>I-I-IS THAT? COULD IT BE?
>A TRIANGULAR STEPPED FLOURISH ATOP A BUILDING AND OR SHRINE
>THIS CONFIRMS THE ANCIENT PHONEARYANS WENT TO AMERICAAA!

>>17794300
Titles of obscure articles are not evidence.
Show me a nature or frontiers paper. Or something reputable.
Show me genetic evidence that was calculated not "GENETIC TESTING SAYS THIS IS THIS".
These days AI can take anything.

I don't think shitskins and muh science niggers understand that it doesn't matter what they think or gets corroborated by mainstream. We KNOW what the truth is.

Niggers and shitskins will never be able to replicate civilization or innovation ever.

Therefore their primitive ancestors weren't doing anything either.

If someone believes in aliens it's actually extremely Europhobic because it's an excuse to avoid the obvious conclusion.

>>17794310
No. I just typed an extra zero. But anyway the descendants of the descendants, etc of the solutreans represent a relatively small part of the European genome and regardless after twenty thousand years they would have diverged significantly, in fact they did.

>>17794297
I'm waiting for white people to convince even themselves that this happened. And they're not doing that. 7/10 americans supported bombing Iran recently for no other reason than Iranians having the wrong skin color.
White people are ready to state that they are native to america. And yet they don't do it, clearly they don't believe it's true, because there's no evidence.
Maybe just maybe these are your delusions of grandeur.

>>17794321
Couldn't even construct a syllogism lmao.

>>17794315
>NO THEY CANT BE THE SAME THEY JUST CANT BE
>MY IDEOLOGY WONT ALLOW ME TO CORRELATE SIMILARITIES

>>17794324
That's still missing the point- it took Europeans and Pacificans coming over to America to lead to progress in it.

>>17794321
That basically sums it up. We have no reason to anticipate that Eurasians weren't already pushing everyone's shit in since the beginning of time either.

>>17794343
They are the same though. You are just too much of a retard to understand that those two shapes can arise indepently.
Also what is a pacifican?

>>17794350
>They are the same though
The European gave rise to the Sumerian word. If it's so universal then why is everyone importing them from Aryans?

Behold.

No one else remembers Plutarch saying that Romans crossed the western ocean?

>>17793870
That's a nigger.

>>17791523 (OP)

>>17794370
>If I post a funny placard we can ignore all of the material, architectural, and genetic evidence

>>17794386
You wouldn't even have alphabet if it wasn't for Russian inventors.

>>17794395
Ironically that's true, but they weren't Russians at the time.

>>17794361
No. Post source.

>>17794370
I love Fomenko. He's so great, and retarded. His paintings aren't bad either.

>>17791523 (OP)
PeruANOS are still Aryans

>>17794541
I prefer Gunnar Heinsohn. Less crazy

>>17791813
Not to endorse OP’s ridiculous claims, but the very first depictions of people by urban societies in the Andes do show blondes and redheads, like it’s the norm among the figurines that are painted found in Norte Chico sites. Obviously not representing natural hair, but painted on, since there are often locks of other colors. Pic are figurines found in a for example.

>>17795145
>Pic are figurines found
*Vichama, pic is one found in one of the main pyramids of Caral

In 1000 years are people going to think 21st century nips had naturally colorful hair? Unless you can prove that the mummies were actually White ( not just North Eurasian, which is different but related), DNA you're overreaching. Peruvians won't deny that our ancestors come from ancient nomads crossing the Bering strait. Sure, it wouldn't be too crazy if some of them even had red hair (Ghengis Kahn and even some African rrobes have naturally red hair too without being White) but that's very different from nordicists claiming Amerindians were a lost tribe of Israel or shipwrecked Romans or whatever nonsense is popular online nowadays.

>>17791813
Then, Moche pottery of Recuay people sometimes uses red highlights and because of that, some appear with red hair. Why the Moche used this style occasionally? Maybe because their highland neighbors, Recuay and Cajamarca, sometimes used a color scheme which the Moche then adopted. And then some of these foreign styles were really embraced in their pure, non-Moche form when Moche culture became crippled in later centuries, pic related.

Btw Cajamarca's was by a really really really long short the most stable pre-Columbian pottery tradition from the Andes, especially compared to every other tradition, it barely changed from its inception to Inca times

>>17795178
However, original Recuay human depictions are pretty standardized and meh overall. But still, it was an interesting style in its own right. Pretty sad that the Recuay pottery tradition vanished roughly at the same time as the Moche’s did.

In any case, Moche portraits of Recuay individuals, whether Recuay slaves, warriors, priests, or kings, are on average way more detailed than Moche depictions of their own people, which were often just a few archetypes recycled over and over. The best Moche portraits of Recuay are considered some of the most individualistic, detailed, and beautiful works in all of Moche ceramics.

For some little-understood reason, when it came to the Recuay, Moche artisans, or maybe those Recuay from the lowest most western slopes who lived under Moche influence/control, really went all out. Interestingly, something that characterizes the Recuay in the Moche pottery style is that they often have beards.

>>17795185
Still, for all the naturalism and technical skill Moche ceramics are known for, their color game was seriously underwhelming despite being one of the most varied pottery styles worldwide. They didn’t go beyond 3 colors per piece, often only 2. Their southern contemporaries, the Nazca, might not have nailed realism the same way, but they completely outclassed every other pre-Columbian South American pottery tradition before and after them when it came to number of colors used, though that’s not best shown here.

Moche stuff again

>>17795178
>>17795185
>>17795200
>>17795208
Love seeing moche art, especially the very lively faces

>>17791858
>Light hair genes originate from ANE
Amerindians(ANEA+ANE) diverged too early 35kya before the earliest mutation of blonde hair in ANE.

Why do people talk so much about how ancient Peruvians wuz aryans but ignore the equally-compelling evidence that they had massive, whale-sized penises? Checkmate Atheists!

>>17794307
>>17794343
But the specific Mesoamerican architectural style you're claiming is Phoenician in origin didn't even exist until the High Middle Ages...

>>17795185
>778 ceramic pieces...: 106 types and variants of headdresses, 17 types of hairstyles, 15 types of ear ornaments, including earrings and earspools, 4 types of nose ornaments, 60 designs of incised facial scarifications, and 330 painted designs. In the classification of facial features... a representative series of 237 pieces, of which 33% were considered masterpieces of physiognomic portraiture.

>His conclusions are both forceful and unexpected. The vessels with portraits, whose physiognomic character is beyond doubt, must have been modeled reproducing a concrete human model. In this case, the possibility of freely combining facial features retained from memory can be ruled out. However, these do not correspond to the recurring facial morphotypes of the northern coast, but rather to more exotic ones, possibly spread among highland populations.

>The morphotypes still common on the coast today were not only underrepresented in the sample compared to the exotic ones, but were often treated in a conventional manner, as type-portraits rather than as likenesses of concrete individuals. It is worth noting that the portraits made without the intention of depicting the facial features of a specific individual correspond to coastal warriors (Moche, 1.4% of the entire series), women (1.5%), children (8.3%), and “revived dead” (1.7%).

>Among the physiognomic portraits, the most recurrent groups are heads of highland warriors distinguished by earrings, hairstyles, and headdresses known from Recuay-style representations (12.9%), and Moche priests (62.4%), as well as disabled individuals, particularly the blind, often depicted dressed as priests (5.1%).

>Interestingly, not a single physiognomic portrait has been identified that corresponds to a high-ranking warrior adorned with the headdress, nose ornament, and earspools of the principal lord, like those known from the Sipán burial trousseaus or the fine-line painted bottles.

>>17795185
>The corpus analyzed by Wołoszyn consists of 778 ceramic pieces... The criteria for the multivariable analysis are very rigorous: 106 types and variants of headdresses, 17 types of hairstyles, 15 types of ear ornaments, including earrings and earspools, 4 types of nose ornaments, 60 designs of incised facial scarifications, and 330 painted designs. In the classification of facial features, the archaeologist was assisted by the bioanthropologist Karol Piasecki, who reviewed a representative series of 237 pieces, of which 33% were considered masterpieces of physiognomic portraiture. His conclusions are both forceful and unexpected. The vessels with portraits, whose physiognomic character is beyond doubt, must have been modeled reproducing a concrete human model. In this case, the possibility of freely combining facial features retained from memory can be ruled out. However, these do not correspond to the recurring facial morphotypes of the northern coast, but rather to more exotic ones, possibly spread among highland populations. The morphotypes still common on the coast today were not only underrepresented in the sample compared to the exotic ones, but were often treated in a conventional manner, as type-portraits rather than as likenesses of concrete individuals. It is worth noting that the portraits made without the intention of depicting the facial features of a specific individual correspond to coastal warriors (Moche, 1.4% of the entire series), women (1.5%), children (8.3%), and “revived dead” (1.7%). Among the physiognomic portraits, the most recurrent groups are heads of highland warriors distinguished by earrings, hairstyles, and headdresses known from Recuay-style representations (12.9%), and Moche priests (62.4%), as well as disabled individuals, particularly the blind, often depicted dressed as priests (5.1%).

>>17796903
Must have been a cultural taboo of some sort. Unfortunately they were averse to writing so we'll never know.

>>17794361
>>17794357
Here's a Mesamerican archeologist who has actually done excavations at Calixtlahuaca talking about it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230326091858/https://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/tval/RomanFigurine.html

tl;dr the dating is questionable, it's not even clear the statue is roman in style, or that it wasn't merely buried during the early colonial period. Even if it was deposited in pre-contact Mesoamerica, it's a lot more likely it was washed up from a shipwreck and buried by Mesoamericans as a ritual deposit, as many ceremonial objects were, including from older Mesoamerican civilizations which contemprary ones excavated or came across.

Smith himself doesn't actually mention this here, but I also don't see why the statue itself couldn't be made by Mesoamericans: They could and did sometimes grow facial hair and it's seen not infrequently in paintings, murals, and sculptures/figures. The style of this sculpture isn't especially Mesoamerican looking, but, say, Maya sculptures sometimes had similar levels of realistic anatomy.

>>17794307
>>17794315
>>17795674
Central Mexican and Oaxacan architecture does look like some Bronze age Mediterranean styles, but the chronology is obviously extremely off: Knossos etc is from 1800BC, the style of Central Mexican architecture that looks similar is from like 300AD onwards

The Codex Borgia depiction and other similar depictions in codices is very stylized, and are meant to depict tall Mesoamerican pyramids, not small shrines like the Amrit temple there. You can look at ceramic figues of temples and see what the profile views in codices is meant to portray, see https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/316872. And as >>17795674 says, the chronology is still off even for Amrit

>>17791523 (OP)
Probably sun bleached hair

>>17792457
You people never seen a brown red head?

>>17791553
>Tocharians
>Chinese (Han)

>>17795305
That's actually unlikely. Amerinds carry sister clades of Q that split from the EHG Q just 14,000 years ago.

>>17797443
>Here's a Mesamerican archeologist
Why didn't you pick a Roman specialist instead? That's who you would need for the analysis. No wonder he couldn't figure out if it was foreign or not- he doesn't know any better. Meanwhile an amateur Roman specialists are able to detect this.

>Central Mexican and Oaxacan architecture does look like some Bronze age Mediterranean styles, but the chronology is obviously extremely off: Knossos etc is from 1800BC, the style of Central Mexican architecture that looks similar is from like 300AD onwards

Romans recycled Greek architecture fairly late, and Europe recycles Roman styles fairly late. If anything, continuity proves the point that it had to be Europeans.

>>17794357
>>17794361
Let's presume that the Romans did in fact land in the Americas. Where would be the best spot to land? Why haven't we found coins and shit which would undoubtedly be recognized as an object of value and therefore traded? Why no genetic traces?

>genetic research
Genetic research doesn't support any kind of contact between European and Americans until the colonization.
Americas are fairly well samples, I think it's more than 200 samples now. Not a single one has European ancestry or European haplogroups.

>>17798656
>That's actually unlikely.
Read any paper on Amerindian genetics, ancestral native Americans diverged from Tianyuan between 36-25kya culminating in a split between Amerindians and Ancient Paleo Siberians.

> Amerinds carry sister clades of Q that split from the EHG Q just 14,000 years ago.
Later founder effects do not disprove the autosomal profile of pre-Amerindians was already formed at an earlier date.

>>17798682
>Why haven't we found coins
That reminds me, I forgot to go hunt those down and add them to my folder. There used to be sites dedicated to just this, probably not around anymore. The internet is getting harder to find the good stuff on.

>>17791561
Nice hook nose, Pharaoh.

>>17798847
Its caused by incest.

>>17798672
I like how you just straight up ignored the part about the building from the drawing you posted being actually just a stylized depiction of a big-ass pyramid that wouldn't actually have looked that much like the phoenician shrines you posted or anything roman-made in reality

>>17798875
>I like how you
Oh man, you're in for a treat. We haven't even gotten to the fun stuff.

>>17798887
Believe it or not your century old pseudo_history is not too mind-blowing for anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the subject. Or pseudo history.
For one, we do know what the Cross temple mural says, and it has nothing to do with "the scriptures". Wieland could make shit up because no one had deciphered Maya at the time. But it was deciphered 50 years after he published his book.

>>17798672
>Why didn't you pick a Roman specialist instead?

Because I follow Mesoamerican history and archeology and don't know any Roman specialists who have talked about it

>>17798887
That’s not a tree lol

>>17800111
Maybe, to be honest Grijalva got me, this does make some sense