>>15118462>as I personally believe they were more akin to city-states than widespread nationsno way, there would be more acridological evidence if that was the case, scientist have went out of their way to dig up sites that would've litterally been civilization hub locations (areas near rivers that were futile)
>nations like how it work in modern times,fucking retarded to compare the modern times to completely different geological situation the ancient era faced, low id af
>and the children of relationship with them straight up produced smarter progeny on average, which greatly helped in the deification of their lineages. How these ''royalties'' interacted with the locals is what gave birth to Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, and many others who probably were integrated to these more prominent societies as time went on, as the culture shock was so severe they basically got interpreted as divinely brought boon for the peoples that hosted them.your reading is completely wrong,
>descendants of way smarter and better fed peoplethey were eating the same shit peasants grew, which didn't make you smarter, it was just easier to grow. Which was the point. if they were smarter, the status que wouldn't have been stagnate for so long that cleopatra wouldn't be closer to the cell phone then she was to the building of the pyramids. fucking defeats your theory. Innovation comes from "freeish" peasent classes funny enough, and elites tent to be so desperate for power they inbreed to maintain it. That said humanity depends more so on organization then the masses, but opportunity (communist being 20k in old Russia which had 30+ million people ended up converted the entire nation to communist is stronger then even that.
