ANCIENT OR MODERN?

I'm constantly hearing about archaeologists digging up ruins and collecting artifacts from the ancient Aztec empire. Historians and anthropologists put together books, museum exhibits, and are a primary source informing columns in popular papers and magazines about these legendary Nahuatl-speaking people. There we learn about the sophisticated math and calendrical system as well as the tremendous pyramids of the Aztec. We read about their royal dynasty, pantheon of deities, and practices of divination and human sacrifice. And we learn about their draining of swamps and building of dams and canals for the formation and irrigation of cropland. Talk about the Inca empire arrives in similar terms. And all of the above comes alongside educational offerings about ancient Maya or Egyptian civilizations. And also, naturally, these inspire Social Studies lessons about the ancient world in our schools. It's from here that wild confusion ensues.

The trouble here is that the founding of the Aztec empire is said to be synonymous with the building of the city of Tenochtitlán. This epicenter of the Aztec world is commonly agreed to have been established in 1325. And we know precisely when the end of this empire came: in the Summer of 1521, when Cortés and his Spanish-led army of locals allies laid siege to and then razed the city of Tenochtitlán. That's right, less than 700 years ago the Aztec dominated and in under 200 years the empire fell. The Inca empire follows a similar timeline to that of the Aztec. The first ruler and divine absolute monarch, "Son of the Sun," began his reign in 1438. Encounter with the Spanish occurred less than century later. The fall of the last Inca stronghold and execution of its final ruler (a fate previously experienced by any local community resisting Inca domination) took place in 1572.

How do these dates compare to other civilizations we place in the same "ancient" category? Well, Maya civilization feels to me like it is of entirely different character. Estimates place the beginning of Maya civilization around 2600 BCE with the establishment of the city of Cuello (in what is now Belize.) Though the culture remains, of course, much of what defined the civilization collapsed when the last independent Maya city (the Itza people's capital of Nojpetén, in modern day Guatemala) was taken by the Spanish in 1697. So Maya civilization began thousands of years ago and also persisted eons. Similar to the Maya are Egyptians. The Early Dynastic period of Egypt began around 3150 BCE. And what we think of as 'ancient Egypt' is commonly said to have ended with the death of Cleopatra in 30 CE, an event which brought about the end of the Ptolemy dynasty and the beginning of five centuries of rule by the Romans (followed by conquests by Persia, Byzantine, and then the Rashidun Caliphate in the seventh century.)

From where I sit, these examples of Egyptians and the Maya contrast strongly with the Aztec and Inca, both in terms of their origins and duration. We could add to this group Sumer (roughly 4500 to 1900 BCE) or the Indus Valley Civilization (3300 to 1300 BCE) and many others, who all feel as though they land more easily into 'ancient' category. These seem to me to be not just different but an order of magnitude so in terms of their historical placement and persistence across time. In this light, if you're going to talk about ancient empires or civilizations and you wish to discuss the Inca and Aztec, I think it makes less sense to pair these with the Maya or Egyptians and far more sense to associate them with the Portuguese and Dutch. Does that sound crazy? I think it does. But why? Like the Inca and Aztec, these European empires also began in the Middle Ages, at least. The ancient Portuguese empire began in 1415 and lasted six centuries while the ancient Dutch empire began around 1542, with formal decolonization ending more than four centuries later in 1975. From the framework of our convention, the above proposal seems absurd. But is it, though? Or why don't we simply talk about world civilizations? Why employ the term 'ancient' (as if to say 'super-different and special') but only in curious cases? Their designation as 'ancient' seems to be what makes these civilizations noteworthy and the reason we're introduced to them and not others. And yet it seems the term itself, 'ancient,' has no meaning or relation to anything in this context. Why is that?

Without a doubt, part of my frustration here is that we talk about "modern philosophy" beginning with Descartes in the 16th century. And so if "cogito ergo sum" is modern then it's very hard to see how the Aztec, from the same period, are ancient. In addition, it strikes me as strange to talk about the Aztec and Inca in the terms we do when all over the world there are even businesses and institutions far older, surviving far longer, and in some cases with wider geographic distribution and trade networks, resulting in them being tremendously impactful upon their neighbours as well as the broader cultural landscape than these "ancient civilizations." Shouldn't those organizations, then, be at least similarly noteworthy in any study of culture or society? (And wouldn't that offend absolutely everyone?)

For example, Canada is home to the Hudson’s Bay Company. Founded and in operation since 1670, the company had a complex structure and class system, its own currency, provided a network for countless goods and services, was the de facto government of large swathes of what is now Canada, and was also hugely involved in exploration, trade, and development from coast to coast and as far south as Yerba Buena (present-day San Francisco.) And even today, most Canadian cities have at their center a department store – often larger, more prominent, and more heavily frequented than city hall, the general hospital, or the grandest place of worship.

Or what about over in Europe? We know teaching was taking place at Oxford by at least 1096 and that the school accepted its first international student, Emo of Friesland, in 1190. By 1249 Oxford was a fully-fledged university complete with three halls of residence. Still, I never hear talk about Oxford being ancient and has it ever made its way into discussions of persistent features of an ancient civilization? Or what about France? The land occupied by modern-day Paris has been continually populated since the 3rd century BCE, the Vikings laid siege to the city in 885, and construction of its iconic Notre Dame Cathedral began in 1163. Still, talk of Paris in a conversation about "the ancient world" would raise eyebrows. Wouldn't it? But how ancient is Paris compared to Inca cities? Well, the Inca capital of Cuzco (a city-state built by the Killke civilization and taken over by the Inca) had its earliest stones placed around the time Notre Dame Cathedral was being constructed. Similarly, Ireland has pubs established in 1324 (Kyteler's Inn), 1198 (The Brazen Head), and around 900 (Sean's Bar), all of which remain in operation today. Would your local museum put on a show about the wonders of the ancient drinking establishments of Ireland? And why not? Older still, in Japan is the paper factory Genda Shigyō. It has been pressing out ceremonial paper goods for 1,248 years now, since 771. Also in Japan, the construction company Kongo Gumi, established in 578, has been running continuously for 1,441 years. In light of just these surviving Japanese business alone, the Inca and Aztec seem rather modern, indeed.

I don't know. Why would you teach about the Aztec, employing the term ancient, and not speak of the Portuguese in the same terms? Why talk about Inca rulers and not Oxford chancellors?