just a suggestion but if you're writing about "the ancient world" please don't include societies that existed from like 1300 to 1521

AZTECS AND INCAS WERE NOT ANCIENT I WILL DIE ON THIS HILL

The Americas have genuinely ancient histories also!!!! Tell me why you talk about Rome and Greece and Sumer and the Qin Dynasty and Middle Kingdom Egypt but you've never heard of the Moche or Chavín, the Olmec or the Classical Maya city-states, or even Poverty Point or the Hopewell Interaction Network, or maybe the ancient Tsimshian city of Temlaxam????

okay this is gaining notes so I just want to clarifying:

I'm not saying that the Aztec and Inca societies are not fascinating and super important. They are!!!! Please learn about them!!!! And I'm DEFINITELY not saying this to say they are inferior to Eurasian societies--I want people to learn about the societies BEFORE the Aztecs and Incas.

However, when they are lumped in with the category of "ancient" alongside Rome/Greece/Mesopotamia/Egypt etc societies from before AD 500, it has the effect of flattening Indigenous American history. This is why people are constantly losing their mind over the fact that "Oxford is older than the Aztec Empire" like okay sure. But Teotihuacan is older than Oxford, it's not like there were no societies in the Americas before the year 1300.

Basically no one seems to have a sense of the true length of Indigenous American presence and history in our own continents. That's why this bothers me.

If you don't refer to The Tudors in England as "The ancient Tudors" or The Renaissance as "The Ancient Renaissance" then it's also inaccurate to say "The Ancient Aztecs/Inca". It's really just so common for people to think that Native American history begins and ends with being colonized (thus, why they see a few decades preceding 1492 as being "ancient" for us)

THANK YOU exactlyyyyyyy this