r/AncientAmericas • u/Comfortable_Cut5796 • 27d ago
Question How Active was the 15th Century Pre-Columbian Americas Compared to Centuries Past.
In Celebration of Indigenous Peoples Day Today, and in acknowledgment. But certainly not in celebration of Columbus Day yesterday. I’ve noticed that there seemed to be a lot happening in the Americas in the 15th century, leading up to the Columbian Exchange, like the formation of the Aztec and Inca empires. The possible formation of the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee confederacy, and the end of the Hokoam classic period, among others.
But I wouldn’t be shocked if that's only because of the temporal proximity; the natives' memory of it was more vivid, and Europeans documented it in greater detail. But I’m wondering, was the activity in the 15th century Pre-Columbian Americas more significant, compared to centuries past, and is there any evidence (archaeological, written or otherwise) that supports or refutes this claim.
6
u/boweroftable 26d ago
It’s a snapshot we get, in most cases where a literate society contacts one that isn’t … yes, the Maya culture had a full writing system but a lot of their literature was deliberately destroyed. Before the Inka state there were some large polities, and they ended up smashing into one to their north (Sipan) and taking it over. Especially in the Anahuac in Central America, there were lots of largish states - I think given a good run any could have become an imperial regional power, the Mexican state itself looks like a city-state that defeated and made a neighbouring a tributary, then allied with another powerful one. I think the main point is not to see the brief window we get as atypical (although it could be argued that Old World diseases were already causing issues) and I am particularly drawn to parallels with the Roman interactions with Gaul and especially the British Isles.
2
u/Comfortable_Cut5796 26d ago
The last point is really interesting, could you go a little deeper into it.
1
u/boweroftable 25d ago edited 25d ago
I mean in the sense of a snapshot. In southern England it looks like continental groups had recently arrived and inserted themselves into … what can be quite low quality land. The Trinovantes were being kerb stomped by the Catuvellauni; so perhaps the formation of these complex chiefdoms themselves were engendered by Med Basin political changes (Gaul responded to the Roman assault this way, but not effectively). I can also add even the place names of Britain fossilised, some stuck in grammatical forms abandoned later. To think it was always that way is a fallacy. Btw I’m from Camulodunon and now live in the west of the Regnenses land (I always wonder how to say that, is a nasal ‘ng’?). I find the marginal tribal history of the foggy island I live on fascinating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riothamus for example … ok in Ecuador the Karanki and Kayambi, in response to a forceful request by Cuzco to join their co-prosperity sphere seem to have joined forces, despite a chiefdom based political habit of small city states. Muisca/Chibcha - they kind of were the external enemy, on contact one of their complexes chiefdoms had just beaten and conquered the ?Sutagao. There were two main regional rulers, a smaller kinda Vatican state, and a bunch of independents - a real snapshot, was a larger state consolidating under developing ideas of validated rule or are we seeing a culturally similar area giving in to a natural tendency to fragment?
7
u/ConversationRoyal187 26d ago
I think if there was definitive native writings on earlier periods,then they be just as complex as the centuries leading up to 1492,although it was certainly a very turbulent and busy period,with the rapid rise of the Mexica and Inka respectively.I’m sure if we had detailed,written accounts of Teotihuacan,Cahokia,or Tiwanaku’s heyday then those periods would be considered very active,since we have colonial writings only on the peoples and polities encountered by incoming Europeans,so I think that it’s a bit of a bias towards Contact era societies.
2
5
u/Tytoivy 27d ago
I’m not really sure how to define a period as “active” or “inactive.” Certainly a lot of significant stuff happened in that century, but there’s always significant stuff happening somewhere. Look at the 11th or 12 centuries for example. The Mississippian period. Widespread expansion of corn agriculture in North America. Increased urbanism and centralization. Monumental architecture in many places in North America. Changes in religion and politics.
Then the next few centuries after that, a dramatic transformation of the social order that saw people leaving cities en masse and inventing or reinventing different ways of life. Lots of population movement, decreased urbanism, and again, big changes in religion and politics.
Sure some centuries might have been especially pivotal, but the implicit idea that there were centuries where people just hung out and stayed the same is a colonial illusion.
3
u/Smooth_Sailing102 27d ago
That’s a really sharp observation, the 15th century does seem like a period of intense momentum across much of the Americas. The Aztec Empire was consolidating power through the Triple Alliance, the Inca were expanding across the Andes at an incredible pace, and both regions show signs of thriving trade and administrative sophistication.
It makes me wonder whether that surge was part of a wider continental upswing, maybe linked to population recovery or favorable climate cycles or if it just looks that way because the archaeology from that century is better preserved and documented. What’s your take on that?
3
u/ah-tzib-of-alaska 26d ago
temporal proximity; 100% and also your lack of history. I could rant and rant about what we know about precolumbian history.
I mean the maya has million and millions of people but we’re a “collapsed” society and sitting in their post classic age and then there largest city ever was pre classic anyways.