Indeed - Aztecs were 1300 onwards, so hardly ancient, and we're regularly told on posts here that Oxford university is older. Mind you, I wouldn't class Vikings as ancient either, since they were going up to 1066. It could be the technical definition of "ancient civilisation" being the first known one in the area, but it's not a good question.

I came here to say that these questions are worthless without explanations of the answers. You're right that Vikings came well-before the Aztecs but they weren't a "civilization" as defined by archaeologists/historians. They're described as a culture because they were generally nomadic and didn't have a centralized government which is a requirement for definition as a "civilization". ETA: The question is needlessly pedantic. Unless you're taking an ancient history class, this isn't a distinction anyone needs to think about.

The word "Viking" is Norse for "pirate" or "raider". So it's a profession, not a civilization. The Vikings were Scandinavian, but not all Scandinavians were Vikings.

I put Egyptians because Egypt is still a current civilization. And despite appearances, the Vikings were actually quite civilized.

Perhaps they don't consider Vikings to be a civilization? There was a Viking era, but I don't think any Viking country/nationality.

Aztecs post-date the period the Vikings were active.

Just got to that question and came down to complain after confirming with a simple google search.

Agreed. If ancient = pre-mediaeval, then Vikings (Saxons, Danes, other Germanic sea-raiders) not only are before Aztecs, but also also come before the collapse of the Western Roman Empire (usually where people put the line for ending "ancient" history).

That's the point.

Cars also don't have mirrors in twos, they have them in threes, one inside to look outthe back