I believe Conrad and Demarest’s depiction of the Inca Empire and their expansion is quite interesting even though it lacks some depth. But considering what information they had available to work with, it is rather impressive that they were able to come to such conclusions about the Incas, and the Aztecs for that matter. But it does leave you to wonder how accurately we can rely on Conrad and Demarest’s interpretation of these empires. Unlike studies of other civilizations with numerous amounts of written records and histories, the only sources we have on the Incas are archeological research and indigenous sources written post Spanish conquest. These sources are relied heavily upon in the authors’ depiction even though they state that the written works of native authors are full of historical inaccuracies (6). We had a brief discussion in class about this issue, and I believe we came to the conclusion that the native authors most likely wrote their works with Spanish influence so we can’t fully trust in what they wrote to be fact. I do give Conrad and Demarest credit for searching for several different sources and comparing them to try to piece together Inca history. I feel we will never know the full and accurate history of many of the Mesoamerican civilizations and trying to do so will prove to be a difficult task.
I agree with you completely. We will most likely never know what really happened in the pre conquest Incan Empire. So, While Conrad and Demarest try to use outside sources rather than the post-conquest texts, it also makes me wonder about their value and credibility as well. Things can be misinterpreted, or fabricated, thus leaving us to always wonder if what we read are the actual facts or someone else’s miss interpretation. For example, when talking about the early horizon period of Incan society Conrad and Demarest base their findings on the belief that their source is accurate. But, what they fail to mention in the main text is that their specification of certain information is based on a recent synthesis by Richard Burger. For myself this makes me even more suspicious of this source as it is relatively new and thus has not been tested and critiqued as much as some other sources. Such as the information pertaining to the last stage of the Tiahuanaco civilization has more varied evidence, and has had a significantly longer time to be examined and so I trust this as a source more than Richard Burger’s synthesis. Despite this I appreciate Conrad and Demarest’s efforts to incorporate as many sources as possible so as to help validate their arguments and conclusions. Overall though, Conrad and Demarest seem to do a good job of seeking the truth. No matter how illusive the truth may be, and no matter how much it may disagree with traditional conceptions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel as well – although I enjoyed reading about the Inca Empire, I felt that the information provided wasn’t completely reliable. Conrad and Demarest admit that it is difficult to find information on the Inca Empire. They note that “the details of those shifts, rises, and falls are known from written accounts and archaeological research,” and that these sources are few and far between (86). They also mention that the native Andean people (the civilization before the Incan Empire rose) never developed a system of writing, so it is almost impossible to find information specifically from the natives during that period (86). As we learned earlier in the book and in class, most written information from the pre-conquest period was gathered and written by the Spanish during the conquest period, which of course potentially leads to exaggerations, inaccuracies, fabrications, etc.
ReplyDeleteConrad and Demarest then assert: “[the accounts of pre-Inca culture] seem to be mythical or legendary and can’t be read as history, except in the most general sense” (86). Since the records are practically non-existent, it seems that it is almost impossible to actually know the history of the pre-conquest Incan Empire and the Andean Civilization pre-Inca. I agree with both Rachel and the first commenter – it is easy to question the credibility of Conrad and Demarest because I feel that a lot of their information is based on assumptions and inferences; they even admit that they had a hard time finding factual evidence from this period. Also, I don’t find it satisfying to know the information I am reading may or may not be true, and are based on guesses. It is obvious that Conrad and Demarest did extensive research and that they do have knowledge on the subject, it still makes me wonder what to believe. Although archaeological sources are obviously helpful, I imagine written sources from the actual natives would make it easier to assume and infer the history of the pre-Inca natives and Incas during the conquest period. However, I must say I agree with the first commenter when they say: “Conrad and Demarest seem to do a good job of seeking the truth.”