Sunday, February 19, 2012
Inca's 'Dead' King Ideology
One of the things I have enjoyed most from Conrad and Demarest is the style in which they write about the Aztecs and Incas. In both chapters, they discuss the historical background, the importance of their religion as an ideology, as well as the reasons for demise of both cultures. Juxtaposed with the Aztec Empire and their human sacrifices being the focal point to their religion to the Sun God, Conrad and Demarest didn't make much mention about human sacrifice in the Inca Empire. As far as the chapter about the Inca culture, I found it very interesting how the Inca's entire lifestyle was surrounded by the "dead" kings. Conrad and Demarest successfully explains the Incas' beliefs. "A past Inca ruler was not considered 'dead' in our sense of the term at all, as we can see from the way his panaqa dealt with him....In short, the panaqas continued to treat the decreased rulers as if they were still alive". (114) These beliefs ultimately led to the demise of the Inca Empire because the new rulers had to continuously conquer new land for themselves. Because the deceased kings were held in such grand stature, their land and possessions were always considered theirs and did not travel down the ancestral line. "By denying the living emperor the land and labor controlled by his predecessors, the property rights of the dead forced Inca rulers to adopt a policy of continuous territorial growth". (126)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you on this one. I enjoyed how the authors split up the two chapters into historical backgrounds, importance, and reasons for demise. I have been studying Latin America ever since I can remember, and the only aspect I did not like was their lack of explanation for some places and individuals. I often would get confused and have to reread the text or look up places/individuals online to figure it all out. As far as the Inca referring their dead kings, that was extremely interesting to me. I have seen videos of modern peoples partaking in religious ceremonies worshipping, once again, the "dead" kings. It is amazing how much they worshipped these kings. Even in death they were feared and taken care of. It is very different from the Aztec perspective, where the dead were, in fact, dead, and their royalty could not be touched or even looked at in the eye. It reminds me of the Chimu peoples, as well. For example on page 91, it states that royal theft was a religious and civil crime. "...so heinous that it was punished by the execution of the thief, his father, his brothers, and anyone who had harbored him."
ReplyDeleteI would like to focus on two important points you discuss in your blog. The first is that the Inca continued to venerate their kings after death. The second point is that this veneration ultimately contributed to the demise of the Inca Empire. The first point raises an interesting question. We are told that the panaqas served as the dead kings' court. Did this service to the king differ in any way from that of a king who was alive? Certainly, members of the "living" king's court enjoyed a myriad of benefits. But what of the "deceased" king's court? Clearly, the panaqas efforts earned them a considerable amount of wealth and power. Their interests lay in maintaining ancestral worship. A clear example of the importance of this system to the individuals that comprised these panaqas can be seen in their reaction to King Huascar's opposition to imperial ancestor cults. Huascar's opposition to ancestral worship was really an opposition to the system of "split inheritance."
ReplyDeleteConrad and Demarest emphasize the effects of this "split inheritance" system in the fall of the Inca Empire. It is interesting to note that not only did this system require the king/Inca's to continually engage in conquest for new lands/wealth, which stressed the empire, but also Huascar's opposition to this system lead to an ideological split in the empire, which weakened the Incas. This was a weakness Francisco Pizarro exploited.
Question: If King Huascar recognized all the problems associated with split inheritance/ancestral worship then I assume that at least some of his contemporaries also recognized the drain these systems had on the empire-why then were his opposition efforts met with such ferocity? How powerful were the panaqas? Was this about belief/religion or simply an economic issue?