Week 4

In Religion and Empire, Conrad and Demarest discuss archaeology, ethnohistory, and anthropological theory as a means of discovering information about the Aztecs and Incas during the Spanish Conquest. I found this area of Religion and Empire to be interesting because it gave me helpful background information on how the authors plan to convey their beliefs and comparisons about the rise and fall of the Aztec and Inca Empires through a variety of sources.

Conrad and Demarest discuss the different documentary sources from the Mexica and Inca natives – Spanish chronicles, official administrative records, and works of native Mesoamerican and Andean authors (5). These sources provide challenges because of various factual inconsistencies between the natives and Spanish from both colonial areas. For example, it was difficult for the Spaniards and the natives to fully comprehend each other with the language and culture barriers; the Spaniards would sometimes “Europeanize” certain aspects of native culture, and the native accounts would sometimes contain “ambiguous remarks and confusing styles” (7). All in all, they assert: “interpretation requires constant comparison and weighing of the evidence” (7). Next, the authors discuss how they plan to pull evidence from both documentary sources and archaeology to “cross check on one another, with each helping to increase our understanding of the other” (8). By combining and comparing such a wide variety sources, Conrad and Demarest will be able to fully interpret the rise and fall of these empires.

I agree with Conrad and Demarest’s approach, especially after thinking about some of the discussions we have had in class: information from that period could easily be skewed and misinterpreted, especially when considering cultural obstacles, and I think it is important to view a specific topic or event from every angle to arrive at a consistent conclusion. One example about cultural obstacles that stuck out to me was when we discussed how the Spanish had to read “the Requermiento” to the natives, even though the natives didn’t speak or understand Spanish. Even though this is example is indirectly relatable, I believe it demonstrates how easy it was for each culture to misinterpret each other.