For week 5 you may write whatever you want about the book, OR you may consider the following:
In class today Nathanael pointed out a potential inconsistency between Restall's interpretation of the Cortés-as-God issue and Conrad and Demarest's/my interpretation of the god-hero. Can you put Restall and Conrad and Demarest together in other ways? Do they agree or disagree on certain points, in tone, or in other ways?
I have to admit that before this class, I have never really learned much about the Incan or Aztec Empire. Unlike most of the students in our class, I am unable to compare this reading with my previous knowledge of the Incan empire & the pre imperial Incan empire, but what I can say is that Conrad and Demarest are two very interesting writers. I feel that they both do a great job dissecting the information that they present to us with the lack of sources that they have to work with. You can tell they have limited reliable records because after most of the facts that they are giving us, they inform us that most of the information of the pre imperial Inca society was written after the Spanish Conquest (Conrad & Demarest 96). Because of this we can never really be too certain that what we are reading is actually true, which we’ve talked about many times during our discussions in class.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect I found very interesting was how the Chimu rulers would basically still have power over their estate and their belongings even after they were dead. I find it so ridiculous that the secondary heirs would continue to serve as his court, knowing that none of them had actual ownership over the dead man’s estate. What kept them going? I’m not sure if I missed a part where it ties to something about religion but from what I got from it was that they were just extremely dedicated descendants.
I agree with you, I only had minor details about the actual Empires and they were foggy representations at best. These books are laying out a lot of information and ideas that I had not even thought about or imagined could have been possible. I had only learned about the Spanish "myths and legends" that Restall disproved. The fact that the Empires were much more advanced than I was let on to believe before this class shows how much history can be manipulated by people who want it to benefit them, even the Aztec civilizations knew that; when they burned their history so that they would be the ones who held the knowledge. It shows that it was not just a European way of thinking. It was in order to make one seem more powerful. It is teaching me to question everything. Conrad and Demarest show that with determination and a lot of digging the truthful information is found.
ReplyDeleteI found that extremely interesting as well. I thought it was weird that they would even pull out the mummies of the rulers and engage them in everyday life as well as rituals. The Egyptians did not even do that with their highly respected Pharaohs. It seems bizarre that they would feel the need to be so attached to not just the essence, but also the body of a dead ruler. I think that the dependence upon a strong ruler helped the Spanish in assuming control over the already dismantled Incan Empire. The Incan's were strong in holding on to their beliefs of previous rulers ("Gods"), but seemed to need the control of some political force in order to survive life.