Week 6 prompt: Comparative Empires

As others have observed, history is almost by necessity comparative (CTeran) and to compare (dis)similar subjects is an instinctive trait and often necessary to human understanding (nathanaellash). Therefore I would say that comparing the Aztecs to the Romans--or the Incas to the Soviets or so on--is indeed illuminating because not only are we able to track similarities in an empire's rise, endurance, or fall, we are able to see where the empires are unique historically. This latter aspect is arguably the more important one; a regime's true strengths and weaknesses lie in where it diverges from the historical path.

Simply by presenting the Aztec and Inca peoples and empires side by side, Conrad and Demarest are engaging in comparative history - their intent is moot here because of the aforementioned human instinct. I am certain, however, that they do mean to compare the two to some extent, given the similarities (and disparities) in Mesoamerican and South American culture that they highlight and the final chapters in which they draw direct parallels between the two empires.

One thing I would like to remark on, with regards to comparison and the inherent subjectivity thereof, is that Conrad and Demarest frequently refer to archaeological evidence as significantly more authoritative than written evidence. Now, this is perfectly understandable, but while they discuss in depth the problems of interpreting written evidence and the inherent biases of the sources themselves, I have not found any satisfactory discussion by them of the problems of interpreting archaeological evidence. nathanaellash names archaeology as one of the "fields of study where historical comparison is necessary and even celebrated," yet in historical comparison there is no getting away from the biases and assumptions that one may bring to the table (as Restall points out in his discussion of historical truth) and the same would hold true for archaeology. While some archaeological evidence uncovered would be indisputable, there is much of it that is interpreted according to one's assumptions and expectations (I think here particularly of arrangements or objects we call art or to which we assign ritual/social/spiritual value). Conrad and Demarest acknowledge some changes in interpretation that have occurred over the years, but not, in my opinion, to the same extent that they scrutinize the written sources. Given their insistence on a properly holistic understanding of the peoples and empires they present (and the sources used in their presentation) this strikes me as something of a gap.