In the past few weeks we have had opportunity to read two
books with similar purposes and ideas. Restall states that his purpose in
writing Seven Myths of the Spanish
Conquest was to dispel the misimpressions many people have surrounding the
conquest of Spanish America. Conrad and Demarest state their purpose in Religion and Empire as being to
demonstrate the advantages of combined anthropological and historical
perspectives in viewing past events through a more comprehensive lens (and the
more specific purpose of demonstrating religion as a driving historical force).
Between the two books it is possible for us to draw a more accurate picture of
the early contact and conquest eras in Spanish America.
All of that being said there are a few distinct
differences in the two books. The primary difference is the focus. Restall
speaks broadly about several factors in the conquest, and his focus is on the era
of initial contact and the ensuing era of “conquest”. In Conrad and Demarest we
see a more pre-Colombian focus on the era leading up to Spanish Conquest, with
the Mexica and Inca center stage. While Restall is dispelling common
misperceptions through historical research, his broad focus on seven areas is
far removed from Conrad and Demarest and their narrow focus on a primary
thesis.
Second among differences is the method. Restall relies on
historical documents and records which almost entirely date from post-Contact.
On the other side Conrad and Demarest rely much more heavily on archaeological
research to establish the ground work that they then flesh out with historical
records. Because of these differences in research method Conrad and Demarest
are writing for a much more technical audience, whereas Restall appears to be
writing for a general undergraduate audience.
Couldn't agree with Brett more. His statement on Restall's lack of pre-columbian sources is something that i noticed during my readings as well. I agree that "The Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest" is focused on giving a base knowledge to people that have minimal exposure to the subject. The book helps those people to understand more, if no to correct the fallacies they had learned from previous exposure.
ReplyDeleteJust as Brett said "Religion and Empire" draws much more from the things we talked about in class the other day; native authored sources, official administrative records, as well as archeological finds; rather than focusing on Spanish chronicles. This is partly due to their thesis being so focused on the fact that the society itself, specifically their ideology of "human sacrifice", was the main reason for its downfall. The outside factor of Spanish conquest was merely the gust of wind that blew down the house of cards. Conrad and Demarest's evidence points towards any European power being able to conquer the crumbling empire.
Brett is correct that Restall seems to lack any pre-Columbian evidence, however, keep in mind that, as with the lack of any pre-imperial Peruvian accounts, not many pre-Columbian accounts/sources would likely have survived the rise of the Aztec Empire and later Spanish conquest. That all being said however, "Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest" does seem to be meant to provide an introductory to people who don't really understand the conquest/dispel what we learned about the Spanish conquest in elementary school.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Conrad and Demarest go into further depth exploring how religion (the Peruvian cult of the dead, Aztec human sacrifice, and Christianity) played a role in the rise and fall of the Aztec and Inca Empires of Central and South America. Because of the deeper focus of "Religion and Empire", Conrad and Demarest's book DOES include photos/artist's renditions of Incan and Aztec temples.
Brett and Andrew are both right, however, that after infighting lead to the decline of both empires, the arrival of the Spanish was simply what finally did them in.