[Aztlan] Postclassic, empires, labels, and such

[J. L. Baker]

One of the problems with many attempts to apply the concept of the empire to the Mesoamerican world is authors reliance upon stereotypes of what the Roman and/or Chinese empires were like, stereotypes that may not really fit the reality.

The biggest example of this I can think of is the statements that Old World empires are territorial and New World empires are hegemonic. This is simply not true (the distinction between these two empire types is usually based upon the nature of the local rulers. In a territorial empire, the native rulers are replaced by the empire's people. In a hegemonic empire, the native rulers are left in place. 

In the case of both Rome and China, both strategies were utilized. The distinction between having a local ruler or a governor from the empire is based in general upon both the distance between the capitol of the empire and the conquered territory and the length that the area was conquered. In addition, if it was necessary to reconquer (because of a rebellion) a territory ruled by a local ruler, then the local ruler would often by replaced by an agent of the empire. 

I think much of the problem we have had with the use of the term "empire" is that people often use stereotypes that may never have existed in the real world. Clearly defining what an empire is by an author (as Michael Smith advocates) would help to clear up some of this misunderstanding.


Jeff Baker


> I disagree strongly with authors who disparage the
> application of
> concepts like empire to the archaeological record. If we
> fail to use
> analytical concepts like this, we will not be able to
> understand the
> societies of ancient Mesoamerica. O