[Aztlan] Postclassic, empires, labels, and such

[Jerry Ek]

Hey Jeff,
 
I think that your definition of hegemonic versus territorial empires is a little off the mark.  
 
You mention that the difference between the two is based on replacement of rules in conquered provinces.  However, that is just one example of the broader and more important distinction between the two types of states, and that is in the degree of direct administration that the Imperial capital exerts on incorporated areas.  Replacing local rulers is just a detail, really.  In Territorial Empires, the whole administration system is changed and rule is highly centralized.  These states incorporate areas into an Empire.  Hegemonic Empires mainly just extract tribute.  Territorial states may be more likely to replace local rulers than a hegemonic empire would, but that isn’t – and shouldn’t be – the defining attribute.  
 
To use New World examples, the Inca and Aztec polities illustrate this distinction very well, with the former representing a territorial empire and the latter a hegemonic empire.  As you mention with Rome and China, the Aztecs sometimes replaced rulers, but usually left local people in power.  However, the results of imperial incorporation in the provinces and the degree of centralized rule between these two examples are very different.  
 
I don't think these are stereotypes or inadequate concepts at all.  As Mike pointed out, all cases differ and using generalized conceptual models like these result in some loss of detail.  But this is necessary if we want to compare different societies.  
 
Regards,
 
Jerry Ek
 

 
> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:35:37 -0700
> From: sierradeagua at yahoo.com
> To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Postclassic, empires, labels, and such
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Click to view Calendar of Events http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. 
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009