Diffusion or Independent Development? The Treatment of War Captives by the Haudenosaunee, Aztecs and Tupinambá
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The societies of the Haudenosaunee, Aztecs, and Tupinambá share many distinct traits in terms of their treatment of war captives. These traits include the ownership and potential incorporation of the captive into the group, the abuse and torture of war prisoners, ceremonial sacrifice, and cannibalism. The reasons for these similar characteristics have been debated by historians and anthropologists. Some argue that diffusion, typically from Mesoamerica, is primarily responsible, others argue that it can be attributed to independent inventions at specific points in each society’s development. Though no definite explanation for these similar behaviours exists, a clear portrait can emerge when outlining the many shared characteristics of these civilizations, which can then be analysed within the framework of the diffusion or independent development arguments. A definition of diffusion and independent development—and all of their inherent implications—must be ascertained before entering into the debate behind the origins of the war captive complex in Haudenosaunee, Aztec and Tupinambá societies. According to Robert L. Rands and Carroll L. Riley in “Diffusion and Discontinuous Distribution, ” diffusion may be the simplest of the explanations for common culture traits and societal structures. The problems
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".