The Zimba, the Portuguese, and Other Cannibals in Late Sixteenth-century Southeast Africa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article argues that Portuguese accounts of cannibalism in sixteenth-century southeast Africa reflect important but mostly unrecognised elements of the region's political and cultural history. The article analyses descriptions of the Zimba cannibals in Ethiopia Oriental, written by the Portuguese priest Joo dos Santos. Dos Santos's evidence figures significantly in scholarship for this period, and while many historians include his colourful descriptions of cannibalism, none has taken them seriously, largely dismissing them as a product of European myth-making. In focusing on the question of cannibalism, the article asks not whether the Zimba ate human flesh, nor why they might have, but how dos Santos came to believe that they did. Early modern European cultural outlooks had a role in producing such accounts, but the argument here focuses on how claims of cannibalism reflected African, rather than European, perspectives. Such claims were a vernacular expression of beliefs about, and critiques of, political power in the threatening and unsettled political environment of the time. In transmitting descriptions of cannibalism from African informants, dos Santos acted as an unwitting vehicle for this vernacular critique, conveying its meaning quite imperfectly to his readers.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it