MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605081891 · doi:10.1215/00141801-3789321

The Lienzo of Tlapiltepec: A Painted History from the Northern Mixteca

2017· article· en· W2605081891 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annabeth Headrick

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnohistory · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLatin American history and culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipNarrativeArt historyHistoryArtClassicsVisual artsLiteratureLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arni Brownstone, assistant curator of World Cultures at the Royal Ontario Museum, witnessed the flow of scholars coming to study the sixteenth-century Lienzo of Tlapiltepec. Originally from the Mixteca Alta in the Mexican state of Oaxaca, the lienzo is a history painted on a large cotton cloth depicting the narrative of the royal house of Coixtlahuaca, a politically important city during Mesoamerica’s Postclassic period (ca. 950–1521 CE). Brownstone’s preface offers a refreshingly truthful account of the intrigue that brought the lienzo to Toronto. The book celebrates the scholarship attending the installation of a digitally enhanced copy in the museum, a strategy that not only preserves the delicate lienzo but also captures the original colors that faded over centuries. A valuable aspect of this book is the inclusion of this reproduction and numerous full-color details of the lienzo, images of other related manuscripts and lienzos, and beautifully illustrative maps. By modern publication standards the lavish number of illustrations makes this an incredibly useful text for scholars interested in the Mixtec past.Just as the manuscript has inspired a pilgrimage of sorts to the museum, this text reflects the diversity of research approaches that such a document incites. Collectively the chapters in the book demonstrate the benefit of viewing a manuscript from multiple perspectives. The book begins with the preeminent Mesoamerican manuscript scholar Elizabeth Boone’s foreword, which effectively positions the document within the Aztec and Mixtec traditions that the lienzo fuses. Nicholas Johnson’s first essay offers a fine introduction to the painted history and its physical properties and helps readers identify the basic imagery and its reading, a necessity for those unfamiliar with this system of communication. Bas van Doesburg contributes a thorough interpretation of the history depicted in the lienzo, revealing the internal shifts in power between various ruling parties of the Coixtlahuaca Valley. He explains how a number of ruling houses representing different ethnic identities coalesced to form a polity, a situation that might explain the very reason the rulers of Coixtlahuaca commissioned the lienzo. These rulers were intent on documenting the foundation and expansion of their territory, their response to the intrusive interests of the Aztec imperial state, and eventually the consolidation of power by the Coixtlahuaca lords. Van Doesburg successfully uses early colonial documents to reconstruct the pre-Hispanic political structure of the area, and his inclusion of seveteen transcriptions of these archival materials fleshes out the colonial documentation of the Coixtlahuaca Valley, making them readily accessible to scholars.Other sections include an important analysis of ten sixteenth-century glosses by linguist Michael Swanton and van Doesburg. They determine that the language of these glosses is Chocholtec, and compellingly identify them as toponyms. The second chapter by Johnson examines how the lines on the lienzo create a spatial structure that fully integrates with the historical narrative. Finally, Brownstone and Eckhard Dolinski provide a historiography of the various illustrations that have been made of the Lienzo of Tlapiltepec, ultimately resulting in the current reproduction now displayed at the museum. In a field where scholars commonly use both photographic and redrawn facsimiles, the inclusion of this chapter might inspire reflection about the accuracy of research materials.In sum, the differing analyses of this singular lienzo combine into a successful text that serves as a model for interdisciplinary yet integrated research. Because it introduces the fundamentals of reading Mixtec imagery and provides a wealth of illustrations and archival materials, it will appeal to novices and seasoned scholars interested in the political machinations of pre-Columbian to colonial-period Mexico.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnohistorySame topicLatin American history and cultureFrench-language works237,207