From Colonialism To Nationalism, The Indian To Indigenismo: A History Of Central Mexican Archaeology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most published work on the history of Mexican archaeology has been in Spanish, and most publications in article format have focussed on developments during or since the 1900s. This paper presents a concise, English summary of the origins and development of the practice of archaeology alongside the changing political landscape of Mexico through from the 1500s to the present. This article explores: the colonial concept of the “Indian” and the initial conversion e ort of the 1500s; the birth of antiquarianism and archaeology in the 1700s and 1800s respectively; the establishment of archaeology as a discipline with Manuel Gamio; the Revolution of the 1910s and the indigenismo movement; and modern controversies around tourist archaeology, the status of living indigenous peoples in Mexico, and the relationship between archaeology and the Mexican government. “Archaeology” is defined here as the study of the (human) past through material remains, an “archaeologist” as one who practices archaeology, a “practice” as the application of certain ideas and methods, and a “discipline” as a branch of knowledge taught in a school system. It is argued that archaeology in central Mexico (the practice and discipline) developed alongside Mexican nationalism during periods when the pre-Hispanic past and particularly the Aztec empire was viewed positively, and thus developed in tandem with indigenismo and the notion of Mexico as a mestizo nation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".