How can the Mortuary Practices from two Colonial-Era Cemeteries be Compared? Using the 16th-Century Spanish Colonial Sites of El Chorro de Maita in Cuba and Magdalena de Cao Viejo in Peru as Examples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis asks the question 'How can the mortuary practices of two separate Colonial era sites be compared, using the 16th century cemeteries of El Chorro de Maita in Cuba, and Magdalena de Cao Viejo in Peru as examples', and follows this main research question with the subquestions 'how were the individuals interred?', 'how were the individuals oriented?', 'where within, or outside of, the cemeteries were the individual buried?', and 'were there grave goods present, and if so, what kinds?'. All of the research carried out rot this thesis is based entirely on literature.\nFirst, there is a brief explanation of the historical background of the two regions that the sites find themselves in, followed by a more narrowed down look at the cemeteries themselves, and the roles that they played in the encomienda and reducción systems as imposed by the Colonial Spanish.\nIn the chapter about the burials, it becomes clear that for both sites the age and sex of a person did not seem to have mattered when it came to the location of the burial within the cemetery. Both sites also have evidence for the deposition of individuals in a Christian burial position, this is much more prevalent in the Peruvian site at Magdalena de Cao Viejo. When it comes to the presence of grave goods, they are very much lacking at Magdalena de Cao Viejo, while there is a large and varied amount of material found at El Chorro de Maita in Cuba, possibly due to a less direct amount of contact, and therefore influence, from a Spanish ruled settlement.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".