TWO PICTORIAL DOCUMENTS FROM THE COLONIAL PERIOD IN MEXICO

This brief report concerns two colonial-period picture documents from Mexico that are now in the possession of the Museum of Natural and Cultural History at the University of Oregon. Both concern historical matters of geographical import, both are termed mapas (“maps” in Spanish) but most strongly represent political statements. The first of these treated, identified as the Mapa de Cuauhtlantzinco, is apparently one of at least a half-dozen known copies, or partial copies, of an older document now unknown, and concerns especially people said to represent the town of Cuauhtlantzinco, which is located on the central Mexican highlands somewhat more than one hundred kilometers (62 miles) southeast of the heart of modern Mexico City. The second, now designated the Mapa de San Andrés Mixtepec is evidently a single, original document that directs itself to the history of a small settlement in the state of Oaxaca, and at a point located well over four hundred kilometers (249 miles) southeast of Mexico City, and more than three hundred fifty kilometers (217 miles) from Cuauhtlantzinco. Both of these mapas are of evident interest to local inhabitants of the two areas, which led the museum some years ago to gift photographic copies to people of these areas, which were delivered in Mexico through the good offices of a museum colleague, Dr. Stephanie Wood, of the University of Oregon. The first of these towns was Cuauhtlantzinco (on modern maps spelled Cuautlancingo) which led a local resident and student, Alberto Sarmiento Tepoztecatl (his surnames repeating two of those connected historically to the Mapa de Cuauhtlantzinco, as will be seen in Chapter 2) to visit the University of Oregon in the fall of 2002 and present a talk about the local mapa to an audience in the museum. The second (largely a matter of bad roads) was delivered not to the very rural town of San Andrés Mixtepec but to a regional alternative, the Francisco de Burgoa Library in Oaxaca City (capital of the state of Oaxaca), a library with affiliations to the Museum of Oaxacan Cultures as well as to the Universidad Autónoma Benito Juarez, both located in the state capital. As a pair, the documents—clearly of import for local aspects of Mexican post-colonial history—represent relatively untypical properties for holdings of this Oregon museum, so it seems well to begin with a brief history of how they came to be in the museum collection, and to summarize efforts made to determine precisely both what it is they represent—in a historical sense—and also the ways they can be seen to relate to the time and conditions of their Mexican places of named relationship. To approach this, Chapter 1 unwinds to provide information regarding the comparatively recent discovery of the documents within the museum and then summarizes research that revealed how they came to the institution. It goes on to discuss the specific geographical areas and ethnic regions of Mexico to which the documents each relate and adds basic information regarding the substantial differences between the mapas in construction and physical appearances and then of their apparently much smaller differences in probable dates of actual creation. Following this, Chapters 2 and 3—each of them devoted to a separate document—will delve at least superficially into the specific historical and ethnic backgrounds against which the documents themselves should be viewed, considering their differing geographical sources within Mexico. Each of these documents also focuses especially on matters of concern to aboriginal people of Mexico, rather than on those of overriding concern to their new colonial Spanish masters. As historical details emerge regarding each document and its milieu, questions can be raised as to why they were composed and completed at the dates that seem indicated by the evidence—dates that in both cases are more than a century after the actual Spanish conquest of Mexico was brought to completion. Chapter 4, then, provides further examinations of historical details that bear strongly on these questions— especially on just why the documents were created at the time or times in which they evidently emerged. Finally, although there will be no attempt in this brief guide to present complete and fully satisfactory color reproductions of either of the documents, portions of them will be presented in hopes of stimulating interest in obtaining more direct views of the documents themselves. In later pages, additional information pertinent to each of the documents will also include relevant addresses of materials on the University website

Measurements of the Marine Reservoir Effect on Radiocarbon Ages in the Eastern Bering Sea

The marine reservoir effect is known to skew radiocarbon dating (marine samples appear "older" than terrestrial samples of equivalent age), but the magnitude of this effect is not the same in all locations. Carbon-14 age determinations from 23 paired samples of terrestrial and marine origin are presented for five areas around the northern and eastern Bering Sea. It appears statistically suitable to average the age differences for three pairs, weighted inversely by variance. Differences from within each of 14 pairs of wood charcoal vs. sea mammal residue (from St. Lawrence Island, Cape Prince of Wales, Nunivak Island, Alaska Peninsula, and Unalaska Island) yield a weighted mean of 737 ± 20 years. Somewhat more variant differences from within each of five additional pairs of wood charcoal vs. sea mammal residue (St. Lawrence Island, Unalaska Island) provide a lower weighted mean of 460 ± 41 years. Differences from within each of four pairs of wood charcoal vs. marine shell (Nunivak Island) produce a weighted mean of 459 ± 32 years. Variations in these apparent reservoir effects presumably result largely from the interplay of differential ocean water upwelling and customary faunal feeding areas, although possible effects of other species characteristics cannot be ruled out. Dating of marine samples from the Bering Sea should thus either proceed with the expectation that age determinations may not be accurate within several centuries, or be approached through experimental measurement of reservoir effect among restricted faunal species in limited areas. Overall, the effect throughout the eastern Bering Sea appears to range from about 450 to 750 years.On sait que l'effet du réservoir marin biaise la datation au radiocarbone (les échantillons marins semblent être "plus vieux" que les échantillons terrestres d'âge similaire), mais la grandeur de cet effet n'est pas la même à tous les endroits. On présente les déterminations de l'âge au carbone 14 pour 23 échantillons appariés d'origine terrestre et marine provenant de cinq zones situées aux environs de la mer de Béring septentrionale et orientale. Il semble approprié sur le plan statistique d'établir la moyenne des différences d'âge pour trois paires, pondérées inversement par la variance. Les différences provenant de chacune des 14 paires de charbon de bois comparé à des restes de mammifère marin (île Saint-Laurent, cap Prince-de-Galles, île Nunivak, péninsule d'Alaska, et île Unalaska) donnent une moyenne pondérée de 737 ± 20 ans. Des différences un peu plus variables provenant de chacune de cinq autres paires de charbon de bois comparé à des restes de mammifère marin (île Saint-Laurent, île Unalaska) donnent une moyenne pondérée plus faible de 460 ± 41 ans. Les différences entre chacune des quatre paires de charbon de bois comparé à des coquillages marins (île Nunivak) donnent une moyenne pondérée de 459 ± 32 ans. Les variations dans ces effets de réservoir apparents proviennent probablement en grande partie du jeu réciproque entre les zones de remontée différentielle des eaux océaniques et les aires d'alimentation habituelles, bien qu'on ne puisse éliminer les effets possibles de caractéristiques propres à d'autres espèces. La datation des échantillons marins de la mer de Béring devrait donc se faire soit en s'attendant à des erreurs de plusieurs siècles dans les déterminations d'âge, soit en l'abordant par le biais de mesures expérimentales portant sur l'effet de réservoir parmi un petit nombre d'espèces fauniques et à l'intérieur d'un territoire restreint. Dans l'ensemble, cet effet dans tout l'est de la mer de Béring semble aller de 450 à 750 ans

Two Pictorial Documents from the Colonial Period in Mexico

36 pagesThis brief report concerns two colonial-period picture documents from Mexico that are now in the pos-session of the Museum of Natural and Cultural History at the University of Oregon. Both concern historical matters of geographical import, both are termed mapas (“maps” in Spanish) but most strongly represent political statements. The first of these treated, identified as the Mapa de Cuauhtlantzinco, is apparently one of at least a half-dozen known copies, or partial copies, of an older document now unknown, and concerns especially people said to represent the town of Cuauhtlantzinco, which is located on the central Mexican highlands somewhat more than one hundred kilometers (62 miles) southeast of the heart of modern Mexico City. The second, now designated the Mapa de San Andrés Mixtepec is evidently a single, original document that directs itself to the history of a small settlement in the state of Oaxaca, and at a point located well over four hundred kilometers (249 miles) southeast of Mexico City, and more than three hundred fifty kilometers (217 miles) from Cuauhtlantzinco. Both of these mapas are of evident interest to local inhabitants of the two areas, which led the museum some years ago to gift photographic copies to people of these areas, which were delivered in Mexico through the good offices of a museum colleague, Dr. Stephanie Wood, of the University of Oregon. The first of these towns was Cuauhtlantzinco (on modern maps spelled Cuautlancingo) which led a local resident and student, Alberto Sarmiento Tepoztecatl (his surnames repeating two of those connected histor-ically to the Mapa de Cuauhtlantzinco, as will be seen in Chapter 2) to visit the University of Oregon in the fall of 2002 and present a talk about the local mapa to an audience in the museum. The second (largely a matter of bad roads) was delivered not to the very rural town of San Andrés Mixtepec but to a regional alternative, the Francis-co de Burgoa Library in Oaxaca City (capital of the state of Oaxaca), a library with affiliations to the Museum of Oaxacan Cultures as well as to the Universidad Autónoma Benito Juarez, both located in the state capital. As a pair, the documents—clearly of import for local aspects of Mexican post-colonial history—represent relatively untypical properties for holdings of this Oregon museum, so it seems well to begin with a brief history of how they came to be in the museum collection, and to summarize efforts made to determine precisely both what it is they represent—in a historical sense—and also the ways they can be seen to relate to the time and condi-tions of their Mexican places of named relationship. To approach this, Chapter 1 unwinds to provide information regarding the comparatively recent discovery of the docu-ments within the museum and then summarizes research that revealed how they came to the institution. It goes on to discuss the specific geographical areas and ethnic regions of Mexico to which the documents each relate and adds basic information regarding the substantial differ-ences between the mapas in construction and physical appearances and then of their apparently much smaller differences in probable dates of actual creation. Following this, Chapters 2 and 3—each of them devoted to a separate document—will delve at least super-ficially into the specific historical and ethnic backgrounds against which the documents themselves should be viewed, considering their differing geographical sources within Mexico. Each of these documents also focuses especially on matters of concern to aboriginal people of Mexico, rather than on those of overriding concern to their new colonial Spanish masters. As historical details emerge regarding each document and its milieu, questions can be raised as to why they were composed and completed at the dates that seem indicated by the evidence—dates that in both cases are more than a century after the actual Spanish conquest of Mexico was brought to completion. Chapter 4, then, provides further examinations of historical details that bear strongly on these questions—especially on just why the documents were created at the time or times in which they evidently emerged. Finally, although there will be no attempt in this brief guide to present complete and fully satisfactory color reproduc-tions of either of the documents, portions of them will be presented in hopes of stimulating interest in obtaining more direct views of the documents themselves. In later pages, additional information pertinent to each of the doc-uments will also include relevant addresses of materials on the University website

Le Forum, Vol. 43 #4

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/francoamericain_forum/1102/thumbnail.jp