Search Results
6/22/2025, 7:35:29 PM
>>713359092
I know some stuff but not nearly as much as I do with say the Aztec or Teotihuacan (though I am relatively confident that the WIP Oaxaca section in pic related is a solid set of recs)
As i'm sure you know, they're a civilization mostly based in western Oaxaca and parts of Guerrero and bits of Puebla. A lot of sources talk about them as overtaking the Zapotec in the Postclassic period, but the Mixtec had always been around alongside the Zapotec (and other lesser known culture in Oaxaca) going back much earlier, and the perception of them coming after the Zapotec is more a result of just what research has traditionally focused on over the past century, though there are Zapotec sites the Mixtec took over or moved into in the Postclassic period (tho even that I have seen some contention over in some cases)
Mixtec metalwork jewelry and lapidary work/stone mosaics were prized as especially fine art and the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan had a group of Mixtec artists living there to produce pieces, in general it's difficult to distinguish pieces in those mediums as being Aztec or Mixtec for that reason, also because there's a lot of general artistic similarity with the style of art (Mixteca-Puebla, though it's now called the international style since it's really a broader aeshetic found even in Maya regions in some cases during the Late Postclassic period) seen in codices/manuscripts and on painted dishware between the two: A lot of stuff like the Borgia group codices is nebulously identified as coming from Tlaxcala, Puebla, or Oaxaca for that reason
Politically both Mixtec and Zapotec states/politics were heavily based on dynastic ties, perhaps more then subject-capital relationships (so like the Classic Maya, though I don't know how exact that comparsion is, and it's also not like the Aztec didn't have political marriages with dyanistic links either), with oracles often sanctioning wars and political marriages, with ancestor worship being a thing too
5/?
I know some stuff but not nearly as much as I do with say the Aztec or Teotihuacan (though I am relatively confident that the WIP Oaxaca section in pic related is a solid set of recs)
As i'm sure you know, they're a civilization mostly based in western Oaxaca and parts of Guerrero and bits of Puebla. A lot of sources talk about them as overtaking the Zapotec in the Postclassic period, but the Mixtec had always been around alongside the Zapotec (and other lesser known culture in Oaxaca) going back much earlier, and the perception of them coming after the Zapotec is more a result of just what research has traditionally focused on over the past century, though there are Zapotec sites the Mixtec took over or moved into in the Postclassic period (tho even that I have seen some contention over in some cases)
Mixtec metalwork jewelry and lapidary work/stone mosaics were prized as especially fine art and the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan had a group of Mixtec artists living there to produce pieces, in general it's difficult to distinguish pieces in those mediums as being Aztec or Mixtec for that reason, also because there's a lot of general artistic similarity with the style of art (Mixteca-Puebla, though it's now called the international style since it's really a broader aeshetic found even in Maya regions in some cases during the Late Postclassic period) seen in codices/manuscripts and on painted dishware between the two: A lot of stuff like the Borgia group codices is nebulously identified as coming from Tlaxcala, Puebla, or Oaxaca for that reason
Politically both Mixtec and Zapotec states/politics were heavily based on dynastic ties, perhaps more then subject-capital relationships (so like the Classic Maya, though I don't know how exact that comparsion is, and it's also not like the Aztec didn't have political marriages with dyanistic links either), with oracles often sanctioning wars and political marriages, with ancestor worship being a thing too
5/?
5/30/2025, 3:12:42 PM
shit forgot my image
>>24418889
>>24418650
>>24419190
cont:
I'd read >>24418900 as a compliment for any generalist world history book since it's all about explaining how the Americas had way going on then most World History stuff covers, even if it too is also not current to modern scholarship either (not nearly as dated as those other 3)
>>24420350
How much more academic? I'd consider 1491 to lean that way a decent bit. Also, clarify what you mean when you want anthropology mixed in. Like what sort of anthropological lenses or topical focus are you wanting, exactly?
2/2 for now
>>24418889
>>24418650
>>24419190
cont:
I'd read >>24418900 as a compliment for any generalist world history book since it's all about explaining how the Americas had way going on then most World History stuff covers, even if it too is also not current to modern scholarship either (not nearly as dated as those other 3)
>>24420350
How much more academic? I'd consider 1491 to lean that way a decent bit. Also, clarify what you mean when you want anthropology mixed in. Like what sort of anthropological lenses or topical focus are you wanting, exactly?
2/2 for now
Page 1