establish his credibility by citing independent sources, such as John Mandeville and eyewitness indigenous accounts. For Davies, Jodocus Hondius the Elder’s interpretation of Ralegh marks the turning point for her argument. Hondius engaged in what Davies terms “visual exegesis.” Showing how maps from 1596 to 1598 had drawn extensively on Ralegh’s descriptions of Guiana, Hondius, who knew that no Dutch voyages to Guiana had corroborated Ralegh’s report, illustrated his 1608 world map with no headless people or Amazons. Furthermore the “ethnographic frieze” format, in which people from different areas would be lined up and, therefore, compared on the periphery of a map, illustrated pamphlet or travel book served to stretch the bonds of what Davies terms the “ethnographic credibility” at the time. It is finally with her examination of cities on maps, that Davies completes her argument. Cities such as Cuzco or Tenochtitlán was described as civilized in an Aristotelian sense in that they had leaders, wealthy classes, armies, trade, and farming. Davies implies that mapmakers of Peru and Mexico did not try to appeal to the sensational images of barbarism through traditional negative imagery; rather, they simply showed human diversity across geographic space. The 1596 De Bry maps, for example, did not focus on locational specificity of peoples, but on their everyday life and costume. Davies calls this a “new epistemic virtue” for maps that stressed universal humanity rather than earlier notions of negative difference and monstrosity. This new humanity, as she shows, was increasingly depicted hierarchically with the personification of the Amerindian usually at the bottom of the cultural chain. However, despite the disparate status of Europeans and Americans, maps like Hondius’ 1608 world map suggested that all people shared a genealogy as descendants of Noah. For Davies, this like the De Bry maps serves to establish a common, although disproportionate sense of humanity. On the whole Davies’s work is a solid success. Her arguments rest firmly on primary texts and images; where her arguments differ from others, such as with Shapin and Shapiro, she offers evidence to defend her position. The narrative is supplemented by the inclusion of many of the maps and illustrations to which she refers. By her own admission, Davies grounds her work in a geographically limited set of sources, but as a means of demonstrating how, during the long sixteenth century, the European intellectual epistemology transitioned from considering the other as monstrous to human, her work is a refreshing contribution to the literature of sixteenth-century intellectual and cultural history.

中文翻译：

---

埃斯特班：探索美国的非洲奴隶

通过引用独立消息来源，如约翰·曼德维尔和目击者的土著说法来建立他的可信度。对戴维斯而言，长老约多库斯·洪迪乌斯对拉雷的解释标志着她论点的转折点。洪第斯从事戴维斯所说的“视觉解经”。为了展示 1596 年到 1598 年的地图如何广泛地绘制了拉雷格对圭亚那的描述，洪第乌斯知道没有荷兰人到圭亚那的航行证实了拉雷格的报告，他展示了他的 1608 年世界地图，其中没有无头人或亚马逊人。此外，“民族志楣”格式，其中来自不同地区的人将排成一列，因此，在地图、插图小册子或旅行书的边缘进行比较，有助于拉伸戴维斯所说的“民族志可信度”的联系。时间。终于随着她在地图上检查城市，戴维斯完成了她的论点。库斯科或特诺奇蒂特兰等城市被描述为亚里士多德意义上的文明城市，因为它们拥有领袖、富裕阶层、军队、贸易和农业。戴维斯暗示秘鲁和墨西哥的制图师并没有试图通过传统的负面图像来吸引野蛮的耸人听闻的图像；相反，它们只是展示了跨越地理空间的人类多样性。例如，1596 年的 De Bry 地图并没有关注人们的地域特征，而是关注他们的日常生活和服装。戴维斯称这是地图的“新认知美德”，强调普遍的人性，而不是早期的负面差异和怪物概念。正如她所展示的那样，这种新的人性越来越多地被描绘成通常位于文化链底部的美洲印第安人的拟人化。然而，尽管欧洲人和美国人的地位不同，但像洪第乌斯 1608 年的世界地图这样的地图表明，所有人都作为诺亚的后裔共享一个家谱。对戴维斯来说，这就像德布赖地图一样，有助于建立一种共同但不成比例的人性意识。总的来说，戴维斯的工作取得了巨大的成功。她的论点坚定地建立在原始文本和图像上；在她的论点与其他人（例如与 Shapin 和 Shapiro）不同的地方，她提供了证据来捍卫自己的立场。她提到的许多地图和插图对叙述进行了补充。戴维斯自己承认，她的工作基于地理上有限的一组资源，但作为一种展示，在漫长的 16 世纪，