Mineralogical and Geochemical Constraints on the Sediment Sources of Late Stone Age Pottery from the Birimi Site, Northern Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mineralogy and bulk chemical compositions of 15 Kintampo (Late Stone Age) potsherds from the Birimi site on the Gambaga Escarpment and eight samples of local sediment were determined with the intent of characterizing these wares and identifying the material used in their manufacture. Sediment from clay pits still used by potters north of the escarpment contains iron‐rich laterite clasts (100 × XFeOt = 100 × FeOt/[FeOt + Al2O3 + SiO2] ≥10). Sedimentary clasts in stream sediments are relatively siliceous and iron‐poor (100 × XFeOt < 10). Bulk geochemical data together with the compositions of lithic clasts (laterite, siltstone/sandstone) link the pottery to sediment sources, including escarpment sediments not presently used by Ghanaian potters. Fresh granite clasts found in some of the sherds were not found in the analyzed sediment samples, although some of their distinctive mineralogical constituents (e.g., variably barian alkali feldspar) are present. The analytical data suggest that pots found at Birimi were made locally by mixing escarpment sediment with clay and stream sediment brought in from below the escarpment. This contrasts with present‐day practice, whereby the pots themselves are imported. The place where Birimi pottery was made and the outcrop source of aluminous sediment (mudstone with an “escarpment” trace element signature) used in these wares, however, remain unidentified. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".