Zulu pottery production in the Lower Thukela Basin, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The organization of modern and historically recent pottery production in southern Africa is an understudied subject. This situation limits the ability of social scientists to investigate the historical forces that have shaped African pottery production systems and provide appropriate data and interpretive frameworks for inferring the organization of ancient production systems. This paper summarizes fieldwork conducted over the past decade with Zulu potters in the Lower Thukela Basin of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, with the intention of examining the socially influenced decisions affecting ceramic production. These data allow us for the first time to characterise pottery production by Nguni-speaking peoples in southern Africa in terms of production technology, the scale of production and distribution, seasonality and labour organization, and learning strategies (apprenticeship). The pottery production model resulting from research in the Thukela Basin is an attempt to explain why and how the social networks that potters are involved in impact the visible and technical dimensions of pottery in a modern southern African context. This model has implications for archaeological research within the region because it complements current archaeological approaches to pottery style in southern Africa while providing a much finer degree of sensitivity to pottery variability than is otherwise available. To cite this article: Fowler, K.D. Zulu pottery production in the Lower Thukela Basin, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Southern African Humanities 20 : 477-511.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it