The major‐ and trace‐element whole‐rock fingerprints of Egyptian basalts and the provenance of Egyptian artefacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Discrimination diagrams have been developed that source Egyptian basaltic artefacts using whole‐rock major element geochemistry. These include K 2 O versus SiO 2 , TiO 2 and P 2 O 5 against MgO/Fe 2 O 3 t (total Fe as Fe 2 O 3 ), and a discriminant analysis diagram using SiO 2 , Fe 2 O 3 t , CaO, and MnO. A complementary set of diagrams uses easily obtained trace element data (Nb/Y versus Zr/Nb; Zr [ppm] versus Rb/Sr; TiO 2 [wt % volatile free] versus V; and Cr [ppm] versus Zr/Y) to determine the bedrock sources. These diagrams have been applied to seven First Dynasty basalt vessels (Abydos), two Fourth Dynasty basalt paving stones (Khufu's funerary temple, Giza), and two Fifth Dynasty paving stones (Sahure's complex, Abu Sir). They show that the bedrock source for all the artefacts was the Haddadin flow in northern Egypt. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis applied to the whole‐rock data (major elements and trace elements together) and previously published mineral fingerprinting studies confirm these results. Comparing mineral versus whole‐rock fingerprinting techniques, a major advantage of the former is the small sample size required (0.001 g compared to ≥ 0.1 g). Analytical costs are similar for both methods assuming that a comparison (bedrock) database can be assembled from the literature. For most archaeological problems, a whole‐rock bedrock database is more likely to exist than a mineral database, and whole‐rock analyses on artefacts will generally be easier to obtain than mineral analyses. Whole‐rock fingerprinting may be more sensitive than mineral‐based fingerprinting. Thus, if sample quantity is not an issue, whole‐rock analysis may have a slight cost, convenience, and technical advantage over mineral‐based methods. Our results also emphasize that the Egyptians cherished their Haddadin basalt flow and used it extensively and exclusively for manufacturing basalt vessels and paving stones for at least 600 years (∼3150 B.C. to 2500 B.C., approximate ages of the vessels and Abu Sir paving stones, respectively). © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".