An exploration of interpersonal violence among Holocene foragers of Southern Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common assertion that humans are inherently aggressive toward one another is based in part on interpretation of anthropological evidence, including observational reports of Khoesan immediate-return hunter-gatherers of southern Africa. Bioarchaeological evidence from 446 dated South African Cape Holocene skeletons representing Khoesan ancestors provides an opportunity to review approaches to interpersonal conflict over thousands of years. A synthesis of paleodemographic and skeletal information suggests a complex picture. The pattern noted among descendant Khoesan groups of male killings via poison arrows is not discernable in ancestral demography. Published reports of healed cranial trauma are not geographically localized; most are adult men, and some can be parsimoniously explained as the outcomes of accidents. Skeletons with unhealed perimortem lesions are limited to the southwestern region, at dates around 2500 years ago; most are women and children. The perimortem skeletal trauma is contemporaneous with a period during which a transitory decline in adult stature occurs throughout the Cape but not in the region with the apparent violence. This suggests a novel, transient social pattern in that community. In sum, the disparate patterns of antemortem and perimortem trauma among these Holocene foragers support a narrative that emphasizes the situational nature, and the general rarity, of interpersonal violence.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".