Human-material interaction in the Aurignacian of Europe, 35,000-27,000 BP: an analysis of marine shell ornament distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Aurignacian period (35,000-27,000 BP) is the earliest phase of human occupation in the European Upper Paleolithic. As early inhabitants moved across the landscape they came into contact with others and left behind material traces of these interactions. Ornaments, or beads and pendants, made from marine shells are found in large numbers in Aurignacian assemblages. These objects are particularly useful for exploring the circulation of people and materials, as their presence far from the sea can be indicative of dynamic interactions between materials, individuals, and groups. This research explores the processes of human-material interactions during the Aurignacian based on the shapes of marine shells used as ornaments. More specifically, a network analysis is used to determine whether there are discernible patterns in the geographic distribution of marine shell shapes used for the creation of ornaments. Through the use of a social network analysis software called Gephi, this research visually maps the interactions between sites and regions during the Aurignacian. By creating network visualizations that are analyzed mathematically, in addition to geographic maps of site locations, patterns in the interactions within which materials and people were entangled are explored. Engaging with theories of materiality and material affordances (Conneller 2011; Gosden 2005; Malafouris 2013; Robb 2015; Wells 2008, 2012), this research sheds light on the active role of ornaments in the complex interactions between people and materials during the Aurignacian. The results support the notion that particular shapes of shells were preferentially selected and that some regions, such as the Dordogne of France, were important centers in the broader circulation of materials.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".