Retention of old technologies following the end of the Neolithic: microscopic analysis of the butchering marks on animal bones from Çatalhöyük East
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microscopic analysis of butchering marks on bones from Neolithic to Hellenistic deposits at Çatalhöyük, Turkey, are employed as a proxy measure for identifying the rate and nature of adoption of metallurgy for quotidian activities. During the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods, only stone tools were being used for butchering. In the post-Neolithic strata, however, chipped stone tools continue to dominate the assemblage. This stands in contrast to the larger regional pattern where metal butchering marks dominate after the end of the Early Bronze Age. The authors propose that the continued use of stone tools for processing animal carcasses long after the advent of hard metal alloys is because of the nearby and abundant source of obsidian. Obsidian flake and blade tools remain the raw material of choice for animal-carcass processing over time. The analysis demonstrates that the replacement of stone and adoption of metal butchering tools was not a straightforward affair.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".