Chronology of Swords with a Crescent-Shaped Top from Maeotian Burial Grounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. Swords with a crescent-shaped top in Maeotian burials are meet less often than swords of the Sindic-Maeotian type from the 4th – early 3rd centuries BC. Methods and materials. The authors use the traditional typological method. The material comes from Maeotian sites. Analysis. There are three forms of crescent-shaped tops: classical crescent-shaped, V-shaped and half-ring top. In the sites of the right bank of the Kuban 10 swords without a cross-guard and 1 with a cross-guard, in the Trans-Kuban – 8 swords without a crossguard and 2 swords with a cross-guard are known. The presence or absence of a cross-guard does not affect type chronology. The assemblages from burial grounds of IV Novolabinsk and Elisavetinskaya No. 1 hillforts date from the second quarter to the middle of the 3rd century BC. The dating is based on the type of the bronze mirror and Panticapaeum coins. Most narrowly dated burials come from burial grounds of Starokorsunskaya No. 2 and Lenin No. 3 hillforts located on the right bank of the Kuban river. The burials dating to within one quarter of the 2nd century BC typically contained amphorae and black-glazed pottery, as well as certain types of Maeotian grey-clay vessels. Results. The chronological analysis indicates the appearance of swords with a crescent-shaped top of the Prokhorov type among Maeotian tribes under the influence of the Sarmatians. The earliest assemblages date from the second quarter to the middle of the 3rd century BC. The chronology of more than a half of the burials does not go beyond the 2nd century BC. The upper limit of the existence of swords with a crescent-shaped top can be determined within the early 1st century BC.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".