MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pottery of the late 16th — first quarter of the 18th c. from the Sofia yard of the Tobolsk Kremlin and the Upper town: comparative morphological analysis

2020· article· en· W3111063408 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. Zagvazdin, Yana Gennad’evna Zagvazdina

Bibliographic record

VenueVestnik arheologii, antropologii i ètnografii · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPotteryArchaeologyQuarter (Canadian coin)YardCeramicGeographyExcavationArtMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents morphological analysis of ceramic complexes from excavations in 2006 and 2017 in the city of Tobolsk. The pottery came from two areas: the Tobolsk Kremlin and the Upper town (9 Oktyabrskaya st.). Within this research, we aimed to conduct comparative analysis of morphology of the tableware from these sites to assess its similarities. From the two areas, 2261 ceramic fragments have been analyzed, and 200 vessels (counted by rims) from the late 16th c. — first quarter of the 18th c. layers have been identified. By the production technology, the dishes are non-glazed, made mainly on the pottery wheel. Hand-made ceramics have also been found in small quantity (less than 2 %). The assemblage is dominated by pot-like dishes (94.5 %). The proportion of cupped dishes is small. Other types of dishes (large pot, washbasin pot) have been found in single numbers. Based on the appearance of rims and necks, three types of pots and five types of bowls have been identified. Comparison has been made between the diameter of the mouth and the type of pot. Further examined were the frequency of occurrence of dishes with different colors and type of surface treatment, dimensions of bottoms, frequency of adding of sand to the surface of the pottery wheel. The assemblages have been compared to the late medieval ceramics of the northern, north-western and central regions of Russia, as well as the Urals and Siberia. Comparisons have been also made with the results of other studies of the Tobolsk ceramics. Statistics show that the pottery complexes are very similar to each other, both in large groups (pot-shaped and cup-shaped ware) and by other parameters (color and type of surface treatment, rim shape, mouth and bottom size, the ratio between types and diameters of pot mouths). Differences have been identified in the proportion of higher quality light gray dishes, being 2.5 times larger in the territory of the Upper town than in the Sofia yard. The difference is also expressed in proportions of the three types of pots. Type I prevails in the territory of the Upper town, and types II and III — in the Sofia court. Bowl-shaped dishes are diverse (3 types) and are present in both parts of the town. The quality light gray and black-glazed vessels of this type have been classified as tableware, partially for the lack of traces of soot. With this classification, the proportion of bowls defined as tableware constitutes 3 %. Comparison of the assemblages with the late medieval pottery from other regions of Russia revealed close analogies. But in terms of the general range of dishes, Tobolsk stands behind the cities of the European part of the country.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVestnik arheologii, antropologii i ètnografiiSame topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207