Men at work: Grinding stone production by the experts and others in northern Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is necessary to access the oral forms of local histories often held in traditional African communities to help us understand the African past and avoid framing interpretations solely in terms of Western epistemologies. Ethnoarchaeological fieldwork was carried out in villages in the Gulo Makeda region of northeastern Tigrai, northern Ethiopia, where access to mechanical mills has only been available in the last few decades. Individuals in this area still have knowledge and memory of manufacturing, using and discarding grinding stones. Interviews were held with male advisors who shared their knowledge and expertise about the entire process of manufacturing grinding stones. To move beyond understanding just the technical aspects of grinding stone manufacturing (what and how), the theory and methods associated with the chaîne opératoire and design theory were incorporated into the research to allow discovery of intricate socio-economic interrelationships (how and why) that exist through grinding manufacture within this culture. Manufacturing offers opportunities for socialization, cooperation and community engagement. Through ethnoarchaeology it became clear that the manufacturing of grinding stones in northeastern Tigrai is a complex process requiring design decisions, skills, knowledge, and social interaction that builds interpersonal relationships. By arranging two separate manufacturing sessions, one with experts and one with non-experts, comparisons were made of technological and social differences between experts and non-experts. The individuals who are experts in manufacturing grinding stones made higher quality grinding stones than the non-experts. The experts are also afforded a special respect by others, as they are the creators of the technology “necessary for life” in a culture traditionally dependent on cereal flours for sustenance. Potentially this respect for experts could be true for the past as well. Since the grinding stone artifacts from Mezber are large stones, likely meant to produce significant amounts of flour, they would have been important to daily life. Those who manufactured these tools important for subsistence would likely have been considered important individuals in the community.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".