A Petrographic Analysis of Ancient Jordanian Ceramic Building Materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although ceramic building materials (CBM) such as brick, pipe and roof-tiles were commonly used in the classical world, these types of artifacts have received only cursory study by modern scholars. Past studies have focused almost entirely on the inscriptions or decorations displayed on a small subset of CBM while ignoring the more crucial questions such as their composition and fabric. The goal of this research project was to decipher the similarities and differences in ancient Jordanian CBM using both a historical and scientific approach. This study was a continuation on the typology created by Humayma Excavation Project archaeologists (Reeves and Harvey) based on samples of CBM from Humayma and other Jordanian sites. The Humayma archaeologists have been developing typologies for each class of ceramic building material based on macroscopic differences in form and fabric. In order to test and refine the typologies created, a chemical and petrographic evaluation of these ceramic buildings materials was undergone. Geological laboratory evaluations were conducted in order to investigate whether these typologies were differentiable on a scientific level. The principal purpose of this project was to analyze ancient bricks and tiles in order to refine a diagnostic tool for dating the phases of occupation of the Nabataean to Early Islamic site of Humayma. Additionally, this research project examined CBM from other Jordanian in order to address questions of production and distribution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".