In Light of the Lamps: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Ceramic Oil Lamps from the Roman Fort at Humayma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The archaeological site of Humayma, located at the northwest corner of the Hisma desert of Jordan, has a long history of permanent settlement; beginning with the Nabataeans, followed by Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic occupations. Shortly after Emperor Trajan’s conquest of the Nabataean Kingdom in 106 CE, a Roman fort emerged alongside the pre-existing trade route, which the Romans renamed the Via Nova Traiana. Excavations at the fort, directed by J. P. Oleson in 1995, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2005 and M. B. Reeves in 2012, unearthed a collection of ceramic oil lamps, comprised of four complete lamps and fifty-eight fragments. The author recently carried out a complete evaluation of the fort’s ceramic lamp collection, remotely analysing the lamps based on project images, descriptions, and contextual information in order to produce a catalogue and report. Results included Nabataean, Roman, and Byzantine types, dating from the 1st to 5th century CE, revealing an intricate and diverse account of material culture at the fort. The Nabatean rosette lamp and Byzantine slipper lamp were the two most prevalent types, while few Roman lamps were found. The author interpreted data and made suggestions in light of the history, regional trade, stratigraphic complexities, and evolving cultural identity of the site. This poster summarizes the ceramic lamp findings, identifies anomalous items, and considers the significance of chronological aberrations in relation to the fort’s military and civilian occupations over 400 years.
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 | 0.003 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".