Investigating the application of Raman spectroscopy of carbonaceous material in sedimentary lithic artifacts for archaeological provenancing applications in the Canadian Rockies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The chemical compositions of toolstones composed of clastic and chemical sedimentary rock are often not distinct among procurement locations. However, sedimentary toolstone sources may show variations in the structural characteristics of the included carbonaceous material (CM) related to differences in their postdepositional histories, providing a potential proxy by which procurement locations, rather than individual rock units, can be assessed as raw material sources for archaeological lithics. Here, we apply a well‐established method for investigating the nature of CM in sedimentary rocks, Raman spectroscopy of carbonaceous material (RSCM), to an archaeological case study. We test if the technique can be used to differentiate among toolstones from two procurement areas along the eastern slopes of the Canadian Rocky Mountains potentially used by pre‐European contact Indigenous inhabitants of the Hummingbird Creek Site (FaPx‐1). Artifacts found during excavations at Hummingbird Creek visually appear to match toolstone‐grade rocks in the site's vicinity. We analyzed source material from two localities: (1) the local toolstone around FaPx‐1 and (2) a toolstone procurement area ~45 km away associated with many precontact workshop sites. To test if the artifacts have compositions consistent with the local toolstones, we analyzed artifacts and potential source materials with RSCM as well as their major, minor, and trace element composition using X‐ray fluorescence (XRF). Our work is guided by the elimination of source locations using indirect geochemical proxies in accordance with the exclusionary Provenance Hypothesis. Both the structural and the chemical characteristics of the artifacts are similar to those of geologic samples from the nonlocal source location and are not consistent with samples collected locally, permitting the exclusion of local materials and suggesting that the inhabitants of FaPx‐1 used a variety of toolstones to manufacture the artifacts from materials that do not appear to be readily available near the site.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".