Colonial-indigene interaction in Ancient Nubia : an integrative analysis of diet, health, and the material record
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the Middle Kingdom Period (2050( -1650 BCE) BCE), the Egyptian Empire colonized Lower Nubia and constructed multiple fortresses along the Nile.Egyptian soldiers lived in these forts, while indigenous Nubians lived nearby.Written documents suggest this was an environmentally unstable period, characterized by unusually high river floods.In the later Middle Kingdom and after its decline into the Second Intermediate Period and New Kingdom, Egyptians cohabited the fortress space with Nubians.ese colonial and post-colonial contexts are compelling and present a distinct opportunity to examine biology, culture, and environment.We use an interdisciplinary approach to address the intersection of health ( cribra orbitalia, enamel hypoplasia, stature), food (carbon and nitrogen isotope analysis), and material identities (ceramic assemblage).We found that despite the flooding events, the frequencies of skeletal indicators of physiological stress were not elevated.Social connections with Upper Nubia, evidenced by the ceramic assemblage, may have mitigated some of the health risks during floods.Isotope analysis suggests that Egyptians and Nubians were eating different foods, which may be tied to complex social practices.is study illustrates the importance of interdisciplinary and collaborative bioarchaeological research.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".