Multi-Analytical Characterization of Beads from an Andean<i>Chullpa</i>Funerary Assemblage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1890, the U.S. Consul to Chile sent Michigan Agricultural College (now Michigan State University) the mummified remains of a young Andean girl interred in a chullpa tomb, reputedly located south of La Paz, Bolivia. She was accompanied by a group of funerary objects, and the documentation indicated that she dated from the 15th century CE and was from the Inca culture. She was repatriated to Bolivia in January 2019. During and following repatriation minimally destructive analyses were undertaken on the funerary objects that had been associated with the interment. The estimated age of 1400-1500 CE was corroborated by a series of AMS ages on maize, leather, and gourd. However, a series of small ~2.5 mm black and red beads gave the appearance of European manufactured glass “seed” beads common in the context of colonial exchange. If the beads were glass, and European in origin, it would question the chronological homogeneity and therefore the integrity of the funerary assemblage since they would likely postdate ca. 1533 CE. Microscopic observations revealed morphological characteristics consistent with fine sedimentary rock, or fine ceramic paste, but could not conclusively eliminate the possibility of weathered and altered vitreous material such as glass. To explore the chemical composition of the beads one of each color – limited by the sensitive nature of the assemblage – was subjected to a series of analyses. SEM-EDS (scanning electron microscopy coupled to X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy), LA-ICP-MS (laser ablation - inductively coupled plasma – mass spectrometry), Raman microspectroscopy, and DART-MS (direct analysis in real time – mass spectrometry) were deployed. Results of the analysis revealed that the beads were fine sedimentary stone or ceramic, and exhibited an organic coating potentially for coloration, or later museum curation. Therefore, glass was eliminated as the material of manufacture. The most parsimonious interpretation of the beads analyzed seems to be Indigenous Inka manufacture, as small, stone beads have been identified in Inka and other pre-Colombian contexts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".