The age and cultural affiliation of the Ekven burial ground through the analysis of its ceramic collection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main problems in studying the Ekven burial ground is determining its age and cultural affiliation. From the very first years of its research to the present, the typology of harpoon tips and the stylistic analysis of ornaments on bone items constitute the basis for solving the corresponding range of issues. This approach allowed defining that the burial ground belongs to the early phase of the sequence of the Neo-Eskimo cultures, namely the Old Bering Sea culture. Meanwhile, an analysis of the ceramic collection of the Ekven burial ground shows that the site contains only ceramics typical of the late Birnirk culture, characterized by circular and arched ornamental patterns. This differentiate the Ekven burial ground from other reference sites of the ancient Bering Sea culture located on the American side of the Bering Strait and containing ceramics that preserve the ancient traditions of Paleo-Eskimo ceramics, characterized by linear and “checked” imprints on the vessels surfaces. Such situation is rather contradictory and requires some explanation. Apparently, the materials from the Ekven burial ground have not yet been fully understood, and research to determine its cultural affiliation needs to be continued. The article provides a brief overview of the materials related to the establishment of cultural and chronological affiliation of the burial ground, summarizes the data on its absolute dating and the results of the analysis of its ceramics. Several possibilities for resolving the contradictions that arose after studying the Ekven ceramic collection are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".