Mesoamerican Tri-lobed Jade “Spoon” Pendants: Questioning the Idea of Origins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Jade has been long recognized by archaeologists as an important trade item among ancient Mesoamerican cultures, particularly for ancient Olmec and Maya cultures. Unfortunately, the precocious development of Olmec society led many early archaeologists to overemphasize Olmec influence on the Maya during the Formative period (ca. 1000–400 BC). This is particularly noteworthy in the attribution of tri-lobed jade “spoon” pendants to the Olmec despite the lack of archaeological evidence. Using a recently discovered tri-lobed jade “spoon” pendant from the site of Ka'kabish, Belize, and dated to the Middle Formative period (ca. 800–600 BC), this article argues that such pieces should not be unquestionably attributed to the Olmec. This argument is supported by correlation with similar objects from other secure archaeological contexts at Maya sites dating to the Middle Formative period. This article contends that using the ethnonym Olmec to describe these objects creates an a priori assumption that these objects originated in the Olmec region and were merely repurposed by the Maya and argues for a reinterpretation of the origin and meaning for these objects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".