Early Epigravettian backed pieces from layer O of Grotta della Cala (Southern Italy). A techno-typological and use-wear integrated approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Integrated techno-typological and use-wear analyses of Epigravettian backed pieces. • Occurrence of lithic projectiles in the form of backed and shouldered points. • Backed pieces potentially associated with piercing and cutting activities. • Manufacture of backed pieces locally documented. • Introduction of armatures made of allochthonous raw materials into the site. Although hunting was the main subsistence activity of Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers, the analytical data available in the literature on the function and characteristics of Early Epigravettian armatures are still scarce and incomplete. In this paper we present the study of backed pieces from an Early Epigravettian assemblage found in layer O at Grotta della Cala (Campania), carried out by combining techno-typological and use-wear analyses with a low-power approach. This integrated methodology allows us to understand the variability inherent in backed tools, as well as to identify damage/traces due to taphonomic actions and knapping accidents. The Upper Palaeolithic backed pieces are generally considered to be projectiles for mechanically delivered weapons. Our study has made it possible to identify shouldered and backed points that can be associated with this function. However, preliminary macroscopic observations, to be confirmed by future microwear analysis, indicate that some of the backed pieces could be associated with piercing and cutting activity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".