Daily life in a New Kingdom fortress town in Nubia: A reexamination of physical activity at Tombos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• A multi-method approach to better understanding physical activity and socioeconomic status in a colonial Egyptonubian space. • Novel quantitative and qualitative assessment of points of muscle and ligament attachment. • Bioarchaeological methods are bolstered by archaeological excavations, isotope analysis, and comparative Egyptian/Nubian contexts. • Pyramid complexes, once thought to be the burials for the elite, were actually resting places for a socioeconomic cross section of this community. • Illustrates the importance of reanalyzing data. Previous analysis of skeletal indicators of physical activity suggested that the population at Tombos, an Egyptian colonial town in Nubia, may have benefited from an imperial framework through occupations that were not physically demanding. With more than ten years of continued excavations, coupled with further biomolecular testing, we reanalyze entheseal changes at Tombos. We compare entheseal changes between the three areas of cemetery, which house drastically different tomb types. Additionally, we also assess burial position (Egyptian, Nubian) and we incorporate the results of previous strontium isotope analysis to better understand the mortuary, socioeconomic, and occupational landscapes of this colonial space. Our findings suggest that pyramid tombs, once thought to be the final resting place of the most elite, may have also included low-status high-labor staff. We support this argument with comparative data from Egypt and Nubia. Other cemetery areas seem to include individuals whose activity levels were more moderate. Nubian-style burials have relatively low entheseal scores, suggesting that they may have had low-labor occupations during the Egyptian colonial period, despite possibly identifying as Nubian. Lastly, locals and non-locals appear to have similar levels of physical activity, suggesting that migration status was also neither an advantage nor disadvantage in such a multicultural community. This study speaks to the importance of reanalyzing data; with continued excavations, dating, and biomolecular analysis, interpretations of lived experience in the past can be completely altered.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".