The <i>amakhanda</i> settlement system of the Zulu kingdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The amakhanda type of settlement in southern Africa has long been associated with the elaboration of the ibutho (regiment) system and the development and spread of Nguni-speaking polities in southeastern Africa. In this contribution we set aside the origins of the amabutho system and instead concentrate on identifying and understanding three proposed grades of amakhanda — Royal, Divisional, and Regimental — that differ in size, layout, function and their inhabitants. Systematic field survey in 2022 sought to identify and clarify the character of suspected Divisional amakhanda situated in the vicinity of King Dingane’s Royal ikhanda at uMgungundlovu in the emaKhosini area of KwaZulu-Natal. Royal and Divisional amakhanda share elements of the same spatial structure, but they differ considerably in size and the kinds and spatial organisation of long-term food storage, food processing and crafts production activities. It has long been emphasised that Divisional amakhanda acted as military bases and political extensions of the royal house. We suggest that these settlements were also vital to the economic wellbeing of king’s capitals and formed crucial nodes of interaction between kings and commoners.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".