Understanding the Depositional History of the Archaeological Open‐Air Site, Klein Hoek 1, South Africa, Using Geophysical Geoarchaeology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Archaeological field research in South African archaeology has been dominated by rock shelters. While rock shelters provide the advantage of a defined area of investigation and more limited processes of erosion and sediment accumulation, they only capture part of the archaeological, environmental and landscape records. More of the record can be found in open‐air sites; however, these require a different methodological approach within which geophysical techniques can be used to provide information on the stratigraphy of a site and identify possible subsurface archaeological anomalies, potentially reducing uncertainty and time‐and‐labour costs associated with traditional survey and excavation techniques. This study uses two geophysical methods, electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) and magnetometry, to further understand the stratigraphy and archaeology of Klein Hoek 1, an open‐air site located adjacent to the Doring River in South Africa. This site contains one of the most important collections of bifacial points in southern Africa, which is a key region for understanding the emergence of behaviourally modern humans. The results of the ERT survey demonstrate that the stratigraphic unit from which the cluster of bifacial points protrudes extends throughout the subsurface of the site and is at least 8 m thick. The magnetometry survey reveals evidence of possible hearth anomalies within the subsurface, which are interpreted as areas of archaeological potential due to a correlation between the cluster of bifacial points and prehistoric burning. The results of this survey demonstrate that geophysical methods can be effective components of archaeological investigations in a southern African open‐air context.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".