Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper examines the cultural and chronological attribution of the Arabic magic bowl discovered in 1966 in the areas of the Golden Horde-era hillfort of Velyki Kuchugury destroyed by the Kakhovka reservoir. The bronze piece with silver inlay has Arabic inscriptions, images of people and animals. Zodiac signs are missing. Protective magical formulas, reinforced by verses from the Quran, may be activated using some substances (water, oil, milk) when poured into the vessel. It was believed that the bowls helped to cure certain diseases and bites of poisonous animals. For this reason, some researchers call them “poison bowls”. Astral images of the signs of the Zodiac had a different effect than the figures of people and animals. “Absorption” of magical formulas and images with the help of liquid has been used in religious practice since the times of ancient Egypt, pre-Christian and pre-Islamic traditions of the Judeo-Aramaic population of the Middle East. Between the 7th and 10th centuries, this healing method became widespread among the Muslims of the region, eventually resulting in the production of metal magic bowls in Syria and Egypt from the 12th century. It is assumed that they were designed for pilgrims, and the healing and therapeutic qualities could be transmitted through an intermediary. In the late 14th and early 15th centuries, depictions of people and animals were banned and then resumed only in the early 17th century, mainly in Iran and India. This gives reason to consider early magic bowls as purely Arabic. The dates of most of the known Arabic magic bowls, including the “poison bowls”, do not go beyond the 12th–14th centuries. Dating of these types of objects in museums in Europe, Egypt, and Canada proves the correctness of these conclusions. Given the closeness of the analogies, the bowl from the Velyki Kuchugury hillfort can be dated to the middle – second half of the 14th century, which corresponds to the time of the existence of the Golden Horde city. This is the only find known to us from this archaeological site. The publication of the bowl from the funds of the Khortytsia National Reserve proves that its manufacturing place is probably Syria or Egypt.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".