MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413331566 · doi:10.1017/ppr.2025.10063

Pigs, pannage, and the solstice: isotopic insights from prehistoric feasting at Newgrange

2025· article· en· W4413331566 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Guiry, Fiona Beglane, Neil Carlin, David Orton, Mathew A. Teeter, Paul Szpak

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Prehistoric Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversitySimon Fraser University
FundersWenner-Gren Foundation
KeywordsSolsticePrehistoryArchaeologyGeographyGeologyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Newgrange, the Neolithic monument and centerpiece of the Brú na Bóinne UNESCO World Heritage complex, is a high-profile example of prehistoric societies’ observation of, and reverence for, solar events. Comparatively little is known about how these concepts were remembered by those using Newgrange over subsequent millennia. While excavations have uncovered large quantities of later material culture, debate continues about what these subsequent activities represent. We combine zooarchaeological, radiocarbon, and isotopic evidence to assess the nature and seasonality of human–animal–environment relationships at Newgrange. Results show a concentration of feasting activity, focused on pigs, dating to 2600–2450 BC and indicate that most pigs were slaughtered shortly after a period of rapid, pannage-fueled weight gain. This seasonal specificity indicates feasting likely occurred in the weeks around the winter solstice and suggests that, centuries after passage tomb construction ended, practices at Newgrange continued to focus on the general winter solstice timeframe. We also connect a unique isotopic signature for mast (tree nuts) with pannage husbandry, a pattern that should allow for reinterpretation of archaeological pig diets and human–woodland relationships across Europe.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Prehistoric SocietySame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207