Revisiting the history of the Ostrusha Tomb: new data from pottery deposits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ostrusha tomb is remarkable for its monolithic chamber with hybrid Achaemenid-Greek architecture and a painted ceiling. It was planned and built as a free-standing tomb but was later incorporated into a larger structure. The history of its construction and use remains unsettled, as valuable information was lost in hasty excavation. This paper presents the first comprehensive study of the pottery collected during the excavation and attempts to reconstruct its archaeological context based on surviving descriptions and photographs. Contrary to previous suggestions, the ceramic material does not come from the interior of the tomb or from a ritual pyre. It was originally deposited at different locations in the area of the mound. The relationship of these deposits to the tomb, if any, cannot be reconstructed. The fragmented vessels do not provide firm chronological limits for the different building phases of the monument. However, the majority of the pottery belongs to the third quarter of the 4th c. BC, and it is very likely that these vessels were deposited in connection to a burial. This suggests that the initial structure of the tomb, the monolithic chamber, was completed by ca 325 BC. The activity in the area of the tomb continued until soon after ca 300 BC. The extension of the tomb, with its additional chambers, appears to have been abandoned and buried under the mound before it was completed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".