Bronze Age Scandinavians in North America: Peterborough Petroglyphs Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some of Peterborough petroglyphs in Ontario, Canada resemble Bronze Age Scandinavian petroglyphs. It turns out that the similarities are too specific to be explained by parallel development because of some common conceptions or to be attributed to circumpolar diffusion of rock art, and that the involvement of Scandinavian parallels clarifies some aspects of the North American images that remained obscure. It is essential that striking similarities are found in the depiction of ships, sacred symbols, and supernatural characters at the same time. Systematic consideration of Peterborough petroglyphs hardly leaves any possibility of doubting the reality of the influence of the Scandinavian tradition on them. This influence is most naturally associated with the appearance in North America of some people from Scandinavia. The recent research has turned this possibility from hard to imagine into a plausible one. It has been found that an important source of metals for Bronze Age Scandinavia was Sardinia and the Iberian Peninsula, and that the appearance of the ships on which the Sea Peoples attacked Egypt goes back to Scandinavian prototypes. It has also been shown that there is good reason to postulate an early acquaintance of the Scandinavians with sailing and even the ability to maneuver against the wind. All this implies both a high level of seamanship and familiarity with the waters of the Atlantic.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".