MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132892730

An Experiential Understanding of the Upper Paleolithic: The Use of Some Unusual Materials in Southwest France

2022· dissertation· W7132892730 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sarah Ranlett

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2022
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsUpper PaleolithicArchaeological recordContext (archaeology)TerminologyMeaning (existential)Interpretation (philosophy)ClothingArchaeological evidence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work aims to better understand the cultural role(s) of amber, lignite, soapstone, fossil, quartz crystal, and lustrous pebble (galet lustré) artifacts during the Upper Paleolithic in Southwest France. The practice of collecting, curating and modifying rare or unusual materials with evocative physical characteristics (such as color, texture or form) has a long history among human and recent human ancestor groups. During the Upper Paleolithic, this behavior increases and expands including, notably, within the context of symbolic behavior. As these materials are translated from the archaeological record into archaeological literature, the conventions and limitations of archaeological illustration and classificatory terminology such as ‘art,’ ‘ornaments,’ ‘curiosities’ and ‘precious objects’ creates interpretational impositions which result in much of the existing archaeological discourse emphasizing morphological or decorative aspects of artifacts at the expense of other visual properties such as color or luster, other sensory qualities like tactility or smell, or the significance of material sources. A more comprehensive accounting of the archaeological uses and geological occurrences of these materials reveals hitherto underexplored patterns and variations in the use of these materials across time and space. These material engagements would have produced distinct experiences which can be inferred from the inherent physical properties of the materials, the archaeological record and a shared human corporeality with Upper Paleolithic people. Knowing that these experiences would be culturally mediated makes it possible to identify a wider range of factors – such as likely modes of material procurement, color, luster, translucence, smoothness, hardness, warmth, sounds, smells – which may bear on the cultural meaning of these materials. This data complicates the notions of rarity and exoticism that come along with categorizations of these artifacts as curiosities, or precious objects and further highlights the need for a fuller range of experiential and sensory affordances to be systematically incorporated into interpretational approaches to materials, particularly those applied to art and ornaments. This research makes the case that the unique experiential characteristics and evocative sensory qualities of unusual materials should be routinely considered in articulation with the technological and typological studies that are characteristic of archaeological inquiry. L'objectif de cette recherche est une meilleure compréhension de le(s) rôle(s) culturel(s) de l'ambre, du lignite, de la stéatite, des fossiles, du cristal de roche et des galets lustrés au cours du Paléolithique Supérieur dans le sud-ouest de la France. La pratique de la collecte, de la conservation et de la modification de matériaux rares ou inhabituels avec des caractéristiques physiques évocatrices (telles que la couleur, la texture ou la forme) a une longue histoire parmi les groupes d'ancêtres humains et récents. Au Paléolithique Supérieur, ces comportements s'accroissent et s'amplifient, notamment, dans le cadre de symbolism. Dans le processus de traduction de ces matériaux d'assemblage archéologique en littérature archéologique, les conventions et les limites de l'illustration archéologique et de la terminologie classificatoire telles que «art», «parure», «curiosités» et «objets précieux» créent des impositions interprétatives. En conséquence, une grande partie du discours archéologique met l'accent sur les aspects morphologiques ou décoratifs des artefacts au détriment d'autres propriétés visuelles telles que la couleur ou le lustre, d'autres qualités sensorielles comme la tactilité ou l'odeur, ou l'importance de l'approvisionnement en matières premières. Une compréhension plus complète des utilisations archéologiques et des occurrences géologiques de ces matériaux révèle des modèles et des variations, sous-explorés, dans l'utilisation de ces matériaux à travers le temps et l'espace. Ces engagements matériels auraient produit des expériences distinctes qui peuvent être déduites des propriétés physiques inhérentes des matériaux, des archives archéologiques et d'une corporéité humaine que nous partageons avec les peuples du Paléolithique supérieur. Le fait de savoir que ces expériences seraient culturellement médiatisées permet d'identifier des aspects - tels que les modes d'approvisionnement probables, la couleur, le lustre, la translucidité, la douceur, la dureté, les sons, les odeurs - qui peuvent être importants pour la signification culturelle de ces matériaux. Ces données compliquent les notions de rareté et d'exotisme qui accompagnent les catégorisations de ces artefacts en tant que curiosités ou objets précieux, et soulignent en outre la nécessité d'intégrer systématiquement une gamme d'affordances expérientielles et sensorielles dans les approches interprétatives des matériaux, en particulier celles appliquées à l'art et parure. Cette recherche montre que les caractéristiques expérientielles uniques et les qualités sensorielles évocatrices des matériaux doivent être systématiquement considérées en articulation avec les études technologiques et typologiques qui sont caractéristiques de la recherche archéologique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology→French-language works237,207→