Пінцети у слов’ян раннього середньовіччя у Східній Європі
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the discovery of tweezers at Slavic sites and archaeological complexes in the southern part of Eastern Europe, dated to the second half of the 1st millennium AD. Data were collected from 13 Slavic sites. According to cultural affiliation, the finds are distributed as follows: Upper Voronezh group (2), Kolochyn culture (3), Prague culture (1), Kolochyn culture/Sakhnivka horizon (1), Sakhnivka horizon (1), Sakhnivka horizon/Volyntsevo/Romny culture (1), Prague/Raikovetska culture (1), Borshevska culture (1), Volyntsevo culture (1), and Romny culture (1). Eight of the sites are represented by hillforts, while five are settlements. Seven sites yielded one find each, and five sites produced two finds. Three fragments come from a single settlement, though the total number of items at that location cannot be determined. In total, 17 complete or nearly complete tweezers and three fragments have been documented. The majority of these finds date to the third quarter of the 1st millennium AD. Three sites belong to the last quarter of the millennium. Two finds from Plisnesk and one from Khodosivka cannot be precisely dated. Tweezers from the craft settlement of Staevo 5 and from the 1991 goldsmith’s hoard at the Pastyrske hillfort may be associated with jewelry-making. The functional purpose of the remaining items remains uncertain. Slavic tweezers were made of iron and bronze. Overall, all finds can be divided into three types based on the shape of their ends: Type 1: with thin, straight ends; Type 2: with gradually widening trapezoidal ends; Type 3: with sharply widening triangular ends. Type 3 is mainly found in the forested zone, while Type 2 predominates on the Right Bank of Ukraine. Interestingly, tweezers first appeared among the Slavs as imported items during the Roman period, within the context of the Late Zarubyntsi culture type and Kyiv culture. By the early Middle Ages, tweezers were known across vast territories, and Slavic regions in Eastern Europe were, in fact, almost “encircled” by areas where such items were widespread. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33402/mdapv.2025-29-59-74
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".