Tall Dhiban 2004 Pilot Season: Prospection, Preservation, and Planning
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
iSONt PK« )PLANN! Benjamin Porter, Bruce Routledge, Danielle Steen, Carla Parlsow, Lidewijde de Jong, and William Zimmerle Introduction The Dhiban Archaeological Project seeks to de- velop strategies for ensuring the long-term sustain- ability of archaeological research and archaeolog- ical landscapes in Jordan by integrating traditional research questions with site development. These two activities converge at Dhiban on the question of local connections to place in the face of long- term and apparently radical changes in the modes and intensity of dwelling, land-use, and collective identification. Even when apparently abandoned, Dhiban has remained a place of significant human activity, as is attested by the history of the Bani Hamida tribe who settled the modern town in the early twentieth century after more than a century of seasonal use of the site. This long term pattern of attachment to place manifest through widely di- vergent intensities and modes of settlement is a central characteristic of Jordanian history and one of the distinct intellectual insights to be gained from its archaeological record. What follows is a report of the pilot season of the Tall Dhiban Pro- ject undertaken from June 2-26, 2004^ Douglas Tushingham concentrated their soundings in the southeast corner of the site, exposing an Iron Age fortification system, a Nabataean temple, Byz- antine church, and Early and Middle Islamic dwell- ings (Winnett and Reed 1965; Tushingham 1972). William Morton conducted an additional three sea- sons in 1955, 1956, and 1965, concentrating on Dhiban's acropolis (Field L) and north side (Field H) (Morton 1989). Archaeological excavations at Tall Dhiban ceased for nearly 35 years until Jor- dan's Department of Antiquities initiated an ex- cavation and restoration program in 2002 (al- Mahameed 2003) and 2004. This work suggests Tall Dhiban was settled in- termittently from the end of the Early Bronze lb period (ca. 3100BC) until some point late in the Mamluk era (latel5th or early 16th century AD). Particularly prominent in these excavations were the later Iron Age (900-600 BC), the Nabataean pe- riod (140BC-106AD), the Byzantine, Umayyad and Abbasid Periods (ca. 400-800 AD) and the Ayyubid-Mamluk Period (ca. 1250-1500 AD). This work also showed that architectural elements from these periods were well-preserved and accessible by limited excavation. However, architecture vis- ible on the surface of the site is in relatively poor condition due both to G. Lancaster-Harding' s re- moval of a significant number of above ground walls and arches in 1949 and to the lack of post- excavation conservation on the part of earlier ex- cavators. Context and Previous Investigations The tall of Dhiban is a mid-sized mound of ca. 5 hectares approximately 70 kilometers south of 'Amman (Figs. 1 and 2). While devoid of modern settlement, the mound is immediately adjacent to the modern community of Dhiban (Fig. 3). The site is well-known from both the discovery of the Mesha' Inscription in 1868 as well as for the pi- oneering excavations of the American Schools of Oriental Research from 1950 to 1953 and again, in 1955 and 1956. Fred Winnett, William Reed, and 2004 Season Objectives Four objectives shaped this year's research de- sign: don), Aubrey Baadsgaard (U. Pennsylvania), William Zim- merle (U. Pennsylvania), Carla Parslow (U. Toronto), John Hakes (U. Liverpool), Jennifer Jacobs (U. of Pennsylvania) and Jamie Porter (Montana State U.). 2. Lancaster-Harding, then director of Jordan's Department of Antiquities, apparently stripped the stone and had it donated for the construction of a nearby road in order to render Dhi- ban more attractive to archaeologists interested in the site's pre-Islamic layers (Winnett 1964: 11). 1. The University of Liverpool, the University of Penn- sylvania, Stanford University, and the National Science Foundation sponsored the Dhiban Archaeological Project in 2004. Staff included Dr. Bruce Routledge (U. Liverpool, Director), Benjamin Porter (U. Pennsylvania, Associate Di- rector), Danielle Steen (Stanford U . Associate Director), A l i al-Khayyat (Department of Antiquities representative), Reem Shqour (Department of Antiquities representative), Lidewijde de Jong (Stanford U.), Jack Green (U.C. Lon-
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».