MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7164311323 · doi:10.5284/1143186

'The Castles', West Shipley Farm Hamsterley, Co. Durham; Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results

2008· article· en· W7164311323 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacqueline I. McKinley

Notice bibliographique

RevueArchaeology Data Service · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEarth and Planetary Sciences
ThématiqueArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRidgeDitchGeophysical surveyAerial surveyChannel (broadcasting)SituatedQuarter (Canadian coin)West virginia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In April 2007 an archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Channel 4's Time Team at 'The Castles', a scheduled monument situated on land at West Shipley Farm, Hamsterley, Co. Durham (centred on NGR 410353 533078). The programme of fieldwork was to include both non-intrusive (geophysical and standing remains surveys) and intrusive (seven evaluation trenches and targeted environmental augering) investigations. A full topographical survey was to be undertaken, but the extensive tree cover rendered this physically difficult and substantially interfered with the satellite reception; consequently, the survey was limited to those readings assisting with other parts of the project. 'The Castles' comprises a large, rhomboidal dry-stone monument with a single entrance to the east and a substantial ditch which appears to surround the monument on all sides. The monument was first recorded in late the 18th century and subject to a series of investigation by Hodgkin in the early 20th century, including, at times, extensive rebuilding of parts of the walls. No evidence for internal structures or dating had been found, but the monument was believed to represent the remains of a fortified site of Late Iron-Age, Romano-British or post-Roman date. The geophysical survey revealed few features within the interior other than northsouth ridge and furrow across most of the area; confirming evidence from aerial photographs and written sources for post-medieval cultivation. Potential archaeological anomalies within the interior proved to be mostly natural in origin, one anomaly in the south corresponding with an area of flagged flooring. Further ridge and furrow was observed in a survey area to the north of the monument, and 19th century field boundaries in an area to the east. Investigation of the walls showed a vertical dry-stone rubble construction built directly on the purposely levelled old ground surface or natural. The single eastern entrance probably originally had a cobbled surface, later flagged. A large upright flag placed in the wall on the north side of the entrance (no surviving evidence for pair to the south) may have formed part of a gateway. The 'guard cell' within the wall on the south side of the entrance has no pair to the north, and is probably a later addition inserted after almost total collapse of the wall. Evidence for only two internal archaeological features was recovered. In the southern part of the enclosure an area of rough stone flagging, probably some sort of yard, is likely to have been contemporaneous with the monument. An east-west rubble-filled linear feature in the central area of the enclosure is probably associated with terracing and drainage; the date is uncertain. No artefactual dating evidence was recovered from the site and the palaeoenvironmental data was very sparse and is undated. The monument remains enigmatic both in terms of date and function. Though clearly constructed by a substantial work force as a defensive fortification, there is little evidence to support by whom and for what it was used. It may have served as a demonstration of power, its use may have proved unnecessary by change of circumstances, or occupation may only have been temporary or seasonal. The date of the original construction seems most likely to be Late Iron Age, with possibly post- Roman reuse of parts of the structure.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,004
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,093
Tête enseignante GPT0,316
Écart entre enseignants0,223 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArchaeology Data ServiceMême sujetArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesTravaux en français237 207