HANNIBAL'S INVASION ROUTE: AN AGE‐OLD QUESTION REVISITED WITHIN A GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALAEOBOTANICAL CONTEXT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The point of Hannibal's departure from New Carthage in Iberia, in 218 bc, and his subsequent march along the Mediterranean coast to the Pyrénées and on to the Rhône Basin, has been reconstructed by ancient historians with considerable accuracy. The latter 400‐km phase through the Alps, however, has been the subject of some controversy as to whether the Punic Army followed a southern versus a northern invasion route, or some intermediate variant. What is certain from the ancient texts is that Hannibal was trapped by Gallic tribes in a large defile—a gorge large enough to hold the entire army—along the approach to the high col of passage on to the Po River Plains of northern Italia. The entrapment involved an enfilade attack planned by an unknown Gallic commander, a military operation that nearly decimated the Punic Army. Previous arguments as to the location of the defile have hinged on inconclusive topographic, geological and geomorphic assessments. New data from palaeobotanical reconstruction of the northern approach route show the Gorges de la Bourne and the Gorge du Bréda, astride the Isère River, to have been forest covered during the invasion, which would have made the Gallic assault impossible. The existing evidence argues for a southern route, the approach through the narrow defile of the Combe de Queyras, with passage over the Col de la Traversette, as argued by Sir Gavin de Beer nearly a half century ago. Narrowing the approach route focuses on sites worth geoarchaeological exploration.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".