The <i>Dictionary of Old English</i> the Archaeology of Ritual Landscapes, and the Burial Ritual in Early Anglo-Saxon England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early Anglo-Saxon mortuary ritual may be seen as a repeated pattern of performances and actions in the landscape (from the place of death to the grave) and on and around the body before, during, and after death, where communally recognized movement, words, sounds, sights, and objects created what have been termed “technologies of remembrance,” through which the burial is both a reflection of the loss of an individual to the community and a familiar re-affirmation of the community and reenactment of its traditions. Only a small portion of the rituals attending the burial of the dead can be recognized in the archaeological record: specifically, the relationship between the final place of disposal of the body and features in the landscape such as settlements, geological features or ancient built features, the position of the body in relation to other burials, the layout of the body in the grave, and the presence or absence of archaeologically recoverable objects associated with the body. Studies of early Anglo-Saxon cemeteries show that disposal of the body involved patterns of behaviour within a broad normative ritual, but the ritual was not static over time, nor do all graves conform to a single template. Burials were ritualized, but not to the exclusion of individual agency. Mortuary ritual, with its repetitive, ritualized “vocabulary” of behaviour and patterning, has been described as “an appropriate place to look for material manifestations of communicative action; it is arguably more semiotically charged than most archaeologically observable behavior.” It is not merely a handy metaphor that the construction and composition of the furnished burial ritual has often been discussed in linguistic terms. There is a “vocabulary” of grave goods together with a “grammar” of ritual.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.007 |
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".