A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire: Bar Hill Landscape Block Archaeology Report, Specialist Reports: Finds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fieldwork: The total excavated area in the Bar Hill Landscape Block covered 23.35ha (excluding TEA 35), with the geophysical surveys and trenching evaluations used to define the archaeological mitigation areas. All archaeological fieldwork within this landscape block took place between September 2016 and November 2017. The route of the proposed local access road within TEA 37 was designated as a strip map and sample excavation (SMS), with a central section measuring 200m x 90m designated as a targeted excavation area (TEA). However, in consultation with the Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology Officer, a decision was taken to strip a 10m wide haul road and only strip the full width in areas where archaeological remains were discovered, except for the 10m closest to the A14 with the aim of locating potential evidence of the Via Devana, the Roman road which connected the 'small towns' at Godmanchester (Durovigutum) and Cambridge (Duroliponte). As a result, wider areas were investigated in the central and eastern sections of TEA 37 where several Roman ditches were identified, although none of these were related to any potential roadside ditch. As no evidence was found during evaluations on the south side of the A14 carriageway, the line of the Via Devana is, therefore, believed to lie beneath the modern road. The results of the geophysical survey and subsequent trial trenching resulted in the designations of TEAs 34, 41 and 46. The designation of TEA 38 was due to the presence of a known Iron Age and Roman settlement, identified from aerial photograph transcription work conducted in the 1980s (CHER pref ref 08836) and confirmed by remains identified during the evaluation. Each of the TEAs were subject to metal detecting following stripping. All works were undertaken in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) (Atkins CH2M 2016). Post-Excavation: The preliminary grouping and stratigraphic sequencing of features outlined in the Post-excavation Assessment (PXA) reports for the Bar Hill Landscape Block (Hewitt 2018a, Hewitt 2018b, Burke 2018a, 2018b, Pennell 2018, MHI 2019) are superseded here. The stratigraphic information from these is supplemented by the pottery and radiocarbon dates to provide a more detailed understanding of the chronology and sequence of sites across the Landscape Block. Following conventions set out in the post-excavation methodology (MHI 2020), features have been grouped and assigned to periods using a set of standardised terms and numeration. Chronological periods referred to in this report are based on the established period divisions used in Cambridgeshire and beyond and in consultation with pottery specialists. Many features have also been assigned to a 'land use' and/or settlement to facilitate detailed analysis and comparison of archaeological sites across the Landscape Blocks. Iron Age and Roman features have been, where possible, assigned to phases within their settlements to provide a detailed understanding of sequence and development. This broad phasing should be considered as an aid to description rather than a definitive chronological guide. Where phases are denoted, these take the form of a letter following the settlement number. As part of the post-excavation phase of work volumetric analysis was undertaken across Bar Hill. Volumetric analysis provides estimates of the relative densities of artefacts and ecofacts within excavated features across the sites. Unlike traditional two-dimensional approaches to finds distributions, density-based approaches have the potential to aid in identifying patterns of waste disposal and focal points of activity in the analysis stage.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".