Redcliffe Quarter Phases 1 and 2, Bristol: Post-Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design, Volume 1: Text
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fieldwork commenced with the removal of overburden from the excavation area by mechanical excavator with a toothless grading bucket, under archaeological supervision. Machinery was also used on occasion to remove bulk deposits under archaeological supervision.The archaeological features thus exposed were hand-excavated to the bottom of archaeological stratigraphy which reached a depth of up to 2m. Normally, all horizontal deposits were excavated so as to exposed more deeply buried deposits, while discrete cut features were at least 50% excavated and linear features sample excavated on a more opportunistic basis, all hand excavation being contingent upon safe working conditions. All features and deposits were planned and recorded in accordance with CA Technical Manual 1: Fieldwork Recording Manual (CA 2013). Deposits were assessed for their environmental potential in accordance with CA Technical Manual 2: The taking and processing of environmental and other samples from archaeological sites (CA 2012), and, in view of the exceptional preservation of some of the deeper features, where waterlogged organic material was present, a high priority was given to environmental samples. All artefacts recovered from the excavation were retained in accordance with CA Technical Manual 3: Treatment of finds immediately after excavation (CA 1995). Two programmes of archaeological investigation were undertaken by Cotswold Archaeology and Oxford Cotswold Archaeology between January 2016 and December 2018 at the request of Gleeds (for RQ1) and FT Squared (for RQ2) on behalf of Redcliff MCC LLP at the Redcliffe Quarter development site. The phases of work, which lay on adjacent sites and originally started as a single development project, were undertaken in two stages for practical reasons. The results are combined in this assessment report and incorporate results from watching brief interventions and other site groundworks as appropriate. The site was divided into seven main areas of excavation, with other areas of watching brief. Evidence of occupation from the 12th century to the modern era was discovered, and this has been divided into five Provisional Periods. Period 1 comprises a small number of features and finds at the interface with the natural alluvium pre-dating the earliest recognisable occupation. Associated finds indicate that this was no earlier than the 12th century. Beneath the archaeological horizon the natural alluvial Wentlooge desposits were found to have little archaeological potential. Period 2 spans the 12th to mid 14th centuries and contains the largest number of features and finds from any period. Features consist mostly of ditches and pits, many containing organic materials preserved by waterlogging - wooden wattle linings, timbers and stakes, leather, plants and insects - as well as abundant pottery, animal bone and fish bone. Some of the organic remains in particular are exceptionally significant. Some ditches appear to mark the locations of tenement boundaries lasting into the 19th century, including the Law Ditch to the rear of properties fronting Redcliff Street and St Thomas Street. Later there are traces of stone-founded buildings, with ceramic roof tile and floor tiles present. Period 3, from the mid 14th to 15th centuries, saw a continuation of this medieval occupation. Stone buildings were constructed and there was further evidence of circular stone structures that may have been dye-vat bases. Other stages of manufacture such as wool preparation, horn-working and possibly tanning or hide preparation are also indicated. Period 4, the 16th to 17th centuries saw less activity in terms of the quantity of pottery and other finds, although construction continued. There was more evidence of 'garden soils', suggesting changes to other uses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".