Settlement in Crusader Transjordan (1100–1189): \na historical and archaeological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of Crusader-period Transjordan has still not been analyzed in depth by \nscholars. Nevertheless, this region, the Lordship of Crac and Montreal of the Latin \nkingdom of Jerusalem, is usually assumed to have had more or less the sole function of \nserving as the southeastern frontier of the kingdom, consisting essentially of a series of \nfortified points defending a border. This image of a series of castles in a largely deserted \nborder area arises from several factors: the relative scarcity of textual sources available \nfor 12th-century Transjordan, those that survive being largely focused on its military \naspects; the scarcity of archaeological excavations at 12th-century sites, including the \nimportant castles of Karak and Shawbak; the fact that these two castles, being relatively \nwell preserved, have attracted more scholarly interest than any other sites; and the lack \nof archaeological comparanda for the region, due to the only very recent development of \ninterest of archaeologists in excavating medieval sites. The goal of the research exposed \nhere is therefore to combine all available sources, including updated results from \narchaeological projects, in order to present a picture of settlement in Crusader \nTransjordan that is as complete as possible. \nA case study for Petra and the Jabal Shara is included in this work, since this area \nwas intensely settled in the 12th century and currently offers new evidence from recent \narchaeological excavations. The conclusions from this research have provided \ninformation on the dynamics, variety and timing of settlement in the region, on the \nimportance of the various settlements, on socio-economic aspects, and on the significance \nof Transjordan for the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. Finally, this study provides some \narchaeological tools for better identifying the 12th century in the Petra region, in \nparticular through the more precise characterization of local ceramics and building \ntechniques.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".