THE PAST IN THE PAST: \nTHE REUSE OF ROMAN OBJECTS IN EARLY ANGLO-SAXON SOCIETY \nc. AD 400 – c. 700 \n
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines and analyses the reuse of Roman portable material culture in pre-conversion Anglo-Saxon grave assemblages dating between AD 400 and 700. In total 908 curated Roman objects were recorded from 65 cemeteries across the modern English counties of Kent, Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. The Introduction provides a general overview of the historical context of Anglo-Saxon England and the end of the Roman Empire. Chapter 2 is concerned with the methodology and data collection which was carried out to compile this data. The third chapter gives an outline of the existing theoretical framework on curated Roman material in Anglo Saxon contexts. A general overview of all collated Roman objects gathered for this study is given in chapter 4. Each object type is examined according to its nature, chronology, purpose, social intent and circulation patterns. The relationship between Roman ruins and Anglo-Saxon cemeteries is also discussed. Chapters 5 - 7 analyse the objects within their archaeological contexts and in relation to the body. Chapter 5 engages with items found in concealed circumstances, such as in bags and wooden boxes, while chapter 6 discusses items which were openly displayed on the body as personal adornments, jewellery and costume accessories. Chapter 7 examines objects which were not found as part of the costume, but in the fill or placed beside the body. The focus of these thematic chapters is to critically engage with the different ways Roman objects were used in Anglo-Saxon funerary ritual. Chapter 8 contextualises the findings by drawing on the continental evidence for Roman object reuse. Chapter 9 discusses the findings of the previous chapters, setting them into context with existing theoretical frameworks on the early medieval world with emphasis on chronology, regionality, the body and the impact of Christianity in the 7th century.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".