MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7164311323 · doi:10.5284/1143186

'The Castles', West Shipley Farm Hamsterley, Co. Durham; Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results

2008· article· en· W7164311323 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacqueline I. McKinley

Bibliographic record

VenueArchaeology Data Service · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArchaeology and ancient environmental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRidgeDitchGeophysical surveyAerial surveyChannel (broadcasting)SituatedQuarter (Canadian coin)West virginia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In April 2007 an archaeological evaluation was undertaken by Channel 4's Time Team at 'The Castles', a scheduled monument situated on land at West Shipley Farm, Hamsterley, Co. Durham (centred on NGR 410353 533078). The programme of fieldwork was to include both non-intrusive (geophysical and standing remains surveys) and intrusive (seven evaluation trenches and targeted environmental augering) investigations. A full topographical survey was to be undertaken, but the extensive tree cover rendered this physically difficult and substantially interfered with the satellite reception; consequently, the survey was limited to those readings assisting with other parts of the project. 'The Castles' comprises a large, rhomboidal dry-stone monument with a single entrance to the east and a substantial ditch which appears to surround the monument on all sides. The monument was first recorded in late the 18th century and subject to a series of investigation by Hodgkin in the early 20th century, including, at times, extensive rebuilding of parts of the walls. No evidence for internal structures or dating had been found, but the monument was believed to represent the remains of a fortified site of Late Iron-Age, Romano-British or post-Roman date. The geophysical survey revealed few features within the interior other than northsouth ridge and furrow across most of the area; confirming evidence from aerial photographs and written sources for post-medieval cultivation. Potential archaeological anomalies within the interior proved to be mostly natural in origin, one anomaly in the south corresponding with an area of flagged flooring. Further ridge and furrow was observed in a survey area to the north of the monument, and 19th century field boundaries in an area to the east. Investigation of the walls showed a vertical dry-stone rubble construction built directly on the purposely levelled old ground surface or natural. The single eastern entrance probably originally had a cobbled surface, later flagged. A large upright flag placed in the wall on the north side of the entrance (no surviving evidence for pair to the south) may have formed part of a gateway. The 'guard cell' within the wall on the south side of the entrance has no pair to the north, and is probably a later addition inserted after almost total collapse of the wall. Evidence for only two internal archaeological features was recovered. In the southern part of the enclosure an area of rough stone flagging, probably some sort of yard, is likely to have been contemporaneous with the monument. An east-west rubble-filled linear feature in the central area of the enclosure is probably associated with terracing and drainage; the date is uncertain. No artefactual dating evidence was recovered from the site and the palaeoenvironmental data was very sparse and is undated. The monument remains enigmatic both in terms of date and function. Though clearly constructed by a substantial work force as a defensive fortification, there is little evidence to support by whom and for what it was used. It may have served as a demonstration of power, its use may have proved unnecessary by change of circumstances, or occupation may only have been temporary or seasonal. The date of the original construction seems most likely to be Late Iron Age, with possibly post- Roman reuse of parts of the structure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchaeology Data ServiceSame topicArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207