CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 8

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

GIS Analysis and Spatial Networking Patterns in Upland Ancient Warfare: The Roman Conquest of Dacia

Oltean, Ioana A., Fonte, João·2020·Geosciences
DOI 10.3390/geosciences11010017
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Generally seen as natural peripheries, upland landscapes present particular challenges both in terms of living, and of recording past human activity within. LiDAR (light detection and ranging) technology has now brought considerable improvement in our ability to record and map surviving archaeological features, but not necessarily increased our appreciation of local agency. Though the iconic landscape around the Iron Age Dacian capital of Sarmizegetusa Regia (Romania) and its Roman conquest have long caught the attention of specialists and the wider public, both previous research and more recent results from an airborne LiDAR survey leave considerable gaps in our understanding of networking potential across this challenging landscape. Based on LiDAR and satellite-generated high- and mid-resolution topographic data, our paper employs an innovative combination of GIS (geographic information system) spatial analysis tools to examine the spatial relationships between Roman military bases, Dacian targets, and the wider landscape as an integral part of a wider interdisciplinary archaeological research. This helped us formulate and test spatial and historical hypotheses, according to which all known and potential Roman military bases in the study area functioned as part of a system where each contributed individual advantages in securing their domination across the landscape. Our research highlighted the advantages and challenges for Comărnicelu as one of the key Roman logistical nodes, and for the attackers at Şesului and Muncelu working in tandem to besiege and subdue Sarmizegetusa Regia. Our study raises doubts with respect of the fall and destruction of the hillfort at Vârfu lui Hulpe as a result of a Roman siege, making space for alternative political narratives. Ultimately, our findings help build a better understanding of this iconic world heritage landscape and its Roman conquest.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/geosciences11010017

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Carrer, 2020, Ecology, Economy, and Upland Landscapes: Socio-Ecological Dynamics in the Alps during the Transition to Modernity, Hum. Ecol., 48, 69, 10.1007/s10745-020-00130-y · DOI
  2. Vagalinski, L., and Sharankov, N. (2015). La Carisa and the Conquest of Asturia Transmontana (Hispania) by Publius Carisius. Limes XXII: Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Ruse, Bulgaria, September 2012, National Archaeological Institute.
  3. Sommer, C.S., and Matešić, S. (2018). Roman Camp and Fort Design in Hispania: An Approach to the Distribution, Morphology and Settlement Pattern of Roman Military Sites during the Early Empire. Limes XXIII: Proceedings of the 23rd International Limes Congress in Ingolstadt 2015, Nünnerich-Asmus.
  4. Sommer, C.S., and Matešič, S. (2018). The presence of the Roman Army in North-Western Hispania: New archaeological data from ancient Asturias and Galicia. Limes XXIII: Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies Ingolstadt 2015, Nünnerich-Asmus Verlag.
  5. Fonte, 2019, The reassessment of the Roman military presence in Galicia and northern Portugal trough digital tools: Archaeological diversity and historical problems, Mediterr. Archaeol. Archaeom., 19, 17
  6. Morillo, 2020, Constructing the archaeology of the Roman conquest of Hispania: New evidence, perspectives and challenges, J. Rom. Archaeol., 33, 36, 10.1017/S1047759420000902 · DOI
  7. Labrador, 2019, Recent research on the Cantabrian Wars: The archaeological reconstruction of a mountain war, J. Rom. Archaeol., 32, 421, 10.1017/S1047759419000217 · DOI
  8. Lendon, J.E. (2005). Soldiers and Ghosts. A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity, Yale University Press.
  9. Siart, C., Forbriger, M., and Bubenzer, O. (2018). Spatial Analysis in Archaeology: Moving into New Territories. Digital Geoarchaeology. New Techniques for Interdisciplinary Human-Environmental Research, Natural Science in Archaeology; Springer. · DOI
  10. Contreras, F., Farjas, M., and Melero, F.J. (2013). Theory and practice of cost functions. Fusion of Cultures. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Granada, Spain, April 2010, Archaeopress. · DOI
  11. Oltean, I.A. (2007). Dacia. Landscape, Colonisation and Romanisation, Routledge. · DOI
  12. Bagnall, R., Brodersen, K., Champion, C., Erskine, A., and Huebner, S. (2012). Sarmizegetusa Regia. The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, Wiley-Blackwell. · DOI
  13. Oltean, 2017, Conquest strategy and political discourse: New evidence for the conquest of Dacia from LiDAR analysis at Sarmizegetusa Regia, J. Rom. Archaeol., 30, 429, 10.1017/S1047759400074195 · DOI
  14. Diaconescu, 1997, Dacia under Trajan, Some observations on Roman tactics and strategy, Acta Musei Napoc., 34, 13
  15. Daicoviciu, 1959, Şantierul arheologic Grădiştea Muncelului (r. Orăştie, reg. Hunedoara), Mater. Şi Cercet. Arheol., 5, 379
  16. Herzog, 2014, A review of case studies in archaeological least-cost analysis, Archeol. Calc., 25, 223
  17. Kempf, 2019, Paradigm and pragmatism: GIS-based spatial analyses of Roman infrastructure networks and land-use concepts in the Upper Rhine Valley, Geoarchaeology, 34, 797, 10.1002/gea.21752 · DOI
  18. Kempf, 2020, Modelling multivariate landscape affordances and functional ecosystem connectivity in landscape archaeology, Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci., 12, 159, 10.1007/s12520-020-01127-w · DOI · Paper page
  19. Oltean, 2013, Burial mounds and settlement patterns: A quantitative approach to their identification from the air and interpretation, Antiquity, 87, 202, 10.1017/S0003598X00048729 · DOI
  20. Hanson, W., and Oltean, I.A. (2013). A Lost Archaeological Landscape on the Lower Danube Roman Limes: The Contribution of Second World War Aerial Photographs. Archaeology from Historical Aerial and Satellite Archives, Springer.
  21. Lasaponara, 2012, High-Resolution Satellite Imagery and the Detection of Buried Archaeological Features in Ploughed Landscapes, Satellite Remote Sensing. Remote Sensing and Digital Image Processing, Volume 16, 291, 10.1007/978-90-481-8801-7_13 · DOI
  22. Hanson, W.S., and Oltean, I.A. (2013). Archaeology from Historical Aerial and Satellite Archives, Springer. · DOI
  23. Vagalinski, L., and Sharankov, N. (2015). Defining the Roman Limes in Romania: The Contribution of Aerial and Satellite Remote Sensing. Limes XXII: Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Ruse, Bulgaria, September 2012, National Archaeological Institute.
  24. Bell, 2020, Pathways to past ways: A positive approach to routeways and mobility, Antiquity, 94, 1349, 10.15184/aqy.2020.133 · DOI
  25. Mahaney, 2020, The Hannibal enigma of 218 BC: A forensic exercise of importance to historical archaeology, Sci. Cult., 6, 7
  26. Gillings, M., Hacıgüzeller, P., and Lock, G.L. (2020). GIS-Based Visibility Analysis. Archaeological Spatial Analysis, Routledge. · DOI
  27. Nicolucci, F., and Hermon, S. (2010). Calculating the inherent visual structure of a landscape (‘total viewshed’) using high-throughput computing. Beyond the Artefact. Digital Interpretation of the Past. Proceedings of CAA2004, Prato, Italy, 13–17 April 2004, Archaeolingua.
  28. Llobera, 2007, Modeling visibility through vegetation, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 21, 799, 10.1080/13658810601169865 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Cowley, D., Fernández-Götz, M., Romankiewicz, T., and Wendling, H. (2019). Microtopographies of Dacian upland settlement strategies and community aggregation trends in the Orăştie Mountains, Romania. Rural Settlement: Relating Buildings, Landscape, and People in the European Iron Age, Sidestone Press.
  30. Brughmans, 2018, Introducing visual neighbourhood configurations for total viewsheds, J. Archaeol. Sci., 96, 14, 10.1016/j.jas.2018.05.006 · DOI
  31. 2019, Now you see me. An assessment of the visual recognition and control of individuals in archaeological landscapes, J. Archaeol. Sci., 104, 56, 10.1016/j.jas.2019.02.002 · DOI
  32. Murphy, 2018, Visibility analysis of the Roman communication network in southern Scotland, J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep., 17, 111
  33. Turchetto, 2017, Hide and Seek. Roads, Lookouts and Directional Visibility Cones in Central Anatolia, Open Archaeol., 3, 69, 10.1515/opar-2017-0004 · DOI
  34. White, D.A., and Surface-Evans, S. (2012). An introduction to the least cost analysis of social landscapes. Least Cost Analysis of Social Landscapes: Archaeological Case Studies, University of Utah Press. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Llobera, 2011, Order in movement: A GIS approach to accessibility, J. Archaeol. Sci., 38, 843, 10.1016/j.jas.2010.11.006 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Verhagen, P., Joyce, J., and Groenhuijzen, M. (2019). Footprints and Cartwheels on a Pixel Road: On the Applicability of GIS for the Modelling of Ancient (Roman) Routes. Finding the Limits of the Limes, Computational Social Sciences; Springer. · DOI
  37. Verbrugghe, 2017, Routes across the Civitas Menapiorum: Using least cost paths and GIS to locate the Roman roads of Sandy Flanders, J. Hist. Geogr., 57, 76, 10.1016/j.jhg.2017.06.006 · DOI
  38. Chrysanthi, A., Flores, P.M., and Papadopoulos, C. (2012). A Roman Puzzle. Trying to find the Via Belgica with GIS. Thinking beyond the Tool. Archaeological Computing and the Interpretive Process, Archaeopress. · DOI
  39. Zohar, 2020, The ‘Incense Road’ from Petra to Gaza: An analysis using GIS and Cost functions, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 34, 292, 10.1080/13658816.2019.1669795 · DOI
  40. Fonte, 2017, A GIS-based analysis of the rationale behind Roman roads. The case of the so-called via XVII (NW Iberian Peninsula), Mediterr. Archaeol. Archaeom., 17, 163
  41. 2006, Moving without destination. A theoretical GIS-based determination of movement from a given origin, Archaeol. Comput. Newsl., 64, 7
  42. Frischer, B., Crawford, J.W., and Koller, D. (2010). Traveling in a prehistoric landscape: Exploring the influences that shaped human movement. Making History Interactive. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Proceedings of the 37th International Conference, Williamsburg, VA, USA, 22–26 March 2009, Archaeopress. · DOI
  43. 2007, Proposals for an archaeological analysis of pathways and movement, Archeol. Calc., 18, 121

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Oltean, I. A., & Fonte, J.
Affiliations
Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter EX4 4QE, UK
ORCID
Venue
Geosciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-12-31
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
17
ISSN
2076-3263
DOI
10.3390/geosciences11010017
Cited by
8
References
17
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)
Funders
European Commission (794048)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review