Providing a detailed consideration of previous theories of native settlement patterns and the impact of Roman colonization, Dacia offers fresh insight into the province Dacia and the nature of Romanization. It analyzes Roman-native interaction from a landscape perspective focusing on the core territory of both the Iron Age and Roman Dacia. Oltean considers the nature and distribution of settlement in the pre-Roman and Roman periods, the human impact on the local landscapes and the changes which occurred as a result of Roman occupation. Dealing with the way that the Roman conquest and organization of Dacia impacted on the native settlement pattern and society, this book will find itself widely used amongst students of ancient Rome.

By the end of the 1st c. A.D., Dacia had been an intermittent thorn in Rome's side for almost two centuries. The ambitions of Burebista and the actions of his various successors continued to threaten Roman hegemony along the lower Danube, culminating in the rise of the powerful kingdom of Decebalus and a substantial Roman defeat in Moesia. Domitian sent troops against the Dacians to restore the dignity of Rome (85-86 and 88-88/89), but with mixed success, finally having to settle for buying peace at a substantial price in order to free himself to deal with threats to security in both Germany and Pannonia. No doubt both the costs involved and the perceived lack of success further contributed to the hostility of Roman authors towards Domitian and left unfinished business on the Danube frontier. It is no great surprise, therefore, that Dacia was the first area to which Trajan — to whom the attitude of contemporary sources (e.g., Pliny's Panegyricus) could not have been in greater contrast — turned his attention within three years of his accession.

The author describes a process of systematic integration of aerial and satellite imagery, which has provided a huge increase in the number of known burial mounds in the area where the Danube meets the Black Sea. Careful evaluation of newly acquired and archival imagery from satellites and lower level platforms shows where data is comparable and how visibility varies with imagery type. Excavations to date suggest the majority of the mounds are of Greco-Roman date and associated with the large towns and their road networks. Clusters of barrows exist, hinting at associated settlement aggregation, but a large proportion are single tumuli, raising interesting questions about their social role in this period. Above all, the large numbers revealed by the survey must invite new thoughts on whether, or in what way, the mounds reflect social ranking.

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.