 I'm doing this paper in collaboration with Ioana Otean, that is a professor in the Department of Archaeology of the University of Ecteter. I'm doing a post-op there. That's why we started this collaboration. I also need to stress that Ioana is the real expert on Dacia, Roman Dacia, so I'm most like an outsider, so please excuse any possible mistake. But yeah, in any case, we have our emails if you have any kind of question or whatever, so I will try to be the most specific as possible. So the idea of this presentation, in relation with this session, we are going to present some results, some provisional and general results of a macro-scale approach that we have been working on Dacia, but mainly focus on Lidardata in this area because it has a big forest covered. So it's very difficult to assess this area in terms of using aerial photos or satellite imagery. So I'm going to present the very general and preliminary results because most of the field work and ground truthing is still to be done next year. So this is like first approach, general things. So first of all, the location, just to give you an overview of, of course, located in Romania, Dacia is the area we are working. It's also a frontier area of the Roman Empire. Of course, the topic of the Dacian Wars on the, yeah, you see the dates, on the beginning of the second century AD. There's like a very big publicity in big profile sources, you know, from one end we have the written sources, especially the Ocasius and also some famous monuments, like the Trajan Column. So it's like the Dacian Wars seem to have like a very big importance. So our first idea is try to look at the landscape, to see if this, you know, this big publicity about the Dacian Wars is really reflected also on the landscape. So the idea is to try to see if we have a correspondence with this, with some evidence that we can find on the landscapes. So the project was focused on the surrounding area of the Dacian capital. The army is a world heritage site. And mainly this starts around 2010 or in the scope of a documentary made by BBC about Rome's lost empire. We can search it on YouTube, I think it's online. And they want to do like a chapter about Roman Dacia and Joana was a collaborator of this project and so she proposed to do a LiDAR survey of this area because as you see it has a lot of tree coverage. There's a lot of already known information about the area but the idea that we are still missing a lot of things. So that's why the idea of trying to do a LiDAR coverage of this area. So in November 2011, like the cover of the... Well, the Dacian capital, this is 10 by 10 kilometers. It's a medium-high resolution survey, more or less around 8 points per square meter. It's quite good. For instance, in Iberia we are used to work with a very low resolution. The format of the delivery information is in the last format and when I get to Exeter, Joana sent me the last files and in the past months I have been processing all this data. Classifying and filtering. Well, of course, trying two different filtering applications. I select a small area to try to adjust parameters and try to achieve the best classification as possible. When I achieve an adequate, I process all the area and then in the end I got all this big image. Then we apply, of course, different visualization techniques to try to enhance the power. This is basically all the features that have been mapped in this area through the wider set. This has been most the work of Joana, which she mapped different kinds of evidence. We are not going to look in detail at most of these evidence. The things that I'm going to talk about more in detail. This is the Dacian capital. This was another camp or fort, a Roman camp. This was the only one that was known until that moment and supposedly it should be related with the siege of the Dacian capital. Then through the wider, a new Roman camp appeared here to the southwest of Tami, Sarmi. I'm going to say Sarmi, for me it's more comfortable. Also in the northwest part, Corn, another big Roman camp. The idea then after mapping all these structures, now we are trying to understand if these Roman military sites that are surrounding the capital, they could be related with the siege, with the attack of the Dacian capital. I'm trying in the first step. This is of course the map of the sites. This is the only Roman military site that was known. It has some very strange but also interesting structures that we need to assess more in detail through the field work. Also the biggest one, the Roman camp, this is the corner, the one that was on the northwest part. The one that was already known. And also this one. Sorry for the names. This is again a new Roman site that has been found. In the first step, after all this processing and interpretation of digital data, I was trying to see if through spatial analysis, GIS spatial analysis, we could get more insights about the possible relationship of these Roman camps and forts in relation with the siege and the attack of Sarbi. This map, these colors, is a total view shot. This is basically what it gives us. It's the areas that are more topographic and visual prominent. Of course, the red areas are more visual prominent and the green are the lowest. And these lines, what they represent is intervisibility between the sites. So from Cheshulin, it can control directly Sarbi also from Munchello, but for instance from Kornow, it's impossible to see Sarbi. But in another way, he has visibility, intervisibility with Munchello. I also expressed this in graphs. This is the total view shot result. You see how Munchello and Cheshulin are more in higher positions, no, controlling Sarbi. And Kornow is also in higher position but doesn't have intervisibility with Sarbi. Also the area, we see here, Cheshulin and Munchello are very quite small sites, and Kornow is a much bigger one. Also trying to see if this is basically a natural network of pathways that comes, that goes from Sarmi. This is just trying to let us know to understand the possible routes of movement from the outside to the site. The possible access, accessibility to the site. So this is just like a natural network of pathways that only has a point of origin and don't have a point of destination. Just to try to understand if there is good accessibility between the sites and the capital or the accessibility is bad. Of course, these and these are very close relations with controlling the access through the Asian capital. This seems to be more related to other kind of aspects that we still need to understand better. And this is just to improve the least cost path between the sites itself that give us the more potential, the best potential way between the sites, in this case, not between all the landscapes. Now to try to understand the visibility and the mobility, the relation between both things. This is the visibility from Munchello, from this site. This one is the Asian capital. This is the visibility from Munchello. The idea is to try to understand the relationship between visibility and mobility in the territory. And it's very clear from the analysis that Munchello overlooks Sarmi and blocks the main hilltop to the north. This is the main access of this hilltop. So that site is clearly controlling the site itself, but also the movement towards the site. This is the other one. This one in the southeast, that again also overlooks directly Sarmi from the southwest and controls this possible connection between both two sites. The other site is more, the relationship with Sarmi is more hypothetical, it doesn't seem to have a very direct relationship. In Cormac that is this one. There's no direct visual control over Sarmi, but it controls the access from the west and also from the northwest. So these areas of mobility are out of control. This site doesn't have a direct visual relationship with Sarmi, but at least it controls the access from the west to the site. There's also again a possible relationship with Ulp, the Asian hilltop, that is this one. It doesn't have that is 1.5 kilometers to this, although there's no direct visual connection. So we are still not really sure about the possible relationship with this site, also with this new wheel for, and the Asian capital. So more work stills to be done. So just to finish, some preliminary conclusions. The camp of Cessuli, that is one to the southeast and the fort of Munchel, the one to the north, show the nature of Roman effort involving taking and controlling Sarmi's Zegetuza regia. It remains more problematic, as I told you, the one to the northeast. There's no obvious siege works. Through the latter, we don't have any evidence of more complementary siege works. Of course, the chronology of their occupation and their function remain generally unclear. So targeted fieldwork is planned and is going to be implemented next year. Of course, we don't know. We are not really sure if all these sites and it's even possible that some camps can have super positions, no? So different sites in the same area, so we still need to address that. And there seems to be, like a disc, as I mentioned in the beginning, the relations between the V commemorations of the Asian conquest and what we really have in terms of archaeology on the field. There seems to be some kind of discrepancy between the commemoration of the Asian conquest, as I mentioned, for instance, a column and also the available archaeological evidence. Maybe it should be expected more archaeological evidence in relation with the conquest of Sami Zegetuza. So the conquest of Tessia in the beginning of the 2nd century AD, can we maybe think about the deliberate political exaggeration of this conflict by Tresian, you know, just to try to achieve more political Mr. War. Yeah, yeah, well, again, so that seems to be like a, you know, a discrepancy between the old commemoration of Tessia conquest and the available archaeological evidence. And again, the work still to be done this is like preliminary hypothesis more than real work. So hopefully next year we'll add more evidence that can try to answer this kind of question. So again, just to say that in this case remote sensing that was very important for us, we're trying to go beyond the tool, of course, we still have to do a lot of work, but the idea is also that we can also use, integrate this kind of approach, remote sense approach, landscape or guilty approaches in relation to specific historical questions, historical narratives. So the big idea of this session is, you know, to try to go beyond the tool. How can we integrate these kind of spatial data sets to try to help us to answer historical questions about specific problems. So yeah, I think that's more about it. Thank you.