Received: 25 September 2019 Revised: 7 January 2020 Accepted: 16 January 2020

DOI: 10.1002/arp.1767

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Non-destructive research in the surroundings of the Roman

Fort Tibiscum (today Romania)

Michał Pisz1 | Agnieszka Tomas2 | Alexandru Hegyi3,4

1
Institute of Hydrogeology and Geological
Engineering, Faculty of Geology, University of Abstract
Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland The Roman military fort Tibiscum which existed from the beginning of the second up
2
Institute of Archaeology, Faculty of History,
to the third quarter of the third century AD was manned by various auxiliary units,
University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
3
Department of History and Archaeology, including Syrian Palmyrenians and Germanic Vindelici. Its irregular shape and rela-
PostDoc at the Chair ‘Sylvia Ioannou‘ for tively big surface, usual for the forts of that type, as well as not having entirely clear
Digital Humanities, Archaeological Research
Unit (ARU), University of Cyprus, Nicosia, settlement structures visible on both sides of the Timiş River drew attention of many
Cyprus scholars. The non-destructive research project carried out in 2014–2016 allowed to
4
Applied Geomorphology and Interdisciplinary
reassess the ancient landscape around the fort. Although the site was excavated for
Research Centre (CGACI), West University of
Timişoara, Timişoara, Romania almost 100 years, the rural hinterland of Tibiscum has never been investigated sys-
tematically. An integrated archaeological prospection method combined with the use
Correspondence
Michał Pisz, Institute of Hydrogeology and of modern surveying tools resulted in establishing the accurate position of the known
Geological Engineering, Faculty of Geology,
_
extramural remains and the location of a dozen of new sites and features within the
University of Warsaw, ul. Zwirki i Wigury
93, 02–089, Warsaw, Poland. radius of ca 3 km around the fort. The results of the surveys compared with the old
Email: michal.pisz@uw.edu.pl
maps and previous excavations led to the new conclusions concerning the topogra-
Funding information phy of Roman Tibiscum and the development of the civilian settlement in its vicinity.
This scientific work is financed from the
The analysis of acquired archaeological data compared with historical sources give
budgetary funds for science for the years
2014-2016 as a research project within the assumptions to the question of the existence of a separate town on the east side of
Diamond Grant programme, Grant/Award
the Timiş River which was granted municipal status by the end of the second century
Number: 0113/DIA/2014/43; This study has
received funding from the Romanian grant AD. The authors of the present article are rather willing to believe that it was the
PNIII 28 PFE BID for publication fee., Grant/
extramural settlement (vicus), located on the west bank of Timiş, which was granted
Award Number: PNIII 28 PFE BID
municipal rights, probably at the end of the second or at the beginning of the third
century AD.

KEYWORDS

archaeological geophysics, earth resistance, landscape archaeology, magnetometry, Roman

military fort, Tibiscum

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N Jupa and Iaz. In Antiquity, this part of Romania belonged to the

Roman province of Dacia. Tibiscum was an important fort and civilian
The archaeological site of Tibiscum is situated in north-eastern Banat settlement during this period. The Timiş River flows across the site,
(today Romania), in Caraş-Severin county, between two villages – through a wide, meandering riverbed. The waters of the river flow

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2020 The Authors. Archaeological Prospection published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Archaeological Prospection. 2020;1–20. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/arp 1

2 PISZ ET AL.
quickly, carrying cobbles, pebbles and sand which are deposited along
its course. Pebbles are also deposited on the fields along the river and
this indicates that the river has changed its course over time, and has
repeatedly overflowed or even flooded, what is also depicted in his-
toric mapping of the area (Ardeţţ & Ardeţţ, 2004, 155; Timár, Biszak,
Székely, & Molnár, 2010). The most prominent and extant buildings of
the fort were made of limestone and marble, but the majority of other
military and extramural buildings were made of pebble (Urdea &
Cîntar, 2014). Although we identified a quarry situated to the north of
the fort, this material was not used in the majority of the unearthed
buildings.
Recognizing settlement structures around the Roman military fort
Tibiscum was the main goal of the project carried out in several
seasons of fieldwork between 2014 and 2016.1 Since the extent of
the fort has been already established and some buildings inside the
military base were excavated in the past years (Benea, 2018; Benea &
Bona, 1994; Cîntar, 2015), our activities were focused on the land-
scape surrounding the fort. The main objective of the research was to
reconstruct the extramural settlement structures. Assessment of aerial
thermography on Roman sites in Banat was a secondary goal of the
project.
2 | THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The name of Tibiscum is known from several ancient sources (Ptol. III
8, 10: Tιβίσκον; Tab. Peut., VII 4; Rav. Anonym. IV 14). The first
military post was founded there during Trajan's Dacian campaigns
(AD 101–102 and 105–106) on the way to the heart of the Dacian
Kingdom in Transylvania. Soon, the fortlet developed into a bigger
fort manned in the second century by various auxiliary units (Benea &
Bona, 1994, 16–26; Gudea, 1997, 32–34). Romanian archaeologists
have identified four major phases of the fort: Phase I (small timber-
and-earth fort), Phase II and III (timber-and-earth auxiliary fort), Phase
IV (large stone auxiliary fort) (Benea, 2018, 25–124; Benea & Bona,
1994, 27–60). The earliest military installation was a small fortlet
identified by archaeologists in the north-western corner of the later
auxiliary fort of Phase IVb. The plan of the fort in the last phase is an
irregular trapezoid of about 175 m × 321 m × 210 m × 310 m (Benea,
2018, 53; Cîntar, 2015, 88–89).
Nowadays the fort is located on the left side of the Timiş River, at
ca 200 m from its banks, but changes of the riverbed in the past
caused damage and the southern part of the fort is now destroyed.
The orientation of the fort is defined by the orientation of the head-
quarters building, which means that in Tibiscum the East Gate faced
the enemy (porta praetoria), on the opposite side was the porta
decumana – here the West Gate, and the two entrances were called
porta principalis dextra (South Gate) and porta principalis sinistra (North
1
The project titled Tibiscum (Romania) and its rural territory in the Roman period. Non-
destructive prospection of the settlement landscape was funded by the Diamond Grant
programme by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education. The results delivered
material for a case study included in Alexandru Hegyi's PhD thesis which will be published in
Romanian later this year.
Gate). The position of the gates indicates the starting points of the
roads running outside the defences. In comparison to other similar
Roman settlements, it was expected that cemeteries as well as ancil-
lary buildings, including extramural baths may have stretched along
the edges of these roads (Hanel, 2007, 411–412).
The fort was surrounded by a civilian settlement (vicus), cemeter-
ies and other smaller and more remote settlement structures. The
remains of the vicus were unearthed to the north and northeast of the
fort in the 20th century (Cîntar, 2015, 42–78). The authors of an old
19th century drawing depicted ‘Roman ruins’ on both sides of the
Timiş River and two Roman roads on its right, eastern bank (Ortvay,
1876, 84 and see Figure 3). This place, now called ‘Tibiscum-Iaz’ is the
least investigated part of the site identified with another civilian
settlement (Ardeţţ & Ardeţţ, 2004).
Among numerous inscriptions discovered in Tibiscum, there are
at least two mentioning a civilian town with municipal rights. In the
second century for settlements and towns existing near Roman
military bases such status was difficult to obtain, especially for those
which existed near auxiliary forts. Settlements existing in the close
surroundings of the military bases, or the bases themselves, were
raised on public land controlled by the military unit which possibly is
referred to as territorium in epigraphic sources (Kovács, 2013, 144ff;
Leveau, 1993). Therefore, their inhabitants were not allowed to buy
and own this land. Still, the civilians formed quasi-municipal govern-
ments and made efforts to change their status, especially due to the
fact that some of these settlements were actually large and prosper-
ous towns (Hanel, 2007, 413). In some cases, the civilians built
another settlement at a certain distance from the camp, where the
land was under the control of the Roman civilian authorities. Such
land could be bought and sold, and the inhabitants were able to form
legal authorities which could try to acquire municipal rights for their
community. This legal situation resulted in a specific settlement pat-
tern observed in the surroundings of the second century AD military
bases. Legionary bases, which were bigger than auxiliary forts, were
accompanied by a civilian settlement of traders, servicemen and camp
followers (canabae), while at a certain distance (usually around 2 km)
there was another settlement, which could develop into a town,
usually with municipal rights (municipium). This phenomenon is today
described as ‘settlement duality’ (Hanel, 2007, 413; Piso, 1992).
Scholars agree that from the second half of the second century this
‘settlement duality’ evolved and many canabae were granted munici-
pal status, while the second civilian town in the vicinity (if it already
had possessed municipal rights) was raised to the status of a Roman
colonia, i.e. a city of the highest status with tax exemption.
Settlements near auxiliary forts were called vici, and only in some
cases we know about municipia existing near such military bases. For
many years the scholars followed the opinion of Fr. Vittinghoff that
near auxiliary fort could exist only one settlement – a military vicus
(Vittinghoff, 1974, 111). I. Piso who discussed settlement duality near
legionary camps suggested that double communities may have
occurred also in case of auxiliary forts (Piso, 1992, 152, fn. 98), and
this idea has been recently developed by F. Matei-Popescu who
asserts that just like in the case of legionary bases, a settlement
PISZ ET AL.
outside the military territory could be granted municipal rights (Matei-
Popescu, 2018, 89). Apart from exceptional cases where such model
could have developed (like Drobeta – an important crossing point on
the Danube, where Trajan built his famous bridge) the majority of
auxiliary forts had only one settlement (vicus), which could have been
granted municipal rights, not earlier than during the reign of Septimius
Severus.
In the case of Tibiscum, the scholars came to the conclusion that
either the vicus was granted municipal rights (IDRIII/1, 145; Oltean &
Hanson, 2001, 134; Matei-Popescu, 2018, 93), or there might have
been another settlement, large enough to be granted this privilege
(Arde & Arde, 2004, 22; Ardevan, 1998, 40; Benea, 2005, 148–149).
The moment when this happened is disputable, although most
scholars agree that it occurred no earlier than under Septimius Seve-
rus, which is late second to early third century AD (IDR III/1, 145;
Ardevan, 1998, 40; Benea, 2004; Pippidi, 1974, 18–19). This hypothe-
sis seems to be supported by an ancient illustrated itinerary
(itinerarium pictum), where Tibiscum is marked twice, at two different
roads in Dacia (Tab. Peut VII 4, Tiuisco).
Although the ruins near Jupa drew the attention of many anti-
quarians, and the site was excavated in 1923–1924, in 1965–1989
and irregularly since 2002 until nowadays, the whole area of the site
and the rural hinterland of Tibiscum have never been fully investi-
gated. During excavations the researchers unearthed the remains of
fortifications related to all phases of the military garrison, the head-
quarters building (principia), three barrack buildings, an apsidal building
and an elongated building identified as a schola (Benea & Bona, 1994,
9–11, 29–53). Several extramural buildings of the vicus were discov-
ered to the north and east of the fort (Benea & Bona, 1994, 61–72).
Only separate sites have been excavated in the surroundings of the
fort, among them ten small rural estates or mansions (Ardevan, 1998,
74; Benea, 2005, 149, 151–152; Timoc, 2003, 103) and a temple to
Apollo Conservator (Piso & Rogozea, 1985). The burials were discov-
ered on the right side of the Tibiscum River in the place Tibiscum-Iaz
(Ardeţţ & Ardeţţ, 2004, 23, 57; Luca, 2006, 140–141, no. 300) and
along the road leading southwards from there (Ardevan, 1998, 40).
3 | R E S E A R C H P R O G RA M M E A N D
METHODS
3.1 | Theoretical approach
The theoretical approach for the project carried out in Tibiscum con-
forms to Landscape Archaeology. Landscape Archaeology has been
defined in a number of publications during the past decades (Aston,
1985; Chapman, 2006). According to Nicole Branton, Landscape
Archaeology is a basic tool for researchers who try to find out how
people conceptualized, organized and adapted their environment and
how it affected them (Branton, 2009, 51). Henry Chapman mentions a
particular meaning of the space, studying the landscape as a whole
instead of focusing on single spaces/events and considers mutual rela-
tions between settlement sites in landscape archaeological studies
3
(Chapman, 2006, 11–14). According to UNESCO, ‘Cultural landscapes
are cultural properties and represent the combined works of nature
and of man’ (UNESCO, 2012, 14). All these definitions have a common
denominator. Cultural landscape consists of the present terrain and
topography, modern manmade infrastructure, but also of archaeologi-
cal remains, either already unearthed or still unknown.
The landscape around Tibiscum is particularly interesting for two
major reasons. The first one is related to the topography of the site.
This is the unsolved question of where or which part of it was the
municipium. The second concerns the environment and forces of
nature which have influenced its contemporary shape, mostly through
the transient nature of the Timiş River. The southern edge of the fort
has been washed out by the waters of Timiş during one of the great
floods (Cîntar, 2015, 82) and we have expected that it was not the
only part of the site which was harmed by the fluvial activity.
3.2 | Methodology
A multi-disciplinary approach of modern, non-intrusive techniques of
archaeological prospection and documentation were applied during
the project. This combined approach resulted from the limited time of
fieldworks carried out each season, and a vast hypothetical extent of
the archaeological site of Tibiscum. Non-destructive methods of
archaeological prospecting are more cost-effective and efficient than
regular excavations (Scollar, Tabbagh, Hesse, & Herzog, 1990, 1–8),
therefore, they are more appropriate for landscape archaeology.
A basic requirement for the effective application of all of the
methods discussed later are the sizes and accessibility of fields. The
biggest challenges that were encountered were dense vegetation in
some of the areas which reduced survey areas.
3.3 | Field walking
Though initially not planned (Pisz & Timoc, 2014, 823), pedestrian sur-
veys became one of the methods implemented for the prospection
around the fort. A team of 15 people2 carried out the field-walking
surveys covering a total area of ca 2.5 km2. Before the start we had to
consider the area planned for the investigation, the short period of
time (only two weeks), the number of people involved in field-walking
(13), and the number of global positioning system (GPS) receivers at
our disposal (four). We decided that our first step would be to check
and investigate all available fields and to apply the extensive field-
walking method only, as the pedestrian surveys have never been
implemented outside the fort, and it seemed possible that we would
locate new sites. The decision not to implement an intensive field
survey was based on the argument that the density of finds on the
surveyed sites was too high to mark each sherd with GPS receivers,
2
The field-walking survey was led by Agnieszka Tomas from the Institute of Archaeology,
University of Warsaw and Calin Timoc from the West University in Timişoara. The surveying
team consisted also of two PhD candidates from the Institute of Archaeology University of
Warsaw, Tomasz Dziurdzik and Emil Jęczmienowski, and 11 student volunteers.
4 PISZ ET AL.
and in some places where it was possible, such a method might have
been too time-consuming during the first visit.
The field walking was carried out in spring and autumn, when the
visibility of fields allowed for good prospection. Still, many fields
turned out to be overgrown, and some of them were wetlands and
marshlands unavailable for investigations. Our main objective was to
verify or establish an accurate position of the sites recorded in the
past (Benea, 2005, 149, 151–152; Timoc, 2003, 103) and to discover
new ones situated within the radius of ca 3 km around the fort. The
extensive field-walking survey (transect method) was carried out by a
team divided into groups of three persons, each group equipped with
one handheld GPS receiver, a compass, photographic cameras and
sample bags for collecting archaeological finds. The areas chosen for
prospection were divided into parallel transects, each ca 10 m wide.
To mark the transects a cane was placed at each end. The person with
a GPS receiver set the direction for his/her group and controlled the
width of the transects. The surveyors walked in zig-zag patterns to
cover a maximum area of the prospected field. The tracks visible on
Figure 1 show the routes made by the guides of each group.
The accurate position of distinct datable artefacts and the extent
of stone or pottery concentrations were marked with the GPS
receivers. Once such a concentration was noticed, the surveying
group stopped and marked the fixed name of a concentration and
started walking again until the surface finds became even more
sparse, and each surveying person stopped and marked the outer
limits of the concentration. The extent of accessible and inaccessible
fields was also marked. Tracks and waypoints made by guide sur-
veyors were recorded and uploaded to the geographic information
system (GIS) database (Figure 1). These GPS records were compared
with aerial and ground photographs, collected material and comments
of the surveying group leaders. The outcome of the analysis was a
vector (shapefile) interpretation (Figure 2).
The pottery sherds visible on the surface were quite numerous
but represented by small pieces, mostly body fragments. Fragmenta-
tion of pottery results from intensive agricultural activity and is
tantamount to a lack of identifiable parts of a vessel. However, dat-
able or representative finds were collected and labelled. Afterwards,
the pottery sherds were washed and photographed for the prelimi-
nary dating. A preliminary inspection on the spot allowed to distin-
guish between Roman and Medieval pottery fragments (Figure 13).3
The results of the field-walking prospection compared with the
information gathered by the Romanian researchers during excava-
tions over past years gave us a perspective for further surveys,
i.e. geophysical measurements.
3.4 | Topography survey and GIS
Geodesy techniques are obligatory in order to provide a precise loca-
tion of the spatial data, especially while considering the use of a GIS
3
The finds were preliminarily studied by Dr Calin Timoc from the West University in
Timişoara. All the finds are stored in the County Museum of Ethnography and Border
Regiment in Caransebeş (Romania).
database. The reference points in all surveyed areas have been
established with the use of GPS RTK (real-time kinematic). The points
have been measured with sub-centimetre accuracy. Based upon these
points it was possible to perform further geodesy measurements with
Total Station in National4 or Global5 coordinate reference system.
The use of geodesy instruments as well as handheld GPS receivers
allowed us to store all acquired data in the GIS database, and to com-
pare them with the digitized historic maps and plans of the excavated
buildings.
For the accuracy of extensive landscape surveys, it is essential to
determine a correct and precise location of all topographical features
and acquired data, including the position of unearthed structures, dis-
tinct archaeological finds, and remote sensing data. The best tool for
collecting and analysis of spatial data is a GIS database, which helps to
maintain and manage all acquired spatial information georeferenced,
but also serves as a tool for further analysis and presentation of the
obtained results.
Geodetic measurements were a basic method used to create an
inventory of our research. For this purpose we have used Total
Stations (Leica TCR-407, Topcon Rs 6), GPS RTK (Topcon Hiper V)
receivers. Handheld GPS receivers (Garmin eTrex 20) have been used
for the purpose of field-walking survey. The measurements have been
taken in global and national coordinate reference systems (WGS84
UTM34N and Romanian Stereo 70).
All the results have been uploaded to the GIS database created in
open-source Quantum GIS software. It contained raster (e.g. maps,
plans, satellite imagery, orthophotographs, and geophysical maps) and
vector (e.g. points, outlines, GPS tracks, polygons) data. Creating an
inventory and integrating acquired data in one GIS database allowed
for effective research planning, analysis of the data and accurate pub-
lication of the collated material.
3.5 | Aerial prospection and thermography
The aerial prospection with the use of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehi-
cles) is a very effective and still a developing method (Campana, 2017;
Fernández-Hernandez, González-Aguilera, Rodríguez-Gonzálvez, &
Mancera-Taboada, 2015; Verhoeven, 2011). In Tibiscum a few differ-
ent UAV platforms have been utilized. In 2014–2015 we used a
multirotor (hex-copter) DJI S800 with a camera Olympus E-PL3 and a
fixed wing Delta X8 plane equipped with the same camera. In 2016 a
DJI's multirotor Phantom 4 quadcopter was used. Each year thermal
aerial pictures were taken by a thermal camera FLIR E50 mounted on
a hex-copter or attached to a helium balloon equipped with a self-
made remotely controlled platform.
A series of oblique and perpendicular pictures have been taken
over the entire area of the site and its surroundings. Oblique photo-
graphs have been also taken in a series with horizontal and vertical
overlap in order to create photogrammetric models with the use of
4
Dealul Piscului 1970/ Stereo 70, EPSG: 31700.
5
WGS 84 / UTM zone 34 N, EPSG: 32634.
PISZ ET AL. 5

F I G U R E 1 The outcome of the extensive field-walking survey conducted in Tibiscum in March 2015. Red lines represent tracks registered by
GPS receivers, while blue dots correspond to the features marked in the field, e.g. selected single artefacts, extents of zones of intense artefacts
presence, fields unavailable for prospection [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

F I G U R E 2 Interpretation of the field-walking survey results. Polygons represent particular type of finds. Interpretation is based on type of
finds and their spatial distribution, marked with handheld GPS receivers [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
6 PISZ ET AL.

F I G U R E 3 Comparison of remote sensing and archival cartographic data. Rectangular feature captured on digital surface model seems to be
corresponding with the extent of ‘Roman ruins’, marked in the map from the end of 19th century. Satellite image reveals a linear cropmark,
verified as remains of the Roman road [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

photogrammetry software – Agisoft PhotoScan Professional (recently
rebranded to Agisoft MetaShape). For georeferencing we have used
ground control points measured with a GPS RTK and a total station.
The orthomosaics mapping we created from the aerial surveys cover a
total area of more than 105 ha.
One of the methods applied during our fieldworks was the aerial
thermal imaging (thermography) which is a method used in archaeol-
ogy for some decades (Scollar et al., 1990, 591–632), but only
recently implemented on a broader scale, mainly due to the sophisti-
cation of thermal cameras and the common use of drones (Casana
et al., 2017). Data has been collected at different times of the year
(spring, summer, autumn) and day (morning, afternoon, night).
3.6 | Geophysics
A professional approach to the use of geophysical methods in archae-
ology distinguishes three levels of investigations (Gaffney & Gater,
2003, 88–90; Schmidt et al., 2015, 10–11) which relate to an increas-
ing intensity of data collection. In Tibiscum we chose magnetometry
as the first method, and earth resistance as a complementary
prospection technique. For characterization (David, Linford, & Linford,
2008, 8; Schmidt et al., 2015, 11) we applied electrical resistivity
tomography (ERT) and ground penetrating radar (GPR). Magnetometry
is used to measure very small magnetic fields associated with buried
archaeological remains (Fassbinder, 2015; Gaffney & Gater, 2003, 47).
Earth resistance or resistivity surveys are where a very low electric
current is passed through the ground at regular intervals and the resis-
tance to the flow of these currents are measured (Gaffney & Gater,
2003, 26). The principle of GPR is sending VHF radio pulses into the
ground and registering reflections occurring when pulses meet discon-
tinuities or surfaces (Gaffney & Gater, 2003, 47).
In April 2015 a fluxgate magnetometer (Aspinall, Gaffney, &
Schmidt, 2008, 34–41) Bartington Grad 601–2 was used.6 In April
2016 we used a caesium magnetometer (Aspinall et al., 2008, 48–53)
Geometrics G-858 and a proton magnetometer Geometrics G-856 as
a reference measurement. Sampling resolution was either 0.5 m
× 0.25 m or 1 m × 0.25 m, depending on the location. The angle of dip
is 62 . Total area investigated with the use of magnetometry is ca
13 ha.
Earth resistance measurements (Schmidt, 2013) were made in
April 2016 with a Geoscan Research RM85 resistance meter. We used
a Wenner electrode array (Schmidt, 2013, 40–41) with electrodes
separation distance, a = 0.75 m, which provided a maximum depth of
prospection up to ca 0.4 m. Sampling resolution in each case was 1 m
× 1 m. This method has been applied over an area of more than 3 ha.
ERT measurements have been made with a GEOTOMO ERT
meter with a double-dipole electrode array (Schmidt, 2013, 44) and a
0.5 m electrode separation with a profile interval of 1 m. The principle
6
Measurements were performed by Łukasz Pospieszny and Krzysztof Kiersnowski under the
supervision of Tomasz Herbich from the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the Polish
Academy of Sciences.
PISZ ET AL.
of this method is similar to that of earth resistance, however, the ERT
measurements provide three-dimentional data and can provide infor-
mation about the depth of the features. The ERT surveys were made
on the area of 120 m2.
GPR (Conyers, 2013; Trinks et al., 2018, 2–4) measurements were
carries out by David Gergely Páll from the University of Szeged. An
instrument used in the survey was a GSSI SIR3000 radar with shielded
270 MHz antenna. The interval between the profiles was 1 m. This
method was used over an area of 0.6 ha.
4 | RESULTS
Our multi-disciplinary approach provided a large amount of data,
which will be sub-divided into individual sections for a coherent
dissemination. The description of all the results are presented in terms
of content with a division for particular components of the settlement
landscape. The only exception is a field-walking survey, conducted in
March 2015, which is described separately, since it covered a signifi-
cantly larger area.
4.1 | Field-walking survey
For the purpose of the pedestrian surveys the entire area under inves-
tigation has been divided into two large stretches of land divided by
the river Timiş, and labelled Tibiscum West (on the left bank of the
river) and Tibiscum East (on the right bank of the river).
In October 2014, before the start of the regular pedestrian
surveys, we visited 12 Roman sites in the vicinity of Tibiscum and
7
marked them with handheld GPS receivers, which allowed us to inte-
grate their accurate location into our GIS database (Pisz & Timoc,
2014, 825). Among these 12 sites the small Roman fortlet near the vil-
lage Cornuţţel presents us with an interesting, but very damaged site
(Nemeth, Fodorean, Matei, & Blaga, 2011, 341, Abb. 13 and 14; Petru,
Hurduzeu, & Timoc, 2001). On the right side of the Timiş River
(Tibiscum East), we visited the excavated temple of Apollo (Piso &
Rogozea, 1985).
The first systematic field-walking survey was carried out in March
2015 (Figure 1). The prospection covered a total surface area of ca
2.5 km2. Most of the identified remains were small or medium size
concentrations of archaeological finds – pottery sherds and/or
building material. The finds have been cleaned and spot-dated, their
position of discovery uploaded to the GIS database and mapped. The
categories of finds compared to the images obtained from the geo-
physical surveys and aerial photographs gave possible interpretations
of structures underground. We have managed to locate and document
a few dozen archaeological features and ten new sites. A number of
artefacts were collected, mostly pottery sherds, but also fragments of
imported tableware and metal objects (Figure 2).
7 finds like a Roman iron key were found (Figure 3). In one of the satel-
We would like to express our gratitude to Adrian Ardeţ and Calin Timoc who kindly showed
us all the sites and gave their comments and observations.
7
4.1.1 | Tibiscum West (surroundings of the
archaeological reserve park)
The majority of the pedestrian surveys took place on the western
bank of the Timiş River, which was considered to be less archaeologi-
cally investigated, with the exception of the Archaeological Reserve
and the area to the north of the fort. The majority of the sites on this
bank of the Timiş River has been recorded east of national road
6 (Lugoj–Caransebeş). Three major concentrations (named Concentra-
tion W1, W2 and W3) of artefacts dated to the Roman period have
been identified there (Figure 2). The first one, W1, is located on
the fields immediately to the west of the fort's West Gate. This con-
centration is probably related to the ancient road and structures
(buildings?) which may have existed along its course. The other two
newly located concentrations have been discovered about 1 km south
(W2) and 2 km north (W3) of the fort. Concentration W2, contained
building materials and linear pebble concentrations, are possibly the
remains of a road. The total surface of the recorded concentrations is
5–6 ha. The extent and density of findings located directly east of the
modern village Jupa seem to belong to a small settlement. Since it was
not possible to conduct a geophysical verification of the site due to
crops, this site requires further investigations in the future. Concen-
tration W3 consisted of five smaller clusters of debris, recorded on a
distance of 100 to 200 m from each other.
At a distance of ca 120 m from the East Gate, on the left bank of
the Timiş River, we recorded four separate small stone concentrations
in regular (ca 40 m) intervals. They formed a line on the prolonged axis
of the via praetoria and the East Gate (Figure 1). It is possible that they
are remains of a collapsed bridge, which was still standing in the
1920s (Benea, 2018, 32–34).
4.1.2 | Tibiscum East (‘Tibiscum-Iaz’)
The fields on the right bank of the Timiş River in an area called
‘Tibiscum-Iaz’ were vast and mostly inaccessible. A field-walking sur-
vey was carried out in ploughed fields and moderately overgrown
meadows, where surface observations were possible.
We managed to observe an elevated field with a slight delineation
visible along its edge (Concentration E1). The axis of this edge was
formed by pebble and debris and was similarly aligned to the axis of
the East Gate and the via praetoria and the hypothetical line of the
bridge. This observation matched with images obtained from a photo-
grammetric digital terrain model (DTM) made from UAV imagery with
Agisoft PhotoScan (Figure 3). Building material and pottery sherds
were found on the surface of the elevated field.
Five more concentrations have been recorded on the right bank
of the Timiş River (Figure 2). The first one was another linear cluster
found at about 200 m southeast of the elevated site E1, on a slight
slope (labelled Concentration E2). Cobble and pebble concentrations
were forming a line here, where also pottery sherds and some other
lite images provided by Google we spotted a linear cropmark in this
8 PISZ ET AL.
area. The data integrated in the GIS database showed that the extent
of a cropmark matched with the waypoints made along the pebble
cluster (Figure 3).
The largest concentration (E3) of archaeological finds has been
discovered about 300 m northeast from E2. Building materials (cobble,
limestone blocks, bricks) as well as artefacts (mostly potsherds) cov-
ered an area of more than 10 ha, aligned along an east–west axis. All
these linear pebble concentrations were interpreted as possible roads.
This place corresponds with the location of the road to the provincial
capital Colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa as depicted on Ortvay's
drawing (Figure 3). About 300 m northwest of concentration E3, along
the Eruga River, we have found seven smaller sites located from 50 to
150 m distance from each other, where archaeological material was
visible on the surface (Figure 3). They were named as concentration
E4. Furthermore, 200 m east of E3 we have identified another
concentration (E5) and a further concentration of finds 400 m
eastwards of it, we have recorded the last concentration – E6
(Figure 3). It was located in the vicinity of the Apollo Conservator
temple (Cîntar, 2015, 201–206).
4.2 | Geophysical survey
4.2.1 | Area 1
In close vicinity of the fort a survey area was chosen for geophysical
survey, named as Area 1. Measurements were collected in two areas:
north of the fort (Area 1A); this part of the site was partly excavated
and identified as a military vicus; and west of the fort (Area 1B),
around the GSM antenna, beyond the Archaeological Reserve
(Figure 4). The total survey area for these two sites totalled ca 4 ha.
The site conditions for geophysical measurements in Area 1A were
perfect, however in Area 1B they were more difficult due to the fact,
that the crops were growing in April. Nonetheless, complementary
geophysical measurements were carried out at both sites producing
excellent results.
For the measurements in Area 1A we used a Geometrics G-858
caesium magnetometer with vertical gradient sensor configuration
and a traverse interval of 1 m. The magnetic measurements covered a
surface of ca 1.5 ha. Linear, positive and negative anomalies have been
identified in concentrations in the north of the Area 1A (Figure 5).
Numerous dipolar anomalies have been detected throughout the area,
however, the negative linear and thermoremanent anomalies are the
most important ones. The regular negative anomalies may be related
to the buried walls while the thermoremanent anomalies may be asso-
ciated with the remains of some burnt structures and/or large pottery
concentrations, e.g. collapsed roofs (Fassbinder, 2015). In the southern
part of the surveyed area we have managed to identify a clear edge of
the settlement (vicus) and an area devoid of anomalies between the
buildings and the fort's defensive wall. An interesting observation is
that the edge of the mentioned anomalous zone is oblique to the fort's
wall. Close examination of the magnetic map immediately north of the
fort shows faint linear anomalies parallel to the forts' defensive wall.
The earth resistance survey has been carried out on the same area
as magnetic measurements (Figure 4) and provided comparable
results. Since electric currents fed into the ground produce high resis-
tance readings where they meet stone walls or other stone or masonry
features, it was relatively easy to identify these kinds of structures
(Figure 5). Due to the limited depth of prospection of earth resistance
method, it was not possible to distinguish shallow underground struc-
tures, while images obtained from magnetometry may show structures
buried deeper. The results obtained from magnetic measurements
showing the settlement's oblique edge was confirmed by the results
of the earth resistance survey. It appeared as a double, high resistance
linear anomaly. It may be interpreted as a wall, or – less likely – as a
road. Many anomalies which are clearly visible in the magnetic data,
especially in the western part of the area, are not clear in the results
of the earth resistance measurements. This is probably due to the dif-
ferent depths of particular structures. The deeper-lying structures are
better visible in the magnetic data, whilst they are less clear or absent
on the earth resistance image. This occurrence might be dependent on
the different chronology or on the state of preservation of particular
objects. This phenomenon will be a subject of further research.
The location and size of the anomalies visible on the images
obtained from the data collected during the surveys with two previ-
ously discussed methods have been confirmed by the GPR measure-
ments (Figure 5). However, the GPR images provides high-resolution
data and images, hence it has been possible to distinguish some
structures (mostly walls), which were difficult to distinguish using
magnetometry and, in the case of deeper buried structures, earth
resistance methods.
The results of geophysical measurements required verification to
assess the potential of the geophysical methods used and to assess
the interpretation. This ‘ground truthing’ of the results has been car-
ried out with excavation. We selected one structure visible in all (mag-
netic, earth resistance and GPR) the data sets as a regular, rectangular
anomaly, most likely well preserved and shallow buried masonry
remains (Figure 5). To obtain a full image of the underground structure
before excavating we applied ERT measurements. The presence of a
10 m × 10 m square, high-resistance linear electric anomaly was con-
firmed by the ERT results. The width of the anomaly did not exceed
1 m (Figure 5). Higher resistivity values appeared at a depth of ca
0.20 m below the ground surface. The image at a depth of ca 1 m
illustrated a weaker anomaly that at a depth of 1.3 m disappears.
Higher resistivity values recorded in a particular measured place may
result from the fact that the measured value is an apparent resistivity,
which is a ‘sort of average’ of all soil resistivities underneath an elec-
trode array (Schmidt, 2013, 49–52).8 In other words, layers and struc-
tures buried at different depths in the same point may produce ‘a sort
of average’ resistivity reading for a selected maximum depth of
prospection. Thus, readings can indicate a depth where a buried struc-
ture appears, but the changes of resistivity values are not directly
related to the presence of the structure. This phenomenon should be
considered when we estimate a depth of a detected structure.
„Average is used here in a figurative and not mathematical sense’.
8
PISZ ET AL.
F I G U R E 4 The extent of geophysical measurements conducted in the years 2015–2016. Particular polygons refer to respective geophysical
techniques applied within their extent [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
The investigated ‘square structure’ was verified by trench exca-
vations led by Dr Adrian Arde in August 2016. Three sections have
been excavated – two of 10 m × 1.5 m each on the north–south
axis, and one of 2 m × 8 m, at the east–west axis (Figure 6). Thick
walls (0.80 m) made of cobble stone were unearthed in all three
places. The wall's preserved top was at a depth of ca 0.20 m and its
foundation at a depth of ca 0.90 m below the ground level. The tre-
nch has been excavated to a depth of ca 1.10 m below the surface,
revealing, e.g. fragments of four stone querns, fragments of jewellery
and coins, including a silver denarius of Marcus Aurelius. This site
was further excavated during the following field seasons by Dr
Adrian Arde.
The location, shape, width and thickness of the unearthed
remains correspond with the geophysical results proving that the
interpretations of the geophysical data are correct.
4.2.2 | Area 1B
In Area 1B we intended to apply the same set of methods which
proved effective in Area 1A. Unfortunately, just a small part (ca
1.5 ha) of the terrain was accessible for geophysical measurements
due to dense crop vegetation. Nevertheless, in the extent of sur-
veyed polygons we have managed to capture two strong, linear
anomalies with earth resistance and GPR methods; a faint negative
linear magnetic anomaly has exactly corresponded with an anomaly
identified in the earth resistance data (Figure 9). Along both of these
9
features some regular structures have been detected. These
anomalies may be identified as a possible road with some adjacent
buildings.
Aerial tomography has been applied in order to assess the
prospection potential of the method in the Archaeological Reserve
and in its surroundings. We made a series of flights with a multirotor
drone and helium balloon with a thermal camera attached. Thermal
pictures were taken in the morning, in the middle of the day and even
at night, in early spring, summer and autumn. We were able to detect
some thermal anomalies within Area 1A, which turned out to be visi-
ble in the images obtained from the geophysical measurements
(Figure 10). They were best visible in the pictures captured during a
hot summer day, around noon. Interesting features have been rev-
ealed in the vicinity of the West Gate – a rectangular warm anomaly
showed up in the data captured in summer (also in the middle of the
day) and in the autumn of 2014.
Spring sessions, according to our expectations, provided the least
impressive results, probably due to the low daily amplitude of temper-
atures and smaller amount of solar energy reaching the ground.
Autumn sessions turned out to provide better results than in spring,
but still much worse than the results from summer data collection.
Night flights (3–4 hours after sunset) surprised us with relatively poor
contrasts, since the ground was still very warm and it was getting cool
very slowly. However, morning sessions were disturbed by the shape
of terrain – even slight changes in topography were unequally
exposed to the sun and heated up unevenly by sharp angle of the sun-
light. This effect might be useful if looking for archaeological sites
10 PISZ ET AL.

F I G U R E 5 Area 1A, inside the Archaeological Reserve Tibiscum. Results of geophysical measurements with magnetic (top left), earth
resistance (top right), GPR (bottom left) and ERT (bottom right) methods [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

F I G U R E 6 Comparison of GPR (left) and

earth resistance (middle) measurements
within the Area 1A, with the photogrammetric
documentation of the test trench, revealing
the structure captured with geophysical
measurements [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

with their own terrain form (Scollar et al., 1990, 601, 609). The best structures appeared as warmer zones. The possible explanation of this
time of the day for thermal prospection was around noon, when phenomenon is that the short-rooted grass contains more moisture
the whole ground surface was evenly heated and shallow stone variations and close presence of stone structures deprives it of water.
PISZ ET AL.
Less hydrated grass cannot prevent its temperature from rising
(Scollar et al., 1990, 631).
4.2.3 | Areas 2A, 2B and 3
On the entire right side of the river we have chosen three areas to
carry out geophysical measurements and named them as Area 2A,
Area 2B and Area 3 (Figure 4). The survey areas measuring a total
area of ca 9.5 ha were selected on the basis of the field-walking
results, spatial data analysis and the accessibility of the fields in
April 2015. Area 2A and Area 2B have been investigated with a
fluxgate magnetometer with spatial resolution of 0.5 m × 0.25 m,
and Area 3 with a Bartington Grad601–2 with 1 × 0.25 m
sampling.
4.2.4 | Area 2A
This area was located on the elevated field identified during the
pedestrian surveys. A position of a slight elevation visible in the aerial
pictures, as well as on the photogrammetric digital surface model cor-
responds with GPS-marked concentrations of the archaeological finds
identified through field walking. This place seems to be the same as a
square of ‘Roman city ruins’ on the right bank of the Timiş River
drawn on the 19th century map (Figure 3).
F I G U R E 7 Results of gradiometry measurements performed in Areas 2A and 2B. No clear archaeological features visible in the Area 2A.
Anomalies of possible archaeological origin seem to appear in the Area 2B, however the image is interfered by the strong dipolar anomaly from a
gas pipe. Magnetic maps developed by Ł. Pospieszny [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
11
A large survey area of approximately 5.1 ha was measured within
Area 2A with a fluxgate magnetometer. Surprisingly, the processed
and visualized data have produced only a few anomalies which could
be interpreted as archaeological remains (Figure 7). Numerous single
magnetic dipolar magnetic anomalies were detected; however, they
might be caused either by archaeological features or contemporary
ferrous remnants. No preserved patterns which could be identified as
traces of Roman settlement were detected with magnetic method
there.
Nevertheless, we noticed one very interesting occurrence in the
results: very subtle (low dynamic – below ±0.5 nT), vast, crescent-
shaped series of linear positive and negative anomalies. It is possible
that these anomalies might have been caused by alluvial point bars. A
landform captured with a drone digital surface model indicates to the
same interpretation. At this stage of the research it still requires verifi-
cation, perhaps with geological exploration (auguring). If this theory is
correct, we expect to identify sedimentological evidence. This may
indicate that at least the southern part of this site has been eroded by
the river.
4.2.5 | Area 2B
It was located in the place of concentration E2 identified from field
walking, where we found a linear pebble cluster, preliminary inter-
preted as a possible ancient road (Figure 2). The investigated surface
12
covered an area of 1.4 ha. Unfortunately, a large part of the magnetic
data was dominated by a strong dipolar anomaly caused by a gas pipe
crossing this area. Nevertheless, there are numerous anomalies which
may indicate archaeological structures. Negative linear anomalies are
presumably related to some stone structures. One of these anomalies
may indicate the ephemeral remains of a road, and the other anoma-
lies related to structural remains and masonry (Figure 7).
The acquired data compared with the 19th century map con-
firmed that the linear concentration, a cropmark on satellite images
and the anomalies visible in the geophysical data may correspond with
the Roman road aligned south towards Dierna, but in reality it is
shifted ca 200 m to the west (Figures 3 and 7). The shift may be the
result of imprecise drawing made on the 19th century map. Geo-
referencing errors might also have also caused some imprecision in
the location and scale of this historic map. It should be noticed that
the thickness of a line which marks the road on the afore mentioned
historic map gives a ca 20 m real width which is certainly too wide for
a Roman road.
4.2.6 | Area 3
This site was first located during the field-walking survey in 2015
due to numerous concentrations of archaeological remains (concen-
tration E3). The estimated maximum extent of the site is more than
10 ha, but unfortunately most of it is inaccessible due to overgrown
vegetation. The plot chosen for geophysical survey covered an area of
3 ha.
The first geophysical method applied at this site was magnetome-
try. We obtained very good and clear data, where numerous dipole
and negative linear anomalies were visible (Figure 8). The latter are
particularly interesting, since they are interpreted as the remains of
small stone structures. A wide linear anomaly detected throughout
the whole Area 3 has been interpreted as remains of a road. This
anomaly corresponded with observations recorded during the field
walking. Dozens of square negative linear anomalies sized from ca
5 m × 5 m to 10 m × 10 m have been identified from the geophysical
results. It is worth mentioning that we have managed to detect unmis-
takable archaeological features from the magnetometry data, despite
significant destruction as the result of extensive modern ploughing at
the site.
Due to the excellent results of the magnetometry survey, the
earth resistance survey was expected to provide good quality results
too. Measurements were taken in April 2016 with a Geoscan
Research RM85 and a Wenner electrode array (a = 0.75 m) and
1 m × 1 m sampling. Most of the negative magnetic anomalies turned
out to be a high resistance features as expected. Nonetheless, an
interesting and complementary image of the site has been produced.
The presence of the majority of square structures have been con-
firmed in the data obtained from the earth resistance measurements
(Figure 8). The most surprising was wide linear anomalies – some of
them of which were more visible than in the magnetometry data.
Whilst others were not visible in the magnetic data at all. Visible in
PISZ ET AL.
both data sets in a section of the road where it forks and changes
direction. Stronger magnetic anomalies turned out to be weaker earth
resistance anomalies, while weak magnetic anomalies corresponded
to strong electric anomalies. Such a difference may result either from
the state of preservation of the roads, or the depth at which they are
buried or differences in their original construction.
5 | DI SCU SSION
The military base at Tibiscum and a part of the military vicus north of
it were excavated and thoroughly investigated by the Romanian
archaeologists. The excavations on the right side of the Timiş River
have brought to light interesting observations (Arde & Arde, 2004,
24), but still not much has been established as to whether this was
the location of another town (municipium). The observations and inter-
pretations concerning the Tibiscum settlement landscape presented
later should be treated as general and tentative in many aspects.
However, we believe that we will be able to propose new answers
and generate new questions on Tibiscum and similar Roman military
sites.
5.1 | The military vicus
The results of geophysical survey proved that the military vicus was
larger than expected (Figure 11). It consisted of regular rows of
houses which have been detected throughout the whole survey area.
Basing on the geophysical data, verified with the results of the exca-
vations it is highly probable that the major part of the vicus is deeply
buried underneath accumulated material (perhaps alluvial deposits)
beyond the excavated area. The extramural settlement was oblique to
the fort's northern wall. The angle between the vicus and the fort's
defensive wall is 15 –20 , which forms a gap of 30 to 50 m. The faint
linear anomalies identified in the magnetic survey are parallel to the
forts' north defensive wall and could indicate the remains of a ditch
and a rampart (Benea, 2018, 53–55).
Although only a small part of the area to the west of the fort was
suitable for survey, we managed to establish that buildings existed
also outside the West Gate. The GPR data seemed to indicate that
some rubble might be buried at a small depth (up to 0.5 m below the
surface), while more clear anomalies tend to appear at a depth of ca
0.8 to 1.6 m from the ground. Their shapes and sizes seem to indicate
architectural remains and paved roads.
The northern part of the vicus at Tibiscum resembles a tangent-
type settlement, one of the three types observed in the province Ger-
mania (Sommer, 1999, 81–83), but mostly not in a pure form but
rather a combination of two or even all three types: street-,
tangential- or ring-shaped vicus (Hanel, 2007, 411; Sommer, 1999,
83). As it has been observed by I. Oltean, the internal arrangement of
the excavated part of Tibiscum vicus has close similarities with vici in
Micia, Razboieni and Porolissum where many buildings have rooms on
both sides of a central corridor and a portico facing the street, and
PISZ ET AL.
F I G U R E 8 Results of complementary
geophysical measurements in the Area
3. Archaeological features clearly visible both in
earth resistance and gradiometry results.
Magnetic map developed by Ł. Pospieszny
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
individual properties had access from the streets via passageways
to the workshops at their back (cf. Oltean, 2007, 163).
5.2 | Road network
Traces of roads in the fort's direct vicinity had been a subject of stud-
ies in the past (Benea & Cîntar, 2015), but our research focused on
their remains in the whole area. Remains of roads have been detected
during field-walking surveys (Figure 3) and with geophysical
prospection (Figure 11). In some places, remote sensing data seem to
confirm their course. From the results of our project it is evident that
the remains of Roman roads are easily detectable with geophysical
surveys, except for the parts which have been destroyed through river
erosion and modern agricultural activity. Therefore, we are confident
that by utilizing a systematic multi-disciplinary programme of
13
geophysical surveying throughout the whole landscape we could iden-
tify the entire road network of the Tibiscum settlement.
The field walking carried out at Tibiscum East showed linear con-
centrations (E1–E3) of pebble on an east–west axis (Figure 2). Linear
concentrations along the southern ridge of the elevated field
(Concentration E1) corresponded with the axis of the road departing
from the fort's East Gate towards the remains identified as a bridge
(Figure 3). However, there are still many questions to be answered
about this element of Roman infrastructure. For instance, magnetic
and earth resistance measurements in the necropolis area have
proven the presence of not just one, but several Roman roads as well
as an ‘intersection’ (Figure 8 and 11). No less interesting is a linear
cropmark detected in the remote sensing data and confirmed by field
walking as Concentration E2 and then further corroborated in the
results of the geophysics (Area 2B).
The detected remains of the roads correspond with a road identi-
fied on a 19th century map of this area. These roads detected in
14 PISZ ET AL.

F I G U R E 9 Results of complementary geophysical measurements in the Area 1B. Magnetometry reveals few anomalies which area
interpreted as archaeological objects, however the measurement was strongly interfered by strong dipolar anomalies from the gas pipe and GSM
mast. Earth resistance and GPR measurements revealed clear anomalies from archaeological objects [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Tibiscum East can be identified with the Tabula Peutingeriana as the
road Dierna–Praetorium–Tibiscum–Sarmizegetusa and the road
Lederata–Berzovia–Tibiscum (Tab. Peut VII 4).
Traces of Roman roads have been found also in Tibiscum West.
The presence of this kind of infrastructure has been recorded during a
field-walking survey, when linear traces of pebble have been found
(Concentrations W1 and W2). Anomalies obtained from the geophysi-
cal measurements in the Area 1B indicate that there might have been
a road or even several roads (Figure 9) in this area. Unfortunately, sur-
vey conditions were not satisfactory in 2016 and this area requires
further geophysical survey.
5.3 | Cemeteries
The biggest cemetery dated to the second–third century AD is located
on the right side of the Tibiscum River (Tibiscum East), in the place
Tibiscum-Iaz (Arde & Arde, 2004, 57; Luca, 2006, 140–141, no. 300).
Ancient burials were also identified along the road leading southwards
from Tibiscum-Iaz (Ardevan, 1998, 40). However, the extent, layout or
appearance of these cemeteries have never been studied.
Concentration E3, located during a field-walking survey in
Tibiscum East in 2015, was recorded as the largest in this part of the
site (Figure 2). Its maximum extent is more than 10 ha, but
unfortunately most of it was hardly accessible due to overgrown veg-
etation. The geophysical survey carried out at this site (Area 3) yielded
more information about the remains. Strong linear anomalies, inter-
preted as roads and rectangular, densely ‘packed’ anomalies inter-
preted as stone structures adjacent to the road have been identified
(Figure 8). There are many recorded sites where Roman necropolae
were built along the roads in a form of ‘street of tombs’ (Purcell,
1987). Examples of a similar spatial arrangement of graves can be
found in many cities of the Roman Empire, for example in Ostia Antica
(Baldassarre, 1987; Boschung, 1987).
The re-discovery, location and delineation of the extent of the
necropolis near the road Tibiscum–Colonia Ulpia Traiana
Sarmizegetusa can be regarded as one of the most important achieve-
ments of the Tibiscum Project. The place was detected during field-
walking and further geophysical prospection, which clearly identified
numerous funerary structures, which remain unexcavated.
5.4 | Settlement in Tibiscum East
During the field-walking surveys we have managed to identify an ele-
vated field, where archaeological material and the terrain shape indi-
cate that it had been changed by human activity (Concentration
E1/Area 1B). A photogrammetry model and ground observations of
PISZ ET AL. 15

F I G U R E 1 0 Aerial thermography experiments in Tibiscum. In the left part, comparison of a thermogram revealing positive thermal anomalies
(up) with earth resistance results (down). In the right part comparison of two thermograms, revealing the same buried structure in summer
(up) and autumn (down) [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

F I G U R E 1 1 Collective interpretation of all geophysical survey results. Presented shapes correspond to particular anomalies, registered with
at least one of geophysical methods applied within indicated polygons [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
16
F I G U R E 1 2 The final reconstruction of the settlement landscape of Tibiscum, based on the outcome of non-destructive research in
2014–2016 and previous archaeological research [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
this area indicate that at least its southern part was taken away by the
Timiş River.
As mentioned earlier, this place, according to many scholars, is
the location of another civilian settlement which was granted the sta-
tus of municipium (Ardevan, 1998, 113–117; Benea, 2016, 79–80;
Pippidi, 1974, 18–19). The rectangular shape of the Roman remains
on a surface of about 7.5 ha are visible on a 19th century map (Ortvay
1876, 84). It is noteworthy, that the excavations carried out in 2001
revealed buildings and fortifications (a ditch and a rampart) surround-
ing probably an area of 90 m × 60 m, as well as two buildings of a reg-
ular plan (Arde & Arde, 2004, 156–157). As established by the
discoverers, these fortifications are dated to the early second century
(earth-and-timber phase), and in the late second century they were
levelled and replaced by stone buildings (Arde & Arde, 2004,
24, 54–55).
The answer to the question of where the municipium was located
may never be found. The municipalization of settlements near auxil-
iary vici has already been discussed, but it remains a debatable
whether the municipal rights were granted to the military vicus or if
another civilian vicus developed at a certain distance from the fort,
possibly half a Roman mile away (Piso, 1992, 152, fn. 98;
Matei-Popescu, 2018, 89). It is probable that some settlements near
auxiliary forts, especially those which grew rapidly in the early second
century, could have followed the ‘settlement duality’ pattern known
from legionary bases, and this would be the case of the auxiliary fort
at Drobeta where municipal rights were granted by Hadrian (Matei-
Popescu, 2018, 59), while others developed to large, but single
PISZ ET AL.
military settlement like vicus in Porolissum, raised to this status by
Septimius Severus (Opreanu & L
azarescu, 2016, 111). So far there is
no definite proof that Tibiscum followed the latter model, but even
less indicates the first one to be the case.
One of the three inscribed monuments directly mentioning the
municipal status of Tibiscum was an altar found in the 18th century
near the confluence of the Bistra River and the Timiş River (IDR III/1,
no. 132). As the Bistra River is a right tributary of the Timiş, this might
suggest that the altar was found on the eastern riverbank. The
description is rather general, however, as the Bistra River flows into
the Timiş about 2 km to the north from Tibiscum. Since the monu-
ment is dated to the reign of Emperor Gallienus (218–268), it may well
refer to the municipal status of the vicus, which could have obtained
such status already in the Severan period (e.g. Mócsy, 1972; cf. von
Petrikovits, 1981, 171–173). Regrettably, the circumstances of dis-
covery of two other inscribed monuments do not add much to our
knowledge, as they were found outside the site. Nevertheless, they
are both dated to the third century AD (IDR III/1, nos 139 and 353).
We managed to establish that the main roads – to Dierna and
Sarmizegetusa departed from this area and the cemeteries were situ-
ated adjacent to these two roads. The size of the fort and its military
settlement reflects an important role of Tibiscum in the control over
the crossroads and trading routes passing near the fort. Perhaps trade
and control over the provision of salt to the Roman army was one of
the important activities there (AE 1967, 388 and cf. IDR III/1, 145;
Benea, 2007, 43–44; Mihailescu-Bîrliba, 2016, 53). The roads and a
bridge across the Timiş River joined the Danubian banks with the
PISZ ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 3 Selected surface finds,
collected during the field-walking survey.
1, Bronze bracelet dated to pre-Roman times;
2, fragment of an imbrex with a stamp;
3, selected drawings of Roman pottery sherds
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Dacian provincial capital Colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. Analog-
ically, a large settlement developed on the crossing of the Mureş River
near the fort Micia (Oltean, 2007, 155–157 and figure 5.28),
where, among others, salt was also traded (Benea, 2007, 43–44;
Mihailescu-Bîrliba, 2016, 53).
The lack of significant traces of a settlement big enough to be
identified with another, separate civil settlement of Tibiscum, as well
as lack of evident architectural remains, such as the forum, municipal
buildings, the Capitolium, etc. seem to indicate that the right side of
the Timiş River was not a place where we should search for a separate
settlement with municipal status. On the contrary, the presence of
another possible military installation there (a second fortlet?) may
suggest that the opposite side of the river belonged to the military
territory, therefore, the vicus may have stretched on both sides of the
river. Consequently, in our opinion, the municipal status was probably
granted to the vicus, a settlement which must have flourished in the
third century.
6 | C O N CL U S I O N S
The non-destructive surveys in Tibiscum in 2014–2016 covered the
surface of at least 2.5 km2. Vast majority of this land has been
surveyed with field-walking surveys or aerial prospection only. The
field-walking surveys revealed a number of interesting findings. Their
interpretation let us distinguish ten archaeological sites and features.
Numerous artefacts have been collected. An area of about 14 ha has
been researched with a minimum 1of one and a maximum of four
geophysical survey methods. Aerial thermography was performed
throughout seven flight sessions in different times of the day and dif-
ferent parts of the year, providing over a hundred thermograms.
Results from the geophysical survey provided at least 80 newly dis-
covered archaeological features. Finally, we have three trenches were
excavated to verity the results of the geophysical surveys, unearthing
a total surface of 46 m2.
17
The outcomes of the ‘Tibiscum Project’ can be considered as
satisfying and promising. As a result of our multi-disciplinary research
approach we can propose a hypothetical reconstruction of the ancient
settlement and landscape surrounding Tibiscum (Figure 12). The fea-
tures which we consider as certain are the major roads, buildings
around the fort and the necropolis. The location and shape of the
elevated site on the western side of the Timiş River (within Area 2A)
is also certain. Traces of settlements recorded within Tibiscum West
are identified as undefined concentrations of possible settlement. Last
but by no means least, the map of Roman findings prepared in the GIS
database has immeasurable value as well.
In the light of the results of the past excavations and the new
data obtained from our surveys it could be stated that the military set-
tlement (vicus) stretched along the eastern, northern and probably
western side of the fort. It is possible that at least the northern part of
the settlement belonged to a ‘tangent type’ vicus, similar to sites
observed in Germany. The occurrence of deeply buried stone struc-
tures in the extramural areas have been confirmed by geophysical
investigations, but the exact chronology and function of these build-
ings cannot be verified by the geophysical results alone and require
further investigation.
The most controversial issue concerns the identification of the
municipium. The results of the present project confirm that some
structure with a regular layout did exist on the east side of the river.
The ‘dual’ topography of Tibiscum is unquestionable, since it is both
attested archaeologically and in Tabula Peutingeriana. The results of
our survey do not allow to conclude that the remains on the east side
of the Timiş River are significant enough to belong to the settlement
with municipal status. It is possible that in Tibiscum we are dealing
with a large auxiliary fort (on the west side of the river) and perhaps a
smaller military installation (on the east side of the river), not neces-
sarily existing at the same time. The military vici at Razboieni and
Micia categorized as ‘partially dispersed settlements’ had some parts
with a more highly structured use of space observed in a closer
18
proximity to the forts (Oltean, 2007, 160). It is possible that these set-
tlements developed gradually and perhaps such development in
Tibiscum concerns both sides of the Timiş River. If that was case, the
vicus at Tibiscum may have stretched on both sides of the river and in
the late second or early third century AD was large enough to be
granted municipal rights. Still, we cannot fully exclude that some of
the architectural remains in Tibiscum East have been washed out by
the river and it will be impossible to understand well this part of
the site.
The second goal of the project was a verification of methods used
in Tibiscum. The methods selected and applied in this research project
worked very well and all of them provided new information about the
site. Many findings which were devoid of their spatial context
received their geospatial position and the context obtained from the
remote sensing data. This is particularly important for the spatial
relation of the excavated sites located on both sides of the river.
Field-walking survey turned out to be very effective, especially on the
ploughed fields. Surveying in regular traverses allowed for documen-
tation of sites and structures with good accuracy. These sites were
later verified and confirmed by the geophysical survey. However, it
has to be mentioned, that the field walking provided quite good
results in the fields overgrown by grass and weeds – in early spring,
when weeds are low, it was even possible to distinguish whole stone
structures (Figure 2). Field-walking survey campaigns should be con-
tinued and cover the whole area around Tibiscum.
Among geophysical methods, both magnetic and earth resistance
methods have proven to be effective, providing complementary data
sets, registering different physical properties of the examined fields.
Magnetometry was better for detecting deeper anomalies, than earth
resistance. However, earth resistance turned out to be a sensible
technique for disturbance caused by numerous ferrous objects and
provided clear results of stone structures. ERT helped to estimate the
depth and thickness of detected features. The latter method is very
slow and should be considered as a high-resolution method in the
final stage of non-destructive prospection. The effectiveness of GPR
and earth resistance methods in Tibiscum are comparable and pro-
vided a clear image of the subsurface structures, but GPR provides
deeper penetration although data collection is less rapid.
We were able to establish that it is possible to detect shallow bur-
ied archaeological structures with aerial thermography in Tibiscum.
This method turned out to be the most effective for detection of
stone structures buried at a shallow depth. However, it should be
applied in particular conditions, when temperature is high and humid-
ity is low, since these two factors affect vegetation growing over
buried archaeological remains.
The optimal workflow planning for further investigations in
Tibiscum should involve a set of the following methods: magnetome-
try as an extensive survey method for large-scale prospection. Follow-
ing this targeted earth resistance and/or GPR for the delineation of
the sites and features, and ERT for closer identification of a particular
feature. Multi-level earth resistance measurements with a twin-probe
electrode array should be tested in order to check the responsivity of
the method at deeper prospection levels. This may provide
PISZ ET AL.
information about the thickness of structures and the depth at which
the remains might occur. Earth resistance method may be faster and
more cost-effective than ERT or GPR. The latter could be reapplied
with higher frequency antennas and at least 0.5 m profile interval,
depending on desired resolution of the results and depth of
prospection.
Applying all methods discussed earlier makes it possible to verify
particular features with a high level of precision. This kind of approach
is more cost-effective and less destructive to archaeological
resources. Using geodesy tools and GIS systems will allow us to plan
small, narrow trenches in order to answer particular research ques-
tions. It is particularly important as the European countries signed the
European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heri-
tage (Council of Europe, 1992), commonly known as ‘The Valletta
Convention’. This document recommends the use of non-destructive
methods of archaeological investigation should be applied wherever
possible (Council of Europe, 1992, 3). Integrating non-destructive
prospection techniques together with precise verification by trenching
may help researchers to discover and reconstruct much more of the
settlement landscape around Tibiscum. These methods can be carried
out in shorter time frame and with higher cost efficiency with the
least possible destruction to the archaeological remains.
The present non-destructive project has brought brand new infor-
mation about the past environment and landscape transformations
throughout centuries. The results shed a new light on settlement land-
scape of Tibiscum, providing some emerging information about the
vicus, road networks and infrastructure, mortuary structures, and the
preservation of archaeological remains on the east side of the river.
The most important was to establish the locations of all these places
and to prepare one map in the GIS database. We would like to con-
tinue our field surveys in Tibiscum, focusing more on the reconstruc-
tion of the natural landscape in the past and post-deposit processes
and thorough examination of identified anomalies in order to better
understand geophysical prospection results and provide better
archaeological interpretations of geophysical data.
AC KNOWLEDG EME NT S
The authors would like to express their gratitude to three anonymous
reviewers for their precious comments and advices, as well as to
Trisha Voke, who contributed with editing and language proofing.
The authors would like to thank all participants of the project
and to all who supported the project. The Principal Investigator
would like to express his gratitude in particular to the scientific
supervisor of the project: the late Prof. Dr Hab. Tadeusz Sarnowski,
who supported and trusted in our activities, but unfortunately, he
never saw the results published. The authors are very indebted to Dr
C
alin Timoc who started the collaboration with the Polish partner Dr
Hab. Agnieszka Tomas and introduced them to the research history
and topography of Tibiscum and helped during all seasons of field-
work. The Project could not have taken place without his invaluable
help. The authors would like to thank Dr Florian Matei-Popescu for
his valuable remarks on the text and consultations concerning the
auxiliary forts in Dacia.
PISZ ET AL.
For hosting Polish expedition in Romania all credit goes to Dr
Adrian Arde, the Director of the Tibiscum Archaeological Reserve and
a scientific supervisor of the field research in Tibiscum. The authors
are also very thankful for his help during trench excavations in 2016
in collaboration with Lucia Carmen Arde.
The authors received kind help and advice from the late Prof. Dr
Hab. Doina Benea, as well as from Dr Adrian Cîntar, Dr Lavinia
Grumeza, Dr Simona Regep, Prof. Dr Hab. Petru Urdea.
The project would not have been possible without the members
of the ‘geophysics’ team: Jacek Balcerzak, Adrian Chlebowski, Artur
Ciszewski, Tomasz Dziurdzik, Paweł Janik, Emil Jęczmienowski,
Krzysztof Kiersnowski, Maciej Miturski, Łukasz Pospieszny, Michał
Sas and most of all Wiktor Rutkowski, who attended most of the
expeditions. The authors are very thankful to David Gergely Pall who
performed the GPR measurements.
There were many people who supported the authors in different
ways during their stay in Romania which are not mentioned here by
name. They are very thankful to them.
The Principal Investigator thanks his wife, Joanna, not only for
her support and patience, but also for her contribution and help dur-
ing the excavations in 2016. The Principal Investigator dedicates this
article to the memory of his late father, who much wanted but did not
manage to join one of the field campaigns in Tibiscum.
CONT R IBUT IONS
Michal Pisz was the Principal Investigator of the presented research.
Agnieszka Tomas is the author of the part related to the historical
background and the discussion concerning the municipal status and
interpretation of the topography of the Roman remains.
FUND ING
This scientific work is financed from the budgetary funds for science
for the years 2014–2016 as a research project within the Diamond
Grant programme (0113/DIA/2014/43).
This study has received funding from the Romanian grant PNIII
28 PFE BID for publication fee.
CONF ICT OF I NTEREST STATEMENT
The authors have no conflict of interest in relation to this work.
ORCID
Michał Pisz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7163-6351
Agnieszka Tomas https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9578-8221
Alexandru Hegyi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5373-912X
RE FE R ENC E S
Ancient authors and written sources
Ptol. Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia
Tab. Peut. Tabula Peutingeriana
Rav. Anonym. Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia et Gvidonis
Geographica
19
Abbreviations
AE L'année épigraphique. Revue des publications
épigraphiques relatives à l'antiquité romaine.
Paris.
IDR III/1 Russu, I. I., Dušanic, M., Gudea, N., & Wollmann,
V. (1977). IDR III, 1 – Inscriptiones Daciae
Romanae, vol. III. Dacia Superior, 1. Pars
occidentalis.
UNESCO 2012 UNESCO. 2012. Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
Arde, A., & Arde, L. C. (2004). Tibiscum Aşez arile romane. Cluj-Napoca:
Nereamia Napocae.
Ardevan, R. (1998). Viaa municipala  în Dacia Romana . Timişoara: Editura
Mirton.
Aspinall, A., Gaffney, C., & Schmidt, A. (2008). Magnetometry for archaeolo-
gists. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Aston, M. (1985). Interpreting the landscape. Landscape archaeology and
local history. London: BT Batsford Ltd.
Baldassarre, I. (1987). La Necropoli dell'Isola Sacra (Porto). In H. von
Hesberg, & P. Zanker (Eds.), Römische Gräberstraßen (pp. 123–138).
Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Benea, D. (2004). Septime Severe et l'urbanisation de la province de Dacie.
In C. Roman, & C. Gazdac (Eds.), Orbis Antiquus. Studia in honorem
Ioannis Pisonis (pp. 390–394). Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia Napocae Press.
Benea, D. (2005). Teritoriul rural municipiului Tibiscum. Apulum. Acta
Musei Apulensis, 42(1), 145–156.
Benea, D. (2007). Cu privire la administrarea salinelor din Dacia romana.
Analele Banatului, XV, 41–46.
Benea, D. (2016). Istoria Banatului. Antichitatea. (II). Bucureşti: Editura
Academiei.
Benea, D. (2018). Castrul Roman de la Tibiscum. Timisoara: Editura
Artpress.
Benea, D., & Bona, P. (1994). Tibiscum. Bucureşti: Editura Museion.
Benea, D., & Cîntar, A. (2015). Arterele de comunicaie din vicus -ul militar
de la Tibiscum. In D. Alpár, P. Dávid, & B. Sándor (Eds.), Archaeologia
Transylvanica: Studia in honorem Stephani Bajusz (pp. 125–131). Cluj-
Napoca: Martin Opitz Kiadó.
Boschung, D. (1987). Nekropolen vor den Toren Ostias. In H. von
Hesberg, & P. Zanker (Eds.), Römische Gräberstraßen (pp. 111–124).
Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Branton, N. (2009). Landscape approaches in historical archaeology: The
archaeology of places. In International handbook of historical archaeol-
ogy. (pp. 51–65). New York, NY: Springer.
Campana, S. (2017). Drones in archaeology. State-of-the-art and future
perspectives. Archaeological Prospection, 24(4), 275–296.
Casana, J., Wiewel, A., Cool, A., Hill, A. C., Fisher, K. D., & Laugier, E. J.
(2017). Archaeological aerial thermography in theory and practice.
Advances in Archaeological Practice, 5(4), 310–327.
Chapman, H. (2006). Landscape archaeology and GIS. Stroud: Tempus Pub-
lishing Ltd.
Cîntar, A. (2015). Aplicabilitatea Sistemelor Grafice 2d şi 3d în Studierea
Evoluiei Arhitectonice a Aşeza rii Civile de la Tibiscum. Szeged:
JATEPress.
Conyers, L. B. (2013). Ground-penetrating radar for archaeology. Lanham,
MD: AltaMira Press.
Council of Europe (1992). European Convention on the Protection of the
Archaeological Heritage (Revised). European Treaty Series - No. 143.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
David, A., Linford, N., & Linford, P. (2008). Geophysical survey in archaeo-
logical field evaluation. Swindon: English Heritage.
20
Fassbinder, J. W. E. (2015). Seeing beneath the farmland, steppe and
desert soil: magnetic prospecting and soil magnetism. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 56, 85–95.
Fernández-Hernandez, J., González-Aguilera, D., Rodríguez-
Gonzálvez, P., & Mancera-Taboada, J. (2015). Image-based modelling
from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) photogrammetry: An effective,
low-cost tool for archaeological applications. Archaeometry, 57(1),
128–145.
Gaffney, C., & Gater, J. (2003). Revealing the buried past: Geophysics for
archaeologists. Stroud: Tempus Publishing Ltd.
Gudea, N. (1997). Der dakische Limes. Materialien zu seiner Geschichte.
Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 44(2),
1–113.
Hanel, N. (2007). Military Camps, Canabae, and Vici. the Archaeological
Evidence. In A companion to the Roman Army. (pp. 395–416). Oxford,
UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Kovács, P. (2013). Territoria, pagi and vici in Pannonia. In P. K. W. Eck, &
B. Feher (Eds.), Studia epigraphica in memoriam Géza Alföldy
(pp. 131–154). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
Leveau, P. (1993). Territorium urbis. Le territoire de la cité romaine et ses
divisions: du vocabulaire aux réalités administratives. Revue des Études
Anciennes, 95(3), 459–471.
Luca, S. (2006). Descoperiri arheologice din Banatului romnesc.
Repertoriu. In Bibliotheca septemcastrensis. Sibiu: Editura Altip.
Matei-Popescu, F. (2018). On the origins of the municipium Hadrianum
Drobetense. In M. Popescu, I. Achim, & F. Matei-Popescu (Eds.), La
Dacie et l'Empire romain. Mélanges d'épigraphie et d'archéologie offerts à
Constantin C. Petolescu (pp. 87–96). Bucarest: Editura Academiei
Române, Bucureşti.
Mihailescu-Bîrliba, L. (2016). Les salines en Dacie romaine: remarques sur
le personnel administratif. Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica, 22(1),
51–58.
Mócsy, A. (1972). Das Problem der militärischen Territorien im Dona-
uraum. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae, 20(1–2),
133–168.
Nemeth, E., Fodorean, F., Matei, D., & Blaga, D. (2011). Kastelle und
Landschaft an der Südwestgrenze des Römischen Dakien. Acta
Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 62(2), 331–352.
Oltean, I. (2007). Dacia. Landscape, Colonisation and Romanisation. London:
Routledge.
Oltean, I., & Hanson, W. S. (2001). Military vici in Roman Dacia: an aerial
perspective. Acta Musei Napocensis, 38(1), 123–134.
Opreanu, C. H., & Lazarescu, V. A. (2016). The evolution of the civilian set-
tlement at Porolissum in the light of the new research. Ephemeris
Napocensis, 26, 107–120.
Ortvay, T. (1876). Tibiscum Helyfekvése. Források és egy ujabb feliratosemlék,
valamint közvetlen hely szemlélet alapján. Budapest: Franklin-Társulat
Nyomdája.
von Petrikovits, H. (1981). Die Canabae legionis. In 150 Jahre Deutsches
Archäologisches Institut (pp. 163–175). Mainz: Philip von Zabern
Verlag.
Petru, L., Hurduzeu, N., & Timoc, C. (2001). Fortificaţţii Romane din Banat
(1). Cornuţţel. Buletinul Cercurilor tiinifice Studeneşti, 7, 113–115.
Pippidi, D. M. (1974). Le rôle des centres urbains dans le processus de
romanisation de la Dacie et de la Scythie Mineure. In Colloquio Italo-
PISZ ET AL.
Romano sul Tema: Romania Romana (Roma, 10–11 maggio 1973)
(pp. 7–27). Roma: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei.
Piso, I. (1992). Die Inschriften vom Pfaffenberg und der Bereich der
Canabae legionis. TYCHE – Contributions to Ancient History, Papyrol-
ogy and Epigraphy, 06(01).
Piso, I., & Rogozea, P. (1985). Ein Apolloheiligtum in der Nähe von
Tibiscum. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik, 58, 211–218.
Pisz, M., & Timoc, C. (2014). Tibiscum and its rural territory in the Roman
Period. Archaeological landscape investigations using non-destructive
survey methods. In ArheoVest II, 2 (pp. 821–830).
Purcell, N. (1987). Tomb and Suburb. In H. von Hesberg, & P. Zanker
(Eds.), Römische Gräberstraßen (pp. 25–41). Munich: Bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Schmidt, A. (2013). Earth resistance for archaeologists. In Geophysical
methods for archaeology. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Schmidt, A., Linford, P., Linford, N., David, A., Gaffney, C., Sarris, A., &
Fassbinder, J. (2015). EAC guidelines for the use of geophysics in
archaeology: Questions to ask and points to consider. In Eac Guide-
lines 2.
Scollar, I., Tabbagh, A., Hesse, A., & Herzog, I. (1990). Archaeological
prospecting and remote sensing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sommer, S. (1999). The Roman army in SW Germany as an Instrument of
Colonisation. Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. Ser., 34, 81–93.
Timár, G., Biszak, S., Székely, B., & Molnár, G. (2010). Digitized maps of the
Habsburg Military Surveys – overview of the project of Arcanum ltd.
(Hungary). Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography.
Timoc, C. (2003). Construcţţia romana de la Halta Tibiscum – Caransebeş
Triaj. Patrimonium Banaticum, 2, 101–107.
Trinks, I., Hinterleitner, A., Neubauer, W., Nau, E., Löcker, K., Wallner, M.,
… Seren, S. (2018). Large-area high-resolution ground-penetrating
radar measurements for archaeological prospection. Archaeological
Prospection, 25(3), 171–195.
UNESCO 2012 UNESCO (2012). Operational Guidelines for the Implemen-
tation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO World
Heritage Centre.
Urdea, P., & Cîntar, A. (2014). Cadrul geografic şi elementele morfologice
ale peisajului aşezarii militare şi civile din Rezervaia Arheologica
Tibiscum. In ArheoVest: Vol. II 2 (p. 831–844).
Verhoeven, G. (2011). Taking computer vision aloft – archaeological three-
dimensional reconstructions from aerial photographs with photoscan.
Archaeological Prospection, 18(1), 67–73.
Vittinghoff, FR. (1974). Das Problem des ‘Militärterritoriums’ in der
vorseverischen Kaiserzeit. In Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul
tema: I diritti locali nelle province Romane con particolare riguardo alle
condizioni giuridiche del suolo (Roma 1971), Accademia Nazionale dei
Lincei, Problemi attuali di scienza e di cultura, 194, Roma, 109–124.
How to cite this article: Pisz M, Tomas A, Hegyi A. Non-
destructive research in the surroundings of the Roman Fort
Tibiscum (today Romania). Archaeological Prospection. 2020;
1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1767