„The frontiers of the Roman Empire, over 5000 km long, stretch from the Atlantic coast of Scotland, along the Rhine and the Danube, also enclose the Banat region and Transylvania, then going down along the Oriental Carpathians to the Black Sea; from the southern coast of the Black Sea they continue towards the Near East until the Red Sea; then, in North Africa, they line the edge of the Sahara desert until the Atlantic coast of Morocco. Over this entire area, visible traces of fortifications, roads and settlements are still preserved, but numerous monuments still lay hidden underneath the earth. Despite the fact that the Roman frontiers crossed regions with different relief and climate, they constitute a whole in that they were designed to protect Roman territories. The research of these monuments and the preservation policy regarding them was and is unequal in the various presentday states on whose territory traces of the Roman frontier are to be found. Consequently, in the ‘80s of the 20th century, the idea of globally protecting the Roman frontiers, viewed as a unitary monument, was met. In 1987, Hadrian’s Wall in United Kingdom was declared a UNESCO monument. It was followed in 2005 by the German-Raetian sector, on which occasion the UNESCO committee decided to set up the ‘Frontiers of the Roman Empire’ site. (...)
This project through its complexity generated an interdisciplinary approach of the proposed subject stimulating such future attempts in the archaeological research field. By using the latest technical methods of non-destructive investigation the project did not damage the stratigraphy of the archaeological site obtaining instead a high amount of data otherwise time consuming judging from the archaeological excavations perspective contributing also to the preservation of the cultural heritage.” - Introduction
The landscape of any given region has almost always being present in one way or another in archaeological reports, studies and monographs since the beginning of this scientific discipline. More often than not, landscape descriptions only aimed to provide an obligatory environmental background for the study of settlement patterns and subsistence strategies of various communities by listing “relevant” geomorphologic, pedological or faunal features, climatic patterns, mineral resources or historical/traditional land-use practices. The required data were usually lifted from modern studies, repertoires, atlases, catalogues and handbooks whose original scope often had little to do with the investigation of past societies and their practices. Likewise, archaeological sites were commonly plotted on modern-age maps that included regulated waterways, intensive agriculture, mining or quarrying, and dense transportation networks and urbanization.
However, changes in the archaeological paradigm of the last few decades, as well as the subsequent adoption of several investigative methods from other sciences (e.g. geophysics, palynology, geology, biology, biochemistry etc), have challenged the stereotypical, mono-dimensional approach that favoured a deterministic interpretative model, leading in turn to the emergence of the sub-discipline of landscape archaeology. This has also been influenced by diachronic studies of the evolution of ecological systems which focused on human beings as important actors, acknowledging that the interactions between past communities and the environment were highly dynamic processes that sometimes have repercussions until today. As a consequence, alongside the investigation of geomorphologic and hydrologic features and their impact, more attention has recently been paid by the archaeologists to the socio-political, economic, cultural and ideological dimensions of the landscape as products of human agency. (from the „Introduction”)
„Prin această traducere aducem un omagiu tuturor colegilor români; această carte publicată în limba română este în același timp o mare onoare și o mare bucurie pentru autorul ei, care mulțumește tuturor celor care au făcut posibilă apariția aceastei lucrări, iar traducătorul Cosmin Mihail Coatu merită sincere mulțumiri. (...)
Studiul armatei romane cuprinde două părți care nu pot fi separate: armata romană a fost o instituție și în același timp un instrument de război. Predecesorii noștri din secolul al XX-lea nu au văzut decât primul aspect; cu siguranță este un aspect indispensabil, dar la fel de important este și al doilea aspect despre care trebuie să vorbim. Căci finalitatea, rațiunea de a fi a unei armate este războiul și ținta soldatului este victoria, lucru pe care îl amintește Charles Ardant du Picq.” (din „Prefață”)