Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 22 (2021) e00192

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/daach

Mobility in ancient times: Combining land and water costs

Pedro Trapero Fern
andez
C

adiz University, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Mobility in Roman Times can be modelled using GIS tools. These resources allow us to understand how com-
GIS munications could be done. In this paper, we debate about a better way to use these models in cases where we
Network analysis have a navigable river in our studied territory. Normally these water spaces are considered as limiters of land
Spatial analysis
movement, because of the real nature of Least Cost Path tools, that will always consider them as natural paths. We
Roman transport
Horizontal factor
argue that in roman mentality the rivers are the best areas for movement and in our current development we
Guadalquivir river could not integrate them with land ones. The main problem is the principal factor in river mobility, the current
upstream and downstream. We present a tool in ArcGIS to calculate the Horizontal Factor of the river's current.
This allows us to test the integration and results of a combined land and river analysis in different scenarios, like
the connexion between centre and node, like a city to the villa. Finally, we argue about the need of this kind of
integration to better understand mobility with the ancient mentality, allowing us to consider other ways of cost,
not only in terms of time but also in the increased cost value of product transportation.

1. Introduction
In this paper, we propose a method to include cost analysis in fluvial
areas alongside traditional land movement analysis. In addition, we
debate the need for better models for understanding ancient forms of
communication. Our methods integrate water and land costs as a single
process in GIS to create a cost distance and backlink raster for Least-Cost
Path (LCP) analysis (Brughmans, 2013). These tools are well known in
mobility studies of ancient times (Lo Cascio and Tacoma, 2017). In the
movement of people and goods we will always need to be limit by
physical conditions like gradients, generating natural paths in inland
transport or currents and wind in maritime ones (Malmberg, 2015). Due
to the incremented cost of trade and the interchange of goods, the best
routes would always have been navigable, either by river or by sea. To
move an indeterminate number of people or objects in Roman times, the
chosen medium would not have been the fastest in terms of time, but the
low value costs in terms of economic costs (di Salvo, 1992).
Our model tries to represent this reality and for this purpose we need
to modify the tools we use in GIS. The best example is when we need to
somehow restrict the routes generated because of the existence of rivers
and streams. An ordinary LCP would use the centre of the water basin,
without considering the difficulty of walking or crossing flooded terrain.
This is why in many land cost-distance analyses, rivers and streams are
considered as boundaries or restrictions to passing (Abu Izzeddin, 2014).
Some recent high-quality research has considered river and sea transport
separately (Melles et al., 2011; Gustas and Kisha, 2017; Verbrugghe,
2017; Milheira, 2019); the same is the case of modelling sea communi-
cations alone (Safadi, 2016; Jarriel, 2018; Gambash, 2017).
In this paper, we ask whether this is the best way of modelling rivers
in cost analysis? It is contradictory to restrain models in such areas as if
they were not relevant paths. Nevertheless, rivers were like highways as
means of communication in ancient times. To understand ancient history,
we need to avoid being restricted by a tool and instead use it to represent
the ancient mentality about mobility, economy and landscape (Grau,
2006; Lag
ostena, 2016; Ruiz Gil et al., 2019).
We propose a clear and verifiable model to integrate both costs into
one analysis. We think that this issue has not already been solved owing
to one problem. River transport has many factors and conditions, the
most important of which is movement direction into the river, because
the velocity significantly changes upstream and downstream (Werther
and Kr€ oger, 2017). For this reason, we need to know the direction of the
river and consider at least a horizontal factor in the creation of the cost
distance raster. There are other conditions taken into account, gradient,
currents, depths and winds, but we consider that in a navigable river the
main one would be the horizontal factor. To solve this problem, we
develop a tool in Model Builder for ArcGIS and share it in this paper for
other researchers.
We present in this paper a model to generate the angle of water
movement in a river. In addition, we seek to demonstrate how and why
land and river cost analyses should be integrated. We argue that it is

E-mail address: pedro.trapero@uca.es.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2021.e00192
Received 5 December 2020; Received in revised form 19 April 2021; Accepted 24 May 2021
2212-0548/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.T. Fern

andez
important to reconsider distance cost analysis by including rivers in it as
waterways and not as boundaries, because the former would not have
been perceived as such by people in ancient times.
2. Materials and methods
For this model, we use ArcGIS, with its Cost Distance and Route
Analysis tools. In addition, we develop a combination of various tools in
Model Builder, along with a script in Phyton to create a function for the
horizontal factor of rivers. The data used allow the creation of a LCP
analysis, composed of several friction maps, where the land cost is in-
tegrated with the maritime cost, and in this second case, considering the
direction of movement.
Our working method is based on an attempt to integrate costs into the
middle of the river. We start from a classic LCP analysis, generating a
friction map using a mobility algorithm like that of Llobera and Sluckin
(2007) and adding the desired limitations, such as surface vegetation and
streams. We start from a generic model, whose parameters should not
interfere with the experiment.
With this, we try to understand the problem of integrating the costs of
land and river transport. They are two distinct components, whose cost
factors are different. In the case of land transport, the slope of the terrain
is the main influence, while in the case of river transport, the primary
influences are the force and the direction of the current. If only force
existed, a friction raster could be established for the area covered by the
river (for example with a buffer to the linear entity) and put together with
a land cost model based on the slope.
However, it is in the orientation where we encounter the main
problem. For this reason, we present an application that allows the angle
of the river to be calculated in a simple way. It is developed in the section
titled ‘Calculation’.
Having the angle of the orientation of the line, it is possible to use a
function of the LCP, which is the horizontal factor. If we consider how the
cost is conditioned by horizontal ‘friction’, we can attribute it to the
strength of the river current. This is a way of solving the problem because
the angle of motion can serve as a multiplier or divisor of the cost in that
stretch. Knowing the value of the speed or the cost of going for or against
the current, we can model cases where the angle of the river was for or
against the current itself.
This can enable cost analysis in rivers considering the factor of the
current. Once this is done, it is relatively simple to integrate it with a land
cost model. Tools like Path Distance in the Spatial AnalystDistance
toolbox of ArcGIS allows the inclusion of a degree scale with the
assignment of values. In this case, we need two features in raster format
for the river. The first combines the friction from slopes with the mini-
mum cost values in the river downstream. The second is the raster with
the angles that form the river, transformed into a raster of cost values for
the horizontal factor. This second cost map is applied only to the river
area and changes the cost in the case of going against the river flow. In
this way and if desired, one can integrate the cost values in the river and
on land into the same process.
3. Theory
Mobility is a topic that has been investigated for a long time, starting
from ancient sources referring to travellers. This first-hand information
brings us closer to understanding the reason why these travellers chose
their routes and their general approach to transport and communication.
There are currently large projects analysing these issues with GIS
methodologies (ORBIS, ). However, it is necessary to consider the con-
ditions of the land, as some factors may change over time, but others can
be more invariable, like riverbeds or mountains. For this reason, we
calculate the physical factors affecting the transit times for a person, an
animal, a car or a boat depending on the specific case (Haisman and
Goldman, 1974). Cost analysis tools are vital in answering these funda-
mental questions. The analysis can be different, depending on the
2
Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 22 (2021) e00192
physical factors considered. As discussed above, the most critical variable
to take into account is the slope of the terrain. The steeper the terrain,
more important it is in the calculation (Baek and Choi, 2017). In general,
the energy needed to move depends on the weight of the cargo, the
distance travelled and the friction factor. A friction map based on the
slope can express these factors in a territory. Such a friction map is
composed using a group of cells. In those cell, each one represents the
slope angle that we relate with a friction value assigned, which can lead
to interpreting as energy or time (Haisman and Goldman, 1974).
Movement costs and optimal paths are always relative to specific
conditions. The people in ancient times used river paths wherever
possible (Varro Rust. 1.16). This is an important fact, so a typical land
cost analysis that limits mobility in rivers as if these routes were barriers
does not represent real mobility preferences. Until now, the main tech-
nical problem was that the costs in rivers and land was not based on the
same values and could not be calculated with the same friction map.
There are only a few approaches available to find a solution (Collischonn
and Pilar, 2000). The technical issue is related to the change in costs
depending on the current in the river, a problem that we try to solve here.
On a theoretical level, we understand ancient communications
through two complementary perspectives: the purpose of transport and
the types of nodes connected (Malmberg, 2015).
The goal of mobility may be to move people or goods, or both. In
general, in the first case, time is the main factor, whereas in the second
case, the increased cost of the product is more important.
On the one hand, for people movement on foot, it is adequate to
create a raster from slopes, assigning a value of friction for every degree
of the terrain. Some high-quality investigations regarding the develop-
ment of this method can be found in F
abrega et al. (2007), Herzog (2010)
and Verhagen et al. (2013).
On the other hand, where goods were transported, ancient people no
longer focused on time expenditure, but on the increased product cost,
which depended not only on the conditions of transport but also on the
means of transport (Alberti, 2018). For this reason, it is necessary to
ascertain the parameters of mobility in Roman times for the various types
of transport, like in navigable paths (Casson, 1971). Several examples of
distances and costs for river navigation are available thanks to literary
ancient sources (Pliny the Elder N.H. VI, 102) and Egyptian papyri
(Adams, 2017). In relation, the approximate prices of the products
transported are well known (Scheidel, 2013). It is the objective of this
paper to use these parameters in the analysis, so new investigations can
rely on it (Table 1). The differences in transport ratios were diverse,
where the maritime value was better than downstream, upstream and
finally the most expensive was land transport either on foot, by horse or
by carriage (Carreras 1999; de Soto 2010, 2019).
Including movement through rivers would allow the implementation
of these values in future investigations. Over the past three decades,
research has stated that transport during Roman times was not only
focused on terrestrial routes, but maritime and river paths as well (Car-
reras, 1994; de Soto, 2019). Models for calculating sea transport have
been developed using ancient written sources (Casson, 1971) and
archaeological information about shipwrecks (Arag
on et al. in press). The
integration of river transport with land or even maritime communica-
tions is, therefore, an important issue.
Table 1
Transport values in Roman Times based on P. de Soto (2010), 53.The second
perspective is the origin and the destination of the communication, varying
substantially based on whether it is centre-to-centre, centre-to-nodes or
nodes-to-nodes.
Transport Velocity (km/h) Capacity (t) Cost (t/km)
Maritime 4,25 92 0,097
Fluvial (downstream) 2,5 5,5 0,33
Fluvial (upstream) 0,6 5,5 0,66
Land (carriage) 1,6 0,090 4,21
P.T. Fern

andez
First for consideration is the connection among cities or ports. Such
networks had an important infrastructure and were based on natural
paths. Generally, we have enough literary or archaeological sources for
their study. Our model will not be suitable for this kind of mobility,
because most of the time there would have been road, river or sea
communication, but not a mix of connectivity maps.
Second is communication between a centre (city or port) and a node
(which can be a villa), could be, for example, the movement of people
and goods to supply the city or to export products outside the territory.
We must remember the importance of portoria as spaces for tax regulation
in commerce (Pasquini, 2017; Bang, 2008, 202–238).
Third is communication among nodes, such as the transfer of people
and goods between two productive spaces like villas, for example the
amphoras and dolias of a place of pottery production to a villa. This type of
small-scale trade may even have been subsistence, but is of interest in
view of the inability to produce all goods in one place.
The second and third types of connections will not have much of work
and money investment and could be hard to model because of the
combined use of different paths. In this case, for example, it would be
easy in terms of the increased cost of the product to use a carriage to a
river, then a boat to the city. This kind of communication is what we are
trying to understand and model, because our current research options
models are being limited to representing all these issues.
4. Calculation
In this section, we describe a method to create a tool for adding the
horizontal factor in river movement to a typical land cost analysis. A
model tool for ArcGIS has been developed for this specific study (see
Annex 1 for free access). It is a combination of multiple tools that together
offer an easy way to calculate this orientation and facilitate the use of
river cost transport in terrestrial approaches (Fig. 1) (see Fig. 2).
Here we explain Fig. 1 and the method of this tool:

The tool splits the selected lines to ascertain the points of this vertex.
Then it calculates the X and Y coordinates and provides a summary of
the statistics to add a field with the first and last points of each
coordinate.
Fig. 1. Tools used in Model Builder to create the Calculate Orientation Tool.
3
Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 22 (2021) e00192

The proposed formula is a standard way to acquire the trend using the
trigonometric difference between length and height. In this way, we
create four new fields: the first one to store the trend, the second and
third to separately calculate the X and Y coordinates and the fourth to
calculate the script and the final value.

Then we calculate in field 2 and 3 (“Calculate field” and “Calculate
field 2”) the sum of the last minus the first point of X [LAST_POINT_X]
- [FIRST_POINT_X] and Y [LAST_POINT_Y] - [FIRST_POINT_Y]
coordinates.

In field 2 we acquire the trend of each line: (([LAST_POINT_Y] -
[FIRST_POINT_Y])/([LAST_POINT_X] - [FIRST_POINT_X])) *180/
3.14.

The final field is the value that returned to the original feature
function, plus the implementation of a Python logic code to assign the
values to a circle quadrant. The code is:
def calculate(trend, xvalue, yvalue):
if (xvalue>¼0 and yvalue>¼0):
return (trend)
elif (xvalue<¼0 and yvalue>¼0):
return (trend þ 180)
elif (xvalue<¼0 and yvalue<¼0):
return (trend þ 180)
elif (xvalue>¼0 and yvalue<¼0):
return (trend þ 360)
The horizontal factor tools can only work with numbers between
180 and 180 because they are the possible orientation in movement.
To identify the direction, we assign the trend values in 360 to the correct
circle quadrant and return the specific value that operates in the cost
distance tool. As in Fig. 3, the result is a field in the river shape with the
orientation of each line. To test this model, we use an example in the
navigable Guadalete River in the south-western portion of the Iberian
Peninsula (P
erez Fern
andez, 2018).
The rest of the analysis can continue as usual in distance costs. In the
case of anisotropic cost, the ArcGIS Path Distance tools can calculate the
friction and the backlink map with the direction of travel. With the Cost
Path tool, is possible to make optimal cost lines for the displacement
between two points. To do this, it is only necessary in this case to create
two rasters. The first raster includes the values of land friction (e.g.
P.T. Fern

andez
Fig. 2. Example of the orientation calculation from a river path in the Guadalete river (Southwest Spain).
slopes) plus the minimum friction value for river transport only in the
area where the river is located. The second raster contains the values of
the river orientation for the horizontal factor parameter in the cost dis-
tance tool, with a 0 value in the land area.
5. Results and discussion
To test this method we use a case study that meets the necessary
conditions: an area where communication could have taken place by land
or river, in a known navigable area and without a sea coast. The study
area is located between the Roman cities of Corduba, Hispalis and Astigi,
three conventual capitals and the provincial capital of the Betic province.
We know the navigability of the Guadalquivir River and its tributary the
Genil in Roman times (Fornell, 1997).
We test some standard mobility models, changing the movement
conditions. At first, we try to connect the three cities. This case is spe-
cifically good for our study because communication could have taken
place either by land or by river. We use Astigi as the centre, because it is
in the middle of Hispalis and Corduba, so it would have faced both
downstream and upstream issues. Furthermore, we know that the Via
Augusta connected these places (Sillieres, 1990). We do not consider the
Roman road in this analysis in order to avoid modifying the results. The
area is quite flat and the chosen path could have been conditioned by
other parameters more than the road itself. We conduct a test using the
mobility tools in ArcGIS creating a distance and backlink cost raster and a
distance path between the three cities. In the following paragraph, we
describe each attempt in Fig. 3.
In Fig. 3.1 we can see the area of study, including the two rivers of
interest. We know the importance of connecting these places because we
are in the economic triangle of production and the trade of Betic olive-oil
(Remesal, 1986).
In Fig. 3.2 we have conducted the first analysis, considering the cost
of transport alongside the tools mentioned above, only with the slopes
and without limiting rivers or streams, allowing any movement in rivers
and streams. The result is an unrealistic path because we could not walk
in the middle of the rivers.
4
Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 22 (2021) e00192
In Fig. 3.3 we have limited the rivers and streams to make them more
difficult to pass. They have been transformed into zones with a 5-degree
slope. In Fig. 3.4 we have done the same thing but with steeper slopes of
30 . In these attempts, we can observe how different the paths could have
been created only using this important factor. In addition, we can
appreciate how unrealistic this result is, because the condition is not only
the rivers and streams, also the value for limit them.
In Fig. 3.5 we have used the method of this article using the horizontal
factor to model the rivers and streams as 5-degree slope limiters. The
result is quite similar to the first one, without considering rivers and
streams. This is a poor result and owes to the proximity in values between
the land and river parameters.
In Fig. 3.6 the same process has been done but with consideration of
the increased cost of transporting products. We use for that the values of
Table 1 Cost (t/km). The experience shows very similar routes to those of
standard LCP models, specifically Figs. 3.3 and 3.6 are very similar.
However, what expresses their values are completely different because
the final model considers the increased cost of transporting a product, not
the time it takes. Curiously, both routes would fit roughly with the route
of the Augusta path through the area. These data allow a first approxi-
mation as to the potential of this tool, but as already mentioned in the
section on theory, it is not especially significant for the case of the
connection between the cities.
Nevertheless, we have tested other types of communications among
nodes and centres. For instance, we have undertaken an analysis con-
necting Astigi with a series of theoretical points generated by a grid. This
theoretical approach uses representative points of mobility around the
rivers and therefore it has not been necessary to use real archaeological
locations. With all this, we have conducted a standard LCP analysis to
connect these places (cost raster limited by rivers and streams on a 5-de-
gree slope value) and the parameter of increased product cost.
As one can see in Fig. 4, the differences between the generated routes
are significant. In the first case, we have communications that do not take
into account the river, precisely trying to avoid it as far as possible.
However, with our model the communications are more logical, using the
waterway when possible. There are cases that appear in Fig. 4.2 where
P.T. Fern

andez Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 22 (2021) e00192

Fig. 3. Different testing LCP from Astigi to Hispalis and Corduba in a slope raster. 1, Location of roman cities and navigable rivers. 2, LCP without limiting rivers and
streams. 3, LCP with slight limitation in rivers and streams. 4, LCP with high limitation factor in rivers and streams. 5, LCP with our model. 6, LCP with our model but
considering incremented cost transport goods.

Fig. 4. Comparison of LCP calculated from Astigi to grid points. 1, standard LCP process with river and stream as limiters. 2, our model combining navigable and
land cost.

5
P.T. Fern

andez
the chosen route is directly the land one, as the river is not as suitable.
With this simple comparison, one can see the potential of the tool. A
similar result could be achieved by conducting two analyses, the first
from the different locations to the nearest stretch of river and then from
these points to the city of Astigi. However, in this case we would have
forced that all the communications had to have part by water, when with
our model, they can be mixed, starting on land or water indistinctly. This
is an important step forward, as we exclude a subjective criterion given
by the researcher, when considering that a part of the mobility has to use
one route or another.
This model allows us to better understand mobility not specifically
among cities, but with other territorial entities. We do not show the case
of connecting node-to-node examples because the problem and the result
are quite similar to that expressed in Fig. 4. Furthermore, we must
consider the fact that this method is not suitable for all places, as there
must be certain conditions available, like an important navigable river.
However, these factors exist in many cases, where our model can be used
as an alternative. . In Fig. 4.2, communication from villa to villa could be
modelled in a single model, allowing us to change the parameters and test
how the model works by modifying its parameters. In a traditional
analysis, since there is a subjective factor of the operator, they cannot be
performed in the same way. In our case, the model is run in one run, so it
does not depend on whether the researcher considers the waterway or
the land route first, but the result depends only on the values entered for
the parameters.
We think that these results allow for a new way to create more
models. For example, the use of increased product costs is allowed and
could in the future permit the integration of land, river and sea analyses.
The latter have already seen substantial development and could easily be
integrated (Safadi, 2016; Pasquini, 2017). Furthermore, we could inte-
grate other attempts to model mobility in ancient times, like
multi-disciplinary design optimisation (MADO) (Llobera et al., 2011). We
firmly believe that with this kind of theoretical development we will be
able to understand new data and their connections and undertake a
comparison with other historical sources, creating a framework in which
to advance knowledge on ancient mobility (Trapero, 2019).
6. Conclusion
We think that this method will prove useful for considering com-
munications at a much more effective level of analysis than has been
done to date, or at least facilitate further analysis so that more re-
searchers can incorporate it. Communications in the ancient world would
preferably have been done by navigable means wherever possible and the
cost of transporting products would have greatly differed depending on
the means chosen. We believe that our method can be contrasted, is fast
and opens doors to spatial analysis at a different bigger scale. It is not an
approximation to the large communications between cities, but rather,
how to communicate other territorial entities such as villas between them
or to their centres.
Our method for calculating the horizontal factor is also noteworthy,
as it provides an algorithm for other researchers to make their calcula-
tions. This tool does not exist in GIS and could help realise our model or
develop others. Although we could have used tools such as Network
Analysis, this method takes into acount river directions and gradient, so it
is a more realistic model for transport costs as happens with LCP for land
transport.
Also in this paper, we have debated one perspective regarding ancient
mobility, using rivers as paths and not as limiters of movement. We can
consider a separated approach, viewing land and water mobility in two
models, which could work in some locations. However, in many cases we
have a navigable river that, according to the Roman mentality, should be
used for transport instead of a terrestrial alternative. In such cases we
must not be limited by the tools we have available. Instead, we should try
to create historical models based on GIS that are as close as possible to the
Roman way of thinking and, in this case, moving.
6
Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 22 (2021) e00192
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pedro Trapero Ferna
ndez: Conceptualization, Methodology, Soft-
ware, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Investigation,
Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2021.e00192.
References
Abu Izzeddin, N., 2014. Exploring Least Cost Path Analysis: A Case Study from the G€ oksu
Valley, Turkey. Thesis from Trent University.
Adams, A., 2017. Nile river transport under the Romans. In: Wilson, A., Bowman, A.
(Eds.), Trade, Commerce, and the State of the Roman World, pp. 175–208.
Alberti, G., 2018. TRANSIT: a GIS toolbox for estimating the duration of ancient sail-
powered navigation. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 45 (6), 510–528.
Arag
on, E., Trapero, P., Rodríguez, J., Munar, S., (in press). La Conectividad Marítima de
la Isla de Formentera durante el Bajo Imperio a trav
es de su patrimonio arqueol
ogico
subacu
atico. In: G
onzalez Villaescusa, R., Sh€orle K., (Eds.), La fortification tardo-
antique de Can Blai (Formentera, Bal
eares) et la surveillance c^ otiere en M
editerran
ee
occidentale..
Baek, J., Choi, Y., 2017. A new algorithm to find raster-based least-cost paths using cut
and fill operations. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 31 (11), 2234–2254.
Bang, P.F., 2008. The Roman Bazaar. A Comparative Study of Trade and Markets in a
Tributary Empire. Cambridge.
Brughmans, T., 2013. Thinking through networks: a review of formal network methods in
archaeology. J. Archaeol. Method Theor 20, 623–662.
Carreras, C., 1994. Una reconstrucci
on del comercio en cer
amicas: la red de transportes
en Britannia. Barcelona.
Casson, L., 1971. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princetown.
Collischonn, W., Pilar, J.V., 2000. A direction dependent least-cost-path algorithm for
roads and canals. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 14 (4), 397–406.
de Soto, P., 2010. Analisi de la xarxa de comunicacions I del transport a la Catalunya
romana: estudis de distribuci
o I movilitat (Tarragona).
de Soto, P., 2019. Chapter 13. Network analysis to model analyse roman transport and
mobility. In: Verhagen, P., Joyce, J., Groenhuijzen, M.R. (Eds.), Finding the Limits of
the Limes.
di Salvo, L., 1992. Economia private e pubblici servixi nello Imperio romano. I corpora
navicularium. Messina.


F
abrega Alvarez, P., Parcero Oubi~ na, C., 2007. Proposals for an archaeological analysis of
pathways and movement. Archeologia e Calcolatori 18, 121–140.
Fornell, Mu~ noz A., 1997. La navegabilidad en el curso alto del Guadalquivir en
epoca
romana. Florentia Iliberritana 8, 125–147.
Gambash, G., 2017. Between mobility and connectivity in the Ancient Mediterranean:
coast-skirting travellers in the southern levant. In: Lo Cascio, E., Tacoma, L.E. (Eds.),
The Impact of Mobility and Migration in the Roman Empire, pp. 155–172. Leiden.
Grau, I., 2006. La aplicaci
on de los SIG en arqueología del paisaje. Alicante.
Gustas, R., Kisha, S., 2017. Least cost path analysis of early maritime movement on the
Pacific Northwest Coast. J. Archaeol. Sci. 78, 40–56.
Haisman, M.F., Goldman, R.F., 1974. Effect of terrain on the energy cost of walking with
back loads and handcart loads. J. Appl. Physiol. 36, 545–548.
Herzog, I., 2010. Theory and practice of cost functions. In: Contreras, F., Farjas, M.,
Melero, M.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference on Computer
Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, pp. 375–382.
Jarriel, K., 2018. Across the surface of the sea: maritime interaction in the cycladic early
bronze age. J. Mediterr. Archaeol. 31 (1), 52–76.
Lag
ostena Barrios, L., 2016. El Lacus Ligustinus como agente de articulaci
on urbana y
conectividad territorial: de las riberas de Hasta Regia a Carissa Aurelia y el acceso a la
serranía. Stvdia Historica 34, 63–86.
Llobera, M., Sluckin, J.T., 2007. Zigzagging: theoretical insights on climbing strategies.
J. Theor. Biol. 249 (2), 206–217.


Llobera, M., F
abrega Alvarez, P., Parcero Oubi~ na, C., 2011. Order in movement: a GIS
approach to accessibility. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 843–851.
Lo Cascio, E., Tacoma, L.E. (Eds.), 2017. The Impact of Mobility and Migration in the
Roman Empire. Brill, Leiden.
Malmberg, S., 2015. ‘Ships are seen gliding swiftly along the sacred Tiber’: the river as an
€
artery of urban movement and development. In: Ostenberg, I., Malmberg, S.,
Bjørnebye, J. (Eds.), The Moving City: Processions, Passages and Promenades in
Ancient Rome. Bloomsbury Academic, London, pp. 307–312.
P.T. Fern

andez
Melles, S.J., Jones, N.E., Schmidt, B., Rayfield, B., 2011. A least-cost path approach to
stream delineation using lakes as patches and a digital elevation model as the cost
surface. Procedia Environmental sciences 7, 240–245.
Milheira, R.G., De Souza, J.G., Iriarte, J., 2019. Water, movement and landscape ordering:
a GIS-based analysis for understanding the mobility system of late Holocene mound-
builders in southern Brazil. J. Archaeol. Sci. 111.
Orbis. The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World. https://orbis.stan
ford.edu/. (Accessed 16 April 2021).
Pasquini, B., 2017. Preposition of a method to determine portages routes: the example of
the connection between the Sa^ one and the Moselle rivers (France) in ancient times.
In: O'Sullivan, Marini, Binnberg (Eds.), Archaeological Approaches to Breaking
Boundaries: Interaction, Integration and Division. Proccedings of the Graduate
Archaeology at Oxford Conferences 2015-2016. BAR. 2-12.
P
erez Fern
andez, E., 2018. Las intervenciones antr
opicas del curso bajo del Guadalete y
en San Pedro durante la Edad Moderna. Riparia 4, 146–190.
Remesal Rodríguez, J., 1986. La annona militaris y la exportaci
on de aceite. B
etico a
Germania, Madrid.
Ruiz Gil, J.A., Lag
ostena Barrios, L., P
erez Marrero, J., Martín Mochales, D., Trapero
Fern
andez, P., Catal
an Gonz
alez, J., 2019. Villae y Figlinae a orillas del Lacus
Ligustinus. An
alisis GIS y prospecci
on geofísica en el territorium ribere~no de Hasta
Regia. In: Remesal Rodríguez, J., Revilla Calvo, V., Martín-Arroyo S
anchez, D.J.,
Martín i Oliveras, A. (Eds.), Paisajes productivos y redes comerciales en el imperio
romano, vol. 65, pp. 115–138. Instrumenta.
Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage 22 (2021) e00192
Safadi, C., 2016. Wind and wave modelling for the evaluation of the maritime
accessibility and protection afforded by ancient harbours. J. Archaeol. Sci.: Report 5,
348–360.
Scheidel, W., 2013. Explaining the maritime freight charges in Diocletian's Prices Edict.
J. Rom. Archaeol. 26, 464–468.
Sillieres, P., 1990. Les voies de communication de l'Hispanie M
eridionale. Paris.
Trapero Fern
andez, P., 2019. Conectividad en el estuario del Guadalquivir entre Turris
Caepionis y Nabrissa Veneria. Aprovechamientos econ
omicos, comunicaciones,
embarcaderos y zonas navegables. Economía de los humedales. Pr
acticas sostenibles
y aprovechamientos hist
oricos. University of Barcelona, pp. 179–195.
Trapero Fern
andez, P., (in press). Conectividad en el estuario del Guadalquivir entre
Turris Caepionis y Nabrissa Veneria. Aprovechamientos econ
omicos,
comunicaciones, embarcaderos y zonas navegables. Estudios Hist
oricos sobre
humedales en la B
etica 3..
Verbrugghe, G., De Clercq, W., Van Eetvelde, V., 2017. Routes across the civitas
menapiorum: using least cost paths and GIS to locate the roman roads of sandy
flanders. J. Hist. Geogr. 57, 76–88.
Verhagen, P., Brughmans, T., Nuninger, L., Bertoncello, F., 2013. The long and winding
road: combining least cost paths and network analysis techniques for settlement
location analysis and predictive modelling. In: Romanowska, I., Murrieta Flores, P.,
Papadopoulos, C., Chrysanthi, A., Coords (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Conference
in Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, pp. 357–366.
Werther, L., Kr€ oger, 2017. L. Medieval inland navigation and the shifting fluvial
landscape between Rhine and Danube (Germany). Post-Classical Archaeologies 7,
65–96.