The Function of the Roman Army in Southern Arabia Petraea

Description

Over the last decades, discussions about the functions of the Roman army in frontier areas have contributed to a complex understanding of the military and its interactions with local geographies and peoples throughout the Empire. Nevertheless, in the region of Arabia, there is still little consensus about the purpose of the Roman military presence, its fluctuating functions, or the role of hundreds of fortified buildings scattered across the landscape. So far, these questions have remained unanswered due to a lack of excavation data and the scarcity of ancient accounts directly involving the military in Arabia Petraea. This study aims to provide a fresh perspective on these issues by employing a landscape approach, paralleling it with the ancient sources which describe the roles of the Roman military in the East. Using a variety of digital resources to contextually map and model the ancient system of fortifications, settlements, and trade routes, we can now better understand the evolving and diverse functions of the Roman army in Arabia from the creation of the province to the end of the Byzantine period. Cover Title Page Copyright Page Contents Page List of Figures Glossary Archaeological Periods and Dates Preface I. Introduction: Aims and Scope II. Contextualization: The Arabian frontier and the Roman Army Previous Archaeological Research in the Region Ancient Sources The ‘Limes Arabicus’ The Limes: Concept and Reality The Southern Arabian Frontier The Roman Army in Arabia III. The Function of the Roman Army on the Arabian Frontier (1) The Defensive System and the ‘Nomadic menace’ (2) ‘Internal’ Control, Protection and Administration (3) The Incense and Red Sea trade routes (4) Current perspective: An open economic zone IV. Spatial Analysis Methodology Dataset Visibility analysis Distance analysis Results Visibility Distance V. Discussion VI. Conclusion Descriptive Catalogue I Descriptive Catalogue II Bibliography Figure 1. Main sites mentioned in the text, showing the study-area considered in this publication. Figure 2. Study Area (southern Arabian frontier) considered in this publication, showing the main sites mentioned and geographical zones. Figure 3. Section of the Peutinger Table. From: http://peutinger.atlantides.org/map-a/. Figure 4. Cross section of Hadrian’s Wall. From Burton 2012, 23. Figure 5. Annual average rainfall and precipitation. Fanack after MWI. Retrieved from: www.water.fanack.com/jordan/geography-climate-population/, May 2017. Figure 6. Aerial Photo of the Via Nova Traiana (paved stretch running horizontally in the centre) near Umm Aljemal in Northern Jordan. Courtesy of APAAME. Figure 7. Aerial photo of the Via Nova Traiana (cleared stretch running vertically in the centre) in the al-Bitahi area north-west of Basta. Courtesy of APAAME. Figure 8. Coin RIC II Trajan 466 (sestertius), AD 103–111; Denomination: Sestertius; Mint: Rome; Obverse: IMP CAES NERVAE TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS V P P: Bust of Trajan, laureate, draped on left shoulder, right; Reverse: S P Q R OPTIMO PRINCIPI S Figure 9. Coin RIC II Trajan 614 (sestertius), AD 112–114; Denomination: Sestertius; Mint: Rome; Obverse: IMP CAES NERVAE TRAIANO AVG GER DAC P M TR P COS VI P P: Head of Trajan, laureate, right; Reverse: S P Q R OPTIMO PRINCIPI S C ARAB ADQVIS: Arabia, d Figure 10. The Province of Arabia showing the Via Nova Traiana. From Bowersock 1971, Fig. 33. Figure 11. Plan of the Humayma fort and its internal buildings. From Oleson et al. 2008. Figure 12. The Nabataean kingdom and the major trade routes and trade centres of the Near East. From Frösén and Fiema 2002, 259. Figure 13. The systematic satellite imagery survey of sites within the study area conducted in Google Earth. Figure 14. Forts in Arabia. From Al Khouri 2003, Fig.10. Figure 15. Courtyard buildings, certainly or probably Roman, with earlier and later phases at Arad: a) the barracks of the vigiles at Ostia, mid-second century, b) “Mansio” at Lejjun, c) “Caravanserai at Avdat, d) “Caravanserai” at Mempsis, e) “Fort” at T Figure 16. Schematic sections through walls, showing relationship to towers if any (in background): a) Aseikhin, b) En Boqeq, c) Dajaniya, d) Mezad Tamar, e) Lejjun/Udruh, f) Bshir, g) Zenobia, h) Resafa, i) Martyropolis, j) Dara. (Gregory 1997, Fig. 6.5) Figure 17. Cumulative viewshed of Nabataean fortifications. Figure 18. Cumulative viewshed of Roman fortifications. Figure 19. Cumulative viewshed of LR/B fortifications. Figure 20. Intervisibility network of Nabataean Fortifications, showing the limit of normal 20/20 vision (black), the limit of human recognition acuity (red), the limit of smoke signal visibility (green), the limit of light signal visibility (yellow), and Figure 21. Intervisibility network of Roman Fortifications, showing the limit of normal 20/20 vision (black), the limit of human recognition acuity (red), the limit of smoke signal visibility (green), the limit of light signal visibility (yellow), and all Figure 22. Intervisibility network of LR/B Fortifications, showing the limit of normal 20/20 vision (black), the limit of human recognition acuity (red), the limit of smoke signal visibility (green), the limit of light signal visibility (yellow), and all Figure 23. Travel time from Nabataean Fortifications using Tobler’s Hiking function. Figure 24. Travel time from Roman Fortifications using Tobler’s Hiking function. Figure 25. Travel time from LR/B Fortifications using Tobler’s Hiking function. Figure 26. Features near (