Review of Parker’s “The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan”

A year ago, I published a review of Tom Parker’s book, The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980-1989. This was published in the journal Near Eastern Archaeological Society Bulletin, volume 52, pp. 58-60. Here’s what I had to say:

Review of The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Final Report on the Limes Arabicus Project, 1980-1989, by S. Thomas Parker, with contributions by John Wilson Betlyon. Robin M. Brown, Vincent A. Clark, Patricia Crawford, Bert de Vries, Victoria L. Godwin, Jennifer C. Groot, Janet Duncan Jones, Jennifer E. Jones, Frank L. Koucky, Andrea Lain, Eric C. Lapp, Joann McDaniel, Robert Schick, and Michael R. Toplyn. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2006. 2 vols. xli + 617 pp.

The Roman Provincia Arabia has been neglected by scholars of both history and archaeology for some time. Following the late nineteenth century work of Brunnow and Domaszewski (1904-9). little research had been conducted. It was not until the 1970s that G.W. Bowersock (1971) inspired a new generation of scholars to address this important frontier. Among this new generation was S. Thomas Parker, whose Limes Arabicus Project of 1980-1989 has been among the most successful archaeological projects in Jordan. The wide-ranging work reviewed here represents the long-awaited final publication of Parker’s ambitious project in this distant region of Rome’s extensive empire.

The report is composed of seven parts divided into 24 chapters. Part I (chap. I) introduces the Limes Arabicus project and its final publication. It states the primary research questions regarding the late third-century Roman frontier buildup, and the subsequent abandonment of this frontier in the late fifth and early sixth centuries. It also describes the overall research design and excavation/survey methodology employed, and summarizes the region’s natural environment, pertinent historical sources from preclassical through modern times, as well as historical and archaeological work of the last century. Part II (chap. 2) serves as a complete report of the project’s Regional Survey, including summaries of sites by type and period, as well as a complete catalogue of 537 sites spanning periods from the Paleolithic through Modern era. Part III (chaps. 3-10) focuses on the Roman legionary fortress of el-Lejjun, including an historical and stratigraphic overview (chap. 3) as well as the final conclusions. In addition, it reports on the findings from the 1987-89 excavations in the fortress’s headquarters building (chap. 4). barracks (chap. 5), northwest fortifications (chap. 6), legionary bath complex (chap. 7), three rooms along the via principalis inside the fortress’s north gate (chap. 8), a granary or storehouse inside the southwest corner (chap. 9), and a lime kiln near the northwest fortifications (chap. 10). Part IV (chaps. 11-13) gives the results from excavations in the vicus, or civilian settlement, outside the fortress walls, with reports on an enigmatic marketplace or administrative building (chap. 11), a proposed Roman temple building (chap. 12), and three Late Ottoman watermills from the nearby Wadi Lejjun (chap. 13). Part V (chap. 14) leaves the site of Lejjun, reporting on the 1989 excavation of the fort at Da’janiya. Part VI (chaps. 15-23) is concerned with the detailed reports on the analysis of various material culture findings such as the small finds (chap. 15), pottery (chap. 16), Late Islamic ceramics (chap. 17), glass objects (chap. 18), numismatics (chap. 19), evidence of ironworking (chap. 20), botanical remains (chap. 21), zooarchaeological evidence (chap. 22), and human osteological remains (chap. 23). Part VII (chap. 24) concludes the work with a final historical conclusion of the frontier region based on the years of research conducted by the Limes Arabicus Project.

The size and scope of this work complicates the task of providing a sufficient review in the space provided here. In fact, such a publication properly deserves the more detailed assessment of an in-depth review article. Nevertheless. I will make a few brief comments concerning the Limes Arabicus Project as a whole, along with limited detailed observations on the presently reviewed publication.

To date, the Limes Arabicus Project remains the most detailed and well-rounded investigation of imperial Rome’s Arabian frontier. Of the scholars who were originally inspired by Bowersock’s important charge and invitation, Parker will probably provide the most enduring contribution. Rather than follow the usual path of investigating largely urban settings of the Roman era, this project consciously chose to center its efforts in a rural region astride the desert fringe. As Parker explains (p. 112). the choice of the legionary fortress at Lejjun as the centerpiece of his investigation was well justified. The size of this fortress, as well as its location and historical status, has provided unique insights into the primary research questions upon which the project was conceived.

Here, the quality of excavation methods, recording, and presentation of finds in both preliminary and interim publications as well as a regular schedule of conference workshops has established a model not easily surpassed in the region. The influence of earlier formative projects, such as the Heshbon Expedition, is quite visible and, in some important ways, improved upon. One questionable decision, however, was the early choice to forego soil sieving, opting instead for manual retrieval of finds (p. 7). Though an experiment conducted in the project’s final season determined that potential data loss was minimal, it may never be known what additional discoveries an otherwise exemplary excavation missed.

But the Limes Arabicus Project was no mere single site excavation, and this is where the value of its work shines most brightly. Even before the commencement of this project. Parker joined a growing group of regional scholars in the execution of large-scale systematic survey (Parker 1976). This continued as an integral component of the Limes Arabicus Project, which surveyed 537 sites spanning an area of 1680 sq. km. While the primary interests of the project were focused on the late third through early sixth centuries, the careful survey work gave fairly equal treatment to all sites from the Paleolithic through Modern periods. Data from this survey will prove invaluable to scholars seeking to understand the broader region’s long-term history and, in conjunction with strikingly similar findings from other survey projects, raises important questions demanding further investigation. One such example is the puzzlingly sharp decline in number of settlements following Rome’s annexation of the Nabataean kingdom — a pattern borne out by results of virtually every major survey in Jordan (Rohl and LaBianca 2006).

Turning now to the project’s final publication, Parker and company have delivered a robust report focused on excavation, survey and material culture analyses from the final two seasons at Lejjun and vicinity. While it is important to note that a complete understanding of the project and its region will require consultation of the interim report (Parker 1987), this publication provides sufficient summarization of previous results and what is, perhaps, the most complete historical analysis of the frontier region. Despite Parker’s failure to adequately address divergent views on the origin, purpose and demise of the limes (Graf 1989; Fisher 2004), he has remained consistent in his positions and continues to provide sufficient support from archaeological and historical sources. The debate may continue, but Parker’s view will remain a major contender. In fact, for readers primarily concerned with such historical matters, this volume’s opening (pp. 5-22) and closing (pp. 517-74) chapters will now become essential sources.

In other areas, too, this publication exemplifies quality archaeological reporting and analysis. This is particularly true in the reports of excavated areas (chaps. 4-14), Parker’s pottery analysis (chap. 16. pp. 329-72), and Toplyn’s assessment of zooarchaeological remains (chap. 22, pp. 463-509). For excavated areas, all squares are provided clear Harris Matrices and the traditional two-dimensional drawings are supplemented, in certain cases, by excellent anaxometric views (e.g. fig. 4.5A-B, 4.6A pp. 165-66). The pottery analysis is meticulous, well illustrated, and secures Parker’s position as the current successor to Sauer (1973) for the region’s ceramic corpus during the Early Roman/Nabataean - Late Byzantine periods. Toplyn’s zooarchaeological assessment, the most data-rich contribution to this volume, successfully illustrates the powerful contribution of faunal remains to the understanding of regional economies and subsistence patterns.

Despite the overall excellent nature of this publication, some problems exist. In the Survey Site Catalogue (pp. 54-107), the authors chose to assign new “publication numbers” that are not present in previous project publications. While this new numbering system is superior to that used in earlier reports, it is unnecessarily cumbersome for attempts to cross-reference data (e.g. Site #149 = Field #595, Site #527 = Field #149, etc.). The publication of survey maps is also overly selective. While the authors are to be applauded for including reasonable quality maps showing all sites from the Iron Age, Early Roman/Nabataean, Late Roman/Early Byzantine, and Umayyad periods, as well as separate maps of only forts and towers from the Iron Age, Early Roman/Nabataean, and Laic Roman/Early Byzantine periods, all other historical periods have not received the courtesy of a single map. This diminishes the fairly even treatment given in the textual report. The discussion of “small finds” (chap. 15. pp. 293-328) also leaves much to be desired. While the treatment provided here is on par with other reports from the region, it is composed primarily of a simple catalogue that fails to place these important objects into their proper contexts. Given the otherwise notable analysis and contextualization of material culture finds (e.g. chaps. 16 and 22). this minimal presentation of small objects demonstrates that archaeologists working in the Near East have a long way to go toward achieving the level of small finds analysis that is gaining ground among those working in Rome’s western provinces (e.g. Hingley and Wilson 2007).

In toto, the final publication of the Limes Arabicus Project is a valuable contribution to studies on the history and archaeology of Jordan and the Roman Empire. While falling short in a few areas, the overall presentation of data and analysis is of the highest quality. As the capstone publication for the most ambitious project on Roman Jordan to date, this report now stands as the required text for serious students and scholars of the Provincia Arabia and its desert frontier. Just as Bowersock inspired Parker, he and the Limes Arabicus Project will certainly continue to inspire an even newer generation of scholars to further enhance our understanding of this important frontier region.

Darrell J. Rohl
Institute of Archaeology, Andrews University

REFERENCES
Bowersock. G W. (1971) A Report on Arabia Provincia. Journal of Roman Studies 61:219-42.

Brunnow, R., and von Domaszewski, A. (1904-9) Die Provincia Arabia. 3 vols. Strassburg: Trubner.

Fisher, G. (2004) A New Perspective on Rome’s Desert Frontier. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 336: 49-60.

Graf, D. (1989) Rome and the Saracens: Reassessing the Nomadic Menace. Pp. 341-400 in L’Arabic Preislamique et Son Environnement Historique et Culturel: Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 24-27 Juin 1987: Tranvaux du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grece Antiques. Part 10. ed. T. Fahd. Leiden: Brill.

Hingley, R., and Willis, S., eds. (2007) Roman Finds: Context and Theory. Oxford: Oxbow.

Parker, S. T. (1976) Archaeological Survey of the Limes Arabicus: A Preliminary Report. Annuals of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 21: 19-31.

Parker, S. T. (1987) The Roman Frontier in Central Jordan: Interim Report on the Limes Arabicus Project. 1980-1985. 2 vols. BAR International Series 340. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

Rohl, D. J., and LaBianca, O. S. (2006) Culture Contact and Parochialization: A Theoretical View of Culture Change in Roman Transjordan. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Washington, DC.

Sauer, J. A. (1973) Heshbon Pottery 1971: A Preliminary Report of the Pottery from the 1971 Excavations at Tell Heshbon. Berrien Springs. MI: Andrews University.

Tags: Archaeology, book review, jordan, Limes Arabicus, Provincia Arabia, publication, roman, roman empire