<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# The Frontier that Wasn't: The Roman Spider-Web Defence System in Egypt's Western Desert

Victor Ghica

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Victor Ghica. The Frontier that Wasn't: The Roman Spider-Web Defence System in Egypt's Western Desert. Proceedings of the XXVI International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Batumi 2024, International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies., Sep 2024, Batumi, Georgia. hal-05308889

HAL Id: hal-05308889

https://hal.science/hal-05308889v1

Submitted on 10 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# The Frontier that Wasn't: The Roman Spider-Web Defence System in Egypt's Western Desert<fnref n="1" />

Without exception, all the maps of the Roman Empire represent the imperial frontier in the western part of the province of Egypt as a continuous line connecting Sīwa Oasis and the region of the First Cataract. This cartographic convention is deeply misleading.<fnref n="2" /> Depending on versions, the line supposed to represent the *limes* is either vaguely meandering or not at all. Yet, this border line never existed. It is a graphic fiction that masks a much more complex and fluid system of territorial control. What lies behind this fictional segment of the *limes* is at the same time the soft underbelly and one of the most efficient parts of the Roman frontier system.

The section of the *limes* in question stretches more exactly from the eastern-most end of the *Limes Libycus*<fnref n="3" /> all the way to Syēnē (nowadays, Aswān). It is a frontier system primarily characterised by the natural barrier of the barren land of the Western Desert, which it crosses. In other words, it is a ‘natural frontier’, to use an old locution of French political geography.<fnref n="4" /> For the same reason, it is also a proper ‘open desert frontier’, a concept traditionally, and often indiscriminately, applied to the North African *limes*.<fnref n="5" /> Lost in the sands of the desert, yet meant to control it, this long section of the Roman frontier is obviously not a border.<fnref n="6" /> It is better understood as a spatial regime of control through mobility and dispersion. If anything, its porosity and fluidity are more consistent with Parker’s definition of the frontier, which includes both geographic and economic boundary types.<fnref n="7" /> Unlike contact zones marked by hybridity and cultural creolisation, this frontier lacks interfaces. As it does not separate polities, it is not a contact interface,<fnref n="8" /> a locus of contact,<fnref n="9" /> an ‘in between’ space,<fnref n="10" /> and, therefore, lacks that interconnectedness<fnref n="11" /> that catalysed the hybridised <fnref n="12" /> ‘third spaces’ known elsewhere on the Roman frontier or any other ‘Middle Grounds’.<fnref n="13" /> It is a contactless frontier. In this respect, Whittaker’s<fnref n="14" /> concept of the open frontier is far more useful for understanding this landscape than any linear or exclusionary model. So is Le Bohec’s interpretation of the *limes* as a dynamic and adaptable *système défensif*,<fnref n="15" /> deploying roads, outposts and forts in response to environmental constraints. Similarly, recent approaches in border studies stress the inherent fuzziness,<fnref n="16" /> fluidity<fnref n="17" /> and adaptability of premodern frontiers, a perspective particularly apt for

<footnote n="1">¹ This study tries to answer questions accumulated during twenty-five years of work in the Western Desert as well as those raised by several work-packages of the ERC-COG DEChriM project (grant agreement no. 819368). I am indebted to the numerous discussions with the members of this project and, particularly, with Florence Lemaire.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Similar conclusion in Reddé 2018.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ The Λιβυκὸν λίμπτον that appears in Justinian’s Edict 13 of 538/539.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Sahlins 1990.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Breeze *et al.* 2021, 44.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ See the categories of Parker 2006.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Parker 2006, 80–89.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸ Rösler and Wendl 1999.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Parker 2006, 77.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Mullin 2011.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ Feuer 2016; Mullin 2011.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹² Bhabha 1994.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ White 1991.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ E.g. Whittaker 1994.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ See, for example, Le Bohec 1989 and Le Bohec 1999.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ Langer and Fernández-Götz 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Gardner 2007.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** – Map of caravan routes attested in Egypt and Sinai between the 1st c. BC and 4th c. AD, showing military installations, main settlements and water sources in the Western Desert (V. Ghica, based on Paprocki 2019, Skriwanek 2005, the 1:250 000 working sheets of the ACACIA project and Rieger 2015).</figcaption></figure>

the Saharan context. Yet, as we shall see, the presence of the Roman army in these vast and arid expanses defies even these refined models and invites us to conceive of a ‘web frontier’ – porous, nodal, and intermittent.

Together with the *Limes Libycus*, the *Limes Aegyptiacus* forms a continuum, insomuch as the geography associated with both is largely homogenous, characterised by the triad *erg*, *reg* and *hamada*. Human geography lends it further homogeneity, as the Roman-period networks of caravan tracks across the Libyan Desert were likely very similar, following a trans-Saharan model. What results is not a boundary, but a patterned field of circulation and monitoring, enforced through nodal presence and road control.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2 – Map of Hāriğa Oasis, showing the main settlements, both civil and military (V. Ghica).</figcaption></figure>

To identify the components of this frontier system, we need to identify the sites with
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** – Map of Hāriğa Oasis, showing settlements related to military administration and infrastructure (V. Ghica). demonstrable military associations. Compared to better-known frontier zones like the Limes</figcaption></figure>
*Tripolitanus* or the *Limes Mauretaniae*, these are fewer, but still more numerous than often assumed. Military settlements can be grouped into four architectural and functional categories.

The first comprises full-scale fortresses (*castra*). Three such structures are confirmed in the oases: Qārat al-Ṭūb (Bahrīyya), Qaṣr al-Dāḥila (Dāḥila), and Dayr Umm al-Ġanā’im (Hāriğa).<fnref n="18" /> Based on the foundation date of the former, these are currently attributed to the reign of Diocletian and the broader wave of Tetrarchic military reorganisation.<fnref n="19" /> To these must probably be added two further sites of fortress-type constructions, although their function remains to be established: ‘Ayn al-Manṣūriyya, in southern Hāriğa (Figs. 1–4),<fnref n="20" /> and Zāwiyyat al-Ağdāb, near ancient Ainesisphyra (modern Sīdī al-Barrānī; Fig. 1).<fnref n="21" />

The second category includes fortlets and minor fortified stations, which lack genuine defensive capacities. These are known primarily in Hāriğa, the most intensively militarised oasis for reasons still not fully understood.<fnref n="22" /> Typical examples can be found at Qaṣr Ġīb and

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** – Orthophoto of the northern half of the fort of ‘Ayn al-Manṣūriyya; the southern half comprises a large well, whose crater obscures the plan of the walls (V. Ghica).</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸ *Contra* Bagnall 2001; De Troia 2020, 169; etc., who place the *castrum* of Hāriğa at al-Nāḍūra.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Colin 2011, 208–12. Colin’s conclusions have been widely adopted and extrapolated by various scholars (Reddé, Bagnall, Rossi, Kucera, etc.).</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ See the page of the South Kharga Oasis Survey: https://4care-skos.mf.no/skos/135/.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹ Rieger 2015.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² For a possible explanation, that of Hāriğa as a crossroads, see Rossi *et al.* 2022, 774.</footnote>
Qaşr Sumayra (Figs. 2, 3).<fnref n="23" /> These fortlets, whilst architecturally modest, marked Roman presence and facilitated surveillance and policing rather than garrison-based defence.

A third, more debated category includes buildings misinterpreted as forts<fnref n="24" /> due to their massive walls and verticality. These are labelled in the ostracological documentation as φρούρια<fnref n="25" /> or κάστρα (the latter always in the singular),<fnref n="26" /> yet they served primarily as granaries (*horrea*), not military posts in the conventional sense. The equivalent Coptic term, ṿ(ε)ṣωρ,<fnref n="27" /> designates precisely that, a ‘storehouse’, which is also the semasiology of the two Greek terms to which point the Dūš ostraca. Locally referred to as qaşr or ḫiṣn, such buildings are characterised by thick outer walls and multiple internal *cellae* arranged over several storeys. They were centres of logistical storage, destined to the *annona militaris* or otherwise, rather than sites of combat readiness. Such buildings can still be seen, among others, at Šams al-Dīn, ‘Ayn Ḩusayn,<fnref n="28" /> Qaşr Barāmūnī, Qaşr Nisīma<fnref n="29" /> and, importantly, at Dūš,<fnref n="30" /> Umm al-Dabādīb<fnref n="31" /> and ‘Ayn Labaḥa,<fnref n="32" /> sites sheltering impressive buildings with a long history of misinterpretation (Figs. 2, 3). The qaşr of Dūš, in particular, is a textbook example of a *horreum militaris*, the inner workings of which, revealed by the *O.Douch*, allow for an unprecedentedly detailed study of the annony machine. One such κάστρον was led by a *decurion*.<fnref n="33" /> Interestingly, certain ostraca catch the construction of such φρούρια in action and even evoke the fate of these buildings.<fnref n="34" /> The identification of the term φρούριον with this category of buildings is ascertained by an unedited account of wine amphoras<fnref n="35" /> found recently at Šams al-Dīn, a site that shelters a *horreum*.

The fourth group consists of watchtowers, such as those at Umm al-Dabādīb,<fnref n="36" /> Burğ Tāfnīs, Tāḥūnat al-Hawā',<fnref n="37" /> and ‘Ayn al-Ḥūṣa. While seemingly modest, their positioning along key desert tracks suggests a role in signal communication and local control.

One could also add here a fifth, theoretical category, that of the customs stations (τελώνια), which are better known from ostraca and papyri<fnref n="38" /> than on the ground. It is, nonetheless, possible that the building erected at Dayr Muṣṭafā Kāšif between 130 and 325 AD,<fnref n="39" /> prior to the construction of the monastery, was such a customs office associated with what the texts call a ‘frontier’ (L-ταω).<fnref n="40" /> A similar border checkpoint,<fnref n="41" /> but without an adjacent customs office building, has been identified at ‘Ayn al-Barābiḥ, in Dāḥila, at the western terminus of the caravan track of Darb al-Ġubbārī.<fnref n="42" /> The best documented of these customs

<footnote n="23">23 For all the sites of North Ḩāriġa discussed in this paper, see Rossi and Ikram 2018.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24 De Troia 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 *O.Douch* III.299, III.317 (reedited by Lemaire forthcoming), VI.738, VI.752, VI.756.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">26 *O.Douch* VI.811,10 (ἐν τῷ κάστρῳ Μουνουσιρ(ε) ); Bagnall and Tallet 2015, 184 (1. 5 ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐμοῦ κάσφ[τρου]).</footnote>

<footnote n="27">27 *P.KellisCopt.* I.32,9; I.46,11; I.50,30–31,35.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">28 Ghica *et al.* 2025b.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29 Ghica 2012, 217–9; https://4care-skos.mf.no/4care-sites/9/.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">30 The qaşr is defined by Reddé as a ‘centre administratif’ (Breeze and Reddé 2021, 89). I believe the first to identify this building as a granary was Cuvigny (introduction to *O.Waqfa*, 15).</footnote>

<footnote n="31">31 For a parallel with the *centenaria*, see Ghica 2012, 210, n. 101. The non-defensive character of the building has been underlined in various studies, e.g. Reddé 1991; Reddé 1999; Rossi 2012; etc.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">32 The fort-looking building at ‘Ayn Labaḥa was associated with the collection of the *annona* (Wagner 1987, 82, 378).</footnote>

<footnote n="33">33 Bagnall and Tallet 2015, 184.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">34 *O.Douch* VI.738,5–6 (μάθωμεν ὄτι τι ὀφίλει γενέσθ[αι] ἱ φρουρίων).</footnote>

<footnote n="35">35 O.Chams-el-Din inv. 1002.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">36 Rossi and Ikram 2018, 217–8.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">37 Reddé 1999, 381.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">38 On the τελώνια, see Sijpesteijn 1987.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">39 Ghica *et al.* 2023, 152; Ghica *et al.* 2024, 235; Ghica 2025.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">40 *P.KellisCopt.* I.50,30; II.91,2; II.92,15.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">41 On these checkpoints, see Kucera 2020.</footnote>

<footnote n="42">42 Ghica *et al.* 2025b.</footnote>
stations is, however and by far, the ‘Great Gate’ (μεγάλη πύλη)<fnref n="43" /> or ‘Great Frontier’ (πσι ο)<fnref n="44" /> of Kysis/Dūš, which was kept by customs officers (τηρηται τῶν πυλῶν),<fnref n="45" /> both soldiers and civilians.<fnref n="46" />

What all these architectural types share are two essential traits: first, they are invariably located along roads; second, they project a military image – what we may call ‘architecture of intimidation’. Unlike the four *castra*, these ‘dummy fortifications’ were not constructed for actual defence. Their functions – deterrence, customs control, surveillance, and facilitation of communication – are well attested in the ostraca and papyri from Ḩāriğa and Dāḥila. If the positioning of these buildings along desert roads is significant, the placement of the *castra* is even more revealing, built as they are at critical crossroads or strategic nodes, underscoring their integrative role in the desert-wide transport and control network.

Equally telling is the scale of the military presence in these oases. The *Notitia Dignitatum* associates each of the *castra* with an *ala* (II Armeniorum and II Assyriorum in Bahriyya, I Quadorum in Dāḥila, and I Abasgorum in Ḩāriğa), with two cohorts equally attested in Dāḥila and Ḩāriğa.<fnref n="47" /> This suggests a total force of *limitanei* of up to 2,000 cavalrymen and probably 320 infantrymen stationed across the oases and monitoring a minimum of 19,000 km of routes (Fig. 1). In addition, there is extensive evidence for expeditionary detachments, indicating a dynamic and responsive deployment model. Here is an overview of the attested connections between the postings of these detached troops and their *origines* in the Nile Valley (Fig. 5):

<table><thead><tr><td>Posting</td><td>Parent garrison</td><td>Unit</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Trimithis (Amhayda)</td><td>Asphynis (Aşfūn)</td><td>Equites felices Honoriani<sup>48</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Trimithis (Amhayda)</td><td>Tentyris (Dandara)</td><td>Equites sagitarii indigenae<sup>49</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Mōthis (Mūṭ)</td><td>Tentyris (Dandara)</td><td>Equites promoti II<sup>50</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Hibis (Madīnat al-Ḥāriğa)</td><td>Hermonthis (Armant)</td><td>Legio II Valentiniana<sup>51</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Mounēsis (Šams al-Dīn)</td><td>Hermonthis (Armant)</td><td>Legio II Valentiniana<sup>52</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Mounēsis (Šams al-Dīn)</td><td>Latopolis (Isnā)</td><td>Equites sagitarii indigenae<sup>53</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Mounēsis (Šams al-Dīn)</td><td>Lykopolis (Asyūṭ)</td><td>Cuneus equitum Maurorum scutariorum<sup>54</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Mounēsis (Šams al-Dīn)</td><td>Apollōnos Anō (Idfū)</td><td>Legio II Traiana<sup>55</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Kysis (Dūš)</td><td>Asphynis (Aşfūn)</td><td>Equites felices Honoriani<sup>56</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Kysis (Dūš)</td><td>Babylōn (Cairo)</td><td>Legio XIII Gemina<sup>57</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Kysis (Dūš)</td><td>Eileithyiapolis (al-Kāb)</td><td>58</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ *O.Douch* IV.385,1–2.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ *O.DouchCopt.* 58,9 (Ghica *et al.* forthcoming). The same Gate is probably referred to in *O.DouchCopt.* 13.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ See the two lists of τηρηταί *O.Douch* IV.384 and IV.385.</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ The latter category is represented, for example, by two ἐπιμεληταί, Apollôn son of Hermammōn and Isokratēs son of Antisthenēs.</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ *Not.Dig.Or.* 31.59; SB XX.14884; Wagner 1987, 373–9.</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ *O.Trim.* II.528.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ *O.Trim.* II.525.conc.; Bagnall and Dzierzbicka 2018, 519.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ Bagnall and Dzierzbicka 2018, 519.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ *I.Oasis* p. 68, no. 10; Bagnall and Tallet 2015, 185–6.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² SB XX.14789; SB XX.14799.</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ SB XX.14817.</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ SB XX.14760.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ SB XX.14780; SB XX.14781.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ *O.Douch* I.13 + V.551; IV.465; V.553; V.637.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ *O.Douch* V.515; V.516.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ *O.Douch* V.597.</footnote>
<table><tr><td>Kysis (Dūš)</td><td>Hermonthis (Armant)</td><td>Legio II Valentiniana<sup>59</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Kysis (Dūš)</td><td>Thebes (Luxor)</td><td>Legio III Diocletiana<sup>60</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Kysis (Dūš)</td><td>Koptos (Qift)</td><td>Equites sagitarii indigenae; Legio I Valentiniana<sup>61</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Kysis (Dūš)</td><td>Latopolis (Isnā)</td><td>Equites sagitarii indigenae<sup>62</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Kysis (Dūš)</td><td>Lykopolis (Asyūt)</td><td>Cuneus equitum Maurorum scutariorum<sup>63</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Kysis (Dūš)</td><td>Tentyris (Dandara)</td><td>Equites sagitarii indigenae<sup>64</sup></td></tr></table>

Crucially, however, the vast majority of the Western Desert lacked any form of permanent Roman presence. The desert's geography – a sea of desolation punctuated by isolated oases – made continuous surveillance unfeasible. Instead, Roman control was exercised through a spider-web of caravan routes, with intermittent checkpoints and rapid-response patrols. This model closely resembles the non-continuous territoriality and occasional territorial control of other historical regimes, such as the Nabataean Kingdom, or the Daesh occupation pattern of desert zones.

This was, in essence, a mobile frontier – a *limes movens* – anchored not in walls or permanent outposts, but in the routes themselves. It was this viary network, this spider-web structure of mobile surveillance, that constituted the true *Limes Aegypti* in this desert. Its coherence and effectiveness are best attested for the period between the late 3rd and late 4th century. As I cannot detail here the cartography of this vast web, I limit myself to providing a map (Fig. 1) that synthesises it. The latter is considerably based on Paprocki's excellent reconstruction of Roman Egypt's road system<fnref n="65" /> and Skriwanek's fine cartographic research, whilst including the results of my own surveys in the Western Desert. Suffice to say that the hallmark of the Western Desert's road system lies in its nodality, its logic in the territorial distribution of water sources and its maintenance in public hands. The latter translates simply in military management. This is the explanatory principle that gives sense to both the geographic and chronological dimensions of this viary system and elucidates each of its segments and the function of advanced outposts, such as those of ‘Ayn Dalla, ‘Ayn al-Ḥadrā’, ‘Ayn al-Maqfī or ‘Ayn al-Sarw.<fnref n="66" /> It is the questions raised by this category of water points and the structures built around them that led to the present study. Indeed, in the absence of small camelry detachments patrolling the roads, it is impossible to explain the maintenance of wells, way stations and, ultimately, caravan traffic. These very small settlements – advanced outposts of territoriality – reveal an elastic borderland expanding and retracting according to needs whilst maintaining minimal costs.

So, the military presence on the routes of the Western Desert was *ad hoc*, and the surveillance likely dictated by the rhythm of caravan traffic. The *O.Douch* are clear in this regard. It is only logical to assume that what led to the policies of desert control was an assessment of hostilities risk. Indeed, this long stretch of the Roman frontier was arguably the safest of all, as evidenced by the total lack of enclosed, let alone fortified, settlements.<fnref n="67" /> No

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ *O.Douch* I.30; III.209; IV.456; V.515; V.554; V.598; V.609; V.618; VI.698; VI.797; VI.845; VI.797; *I.Oasis* p. 60, no. 2.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ *O.Douch* III.193; III.201.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ *O.Douch* III.320; III.340.</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² *O.Douch* I.30; II.132; IV.452; V.624; V.625; VI.726; VI.761; VI.794; VI.797.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ *O.Douch* IV.457.</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ *O.Douch* I.30; I.53; II.85; II.88; II.153; III.318; IV.420; VI.788.</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ Paprocki 2019.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶ All these sites are understudied. For the latter three, see Buongarzone and De Angeli 2010; Finocchi and Medaglia 2011.</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ Reddé 1991, 492.</footnote>
conflicts,<fnref n="68" /> particularly with the Garamantes, came to disturb the serene century or so of permanent Roman military presence in the Western Desert, between the Tetrarchy and the end of the 4th century. Raids by Blemmyes and Mazikes will come later, in 435–436 and at the end of the 6th century.<fnref n="69" />

How was this mobile frontier patrolled? Three decades ago, the first answer would have been: we don't know. Now, the Dūš/Šams al-Dīn/ʻAyn al-Wāqifa ostraca and graffiti allow for a more nuanced picture and for reconstructing the mobility of the troops in charge of desert tracks surveillance. The Western Desert was patrolled by mounted detachments of *dromedarii*, many of which appear frequently in the three large ostraco-papyrological corpora of the Great Oasis (Dūš, <fnref n="70" /> Ismant al-Ḥarāb <fnref n="71" /> and Amhayda <fnref n="72" />), where they are designated by two synonymous terms, δρομεδάριος and καμηλάριος, <fnref n="73" /> and, in Coptic, as ἀρωগ. Nominally associated with different garrisons in the Nile Valley, members of these camelry units were constantly detached to the Western Desert, usually to the areas nearest to their parent garrisons (Fig. 5).<fnref n="74" /> While the *alares* <fnref n="75" /> stationed in the oases resided in *castra* <fnref n="76" /> (they are the *castrenses*

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ For a reevaluation of the master narrative of constant threats on the Roman frontier of Africa and the Middle East, see Guédon 2018, 9–10. See also Breeze et al. 2021, 44.</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ Wagner 1987, 396–8; Dijkstra 2005, 49; De Troia 2020, 172.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ *O.Douch* II.169,1 (ἔσχον δι(ὰ) καμηλαρίου); II.172,1 (list of καμηλ(άριο): Abraamios, Ammōn(ios), Hatrēs, Biktōr, Dios, Ēlias, Kalēs, Makar(ios), Patēs, Sabeinos, Sar(APIōN), Triadelph(os)); IV 403,1 (SarAPIōN καμελάριος); IV 504, 2 ([...]os κ{ι} αμηλάρις); VI.793 (καμιλίτης); *O.DouchCopt*. 5,6 (βαρορ; for *O.DouchCopt.*, see Ghica et al. forthcoming); 27, 6 (Διω μανκαμογλ). For δρομεδάριο (vel sim.): *O.Douch* I.13 + V.551,2,6; I.48,2; I.53,3,7; II.81,6; II.87,2; II.156,3; III.184,3; III.198,4; III.254,5; III.266,4; III.279,1; III.290,1; III 353,3; IV.365r,3,5; IV 379,1; IV.387v,6; IV.391,1; IV.406,2,4; IV.445,3; IV.456,3; V.582,4; V.609,6; V.618,2; V.624,4,7; V625,1; V630,7; VI.697,3; VI.698,5; VI.817,3; VI.832,3.</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ *P.KellisCopt.* I.20,54 (βαραρε), I.43,2 (βαρωρ); II.71,15 (βαρωρε), [[16]]; II.90,12 (βαραρε); II.92,14 (βαρωρ); II.122,25 (βαραρι).</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷² *O.Trim.* I.322conc,3 (καμηλάριος); II.470,4 (δρομαδ(άριος)).</footnote>

<footnote n="73">⁷³ Contra *O.Douch* II.172, note to l. 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴ Wagner 1987, 384–6.</footnote>

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵ In the *O.Douch*, the term appears three times, always in the genitive plural and in relation to the *annona* of the *alares* (εἰς ἀννώνας ἀλλαρίνων): VI.741, VI.748, VI.786.</footnote>

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶ The κάστρα "Ιβεως are documented in the *O.Douch* (I.38,2–3; III.218,6; III.220,3; IV.397,3; V.512,3; V.518,3; V.565,2–3; V.578,3; V.583,2; V.586,2–3; V.627,3; VI.650,2; VI.651,2–3; VI.741,3 – this latter ostracon mentions ‘the *annonae* of the *alares* of the *castra* of Hibis’, εἰς ἀννώγας ἀλλαρίνων κάστρων “Ιβεως), whilst the κάστρων Τριμίθεως is only mentioned in a graffito from Amhayda (Ast and Bagnall 2015, 4), although other papyri and ostraca refer to it simply as τὰ κάστρα (see references in Kucera 2012, 310; add to them Bagnall and Dzierzbicka 2018, 515 and Ast and Bagnall 2015), and a Coptic ostracon calls it ‘the imperial camp’ (πκαστροῦ ἱπρρο; Gardner 2012, 473).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** – Location of the postings of detached troops and of their parent garrisons in the Nile Valley (V. Ghica). mentioned in several documents)⁷⁷ and were probably perceived as locals,⁷⁸ the detached</figcaption></figure>
vexillationes lived in military quarters such the one recently identified at Šams al-Dīn,<fnref n="79" /> but also in villages, where they were organised in *contubernia* (maybe called simply oikία, ‘household’)<fnref n="80" /> of up to 11 *contubernales*,<fnref n="81" /> each headed by a *decanus*.<fnref n="82" /> Most of the soldiers garrisoned at Dūš, ancient Kysis, are documented over several years. Not only were they stationed for long periods, but some were accompanied by family members, who settled in the kysite region.<fnref n="83" />

The radius of their detachment is not well known, but the *O.Douch* corpus suggests that virtually all garrisons of *equites* based in the Nile Valley sent cavalrymen westwards. The latter were almost always *dromedarii* – with only very rare cases of *caballarii*<fnref n="84" /> attested<fnref n="85" /> –, some of whose camel pens (sg. καμηλών) and associated artefacts can be detected in archaeological sources.<fnref n="86" /> Although *alae* stationed at Qārat al-Ṭūb and Qaşr al-Dāḥila may have covered their adjacent territories, most documented road patrols in Ḩāriğa were conducted by *dromedarii* from Kysis and nearby outposts,<fnref n="87" /> not from the large *castra*. This suggests a functional distinction between stationary units and mobile patrols.

It is these camel troops, the unsung agents of Roman desert control, who were operating in satellite outposts and advanced road stations like ‘Ayn Dalla, ‘Ayn al-Ḥadrā’, ‘Ayn al-Maqfī or ‘Ayn al-Sarw. The proof comes from a similar context, a waystation on the Darb al-Ġubbārī, where names of members of a mounted reconnaissance patrol are still preserved.<fnref n="88" /> More claimed than owned, these spaces were territorial projections rather than settled Roman land. In this regard, the Roman desert borderland in this part of the Sahara bears resemblance to the way in which Franks projected power on the other side of the Carolingian

<footnote n="77">⁷⁷ Καστρήσιος / καστρήσιοι appear in *O.Douch* I.21 (list of καστρήσιοι), II.280 (for the latter, see Lemaire forthcoming), VI.664 (referring to a Dōmetis who might be the same as the tribune Domitios mentioned in an ostracon from Hibis; Bagnall and Tallet 2015, 184–5; Lemaire forthcoming).</footnote>

<footnote n="78">⁷⁸ It is probably to the *alares* of the *castra* of Hibis that the term Ὀασίτης/Αὐασίτης (III.191, IV.458, IV.465, V.515, V.516) refers.</footnote>

<footnote n="79">⁷⁹ Ghica 2025.</footnote>

<footnote n="80">⁸⁰ Three ostraca mention five such oikία: *O.Douch* I.1; II.144; VI.838 (here and everywhere else, for *O.Douch* VI, see Lemaire forthcoming).</footnote>

<footnote n="81">⁸¹ *O.Douch* VI.838. The terms κοντουβερνάλις and συνκοντουβερνάλις appear in *O.Douch* I.5, II.61, II.83, II.115, V.581, VI.640g. In the late 4th–early 5th century, Vegetius speaks about 10 soldiers per *contubernium* (*Epitoma rei militaris* II.8).</footnote>

<footnote n="82">⁸² The names of two such heads of households are known in the *O.Douch*: Petechōn (I.1) and Psenpnouthēs (II.144).</footnote>

<footnote n="83">⁸³ *Contra* Carrié 2004. A graffito at Šams al-Dīn mentions two family units (*SB* XX.14799). Wives are attested in *O.Douch* I.51, II.67, VI.788, and sisters in I.51, III.290, V.553, VI.804. Several sons of soldiers are also probable: Aeiōn (II.170 (10), *SB* XX.14812) and Biktōr son of Aeiōn (II.155A, VI.788); Theonoub( ) (VI.811) and Psais son of Theonyb( ) (V.597); Kalli(klēs) (I.16, II.133, VI.787, VI.807), Paeus son of Kalliklēs (IV.449) and Paul(os) son of Kalli(klēs) (I.24, II.153); Maximinos (VI.808, *SB* XX.14763) and Pachoumis son of Maximinos (VI.808); Sansnōs, *tesserarius* (I.12, I.40, I.41, I.49, I.54, IV.418, V.562) and Pachoumis son of Sansnōs (IV.400, IV.404); Psemoutis (VI.809) and Paulos son of Psemoutis (I.53).</footnote>

<footnote n="84">⁸⁴ *O.Douch* IV.483 (reedited in Lemaire forthcoming) and *O.DouchCopt*. 13 (Ghica *et al*. forthcoming) are the only ostraca from Dūš that mention horses. On this, see also Wagner 1987, 380, 384.</footnote>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵ I can only quote one ostracon from ‘Ayn al-Ġadīda, which refers to ‘the horse-archers on duty at Mōthis’ (Bagnall and Dzierzbicka 2018, 519), likely horsemen of the *Equites promoti II* stationed at Tentyra/Dandara (Wagner 1987, 378–9) and detached at Mōthis, in Dāḥila.</footnote>

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶ Three such camel pens are known at Mounēsis/Šams al-Dīn (Ghica 2025), where remains of equids were also excavated (Ghica *et al*. 2023, 196–7), whilst the necropolis of Kysis/Dūš yielded a good number of camel driver’s gourds (Dunand *et al*. 2005, 162). The camel enclosures mentioned in *P.Iand*. IV.142.1.10; 3,4 – a land register dated to 164/165 – are unrelated to the army.</footnote>

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷ Ghica *et al*. 2025a and Ghica *et al*. 2025b.</footnote>

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸ Ghica *et al*. 2025b.</footnote>
border, in Bohemia, Moravia, Dalmatia, on the other side of the *Limes Danicus*, etc.: elastic, expansive, and cost-efficient.

Ultimately, this entire sector of the *limes* was an invisible frontier – a paradox of prolonged absence and intermittent presence. The desert’s openness was not uncontrolled: it was managed through mobility, deterrence, and logistical foresight, and relied exclusively on the camelry troops described above, which probably functioned as *numeri exploratorum*.

The chronological contours of Roman military presence in the Western Desert are still imperfectly known. The earliest secure attestation is of the *ala Apriana*, recorded in Baḥriyya in 213.<sup>89</sup> Glimpses into possible military construction efforts during the 3<sup>rd</sup> century are only starting to appear on sites such as Šams al-Dīn and Dayr Muṣṭafā Kāšif.<sup>90</sup> In 288, a major phase of construction begins under Diocletian, whose reforms led to the establishment of the large *castra* and logistical hubs discussed above. This ‘Tetrarchic militarisation’ of the Western Desert unfolds throughout the late 3<sup>rd</sup> and early 4<sup>th</sup> centuries, similar to earlier efforts in the Eastern Desert. Its impetus, which one might legitimately question,<sup>91</sup> was economic rather than defensive.<sup>92</sup> Indeed, both written and architectural sources point in the direction of a colonisation project<sup>93</sup> geared toward the exploitation of agricultural and mineral resources – essentially alum,<sup>94</sup> which was subject to a state monopoly.<sup>95</sup>

Yet, by the final decades of the 4th century, a striking phenomenon occurs: a large-scale military and civilian withdrawal from the oases of Ḩāriğa and Dāḥila. At Dūš, the latest ostraca date to 381/382,<sup>96</sup> giving us a precise *terminus post quem* for this evacuation. Ḩāriğa as a whole experienced a collapse in habitation, which remains to be quantified. Dāḥila likely followed a similar trajectory.<sup>97</sup> It is, however, probable that the scale of the phenomenon was broader. The possibly concomitant abandonment of numerous fortified and unfortified sites in the Western Desert suggests, in fact, a systemic military downsizing in this vast area by the end of the 4th century. Even major installations like Qārat al-Ṭūb and Qaṣr al-Dāḥila seem to have seen reduced activity.<sup>98</sup> And, although a few sites show limited later use,<sup>99</sup> these are rather exceptions. For all that, the oases were not entirely depopulated, with extensive surveys in Ḩāriğa and Dāḥila demonstrating occupation of sites well after the end of the 4th century.

The logic of the Roman frontier control – based on mobility and cost-efficiency – might help explain this withdrawal: when it became no longer viable to maintain desert patrols or secure vital nodes, the entire system was allowed to retract. However, my contention is that the military abandonment of the Western Desert, the ensuing collapse of this sector of the border system<sup>100</sup> and the moving of the frontier along the Nile Valley, are all the results of a

<footnote n="89"><sup>89</sup> P.KölnGr. II.94 (= SB X.10497).</footnote>

<footnote n="90"><sup>90</sup> Ghica *et al.* 2023, 152; Ghica *et al.* 2024, 235; Ghica 2025.</footnote>

<footnote n="91"><sup>91</sup> As Bagnall does (2015, 172).</footnote>

<footnote n="92"><sup>92</sup> *Contra* Rossi *et al.* 2022, 770.</footnote>

<footnote n="93"><sup>93</sup> For North Ḩāriğa, see Rossi and Ikram 2018, 521; Rossi *et al.* 2022, 772.</footnote>

<footnote n="94"><sup>94</sup> Wagner 1987, 306–9; Kucera 2005; Ikram *et al.* 2020; Rossi *et al.* 2022, 767–9.</footnote>

<footnote n="95"><sup>95</sup> Wagner 1987, 308; Ikram *et al.* 2020, 327–8.</footnote>

<footnote n="96"><sup>96</sup> Lemaire forthcoming; Ghica *et al.* forthcoming.</footnote>

<footnote n="97"><sup>97</sup> Hope and Bowen 2022.</footnote>

<footnote n="98"><sup>98</sup> The chronology of the military withdrawal from the *castra* of Qārat al-Ṭūb, Qaṣr al-Dāḥila and Dayr Umm al-Ġanāʾim is poorly known. For post-4th century activity on these sites, see Colin 2011, 207; Kucera 2019; Brones and Duvette 2007.</footnote>

<footnote n="99"><sup>99</sup> Ābār al-Kanāʾis is one such case (Rieger *et al.* 2012; Grosskopf *et al.* 2016).</footnote>

<footnote n="100"><sup>100</sup> Kucera questions the inclusion of the Western Desert within the Roman border system (2020, 432–4), arguing that ‘a formally recognised concept of *limes*’ would be expected. He explains away the mass of sources documenting the presence of the military in the Ḩāriğa and Dāḥila oases stating that the governance of the latter was in civil, rather than military, hands. The *O.Douch* demonstrate that such generalising statements fail to grasp the subtle mechanisms of the annonary system, in which military and civil servants collaborated in a particularly intricate manner, albeit under constant military supervision.</footnote>
‘Theodosian Evacuation’.<fnref n="101" /> The army and the administration of Kysis/Dūš abandon this major node in 381/382,<fnref n="102" /> and it is highly probable that the troops stationed at nearby Mounēsis/Šams al-Dīn followed suit at the same time, as the graffiti inscribed on the walls of the church complex suggest. This high chronological resolution is a rare privilege, but the occupation sequences of numerous sites across the oases of Hāriğa and Dāhila are, as we saw, consistent with it. As for the background of this evacuation, I relate it to the extensive reconstitution of the military forces undertaken by Theodosius I in the aftermath of the catastrophic defeat of the Eastern Roman field army at Adrianople in 378.

So, far from being a line, the imperial borderland in the Western Desert appears more akin to a spider-web, wherein disturbances along its strands triggered the swift deployment of rapid task forces from the nearest nods. Once the Empire’s priorities moved elsewhere, the web fell into disuse and its regimented frenzy – of caravan traffic and desert patrolling, of tax collection, law enforcement and protection of the alum mining monopoly – ceased, leaving behind a ghost infrastructure of roads, wells and slowly decaying *quşūr*. This short-lived, *sui generis* model of a semi-material, mobile frontier, road-centred and ultimately retractable, could not outlast the colonisation project that had shaped it.

<footnote n="101">¹⁰¹ Ghica 2025. I discuss the hotly debated matter of this abandonment in Ghica forthcoming.</footnote>

<footnote n="102">¹⁰² Ghica *et al.* 2025a, 98.</footnote>
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ast, Rodney and Roger S. Bagnall. 2015. 'New Evidence for the Roman Garrison of Trimithis', Tyche 30: 1-4 and pl. 1-3.

Bagnall, Roger S. 2001. 'The camp of Hibis', in *Essays and Texts in Honor of J. David Thomas*, ed. by Traianos Gagos and Roger S. Bagnall, American Studies in Papyrology, 42 (Oakville: The American Society of Papyrologists), 3-9.

Bagnall, Roger S. 2012. 'Dakhla and the West in Late Antiquity: Framing the Problem', in *Entre Afrique et Égypte: relations et échanges entre les espaces au sud de la Méditerranée à l'époque romaine*, ed. by Stéphanie Guédon, Scripta antiqua, 49 (Bordeaux: Ausonius), pp. 39-44.

Bagnall, Roger S. 2015. 'Economy and Society in the Roman Oasis', in *An Oasis City*, ed. by Roger S. Bagnall, Nicola Aravecchia, Raffaella Cribiore, Paola Davoli, Olaf E. Kaper and Susanna McFadden (New York: NYU Press), pp. 149-77.

Bagnall, Roger S. and Dorota Dzierzbicka. 2018. 'Ostraka and Graffiti', in 'Ain el-Gedida. 2006-2008 Excavations of a Late Antique Site in Egypt's Western Desert', ed. by Nicola Aravecchia (New York: New York University Press), pp. 507-38.

Bagnall, Roger S. and Gaëlle Tallet. 2015. 'Ostraka from Hibis in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Archaeology of the City of Hibis'. *Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik* 196: 175-98.

Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. *The Location of Culture* (London-New York: Routledge).

Breeze, David J. and Michel Reddé. 2021. *Frontiers of the Roman Empire: The Roman Frontier in Egypt* (Oxford: Archaeopress).

Breeze, David J., Sonja Jilek, David Mattingly, Alan Rushworth, Martin Sterry and Victoria Leitch. 2021. *Frontiers of the Roman Empire: The African Frontiers* (Oxford: Archaeopress).

Buongarzone, Roberto and Stefano De Angeli. 2010. 'L'Oasi di Farafra. Sistemi idrici a qanat e insediamenti di età romana e bizantina. Risultati preliminari della prima missione dell'Università degli Studi della Tuscia', *Ricerche Italiane e Scavi in Egitto* 4: 63-80.

Brones, Sophie and Catherine Duvette. 2007. 'Le fort d'El-Deir, oasis de Kharga. "État des lieux" architectural et archéologique', *Bulletin de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale* 107: 5-41.

Carrié, Jean-Michel. 2004. 'Portarenses (douaniers), soldats et annones dans les archives de Douch, Oasis major', in *Mélanges d'antiquité tardive. Studiola in honorem Noël Duval*, ed. by Catherine Balmelle, Pascale Chevalier and Paul Chevallier, Bibliothèque de l'Antiquité tardive, 6 (Turnhout: Brepols), pp. 261-74.

Colin, Frédéric (ed.). 2011. *Bahariya I. Le fort romain de Qaret el-Toub* I, Fouilles de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 62 (Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale).

De Troia, Nicoletta. 2020. 'On the Edge of the Empire at the End of the Late Roman Period: The Khārga Oasis Sites as a Case Study', in *Living the End of Antiquity. Individual Histories from Byzantine to Islamic Egypt*, ed. by Sabine R. Huebner, Eugenio Garosi, Isabelle Marthot-Santaniello, Matthias Müller, Stefanie Schmidt and Matthias Stern, Millennium-Studien zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends n. Chr., 84 (Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter), pp. 163-80.

Dijkstra, Jitse H.F. 2005. 'Religious encounters on the southern Egyptian frontier in Late Antiquity (AD 298-642)' (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Groningen).

Dunand, Françoise, Jean-Louis Heim, Nessim Henein and Roger Lichtenberg. 2005. *Douch V. La nécropole de Douch. Exploration archéologique II. Monographie des tombes 73 à 92. Structures sociales, économiques, religieuses de l'Égypte romaine*, Documents de fouilles de l'Ifao, 45 (Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale).
Feuer, Bryan. 2016. *Boundaries, Borders and Frontiers in Archaeology: A Study of Spatial Relationships* (Jefferson: McFarland & Co), 2016.

Finocchi, Stefano and Salvatore Medaglia. 2011. 'Primi dati sulla cultura materiale dell'Oasi di Farafra in età romana e bizantina: le ceramiche e le anfore', *Scienze dell'Antichità* 17: 93-105.

Gardner, Andrew. 2007. 'Fluid Frontiers: Cultural Interaction on the Edge of Empire'. *Stanford Journal of Archaeology*, 5: 43-60.

Gardner, Iain. 2012. 'Coptic Ostraka from Qasr al-Dakhleh', in *The Oasis Papers 6: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project*, ed. by Roger S. Bagnall, Paola Davoli and Colin A. Hope, Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph, 15 (Oxford: Oxbow Books), pp. 471-4.

Ghica, Victor. 2012. 'Pour une histoire du christianisme dans le désert Occidental d'Égypte'. *Journal des savants* 2: 189-280.

Ghica, Victor. 2025. 'Christian archaeology in Kharga Oasis: Recent fieldwork', in *The Oasis Papers 10: The Land Where the Sun Goes Down – the Archaeology of Egypt's Western Desert. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project*, ed. by Colin A. Hope, Paweł L. Polkowski, J. Anderson, L. Kilroe (Oxford: Oxbow Books).

Ghica, Victor. Forthcoming. 'La période romaine tardive', in *Survey du bassin de Baris (sud de l'oasis de Kharga)*, 2001-2013, Vol. 1 (Études diachroniques de l'occupation du territoire d'une marge désertique), ed. by Michel Wuttmann†, Thierry Gonon and Victor Ghica (Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale).

Ghica, Victor, Rhiannon Williams, Basem Gehad, Mara Elefante, Romain David and Nicolas Morand. 2023. 'The 2021 Excavation Season at Šams al-Dīn (Kharga Oasis)', *Analecta papyrologica* 36: 149-202.

Ghica, Victor, Mara Elefante, Rhiannon Williams and Basem Gehad. 2024. 'The 2022 and 2023 Field Seasons at Dayr Muṣṭafā Kāšif (Kharga Oasis)', *Analecta papyrologica* 38: 189-248.

Ghica, Victor, Florence Lemaire and Matthias Müller. 2025a. 'Some Pieces of a Fourth-Century Monastic Archive of Coptic and Greek Ostraca and Wooden Tablets from Dayr Muṣṭafā Kāšif', *Analecta papyrologica* 39: 99-129.

Ghica, Victor, Romain David and Paweł L. Polkowski, 2025b. 'A Preliminary Archaeological Survey Along the Darb al-Ġubbārī Caravan Road', *Analecta papyrologica* 40: XXX-XXX.

Ghica, Victor, Florence Lemaire and Matthias Müller. Forthcoming. *Coptic Ostraca from the 1976-1994 Excavations at Dūš (O.DouchCopt. 1-57) and from ‘Ayn al-Wāqifa (O.WaqfaCopt. 1-6)*, Documents de fouilles de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale).

Grosskopf, Birgit, Stephanie Valtin and Anna-Katharina Rieger. 2016. 'Byzantine Burials at Abar el-Kanayis on the Marmarica-Plateau. A Trace of Anchorites in the Libyan Desert?', *Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Kairo* 72: 57-73.

Guédon, Stéphanie. 2018. *La frontière romaine de l'Africa sous le Haut-Empire*, Bibliothèque de la Casa de Velázquez, 74 (Madrid: Casa de Velázquez).

Hope, Colin A. and Gillian E. Bowen. 2022. 'The Abandonment of Kellis', in *Kellis. A Roman-Period Village in Egypt's Dakhleh Oasis*, ed. by Colin A. Hope, Gillian E. Bowen and Bruce E. Parr (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 391-406.

Ikram, Salima, Gaëlle Tallet and Nicholas Warner. 2020. 'A Mineral for All Seasons: Alum in the Great Oasis', in *Dust, Demons and Pots: Studies in Honour of Colin A. Hope*, ed. by. Ashten R. Warfe, James C.R. Gill, Caleb R. Hamilton, Amy J. Pettman and David A. Stewart, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 289 (Leuven-Paris-Bristol: Peeters), pp. 317-33.
Kucera, Paul. 2005. 'The Late Roman fort at Qaret el-Toub in Bahariya Oasis: Towards a Contextual Understanding', *The Artefact* 28: 23–34.

Kucera, Paul. 2012. 'al-Qasr: The Roman Castrum of Dakhleh Oasis', in *The Oasis Papers 6: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project*, ed. by Roger S. Bagnall, Paola Davoli and Colin A. Hope, Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph, 15 (Oxford: Oxbow Books), pp. 305–16.

Kucera, Paul. 2019. 'Observations on Some Ceramics and a Stone Vessel from the 2013 Field Season at al-Qasr', in *The Oasis Papers 9: A Tribute to Anthony J. Mills after Forty Years in Dakhleh Oasis, Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project*, ed. by Gillian E. Bowen and Colin A. Hope, Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph, 9 (Oxford–Philadelphia: Oxbow Books), pp. 449–58.

Kucera, Paul. 2020. 'An Oasis Border in the Fourth Century CE: The Evidence from Dakhleh', in *Dust, Demons and Pots: Studies in Honour of Colin A. Hope*, ed. by Ashten R. Warfe, James C.R. Gill, Caleb R. Hamilton, Amy J. Pettman and David A. Stewart, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 289 (Leuven–Paris–Bristol: Peeters), pp. 425–36.

Langer, Christian and Manuel Fernández-Götz. 2020. 'Boundaries, Borders and Frontiers: Contemporary and Past Perspectives', in *Political and Economic Interaction on the Edge of Early Empires*, ed. by David A. Warburton, *eTopoi - Journal for Ancient Studies* special vol. 7: 33–47.

Le Bohec, Yann. 1989. *L'armée romaine sous le Haut-Empire* (Paris : Picard).

Le Bohec, Yann. 1999. 'Frontières et limites militaires de la Maurétanie Césarienne sous le Haut-Empire', in *Frontières et limites géographiques de l'Afrique du Nord antique (Hommage à Pierre Salama) (Actes de la table ronde, Paris 1997)*, ed. by Claude Lepelley and Xavier Dupuis (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne), pp. 111–27.

Lemaire, Florence. Forthcoming. *Les ostraca grecs de Douch (O. Douch)*, fasc. VI, *Documents de fouilles de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale* (Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale).

Mullin, David. 2011. 'Border Crossings: The Archaeology of Borders and Borderlands. An Introduction', in *Places in Between: The Archaeology of Social, Cultural and Geographical Borders and Borderlands*, ed. by David Mullin (Oxford: Oxbow Books), pp.1–12.

Paprocki, Maciej. 2019. *Roads in the Deserts of Roman Egypt: Analysis, Atlas, Commentary* (Oxford–Philadelphia: Oxbow Books).

Parker, Bradley J. 2006. 'Toward an Understanding of Borderland Processes', *American Antiquity*, 71/1: 77–100.

Reddé, Michel. 1991, 'À l'ouest du Nil: une frontière sans soldats, des soldats sans frontière', in *Roman Frontier Studies 1989. Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies*, ed. by Valerie A. Maxfield and Michael J. Dobson, (Exeter: University of Exeter Press), 485–93.

Reddé, Michel. 1999. 'Sites militaires romains de l'oasis de Kharga', *Bulletin de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale* 99: 377–96.

Reddé, Michel. 2018. 'Il y a frontières et frontières... Les franges sahariennes de Rome, de la mer Rouge à la Tripolitaine', in *La frontière méridionale du Mahgreb. Approches croisées (Antiquité-Moyen-Âge)*, ed. by Stéphanie Guédon, Ausonius Scripta Receptoria, 13 (Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions), p. 139–60.

Rieger, Anna-Katharina. 2015. 'Zawiyet el-Agdab – an Unknown Roman Fort in North-Western Egypt in the Context of the Roman Saharan Border', in *Limes XXII. Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Ruse, Bulgaria, September*
2012, ed. by Lyudmil Vagalinski and Nicolay Sharankov, *Bulletin of the National Archaeological Institute* 42: 333–9.

Rieger, Anna-Katharina, Heike Möller, Stephanie Valtin and Thomas Vetter, Victoria Asensi, Ursula Thanheiser, Nadja Pöllath and Hans-Christoph Noeske. 2012. 'On the Route to Siwa. A Late Roman Roadhouse at the Cistern Site Abar el-Kanayis on the Marmarica-Plateau', *Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts* Kairo 68: 135–73.

Rösler, Michael, and Tobias Wendl (eds). 1999. *Frontiers and Borderlands: Anthropological Perspectives* (Frankfurt: Peter Lang).

Rossi, Corinna. 2012. 'Controlling the Borders of the Empire: The Distribution of Late-Roman “Forts” in the Kharga Oasis', in *The Oasis Papers 6: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project*, ed. by Roger S. Bagnall, Paola Davoli and Colin A. Hope, Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph, 15 (Oxford: Oxbow Books), 331–6.

Rossi, Corinna and Salima Ikram. 2018. *North Kharga Oasis Survey: Explorations in Egypt's Western Desert* (Leuven: Peeters).

Rossi, Corinna, Nicoletta De Troia, Andrea Pasqui and Antonello Migliozzi. 2022. 'Living in a fringe environment: three Late Roman settlements in the Kharga Oasis (Egypt's Western Desert)', *Journal of Roman Archaeology* 35/2: 743–78.

Sahlins, Peter. 1990. 'Natural Frontiers Revisited: France's Boundaries Since the Seventeenth Century', *American Historical Review*, 95/5: 1423–51.

Sijpesteijn, Petra J. 1987. *Customs Duties in Graeco-Roman Egypt*, Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia, 17 (Zutphen: Terra Publishing).

Skriwanek, Jan. 2005. 'Die Karawanenrouten der „Western Desert” in Ägypten. Eine GIS-gestützte Rekonstruktion auf Grundlage historischer und aktueller Quellen' (unpublished MA thesis, Geographical Institute, University of Cologne).

Wagner, Guy. 1987. *Les Oasis d'Égypte à l'époque grecque, romaine et byzantine d'après les documents grecs (Recherches de papyrologie et d'épigraphie grecques)*, Bibliothèque d'étude, 100 (Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale).

White, Richard. 1991. *The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650–1815* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Whittaker, C.R. 1994. *Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic Study* (Baltimore–London: Johns Hopkins University Press).

## ABSTRACT

This article re-examines the nature of the Roman frontier in Egypt's Western Desert, questioning the widespread cartographic convention that depicts it as a continuous boundary line. Drawing on archaeological, papyrological, and topographical evidence, it proposes that this frontier was not a fixed border, but rather a flexible and adaptive system of control structured around desert roads, strategic nodes, and intermittent military presence. The study identifies several categories of military and administrative installations – fortresses, fortlets, watchtowers, and large storage complexes –, arguing for a diversity of functions, many of which were geared toward logistical support rather than defence. Particular attention is given to the role of mounted camel troops (*dromedarii*), whose movements and organisation can now be partially reconstructed through recent ostracological finds. These patrols suggest a model of surveillance and control that was highly mobile and responsive to shifting needs. The article also explores the apparent decline in military activity in the region by the end of the fourth century, proposing that this may be linked to broader strategic reorientations under Theodosius I. Rather than a clearly demarcated frontier, the Western Desert appears to have been integrated
into a wider network of circulation, communication, and resource management, the coherence
of which was shaped by environmental conditions and evolving imperial priorities.

KEYWORDS

Egypt; Western Desert; fourth century; Diocletian; Theodosius I

AFFILIATION

MF vitenskapelig høyskole for teologi, religion og samfunn, Oslo

E-MAIL

victor.ghica@mf.no

ORCID

0000-0002-8439-7716

SHORT BIO

Victor Ghica is Professor of Antiquity and Early Christian Studies. He previously held a lectureship at Macquarie University, in Sydney. He leads excavations in Bahriyya and Kharga Oases and in Dalmatia.