This post is based on our episode with Michael Fradley. At the time of the interview, Michael was a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Oxford and a landscape archaeologist. He was one of the co-authors of a study about how a remote sensing survey in southern Jordan identified at least three Roman military camps that seem to reveal a previously unknown military campaign against the Nabateans.
The post was generated by AI but edited by a human.
In 106 CE, the Roman Empire annexed the Nabataean Kingdom, the wealthy Arabian state whose capital was Petra.
The surviving historical record offers remarkably little detail about the military circumstances of this takeover. The annexation is commonly described as relatively peaceful, with no major campaign recorded in the surviving narratives.
But what if the archaeological evidence tells a more complicated story?
In the remote deserts of southern Jordan, archaeologist Michael Fradley identified three previously undocumented Roman military camps using satellite imagery.
The camps appear in a strikingly straight line, spaced approximately 40 kilometers apart, across one of the most barren landscapes in the region.
Their arrangement suggests the movement of an organized Roman military force through territory once controlled by the Nabataeans.
Could these installations be evidence of a previously unknown campaign connected to Rome's annexation of Nabataea?
In this episode of The Levantini Podcast, I speak with Fradley, a landscape archaeologist affiliated with the Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa project, about the discovery and its implications.
Our conversation explores how archaeologists identify Roman camps from space, why the army may have crossed such difficult terrain, and what the discoveries could reveal about Roman military strategy in Arabia.
How Archaeologists Discovered Roman Camps from Space
Fradley's discovery began with satellite imagery.
As a landscape archaeologist, he studies archaeological sites not only as individual locations but as parts of larger geographical systems.
Rather than focusing exclusively on a single settlement, landscape archaeology examines the relationships between sites, terrain, routes, natural resources, and human activity.
Fradley's work with the Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa project, commonly known as EAMENA, involves systematically examining satellite imagery to document archaeological remains across the region.
The project is primarily concerned with identifying and recording cultural heritage, particularly in areas where development, agriculture, conflict, and other pressures threaten archaeological sites.
But the same approach can reveal patterns that were previously invisible.
While examining the remote southeastern corner of Jordan in October 2022, Fradley noticed an unusual rectangular feature.
It had rounded corners.
That detail immediately caught his attention.
Roman military camps often followed a distinctive rectangular plan with curved corners, sometimes described as a playing-card shape.
But one rectangular feature alone was not enough to establish that the site was Roman.
Modern work camps and other installations can also leave rectangular traces in desert landscapes.
The image was unclear, and the remains were not especially well preserved.
Then Fradley identified a second camp.
Its form and dimensions closely resembled those of the first.
By following the line between the two sites, he discovered a third.
Suddenly, what initially appeared to be an ambiguous feature had become part of a much larger archaeological pattern.
Three Roman-style camps stood in a nearly straight line across the desert.
And their arrangement suggested something more significant than isolated military activity.
Aerial Photographs Confirmed the Camps' Distinctive Features
The timing of the discovery was particularly fortunate.
Fradley identified the camps in October 2022.
The following month, the Aerial Archaeology in Jordan project was conducting aerial photography with the Royal Jordanian Air Force.
Researchers were able to photograph two of the camps from the air.
These images provided substantially more detail than the original satellite views.
They strengthened the identification of the sites as Roman military encampments.
Fradley emphasizes that archaeological interpretations are rarely completely certain without excavation.
Nevertheless, the camps' distinctive shape, their close similarity to one another, and their coordinated arrangement provide exceptionally strong evidence that they were built by the Roman army.
The next question was what kind of military activity they represented.
What Did a Roman Military Camp Look Like?
Roman armies were famous for their organization.
When operating in unfamiliar or hostile territory, soldiers could construct temporary fortified camps to protect themselves overnight.
These installations followed recognizable patterns.
Fradley describes the typical Roman temporary camp as a rectangle with rounded corners.
Entrances were generally arranged on opposing sides.
Some camps also had small defensive earthworks positioned outside their gateways, known as titula.
The walls or embankments could be constructed from materials available locally.
In wetter environments, soldiers might use earth.
In the rocky deserts of Jordan, Fradley suggests that the camps may have been built using gathered stone rubble.
But without ground investigation, their exact construction methods remain uncertain.
Unlike permanent Roman forts, temporary campaign camps often contained few substantial buildings.
Soldiers generally slept in tents.
As a result, little may remain visible inside the perimeter.
The aerial photographs did reveal possible traces of internal terracing.
Fradley suggests that these features could indicate areas where the ground was leveled to accommodate tents.
The camps' simplicity is part of what makes them recognizable.
Their standardized layouts reflect the Roman army's ability to construct defensive positions rapidly.
Fradley explains that a temporary camp could potentially be built in a single day.
The soldiers knew what needed to be constructed and how their units should be arranged inside.
That organization made it possible for an army to march across unfamiliar territory while maintaining a degree of security.
Why Did Three Roman Camps Survive in the Jordanian Desert?
The discovery is remarkable not simply because the camps survived, but because they survived in such a recognizable arrangement.
Fradley explains that the most important factor was not necessarily the arid climate.
It was the lack of subsequent land use.
Across much of the world, archaeological remains have been destroyed or obscured by agriculture, urban expansion, and later construction.
Even where ancient military camps once existed, centuries of farming can erase their visible outlines.
The southeastern corner of Jordan is different.
Fradley describes the area as an exceptionally barren landscape, characterized by flat limestone and chalk formations.
Although other desert regions contain extensive evidence of prehistoric settlement, pastoral activity, and ancient routes, this particular area appears to have experienced relatively little intensive occupation.
That meant the Roman military installations remained largely undisturbed.
The surrounding landscape is also unusually open.
Fradley notes that it is possible to imagine walking between the camps and following much the same route as the Roman soldiers who established them nearly two thousand years ago.
This remarkable preservation allowed the researchers to identify not only individual camps, but a possible sequence of military movement.
Why Is the Arrangement of the Camps So Important?
Finding one Roman military camp in an unexpected location would be interesting.
Finding three nearly identical camps arranged in a straight line is much more significant.
Fradley explains that the camps are spaced approximately 40 kilometers apart.
That distance is crucial.
Temporary Roman campaign camps were commonly constructed at the end of a day's march.
If these three camps belong to the same operation, their spacing could reflect successive overnight stops made by a traveling military force.
The camps therefore appear to trace a route.
In some regions, such as the area around Hadrian's Wall in Britain, archaeologists have identified numerous Roman temporary camps.
But those installations can be difficult to interpret.
Some may have been used for military exercises.
Others may belong to different campaigns or periods.
When many camps overlap or appear in a confusing distribution, it can be difficult to reconstruct the movement of individual forces.
The Jordanian camps are different.
Their clear alignment and regular spacing suggest a coordinated movement across the desert.
This provides an unusual opportunity to investigate where a Roman force may have been traveling and why.
Was the Roman Army Marching Toward Dumat al-Jandal?
The camps lie in southeastern Jordan, in territory associated with the former Nabataean Kingdom.
At the western end of their apparent route lies Bayir, a historically important water source.
Fradley explains that Bayir served as a well station and remained important to travelers long after antiquity.
It was used during the Arab Revolt of the First World War, including by forces associated with T. E. Lawrence.
The area also contains evidence of earlier occupation, including inscriptions in Greek, Latin, and Nabataean.
Fradley suggests that Bayir may have been a more permanent stopping point along the route followed by the Roman force.
From there, the line of camps extends eastward.
Continuing along that general trajectory leads toward Dumat al-Jandal, an important settlement in what is now northern Saudi Arabia.
In antiquity, Dumat al-Jandal occupied a strategic position within the network of settlements and caravan routes associated with the Nabataean world.
Fradley proposes that it may have been the destination of the Roman military movement.
The identification is not proven.
The camps do not extend continuously all the way to the town.
Nevertheless, their alignment suggests that the army may have been moving toward this important eastern settlement.
Why Would Rome Have Wanted to Control Dumat al-Jandal?
The Nabataean Kingdom is best known today for Petra.
But its political and economic influence extended far beyond that famous city.
Nabataean settlements occupied important positions along caravan routes linking Arabia with the Mediterranean world.
These routes facilitated the movement of valuable commodities, including aromatics and spices.
Dumat al-Jandal was one of the settlements associated with this wider commercial network.
Fradley suggests that controlling such places would have been important to the Romans following their annexation of Nabataea.
The Nabataean Kingdom included settlements separated by enormous distances.
Some peripheral communities may have had considerable local autonomy.
Fradley raises the possibility that these settlements operated in a somewhat federated relationship with the kingdom's central authorities.
If so, the annexation of the kingdom's core territory may not automatically have guaranteed Roman control over every distant settlement.
Some communities may have resisted.
Others may have been expected to resist.
The Roman army could therefore have been sent to establish authority in regions beyond Petra.
The three camps may be evidence of such an operation.
Was Rome's Annexation of Nabataea Really Peaceful?
The annexation of the Nabataean Kingdom occurred under Emperor Trajan in 106 CE.
The surviving literary record does not describe a major war accompanying the takeover.
Fradley explains that the conventional narrative portrays the last Nabataean ruler as having accepted Roman annexation without significant recorded conflict.
But the absence of a detailed written account does not necessarily mean that no military operations occurred.
Rome may have needed to establish control over distant settlements, roads, and commercial routes.
Fradley suggests that the camps could belong to the period immediately following the annexation.
If that interpretation is correct, they might reveal a previously undocumented phase of Roman military activity.
This would complicate the familiar account of a peaceful transition.
However, the camps have not been securely dated through excavation.
Their connection to the events of 106 CE therefore remains hypothetical.
The discovery raises an important historical question, but it does not by itself prove that the Nabataeans fought a previously unknown war against Rome.
Why Might the Roman Force Have Used Cavalry?
The spacing of the camps provides another clue.
Each camp lies approximately 40 kilometers from the next.
Fradley considers this a substantial distance for an infantry force to travel in a single day, especially through such difficult terrain.
He therefore suggests that the army may have consisted primarily of mounted troops.
These could have been horse cavalry, camel-mounted soldiers, or some combination of mounted forces.
The precise composition of the force remains unknown.
But mounted troops would have been better suited to rapid movement across a poorly watered landscape.
Fradley also discusses archaeological discoveries from Dumat al-Jandal.
Excavations by a French-Saudi team uncovered funerary inscriptions associated with mounted soldiers serving in the Roman army.
Some of these inscriptions date to around 116 CE or somewhat later.
The soldiers' names suggest that at least some had Nabataean connections.
This evidence indicates a Roman military presence at Dumat al-Jandal in the early second century CE.
It does not establish that the soldiers buried there participated in the movement represented by the three camps.
Nevertheless, it supports the broader picture of Roman military activity in the region following the annexation of Nabataea.
Did the Romans Attempt a Surprise Attack?
One of the most intriguing aspects of the discovery is the route itself.
Fradley explains that a more obvious approach to Dumat al-Jandal would have followed Wadi Sirhan.
This valley offered comparatively better access to water.
It was also associated with movement and commerce across the region.
An army traveling through Wadi Sirhan would likely have faced fewer logistical difficulties than one crossing the barren terrain between Bayir and the eastern camps.
So why would Roman commanders choose the harder route?
Fradley suggests that the answer may have been tactical.
A mounted force could have attempted to bypass resistance concentrated along the more obvious approach.
By crossing the desert, it might have reached Dumat al-Jandal unexpectedly.
The maneuver could also have formed part of a wider operation involving forces advancing along different routes.
Fradley discusses the possibility of a pincer movement.
Another temporary military camp was reportedly visible beneath the later desert castle at Azraq in historical aerial imagery.
It is possible that this installation belonged to a related operation, although no secure connection has been established.
The surprise-attack hypothesis is therefore speculative.
But it offers a plausible explanation for why an organized Roman force might have deliberately crossed such inhospitable terrain.
Why Was One Roman Camp Much Larger Than the Others?
The westernmost camp was substantially larger than the two camps farther east.
Fradley explains that it was almost twice their size.
At first glance, this difference raises dramatic possibilities.
Did the Romans suffer heavy casualties?
Was the force divided?
Did some soldiers return west while the others continued toward their destination?
Fradley acknowledges these possibilities but cautions against creating an overly dramatic reconstruction.
The remaining camps appear carefully constructed.
The force also seems to have maintained the same substantial distances between stopping points.
That would be unusual if it had just suffered a catastrophic defeat.
He therefore favors a more practical explanation.
The larger western camp may have accommodated additional personnel or animals involved in transporting water.
Bayir was an important water source.
A military force crossing the desert would have needed a reliable supply.
The first camp might have included water carriers or supporting personnel who were no longer required farther along the route.
Alternatively, commanders may have divided their forces for reasons unrelated to combat.
Fradley also considers the possibility that the operation was abandoned or altered after news arrived that the intended destination had already surrendered.
None of these explanations can currently be demonstrated.
But the change in camp size is an important reminder that military archaeology often reveals logistical decisions rather than dramatic battles.
Why Do the Camps Disappear Before Reaching Dumat al-Jandal?
The known sequence of camps does not continue all the way to Dumat al-Jandal.
The surviving installations end as the route approaches the Wadi Sirhan region.
Fradley suggests several possible explanations.
The army may no longer have needed to build the same kind of defensive camp after reaching a better-watered landscape.
Later agriculture may have destroyed or obscured additional sites.
Windblown sand may also have concealed their remains.
Or the military operation may have changed course.
The absence of further camps does not establish what happened to the army.
It simply marks the limit of the currently visible archaeological evidence.
Fradley describes the experience of tracing the camps into the desert as unusually evocative.
The installations appear to document an organized force moving eastward.
Then the archaeological trail disappears.
What happened next remains unknown.
How Satellite Archaeology Is Changing Roman History
The discovery also illustrates the growing importance of remote sensing in archaeology.
For generations, archaeologists have relied on excavation, surface survey, inscriptions, and historical texts to reconstruct the ancient world.
Satellite imagery adds another powerful tool.
It allows researchers to examine enormous regions systematically.
Patterns that might be impossible to recognize from the ground can become visible when viewed from above.
The EAMENA project has used this approach to document archaeological sites and threats to cultural heritage across the Middle East and North Africa.
Fradley explains that the project has identified previously undocumented settlements and other archaeological features.
The Roman camps in Jordan demonstrate how such work can also generate new historical questions.
Their discovery may eventually change our understanding of Roman military activity in Arabia.
But it also highlights the limits of remote sensing.
Satellite imagery can reveal shapes, alignments, and relationships across a landscape.
It cannot automatically establish a site's date, identify the soldiers who occupied it, or prove the purpose of a military expedition.
Further archaeological investigation is needed to test these interpretations.
What the Roman Camps Reveal About the Conquest of Arabia
The three Roman camps in southern Jordan are an extraordinary archaeological discovery.
Their distinctive shapes strongly suggest Roman military construction.
Their alignment and regular spacing indicate the possible movement of a force across the desert.
Their location points toward an important region of the former Nabataean Kingdom.
And their arrangement raises the possibility of an undocumented military operation following Trajan's annexation of Nabataea in 106 CE.
Perhaps the Romans were preparing to confront resistance at Dumat al-Jandal.
Perhaps they intended to surprise an enemy by bypassing the better-known routes.
Or perhaps the movement was primarily an exercise in securing territory and controlling trade after annexation.
The surviving evidence does not allow us to choose confidently among these possibilities.
What makes the discovery important is that it reveals military activity in a place where the written sources tell us almost nothing.
The camps demonstrate how archaeology can complicate the historical record without necessarily overturning it.
And they show how even the most remote landscapes can preserve traces of events that disappeared from written history.
Nearly two thousand years after a Roman force crossed the desert, its temporary camps may still mark the path it followed.
Roman Military Camps in Jordan: Frequently Asked Questions
1. What Roman military camps were discovered in Jordan?
Archaeologist Michael Fradley identified three previously undocumented Roman-style temporary military camps in southeastern Jordan using satellite imagery. Their distinctive shapes and alignment strongly support their identification as Roman military installations.
2. Who discovered the Roman camps in Jordan?
Michael Fradley identified the camps in October 2022 while examining satellite imagery as part of research associated with the Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa project.
3. Where are the Roman military camps located?
The camps lie in the remote southeastern corner of Jordan, near the border with Saudi Arabia, along a route extending eastward from the vicinity of Bayir.
4. How were the Roman camps discovered?
Fradley identified their distinctive rectangular outlines with rounded corners in satellite imagery. Subsequent aerial photographs taken by the Aerial Archaeology in Jordan project provided additional evidence.
5. How far apart are the three Roman camps?
The camps are approximately 40 kilometers apart. Their regular spacing suggests they may represent successive stopping points along a military marching route.
6. What did Roman temporary military camps look like?
They typically had rectangular perimeters with rounded corners, opposing entrances, and defensive earthworks or walls. Their interiors often contained tents rather than permanent buildings.
7. How quickly could Roman soldiers build a camp?
Fradley explains that Roman soldiers could potentially construct a temporary camp within a day, although the time required depended on the terrain, available materials, and size of the force.
8. When did Rome annex the Nabataean Kingdom?
Rome annexed the Nabataean Kingdom in 106 CE during the reign of Emperor Trajan.
9. Was the Roman annexation of Nabataea peaceful?
The surviving historical sources do not describe a major war accompanying the annexation. However, the newly discovered camps raise questions about whether military operations occurred in peripheral Nabataean territories.
10. Were the camps built during Trajan's conquest of Nabataea?
Fradley suggests they may date to the period immediately following the annexation in 106 CE. Their precise date has not been securely established through excavation.
11. Where was the Roman army going?
The alignment of the camps suggests a possible route toward Dumat al-Jandal, an important ancient settlement in what is now northern Saudi Arabia. This destination remains hypothetical.
12. Why was Dumat al-Jandal important?
Dumat al-Jandal occupied a strategic position in northern Arabia and was associated with regional caravan routes and commercial networks. Control over such settlements would have been valuable to Rome.
13. Did the Roman army use horses or camels?
Fradley suggests that the long distances between the camps may indicate a mounted force, possibly including horse cavalry or camel-mounted troops. The camps themselves do not establish the animals used.
14. Why was one Roman camp larger than the others?
The westernmost camp was almost twice as large as the two eastern camps. Fradley considers logistical explanations, including the possible presence of water carriers, more likely than an unproven military disaster.
15. Did the Romans attempt a surprise attack?
Fradley suggests that the difficult desert route may have allowed Roman troops to bypass resistance along the more obvious Wadi Sirhan corridor. This remains a tactical hypothesis.
16. Why have the camps survived for almost 2,000 years?
The area experienced relatively little subsequent farming or development. This helped preserve the camps' visible outlines.
17. What is landscape archaeology?
Landscape archaeology examines archaeological sites in relation to their surrounding geography, routes, environments, and other settlements. It can reveal patterns of activity that are difficult to recognize when studying individual sites alone.
18. What is the EAMENA project?
The Endangered Archaeology in the Middle East and North Africa project uses satellite imagery and other methods to document archaeological sites and monitor threats to cultural heritage across the region.
19. Have the camps been excavated?
In the interview, Fradley describes their identification through satellite imagery and aerial photography. He indicates that ground investigation would be needed to confirm construction details and obtain further evidence.
20. Do the camps prove that Rome fought a forgotten war against the Nabataeans?
No. They provide strong evidence for Roman military installations and a possible campaign route, but they do not independently establish a battle, a precise date, or the political circumstances of the military movement.
