As recently emphasised by Ted Kaizer, its richness of textual and archaeological remains makes Dura-Europos a unique and fascinating source for day-to-day life in the Roman East (T. Kaizer in N. Purcell (ed.), Roman History: Six Studies for Fergus Millar (2017), 74–5) or — as Michael Sommer put it — a laboratory for a study of the stunning diversity of the Roman World (M. Sommer in T. Kaizer (ed.), Religion, Society and Culture at Dura-Europos (2016), 64). Of course, this also applies to the presence of the Roman army and its impact on civic life in Dura. Moreover, the question of how life in Roman Dura-Europos was shaped by the presence of Rome's soldiers is a crucial one, since in modern research there are at least two entirely different points of view. M. I. Rostovtzeff and C. B. Welles blamed the Roman soldiers for a strangulation of civic and economic life in the city, whereas others — first and foremost Michael Sommer and Oliver Stoll — have underlined the positive impact of the Roman military (22–5, with a detailed discussion of earlier research on the topic, and 33–4). Simon James discusses in particular the conclusions which Oliver Stoll drew in his study of the relations between soldiers and civilians in the Roman Near East, which he argued to be characterised by concordia/homonoia (Zwischen Integration und Abgrenzung: Die Religion des römischen Heeres im Nahen Osten (2001)).

J.'s study is divided into three parts. In the first part, comprising four chapters, the author gives an accurate and detailed introduction to the history of research at and about Dura-Europos, the aims of the project, i.e. a new evaluation of the impact of the Roman garrison and base on civic life by means of an analysis of the archaeology of the Roman base, and an overview of the history of the site between the Parthian and Roman Empires (3–58). The second part is dedicated to the presentation and study of the archaeological remains of the Roman base and the presences of Roman soldiers outside the base (61–236). The third and final part establishes a basis for a discussion of the question of how life in the town was framed by the presence of the Roman soldiers (239–316). The book finishes with a short chapter about the damages caused to the site during the Syrian civil war (317–18). As J. himself underlines, his new evaluation of the evidence led to three outcomes which are important for answering the main question of the volume (315): first, the Roman base came into being in the last decades of the second century a.d.; second, the population was much more extensive than previously estimated; and third, the extended military community — what Stoll would call the ‘Militärgesellschaft’ or ‘Garnisionsgesellschaft’ (Ehrenwerte Männer. Veteranen im römischen Nahen Osten der Kaiserzeit (2015), 39–52) — has to be regarded as a city within the city.

Now, J.'s splendid and detailed analysis does indeed provoke a re-interpretation of the evidence regarding the question of the cohabitation of soldiers and civilians in Dura-Europos. This applies firstly to the population figures. Contrary to earlier views, J. allows a population of 10,000–15,000 individuals (300), a figure which is in line with other recent estimates (J. A. Baird, Dura-Europos (2018), 90). Secondly, contrary to earlier studies, but in accordance with Stoll, he underlines that one has to focus not only on the soldiers, but also on their wives, children, slaves and other relatives, which is why the group in question has to be conceptualised as an extended military community (250–5, 299–300). Working with a number of 2,000 Roman soldiers at the garrison's height (250), J. assumes that this community comprised 3,000–6,000 individuals, which would mean a ratio of roughly 3:1 between the civilians and the military (300). Furthermore, the Roman military base evidently comprised a quarter, if not a third, of the intramural area, as J. underlines (258). Accordingly, the impact of the military presence has to be thought of as having been much higher than assumed in earlier studies (300–1). J. acknowledges that the archaeological and textual evidence gives every reason to believe that — as underlined in earlier studies — the garrison had a positive economic effect on the city and that the co-existence of the military community and civilians was harmonious (301–3). However, his generally quite negative perception of Roman soldiers, which is best exemplified by his interpretation of the Roman camps as ‘wolf-cages’ (276), causes J. to think about the negative consequences of the Roman military presence for different social groups within the city, which applies especially (according to J.) to the lower social strata of Dura's society (295–313). All in all, J. does not draw a black-and-white picture of the impact of the base and garrison on civic life, but one which is characterised by a lot of different shades, or — as he puts it — by the chiaroscuro of the Italian Renaissance (315).

J. has written a wonderful study, which without any doubt will be a point of reference for any future study of Roman Dura-Europos and the relations between soldiers and civilians in the Roman world more generally. It is characterised by a scrupulous interpretation of the sources, a high level of methodological sophistication, and the awareness that every attempt to reconstruct the past is framed and biased by the present of those who undertake this endeavour.