This edited volume derives from a workshop, held under the same name, at the University of Ottawa and Carleton University between 11 and 13 October 2012. The idea for the workshop stemmed from the intersection of two books written individually by the co-editors of the volume under review. In his Between Empires. Arabs, Romans, and Sasanians in Late Antiquity (2011), G. Fisher explores interactions between Arabs and the Roman Empire, while J. H. F. Dijkstra investigates a similar phenomenon but with an eye toward the people of southern Egypt in his Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion (2008). In addition to exploring frontiers, both of these books employ anthropological models to inform their analyses. The volume under review aims to develop the implicit connection between these two books by providing ‘a comprehensive comparative examination and interpretation of the interactions between the Roman empire and the marginal peoples on the Arabian and Egyptian frontiers in Late Antiquity, placed within a broader anthropological framework of state-tribe relationships’ (9).

After a thought-provoking introduction by the editors, the volume begins with a paper on recent epigraphic finds from the Arabian peninsula by C. Robin. This data-rich paper serves as a fitting prelude to the remainder of the volume. The volume then turns to methodology with two papers (Section A) that outline anthropological frameworks that can inform the study of frontiers. The bulk of the volume is comprised of Sections C, D and E, which together include nine papers in almost 175 pages. Sections C and D deal, respectively, with ‘outside’ and ‘inside’ sources (more on this below), and Section E looks more specifically at ‘the religious dimension’. These three sections are bookended by sections that treat the earlier history (Section B on ‘The Precursors’) and the later history (Section F on ‘The Aftermath’). Both of these bookends are useful in locating the papers of Sections C, D and E across the longue durée. These bookends also implicitly argue for a long periodization of Late Antiquity.

The editors chose as their title Inside and Out, which has at least two senses for them. The primary sense refers to the position of ‘marginal peoples’ in relation to the Roman Empire: Were the Arabs, Blemmyes or Noubades inside the Roman Empire? Or outside? At which specific time? At which specific place? And, perhaps most importantly, from whose perspective? The volume succeeds in presenting complicated answers to these and similar questions, although more could probably be done to problematize the dichotomy of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, for instance, by engaging with Homi Bhabha's ‘in-between’. The terms ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ are also used in another sense throughout the volume: a dichotomy between the types of sources that are available. As already noted, this is one of the main organizational principles of the volume: Section C deals with ‘outside’ sources, by which is primarily meant Roman historians such as Ammianus Marcellinus and Procopius, whereas Section D deals with various ‘inside’ sources, especially documentary texts and inscriptions. Interestingly and perhaps surprisingly, several papers in the volume problematize the proposed dichotomy of ‘inside’ versus ‘outside’ sources (see the editors’ comments on 31). M. Macdonald, for instance, argues that Safaitic graffiti from the Syro-Arabian desert, which prima facie might be considered an ‘inside’ source, actually present a more complex situation where the dichotomy between ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ ultimately breaks down. And, in a particularly stimulating paper, R. Hoyland asks whether later Muslim texts should be considered ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ sources for the earlier conquest period, ultimately answering ‘both-and’: Muslim sources must be considered ‘outside’ sources due to the impassable rupture between the period of the conquests and the later ʿAbbāsid period (750–1258), from when the earliest Muslim sources date; nevertheless, Muslim sources do, according to Hoyland, occasionally recall earlier material and so in this sense may be considered ‘inside’.

As is often the case in a volume such as this, the contributions are uneven at times. In this particular case, the papers are not uneven in terms of quality. Most, if not all, of the contributions are of high quality, and some especially stand out, such as P. Piovanelli's probing reflections on the early history of Axum. The contributions are, however, uneven in terms of scope. Some are extremely narrow, such as Satzinger's linguistic analysis of ‘barbarian’ names, whereas others are quite broad, such as Humphrey's interesting, yet at times too cursory, narrative of post-conquest Syria and the Jazı̄rah. The former is as if one point in a work by Seurat whereas the latter an entire canvas painted with the heavy, broad strokes of Van Gogh. This difference in scope makes for at times disjointed reading.

The editors are to be congratulated for such an ambitious plan for the workshop and resulting volume. The idea for a comparative study of the Arabian and southern Egyptian frontiers, situated within an anthropological framework, is compelling. The most promising of the results, however, depend too strongly on synthesis that is left mostly to the reader. With the exception of the two editors, most of the contributors do not directly engage with the anthropological framework, and thus it is left to the reader to infer how such a framework might shape the various arguments. Even more problematic, the contributors are rarely in dialogue with one another, even if a number of cross-references between papers have been helpfully provided (presumably by the editors). This is especially clear, for instance, for the section on ‘outside’ sources (Section C), which, at least for this reader, struggles to connect to the broader framework of the volume. The disconnect between papers is most strongly felt between the two geographical areas under consideration in the volume: southern Egypt and Arabia. Only rarely do contributors writing on one of these areas directly engage with the other area. Thus, comparison between the two geographical areas is again left primarily to the reader. These minor criticisms should not, however, detract from the many successes of the volume. It is welcome to see a volume that cites Syriac historians such as John of Ephesus and Barhebraeus alongside much more well-known Roman historians, that turns to inscriptions — no matter the language in which they are written! — as often as to literary texts, and that aims to engage critically with the diverse array of available sources. Thus, this volume, with its broad temporal and geographical scope as well as its critical historical approach, should be seen for what it is: an important step in the right direction in the study of Late Antiquity.