ABSTRACT

Mobility was anticipated and relied on by those in power, who strove to control its direction and flow. The uncritical use of the concept of migration can inhibit cross-period insight, while using ‘mobility’ or ‘flows’ allows for a wider range of processes, without limiting them to those with a single direction, end point, or purpose. In many ways, the obsession with quantitative approaches to mobility stems from modern concerns, which reflect the bias of our contemporary age, where numbers fill the headlines and statistics are sought out to drive policy. The ancient authors indicate that they were socially and culturally integrated with the local, largely Arab communities in Palestine and lived side by side with the original inhabitants. The visibility of outsiders through isotopic evidence is different from their visibility through self-representation, whether in inscriptions that includes foreign names and indications of origin or in material evidence that points to the presence of external cultural elements.