Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

20 The peace treaty of 562 145
cause problems because the Arab leaders were not directly involved in the
negotiations.
Borders
Further clauses concerned the protection of shared border areas. As conflicts
had arisen in particular with regard to this point, the very first article of
the foedus of 562 addressed the main issue, namely the protection of the
Caucasian passes from invasions of the Huns, Alans and other barbarians
(27). From this point onwards the Sasanians alone were responsible for
the defence. In turn, the Romans agreed to refrain from any future troop
movements in the Caucasus. Moreover, articles eight and ten addressed the
situation of the border city Dārā, a matter that was extremely important
from a Roman perspective (12). 131 In breach of earlier treaties Justinian had
fortified Dārā to the extent that Procopius decribed the city as a bulwark for
the entire Byzantine East. 132 The Sasanians now accepted Dārā’s paramount
status as a fortress, insisting, however, that the number of troops stationed at
Dārā would be reduced and that the magister militum per Orientem moved
his seat from there. In addition, both sides agreed that in the future already
existing border cities should not be fortified and offer reasons for wars.
Trade and customs duties
‘Economic’ clauses can be found also in this treaty. 133 Three articles address
economic and trade-related issues but the decisions do not diverge from
the principles spelled out earlier (17 and 28). According to article three
of the treaty, just like before, Sasanian and Byzantine merchants, who
had to respect that there was a ban on the import and export of certain
goods, were allowed to import goods at a few official customs posts only.
As reference was made to previous agreements, Nisibis, Kallinikos and
Dvīn (instead of Artaxata) 134 must have kept their preferred status as trade
centres. Apparently, the fortress of Dārā, which has already been mentioned,
131 On the negotiations concerning Dārā see Blockley 1985a: 71–2.
132 In general on the importance of Dārā see Proc. BP i.10.13–16; i.16.6–8; see Crow 1981: 12–20; also
Croke and Crow 1983: 143–59 (= Croke 1992: xi) and Whitby 1986a: 717–35 and 1986b: 737–83; on
the fortification of border cities and fortresses see Wagner 1985: 68–9.
133 Synelli 1986: 96–8 and Winter 1987: 67–72.
134 During the first half of the fifth century the Armenian metropolis (of trade) Artaxata lost more
and more of its significance. Its neighbour Dvīn, which was primarily inhabited by trades- and
craftsmen, became the new political and economic centre. According to Proc. BP ii.25.3 there were
numerous merchants who came from India, Ibēria and all of Persia as well as from territories that
were under Roman control in order to engage in trade at Dvīn; on the importance of the city as a
place of trade see Pigulevskaja 1969: 153 and Manandian 1965: 81–2 and 87–8; with a comprehensive
bibliography Kettenhofen 1996a: 616–19.