Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

28 Economy and trade 201
raised by cities that had customs offices. 137 It is thus not surprising that
in 298 the Roman ambassador Sicorius Probus insisted on Nisibis as the
only place of trade in Mesopotamia. Fiscal considerations must have been
responsible for including this clause in the treaty because in consequence
every Sasanian merchant had to pay customs duties if he wanted to sell
his goods in Nisibis, which at the end of the third century was part of the
Roman sphere of influence. 138 We cannot say with certainty how high these
customs duties were. It is possible that the Sasanians now had to submit
25 per cent instead of the customary 12.5 per cent of the selling price. 139
By imposing high customs duties Diocletian intended to break the Persian
monopoly on the silk trade and to add a counter weight to the prices
dictated by the Persians.
While the Roman line of reasoning seems clear and financial advantages
on the Roman side possible, it is difficult to estimate how far the decision
of 298 had an overall effect on the Sasanian state budget. 140 It looks as if
the clause did not diminish the revenues of the Sasanian state because it
did not lose its freedom to impose customs duties from traders either when
they entered the Sasanian Empire or when they sold their goods within
Persian territory. 141
Nisibis was vehemently contested during the fourth century 142 but still
retained its role as a trans-shipment centre after 363 when the city fell
into Sasanian hands. 143 Ammianus Marcellinus’ elaborate description of
the exodus of its inhabitants and the take over by the Persians illustrates
how much the loss of this city shocked contemporaries. 144 Not surprisingly,
when relations once more deteriorated during the sixth century, the Romans
built the city of Dārā-Anastasiopolis facing Nisibis and transformed it into
a massive bulwark during the reign of Justinian. This was meant to be the
Western counterpart to Nisibis. 145
137 Manandian 1965: 77; in general on trade related aspects in the diplomatic relations between West
and East see Winter 1987: 46–74.
138 Andreotti 1969: 215–57.
139 Cf. DNP s.v. Zoll: 830 for further references; on late antique taxation in Syria and Mesopotamia
see Pollard 2000: 213–18 and Jones 1964: 824–7.
140 Blockley 1984: 33 emphasises the financial advantages for Rome, ‘The result of this was that the
Romans would garner all the income from taxes of the lucrative eastern trade.’
141 In Winter and Dignas 2001: 210 the authors emphasised the financial losses for the Sasanians but
have changed their view since; on the Sasanian economy in general see Morony 2004: 166–94.
142 Festus 27.2; on the confrontations during the reign of ˇ Sāpūr II see Maróth 1979: 239–43 and
Lightfoot 1988: 105–25.
143 Amm. xxv.7.19–14 (18); see also Chrysos 1993: 165–202.
144 Amm. xxv.9.1–12; for context and interpretation see 18.
145 For details, references and a photograph of the modern – still impressive – ruins of Dārā see
figs. 13–14.