Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter - Kaveh Farrokh

28 Economy and trade 205
do not accompany the ambassador on his return to his own country. When these
engage in trade they shall be rightly afflicted with the punishment resulting from
this sanction, and also those who do business with them and those with whom
they stayed.
The constitution refers to a foedus concluded with the Sasanians in the
past. This must be the treaty of 298 between Diocletian and Narsē (17),
and it looks as if the stipulations regarding trade were still valid in 408/9. 165
According to the constitution of 408/9 the exchange of goods was limited
to the cities of Nisibis, Kallinikos and the Armenian metropolis Artaxata
(map 3). 166 Espionage by foreign merchants was much feared and punished
harshly, with exile, the confiscation of the merchant’s goods or his personal
property. Already Ammianus Marcellinus states that Roman border traffic
was strictly controlled in order to prevent Romans from escaping to the
enemy’s territory and thereby from passing on important information to
the opponent. 167 On the basis of the geographical location of the three
cities we can infer how the flow of goods was channelled. The trade beyond
the Tigris was supposed to flow via Nisibis, the trade with and through
Armenia 168 via Artaxata and the trade with the more southern regions
along the Gulf, especially with the numerous Arab tribes in Syria, via
Kallinikos. 169
The fact that the constitution and its sanctions address both Roman
and Sasanian merchants is significant because it shows that Sasanian interests
are also represented. In 408–9 two of the three places designated for
the exchange of goods, namely Nisibis and Artaxata, were situated within
the Sasanian realm of power. We are thus dealing with an international
settlement or rather its points of execution that needed the consent of
the Sasanian ruler Yazdgard I (399–420). This explains why this imperial
constitution was not included in the Codex Theodosianus of 438. 170
From the perspective of the great powers, restricting trade to a few centres
was an important step towards securing the shared border. 171 In the
165 Winter 1987: 64–5.
166 On the significance of Artaxata as an international trading centre see Manandian 1965: 80–1.
167 Amm. xviii.5.3.
168 In general on Armenia’s role for the trade in the eastern parts of the ancient world see Manandian
1965.
169 Cf. on Kallinikos as a flourishing trading centre p. 202 with n. 150.
170 Güterbock 1906: 75; Bury 1958: 212 even talks about a treaty with the Sasanian Empire ‘which
secured peace on the Persian frontier’.
171 Thus also Pollard 2000: 216 who points to the ‘preference of centralization’ as a typical phenomenon
in late antiquity.