Rome’s contacts with people living beyond the frontiers of the empire have long been an issue of major interest in the study of Classical Antiquity, and remain so today.1See e.g. more recently Abegg, Walter and Biegert 2011; Moosbauer and Wiegels 2011; Marincola 2011; Wells 2011; Mirschenz 2013; Wells 2013; Jankovi? 2014; Slootjes and Peachin 2016; Gonzales Sanchez and Guglielmi 2017.This likewise applies to a specific area of research, which is the trade with those dwelling outside the Empire. Since the publication of Sir Mortimer Wheeler’s book on Roman trade beyond the frontiers of theImperium Romanumsome 50 years ago, it has been long-distance trade which drew and continues to attract the most scholarly attention.2Wheeler 1965.Thus it is first and foremost the trade with India (and China), which is of major interest in current research,3See e.g. more recently McLaughlin 2010; Seland 2010; Sidebotham 2011; McLaughlin 2014;Seland 2016; Meyer, Seland and Anfinset 2016; Evers 2017; Mathew 2017; Cobb 2018; Schmidt 2018; Tomber 2018; Cobb 2019; de Martino 2020. – For China and the Silk Roads, see Hill 2009; Liu 2010; Mair and Hickman 2014; Hansen 2017; Benjamin 2018; Graf 2018; Payne 2018; Di Cosmo and Maas 2018.whereas the trade with the Germanic tribes beyond the Rhine and Danube frontiers was to a much lesser degree the object of classical research.4See Tausend 1987; Wolters 1990; 1991; 1995; Erdrich 2001; Reichmann 2001; Rothenh?fer 2005,230–233; Ruffing 2008; Wells 2007, 235–264.Finally, there has been some recent interest in the Saharan trade,5See Wilson 2012; Mattingly 2013; Guedon 2016, 252–253; Wilson 2018.as well as in the Roman presence in, and trade with, Ireland.6See Reinard 2013; Cahill Wilson 2017.A reason that modern research paid less attention to the trade between the Roman Empire and the tribes beyond the Rhine and the Danube was the supposed lack of demand on the Roman side, which is why this trade was regarded as being of minor importance when compared with that beyond other frontiers of the Roman Empire.7Wilson and Bowman 2018, 17.

Although the present paper is dedicated to the contacts between individuals originating in the Roman realm and those dwelling beyond the borders of the Empire, its scope is somewhat different: it focuses on economic life and thus the everyday economic contacts on the fringes of the Roman Empire. In this fashion,it will be possible to have a look at two different problems, the first of which is connected to economic history.8The ever-growing interest of research in the field of economic history was recently labeled “New Economic History:” cf. Lo Cascio 2017. For recent developments in the field, see Günther and Reinard 2017.As will be shown, trade is not the only possible form of economic interaction between “Romans” – i.e. people living within theImperium Romanum– and “non-Romans” – i.e. people living outside the Empire,and we must therefore investigate the forms of economic interaction taking place along the borders. As will be demonstrated, there were a lot of economic contacts between “Romans” and “non-Romans” in the frontier zones of the Empire, which were mainly caused by the stationing of the army in these areas. The presence of the soldiers and, as a consequence, of the extended military communities of Roman encampments caused a flow of money to fringes of the Empire, created thus a huge demand and brought new markets into existence.9On the concept of extended military communities, see Stoll 2015, 39–52; James 2019, 250–255 and 299–300.And, last but not least, the Roman presence in the frontier zones brought the exploitation of natural resources beyond what has been considered the fringe of the Empire with it, and the Roman demand even triggered the exploitation of such resources by autochthonous people. Of course, in the present context it will be impossible to do that for the whole Roman Empire in its entire chronological range. As a matter of consequence, the chronological range is that from the Early to the High Empire, not at least due to the sheer and impressive number of sources at our disposal for this stretch of time. In addition, that is precisely the period in which the frontiers between the Empire and also the people outside the Roman realm were relatively stable. The focus will be laid on three different areas, which are the Rhine frontier, the frontier on the Middle Euphrates, and last but not least Egypt and the Red Sea in the modern sense of the word. The latter is to be seen as a frontier zone of the Roman Empire, at least in the age of Trajan, as will be shown below. The second problem touched on here is that of the character of the frontiers of theImperium Romanum, concerning which three decades of discussions have demonstrated that scholars have different solutions. That said,the need for discussing the different meanings of frontier, border and so on is obvious.

finis, limes – border, boundary, frontier: what is in a word?

The so-called spatial turn in history brought a greater awareness of the phenomenon of borders etc. with it. In order to cut a broader discussion short: the most important result of the studies in the field was that every kind of border is a topological construct, which in different historical and contemporary societies had diverse connotations.10For a more general discussion of the phenomenon, see, for instance, Schmitz-Emans 2006; Weiler 2006; Pfaffenbichler 2006; Awan 2016, 279–280. For a detailed and profound discussion of imperial borders and fringes, see Rollinger forthcoming, chapter 4.Yet the last two decades saw the ever-growing globalization which seemingly reduced the importance of borders in a globalized world.11On the use of the concept “globalization” in the study of Roman history, see Wells 2007, 206–207;Pitts and Verluys 2015.On the other hand, however, following the events of 9/11 and recent migration phenomena, security and especially border security have become a broader and very important issue of public discourse in western countries. As a consequence, recent research into the ancient world likewise joined in paying attention to these themes. This is especially true for the relationship between space and security against the background of the phenomenon of securitization,which has recently increasingly attracted attention both in historical research and in the social sciences.12Haslinger and van Laak 2018, especially 24–28 on borders. For recent studies on security issues in the Roman world, see Haensch 2016; Symonds 2018; Ricci 2018; Ruffing 2018.

For the Roman world, the problem of borders and frontiers was addressed from two different angles. On the one hand, there is the domain of Roman Frontier Studies with its own long-lasting tradition, established in the 19th century and generally starting with archaeological sources as a point of departure.13See Breeze 2006; Hingley 2017.On the other hand, there is the historical approach which culminated in the groundbreaking study on Roman frontiers by Charles R. Whittaker, published in the 1990s.14Whittaker 1994, who did not ignore the archaeological source material, but approached the phenomenon from a historical point of view.In the present state of affairs, the conception of the Roman frontiers ranges from its having been primarily a military line of defense, perhaps with a certain social and economic permeability,15Hanson 2014, 8–9.to an interpretation of the frontier itself as “bordering,” i.e., being a realm of negotiated practices and processes.16Gardner 2017, 40–41.

Yet, there can be no doubt that the building of military installations and the deployment of troops in a given area had military reasons insofar as security issues are concerned. For instance, there is an inscription from the reign of Commodus which mentions the building ofburgiandpraesidiain Pannonia in order to prevent clandestine crossings by raiders (clandestini transitus).17CIL III 3385 = ILS 395 = RIU 6.1426 with AE 2001, 1685b: Imp(erator) Caes(ar) M(arcus)[Aur(elius) [[Commodus]] An]|toninus Aug(ustus) Pius Sar[m(aticus) Ger(manicus)] | Brit(annicus)pont(ifex) max(imus) trib(unicia) pot(estate) V[I imp(erator) IIII] | co(n)s(ul) IIII p(ater) p(atriae)ripam omnem bu[rgis] | a solo extructis item praes[i]|di(i)s per loca opportuna ad | clandestinos latrunculo|rum transitus oppositis | munivit per [[[L(ucium) C[ornelium]]] | [[F[elicem Pl]ot[ian]u[m leg(atum) pr(o) pr(aetore)]]].Another telling example is the extremely well-documented network of Roman military installations in the Eastern Desert of Egypt. Apart from the archaeological evidence, there are hundreds if not thousands of texts documenting how the Roman military sought to provide security.18Cf. Sidebotham 2011, 125–156 and 162–166; Cuvigny 2003.A quite spectacular source as to how the Roman military worked is the so-calledamphore des barbares, which contains the correspondence between different soldiers and officers regarding a raid of 60 barbarians.19O. Krok. 87.Furthermore, the frontiers created by the Romans had effects – through their reception as well as through the differences between the Roman provinces and the territories outside the Roman realm – on later developments, which might be feasible until today.20See Hingley 2008, 85–110 and 118–156; 2010; Witcher 2015, 209 on the reception and interpretation of the Hadrian’s Wall. – See furthermore Wahl 2015, who discerns a different economic development in contemporary Germany on both sides of the Limes.

Nevertheless, an interpretation of the military installations on the fringes of the Roman Empire exclusively or mainly as lines of defense certainly has a lot of shortcomings, starting with the observation that for instance the alignment of the Limes in different places does not make any military sense. This is strikingly true of the section between Miltenberg and Lorch, where the Limes strikes strictly North to South without exploiting the topography to gain military advantages.Indeed, the alignment was interpreted as being a more bureaucratic than military conceptualization.21Hanson 2014, 6.Of course, it was neither a tactical nor a strategic frontier in the modern sense of the word.22Whittaker 1994, 72.

Before entering deeper into the details of the scholarly discussion regarding the character of Roman frontiers some observations on terminology should be made.Now, what we are used to call the “Limes” is certainly not how the Romans named this barrier. With regard to the present context the wordlimeswas used by the Romans primarily in two different contexts. The first is military language used in the Roman historiography, in whichlimeswas the word for the “road”built by the Roman soldiers in rough terrain in order to make an advance of troops possible.23Vgl. ThLL VII, s.v., 1410: item aperiuntur (sc. limites) copiis promovendis. – See, for instance,Vell. 2.120.2: Arma infert (sc. Tiberius), quae arcuisse pater et patria contenti erant; penetrat interius,aperit limites, vastat agros, urit domos, fundit obvios maximaque cum gloria, incolumi omnium, quos traduxerat, numero in hiberna revertitur. – Tac. Ann. 1.50.1: At Romanus agmine propero silvam Caesiam limitemque a Tiberio coeptum scindit, castra in limite locat, frontem ac tergum vallo, latera concaedibus munitus. – Frontin. Strat. 1.3.10: Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus, cum Germani more suo e saltibus et obscuris latebris subinde impugnarent nostros tutumque regressum in profunda silvarum haberent, limitibus per centum viginiti milia passuum actis non mutavit tantum statum belli,sed et subiecit dicioni suae hostes, quorum refugia nudaverat. – See Vitale 2013, 241–242. See also Moschek 2011, 50–52 with a discussion of the use of limes in Tacitus, which is not in every respect trustworthy. Olshausen 1999, 192 is clearly wrong in defining limes as a border of the Roman Empire.For the original notion of limes as way, see ThLL VII, s.v., 1410.The second area of usage is the art of surveying, where alimesis used in order to divide one parcel of land from another.24Vgl. ThLL VII, s.v., 1412. See also Moschek 2011, 54–60; Vitale 2013, 242.Therefore, seen with Roman eyes, the wordlimesinitially has nothing to do with borders or frontiers of the empire. Interestingly, in Roman literature the concept can be found that theimperiumdid not have any frontiers at all, since Jupiter gave the Romans a realm without borders. Thus in hisAeneid, Virgil coined the phrase that Jupiter said to his daughter Venus with regard to the Romans: “imperium sine fine dedi.”25Verg. Aen. 1.278.And in the time of the Flavian emperors, Silius Italicus used exactly the same motif,but here Jupiter’s answer is somewhat different by means of naming the edges of the world: the father, originating from a family of the Sabine land, will prevail over Thule and lead an army to Caledonia and reign over Africa and the banks of the Rhine, his son will put down a revolt in Palestine, and his brother, the conqueror of Germany, will outdo both.26Sil. Ital. 3.597–607.Then he goes on to say:

The people of the Ganges shall one day lower their unbent bows before him, and Bactra displays its empty quivers. He shall drive the triumphal car through Rome after conquering the North; he shall triumph over the East, and Bacchus give place to him. When the Danube refuses a passage to Roman legions, he shall be victorious and retain the river in the land of the Sarmatians. (trans. by Duff1934)27Sil. Ital. 3.612–617.

Consequently, the Roman realm is thought of as a world dominion, which has no borders. Coming back to the Latin terminology for the border Virgil’s claim that the Roman realm is animperium sine finegives no reason to argue thatfinisis an appropriate term for the border of the Empire. This is confirmed by theRes Gestae divi Augusti, where the official administrative language is supposedly used by the first Roman emperor. Indeed Augustus mentions that he enlarged the borders (fines) of those provinces which had people as neighbors, who did not obey theimperium.28RGdA 26.Thusfiniscan be considered as an appropriate term for borders or frontiers, at least as far as the territory of provinces is concerned.29I profoundly disagree with Moschek 2011, 100–101, who interprets the Limes and Hadrian’s Wall as the termini imperii, which in his view are the sacral border of the Roman realm, although Tacitus maintains that Augustus advised Tiberius not to enlarge the empire beyond its then actual frontiers:...addideratque consilium coercendi intra terminos imperii, incertum metu an per invidiam (Tac.Ann. 1.11.4). The addition that the reason for Augustus’ advice was either fear or envy clearly points to the highly intentional character of this affirmation. In this case, Tacitus aims to draw a picture of the emperors of his own times as the best rulers as elsewhere in his historiographical works, whereas the past emperors – especially Tiberius – are seen as bad emperors. Even Augustus is, in the eyes of Tacitus, not among the best emperors as can be seen in the piece quoted above.As suchfinisis used also in Latin literature.30Eutrop. 8.6.2.But Augustus’Res Gestaegive us a further clue for the understanding of how the Romans conceptualized their realm. The Roman dominion stretches as far as people obey theimperiumof the emperor. There is a further point which strengthens this interpretation. Although we are today accustomed to understanding the termimperiumas a territorial entity, in the eyes of the Romans it was a judicial term that primarily described the personal military command authority of a Romanimperator. Thus, the rule of the Roman emperor over his realm is in the first instance a personal command authority. Since the reign of Augustus, who monopolized this authority, theimperiumbecame more and more a territorially defined term, because the whole Roman world was quasi the province of one commander-in-chief.31Richardson 2008, 145; 1991, 8–9. See Bernstein 2010 regarding the difficulties in using the term imperium for characterizing the Roman realm as a territorial entity. – If the whole Roman world can be seen as the provincia of one imperator, the view that finis is an appropriate word for the frontier of the Roman Empire would be strengthened.Of course,in the self-staging of the Roman emperor thisimperiumwas also styled as theimperium populi Romani,32RGdA praescr.; 13; 27.1; 30.nevertheless it clearly was the command authority of the emperor which really mattered, as demonstrated through the creation of the provinceAegyptus. Although Augustus claimed to have subdued Egypt to theimperium populi Romaniit became part of his provinces and had to be administered by an equestrian officer.33RGdA 27; CIL VI 701/702. On the praefectus Aegypti and its characteristics, see J?rdens 2009,46–53.Consequently, the conclusion can be drawn that Roman emperors ruled over people, and – conversely – that they did not rule over a territory which was marked by a line on a map.

By the way, in all what is known about world views in Roman times such as the maps of Agrippa, and Ptolemy, or the Peutinger Map there are no traces of any frontiers, which means that there are no marks for a border of the Roman realm.34See e.g. H?nger 2007; Talbert 2007.On the other hand, however, there is the view of the literary world of the Empire,which describes the extent of the Roman dominion by means of using the rivers Rhine, Danube, and Euphrates as boundary markers. Furthermore, through mentioning the envoys of foreign people coming to him and his relationships with them, Augustus himself acknowledges the existence of people living outside the range of his command authority, which means nothing else than recognizing the existence of powers outside the Empire.35Benoist 2016, 51–52.

Nevertheless there is a further issue of imperial self-staging, which must be considered here: military bravery and successful expansion are key points for the emperors.36See Kuhoff 1993, 236–316.Thus there are even in imperial self-staging and in the literary world competing concepts in use: on the one hand, the Roman Empire as defined by the three great rivers and thus a “...coherent geographical and strategic unity...,”on the other hand, the invincible Roman emperor,37Benoist 2016, 53.who gained a reputation by conquering people outside the Empire.38Whittaker 1994, 67.Finally, it is necessary to add the concept of theimperium sine fine. What becomes visible is the existence of different concepts of and varying discourses about the frontiers of the Roman Empire, which allegedly existed all at the same time. As consequence, there is no single and easy answer to the question of how the Romans conceptualized the frontiers of their realm. But it has to be underlined that they were far from conceiving these frontiers as a line on a map. Furthermore, to conceive a line on a map as a border is an entirely modern concept.39Ibid., 71. – See further Haslinger and van Laak 2018, 22–23.The same is true in another respect. Natural or cultural borders are also modern constructions, which as a matter of consequence do not explain where the frontiers of the Roman Empire actually were and what character they had.40Whittaker 1994, 82–84; Kehne 1999, 11. – See also Haslinger and van Laak 2018, 21, who underline that the concept of “natural borders” goes back to the 19th century and was used for the legitimation of political and military dominance.And, last but not least, it has to be emphasized that from a sociological point of view borders are constituted by societal actions. The border, thus, is an institution which triggers border-related actions, and these actions have repercussions on the institution. This interaction generates restrictions and opportunities,41Eigmüller and Voruba 2016, 4.such as the levying of custom duties.

Of course, the frontiers of the Roman Empire were a reality, and modern research has given different answers to the question as to how they worked and what their character was. Already the use of certain words in modern languages for the fringes of the Empire brings certain connotations with it.Archaeological research, for instance, characterized the boundary as static and the frontier as dynamic.42Bloemers 1989, 178.Charles Whittaker, however, distinguished between a separating frontier line and a uniting as well as integrating frontier zone.43Whittaker 1994, 72–73.He,then, understood the frontiers of the Romans as conditioned by economic and ecological factors, which delimited the range of imperial expansion. The frontier zone is thus to be conceived as a broad transitional region, which represents a compromise between the range of conquest and economy of rule, a hypothesis which was first put forward for the Chinese Empire. As Whittaker demonstrated this was also the case for the Roman Empire. The Roman conquest came to a halt, where natural or social conditions made it impossible to supply the army.This halt, however, and the resulting establishment of a frontier did not prevent the Romans from projecting their power beyond it.44Id. 1983, 111–114; 1994, 85–97. – See also Heather 2011, 78–80.

Regarding the character of the frontiers of the Roman Empire there are different levels of discussion in modern research. It was mostly discussed in connection with the Limes and the Hadrian’s Wall, and there is a more general discussion regarding the frontiers of the Roman Empire in general.45Wells 2007, 135–139.Whereas until the 1990s the frontiers were seen as lines of defense which had a mostly militaryraison d’etre, it was Whittaker’s book that exploded this paradigm. He understood the frontiers as a zone of economic exchange between the Roman Empire and people living beyond its frontiers. The Romans supplied the frontier zone of their empire. This zone then created a demand for goods, which was also met by the surplus of the area beyond the borderline.46Whittaker 1983, 114–116; 1994, 98–131, esp. 99–121. See also Wells 2007, 136–137 and 236. But cf. Fulford 1989, 85 arguing that “...the everyday needs of the frontier (sc. in Britain and Germany)were met from within the empire.”This exchange went in hand with effects on the societies beyond the frontier, which is especially true for what German-speakers call theVorlimes, a buffer zone of ca. 200 km beyond the frontier line,47The concept of the buffer zone was developed by Hedeager 1987. See especially p. 127 with a graphic representation of the buffer zone and the rest of what we call Freies Germanien. – It would be a worthwhile undertaking to analyze the economic interaction between Roman Egypt and Meroe in the Dodekaschoinus as an economic buffer zone. On the region and its economy, see e.g. Locher 1999, 230–251 and 288–289; T?r?k 2008, 427–513; 2012.where economic exchange reinforced the local elites.48Whittaker 1994, 122–123. See Hedeager 1987, who distinguishes in the area beyond the Rhine and the Danube a zone which was previously dominated by Celtic culture, from the rest which was inhabited by German tribes. – A similar scenario of reinforcement of local elites could apply to the Picts, although there are also other possible explanations for social change: see Hunter 2005. See also Macinnes 1989 regarding findings of Roman material in Scotland. See further Parker Person 1989,210–211 who underlines that trade and exchange of goods were not primary movers for creating social inequity and thus complex societies and that there is the contrary effect on people dwelling in the frontier zone, because among the Germanic tribes, complex societies developed beyond the buffer zone, whereas they did not in the vicinity of the frontier.This interpretation underlines the permeability of the frontiers of the empire. David Breeze and Brian Dobson, too, interpreted Hadrian’s Wall first and foremost as a barrier, which made the control of civil movement possible.49Breeze and Dobson 2000, 40.Matthew Symonds has put forward a similar interpretation adding that the Wall enabled the Roman authorities to prevent small groups of raiders to cross the line of the Wall at its center and to guarantee military security in the west of the line.50Symonds 2018, 125.But there are other characterizations of the North-Western frontiers of the Empire as well. Nick Hodgson underlined the military character of the milecastle gates and their purpose of preventing civilians from moving across the border of Hadrian’s Wall (and of the Antonine Wall, too),51Hodgson 2005, 183–184.which were seen as points of civilian traffic by others between the empire and the world beyond its borders.52Breeze and Dobson 2000, 40.In Hodgson’s view there were two different types of openings in Hadrian’s Wall and in theObergermanisch-R?tischerLimes: thus the majority of the openings served military purposes, whereas a minority of openings was open to civilians and used by the Roman state to control their movements and to collect customs dues. This is why he sees border security as the primary intent of the military installations and the deployment of troops on the frontier.53Hodgson 2005.Hence in the recent scholarly discussion, the artificial barriers and consequently at least the North-Western frontiers of the Empire are seen as closed in times of peace as well as primarily serving military purposes, especially in the time of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius.54Breeze and Jelek 2005, 144–146, but see ibid., 145 for diverse interpretations regarding the area across the Danube. – See further Hanson 2014 revising thus some of his earlier views in id. 1989.As it seems, the old interpretation of the Limes as a means for the containment of the German tribes is once again gaining some ground.55Timpe 1998, 212.There are, however, different views. Peter Wells argued that the relationship between the “Romans” and “non-Romans” was important for both parties and that they depended on each other.56Wells 2007, 237.Finally, Oliver Stoll, one of the leading experts in the field of the economic and social impact of the Roman army, recently stressed the permeability of the line of the Limes and characterized the Limes zone as a transcultural economic space.57Stoll 2016.

However, an additional point needs to be made. Although in imperial propaganda and thus to a certain degree in the scholarly discussion the Germanic tribes are mainly styled as hostile barbarians against whom the Roman emperor prevailed,58The most striking example in this regard is the Marcus Column in Rome: Depeyrot 2010; Griebel 2013.the Romans did not have exclusively hostile relationships with these Germanic tribes. On the contrary, they had friendly connections with different tribes, but it was a relationship ofimperium– i.e. order – andobsequium–i.e. those obeying orders.59See Kehne 1999, 13; 2002, 304; 2010, 60–63. Cf. the models of Roman-tribal interaction by Mattingly 1999, 46–51.These different relationships could influence how interaction in the Limes zone took place,60See von Schnurbein 2005.which is why the barrier can be seen as a device for channeling the Germanic peoples.61Steidl 2007, 35.As a matter of consequence,Rome was clearly present beyond the lines, which were marked by the rivers and the barriers built by the Roman army. This region was marked and controlled by invisible frontiers,62Kehne 1999, 13; Klein 2007, 213–215; Rasbach 2010, 89. It was Kornemann 1934, 1, who coined the term “invisible frontiers.”which to some degree might be identical with the aforementioned buffer zone.

What has been said up to this point was related to the circumstances on the North-Western frontiers of the Roman Empire. The conditions in the East of the Empire were clearly different, not least due to the geomorphological character of the region and the political situation. Regarding the latter, it was the existence of the Parthian, and later the Sassanid Empire, which made the difference. These empires had a concept of negotiated borders, as in the case of the Romans.63Whittaker 1994, 50–51.Moreover, they had their own imperial agenda as well as ideology, which made diplomatic interactions possible and necessary.64See, on both empires, Wieseh?fer 2014. – See Benoist 2016 for diplomatic interaction, and Speidel 2016a, 181 regarding a formal amicitia between Parthians and Romans.And it goes without saying that there was a long tradition of trade relations between the Eastern Mediterranean and the empires of Mesopotamia and Iran, which had its roots as early as the Bronze Age. But even in the East it becomes clear that the Romans made little distinction between their provinces and the indirectly controlled regions.65Whittaker 1994, 57.This also becomes clear by looking at the collection of custom dues. There are examples for levying dues at locations,which according to the usual view were situated outside the Empire.66PME 19, for instance, mentions a Roman centurion and soldiers deployed to Leuke Kome (at this point of time outside the Roman realm) for the purpose of levying the 25% customs due for goods entering the Roman realm. Cf. J?rdens 2009, 356–357; Vandorpe 2015, 91.A further example is provided by the Middle Euphrates region which together with some regions in Northern Mesopotamia was controlled by the Romans for a longer period of time in the 2nd century AD through the Palmyrenes.67Luther 2004.And although the Euphrates was styled in Roman historiography as the border of the Empire,the presence of Roman soldiers is attested on the lower course of the Khabur river, which is clearly on the left bank of the Euphrates and thus – at least in theory – outside the Roman Empire.68Id. 2002.

A further, very interesting example for Roman actions on the Near Eastern frontier is Dura-Europos, which under Trajan became a Roman city between AD 115 and 117, reverted afterwards to the Parthian realm, and came under Roman control again in AD 165. Dura remained under Roman control until it was conquered in AD 256 by the Sassanids and was then abandoned. The case of Dura is clearly a telling example of the different cultural influences in a frontier zone town shifting between two empires; thanks to its fate an impressive corpus of written documents complements the archaeological ruins making it a good test case for everyday life in the frontier zone.69On Dura, see e.g. id. 2004; Kaizer 2015; 2016, 4–7; Gregoratti 2016.Thus the border of the Empire was also a frontier zone in the East, which was not marked by a line in the terrain or by a line on a map. The same goes for Roman Egypt. Egypt – in the proper sense of the word – is confined to the Nile Valley and the Fayum, whereas in the West and the East of the Nile Valley there are deserts, where the Romans were present through military installations and patrols.70Sidebotham 2011, 125–156 and 162–166; Cuvigny 2003.As in the case of the Germanic tribes a mixture of cooperation and conflict can be observed in the Libyan and Eastern desert of Egypt.71Reinard 2018. See also Boozer 2013 regarding the Roman presence in the Great Oasis of the Western Desert.

What has been said thus far gives every reason to see the existence of rather huge frontier zones in which everyday life contacts between people from inside and outside the Roman realm took place as a given fact. This is also true for the Red Sea (in the modern sense of the word) which until the publication of an inscription from the Ferresan Islands – today Saudi Arabia – was not regarded by modern research as a zone belonging to the Roman Empire. The publication of the Latin inscription which dates to the reign of Hadrian changed this view.The text of the inscription mentions the construction of a camp which was built by soldiers of thelegio II Traiana Fortison the island. Furthermore, there is a reference to apraefectus Ferresani portus et Pont(i) Hercul(is).72AE 2004, 1643 = AE 2005, 1639: Imp(eratori) Caes(ari) Tito Ael(io) Hadr(iano) | Antonino Aug(usto) Pio pont(ifici) | maxim(o) trib(unicia) pot(estate) VII co(n)s(uli) III | p(atri) p(atriae)vexill(atio) leg(ionis) II Tr(aianae) Fortis | et auxil(ia) eius castr[enses]|q(ue) sub praef(ecto) Ferresani portus | et Pont(i) Hercul(is) fec(erunt) et d[ed(icaverunt)]. Cf. Villeneuve 2004; Speidel 2007; 2016a,157–165; 2016b, 292–296.This means nothing else than that at least the Roman imperial administration in the reign of Trajan regarded the Ferresan Islands as a part of the Roman Empire. This is confirmed through other sources as well.73Schneider 2015.Furthermore, some years ago Michael A. Speidel argued convincingly that already in the time of Augustus the Red Sea was regarded as a part of the Roman realm.74Speidel 2007, 301–304.Consequently, the Red Sea is also to be considered as a frontier zone of the Roman Empire in which economic interaction took place.75On the Red Sea as a contact zone for people from inside and outside the Roman Empire, see Ruffing 2014.Thus in what follows there will be some remarks on the economic life on the fringes of the empire on the Rhine frontier, the Middle Euphrates frontier, and the Red Sea.

The Rhine frontier and the Obergermanisch-R?tischer Limes

Although there is a tendency to see and describe the relations between the“Germans”76On the construction of the terms Germani and Germania, see e.g. Polverini 1993; Steinacher 2010.and the Romans as mainly hostile, a tendency which goes back to Roman historiography, there are quite a lot of written sources demonstrating that there was a keen interest on both sides in economic exchange and trade, which was certainly driven by the economic growth which the North-Western parts of the Roman Empire experienced in the Early and High Empire mainly due to the massive presence of the Roman army.77On this economic growth, see Buringh and Bosker 2015; Verhagen, Joyce and Groenhuijzen 2019,14. But see Weaverdyck 2019.Cassius Dio, for instance, mentions the presence of Roman merchants among the Germanic people, who were killed and thus gave the reason for the expedition of Marcus Vinicius in 25 BC.78Cass. Dio. 53.26.4.Tacitus refers to Roman traders pursuing their business on the Eastern banks of the Rhine at different occasions.79Tac. Ann. 2.62.3; 3.42.1; Hist. 4.15.1–3.Although his information is to a certain degree biased, it is interesting to see that the traders mentioned by him carried on their business even though the Romans supported other tribes in waging war against the tribe with whom they were trading. According to Tacitus even the outbreak of a revolt did not prevent the merchants from doing business with Germanic tribes.80Cf. Ruffing 2008, 154–155. – On Roman businessmen staying within the realm of German tribes,see Gra?l 2014.The presence of Roman traders inGermaniais also confirmed through epigraphical sources. Interestingly, there is an inscription which mentions a former military interpreter, who became a trader after having retired.81AE 1978, 635. – There are quite a lot of sources attesting to interpreters serving in the Roman army: cf. Mairs 2012, 23–26.He was buried on the northern bank of the Danube, in an area where the archaeological findings clearly demonstrate intensive contact between the local population and the Romans.82Ibid., 25.

Of course, there are no sources providing the views that the locals had the economic exchange with the Romans. But again, Roman historiography gives at least some hints on their interest in trade on the markets of the Empire. In his ethnographical description ofGermaniaand its people Tacitus mentions that those dwelling in the vicinity of the Roman realm were accustomed to using gold and silver, because they traded with the Romans, whereas in the more distant areas the Germans preferred bartering methods.83Tac. Germ. 5.3. On this passage, see Günther forthcoming.Although Tacitus’ description adheres to the literary principles of ancient ethnography, it might be taken as an indication of the interest of Germanic tribes in trading with the Romans in the frontier zone.84Cf. Ruffing 2008, 159.Again in a highly biased context Tacitus mentions that theHermunduriwere allowed to trade on the markets of the Roman province of Raetia.85Tac. Germ. 41.1.The peace treaties between Marcus Aurelius and different Germanic tribes provide further hints on their interest in trading on the markets in the Roman provinces.86On these treaties, see Stahl 1989.According to the text of these treaties as given by Cassius Dio, denying access to the markets was a form of punishment used by the Roman authorities. Moreover, if access was granted, it was confined to specific places and specific days. Consequently, the treaties demonstrate clearly the eagerness of the Roman command authority to regulate and to control the access of Germanic people to the markets of the Empire. On the other hand, however, by doing so, it guaranteed this access as well.87Ruffing 2008, 159–160.Apart from the function of regulating the access to the markets as a tool for diplomatic interaction with Germanic tribes, the desire to control people and goods travelling between the empire andGermaniamight have been fueled by fiscal considerations. At least Tacitus mentions in the context of the insurrection of Iulius Civilis avectigalandonera commerciorumwhich normally had to be paid on the occasion of the crossing of the Rhine.88Tac. Hist. 4.65.3.As a matter of consequence, the existence of a general customs barrier which separated the Empire from the Germanic tribes is a reasonable assumption. The confinement of the access to the Empire at specific places brought a further advantage with it, since the control of what was carried out became possible. This was of particular interest in the third century AD, when the export of weapons was forbidden by the Roman authorities.89Scaev. Dig. 48.4.4. Cf. Kunow 1986.

The Germanic desire to have access to the Roman markets is matched by the desire of the Romans to use natural resources beyond the Rhine, as will be shown forthwith. The northern Rhine frontier is a telling example in this regard.Evidently, there were intensive contacts between the Romans and theFrisiiwho lived north of the Rhine. The fact that the local population had access to goods originating from the Roman Empire is confirmed by the presence of Roman pottery in Frisian settlements situated approximately 150 km beyond the Rhine.90Galestin 2017, 279–281.A wooden tablet that contains a fragmentary loan contract which was found in modern Tolsum (Netherlands) shows the presence of Romans.91AE 2010, 1035. See Bowman, Tomlin and Worp 2009 with the reedition of this text which was formerly known as the “Frisian Ox Sale,” where the new reconstructio textus with an ample commentary is provided. See also Mairs 2012, 20–22; Galestin 2009/2010; 2017, 281.Furthermore, an inscription found in modern Beetgum (Netherlands) and dedicated to the goddess Hludana by theconductores piscatusis a further testimony for the presence of Roman businessmen within the realm of theFrisiiduring the 2nd or 3rd century AD.92CIL XIII 8830 = ILS 1461. Cf. Bechert 2001, 5–66; Rothenh?fer 2005, 252.In the settlements in the vicinity of the Rhine, however, there are fewer finds of Roman pottery.93Galestin 2017, 279. See also Erdrich 2001, 320–327 who interprets the archaeological findings as an outcome of a closed frontier which was partly opened in AD 160/170; then, according to his speculations, the territory of the Frisii became a Roman province which was then resolved by Septimius Severus. This interpretation is purely speculative.This can be explained by a Roman policy by means of which the people near the Rhine were prevented from having access to the Roman Empire.94Galestin 2017, 282. But see Lendering and Bosman 2012, 127 mentioning an excavation in Apeldoorn (30 km north of the Rhine) where large scale iron works were found, and concluding that most people beyond the Rhine were absorbed into the Roman economy.Another possibility might be the migration of these people into the province. At least for the last decennium of the 1st century AD the settlement of Germanic groups is archaeologically attested in the South-East of the Netherlands, even though these groups might have been formed by veterans of the Roman auxiliary troops.95van Enckevort 2001, 381–382.

Coming further South, the presence of the Romans on the right bank of the Rhine between modern Neuss and Bonn (Germany) is attested as well. The Roman army exploited quarries and produced bricks. The meadows were used by Roman soldiers for grazing by their lifestock (prata legionis), as is demonstrated by an inscription which was found in the vicinity of modern Niedermenden.96Gechter 2001, 532–534.The Roman settlement Gelduba (modern Krefeld-Gellep, Germany) can be considered as a place for the Roman long-distance trade towardsGermania.97Reichmann 2001; Luther 2009.As in the Bergisches Land, the production of lead is also attested further South in modern Sauerland (Germany). Although it was in the hands of Germanic peoples,the lead was exported into the Roman Empire and even found its way to Italy.98Rothenh?fer 2004; 2005, 91–92; Hanel and Rothenh?fer 2005; Melzer and Kapelle 2007;Kritzinger 2017.This is an excellent example as to how demand within the Roman Empire created production and trade outside its frontiers. Still further South there is the Wetterau-Limes. Interestingly, up to now it has been impossible to trace any pre-Flavian settlements here. But with the creation of the provinceGermaniasuperiorand the commencement of the building of the Limes, Germanic settlements become archaeologically visible which are situated some 15 km to the North of the Limes.From this time onwards more intensive relations between Germanic people and those dwelling inside theImperium Romanumbecome discernable. Evidently, in the eyes of the Romans there were neither Germanic threats nor other potential security breaches in this region. In the case of the Roman camps at the Saalburg saddle and at Butzbach the Germanic settlements inside and outside the line of the Limes were situated in the immediate vicinity. As a consequence, Germanic resources were apparently used for the supply of the Roman forces stationed here.This presumably intensive contact with the Romans did not leave any traces in the material culture of these settlements. There are rather few Roman objects and the archaeo-zoological as well as archaeo-botanical evidence points in the same direction: there is no trace for any transfer of technology from the Empire to the Germanic people. Thus the conclusion can be drawn that in this case more goods from beyond the line of the Limes than came into the Empire.99Abegg 2011, 357–361.This evidence might be connected to a rather uncomplicated migration of Germanic people into the Empire.100von Schnurbein 2005, 59–60.That in this region, however, the intensification of the Germanic settlements is contemporaneous with the construction of the military installation at the Limes line is a striking feature of Romano-Germanic relationships.101Abegg 2011, 361.A similar pattern becomes visible in the Main area. After the creation of the new line of the Limes around AD 160, which is situated approximately 20 km further east, a concentration and thus a demographic growth of Germanic settlements becomes visible. An explanation for this agglomeration might be either Roman activity, that is to say, the Romans settled Germanic people not far away from the new line of the Limes or the construction of the new line might be regarded as an economic pull factor for Germanic migration into the Main Triangle. At any rate,with the concentration of settlements on the Germanic side and the construction of the military installations on the Roman side a rather intensive exchange of goods came into being, which is reflected by the huge range of Roman material found in the area. The Germanic people, on the other hand, might have delivered labor force and organic material. Due to their position approximately 40 km away from the Main Triangle and the good transport connections intoBarbaricumthe Roman camps at Osterburken and Jagsthausen were evidently the main spots for crossing the line of the Limes.102Steidl 2007, 36–39.The rivers Rhine and Main provided good connections as well and thus afforded an opportunity for rafting timber down the Main and the Rhine. Given the widespread use of wood and lumber in the Roman world and the resulting pressure on this resource, it is a reasonable assumption that the Romans used timber from the Main region on an even larger scale. At least its use is proven for the construction of the RomanColonia Ulpia Traianaat modern Xanten (Germany).103Gechter 2001, 535. – On the widespread use of timber and wood, see Herz 2001; Nenninger 2001,174–190; 2005; Habermann 2009; Ehmig 2012; Hughes 2014, 70–78.As in the case of the Wetterau Limes, there are no traces of any kind of Self-Romanization in the Germanic settlements of the Main Triangle.104Steidl 2007, 39–41.

What has been said thus far can be summarized as follows. Evidently, the Germanic people had a vivid interest in having access to the marketplaces of the Roman Empire. The interest was so deep that the regulation of access to the markets could be used as a political tool by Roman authorities, which is proved in the case of theMarcomanniand other tribes beyond the Danube and highly probably in other circumstances as well. Thus one clearly moves on firm ground in drawing the conclusion that economic exchange was a common thing in everyday life for those dwelling on the Germanic fringes of the Roman Empire,even though regional differences regarding that exchange are very likely.105See Mirschenz 2013, esp. 151 with a more pessimistic view regarding the zone of the Ruhr, and ibid., 153 with the following statement: “Obgleich sich für das Ruhrgebiet anhand des r?mischen Fundmaterials keine wirtschaftliche Interaktion für das 1. bis 3. Jh. n. Chr. verifizieren l??t, zeigen Art und Umfang des Materials grundlegend kontinuierliche Beziehungen an.”Moreover, it cannot be excluded that the building of military installations at the Limes line was a kind of economic pull factor for regional mobility on the Germanic side. At least in the case of lead production, Roman demand also induced its production in regions which were quite distant from the Limes line.106For other examples, see Wells 249–260.Finally, there is ample evidence for economically induced Roman presence in the region beyond the Rhine and the Danube. Thus, from the point of view of economic interactions the frontier line was all but an “iron curtain?” or a wooden curtain which separated “Romans” from “non-Romans” in a distinct manner.

The Middle Euphrates Frontier

As mentioned above, Dura-Europos, which is situated in the Middle Euphrates Valley, is an excellent example for economic life on the fringes of the Roman Empire. Due to the geomorphology of the region, where agriculture was only possible in the Euphrates valley itself, most of the economic life was determined by the river, which itself provided an important traffic connection for local trade as well as for long-distance trade to the south.107Luther 2004, 328; Rollinger and Ruffing 2013, 410–411. The use of camels for the traffic in this region is attested by SB XXVI 16659 = P. Euphr. 16.The former might have been more important than the latter. Whereas Dura-Europos’ role in long-distance trade has usually been highlighted in modern research,108Dirven 1996; Luther 2004.its position in local and regional trade has yet to be underlined.109Ruffing 2010; 2016; Meyer and Seland 2016.

Now, having a look at economic life in Dura-Europos and the Middle Euphrates Valley one gets the impression that the political changes did not change the economic behavior of the people living there. Of course, the deployment of Roman troops to Dura changed the economic structure, because by means of stationing soldiers there, a new group with substantial purchasing power arrived.110Ruffing 2007, 406–407.Nevertheless regional trade was going on, as is illustrated by the Nebouchelos-Archive, a group of graffiti which was found in the so-called “House of Archives,” situated in the center of Dura-Europos.111Id. 2000; 2007, 404–405; Yon 2007, 420–423; Ruffing 2016, 196–197.Nebuchelos’ activities clearly reached the lower course of the Khabur which itself as well as its valley is to be regarded as an important traffic connection to Northern Mesopotamia.112Luther 2004, 328.Now the graffiti are proof that Nebuchelos traded clothing in a place which is called Apadana/Aphphadana.113SEG VII 417 and 419.The village is to be located in the region where the Khabur empties into the Euphrates.114Luther 2004, 329.Since Nebuchelos is without any doubt a member of the local elite of Dura-Europos,115Ruffing 2016, 196–197.the economic interest of this social group in the Khabur valley becomes visible which is also documented otherwise. In AD 180, for instance, a certain Lysias, a citizen of Dura-Europos who lived in the area where the Khabur joins the Euphrates, sold a vineyard and a slave to his brother.116P. Dura 25.In AD 227, a veteran of theCohors III Augusta Thracum, a certain Iulius Demetrius, purchased land covered with trees from a certain Ortanaios, son of Abadabos. The land was situated at a village which is called Sachare-da-hawarae. It is supposedly located some 25 km upstream of the Khabur. The seller belonged allegedly to the Aramaic milieu which highlights the economic interaction between the Graeco-Roman elite of Dura-Europos and the local population.117P. Dura 26. Cf. Ruffing 2016, 194–195.It is a fair assumption that the major part of cases of regional mobility is owed to economic motives. Consequently, the presence of foreigners can be seen as a hint for economic interaction. Interestingly, texts were found there with north-east Aramean scripts. One can assume that the Durenes had contacts with people from the area around Assur and around Hatra.118Luther 2004, 330.And the existence of a group of worshipers of the god Aphla – a cult stemming from Anatha – illustrates connections of the Durenes about 130 km south of the city.119Ibid.

These few remarks made with regard to the Middle Euphrates zone clearly demonstrate that there were intensive economic contacts between people on both sides of the river. Until it became the object of the military advance of the Sassanids due to the presence of Roman troops, and was seized by them,economic life in Dura went on regardless of whether Dura was controlled through the Palmyrenes or directly part of the Roman Empire or part of the Parthian or Sassanid Empire. All in all, it becomes clear again that the Euphrates region had no static boundaries,120Sommer 2005, 48–54.not least since the region near to Euphrates Valley, the Khabur Valley, was used for economic gain. Without any doubt the agricultural richness of this valley in a very arid region, in which agriculture was confined to the valleys of the rivers,121See Tardieu 1990 regarding the fertility and geomorphology of the Khabur valley.was a pull factor for the “Romans,” who were attracted by its fertility. Finally, as mentioned above, this Roman interest in the Khabur valley became manifest through the deployment of a cohort.122Sommer 2005, 310–311 and 326.

The Red Sea (modern sense)

As mentioned above, the Red Sea was seen by the Romans evidently already since the time of Augustus as a part of the Roman realm.123Speidel 2007, 301–304.Furthermore the Romans tried to secure the zone through diplomatic relations, for which they used the category ofamicitia.124Id. 2016a, 171–174. On amicitia in Roman foreign policy, see Zack 2013; 2015a; 2015b.The Red Sea was an area in which, through trade, every-day contacts between “Romans” and “non-Romans?” took place.Of course, it is first and foremost the long-distance trade which brought “non-Romans?” to the Roman coast. Consequently, the presence of people from Axum,sub-Saharan Africa, the kingdoms of southern Arabia, the Nabataen kingdom,Palmyra, and India as well as Sri Lanka is attested for the Roman gateway harbor of Berenice on the south-eastern edge of the Eastern Desert.125Sidebotham 2011, 69; Thomas 2012, 173–174.Furthermore, there is epigraphic evidence for the presence of Indian traders in Egypt.126Salomon 1991; 1993.

Interestingly, there is also evidence for the presence of people who supposedly came from the adjacent regions to the Roman ports of the Red Sea. Greek and Roman literature labelled the “non-Greek” and “non-Roman” inhabitants of the Red Sea as “fish-eaters” (?χθυοφ?γοι).127See Longo 1987; Schneider 2004, 61–64; Thomas 2007; Nalesini 2009.Also the anonymous author of thePeriplus Maris Erythraei– a geographical writing with special emphasis on trade128On this writing, see more recently e.g. Seland 2010; Marcotte 2016.– describes the major part of people dwelling on the coast of the Red Sea in this way.129Ruffing 2017, 189.Still, the labelling of “non-Greek” and “non-Roman” based on what they eat has been a common feature of Greek and Latin ethnography, since the time of Herodotus, used to characterize them as barbarians.130Bichler 2001, 46–47.Nevertheless these ethnonyms (or exonyms) find their way into the official and administrative language. Therefore, anichthyophagusis mentioned in an ostracon from Myos Hormos: a certain Pakubis,Ichthyophagus, asks for a permit to move his fishing boat to a port named Philoteras.131Thomas 2012, 174 and 176.Though it is not impossible thatIchthyophagushere is used as a nickname, one could add further evidence for exonyms originating from ancient ethnography – in other words on a literary level – in official documents, as is the case with theAgriophagi, who can be found in a dedication of a Roman commander from the time of Hadrian.132I. Pan 87. Cf. Ruffing 2012, 281; 2017, 189; Reinard 2018, 214–215.As a result, it is a reasonable conclusion to interpret theIchthyophagusmentioned in the ostracon as really coming from the coasts of the Red Sea outside the Roman province of Egypt. Furthermore, the archaeology of Myos Hormos and Berenike proves through the analysis of archaeologically visible consumption patterns the presence of groups with different cultural identities, which at least partly have a local coastal background.133Thomas 2012, 174–181.In other words: whilst the Roman army in the Eastern Desert,which was one of the most intensively surveilled zones of the Roman Empire, had hostile contacts with parts of the local population which at least partly came from outside the province, other parts collaborated with the Roman authorities and provided supplies for the ports of the Roman ports on the Red Sea. If the abovementioned Pakubis really was anIchthyophagus, his presence in Myos Hormos proves the existence of fishermen from outside the province who allegedly brought their catch to the Roman harbor. Indeed, the supply of the harbors on the coast of the Eastern Desert as well as the supply of the installations in the Eastern Desert was a huge and difficult task, because there was almost no agricultural hinterland which could have been used for the supply of the great number of people who came there for economic reasons, above all the trade with India. In fact it was assumed that 500 camel loads per month were needed for feeding the population of Roman Berenice.134McLaughlin 2014, 80.Consequently, grain is the most important item in the texts of the Nicanor-Archive, which consists of receipts for the transport of goods from Coptos to the harbors of the Red Sea.135Ruffing 1993.Thus fish brought to the Roman harbors byIchthyophagiwould have been a very welcome addition.Therefore, the Red Sea provides another example for economic exchange on the fringes of the Roman Empire. It is an interesting fact that neither the sea nor the desert prevented “non-Romans” from having contact with the “Romans” inside the province. On the contrary, the Roman presence in the Eastern Desert which was first and foremost induced by economic reasons – trade from the Red Sea as well as mining and quarrying in the Eastern Desert136Hirt 2010, 12–24.– created a huge demand in an area where people had quite few own resources at their disposal. In addition to the civilians a rather large number of Roman soldiers surveilled and secured the Eastern Desert, not least because mining and quarrying were imperial tasks. The Roman forces had to be supplied as well, but – as can be observed in other regions of the Empire – the presence of soldiers due to their purchasing power and their usual consumption beyond the provisions made by the Roman state137Even though the presence of the Roman army due to the need of supplying the troops transformed the agriculture in the provinces of the Roman empire and beyond: see Stoll 2001; 2015, 59–100.– created additional demand in the markets.138Ibid., 96–100.Indeed most of this demand was met from the Nile Valley, as is attested by hundreds of private letters asking for foodstuff and other items to be sent to someone in the Eastern Desert.139Ruffing 1995, 25–32; Bülow-Jacobson 2003, 413–422.Nevertheless it seems a reasonable assumption that “non-Romans” were attracted by this demand as well.Thus, the Roman presence and the need for foodstuffs, at least in the harbors can be seen as a motivation for the local population outside the province to trade with the “Romans” and even others coming from distant lands.

Conclusion

These short remarks and considerations on economic life on the fringes of the Roman Empire have given an insight into everyday contacts and transactions in three different regions. Of course, what has been said is far from being a discussion of all available evidence. In spite of the differences between them,these three regions evidently shared some common features. Firstly, the desire for economic gain and thus to exploit resources pushed the “Romans” beyond the lines of what on an administrative level might have been considered as the frontier lines of the Roman provinces. Secondly, it seems that under certain circumstances the creation of such a visible borderline was the reason for a concentration and agglomeration of settlements of “non-Romans.” At least exactly this was allegedly the case in the Wetterau and the Main Triangle.The reason for that was the growing demand on the Roman side, where the construction of camps went hand in hand with the emergence ofvici, i.e. the settlements of civilians. Thirdly, in general the arrival and stationing of Roman troops meant a reasonable growth of purchasing power at any given place.Although Roman soldiers had their regular food supply,140Kissel 1995; Roth 1999.their arrival created a huge demand for foodstuffs and other items of everyday life. This also induced trade from the point of view of the “non-Romans.”141A similar pattern can be observed in North-Africa: Broekaert and Vanacker 2016.Fourthly, the evidence discussed here justifies the view that the Roman frontier zones as well as the Roman frontier lines had a great permeability. Of course, there was security architecture, and there were also conflicts with “non-Romans” in the frontier zones, which from a Roman point of view necessitated harsh military reactions.On the other hand, however, there were people who willingly interacted with the “Romans” on an economic level. Fifthly, the creation of border lines by the Roman administration could have an impact on the economy of “non-Romans”who lived at a greater distance to the frontier line, as is demonstrated in the case of lead production in modern Westphalia. Furthermore, the Roman presence in these frontier zones brought with it the transfer of technology, which had an impact on the economy of “non-Romans” as well.142Stoll 1993; 1997; Sch?rner 2016.And, last but not least, the economic contact between the “Romans” and “non-Romans” induced and/or fostered social and political change in the societies beyond the frontiers of the Empire.143Whittaker 1983, 116–121; Wells 2007, 260–263 and 267–269; Heather 2011, 520–524.

We can possibly grasp a pattern here which is a particular feature of the Roman Empire. It had a standing army and this army of about 300,000 men stood on the frontiers of the Empire. This army and its not-to-be-neglected veterans had a deep impact on the economy and society of the frontier provinces, not least because the Roman emperor transferred tons of silver coinage to his soldiers year by year and thus created enormous purchasing power on the frontiers. This led without any doubt to substantial economic and demographic growth on the fringes of the empire and made exactly these fringes an attractive place for economic exchange,even for people living outside the visible borderline or the invisible frontiers.At the same time, the economic growth made the border regions as well as the provincial areas beyond them a target for raids of “non-Roman” groups. But as long as the Roman military was able to control the frontier zone and to cope with such raids, the development of “frontier societies” was rather impossible or at least a phenomenon which during the Early and the High Empire could be controlled by Roman authorities.144On the concept of “frontier society,” see Carl and B?melburg 2011, 20.Of course, the situation changed dramatically with the creation of new political entities outside the Roman Empire, which caused a higher pressure on the frontiers of the Roman realm. This pressure,however, was not least motivated by economic driving forces, as far as the Western part of the Empire is concerned.145Heather 2011, 110–120 and 520–524; see esp. p. 118 regarding the role of accumulating wealth for the position of Germanic leaders, and p. 524 regarding the importance of successfully raiding the Roman provinces for the development of new Germanic entities.Yet, in the East it was the new super power in the form of the Sassanid Empire which challenged the Roman rule there.146Heather 2011, 81–90; Wieseh?fer 2014, 452.But even in the case of the mainly hostile relationships between the Later Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire trade was an issue of interest for both Empires, since in peace treaties special places for economic interaction were agreed between both parties.147Winter 1987.Nevertheless, the conclusion can be drawn that the economic exchange was to a certain degree a factor guaranteeing stability in the border zones of the Roman Empire, because it created win-win-situations on both sides of the frontiers. On the other hand, however, these win-win-situations brought about economic, social, and political change, which together with other causes and implications had an overwhelming pressure on the Roman frontiers as a fatal consequence. Thus, at the end of the day, stability had instability as a rather necessary consequence. A study of these structural issues and their comparison with other empires would be a worthwhile task for future research.

Bibliography

Abegg, A. 2011.

“überlegungen zu Art und Intensit?t der R?misch-Germanischen Kontakte in Lahntal.” In: id., Walter and Biegert 2011, 357–361.

Abegg, A., Walter, D. and Biegert, S. (eds.). 2011.

Die Germanen und der Limes. Ausgrabungen im Vorfeld des Wetterau-Limes im Raum Wetzlar-Gie?en.R?misch-Germanische Forschungen 67. Mainz:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Awan, N. 2016.

“Introduction to Border Topologies.”GeoHumanities2/2: 279–283.

Bechert, T. 2001.

“Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in der ProvinzGermania inferior. Zum Stand der Forschung.” In: Th. Grünewald (ed.),Germania inferior! Besiedlung,Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft an der Grenze der r?misch-germanischen Welt.Erg?nzungsb?nde zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 28. Berlin& New York: De Gruyter, 1–18.

Benjamin, C. 2018.

Empires of Ancient Eurasia. The First Silk Roads Era, 100 BCE – 250 CE.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Benoist, St. 2016.

“The Emperor Beyond the Frontiers: A Double Mirror as a ‘Political Discourse’.”In: Slootjes and Peachin 2016, 45–64.

Bernstein, F. 2010.

“Das Imperium Romanum – ein ,Reich‘?”Gymnasium117: 49–66.

Bichler, R. 2001.

Herodots Welt. Der Aufbau der Historie am Bild der fremden L?nder und V?lker,ihrer Zivilisation und ihrer Geschichte.2 Aufl. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Bloemers, J. H. F. 1989.

“Acculturation in the Rhine/Meuse Basin in the Roman Period: Some Demographical Considerations.” In: J. C. Barrett, A. P. Fitzpatrick and L. Macinnes(eds.),Barbarians and Romans in North-West Europe from the Later Republic to Late Antiquity.Oxford: BAR, 175–197.

Boozer, A. 2013.

“Frontiers and Borderlands in Imperial Perspectives: Exploring Rome’s Egyptian Frontier.”American Journal of Archaeology117: 275–292.

Bowman, A., Tomlin, R. S. O. and Worp, K. A. 2009.

“Emptio bovis Frisica: The ‘Frisian Ox Sale’ Reconsidered.”Journal of Roman Studies99: 156–170.Breeze, D. J. 2006.

“Grenzen im r?mischen Imperium.” In:Grenzen des R?mischen Imperiums.Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 3–6.

Breeze, D. J. and Dobson, B. 2000.

Hadrian’s Wall. 4th ed. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Breeze, D. J. and Jelek, S. 2005.

“Tactics, Operation. How did Frontiers Actually Work?” In: Z. Visy (ed.),Limes XIX. Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Pécs, Hungary, September 2003. Pécs: University of Pécs, 141–146.

Brokaert, W. and Vanacker, W. 2016.

“Raiders to Traders? Economics of Integration among Nomadic Communities in North Africa.” In: Slootjes and Peachin 2016, 96–122.

Bülow-Jacobson, A. 2003.

“The Traffic on the Road and the Provisioning of the Stations.” In: Cuvigny 2003, 399–426.

Buringh, E. and Bosker, M. 2015.

“Soldiers and Booze. The Rise and Decline of a Roman Market Economy in North-Western Europe.” In: R. J. van der Spek, B. van Leeuwen and J. Luiten van Zanden (eds.),A History of Market Performance. From Ancient Babylonia to the Modern World. London & New York: Routledge, 236–266.

Cahill Wilson, J. 2017.

“Et tu Hibernia? Frontier Zones and Culture Contact – Ireland in a Roman World.” In: S. Gonzales Sanchez and A. Guglielmi (eds.),Romans and Barbarians beyond the Frontiers. Archaeology, Ideology and Identities in the North.Themes in Roman Archaeology 1. Oxford & Philadelphia: Oxbow, 48–69.Carl, H. and B?melburg, H.-J. 2011.

“Einleitung.” In: eid. (eds.),Lohn der Gewalt. Beutepraktiken von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit. Krieg in der Geschichte 72. Paderborn et al.: Sch?ningh, 11–30.

Cobb, M. A. 2018.

Rome and the Indian Ocean Trade from Augustus to the Early Third Century CE.Mnemosyne Supplements 418. Leiden & Boston: Brill.—— (ed.). 2019.

The Indian Ocean Trade in Antiquity. Political, Cultural and Economic Impacts.London & New York: Routledge.

Cuvigny, H. 2003.

La route de Myos Hormos. L’armée romaine dans le désert Oriental d’égypte.vols. 1–2. Fouilles de l’IFAO 48. Cairo: Le Caire Institut Fran?ais d’Archéologie Orientale.

De Martino, F. 2020.

The Indo-Roman Pepper Trade and the Muziris Papyrus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Depeyrot, G. 2010.

La colonne de Marc Aurèle. tomes 1–2. Wetteren: Moneta.

Di Cosmo, N. and Maas, M. (eds.). 2018.

Empires and Exchanges in Eurasian Late Antiquity. Rome, China, Iran, and the Steppe ca. 250–750.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dirven, L. 1996.

“The Nature of Trade between Palmyra and Dura-Europos.”ARAM8: 39–54.

Duff, J. D. 1934.

Silius Italicus. Punica. Books I–VIII. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.

Ehmig, U. 2012.

“Auf dem Holzweg. Bev?lkerungsdichte und natürliche Ressourcen. überlegungen zum Holzbedarf im r?mischen Rheinland.”Ancient Society42: 159–218.

Eigmüller, M. and Voruba, G. 2016.

“Einleitung: Warum eine Soziologie der Grenze?” In: eid. (eds.),Grenzsoziologie. Die politische Strukturierung des Raumes. 2. Aufl. Wiesbaden:Springer Fachmedien, 1–6.

Erdrich, M. 2001.

“Wirtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen der Germania inferior und dem germanischen Vorland – ein Wunschbild.” In: Th. Grünewald (ed.),Germania inferior! Besiedlung, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft an der Grenze der r?mischgermanischen Welt.Erg?nzungsb?nde zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 28. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter, 306–335.

Evers, K. G. 2017.

Worlds Apart Trading Together. The Organisation of Long-Distance Trade Between Rome and India in Antiquity.Oxford: Archaeopress.

Fulford, M. 1989.

“Roman and Barbarian: The Economy of Roman Frontier Systems.” In: J. C. Barrett,A. P. Fitzpatrick and L. Macinnes (eds.),Barbarians and Romans in North-West Europe from the Later Republic to Late Antiquity.Oxford: BAR, 81–95.

Galestin, M. C. 2009/2010.

“Tolsum Revisited: How the Frisian Ox Disappeared.”Palaeohistoria51/52:9–26.—— 2017.

“Patterns in Cross-frontier Relations.” In: N. Hodgson, P. Bidwell and J. Schachtmann (eds.),Roman Frontier Studies 2009. Proceedings of the XXI Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (Limes Congress) Held at Newcastle upon Tyne in August 2009. Oxford: Archaeopress, 278–283.

Gonzales Sanchez, S. and Guglielmi, A. 2017.

Romans and Barbarians beyond the Frontiers. Archaeology, Ideology and Identities in the North. Themes in Roman Archaeology 1. Oxford & Philadelphia: Oxbow.

Gechter, M. 2001.

“Die Wirtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen dem r?mischen Reich und dem Bergischen Land.” In: Th. Grünewald (ed.),Germania inferior! Besiedlung,Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft an der Grenze der r?misch-germanischen Welt.Erg?nzungsb?nde zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 28. Berlin& New York: De Gruyter, 517–546.

Graf, D. F. 2018.

“The Silk Road between Syria and China.” In: A. Wilson and A. Bowman (eds.),Trade, Commerce and the State in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 443–529.

Gra?l, H. 2014.

“R?mische H?ndlersiedlungen in der sp?ten Republik und in der frühen Kaiserzeit.” In: H. Heftner and K. Tomaschitz (eds.),Ad Fontes! Festschrift für G. Dobesch zum fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag dargebracht von Kollegen,Schülern und Freunden. Vienna: Phoibos, 295–301.

Gregoratti, L. 2016.

“Dura-Europos: A Greek Town of the Parthian Empire.” In: T. Kaizer (ed.),Religion, Society and Culture at Dura-Europos. Yale Classical Studies 38.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 16–29.

Griebel, J. 2013.

Der Kaiser im Krieg. Die Bilder der S?ule des Marc Aurel. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.

Guédon, St. 2016.

“Lastatio camellariorum: circulation et transports caravaniers dans le corpus des ostraca de Bu Njem.”Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik197: 249–256.

Günther, S. forthcoming

“Die Germanen und das Geld: Anmerkungen zu Tac. Germ. 5,3.”Gymnasium.

Günther, S. and Reinard, P. 2017.

“The Ancient Economy – New Studies and Approaches.”Journal of Ancient Civilizations32: 55–105.

Habermann, W. 2009.

“Brennstoffe im griechisch-r?mischen ?gypten (und darüber hinaus) I:Brennholz.” In: R. Eberhard et al. (eds.),?...vor dem Papyrus sind alle gleich!“.Papyrologische Beitr?ge zu Ehren von B?rbel Kramer (P. Kramer). Archiv für Papyrusforschung Beiheft 27. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter, 32–71.

H?nger, Chr. 2007.

“Die Karte des Agrippa.” In: M. Rathmann (ed.),Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer R?ume in der Antike. Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 135–142.

Haensch, R. 2016.

“Safety first? CIL III, 128 et la rhétorique de la securitas.”Syria93: 29–44.

Hanel, N. and Rothenh?fer, P. 2005.

“Germanisches Blei für Rom. Zur Rolle des r?mischen Bergbaus im rechtsrheinischen Germanien im frühen Prinzipat.”Germania83: 53–65.

Hansen, V. 2017.

The Silk Road. A New History with Documents.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hanson, W. S. 1989.

“The Nature and Function of Roman Frontiers.” In: J. C. Barrett, A. P. Fitzpatrick and L. Macinnes (eds.),Barbarians and Romans in North-West Europe from the Later Republic to Late Antiquity.Oxford: BAR, 55–64.—— 2014.

“The Nature and Function of Roman Frontiers Revisited.” In: R. Collins and F. McIntosh (eds.),Life in the Limes. Studies of the People and Objects of the Roman Frontiers Presented to L. Allason-Jones on the Occasion of her Birthday and Retirement. Oxford & Philadelphia: Oxbow, 4–10.

Haslinger, P. and van Laak, D. 2018.

“Sicherheitsr?ume. Bausteine zu einem interdisziplin?ren Modell.”Saeculum68:9–35.

Heather, P. 2011.

Der Untergang des R?mischen Weltreiches.3. Aufl. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

Hedeager, L. 1987.

“Empire, Frontier and the Barbarian Hinterland: Rome and Northern Europe from AD 1–400.” In: M. Rowlands, M. Larson and K. Kristiansen (eds.),Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,125–140.

Herz, P. 2001.

“Holz und Holzwirtschaft.” In: id. and G. Waldherr (eds.),Landwirtschaft im Imperium Romanum.Pharos 14. St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae, 101–117.

Hill, J. 2009.

Through the Jade Gate to Rome. A Study of the Silk Routes during the Later Han Dynasty 1st to 2nd Centuries CE. An Annotated Translation of the Chronicle on the ‘Western Regions’ in theHou Hanshu.Charleston: BookSurge.

Hingley, R. 2008.

The Recovery of Roman Britain 1586–1906. A Colony so Fertile. Oxford: Oxford University Press.—— 2010.

“‘The Most Ancient Boundary between England and Scotland’: Genealogies of the Roman Walls.”Classical Receptions Journal2: 25–43.—— 2017.

“Introduction: Imperial Limits and the Crossing of Frontiers.” In: S. Gonzales Sanchez and A. Guglielmi (eds.),Romans and Barbarians beyond the Frontiers. Archaeology,Ideology and Identities in the North. Themes in Roman Archaeology 1. Oxford &Philadelphia: Oxbow, 1–7.

Hodgson, N. 2005.

“Gates and Passage across the Frontiers: The Use of Openings through the Barriers of Britain, Germany and Raetia.” In: Z. Visy (ed.),Limes XIX.Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Pécs, Hungary, September 2003. Pécs: University of Pécs, 183–188.

Hughes, D. J. 2014.

“Ancient Deforestation Revisited.”Journal of the History of Biology44: 43–57.

Hunter, F. 2005.

“Rome and the Creation of the Picts.” In: Z. Visy (ed.),Limes XIX. Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Pécs,Hungary, September 2003. Pécs: University of Pécs, 235–244.

James, S. 2019.

The Roman Military Base at Dura-Europos, Syria. An Archaeological Visualization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jankovi?, M. A. 2014.

The Edges of the Roman World. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

J?rdens, A. 2009.

Statthalterliche Verwaltung in der r?mischen Kaiserzeit. Studien zumpraefectus Aegypti. Historia Einzelschriften 175. Stuttgart: Steiner.

Kaizer, T. 2015.

“Dura-Europos under Roman Rule.” In: J. M. Cortés Copete, E. Mu?ez Grijalvo and F. Lozano Gómez (eds.),Ruling the Greek World. Approaches to the Roman Empire in the East. Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beitr?ge 52. Stuttgart:Steiner, 91–101.—— 2016.

“Introduction.” In: id. (ed.),Religion, Society and Culture at Dura-Europos. Yale Classical Studies 38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–15.

Kehne, P. 1999.

“Grenze § 3.”Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde13: 10–15.—— 2002.

“Limitierte Offensiven: Drusus, Tiberius und die Germanienpolitik im Dienste des augusteischen Prinzipats.” In: J. Spielvogel (ed.),Res publica reperta. Zur Verfassung und Gesellschaft der r?mischen Republik und des frühen Prinzipats.Festschrift für J. Bleicken zum 75. Geburtstag. Stuttgart: Steiner, 297–321.—— 2010.

“Wer war Feind, wer war Partner Roms in der Kontaktzone Rhein-Main-Lahn w?hrend der c?sarisch-augusteischen Germanienpolitik? Fragen zu Informationsdivergenzen zwischen kaiserzeitlicher Geographie, Historiographie und r?mischer Au?enpolitik.” In: K. Ruffing, A. Becker and G. Rasbach (eds.),Kontaktzone Lahn. Studien zum Kulturkontakt zwischen R?mern und germanischen St?mmen.Philippika 38. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 31–65.

Kissel, Th. K. 1995.

Untersuchungen zur Logistik des r?mischen Heeres in den Provinzen des griechischen Ostens (27 v. Chr. – 235 n. Chr.). Pharos VI. St. Katharinen: Scripta mercaturae.

Kornemann, E. 1934.

Die unsichtbaren Grenzen des R?mischen Kaiserreiches.Ver?ffentlichungen des Ungarischen Nationalen Ausschusses für internationale geistige Zusammenarbeit 2. Budapest: Ungarische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Kritzinger, P. 2017.

“Ein neues Zeugnis eines alten Bekannten: Bleisiegel, Bleihandel und Bleiproduktion im freien Germanien.”Marburger Beitr?ge zur antiken Handels-,Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte35: 87–107.

Kuhoff, W. 1993.

Felicior Augusto, melior Traiano. Aspekte der Selbstdarstellung der r?mischen Kaiser w?hrend der Prinzipatszeit. Frankfurt a.M. et al.: P. Lang.

Kunow, J. 1986.

“Bemerkungen zum Export r?mischer Waffen in das Barbarikum.” In:Studien zu den Milit?rgrenzen Roms III. 13. Internationaler Limeskongre? Aalen 1983.Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, 740–746.

Lendering, J. and Bosman, A. 2012.

Edge of Empire. Rome’s Frontier on the Lower Rhine. Rotterdam: Karwansaray.

Liu, X. 2010.

The Silk Road in World History.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lo Cascio, E. 2017.

Die neue Wirtschaftsgeschichte des R?mischen Reiches. Paradigmen und Ans?tze. Beitr?ge zur Wirtschaftsarch?ologie 1. Bonn: Habelt.

Locher, J. 1999.

Topographie und Geschichte der Region am ersten Nilkatarakt in griechischr?mischer Zeit. Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete Beiheft 5.Stuttgart & Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.

Longo, O. 1987.

“I mangiatori di pesci: regime alimentare e quadro culturale.”Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici18: 9–55.

Luther, A. 2002.

“R?mische Milit?rposten der Severerzeit am Unteren Hābur.”G?ttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft5: 1–9.—— 2004.

“Dura-Europos zwischen Palmyra und den Parthern. Der politische Status der Region am Mittleren Euphrat im 2. Jh. n. Chr. und die Organisation des palmyrenischen Fernhandels.” In: R. Rollinger and Chr. Ulf (eds.),Commerce and Monetary Systems in the Ancient World: Means of Transmission and Cultural Interaction. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project Held in Innsbruck, Austria, October 3rd–8th 2002. Oriens et Occidens 6. Stuttgart: Steiner, 327–351.—— 2009.

“Osrhoener am Niederrhein. Drei altsyrische Grafitti aus Krefeld-Gellep (und andere frühe altsyrische Schriftzeugnisse).”Marburger Beitr?ge zur antiken Handels-, Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte27: 11–30.

Macinnes, L. 1989.

“Baubles, Bangles and Beads: Trade and Exchange in Roman Scotland.” In:J. C. Barrett, A. P. Fitzpatrick and L. Macinnes (eds.),Barbarians and Romans in North-West Europe from the Later Republic to Late Antiquity.Oxford: BAR,108–116.

Mair, V. H. and Hickman, J. 2014.

Reconfiguring the Silk Road. New Research on East-West Exchange in Antiquity.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Mairs, R. 2012.

“Interpreting at Vindolanda: Commercial and Linguistic Mediation in the Roman Army.”Britannia43: 17–28.

Marcotte, D. 2016.

“LePériple de la Mer érythréeet les informateurs de Ptolemée. Géographie et traditions textuelles.”Journal Asiatique304: 33–46.

Marincola, J. 2011.

“Romans and/as Barbarians.” In: L. Bonfante (ed.),The Barbarians of Ancient Europe. Realities and Interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,347–357.

Mathew, K. S. 2017.

Imperial Rome, Indian Ocean Regions and Muziris. New Perspectives on Maritime Trade. London & New York: Routledge.

Mattingly, D. J. 1999.

“War and Peace in Roman North Africa. Observations and Models of State-Tribe Interaction.” In: R. B. Ferguson and N. L. Whitehead (eds.),War in the Tribal Zone. Expanding States and Indigenous Warfare. 2nd ed. Santa Fe & Oxford:School of American Research Press, 31–60.—— 2013.

“To South and to North: Saharan Trade in Antiquity.” In: H. Eckardt and St. Rippon(eds.),Living and Working in the Roman World: Essays in Honour of M. Fulford on his 65th Birthday. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 169–190.

McLaughlin, R. 2010.

Rome and the Distant East. Trade Routes to the Ancient Lands of Arabia, India and China. London & New York: Continuum.—— 2014.

The Roman Empire and the Indian Ocean. The Ancient World Economy and the Kingdoms of Africa, Arabia and India.Barnsley: Pen and Sword Maritime.

Melzer, W. and Capelle, T. 2007.

Bleibergbau und Bleiverarbeitung w?hrend der r?mischen Kaiserzeit im rechtsrheinischen Barbaricum.Soester Beitr?ge zur Arch?ologie 8. Soest: Westf?lische Verlagsbuchhandlung Mocker & Jahn.

Meyer, J. Chr. and Seland, E. H. 2016.

“Palmyra and the Trade Route to the Euphrates.”ARAM28: 497–523.

Meyer, J. Chr., Seland, E. H. and Anfinset, N. (eds.). 2016.

Palmyrena: City, Hinterland and Caravan Trade between Orient and Occident.Proceedings of the Conference Held in Athens, December 1–3, 2012. Oxford:Archaeopress.

Mirschenz, M. 2013.

Flie?ende Grenzen. Studien zur r?mischen Kaiserzeit im Ruhrgebiet.Bochumer Forschungen zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Arch?ologie 6. Rahden/Westf.:Leidorf.

Moosbauer, G. and Wiegels, R. 2011.

Fines imperii – imperium sine fine?R?mische Okkupations-und Grenzpolitik im frühen Principat.Osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 14. Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf.

Moschek, W. 2011.

Der R?mische Limes. Eine Kultur-und Mentalit?tsgeschichte. Speyer:Kartoffeldruck.

Nalesini, O. 2009.

“History and Use of an Ethnonym: Ichthyphágoi.” In: L. Blue et al. (eds.),Connected Hinterlands. Proceedings of Red Sea Project IV Held at the University of Southampton September 2008.Oxford: BAR, 9–18.

Nappo, D. 2018.

“Money and the Flows of Coinage in the Red Sea Trade.” In: A. Wilson and A. Bowman (eds.),Trade, Commerce and the State in the Roman World.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 557–578.

Nenninger, M. 2001.

Die R?mer und der Wald. Untersuchungen zum Umgang mit einem Naturraum am Beispiel der r?mischen Nordwestprovinzen. Geographica Historica 16. Stuttgart:Steiner.—— 2005.

“Forstwirtschaft und Energieverbrauch. Der Wald in der Antike.” In: Arch?ologisches Landesmuseum Baden-Württemberg (ed.),Imperium Romanum.Roms Provinzen an Neckar, Rhein und Donau. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 388–392.

Olshausen, E. 1999.

“l(fā)imes I. Allgemein.”Der Neue Pauly7: 192–195.

Payne, R. 2018.

“The Silk Road and the Iranian Political Economy in Late Antiquity: Iran, the Silk Road, and the Problem of Aristocratic Empire.”Bulletin of the SOAS81:227–250.

Pfaffenbichler, M. 2006.

“Grenzen im historischen Kontext.” In:Grenzen des R?mischen Imperiums.Mainz: Phillip von Zabern, 7–13.

Pitts, M. and Verluys, M. J. 2015.

Globalisation and the Roman World. World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Polverini, L. 1993.

“Cesare e il nome dei Germani.” In: D. Poli (ed.),La cultura in Cesare. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi Macerata-Matelica, 30 aprile – 4 maggio 1990.Rome: Il Calamo, 105–123.

Prontera, F. 2003.

Tabula Peutingeriana. Le antiche vie del mondo.Biblioteca di Geografia Antiqua 3. Florence: Leo S. Olschki.

Rasbach, G. 2010.

“Verkehrswege und wirtschaftliche Nutzung der Ressourcenin barbarico.” In:K. Ruffing, A. Becker and G. Rasbach (eds.),Kontaktzone Lahn. Studien zum Kulturkontakt zwischen R?mern und germanischen St?mmen. Philippika 38.Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 77–94.

Reichmann, Chr. 2001.

“(Krefeld-Gellep) als Fernhandelsplatz.” In: Th. Grünewald (ed.),Germania inferior! Besiedlung, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft an der Grenze der r?mischgermanischen Welt.Erg?nzungsb?nde zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 28. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter, 480–516.

Reinard, P. 2013.

“arma ultra litora Iuvernae promovimus– R?mer in Irland?”Marburger Beitr?ge zur antiken Handels-, Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte31: 1–36.—— 2018.

“Konfrontation und Kooperation jenseits des Niltals. Rom und die Wüstenst?mme von Baratit, dem Hypotyrannos der Barbaren, bis zu Diokletian.” In: K. Ruffing and K. Dro?-Krüpe (eds.),Emas non quod opus est, sed quod necesse est.Beitr?ge zur Wirtschafts-, Sozial-, Rezeptions-und Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Antike. Festschrift für H.-J. Drexhage zum 70.Geburtstag. Philippika 128.Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 205–259.

Ricci, C. 2018.

Security in Roman Times. Rome, Italy and the Emperors. London & New York:Routledge.

Richardson, J. 1991.

“Imperium Romanum: Empire and the Language of Power.”Journal of Roman Studies81: 1–9.—— 2008.

The Language of Empire. Rome and the Idea of Empire from the Third Century BC to the Second Century AD. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rollinger, R. forthcoming.

“Contextualizing the Achaemenid-Persian Empire: What Does Empire Mean in the First Millennium BCE?.” In: G. P. Basello, P. Callieri and A.V. Rossi (eds.),Achaemenid Studies Today. Proceedings of the SIE Mid-term Conference Held in Naples. Naples: University of Naples L’Orientale.

Rollinger, R. and Ruffing, K. 2013.

“Schlauchfl??e und Schwimmschl?uche an Euphrat und Tigris in der r?mischen

Kaiserzeit.” In: R. Breitwieser, M. Frass and G. Nightingale (eds.), Calamus.Festschrift für H. Gra?l zum 65. Geburtstag.Philippika 57. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz, 403–418.

Roth, J. P. 1999.

The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (264 B.C. – A.D. 235).Leiden, Boston& Cologne: Brill.

Rothenh?fer, P. 2004.

“Das Blei der Germanen. Bemerkungen zu einer neuen Fundgattung und zur Aufnahme der Bleiproduktion durch Germanen w?hrend der ?lteren R?mischen Kaiserzeit in Westfalen.”Arch?ologisches Korrespondenzblatt34: 423–434.—— 2005.

Die Wirtschaftsstrukturen im südlichen Niedergermanien. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung eines Wirtschaftsraumes an der Peripherie des Imperium Romanum.K?lner Studien zur Arch?ologie der R?mischen Provinzen 7. Rahden/Westf.:Leidorf.

Ruffing, K. 1993.

“Das Nikanor-Archiv und der r?mische Süd- und Osthandel.”Münstersche Beitr?ge zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte12/2: 1–26.—— 1995.

“Einige überlegungen zu Koptos: Ein Handelsplatz Ober?gyptens in r?mischer Zeit.”Münstersche Beitr?ge zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte14/1: 17–42.—— 2000.

“Die Gesch?fte des Aurelios Nebuchelos.”Laverna11: 71–105.—— 2007.

“Dura Europos: A City on the Euphrates and her Economic Importance in the Roman Era.” In: M. Sartre (ed.),Productions et échanges dans la Syrie grecque et romaine (Actes du colloque de Tours, juin 2003).Topoi Supplements 8. Lyon:De Boccard, 399–411.—— 2008.

“Friedliche Beziehungen. Der Handel zwischen den r?mischen Provinzen und Germanien.” In: H. Schneider (ed.),Feindliche Nachbarn. Rom und die Germanen.Cologne, Vienna & Weimar: B?hlau, 153–165.—— 2010.

“Dura Europos und seine Rolle im Fernhandel der R?mischen Kaiserzeit.” In:R. Rollinger et al. (eds.),Interkulturalit?t in der Alten Welt. Vorderasien, Hellas,?gypten und die vielf?ltigen Ebenen des Kontakts.Philippika 34. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz, 151–160.—— 2012.

“Durch die Wüste! Die Bedeutung der ?stlichen Wüste ?gyptens als Transportweg im Ost- und Südhandel der Kaiserzeit.” In: R. Rollinger et al. (eds.),Altertum und Gegenwart. 125 Jahre Alte Geschichte in Innsbruck. Vortr?ge der Ringvorlesung Innsbruck 2010. Innsbrucker Beitr?ge zur Kulturwissenschaft N.F.4. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universit?t Innsbruck,Bereich Sprachwissenschaft, 273–304.—— 2014.

“DasMare Erythraeumals Kontaktzone in der R?mischen Kaiserzeit.” In:R. Rollinger and K. Schnegg (eds.),Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten: Vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel. Colloquia Antiqua 10. Leuven, Paris & Walpole:Peeters, 181–192.—— 2016.

“Economic Life in Roman Dura-Europos.” In: T. Kaizer (ed.),Religion, Society and Culture at Dura-Europos. Yale Classical Studies 38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 190–198.—— 2017.

“Der Periplus Maris Erythraei und die Ethnographie der Erythra Thalassa.” In:R. Rollinger (ed.),Die Sicht auf die Welt zwischen Ost und West (750 v. Chr.–550 n. Chr.). Classica et Orientalia 12. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 185–195.—— 2018.

“Von Menschen und Mauern. Zur Wahrnehmung von Bedrohung in der r?mischen Kaiserzeit und der symbolischen Funktion von Stadtbefestigungen und ihren topographischen Gegebenheiten.”Saeculum68: 137–159.

Salomon, R. 1991.

“Epigraphic Remains of Indian Traders in Roman Egypt.”Journal of the American Oriental Society111: 731–736.—— 1993.

“Addenda to ‘Epigraphic Remains of Indian Traders in Roman Egypt’.”Journal of the American Oriental Society113: 593.

Schmidt, S. 2018.

“?(...) und schicke mir 10 K?rner Pfeffer“. Der Binnenhandel mit Pfeffer im r?mischen, byzantinischen und frühislamischen ?gypten.” In: K. Ruffing and K. Dro?-Krüpe (eds.),Emas non quod opus est, sed quod necesse est. Beitr?ge zur Wirtschafts-, Sozial-, Rezeptions-und Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Antike.Festschrift für H.-J. Drexhage zum 70. Geburtstag. Philippika 128. Wiesbaden:Harrassowitz, 85–105.

Schmitz-Emans, M. 2006.

“Vom Archipel des reinen Verstandes zur Nordwestpassage. Strategien der Grenzziehung, der Reflexion über Grenzen und des ?sthetischen Spiels mit Grenzen.”In: B. Burtscher-Bechter et al. (eds.),Grenzen und Entgrenzungen. Historischeund kulturwissenschaftliche überlegungen am Beispiel des Mittelmeerraums.Saarbrücker Beitr?ge zur Vergleichenden Literatur- und Kulturwissenschaft 36.Würzburg: K?nigshausen & Neumann, 19–47.

Schneider, P. 2004.

L’éthiopie et l’Inde. Interférences et confusions aux extrémités du monde antique(VIIIe siècle avant J.-C. – VIe siècle après J.-C.). CEFRA 335. Rome: école Fran?aise de Rome.—— 2015.

“Quod nunc Rubrum ad mare patescit: The mare Rubrum as a Frontier of the Roman Empire.”Klio97: 135–156.—— 2016.

“Transfer r?mischer Technik jenseits der Grenzen: Aneignung und Export.” In:Slootjes and Peachin 2016, 123–150.

Seland, E. H. 2010.

Ports and Political Power in the Periplus: Complex Societies and Maritime Trade on the Indian Ocean in the First Century AD. Oxford: BAR.—— 2016.

Ships of the Desert and Ships of the Sea. Palmyra in the World Trade of the First Three Centuries CE. Philippika 101. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Sidebotham, S. E. 2011.

Berenike and the Ancient Maritime Spice Route. Berkeley, Los Angeles &London: University of California Press.

Slootjes, D. and Peachin, M. (eds.). 2016.

Rome and the World beyond its Frontiers. Impact of Empire 21. Leiden &Boston: Brill.

Sommer, M. 2005.

Roms orientalische Steppengrenze: Palmyra – Edessa – Dura Europos – Hatra.Eine Kulturgeschichte von Pompeius bis Diocletian.Oriens et Occidens 9.Stuttgart: Steiner.

Speidel, M. A. 2007.

“Ausserhalb des Reiches? Zu neuen lateinischen Inschriften aus Saudi-Arabien und zur Ausdehnung der r?mischen Herrschaft am Roten Meer.”Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik163: 296–306.—— 2016a.

“Fernhandel und Freundschaft. Zu Romsamician den Handelsrouten nach Südarabien und Indien.”O(jiān)rbis Terrarum14: 155–193.—— 2016b.

“Die Throninschrift von Adulis und das R?mische Reich am Roten Meer zu Beginn des Dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr.”Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik200: 287–300.

Stahl, M. 1989.

“Zwischen Abgrenzung und Integration: Die Vertr?ge der Kaiser Mark Aurel und Commodus mit den V?lkern jenseits der Donau.”Chiron19: 289–317.

Steidl, B. 2007.

“Der Blick über den ?Zaun?: Die Germanen im Vorfeld des Limes. Freunde –Feinde – Ignoranten?” In: A. Thiel (ed.),Forschungen zur Funktion des Limes.3. Fachkollegium der Deutschen Limeskommission 17./18. Februar 2005 in Wei?enburg i. Bay. Beitr?ge zum Welterbe Limes 2. Stuttgart: Theiss, 35–47.

Steinacher, R. 2010.

“Wie historisch ist der Germanenbegriff? Kleine Bemerkungen zu einem gro?en Problem.” In: K. Ruffing, A. Becker and G. Rasbach (eds.),Kontaktzone Lahn.Studien zum Kulturkontakt zwischen R?mern und germanischen St?mmen.Philippika 38. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 139–152.

Stoll, O. 1993.

“Der Transfer von Technologie in der r?mischen Antike. Einige zus?tzliche Bemerkungen zu einem Buch von Sigrid Du?ek.”Münstersche Beitr?ge zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte12/2: 93–118.—— 1997.

“Terra pecorum fecunda, sed plerumque improceraoder: Warum die Germanen nicht an der Blüte der Tierzucht der R?mer teilhatten.” In: K. Ruffing and B. Tenger(eds.),Miscellanea oeconomica. Studien zur antiken Wirtschaftsgeschichte.H. Winkel zum 65. Geburtstag. Pharos IX. St. Katharinen 1997: Scripta Mercaturae Verlag, 150–180.—— 2001.

“Armee und Agrarwirtschaft: die ?Stationen“ vor dem norisch-pannonischen Limes und die Landwirtschaft im ?Freien Germanien“.” In: id. (ed.),R?misches Heer und Gesellschaft.Gesammelte Beitr?ge 1991–1999. MAVORS 13.Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 452–511.—— 2015.

Ehrenwerte M?nner. Veteranen im r?mischen Nahen Osten der Kaiserzeit. Eine Studie zur Wirtschafts-, Sozial-und Kulturgeschichte der nah?stlichen Provinzen anhand papyrologischer und epigraphischer Zeugnisse.Berlin: Frank & Timme.—— 2016.

“Melonen, M?hmaschinen und Manager. Limeszonen als transkulturelle(Wirtschafts-) R?ume.” In: K. Dro?-Krüpe, S. F?llinger and K. Ruffing (eds.),Antike Wirtschaft und ihre kulturelle Pr?gung/The Cultural Shaping of the Ancient Economy.Philippika 98. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 235–266.

Symonds, M. 2018.

Protecting the Roman Empire. Fortlets, Frontiers, and the Quest for Post-Conquest Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Talbert, R. 2007.

“Peutinger’s Map: The Physical Landscape Framework.” In: M. Rathmann (ed.),Wahrnehmung und Erfassung geographischer R?ume in der Antike. Mainz:Phillip von Zabern, 221–230.

Tardieu, M. 1990.

Les paysages reliques: routes et haltes syrienne d’Isidore à Simplicius.Leuven:Peeters.

Tausend, K. 1987.

“Die Bedeutung des Importes aus Germanien für den r?mischen Markt.”Tyche2:217–227.

Thomas, R. I. 2007.

“The Arab?gypti Ichthyophagi: Cultural Connections with Egypt and the Maintenance of Identity.” In: J. Starkey, P. Starkey and T. Wilkinson (eds.),Natural Resources and Cultural Connections of the Red Sea. Proceedings of the Red Sea Project III Held in the British Museum October 2006. Oxford: BAR,149–160.—— 2012.

“Port Communities in the Erythraen Sea Trade.”British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan18: 169–199.

Timpe, D. 1998.

“Germanen, Germania, Germanische Alterumskunde I A, Germanen, historisch.”Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde112: 181–245.

Tomber, R. 2018.

“Egypt and the Eastern Commerce During the Second Century AD and Later.”In: A. Wilson and A. Bowman (eds.),Trade, Commerce and the State in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 531–555.

T?r?k, L. 2008.

Between Two Worlds. The Frontier Region between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC – 500 AD. Probleme der ?gyptologie 29. Leiden: Brill.—— 2012.

“Between Egypt and Meroitic Nubia: The Southern Frontier Region.” In: C. Riggs(ed.),The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press,749–762.

Vandorpe, K. 2015.

“Roman Egypt and the Organisation of Customs Duties.” In: P. Kritzinger,F. Schleicher and T. Stickler (eds.),Studien zum r?mischen Zollwesen.Duisburg: Wellem, 89–110.

van Enckevort, H. 2001.

“Bemerkungen zum Besiedlungssystem in den süd?stlichen Niederlanden w?hrend der sp?ten vorr?mischen Eisenzeit und der r?mischen Kaiserzeit.”In: Th. Grünewald (ed.),Germania inferior! Besiedlung, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft an der Grenze der r?misch-germanischen Welt.Erg?nzungsb?nde zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 28. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter, 336–396.

Verhagen, Ph., Joyce, J. and Groenhuijzen, M. R. 2019.

“Finding the Limits of the Limes: Setting the Scene.” In: eid. (eds.),Finding the Limits of the Limes. Modelling Demography, Economy and Transport on the Edge of the Roman Empire.Cham: Springer, 1–19.

Villeneuve, M. F. 2004.

“Une inscription latine sur l’archipel Farasan, Arabie Séoudite, sud de la Mer Rouge.”Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres2004: 419–429.

Vitale, M. 2013.

“Kolchis in der hohen Kaiserzeit: R?mische Eparchie oder n?rdlicher Au?enposten des Limes Ponticus?”Historia62: 241–258.

von Schnurbein, S. 2005.

“Der Limes als Filter.” In: Z. Visy (ed.),Limes XIX. Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Pécs, Hungary,September 2003. Pécs: University of Pécs, 57–61.

Wahl, F. 2015.

“The Long Shadow of History: Roman Legacy and Economic Development –Evidence from the German Limes.”Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business,Economics and Social Sciences08-2015, accessed under: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:100-opus-11188 (31.08.2020).

Weaverdyck, E. J. S. 2019.

“The Role of Forts in the Local Market System in the Lower Rhine: Towards a Method of Multiple Hypothesis Testing Through Comparative Modelling.”In: Ph. Verhagen, J. Joyce and M. R. Groenhuijzen (eds.),Finding the Limits of the Limes. Modelling Demography, Economy and Transport on the Edge of the Roman Empire. Cham: Springer, 165–190.

Weiler, B. 2006.

“Das Unbehagen in der Multikulturoderüber die Bedeutung von Grenzen im Zeitalter der ,Neuen V?lkerwanderung‘.” In: B. Burtscher-Bechter et al.(eds.),Grenzen und Entgrenzungen. Historische und kulturwissenschaftliche überlegungen am Beispiel des Mittelmeerraums. Saarbrücker Beitr?ge zur Vergleichenden Literatur- und Kulturwissenschaft 36. Würzburg: K?nigshausen& Neumann, 334–350.

Wells, P. S. 2007.

Die Barbaren sprechen. Kelten, Germanen und das r?mische Europa. Darmstadt:Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.—— 2011.

“The Ancient Germans.” In: L. Bonfante (ed.),The Barbarians of Ancient Europe. Realities and Interactions.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,211–232.—— 2013.

Rome beyond its Frontiers. Imports, Attitudes and Practices. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplements 94. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology.

Whittaker, C. R. 1983.

“Trade and Frontiers of the Roman Empire.” In: P. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker(eds.),Trade and Famine in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, 110–127.—— 1994.

Frontiers of the Roman Empire. A Social and Economic Study.Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wieseh?fer, J. 2014.

“Parther und Sassaniden. Imperien zwischen Rom und China.” In: M. Gehler and R. Rollinger (eds.),Imperien und Reiche in der Weltgeschichte. Epochenübergreifende und globalhistorische Vergleiche. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 449–478.

Wilson, A. 2012.

“Saharan Trade in the Roman Period: Short-, Medium- and Long-Distance Trade Networks.”Azania47: 409–449.—— 2018.

“Trade across Rome’s Southern Frontier. The Sahara and the Garamantes.” In:id. and A. Bowman (eds.),Trade, Commerce and the State in the Roman World.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 599–624.

Wilson, A. and Bowman, A. 2018.

“Introduction.” In: eid. (eds.),Trade, Commerce and the State in the Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–24.

Winter, E. 1987.

“Handel und Wirtschaft in Sāsānidisch-(Ost-)-R?mischen Vertr?gen und Abkommen.”Münstersche Beitr?ge zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte6/2: 46–74.Witcher, R. 2015.

“Globalisation and Roman Cultural History.” In: M. Pitts and M.J. Verluys (eds.),Globalisation and the Roman World. World History, Connectivity and Material Culture.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 198–222.

Wolters, R. 1990.

“Zum Waren- und Dienstleistungsaustausch zwischen dem R?mischen Reich und dem Freien Germanien in der Zeit des Prinzipats. Eine Bestandsaufnahme.”Münstersche Beitr?ge zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte9/1: 14–44.—— 1991.

“Der Waren- und Dienstleistungsaustausch zwischen dem R?mischen Reich und dem Freien Germanien in der Zeit des Prinzipats. Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Teil 2.”Münstersche Beitr?ge zur Antiken Handelsgeschichte10/1: 78–132.—— 1995.

“R?mische Funde in der Germania magna und das Problem r?mischgermanischer Handelsbeziehungen.” In: G. Franzius (ed.),Aspekte r?mischgermanischer Beziehungen in der frühen Kaiserzeit. Quellen und Schrifttum zur Kulturgeschichte des Wiehengebirgsraums Reihe B, 1. Espelkamp: Leidorf,99–117.

Yon, J.-B. 2007.

“Commer?ants et petits commer?ants sur les bords de l’Euphrate.” In: M. Sartre(ed.),Productions et échanges dans la Syrie grecque et romaine (Actes du colloque de Tours, juin 2003).Topoi Suppl. 8. Lyon: de Boccard, 413–428.

Zack, A. 2013.

“Forschungen über die rechtlichen Grundlagen der r?mischen Au?enbeziehungen w?hrend der Republik bis zum Beginn des Prinzipats. III. Teil:Der personenrechtliche Status deramici,sociiundamici et sociiund dieformula amicorumund dieformula sociorum.”G?ttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft16: 63–113.—— 2015a.

“Forschungen über die rechtlichen Grundlagen der r?mischen Au?enbeziehungen w?hrend der Republik bis zum Beginn des Prinzipats. VI. Teil: Die juristische Form und der rechtliche Gehalt der intergesellschaftlichenamicitiaundamicitia et societasmit Rom. Erster Abschnittt: Die Begrifflichkeit und die aus ihr zu erschliessende Systematik der rechtlichen Formen.”G?ttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft18: 27–83.—— 2015b.

“Forschungen über die rechtlichen Grundlagen der r?mischen Au?enbeziehungen w?hrend der Republik bis zum Beginn des Prinzipats. VII. Teil: Die juristische Form und der rechtliche Gehalt der intergesellschaftlichenamicitiaundamicitia et societasmit Rom. Zweiter Abschnitt: die ?Urkundenhandlung“ der Dokumente.”G?ttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft18: 115–178.