Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T23:22:38.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Procopius on the Economy of Lazica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

David Braund
David Braund
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Procopius states that the Colchian Lazi had neither salt nor grain nor any other good thing; for this reason they always engaged in trade with the Romans around the Black Sea:

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , May 1991 , pp. 221 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The translation of δρρις is uncertain: according to Eupolis fr. 357 (Kassel–Austin), it is part of a woman's clothing. Etym. magnum regards it as a thick cloak (himation) or skin (derma) or something spread at doorways (curtain or mat?). Menander Protector fr 6.1 line 569 (Blockley) uses the word for what are probably fleeces, received by the Lazi from the Suani of the pastoral highlands above Lazica.

2 Wars 2.28.27–9.

3 Typical is Hannestadt, K., ‘Les relations de Byzance avec la Transcaucasie et l'Asie centrale aux 5e et 6e siècles’, Byzantion 25–7 (1955–1957), 421–56, esp. p. 449Google Scholar. Among the more cautious is Bury, J. B., History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1923), ii.100Google Scholar, who observes that this country (sc. Lazica) seems to have been then far poorer than it is today. Stein, E., Histoire du Bas-Empire (Paris, 1949), ii.303 follows Bury very closely.Google Scholar

4 Hdt. 2.104; Memnon ( = FGH 434) 238a; Strabo 11, p. 498; Agathias 3.5.1ff.; cf. McGing, B. C., The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus (Leiden, 1986), p. 60Google Scholar. Procopius himself, as an exception to his general strictures, observes the fertility of part of the Lazian hinterland: Wars 8.14.46. On the modern situation, see Stadebauer, J., Studien zur Agrargeographie Transkaukasiens (Berlin, 1983).Google Scholar

5 Ps.-Hippocrates, , Airs, Waters, Places 15.Google Scholar

6 See Strabo 11, p. 506 with Braund, D. C. and Tsetskhladze, G. R., ‘The Export of Slaves from Colchis’, CQ 39 (1989), 116CrossRefGoogle Scholar and, at length, Braund, D. C., ‘Dio Chrysostom, Olbian Trade and Olbia's Tauroscythian War’, Arkheologiya (Kiev) 1991Google Scholar (forthcoming). On salt in Colchis in late prehistory, see Braund, D. C., ‘Textile Ware from the Eastern Shore of the Black Sea’, Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 9 (1989), 5–6.Google Scholar

7 Wars 1.12.17. Menander the Guardsman indicates that the Lazi sent grain to the Suani each year and suggests that this grain was crucial to the Byzantine allegiance of the Suani: the type and source of this grain remain unclear: see fr. 6.1. lines 254–5 (Blockley). Moreover, the context of this information is a debate on the status of the Suani. so that some caution is required. The matter is made still more unclear by a later passage in Menander which has been taken to contradict his earlier account and to show that the Lazi received honey and wool in tribute from the Suani: fr. 6.1, lines 568–9 (Blockley).

8 Lordkipanidze, G. A., K istorii drevnei Kolkhidy (Tbilisi, 1970), pp. 47–50Google Scholar. The Persians imported wheat flour for their forces in Lazica, but, crucially, their supply-route was overland and therefore more difficult than Byzantine supply by sea: Procopius, Wars 2.3.30ff.. esp. 46; cf. Agathias 4.30.7. On stores in Lazian houses, see Agathias 2.21.2.

9 Lordkipanidze, op. cit. (n. 8), pp. 52–3.

10 See Abadie-Reynal, C., ‘Céramique et commerce dans le bassin égéen du IVe au Vile siècle’, in Dagron, G. (ed.). Homines et richesses dans l'empire byzantin, i (Paris, 1989), pp. 143–59Google Scholar with the following: on Archaeopolis, Zakaraya, P. P. (ed.), Nokalakevi-Arkeopolisi, i–ii (Tbilisi, 1981–1987)Google Scholar: in Georgian with brief summaries in Russian and English; on Petra, Inaishvili, N., ‘Late Antique Baths at Tsikhisdziri’, Samkhret-dasavlet sakartvelos dzeglebi (Batumi) 17 (1988), 76–85Google Scholar: in Georgian with brief Russian summary; on Rhodopolis, Japaridze, V., Vardtsikhis nakalakari (Tbilisi, 1989)Google Scholar: in Georgian with Russian and brief English summary; on GamkrelidzePhasis, G. Phasis, G., ‘Underwater Archaeology around Poti’, Matsne 1987.1, pp. 97–117Google Scholar: in Georgian, with illustrations.

11 Wars 2.28.27–8.

12 Averil, Cameron, Procopius and the Sixth Century (London, 1985), p. 122Google Scholar; cf. Wars 2.15.6; 8.13.10–12.

13 Wars 28.27–8. The whole account leads one to suspect that other factors were at work – Procopius hints at the disaffection caused by the quartering of troops among the Lazi: Wars 2.15.12.

14 Wars 2.29.1.

15 Wars 8.13.15–16; he includes Scanda, as at Wars 1.12.15ft, so that there might be some justice in the remarks, but Scanda has yet to be securely identified and, as a neighbour of Sarapanis, it would probably lie in good land, given the nature of this part of Lazica. For an attractive identification of Scanda, see now Saitidze, G., ‘Skandes tsikhe’, Dzeglis megobari 85 (1990) 1, pp. 54–61.Google Scholar

16 Strabo, II, p. 498; on water transport in late antique Georgia, see Beradze, T. N., Moryeplavaniye i morskaya torgovlya v srednyevekovoy Gruzii (Tbilisi, 1989).Google Scholar

17 Agathias 4.22.5.

18 Especially Horace, Satires 2.2.18; cf. 1.13.13–15; Pliny, HN 31.89.

19 Procopius, Wars 8.3.15ff.