Page 84 - Life & Land Use on the Bahrain Islands (Curtis E Larsen)

-60-

possibly Qatar (Whitehouse and Williamson 1973). The extent of actual Sasanian
control in the area is uncertain, but the range of Nestorian influence outlines the
Sasanian networks of interaction during the fifth century.
Early in the Sasanian period when disruptions by coastal Arabs plagued
Shapur II, the sea trade via the gulf was apparently flourishing. Ammianus
Marcellinus (ca. A.D. 330) recorded "numerous towns and villages on every coast
and frequent sailing of ships," but a monoply of trade was not a reality. TTie
competing Red Sea route did not end with Rome. When Constantine established
the Byzantine Empire in A.D. 324, he gained control of the Red Sea route as well.
Using Axumite intermediaries, the Byzantines diverted revenues away from
Sasanian Persia. The Kingdom of Axum centered in Ethiopia gained total control
of the Bab al-Mandab and the Red Sea route in A.D. 529 by conquering the
adjacent Himyarite kingdom. A Sasanian monoply was established by A.D. 579,
however, when the Axumite colony in Yemen was displaced by a naval force under
Khusrau. Yemen was subsequently maintained as a Sasanian colony (Toussaint
1966).
Sasanian trade linked India and Ceylon with the gulf (Hourani 1951).
Ceylon was especially important in this trade network (Schoff 1912). Cosmos (ca.
A.D. 519) described Ceylonese ports as handling goods from China, southeast Asia,
the Deccan, and Sind. Ceylon was also an important location for the Nestorian
Church. The sixth century marked the apogee for Sasanian trade in the gulf. The
Sasanian period was one of conscious and direct governmental determination to
control the Arabian Gulf and Red Sea. Toussaint criticizes this governmental
control and the institution of state monopolies. He feels that excessive control of
the silk market restricted the freedom of exchange and thereby was a hindrance to
commerce. He goes on to add that:
Consequently, if we compare the Sassanid trade in the
Erythraean Sea with that of the Roman era which preceded it, we
find that it did not represent a more developed stage, save for the
generalized use of the bill of exchange. It was still what Gibbon
called a "splendid and trifling" trade, dealing primarily with luxury
items, which were in great demand for the Iranian court and
aristocracy. The economic value of this trade is in no way
comparable to its cultural importance. [Toussaint 1966:47]