¹ For ‘acculturation’ as ‘one of the major problems of ancient history’ cf. Humphreys, S. C., Parola del Passato 22 (1967), 384Google Scholar.

² F. Jacoby, s.v. ‘Herodotos” (7), RE Suppl. II, 468; 471; 485; yet cf. idem, Über die Entwicklung der griechischen Historiographie’, Klio 9 (1909), 87 = Abhandl. z. griechischen Geschichtsschreibung, ed. H. Bloch (1956), 24: ‘Hellanikos … vielleicht doch Ephoros am nächsten … als erster Versuch einer hellenischen Universalgeschichte …’

³ Locher, Th. J. G., ‘Ephoros’ jüngste Nachkommen’, Saeculum 7 (1956), 127–35;CrossRefGoogle Scholar cf. now also Schepens, G., ‘Ephoros, Niebuhr und die Geschichte der historischen Kritik’, Historia 26 (1977), 503–6Google Scholar.

⁴ Polyb. 1, 3, 3–4: . This is the reading of the text as restored by J. M. Moore, CQ 16 (1966), 245–7, and approved by F. W. Walbank, YCS 24 (1975), 198, n. 4. The systematic remarks of Polybius at the beginning of his report on the Hannibalic War converge from the geographical point of view: ‘… during the foregoing times true reports (sc. about remote regions of the world) … were almost impossible … But in our times since the regions in Asia owing to Alexander's domination, the remaining ones owing to the preeminence of the Romans, have nearly all become navigable and passable …’ (3, 59, 1; 3). F. W. Walbank (comm. ad loc.) considers the passage an insertion ‘after 146’.

⁵ B. G. Niebuhr, Alte Geschichte nach Iustins Folge mit Ausschluss der römischen Geschichte = Vorträge über Alte Geschichte an der Universität Bonn gehalten I; II; III (until Actium) (1847; 1848; 1851). According to the editor, vol. I, p. viii, the title was given as follows in the official lecture-list for the winter-semester 1829/30: Historia aevi antiqui eo ordine iisque limitibus qui in Iustini libris servantur. Cf. Bengtson, H., B. G. Niebuhr und die Idee der Universal-geschichte des Altertums (1960), 10Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften zur Alten Geschichte (1974), 31.

⁶ A. J. L. van Hooff, Klio 59 (1977), 101. One wonders whether F. Jacoby would still subscribe to his ill-tempered verdict of 1955 on Polybius as ‘einer der unerträglichsten antiken Historiker’ (FGrH III b (text), 537; cf. E. Fraenkel's amicable criticism in Horace (1957), 303, n. 1) after all the Polybian studies that have appeared during the past twenty-five years.

⁷ It took its beginning from a review of CAH IV-VII by Berve, H., Gnomon 7 (1931), 65–74;Google Scholar cf. idem, Arch. f. Kulturgesch. 25 (1934), 216–30; V. Ehrenberg, Ost und West (1935), 2. W. Otto, Berve's teacher, replied (without naming him) in Deutsch. Lit. Ztg. 58 (1937), 1119–33;Google Scholar 1161–74, when he reviewed CAH X and XI. When Berve exacerbated his judgment in Gnomon 15 (1939), 177–93Google Scholar (CAH VIII-XI), W. Otto retorted openly in HZ 161 (1940), 309–24.

⁸ I refer to the book of S. Paranavitana (1896–1973), The Greeks and the Mauryas (1971). A product of the author's old age, its most imaginative parts gave rise to the highlights of the West-East tale in R. Lane Fox, Alexander the Great (1973), cf. 483 f.; 492; 559. Even when a preliminary report of Paranavitana's finds was published in typescript in 1964, a critical publication was called for, see K. Fischer, Bonn. Jahrb. 167 (1967), 210, n. 458. Since then, notwithstanding the fact that Paranavitana was ‘one of Ceylon's greatest savants of modern times’, Fernando, M., Artibus Asiae 35 (1973), 273Google Scholar, the fallacy of his statements regarding Greek traditions preserved on stone in his country has been generally recognized by all specialists concerned (H. Bechert, Göttingen, by letter dated 11 June 1975). As far as can be judged, however, Lane Fox has not yet retracted the doubtful passages (the recent paperback edition of the German translation, Munich I977, does not seem to show signs of corrections).

⁹ Freyer, H., Weltgeschichte Europas³ (1969)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Diod. I, I, I; 3: .

¹¹ Poseidonios (1921), 32 f.; idem, Kosmos und Sympathie (1926), 184 f. (implicitly also s.v. ‘Poseidonios’, RE XXII. 1, 624; 628; 763; 772). Previous to Reinhardt, G. Busolt had already attributed the passage to Posidonius, Jahrb.f. class. Phil. 35 (1889), 297 f.

¹² Pohlenz, M., Die Stoa⁴ 1–11 (1970; 1972), I, 213 f.Google Scholar; II, 105; 122; idem, Stoa und Stoiker ² (1964) (translated texts with commentary), 276; Harder, R., Studium Generale 6 (1953), 134Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften (1960), 48 f.; Theiler, W., Festgabe H. v. Greyerz (1967), 74, n. 12Google Scholar = Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur (1970), 452, n. 12.

¹³ Commentary on FGrH no. 87, fr. 1 (p. 163) (his remarks on FGrH no. 70, fr. 7/9 (p. 43) refer to other parts of Diodorus's proem). Similarly, but with more general arguments, O. Gigon, ‘Der Historiker Poseidonios’, in Festgabe H. v. Greyerz (1967), 95 f. = Studien zur antiken Philosophie (1972), 254 f.

¹⁴ ‘Posidonius’, JRS 49 (1959), 4 f.; independently of the opinion of SpoerriNock, W. Nock, W., Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter (1959), 206, with n. 1Google Scholar; Burton, A., Diodorus Siculus Book 1: A commentary (1972), 36 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar follows Nock.

¹⁵ (1961), 139.

¹⁶ Ortsbestimmung der Gegenwart I (1950)Google Scholar; II² (1963); III (1957). The passage from Posidonius-Diodorus, already cited in a newspaper article in 1951, is quoted in 11, 119 (with n. 110; 111).

¹⁷ Unfortunately J. Vogt, Wege zum historischen Universum (1961), omits Rüstow in this otherwise very instructive survey of modern universal histories and theories.

¹⁸ Schieder, Th., Geschichte als Wissenschaft² (1968), 139Google Scholar.

¹⁹ An Historical Disquisition concerning the Knowledge which the Ancients had of India etc. (London, 1791) (non vidi); also Basil (sic!), 1792; German translation and preface by G. Forster, Berlin 1792. Later editions and translations need not be registered.

²⁰ The voyage of Nearchus from the Indus to the Euphrates (London, 1797); The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (London, 1800)Google Scholar (non vidi); revised edition of both works: The commerce and navigation of the Ancients in the Indian Ocean 1–11 (London, 1807)Google Scholar (‘a subject which concerns the general interests of mankind …’ 1, p. vii (dedication)).

²¹ George R. (1812–1902), The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient World… (Chaldaea to Persia) I–IV (1862–7); The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy… (Parthia) (1873); The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy … (Sassanids), (1876) (later editions and reprints not noted). Hugh George R. (1880–1957), Bactria, The history of a Forgotten Empire (1912); Intercourse between India and the Western World from the earliest times to the Fall of Rome ² (1926).

²² (1825–1913), Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian: being a translation etc. (1877); The Commerce and Navigation of the Erythraean Sea: being a translation etc. (1879); Ancient India as described by Ktesias the Knidian: being a translation etc. (1882); Ancient India as described by Ptolemy etc. (1885); The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch and Iustin: being translations etc. (1892; new ed. 1896); Ancient India as described in Classical Literature: being a collection of Greek and Latin texts relating to India, extracted from Herodotos etc. (1901) (most of the volumes have been re-edited or reprinted).

²³ Trade-routes and Commerce of the Roman Empire (1924; second ed. 1926, French translation).

^23a The commerce between the Roman Empire and India (1928; second ed. 1974).

²⁴ The Greeks in Bactria and India (1938; second ed. 1951).

²⁵ Rome beyond the Imperial Frontiers (1954) (translations). A comprehensive study by Raschke, M. G., ‘New Studies in Roman Commerce with the East’, has been published in Temporini, H. (Ed.), ANRW II. 9. 2 (1978), 604–1361Google Scholar.

²⁶ Published in 1925 and repr. in F. Altheím-J. Rehork (Eds.), Der Hellenismus in Mittelasien (1969), 19–72 (unfortunately never translated). Among previous publications by German scholars may be mentioned Gottl. S. Bayer (Königsberg, 1694–1738), Historia Osrhoena et Edessena ex numis illustrata (St. Petersburg, 1734); ANRW, Historia regni Graecorum Bactriani … (ANRW, 1738); A. H. L. Heeren (son-in-law of Chr. G. Heyne), De India Graecis cognita I–II; ANRW, De India Romanis cognita (Göttingen, 1790/1, 1792). Both Bayer and Heeren represent the Universal Historiography of the Age of Enlightenment. Note also J. Lieblein, Handel und Schiffahrt auf dem rothen Meere in alten Zeiten (1886); W. Goetz, Die Verkehrswege im Dienste des Welthandels: Eine hist.-geogr. Untersuchung …, (1888); A. Herrmann, Die Verkehrswege zwischen China, Indien und Rom um 100 n. Chr. (1922); W. Raunig, Bernstein-Weikrauch-Seide: Waren und Wege der antiken Welt (1971). In recent years the numerous articles of the Austrian philologist F. F. Schwarz, which have continued to appear since the 60's, have attracted attention.

²⁷ e.g. Weltgeschichte Asiens im griechischen Zeitalter I–II (1947–8); Die Araber in der Alten Welt I (1964).

²⁸ ‘Südasiatische Seefahrt im Altertum I, II’, Bonn. Jahrb. 155/6 (1955/1956), 8–58, 220–308Google Scholar.

²⁹ ‘The conception of India in Hellenistic and Roman Literature’, Proc. Cambr. Philol. Soc. 190 n.s. 10 (1964), 15–23;Google ScholarUmstrittene Daten: Untersuchungen zum Auftreten der Griechen am Roten Meer (1965); Der Seeweg nach Indien (1974); cf. ‘Die entdeckungsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen des Indienhandels der römischen Kaiserzeit’, now published in Temporini, H. (Ed.), ANRW 11. 9. 2 (1978), 546–80Google Scholar.

³⁰ It would be ungrateful not to mention important contributions of French scholars: J. T. Reinaud, Relations politiques et commerciales de l'Empire romain avec l'Asie Orientale … (1863) (and other studies); E. Lévêque, Les mythes et les légendes de l'Inde et de la Perse dans Aristophane, Platon, Aristote, Virgile, Tite-Live … (1880); Combaz, G., L'Inde et l'Orient Classique 1–11 (1937)Google Scholar; Foucher, A., La vieille route de l'Inde de Bactres à Taxila 1–11 (1942–7)Google Scholar; Lemotte, E., ‘Les premières relations de l'Inde avec l'Occident’, La Nouv. Clio 5 (1953), 83–118;Google Scholar R. Grousset, Orient und Okzident im geistigen Austausch (1955); Filliozat, J., Les relations extérieures de l'Inde I (1956)Google Scholar; Schwartz, J., ‘L'empire romain, l'Egypte et le commerce oriental’, Annales 15. 1 (1960), 18–44,CrossRefGoogle ScholarSchlumberger, D., L'Orient hellénisé (1969; German edition, Stuttgart 1969)Google Scholar; Pirenne, J., ‘Le développement de la navigation Egypte-Inde dans l'antiquité’, in Mollat, M. (Ed.), Actes du 8^e coll. d'hist. maritime (1970), 101–19Google Scholar.

After World War II Italian studies were resumed by scholars such as Mussagli, M., Petech, L., Simonetta, A., Tucci, G. centering around the periodical East and West 1 (1950/1951)Google Scholar–27 (1977) which is edited by the Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (Is.M.E.O.); its activities were publicized in the exhibition ‘India and Italy’ (Rome 1974) (I owe the knowledge of the instructive catalogue to the kindness of A. Gargano). A brilliant summary of the state of West–East research has been produced by Coarelli, F., in Enciclop. dell'arte ant. class, e orient. VI (1965), 1010–24Google Scholar.

This selective list may be concluded with a reference to Chvostov, M., History of the Eastern Trade of Greco-Roman Egypt (Kazan, 1907)Google Scholar (in Russian, cf. Rostowzew, M., Arch. f. Pap. forsch. 4 (1908), 298)Google Scholar; Pigulevskaja, N. V., Byzanz auf den Wegen nach Indien (East Berlin, 1969)Google Scholar.

³¹ Umstrittene Daten (n. 29), 7.

³² Pomp. Mela 3, 5, 45: ‘Cornelius Nepos … Q. Metellum Celerem … ita retulisse commemorat: cum Galliae pro consule praeesset, Indos quosdam a rege Bootorum dono sibi datos … vi tempestatum ex Indicis aequoribus abreptos’. Pliny, NH 2, 67/170: ‘Indos a rege Suevorum dono datos, qui ex India commercii causa navigantes tempestatibus essent in Germaniam abrepti…’ Cf. Bengtson, H., ‘Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer (cos. 60) und die Inder’, Historia 3 (1954/1955), 229–36Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften zur Alten Geschichte (1974), 470–8.

³³ cf. Norden, E., Die germanische Urgeschichte⁴ (1959), 200, n. 2.Google Scholar

³⁴ This holds true also if it is connected, as it is tentatively by Bengtson (n. 32), with an incident in Celer's legateship during Pompeius's Caucasian War, when the latter, in spring 65 B.C., ordered the caravan routes from Bactria to India to be explored, Pliny, NH 6, 17/52 based on Varro; Plut., Pomp. 38, 4–5.

³⁶ Charlesworth, M. P., ‘Roman Trade with India: A Resurvey’, in Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honour of A. C. Johnson (1951), 131–43 (the list, 140 f.)Google Scholar. Less complete Krause, W., ‘Gesandtschaften indischer Fürsten in der römischen Kaiserzeit’, Litterae Latinae (Wien) 25 (1971), 34–8Google Scholar.

³⁶ Sat. 2, 8, 14 f. (composed about 31 B.C.).

³⁷ ‘Impiger extremos curris mercator ad Indos,/per mare …, per saxa, per ignes …’.

³⁸ ‘The development of trade between the Roman Empire and the East under Augustus’, Gr. and R. 16 (1969), 209–23.

³⁹ cf. A. Maiuri, ‘Statuette eburnea di arte Indiana a Pompei’, Le Arti (Firenze) 1 (1938/1939), 111–15; d'Ancona, M. Levi, ‘An Indian Statuette from Pompeii’, Artibus Asiae 13 (1950), 166–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ Petron. 38, 4: ‘Ecce intra hos dies scripsit, ut illi ex India semen boletorum mitteretur’. (‘Boletum’ refers to a very rare and costly mushroom, cf. Steier, RE xx. 2, 1378, s.v. ‘Pilze’.)

⁴¹ P. Lond. 260 = Kenyon, F. G., Greek Pap. in the Brit. Mus. 11 (1893), 42–53Google Scholar.

⁴² cf. Montevecchi, O., Proceed, XIV^th Papyrol. Congr. 1974 (1975), 227–32Google Scholar; Bowman, A. K., JRS 66 (1976), 170Google Scholar.

⁴³ Col. 4, 1. 71: ( = 3),

1. 72: ( = 1) /δ' ( = altogether 4).

Col. 3, 11. 38–41:

1. 42:

Cf. Raschke, M., ‘Papyrological evidence for Ptolemaic and Roman trade with India’, Proceed XIV^th Papyrol. Congr. 1974 (1975), 241–6Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Jones, C. P., ‘The date of Dio of Prusa's Alexandrian Oration’, Historia 22 (1973), 302–9Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Dio Chrys. 32, 36: (sc. 32, 40:

⁴⁶ Ptolemaic Alexandria I–III (1972)Google Scholar; cf. 1, 180– 4; 801 f.; II, 317, n. 416 etc.; cf. Kortenbeutel, H., Der ägyptische Süd- und Osthandel in der Politik des Ptolemäer und römischen Kaiser (Berlin, 1931;Google Scholar dissertation with U. Wilcken); Leider, E., Der Handel von Alexandreia (Hamburg, 1934;Google Scholar diss. with E. Ziebarth).

⁴⁷ NH 6, 23/101; 12, 18/84.

⁴⁸ cf. Tac, Ann. 3, 53 (A.D. 22). For the Indians as externae, not hostiles gentes see Rodewald, C., Money in the age of Tiberius (1976), 47Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Jerome, Chron., p. 191 ed. Helm (A.D. 89); Chronogr. ad A.D. 354 (Chron. Min. ed. Mommsen I, p. 146); cf. Cass. Dio 72, 24, 1; Warmington, E. H., The Commerce between the Roman Empire and India² (1974), 81 (A.D. 92)Google Scholar; Rickman, G. E., Roman Granaries and Store buildings (1971), 104 f.Google Scholar (extent of horrea comparable to Basilica of Constantine).

⁵⁰ OGIS 674 (Coptos, dated 10 May A.D. 90), the stele set up on order of L. Antistius Asiaticus, praefectus Montis Berenices (PIR ² A 755); a κυβερνήτης Ἐρυθραικός cost 8 drachmas, γυναἶκες πρ. ἑ. 108, a ταφή (mummy) 1⅔.

⁵¹ Peripl. M. Er. 31: , 49: παρθένοι .

⁵² op. cit. (n. 43), 241 f.

⁵³ CIL VI, 21650 (the nomen ‘Sornatius ‘seems to point rather to the first century of the principate).

⁵⁴ VI, 38159 and 22628 (as dative case). Cf. M. Bang, ‘Die Herkunft der römischen Sklaven I’, Röm. Mitt. 25 (1910), 225–51 with suppl. Röm. Mitt. 27 (1912), 189; Baumgart, J., Die römischen Sklavennamen (Diss. Breslau, 1936), 63Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Schulze, W., Lateinische Eigennamen (1904), 20 f.Google Scholar; Holder, A., Alt-Celtischer Sprachschatz II (1904), 41Google Scholar; cf. 40. The best known example is ‘Iulius Indus e civitate Treverorum’ (Tac, Ann. 3, 42).

⁵⁶ Vit. Soph. 1, 8. Whether his name Αὐτολἡκμθος (‘poor’, ‘beggar’), also has Indian implications, cannot be ascertained.

⁵⁷ Wecker, s.v. ‘India’, RE IX. 2, 1308.

⁵⁸ Dig. 39, 4, 16, 6–7; cf. H. E. Dirksen, ‘Über ein in Justinian's Pandekten enthaltenes Verzeichnis’ etc., Abh. Kgl. Akad. Wissensch. (1843), Pkilol. u. hist. Abh. (1845), 59–108. The date is from 177 to 17 March 180. On this passage cf. also Nissen, H., Bonn. Jahrb. 95 (1894), 17 f.Google Scholar;. Wilcken, U., Zeitschr.f. Pap. 3 (1906), 194 f.Google Scholar; Rostowzew, M., Zeitschr. f. Pap. 4 (1908), 310 f.Google Scholar The other articles specified as Indian are: aroma (aromatic herb, spice), ferrum, opia (sorts of poppy-juice), capilli (whether human, animal or of plants is not clear). M. Meinhardt who is directing a computerized analysis of the Digest—cf. her article in Festchrift Max Kaser (1976), 743–61—has kindly confirmed by letter the absence of any other occurrence of ‘Indus’ etc. in the Corpus. Cf. Dirksen, H. E., Manuale Latinitatis Font. Iur. Civ. Rom. (Berlin, 1837)Google Scholar: the only entry.

⁵⁹ De tuend. son. 20, p. 133 B: . (The treatise seems to belong to Plutarch's earlier productions and should be dated well before A.D. 100.)

⁶⁰ Plut., Mor. 1, ed. corr. W. R. Paton—I. Wegehaupt etc. (1974), 274.

⁶¹ Plut., Pomp. 70, 4 f.

⁶² In dating the works of Lucian I follow the chronology of R. Helm, RE XIII. 2, 1764–6.

⁶³ Hermot. 4:

⁶⁴ Quaest. nat. I, praef. 13: ‘ … quantum est enim, quod ab ultimis litoribus Hispaniae usque ad Indos iacet ? paucissimorum dierum spatium, si navem suus ferat ventus …’ There is no question here of globosity, although the passage seems to have influenced Columbus, pace e.g. Norden, E., Die germanische Urgeschichte in Tacitus Germania^e (1923), 35Google Scholar; Thomson, J. O., History of Ancient Geography (1948), 326 f.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ cf. Friedländer, L., Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms¹⁰ (1922), 368Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Alex. s. Pseudom. 44:

⁶⁷ cf. F. Oertel, ‘Das Problem des antiken Suez-kanals’, in Spiegel der Geschichte: Festgabe M. Braubach (1964), 18–51 = Kleine Schriften (1975), 233–64.

⁶⁸ For its survival cf. H. Gärtner, RE IX A. 2, 2087.

⁶⁹ Xen. Eph. 3, 11. f.; 11, 2:

⁷⁰ 5, 10, 3.

⁷¹ Strom. 1, 71, 3–6.

⁷² See above n. 29 and Dihle, A., ‘Indische Philosophen bei Clemens Alexandrinus’ in Mullus (Festschrift Th. Klauser) (1964), 60–70Google Scholar.

⁷³ Goetz, H. (1898–1976), ‘An unfinished early Indian temple at Petra, Transjordania’, East and West 24 (1974), 245–8Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Porphyr., V. Plot. 3.

⁷⁶ NH 6, 23/101–23/106.

⁷⁶ To be used in the edition of Frisk, H. in Göteborgs Högskolas Arsskrift 33.1 (1927), 1–22Google Scholar. The problem of dating the Periplus will not be tackled in this paper. However, two articles of E. J. Asher in Journ. of Trap. Geogr. should not remain unnoticed by Classical scholars: ‘Graeco-Roman nautical technology and modern sailing information: a confrontation between Pliny's account of the voyage to India and that of the “Periplus maris Erythraei” in the light of modern knowledge’, 31 (1970) 10–26;, ‘The timetables of the “Periplus maris Erythraei” and of Pliny's voyage to India’ 34 (1972), 1–7 (Periplus and following it Pliny's account both dated to time of Vespasian). Coarelli's comments, op. cit. (n. 30), 1013–1016, deserve attention (second cent.?).

⁷⁷ Romische Geschichte v (1885), 613, n. 1. See, however, the remarks of Nöldeke, Th., Zs. d. dt. Morgenländ. Ges. 39 (1885), 340Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ In this coup d'oeil, of course devoid of original research, I am following F. Wilhelm, who gives an excellent summary in volume xviI of the Fischer-Welt-Geschichte (A. T. Embree-F. Wilhelm, Indien (1967), 98–107). For references I am grateful to my Indologist colleagues R. Geib and U. Schneider.

⁷⁹ cf. Gairola, C. Krishna, ‘Die Satavahanas und der indische Welthandel’, Saeculum 6 (1955), 282–91, 442CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It may be noted that this same first century A.D. also saw a maritime expansion of the South Indian Kingdoms towards the Indonesian archipelago (cf. Botto, O., ‘Il “Navadhyaksa” (ship's inspector) nel “Kautiliy-arthashastra”, (Arth. of Kautilya) e l'attività marinara nell' India antica’, Riv. di Studi orient. 36 (1961), 109–24)Google Scholar. The authoritative work is still R. Mookerji, Indian Shipping: A history of the sea-borne trade and maritime activity of the Indians from the earliest times (1912). For recent views about the advanced type of Indian ships at the time see Schlingloff, D., ‘Kalyanakarin's Adventures: The identification of an Ajanta Painting’, Artibus Asiae 38 (1976), 5–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁰ P. Maile, ‘Les Yavanas dans l'Inde tamoule’, Mél. Asiatiques 1940/1 ( = Journ. Asiat 232, fasc. 1), 85–123, is still the best account; cf. Filliozat, J., Les relations extérieures de l'Inde I (1956), 9Google Scholar f.

⁸¹ From Tayan-Kannanar (name of the poet), Agam (Tradition') 149, v. 7–11 (Meile p. 90).

⁸² From the poem Cilappadigaram (‘The Song of the Anklet’) 5, v. 10 and before (the first part is quoted by Mortimer Wheeler, Rome (n. 25),… 133, the second by Meile p. 113).

⁸³ From Nakkirar (name of the poet), Puram 56, v. 17–20 (Meile p. 103).

⁸⁴ From Cilappad. (as n. 82) 14, v. 66 f. (Meile p. 112).

⁸⁵ From Nappudanar (name of the poet), Mulleippattu (‘Song of the Jungle’, belonging to the Pattupattu-Collection (‘The ten Idyls’)), v. 59–62 (Meile p. 107).

⁸⁶ cf. above n. 51. For Indian tradition see W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria, 374 f.

⁸⁷ Gairola (op. cit. n. 79), for this purpose, has only western evidence to quote.

⁸⁸ ‘Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen II: Hinduismus und Buddhismus’ (originally 1916/17) in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie 11 ² (1923), 202Google Scholar (‘asketischer Sparzwang’).

⁸⁹ My archaeological mission to India and Pakistan (1976).

⁹⁰ ‘Roman contact with India, Pakistan and Afghanistan’ in Aspects of Archaeology pres. to O. G. S. Crawford (1951), 345–81; idem, Rome beyond the Imperial Frontiers (1954) (unaltered Germa n translation, Der Fernhandel des römischen Reiches, 1965), 137–45.

⁹¹ cf. Rodewaldt, C., Money in the age of Tiberius (1976), 46–51Google Scholar; n. 378 has valuable supplements to the analyses of Wheeler to which must be added P. L. Gupta, ‘Roman trade in India’, in S. S. Mookerji Felicit. Vol. (Varanesi, 1969), 169–80.

⁹² Wheeler, opp. citt. (n. 89 and 90); J. M. Casal, Fouilles de Virampatnam-Arikamedu (1949).

⁹³ J. Filliozat, op. cit. (n. 80), 17 f. (Virapatnam); cf. J. M. Casal, Fouilles, 14; 61 (Virampatnam).

⁹⁴ Wheeler, Rome (n. 90), 147.

⁹⁵ Wheeler, Rome, 149 f.

⁹⁶ Wheeler, R. E. M.—Ghosch, A.—Deva, Krishna, ‘Arikamedu’, Ancient India 2 (1946), 39Google Scholar f.

⁹⁷ The fourth inscribed sherd seems to have turned up during the French excavations in 1947–8 (cf. J. M. Casal, Fouilles, 35 with pl. XV B) and is thus read by Wheeler, Rome, 149 f.

⁹⁸ Wheeler, M., My archaeological mission to India and Pakistan (1976), 47Google Scholar, cf. also Wheeler etc., loc. cit. (n. 96). A. Oxé—H. Comfort, Corpus Vas. Arret. (1968), do not contribute to the elucidation of any of the four stamps.

⁹⁹ Wheeler, Rome, 148; Ohlenroth, L., Germania 30 (1952), 389–92,Google Scholar tends to date the material, according to the shape of the vessels, as late Augustan.

¹⁰⁰ J. Filliozat, op. cit. (n. 80), 21 f. (to Wheeler et al., op. cit. (n. 96), 114 (no. 19), the sense remained uncertain).

¹⁰¹ Peripl. M. Er. 60; Ptol., Geogr. 7, 1, 14; cf. the article of H. Treidler, RE XXI. 1, 1145 f., excellent for the time of its composition (before the second World War).

¹⁰² cf. Wheeler, Rome, 137 f., based on his contribution ‘Roman contact with India, Pakistan and Afghanistan’ in Aspects of Archaeology presented to O. G. S. Crawford (1951), 345–81. This general impression still holds true after some new finds and the detailed scrutiny of C. Rodewald, Money (n. 91), 48–51 with table v.

¹⁰³ Rodewald, Money, 48 f. lays stress on the almost complete absence of republican silver from the Indian hoards of the imperial period, and on the fact that of 371 identified denarii of Augustus, 368 are of the C. and L. Caesares issue (c. 2 B.C.–A.D. II, Rom. Imp. Coin. I Aug. no. 350), and that of the 1033 denarii of Tiberius 1029 are of the Livia or Pax-Series (A.D. 16–37, Rom. Imp. Coin. 1 Tib. no. 3). Hence the author's suggestion that India-bound captains were provided with the required currency by bankers in Egypt.

¹⁰⁴ Rodewald, Money, 48–51.

¹⁰⁵ Cass. Dio 68, 28, 4 (in A.D. 116, Spasinu Charax (Characene) belonged to the king of Mesene's dominion). For Characene, which at this time can be equated with Mesene, see Nodelman, S. A., ‘A preliminary history of Characene’, Berytus 13 (1961), 83–121Google Scholar. The fundamental treatment of Charax (and nearby (Ph)oratha = Forat) as the terminal harbours for Palmyrene long-distance traffic remains Seyrig, H., ‘Inscription relative au commerce maritime de Palmyre’, Mélanges F. Cumont I (1936), 397–402Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁶ Eutr. 8, 3, 2. The location of the harbour is not known; it may have been near the modern Kuwait, as A. Dihle affirms (in Mullus: Festschrift f. Th. Klauser (1964), 65) referring to Altheim, F., Literatur u. Gesellschaft i. ausgehenden Altertum II (1950), 82 f.Google Scholar who, however, is discussing the institutions of L. Verus in A.D. 163–5.

¹⁰⁷ For the peculiar mixture of Trajan's imitation of Alexander with his real policy the locus classicus is Weber, W., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrian (1907), 8–14Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ ‘Indica laurus’: Stat., Silv. 4, 1, 41 (composed for the Princeps entering his seventeenth consulate on 1 Jan. 95); Debevoise, N. C., A Political History of Parthia (1938), 215Google Scholar (but not Gsell, S., Essai sur le règne de l'Empereur Domitien (1893), 233 f.Google Scholar) interpreted this and other allusions of the court poet as announcements of seriously planned campaigns. If so, Trajan, as in other instances, would have taken those schemes from Domitian's ‘drawers’ (cf. Warmington, E. H., The Commerce between the Roman Empire and India² (1974), 94Google Scholar).

¹⁰⁹ Kornemann, E., ‘Die historischen Nachrichten des sog. Periplus maris Erythraei über Arabien: Ein Beitrag zur neronischen Orientpolitik’, Ianus 1 = Festschrift Lehmann-Haupt (1921), 55–72;Google Scholar W. Schur, Die Orientpolitik des Kaisers Nero (1923) (cf. the review of Leuze, O., Deutsche Lit. Zeitg. 27 (1924), 343–7)Google Scholar. In. RE XVIII. 4 (1949), 1989, s.v. ‘Parthia’, W. Schur referred to an article ‘Osthandel’ as forthcoming.

¹¹⁰ Sen., NQ 6, 8, 3; Plin., NH 6, 35/181–6, cf. 12, 8/19; Cass. Dio 63, 8, 1 seem to deal with one and the same undertaking (Hintze, F., Meroitica I: Sudan im Altertum (East Berlin, 1973), 131Google Scholar; 140 f. ingeniously pleaded for two). It is best dated by Schur, Orientpolitik, 41 f. in 61/3 (against which M. T. Griffin, Seneca (1976), 396; 399 f.; 465 has no serious objection). For the significance of the expedition within the history of discoveries see Kirwan, L. P., ‘Rome beyond the Southern Egyptian Frontier’, Proceed. Brit. Acad. 63 (1977), 13–31Google Scholar; 28 f. Note Sen., NQ 4a, 2, 4, where the Nile, Ethiopia and the factories of the Indian Sea (commercia Indici maris) are mentioned in one context.

¹¹¹ The work is quoted by Serv., Comm. Verg. Aen., 9, 30 and used by Pliny, NH 6, 21/57–60 (K. G. Sallmann, Die Geographie des Alteren Plinius in ihrem Verhältnis su Varro (1971), 48 believes that this whole passage derives from Seneca); Ed. Norden, , Die germanische Urgeschichte in Tacitus Germania³ (1923), 39Google Scholar estimated it as of considerable quality.

¹¹² Tac, Ann. 14, 25, 2: ‘Eos (sc. Hyrcanos) regredientes Corbulo, ne Euphraten transgressi hostium custodiis circumvenirentur, dato praesidio ad litora maris Rubri deducit, unde vitatis Parthorum finibus patrias in sedes remeavere’. The usual interpretation of mare Rubrum here as meaning the Persian Gulf part of it (Schur, Orientpolitik, 75, n. 2; J. G. C. Anderson, CAH X (1934), 264; E. H. Warmington, Commerce² (1974), 88) makes no sense.

¹¹³ NH 6, 22/84: ‘Anni Plocami, qui maris Rubri vectigal a fisco redemerat, libertus …’

¹¹⁴ NH 6, 22/85–91.

¹¹⁵ Meredith, D., JRS 43 (1953), 38–40Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ D. Meredith, Chron. d'Eg. 29 (1954), 281–7 (already copied in 1826). For the lively traffic between Coptus and Myos Hormos (or Berenike respectively) from Augustus to Vespasian, W. Otto H. Bengtson, Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des Ptolemäerreiches (1938), 213, refer to the business papers of a firm of camel-keepers ed. by J. G. Tait, Greek ostraka in the Bodleian Library at Oxford and various other collections (1930) (Flinders Petrie Coll. nos. 220–304).

¹¹⁷ NH 6, 26/102 f.

¹¹⁸ Per. M. Er. 57; Pliny, NH 6, 26/100 f.; 104.

¹¹⁹ For Indian seafaring at this time see above n. 79.

¹²⁰ e.g. implicitly by Warmington, E. H., Commerce, 44 (modified by him in OCD², 516Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Hippalus’ and on p. 394 b of Commerce ²), and still maintained by J. M. Derret, D. Kl. Pauly 11, 1398 f., s.v. ‘Indischer Ozean’.

¹²¹ cf. W. W. Tarn, Bactria, 369. A selected doxography of the problem of dating ‘Hippalos’ and the ‘discovery’ is offered by J. Pirenne, Le développement etc. (see above n. 30), 108 f.; cf. also R. Böker, RE Suppl. IX, 403–12, s.v. ‘Monsunschiffahrt nach Indien’.

¹²² 2, 5, 12 (118), during Aelius Gallus' prefecture of Egypt and before the latter's Arabian War. Harbour-statistics of Berenike, the other Red Sea port for Indian trade, are not mentioned by Strabo. His allusions to ‘big convoys’ dispatched to India (17, 1, 13 (798)) refer to a later, but still Augustan, time, cf. summarily 15, 1, 4 (686). The detachment of police troops (not attested before Pliny, NH 6, 26/101, cohorts of archers) may already have been a Ptolemaic institution.

¹²³ RE VIII. 2, 1660 f., s.v. ‘Hippalos’ no. 3.

¹²⁴ Based on the Philae inscription, Dittenberger OGIS I, 186 = SB V, 8398.

¹²⁵ W. Otto-H. Bengston, op. cit. (n. 116), 1–22; 194–218, starting from the said inscription, re-edited by Henne, H., Rev. de Phil. 10 (1936), 318–24Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ L. Mooren, Anc. Soc. 3 (1972), 127–33, cf. E. van't Dack, ‘L'évolution de l'épistratégie dans la Thébaïde au I^er siècle av. J.-C’, in Miscellanea in honorem J. Vergote (1975/6), 577–87.

¹²⁷ Strabo 17, 1, 13 (798) stresses the high contribution which Indian commerce already made to the state revenues under Auletes.

¹²⁸ How near, at least psychologically, India was to Cleopatra is shown by her last plan, to ‘haul’ her fleet ‘over’ the Suez isthmus and ‘let down the ships into the Arabian gulf’ (i.e. the Red Sea proper) and ‘to settle abroad’ (which might presumably mean India), Plut., Ant. 69, 4, cf. Cass. Dio 51, 6, 3; at the end she ordered her eldest son Kaisarion to be escorted ‘through Ethiopia to India’, Plut., Ant. 81, 4, cf. Cass. Dio 51, 15, 5.

¹²⁹ RG (Col. v) 31, 1: ‘Ad me ex India regum legationes saepe missae sunt non visae ante id tempus apud quemquam Romanorum ducem’. In a more panegyrical and abridged paragraph Suetonius (Aug. 21, 3) depicts Indians and Scythians as having asked for the friendship of the Princeps and the Roman people. But since Augustus explicitly differentiates between the Indians, who merely sent delegations, and the Scythae and other peoples who by the same means sought his friendship (RG 31, 2), we would not expect to read the names of the ‘Kings’ from India on the bronze tablet of an Augustan formula sociorum atque amicorum.

¹³⁰ RG (Col. v) 26, 5: ‘Meo iussu et auspicio ducti sunt duo exercitus eodem fere tempore in Aethiopiam et in Arabiam quae appellatur Eudaemon…’

¹³¹ J. Lesquier, L'Armée romaine d'Egypte (1918), 9 ff.; M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (1926), 53 (unchanged in the second edition, 1957): ‘The Arabian expedition of Aelius Gallus was not a complete success, but at any rate it secured good harbours for Roman traders on their way from Egypt to the ports of India’, with a reference to Arch. f. Pap. 4 (1908), 306 f., where, however, Rostovtzeff was less outspoken, stating (p. 308) that greed for money was not the sole cause of the expedition of Aelius Gallus. Cf. also J. G. C. Anderson, CAH x (1934), 250 and F. Oertel, CAH x, 389.

¹³² The specific purpose of Petronius' campaign, the protection of Egypt on the South, is of course not to be denied.

¹³³ ‘Chronology of the campaigns of Aelius Gallus and C. Petronius’, JRS 58 (1968), 71–84Google Scholar. In section v, ‘The object of the expeditions’, 79–84, any aspect other than local is explicitly suppressed. Yet generally speaking, the historian is not obliged to acquiesce only in the motives transmitted by the sources. Strabo (2, 5, 12 (118), cf. above n. 122) states at least the increase of Indian commerce as a consequence of Gallus' campaign. The latest and very circumstantial study of the geographer H. v. Wissmann in ANRW IX. 1 (1976), 308–544 does not contribute to our question.

¹³⁴ Gallus 26–5 B.C., Petronius 25/4–22 according to Brunt, P. A., JRS 65 (1975), 142Google Scholar.

¹³⁵ cf. Schmitthenner, W., Historia 11 (1962), 43Google Scholar f. =Augustus (1969), 425 f.

¹³⁶ Justin 42, 5, 6 (‘Parthi’); Oros. 6, 21, 19 f. (‘Indi’, ‘Scythae’); for the Indians see also Cass. Dio 54, 9, 8 (, in 20 B.C.); in addition the general references.

¹³⁷ See Strabo, loc. cit (n. 133), and e.g. Rostovtzeff, opp. citt. (n. 131).

¹³⁸ W. Schmitthenner, op. cit. (n. 135), 52 f. = Augustus, 438 f.

¹³⁹ Toynbee, A. J., A Study of History IX (1954), 528 f.Google Scholar where, however, its duration is exaggerated.

¹⁴⁰ Strabo 17, 1, 13 (798) (see n. 122). Note also the description, quoted by Strabo 15, 1, 73 (719) from the eyewitness account by Nicolaus of Damascus, of the Indian embassy, with a letter in Greek from their king, which arrived at Antioch, presumably in 20 B.C. en route to see Augustus on Samos (Dio 54, 9, 8–10). See n. 136 above.

¹⁴¹ Ptol., Geogr. 1, 11, 6 f. quoting Marinus of Tyre (c. A.D. 110); see also W. Kubitschek, RE Suppl. VI, 235 f. s.v. ‘Maes qui et Titianus’. Augustan—or Hadrianic—dating by M. Cary, CQ 50 (1956), 130–4; ‘soon after A.D. 100’, M. Cary—E. H. Warmington, Die Entdeckungen der Antike (1966), 312 (the English edition of 1963 was not available to me): Cary's early dating is accepted by J. Thorley, Gr. and R. 16 (1969), 215.

¹⁴² The best description is still by Gardthausen, V., Augustus 1. 3 (1904), 1128–47Google Scholar (‘Mission of Gaius’, ‘Gaius in the Orient’); cf. Zetzel, J. G., ‘New light on Gaius Caesar's Eastern Campaign’, Gr. R. and Byz. Stud. 11 (1970), 259–66;Google ScholarBowersock, G. W., JRS 61 (1971), 227 f.Google Scholar; Barnes, T. D., JRS 64 (1974), 23;Google ScholarBowersock, G. W., JRS 65 (1975), 182Google Scholar.

¹⁴³ Dionysius (or Isidorus) of Charax and perhaps Juba of Mauretania (cf. F. Jacoby, Commentary to FGrH no. 275 (1943), 326), see also Nodelmann, S. A., Berytus 13 (1961), 107;Google ScholarBowersock, G. W., JRS 61 (1971), 227Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁴ Gardthausen, , Augustus 1. 3, 1135Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁵ Plut., Mor. 207 E; cf. 319 D f., with Scipio instead of Alexander. Appropriately Mommsen comments (Römische Geschichte v (1885), 374)Google Scholar that the Oriental campaign might almost be described as a continuation of Alexander's journey.

¹⁴⁶ Gaius, whose Oriental command included Egypt and Syria (Oros. 7, 3, 4: ‘ad ordinandas Aegypti Syriaeque provincias missus’), may well have stayed in Egypt more than a year. Bowersock, G. W., JRS 61 (1971), 227Google Scholar argued persuasively, by reference to the inscription of the Pisan cenotaph (CIL XI, 1421 = ILS 140), that Gaius, while ordinary consul (A.D. I), undertook a campaign, whatever this meant, near the Red Sea. Thirteen years later a plenipotentiary was again sent to the Orient on a similar mission, Germanicus Caesar (died A.D. 19). For the inscription of the famous journey which a Palmyrene merchant made on his behalf to the head of the Persian gulf, see Cantineau, J., Syria 12 (1931), 139–41, no. 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴⁷ Suet., Aug. 98, 2: ‘per ilium se vivere, per ilium navigare, libertate atque fortunis per ilium frui’. L. Robert, offprint from Stele (en honneur de N. M. Kontoleon) (1977), 6, n. 36, refers to Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 151 for background of the anecdote of Suetonius.

¹⁴⁸ Rostovtzeff, M., The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (1926)Google Scholar (and later translations and editions); Duncan-Jones, R., The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies (1974)Google Scholar.

^148a This is a recurring subject with Pliny and needs further investigation. For Tacitus see above n. 48; for both cf. C. Rodewald, Money (n. 91), 29; 48; 50.

¹⁴⁹ NH 6, 26/101; 12, 41/84; cf. the paper of M. G. Raschke, read at the seventh Ann. Meeting of the Ass. of Am. Anc. Hist., Stanford Univ., May 1976, and presumably to be published: ‘Balance of payments deficits in the Ancient World: The case of Rome's commerce with the East’ (kind information from J. Nicols).

¹⁵⁰ cf. Miller, J. I., The Spice Trade of the Roman Empire (1969), 217Google Scholar (also compares monetary issues in Elizabethan England).

¹⁵¹ See above, n. 105.

¹⁵² c. 100 years after Kanishka the Great (whose modern dating varies between A.D. 78 and 225) and for some twenty-five years, cf. Göbl, R., Dokumente zur Geschichte der iranischen Hunnen in Baktrien und Indien II (1967), 318Google Scholar.

¹⁵³ The quotation, well known to Indologists, is taken from B. Rowland jr., foreword to Rosenfield, J. R., The dynastic art of the Kushans (1967), p. viiGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵⁴ See above, n. 9.

I should like to express my gratitude to the Editor for his patience and encouragement, and also, for various assistance, to U. Vogel-Weidemann, E. O'Loughlin and J. Malitz.