Wallace Article CITED - Ager Publicus in The Greek East

AGER PUBLICUS IN THE GREEK EAST: I.
Priene 111 and Other Examples of Resistance to

the Publicani
Author(s): Christopher Wallace
Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte , 2014, Bd. 63, H. 1 (2014), pp. 38-73
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24433639
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte
This content downloaded from

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Historia
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte
Revue d'Histoire Ancienne
Journal of Ancient History Historia Band 63 · Heft 1 · 2014
Rivista di Storia Antica © Franz S teiner Verlag, Stuttgart
AGER PUBLICUS IN THE GREEK EAST:

I. Priene 111 and Other Examples of Resistance to the Publicani
Abstract: I. Priene 111 honours its subject, Krates, far his achievements over a perio
years as Superintendent of Priene's sacred property, rather than for a diverse career tha
decades. Priene's dispute with the publicani was about who owned the locai salt-pans
or the Roman Republic, as ager publicus), rather than about immunity to taxation. The
quarrels between the publicani and the cities ofllium, Ephesus, Pergamum and Oro
also questions of ownership, rather than tax status.
Introduction
In the first Century BCE, the people of Priene published honorific decrees for their most
accomplished Citizens on the walls of the sacred stoa, on the north side of their agora.
Among them is a lengthy, but fragmentary, decree for a certain Krates, who represented
his city in two lawsuits: one against the the neighboring city of Miletus and another
against some Roman publicani. Krates' decree contains important evidence on a range
of topics, including the fasti of Roman governors of Asia, interstate relations and ancient
salt production,1 but what follows explores the decree as evidence for Greek resistance
to the publicani. I begin by offering a new Interpretation of both the structure of Krates'
decree and the nature of his Services to the state. Clarity on those points is essential to
understanding the nature and the chronology of Priene's disputes with both Miletus and
the publicani. The latter has often been construed as a question of whether the publicani
had the right to levy taxes on certain salt-pans belonging to the tempie of Athena.2 A
reappraisal suggests that it was not an issue of taxation, but rather a dispute about who
owned these salt-pans. This is not a minor point. Priene is invoked as an example of
how the misdeeds of the publicani bred resistance and hostility to Rome. Krates' decree,
when read alongside an even more fragmentary decree for his colleague Herakleitos (/.
Priene 117), reveals a city more concerned with the publicanf s attempts to encroach
on civic territory than with their tax assessment(s). The second section will examine
1 E. g., Ferrary 2000, Heller 2006 and Carusi 2008, respectively.

2 E.g., Ager 1996: 508 and Carusi 2008: 183.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
Ager Publicus in the Greek East 39
some of our other evidence for disputes between Greek cities and the pu
seem to follow the same pattern as Priene.
The Decree for Krates and the Case of Priene
The decree for Krates poses some thorny problems, even by the Standards of Greek
epigraphy. Its fragmentary state leaves us with questions about both the content (what
was the nature of the diplomatic disputes in which Krates was involved? Before which
Roman governors did he plead his case? How do we reconstruct Krates' career?) and
the structure (how do we interpret these chronological markers? What is the relationship
between the first 160 lines and the rest of the decree?). These questions of content and
structure are inextricably linked. I offer a new Interpretation of the structure of the de
cree as a whole. It is usually divided into two distinct sections: the first 160 lines, which
chronicle Krates' decades-long career as an ambassador, and the remainder, which deals
with his generosity in religious affairs over a period of perhaps one year.31 argue that
the decree is a unified whole that honours Krates for his tenure as a Superintendent of
sacred property, and that ali of his public services, both diplomatic and religious, were
undertaken over a period of perhaps four years. With this as a foundation, we can move
on to reconstructing the course of Priene's dispute with the publicani. On this question,
we can fili some of the gaps in our knowledge with Information gleaned from /. Priene
117, an even more fragmentary decree for Krates' colleague Herakleitos.4
The communis opinio on the structure and chronology of Krates' decree was estab
lished by Ferrary in an influential article on the Roman governors of Asia.5 Ferrary's
theory, which was part of a larger survey of evidence from the Greek East, was that
Krates' diplomatic career spanned a much longer time than had been previously thought:
two decades, rather than two or three years. There are two separate indicators of date
incorporated into the text of the decree: the names of two Roman governors, Gaius
Caesar and L. Lucilius, and multiple references to the eponymous magistrate of Priene,
the stephanephoros. The latter seem to be deployed systematically to anchor Krates'
achievements in locai time, while the former are mentioned incidentally, since acting
as a liaison between the city and the Roman authorities was a recurring element of his
career. Some Variation on the Prieneian dating formula appears perhaps six times in
the decree as a whole, and four times between the first mention of G. Iulius Caesar as
governor of Asia (1. 14, which may coincide with the beginning of the dispute with the
publicani) and a reference to L. Lucilius as the new governor of Asia (1. 136, shortly
before the end of the dispute). Ferrary took each instance of the word stephanephoros
to indicate a change of a year and extrapolated from the (apparent) average number of
3 This is the explicit assumption of Ferrary 2000. It is implicit in Ager 1996: #171, Carusi 2008,
Sherwin-White 1984, and Heller 2006.
4 As noted in passing by Morstein-Marx 1995: 147 n. 81.
5 Ferrary's chronology has been accepted by Heller 2006: 5-7 and Carusi 2008: 83.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
40 Christopher Wallace
lines between changes of year to conclu

1-34 survive only along the left margi
several more iterations of the formula
several implications. Previous scholar
decree, Lucilius must have succeeded
Suggestion allowed the two governor
confusion about Krates' diplomatic acti
tion that Krates had been involved in a
and the publicani, all competing with e
Ferrary's proposai, which seems to ha
unsupportable assumptions about the str
strictly annalistic structure, and that e
a change of year; second, that the even
of lines; and third, that there is a major
143 and 167. While there is little doubt
it is less clear that the events are orde
dating formula "when so-and-so was
the surviving text of the decree.10 Of t
the first two have no (surviving) name
17 we seem to have almost the full for
Ferrary 2000: 176-7 says that Krates had a l

honorand of I. Priene 121, who was a diplom
See, e.g., Sumner 1978: 149-50.
Ferrary 2000: 176-8.
This assumption, which would have been u
to have been confined to Ager 1996: 508-
least, recognized that these were two separa
I. Priene 111.17, 19, 123, 143, 167, and per
was responsible for a decree: ψηφίσματα
to constine έπί with a name in the genitiv
Akrisios was stephanephoros at one point. T
the Akrisios' title. In 1. 212, we find much
ters, we find the phrase έπί Μεγαρίστου Τ
There are two attractive possibilities to com
personal name attested in a contemporary in
or Κρονιώνος, one of the months in the Ioni
seem to be a dating formula, which for some
not otherwise found in the decrees inscribe
likely, since the dating formula in 1. 212 off
months in the Ionian calendar). Κρονιών is o
but Hiller 1906: 256 accepted this as a probab
inscription, it appears in his list of Prieneian
month in the Prieneian calendar. In 1. 19 we
magistrate and the month, though it includes
secretary or lapicide) may have abbreviated t

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
magistrate (έπί δε στεφανηφό[ρου...]), while in 1. 19, we seem t

different. Here we have lost the beginning, and what survives is
μηνός Ληναιώνος." Instead of marking a change of year, the fr
seem to have been trying to give us a more precise date: the month
documents from the sacred stoa also repeat the dating formula in th
need not assume a change of year every time we see the word steph
Other iterations of the dating formula are even more problem
proposed structure. The next example, in 1. 123, refers to the year
stephanephoros, while the remaining three (11. 143,167 and 202) ali r
of the same man, Akrisios. In total then, there is only one certain (
able) change of year in the surviving portions of the decree. The even
consume twenty lines, and the events of Akrisios' year in office con
nine. Brevity then, was not the framers' chief concern, and any att
chronology of the first 110 lines of the decree over a decade is prob
Ferrary avoids these difficulties by assuming a major break in the
tent of the decree between 11.143 and 167. The putative first section
to summarizing Krates' diplomatic career, and differed in structure
the first section, each mention of the stephanephoros does indicate
passes swiftly.14 In the second, they abandon the annalistic structur
down. Although it has never been challenged, this theory is a poor f
even superficially. A strictly chronological structure is at odds with
thematically. It is also at odds with the format of the other docume
sacred stoa. Those few that are both sufficiently long and sufficiently
useful comparanda allow diplomatic and domestic services to mingle
Why this month is important will be specified below.

E. g., I. Priene 108. Moschion was praised for Services to the state performe
phanephoros (1.31 ), another benefaction performed under τό[ν προ]τε[τ]αγμ
(1. 39) and still further Services performed κατά δέ την αύτήν στεφανηφορ
1906: 85 thinks that Telon was not an actual citizen of Priene, but the eponym
of Teloneia, and identical with the god (ό θεός) who was stephanephoros w
decree honouring Apellis (/. Priene 4 [332/1 BCE]).
Ferrary extends the chronology by assuming that Krates did nothing worthy o
In a vacuum, this is possible, though no more possible than the alternative
tinually active over a shorter Stretch of years. All of our external evidence po
possibility.
The break would presumably fall before line 165, where we find notice tha
thetes. It is probably no coincidence that several corpora only print the first s
(e.g. Ager 1996: #171, Canali de Rossi 1997: #330 and 2002: #182).
Among those that seem to offer suitable comparanda, the decrees for Zosim
113) do not seem to have a thematic divide, though his career was relatively
Heroides (/. Priene 109) does not keep diplomatic Services separate from
faire. It opens with praise for Heroides' performance in a religious office of so
agonothetes, or perhaps stephanephoros, a position he held when the decree wa
transitions to diplomatic Service (11.61,91,105), returns to his Service within t

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
There is nothing in the text of Kra

a career that spanned decades, and this
sacred stoa.16 Some men, like Mosch
the unnamed subject of /. Priene 121 a
vice, but an equal number are honoured
category would include the subject of I
for one exceptional performance as a
the conflict with the publicani, Herakl
most famous of Krates' near-contem
magistracies, but was honoured with
114). The earliest, I. Priene 112, is mo
of service as gymnasiarch, though it
Council. The two may be discussed toge
at least in close succession.18 His later s
own separate inscription (/. Priene 113)
that summarized his career in ali three
it was standard practice in Krates' city
turn in one of the city's most importan
At first glance, that may seem to con
akleitos') decree. Krates acted as a dip
city's case in arbitration, and he was als
in which he seems to be responsible fo
both Citizens and visitors. This conflict
(1. 140) and then returns to his diplomatic car

structure is that for Moschion (7. Priene 108
he raade to the city's finances before trans
even this decree is not parallel in structure
transition is made, diplomatic and home serv
it is more likely that Moschion, as a young m
financially before he reached the age of m
public subscription from Kos. Several men, in
contributed for both themselves and their
of these donations jointly with his brother
Athenopolis, was also honoured with a decr
services, only general praise. Perhaps Athe
donations that had been made in his name we
7. Priene 121, which is the comparison invok
than the rule. It is exceptional not only for t
who never seems to have held any office ot
It is difficult to teli whether 7. Priene 118.1-
terms of service as an agonothetes. Two diff
for two different expenses incurred in the s
Ali we know is that he was first chosen to
siarch (7. Priene 114.12).

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
a single office that required him to take on diplomatic, religious and fina
A document from Delphi (Syll.3 306) offers a useful parallel.19 The p
published the rules that they adopted for administering moneys given t
Attalus II, endowments of 18000 and 3000 drachmas, the proceeds of
used to fund the salaries of teachers and regulär sacrifices. The money b
property and was loaned out in smaller parcels to private Citizens. The i
loans was collected and disbursed at regulär intervals prescribed by law.
that Krates protected for his city were also sacred property and would ha
the same purpose. It Stands to reason that they would be administered in
In Delphi, Attalus' donations were managed by a panel of three ep
were responsible for finding suitable borrowers, ensuring that proper c
worth twice the value of the loan) was offered, collecting the interest p
disbursing the funds.20 The epimeletai were chosen from the city's mos
experienced men and held office for five years. They were given broad
forcement, including the right to seize and seil property to cover any t
They needed those powers because they were, ultimately, responsible for
The epimeletai had to make their payments even if the borrowers defau
volunteered to borrow the sacred funds, the epimeletai themselves were
the public records as the debtors at one and a half times the normal rate
In Priene, we are dealing with salt-pans, not money, but, since th
property, they were most likely administered in the same way and to the
salt-works would be periodically leased out to a citizen or group of Citiz
payments being due at fixed times, and the proceeds would finance c
We should expect this process to be presided over by officials selected f
body, just as in Delphi. I suggest that it was most likely as such a Superi
sacred property that Krates (and Herakleitos, honorand of I. Priene 117)
Construing the document in this way frees us from the need to imp
thematic structure on the remains of the decree. Ali of the services listed
part of a four- or five-year term as Superintendent of the sacred propert
level, this explains several phrases from the fragmentary portions of th
5 we hear of someone eyeing the letting out of these properties with susp
έξουσίας ύφο[ράσθαι]) and later of someone fulfilling a contract hi
meaning "making payment") in the month of Lenaios - a month in whic
brated games, for which the city's sacred property may have supplied f
the prospect of trouble with the publicani and Miletus frightened poten
See especially Migeotte 2009.

Syll.3 672.22 ff.
Syll.3 672.85-89. The higher interest rate was presumably to discourage them fr
qualified borrowers.
Compare the work of Dignas 2000 on the leases of sacred land at Mylasa, or, on
Athens, Williams 2011: 262.
I. Priene 118.4.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
some of Priene's sacred property could

superintendents would be forced to t
plains why Krates was involved in both
were his responsibility - and also why
expense.24 This provides the connect
his religious functions.
The latter, or 'religious', sections of
tional generosity under trying circum
some fashion, responsible for the manag
decree suggests that Krates was respon
funds were available to meet the tem
his decree, we seem to have evidence of
.... της πόλεως καΐ τώι νεωποίηι

[...19... οΐόμενος] δέ δεΐ[ν] μέ[ν]ειν
δηλουμένων [συν]
[αλλαγμάτων και τα υπόλοιπα τώ
άποδοΰναι, τά συναλλάγματ[α..] 205
[... 16...χρημ]άτων, της τε τών διαφόρων άποκα[
προενόησεν, έπ[ί τό]
[τ]έλος ύποτάξας ύποθήκας ρητός προς την άπό
των, [ού μ]ό[ν]ο[ν πάσαν την περί
τούτων έπιμελή πεποίηται πρόνοιαν, προιστάμ
λλιστ[ον τρόπον τών συναλλα]
γμάτων, άλλα και καθόλου περι της τών ιερών
ως ... 19...]
κτλ.
...of the city and to the caretaker borrowing from A

necessary to remain, in the case of the sacred funds
set out in the contracts and to pay the remainder of
decree encompassed, the contracts... of the [sacred?]
restoration of the difference (or shortfall) to the god
for the repayment of the monies until it was compl
care and foresight in in these matters, supervising t
ourable way, but he also took on the whole administ
How we interpret this passage hinges on what we imag

be. In Delphi, the terms on which sacred monies were
was to be spent were laid out in public decrees. Line 20
legislation fixing prices and payment schedules and
24 l. Priene 111.114.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
separate crises facing the city, perhaps some of those who had taken
were unable to pay, and Krates engineered some arrangement that allow
payments to be made, at least on paper. He could have advanced the mon
while allowing the debtors to retain their collateral until they could eve
him. The other option would be to understand this psephismata as new l
in response to the immediate crisis. It may have allowed civic officiale a
ers of the tempie to borrow from the sacred funds to cover their opera
- money that would normally have been drawn from lease payments
was responsible for collecting. The city may have recognized that the cu
was entirely beyond Krates' control and offered to waive his liability, at
time being. In that case, Krates is being praised for accepting this tempo
while stili vowing that Athena's treasury would suffer no permanent lo
amounts specified in the originai contracts would stili be paid eventually
shortfall would be made up). Both interpretations are possible, and b
theory advanced here: that the decree as a whole is concerned with Krat
exceptional, service as epimeletes of the sacred property.
Epimeletes was not the only title that Krates held. He was one of the
the year that Akrisios was stephanephoros, when the sacred property w
limbo. Perhaps the prospect of having no public funds available to defray
games, because the sacred property that usually supplied those funds wa
meant that no one else was Willing to take on this liturgy, and Krates w
the role himself. It is equally possible that acting as agonothetes actually
financial bürden. It freed him from having to make immediate payment
may have allowed him to replace money destined to buy sacrificial an
stuffs with contributions in kind. In favour of the latter alternative, Kra
for hosting two of the required banquets in his own home, which does n
been normal practice for agonothetai.25
Reading all of Krates' Services to the state as part of one turn in the
meletes explains one further anomaly: that Krates' contemporary, He
nearly identical career. In Delphi, three men were chosen to serve as
we may be justified in thinking that Priene also employed a board of so
was greater security both for the city and for the magistrates when th
I. Priene 111.176-7: έδαπάνησεν δέ παρ' έαυτοΰ μετά τών συναγωνοθετώ

feast in his home along with his fellow agonothetai) and, more explicitly, I. Prie
δέ διετησί]ους άρχοντας εις την αύτοϋ οίκίαν έκάλεσε πάντας καΐ τούς έ
στρατηγών καί τον γυμνασίαρχον τών νέων και τον νεωποίην και τον γραμμ
και τοΰ δήμου καί τον άντιγραφέα καί τον γυμνασίαρχον τών έφηβων καί του
καί τόν άναγνώστην καί τόν κήρυκα τής πόλεως (he summoned to his house
who hold office for a year, ali of the generals who were in office for a month, th
the young men, the tempie-steward, the secretary of the Council and the people, th
gymnasiarch of the ephebes, the superintendents of education, the reader and the h
If we compare I. Priene 118, a decree in praise of a near-contemporary agonothetes,
service seems to be duplicated (though the decree is very fragmentary).

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
was shared. The overlap between Her

men were active in a dispute with th
and argued their city's case before th
have long been noted, and further sim
of preservation of Herakleitos' decree.2
Herakleitos took on the same religio
cree and 11. 238-246 of Krates' decree a
required them to "offer sacrifices with
resident aliens and foreigners, and to o
this final service, both men are praised
ali the Citizens of Priene.28 There are ot
two men, but this one is especially not
Prieneian honorific decrees.29 Perhap
the expenses for the banquet were draw
of this service suggests that it was usu
There is an underlying theme here th
with Miletus and the publicani caused r
ened the stability of their sacred calen
to cover the cost of sacrifices. The cris
The year that Akrisios was stephanep
that saw an influx of theoroi, craftsm
world.31 The pressure to save face indu
cover their immediate needs, and ma
himself especially laudable. Those circu
so acrimonious. Both the dispute with
violence, and in both cases the first at
I. Priene 111.112ff. (publicani), 139 (Ephes

Priene 117.14 ff. (publicani), 21 and 43 (Ep
these Services need not trouble us excessive
both men made multiple visits to Ephesus.
See Hiller 1906: 113.
Herakleitos' turn as agonothetes carne one year earlier than Krates'. Heraldeitos performed this lit
urgy while Caesar was still governor; Krates took it on while Lucilius was governor. In Herakleitos'
case, we seem to have some hint of taking on another important religious office after his embassies
to Caesar, which may be contemporaneous with Krates' turn as agonotheies.
Both men also offered another banquet to Citizens, foreigners and ephebes (/. Priene 111.175-6 and
I. Priene 117.51), and Herakleitos too may have been involved in making up some shortfall from
the funds normally generated by sacred property (/. Priene 117.53: έν rate; λοιπαίς δε έπιδόσεσιν,
έναίς [...]).
I. Priene 113.88. Zosimos also performed this liturgy at his own expense (while he was stephane
phoros), which is undoubtedly why it was deemed worthy of mention.
I. Priene 111.173.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
If we accept that all of Krates' services to the state arose from a

tenure as the Superintendent of the sacred property, we will need t
ology of the dispute with the publicani. Recent scholarship has assu
a protracted affair.32 Ferrary suggests that as long as fourteen yea
between Krates' first overtures to the proconsul Caesar and Priene's
Brennan would extend that to nearly twenty years.33 In Delphi, th
for a period of five years, and ali of the events of Krates' inscripti
time frame. If we put aside ali assumptions, we can only say for ce
actively involved in these cases for two years (the years in which S
sios were the stephanephoroi). If we bring in the fragmentary decree
Priene 117), we probably have reason to extend that to at least thre
In Krates' decree, the beginning of the dispute with the publican
pearance of a Roman proconsul (Caesar) fall in dose proximity to
of the dating formula, a stephanephoros whose name has been lo
decree we find reference to a stephanephoros whose name begins Kl
the next line, by a reference to a Roman proconsul (strategos) w
survive. The simplest hypothesis is that the strategos in Herakleitos
and that the stephanephoros in Krates' decree is Kleos[. That would
lasted three or four years by Prieneian reckoning, which could well b
years by Roman reckoning.35 This contracted chronology makes it
and Lucilius were governors of Asia consecutively and eliminates
an unusually long tenure for Caesar.36 On the question of the gover
to return Sumner's proposai that Caesar and Lucilius combined to go
of Asia from 92 to 90 (or 89) BCE.37
E. g. Carusi 2009: 83 and Heller 2006: 30-31.

Brennan 2000: 553, with n. 230.
I. Priene 111.14 and 17.
Sumner 1978: 149 suggested (and Brennan 2000: 553 accepts) that the Prieneian year began in
month of Boedromion, which mean the Prieneian year was six months out of step with the Rom
year, but this rests on very thin evidence. The second of three decrees for Zosimos praises him f
beginning his term as stephanephoros on the first of Boedromion (/. Priene 113.53). But Zosimos
honored for being the first man since the Mithridatic wars who was able to carry out the duties of
stephanephoros properly. That he began his term of office in Boedromion may have been exceptio
rather than the norm. Boedromion is the month in which other magistrates were elected (secreta
of the Council and assembly [/. Priene 112.20-21] and nomophylax [/. Priene 91.4-5]), so perh
Zosimos agreed to enter office as soon as his election was officiai, rather than at the normal t
In Krates' decree, the notice of the date comes after mention of the governor; the order is rever
in Herakleitos' decree. This may mean that we should to add one year to our chronology, but
necessarily. The framers of the decree repeat the dating formula for Akrisios' year as stephanepho
at least three times, and they may have done so with Kleos['s year in office as well.
Caesar's tenure would not need to span more than two Prieneian years (Kleos[ and Sosikrates
tween his first appearance in Krates' decree (1. 14) and Krates' first visit to Lucilius (1. 136).
Sumner 1978: 150.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
The argument here is that Krates' and He

with Miletus and the publicani was limited
ents of the sacred property and hence respo
legal wrangling arising from it. But was th
this point, Krates' inscription is too fragme
leitos' is almost silent. The major issue that
not the originai bone of contention, was "th
Priene 111.129 and 146).38 Why that shou
cities is usually explained by reference t
the Maeander river, "by casting its silt into
of the coast forty stadia, and thereby chan
one."39 With that as a starting point, Magie
Latmic gulf had silted up so much that only
deep enough for cargo ships, and that both
εϊσπλους.40 That is unlikely to be the case.
physical mouth of a harbor, in an epigraphic
of admittance into one. Virtually every oth
an honorary decree in which a person or pe
the right to enter and leave the harbour.41
that nowhere else does εϊσπλους appear on
Hiller offered a more plausible explanation
ges to the coastline forced Priene to use a h
a strip of land claimed by Miletus - either a
Maeander, or a piece of previously existin
bitter dispute, especially if the Milesians be
for Priene that were forced to briefly cross t
quickly spirai out of control and end in the
to bring back an 'amnesty' as part of a favo
Any theory that makes the harbor-entran
misguided, though. The mere fact that deal
stituted a great achievement is no reason to
I.Priene 111.128-9: [...τόάμφισβήτημ]ατόκατά

συνεκδίκων [...] (he, along with the rest of the
enter the harbour); 146: γε[ν]ικήκ[αμ]ε[ν το ζ
our claim about the right to enter the harbour).
Τάχα δέ και ό Μαίανδρος δια τούτο σκολιός
και πολλήν χοΰν κατάγων άλλοτ' άλλω μέρει τ
βιασάμενος εξωθεί, και δή καί την Πριήνην έπ
τετταράκοντα σταδίων προσχώματι.
Magie 1950: 167.
E. g. I. Priene 6 and 60, or Milet 152a and 153.
Hiller 1906: xix.
I. Priene 111.131: κομισάμενος δέ και αύτός [τήι π]ατρ[ίδι τ]ά κρίμ[ατα την τε άδει]αν.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
the dispute. By the time Krates was able to resolve the issue, Miletu
'escaped' a verdict, and they apparently hoped to escape another. Th
right to enter a harbour (presumably Miletus' harbour) may have bee
escalation of hostilities, rather than the cause of those hostilities. T
even when they feil short of outright war, frequently escalated int
redations.44 The remains of 1. 11 of Krates' decree ([τ]όπων κυριεία
the real bone of contention between the two cities. As the dispute w
of Miletus may have passed their own version of Pericles' Megar
Prienian ships from their, and allied, harbors - taking away the righ
would have been as economically devastating for the Prienians as it
ians. As the largest city in the vicinity, Miletus seems to have beco
hub through which locai goods, especially wine, were exported 45 L
market would be a major economie setback for the smaller city.
The rationale for Krates' involvement becomes clear if we continue to use conflict
between Athens and Megara as our model. The two mainland cities continued their ri
valry into the fourth Century with a dispute over land in the neighbourhood of Eleusis.
At some point during that quarrel, the Athenians declared some or ali of the disputed
territory to be the sacred property of Demeter and Persephone. A Ione inscription details
Athens' plans for securely fixing the boundaries of this tract of sacred property and for
deciding how best to manage it. The former process involved setting aside a time for
ali Athenians to come and offer their opinion on where the boundary should be, and
then visibly claiming the disputed area with horoi that marked it as sacred property. The
latter involved asking the god at Delphi whether some part of this territory should be
left uncultivated to honour the god, or whether they should lease it out to help defray
the expenses of the shrine.46
Priene's quarrel with Miletus may have followed a similar course. At some point
the people of Priene declared the land at the heart of the dispute to be sacred property.
As in Athens, the people of Priene made arrangements to let out this land out along
with the rest of the city's sacred property. This was not the end of the affair, at least not
permanently, and despite several victories in courts of arbitration the matter was not
resolved until Lucilius referred it to the senate. As the men who were legally responsible
for these properties, Krates and his fellow epimeletai were called upon to defend their
city's rights. This same tactic, declaring disputed lands to be the property of the gods,
may underlie Priene's trouble with the publicani.
The dispute with the publicani is the more complex of the two cases, not least be
cause it necessitates working with two extremely fragmentary documents, rather than
only one. The best evidence for the start of the dispute begins at 1. 14 of Herakleitos'
Ma 2000: passim, especially 349-357.

Bresson 2007: 181-2 cites a treaty between Miletus and Pedasa (Miletos Inscriptions 13.149) which
allows Citizens of that city to export their wine (up to 1000 metretai) through Miletus, which suggests
both that Miletus was a bulk-export market and that access to that market was a prized privilege.
Rhodes and Osborne 2003: #58. See especially the commentary on pages 275-278.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
inscription (/. Priene 117), which simp

city.47 Unfortunately, only the margin
only the first third of the next few lin
άρχόντων κωλυσάντων σ[-] 15

,ιαν και τραύματα και φόνους [..]σ[-]
τοϋ άνθυπάτου κατ' αιτίασιν περ['ι -]
έν χρόνωι ώρισμένω περί ών έγκ[λημάτω
των συναποδεδειγμένων άνδ[ρών - έπι]
στρέψας και αυτός άπ<ή>λθεν [εις
νόμενος εις Έφεσ[ο]ν [-]
κτλ48
Magistrates preventing... and wounds and murders... of the governor by asking

about... at the appointed time, about the complaint... with the men picked out... and
making many trips, he himself went [to... and was our ambassador] to Ephesus...
When the publicani arrived, they tried to physically seize control of the salt-works, and
Priene's magistrates resisted (1. 15). The struggle was violent and resulted in wounds
and murders (1. 16).49 The publicani carne out on top, or at least were not completely
driven off. At a somewhat later date, Krates persuaded the Roman governor (probably
Caesar) to 'release' the salt pans to the people of Priene until a final decision carne
from Rome (π]αρακαλών τον άνθύπατον τοίς μεν ύπό των άλωνών λεγομένοις
μή προσ[τίθεσθαι, άλλα έφίεσθ]αι τώι δήμωι τα πράγματα).50 It seems likely that
Krates made this argument before the governor when he was personally present in Priene
- a detail that survives only in Herakleitos' decree.51 Caesar most likely carne to Priene
in response to Herakleitos, and probably Krates, travelling to Ephesus to petition him
for help. Herakleitos was lauded for travelling to Ephesus twice between the arrivai of
the publicani in Priene and Caesar's visit to the city.52 Of the portion of Krates' decree
which corresponds to this time, (the year that Kleos[ was stephanephoros), we have only
the margin, where it survives at all. In that section we find no mention of Ephesus, but
we do find what appear to be multiple embassies to the proconsul in rapid sucession:
[π]ρεσβείας ώς έναντία πέπρακ[-]

[ή]γησαμένων άδικους μεθ' ö [-]
[] προς Γάιον Ίούλιον Γάίου υίόν και [-]
The mention of the governor in the preceding line might suggest that Herakleitos knew trouble was
Coming and went to complain to the governor in advance, but I think it more likely that the decree
Starts by honoring him for visiting the governor in this year, then explains why he went.
I.Priene 117.14-21.
It is unclear who the casualties were. The question will be discussed briefly below.
I. Priene 111.116. Again, my argument is that the events of these lines of Krates' decree are se
ated from those of the first line by a year at most.
I. Priene 117.49: 'Ιουλίου Καίσαρος συμβέβηκεν έν Πρ[ιήνηι]
/. Priene 117.20-21 and 45-47.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
[άποδ]ημήσας είς Πέργαμον έποιήσατο [-] 15

[] ώστε τον άνθύπατον έπιτάξαι [-]
[ στε]φανηφό[-]
[]ν συντελεσθέντων ΰπ' αυτών [-]
[στε]φανηφόρου μηνός Ληναιώνος [-]
[τ]ό ίκανόν περί της οίκοδομίας [-] 20
[στρ]ατηγοΰ Γαΐου Ιουλίου Γαίου υίοϋ [-]
[την π]ρεσβείαν έτέλεσεν δωρεάν [-]
[χειροτονη]θεΙς καί αυτός πρεσβευτής [-]
[δ]ικαστών καί της έπΐ τους τό [-]
κτλ.53
Embassies in Opposition... thinking these things unjust.. to Gaius Iulius, the son of
Gaius... he travelled to Pergamon and made... so that he enjoined the proconsul...
stephanephoros... fulfilled by them... stephanephoros, in the month of Lenaios...
security deposit for the buildings... of the governor, Gaius Iulius, the son of Gaius...
he undertook the embassy... himself chosen to be ambassador... of the jurors and
the [?] responsible for...
These are most likely the same embassies that Herakleitos undertook, and they were
successful. Caesar issued a temporary injunction forcing the publicani to surrender con
trol of the salt-works and ruled that Priene should be allowed to maintain possession.54
Caesar also declared that whoever had been killed, presumably in the initial struggle
between the publicani and Priene's magistrates, had been put to death lawfully.55 Even
so, the affair remained unsettled. The publicani resorted to the use of force again, either
to eject the Prieneians from the salt-works or perhaps to seize some other property, and
they demanded that Priene offer security before they released it.56 This second outbreak
of violence, which may have been timed to coincide with the end of Caesar's term as
governor of Asia, gained the publicani no more than their first attempt did.57 All of this
happened during the stephanephorate of Kleos[.
In the following year, when Sosikrates was stephanephoros, Krates was active in
Priene's case against Miletus. He travelled to Erythrae to argue his city's case and, along
with his fellow ambassadors, returned hearing a favourable verdict.58 Near the very end
/. Priene 111.12-24.
I. Priene 111.116-118: π]αρακαλών τον άνθύπατον τοίς μεν ύπό των άλωνών λεγομένοις μή
προσ[τίθεσθαι, άλλά έφίεσθ]αι τώι δήμωι τά πράγματα, μέχρι αν έπιγνώμεν το κριθησόμενον
ύπέρ [αύτών ύπό της συγκ]λήτου, έπεισέν τε τον άνθύπατον και αΰτός άποφήνασθαι, δτι
οϊεται δείν δια[τηρεΐν τούς κατεχομεν]ους ύφ' ήμών.
I. Priene 117.50: έ]θανατώθη κατά τούς νόμους [. That this was done "according to the laws"
may be a reference to the lex Aquilia. See discussion below.
I. Priene 111.118-9: πάλιν τε τών δημοσιωνών βιασαμενων.
That we hear about this attempi in a decree honouring Krates makes it all but certain that he was
able to successfully counter it.
I. Priene 111.125-132.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
of Sosikrates' year in office, Krates trav

governor, Lucilius, about continuing t
refer the matter to the senate, but Krat
Priene control of the salt-works until th
to Rome ended successfully, either at the
following year. At the beginning of Akr
Miletus flared up again. The Milesians ign
the people of Priene turned to Lucilius f
wrote a letter to the senate.60 The lines w
Krates' role in it are too fragmentary to
is that Lucilius' letter to the senate about
and that he spoke for his city in both h
Rome in the final months of Sosikrates'
two favourable verdicts during Akrisios'
The dispute between Priene and the pu
est of two governors and the senate itself
this case remains obscure. It is generally
had the right to levy taxes against the lo
that the pans were sacred property and
plausible. It fits our assumptions about w
closer scrutiny. Of the three taxes tradi
the scriptura, were taxes on agricultural
salt-pans.62 The third was the portoria
eager to levy it against salt exported fro
have resisted this. Even if we set aside t
complete immunity from taxation, the pe
still sacred property after it had left the
of Priene would invest so much in prote
l.Priene 111.136-143.
I. Priene 111.144-148.
E.g., Magie 1950: 166, Broughton 1938: 535, and Erhardt 2002: 140-1. Brennan 2000: 553 is
specific, arguing that there was a separate societas publicanorum who purchased a contract
"salt-tax." Carusi 2009: 183 seems to second the view of Brennan, that there was a separate cont
for publicani involved in the salt trade, but does not explore how they carne into conflict with P
Sherwin-White 1984: 236-237 believes that the Roman administration was unsure as to the
tax status of the entire city.
There is little direct evidence for which taxes Asia was subject to before the time of Sulla, and
less evidence for a specific tax on salt anywhere in the empire at any time (Rostovtzeff 1941: 8
See below for a re-examination of the major documents which have been adduced as evidenc
sacred land was exempt from taxes generally. The customs law of Asia makes allowance fo
viduals who are tax-exempt and exempts goods being transported for religious purposes (sacr
animals), but at no point does it exempt the produce of sacred land from taxes when it is
exported for trade. See Cottier et al. 2008: 11. 58-66.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
in high demand; the added bürden of the export dues would not have be
protracted legai battle might cost the city more than the taxes themselv
portantly, this Interpretation simply does not fit our evidence. These tw
say nothing about taxation or payment of any kind. Instead, they suggest
physical possession of the salt-works.
The first substantially complete lines of Krates' inscription are the key
affair:
[... 15 ... ας π]ρότερσ[ν] είργάζετο βασιλεύςΆτταλος, ούτε

διακατέχει ό δήμος ήμων ούτε
[ή σύγκλητος εξουσία ν ού]δεμίαν εις τούς δημοσιώνας πεποίηται· τάς
δέ κατασκευασθείσας ύφ' έαυ
[τού άλέας τάς άνακειμέ]νας έκ πλείονος χρόνου τήι Άθηνάι τήι
Πολιάδι, ας κατέχει και καρπίζεται
[ό δήμος, άνέσωσεν, π]αρακαλών τον άνθύπατον τοίς μεν ύπό των
άλωνών λεγομένοις μή προσ- 115
[τίθεσθαι, άλλα έφίεσθ]αι τώι δήμωι τά πράγμ
έπιγνώμεν τό κριθησόμενον ύπέρ
[αύτών ύπό τής συγκ]λήτου... κτλ.65
(The salt-pans) which, formerly, king Attalus work

nor did the senate make any lease of them to the p
had been outfitted at his own expense and had been
for a long time and which our city did hold and pro
upon the governor not to heed the arguments of t
the installation to the city until we learned what h
It would seem that the publicani pressed their case fo

on the fact that they had once been Attalid royal pr
become the property of the Roman people, ager publ
his kingdom to Rome.66 Rome profited from age
which had naturai resources, by leasing them directl
Krates paid his own travel costs, but we do not know about t
I. Priene 111.112-17. a π]ρότερο[ν]: Hiller.
Broughton 1934: 207-9 and throughout argued that the cro
ager publicus, but he began from a faulty premise. There is n
land ager publicus must involve dispossessing large native
examples of kings transferring the titles of royal estates to b
and it is Strange to think that when Cicero (De Lege Agraria
in Macedonia regios, qui partim T. Flaminini, partim L. Pau
among the Republic's reserves of ager publicus, he does not
Cf. Siculus Flaccus, De Condicionibus Agrorum 3 (= Campb
Romani territorio, quorum vectigal ad aerarium pertinet (ter
the rent belongs to the public treasury), are discussed.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
publicani would then take physical poss

them via the labour of their familia. O
Brutus (85-6), in which he mentions th
a pitch forest in Italy and were put on
assaulted and killed some locai residents.
If the question here is about who owns the salt-pans, rather than about taxation,
then the nature of the legai arguments is easy to intuit. Attalus III and his predecessors
probably owned and operated several installations for making salt along the coast of
Asia Minor, because the locai climate was especially favourable.68 Ali of Attalus' old
salt-works were probably let out by the censors on a single contract to one societas pub
licanorum. If Priene's opponents held a monopoly on those contracts, it would explain
why they are once referred to as άλώναι, salt-contractors (1. 115). The legai question
was whether Priene's salt-works were included in that general contract because they
had once been royal property. The Prieneians argued the salt-pans in question were not
included in Attalus' bequest to Rome, and therefore the senate had never leased them to
the publicani (1.113). To make their case more strongly, they pointed out that the salt
pans in question had, at one time, passed out of use and needed to be refitted by Krates,
and that Athena's ownership of them had long gone unchallengecl.69
Construing this as a dispute about ownership of land makes it easier to explain how
and why the dispute escalated into bloodshed. In both Greek and Roman law, disputes
over the ownership of land were resolved by the forcible ejection of one party. It was
only when that Option failed that legal Intervention was necessary. In Roman law if the
two parties wished to settle issue in the courts, they would resort to a fictitious forcible
Cuinet 2001: 30. The climate and prevailing winds are ideal for salt production. In the late nineteenth
Century, the six state-owned salt-pans in the area produced over seventy-six million kilograms of
salt per annum using technology not much more advanced than what was available to Attalus. These
six, Cuinet notes, were far fewer than had previously been in Operation.
This may have been a substantial investment. At their most basic level, salt-pans could be merely
puddles of seawater which were closed off the sea once they were filled and left to evaporate in the
sun. More sophisticated Operations used at least two pools, one for preliminary evaporation and
another to which the brine could be transferred for final evaporation and ciystallization. They could
also be more elaborate. The Venetian salt producers of the middle ages used complex systems of
basins and trenches for solar evaporation. A single facility could involve a network of as many as
twenty-one crystallization and evaporation tanks. The construction of large-scale salt-pans could
be both a costly and arduous process. As an example, Hocquet 1978 offers the construction of salt
works at Piran, which took six months of Constant work and considerable expense.
The most likely reason that the salt-pans had passed out of use is that the silt cast up by the
Maeander had cut the installation off from access to the sea. Making them serviceable again would
probably have required Krates to dig a canal, clean and resurface the evaporation and crystallization
beds, replace the pump or whatever other mechanism was used to transfer v/ater from one pool to the
other, provide cover for the crystallized salt and, most importantly, provide slave labour to actually
operate the salt-pans once they were restored. With so much investment. Priene could claim that
these were no longer the same installation, while the publicani claimed that they were because the
general location had not changed.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
ejection as a way to frame the case. This is precisely what happens

Caecina, a case that unfolded in an enlightening way. Although Caeci
had previously agreed that the eviction would be fictitious, the violence
and one of Caecina's slaves was killed in the fracas.70 In cases like this, i
mal for the party taking possession to offer security until the matter c
and in Krates' decree we twice find the publicani demanding that Priene
Near the end of his term as governor, Caesar travelled to Priene, and
ing that that someone had been killed legally.72 This section of Heraklei
very fragmentary, but, presumably, the dead man was a victim of the τ
φόνους that followed the arrivai of publicani in Priene. If so, it is temp
governor 's decision as an echo of the lex Aquilia, which required guilty
restitution for slaves killed in cases of damnum iniuria datum. In Cicero
iniuria is the most important part of the formulation, and if it can be sh
ant acted justly, he is not obliged to pay restitution (5.11). By ruling th
killed "according to the laws," Caesar preempted a potential lawsuit. Red
the lex Aquilia was only open to Roman Citizens, so if this was Caesar's g
that the victim was a slave of the publicani.''3 That would also serve to e
47 of Herakleitos' decree:
[- ]καΙ τους πρεσβευτάς ήμών υπέρ έτέρω[ν -]

[- άπό των πό]λεων κα'ι περ'ι οίκέτου ου έφασαν άποδώ[σειν -]
[- πρεσβεία]ν εις Έφεσον χειροτονηθείς και αυτός πρ[εσβευτής -]κτλ.74
...and our ambassadors on behalf of other... from the city and about the slave he
did not say to pay... embassy to Ephesus, he himself was elected ambassador...
Finding their attempts to forcibly occupy the salt-pans frustrated, the publicani turned
to trying to exact payment for one of their slaves who was lost in the fighting. Heraklei
tos (and the people of Priene) refused, and this issue too was referred to the governor.
In this reconstruction the publicani seem rather unscrupulous, but we should be
wary of judging them too harshly. We have only Priene's version of events. We should
also bear in mind that this occurred during a very tumultuous time for the Roman
administration of Asia. Only a few years previously, probably in 94 BCE, Q. Mucius
Scaevola's term as the governor of Asia had upset the status quo.75 According to Di
odorus (37.5.1-6.1), Scaevola was the first governor in many years to administer the
Cf. pro Tullio 44 and pro Caecina 23 and passim.

I.Priene 111.20 and 118.
I. Priene 117.49-50: ...'Ιουλίου Καίσαρος συμβέβηκεν έν Πρ[ιήνηι]Ι[...έ]θανατώθη κατά τε

τους νόμους τ[οΰς...]
This is also implied by its appearance in an honorific decree for a man of Priene. They would hardly
boast of being told that the publicani could kill their slaves with impunity.
I. Priene 117.45-7.
The question of when Scaevola was governor of Asia is even more fraught than most such questions.
I follow Brennan 2000: 549-552 (with the bibliography he collects in nn. 214-222) in assigning his

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
province honestly. Many of his predece

gain, conspired with the publicani to t
When provincials accused the publicani
spot and often (or always, per Diodorus
cani to pay restitution for any fraud t
when they were accused of homicide
Greeks of Asia and, apparently, conver
genuine loyalty. His Opposition to th
dose friend and legate, Rutilius Rufus,
in 92 BCE - either contemporaneous wi
in Priene.76 The apparent obstinacy of
who was afraid to take truly decisive a
resolved to oppose the publicani at ali t
Other Disputes between Greek
Priene's dispute with the publicani w

willreview several similar cases. We ha
publicani and the Greek cities of Asia:
BCE]), one with Ephesus (Strabo 14.1.
[89 BCE]). Ali three have been construe
ali three were cases of disputed owners
over the boundaries of former Attalid
to such boundary disputes is not surpr
We know of one similar case from the
the city of Oropus (RDGE 23 [74/3 BC
expropriation of land in Greece followin
Ilium
Ilium is the most simple and straightforward of these four cases. The sum total of our
evidence is a short decree in honour of L. Iulius Caesar (OGIS 440): ό δήμος Λεύκιον
Ίούλιον Λευκίου υίόν Καίσαρα τιμητήν γενόμενον καί άποκαταστήσαντα την
ίεράν χώραν τήι Αθηνάι τήι Ίλιάδι καί έξελόμενον αυτήν έκ τής δημοσιωνίας.
tenure in Asia to 94 BCE. Some point between 99 and 97 BCE is also possìble (see Ferrary 2000:
192), but is still dose enough in time to events in Priene that it does not undermine my argument.
See again Brennan 2000: 541 and Alexander 1990: # 76.
Erhardt 2002: 149-51 noticed the connection between these and the bequest of Attalus, but thought
that they, and ali of our other known cases, were spawned by some change in "Rechtsstatus" that
may have entailed immunity from taxation, and that the publicani consistently sought to ignore.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
This has traditionally been taken to mean something like "The peo
L. Julius Caesar, son of Lucius, who was censor and exempted the
of Ilium from taxation."78 But that translation requires us to twis
scription to an uncomfortable degree. 'Exempt' is one possible mea
but not the most common or even the most naturai in this context.
prompted by the assumption that this is a tax dispute.79 Makin
('gave back') refer to relief from taxation is an even greater stretc
that he has somehow "restored" whatever revenues the publicani w
taxation, but the object of the participle is the sacred property itse
More problematic than a somewhat strained translation is the que
should be any difficulty at ali. The Greeks of the first Century BCE
vocabulary for this kind of benefaction; it had been an element of t
greater powers for two centuries by the time that Caesar carne to
tors in Ilium. The word ατέλεια and its cognates, meaning 'exemp
appear so frequently in inscriptions from this era as to make coun
It would be very odd indeed if the people of Ilium abandoned the n
diplomacy in favour of a phrase that only hints at their intended
tions to reading this as a matter of tax relief could be raised, but
than that a more literal translation of the document makes perfec
of Ilium honoured the censor, L. Julius Caesar, son of Lucius, who
to Athena of Ilium away from the publicani81 and restored it to h
in his capacity of censor, excluded Athena's property from the sw
leased to the publicani, and restored Athena's title to it.
Ephesus
If the case of Ilium is the most straightforward, then the case of Ephesus is the most
similar to Priene, at least so far as we can teli. The trouble with Ephesus is known to us
only from Strabo (14.1.26). In describing Lake Selinousia and the unnamed lake that
lies alongside it, he says:
Μετά δέ την έκβολήν του Καΰστρου λίμνη έστίν έκ τοΰ πελάγους άναχεομένη
(καλείται δέ Σελινουσία) και εφεξής άλλη σύρρους αύτή μεγάλας έχουσαι
My translation, but this is how Nicolet 2000: 351, Dittenberger (OGIS 440) and Morstein-Marx
1995: 119 n. 94 interpret the inscription.
Why the framers of the decree chose to refer to them with the Singular form rather than the plural
is unclear, but unlikely to be significant.
Many are actually decrees of thanks for individuals and cities, in which ateleia, alongside the rights
of enktesis and proedria, forms part of the most common suite of honours; but ateleia is equally
common in diplomatic relationships.
Or possibly "excluded it from the contracts for public property," if we wish to ascribe some meaning
to the use of the singular δημοσιωνίας in place of the more common plural form.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
προσόδους, ας οί βασιλείς μεν ιερά

άπέδοσαν· πάλιν δ' οί δημοσιώναι
τέλη, πρεσβεύσας δέ ό Αρτεμίδωρος
και την Ήρακλεώτιν άφισταμένην
Beyond the outlet of the Cayster, there

is called Lake Selinousia) and next anoth
and they offer substantial revenues, an
took away from the goddess, but the
the publicani used force in setting the
they say that Artemidorus acted as t
for the goddess and defeated Heracleot
decided at Rome.
Interpreting this as a matter of taxation is, at least in part, plausible.82 The publicani
here laid claim to the "dues" (τέλη) that were attached to the lakes. Τέλη are most
easily construed as customs dues, which could imply a dispute about the portoria, but
there is more to the story. Strabo says that these lakes were the source of great revenues,
revenues which the kings claimed, even though they were originally sacred. The shift
from "dues" (τέλη) to "revenues" (προσόδους) points to an alternate Interpretation.
If the shift is not simply imprecision or variatio, it suggests that there were multiple
revenue streams derived from the lakes. Artemis, as owner of the lakes, would have
had the right to seil concessions for their use, only one of which was the right to exact
customs dues.83 By claiming ownership over the lakes, the Attalids deprived Artemis of
ali of those various revenue streams. As royal property, they were willed to the Roman
people, who in turn made a gift of them to the goddess. The source of the confusion
here was that restoring ownership of the lakes to the goddess affected multiple public
contracts - one for the collection of the portoria in Asia, and one or more other contracts
for the use of the lakes in other ways. Since the contract for the portoria included the
right to use Attalus' old customs houses (τελώνια), the publicani could claim that they
stili held the rights to the customs houses on Lake Selinousia, even though the senate
no longer let out contracts for the use of the lakes themselves.84 As in Priene, using
force to set themselves up as the recipients of the τέλη meant evicting the locals from
the customs house or seizing other goods to compel payment.
As, for example, Broughton 1938: 535 and Nicolet 2000: 351 do.
The most likely additional concessions are the exclusive right to industriai fìshing in the lakes and
the right to graze animals along the shore. The tempie of Artemis may also have charged a docking
fee for any boats using the lake, as the Coan tempie of Aphrodite did (SEG 40 766.27-29). Carusi
2009: 95 believes that there were salt-works attached to the lakes. This is certainly possible, but
nothing in Strabo's account of the dispute suggests it.
For continued use of Attalid infrastructure, see Cottier et al 2008:1. 67.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
Pergamum
The case of Pergamum is almost certainly the most important instance of conflict between
the publicani and the Greeks of Asia. Like the decree for Krates, the Senatus Consultum
de Agro Pergameno (RDGE 12) is fragmentary and presente many complex problems
of Interpretation, some of which we can safely pass over.85 The senate was called on to
decide a dispute between the publicani and the people of Pergamum over the precise
location of Pergamum's border. They appointed a praetor to conduci a survey, both in
the field and of the public records, and to compile a report that included an accurate
description of the border. So much is straightforward, but other details complicate the
matter considerably. Rather than a single inscription found in Pergamum, as we might
expect, we have three copies, one from Adramyttium, one from Smyrna and one from
Ephesus. The Adramyttium copy could, at least theoretically, have been intended as a
kind of boundary marker set up at one edge of Pergamene territory, but no convincing
explanation has been offered for why Smyrna or Ephesus needed a copy of a ruling
about the extent of Pergamene territory.86 Similar cases were frequently decided by the
senate without further investigation, and, in the field, individuai magistrates or commis
sions of ten could fix the borders of allied and subject cities. Another oddity is the size
of the consilium that helped revise Pergamum's borders. Fifty-five men of rank were
involved in the project - a number so large as to be unparalleled - and no compelling
explanation has been offered for why so many were needed.87
Both of these apparent mysteries become easily soluble if we set aside the assump
tion that the dispute is about direct taxes. It must be stressed that this is an assumption;
Pergamene territory may have been tax-immune, but there is no mention of it in the
surviving portions of the SC. Even Sherk's composite text is lacunose, but we can isolate
a few salient points from what remains. This was the senate's resolution in the case of a
I cite Sherk's version (which attempts restorations based on ali three copies of the decision) for the
sake of convenience and because my argument focuses on the nature of the senatus consultum itself,
rather than on the individuai copies. I. Smyrna 589 and I. Adramytteion 18 are the authoritative editions
of those copies. The longest-running problem is that of the date of the originai senatus consultum.
Badian's (1986: 14-16) identification of the C. Coelius who was a member of the consilium with the
consul of 94 BCE seems to have established a rough consensus that the document should be dated
to 101 BCE. See also Brennan 2000: 671-673.
Morstein-Marx 1995: 141-2 suggests that the inscription was published elsewhere in the provinc
for "maximum visibility," but this fails to convince. Why was "maximum visibility" throughou
Asia a desideratum if the decree merely established the borders of the free city of Pergamon? The
explanation of de Martino 1983: 189-90 (which Morstein-Marx 1995 rejects), that the commission
actually established the borders of ali the tax-free states, is more logically consistent, but is als
completely divorced from the evidence. The other common Interpretation, that this decision was to
be used as a model for resolving similar disputes elsewhere in the province, also finds no suppor
in the surviving text of the SC (or any other document). There is nothing in the decree which coul
act as such a model.
Sherk 1969: 69.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
dispute between the people of Pergamon

Rendering a final decision required an in
gamene territory were, and once that w
was exempted and protected so that the
the document, we find a reference to "t
the censors (της Ασίας τάς προσόδου
"The revenues of Asia" is the key phra
ment. The most famous revenue streams
on imports and exports, (portoria) and th
scriptura). But these were not the only re
reason to assume that the Greek προσόδο
πρόσοδος is a very general word that e
probably serving as a translation of the
of Livy's usage of this word illustrates t
difficulty in finding an ethical way to p
says: metalli quoque Macedonici, quod i
rusticorum tolli placebat nam neque sine
stop letting out contracts to work the M
a great source of revenue, for these coul
properties in question are the former
Republic derived an ingens vectigal fro
than tax them) to societates publicanorum
properties (mines, agricultural land and
law of Asia offers special treatment to t
the province.93 Those who cultivate or o
land in the province of Asia also enjoy so
anything they wish to transport to Italy
they only have to pay for those foodstuf
The SC de Agro Pergamene is best unde
the civic territory of Pergamum ended a
Attalus III began. The nature of Attalid (
this kind of dispute especially likely. The
contiguous with the civic territories of
RDGE 12.23 and 5 (reconstructed).

RDGE 12.7-8: έ]πιγνφ,τίνεςορο[ι] Περγαμη
ν πεφυλαγ[μένον έστιν μή καρπίξεσθαι].
RDGE 12.15: της Ασίας τάς προσόδους μίσ
This is certainly how the Seleucid kings used
the general minister of finances, especially of
Livy 45.18.3.
Cottier et al. 2008: 11. 78-81. The special dispensations are for publicani whose mining contracts
require them to export ore to Rome.
Cottier et al. 2008: 1. 81.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
provided a ready market. For an example, we can look to a letter from An

the people of Sardis. After sacking their city, Antiochus generously allowed
to use lumber from his nearby woodlots in Taranza to rebuild their home
earlier, but within the confines of what would become the province of As
letter of Antigonus Monophtalmus to the city of Teos (RC 3) is even more
Teians proposed to establish a slush fund of 1400 staters which they woul
anyone who would use it to purchase grain for sale in the city. Antigonus
thusiastic and had discouraged other cities from making such arrangemen
this case, he said that it was wholly unnecessary, because "there is royal lan
in the event of a shortage of grain, you could easily transport it from ther
you wish."96 The king claimed that he derived no profit from offering to s
the city whenever they were in need, but one doubts if the people of Teos
Whether Antigonus exploited these estates directly or leased them out to
a ready market for such produce, was the easiest way for him to extract as
possible from his holdings.97 Antigonus' letter is much earlier than the c
Asia, but certain clauses in the law suggest that this never changed. Amon
installations included in the contract for the porteria, we find old Attalid c
that mark the boundary between his royal territory and the civic territory
It is easy to imagine a scenario in which Pergamum and the publicani m
doubt about the ownership of some land that had once been a royal estate
frequently sold them or gave them away as gifts, and once the title was tr
land was often incorporated into the territory of a nearby city. Such was
Antiochus I made a gift of two thousand plethra of royal land to his frie
of Assus." He was allowed to join his new estate to the territory of a city
either Ilium or Skepsis. Aristodikes listened to offers from both cities be
Ilium. The last word on the affair belongs to Antiochus' satrap Meleager,
the people of Ilium to inscribe the conditions on which Aristodikes j
estate to their territory on stone, so that it would remain securely theirs
95 Gauthier 1989: no. 1.
96 RC 3.83-85: πλησίον ούσης της φορολογουμένης χώρας ώστε έάν χρεία γίνηται σίτου ευχερ
οίόμεθα είναι μεταπέμπεσθαι έκ ταύτης όπόσον αν τις βούληται.
97 Prospective tenants would surely make a higher bid for the rights to an estate if they had a secur
market. Proximity to a city also meant that Antigonus could be certain his tenants would pay the
rent in cash, rather than in kind.
98 Cottier et al. 2008: 1. 67. We should expect the cities themselves to Charge import dues on go
entering their territory from royal estates as well.
99 RC 10-13.
100 RC 13.15-17. The details of the transaction mentioned above also allowed for the estate to be
incorporated into the territory of a city, and to prevent any confusion the terms were inscribed on
five different stelae, to be displayed in Ilium, Samothrace, Ephesus, Didyma and Sardis. The latter
four copies were not made to serve any practical function, but rather because ordering their creation
allowed Antiochus to construct, reinforce and advertise the royal chain of command and the extent
of his kingdom (see Ma 1999: 122 ff. on the similar arrangements Antiochus III made for appointing
a high priest).

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
concern implies that these grants were

at hand, shortly after the death of At
praising the late king for granting the
in his will.101 Extending Pergamene te
his royal estates and granting them to
Rome. The precise extent of those gift
the publicani and Pergamum.
On this reading of the dispute, the S
borders of Pergamon?' but instead (o
'what is the precise extent of the ager p
inherited Attalid estates that were adja
as many others. An accurate and autho
a de facto definition of those cities' bo
publish their own copy of the decision.1
explaining the exceptionally large consil
of ten was suffìcient to define the bord
territory in Asia was a more serious un
the publicani. The collected auctoritas o
guarantee that the praetor in charge wo
also have been more practical reasons. T
may once have been owned by the Attal
physical surveys and reports, it would h
records and, in all likelihood, Consultin
all eager to Stretch the truth and enlarg
such a grand survey in 101 BCE, it may
Oropos
There are important differences between Oropos' dispute with the publicani and the cases
discussed above. The other examples are all from the province of Asia and stem from
confusion over the bequest of Attalus. Oropos was insulated from those problems by the
width of the Aegean Sea. The other four cases predate Rome's war against Mithridates,
while the senate's ruling on the rights of Amphiaraus' tempie at Oropos (RDGE 23)
was handed down a decade after Mithridates' defeat.104 The most important difference
101 I. Pergamum 249 mentions one of what must have been numerous ìnstances over the lifetime of the
Attalid kingdom.
102 This is especially likely if, for the sake of ease, the land was let out in large swaths, perhaps under
the heading of 'the estates of Attalus in Mysia and Ionia,' or something similar.
103 We should not rule out the possibility that these cities hoped to treat the decree as a definitive cata
logue of Roman holdings, even if the Senate did not explicitly intend it to be one.
104 No certain date can be assigned to the dispute over Lake Selinousia, but the other three ali predate
the war against Mithridates, while the dispute about the land of Amphiaraus was settled in 73 BCE.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
though, is the nature of our evidence. Our evidence for conflict wit
laconic and lacunose, while in the case of Oropos we have a nearl
an extensive and detailed ruling.105
The dispute can be traced back to the year 86, when Sulla made a
tempie of Amphiaraus in fulfilment of a vow he made while fightin
years later, the gift was ratified by the senate, along with Sulla's othe
the publicani seized on a technicality to assert their rights to exploi
Their contract gave them rights to a large swath of land in Greece, e
territories which Sulla had conceded for the sake of maintaining th
the immortai gods."107 The publicani argued that Amphiaraus was no
tai gods, merely a hero, and that his holdings near Oropus should h
in their contract.108 The senate was not convinced, and the rights o
re-affirmed. The majority of recent scholarship assumes that the or
one for tax collection, and that the issue was whether Amphiaraus' pr
but it is more likely that the originai contract was a lease for the use
The evidence in favour of reading this as a matter of taxation is as
cases above. The presence of publicani (όημοσιώναι) need not ind
is one of taxation; publicani were involved in other enterprises as w
μισθώσεως from which the tempie lands were excluded has been
on tax farming", but need not be. It is almost certainly an attempi to
lex locationis - a law that sets the terms on which public contracts
locatio could be for the contract to collect taxes, but could also be f
publicus, or any other venture. The key passages are RDGE 23.1
105 The senate's ruling on Oropos is (almost) undamaged and includes support
Rigsby 1996: 80 points out, we also have some brief comments on the case
Deorum 3.49), who was himself part of the committee that heard the originai
106 RDGE 23.54-57.
107 RDGE 23.25-27: έπεί έν τώι της μισθώσεως νόμωι αύται αί χώραι ύπεξειρημενα
Λεύκιος Σύλλας θεών άθανάτων ιερών τεμενών φυλακής ένεκεν συνεχώρησεν.
108 RDGE 23.27-28.
109 For example, Sherk 1969: 136; Morstein-Marx 1995: 62 is so convinced that this is the only w
the document can be understood that he cites it as one of the first pieces of evidence for Rome's
lecting tribute in Greece; Petrakos 1997: 222 (# 308) sees this as a question of who was to control
φόρους which could be derived from these lands; Brodersen et al. 1999: 157-9 (#510) consisten
translate δημοσιώναι as "tax-contractors" (Steuerpächter), as do Lewis and Reinhold 1963: 37
(#137); Rigsby 1996: 80-81 offers a more nuanced Interpretation for τάς προσόδους (1. 47),
does not doubt that the two parties were quarrelling over who would have the right to collect Rom
taxes on the land in question. The Ione voice of dissent seems to be Hill 1946: 39. Hill sees this
case of the publicani who held a contract to exploit ager publicus in the neighbourhood of Boe
trying to expand their holdings. He does not offer an extended argument for his position, but it
logically and philologically sound. Hill's position has not been argued against so much as it h
been almost completely ignored. Only Baronowski 1987: 131 acknowledges it, and he summar
rejects it without citing any evidence to the contrary.
110 As Rigsby 1996: 79 recognized.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
...πρεσβευ
ταί 'Ωρωπίων, λόγους έποιήσαντο έ
αύται αϊ
χώραι ύπεξειρημεναι είσίν, ας Λεύκιος Σύλλας θεών αθανάτων ιερών
τεμενών 20
φυλακής ένεκ
προσ
όδους, περί ών άγεται τό πράγμα, Λεύκιος Σύλλας τώι θεώι
Άμφιαράωι πρ<ο>σώιρι
σεν όπως ύπέρ τούτων των χωρών πρόσοδον τώι δημοσιώνη μή
τελώσιν.
και περί ων Λεύκιος Δομετιος Αίνόβαλβος ύπέρ δημοσιωνών ειπεν
έπεί έν τώι της μισθώσεως νόμωι αύται αί χώραι ύπεξειρημεναι ε
άς Λεύκιος Σύλλας θεών άθανάτων ιερών τεμενών φυλακής ένεκε
συνεχώρησεν, ούτε ό Αμφιάραος ώι αύται αί χώραι συνκεχωρημεν
λέγονται, θεός έστιν, όπως ταύτας τάς χώρας καρπίσζεσθαι έξη
τους δημοσιώνας·
...τής εύχής άποδόσεως

ένεκεν τώι ίερώ Αμφιαράου χώραν προστίθημι πάντη πάντοθεν
πόδας
χίλιους, ίνα και αύτη ή χώρα ύπάρχη άσυλος· ώσαύτως τώι θεώι
Αμφιαράωι 45
καθιερωκέναι τής π
τάς προσόδους άπάσ
συντελοΰσιν... κτλ.
The ambassadors of the Oropians made these arguments: since, in the lex locationis,
these territories, which L. Sulla conceded for the sake of maintaining the sacred
temples of the immortai gods, have been excluded, and since Sulla granted (or joined)
these revenues, about which the conflict has arisen, to the god Amphiaraus, there
fore they do not pay the revenue from those lands to the publican. And L. Domitius
Ahenobarbus spoke about these things on behalf of the publicani, saying: since,
in the lex locationis, those lands, which L. Sulla conceded for the maintenance of
the sacred temples of the immortal gods, are excluded, and, since Amphiaraus, to
whom these particular lands are said to have been granted, is not a god, therefore
the publicani hold and exploit those lands...
I (Sulla) convey to the god Amphiaraus, in fulfillment of my vow, land measuring

one thousand feet in all directions so that this territory be inviolable. Likewise I have
dedicated to the god Amphiaraus ali the revenues of the city, lands and harbours of
the Oropians for those games and sacrifices which they perform...
The argument for seeing this a matter of exempting sacred land from Roman taxation
rests on interpreting the πρόσοδοι in 11. 21-2, 23 and 47 as referring specifìcally to

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
those taxes. This is already slightly problematic, since πρόσοδος

translated in a much more general way, as something like 'revenues
of this document 'taxes' can he no more than one of several possibil
strongest if we look at 1. 47 in isolation. Here we seem to have two
Sulla: one an extension of the god's landed estates, and the other a g
derived from the city, chora and harbours of the Oropians.112 This
as transferring the right to collect Roman taxes on these lands to Am
earlier passage, though, the legai crux of the dispute would seem
and ownership of land. The people of Oropus open their case by ref
was conceded to the tempie of Amphiaraus by Sulla. That both sides
the money that can be derived from that land is to be expected, but
a grant of land. L. Domitius Ahenobarbus is even more direct in his
publìcani. They are not asking for the right to exact the normal taxe
right to possess (έξη) and exploit that land (1. 28).
Construing this as a question of ownership is a better fit for the r
Granting a tempie the right to exact Roman taxes is unusual to the po
of, but granting lands to a tempie so that it can fund its activities w
very common.114 The Oropians wanted to protect not only the reve
certain parcels of land, but also those derived from the city of Oro
A Seleucid royal letter (RC 70) offers a dose parallel. The crown
Baetokaeke "the village of Baetokaeke, once owned by Demetriu
and grandson of Mnaseas... with ali its property and possessions... so
from this (πρόσοδος) may be spent by the priest chosen by the god
manner for the monthly sacrifices..."115
In the Hellenistic world, it was not uncommon for large gifts of
or more entire towns along with their inhabitants. In these cases th
simply dispossess those inhabitants and move in an army of his slav
111 Telos is the usuai translation for the porteria and similar exactions that w
112 The revenues derived from the harbours were substantial (Rigsby 1996: 80
113 As Rigsby 1996: 81 and Petrakos 1997: 222 do.
114 There are numerous examples of temples using rent payments to fund sa
Artemis at Sardis leased out the former estate of Mnesimachus (Gauthier
of Artemis and Apollo near Mylasa (/. Mylasa 801 and 818) and the tempie
(attested by numerous documents, including I. Mylasa 201-212; see also Dig
tempie activities by charging rent for lands which had been given to the god.
(although here it seems to be a priestly college and not a specific tempi
Condicionibus Agrorum 4 (= Campbell 200: 84.14-15): Virginum quoque Ves
quidam agri vectigalibus redditi sunt locatim (There are also certain lands of t
priests which are rented out on contracts).
115 RC 70.6-10: κώμην την Βαιτοκαι[κη]νήν, ήν πρότερον εσχεν Δημή
Μνασαίου έν Τουργωνα της περί Άπάμιαν σατραπίας, συν τοις συνκύ
πάσι κατά τους προϋπάρχοντας περιορισμούς και σύν τοις τοΰ ένεστώ
οπως ή άπό ταύτης πρόσοδος άναλίσκηται εις τάς κατά μήνα συντελ
Welles).

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
directly, but rather simply began exactin

technically, his land. This is most appare
includes the villages of Tandos and Komb
staters annually, a village called Periasaso
and a village called Ilos, which pays thre
a publican holding the contract on a larg
would be to follow the same pattern: charge
land.117 And according to Hyginus, this
was standard practice. The surveyor spea
Rome (or another community) and for w
Such lands were commonly found where
In the technical language of the agrim
the annual payments were also called v
This Interpretation explains what seem
in the case made by the ambassadors o
άγεται το πράγμα, Λεύκιος Σύλλας τ
τούτων των χωρών πρόσοδον τώι δημ
shifts from focusing on a grant of land
(plural), which is slightly stränge. These
προσορίζω, which would more naturally
ing of incorporating something within a
find another reference to revenue (this
certain lands. As I have suggested above, t
word πρόσοδος is vectigal. Both are ve
from a wide variety of sources. The sligh
if we allow for the possibility that in 1.
translate vectigales agri and, for whatev
to it. Under that assumption the phrase c
pay rent (vectigales agri), about which th
holdings of Amphiaraus, so that those w
to the publican (but only to Amphiaraus)
Returning to the main thrust of my arg
of Oropos and all its lands to the tempie
would be leased back to their current inh
116 Sardis VII 1 1.5, 7 and 10.

117 This is the most efficient business model.
improvements is impractical for a lease that on
118 Hyginus (1), De Condicionibus Agrorum 5
obligati, quidam rei publicae populi Romani, q
aliquarum (Lands yielding revenue, however,
others to colonies or municipalities, and others
119 Hyginus (1), De Condicionibus Agrorum

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
Sulla is of any value, Sulla made similar grants of land to other Gre
defeating Mithridates' forces near Chaeronea, Sulla confiscated h
Thebes and assigned it to Pythian Apollo and Olympian Zeus, in reco
their treasures when he was short of funds:
της χώρας αυτών άποτεμόμενος την ήμίσειαν τω Πυθίω καΐ τω Όλυμπίω

καθιέρωσεν, έκ τών προσόδων κελεύσας άποδίδοσθαι τά χρήματα τοις θεοΐς
έκ τών προσόδων κελεύσας άποδίδοσθαι τά χρήματα τοις θεοϊς άπερ αυτός
είλήφει.121
Separating off half of their [the Boeotians'] territory, he made it sacred to Pythian
Apollo and Olympian Zeus, ordering that from the revenues of this land the money
which he had taken should be restored to the gods.
Plutarch's Greek leaves little room to question the nature of this transaction. This is
not a question of making Delphi and Olympia tax-exempt, or of allowing Apollo and
Zeus to collect Roman taxes (which may not even have been collected in Greece at this
time122); Sulla added to the gods' real estate portfolios and they were able to rebuild
their fortunes by charging rents and other fees for the use of their sacred land.
There is one final element of the senate's ruling that calls for comment. Sulla exempts
the lands of one citizen of Oropos, Hermodorus, from the arrangements he has made:
έκτος άγρών τών Έρμοδώρου Όλυνπίχου υιού Ιερέως Άμφιαράου του δια τέλους
έν τή φιλία του δήμου του 'Ρωμαίων μεμενηκότος (11. 50-51). The clause has been
taken to mean that Hermodorus, the priest of Amphiaraus, and his private lands were
exempted from taxation. A better explanation may be that, when Sulla confiscated the
territory of Oropus and transferred it to the tempie, he allowed Hermodoros to retain
ownership of his estates. This too seems to have been a common Roman practice. Ac
cording to Siculus Flaccus, it was the prerogative of a victorious Roman Commander
to confiscate, divide and allocate conquered territory, but that sometimes dignitas aut
gratia aut amicitia victorem ducem movit, ut ei<s> concederei agros suos ("worthiness
or gratitude or friendship moved a victorious Commander to grant some men possession
of their own lands").123 This seems to match the case of Hermodorus, who retained
120 Plutarch may deserve the benefit of the doubt on this point, since he Claims to have read Sulla's own
commentarli for the campaign in Greece and its aftermath (Life of Sulla 17.1)
121 Life of Sulla 19.6.
122 Morstein-Marx 1995: 59ff. and the bibliography on page 60 n. 7. This issue is discussed more fully
below.
123 Siculus Flaccus, De Divisis et Assignatis 2 (= Campbell 2000: 120.35-6). According to Hyginus
(1), De Condicionibus Agrorum 5 (= Campbell 2000: 84.3-6), this was customary even in cases like
this, where the land was meant to be leased back to the original inhabitants: In quo tarnen genere
agrorum sunt aliquibus nominatim redditae possessiones, qui id habeant inscriptum [que] informis,
quantum cuique eorum restitutum sit. hi agri qui redditi sunt, non obligantur vectigalibus, quoniam
scilicet prioribus dominis redditi sunt (in this class of lands are some that have been returned to
certain named individuals, who have it written down in the maps how much has been returned to
whom among them. These lands which have been returned are not obliged to pay rent, since they have

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
ownership of his estates because he ma

reader that this practice can lead to confu
the investigation when disputes about ow
about plots that are tax exempt.
The case of Oropos has ramifications be
Republic profìted from its overseas hold
consider the matter in full, but the SC on
our most important pieces of evidence f
its holdings in mainland Greece. Morstei
Pausanias 7.16.9, Greece was not made s
the Achaean War in 146 BCE.125 The basi
ias, writing more than two centuries aft
and second, that the remaining evidence
instances where Rome granted Greek com
Such grants, Morstein-Marx rightly argu
not imply that the rest of Greece was ta
to Teos in 193 BCE, at which time the
makes that clear.126
Morstein-Marx then argues that taxes
Sulla in the aftermath of the the Mithrid
becomes plentiful, but only lists three ite
which says only that Elateia in Phocis was
for hewing to the Roman cause during
sultum (RGDE 22) naming three men ami
from certain payments, and the Senatus C
strengest evidence. The remark in Pausan
the same diplomatic courtesy as Teos a
not say that they were made free and im
were so in his day. The grant, if it actua
after the end of the Mithridatic war. Th
evidence for Roman taxation. The three
been restored to their previous owners). The Le

practice by the Middle Republic; see Crawfor
Africa. The law acknowledges that distributi
as friends or allies of Rome, or leaseholders,
are to be compensated with new plots of land
are too fragmentary to be of much value, but
meant for mainland Greece.
124 Siculus Flaccus, De Divisis et Assignatis 2-3 (= Campbell 2000: 120.25-32).
125 Morstein-Marx 1995: 59 ff.
126 RDGE 34.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
payments to Rome.127 They are likewise relieved of the Obligation

public debts.128 The one clause which suggests some preferential fin
from Roman authorities is rather telling. Any Roman magistrates w
letting out or imposing the revenues of Asia and Euboea should take
these men anything (άρχοντες ημέτεροι, οιτινες άν ποτε Ασί
σιν ή προσόδους Ασίαι Εύβοίαι έπιτίθωσιν, φυλάξωνται, μ
όφείλωσιν).'29 The revenues (προσόδους) being imposed or let ou
in the conventional sense. The senate may be doing for these me
Hermodorus, ensuring that their farms were not included among th
Greece. As in the case of Ilium, if the Romans wished to grant thei
they were capable of doing so without ambiguity. The Latin wor
Greek words άφορολογησία and άτέλεια were frequently used to ex
of this sort. That they are not used here should, at the very least,
possibility that the senate had something else in mind. Going a step
argue that the Senate's decision to exempt its amici from having to
imply that there were no Roman taxes of which they could be relie
My reading of Oropos' dispute with the publicani also eliminates
direct evidence that Sulla imposed direct taxes on Greece. The absen
proof of absence, but we should be open to reconsidering the issue.
that we should revive Hill's theory that direct taxes were not impos
27 BCE.130 That would not mean that Rome did not exact any re
before that time. It would only mean that they extracted money by
by directly annexing large swaths of land, which were then leased ba
the three 'usuai' Roman taxes, the decuma, scriptura and porteria, e
that system, their imposition may have been a relief.
127 RDGE 22.12. The men are made: έν ταΐς εαυτών πατρίσιν άλειτούγητοι π
καΐ άνείσφοροί (exempt from undertaking liturgies or making special cont
cities). The Latin Version (1. 3) says: [eorum in patrieis sueis liberei o]mnium
sin[t.]
128 RDGE 22.22 (Greek); 1. 10 (Latin).
129 RDGE 22.23. The Latin Version (1.11 ) is: Ma[gistrat]us nostri queiquomque Asiam Euboiam locarunt
vectigalve Asiae [Euboeae imponent curent, ne quid ei dare deberent.]
130 Hill 1946: 37.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
Conclusions
Priene, Ilium, Ephesus, Pergamum and Oropos are five of our rnost famous instances
of conflict between Greek cities and Roman publicani.131 In ali live cases, the bone of
contention was not taxation, but rather ownership of disputed territory. This is not to say
that the Republic did not collect taxes from the Greeks of Asia; they certainly did. The
distinction between taxation and the right to exact rent for the use of land and industriai
installations could be very fine. For certain territories, like that of Oropos, the lease on a
tract of ager publicus would include an entire town and land that was currently inhabited.
In those cases, the lease also conferred the right to exact payments from the inhabitants
131 The other cases collected by Erhardt 2002: 138-149 are ali too obscure to allow us to say anything
of the nature of the conflict. Erhardt's additional cases are: Herakleia Ponlica (73 BCE, known only
from a fragment of Memnon of Herakleia, FgrH 434 F 27), Mytilene (53 BCE, RDGE 25), Sardis
(44 BCE, Rigsby 1996: #214), Miletus (lstc. BCE, SEG44 938), Andros (between 129 and40 BCE,
7GXII suppl. 261), and the "peoples and cities of Asia" (ca. 100 BCE, Reynolds 1982: #5). Of those,
the case of Herakleia was a matter of the publicani's extorting money from the people of that city
during the war against Mithridates in an entirely illegal fashion. If that truly happened, it is not likely
to have been common practice. For Mytilene, the inscription in question is so badly damaged that we
can never read more than three full words of any one line. One of those lines (RDGE 25.10) contains
the phrase τιμητών έκ της δημοσ[ιωνίας] and another (1. 13) has αγρών τόπων. If anything, this
would seem to be another instance of conflict over land, but the evidence is too fragmentary to be of
any value either way. In the case of Sardis, the document in question is onl y slightly more complete.
We can say only that the word δημοσ[ιώνας] appears in it (1. 62); there is no certain evidence of
conflict between them and the people of Sardis. The lines in question (60-68) are badly mutilated.
Herrmann 1989: 149-151 sees in it some effort to exempt the tempie of Artemis from paying Roman
taxes. The fragments τούς τε δημοσιών[ας] I ΜΙΩ κατ' ένιαυτόν τελ[..] I ] έπώφειλον τοις τ[.] I
ΑΙ Σαρδιονοίς (11. 62-65) could also be read as meaning the yearly fees for the use of sacred land
are paid to the tempie, not the publicans. Or this may have nothing to do with money being paid by
the Sardians. Another Option is that, in establishing the boundaries of inviolability around the tempie
of Artemis, Caesar made it necessary to move the customs house. According to the customs law of
Asia, these could not be within a tempie, its temenos or a sacred space (Cottier et al. 2008:1. 71 [p.
55]). Caesar may have obliged the publicani to pay for the construction of a new one, or to pay a
yearly rent for an existing building (or a lot to build on). The inscription is simply too fragmentary
for any certainty. In Miletus, too, we have no evidence for any conflict with the publicani. C. Iulius
Epikrates was honoured for securing the asylia of the tempie of Apollo (as well as some new land
created by the silting up of the Maeander) and a grant of ateleia for goods being transferred between
outlying communities that were traditionally considered parts of Miletus: Didyma and the islands
of Lepsia, Leros and Patmos (SEG 44 938.5-8). The publicani are never mentioned, and this may
have been merely a formal - and unopposed - renewal of a long-standing privilege. In the case of
Andros we have a very fragmentary inscription that suggests there was friction with the publicani,
but nothing more. In the case of the koinon of Asia, we have only an honorific decree for two men,
Dionysius and Hierokles, which says they undertook an embassy to Rome when the Asian Greeks
were being "ground down" (θιλβομένων) by the publicani (Reynolds 1982: #5). We have no way
of knowing how the publicani were troubling the Greeks.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
that were similar to taxes.132 For the Greeks, rents and taxes were en
nomena, and it was the former that consistently sparked conflict wit
We must be careful in drawing conclusions, since our evidence
representative sample. In addition to the usuai role that accidents of
this subject our evidence is distorted by its very nature. With the e
these incidents are ali known to us from inscriptions set up for pub
Greek cities. For obvious reasons, only successful efforts to chal
would be so remembered. Although it may seem to prove that encro
land stirred the Greeks to resistance, our evidence really only show
the kind cases they won. The Greeks, if they saw that pattern too, su
framing their grievances in these terms. Roman deisidaimonia could
convincing the senate to support their claims, and Krates of Priene
ical boost more than anyone. He not only had to vindicate Athena's r
salt-pans, but to convince the Roman authorities to overlook the fac
drawn blood in their resistance to the publicani. Being able to ca
matter of sacred duty could be a powerful argument.133
It is with due caution then, that we should address the elephant s
with these disputes: the Asian Vespers. Appian (12.4.22-23) says
Greeks of Asia rose up in concert and massacred any Italians they co
describes men shot full of arrows as they sought refuge in a tempie
tered before the eyes of their mothers, followed by the murder of th
a man named Theophilus of Paphlagonia severing the hands of suppli
a statue of Concord in hopes of escaping the madness. The sheer sava
prompts Appian to say that it was driven by hatred of the Romans m
the reprisals Mithridates would inflict on any community that dare
one is likely to argue that Appian is accurate in ali of his lurid detai
that such a slaughter of Italians occurred and that it was motivated
and resentment. The rapacity of the publicani, even though Appian
them specifically, is generally thought to be the source of that animo
argued changes that, but it does add some important context. Norm
this incident as being a sudden and sharp break in relations between
its Greek subjects, but this may not be the case.
If resentment of the publicani centred on their attempts to asserì
territory, then the events of 88 BCE look less like a sudden break
result of escalating hostilities. For an example, we can return to the
132 Hill 1946: 35 may go a step too far in suggesting that the porteria were a k
of a harbour owned by Rome. There is no evidence that Rome asserted suc
harbours, and similar import/export dues were charged on goods transported o
133 We would also do well to remember that the victories of Priene, Ilium and
won at a time of increasing tension and animosity between the senatorial or
The Senate too may have found religious duty to be a useful pretext for striki
134 Appian 12.4.23.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
I proposed that a quarrel arose betw

pieces of land. Even though Miletus w
people of Priene pressed their claim
Milesians barred them from entering t
eventual settlement had to involve a bla
and the practice of forcibly ejecting ri
compel the payment of restitution, are
These norms of inter-polis relations m
publicani, who seemed to be encroach
seizure of land and goods.
In Greek eyes, the agents of the Repu
overly grasping Citizens of a neighbori
sponded to this encroachment in the cu
and litigation. They found the governo
plight and, after being vindicated by th
they did not repent. In honoring Herak
story of their own violent resistance.13
Works Cited
Ager, S. 1996. Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World: 337-90 BCE. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Alexander, M. 1990. Trials in the late Roman Republic: 149 BC to 50 BC. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Badian, E. 1986. "Two Notes on Senatus Consulta Concerning Pergamum." LCM 11: 14-16.
Baronowski, D. 1987. "Greece after 146 BC: Provincial Status and Roman Tribute." In. J. Fossey ed.
Syneisphora McGill (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben): 125-138.
Brennan, T. C. 2000. The Praetorship in the Roman Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bresson, A. 2007. L'économie de la Grece des cités (fin VIe-Ier siècle a.C) 1. Les structures et la pro
duction. Paris: Colin.
Brodersen, Κ. et al. 1999. Historische griechische Inschriften in Übersetzung III. Darmstadt: Wissen
schaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Broughton, T.R.S. 1934. "Roman Landholding in Asia Minor." ΤΑΡΑ 65: 207-239.
- 1938. "Roman Asia." In T. Frank ed., An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome IV: Roman Africa, Roman
Syria, Roman Greece, Roman Asia (Baltimore: Johns Flopkins Press): 499-918.
Campbell, B. 2000. The Writings ofthe Roman Land Surveyors. London: Society for the Promotion of
Roman Studies.
Canali De Rossi, F. 1997. Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in età repubblicana. Roma: Istituto
Italiano per la Storia Antica.
- 2002. Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche 3: Decreti per ambasciatori greci al senato. Roma: Herder.
135 Ager 1995: passim·, Ma 2000: 349.

136 I would like to thank Drs. Ephraim Lytle and Jackie Neel for their valuable feedback on earlier ver
sione of this paper. I would especially like to thank Dr. Leopold Migeotte, whose article ultimately
helped me to unravel the structure of I. Priene 111.

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC
Carusi, C. 2008. Il sale nel mondo Greco. Bari: Edipuglia.

Cottier, M. et. al. 2008. The Customs Law ofAsia. Oxford: Oxford Universtiy P
Crawford, M. 1996. Roman Statutes. London: Institute of Classical Studies.
Cuinet, V. 2001. La Turquie d'Asie: géographie administrative statistique descriptive et raisonnée de
chaque province de l'Asie-Mineure. (Re-edition of the 1891 originai) Istanbul: Isis.
Dignas, B. 2000. "The leases of sacred property at Mylasa: an alimentary scheme for the Gods." Kernos
13: 117-126.
Erhadt, N. 2002. "Strategien römischer Publicani gegenüber griechischen Städten in der Zeit der
publik. In N. Erhardt and L.-M. Günther edd. Widerstand, Anpassung, Integration: die griechi
Staatenwelt und Rom (Stuttgart: Steiner): 135-154.
Ferrary, J.-L. 2000. "Les gouverneurs des provinces romaines d'Asie Mineure (Asie et Cilicie), de
l'organisation de la province d'Asie jusqu'à la première guerre de Mithridate (126-88 av. J.-C.
Chiron 30: 161-193.
Gauthier, Ph. 1989. Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes IL Genève: Droz.

Heller, A. 2006. Les bétises des Grecs. Bordeaux: Ausonius.
Herrmann, Ρ. 1989. "Rom und die Asylie griechischer Heiligtümer: Eine Urkunde des Dictators Ca
aus Sardeis." Chiron 19: 127-164.
Hill, H. 1946. "Roman Revenues from Greece after 146 BC." Classical Philology 41: 35-42.
Hiller, F von Gaertringen. 1906. Inschriften von Priene. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hocquet, J.-C. 1978. Le Sei et la fortune de Venise. Villeneuve-d'Ascq : Publications de l'Université de Lille.
Lewis, N. and Reinhold, M. 1963. Roman Civilization: Selected Readings. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Ma, J. 1999. Antiochos III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- 2000. "Fighting Poleis of the Hellenistic World." In H. Van Wees ed., War and Violence in Ancient
Greece (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales): 337-376.
Magie, D. 1950. Roman rute in Asia Minor to the third Century after Christ. Princeton: Princeton Un
versity Press.
Martino, F. de. 1983. "Il senatusconsultum de agro Pergameno." PP 38: 161-190.
Migeotte, L. 2009. "La fondation d'Attale II à Delphes: dispositions administratives et financières." Dik
12: 203-218.
Morstein-Marx, R. 1995. Hegemony to Empire. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Nicolet, C. 2000. Censeurs et publicains: économie et fiscalità dans la Rome antique. Paris: Fayard.
Petrakos, B. 1997. Οι Επιγραφές τοΰ Ωρόπου. Athenai: Archaiologike Hetaireia.
Reynolds, J. 1982. Aphrodisias and Rome. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.
Rhodes, P. J. And Osborne, R. 2003. Greek Historical Inscriptions: 404-323 BC. Oxford: Oxford Uni
versity Press.
Rigsby, K. 1996. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Rostovtzeff, M. 1941. The Social and Economic History ofthe Hellenistic World. Oxford: Clarendon.
Sherk, R. 1969. Roman Documents from the Greek East. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Sherwin-White, Α. N. 1984. Roman foreign policy in the East: 168 B.C. to A.D. 1. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press.
Sumner, G. V. 1978. "Governors of Asia in the 90s B.C." GRBS 19: 147-153.
Walbank, M. 1997. "The foundation and planning of early Roman Corinth." JRA 10: 95-130.
Williams, A. 2011. "Leasing of Sacred Land in 4,h Century Athens." Hesperia 80: 261-286.
Department of History Christopher Wallace

York University
Toronto ON, Canada
wallacec@yorku.ca

49.248.71.226 on Sat, 11 Feb 2023 11:08:10 UTC

Wallace Article CITED - Ager Publicus in The Greek East

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wallace Article CITED - Ager Publicus in The Greek East

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGER PUBLICUS IN THE GREEK EAST: I.

Priene 111 and Other Examples of Resistance to

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24433639

This content downloaded from

AGER PUBLICUS IN THE GREEK EAST:

1 E. g., Ferrary 2000, Heller 2006 and Carusi 2008, respectively.

This content downloaded from

The Decree for Krates and the Case of Priene

This content downloaded from

lines between changes of year to conclu

Ferrary 2000: 176-7 says that Krates had a l

This content downloaded from

magistrate (έπί δε στεφανηφό[ρου...]), while in 1. 19, we seem t

Why this month is important will be specified below.

This content downloaded from

There is nothing in the text of Kra

(1. 140) and then returns to his diplomatic car

This content downloaded from

See especially Migeotte 2009.

This content downloaded from

some of Priene's sacred property could

.... της πόλεως καΐ τώι νεωποίηι

...of the city and to the caretaker borrowing from A

How we interpret this passage hinges on what we imag

This content downloaded from

I. Priene 111.176-7: έδαπάνησεν δέ παρ' έαυτοΰ μετά τών συναγωνοθετώ

This content downloaded from

was shared. The overlap between Her

I. Priene 111.112ff. (publicani), 139 (Ephes

This content downloaded from

If we accept that all of Krates' services to the state arose from a

E. g. Carusi 2009: 83 and Heller 2006: 30-31.

This content downloaded from

The argument here is that Krates' and He

I.Priene 111.128-9: [...τόάμφισβήτημ]ατόκατά

This content downloaded from

Ma 2000: passim, especially 349-357.

This content downloaded from

inscription (/. Priene 117), which simp

άρχόντων κωλυσάντων σ[-] 15

Magistrates preventing... and wounds and murders... of the governor by asking

[π]ρεσβείας ώς έναντία πέπρακ[-]

This content downloaded from

[άποδ]ημήσας είς Πέργαμον έποιήσατο [-] 15

This content downloaded from

of Sosikrates' year in office, Krates trav

This content downloaded from

[... 15 ... ας π]ρότερσ[ν] είργάζετο βασιλεύςΆτταλος, ούτε

(The salt-pans) which, formerly, king Attalus work

It would seem that the publicani pressed their case fo

This content downloaded from

publicani would then take physical poss

This content downloaded from

ejection as a way to frame the case. This is precisely what happens

[- ]καΙ τους πρεσβευτάς ήμών υπέρ έτέρω[ν -]

Cf. pro Tullio 44 and pro Caecina 23 and passim.

I. Priene 117.49-50: ...'Ιουλίου Καίσαρος συμβέβηκεν έν Πρ[ιήνηι]Ι[...έ]θανατώθη κατά τε

This content downloaded from

province honestly. Many of his predece

Other Disputes between Greek

Priene's dispute with the publicani w

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from