Re: Salt, s-/h- ALLOBROGES

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "keltikos" <keltikos@> wrote:
> > >
> > > No, but it was common that people were moving on and around from
> > > their original places, keeping their country-names, like Kasses
> > > (Hesse, then Welliokasses, Biokasses, Trikasses in France) and
> > > perhaps Turones (Thüringen, Tours and South Gallaecia?).
> >
> >
> > The *kant-/katt- etc word means 'subtribe', AFAIK.
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/55551
> >
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/58032
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/57987
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/54256
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/59612
>
> Michel Lejeune,
> Manuel de la langue Vénète
> calls the Venetic gloss kant- (among others) 'éventuellement,
> suffixés'.
> Inscriptions:
> 30. - C. Pauli, Altit. Forsch. I, 1885, n° 71; L37 VII; PP Es 49.
> Dédicace sinistroverse (partant de la tête, sur une face large) :
> ka.n.ta ruma.n[.]na dona.s.to re.i.tia.n.
> Dans le théonyme (accusatif régi par dona.s.to : § 55) le second i
> est aussi court qu'un point.
> Autre style votif de même dédicante : 31.
>
> [me: The Roman community/faction gave [this] to Reitia]
>
> 31. - G. Pauli, Altit. Forsch. I, 1885, n° 69; L37 XV; PP Es 50.
> Dédicace sinistroverse (sur une face étroite, en partant de la
> tête), offrande de la même dédicante qu'en 30. Texte :
> nego [sic] na.s.to [sic] ka.n.ta ruman [sic] re.i.tiia.i.
> Gravure plusieurs fois fautive : nego pour <m>ego; na.s.to pour
> <do>na.s.to (le graveur, arrivé au o du pronom, ayant cru être
> arrivé à celui de la première syllabe du verbe); ruman pour
> ruma<.>n<.na>.
>
> [me: Me gave the Roman community(?)faction to Reitia]
>
> ...
>
> 81 A. -
> A. Prosdocimi, Not. Sc. 1882, pl. VIII-16; L38 XXIII a; PP Es 80.
> Sur le bord de l'urne, graffite sinistroverse : ka.n.( )
> Peut-être amorce abandonnée, ou doublet abrégé, de la légende b.
> Mais peut-être aussi première épitaphe (abrégée), une seconde
> épitaphe (b) ayant été gravée à l'occasion d'un remploi de l'urne.
> 81 B. - Même urne (L38 XXIII b). Sur le corps, graffite dextroverse:
> ka.n.ta.i. vho[.]u.go.n.ta.i. vhr
> Ou bien désignation d'une seule défunte (la même que signale le
> graffite a) avec formule onomastique triple, à condition de corriger
> le second nom (L38) en vho.u.go.n.t<n>a.i. (lapsus par
> dissimilation) pour avoir un gamonyme, et de compléter le troisième
> en vhr(ema.i.s.tia.i.) pour avoir un patronyme. - Ou bien deux
> idionymes f. en asyndète, avec patronyme commun vhr( ) au dat.
> sg. ou au dat. pl. : d'abord (a) utilisée pour Kanta:, l'urne aurait
> été remployée (b) après la mort de sa sÅ"ur Fougonta:, et une
> épitaphe commune gravée; voir § 57 b.
>
> [me: to/of the Foug-ont- faction/tribe/community vhr(?)]
> Hans Kuhn,
> Das letzte Indogermanisch
> compares names in the territory of the Marsi in Italy with the names
> of the territory of the Marsi in Westphalia, among them:
> 'lacus Fucinus: Vochene (jetzt Vochem, zu Brühl, s. Köln), dazu
> (Alba) Fucens/Fucentia (Ort): Vochentz (Vögnitz, sö. Schweinfurt),
> vgl. auch Fohhences-heim'
> Note the suffix alterantion: -in-/-ent-
>
> ...
> 66. - G. F. Gamurrini, Appendice al C.I.I. (1880), no 4; L35 IX; PP
> Es 11.
> Provenance : Morlongo; contexte inconnu. Fragment d'obélisque de
> trachyte. Il reste le bas de la partie inscrite sur 24 cm de haut et
> une largeur de 17 cm (en bas) à 12 cm (en haut). Deux lignes
> boustrophédon, l'une sinistroverse descendante, l'autre dextroverse
> ascendante; dispositif :
> Restitution la plus probable (évaluant à deux lettres les lacunes du
> haut) :
> [.e.g]o kata.i. | ege.s.tn[a.i.]
> Omission d'un point dans .e<.>ge.s.tn[a.i.]; non notation de la
> nasale antéconsonantique de ka<.n.>ta.i. (§ 157 b). Le .i. est
> constitué par un tiret entre deux hastes longues, par inversion de
> son tracé usuel (une haste longue entre deux tirets).
>
> [me: I, of/to the Egesta tribe], cf
> Hans Kuhn,
> Vor- und frühgermanische Ortsnamen und den Niederlanden,
> in the list of placenames in -st
> 'Eckst, ö. Assen, Drente, alt Exte Eegeste u. a.,'
>
> Note the loss of /n/ before /t/.
> Manuel de la langue Vénète,
> '
> 157. Nasales antéconsonantiques : neutralisalion, au moins
> partielle, de l'opposition /m/ ~ /n/ :
> ...
> b) Nasale + occlusive (séquences hétérosyllabiques). C'est, par
> excellence, la position de neutralisation attendue pour les nasales.
> Par malchance, nous n'avons pas de premiers termes de composés à
> nasale finale (comme lat. com-/con-) où nous puissions suivre
> l'accommodation de la nasale à l'occlusive qui suit. Au reste, nous
> n'avons aucun exemple de nasale + labiale; seulement, quelques
> exemples de nasale + dorsale (avec graphie -.n.k- : voir § 155 a),
> et surtout des exemples de nasale + dentale; il en existe pour la
> sonore (sans l'assimilation nd > nn qu'on trouve, notamment, en
> osco-ombrien): .a.n.de-, 136/ANDE- , 236, ve.r.ko.n.darna, 24; on en
> a un grand nombre pour la sourde (en particulier, participe
> horvionte 123, et nombreux thèmes d'anthroponymes en -.n.t- : § 35
> c1). - La nasale implosive paraît avoir été d'articulation
> relativement débile.
> A Este, en regard de plus de quarante exemples de -.n.t- (9, etc.),
> on a quatre textes où la nasale est omise :
> 66 (ka<.n.>ta.i.),
> 77 (vho.u.go<.n.>ta),
> 89 (vhogo<.n>tna.i.),
> 100 (kvi<.n.>to);
> il s'agit d'épitaphes de date Este-IV; chacune comprend un seul mot
> en -nt- (celui où la nasale n'est pas notée). De date Este-IV aussi
> est la dédicace de Vicence où l'on est tenté de lire .a.<.n.>tra
> «intra:» (125), et qui, elle non plus, n'a pas d'autre mot en -nt-.
> Nous ignorons si le phénomène, d'apparition sporadique, est
> spécifiquement un phénomène tardif en vénète. Nous ignorons si
> l'usage d'un même scribe était constant en la matière. Si la réponse
> aux deux questions était négative, il serait loisible, dans
> l'inscription atestine archaïque 75 ter (qui présente aussi vhontei)
> de lire a<n>tisteit, et dans l'inscription vicentine archaïque 123
> (qui présente aussi horvionte), de lire me<n>tlon.'
>
>
> In other words, my understanding of *kant-/*katt-/*kass- as "edge,
> side, faction, tribe" is not contradicted by the Venetic data, but
> might even make new sense of well-known inscriptions.
>
> BTW, Venetic punctuation marks consonants in auslaut with a point.
>

In the above posting, I assumed without proof that Roman-annexed territories contained an identifiable and self-conscious Roman 'expat community'. I better find somethng to corroborate that assumption.

David Magie
Roman Rule in Asia Minor
ch. The Consequences of Annexation
pp. 162-163

'There is another side to the picture. At the very time when the citizens of Pergamum were in debt and when the city had petitioned in vain for the abolition of the war-contribution demanded by the Romans, the Council and People voted to honour Diodorus by bestowing on him a golden wreath and by erecting no less than five statues of him, two of gold and two of bronze, one of each kind to be on horseback, and one of marble, the last to be set up in a temple which was likewise to be reared for his worship.4 Such an outlay of public funds immediately after an economic crisis seems indeed to indicate a reckless management of the municipal finances and shows why the city, as well as its citizens, became involved in debt.

The loans which the citizens of Pergamum had contracted may have been advanced in part by the richer men of the city, but it is highly probable that in some cases, at least, they were made by Roman capitalists, who had come from Italy in the wake of the army. One of the decrees honouring Diodorus includes among other groups that of "the resident Romans,"5 and it can hardly be supposed that these were residing in Pergamum for any other purpose than the exploitation of the country.

This is the earliest mention in Asia Minor of a type of organization which grew up in the provinces of Rome - a definitely constituted group of Italians permanently domiciled in a city and existing as a special association alongside of the citizens.6 Technically, such a group was known as a conventus Civium Romanorum, but for practical purposes it was called more simply "the resident Romans" or "the Romans engaged in business." With the love of organizing that is characteristic of their kind, these business-men established associations, each having officials and a treasury of its own. They passed resolutions, sometimes acting conjointly with the Council and People of their city, and conferred honours on some important person, a Roman, a member of their own association, or a citizen of the community. As time went on, the groups of the entire province would sometimes combine for some joint action.7 In the second or early first century before Christ, these groups existed in many cities, not only at Pergamum but also at Ephesus, Priene, Tralles, Adramyttium and Caunus and on the islands of Chios and Cos. During the first forty years of the province of Asia the influx of Italians must have been great indeed, for in 88 b.c. as many as 80,000 are said to have been massacred by order of King Mithradates.l But it was especially after the expulsion of the Pontic King that Italian settlers crowded into the province and the real heydey of exploitation began. In the first century and under the emperors there was an association of "resident Romans" in almost every city of importance.

These associations evidently regarded themselves as constituting a body apart from and independent of the community in which they lived.8 They were also so regarded in cases where the law was concerned. In the free cities, at least during the Republican period, they were subject to the city's jurisdiction unless specifically exempted, but elsewhere they could not be tried by local magistrates but only by the Roman governor or his substitute.9 From the more important groups were chosen members of the governor's consilium, or panel from which he drew referees or jurymen for the lawsuits of the provincials conducted by him.10 Despite their independence of the community, these Italians shared in all the advantages which the communal life afforded. They were eligible for election to the local offices,11 and, as at Pergamum they were included among those invited to the public banquet given by Diodorus,m so in other places also they shared in benefactions made to the people by dignitaries or public-spirited citizens.12

The groups included not only Romans but also all citizens of the Italian towns which were in alliance with Rome; with the extension of citizenship in 89 b.c. to all the Italian allies this differentiation, of course, ceased, and all those whose homes were south of the Po became "Romans" in the eyes of the law. Men of all classes were eligible to membership - exporters of the products of Asia, merchants great and small, agents of the tax-farming corporations, veterans domiciled in the province, bankers who made loans to bankrupt cities, and minor capitalists who lent money to individuals. No distinction among the Roman settlers was made, either economic or social.
...

4. I.G.R. IV 292, l. 23f.; 293 II, l. 17f. It is, of course, possible that these honours were not all carried out. We know only that, as provided by the decree (I.G.R. IV 292, 1. 37), a city-tribe was named after him; it was called, however, not πασπαρηίς, but διοδωρίς; sw: A.M. xxxv (1910), p. 422f., nos. ii, 13 and 19.

5. ´ρωμαίων ο´ι `επιδημου~ντες; see I.G.R. iv 294 = O.G.I. 764, 1. 19, as corrected in AM. xxix (1904), p. 389. In the lists of ephebi enrolled at Pergamum, AM. xxvii (1902), p. 115f. (see Chap. VI note 8), xxxii (1907), p. 415f., xxxiii p. 384f and xxxv p. 422f., there are several Italian names. In one list, AM. xxxii p. 438, no. 303 (see xxxv p. 424), the ´ρωμαι~οι seem to have formed a separate group.

6. For these conventus Civium Romanorum - which, of course, were wholly different from the judiciary conventus (conventus iuridici) or dioceses (see below note 41)- see A. Schulten De Conventibus Civ. Rom. (Berlin 1892), pp. if. and 26f.: E. Kornemann De Civibus Rom. in Provinciis Imperii consist. = Berl. Stud. f. Cl. Philol. xiv (1892), no. i and in R.E,. iv 1179f.: Mommsen in Eph. Ep. vii p. 440f. For those in the Asianic provinces see also Chapot Prov. Procons. p. 186f.: J. Hatzfeld Les Trafiquants Italiens dans l'Orient Hellénique (Paris 1919), pp. 44f, 90f. and 160f.: Broughton in Econ. Surv. iv p. 543f. For a list of the cities in these provinces in which these conventus are known during the Republican and the Imperial periods see Appendix iv. The associations were regularly and properly called Romani --- (name of city) consistentes or qui --- negotiantur; in Greek ο´ι κατοικου~ντες ´ρωμαι~οι or ο´ι πραγματενόμενοι ´ρωμαι~οι but sometimes simply ο´ι ´ρωμαι~οι. During the Republican period the associations seem to have been headed by magistri varying in number; no certain example of these officials, however, has been found in Asia Minor, for the assumption (R.E. iv 1190) that the two freedmen, entitled magistri, who appear in an inscription from Samos (C.I.L. iii 458) were magistri of a conventus Civium Romanorum is very doubtful. In the Imperial period a conventus seems ordinarily to have had a single curator; see Hatzfeld, p. 286. This official, as the list in Appendix iv shows, is known to have held office at Attaleia, Thyateira and Tralles. An official called κονβεντα[ρ]χήσας τω~ν ´ρωμαι~ων is known at Hierapolis (I.G.R. iv 818). A γραμματεύς of the conventus existed at Tralles (A.M. viii [1883], p. 328f., no. 10 = P.A.S. i p. 108, no. 10). No mention of a treasury appears in any inscription from Asia Minor, but the statues or other honours for which the various conventus must have paid are sufficient evidence that they had funds of their own.

7. At Ephesus the conventus C. R. qui in Asia negotiantur honoured the Emperor Claudius (Ephesos iii p. 110, no. 19); at Laodiceia-on-Lycus ο´ι `επ`ι τη~ς `ασίας ´ρωμαι~οι combined with ο´ι `έλληνες (evidently the κοινόν of the province, see below note 48) and ´ο δη~μος ´ο Λαοδικέων in honouring a Q. Pomponius Flaccus (AM. xvi [1891], p. 144f. = I.G.R. iv 860); at Rhodes the C.R. qui in Asia negotiantur took some action unknown (C.I.L. iii 12266); and at Ephesus [ο´ι κατ`α τ`η]ν `ασίαν ο`ικου~[ντες ´ρωμαι~οι] (if the restoration be correct) seem to have set up a statue of the genius of the city (I.B.M. 517). Chapot, who knew only the inscription from Laodiceia, denied (Prov. Procons. p. 190) that the Romans of the whole province were thus organized in one group; but the inscriptions from Ephesus and Rhodes seem to demonstrate it clearly. That the group of mercatores qui Alexandr., Asiai, Syriai negotiantu[r], who made a dedication at Puteoli (C.I.L. x 1797 = Dessau 7273), were a still larger organization, as was suggested by Kornemann, is unlikely; more probably they were local merchants whose trade was carried on with these provinces; see Broughton in Econ. Surv. iv p. 548, note 96.

8. This is apparent from the fact that in some cases, e.g. at Cibyra, Erythrae, Laodiceia, Smyrna and Teos, honours were conferred separately by ´ο δη~μος and ο´ι ´ρωμαι~οι. On the other hand, in many cities, e.g. Apameia, Assus, Cibyra, Cyzicus, Methymna, Pergamum, Philadelpheia (?), Prymnessus, Thyateira and Conana (Pisidia), action was taken conjointly by the βουλ`η κα`ι δη~μος (or the δη~μος) and ο´ι κατοικου~ντες (or πραγματενόμενοι) ´ρωμαι~οι, evidently distinct bodies. A similar distinction is made between singulos conventus (of Roman citizens) and singulas civitates in Caesar Bell. Civ. iii 32 (see above p. 403).

9. See Mommsen RSt.R. iii p. 702 and Chapot Prov. Procons. pp. 125 and 190. In C.I.G. 2222 = Syll.8 785 = I.G.R. iv 943 (Chios, a re-enactment under Augustus of a senatus consultum of 80 b.c.) it is specifically provided that ο´ί τε παρ` α`υτοι~ς `όντες ´ρω[μ,αι~](ο)ι τοι~ς χείων ´υπακούωσιν νόμοις. Mommsen supposed (l.c., note 3) that under the emperors autonomy was taken away from Cyzicus and Rhodes because by inflicting capital punishment on Roman citizens the cities' courts had exceeded their powers, but these instances do not prove his contention. Cyzicus was deprived of its freedom by Tiberius because of violentia committed against Romans (Tacitus Ann. iv 36, 2f.: Suetonius Tib. 37: Cassius Dio lvii 24, 6; see above p. 503); it had once before been deprived of it for the same reason by Augustus (see Chap. XX note 21). The freedom of the Rhodians was taken away by Claudius (Cassius Dio lx 24, 4, see Chap. XXIII note 24) because they had impaled (ανεσκολόπισαν) certain Romans. In both cases it would seem that it was the illegality of the act that these emperors punished and not a regular procedure of the properly constituted courts of the cities.

10. So in Sicily; see Cicero II Verr. ii 32f. and 70; iii 28: Mommsen RSt.R. I3 p. 317 and note 5. The belief that the members of the conventus formed this panel and also Mommsen's theory that only the richer (and hence more responsible) Romans were enrolled in it has found striking confirmation in the first and fourth of the edicts of Augustus recently found at Cyrene and dealing with law-suits in which provincials were concerned; see S.E.G. ix 8 = H. Malcovati Augusti Operum Fragmenta2 (Turin 1928), p. 39f. In these edicts the Emperor ordered that all cases involving life, freedom or nationality, hitherto tried by a jury selected from the 215 resident Romans having a taxable property of at least 2500 denarii, might henceforth, if the defendant so desired, be tried by a jury composed of equal numbers of Romans and "Greeks," all to be at least 25 years of age and having a minimum taxable property of 7500 denarii - unless it should prove necessary, on account of a dearth of those so qualified, to lower this amount to not less than one half. All other cases were henceforth, unless either party to the suit should express his preference for Romans, to be tried by a jury composed entirely of "Greeks," none of whom, however, might be domiciled in the city of which either party to the suit was a native. It may be supposed that a similar arrangement also existed in Asia, and that the same change was introduced there.

11. So at Apameia, where four Roman citizens and one native are described as `άρξαντες `εν τω~ λ' κα`ι ρ´ `έτει (a.d. 45/6) ´ρωμαι~οι, πρώτως (i.e. the first Romans to hold the office); see I.G.R. iv 792. The curatores known from the inscriptions listed in Appendix iv from Attaleia and Thyateira (I.G.R. iv 1169 and 1255), Tralles (C.I.G. 2930) and the official from Hierapolis (I.G.R. iv 818) all held local offices.

12. For example, at Panamara and Lagina in Caria the ´ρωμαι~οι, as well as the citizens, received the money-doles distributed by the priest and priestess; see B.C.H. xi (1887), pp. 146f., nos. 47, 48, 51; xii (1888), p. 255 = xxviii (1904), p. 23f., no. 2. At Priene they were included in the dole of oil and the free use of the public bath, as well as in the entertainments provided by generous magistrates; see Ins. Priene 112, 113 and 123.'

So apparently such communities existed, and would have existed in Venetic-speaking regions before the Social War of 91-88 BCE.

Note esp. note 6.

That settles that question, but the text continues to be interesting (I suspect taxes from the province of Asia was used for buying slaves in Dacia
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/67564
), so I'll quote some more:

pp. 163-167

'The settlers appear to have bought up lands in the territories belonging to the cities, and on these they established permanent homes.13 Some of them may have taken up holdings in the rural districts also, although it is not likely that there were many actual farmers among the Italian immigrants, and these probably did not buy up much of the former royal domains. This land, now the property of the Roman People, as well as the land of the native private proprietors, fell into the hands of the Roman tax-farming corporations.

Six years after the formation of the province and before it could have recovered entirely from the financial depression which has been described, a fresh blow fell upon the inhabitants. They were now caught in the clutches of the Roman tax-farming syndicates, who exploited them for the next seventy-five years.n In 123 b.c. Gaius Gracchus, in his efforts to become a popular leader, sought to win the support of the great middle class of Rome, composed of share-holders in the companies which bid for the collection of the revenues accruing to the state. For some time these publicani had farmed the revenues from the state-owned properties in Italy, and after the annexation of Sicily they collected them from the city-territories and the domain-land acquired by the Roman People as the successors of the Syracusan monarchs.14 Now, by virtue of a law enacted by Gracchus, companies were permitted to make similar contracts for the revenues from the province of Asia also.15 Henceforth, their representatives in Rome, appearing before the censors, or, when these for any reason had not been elected, before the Consuls, presented bids for the revenues of the next four years, basing their offers, presumably, on what was supposed to be a fair yield during preceding periods. If an offer was accepted, the amount was guaranteed to the government by the company, which thus became underwriter for the payment of what was due. What remained over and above this amount constituted the profits of the share-holders.

The revenues thus farmed out to the companies consisted chiefly of tithes on produce, taxes on pasture and customs-duties - the last, at the rate of 2½ per cent, levied, apparently, both on imports and on exports.16 According to the method eventually employed, the agents did not deal directly with the individual tax-payers but, with the approval of the governor, made sub-contracts with the several communities, which thus became responsible for the payment of their respective quotas;17 if these were not paid punctually, interest at a rate specified in the agreements was charged on all arrears. If tithes on the harvests were actually delivered in kind, they seem to have been sold and the proceeds credited to the company.18

The three sources of revenue were farmed by three separate organizations,19 but, obviously, there was no clash of interests among them. The same persons might be share holders in all three, and when the need arose, as, for example, in making bids or asking for the cancellation of their contracts, the three companies seem to have combined together into a unit of a larger size.20

In the system as finally developed, the companies had their headquarters in Ephesus, from which their agents carried on their operations.0 The actual head of the organization, the magister,21 remained in Rome, but he was represented in the province by a deputy (pro magistro), whose duty it was to conduct all negotiations both with the governor and with the communities, to handle the funds of the company, and to turn over to the quaestor of the province the amount-specified in the contract made with the government at Rome. He had under his supervision a host of clerks and agents, both free men - some of them members of the company - and slaves, who were actively engaged in the business of collecting the taxes.22 The publicani had despatch-bearers of their own, who carried communications to and from the Capital and through whom letters could be sent by persons of influence even though they were not connected with the companies.23 They had also their own banks at Laodiceia and Ephesus, in which were kept the proceeds of their exactions, and of these a Roman official might avail himself for the deposit of his ready money, as might also the government for the purpose of giving bills of exchange to its officers.24

In a speech supposed to have been delivered by Mark Antony eighty-one years after the passage of Gracchus's law, the statement was made that by this method of taxation a great benefit had been conferred upon the peoples of Asia; for, whereas they had previously paid a fixed sum to their kings, whether the yield was good or bad, the Romans demanded only a proportion of their annual harvests, thus sharing adverse circumstances with them.p This specious plea disregarded the fact that not only were the bids of the publicani made in Rome, where no one could estimate what the yield would be, but they were made for four years in advance; only an approximate average of previous years, therefore, could determine the probable amount of the future harvests, with no adequate allowance for possible years when the crops might fail. The argument also ignored one of the worst consequences of the system. For a failure on the part of the farmer to deliver his . quota, either in grain or in money, constituted a lasting obligation entailing payment of interest on all arrears,q and this interest the unhappy farmer was compelled to pay to the publicani. Usually, of course, it was necessary for him to borrow the funds, and the source of a loan would be a Roman banker engaged in business in the province. Thus the tax-gatherer and the money-lender together involved the provincial in continually increasing indebtedness.

The agents of the tax-farmers, with an eye to greater profits, naturally attempted to tax all land to which they could successfully assert any claim. Their aggressions are attested by the cases where decisions are known to have been rendered against them in their attempts to impose taxes on those categories of land not under their control - the territory of the free cities and the estates belonging to the temples. In the case of Pergamum, for example, a magistrate at Rome, in conjunction with a board of advisers, was ordered by the Senate to investigate a complaint that the publicani were taxing part of the city's territory and to determine the actual boundaries of the Pergamenes' lands.25 The extant examples of aggression on temple-properties are more numerous. Thus the right to tax land belonging to the Temple of Athena Ilias at Troy, which was asserted by the tax-farmers, was denied by Lucius Caesar, censor in 89, in consequence of an appeal made by advocates of the Goddess.26 A similar case arose in connexion with the revenues (probably fishing-rights) from the lakes near Ephesus, which had originally accrued to the Temple of Artemis, but had been taken over by "the kings."r The Romans had restored them to the Goddess, but nevertheless, about the end of the second century before Christ, the publicani laid violent hands on them; it was only after a special ambassador - the famous geographer Artemidorus - was sent to Rome by the temple-officials to present the case to the Senate that these revenues were given back. Another case arose at Priene, where not only lands formerly the property of Attalus III but also the saltworks belonging to the sanctuary of Athena Polias were claimed as taxable.27 When the salt-works were seized by agents of the tax-farmers, a patriotic citizen appeared before the governor to protest against their action. Although the aggressors went so far as to use violence, he succeeded in having their proceedings halted until the Senate granted a favourable reply to the city's appeal. Evidently the publicani had no scruples in asserting claims to all possible sources of revenue, but it is to the credit of the government at Rome that in several instances, at least, their claims were disallowed.

Nevertheless, in spite of the havoc wrought by the revolt of Aristonicus, the free cities appear during the late second century to have enjoyed a certain degree of prosperity. The drain of the war-contributions removed, these communities, not subject to the Roman tax-gatherers' greed, found it possible to make use of the natural resources of their territories as well as of their industries and their commerce to repair the ravages caused by the war. Thus at Magnesia-on-Maeander and at Teos the erection of the temples of Artemis and Dionysus, the work of the architect Hermogenes, if, as has been suggested, the buildings may be dated in this period,s testifies to the wealth of the communities. At Magnesia also the celebrations of the festival in honour of the Goddess Roma, with dramatic contests consisting of tragedies, comedies and the farces known as "satyr-dramas," are evidence of the generosity of those well-to-do citizens who, as "agonothetes," paid the expenses of the performances.t
...

13. See Rostovtzeff Kolonat, p. 286 and Hellenist. World, Chap. VII, note 35, who cited as evidence of lands in Asia later owned by Romans in city-territory Cicero pro Flacco 71f. and 80 and Epist. ad Fam. xiii 53. See also Broughton in Econ. Surv. iv p. 549 and (for absentee owners) p. 551.

14. On the societates publicanorum see F. Kniep Societas Publicanorum i (Jena 1896), p. 11f.: Rostovtzeff Staatspacht, p. 370f. (for the Republican period): V. Ivanov De Societatibus Vectigalium publicorum Pop. Rom. (St. Petersburg 1911), p. 12f.: Steinwenter in R.E. xiv 987f.: Frank in Econ. Surv. 1 p. 148f.: Broughton in Econ. Surv. iv p. 535f.: W. Schwahn in R.E. vii a 44 and 64f. Publicani, who are first mentioned as having taken public contracts in 215 b.c. (Livy xxiii 49, 1), appear for the first time in 184 as collectors of the public revenues (Livy xxxix 44, 7f.), but probably, as Kniep observed, they had contracted for these previously. According to Polybius vi 17, 2f., in the first half of the second century large numbers of Romans were financially interested in the corporations organized for taking contracts for the construction and repair of public works and the farming of the state-owned utilities. His picture of the number of persons engaged and of the extent of their operations is perhaps exaggerated; see Frank in C.P. xxviii (1933), p. 2f. = Econ. Surv. i p. 149. For the collection of tithes in Sicily under the provisions of the Lex Hieronica, i.e. according to the system established by Hiero II of Syracuse, see Rostovtzeff Staatspacht, p. 350f. and Kolonat, p. 233f and V. M. Scramuzza in Econ. Surv. iii p. 237f.

15. Cicero II Verr. iii 12: Scholia Bob. p. 157 Stangl: Fronto Epist. ad Ver. ii 1, p. 125 Naber. An apparent contradiction to the evidence of these passages seems to be found in Lucilius, ll. 671-2 Marx (Bk. xxvi): Publicanus vero ut Asiae fiam, ut scripturarius, pro Lucilio, etc.; for Book xxvi appears to have been written in the period 132-129 b.c.; see F. Marx C. Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae (Leipzig 1904-05) 1 p. xxx f. It was held by C. Cichorius, however, in Untersuchungen zu Lucilius (Berlin 1908), p. 72 that these lines, as well as other indications, point to an actual publication of this and the following books at a date subsequent to 123 b.c, and thus the contradiction disappears. Accordingly, it does not seem necessary to attempt to reconcile the evidence by supposing, with Schanz-Hosius (Gesch. d. Röm. Lit. i4 p. 154), that the lines in question were written before 129 b.c. in the expectation of the introduction of the tax-farming system into Asia. For a view that the taxes of Asia were leased out to publicani as soon as the province was organized see below note 25.

16. These were known respectively as the decumae, the scriptura and the portorium; see Cicero de Imp. Cn. Pomp. 15 and pro Flacco 19: Lucilius 1. 671 (scripturarius, see above note 15) : Cicero Epist. ad Att. v 15, 3, magistri scripturae et portus (for Cilicia); xi 10, 1, operas in portu et scriptura Asiae pro magistro dedit; Epist. ad Fam. xiii 65, i, operas in scriptura pro magistro dat: Donatus Commentum Terenti, Phorm. 100 (Vol. ii p. 389 Wessner), magistri tributorum, id est publicani, operas in portu dabant. See also Rostovtzeff in R.E. vii 154f. (on the decuma) and Hellenist. World, pp. 817, 957 and 965f.: Ivanov ibid. p. 111: Frank in Econ. Surv. i p. 255f.: Broughton in Econ. Surv. iv p. 511. For the portorium see R. Cagnat Les Impôts Indirects chez les Romains (Paris 1882), pp. 1f. and 79f., and for the quadragesima portuum Asiae in the early imperial period see Chap. XXIV note 4.

17. For these sub-contracts (pactiones) see Cicero Epist. ad Att. v 13, i; 14, i; vi 1, 16; ad Quint. Fr. i 1, 35; ad. Fam. xiii 65, 1; de Prov. Cons. 10 (for Syria). See also Rostovtzeff Staatspacht, p. 357 and Hellenist. World, p. 967 and note 50: Ivanov, p. 89f.: Broughton, p. 537: A. Η. M. Jones Greek City, p. 124: W. Schwahn in R.E. vii a 44 and 64. As Rostovtzeff observed, it seems more probable that the pactiones were annual rather than, as supposed by Broughton (p. 537, note 13), quinquennial. For the interest on arrears see Cicero ad Att. vi 1, 16 and 2, 5 and Ivanov, p. 90f.

18. The suggestion of Rostovtzeff (R.E. vii 155), Frank (Econ. Surv. i p. 274) and Broughton (p. 540) that the tithes on products delivered in kind were sometimes carried by the publicani outside the province depends on a restoration in the Lex Antonia de Termessibus (see Chap. XII note 34), col. ii, l. 36f.: Quos per eorum fineis publicanei ex eo vectigali transportabunt [eorum fructuum portorium Termenses ne capiunto],

19. This is evident from the fact that each had its magister (or pro magistro); see above note 16. See also Ivanov, p. 23f.

20. See Ivanov, p. 20f., who showed that such a combination existed not only in Asia, but in other provinces as well. For the Bithynica Societas as a combination of the societates operating in Bithynia see Chap. XVI note 72.

21. For the magister and pro magistro see above note 16: Cicero pro Plancio 32: Scholia Bob. p. 157 Stangl: Cicero Epist. ad Fam. xiii 9, 2 (for Bithynia): Marquardt RSt.V. ii2 p. 300f.: Ivanov, pp. 51f. and 69f.: Broughton, p. 538f.

22. Cicero de Imp. Cn. Pomp. 16 and Epist. ad Fam. xiii 9, 3: Caesar Bell. Civ. iii 103: Appian B.C. ii 13. See also Ivanov, pp. 65f. and 74f. and Broughton, p. 539.

23. Cicero Epist. ad Att. v 15, 3, 21, 4. These tabellarii belonged to the companies which farmed the taxes of Cilicia, but it may be inferred that those which operated in Asia had them also.

24. Cicero Epist. ad Fam. ii 17, 4; iii 5, 4; v 20, 9; Epist. ad. Att. xi 1, 2; 2, 3; cf. II Verr. in 165. See also Ivanov, p. 42 and E. J. Jonkers in Mnem. ix (1941), p. 185.

25. See Passerini in Athenaeum xv (1937), p. 252f. who combined several fragments of the senatus consultum and the decree of the magistrate and his consilium dealing with the matter, all found at Smyrna (see Türk Tarıh ii [1934], p. 240f., part of which is in Ann. Ép. 1935, 173). An even more fragmentary copy, found at Adramyttium, has been known since 1875; see I.G.R. iv 262 and Mommsen in Eph. Ep. iv p. 213f. = Ges. Schr. viii p. 344f. and R.St.R. iii p. 967, note 4. This copy, on the evidence of the names of the members of the consilium, was dated in about 110 b.c. by Cichorius Untersuchungen zu Lucilius, p. 3f., accepted by Munzer in R.E. xv 618,1. 64. Passerini, on the other hand, on the basis of his restorations in the Smyrna copy [μάνιος `ακύλλιος γαίος σεμπρώ]νιος ´ύπατοι (1. 9) and [μάνιος `ακ]ύλλιος ´ύπατο? (1. 17), dated it in 129 b.c. This dating, however, although accepted by M. Segre in Athenaeum xvi (1938), p. 124 and subsequently by Münzer (quoted in Rostovtzeff Hellenist. World, Chap. VI note 86) and by Hansen (Attalids, p. 151), is questionable. Although the restoration in l. 17 is reasonably certain, since ... υλλιος can hardly be restored in any other way, and although the clause `εαν α`υντω~ φαίνηται, which immediately follows, evidently alludes to the Consul of the year, the restoration of 1. 9, based on the assumption that the names of the Consuls of the current year are to be read here, is not convincing. Moreover, it is hard to believe that a controversy between the publicani and the Pergamenes could have arisen as early as 129, when the revolt of Aristonicus had scarcely been quelled. It seems much more probable, therefore, that the [`ακ]ύλλιος in question was the younger Manius Aquilius, Consul wilh Gaius Marius in 101 b.c. and in 90 a special commissioner in Asia (see above p. 208), and that: the Consuls (the second named ... νιος mentioned in 1. 9) were those of some unknown year. This view seems to be supported by the presence of Lucius Domitius Cn. [f.] in the consilium (1. 37), who, as Passerini observed (p. 269), can hardly be any other than the Consul of 94. It is difficult to suppose that this man was old enough in 129 to have been a member of a magistrate's consilium; for since his father, Gnaeus Ahenobarbus, was Consul in 122 b.c, Lucius (who was the second son) could scarcely have been born before 145; in 129, therefore, he was not more than 16 years old. If Passerini's dating of the inscription cannot be accepted, we must question also his inference (p. 277f.) that the taxes of Asia were leased to the publicani immediately after the acquisition of the province, and that the Lex Sempronia of Gaius Gracchus (see above note 15) was merely a change in the system already existing, by which either tithes were introduced or the percentage imposed on harvests was altered.

26. I.G.R. iv 194 = O.G.I. 440 = Dessau 8770 = Abbott and Johnson Municipal Administration in the Rom. Emp. (Princeton 1926), no. 14. A somewhat similar case, as Dittenberger observed (O.G.I. 440, note 4), is found in the Senate's decision in 73 b.c. against the claim of the publicani that the lands of the sanctuary of Amphiaraus at Oropus on the border between Attica and Boeotia were subject to taxation; see I.G. vii 413 = Syll.3 747 and Cicero de Nat. Deor. iii 49. On the other hand, an inscription from Telmissus in Caria (J.H.S. xiv [1894], p. 377f. = Michel 459), which records a restoration of land to Apollo, and a fragment from Pergamum of the early second century after Christ (A.M. xxiv [1899], p. 177, no. 27 = I.G.R. iv 397), recording a similar restoration to Dionysus, were cited by Dittenberger (O.G.I. 440, note 3) as parallel cases, but, as they contain no mention of publicani, they cannot be regarded as definite instances of aggression of this kind. It is also difficult to connect with the publicani, as was suggested by Viereck (Sermo Graecus, p. 9), a fragmentary letter of the proconsul P. Cornelius Scipio to Thyateira containing mention of [´ιε]ρω~ν χρημάτων (I.G.R. iv 1211, see Chap. XX note 37).'



Torsten