Drawing on the publication of a dozen of new inscriptions during the past fifteen years, the article examines the administrative, financial and fiscal implications of patrolling the countryside (phylake tes choras) in Greek cities of Asia Minor during the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods. Due to the lack of permanent institutions dealing with the policing of their rural territories and because of cash shortage, Hellenistic cities, and sometimes kings themselves, were forced to find various and complex solutions to set up and fund such a service. These included the granting of tax exemptions to inhabitants of rural settlements policing the countryside, the hiring under contract of private persons who would take care of patrolling in exchange for payment, or the leasing of the service by contractors who would be allowed to collect taxes in order to refund themselves. Thanks to a recently published inscription from Thessaly as well as a passage from Polyaenus’ Stratagems, the paper reassesses the provisions related to this issue included in the alliance treaty between Miletos and Herakleia and raises the question as to the extent to which guards were actually involved with tax collection. During the Imperial period, officials known as paraphylakes were appointed by cities throughout the provinces of Asia Minor to deal with public security in the countryside. Newly published evidence from various cities of Asia Minor, in particular from Phrygian Hierapolis, sheds new light on the funding of patrolling, on the economic duties of paraphylakes, as well as on the impact on rural communities of the benefactions, as well as of the abuses, of these officials. The paper argues that, although they were active in the countryside, paraphylakes were not responsible for the collection of taxes, contrary to dekaprotoi, who emerged about the same time during the first century CE. Even if Roman provincial administration relied on these two offices as far as law enforcement and tax collection at the local level were concerned, they were not created by Roman power and should rather be seen as another proof of the autonomy Greek cities enjoyed under imperial rule.
Policing Countryside Rural population Funding Taxation Cities Local officials
Bu makale, son on beş yılda yayımlanan bir düzine yeni yazıttan faydalanarak, Hellenistik ve Roma İmparatorluk Dönemi Küçük Asya’sındaki Yunan kentlerinde kırsalı korumanın (phylake tes choras) idari, mali ve finansal boyutlarını incelemektedir. Kırsal alanların güvenliğini sağlamakla ilgilenen daimî kurumların yokluğu ve nakit para sıkıntısı yüzünden Hellenistik kentler ve bazen de bizzat krallar böyle bir hizmeti oluşturmak ve finanse etmek için değişik ve kompleks çözümler bulmaya mecbur kalıyorlardı. Bunlar kırsal yerleri muhafaza edecek yerleşim sakinlerine vergi muafiyeti verilmesi, ödeme karşılığında güvenlik işini üstlenecek özel kişileri kontrat ile işe alma ya da kendilerini finanse etsinler diye vergi toplama izni verilen aracılar vasıtasıyla bu hizmeti kiraya vermeyi kapsamaktaydı. Thessalia’dan yakın zamanda yayımlanan bir yazıt ve aynı zamanda Polyainos’un Strategemata isimli eserinden bir alıntı sayesinde, bu makale Miletos ve Herakleia arasında müttefiklik anlaşmasında yer alan bu konuyla ilgili hükümleri yeniden değerlendirmekte ve muhafızların vergi toplama işine gerçekte ne derece dahil olduğu sorusunu sormaktadır. İmparatorluk Dönemi’nde tüm Küçük Asya eyaletlerinde paraphylakes adıyla bilinen görevliler kırsaldaki kamu güvenliğiyle ilgilenmeleri için kentler tarafından atanıyorlardı. Özellikle Phrygia’daki Hierapolis olmak üzere Küçük Asya’daki değişik kentlerden yayımlanan yeni belgeler koruma ve kollama işinin finansmanı, paraphylakes’in ekonomik görevleri ve aynı zamanda bağışların kırsal topluluklar üzerindeki etkisi ve bu memurların görevlerini kötüye kullanmaları hakkında yeni bilgiler vermektedir. Bu makale, her ne kadar kırsalda aktif olsalar da hemen hemen aynı zamanda, İ.S. 1. yüzyılda ortaya çıkan dekaprotoi’un aksine paraphylakes’in vergi toplamadan sorumlu olmadığını iddia etmektedir. Her ne kadar Roma eyalet idaresi, yerel düzeyde yasaların uygulanması ve vergi toplama işiyle ilgili olarak bu iki görevliye bel bağlasa da bunlar Roma gücü tarafından oluşturulmamıştır ve daha çok imparatorluk yönetimi altında Yunan kentlerinin keyfini sürdüğü otonominin bir diğer kanıtı olarak görülmelidir.
Koruma ve Kollama Kırsal Kırsal Nüfus Finansman Vergilendirme Kentler Yerel Memurlar
Drawing on the publication of a dozen of new inscriptions during the past fifteen years, the article examines the administrative, financial and fiscal implications of patrolling the countryside (phylake tes choras) in Greek cities of Asia Minor during the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods. Due to the lack of permanent institutions dealing with the policing of their rural territories and because of cash shortage, Hellenistic cities, and sometimes kings themselves, were forced to find various and complex solutions to set up and fund such a service. These included the granting of tax exemptions to inhabitants of rural settlements policing the countryside, the hiring under contract of private persons who would take care of patrolling in exchange for payment, or the leasing of the service by contractors who would be allowed to collect taxes in order to refund themselves. Thanks to a recently published inscription from Thessaly as well as a passage from Polyaenus’ Stratagems, the paper reassesses the provisions related to this issue included in the alliance treaty between Miletos and Herakleia and raises the question as to the extent to which guards were actually involved with tax collection. During the Imperial period, officials known as paraphylakes were appointed by cities throughout the provinces of Asia Minor to deal with public security in the countryside. Newly published evidence from various cities of Asia Minor, in particular from Phrygian Hierapolis, sheds new light on the funding of patrolling, on the economic duties of paraphylakes, as well as on the impact on rural communities of the benefactions, as well as of the abuses, of these officials. The paper argues that, although they were active in the countryside, paraphylakes were not responsible for the collection of taxes, contrary to dekaprotoi, who emerged about the same time during the first century CE. Even if Roman provincial administration relied on these two offices as far as law enforcement and tax collection at the local level were concerned, they were not created by Roman power and should rather be seen as another proof of the autonomy Greek cities enjoyed under imperial rule.
policing countryside rural population funding taxation cities local officials
Birincil Dil | Fransızca |
---|---|
Bölüm | Araştırma Makaleleri |
Yazarlar | |
Yayımlanma Tarihi | 15 Kasım 2021 |
Gönderilme Tarihi | 21 Şubat 2021 |
Yayımlandığı Sayı | Yıl 2021 Cilt: 22 |