AIO 2662 Agreement regarding Salamis

Agreement regarding Salamis

AIO 2662 Date: 9 BC – ca. 75 AD, probably 40s AD

. . . (1) . . . elect^[1] . . . of the . . . him of the . . . those who - in (5) . . . to Julius Nikanor . . . if they should go . . . and after . . . of - the . . . of the (10) . . . the agreement (sunphōnon) . . . the . . . incomes (prosodous) . . . unalterable and . . . as is written . . . of those who will be again . . . of the – forever. (15)[And if] . . . should mortgage or sell or by any means or pretext whatsoever transfer the incomes (prosodous) anywhere, except in accordance with the agreement (sunphōnon), [or if someone should reduce] the assets (ktēmatōn) in the name of a lease (misthōseōs) or extra impositions (epheurematōn) or grain-funds (seitōniōn) . . . or should dare to let out for a longer time the [land or to prolong (?)] the four-year lease (misthōsin) by the addition (prosthesei) of [one or even more] years^[2] (20)whatever excuse is used . . . the Salaminian [land] . . . of the Roman Treasury (Airariou) and it shall be allowed . . . to the public - (dēmio-) . . . setting the price (teimēn) to - and to take the . . . and the one who introduced - condemned to the (penalties?) for sacrilege (ierosulias) . . . to the Roman Treasury^[3] (25) . . . the Council of the Areopagites . . . and which Julius Nikanor ⟦the New Homer⟧ ⟦and New Themistokles⟧^[4] . . . is to be taken away from the city [forthwith (?). And if anyone should contravene] what is agreed [about] Salamis or raise an objection, [or in any] way [whatsoever] divert (30) the [arrangement (suntaxin) (?)] of those revenues (porōn) . . . of the Salaminian combined possession (sunktēseōs) for the - that has been entrusted (epitetrammenen) [to Julius Nikanor and to his sons (?)] and to those who after his death will manage (epimelēsomenois) . . . according to tribe by a vote for every - to be done by Julius Nikanor or those after him . . . ^[5] with no one (35) having authority (exousian) to (alter?) the (tax), set at one-eighth, of those who farm on the island, just as they had . . . of a combined possession (sunktēseōs), the authority (exousian) over the one-eighth (tax) of the produce, with tax-free status (ateleias) having been conceded to them and being maintained now on things transported to [Piraeus and] to Eleusis for sale and whatever [else] the People of the (40)[Athenians gave them.^[6] And if anyone] should amend [this agreement], he shall be liable [for whatever (?)] he innovated . . . of increase . . . And if ever . . . or something should have been [omitted] for . . . of those . . . of - (45) . . . being this . . . was set up in . . . letter or secretarial . . . customary . . . to Asklepios and (50) . . . assets (?) of the Athenians . . . . . .

Previous - Agora XVI 336 Next - Agora XVI 338

References:

AIO 2662 (Translated text) (AIO)

IG II² 1119 (PHI)

IG II² 1086 (PHI)

SEG 55.248

SEG 55.248bis

Agora XVI 337 (PHI)

I Eleusis 360 (PHI)

Schmalz 11

Schmalz 10

Roman Attica Project, Normative Texts no. 9 (RAP)

Translation by: Chris de Lisle

Images: Cornell - (1, 2, 3)
Krateros - (1, 2)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree?, Record of endowment?

Agora Fragment A - Findspot: Agora (EM 13504)
Agora Fragment B - Findspot: Agora (EM 9504)
Agora Fragment C - Findspot: Agora (EM 13501)
Agora Fragment D - Findspot: Unknown (EM 5245)
Agora Fragment E - Findspot: Agora (EM 13504α)
Agora Fragment F - Findspot: Agora (EM 13504γ)
Agora Fragment G - Findspot: Agora (EM 13504β)
Eleusis Fragment A - Findspot: Eleusis (Eleusis Museum E513)
Eleusis Fragment B - Findspot: Eleusis (Eleusis Museum E497)
Eleusis Fragment C - Findspot: Eleusis (Eleusis Museum E492)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] This fragmentary text, preserved in two overlapping copies, one from the Athenian Agora and one from Eleusis, records an agreement regarding land on Salamis which Julius Nikanor “the New Homer and New Themistokles,” seems to have given to Athens in the first half of the first century AD, probably in the 40s. On Nikanor and his date, see IG II² 1069 with notes. It is likely that Dio Chrysostom 31.116 refers to this agreement, when he mentions that Nikanor “even bought Salamis for/from (the Greek is ambiguous) the Athenians” (ὃς αὐτοῖς καὶ τὴν Σαλαμῖνα ἐωνήσατο). This has often been understood to indicate that Salamis had been taken from the Athenians by Sulla in 86 BC or by Augustus in 30 or 22 BC, but no source mentions this and Athenian control over the island is attested in the 40s BC (IG II² 1041, l. 20) and under Tiberius (Strabo 9.1.10; cf. C. Habicht, ZPE 111, 1996, 79-81). It is more likely that Nikanor acquired land that had been in private hands and gifted it to Athens (C. P. Jones ZPE 154, 2005, 167-72). IG II² 1035, an Augustan decree restoring sanctuaries has been linked with this agreement, because some of the sanctuaries it deals with are based on Salamis and it also mentions four-year leases (see n. 2), but the substance of that decree is not about Salamis and it appears to predate this contract.

The fragmentary state of both copies of this inscription leaves the nature of the agreement obscure. It seems to refer to itself as a symphonon (ll. 10, 16, 40), literally a "concordant thing," a term also used by an unpublished agreement between Athens and Oropos (SEG 51.587) of ca. 44 BC. The basic arrangement seems to have been explained in the lost section before l. 14, which concludes that it is intended to be permanent. The first surviving section bans Athenian administrators (?) from disposing of the land by sale or various other methods, diverting the profits, imposing extra taxes, or varying from a four-year lease (ll. 15-20, see n. 2). The penalty for this is prosecution for sacrilege and seizure of property by Roman state treasury (ll. 21-24, see n. 3). In ll. 25-27, the Areopagos (and the Council and People?) and Nikanor agree something (the following sections?), and there are further penalties of some kind for attempting to alter this agreement by legal means (ll. 27-30). S. Follet understands this as the start of a new agreement, made following Nikanor’s death and confiscation of the estate by the Roman treasury (L'hellénisme d'époque romaine, 2004, 139-70), but this seems unlikely (Jones 2005), since he seems to be living in the following lines, in which the land (or a portion of it?) is entrusted to him and set to pass to administrators only after his death (ll. 31-34, see n. 5). A pre-existing harvest tax is maintained, with an exemption for goods bound for Piraeus or Eleusis (ll. 35-40, see n. 6). Ll. 40-42 deal with amendments and additions to the agreement, apparently not banning them completely. Ll. 46-47 might arrange for the agreement to be inscribed and archived and the reference to Asklepios in l. 49 might have something to do with sanctuaries. Athens is to derive income from leases (ll. 16-19) and the pre-existing harvest-tax (ll. 35-40), which is to be used for a specific purpose, which is lost (l. 16, 29-30); endowments elsewhere were used to pay for regular expenses, such as the oil supply for gymnasia (e.g., I Iasos 248), distributions of money and food (e.g., I Eleusis 489), or festivals (e.g., IK Ephesos I 27). For other endowments at Athens in the Imperial Period, see Puech, Orateurs, no. 1, I Eleusis 489, IG II² 1102, 2773. [2] The banned actions in ll. 15-19 aim to prevent the endowment being diminished or its revenues diverted. The target is probably Athenian administrators or agents, especially since they are warned against transferring income rather than just taking it and are the only ones likely to be able to take action in the name of a grain fund. If l. 21 indicates that the land becomes property of the Roman Treasury (see n. 3) in the event of a breach, then a hefty motivation is given to the Athenian community to ensure that their agents do not breach the agreement (per Jones; Follet interprets this as indicating that Salamis already belonged to the Treasury). “Extra impositions” (epheuremata) are additional charges added by tax-farmers (C. P. Jones, JRA 17, 2004, 476-77). A four-year term on leases is also mandated by IG II² 1035, l. 16 (probably of Augustan age and relating in part to public land on Salamis). This suggests that it had been established as the standard term in early Imperial Athens. In the Classical period the normal term was ten years, but longer leases were common, especially for crops like olives that required longer to grow (Ath. Pol. 47.4; IG I³ 84, IG II² 2492). Follet suggests a link with Roman financial law, but there the term was five years (M. H. Crawford, Roman Statutes, 1996, 1.440). [3] Breach of the terms in ll. 15-19 is to be punished like sacrilege (hierosylia), i.e., the offender’s property will be confiscated and sold, perhaps in demioprata ("public auctions", cf. Jones 2005, 164, with Pollux 10.96-97 and IG I³ 421). The profits from these auctions are to belong to the Roman state treasury (the inscription refers to it by its Latin name, the Aerarium), which was notionally separate from, but intertwined with and gradually subsumed by, the Fiscus, the Imperial estate (see F. Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East, 2004, II 47-88). The same penalty is imposed by a Roman official in the Eleusinian endowment of ca. 169/70 AD (I Eleusis 489, ll. 35-42). This might indicate that the Roman authorities were involved in making this agreement (Follet), but that is not certain and at any rate it need not indicate that Rome was a party to it (Jones 2005). Safeguarding agreements in this way was common in the Imperial period, in endowments like this one (cf. TAM V, 2 828 from Attaleia, and IAph2007 12.26 from Aphrodisias), in private contracts (Millar 2004, II 64-66), and to protect tombs from appropriation (e.g., IG II² 13211, 13215, 13220 and A. Rupp, Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 21, 2015, 143-158). The procedure grew out of and co-existed with the practice of giving gods and civic authorities the right to penalties (e.g., OR 153, l. 30). It was efficacious because the Imperial government was expected to endure indefinitely and had authority even over powerful individuals (particularly Roman citizens, who might claim exemption from local law), and because successful prosecutors and informers received a share of the fine. Athens’ recourse to an external authority to safeguard the arrangement contrasts with the reliance on the Athenian legal system in Classical and Hellenistic agreements (e.g., IG I³ 84, ll. 9-10, 18-20, IG I³ 421, ll. 24-40, and IG II² 2492, ll. 29-31). It also differs from the practice of seeking an edict from the emperor guaranteeing arrangements, which is common in the second century AD (e.g., IG II² 1092, IG IV² 1, 1147, l. 15). [4] Julius Nikanor’s titles “New Homer and New Themistokles” have been erased, as in most inscriptions mentioning him. See IG II² 1069 with note. [5] L. 35 seems to introduce a new section, whose sense is not clear. Something is taken away or to be taken away from the city, perhaps management of (epimeleia: Follet) or title to (kyreia: Jones 2005) the land, which is referred to as a synktesis (literally “combined possession”). This was a technical term in Imperial law for an estate made up of several plots of land; it need not imply joint-ownership (W. Kaiser, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung (Römische) 138, 2021, 523-39). Nikanor and perhaps his children seem to be entrusted with a life-interest, which will go to managers after his death. The reference to tribes and a vote in ll. 32-33 is obscure. Follet saw a reference to the Roman tribal assembly, but this had probably ceased to operate much earlier. Jones suggests that marginal land is distributed among the Athenian tribes (cf. SEG 37.100 on Oropos), but this would then be introduced and disposed of very abruptly. [6] “Those who farm” is a generic term, referring to whoever carries out the actual work of farming, whether owner, tenant, or farm worker. They are also charged a one eighth tax (= 12.5%) on their harvest in Hadrian’s oil law of AD 124 (IG II² 1100, ll. 2-3). There the eighth is a special rate applying only to “the estates of Hipparchos which were sold by the Fiscus,” while the general rate is one third. Hipparchos was the grandfather of Herodes Atticus and had his property confiscated under the Emperor Domitian (Philostr. Vit. Soph. 2.547). This raises the possibility that the Salaminian land dealt with in this agreement subsequently came into the hands of Hipparchos and was then confiscated (as a consequence of ll. 15-24?), but there are issues with this interpretation. There are many alternative interpretations: e.g., the rate may have been raised for the Salamis estate in the meanwhile or Salamis may have been excluded from Hadrian's oil law. For a possible Classical analogue of this harvest tax, see RO 26 with notes, which requires a twelfth of the grain harvest on Lemnos to be brought to Athens for sale. There is an exemption on goods destined for Eleusis and probably Piraeus, perhaps to further ensure Athens’ supply of agricultural produce (cf. the tax-exemption for fishermen in IG II² 1103). Athens may have been able to extract revenue on goods at those sites after "those who farm" had sold it, through harbour taxes. For Athenian laws regulating agriculture and commerce at Athens in the Imperial period, cf.IG II² 1000, 1103, SEG 50.188.

Textual Note: The line numbers here are based on the Eleusis copy. AIO largely follows the text of Jones 2005, 161-72 (= SEG 55.248bis), which is based on Follet (= SEG 55.248), but excludes more speculative restorations and presumes a shorter line. We retain Follet’s restorations at l. 17-20, which must give the general sense. At l. 21-22, Follet reads δημιου̣[ρ]|[γοῖς (“craftsmen”, which she translates as “prefects”). Follet’s text of ll. 26-34 differs significantly from that presented by AIO: ... ἐπειδὴ διέταξαν ?... ἡ] β̣ουλὴ τῶ̣ν Ἀρεοπαγει|[τῶν καὶ ἡ βουλὴ τῶν ἑξακοσίων καὶ ὁ δῆμος ὁ Ἀθηναίω]ν καὶ ὁ Ἰού[λιος Νικάνωρ], 〚νέος Ὅμηρ|[ος καὶ νέος Θεμιστοκλῆς〛, τὴν ἐπιμέλε]ίαν ἀφαιρε|[θεῖσαν τ]ῆ̣ς πόλεως αὖθ[ις ἐπιτρέψαι τοῖς Ῥωμαίοις?. ἐὰν δέ παρα τὸ ὁμολ]ο̣γούμενον | [πρ]ὸς Σαλαμεῖνος ἢ ἀντ̣ε̣[ίπῃ τις ἢ ... ἢ καθ’ ὁνδηποτεοῦν] τρόπον μετά|[βάληι τι ἢ ἐ]κ̣είνων τῶν πόρων σύν[τέμῃ ἢ μεταθῆι τι ἐκ τῆς Σαλ]αμεινιακῆς | [γῆς συν]κ̣τ̣ήσεως εἰς τὴν ἐπιτε̣[τρ]α̣μμέ[νην Ἰουλίωι Νικάνορι καὶ τοῖς παῖ]σιν καὶ τοῖς με|τὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ τελευτὴ[ν ἐ]πιμελη[σομένοις τῆς νήσου, κρίνεσθαι δεῖ?] κατὰ φυλὴν | ψήφωι πρὸς ἅπαντα τ[ὰ συνυ]π̣ά̣ρ̣χ̣οντα̣ [τ]ῶν χ̣ω̣[ρίων, ὥστε μὴ ...]ν γείνεσθαι | ὑπὸ Ἰουλίου Νικάν[ορος ἢ] τ̣ῶν μετ’ αὐτὸν τῆ[ς νήσου κληρονόμω]ν… “… since the Council of the Areopagites [and the Council of the Six Hundred and the People of the Athenians] and Julius Nikanor ⟦the New Homer and New Themistokles⟧ [have decided to entrust the management (epimeleian) of the island], having been taken away from the city again, [to the Romans (?). And if, in contravention of] what is agreed, [in the name of] Salamis [anyone] should either raise an objection, [or … or in any] way [whatsoever change something, or reduce] those revenues [or transfer anything from the] Salaminian [land of the sun]ktesis into the (land) that has been entrusted [to Julius Nikanor and to his sons] and to those who after his death will manage [the island, the matter must be judged] by means of a vote by tribe on all the existing [rural properties, so that - is not] done by Julius Nikanor or his [heirs in possession (kleronomon) of the island] after him…” At l. 36, AIO follows Kaiser 2021, 539 in reading ...]ΜΙΝ συνκτή|σεως rather than ἐ̣[κ τῆς πρὸς τὴν πό]λιν συνκτ̣ή|σεως “under the synktesis with the city” (Follet) or ἐ̣[πὶ τῆς πρὸς τὴν πό]λιν συνκτή|σεως “in the time of the synktesis with the city” (Jones).

Added: 20 May 2023
Updated: 2 Aug 2023
Feedback

ID: AIO_2662