Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
Page 1 of 19<\/p>\n
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n
Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n
Subject: Classical Studies, Greek and Roman Law, Social and Economic History, Numismatics Online Publication Date: Apr 2016 DOI: 10.1093\/oxfordhb\/9780199935390.013.38<\/p>\n
Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Princi\u00ad pate<\/p>\n
Abstract and Keywords<\/p>\n
The article deals with the different taxes that were exacted in the Roman Principate. It analyzes not only the different concepts of taxation with a differentiation betweentributa, vectigalia, andportoriabut also the complex system of tax collection, the cooperation be\u00ad tween private tax farmers and state officials, and the flow of income into the various trea\u00ad suries (aerarium Saturni, aerarium militare, fiscus Caesaris). Furthermore, the close con\u00ad nection of Roman taxes with power politics of the Roman emperors as well as the interde\u00ad pendences with developments in society, economy, and law are revealed. Various ques\u00ad tions and directions for possible future research are proposed.<\/p>\n
Keywords: Taxation, tributa vectigalia, portoria, publicani, societates publicanorum, procurators, aerarium Saturni, aerarium militare, fiscus Caesaris<\/p>\n
\u03c4\u03cc \u03c4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c5\u03ac\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03cd\u03be\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9: \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u1fc7 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f45\u03c0\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bb\u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9: \u03ba\u1f02\u03bd \u03b8\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u1f72\u03c2 \u1f96, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u1f15\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn short, he [sc. Caesar] showed himself a money-getter, declaring that there were two things which created, protected, and increased sovereignties,\u2014soldiers and money,\u2014and that these two were dependent upon each other. For it was by proper maintenance, he said, that armies were kept together, and this maintenance was secured by arms; and in case either one of them were lacking, the other also would be overthrown at the same time.\u201d (D.C. 42.49.4sq., transl. E. Cary, 1916, Dio\u2019s Roman History, Vol. 4 [LCL], London and New York.)<\/p>\n
This almost prophetic sentence of C. Julius Caesar in 47 BC after the battle of Zela against Pharnaces II and the (financial) measures undertaken by him in the east is per\u00ad haps not as famous as his \u201cveni, vidi, vici\u201d but may be more striking when one looks at the fundamentals of the future Principate. In fact, it was the troops in the imperial provinces as well as the funds of the fiscus Caesaris that allowed the princeps Augustus to establish and keep control over the res publica (restituta)\u2014besides his outstanding auc\u00ad<\/p>\n
Sven G\u00fcnther<\/p>\n
https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=Taxation
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=tributa vectigalia
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=portoria
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=publicani
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=societates publicanorum
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=procurators
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=aerarium Saturni
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=aerarium Saturni
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=aerarium militare
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/search?f_0=keyword&q_0=fiscus Caesaris
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
Page 2 of 19<\/p>\n
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n
Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n
toritas (Monum. Ancyr. 34.3) and the other official potestates. This was also true for his successors, for which reason studies on military power as well as on financial potential are essential to reveal the origin and status of the Roman emperor and his principate.<\/p>\n
There is still an imbalance between the rich amount of research done in the military field and the rather scattered studies on the financial sector. This is primarily due to the lack of broad evidence, which causes a fragmentation into several research fields that cannot be easily combined, especially in the field of Roman taxation, where the exiguous literary evidence has to be compared with epigraphical, papyrological, and numismatic sources using the full range of methods of analysis. This contribution, therefore, tries to show some possible approaches to a study of Roman taxes and to add them as one of the more important tesserae to the mosaic of the Roman Empire.<\/p>\n
Terminology Every study of (Greek and) Roman taxation has, at first, to deal with terminology (cf. G\u00fcn\u00ad ther 2008: 14\u201321). In fact, Roman terminology, deriving from the Roman Republic, is quite clear. For example, tributa \/ stipendia are distinguished from vectigalia and in most cases portoria, especially tributa from vectigalia. So Tacitus (Tac. Ann. 1.11.3 sq.; cf. Suet. Aug. 101.4) differentiates clearly between the two in Augustus\u2019 report after his death in 14 AD, brought and read to the senate by order of Tiberius: \u2026 cum proferri libellum recitarique iussit. Opes publicae continebantur, quantum civium sociorumque in armis, quot classes regna provinciae, tributa aut vectigalia, et necessitates ac largitiones \u201c \u2026 when he ordered a booklet to be produced and read out. Its contents were the public re\u00ad sources, what numbers of citizens and allies under arms, how many fleets, kingdoms and provinces, taxes and revenues, and also necessary expenses and lavishments\u201d (transl. A. J. Woodman, 2004, Tacitus, The Annals, Indianapolis and Cambridge).<\/p>\n
By tributa \/ stipendia are always meant taxes raised on the basis of a census or tax list. Because of their exclusive status (this is largely true for all citizens of a state in antiqui\u00ad ty), these tributa were not levied on Roman citizens, but only in exceptional circum\u00ad stances, as in war. After 167 BC, there were no longer such tributa (Plin. HN 33.56), only in rare emergency situations (cf. esp. Nicolet 1976; Wolters 2007: 410\u2013412, with further literature). The term was finally transferred to describe the status of the inhabitants of the provinces, who were liable, for example, to a tributum capitis (poll tax) or tributum soli (land tax), calculated on basis of a (census) list. In most cases, the Romans tied the tax levy to the tradition of the territory and the former regime. The term stipendium \/ provincia stipendiaria was also common to show that the territory had been acquired by a Roman conquest with a military guerdon (stipendium) to be paid by the inhabitants.<\/p>\n
In contrast, vectigal, etymologically deriving from vehere (to convey or transport), first designated the cartloads of crops from ager publicus (public land) that had to be given to the state as landlord by the leaseholder. As a consequence, only the ratio could be de\u00ad fined in advance, but not the exact amount, which depended on the harvest, and this con\u00ad cept later defined also the taxes called vectigalia: they were not raised on the basis of<\/p>\n
https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
Page 3 of 19<\/p>\n
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n
Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n
(census) lists but on occasion. In this framework, the portoria (customs) were not a spe\u00ad cial case, so vectigalia and portoria were often interchangeable terms, as in the definition in the Digests of Justinian, deriving from the jurist Ulpian (Dig. 50.16.17.1): \u201cPublica\u201d vectigalia intellegere debemus, ex quibus vectigal fiscus capit: quale est vectigal portus vel venalium rerum, item salinarum et metallorum et picariarum \u201cWe have to understand public taxes as those from which the Treasury captures revenue: for instance, the tax of the harbor or the tax on selling products, likewise on salt-pits and mines and bitumen- fabrics\u201d (transl. G\u00fcnther 2015).<\/p>\n
However, the distinction is not kept up in every source. Sometimes vectigal is used to de\u00ad scribe tributa or stipendia as a generic term. The use can often be linked to the intentions of the ancient authors, for instance to undermine the authority of an emperor. Thus, Sue\u00ad tonius describes the tax levied by the \u201cbad\u201d ruler Caligula (37\u201341 AD) by mixing vectigalia, which were possible and even common for Roman citizens, with the term tributum, call\u00ad ing this an outrageous and improper measure for the status of Roman citizenship (Suet. Calig. 40): Vectigalia nova atque inaudita primum per publicanos, deinde, quia lucrum ex\u00ad uberabat, per centuriones tribunosque praetorianos exercuit, nullo rerum aut hominum genere omisso, cui non tributi aliquid imponeret \u201cHe levied new [so-called indirect] taxes, and such as were never before known, at first by the publicans, but afterwards, because their profit was enormous, by centurions and tribunes of the pretorian guards; no de\u00ad scription of property or persons was exempted from some kind of [so-called direct] tax\u201d (transl. J. Eugene Reed and Alexander Thomson, 1889, Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Philadelphia).<\/p>\n
What is crucial is how to translate tributum and vectigal. Until the twentieth century, trib\u00ad utum was translated by \u201cdirect tax\u201d and vectigal by \u201cindirect tax,\u201d in an attempt at ade\u00ad quate differentiation. But this does not fit modern economic tax theory, notably the idea that indirect taxes, such as purchase tax, can be turned over to third parties. Therefore, some researchers tend to consider nearly all vectigalia (except the tax on sales) direct taxes in this sense, because they had to be paid directly by the person liable to the tax (e.g. Eck 1979: 132 no. 92; Neesen 1980: 200s no. 18,5). But this is not the concept of (Roman) antiquity, where the classification of tributa or vectigalia depended on the tax be\u00ad ing levied with or without a (census) list. Therefore a better translation nowadays would be \u201cso-called direct tax\u201d for tributum and \u201cso-called indirect tax\u201d for vectigal.<\/p>\n
tributa (so-called direct taxes)<\/p>\n
With the end of tributa on Roman citizens in 167 BC\u2014with some exceptions in times of crises during the Late Roman Republic\u2014the term was increasingly used for describing the tribute status of the Roman provinces, interchangeably with the term stipendium, de\u00ad pending on author and view (see above). A main characteristic of Roman rule in the provinces was letting traditional systems continue as long as they worked and were adaptable to Roman necessities. It is no wonder that alongside tributum and stipendium<\/p>\n
https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
Page 4 of 19<\/p>\n
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n
Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n
terms like decuma (pars) \u201cthe tenth (part)\u201d were used to describe the tributes of provin\u00ad cial inhabitants according to the traditional rate.<\/p>\n
In the Republic and Principate, the main tributa were the tributum soli (land tax) and the tributum capitis (poll tax) (cf. the essential study Neesen 1980; discussion and corrections in Brunt 1981 \/ 1990). Like all tributa, they were calculated on the basis of a census list. Details concerning the measurement are unclear, due to the various and fragmentary evi\u00ad dence; what is clear is that there were different treatments of provincial lands: besides the \u201cnormal\u201d provincial land liable to the tributum soli there were also privileges for Ro\u00ad man colonies (ager privatus ex iure Quiritium \u201cprivate land according to Roman right\u201d) or civitates foederatae (confederated commonwealths) or civitates liberae (free common\u00ad wealths), with certain immunitates (immunities). But what had to be declared besides the land is not entirely clear (cf. the discussion in Brunt 1981 \/ 1990: 166\u2013168 \/ 335\u2013339), for example property except land or moveables (under the tributum capitis?). This is true for the tributum capitis, which had different rates in the various provinces (cf. for explana\u00ad tions Neesen 1980: 120 sqq.; Brunt 1981 \/ 1990: 167 sq. \/ 338 sq.).<\/p>\n
These important questions\u2014whether one is discussing a systematization of Roman taxa\u00ad tion or only situational changes\u2014cannot be solved, because of the diverse evidence from the provinces. The main evidence comes from Egypt. For a long time, it was treated as a special case because of its different status in the administration structure of the Roman Empire (Wallace 1938; Neesen 1980; Brunt 1981 \/ 1990). But in recent research there is considerable discussion on this issue, and Egypt is now often seen as a normal case in the Empire, with certain peculiarities as in other provinces (clearly against such a special role of Egypt: J\u00f6rdens 2009, esp. for customs chap. I\u2013IX; J\u00f6rdens 2012; for customs, see also Vandorpe 2015; cautious: Eich 2007). Studies of other provinces analyzing systemati\u00ad cally the material and new findings could perhaps reveal more details (cf. for Gallic and German provinces France 2001b; for Iudaea, Udoh 2005).<\/p>\n
Smaller tributa as well as other dues (e.g., aurum coronarium \u201cgold wreaths, crowns\u201d) are treated in Neesen (1980). Greater attention has been devoted to the fiscus Iudaicus (Jewish treasury), which was the treasury for the \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03cd\u03bf \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd (tax of two denarii of the Jews) exacted from the Jews after the Roman-Jewish War of 66\u201370 AD (cf. G\u00fcnther 2013 with further literature).<\/p>\n
All these tributa (and the other dues) were at first collected by publicans in Republican times. The change to direct collection by state officials can be attributed to Caesar (cf. the broad discussion in Brunt 1990: esp. 355 sq., 380 sq.).<\/p>\n
Several studies have been devoted to the question of tax flow into the different treasuries of the Roman Principate (cf. Alpers 1995 with older literature; his model is modified by Wolters 1999; 174\u2013202; Wolters 2007: 422\u2013424; for the administration offices, cf. now Schmall 2011). It now seems clear that there were provincial fisci which balanced their yearly accounts either with the aerarium Saturni (treasury of Saturn), in the case of sena\u00ad torial provinces, or with the fiscus Caesaris (treasury of the Emperor), in the case of im\u00ad perial provinces. This fiscus Caesaris can probably be distinguished from the patrimonium<\/p>\n
https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
Page 5 of 19<\/p>\n
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n
Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n
Caesaris (patrimony of the Emperor), and later the res privata (private treasure) of cer\u00ad tain emperors, when the patrimonium also became public. Here the main problem lies in the intention of many authors to create a \u201cgood\u201d or \u201cbad\u201d emperor. But tributa (as well as the other taxes and duties) had to be paid to both, so the effect on and interest for \u201cnor\u00ad mal\u201d citizens of this subtlety was, perhaps, limited.<\/p>\n
vectigalia (so-called indirect taxes)<\/p>\n
Vectigalia in its proper sense (without portoria, see below) can be divided into empire- wide vectigalia, to which all Roman citizens were liable, and local vectigalia, for citizens of city-states in the Roman East, among others. While the latter have not been systemati\u00ad cally studied (cf. Il capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in occidente ed in ori\u00ad ente 2009), the vectigalia for Roman citizens have been the object of research since the Renaissance, especially during the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth cen\u00ad tury in Germany and France (for an overview, cf. G\u00fcnther 2008: 8\u201314). These studies did not arise solely out of antiquarian interest; the scholars also wanted to compare the Ro\u00ad man tax system with their own, established as a consequence of the formation of nations and the rise of nationalism, which searched for roots in history. Hence studies like those of J. J. Bachofen (1848), M. R. Cagnat (1966 [1882]), or G. Schanz (1900) not only collect\u00ad ed the scattered material (in ancient literature and law, inscriptions, papyri, numismatics) but tried to develop a systematic structure of taxation as well. On this basis, further re\u00ad search could be done concerning special questions like tax collectors, state treasuries, imperial administration, and the budget\u2014questions which were important for research mainly concentrating on the state as an entity. G. Wesener\u00b4s articles concerning the vices\u00ad ima hereditatium and vicesima libertatis in the RE (1958) were fundamental for further studies in this field. With the emergence of new paradigms in research, especially after World War II, special studies on the social, socioeconomic, and legal connections of vecti\u00ad galia followed (cf. G\u00fcnther 2008: 8\u201314). In his PhD thesis, the present author tried to show the synergisms between the different vectigalia and imperial policy, administration, society, and law (G\u00fcnther 2008).<\/p>\n
Of the four important and long-lived vectigalia, the most prominent (and studied) is the vicesima hereditatium, a 5 percent tax on inheritances and legacies (cf. G\u00fcnther 2008: 23\u201394). Although some scholars have claimed that the inheritance tax was introduced with the lex Voconia 169 BC, this is certainly not true. Also, Julius Caesar had only a vague, if any, plan for a tax on heritages. A first, but short-lived, tribute on heritages and legacies in 40 BC (App. BC 5.67.282; cf. D.C. 55.25.6) during the Civil Wars after the death of Caesar was intended to finance the war against Sextus Pompeius as well as to disturb the old aristocratic networks (see G\u00fcnther 2015a). The lex Falcidia, often regard\u00ad ed as a subsidiary measure, was enacted not in that year but in the previous year (D.C. 48.33.4 sq.), so that such a connection is not possible. But from the failure of this mea\u00ad sure (App. BC 5.130.540), Augustus could later draw lessons for his establishment of the vicesima hereditatium in 6 AD.<\/p>\n
https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
Page 6 of 19<\/p>\n
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n
Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n
Thus, the main purpose of Augustus\u2019 introduction of the inheritance tax was not, as often suggested, an equalization of burdens between provincial inhabitants, who were not li\u00ad able to vectigal but to tributa, and Roman citizens, but to provide security for his rule. A main factor for this security was the loyalty of the army, and among the measures that led to a professional standing army the possibly dangerous veterans could not be forgotten, as shown by the allotment of land to them in the first century BC, especially during the Civil Wars (cf., e.g., Monum. Ancyr. 3.3). Therefore Augustus erected the aerarium mil\u00ad itare (military treasury [for veterans]) in 5 AD (for the history of this treasury, see Corbier 1974) to pay praemia militiae (veteran soldiers\u2019 bonus) to his veterans instead of having to confiscate land as a reward for them. A main source of revenue for this new treasury, besides the centesima rerum venalium (see below) and some deposits from the patrimony of Augustus as well as from other private persons, was the vicesima hereditatium established shortly afterward. Resistance to this new vectigal from the rich classes (sena\u00ad torial and equestrian orders) most liable to it in 6 and 13 AD was cleverly broken by Au\u00ad gustus by threatening the aristocracy with reinstitution of the tributum soli (land tax), which would have been the first permanent one since 167 BC.<\/p>\n
The regulatory framework of the inheritance tax was laid down in the lex In the same way, the exemption for small heritages [perhaps up to 1,000 sestertii (HS)] was a beneficence of the emperor to \u201cnormal\u201d citizens only secondarily; the estimation of the transaction costs for measuring the tax for these wills was probably the primary rea\u00ad son for the exemption. The second exemption, for second-degree relatives, was not only a matter of cost but also served the purposes of quieting resistance as well as strengthen\u00ad ing the traditional family, in accordance with Augustan family laws, and inhibiting the tra\u00ad ditional networking in the upper classes through inheritances and legacies (see G\u00fcnther 2015a).<\/p>\n Later modifications of the Augustan lex were mainly caused by the change of conditions in the Roman Empire. Most prominent are the reforms undertaken by the emperors Ner\u00ad va (96\u201398 AD) and Trajan (98\u2013117 AD) to include new citizens in the regulation frame\u00ad work. Although they were also granted tax exemption, the assurance of revenue was the background of these measures, especially the registration of huge inheritances and the avoidance of high administration costs for difficult legal cases.<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 7 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n For the latter, the Roman state at first leased the collection of this vectigal (and others as well) to private companies (for their structure see Cimma 1981; Malmendier 2002; esp. concerning taxes: Brunt 1990). As with the inheritance tax, we have evidence for it in Tra\u00ad janic times (through Pliny the Younger) as well as from Egypt in papyri under the reign of Antoninus Pius (138\u2013160 AD) (cf. Eck 1995). Although there has been considerable dis\u00ad cussion on the status of Egypt as a special case in the Roman Empire (see above), both types of evidence disprove the old opinion that there was a direct replacement of the pri\u00ad vate collectors by public procuratores XX hereditatium or a three-step process from pri\u00ad vate companies to single tax collectors and then to public officials (G\u00fcnther 2008: esp. 59\u201369, see also the discussion for the portoria, below). Even though a precise date cannot be found in existing sources, it is likely that there is a connection between the establish\u00ad ment of these administrative boards and the broad reforms under the emperor Nero (54\u2013 68 AD) to control the publicans more strictly in 58 AD (see Rathbone 2008; G\u00fcnther 2013). But if, when, and how these procuratores undertook the tax collection instead of private tax farmers remains an open question. It was a more gradual and situation-specific process that led to a tax collection by imperial officials instead of private persons (or sometimes together with them? AE 1996: 1702; cf. G\u00fcnther 2008: 68 sq.; see also below for the portoria).<\/p>\n Concerning these officials, we have a rather broad range of evidence which allows us to reconstruct the administrative structure. In all places where a substantial number of Ro\u00ad man citizens lived, as in Rome, Italy, and in some provinces (especially the Spanish and Gaulish ones), we find a carefully built administration (cf. G\u00fcnther 2008: 69\u201381; esp. also Eck 1979: 132\u2013139; esp. for the equestrian procuratores: Pflaum 1960; 1982; for imperial freedmen and slaves: Wachtel 1966; see now Schmall 2011 for the finance administration staff). At the top there were procuratores XX hereditatium. Procurators outside of the equestrian order existed immediately before the reign of emperor Hadrian (117\u2013138 AD), who was formerly thought to have replaced freedmen as officials with them, so it is more probable that there was a hierarchical structure from equestrians down to imperial freed\u00ad men and then to imperial slaves. Under these procuratores we have supprocuratores and an extensive staff, especially for the administration in Rome, where the Roman senators had their patria and all revenues of the inheritance tax may have been registered. For provinces with a smaller percentage of Roman citizens, larger administration districts were built, for example in Asia Minor. According to the distribution of possible subjects of the tax, the salaries for the procurators were measured as well: procurators for certain regions or districts earned 60,000 HS, while the procurator for Rome received 100,000 HS, or at most 200,000 HS.<\/p>\n The eldest vectigal was the vicesima libertatis vel manumissionum, a 5 percent tax payable when manumitting a slave to become a libertus\/liberta according to Roman law (cf. G\u00fcnther 2008: 95\u2013126; also Bradley 1984; Albana 1987). Established in 357 BC (Liv. 7.16.7sq.), it probably lasted as the vicesima hereditatium up to reforms of Diocletian, and the revenues went into the aerarium Saturni populi Romani, and in Republican times into a special reserve fund, the aerarium sanctius. The fiscus libertatis et peculiorum (treasury of liberty and separate property) in the Roman Empire (with evidence from<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 8 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n Claudian times on), which some have suggested was the fund of the tax on manumissions, was probably a special fund for imperial slaves and freedmen (G\u00fcnther 2008: 101 sq.). Al\u00ad though the concrete reasons for establishing the tax are not entirely clear\u2014financial need or a patrician measure against the plebeians\u2014an increase of revenue due to the inflow of slaves in the third and second centuries BC (and, therefore, more manumissions) is likely.<\/p>\n Two factors led to an increase of tax revenue in the Roman Empire even though there was no great increase in the number of new slaves. On the one hand, the different legal regu\u00ad lations concerning manumission (e.g. Gai. Inst. 1.16\u201324; cf. G\u00fcnther 2008: 118\u2013120) \u201cforced\u201d the manumittor to undertake this act in public before a Roman magistrate to gain Roman citizenship for his freedman instead of the debased ius Latinum Iunianum. This requirement was even increased by the Augustan legislation concerning the manu\u00ad mitting of slaves (lex Aelia Sentia, lex Fufia Caninia, lex Iunia Norbana); with this public process, registration and tax collection were easy for the leaseholders (or, later on, the public tax officials). On the other hand, the slaves\u2019 owners were geared to economic inter\u00ad ests: not only the motivation of slaves to receive the status of freedman, which caused a gain of efficiency that compensated for the purchase price, but also the tradition that most slaves bought their freedom while paying the manumitting fees and taxes with their peculium (separate property) were strong push-factors. Furthermore, the new freedmen were in legal, social, and economic ways closely connected to the former owners and their families through the patron-client relationship, so that the profits for the manumit\u00ad ting family continued over more than one generation.<\/p>\n The vicesima libertatis vel manumissionum (5 percent tax on liberty or manumissions) was also exacted by private tax collectors, who interacted with a gradually growing num\u00ad ber of public officials. Except for the vicesima hereditatium, we have insights into the world of the private tax farmer due to literary notices, inscriptions, and papyrological evi\u00ad dence. Not only single persons related to one or another hierarchical level but also soci\u00ad etates publicanorum (companies of publicans) are attested in inscriptions. However, nei\u00ad ther the reconstruction of regional tax districts nor the distribution of duties, nor a di\u00ad achronic development of both, is possible due to the limits of evidence (differently from the public officials for the inheritance tax).<\/p>\n As for the inheritance tax, former hypotheses of a change from societates publicanorum to single tax collectors cannot be substantiated, nor can the idea that public officials re\u00ad placed the private tax collection process immediately after the institution of the new tax. Private tax collectors are mentioned up to Hadrianic times, possibly up to the third centu\u00ad ry AD (AE 2001: 1707; cf. G\u00fcnther 2008: 109 sq.). As for other vectigalia, the Neronian re\u00ad forms of 58 AD might have established the procuratores XX libertatis to control the publi\u00ad cani instead of the magistrates of the aerarium populi Romani. With the first attested procurator XX libertatis in Pompeii before the eruption of Vesuvius, the hypothesis of a development from freedman to equestrian procurators also fails. Details about this sexa\u00ad genary office, involving the staff or the regional administration, are difficult to estimate in<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 9 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n the absence of evidence, but a parallel development to the (higher-paid) procurators for the vicesima hereditatium seems likely.<\/p>\n The details of the taxing process, as well as of the cooperation between private tax collec\u00ad tors and public officials, were laid down in a lex, but the concrete regulations are un\u00ad known. Thanks to papyri from Roman Egypt, we can deduce some details. In case of pub\u00ad lic manumissions as well as testamentary releases, the public administration gave notice to the tax collectors; based on a measure of value of the slave, the tax was calculated and had to be paid directly. In case of greater numbers of manumissions, for example as a re\u00ad sult of a testament, there could also be an agreement about a flat rate. How the measure\u00ad ment was made is unclear. Documents concerning the purchase price or the sum paid by the slave for manumission or the current market price may have been the basis. Possibly, the attested combined lease of the vicesima liberatis together with the sale tax on slaves (quinta et vicesima venalium mancipiorum, ILS 203 = CIL VI 915, see below) was also an efficient instrument for the core of the tax collecting process. That the reduction of trans\u00ad action costs, to speak in the terms of New Institutional Economics, and the increase of ef\u00ad ficient tax collection were not unknown to the Romans is also clearly shown by the tax collecting station for both taxes, the statio vicesimae hereditatium et manumissionum (collection station for the 5 percent tax on inheritances and manumissions), in Egypt (cf. Eck 1995) and the probable lease and administration of four vectigalia under the name quattuor publica Africae (four public [taxes] for Africa) (cf. G\u00fcnther 2008: e.g. 63 sq.).<\/p>\n The centesima rerum venalium and the quinta et vicesima venalium mancipiorum formed the so-called sales taxes but were probably not closely connected with each other.<\/p>\n The 1 percent sales tax (centesima rerum venalium) was established at an unknown date after the Civil Wars between Octavian and Marc Antony (Tac. Ann. 1.78.2) (see G\u00fcnther 2008: 127\u2013147). All proposals for an exact date fail due to the attempt to connect the tax with other events, which provides an insight into the mindset of modern scholars. It is a fact that under the reign of Tiberius (14\u201337 AD) the tax was a factor in financing the aer\u00ad arium militare; therefore, Tiberius refused to abolish it in 15 AD (Tac. Ann. 1.78.2). In 17 AD, after the creation of the province Cappadocia, the tax was reduced to 0.5 percent (Tac. Ann. 2.42.4). Later on, in 31 AD, Cassius Dio tells us that the tax was exacted again at 1 percent (D.C. 58.16.2). Under the reign of Caligula, the tax, now again under the de\u00ad nomination of a ducentesima (0.5 percent), was cancelled in 38 AD (Suet. Calig. 16.3; cf. also D.C. 59.9.6, who writes in Greek about the centesima). This event was also celebrat\u00ad ed propagandistically with the issue of coins, namely quadrantes (RIC I Caligula 111 [Nr. 39, 45, 52]; cf. Wolters 2005: 511 sq.). Because these quadrantes circulated mainly in Italy, one has to doubt older paradigms that the sales tax had a long afterlife, for example in the merces (charge) of the receipt tablet of L. Caecilius Iucundus in Pompeii in the 50s (CIL IV 3340 tab. X; tab. LVIII) or as the centesima argentariae stipulationis (1 percent on bank stipulations) in the lex metalli Vipascensis (FIRA I no. 105, ll. 1\u20139) from the middle of the second century AD. In fact, the tax was exacted at public sales auctions, the only way for tax collectors to control either seller or purchaser efficiently. But both, merces and centesima, were more probably charges or the lease of exacting charges than what<\/p>\n 2<\/p>\n 2<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 10 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n we would call a sales tax (G\u00fcnther 2008: 134\u2013140). There is also no direct connection with other customs duties on sales in later times (G\u00fcnther 2008: 146 sq.; see now Woj\u00ad ciech 2015).<\/p>\n The 4 percent tax on the sale of slaves (quinta et vicesima venalium mancipiorum) was es\u00ad tablished in 7 AD (D.C. 55.31.4) to finance the campaign in Pannonia as well as the newly arranged cohortes vigilum (fire service cohorts) (cf. G\u00fcnther 2008: 149\u2013154). At first, the tax was, according to the Greek term \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 in Cassius Dio (see above), a 2 percent tax, but at an unknown date before Claudian times (ILS 203 = CIL VI 915), the rate was changed to 4 percent. The revenues flowed into the aerarium Saturni, for which reason the tax is called a publicum vectigal (ILS 203 = CIL VI 915; CIL XV 7255). Under Nero, in 57 AD, there was a change in the charging process (Tac. Ann. 13.31.2): henceforth, the seller of slaves rather than the purchaser had to pay the tax, making it easier to control. Nothing is known about the further development of the tax; perhaps it was part of the quattuor publica Africae, and it was probably collected up to the third century AD.<\/p>\n Connections and analogies with the centesima rerum venalium have often been proposed but cannot be proved, due to the lack of evidence. Instead, the tax was exacted by private tax collector companies (CIL XV 7255 and the following), together with the manumission tax (ILS 203 = CIL VI 915), which also went into the aerarium Saturni rather than the aer\u00ad arium militare, unlike the centesima rerum venalium. Thus it is more likely that the manu\u00ad mission tax and the sales tax on slaves were (sometimes? often?) leased together for effi\u00ad cient collection.<\/p>\n There has also been discussion of the minor and usually only temporarily levied vectigalia (cf. G\u00fcnther 2008: 155\u2013161), the measures of the emperor Gaius (Caligula) and the proverbial \u201curine tax\u201d (pecunia non olet \u201cmoney does not stink,\u201d deriving from Suet. Vesp. 23.3; cf. D.C. 66.14.5) of Vespasian (69\u201379 AD). The latter may have been a vectigal that fullers and\/or tanners had to pay when they used urine for their work, not a universal tax.<\/p>\n The tax measures of Caligula have gained more attention in academic research. They are mentioned in Suet. Calig. 40 sq., and can be dated, according to D.C. 59.28.8, to the year 40 AD. In detail, these were (Suet. Calig. 40): 1. tax on edibles; 2. tax of 2.5 percent on lit\u00ad igation and trials; 3. tax of 12.5 percent on the daily income of load carriers; and 4. pros\u00ad titution tax on active and retired prostitutes, panderers, and even married persons in the amount of the price for one cohabitation. Cassius Dio (see above) adds taxes for taverns, craftsmen, and wage-labor slaves. Nearly all details of these taxes are discussed in acade\u00ad mic research, but these are mostly hypotheses without evidence in the sources (cf. G\u00fcn\u00ad ther 2008: 155\u2013160). The tax on edibles was certainly a portorium, a custom duty for the toll district Rome (cf. G\u00fcnther 2008: 143\u2013146; not in Wojciech 2015). For the prostitution tax, a long existence has been proposed by some researchers (e.g., McGinn 1989), com\u00ad bining evidence for local prostitution taxes and rather dubious references in late antiqui\u00ad ty. It has even been described as a tributum because of the mixture of the terms vectigal and tributum of Suetonius here (cf. above). But Suetonius structures his whole chapter to<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 11 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n undermine the authority of the \u201cbad\u201d emperor Caligula. The burden of Roman citizens with \u201ctributa\u201d (which were, in fact, all vectigalia due to the lack of a census list), the ref\u00ad erence to socially disdained groups liable to the new taxes, and, last but not least, the grouping of the prostitution business together with the \u201csacred\u201d and eminent matrimoni\u00ad um (Roman legal matrimony) as the core of the Roman family and society as a whole are more revealing of the rhetorical strategy of Suetonius than of historical facts. So these taxes existed\u2014shortly after the murder of Caligula, they were abolished by Claudius (D.C. 60.4.1; Suet. Claud. 11.3), who even propagated the abolition of the tax on edibles by is\u00ad suing quadrantes (RIC I Claudius 126 [Nr. 85, 87, 89, 91]; cf. Wolters 2005: 513\u2013516)\u2014 but details cannot be deduced from the biased evidence.<\/p>\n portoria (custom duties)<\/p>\n Customs were omnipresent in the Roman Empire. Under the designation of portorium, later often vectigal in its narrow sense (cf. Kritzinger 2015: 12), a lot of inhabitants of the Roman Empire and Roman citizens were involved in paying customs duties or in adminis\u00ad tration\u2014either as taxpayers (mostly tradesmen) or within the administration process as tax collectors or state authorities. But the source material for this important factor in the Roman Empire is scattered; only a few texts concern portoria, while the main evidence comes from inscriptions and papyri, and a small amount from numismatics. What is need\u00ad ed, therefore, is a combination of different source methods as well as intense knowledge of the often difficult questions in these so-called auxiliary fields (this is also true for vecti\u00ad galia in general), and it is understandable that there is no current monograph to replace the monumental study of De Laet 1949. His three-step development of the administration process of portoria\u2014from private custom collection consortia (societates publicanorum) up to Trajanic times to single private custom collectors up to Septimius Severus to public collection afterwards\u2014as well as his strict differentiation between border customs, mu\u00ad nicipal taxes, and road charges are now challenged by new findings (especially the lex portorii Asiae) and recent, deeper research for some regions of the Empire, e.g. the quadragesima Galliarum (2.5 percent custom duty for the Gaulish provinces) or the porto\u00ad rium Illyricum (Illyrian custom duty) (cf. \u00d8rsted P. 1985; France 2001a; Froehlich 2014; general new model by Kritzinger 2015). Many new questions have also been raised, for example concerning the concrete custom collection process or the epigraphic habits of the collectors of customs; here the article collection Das Zollwesen im Imperium Ro\u00ad manum (2015) gives a good overview of current research.<\/p>\n In principle, customs were an easy matter. At the customs stations in certain districts within the Imperium Romanum or at the outer borders, goods had to be declared, and the tax collectors fixed the customs to be paid in cash at once. But the details were tricky. There was no unified tariff in the Roman Empire. The tariff depended on the customs dis\u00ad trict or on the goods to be declared: at the outer borders (in the East), the tariff was high, at 12.5 percent or even 25 percent, while internal tariffs fluctuated from 1 to 5 percent, often 2.5 percent. Some goods were measured on their value, while for others, such as slaves, there was a fixed payment tariff due to the difficulties of measurement in a short time (cf. G\u00fcnther 2015c: 229\u2013233). Basic consumer durables were not liable to customs<\/p>\n 2<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 12 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n (cf., e.g., Monum. Ephes. ll. 81\u201383 = \u00a735; ll. 84\u201387 = \u00a7 37; Ps.-Quint. Decl. Min. 359; fur\u00ad ther sources cf. Kritzinger 2015: 19 no. 61). From the custom inscriptions discovered, for example, in Ephesos, Kaunos, Andriake, Zarai, Myra, and Palmyra we can derive many other details concerning the collection process (cf. in detail Kritizinger 2015: 19\u201326, with the different editions), from the declaration to the payment at the toll stations (stationes) (cf. now France and Nelis-Cl\u00e9ment 2014; also Matz 2015). Here we see an effective as well as efficient administration in action. So for example the issuing of receipts (for a fee?) had not only the purpose of keeping the taxpayer from having to pay double for goods he had not sold at the local market (Monum. Ephes. ll. 16\u201320 = \u00a76; cf. also Kritzinger 2015: 20sq.) but also of accelerating the customs measuring procedure, of sup\u00ad porting controls by circitores (circulators) (cf. G\u00fcnther 2015c: 234\u2013236), and, last but not least, of having a legal document for both parties in case of a legal action. These litiga\u00ad tions were often a matter of dispute between collectors and payers of taxes. Up to the re\u00ad form of Nero in 58 AD, there was only the possibility of laying a claim against the tax col\u00ad lectors directly in Rome before the praetor peregrinus (praetor administering justice among foreigners and between citizens and noncitizens); then a cognitio extra ordinem (extraordinary law suit by official investigation process) in the provinces was allowed. Even the tariff regulations had to be published at every tax station (Tac. Ann. 13,50 sq.; cf. Kritzinger 2015: 45 with further evidence). As for the other vectigalia, special agree\u00ad ments between frequent merchants and the tax collectors seem likely, so there was per\u00ad haps no permanent conflict between them.<\/p>\n The staff for the collection process, such as actores (administrator), arcarii (cash caretak\u00ad ers), circitores, contrascriptores (countersigners), scrutatores (scrutinizers), vilici (estate manager), etc., mostly freedmen and slaves, was hierarchically organized, differentiated, and specialized according to their duties and responsibilities. The epigraphical evidence reveals a great number of job titles, careers, \u201creligious\u201d activities, and networks within these familiae publicanorum ([slave] families of the publicans), but no systematic study has been done so far except for certain local districts or regions, or posts (cf. e.g. Aubert 1994; Van Nijf 2008; Froehlich 2014; G\u00fcnther 2015c: 233\u2013238, all with further literature).<\/p>\n But before customs duties could be levied, there was the leasing procedure. Whereas in the Roman Republic (cf. Badian 1972) the censors leased these (and other public con\u00ad tracts) for a five-year period (lustrum), in the Principate this was undertaken by the prae\u00ad tores aerarii Saturni (praetorians of the Treasury of Saturn) in the end (cf. Corbier 1974). The lease took place after a public auction of the license for certain districts, and was laid down in a contract (pactio) between the state and the leaseholder. Furthermore, the main tariff regulations were published in Rome in a lex portoria (custom duty law), and ideally in the tax districts as well, although Nero had to mandate it with his reform edict in 58 AD. This lex portoria as well as the pactiones (contracts) were not written new in and for every new lease period but were updated, as is clearly seen, for example, in the tax law of Asia. The same is true for the staff at the stations; when there was a change in the tax leaseholder, most of the personnel was not replaced but transferred.<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 13 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n An unsolved problem is the question of how the custom concessions were structured re\u00ad gionally and systematically. The \u201cold\u201d model of De Laet (1949; cf. also Vittinghoff 1953), with a strict differentiation between border customs, municipal taxes, and road charges and between publicans as collectors for border customs and road charges and cities (civi\u00ad tates) responsible for the municipal taxes, has now been challenged (cf. Kritzinger 2015: esp. 30\u201344; for the publicum portorium Illyirici cf. also \u00d8rsted 1985; Froehlich 2014: 77\u2013 83). It is now proposed that the civitates were, in fact, part of the publicum portorium system. Ever since Republican times, Rome had granted the right and privilege of raising taxes to certain civitates. These cities could exact it for themselves but usually did it via publicans. The \u201cnew\u201d model thus integrates the civitates (and certain confederacies of cities in the Greek East; cf. Kritzinger 2015: 37 sq.; also Edelmann-Singer 2012) into the system, which was not characterized by borders between publicans and cities with differ\u00ad ent areas of responsibility (customs vs. municipal taxes) but by districts between two enti\u00ad ties (e.g., a civitas or a koinon).<\/p>\n The balance of the lease amount was cleared between bureaus of the tax collectors and the administration in Rome every year, first with the aerarium Saturni, then, after an un\u00ad certain date in the second half of the first century AD, with the fiscus Caesaris with the a rationibus (secretary of finance) and his familia Caesaris ([slave] family of the emperor) (cf. Kritzinger 2015: 27sq.). Also with the institution of special procuratores, as for the other vectigalia (see above), probably with the reform of Nero, the control of the tax col\u00ad lection process and the collectors shifted to an even more specialized administration. This was the precondition for a step-by-step change concerning the tax collection in the sec\u00ad ond and third centuries AD. Although there was certainly no reform edict by which pri\u00ad vate tax collectors were replaced by imperial procuratores and their staff, one finds impe\u00ad rial officials responsible, among other things, for the collection of the publicum portorium Illyrici, perhaps as a preparation for or result of the Marcomannic Wars of Marcus Aure\u00ad lius (cf. Kritzinger 2015: 46\u201348; esp. \u00d8rsted 1985: 349 ss.). As for the other vectigalia, these changes were dependent on certain contexts and situations.<\/p>\n Conclusions and further research directions Although much has been achieved in revealing Roman taxation policy and organization, there are some fields which can be developed deeper and further. Up to now, researchers have often treated the different taxes and customs individually rather than together. With the new findings, especially the customs laws in the Greek East, questions can be ad\u00ad dressed about the collection process for portoria but also\u2014assuming there are analogies and parallel structures in other vectigalia, e.g. efficient structures around the stationes\u2014 about the hierarchical structure of the staff, the context-specific but not general replace\u00ad ment of private tax collectors by imperial officials, and even the cooperation between them.<\/p>\n It should, for instance, be possible to solve the interesting question of why the Roman state gave up its basic principle (not only concerning taxes) never to change running sys\u00ad<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 14 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n tems and shifted the risk of tax collection to private companies by integrating modern theoretical approaches into the study of the Roman tax system. Even though the use of the New Institutional Economics is now being broadly discussed in the Ancient Economy Studies (see Dro\u00df-Kr\u00fcpe et al. 2015), there has been no current application of the basic principles of institutions forming (economic) decisions of people, transactions costs, and principal-agent theory. The establishment of procuratores for the various vectigalia and their step-by-step involvement in the tax collecting process, as well as the replacement of private tax collectors for the tributa, could be explained by the reduction of transaction costs, mainly imbalances in information between the state and private companies, high costs for a new administrative apparatus, etc. The organization of the staff at toll stations and the exchange between them (and with other stations) could be investigated using the principal-agent theory. Last but not least, the \u201cnew\u201d model of the organization of portoria in districts, based on the region around a civitas (see above), should be seen as an institu\u00ad tional framework, affecting, channeling, and perhaps controlling the flow of commodity and trade routes.<\/p>\n This framing and forming of trade circles connects portoria directly with the Roman econ\u00ad omy. Bearing in mind the tax-and-trade model of K. Hopkins (e.g. 1980; 1995\/1996; 2000), questions can be asked about the economic development of certain regions and, with an economic-geographical approach, the development of economic areas (cf. Ruffing 2009), as well as the establishment of so-called Special Economic Zones (cf. G\u00fcnther forthcom\u00ad ing 2015b) with special rules for economic stimulation, not only concerning taxes and charges.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the effects of taxes on other structural parts of the Roman Empire should be questioned again, and more deeply. If you understand taxes as an open \u201csystem\u201d in N. Luhmann\u2019s sense, it could influence the environmental surroundings as well as other \u201csystems\u201d like society and law, and vice versa. So the influence of the inheritance tax on the Roman family (cf. esp. Gardner 2001) could be investigated again by taking into ac\u00ad count the effects on the Augustan family laws, or the interdependence between the inher\u00ad itance tax and legacies as alimenta for life (Dig. 35.2.68) could be investigated with the focus on private donators of alimenta. Finally, the presentation of tax measurements in various media (cf. for the coins Wolters 2005), especially in literary texts, should be ana\u00ad lyzed systematically with a keen eye for the \u201cconstruction\u201d of \u201cgood\u201d and \u201cbad\u201d emper\u00ad ors. Because it was they who were, in fact, the beginning and the end of taxes in the Ro\u00ad man Principate.<\/p>\n Bibliography<\/p>\n Albana, M. (1987.) \u201cLa vicesima libertatis in et\u00e0 imperiale.\u201d QC 9: 41\u201376.<\/p>\n Alpers, M. (1995.) Das nachrepublikanische Finanzsystem: Fiscus und Fisci in der fr\u00fchen Kaiserzeit. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.<\/p>\n Aubert, J.-J. (1994.) Business Managers in Ancient Rome: A Social and Economic Study of Institores, 200 B.C.\u2013A.D. 250. Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill.<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 15 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n Bachofen, J. J. (1848.) \u201cDie Erbschaftssteuer, ihre Geschichte, ihr Einflu\u00df auf das Priva\u00ad trecht.\u201d In Ausgew\u00e4hlte Lehren des r\u00f6mischen Civilrechts, pp. 322\u2013395. Bonn.<\/p>\n Badian, E. (1972.) Publicans and Sinners: Private Enterprise in the Service of the Roman Republic. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.<\/p>\n Boulvert, G. (1964.) Les esclaves et les afranchis imp\u00e9riaux sous le Haut-Empire Romain I\u2013II. Diss. Aix-en-Provence.<\/p>\n Bradley, K. R. (1984.) \u201cThe vicesima libertatis: Its History and Significance.\u201d Klio 66: 175\u2013 182.<\/p>\n Brunt, P. A. (1990.) \u201cPublicans in the Principate.\u201d In Roman Imperial Themes, edited by P. A. Brunt, pp. 354\u2013432. Oxford: Clarendon Press.<\/p>\n Brunt, P. A. 1981 \/ 1990. \u201cThe Revenues of Rome.\u201d JRS 71: 161\u2013172.<\/p>\n Cagnat, M. R. ([1882] 1966.) \u00c9tude historique sur les imp\u00f4ts indirects chez les Romains jusqu\u2019aux invasions des barbares, d\u2019apr\u00e8s les documents litt\u00e9raires et \u00e9pigraphiques. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.<\/p>\n Cimma, M. R. (1981.) Ricerche sulla societ\u00e0 di publicani. Milan: Giuffr\u00e9.<\/p>\n Corbier, M. (1974.) L\u2019aerarium Saturni et l\u2019aerarium militare: Administration et proso\u00ad pographie s\u00e9natoriale. Rome: \u00c9cole fran\u00e7aise de Rome.<\/p>\n Cottier, M., et al., eds. (2008.) The Customs Law in Asia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n De Laet, S. J. (1949.) Portorium: \u00c9tude sur l\u2019organisation douani\u00e8re chez les Romains, surtout \u00e0 l\u00b4\u00e9poque du Haut-Empire. Bruges: De Tempel.<\/p>\n Dobo, A. (1940.) Publicum portorium Illyrici: Documenti e commentario. Diss. Budapest: P\u00e1zm\u00e1ny P\u00e9ter Tudom\u00e1nyegyetem \u00c9rem- \u00e9s R\u00e9gis\u00e9gtani Int\u00e9zete.<\/p>\n Dro\u00df-Kr\u00fcpe, K., S. F\u00f6llinger, and K. Ruffing, eds. (2015.) Antike Wirtschaft und ihre kul\u00ad turelle Pr\u00e4gung (2000 v. Chr.\u2013500 n. Chr.). Forthcoming. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.<\/p>\n Eck, W. (1979.) Die staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohen Kaiserzeit. Munich: C.H. Beck.<\/p>\n Eck, W. (1995.) \u201cZur Erhebung der Erbschafts- und Freilassungssteuer in \u00c4gypten im 2. Jh. n. Chr.\u201d In Die Verwaltung des R\u00f6mischen Reiches in der Hohen Kaiserzeit. Aus\u00ad gew\u00e4hlte und erweiterte Beitr\u00e4ge I, pp. 341\u2013348. Basel: F. Reinhardt.<\/p>\n Eich, P. (2007.) \u201cDie Administratoren des r\u00f6mischen \u00c4gyptens.\u201d In Herrschen und Verwal\u00ad ten: Der Alltag der r\u00f6mischen Administration in der Hohen Kaiserzeit, edited by R. Haen\u00ad sch and J. Heinrichs, pp. 378\u2013399. Cologne: B\u00f6hlau Verlag.<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 16 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n Edelmann-Singer, B. (2012.) \u201cDie finanzielle und wirtschaftliche Dimension der Prov\u00ad inziallandtage in der R\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit.\u201d In Ordnungsrahmen antiker \u00d6konomien: Ordnungskonzepte und Steuerungsmechanismen antiker Wirtschaftssysteme im Vergle\u00ad ich, edited by S. G\u00fcnther, pp. 165\u2013179. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.<\/p>\n France, J. (2001a.) Quadragesima Galliarum: L\u2019organisation douani\u00e8re des provinces alpestres, gauloises et germaniques de l\u2019Empire Romain. Rome: \u00c9cole fran\u00e7aise de Rome.<\/p>\n France, J. (2001b.) \u201cRemarques sur les tributa dans les provinces nord-occidentales du Haut Empire romain (Bretagne, Gaules, Germanies).\u201d Latomus 60,2: 359\u2013379.<\/p>\n France, J., and J. Nelis-Cl\u00e9ment, eds. (2014.) La statio: Arch\u00e9ologie d\u2019un lieu de pouvoir dans l\u2019empire romain. Bordeaux: Ausonius.<\/p>\n Froehlich, S. (2014.) \u201cDas Zollpersonal an den r\u00f6mischen Alpenstra\u00dfen nach Aguntum und Virunum.\u201d Klio 96,1: 67\u201392.<\/p>\n Gardner, J. (2001.) \u201cNearest and Dearest: Liability to Inheritance Tax in Roman Families.\u201d In Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World, edited by S. Dixon, pp. 205\u2013220. London and New York: Routledge.<\/p>\n G\u00fcnther, S. (2008.) Vectigalia nervos esse rei publicae: Die indirekten Steuern in der R\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis Diokletian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.<\/p>\n G\u00fcnther, S. (2013.) \u201cRes publica oder res popularis: Die steuerpolitischen Ma\u00dfnahmen des \u201cschlechten\u201d Kaisers Nero zwischen Haushaltsraison und Volksfreundlichkeit.\u201d In Neros Wirklichkeiten: Zur Rezeption einer umstrittenen Gestalt, edited by Chr. Walde, pp. 105\u2013128. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.<\/p>\n G\u00fcnther, S. (2014.) \u201cDer fiscus Iudaicus als Forschungskonstrukt.\u201d JASCA 2: 123\u2013136.<\/p>\n G\u00fcnther, S. (2015a.) \u201cFinancing the Civil Wars\u2014The Case of Duties and Taxes.\u201d In Journal of Ancient Civilizations (JAC) 30: X\u2013Y. Forthcoming.<\/p>\n G\u00fcnther, S. (2015b.) \u201cSonderwirtschaftszonen\u2014Antike Konzeptionen und Konstruktionen am Beispiel des athenischen Pir\u00e4us.\u201d In Antike Wirtschaft und ihre kulturelle Pr\u00e4gung (2000 v. Chr.\u2014500 n. Chr.), edited by K. Dro\u00df-Kr\u00fcpe, S. F\u00f6llinger, and K. Ruffing. Wies\u00ad baden: Harrassowitz. Forthcoming.<\/p>\n G\u00fcnther, S. (2015c.) \u201cSklaven im r\u00f6mischen Zollwesen.\u201d In Studien zum r\u00f6mischen Zoll\u00ad wesen, edited by P. Kritzinger, F. Schleicher, and T. Stickler, pp. 229\u2013241. Duisburg: Wellem Verlag.<\/p>\n Hirschfeld, O. (1905.) Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian. 2nd ed. Berlin: Weidmann.<\/p>\n Hopkins, K. (1980.) \u201cTaxes and Trade in the Roman Empire (200 B.C.\u2014A.D. 400).\u201d JRS 70: 101\u2013125.<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 17 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n Hopkins, K. (1995\/1996.) \u201cRome, Taxes, Rents and Trade.\u201d Kodai 6\/7: 41\u201375.<\/p>\n Hopkins, K. (2000.) \u201cRents, Taxes, Trade and the City of Rome.\u201d In Mercati permanenti e mercati periodici nel mondo romano. Atti degli Incontri capresi di storia dell\u2019economia an\u00ad tica (Capri 13\u201315 ottobre 1997), edited by E. Lo Cascio, pp. 253\u2013267. Bari: Edipuglia.<\/p>\n Il capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in occidente ed in oriente: Actes de la X rencontre franco-italienne sur l\u00b4\u00e9pigraphie du monde romain. Rome, 27\u201329 mai 1996. (1999.) Rome: \u00c9cole fran\u00e7aise de Rome.<\/p>\n Ivanov, V. (1971.) De societatibus vectigalium publicorum populi Romani. Rome: L\u2019Erma di Bretschneider.<\/p>\n J\u00f6rdens, A. (2012.) \u201cGovernment, Taxation, and Law.\u201d In The Oxford Handbook of Roman Egypt, edited by C. Riggs, pp. 56\u201367. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n J\u00f6rdens, A. (2009.) Statthalterliche Verwaltung in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit: Studien zum praefectus Aegypti. Stuttgart.<\/p>\n Kniep, F. (1896.) Societas publicanorum. Jena: G. Fischer.<\/p>\n Kritzinger, P. (2015.) \u201cDas r\u00f6mische Zollsystem bis in das 3. Jh. n.Chr.\u201d In Studien zum r\u00f6mischen Zollwesen, edited by P. Kritzinger, F. Schleicher, and T. Stickler, pp. 11\u201355. Duisburg.<\/p>\n Kritzinger, P., F. Schleicher, and T. Stickler, eds. (2015.) Studien zum r\u00f6mischen Zollwesen. Duisburg: Wellem Verlag.<\/p>\n Malmendier, U. (2002.) Societas publicanorum: Staatliche Wirtschaftsaktivit\u00e4ten in den H\u00e4nden privater Unternehmer. Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: B\u00f6hlau Verlag.<\/p>\n Marek, Chr. (2006.) Die Inschriften von Kaunos. Munich: C.H. Beck.<\/p>\n Matthews, J. F. (1984.) \u201cThe Tax Law of Palmyra: Evidence for Economic History in a City of the Roman East.\u201d JRS 74: 157\u2013180.<\/p>\n Matz, St. (2015.) \u201cDie stationes des gallischen Zollbezirkes aus arch\u00e4ologischer Sicht: Im Westen nichts Neues?\u2014Eine kurze Bestandsaufnahme.\u201d In Studien zum r\u00f6mischen Zoll\u00ad wesen, edited by P. Kritzinger, F. Schleicher, and T. Stickler, pp. 245\u2013251. Duisburg: Wellem Verlag.<\/p>\n McGinn, Th. A. J. (1989.) \u201cThe Taxation of Roman Prostitutes.\u201d Helios 16: 79\u2013110.<\/p>\n Neesen, L. (1980.) Untersuchungen zu den direkten Staatsabgaben in der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit (27 v.Chr.\u2014284 n. Chr.). Bonn: Habelt.<\/p>\n Nicolet, Cl. (1976.) Tributum. Bonn: Habelt.<\/p>\n e<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 18 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n \u00d8rsted P. (1985.) Roman Imperial Economy and Romanization: A Study in Roman Imperial Administration and the Public Lease in the Danubian Provinces from the First to the Third Century AD. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.<\/p>\n Pflaum, H.-G. (1960.) Les carri\u00e8res procuratoriennes \u00e9questres sous le Haut-Empire Ro\u00ad main, vols. I\u2013IV. Paris: P. Geuthner.<\/p>\n Pflaum, H.-G. (1982.) Les carri\u00e8res procuratoriennes \u00e9questres sous le Haut-Empire Ro\u00ad main: Suppl\u00e9ment. Paris: P. Geuthner.<\/p>\n Rathbone, D. (2008.) \u201cNero\u2019s Reforms of Vectigalia and the Inscription of the Lex Portorii Asiae.\u201d In The Customs Law of Asia, edited by M. Cottier et al., pp. 251\u2013278. Oxford: Ox\u00ad ford University Press.<\/p>\n Rostovtzeff, M. (1902.) Geschichte der Staatspacht in der R\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit bis Diok\u00ad letian. Leipzig: L\u2019Erma di Bretschneide.<\/p>\n Ruffing, K. (2009.) \u201cDas Imperium Romanum als Wirtschaftsraum.\u201d MBAH 27: 63\u201394.<\/p>\n Schanz, G. (1900.) \u201cStudien zur Geschichte und Theorie der Erbschaftssteuer.\u201d Finan\u00ad zarchiv 17: 1\u201362.<\/p>\n Schmall, S. (2011.) Patrimonium und Fiscus: Studien zur kaiserlichen Dom\u00e4nen- und Fi\u00ad nanzverwaltung von Augustus bis Mitte des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Diss. Bonn: Unver\u00ad sit\u00e4t Bonn.<\/p>\n Takmer B. (2007.) \u201cLex Portorii Provinciae Lyciae: Ein Vorbericht \u00fcber die Zollinschrift aus Andriake aus neronischer Zeit.\u201d Gephyra 4: 165\u2013188.<\/p>\n Udoh, F. E. (2005.) To Caesar What Is Caesar\u2019s: Tribute, Taxes, and Imperial Administra\u00ad tion in Early Roman Palestine (63 B.C.E.\u201370 C.E.). Providence, Rhode Island: Brown Uni\u00ad versity.<\/p>\n Vandorpe, K. (2015.) \u201cRoman Egypt and the Organisation of Customs Duties.\u201d In Studien zum r\u00f6mischen Zollwesen, edited by P. Kritzinger, F. Schleicher, and T. Stickler, pp. 89\u2013 110. Duisburg: Wellem Verlag.<\/p>\n Van Nijf, O. (2008.) \u201cSocial World of Tax Farmers.\u201d In The Customs Law of Asia, edited by M. Cottier et al., pp. 279\u2013311. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n Vittinghoff, F. (1953.) \u201cPortorium.\u201d RE XXII.1: 346\u2013399.<\/p>\n Wachtel, K. (1966.) Freigelassene und Sklaven in der staatlichen Finanzverwaltung der r\u00f6mischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis Diokletian. Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Wis\u00ad senschaften, Institut f\u00fcr Griechisch-R\u00f6mische Altertumskunde.<\/p>\n Wallace, S. L. (1938.) Taxation in Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian. Princeton: Princeton University Press.<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Page 19 of 19<\/p>\n PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).<\/p>\n Subscriber: Brandeis University; date: 07 February 2022<\/p>\n Wesener, G. (1958.) \u201cVicesima hereditatium.\u201d RE VIII A.2: 2471\u20132477.<\/p>\n Wesener, G. (1958.) \u201cVicesima manumissionum.\u201d RE VIII A.2: 2477\u20132479.<\/p>\n Wojciech, K. (2015.) \u201cStadtr\u00f6mische Zollstationen im Kontext der Fleischversorgung Roms unter den Severern.\u201d In Studien zum r\u00f6mischen Zollwesen, edited by P. Kritzinger, F. Schleicher, and T. Stickler, pp. 155\u2013178. Duisburg: Wellem Verlag.<\/p>\n Wolters, R. (1999.) Nummi signati: Untersuchungen zur r\u00f6mischen M\u00fcnzpr\u00e4gung und Geldwirtschaft. Munich: C.H. Beck.<\/p>\n Wolters, R. (2005.) \u201cRemissio: Die Ank\u00fcndigung von Steueraufhebungen in der R\u00f6mis\u00ad chen Kaiserzeit.\u201d In \u201eEine ganz normale Inschrift\u201d \u2026 Vnd \u00e4hnLiches zVm GebVrtstag von E. Weber: Festschrift zum 30. April 2005, edited by Fr. Beutler and W. Hameter, pp. 507\u2013 520. Wien: Eigenverl. der \u00d6sterr. Ges. f\u00fcr Arch\u00e4ologie.<\/p>\n Wolters, R. (2007.) \u201cVectigal, Tributum und Stipendium\u2014Abgabeformen in R\u00f6mischer Re\u00ad publik und Kaiserzeit.\u201d In Geschenke und Steuern, Z\u00f6lle und Tribute: Antike Abgabefor\u00ad men in Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, edited by H. Klinkott, S. Kubisch, and R. M\u00fcller- Wollermann, pp. 407\u2013430. Leiden: Brill.<\/p>\n Sven G\u00fcnther<\/p>\n Institute for the History of Ancient Civilizations (IHAC) Northeast Normal University<\/p>\n https:\/\/global.oup.com\/privacy Taxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate Page 1 of 19 PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). \u00a9 Oxford University Press, 2022. All Rights\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8797,8792,8791,8795,8796,8798,8785,8800,8786,8784,8788,8794,8793,8789,8799,8790,8787],"tags":[103,95,83,94,80,86,79,98,93,104,32,99,92,82,102,85,8,101,97,87,96,91,89,90,820,88,100,84,81],"class_list":["post-99308","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-assignment-helper","category-assignment-writers","category-assignment-writing-services-near-me","category-best-assignment-writing-service","category-engineering-assignment-writing-service","category-essay-writing-help-free-essay-writer","category-homework-help-free","category-homework-help-global-tiktok-guy","category-homework-help-online","category-homework-help-websites","category-homework-solver","category-homework-writer-free","category-homework-writer-online","category-homework-writing-jobs","category-homework-writing-machine","category-homework-writing-services-online","category-top-homework-helper","tag-150-200-words-discussion-with-a-scholarly-reference","tag-200-300-words-response-to-classmate-discussion-question","tag-250-word-analysis-essay","tag-bachelor-of-nursing-assignments","tag-case-study","tag-essay-bishops-website","tag-expert-online-nursing-writing-service","tag-fast-nursing-papers","tag-freelance-case-study-writing-service","tag-health-medicine-assignment-help-australia","tag-health-care-and-life-sciences-paper-writers","tag-health-care-assignment-help-service","tag-healthcare-assignment-writing-services-by-top-writers","tag-healthcare-essay-writing-services-by-medical-academics","tag-healthcare-writing-help-by-certified-medical-academics","tag-i-need-to-submit-this-assignment","tag-medical-essay-writing-service","tag-nursing-assessment-help","tag-nursing-assignment-help","tag-nursing-assignment-help-australia","tag-nursing-assignment-help-sydney","tag-nursing-assignment-writers","tag-nursing-assignments-examples-assignment-help-nursing","tag-pay-someone-to-do-my-nursing-assignment","tag-professional","tag-professional-case-study-writers","tag-quality-nursing-essay-writing-service","tag-write-a-review","tag-writing-assignment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99308","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=99308"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99308\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99308"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99308"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.studyproessays.com\/help\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99308"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n
\nhttps:\/\/www.oxfordhandbooks.com\/page\/legal-notice
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nAbstract and Keywords
\nSven G\u00fcnther Sven G\u00fcntherClassics, Northeast Normal UniversityClose
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nTerminology
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\ntributa (so-called direct taxes)
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nvectigalia (so-called indirect taxes)
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nportoria (custom duties)
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nConclusions and further research directions
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nBibliography
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate
\nTaxation in the Greco-Roman World: The Roman Principate<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"