解构普鲁士神话:雅典标准法令(IG I3 1453a-g)

Tekmeria Pub Date : 2024-07-04 DOI:10.12681/tekmeria.38341
Selene E. Psoma
{"title":"解构普鲁士神话:雅典标准法令(IG I3 1453a-g)","authors":"Selene E. Psoma","doi":"10.12681/tekmeria.38341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \nThis article analyzes the clauses of the Athenian Standards Decree, which has long been interpreted as banning allied cities from minting their own coinage. It interprets the Standards Decree not as a sign of Athenian imperialism, as previously thought, but as a technical financial measure aimed at streamlining tax collection within the empire. It examines evidence from mints, hoards, and Athenian financial documents that cast doubt on this traditional interpretation. Following other scholars who have questioned the conventional view, the article introduces additional evidence to support an interpretation of the decree as a purely financial measure. Oaths in treaties between Athens and her allies are examined to show that all restorations of capital punishment in the missing part of the Bouleutic Oath are untenable because the Council did not have the power to impose punishments over 500 drachms. The article rejects previous attempts to see an allusion to the decree in a passage from Aristophanes’ Birds (spring 414 BC) and to date it shortly before 414 BC, because of the manuscript tradition, ancient scholia, the passage’s meaning, and the decree’s purpose. Instead, the mention of four districts of the Athenian Empire and the inclusion of weights and measures alongside coinage point to a date in the autumn of 413 BC, coinciding with the introduction of the eikoste (a 5% tax). The article argues that through this decree, Athens attempted to increase revenue and to collect significant quantities of Attic currency. How- ever, this measure did not last long; Athens reintroduced the tribute system most probably sometime after the decisive sea battle of Cyzicus. \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":30095,"journal":{"name":"Tekmeria","volume":" 43","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deconstructing a Prussian Myth: The Athenian Standards Decree (IG I3 1453a-g)\",\"authors\":\"Selene E. Psoma\",\"doi\":\"10.12681/tekmeria.38341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\nThis article analyzes the clauses of the Athenian Standards Decree, which has long been interpreted as banning allied cities from minting their own coinage. It interprets the Standards Decree not as a sign of Athenian imperialism, as previously thought, but as a technical financial measure aimed at streamlining tax collection within the empire. It examines evidence from mints, hoards, and Athenian financial documents that cast doubt on this traditional interpretation. Following other scholars who have questioned the conventional view, the article introduces additional evidence to support an interpretation of the decree as a purely financial measure. Oaths in treaties between Athens and her allies are examined to show that all restorations of capital punishment in the missing part of the Bouleutic Oath are untenable because the Council did not have the power to impose punishments over 500 drachms. The article rejects previous attempts to see an allusion to the decree in a passage from Aristophanes’ Birds (spring 414 BC) and to date it shortly before 414 BC, because of the manuscript tradition, ancient scholia, the passage’s meaning, and the decree’s purpose. Instead, the mention of four districts of the Athenian Empire and the inclusion of weights and measures alongside coinage point to a date in the autumn of 413 BC, coinciding with the introduction of the eikoste (a 5% tax). The article argues that through this decree, Athens attempted to increase revenue and to collect significant quantities of Attic currency. How- ever, this measure did not last long; Athens reintroduced the tribute system most probably sometime after the decisive sea battle of Cyzicus. \\n \\n \\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":30095,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tekmeria\",\"volume\":\" 43\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tekmeria\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12681/tekmeria.38341\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tekmeria","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12681/tekmeria.38341","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了《雅典标准法令》的条款,长期以来,该法令一直被解释为禁止盟国城市铸造自己的钱币。文章认为,《标准法令》并不像之前认为的那样是雅典帝国主义的标志,而是一项旨在简化帝国内部税收的技术性金融措施。它研究了来自铸币厂、囤积和雅典财务文件的证据,这些证据对这一传统解释提出了质疑。在其他学者对传统观点提出质疑后,文章引入了更多证据来支持将该法令解释为一项纯粹的财政措施。文章对雅典与其盟国之间的条约中的誓言进行了研究,以表明《布勒特誓言》缺失部分中对死刑的所有恢复都是站不住脚的,因为议会无权判处超过 500 德拉克马的刑罚。由于手稿传统、古代书目、段落含义和法令目的的原因,文章否定了之前试图在阿里斯托芬的《鸟》(公元前 414 年春)中的一段话中看到对该法令的影射,并将其时间定在公元前 414 年不久之前的观点。相反,由于提到了雅典帝国的四个地区,并将度量衡与钱币并列,因此时间应在公元前 413 年秋季,与 eikoste(5% 的税收)的引入时间相吻合。文章认为,通过这项法令,雅典试图增加收入并大量征收阿提卡货币。然而,这一措施并没有持续多久;雅典很可能在决定性的西齐库斯海战之后的某个时间重新引入了贡品制度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deconstructing a Prussian Myth: The Athenian Standards Decree (IG I3 1453a-g)
This article analyzes the clauses of the Athenian Standards Decree, which has long been interpreted as banning allied cities from minting their own coinage. It interprets the Standards Decree not as a sign of Athenian imperialism, as previously thought, but as a technical financial measure aimed at streamlining tax collection within the empire. It examines evidence from mints, hoards, and Athenian financial documents that cast doubt on this traditional interpretation. Following other scholars who have questioned the conventional view, the article introduces additional evidence to support an interpretation of the decree as a purely financial measure. Oaths in treaties between Athens and her allies are examined to show that all restorations of capital punishment in the missing part of the Bouleutic Oath are untenable because the Council did not have the power to impose punishments over 500 drachms. The article rejects previous attempts to see an allusion to the decree in a passage from Aristophanes’ Birds (spring 414 BC) and to date it shortly before 414 BC, because of the manuscript tradition, ancient scholia, the passage’s meaning, and the decree’s purpose. Instead, the mention of four districts of the Athenian Empire and the inclusion of weights and measures alongside coinage point to a date in the autumn of 413 BC, coinciding with the introduction of the eikoste (a 5% tax). The article argues that through this decree, Athens attempted to increase revenue and to collect significant quantities of Attic currency. How- ever, this measure did not last long; Athens reintroduced the tribute system most probably sometime after the decisive sea battle of Cyzicus.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信