04-Chin-veleia-42

The emergence of cash distributions in the civic euergetism of the Roman imperial east*

La aparición de las distribuciones monetarias en el evergetismo cívico del Oriente imperial romano

Marcus Chin**
University of Oxford

Abstract: Individualised distributions of money by civic benefactors, in the form of coinage, were a common feature of public life in Greece and Asia Minor under Roman imperial rule, from the 1st to 3rd centuries CE. However, the chronological specificity of this practice, as opposed to the distribution of other types of commodities (e.g. grain, oil), has not often been noticed. This paper first suggests that public euergetic distributions of coinage only seriously emerged as a social phenomenon in the early 1st century CE, before relating their emergence from this point to several factors inherent to the transformation of the Roman state at this time: the influence on the local elite of imperial ideology, particularly in cash handouts carried out at Rome, and developments in the monetary and fiscal history of the region. The rise of cash handouts thus presents an insight into the impact of Roman domination on local cultural practice.

Keywords: Civic euergetism, public distributions, Roman Greece, Roman Asia Minor, coinage, taxation.

Resumen: Las distribuciones individualizadas de dinero por parte de los benefactores de las ciudades, en forma de moneda, constituían una característica habitual de la vida pública en Grecia y Asia Menor durante el Imperio Romano, entre los siglos i-iii d. C. Sin embargo, raramente se ha puesto en valor la cronología específica de esta práctica, en oposición a distribuciones de otro tipo de materias (por ejemplo, grano, aceite). En este artículo se sugiere por primera vez que las distribuciones públicas de moneda tan solo aparecieron seriamente a comienzos del siglo i d. C., y después se relaciona esta novedad a partir de ese momento con varios factores inherentes a la transformación del estado romano en ese periodo: la influencia de la ideología imperial sobre las élites locales, sobre todo con las distribuciones de dinero efectuadas en la propia Roma, y el desarrollo en la historia monetaria y fiscal en la región. El auge de las distribuciones de moneda presenta, por tanto, una revelación del impacto del dominio romano en las prácticas culturales locales.

Palabras clave: Evergetismo cívico, distribuciones públicas, Grecia romana, Asia Menor romana, moneda, fiscalidad.

* I would like to thank the participants of the seminar held at Vitoria-Gasteiz in October 2023: Cédric Brélaz, David Espinosa Espinosa, Piotr Głogowski, Andoni Llamazares Martín (in particular for translating the abstract) and Elena Torregaray, as well as Leah Lazar, the anonymous reviewers, and the editors of Veleia, for their helpful comments and assistance in the preparation of this article. Work on it was supported by funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant agreement No. 865680, «CHANGE. The development of the monetary economy of ancient Anatolia, c. 630-30 BC.»).

** Correspondence to: Marcus Chin, University of Oxford, Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents, Ioannou Centre for Classical & Byzantine Studies, 66 St. Giles’, OX1 3LU, Oxford – marcus.chin@classics.ox.ac.uk – http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0573-9341.

How to cite: Chin, Marcus (2025), «The emergence of cash distributions in the civic euergetism of the Roman imperial east», Veleia, 42, 43-75. (https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.25841).

Received: 2023 december 18; Final version: 2024 may 24.

cc-by-nc-nd_icon.svg.png This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Introduction

The subject of this paper is a significant but perhaps easily overlooked aspect of civic life in the Roman imperial east, chiefly attested in the epigraphic remains of the Aegean basin and Asia Minor. It crops up, for instance, in a late 2nd-century CE dedicatory inscription from Syros commemorating the stephanephoros Antaios son of Modestus, who[1]

…gave five denarii to each (gerousiastes) in lieu of a basket-lunch, and wine to all the free women and girls; he gave eight assaria to each woman as a distribution, and four assaria to each child. On the following day he prepared a dinner for the gerousiastai and others whom he wished, and gave to each, as a distribution, one denarius; to the other citizens and free children and paroikoi he provided wine, and gave to each citizen, as a distribution, one denarius, and to the free children eight assaria…

This is the culture, among the wealthiest strata of the civic elite, of distributing monetary gifts —making cash handouts— in the form of coins, to individuals of specified social groups. Alongside distributions of other types of gifts and commodities (grain, oil, or wine, especially at festal banquets), such monetary distributions took place at festivals, the dedication of an honorific statue, as part of the promise of an elected office-holder (as here), or sometimes simply as a benefaction on its own, and are most widely attested from the late 1st to mid-3rd centuries CE[2]. They have largely been examined within the wider phenomenon of public distributions more generally, as reflecting a shift towards social hierarchisation in the imperial period, and the role of powerful benefactors in re-defining the terms of civic participation and identity[3]. Less attention, however, has been paid to the sheer fact that cash handouts involved the distribution of coin. Amidst larger debates about the sociology of euergetic gift-exchange, it has been easy to take this monetary character for granted, almost as a natural product of the generosity of the wealthy: whether cash or commodity has been unimportant, because the main point was that the act of giving initiated reciprocal exchange, generated honour, and perpetuated memory[4].

Coinage was uniquely versatile in representing both a commodity and monetary currency, and was perhaps even the most elegant tool for defining, in calculable form, the inequalities between the elite and non-elite essential to euergetism[5]. The very emergence of its use in public distributions, however, comprises an illuminating episode in cultural change in the eastern Mediterranean, because euergetic cash handouts are attested virtually only from the 1st century CE onwards. The present discussion considers how and why this was the case. The first section surveys the earlier history of euergetic public distributions, revealing the novelty of the use of coinage as a medium of distribution in the early imperial period; the second and third sections then provide explanatory contexts for this finding, in the influence of imperial ideology, and developments in monetary and fiscal history in the Roman east.

1. From non-monetary to monetary distributions

The chronological distribution of individualised monetary distributions in the eastern Mediterranean over the longue-durée, from the beginning of coinage in the late 7th century BCE to the Roman imperial world of the 3rd century CE, presents steep contrasts (fig. 1): an arid scarcity before the 1st century CE makes way for an oasis-like abundance in the 2nd and 3rd centuries[6]. While this in part reflects significant changes in epigraphic habit under the Roman empire, with inscriptions being by far our main source of evidence for cash handouts, the steepness of the change suggests a genuine cultural development was underway. To understand its historical contingency, however, it is necessary firstly to elaborate on, and in part explain, the near-absence of cash handouts in the pre-imperial period.

Figure 1. Inscriptions recording euergetic cash handouts in the eastern Mediterranean, 7th century BCE-3rd century CE, based on the 109 inscriptions in the appendix.

Our first recorded instance of an individualised monetary distribution dates to the earliest period of the history of coinage: the last Lydian monarch Kroisos gave two gold staters (his gold kroisid coins) to each Delphian citizen in the mid-6th century, as part of gifts to Delphi for an oracle presaging his future success —mistakenly, it would turn out— against Persia[7]. He was likely exploiting the radical new power of coinage as a means of defining value and gift in unprecedentedly individualised ways, extending its use beyond its origins in military pay in the late 7th century[8]. Innovative as it may have been, however, the notion of personalised distribution of coin as form of civic benefaction seems to have died with the Lydian kingdom – nothing of the sort is attested under succeeding Achaimenid kings or satraps, or even between the elite and non-elite of Greek poleis, as these came into contact with coinage from the 6th century onwards. Communal distributions in the archaic period, such as at feasts honouring victorious athletes, were distributions of sacrificial meat and gifts, but not of coin[9]. At early 5th-century Athens, famously, Kimon made the fruits of his house and gardens publicly available to the inhabitants of his deme (and possibly of the city more generally), but conducted no distribution of coined money[10]. The pattern continues throughout the 5th and 4th centuries at Athens, where our evidence is concentrated. The banquets organised by the elite, whether at local festivals through the liturgy of the hestiasis, or on the international stage, are known only to have involved distributions of sacrificial meat or grain[11]. This is true also for personalised distributions conducted by the state at communal events, as in a decree of 335/334 on the organisation of the Lesser Panathenaia[12]. Of course, the existence of coinage over this period meant that monetary distributions to individuals did become a possibility, and at Athens we find distributions of the proceeds of silver mining at Laurion in the early 5th century[13], and the establishment of pay for jurors and assembly-goers, and of the theoric fund[14]. Crucially, however, these were not distributions of an overtly euergetic character, and were organised by the state, not private individuals. The dominance of Athenian democratic ideology, in empowering the demos by allowing it to act as a benefactor to itself, may have both completed the logic inherent in coinage, as money whose authority was founded in the collective will of the community, and stifled the ambitions of private individuals of distributing coinage as a form of largesse[15].

Our evidence for public individualised distributions expands beyond Athens in the Hellenistic period, as the epigraphic habit became entrenched at communities across the Aegean and western Anatolia from the late 4th century onwards. Even so, the trends are largely the same as those found earlier. Distributions were mainly of commodities, and were mainly conducted by the state, not individuals, and even where euergetic distributions are attested, these only involved commodities, not coinage. For instance, the 3rd-century grain law at Samos outlines, as well as provisions for a grain-fund, a monthly distribution of this grain to the civic tribes[16]. Elsewhere, such distributions of grain[17], but also of sacrificial meat, were made on special communal occasions by civic governments and their representative magistrates: thus, several archons at Kos held a reception-feast for their fellow tribesmen, and the epimeletai of the Eleusinian mysteries at Athens distributed meat to the council[18]. Private individuals moreover played increasingly greater roles in the financing and running of communal sacrifices and banquets[19]. At late 3rd-century Eresos, the gymnasiarch Aglanor conducted feasts for the whole citizen body in honouring Ptolemy III, and later also spent much of his own money towards shields, races, and distributions of sacrificial meat for the youth of the gymnasium[20]. An increasingly large range of social groups was included at such sacrificial events and feasts[21]. Aglanor entertained the «whole demos» at the Ptolemaia (πανδᾶμι)[22]; at Arkesine on Amorgos, a series of archons who organised the festival of Athena Itonia in the 3rd and 2nd centuries distributed meat not only to citizens, but also the free non-citizen population, and resident foreigners[23]. The endowment set up by a Kritolaos for ritual feasting in memory of his son Aleximachos even included Romans and their sons[24]. Over the late 2nd to late 1st centuries, indeed, a culture of competitive inclusivity seems to have gripped the civic elite of the Aegean basin, as communal feasts at Priene, Kolophon, Kyme, and Pagai, among others, increasingly featured foreigners, paroikoi, freedmen and even women, children, and slaves, alongside citizens[25]. Moreover, products of ever more unusual quality were also distributed, beyond sacrificial meat alone, with some providing sweet-wine, at ceremonies of glykismos[26], and even types of porridge[27]. Feasts were also held at occasions outside the regular run of civic religious events alone: Soteles at Pagai held a feast at the consecration ceremony for his honorific statue, foreshadowing the distributions of coin that would take place at honorific statues in the imperial period, although Soteles seems to have done no more than hold a feast[28]. Gymnasia became scenes for public banquets from the 2nd century onwards[29], even as they witnessed evermore lavish distributions of training-oil, sometimes even of special varieties[30].

In all, this sizeable evidence for innovative forms of euergetic outlay at public feasts and distributions in the Hellenistic (and especially later Hellenistic) period says much about the changing shape of citizen bodies and ideas of citizenship in the face of growing Roman domination[31]. The striking and pertinent feature, however, is the absence of distributions of coined money comparable to those found in the imperial period. This was not for want of the possibility of thinking about distribution in monetary terms. Distribution had always involved monetary calculation, and especially in the classical and Hellenistic periods, when sacrificial feasts became major affairs involving large numbers of participants. Sacrificial animals were purchased according to certain earmarked sums of money, for instance[32], while some late Hellenistic decrees highlight the quantities of grain that were distributed to each recipient, reflecting exceptional acts worthy of honorific praise, but also the reality that minute calculation was involved[33]. Moreover, sacrificial meat was also distributed according to weight, as in the two minas’ worth of meat attendees received at feasts at Koressos, or the Euboian mina of beef handed out by a Prienian benefactor of the 1st century[34]: these minas were mina-weights, and not the commercial value of these sacrificial portions in minas, even if sacrificial meat was sometimes sold by portion[35].

Apart from a few doubtful cases, in fact, no civic notable before the imperial period is certainly attested conducting personalised distributions of coined money[36]. After Kroisos of Lydia, the only other case of an individualised cash handout in the pre-imperial period is also that of a king: Antiochos IV, who distributed a gold stater to each Greek inhabitant of Naukratis during his invasion of Egypt in 169 BCE[37]. Like Kroisos’ benefaction, however, this was probably a highly irregular act at an uncertain political moment, an isolated mention in Polybios otherwise unparalleled in the copious epigraphic record. It was more typical for royal power to work through to civic institutions: when queen Laodike set up a fund for dowries at Iasos, she only donated grain, leaving the prerogative of monetising and distributing that grain to the city itself[38]. Elsewhere, distributions of coined money were conducted only by civic governments, through institutions like assembly pay[39], and at public ceremonial events. At Bargylia (late 2nd century BCE, 100-drachma sums were given to various civic magistrates and groups for rearing sacrificial animals for Artemis Kindyas[40], while at Lampsakos seven drachmas were given to each citizen for sacrifices to Asklepios, and a sum of obols in lieu of a grain handout (2nd century BCE)[41]. If anything like a common thread is to be observed across the very scant evidence for cash handouts in the pre-imperial period, then, it would be that such activity could only be conceived, where it took place at all, by the state-entities who minted coinage, these being kings, like Kroisos, Antiochos IV, and civic governments, like Athens, Bargylia and Lampsakos. Where coinage —and especially precious-metal coinage in which large state expenditure was typically made— strongly remained the preserve of state authority, it may have been difficult for civic notables to engage in personalised distribution of coinage themselves: this is a point we will return to later on (section 3).

The weakening of royal and civic power in the face of Roman expansion, especially in the crucible of the 1st century BCE, may have laid the seeds of change. A hint may perhaps be found in an honorific inscription from Pinara, dated by Kalinka and Larsen to the early to mid-1st century BCE largely on the basis of letter-forms[42]. Among other benefactions, the honorand of the text distributed 5,000 drachmas to the associations of the xenokritai, and an unknown sum to the councillors, electoral magistrates, and office-holders of the Lykian koinon[43]. It is unclear whether these distributions were made to these groups as a whole, or to individual recipients, but the possibility remains that these represent some of the earliest individualised monetary distributions conducted by a local notable. The presumptive context would be the financial crises following the Mithridatic wars[44], which may have allowed for unusual forms of generosity. The dating of the inscription, however, is not entirely secure, and may well also belong in the 1st century CE or later, while in any case the fact that none of the other better documented civic benefactors of the late 2nd-1st centuries in Greece and Asia Minor seems to have done the same would mean that the Pinaran benefactor would have been very much an outlier[45].

In the end, the earliest secure case of an euergetic cash handout initiated by a citizen benefactor leads us no further back than the early 1st century CE, in the beneficent act of a couple at Lagina near Stratonikeia in Karia, Chrysaor and Panphile[46]:

[Χρ]υσάωρ Μεναλάου τοῦ Φιλίππου Ἱε(ροκωμήτης) | ὁ ἱερεὺς τῆς Ἑκά[τ]ης, καὶ Πανφίλη Παιωνίου Κω(ραιῒς) ἡ ἱέρηα, ἐπηνγε[ί]λαντο καὶ ἔδωκ[αν] | ἐν τῶι τῆς ἱερατ[εί]ας χρόνωι, εἰς τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ οἴκου καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς Ἑκάτ[ης] | θυσ<ί>ας, τῶν μὲν π[ο]λειτῶν ἑκάστωι ἀνὰ δραχμὰς δέκα καὶ βουλευταῖς χʹ ἀνὰ δ[ραχμ]ὰς ἕξ· | τ̣[οῖ]ς δὲ ἄλλοις ἔ[τι] τοῖς κατοικοῦσιν τὴν πόλιν καὶ τὴν χώραν ἀνὰ δραχμὰς [πέντε?].

Chrysaor son of Menelaos, son of Philippos, of Hierakome, the priest of Hekate, and Panphile daughter of Paionios, of Koraze, the priestess (of Hekate), promised and gave, in the period of their priesthood, 10 drachmas to each citizen, six drachmas (more) to the 600 councillors, and furthermore to each of the other inhabitants of the city and countryside [five?] drachmas, towards the sacrifices for the house of Augustus, and Hekate.

The father of Chrysaor may be identified with a Menelaos attested as a priest in the time of Augustus[47]; which would place Chrysaor in the early to mid-1st century CE. The use of the expression «the house of Augustus» would also argue for this dating, with other examples of this phrase confined to the 1st century CE[48]. Over the 1st century, further instances of monetary distribution crop up at Akraiphia, Beroia, Smyrna, Iasos, Ephesos, Miletos, Aphrodisias, Akmoneia, and Patara[49]. Notably, some of these were conducted as distribution-events in their own right, where the specific memory of the benefactor was commemorated, and not as part of a public festival or communal event: for example, the distributions of G. Stertinius Orpex and his daughter Marina at Ephesos (of Neronian date) were made before their honorific statues[50], while the endowment of T. Flavius Praxias at Akmoneia stipulated an annual distribution to the councillors at his tomb[51]. By the early 2nd century, it had become customary in Bithynia-Pontus to give one or two denarii to members of the council and civic population at coming-of-age ceremonies, weddings, when entering office, or at the dedication of public works: as Pliny complained to Trajan, these διανομαί were acts of excessive gift-giving that exceeded the bounds of gift-exchange between personal acquaintances[52]. Derisive attitudes like these, also articulated in various snippets in Plutarch and Lucian over the 2nd century, did little, however, to halt the trend[53]. From the late 1st century onwards public cash handouts are also attested in the western provinces on a large scale, making it an empire-wide phenomenon[54]. In the east, they more than triple in number over the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE (fig. 1). An age of numismatic euergetism was well and truly underway.

2. Augustan convergence and the imperial example

Individualised public distributions conducted by local notables in the classical and Hellenistic periods were almost invariably distributions of commodities, and cash handouts in the form of coined money were virtually non-existent, except for state initiatives by civic governments, or unusual acts of largesse by kings. Nonetheless, such cash handouts are increasingly attested from the early 1st century CE, and as distributions organised by local notables themselves. Why, then, did they become significant as a cultural practice only at the chronological turn of the 1st centuries BCE and CE, and not earlier?

As is well known, but perhaps under-appreciated, this was also a time when cash handouts were increasingly practised as a form of largesse at Rome itself. Julius Caesar had been the first to distribute congiaria (traditionally a handout of wine and oil) in cash, donating 400 sestertii to members of the plebs Romana in 46 BCE; this was followed by Augustus, who listed his monetary donations of 44, 29, 24, 12/11, 5, and 2 BCE in chapter 15 of the Res Gestae[55]. The successors of Augustus then continued to hold public monetary distributions, so that the practice became established as an imperial monopoly[56]. It is difficult to imagine that reports of these imperial cash distributions at Rome fell fully on deaf ears among the provincial elite of the Greek east. There is in fact some basis for believing that they did not, as the existence of inscribed copies of Augustus’ Res Gestae at Ankyra, Pisidian Antioch, and Apollonia in Galatia would invite us to suggest. The copy at Ankyra, for one, was cut at the same time as that of a list of the priests of the Galatian imperial cult on the left anta of the temple’s façade, suggesting that Augustus’ deeds, including the so-called «Appendix» at the end, which detailed building works and expenses towards spectacles and provincial cities, were meant to inspire the future euergetic actions of the priestly elite[57]. The Greek version was inscribed at eye-level, and even translated the monetary sums of chapter 15, which details Augustus’ congiaria distributions, into denarii, unlike the sestertii of the Latin —the denarius was the main unit of account by this point (as will be seen later), and these sums were clearly meant to be understood and taken seriously by local audiences[58].

Apart from this bona fide case of the local elite assimilating a record of imperial cash handouts, it has also been argued that the euergetic behaviour and self-fashioning of local notables, at least in Achaia, in the revival of local cults and customs, and architectural building at Athens, Sparta, and the Peloponnese, was shaped by Roman ideals and notions of «old Greece» promoted by Augustus and his court[59]. However exactly this process was replicated in Macedonia, the Aegean, and Asia Minor, the basic premise that imperial ideology could shape, whether consciously or subconsciously, aspects of the comportment and outlook of the civic elite is one that should be taken seriously. With cash handouts, it is significant that several of the earliest cases in the 1st century CE explicitly associated their distributions with honorific homage to the emperor – Chrysaor and Panphile did so to sponsor individual sacrifices to the imperial house, Potens of Iasos and Licinius at Xanthos made cash gifts on imperial birthdays, while Aristokles Molossos at Aphrodisias was a priest of the imperial cult[60]. Furthermore, in acting together as a married couple, Chrysaor and Panphile may have been enacting ideals of marital concord, and the role of women as public agents, that were increasingly exemplified by the imperial family: their presentation as a couple is largely unparalleled in earlier commemorative inscriptions for priests at Lagina or Panamara, which only record the priest alone[61].

The role of the local elite as conduits for the influence of imperial practice would be entirely unsurprising, as with other types of Romanising behaviour in the eastern Mediterranean (e.g. the spread of Roman citizenship, the use of Latin, or the growing popularity of bathing culture), for it was they who maintained the imperial cult, and served as ambassadors before Roman authorities. Another factor, however, was the communities of resident Romans in Greece and Asia Minor, many no doubt closely attuned to, and perhaps even personally beneficiaries, of practices like cash-distributions by the princeps. For instance, the prytanis Kleanax at Kyme (2 BCE-2 CE), who invited Romans to his feasts and distributions on a number of occasions, also carried out a «casting-out» (διαρρίφα) ceremony[62] —a ritual whose precise nature is unclear, but which may have involved the throwing of objects of largesse, perhaps in emulation of imperial distributions at Rome[63]. Interestingly, a similar casting-out (ῥίμματα) was conducted by Epaminondas of Akraiphia in the mid-1st century CE[64]. Moreover, some of the earliest benefactors, also of the same period, conducting cash handouts were of Italianate background —Potens of Iasos, or T. Peducaeus Canax and G. Stertinius Orpex of Ephesos[65]. Potens’ distribution of 25 denarii to councillors at a banquet (τῶι τρικλείνωι) almost certainly recreated the sportulae handed out at private feasts held by the Roman elite, while the distinction made in the distributions of Praxias at Akmoneia between those who were present (παρόντες), and standing, and the councillors who reclined to dine (κατακλεινόμενοι) in Roman style[66], likely corresponds to that between the praesentes and recumbentes found in later public sportulae in the western provinces[67]. These examples from Iasos and Akmoneia, however, are earlier in date, and may represent something like cultural over-compensation among the Italianate diaspora in Asia resulting from their relative distance from the imperial centre[68]. The mercantile background of many Italian immigrants may also have meant most held wealth primarily in cash, and not land, potentially making it easier for them to bridge the conceptual gulf between the acquisition and possession and monetised wealth, and its distribution through public benefaction.

The possibility that the cash handouts of Caesar, Augustus and their successors influenced local euergetic practice hints at the potential importance of role-models at the imperial level. In turn, this would explain the absence of cash handouts in earlier centuries. The Achaimenids never indulged in them, and the Hellenistic kings, for all the forms of generosity and gift-giving in which they engaged, almost never made individualised cash distributions —the example of Antiochos IV at Naukratis is anomalous, amid an extensive record of kings making gifts of commodities and money to whole communities, and leaving the further administration of these gifts and dissemination of their monetary proceeds to civic governments (as with Laodike’s gift to Iasos)[69]. Significantly, the gifts attested at royal feasts and processions never assumed the form of coinage[70]. The major Hellenistic monarchies never developed the sort of close-knit euergetic relations with the populaces of their capital cities that the leading generals of the Republic, and then the Roman emperors, would entertain at Rome: to the extent that the euergetic comportment of the civic elite were shaped by imperial exemplars, such exemplars existed in the early empire, but not before it.

In handing out coin, then, civic leaders like Chrysaor and Panphile were expressing their ideological affinity with forms of authority associated with the emperor, in his guise of benefactor. In doing so they also engaged with other types of authority —not least that of civic governments, which had long had oversight of the minting of coinage[71]. Donations of monetary sums as benefactions had been acceptable in the Hellenistic period, as long as these were gifts to the city, which notionally exercised sovereign oversight over coined monetary supply; individualised distributions of coinage by benefactors, however, may have posed a challenge to this prerogative, in presenting the negative optics of wealthy individuals issuing coinage themselves. That coinage did become prevalent as a medium of euergetic distribution would therefore suggest circumstances where civic authority over the production of coinage was less secure than before, even as demand for coinage seems to have remained high. This, indeed, is the picture that emerges when one sets the epigraphic evidence for cash handouts within the wider background of contemporaneous trends in monetary history in Greece and Anatolia, and the intersection of these trends with the intensifying fiscal demands of the Roman state, as the final section will now do.

3. Roman silver coinage and fiscal demands

The emergence of coinage as a medium of euergetic handouts was a change in forms and habit; it was not necessarily a sign that euergetic exchange had become more «monetised» or crudely transactional in character. Coinage, after all, had long been a part of the interchange between benefaction and honour in polis communities, in the sheer act of benefactors making gift-payments to their communities, even if not actually distributing coin as a benefaction in itself in the pre-imperial era; it moreover remained only one of a wider repertoire of commodities (e.g. grain, wine, and oil) used in distributions in the imperial period[72]. Coinage certainly offered calculability, and the possibility of defining distinctions of social status with a precision unavailable to non-monetary commodities —the privileging of members of the council or gerousia, for instance (as with Antaios of Syros and Chrysaor and Panphile at Stratonikeia)[73]. However, these hierarchising processes were already underway in the late Hellenistic period when coinage was not a major part of public distributions, so that it cannot be regarded as intrinsic or essential to them. What the appearance of cash handouts should simply be understood to reflect is pervasive monetisation: circumstances where coinage was more ubiquitous, so that it could be readily seized on as a medium in public distributions, where commodities had previously dominated. The broader economic phenomenon this may represent is simply larger cash-flow in the early Roman empire, with cash handouts being but a glint in the wider floodlights of monetary history[74]. To gain a more fine-grained picture, we may also consider the sorts of coins that were actually distributed at cash handouts. This is not difficult to know, as inscribed records of distributions over the 1st to 3rd centuries CE often mention the currencies in which they were made (figs. 2-3)[75].

Figure 2. Instances of currencies in inscriptions recording euergetic cash handouts dateable to the 1st, 2nd or 3rd centuries CE, based on nos. 4-7, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 18-20, 22-24, 26-28, 30-35, 38-44, 48-49, 51, 53-54, 56, 58-62, 64-65, 67-69, 71-73, 76, 78, 83-85, 87, 89-91 in the appendix (59 inscriptions).

Figure 3. Instances of currencies in inscriptions recording euergetic cash handouts dated generally to the imperial period, based on nos. 92-93, 96-97, 99-100, 102, 104-105, 107-108 in the appendix (11 inscriptions).

The rarity of the obol and assarion is unsurprising, given the honorific context of the vast majority of these documents, as silver fractions and bronze currency only relate to small monetary amounts. The gold aureus is also rare, known from only one instance. On the other hand, most monetary sums, from the onset of monetary distributions in the 1st century CE, are given in silver denominations —the denarius, and also occasionally the drachma and «Attic» drachma[76]. It is likely this epigraphic record reflects the actual currencies that were used, and not merely units of account —silver fractions and bronze are rare, as it would have been impractical to distribute such large sums in small change alone[77], while conversely individual handouts were rarely large enough to require the use of the aureus (worth 25 denarii)[78]. The dominance of silver denominations also suggests that the emergence of cash handouts was related to developments in the history of silver currency.

Indeed, a major transition is detectable here over the 1st century BCE, with communities in Balkan Greece and Asia Minor shifting irreversibly to the use of the denarius and Roman monetary standards, and phasing out the civic minting of silver coinage. This is especially clear in Greece and Macedonia. In Thessaly, the silver staters of the Thessalian koinon, first struck in 168, extend down to the 40s BCE; Augustus’ diorthoma of 27 BCE, regulating the value of the Thessalian stater at 1.5 denarii, shows that the latter had become the main currency by that point[79]. A similar lifespan may be suggested for the post-146 coinage of the Achaian koinon and other Peloponnesian cities, where several tetrobol series attest to Roman influence[80], while Athens’ New Style tetradrachms, which probably financed Roman military operations in the 1st century BCE, came to an end around 40 BCE[81]. An inscription recording an eight-obol tax at Messene shows that the denarius and its weight-standard had replaced the Attic drachm in southern Greece as the main unit of account by this point[82]. In Macedonia, the prevailing silver coinages from provincialisation in 148 to the mid-1st century BCE (Macedonian merides issues, Athenian and Thasian tetradrachms, drachms of Apollonia and Dyrrachion, the «Aesillas» coinage) were thereafter unmistakeably replaced by denarii, which dominate hoards from c. 48 BCE to the early imperial period[83]. By the early 1st century CE, no civic mints in the provinces of Achaia and Macedonia actively produced silver coinage anymore.

In Asia Minor the situation is more complex, but shows a similar trend. The cistophoric coinage of the Attalids was maintained as the main silver currency in Asia after provincialisation in 129, —mints actually increased in number up to the mid-1st century— and indeed enjoyed a status as a surrogate Roman currency until the 2nd century CE[84]. At the same time, the number of cities that had struck silver coinage of their own throughout the 2nd century gradually decreased from 129 onwards, as the privilege of such minting was increasingly tied to political loyalty to Rome —a reality that became stark during the Mithridatic and then Civil Wars[85]. The large outputs of cistophori by Antony and Octavian in the 30s and 20s BCE, followed by issues of denarii in the 10s, contributed to flooding out local civic silver[86]. Alongside these changes in production, the weight-standards of civic coinage were gradually aligned with those of the denarius and quinarius (a half-denarius) over the 80s to 40s, while from the mid-1st century the cistophoric drachm was itself increasingly tariffed at three-quarters of a denarius[87]. By the early 1st century CE, only the Lykian koinon and five cities in Asia (Chios, Rhodes, Stratonikeia, Mylasa, Tabai) still minted local silver types, and, even then, only on the standard of the denarius-aligned cistophoric drachm (Rhodes, Chios) or the denarius (Stratonikeia, Mylasa, Tabai, Lykia)[88]. Of these coinages, only the Lykian koinon’s would last beyond the 1st century CE.

The unfolding of these processes was complex, and likely involved the intertwining of imperial and local decision-making[89]. The result was clear, however —the undeniable dominance of Roman standards for silver production by the late 1st century BCE, with the denarius supplanting civic silver coinage in Achaia and Macedonia, while in Asia the Romanised cistophorus became the main provincial silver currency alongside the denarius, whose weight-standard it followed. Except for a handful of privileged communities in Asia Minor, independent civic minting of silver coinage came to an end. The first recorded cases of cash handouts, then, were carried out in a monetary landscape dominated by Roman silver coinage, where presumably provincial officials, not civic authorities, had oversight of silver minting. It is difficult to imagine that this state of affairs had no effect on local attitudes towards silver coinage. Where it had been a medium for expressing and communicating a community’s sense of political identity in the classical and Hellenistic periods, and its minting a particularly cherished prerogative of civic authorities, this was no longer true under Roman imperial monarchy; bronze coinage would now assume this mantle. In these circumstances, the conceptual link between silver coinage and civic control over its minting, alongside its attendant symbolic resonances for communal self-identity, may have gradually diminished. So long as this link had remained strong, the physical distribution of silver coinage would have been confined to the official duties of mint-magistrates; as these associations weakened, so might control over its distribution have shifted away from such magistrates alone, and moved into the hands of those among the elite capable of monetising their wealth on a large scale, some of whom gave out silver coins while holding other types of civic office, or no office at all. That is to say, the end of the civic minting of silver coinage created conditions that allowed for the acceptability of its ceremonious dissemination by local notables, and hence of cash handouts a form of civic benefaction, by the early 1st century CE.

undefined

Figure 4. RPC I 2778.1 (= Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 18258514 (photographed by Bernhard Weisser https://ikmk.smb.museum/object?id=18266358), silver hemidrachm from Stratonikeia, obverse with a head of Hekate, with legend ΑΡΙΣΤΕΑΣ, and reverse with Nike and legend ΧΙΔΡΩΝ ΣΤΡΑ; 1.40g. https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/1/2778

It is the case, however, that some cities where early cash handouts are attested also continued to strike their own silver coinage: Chrysaor and Panphile’s Stratonikeia is precisely a case in point. It is tempting to associate the drachmas they distributed with the rare Stratonikeian drachms and hemidrachms of the early 1st century CE, like the one with a head of Hekate obverse and standing Nike reverse (fig. 4)[90], and thus to characterise their distributions not as a sign of the weakening link between civic authorities and silver coinage, but rather as a reflection of Stratonikeian civic pride in their ongoing right to mint silver, the long-term result of the city’s privileged history of friendship with Rome since the Mithridatic wars[91]. Local responses to the changes in civic authority over silver coinage would have varied, in any case. More likely, however, the use of drachmas simply refers to a unit of account. For one, these Stratonikeian drachms were struck on the denarius standard, and were thus effectively Roman currency[92]. They were also a small production, mostly known from single specimens. This is similar to the contemporary coinage of Chios struck from the gift of Antiochos IV of Kommagene, unusual in being a civic silver coinage certainly originating in a benefaction (signed ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΑΝΤΙΟΧΟΥ ΔΩΡΟΝ), which was also a small production and comprised only a fraction of the original 15 talents of the donation[93]. Likewise, Stratonikeian drachms are unlikely to have made up the entirety of Chrysaor and Panphile’s distribution, which was probably supplemented by provincial silver currency in denarii or cistophoric drachms. The mention of drachmas at Stratonikeia therefore more probably represents the practical use of a unit of account equivalent to the denarius, and not necessarily any special feeling of pride in a civic silver coinage; the same is likely to be true for other sporadic references to drachmas in the epigraphic record of the imperial period[94].

Beyond the ideological impacts brought about by changes in the nature of minting authority in relation to silver coinage, however, the distributions of the Stratonikeian couple and others like them can also be set in productive tension against other impositions of the Roman state, and in particular its fiscal demands. In this sphere, also, the Augustan epoch marked a subtle but significant shift, in intensifying the penetration of the state at the local level, and increasing the need for coined money among local populations. In Asia, Julius Caesar had ended the regime of the publicani over the collection of the tithe, and transferred responsibility for the collection of fiscal dues to cities[95]. While publicani continued to exact tolls and customs-dues, and some direct taxes, the main administrative burden for tax-collection henceforth fell on civic governments and their elite citizens. Augustus systematised this process, by generalising census-taking across the provinces, and regularising exaction of direct tax, as the proportional levies (such as a tithe or an eighth) that had been collected by Republican publicani were increasingly substituted for fixed levies (based on the size of a landed property, for instance), which were defined in terms of taxes on property (tributum soli) and the poll-tax (tributum capitis)[96]. While the precise workings of these developments remain hazy, the overall impression is that the poll-tax became an increasingly intrusive and burdensome obligation, with civic benefactors in the Aegean area even praised for providing relief-payments and establishing foundations towards covering its impositions[97]. While absolute comparisons are impossible, the regularised and personalised imposition represented by the poll-tax of the imperial period may have marked an increase in scale and sophistication unmatched by the earlier Seleukid, Attalid or Antigonid monarchies, for whom we have comparably little evidence for poll-taxes[98], and certainly no similar indication (or at least in a manner that called for epigraphic preservation) that local benefactors faced comparable pressure to make donations that addressed fiscal obligations.

The fact that coinages in Greece and Asia Minor converged on Roman monetary standards at this time is not necessarily coincidental. Epigraphic testimonies for the poll-tax show that it was accounted for in silver currency (denarii and drachmas), suggesting it was paid in coins, and not just in kind —most likely the Roman silver currencies in Achaia and Macedonia (denarius), and Asia Minor (denarius and imperial cistophorus)[99]. The intensification and regularisation of direct taxation is likely to have increased the demand for coinage, and in turn facilitated the convergence on Roman monetary standards. Euergetic cash handouts may thus have gained traction as a form of benefaction because they partly served the need for coin among civic populations: indeed, the amounts attested in cash handouts across the imperial period, per capita, would not have been too far off those that were actually paid in poll-tax, to judge from amounts known from Egyptian tax-receipts[100]. In some cases, a monetary gift by a benefactor may well have contributed considerably to paying an individual’s tax burden, and especially so in cases of testamentary foundations that were set up for annually recurring distributions.

The ideological and theatrical aspect of handouts would also have been significant. The payment of tax in coin, after all, can be seen to mirror and pre-figure the phenomenon of monetary distribution —direct taxation demanded that individuals make payments of fixed sums of coins to the state, while cash handouts comprised the distribution of fixed sums of coins, as gifts, to these same individuals. The potential for burlesque was latent. That is to say, distributions of coinage might have evoked and even subversively satirised the act of paying tax, forming carnivalesque role-reversals where tax-payer became coin-recipient and the tax-collector a civic benefactor, and thereby afforded a psychological salve to the burden it represented[101]. Obviously, the inherently selective and hierarchical nature of distributions —in particular the favouritism openly accorded to councillors and other members of the elite— means that this mirroring quality may just as well have aggravated a sense of fiscal intrusiveness and inequality, as alleviated it. Moreover, it was the members of the local elite themselves who often held direct responsibility for advancing and collecting tax due to Roman authorities, as with the officials known as the dekaprotoi, and their distributions of coin may in this light have had a strongly ironic element[102]. How precisely those who conducted or participated in monetary distributions may have felt about what they were doing can only remain a matter of speculation, of course. The point here is rather that the pervasiveness of Roman taxation, and the rituals of paying coin to the Roman state that must have ensued and become prevalent, contributed to a cultural setting in which the euergetic distribution of coinage could be conceived as a practice —where, in effect, the local elite could deploy forms of action associated with the imperial order (apart from the example of imperial congiaria at Rome alone) in their contests for honorific distinction. We might give the final say to the benefactor Satyros of Tenos, who lived in the 1st-2nd centuries CE. Among his crowning achievements was an endowment of funds towards the payment of the ἐπικεφάλιον, the poll-tax. This was clearly regarded as being part of a broader program of monetary distribution, however, because the preceding lines of the same inscription honouring him listed the numerous cash handouts he had made over his public career[103]. Distributions of coin were thus conceptually associated with the payment of fiscal obligations to the Roman state; it is hard to believe Tenos was alone in this regard.

Conclusion

The public distribution of individualised gifts of coined money by the civic elite of the Aegean basin and Anatolia was a phenomenon of the Roman empire. In the classical and Hellenistic periods such distributions were infrequent, and anyhow conducted by civic governments, rarely by kings, and even when wealthy benefactors emerged in the later Hellenistic period public distributions were still mainly distributions of commodities, not coins. The emergence of cash handouts coincided with the onset of the principate and its related monetary and fiscal history. The example of cash distributions by the early imperial rulers at Rome, perhaps also transmitted through social groups like resident Romans, was imitated and disseminated by the civic elite. Secondly, broader changes in the production of silver coinage at this time, the specie in which cash handouts were primarily made, were influential. The fact that civic silver coinage largely came to an end by the early 1st century CE, and was superseded by the denarius, or other coinages based on Roman monetary standards like the cistophorus, may have contributed to weakening the conceptual association between civic authorities and silver coinage, allowing wealthy individuals to appear publicly as the distributors of precious-metal coins. These monetary developments were also likely related to increasingly extractive direct taxation practised by the early imperial Roman state, in the form of property- and poll-taxes payable in coin. Cash handouts may in this light have responded to a heightened need for cash among the non-elite, while potentially also serving simultaneously to normalise Roman taxation by casting it in the symbolic terms of civic euergetism and spectacle. In all, the conjuncture of these three aspects —the imperial example, changes in monetary history, and the intensification of Roman fiscal demands— created the conditions that allowed for the emergence and popularisation of cash handouts in Greece and Asia Minor.

These processes operated alongside the steepening social stratification within civic society that much scholarship has emphasised, and which monetary gifts facilitated; the point here is that the rise of cash handouts cannot only be seen as an «indigenous» development of the poleis, and must also be set within the broader frameworks embodied by the Roman state. The fact that they may have appeared earlier than in the western provinces, where they are only attested in serious numbers from the early 2nd century CE, may further suggest that it was the relative distance of the Hellenistic world, both geographically and culturally, that paradoxically allowed for more overt imitation of imperial practice, while the proximity of the municipal elite in Italy and Gaul to Rome invited greater circumspection. In other words, the emergence of euergetic distributions of coin exemplifies some of the dynamics galvanised by the confrontation between Rome and the cultural habits of its provinces.

Appendix: Euergetic cash handouts in the eastern Mediterranean, 7th century BCE to 3rd century CE

The following, on which figures 1 and 2 are based, presents a reference list for attestations of euergetic cash handouts carried out by individual benefactors, as gathered from an extensive but not exhaustive survey of the epigraphical corpora and scholarly literature (see footnote 2 and also under «Verteilungen» in the index to Quaß 1993). It is likely to be representative of chronological trends, even if omissions will doubtless be found; handouts conducted by civic authorities (e.g. I.Thespiai 37 ll. 16-20) are not included. Dates for inscriptions follow those of published editions.

No.	Source	Community	Date	Name/s of benefactor/s	Monetary amount/s and recipients	Currency/currencies specified
1	Hdt. 1.54, Plut. Mor. 556f	Delphi	Mid-6th century BCE	Kroisos	2 gold staters or 4 minas to each citizen of Delphi	Stater, mina
2	Polyb. 28.20.11	Naukratis	169 BCE	Antiochos IV of Syria	A gold stater to each Greek citizen	Stater
3	TAM II 508 ll. 21-23	Pinara	Early to mid-1st century BCE (?)	Unknown	5,000 drachmas to the associations of the xenokritai, and an unknown sum each (?) to the councillors, electoral magistrates, and office-holders of the Lykian koinon	Unknown
4	I.Stratonikeia 662 A ll. 4-5	Stratonikeia	Early 1st century CE	Chrysaor and Panphile	10 drachmas to each citizen, 6 drachmas in addition to the councillors, and an unknown amount of drachmas to other inhabitants of the city	Drachma
5	IG VII 2712 ll. 78-82	Akraiphia	Mid-1st century CE	Epaminondas	11 denarii each to the magistrates, 6 denarii to the other inhabitants in lieu of a public meal	Denarius
6	SEG 43.717 ll. 19-21	Iasos	Mid-1st century CE	Potens	25 denarii each to the councillors on Claudius’ birthday	Denarius
7	I.Aphrodisias 12.803 ll. 22-32, 35-42	Aphrodisias	Mid-1st century CE	Aristokles Molossos	Donated estates towards monetary distributions (argyrikai diadoseis) to the citizens on specified days	Denarius (most likely, from ll. 56-62)
8	I.Ephesos 702 ll. 11-12	Ephesos	54-68 CE (cf. SEG 39.1179)	T. Peducaeus Canax	Donated unspecified monetary amounts (kathieroseis argyrion) to the council and gerousia	Unknown
9	I.Ephesos 4123 ll. 9-17	Ephesos	54-68 CE	G. Stertinius Orpex and Marina	Donated 5,000 denarii for distributions (dianomai) to the councillors, 2,500 denarii for distributions of 2 denarii each to the gerousiastai, and 1,500 denarii for distributions of 3 denarii each to select individuals towards a feast	Denarius, drachma
10	I.Didyma 264 ll. 14-15	Miletos	50-100 CE	Iason	Conducted unspecified distributions (dianomai) for the council and citizens	Unknown
11	IGR IV 661 ll. 1-3, 21-22	Akmoneia	85 CE	T. Flavius Praxias	Conducted a distribution (dianome) to the freedmen; another unspecified distribution (dianome) to the councillors	Denarius (most likely, from l. 8)
12	SEG 65.1483 ll. 8-18	Patara	83-96 CE	Licinius	5 denarii to each Lykian, and 3 denarii each to the Tloans, Xanthians, Myrans, Patarans on imperial birthdays	Denarius
13	I.Beroia 117 ll. 19-21	Beroia	Late 1st century CE	Q. Popillius Python	Mention of unspecified distributions (diadomata) to the people	Unknown
14	I.Smyrna 709 ll. 16-17	Smyrna	1st century CE	Claudius Karteromachos	5 denarii to each citizen or councillor (?)	Denarius
15	Philostr. V S 549	Athens	138/139 CE	Ti. Claudius Atticus Herodes	Donated money for an annual distribution of a mina to each Athenian citizen	Mina
16	Luc. De mort. Peregr. 15	Parion	Early 2nd century CE	Peregrinus	Donated property towards distributions (dianomai) to the people	Unknown
17	TAM II 539 ll. 7-8	Arsada	1st-2nd centuries CE (cf. Kılıç Aslan 2023, 228)	Symbras	Unspecified monetary distribution at a feast	Unknown
18	I.Lampsakos 12 ll. 7-8	Lampsakos	1st-2nd centuries CE	Kyros	1,000 Attic drachmas to the gerousia	Attic drachma
19	IG XII.5 946 ll. 5-18	Tenos	1st-2nd centuries CE	Satyros	5,000 denarii for annual distributions of 1 denarius to each male citizen, and two other donations of 10,000 and 6,000 denarii for annual distributions	Denarius
20	I.Stratonikeia 172 ll. 12-13	Stratonikeia	Late 1st-early 2nd centuries CE	Ti. Claudius Lainas	2,400 denarii to the council for distributions	Denarius
21	I.Sardis 43 ll. 2-4	Sardeis	1st-early 2nd centuries CE	Ti. Claudius Silanus	Bequeathed an unspecified amount for an annual distribution (dianome)	Unknown
22	IGR III 493 ll. 13-15	Oinoanda	Early 2nd century CE	G. Licinnius Marcius Thoantianus Fronto	10 denarii to each citizen	Denarius
23	I.Ephesos 2061 II ll. 11-12	Ephesos	103-116 CE	Ti. Flavius Montanus	Provided 3 denarii to each citizen for lunch	Denarius
24	I.Ephesos 27 ll. 220-352, 485-553	Ephesos	104 CE	G. Vibius Salutaris	Distributions ranging from 4.5 assaria to 30 denarii for a range of individuals and civic and temple officials at Ephesos; cf. Rogers 1991, 41-72	Denarius, assarion
25	IG IV 602 ll. 10-11	Argos	116-117 CE	Ti. Claudius Tertius Flavianus	Mention of unspecified monetary distributions (dianomai)	Unknown
26	I.Ephesos 712B ll. 16-18	Ephesos	117-138 CE	Publius Quintilius Valens Varius	2 denarii each to 1,000 citizens selected by lot	Denarius
27	SEG 63.1342 ll. 9-11	Patara	117-138 CE	Claudia Anassa	Donation for an annual distribution of 6.5 denarii to each citizen	Denarius
28	SEG 38.1462B ll. 26-27	Oinoanda	125-126 CE	G. Julius Demosthenes	3 denarii each to 500 sitometroumenoi selected by lot, and donation of 300 denarii to be distributed among the other citizens and paroikoi	Denarius
29	I.Didyma 254 ll. 4-6	Miletos	130-138 CE	L. Apidianus Kallikrates	Unspecified monetary distributions (dianomai) to the council and all citizens	Unknown
30	TAM II 578/579 (a copy of 578) ll. 28-30	Tlos	136 CE	Opramoas	1 denarius to each sitometroumenos	Denarius
31	I.Ephesos 618 ll. 18-20	Ephesos	140 CE	M. Ulpius Aristokrates	Mention of a distribution (dianome) to the gerousia out of a fund of 100,000 denarii	Denarius
32	SEG 27.938 ll. 8-11	Tlos	150 CE	Lalla	1 denarius to each sitometroumenos	Denarius
33	I.Didyma 279 B ll. 3-10	Miletos	100-150 CE	M. Flavianus Phileas	Numerous distributions for women, maidens, councillors and the kosmoi, and distributed 2 denarii to each citizen	Denarius
34	I.Stratonikeia 237 ll. 13-15	Stratonikeia	100-150 CE	M. Ulpius Ariston and Aelius Tryphaina Drakontis	3 denarii each to the councillors and leading members of the gerousia	Denarius
35	I.Ephesos 690 ll. 21-25	Ephesos	117-161 CE	G. Julius Pontianus	1 denarius each to 124 councillors and priests	Denarius
36	I.Tralleis und Nysa II 440 ll. 18-23	Nysa	138-161 CE	T. Aelius Alkibiades	Donated horse-pastures for annual monetary distributions on Hadrian’s birthday	Unknown
37	I.Tralleis und Nysa II 441 ll. 22-29	Nysa	138-161 CE	T. Aelius Alkibiades	Distributed unspecified amounts to each citizen, by tribe and symmoria, at the assembly and council	Unknown
38	IG XII.5 659 ll. 11-20	Syros	138-161 CE	Aristagoras	3 denarii each to the gerousiastai, and 8 assaria to women and children on the first day of his stephanephoria; 7 denarii each to the stephanephoroi, 1 denarius to all citizens, on the second day of his stephanephoria	Denarius, assarion
39	SEG 63.1402 ll. 15-18	Seleukeia-on-the-Kalykadnos	142-161 CE	Dionysodoros	11 obols each to councillors and magistrates, distributed 6,200 denarii (?) to the people for distributions, and 12 obols each to members of the gerousia	Denarius, obol
40	I.Stratonikeia 527 ll. 6-7	Stratonikeia	Mid-2nd century CE	Herakleitos and Tatarion Polynike	3 drachmas (?) each to citizens, 2 drachmas (?) to Romans, foreigners, paroikoi	Drachma
41	I.Stratonikeia 1428 ll. 12-14	Stratonikeia	Mid-2nd century CE	Herakleitos and Tatarion Polynike	2 drachmas each to citizens and other inhabitants of the city	Drachma
42	F.Xanthos VII 67 ll. 21-22, 37-40	Xanthos	After 152 CE	Opramoas (?)	10 drachmas to each councillor in Lykia, 1 aureus each to the councillors, gerousiastai and sitometroumenoi of Xanthos, and 10 drachmas each to other citizens and metoikoi	Drachma, aureus
43	I.Histria 57 ll. 24-29	Histria	150-200 CE	Aba	2 denarii each to the councillors, gerousiastai, the Tauriastai, doctors, teachers, and private individuals named by Aba	Denarius
44	Milet VI.2 945 ll. 1-11	Miletos	170-200 CE	Charis	Donated 3,000 denarii to the council for annual distributions on a specified date of 12 denarii to each councillor	Denarius
45	I.Prusias ad Hypium 17 ll. 18-21	Prousias-under-Hypios	Late 2nd century CE	T. Ulpius Aelianus Papianus	Held two distributions (nomai) for those registered as citizens and those inhabiting the fields	Unknown
46	I.Ephesos 26 ll. 17-18	Ephesos	180-192 CE	Nikomedes	Mention of distributions (dianomai) to the citizens	Unknown
47	I.Cret. IV 300 B ll. 1-13	Gortyn	180-182 CE	T. Flavius Xenion	Unspecified monetary donations on seven imperial birthdays and the date of Rome’s foundation	Unknown
48	IG XII.5 663 ll. 14-27	Syros	183 CE	Antaios	5 denarii each to the gerousiastai in lieu of a basket-lunch, 8 assaria to women, and 4 assaria to children on the first day of his stephanephoria; 1 denarius each to the gerousiastai, 1 denarius to citizens, and 8 assaria to free persons and children, on the second day of his stephanephoria	Denarius, assarion
49	IG XII.5 664 ll. 10-15	Syros	193-198 CE	Modestus	Unknown amount of denarii in lieu of a basket-lunch, and 8 assaria and wine to free women and girls	Denarius, assarion
50	TAM V.2 983 ll. 6-7	Thyateira	c. 200 CE	Unknown	Unspecified distributions (dianomai)	Unknown
51	MAMA III 50 ll. 10-18	Dösene, Cilicia	2nd century CE	Angklous	Donated 1,200 drachmas towards annual distributions to every man during the pannychis	Drachma
52	I.Magnesia 179 ll. 28-30	Magnesia	2nd century CE	Son of Apollonios	Unspecified distribution (dianome) to the council at the consecration ceremony for his honorific statue	Unknown
53	I.Didyma 111 ll. 1-8	Miletos	2nd century CE	Unknown	Donated 1,000 denarii to Apollo and the council for distributions	Denarius
54	I.Didyma 269 ll. 6-11, 270 ll. 6-11	Miletos	2nd century CE	Ti. Claudius Marcianus Smaragdos	1 denarius to each councillor, woman, virgin, and male citizen in lieu of a basket-lunch (cf. Robert, Hellenica XI-XII 479-480)	Denarius
55	I.Didyma 271 ll. 1-2	Miletos	2nd century CE	Ti. Claudius Marcianus Smaragdos	Unspecified distribution (dianome) to the children	Unknown
56	TAM V.3 1457 ll. 8-18	Philadelphia	2nd century CE	Diogenes	Donated 2,500 denarii and 1,500 denarii to the councillors and synedrion of the presbyteroi for annual distributions on his birthday	Denarius
57	I.Prusias ad Hypium 18 ll. 9-11, 19 ll. 10-12	Prousias-under-Hypios	2nd century CE	P. Domitius Julianus	Distributed unspecified monetary amounts as gifts to the people	Unknown
58	IG XII.1 95 B ll. 3-6	Rhodes	2nd century CE	M. Claudius Caninius Severus	12 denarii to each citizen, unknown amount to the therinoi (?), 24 denarii to an unknown group	Denarius
59	IGR III 800 ll. 5-12	Sillyon	2nd century CE	Megakles and Menodora	20 denarii each to the councillors, 18 denarii to the geraiai and ekklesiastai, 2 denarii to the citizens, 1 denarius to the freedmen and paroikoi	Denarius
60	IGR III 801 ll. 14-22	Sillyon	2nd century CE	Menodora	85 denarii each to the councillors, 80 denarii to the geraioi, 77 denarii to the ekklesiastai, 3 denarii to the wives of the ekklesiastai, 9 denarii to the citizens, 3 denarii to the vindictarii, freedmen and paroikoi	Denarius
61	IGR III 802 ll. 18-26	Sillyon	2nd century CE	Menodora	85 denarii each to the councillors, 81 denarii to the geraioi, 75 denarii to the ekklesiastai, 3 denarii to the wives of the ekklesiastai, 4 denarii to the vindictarii and freedmen	Denarius
62	I.Stratonikeia 192 ll. 7-10	Stratonikeia	2nd century CE	Ti. Flavius [---] and Flavia Mamalon	5 drachmas each to men and 3 drachmas to women at the Kamuria and Heraia festivals	Drachma
63	I.Stratonikeia 1028 ll. 18-21	Stratonikeia	2nd century CE	Hierokles	Mention of a distribution (dianome)	Unknown
64	I.Stratonikeia 205 l. 37	Stratonikeia	2nd century CE	Ti. Flavius Iason and Aelia Statilia	Distributed 10,000 denarii to the citizens	Denarius
65	IG XII.5 665 ll. 1-16	Syros	2nd century CE	Unknown	6 denarii each to the gerousiastai in lieu of a basket-lunch, 8 assaria to women, and 4 assaria to children, on the first day of his stephanephoria; 1 denarius each to the gerousiastai, 1 denarius to citizens, and 8 assaria to free persons and children, on the second day of his stephanephoria	Denarius, assarion
66	I.Aphrodisias 1.161 ll. 2-10	Aphrodisias	2nd-3rd centuries CE	Unknown	Donated money towards annual distributions (kleroi) to the council and chrysophoroi by lot	Unknown
67	I.Aphrodisias 11.533 ll. 12-35	Aphrodisias	2nd-3rd centuries CE	Aurelia Ammia Myrton and M. Aurelius Diogenes	Donated 2,545 denarii and 1,500 towards distributions (kleroi) to the council	Denarius
68	I.Aphrodisias 12.317 ll. 9-12	Aphrodisias	2nd-3rd centuries CE	L. Antonius Zosas	Donated 3,000 denarii each to the council and gerousia for annual distributions (kleroi)	Denarius
69	I.Aphrodisias 12.534 ll. 21-28	Aphrodisias	2nd-3rd centuries CE	Aurelia Ammia	Donated 2,370 denarii for distributions (kleroi) to the council	Denarius
70	SEG 53.891 ll. 14-18	Oine	2nd-3rd centuries CE	Unknown	Mention of distribution of an unknown amount of denarii to the dekaprotoi (?)	Unknown
71	I.Stratonikeia 311 ll. 13-17, 25-31	Stratonikeia	2nd-3rd centuries CE	M. Aurelius Arrianus and Aurelia Chotarion	1 denarius to each woman in lieu of a dinner; distributed a further unknown amount to citizens and foreigners at feasts with triclinia	Denarius
72	IG XII.5 954 A ll. 2-5	Tenos	2nd-3rd centuries CE	Unknown	8 denarii each to the councillors, and other unknown amounts to other groups	Denarius
73	I.Tralleis und Nysa I 66 ll. 7-9	Tralleis	150-250 CE	M. Aurelius Euarestos	Donated 3,333 denarii towards annual distributions (nome) to the council on his birthday	Denarius
74	I.Ephesos 951 ll. 5-9	Ephesos	Late 2nd-early 3rd centuries CE	Aurelius Varanus	Distributed 40,000 denarii (?) to the council, all the synedria, and the citizens	Unknown
75	TAM V.3 1475 ll. 2-9	Philadelphia	Late 2nd-early 3rd centuries CE	Cornelia	Donated an estate for annual distributions (nemesthai) to the councillors on the birthday of her brother, at their statues	Unknown
76	TAM III.1 108 ll. 8-17	Termessos	219-229 CE	M. Aurelius Platonianus Otanes	Donated 165,500 denarii towards perpetual distribution (nemesis)	Denarius
77	I.Selge 20 A ll. 1-3	Selge	225-250 CE	P. Plancius Magnianus Aelianus Arrius Perikles	Mention of unspecified distributions (dianomai)	Unknown
78	IG XII.5 667 ll. 10-21	Syros	251 CE	Apollonides	10 denarii each to the gerousiastai and 1 denarius to the women, free maidens, and attendants of the stephanephoroi on the first day of his stephanephoria; 2 denarii each to the gerousiastai and 1 denarius to all others on the second day of his stephanephoria	Denarius
79	IGBulg I2 15bis ll. 5-9	Dionysopolis	Early 3rd century CE	M. Aurelius [---]koros	Conducted distributions (dianomai) to the councillors, councillors from other cities of the Pentapolis, merchants, doctors, and teachers	Unknown
80	IGBulg I2 16 ll. 7-9	Dionysopolis	Early 3rd century CE	M. Aurelius Demetrios	Unspecified distributions (dianomai) to the council at the consecration ceremony for his statue	Unknown
81	SEG 43.718 ll. 21-24	Iasos	Early 3rd century CE	M. Aurelius Daphnos	Made a distribution (nome) to the councillors	Unknown
82	I.Prusias ad Hypium 6 ll. 10-11	Prousias-under-Hypios	Early 3rd century CE	M. Domitius Candidus	Unspecified distributions (nomai)	Unknown
83	SEG 54.724 ll. 24-26	Rhodes	Early 3rd century CE	Unknown	5 denarii each to the citizens, 10 (?) denarii to the councillors	Denarius
84	I.Aphrodisias 11.110 ll. 14-29	Aphrodisias	3rd century CE	Father of M. Aurelius Polychronios	Donated 1,670 denarii towards annual distributions (kleroi) to the council by lot at his statue, with 200 councillors to receive 6 denarii each	Denarius
85	I.Iznik 61 ll. 7-8	Nikaia	3rd century CE	Onesimos	4 Attic drachmas to each gerousiastes	Attic drachma
86	I.Iznik 62 ll. 2-4	Nikaia	3rd century CE	Unknown	Distribution of unknown amount to each gerousiastes	Unknown
87	SEG 65.655 ll. 5-18	Rhodes	3rd century CE	M. Aurelius Kyros	Donated 20,000 denarii towards annual distributions to the summer and winter councillors; 10 denarii each to the councillors and 5 denarii to the citizens during the inauguration of his statue	Denarius
88	I.Selge 17 ll. 20-21	Selge	3rd century CE	Unknown	Mention of distributions (dianomai) to the councillors, ekklesiastai, and their children	Unknown
89	I.Stratonikeia 309 ll. 9-13	Stratonikeia	3rd century CE	Claudius Ulpius Aelius Asklepiades and Ulpia Aelia Plautilla	2 denarii each to women during the procession of the god, and 5 denarii to all citizens and foreigners in lieu of a public meal	Denarius
90	IG XII.5 141 ll. 6-8	Tenos	3rd century CE	Unknown	8 denarii each to the councillors and patrobouloi, 2 denarii to the citizens and other inhabitants	Denarius
91	TAM V.2 926 ll. 8-13	Thyateira	3rd century CE	P. Aelius Aelianus	Donated 560 denarii towards an annual distribution of 1 denarius to each councillor on his son’s birthday	Denarius
92	I.Tralleis und Nysa I 145 ll. 16-19	Tralleis	1st-3rd centuries CE	Ti. Claudius Claudianus	Donated a sum towards an annual distribution of 250 denarii to each councillor on his birthday	Denarius
93	I.Aphrodisias 11.403 l. 6	Aphrodisias	1st-4th centuries CE	Zenon	Donated 5,000 denarii towards distributions (kleroi)	Denarius
94	TAM V.2 939 ll. 7-13	Thyateira	1st-3rd centuries CE	Artemidoros	Donated gardens towards annual distributions (dianemesthai) to the councillors	Unknown
95	TAM V.2 1197 ll. 8-9	Apollonis	Imperial period	Unknown	Donated a sum towards annual distributions (dianome) to the council on his birthday	Unknown
96	IG IV 597 ll. 9-13	Argos	Imperial period	Onesiphoros	4 denarii each to the citizens, 2 denarii to other free individuals	Denarius
97	IGBulg I2 63bis ll. 10-15	Dionysopolis	Imperial period	Claudius Akulas	10 Attic drachmas each to the councillors, new citizens, and visiting soldiers in lieu of a public meal	Attic drachma
98	I.Ephesos 644 ll. 8-9	Ephesos	Imperial period	Ti. Claudius Prorosius Phretor	Distributed an unknown amount to the citizens	Unknown
99	I.Didyma 297 ll. 8-12	Miletos	Imperial period	Unknown	Distributed an unknown amount of denarii to the council on the god’s birthday	Denarius
100	IGR III 492 ll. 11-14	Oinoanda	Imperial period	Licinnius Longus	2 denarii to each of the 500 (councillors?), 250 denarii (?) to named boys and girls	Denarius
101	TAM II 1200 ll. 18-21	Phaselis	Imperial period	Ptolemaios son of Kolalemis	Bequeathed money towards distributions (dianomai)	Unknown
102	TAM V.3 1476 ll. 11-16	Philadelphia	Imperial period	L. Antonius Agathopous	Donated 1,500 denarii and 300 denarii for annual distributions to the councillors and gerousiastai	Denarius
103	SEG 19.835 ll. 3-6	Pogla	Imperial period	P. Caelius Lucanus	Conducted distributions (dianomai) to the citizens, councillors and gerousiastai over a number of years	Unknown
104	Robert, La Carie II 172 ll. 12-15	Sebastopolis	Imperial period	Unknown	1 denarius to each citizen, 1 denarius and 3 assaria to each councillor	Denarius, assarion
105	I.Side 103 ll. 6-8	Side	Imperial period	Daughter and son of a Kneis	Distributed 5,000 denarii to the council	Denarius
106	TAM II 191 ll. 7-9	Sidyma	Imperial period	Theages	Donated 3,000 drachmas (?) towards an annual distribution (epidosis) to the citizens	Unknown
107	I.Stratonikeia 352 ll. 3-6	Stratonikeia	Imperial period	Unknown	1 denarius to each woman	Denarius
108	I.Tralleis und Nysa I 220 ll. 1-16	Tralleis	Imperial period	Soterichos	Donated an amount for annual distributions to the council on his birthday, with mention of 9 assaria	Assarion
109	I.Aphrodisias 13.5 ll. 15-18	Aphrodisias	Imperial period	Demetrios son of Pyrrhos	Donation of money towards perpetual distributions (kleroi)	Unknown

References

Amandry, M., 2021, «Rome et les monnayages de Grèce centrale, Attique, Péloponnèse et Crète», in: R. H. J. Ashton, N. Badoud (eds.), Graecia capta? Rome et les monnayages de l’Egée aux IIe-Ier s. av. J.-C., Fribourg, 101-110.

Amandry, M., & S. Kremydi, 2017, «La pénétration du denier en Macédoine et la circulation de la monnaie locale en bronze (IIe siècle av. J. C.-IIe siècle apr. J. C.)», in: M. G. Parissaki, J. Fournier (eds.), L’Hégémonie romaine sur les communautés du Nord Égéen (IIe s. av. J.-C. – IIe s. apr. J.-C.). Entre ruptures et continuités, Athens, 79-115.

Ameling, W., 2004, «Wohltäter im hellenistischen Gymnasion», in: D. Kah, P. Scholz (eds.), Das hellenistische Gymnasion, Berlin, 129-161.

Ashton, R. H. J., 1994, «The Attalid Poll-Tax», ZPE 104, 57-60.

Ashton, R. H. J., & A.-P. C. Weiss, 1997, «The Post-Plinthophoric Silver Drachms of Rhodes», NC 157, 1-39.

Azoulay, V., 2017, Pericles of Athens, Princeton.

Baker, P., & G. Thériault, 2018, «Xanthos et la Lycie à la basse époque hellénistique: Nouvelle inscription honorifique xanthienne», Chiron 48, 301-331.

Beck, M., 2015, Der politische Euergetismus und dessen vor allem nichtbürgerliche Rezipienten im hellenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien sowie dem ägäischen Raum, Rahden.

Boehringer, C., 1997, «Zu Chronologie und Interpretation der Münzprägung der Achaischen Liga nach 146 v. Chr.», Topoi 7.1, 103-108.

Boubounelle, O., C. Bady & A. Vlamos (eds.), 2023, Les Grecs face à l’imperium Romanum. Résilience, participation et adhésion des communautés grecques à la construction d’un empire (IIe s. av. – Ier s. de n.è.), Besançon.

Bringmann, K., & H. von Steuben (eds.), 1995-2000, Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer, 2 vols., Berlin.

Brunt, P. A., 1981, «The Revenues of Rome», JRS 71, 161-172.

Burnett, A., 2000, «The Coinage of Roman Macedonia», in: P. Adam-Veleni (ed.), Το νόμισμα στο μακεδονικό χώρο. Πρακτικά Β’ επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Thessalonike, 89-101.

Burnett, A., 2021, «Overview and Some Methodological Points», in: R. H. J. Ashton, N. Badoud (eds.), Graecia capta? Rome et les monnayages de l’Egée aux IIe-Ier s. av. J.-C., Fribourg, 17-33.

Carbone, L. F., 2014, «Money and Power: The Disappearance of Autonomous Silver Issues in the Roman Province of Asia», OMNI 8, 10-34.

Carbone, L. F., 2020, Hidden Power. Late Cistophoric Production and the Organization of Provincia Asia (128-89 BC), New York.

Carbone, L. F., 2021a, «The Introduction of Roman Coinages in Asia (133 BC – 1st Century AD)», in: R. H. J. Ashton, N. Badoud (eds.), Graecia capta? Rome et les monnayages de l’Egée aux IIe-Ier s. av. J.-C., Fribourg, 233-293.

Carbone, L. F., 2021b, «The Standardization of Asian Bronze Denominations in the First Century BC», in: A. Meadows, U. Wartenberg (eds.), Presbeus. Studies in Ancient Coinage Presented to Richard Ashton, New York, 365-432.

Cooley, A. E., 2009, Res Gestae Divi Augusti. Text, Translation, and Commentary, Cambridge.

Crawford, M. H., 1985, Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic. Italy and the Mediterranean Economy, London.

Csapo, E., 2007, «The men who built the theatres: theatropolai, theatronai, and arkhitektones», in: P. Wilson (ed.), The Greek Theatre and Festivals, Oxford, 87-115.

Curty, O., 2015, Gymnasiarchika. Recueil et analyse des inscriptions de l’époque hellénistique en l’honneur des gymnasiarques, Paris.

Delrieux, F., 2021, «Rome et les monnayages grecs de Carie au IIe et Ier s. av. J.-C. De la tutelle rhodienne à l’avènement du Principat», in: R. H. J. Ashton, N. Badoud (eds.), Graecia capta? Rome et les monnayages de l’Egée aux IIe-Ier s. av. J.-C., Fribourg, 187-232.

Domingo-Gygax, M., 2016, Benefaction and Rewards in the Ancient Greek City: The Origins of Euergetism, Cambridge.

Donahue, J. F., 2004, The Roman Community at Table during the Principate, Ann Arbor.

Doyen, C., 2017, «De la drachme au denier : Retour sur l’ὀκτώβολος εἰσφορά de Messène», in: E. Apostolou, C. Doyen (eds.), Το νόμισμα στην Πελοπόννησο, Athens, 425-443.

Duncan-Jones, R. P., 1982, The Economy of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed., Cambridge.

Duncan-Jones, R. P., 2008, «Payment of Dinner-Guests at Rome», Latomus 67.1, 138-148.

Eberle, L. P., 2017, «Making Roman Subjects: Citizenship and Empire before and after Augustus», TAPhA 147, 321-370.

Engelmann, H., 2004, «Zum Stadion von Ephesos (IvE 2113)», ZPE 149, 71-72.

Ferrary, J.-L., & D. Rousset, 1998, «Un lotissement de terres à Delphes au IIe siècle ap. J. -C.», BCH 122.1, 277-342.

Forster, F. R., 2018, Die Polis im Wandel. Ehrendekrete für eigene Bürger im Kontext der hellenistischen Polisgesellschaft, Göttingen.

Fournier, J., 2010, Entre tutelle romaine et autonomie civique. L’administration judiciaire dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain (129 av. J.-C.-235 apr. J.-C.), Athens.

Fournier, J., 2014, « Retour sur un décret thasien: la donation testamentaire de Rebilus », BCH 138.1, 79-102.

Fröhlich, P., 2009, «Les activités évergétiques des gymnasiarques à l’époque hellénistique tardive: la fourniture de l’huile», in: O. Curty, M. Piérart (eds.), L’huile et l’argent. Gymnasiarchie et évergétisme dans la Grèce hellénistique, Fribourg, 57-94.

Fröhlich, P., & C. Müller (eds.), 2005, Citoyenneté et participation à la basse époque hellénistique, Geneva.

Garnsey, P., 1999, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge.

Gauthier, P., 1980, «Études sur des inscriptions d’Amorgos», BCH 104.1, 197-220.

Gauthier, P., 1985, Les cités grecques et leurs bienfaiteurs, Paris.

Grandjean, C., 1999, «Les dernières monnaies d’argent du Péloponnèse», in: M. Amandry, S. Hurter (eds.), Travaux de numismatique grecque offerts à Georges Le Rider, London, 139-146.

Grandjean, C., 2016, «Les dernières monnaies d’argent du Péloponnèse (2)», RN 173, 45-54.

Hamon, P., 2007, «Élites dirigeantes et processus d’aristocratisation à l’époque hellénistique», in: H.-L. Fernoux, C. Stein (eds.), Aristocratie antique. Modèles et exemplarité sociale, Dijon, 79-100.

Hart, K., 1986, «Heads or Tails? Two Sides of the Coin», Man 21.4, 637-656.

Heller, A., 2009, «La cité grecque d’époque impériale : vers une société d’ordres?», Annales (HSS) 64.2, 341-373.

Heller, A., 2019, «Greek Citizenship in the Roman Empire: Political Participation, Social Status and Identities», in: K. Berthelot, J. Price (eds.), In the Crucible of Empire: The Impact of Roman Citizenship upon Greeks, Jews and Christians, Leuven and Paris, 55-72.

Helly, B., 1966, «Le groupe des monnaies fédérales thessaliennes avec Athéna “ aux pompons ”», RN 8, 7-32.

Helly, B., 1997, «Le diorthôma d’Auguste fixant la conversion des statères thessaliens en deniers: une situation de passage à la monnaie unique», Topoi 7.2, 63-91.

Herrmann, P., 1969, Das Testament des Epikrates und andere neue Inschriften aus dem Museum von Manisa, Vienna.

Jones, A. H. M., 1974, «Taxation in Antiquity», in: The Roman Economy: Studies in Ancient Economic and Administrative History, Oxford, 150-186.

Katsari, C., 2011, The Roman Monetary System. The Eastern Provinces from the First to the Third Century AD, Cambridge.

Kılıç Aslan, S., 2023, Lycian Families in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Leiden and Boston.

Kinns, P., 1987, «Asia Minor», in: A. M. Burnett, M. H. Crawford (eds.), The Coinage of the Roman World in the Late Republic, Oxford, 105-119.

Kokkinia, C., 2021, «On the Inscribing in Stone of Augustus’ Res Gestae», ZPE 220, 281-289.

Kremydi, S., 2021, «From the Antigonids to the Romans: Macedonia and Thessaly in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC», in: R. H. J. Ashton, N. Badoud (eds.), Graecia capta? Rome et les monnayages de l’Egée aux IIe-Ier s. av. J.-C., Fribourg, 81-99.

Kremydi, S., & A. Iakovidou, 2015, «Corinth and Athens: Numismatic circulation from the Late Republic to the High Empire», in: P. G. van Alfen, G. Bransbourg, M. Amandry (eds.), FIDES: Contributions to Numismatics in Honor of Richard B.Witschonke, New York, 457-483.

Kyrousis, K., 2019, «Money Distributions as Organising Means of Social Power in Imperial Lycia», ZPE 212, 121-136.

Labarbe, J., 1957, La loi navale de Thémistocle, Paris.

Larsen, J. A. O., 1943a, «Tituli Asiae Minoris, II, 508 Part I. Introduction, Text, and Commentary», CPh 38.3, 177-190.

Larsen, J. A. O., 1943b, «Tituli Asiae Minoris, II, 508 Part II. Discussion», CPh 38.4, 246-255.

Larsen, J. A. O., 1945, «Representation and Democracy in Hellenistic Federalism», CPh 40.2, 65-97.

Lauffer, S., 1975, «Das Bergbauprogramm in Xenophons Poroi», in: H. F. Mussche, P. Spitaels, F. Goemaere-De Poerck (eds.), Thorikos and the Laurion in Archaic and Classical Times, Ghent, 171-194.

Laumonier, A., 1938, «Recherches sur la chronologie des prêtres de Lagina», BCH 62, 251-284.

Laumonier, A., 1958, Les cultes indigènes en Carie, Paris.

Le Teuff, B., 2017, «La fiscalité de la province d’Asie au tournant de l’ère augustéenne : un bilan», in: L. Cavalier, M.-C. Ferriès, F. Delrieux (eds.), Auguste et l’Asie Mineure, Bordeaux, 61-73.

Lo Cascio, E., 2007, «The early Roman empire: The state and the economy», in: W. Scheidel, I. Morris, R. P. Saller (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, Cambridge, 619-647.

Loraux, N., 1981, «La cité comme cuisine et comme partage», Annales (HSS) 36.4, 614-622.

Lupu, E., 2009, Greek Sacred Law. A Collection of New Documents (NGSL), 2nd ed., Leiden and Boston.

Ma, J., 2014, «Les cités grecques, une tentative de synthèse», CCG 25, 149-164.

Ma, J., 2018, «Whatever Happened to Athens? Thoughts on the Great Convergence and Beyond», in: M. Canevaro, B. Gray (eds.), The Hellenistic Reception of Classical Athenian Democracy and Political Thought, Oxford, 277-298.

Mango, E., 2004, «Bankette im hellenistischen Gymnasion», in: D. Kah, P. Scholz (eds.), Das hellenistische Gymnasion, Berlin, 273-311.

Mann, C., & P. Scholz (eds.), 2012, “Demokratie” im Hellenismus von der herrschaft des Volkes zur Herrschaft der Honoratioren, Mannheim.

Meadows, A. R., 2002, «Stratonikeia in Caria: the Hellenistic City and its Coinage», NC 162, 79-134.

Meadows, A. R., 2021a, «The Penetration of the Denarius and Quinarius Standards into Asia Minor in the 1st Century BC», in: R. H. J. Ashton, N. Badoud (eds.), Graecia capta? Rome et les monnayages de l’Egée aux IIe-Ier s. av. J.-C., Fribourg, 127-185.

Meadows, A. R., 2021b, «Tout ce qui brille…. Electrum and the origins of western coinage», RN 178, 443-470.

Metcalf, W. E., 2017, The Later Republican Cistophori, New York.

Migeotte, L., 1984, L’emprunt public dans les cités grecques, Quebec.

Migeotte, L., 1997, «La date de l’oktôbolos eisphora de Messène», Topoi 7.1, 51-61.

Migeotte, L., 2011, «Distributions de grain à Samos à la période hellénistique : le “ pain gratuit ” pour tous ?», in: Économie et finances publiques des cités grecques, volume I. Choix d’articles publiés de 1976 à 2001, Lyon, 295-304.

Millar, F., 1977, The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC-AD 337), London.

Millar, F., 1991, «Les congiares à Rome et la monnaie», in: A. Giovannini (ed.), Nourrir la plèbe: Actes du colloque tenu a Genève les 28 et 29 IX. 1989 en hommage a Denis van Berchem, Basel, 143-159.

Mørkholm, O., 1984, «The chronology of the New Style coinage of Athens», ANSMN 29, 29-42.

Morstein-Marx, R., 2021, Julius Caesar and the Roman People, Cambridge.

Mrozek, S., 1987, Les distributions d’argent et de nourriture dans les villes italiennes du Haut-Empire romain, Brussels.

Neesen, L., 1980, Untersuchungen zu den direkten Staatsabgaben der römischen Kaiserzeit (27 v. Chr.–284 n. Chr.), Bonn.

Nigdelis, P., 2009, «The Gens Varinia in Macedonia: On the Serrai Decree SEG LIV 617», GRBS 49.4, 515-533.

Parker, R., 1996, Athenian Religion. A History, Oxford.

Pasqualini, A., 1969-1970, «Note su alcuni aspetti «politici» di un costume di epoca imperiale : le sportulae municipali», Helikon 9-10, 265-312.

Pont, A.-V., 2016, «Élites civiques et propriété foncière : les effets de l’intégration à l’empire sur une cité grecque moyenne, à partir de l’exemple d’Iasos», in: F. Lerouxel, A.-V. Pont, (eds.), Propriétaires et citoyens dans l’Orient romain, Bordeaux, 233-260.

Price, M., 1987, «Southern Greece», in: A. M. Burnett, M. H. Crawford (eds.), The Coinage of the Roman World in the Late Republic. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the British Museum in September 1985, Oxford, 95-103.

Purcell, N., 1986, «Livia and the Womanhood of Rome», PCPhS 32, 78-105.

Quaß, F., 1993, Die Honoratiorenschicht in den Städten des griechischen Ostens, Stuttgart.

Rigsby, K. J., 1998, «Geographical Readings», EA 30, 137-142.

Robert, L., 1938, L. Études épigraphiques et philologiques, Paris.

Robert, L., 1940, Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec, Paris.

Robert, L., 1945, Le sanctuaire de Sinuri près de Mylasa, Paris.

Robert, L., 1969-1990, Opera Minora Selecta, 7 vols., Amsterdam.

Rogers, G. M., 1991, The Sacred Identity of Ephesos. Foundation Myths of a Roman City, London.

Samitz, C., 2013, «Die Einführung der Dekaproten und Eikosaproten in den Städten Kleinasiens und Griechenlands», Chiron 43, 1-61.

Sartre, M., 1995, L’Asie Mineure et l’Anatolie d’Alexandre à Dioclétien (IVe s. av. J.-C. / IIIe s. ap. J.-C.), Paris.

Schmitt-Pantel, P., 1992, La cité au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques, Rome.

Sing, R., 2021, «The rates of jury pay and assembly pay in fourth-century Athens», CQ 71.1, 119-134.

Slater, W. J., 2000, «Handouts at Dinner», Phoenix 54, 107-122.

Spawforth, A. J. S., 2012, Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution, Cambridge.

Stein-Hölkeskamp, E., 1989, Adelskultur und Polis-gesellschaft. Studien zum griechischen Adel in archaischer und klassischer Zeit, Stuttgart.

Strubbe, J. H. M., 2001, «Bürger, Nicht-Bürger und Polis-Ideologie», in: K. Demoen (ed.), The Greek City from Antiquity to the Present: Historical Reality, Ideological Construction, Literary Representation, Leuven, 27-39.

Thonemann, P., 2010, «The Women of Akmoneia», JRS 100, 163-178.

Touratsoglou, I., 1987, «Macedonia», in: A. M. Burnett, M. H. Crawford (eds. The Coinage of the Roman World in the Late Republic. Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the British Museum in September 1985, Oxford, 53-78.

Touratsoglou, I., 1993, Η νομισματική κυκλοφορία στην αρχαία Μακεδονία, Athens.

Tuchelt, K., 1992, «Tieropfer in Didyma. Ein Nachtrag», AA, 61-81.

Van Berchem, D., 1939, Les distributions de blé et d’argent a la plebe romaine sous l’empire, Geneva.

Van Bremen, R., 1996, The Limits of Participation: Women and Civic Life in the Greek East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods, Amsterdam.

Walbank, F. W., 1957-1979, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols., Oxford.

Warren, J., 1999, «The Achaian League Silver Coinage Controversy Resolved: A Summary», NC 159, 99-109.

Weiss, P., 2005, «The Cities and Their Money», in: C. Howgego, V. Heuchert, A. Burnett (eds.), Coinage and Identity in the Roman Provinces, Oxford, 59-61.

Zuiderhoek, A., 2009, The Politics of Munificence in the Roman Empire. Citizens, Elites and Benefactors in Asia Minor, Cambridge.

Zuiderhoek, A., 2017, «Un-civic Benefactions? Gifts to Non-citizens and Civic Honours in the Greek Cities of the Roman East», in: A. Heller, O. M. van Nijf (eds.), The Politics of Honour in the Greek Cities of the Roman Empire, Leiden, 182-198.

[1] IG XII.5 663 ll. 14-27 (appendix no. 48).

[2] See the appendix for references to examples.

[3] In particular, see Rogers 1991, 39-79, Ferrary & Rousset 1998, 299-302, Heller 2009, 357-359, Zuiderhoek 2009, 86-109, and 2017, Kyrousis 2019.

[4] E.g. Schmitt-Pantel 1992, 352-353.

[5] Coinage as token and commodity: Hart 1986, 638.

[6] The numbers in figure 1 are based on the sources in the appendix, and represent numbers of epigraphic records of euergetic cash handouts, some of which (although only rarely) record more than one act of distribution. 7th-1st centuries BCE: nos. 1-3. 1st century CE: nos. 4-14. 2nd century CE: nos. 15-65 (nos. 54 and 57 each comprise two inscriptions recording a single distribution). 3rd century CE: nos. 66-91. Distributions dating generally to the imperial period CE: nos. 92-109.

[7] Hdt. 1.54; cf. Plut. Mor. 556f for another distribution by Kroisos to Delphi (via the sage Aisop) of four minas per head (see appendix no. 1).

[8] Meadows 2021b, 462-467.

[9] Domingo-Gygax, 2016, 69, 76-77, in relation to Pindaric epinician poetry.

[10] Ath. pol. 27.3, BNJ 115 (Theopompos of Chios) F89, 135, Plut. Cim. 10, with Stein-Hölkeskamp 1989, 212-213, Schmitt-Pantel 1992, 180-186, Domingo-Gygax 2016, 139-143, Azoulay 2017, 144; cf. Plut. Sol. 2.1, mentioning the unspecified benefactions (φιλανθρωπίαι) of Solon’s father.

[11] Schmitt-Pantel 1992, 121-143, 186-202, Parker 1996, 127-128, and Donahue 2004, 44-48.

[12] IG II2 334 ll. 10-16; see also, over the 5th and 4th centuries, IG I3 14 ll. 2-4, 137 ll. 7-9, 81 ll. 26-27, IG II2 47 ll. 10-17, SEG 21.527 ll. 20-24. Distributions were also carried out at the deme-level: IG I3 244 (note C l. 6: ὀβολοί are spits, not monetary obols).

[13] Hdt. 7.144.1, Plut. Them. 4.1, Polyaenus, Strat. 1.30.6, with Labarbe 1957, 39-42 and Lauffer 1975, 185-186; see also Hdt. 3.57.2 (distribution of mining proceeds at Siphnos in 524 BCE).

[14] Ath. pol. 27.2-3, Plut. Per. 9.2-3, with Schmitt-Pantel 1992, 193-196, Azoulay 2017, 144-145, for jurors’ pay; for assembly pay and the theoric fund, see Csapo 2007, 100-115 and Sing 2021, 128-134.

[15] Domingo-Gygax 2016, 156-161, and in relation to Athenian public feasts, Loraux 1981, 620, Garnsey 1999, 131-134.

[16] IG XII.6 172 ll. 52-63. The number of recipients was probably small, implying a festival context, rather than a genuine emergency measure: Migeotte 2011, 299-304.

[17] E.g. I.Didyma 488 ll. 4-11 (six hemiekta of grain to each citizen on the birthday of Eumenes II).

[18] IG XII.4 456 ll. 3-5, IG II2 847 ll. 25-33 (215/214 BCE); see also IG II2 1303 ll. 17-19 (217/216 BCE) and IG II3.1 1281 l. 16 (187/186 BCE); cf. Schmitt-Pantel 1992, 386. Elsewhere, see e.g. I.Priene2 416 ll. 22-25 (mid-4th century BCE), IG XII.5 647 ll. 9-17 (Koressos, early 3rd century BCE), IG II2 1242 ll. 7-9 (3rd century BCE), I.Magnesia 98 ll. 54-59 (c. 197/196 BCE), SEG 56.1227 ll. 21-26 (Kolophon, 180-160 BCE), F.Delphes III.3 328 ll. 5-8 (160-159 BCE, also includes wine distribution), IG XII.4 292 l. 11 (Kos, mid-2nd century BCE), SEG 27.261B ll. 65-67 (Beroia, mid-2nd century BCE), SEG 45.1508A ll. 9-13 (Bargylia, late 2nd century BCE), IG XII.4 350 ll. 48-73 (Kos, late 2nd century BCE); several records of priesthood sales stipulate distribution of meat: IG XII.4 278A l. 23 (Kos, mid-4th century BCE), I.Mylasa 914 ll. 4-8 (2nd century BCE); see also Lupu 2009, 100, 266-267.

[19] In particular, Schmitt-Pantel 1992, 255-420, Garnsey 1999, 134.

[20] IG XII Suppl. 122 ll. 12-15, 17-19; see also IG XII.4 110 ll. 4-6, 121 ll. 12-16 (both from Kos, late 3rd century BCE), CIG 3066 ll. 14-16, SEG 35.1152 ll. 10-14 (both from Teos, 2nd century BCE), SEG 67.718bis ll. 2-6 (Iasos, mid-2nd century BCE), I.Priene2 43 ll. 28-43 (c. 130 BCE), IG XII.6 1218 ll. 11-13 (Ikaros, late 2nd century BCE), IG II2 1343 ll. 24-27 (Athens, 37/36 BCE).

[21] See also IG XII.5 647 ll. 9-17 (Koressos, early 3rd century BCE), conducted by the city, not a benefactor.

[22] IG XII Suppl. 122 ll. 12-15.

[23] IG XII.7 22 ll. 7-16, 35 ll. 3-8, IG XII Suppl. 33 ll. 11-18, 330 ll. 10-18; see also a similar range at sacrificial feasts to Hera at Aigiale on Amorgos: IG XII.7 389 ll. 12-19, 390A ll. 10-12.

[24] IG XII.7 515 ll. 49-61 with Gauthier 1980, 210-218 for lines 55-58; cf. I.Histria 1 ll. 15-18 (mid-3rd century BCE) for another endowed feast.

[25] In general, see Strubbe 2001 and Beck 2015. Priene: I.Priene2 64 ll. 253-263, 272-278, 65 ll. 176-182, 192-219, 69 ll. 53-59, 80-83; see also I.Priene2 55 ll. 12-16, 67 ll. 173-176, 180-182, 72 l. 9, 12-17. Klaros: SEG 39.1244II ll. 33-41, 39.1243IV ll. 24-34. Kyme: SEG 33.1036 ll. 18-27, 33.1037 ll. 15-19, 32.1243 ll. 16-19, 33-39, 43-45. Sardeis: I.Sardis 27 ll. 13-18. Eresos: IG XII Suppl. 528 ll. 22-27. Xanthos: Baker & Thériault 2018, 302 ll. 13-14. Pagai: IG VII 190 ll. 10-18, 26-28. Andros: IG XII.5 721 ll. 16-19, 26-28.

[26] I.Priene2 64 ll. 257-259, 272-273, 65 ll. 192-193, 67 ll. 238-239, SEG 39.1243I ll. 11-16, IV ll. 24-31, SEG 33.1036 ll. 27-30, 33.1037 ll. 19-20, I.Mylasa 155 ll. 11-13, I.Histria 59 l. 10, IG VII 190 ll. 16-18, IG XII.2 528 l. 28, SEG 32.1243 ll. 31-32; for glukismos in general, see Schmitt-Pantel 1992, 344-348.

[27] I.Priene2 71 ll. 33 (spelt porridge), SEG 32.1243 ll. 34-36 (χονδρόγαλα, a porridge made of milk and flour).

[28] IG VII 190 ll. 26-28; for imperial-era distributions at statues, see e.g. I.Ephesos 4123, I.Aphr. 11.110, SEG 65.655, TAM V.3 1475, IGBulg I2 16.

[29] E.g. IG XII.7 515 ll. 49-61 (Amorgos, c. 100 BCE), IG XII.9 234 ll. 28-32 (Eretria, c. 100 BCE), IG XII.5 129 ll. 59-65 (Paros, 2nd century BCE), I.Sestos 1 ll. 65-67, 72-74, 84-86 (Menas, c. 120s BCE), IGR IV 294 ll. 17-19 (Pergamon, 69 BCE), I.Sardis 27 ll. 13-18 (mid-1st century BCE); for banquets in gymnasia see Mango 2004.

[30] E.g. IG II2 1227 ll. 8-10 (Salamis, 131/130 BCE), MDAI(A) 35 (1910) 401 n. 1 ll. 28-30 (Pergamon, late 2nd century BCE), MDAI(A) 35 (1910) 468 n. 52 ll. 3-5 (Pergamon, 2nd-1st centuries BCE), IG XII.9 234 ll. 23-24 (Eretria, c. 100 BCE), I.Thespiai 373 ll. 3-4 (Thespiai, late 2nd-early 1st centuries BCE); gymnasiarchs also supplied oil to resident foreigners: I.Sestos 1 ll. 72-74 (late 2nd century BCE), Michel, Recueil 544 ll. 16-21 (Themisonion, 67 BCE), SEG 54.1101 ll. 7-13 (Mylasa, late 2nd century BCE); aromatised oil: I.Priene2 68 ll. 62-66 (Priene, early 1st century BCE), MDAI(A) 35 (1910) 409-411 n. 3 ll. 21, 23, 26 (Pergamon, 69 BCE); «white» oil: MDAI(A) 32 (1907) 278 n. 11 ll. 20-21 (Pergamon, late 2nd century BCE); for gymnasiarchs, oil, and euergetism in the later Hellenistic period, see Ameling 2004, 151-152, Fröhlich 2009, Curty 2015.

[31] For these themes in general, see Gauthier 1985, 53-75, Sartre 1995, 137-164, Fröhlich & Müller 2005, Mann & Scholz 2012, Hamon 2007, Ma 2014, 154-161, and 2018, 291-296, Forster 2018, 189-326, 357-403, and now Boubounelle, Bady & Vlamos 2023.

[32] E.g. IG II2 334 ll. 21-25 (335/334 BCE).

[33] I.Priene2 64 ll. 272-274 (an eighth of a medimnos), 65 ll. 213-214 (four medimnoi); IG XII.7 515 ll. 70-74 (a choinix and half-choinix); IG IV2.1 66 ll. 37-38 (half a medimnos).

[34] IG XII.5 647 ll. 11-13, I.Priene2 41 l. 6; see also IG XII.7 515 l. 64 (a mina of pork at Aigiale).

[35] Cf. Robert 1945, 48-49. Sale of sacrificial meat at Didyma: I.Didyma 482, with Tuchelt 1992, 79-80.

[36] I.Histria 59 ll. 11-12 (late 2nd-1st centuries BCE) mentions an unspecified distribution alongside a wine-handout (νομὴν καὶ οἰνομέ|[τρησιν]), pace Schmitt-Pantel 1992, 351; I.Kios 8 ll. 10-12 alludes to unspecified διαδόσεις; the king mentioned on several occasions in the text (ll. 5, 9-10, 19) suggests a Hellenistic date.

[37] Polyb. 28.20.11 (appendix no. 2), with Walbank 1957-1979, 3.356.

[38] I.Iasos 4 ll. 15-25.

[39] E.g. I.Iasos 20 ll. 4-6 (early 3rd century BCE).

[40] SEG 50.1101 ll. 12-19, 45.1508B ll. 13-15.

[41] I.Lampsakos 9 ll. 4-6.

[42] TAM II 508 (appendix no. 3), with Larsen 1943a, 1943b and 1945 for the dating, followed by Rigsby 1998, 138, Migeotte 1984, 336-337 n. 110; see however Fournier 2010, 30, who gives a date in the 1st century CE.

[43] TAM II 508 ll. 21-23.

[44] Consider, for instance, the enormous donation of 300,000 drachmas to Sidyma, Balboura, Lydai and Kalynda: TAM II 508 ll. 19-21, with Rigsby 1998, 139.

[45] Three features are significant, and hint at a possible later dating in the imperial period: 1) the numerous references to public hunts and animal-fights (κυνήγια, προκυνήγια, θηριομάχια, ll. 7-10, 12-13, 15, 17) suggest a context when these forms of entertainment were more mainstream (Robert 1940, 144-145 was agnostic about the date); 2) the reference to a σεμνότατος δικαιοδότης (ll. 25-26), whom Larsen 1943b, 254 suggested was the leading judge of a delegation of foreign judges, more probably refers to a Roman official, or even the governor, cf. Fournier 2010, 30 n. 82; 3) Larsen’s discussion of the letter-forms (1945, 93-95), which show a range of styles for the sigma and omega in particular, may just as well suit a date in the early 1st century CE, as 1st century BCE.

[46] I.Stratonikeia 662 A (appendix no. 4).

[47] I.Stratonikeia 611 ll. 4-5; cf. Laumonier 1938, 258, and 1958, 375.

[48] E.g. I.Ephesos 1393 ll. 4-5 (probably early 1st century CE); otherwise it is attached to the name of individual emperors: IG XII.6 300 ll. 5-6 (Samos, 37-41 CE), IGR IV 144 ll. 3-4, 16 (Kyzikos, 41-54 CE), IG VII 2713 l. 55 (Akraiphia, 67 CE). The term «whole house» (ἅπας/ σύμπας οἶκος) is also attested, but is more common in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and usually combined with a longer imperial name: SEG 18.578 ll. 14-15 (Paphos, 14 CE), 28.758 ll. 1-14 (Chersonesos on Krete, 83-96 CE (?)), IOSPE I² 174 ll. 2-5 (Olbia, 198 CE), IG XII.5 659 ll. 2-5 (Syros, 138-161 CE, see also 661 and Suppl. 238), IGBulg V 5659 ll. 1-4 (Bizye, 211-217 CE).

[49] See appendix nos. 5-14.

[50] I.Ephesos 4123 ll. 9-11 (appendix no. 9), and Engelmann 2004, 71 ll. 12-17, with BE 1944, 162 pp. 225-226.

[51] IGR IV 661 ll. 20-22 (appendix no. 11), with Slater 2000, 118-119.

[52] Plin. Ep. 10.116, with Kyrousis 2019, 122-123.

[53] E.g. Plut. Mor. 821f-822a, Lucian De mort. Peregr. 14-15, with Kyrousis 2019, 123-125.

[54] The earliest instance is CIL X 1416 ll. 9-10 (Herculaneum, 48 CE), while other examples congregate in the 2nd and early 3rd centuries, cf. Pasqualini 1969-1970, 286-312, Mrozek 1987, 23-24, 33-37, Duncan-Jones 1982, 104-106, 138-144, 188-200, and 2008, 144, 380.

[55] Suet. Caes. 38, App. B Civ. 2.102, Cass. Dio 43.21, with Morstein-Marx 2021, 407-410; RGDA Cooley 15. Augustus omits further distribution in 13 CE (Suet. Tib. 20): Cooley 2009, 173. For congiaria in general, see Van Berchem 1939, 119-176, Ruggiero, Diz. Epigr. s.v. Liberalitas (Barbieri), Millar 1977, 136-137.

[56] Van Berchem 1939, 144-161 for congiaria up to Severus Alexander.

[57] Cooley 2009, 12-13, Kokkinia 2021, 283-287.

[58] Cooley 2009, 9-11, I.Ancyra pp. 68, 112-115, 134-137 for the architectural context.

[59] Spawforth 2012, 103-232 in particular.

[60] SEG 43.717B ll. 19-21, I.Aphr. 12.803 ll. 9-10, SEG 65.1483 ll. 8-18. T. Flavius Praxias’ endowment was safeguarded by the eternal hegemony of the Romans and protection of the divine emperors: IGR IV 661 ll. 12-13, 22. See appendix nos. 6-7, 11-12.

[61] Commemorations of priesthoods at Lagina in the 1st century BCE are only of individual priests: I.Stratonikeia 533, 613, 620, 627, 651, 652, 653A, 654; the same is true at Panamara in the 2nd-1st centuries: I.Stratonikeia 101-106, while in the 1st century CE a number of commemorative dedications include both husband and wife as joint priests: I.Stratonikeia 113, 117, 119, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 130, 133 col. 2, 142, 146, 149, 161, 156. See also Spawforth 2012, 227-228, on the contemporaneous couple Euphrosynos and Epigone at Mantineia (IG V.2 268); for the image of the couple and womanhood at Rome, Van Bremen 1996, 136-141, Purcell 1986, 84-95 and Thonemann 2010, 177-178, apropos of MAMA XI 99 (6/7 CE).

[62] SEG 32.1243 ll. 38-39.

[63] Gaius Caligula scattered tokens himself, redeemable for commodities, privileges, or money: Suet. Cal. 37.1, Cass. Dio 59.25.5, with Millar 1977, 137.

[64] IG VII 2712 ll. 76-77 (see also appendix no. 5), with Robert 1969-1990, 7.740-745 and BE 1983, 323 pp. 135-136.

[65] For Potens’ background, see Pont 2016, 240. The fragmentary testament of a Varinius Rebilus (c. 22 CE), a Roman immigrant at Serrai in Macedonia, may record an annual distribution on his birthday, at an honorific statue: SEG 59.697C ll. 1-4, as restored by Nigdelis 2009, 520-524, with Fournier 2014, 91-96 for the dating of a Thasian decree concerning Rebilus to 22 CE, almost certainly contemporaneous with this donation at Serrai; if correct, this would make it of similar or even slightly earlier date than the distributions of Chrysaor and Panphile.

[66] SEG 43.717B l. 21, IGR IV 661 ll. 20-22, and Slater 2000, 118-119.

[67] E.g. CIL XII 4393 ll. 12-13 (Narbo, 149 CE), and Slater 2000, 113-116.

[68] Augustus’ promotion of a notion of Roman citizenship based in the provinces may have facilitated this cultural self-awareness: Eberle 2017, 355-365.

[69] E.g. the donations of kings and dynasts to Rhodes after the earthquake of 227 (Polyb. 5.89-90), or Eumenes II’s gift of 160,000 medimnoi of grain to Miletos (Milet VI.3 1039 ll. 4-8); cf. Bringmann & Steuben 1995-2000, 2.1.108-142.

[70] E.g. Antiochos IV at Daphne (Ath. 5.195d-f, Polyb. 30.26, sacrificial meat); Antiochos VIII Grypos at Daphne (Ath. 5.210e, 12.540a, sacrificial meat, gold garlands, gifts of animals, silver vessels, slaves), Ptolemy VIII’s at a feast while priest of Apollo at Kyrene (Ath. 12.550a, silver phialai, horses with esquires), Kleopatra VII’s banquet at Tarsos (Ath. 4.147f-148b, silver vessels, furniture, horses, slaves, and pay worth a talent (ταλαντιαίους μισθούς), although whether this was in coin is unclear); cf. Donahue 2004, 48-49, Duncan-Jones 2008, 145, Schmitt-Pantel 1992, 348 for references.

[71] Cf. I.Sestos 1 ll. 47-53.

[72] E.g. IG VII 2712 ll. 63-66 (Akraiphia, mid-1st century CE), I.Didyma 279B ll. 8-9 (100-150 CE), IGR III 802 ll. 18-26 (Sillyon, 2nd century CE), I.Stratonikeia 527 ll. 7-8 (mid-2nd century CE), IGR III 492 ll. 11-12 (Oinoanda, 3rd century CE?); cf. Quaß 1993, 312-317.

[73] Heller 2009, 357-359 and 2019, 61-65, Rogers 1991, 66-72, and Zuiderhoek 2009, 86-109.

[74] E.g. Lo Cascio 2007, 627-630, Katsari 2011, 167-178.

[75] Figures 2 and 3 show numbers of inscriptions recording monetary distributions which also mention the monetary currencies used at them, based on the 70 inscriptions in the appendix dating to the imperial period which do so (nos. 8, 10, 13, 16-17, 21, 25, 29, 36-37, 45-47, 50, 52, 55, 57, 63, 66, 70, 74-75, 77, 79-82, 86, 88, 94-95, 98, 101, 103, 106 and 109 do not record currencies); multiple currencies mentioned in a single inscription have been counted separately, e.g. no. 48 mentioning both denarii and assaria features under both «denarius» and «assarion». The only document not counted under figure 1 is no. 15, Herodes’ distribution of a mina, which is unique.

[76] The latter is usually understood as an archaising term for the denarius: Robert 1969-1990, 5.304-305 n. 224 and Amandry & Kremydi 2017, 98.

[77] For the same problem at Rome, see Van Berchem 1939, 163.

[78] Handouts rarely exceeded 25 denarii in size; see only nos. 24, 60-61 in the appendix.

[79] Price 1987, 98, RPC I p. 280, and Helly 1966, with Helly 1997 for the diorthoma; see also Kremydi 2021, 85-86, 91-92, 94, and Amandry 2021, 102-103 for the contemporaneous situation in Epiros, Aitolia, and central Greece. Denarii first appear in hoards in the mid-1st century BCE (IGCH 351, CH 9.291), and presumably monopolised the monetary scene from Augustus onwards, although one should note the absence of hoards in early imperial Thessaly.

[80] Boehringer 1997, Warren 1999, 100-103, Grandjean 1999 and 2016, Amandry 2021, 105-106.

[81] Mørkholm 1984, Ashton & Weiss 1997, 36 n. 44, RPC I p. 265.

[82] IG V.1 1432 and 1433 ll. 28-31, with Migeotte 1997 and Doyen 2017. Finds of denarii are sporadic in 2nd- and early 1st-century hoards, but become common from the triumviral period: Crawford 1985, 197-198, 320-321, Price 1987, 99, RPC I p. 245, Amandry 2021, 106, and Kremydi & Iakovidou 2015, 466, 471-477 for site-finds at Corinth and Athens.

[83] Touratsoglou 1987, 33-34, and 1993, 32, 33-34, 37-38, tables IIα and IIβ, RPC I p. 287, Burnett 2000, 90-92, Amandry & Kremydi 2017, 79-84, and Kremydi 2021, 92-94.

[84] For post-133 cistophori, see Carbone 2020, 197-236 and 2021a, 243-257, and Metcalf 2017, 65-67.

[85] Kinns 1987, 107-109, Carbone 2014, 18-24, Delrieux 2021, 195-213.

[86] Carbone 2014, 12-14.

[87] Meadows 2021a; see also Delrieux 2021, 213-221. Bronze denominations were also aligned with a lighter assarion, pegged in weight to the Greek tetrachalkon: Carbone 2021b.

[88] Carbone 2014, 11-12, 19 for Asia; RPC I 2412-2416 (Chios), 2744-2745 (Rhodes), with Ashton & Weiss 1997, 37-39, 2775-2781 (Stratonikeia), 2782-2785 (Mylasa), 2868-2869 (Tabai), 3307-3312, 3334-3339, II 1501-1505, III 2673-2677 (Lykian koinon).

[89] Convergence on the denarius standard may have aimed at improving the efficiency of silver currency overall: Burnett 2021, 29-31; the clear differentiation between silver and bronze also seems to reflect a conscious policy: Weiss 2005, 59.

[90] RPC I 2775-2781.

[91] E.g. RGDA Cooley 18 (senatus consultum on Stratonikeia, 81 BCE); cf. Meadows 2002, 122-125. Several other later Stratonikeian monetary distributions and benefactions were also made in drachmas, e.g. I.Stratonikeia 1428 ll. 12-14 (mid-2nd century CE), 192 ll. 7-10 (2nd century CE), 651 ll. 3-4, 653 ll. 3-5 (donations of money for a stoa, 1st century CE), 144 ll. 9-14 (unspecified works, 1st-2nd century CE), alongside others mentioning denarii: I.Stratonikeia 172 ll. 12-13 (late 1st-early 2nd century CE), 205 l. 37 (2nd century CE), 237 ll. 13-15 (100-150 CE).

[92] See further Meadows 2002, 111-113.

[93] RPC I 2415-2416, and pp. 8-9 (only 6 specimens known), with Robert 1938, 139-143.

[94] E.g. I.Ephesos 14 ll. 17, 19, 24, 28 (early 1st century CE), GIBM 1032 ll. 7-9 (Teos, 1st century CE), Herrmann 1969, 7-36 ll. 21-26 (Nakrason, 1st century CE); cf. Carbone 2021a, 264-272. The light Rhodian drachmas attested at Kibyra (I.Kibyra 42A-E c. ll. 11-13) most probably represent a unit of account rather than evidence for the circulation of a Rhodian drachm coinage: Ashton & Weiss 1997, 37-39. Moreover, some inscriptions of the 1st century CE mention both denarii and drachmas in the same text, e.g. I.Ephesos 14 ll. 19-23, 27 and 4123 ll. 9-17, which may suggest a distinction between denarius and cistophoric currencies; only a full study of epigraphic attestations of drachmas in the imperial period will resolve these problems.

[95] Le Teuff 2017, 61-69.

[96] Jones 1974, 164-165, 173-174, Brunt 1981, 163-170, Lo Cascio 2007, 631-632, and Le Teuff 2017, 66-67.

[97] I.Lampsakos 10 ll. 3-5, I.Beroia 117 ll. 8-10 (benefactors who paid for the capital tax of the city and province), I.Assos 28 ll. 11-15 (1st-2nd century CE) and La Carie 67 ll. 10-13 (foundations to cover the costs of the capital tax), and Satyros at Tenos, below.

[98] Antigonids: I.Beroia 3 ll. 14-16 (248 BCE) mentions tax-immunity, whether or not this is a poll-tax; Seleukids: Joseph. AJ 12.142-143, 13.50, and also Arist. [Oec.] 1346a.5; Attalids: Ashton 1994.

[99] Carbone 2020, 221-236 discusses the possibility that late Republican cistophori were struck for paying tax.

[100] Neesen 1980, 128: 10-40 drachmas per head.

[101] Consider also that distributions of imperial congiaria at Rome were appendages to the much larger processes involved in the conveyance and stockpiling of coined tax at the capital: Millar 1991, 145-157.

[102] Dekaprotoi and their role in paying and collecting taxes due to Rome: Samitz 2013, 13-16.

[103] IG XII.5 946 (appendix no. 19) ll. 5-18 (distributions from donations of 21,000 denarii), 18-22 (endowment of 18,500 denarii towards covering the city’s poll-tax).