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

43 ISSN 0213-2095 – eISSN 2444-3565 Veleia, 2025, 42, 43-75 https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.25841 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. ** 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– [email protected]– 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. ISSN 0213-2095 - eISSN 2444-3565 / © 2025 UPV/EHU Press This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License * 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.»). 44 MARCUS CHIN Veleia, 2025, 42, 43-75 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, who1 …ἔδωκεν [ἑ]|[κάστ]ῳ σφυρίδος δηνάρια πέντε, ἐλευ[θέ]|[ραι]ς δὲ γυναιξὶν πάσαις καὶ θηλείαι[ς] | [παισὶν] οἶνον· καὶ ἔδωκεν ταῖς μ[ὲν γυ]|[ναιξὶ] διανομῆς ἀνὰ ἀσσάρια ὀ[κτώ], | [ταῖς δὲ] παισὶν ἀνὰ ἀσσάρια τέσσα[ρα· τῇ] | [δὲ ἑξῆς] ἡμέρᾳ παρέσχεν τοῖς μὲν γε]|[ρουσιασ] ταῖς καὶ ἄλλοις οἷς ἐβουλήθ[η] | [δεῖπνο]ν καὶ ἔδωκεν ἑκάστῳ διαν[ομῆς] | [ἀνὰ δην]άριον ἕν· τοῖς [δὲ] λοιποῖς πολεί|[ταις καὶ πα]ισὶν ἐλευθέρ[οι]ς καὶ πα[ρ]οικο[ῦσι] | [παρέσχεν] οἶνον καὶ ἔδωκεν διανομῆ[ς] | [τοῖς μὲν π]ολείταις ἀνὰ δηνάριον ἕν, [ἐλευ]|[θέροις δὲ] παισὶν ἀνὰ ἀσσάρια ὀκτώ… …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 CE2. 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 identity3. 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 memory4. 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 euergetism5. 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 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. THE EMERGENCE OF CASH DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE CIVIC EUERGETISM... 45 https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.25841 Veleia, 2021, 38, 43-75 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 centuries6. 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. 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. 46 MARCUS CHIN Veleia, 2025, 42, 43-75 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 Persia7. 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 century8. 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 coin9. 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 money10. 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 grain11. 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 Panathenaia12. 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 century13, and the establishment of pay for jurors and assembly-goers, and of the theoric fund14. 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 largesse15. 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 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. 2627, 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, 144145, for jurors’ pay; for assembly pay and the theoric fund, see Csapo 2007, 100-115 and Sing 2021, 128134. 15 Domingo-Gygax 2016, 156-161, and in relation to Athenian public feasts, Loraux 1981, 620, Garnsey 1999, 131-134. THE EMERGENCE OF CASH DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE CIVIC EUERGETISM... 47 https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.25841 Veleia, 2021, 38, 43-75 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 tribes16. Elsewhere, such distributions of grain17, 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 council18. Private individuals moreover played increasingly greater roles in the financing and running of communal sacrifices and banquets19. 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 gymnasium20. An increasingly large range of social groups was included at such sacrificial events and feasts21. 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 foreigners23. The endowment set up by a Kritolaos for ritual feasting in memory of his son Aleximachos even included Romans and their sons24. 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 citizens25. Moreover, products of ever more unusual quality were also distributed, beyond sacrificial meat alone, 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, 210218 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. 176182, 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. 2434. 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. 48 MARCUS CHIN Veleia, 2025, 42, 43-75 with some providing sweet-wine, at ceremonies of glykismos26, and even types of porridge27. 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 feast28. Gymnasia became scenes for public banquets from the 2nd century onwards29, even as they witnessed evermore lavish distributions of training-oil, sometimes even of special varieties30. 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 domination31. 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 instance32, 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 involved33. 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 century34: these minas were mina-weights, and not the commercial value of these sacrificial portions in minas, even if sacrificial meat was sometimes sold by portion35. 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. 1318 (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, 154161, and 2018, 291-296, Forster 2018, 189-326, 357403, 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. 3738 (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. THE EMERGENCE OF CASH DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE CIVIC EUERGETISM... 49 https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.25841 Veleia, 2021, 38, 43-75 Apart from a few doubtful cases, in fact, no civic notable before the imperial period is certainly attested conducting personalised distributions of coined money36. 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 BCE37. 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 itself38. Elsewhere, distributions of coined money were conducted only by civic governments, through institutions like assembly pay39, 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 Kindyas40, 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-forms42. 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 koinon43. 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 wars44, 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 36 I.Histria 59 ll. 11-12 (late 2nd-1st centuries BCE) mentions an unspecified distribution alongside a winehandout (νομὴν καὶ οἰνομέ|[τρησιν]), pace SchmittPantel 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. 50 MARCUS CHIN Veleia, 2025, 42, 43-75 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 outlier45. 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 Panphile46: [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· | τ[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 Augustus47; 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 CE48. Over the 1st century, further instances of monetary distribution crop up at Akraiphia, Beroia, Smyrna, Iasos, Ephesos, Miletos, Aphrodisias, Akmoneia, and Patara49. 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 statues50, while the endowment of T. Flavius Praxias at Akmoneia stipulated an annual distribution to the councillors at his tomb51. 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 en45 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. THE EMERGENCE OF CASH DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE CIVIC EUERGETISM... 51 https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.25841 Veleia, 2021, 38, 43-75 tering 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 acquaintances52. Derisive attitudes like these, also articulated in various snippets in Plutarch and Lucian over the 2nd century, did little, however, to halt the trend53. 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 phenomenon54. 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 Gestae55. The successors of Augustus then continued to hold public monetary distributions, so that the practice became established as an imperial monopoly56. 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 elite57. 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 audiences58. 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, 136137. 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. 58 MARCUS CHIN Veleia, 2025, 42, 43-75 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 wars91. 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 currency92. 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 donation93. 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 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. THE EMERGENCE OF CASH DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE CIVIC EUERGETISM... 59 https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.25841 Veleia, 2021, 38, 43-75 likely to be true for other sporadic references to drachmas in the epigraphic record of the imperial period94. 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 cities95. 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 impositions97. 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-taxes98, 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 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. 1113) 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. 1923, 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, 163170, Lo Cascio 2007, 631-632, and Le Teuff 2017, 6667.97 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. 60 MARCUS CHIN Veleia, 2025, 42, 43-75 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 taxreceipts100. 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 represented101. 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 element102. 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 career103. 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 Hellen100 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). THE EMERGENCE OF CASH DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE CIVIC EUERGETISM... 61 https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.25841 Veleia, 2021, 38, 43-75 istic 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 propertyand 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. 62 MARCUS CHIN Veleia, 2025, 42, 43-75 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 3TAM 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 officeholders of the Lykian koinon Unknown 4I.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 5IG 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 6SEG 43.717 ll. 19-21 Iasos Mid-1st century CE Potens 25 denarii each to the councillors on Claudius’ birthday Denarius 7I.Aphrodisias 12.803 ll. 2232, 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) 8I.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 9I.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 THE EMERGENCE OF CASH DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE CIVIC EUERGETISM... 63 https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.25841 Veleia, 2021, 38, 43-75 No. Source Community Date Name/s of benefactor/s Monetary amount/s and recipients Currency/ currencies specified 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 1stearly 2nd centuries CE Ti. Claudius Lainas 2,400 denarii to the council for distributions Denarius 21 I.Sardis 43 ll. 2-4 Sardeis 1stearly 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, 485553 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 64 MARCUS CHIN Veleia, 2025, 42, 43-75 No. Source Community Date Name/s of benefactor/s Monetary amount/s and recipients Currency/ currencies specified 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 THE EMERGENCE OF CASH DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE CIVIC EUERGETISM... 65 https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.25841 Veleia, 2021, 38, 43-75 No. Source Community Date Name/s of benefactor/s Monetary amount/s and recipients Currency/ currencies specified 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 Seleukeiaon-theKalykadnos 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 Prousiasunder-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 66 MARCUS CHIN Veleia, 2025, 42, 43-75 No. Source Community Date Name/s of benefactor/s Monetary amount/s and recipients Currency/ currencies specified 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 Prousiasunder-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 THE EMERGENCE OF CASH DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE CIVIC EUERGETISM... 67 https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.25841 Veleia, 2021, 38, 43-75 No. Source Community Date Name/s of benefactor/s Monetary amount/s and recipients Currency/ currencies specified 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. 1235 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 74 MARCUS CHIN Veleia, 2025, 42, 43-75 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. THE EMERGENCE OF CASH DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE CIVIC EUERGETISM... 75 https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.25841 Veleia, 2021, 38, 43-75 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, 99109. 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.