Chapter 3
The composition of the Treasuries: Analysis of the Funds
p. 103-178
Texte intégral
1In order to better grasp the nature of the sanctuary’s assets and the way they grew, we now need to contemplate the detail of the various budgetary items of which the accounts inform us. This question leads us also to inquire into the origin of the revenues that went into the sacred treasury. While some of that income came from exploiting the sacred territory other parts of it have to be attributed ultimately to public funds that passed through the sacred treasury for various reasons. Initially, then, we need to start with the records of the cash holdings made by the hieropoioi and sort the revenues that belonged specifically to Apollo’s treasury from those paid into it from the public treasury.
2Of the information given by the accounts of the hieropoioi, some of it points to regular income (prosodoi), the source (poros) of which can be clearly identified: farmstead and property rents belonged to the sacred treasury and came from estates and buildings owned by Apollo, and taxes were levied by the same principle of sacred property on the island. Other revenue was named after the capital that produced it or the budget purpose for which it was earmarked (phiale, choregikon, prytanikon). These were in point of fact monies that belonged to the city-state and were paid in part or in full to the god’s treasury. We know their names but we do not know where they came from, that is, we do not know the poros that produced the prosodos.
3Here the income and monies found in the sacred treasury and belonging specifically to it are described first. But as shall be seen, there are many points of convergence with the composition of the public treasury, to which reference shall also be made.
The Séanctuary’s coined income
Own Resources
4Revenues, that supplied a stable input of about 2 talents per year, were the sanctuary’s regular income: farm rents, property rents, taxes, interest on loans to private individuals, that were enough for its regular upkeep (table 22). These revenues were to be found as from the fourth century BC under the Athenian Domination. It was the Athenian administration that largely contributed to creating these resources, laying the foundations of the sanctuary’s fortune.1
5For the period of Independence, the analysis made of the changes in farm rents and property rents provide the set of available data.2 Notice first that in analysing these revenues one should give proper consideration to the figures shown in the accounts. To this effect, the recording of cash holdings, as done by C. Feyel,3 is of no avail: it gives a misleading impression of the sanctuary’s income by failing to distinguish in the revenues column between what comes from the sanctuary’s regular income and the amounts paid back on loans granted to the city‑state by the sanctuary. The income on interest provides very variable figures because it often includes arrears of payment. If we are to evaluate the sanctuary’s capacity for financing, it is preferable therefore to take account primarily of the periodic revenues from farm rents, property rents, taxes, the proceeds from offertory boxes and from sales.
Table 22 — Changes in periodic revenues (drachmas).
282 | 279 | 250 | 246 | 192 | 179 | |
Farm rents | 10 947 | 11 930 | 10 416 | 11 096.5 | 6 496 | 6 980 |
House rents | 483.5 | 933.2 | 912.6 | 1 752.6 | 1 526 | 1 721.8 |
Taxes | 272 | 695 | 662.5 | 527 | 362 | |
Offertory boxes | 187 | 148.6 | 82.6 | 9.5 | 45.6 | |
Sales | 22 | 656.5 | 114.5 | 973.8 | 10.5 | 184 |
Total | 11 639.5 | 13 940.3 | 12 220.7 | 14 485.4 | 8 569 | 9 293.4 |
6However, the factors making up this budget item are liable to change since they are revenues farmed out by auction. For taxes as for farm rents and property rents, the prices attained by adjudication reflect in principle, in the auction process, the gains that could be made but also the competition among bidders.4
7The accounts of the hieropoioi that have been conserved show the regular recording of tax farming and new adjudications every ten years with a certain regularity, except for the period 240‑220 BC. G. Reger has studied the variations in farm rents during the period of Independence for the twenty temene Apollo possessed.5 In interpreting the changes in the farm rents, everything depends on the groupings made in comparisons among establishments. In this way, J.H. Kent, looking to show that the fall in wine prices in the second half of the third century had affected farm rents of the estates involved in such production, classifies the plots of land depending on whether or not they grew vines, but as G. Reger shows, it is not easy to distinguish among types of production on the basis of the inventories of the hieropoioi, which report primarily the fixtures of the estates (livestock sheds, storage places, artisanal infrastructure).6 We shall look in another chapter on the Delian economic situation into the possible explanations for price changes in relation to the monetary position. For the time being, we shall observe what the movements were, so as to better measure the sanctuary’s budget.
8Generally a steady fall in the output of estates at the time of farm rent adjudication can be observed between the beginning of the third century and the 170s7 and more especially for some estates (which G. Reger assumes produced cereal crops because the change in prices was the same as for alphita), with a sudden drop between the 250s and 220s (although the details of any fluctuations between these two end points is not known).8 Also noteworthy is a sharp fall at the beginning of the period under examination, in 290 specifically. For the rents of sacred houses, for which the records are less complete, the curve reconstructed by G. Reger depicts an overall upward trend with dips especially in the 220s and in 197, and a surge in the middle of the third century.9
9The change in tax proceeds is more difficult to analyse because the hieropoioi do not always mention this revenue in the same way.10 The trends seems to be first upward in the first half of the third century and then downward from the middle of the third century (table 22). The proceeds from interest on loans paid by private individuals is a random form of income because paid at irregular intervals.11
10It should therefore be concluded that the sanctuary’s regular revenues tended to decline somewhat over the course of Independence. In the complete account of the year 179 (ID 442 A), the total of annual revenues reached 9,294 drachmas, or just 1.5 talents, whereas it had come to a little over 2 talents in the third century.
11Despite this downward trend, the regular income was enough to face current spending, as had been the case in the period of Athenian Domination in the fourth century. In the second century, the hieropoioi expressed things differently and they mostly referred to the surplus outstanding (perion) left over from the year’s revenues, once the current expenditures had been dealt with.12 This remainder generally came to about 4,000 drachmas or more and sufficed to show the sanctuary’s capacity to meet its regular spending. On average the “perion of the stele”, as the hieropoioi called the balance of the current account, could finance the building work for the following year for which the hieropoioi made withdrawals from the cash holdings handed down by their predecessors. The sacred treasury even footed expenses for public buildings in the third century, probably because cash was available for the purpose.13
Other Revenues
Reselling
12The sanctuary increased its profits by exploiting its property to the full, selling off the timber and stone from ruined buildings, trading the fertilizer derived from dove droppings and trading the hides of sacrificed animals and empty amphorae (see for example ID 442, A, l. 155‑159). It derived a few tens of drachmas every year from this.
13Resale was indeed a category of receipts that the hieropoioi had established in their accounting practices. Sometimes the indication of the aggregate amount of this income was found under the heading καὶ ἀποπ̣[ρ]α̣θ̣[έντων?] (ID 371, A, l. 5).
14The sale of hides is quite well illustrated in the accounts. The cash holdings of 279 BC (IG XI 2, 161, D, l. 1‑12) and 179 (ID 442, A, l. 158‑159) set down as additional income the sale of hides of victims sacrificed to Asklepios for 21 and 56 drachmas. Responsibility for the sale of hides fell to the priests who handed over the proceeds to the hieropoioi. In 269 BC, the hieropoioi mentioned the sale of the hide of the “ox of the Apollonia” (IG XI 2, 203, A, l. 64). Similarly at the Posideia, the sale of the hide of the ox sacrificed provided additional income for the festival budget.14 This additional income boosted the budget allocated for these festivals, which was fixed, as shall be seen.
15But part at least of the income from the sale of hides ended up in the treasury in a form already hoarded. In this way, the inventories include a category of vases, σκάφια ἀσκληπιακά, that must have represented the consecration of part of the revenues of the sanctuary of Asklepios (ID 320, B, 56; 442, B, l. 43‑48). P. Bruneau assumes these were the proceeds from the sale of the hides and meat of sacrificial animals.15 The fact is that the inventories of the Second Athenian Domination mention four phialai in the Asklepieion as offerings ἀπὸ τῶ[ν γ]ερῶν (ID 1416, A, II, l. 7‑8) and ἀπὸ τῶν δερµάτων (ID 1417, B, I, l. 113, 115‑116, 124). However, care must be taken, as P. Bruneau rightly points out, about conflating these two categories of vase: the four phialai were dedicated to Asklepios whereas the skaphia had been regularly given as offerings to Apollo by the priests of the Asklepieion.
16The precious metal offerings are evidence in any event of there being revenues from outside the sanctuary from “other gods” on Delos who clearly paid a contribution from their own revenues into Apollo’s treasury. It is an interesting point, given that, in the Greek world, many priesthood rules and regulations attest on the contrary to the significance of the resale of hides for the priest’s benefit among the income they might derive from their office. Only the priest of Asklepios seems to have paid the proceeds from the sale of hides directly into the sacred treasury in the course of Independence. Yet other animals were sacrificed to other gods than Apollo on Delos, but the paltry receipts that the cult staff could derive from them must more likely have been pooled perhaps to be consecrated to Apollo in the form of phialai as can be seen in the case of the revenues of the Asklepieion. Generally the share‑out of the proceeds of the sale of hides was subject to stringent rules as attested besides by the priesthood regulations which, when the office was sold, laid down precisely what the purchaser’s perquisites would be.
17The fund of the Temple of Apollo thus tended to centralize the monetary resources of the divinities on Delos. The fact is that, because all of the island’s sanctuaries were paid for from Apollo’s fund, that same fund also took in the revenues derived from them. The Athenian innovations of the classical period, in particular the organization initiated in Attica by the decrees of Callias for sanctuary finances, were probably not alien to this practice.16
18The revenues the sanctuary derived from the sale of hides are not to be mistaken for those of the commission of the boonai that, as shall be seen were part of the public fund.
19Apart from the hides of sacrificial animals, the hieropoioi also sold on the market live animals that had been dedicated by the faithful. These were not animals for sacrifices but dedications to the god by way of an aparche, tithe or contribution out of personal income.17 The inventories provide proof of this because the hieropoioi sometimes state they have consecrated a vase “in place of” (ἀντὶ τοῦ) such-and-such an animal offered to the god.18 C. Vial takes the view these were animal-shaped objects that the faithful consecrated and the hieropoioi had made into phialai for the sake of convenience.19 In point of fact, these were sales of animals that were very much alive and that had been consecrated to Apollo and were not meant for sacrifice. The sanctuary could not keep these animals because it did not engage in livestock farming, with the result that the proceeds from their sale at market led to the dedication of a precious metal offering corresponding to the amount of money secured in the transaction. It is an interesting phenomenon both from the standpoint of ritual practices with regard to the sanctuary and of economic choices: whether it was because they were keen to maintain a tradition or because of their economic position, some of the faithful preferred to make a gift in kind and leave it to the hieropoioi to monetize it rather than turn to the market themselves.
20The hieropoioi also used the market to resell used materials that were either discarded or suitable for re‑use: surplus or old tiles (IG XI 2, 144, A, l. 21; from the oikoi: IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 22‑23; the Pythion: ID 290, A, l. 103), pieces of timber from the Poulydamas (IG XI 2, 159, A, l. 49, the Inopos (ID 354, A, l. 18‑19), the Kynthion (ID 442, A, l. 157) or the Herakleion (ID 442, A, l. 159), stone from the peribolos of the sanctuary (ID 442, A, l. 159), wood from the pruning of wild fig trees (ID 353, A, l. 37‑38). These materials had been set aside when building work was done in the sanctuary and it was a matter both of getting rid of them to clear up and of turning to profit anything that might still have any value. This recourse to the market is therefore of great interest for the analysis of economic choices.20
Offertory boxes
21Proceeds from offertory boxes (ἐκ θησαυρῶν) were another source of income centralized by Apollo’s treasury. The accounts name five of them: the offertory boxes of the sanctuary of Apollo, the Asklepieion, Aphrodision, Artemision‑on-the‑island and, as from the second century, the Sarapieion.21 These boxes were opened annually by the sanctuary’s employees, generally at the beginning of the year, in Lenaion, so as to provide additional revenues for the cash holdings with which to start the financial period.22 Proceeds from the offertory boxes were very variable. That of Apollo, which sometimes amounted to a hundred or so drachmas, invariably brought in more than the others which generally contained just a few drachmas.23
22Once again it can be observed that for all the divinities the revenues ended up in Apollo’s treasury whereas the god was not the sole beneficiary of these offerings. It does not look as though these batches of small change were converted into metal vases: they must have gone directly into the cash holdings of the hieropoioi particularly as, on the face of it, they were made up of coin in everyday use.
23In the account of 250 BC (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 200), the hieropoioi recorded, apart from the proceeds of the offertory boxes already collected in Lenaion (82 drachmas, 4 obols, ¼ obol and 1 chalkos, l. 4‑5), a total amount formed in their financial period in the thesauroi. The editor of the corpus wrote 5,040 drachmas, 4 obols and 1/2 obol, which was an exceptional amount. It is a misreading ( for
) and the amount for the year actually came to 90 drachmas, 4 obols and ½ obol, which is in keeping with the proceeds for the previous year.
Fines
24Several entries feature in the sacred fund by way of fines imposed by the logistai on the hieropoioi in rendering their accounts. In one instance, the fine was paid by the bouleutes to the sacred fund (ID 399, A, l. 120‑121).24
25The hieropoioi provided the details of these receipts in the early years of Independence (IG XI 2, 147, B, l. 2‑4; 162, A, l. 41) and then from 274 BC they recorded the total under the heading ἐξ εὐθυνῶν (IG XI 2, 199, A, l. 18; 269 cA, l. 3 and eB, l. 2; ID 354, l. 18).25 The income was 860 drachmas in the year 274 (IG XI 2, 199, A, l. 18) but that was the highest total for what was by nature an irregular source that only provided an entry of a few drachmas or a few tens of drachmas in the sacred fund from time to time.
Subsidies and Allocated funds
26Several entries into the sacred fund were fixed amounts intended to finance a specific item of expenditure. They took the form of subsidies paid by the public treasury to the sacred fund. The sacred treasury therefore contained funds that were clearly identified and paid in regularly by the city‑state, probably out of receipts that fell to the public treasury. The sacred fund thus received remainders of the public fund’s budgets and built up a reserve.
The Phiale
27The enigmatic “proceeds of the phiale” (ἐκ φιάλης) were a regular income, paid in monthly, as shown by certain accounts that provide particulars (IG XI 2, 203, A, l. 31‑32; IG XI 2, 205, Ba, l. 16‑18; IG XI 2, 224, A, l. 10; IG XI 2, 28+7, A, l. 18‑24; ID 290, l. 4‑7). The account of 250 BC clearly shows this income was recorded in the section on revenues of the sanctuary with a monthly statement (IG XI, 287, A, l. 18‑23). The income was not identical each month and generally stood at a drachma and a few obols, sometimes 2 or 3 drachmas. The accounts of the second century generally give the proceeds for the year (ID 316, l. 12: τὸ ἐκ [φ]ιάλης εἰς τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν ; ID 442, A, l. 156, etc.), that came to 30 or so drachmas at most.
28For T. Homolle, this indication refers to a fee paid by those offering sacrifices, for the use of the ceremonial equipment.26 This interpretation has since been accepted.
29In point of fact, these indications of the revenues “from the phiale” should be cross-referenced with a procedure attested to six times in the accounts of the hieropoioi between 190 and 169. The hieropoioi reported having received income from the estates of Mykonos and making it over to the prytaneis “for monthly spending and spending of the phiale”, and then having handed over what was left to the epistates: τὰ δὲ ἐνηρόσια Θαλέου καὶ ∆ωρίου καὶ Χερσονήσου πράξαντες [ἐδ]ώκαµεν τοῖς πρυτάνεσιν εἰς τὰ κατὰ µῆνα καὶ τῆς φιάλη̣ς· τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἔδοµεν τῶι ἐ[πι]στάτει.27 The income from the rents on Mykonos was invariably made over to the council and the epistates by the hieropoioi, as attested by other indications in the accounts of the late third century.28 This passage tells us therefore the income from farm rents was assigned to monthly spending and to the spending “from the phiale” that here must have been expenditure of the public fund of Delos.
30In the accounts of the hieropoioi, the indication of income “from the phiale” features in the category of expenditure made by decree of the people. Another passage of the accounts of the hieropoioi indicates the purpose of the income “from the phiale” in the sanctuary’s expenditure: it went to financing the regular cleaning and purification of the sanctuary (IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 116‑117: πρὸς τὸ ἐκ φιάλης εἰσελθὸγ κατὰ µῆνα ὥστε τὸ ἱερὸγ καθαίρεσθαι προσαναλώσαµεν δραχµὰς ·∆Ι
·, “as concerns the monthly income from the phiale for the purification of the sanctuary we have spent in total 14 drachmas, 1 obol, and ½ obol”).
31“The phiale” was therefore a metonymic expression referring more widely to the expenses for cleaning and purification, both for the sanctuary and the city‑state, in the terminology of the Delians. This outlay was footed by a public service in the city‑state of Delos. In this way, the prytaneis, who necessarily managed spending on a monthly basis, regularly paid back to the sanctuary, in a monthly form, revenue that the council received from the hieropoioi in a single payment. The hieropoioi received the farm rents for the estates of Mykonos at the same time as the other rents, but the proceeds, which came to more than 600 drachmas, were shared out by the council and probably divided up for various purposes. The expenditure on cleaning the sanctuary as mentioned in the accounts shows that it was made up of two sorts of outlay at least: the purchases of a piglet to purify the sanctuary each month and the removal of waste for which a labourer was paid ([τ]ὸν χοῦν ἐξενέγκαντι or τὸν χοῦν ἐκκαθάραντι). These two items of monthly spending certainly exceeded the few obols each month “from the phiale” and the hieropoioi must have added a few drachmas to this item of expenditure in their budget for the financial period.
32This modest income from the city-state was therefore what was left of the proceeds from farm rents on Mykonos, after deduction of the amounts attributed to the expenditure κατὰ µῆνα of the city‑state. This explains why the income was not identical each month. There might even sometimes have been a surplus paid into the sanctuary’s fund: a mutilated passage of a jar inventory of the period mentions a “remainder from the phiale” (περιόντος ἐκ τῆς φ[ιάλης], ID 455, Ab, l. 6). This process was not for this revenue alone. It often occurred that the public fund paid unused remainders into the sacred fund and allocated them to it as some sort of reserve.
33The heading ἐκ φιάλης was therefore a name that was part of the organization of the city‑state budget: it corresponded to the apportionment of an income allocated to the public fund for cleaning and purification that was part of the city‑state’s monthly spending. The hieropoioi cited it in this way because the sanctuary received the monthly remainder of it, that was used for cleaning the sanctuary, pursuant to the general purpose of this item of expenditure. The preposition ἐκ clearly states for that matter that it was an outside budget line that was being drawn on. On the contrary, other monies assigned directly and fully by the city‑state to the sanctuary were named by their purpose in the sacred treasury, with the use of the preposition εἰς.
Subsidies for Festivals and Competitions
34The city-state fund participated in the organization of Delian festivals by paying contributions to the sanctuary. However, the question was more complex than straightforward subsidy payments. Although scholars have sometimes thought of the payments by the city‑state in a uniform way, examination of the accounts reveals a far more complex financial arrangement between the sanctuary’s fund and the city‑state’s fund.29
The prizes for the gymnastic competitions of the Apollonia
35For organizing the gymnastic competition of the Apollonia, the sacred fund received a subsidy from the city‑state given by the expression εἰς ἆθλα. It was intended for purchasing prizes and for training the teams of lampapedromia as well as for having labourers prepare the stadium and for the supply of oil.30
36Having been for an amount of 100 drachmas in the third century and early second century BC, it was reduced to 50 drachmas as from the 180s (ID 440, a. 174).31 The amount allocated by the city‑state was insufficient for all the expenditure and the sanctuary assigned other revenues, such as the proceeds from the sale of the sacrificed ox hide, to supplement the budget, which generally came to more than 160 drachmas (IG XI 2, 203, A, l. 36; l. 64; IG XI 2, 274, l. 24).32
The wages of the flute players for the Apollonia
37The city-state reserved the amount of 3,470 drachmas at the end of the year for the flute players’ wages. In the third century BC, the money was deposited in the sacred fund. The hieropoioi in office the following year received this deposit in the cash holdings and made it over to the new treasurers at the time of payment. In the second century, the 3,470 drachmas were paid into the public fund by the treasurers and this entry recorded by the hieropoioi. The amount was used to pay the two musicians tasked with accompanying two boys’ choruses at the Apollonia.33
38The sum actually included not just the wages (µισθὸς) but also the allowances for food (σιτηρέσιον) and reception expenses (ξένια), the choruses’ expenses (χορηγήµατα) and the prizes for the victors (νικητήριον).34 The sum was fixed and the spending might sometimes leave a remainder (ID 399, A, l. 42‑43), showing that the payment of the artists’ wages had to be adapted to the amount conceded. So there is no ground for drawing conclusions about the changes or absence of changes in the flute players’ wages.35
39The accounts of the early second century clearly show, thanks to the jar inventories of the two funds, that the amount belonged to the public fund. It was deposited in the hands of the hieropoioi in the public fund housed in the sacred fund at the end of the year to be handed over to the treasurers of the next year (ID 399, A, l. 41‑43, 54‑57 and 59‑61; ID 442, A, l. 85‑86, 112‑113, 127‑128). In the third century, the treasurers deposited the sum of 3,470 drachmas in the sacred fund that was paid back the next year to the treasurers by the hieropoioi. So it was not strictly speaking a subsidy: the money was accounted for in the entries of the sanctuary but it merely passed through the sacred fund, which served as a place of deposit for the budget reserve. The wording of the hieropoioi, when balancing the account, proved as much because they set this amount apart (a. 217, ID 355, l. 6‑7): λοιπὸν ἐν Ἀρτ] εµισίωι σὺν τῶι τῶν αὐλητῶν [µισθῶι]). So it had to be reserved at the beginning of the year for recurrent spending to be undertaken as part of the festival.
40This sum should not be mistaken for the payment of the wages of the female flute player in the chorus of the Deliads: these wages were footed by the sanctuary.36 As for the choruses of paides that performed for the Apollonia, they were financed by the choregoi. So the financing of the Apollonia seems to have been genuinely composite, composed of sacred, public and private monies.
Expenses for the services of technitai at the Dionysian games
41Other sums described as being meant for the technitai (performers) feature in the jar inventory of the sacred fund.37 These performance expenses of the technitai, that should perhaps be associated with amounts paid “for the theatre” were made over to the hieropoioi by the treasurers for the payment of artists at the Dionysia.38
42The sums allocated to the technitai are not to be conflated with the 3,740 drachmas reserved for the flute players’ wages, since the sums co‑existed in the jar inventory. In the case of the technitai, it was probably spending that related this time to the organization of the Dionysia, which comprised three events: the boys’ chorus, comedy and tragedy.39 The choregoi of the Dionysia bore the bulk of spending but the city-state of Delos also committed monies for the purpose.40 The sanctuary also had to contribute to the purchase of supplies (e.g. torches for the chorus, around 265 BC, ID 219, A, l. 16: ὅτε οἱ τεχνῖται ἐπεδείξαντο δαῖδες τῶι χορῶι –). As with the Apollonia, the financing of the festival was compound.
43The sum, mentioned in the sacred fund in the form of a remainder (perion or perigenomenon) was received from the city-state treasurers (ID 442, A, l. 13, 21, 52‑53; 453, A, l. 12 and 17; 455, Aa, l. 9; 461, Aa, l. 28‑31, 40, 53, 65‑66, 72). These were monies allocated specifically to the xenia of the technitai (ID 442, A, l. 17‑18; 453, A, l. 15; 455, Aa, l. 13; 461, Aa, l. 36‑37). Another jar specified that the monies assigned to the technitai were “for the theatre” (461, Aa, l. 65‑66). Perhaps a jar whose content was meant for the theatre should be associated with this spending for the technitai (ID 461, Aa, l. 48: ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰς τὸ θέατρον, “out of the monies intended for the theatre”. One of the jars associated a “perion of the technitai” with monies from the choregkion (461, Aa, l. 30‑31).
44It was in actual fact the remainder of this budget that was regularly paid into the sacred fund (in the years 184, 182, 181, 179, 178, 173 and 170) although it was one time, in 180, paid into the public fund (jar 151). This amount for the technitai was part of the “allocated” funds (διάτακτα): its payment into the sacred fund was decided on at the point in time when the public revenues were apportioned, which probably explains why, once the spending was made, the remainder, that might run to several hundred drachmas (e.g. jar 72), generally remained in the sacred fund for which it was initially intended. On the contrary, the amount deposited in the sacred fund for the flute players (discussed above) merely passed through the chest: it was a reserve deposited at the beginning of the year, with the result that any remainder returned to the public fund after the spending had been made (jar 121).
45The monies from which this amount for the technitai derived therefore belonged to the public fund and might come, for example, from an income in its care, perhaps the income from a foundation. Whereas the sum reserved for the flute players’ wages at the Apollonia was paid throughout Independence, references to the subsidy for the technitai are only found from the second century onwards, suggesting these were recent funds.
46These sums, patently intended for theatrical performances, should not be conflated with the spending the hieropoioi kept on for several years for the upkeep of three, then two craftsmen (τεχνίται), employed full time by the sanctuary between 282 and 280. The hieropoioi had then made over an amount for their food and the purchase of wheat.41
Thesmophoria, Posideia and Eileithyaia: subsidized festivals?
47The subsidy process also applied to the festival of the Thesmophoria, spending on which was covered in part by a sum allocated by the city‑state and for the rest by Apollo’s treasury. The amount allocated by the city-state came only to 50 drachmas whereas the spending financed from the sacred fund generally came to close on 80 drachmas.42
48The question of there being a subsidy arises, though, for the festival of the Posideaia, which gave rise to spending of 600 drachmas detailed in a statement drafted by the hieropoioi. T. Homolle and F. Durrbach take the view that it was a subsidy from the city-state because, in an account from the middle of the third century BC (IG XI 2, 274, l. 17), the hieropoioi distinguished between spending of 600 drachmas for the Posideai and additional spending by the sanctuary for the same festival.43 [— — — — — — κ]αὶ εἰς τὰ Ποσίδεια ·Η· καὶ ἡµεῖς ὑπεραναλ[ώ] σαµεν Η∆∆∆∆
ΙΙΙΙ — — — — — — — — — — — .
49However, the hieropoioi at no time declared receiving any subsidy from the city-state treasurers for the Posideia44 and there is no entry under this heading in the jar inventories in the second century, whereas this is the case for the other subsidized festivals. The detailed statements of the hieropoioi in the second century have the list of outgoings followed by the list of revenues to balance them: apart from the 600 drachmas characterized as “reserved amount” (e.g. ID 445, l. 11: ἔχοµεν δὲ τὸ ἀποτεταγµένον Η), they drew on the income from the half‑obol tax, the sale of hides, and the resale of empty amphoras. Total spending covered by these receipts came to 668 drachmas in the year 178 (ID 445, l. 1‑12), 653 drachmas in 174 (ID 440, l. 60‑68) and 657.5 drachmas in 170 (ID 464, l. 11‑12).45 The term ἀποτεταγµένον prompted L. Migeotte to think the amount of 600 drachmas must have come from a subsidy from the city-state, since that is how the distribution of public monies is usually formulated.46 But if there was indeed a distribution, there is nothing to suggest the amount came from the public fund.
50It was rather, as for the Eileithyaia – spending for which was processed by the hieropoioi with spending for the Posideia – a sum reserved (τὸ ἀποτεταγµένον) in the sanctuary’s budget for the purpose. The outlay rested entirely on the sacred fund but it is likely that it was financed in an amount of up to 600 drachmas by a fixed income (the loan of 1 talent at 10% annual interest?), which would explain why the amount did not vary. As with the Asklepios, one can surmise here there were resources of “other gods on Delos”, who made their contribution to the sacred fund of Apollo.47
51Spending for the Eileithyaia was also fixed. The hieropoioi kept a detailed statement of it as for the Posideia.48 In the earliest accounts (IG XI 2, 146; 161; 287) spending stood at 46 drachmas and then 25 drachmas. As from the year 200, it was set at 40 drachmas with the expression ἀπὸ τῶν ∆∆∆∆ indicating that the outlay came out of a fixed resource. And yet, in accounts ID 440 and 445, which are conserved in full, total spending came to more than 51 drachmas, 1 obol (with some gaps) and to 58 drachmas, 4 obols. P. Bruneau rightly observed that the hieropoioi did not state in this instance, whereas they did so for the Posideia, that they drew on other income to supplement the spending. We shall see below that this accounting question may be settled by an accounting explanation:49 the subsidy was recorded in the accounts on the standard of Alexander whereas the detailed account of spending for this festival was made out in Delian currency.
Choregikon
52The choregkion is mentioned in the earliest decades of Independence in the accounts of the hieropoioi. In the third century BC, the money of the choregikon was the responsibility of the city‑state council, who handed over to the hieropoioi amounts from a fund of that name. In the second century it was administered by the city‑state treasurers who made regular deposits in the sacred treasury out of these funds, in the years 180, 179, 175, 172 and 171. These deposits had the particularity of being multiples of 81, a detail we shall return to with regard to Delian currencies because it seems to indicate the funds were made up of local currency (table 23).50
53C. Vial takes the view that these were monies from the sacred fund, entrusted in the second century to the stewardship of the treasurers, which does not seem accurate:51 they were patently the city‑state’s responsibility from the outset, and it made regular payments into the sacred fund, probably from revenues generated by these funds. The capital itself does not seem to have been in the keeping of the hieropoioi.
54The jar inventories have kept the trace of an accounting operation involving the money of the choregikon at an unknown date. A commission made up of two Delians, Apollodoros son of Mantitheos and Philokles son of Philokles, was tasked with separating the money of the choregikon from the god’s money, pursuant to a decree of the people by which they were elected (ID 442, A, l. 8‑10: ἄλλον στάµνον ἐπιγραφὴν ἔχοντα· µηνὸς Ποσιδεῶνος τόδε ἐχώρισαν ἀργύριον τοῦ χορηγικοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἀργυρίου Ἀπολλόδωρος Μαντιθέου, Φιλοκλῆς Φιλοκλέους αἱρεθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ δήµου κατὰ τὸ ψήφισµα, ἐν ὧι ἐπεγέγραπτο λοιπὸν ἔνει ΙΙΙ
). The expression used by the hieropoioi, who copied the wording on the jar on which the monies were identified, is very precise: the commissioners “separated from the sacred money this money here from the choregikon funds” (τόδε ἐχώρισαν ἀργύριον τοῦ χορηγικοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἀργυρίου). It does indeed mean that this money deposited in the sacred treasury was made up exclusively of payments from a fund, the choregikon, which was itself kept elsewhere. It was the amounts from these payments that had to be sorted, probably having resort to earlier records, to separate them from the rest of the coinage.
55The commissioners elected by the people bore names that were common on Delos but the period when the operation might have taken place can be narrowed down a little. Apollodoros son of Mantitheos was one of the treasurers in the year 206 while a Philokles was treasurer in 218.52 The jar of the choregikon is mentioned in the inventory of 179 just after the series of the oldest jars making up the core of Apollo’s coined fortune. After the amounts of the choregikon, jars from banks were recorded, the first of which was dated by the treasurers of 184 (l. 11). It cannot therefore have been a very recent operation compared to the inscribing of the inventory of 179. The amount kept in the jar had besides already been spent since the separation of the monies because there remained just 5 drachmas, 3 obols and 1 tetartemorion (l. 10).
56The next jar was also made up of money from the choregikon. It was a payment made by Phokaieus son of Apollodoros and Diadelos son of Diadelos (ID 442, A, l. 10). Phokaieus was the name of a choregos in 186, the grandson of a hieropoios of the same name in office in 241. Accordingly C. Vial assumes they had formed a second elected commission to manage the choregikon.53 It may be that their work was the continuation of the first commission’s and that they carried on auditing the choregikon, this time in the records of the public fund, and ultimately paying a sum into the sacred treasury at the end of their inspection. The sum they deposited, 162 drachmas, 1 obol, ¼ obol and 2 chalkoi, was besides for the first time a multiple of 81, as were to be subsequent deposits by the treasurers. The same amount contained in this jar was again mentioned in later inventories (455, Aa, l. 8).
57The other payments were of fixed amounts, from a receipt that might have arisen from productive capital, for example an interest-bearing loan. As we shall see below regarding monetary usages, these recurring amounts of 162 drachmas, 1 obol, ¼ obol and 2 chalkoi or 81 drachmas, ½ obol and 2 chalkoi, with their subdivisions, might have corresponded to the conversion into Attic money of a sum initially coined in Delian drachmas: 81.1 Attic drachmas might correspond to 120 Delian palm‑tree drachmas.54 For an annual income of 120 drachmas, one would have to suppose a fund of 1,200 drachmas.
58It was important, then, for the Delians, probably for reasons relating to the coinage to be found in the funds, that they could separately identify amounts paid in for the choregikon so as to trace the accounting history of the fund. This operation to clarify the position by the two successive commissions must have taken place, judging from the dates when the magistrates involved were in office and the dates of entry of the various jars in the inventory, between the years 220 and 190. It also came at a time when the city‑state of Delos was developing its own public funds and wished to have a clear view of them.
59The capital plainly belonged to the city‑state of Delos which, as for other revenues passed on to the hieropoioi (horon, trapezon, prytanikon), made payments into the sacred treasury. Accordingly, in 279, monies were even paid on two occasions by way of the choregikon, the first at the same time as loan repayments for which the city-state allocated periodic revenues and the second among various subsidies (IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 27 and l. 39).
Table 23 — Deposits in the sacred chest in respect of the choregikon.
a. 280 (161, A, l. 39) | 1 482 dr. 3 ob. | |
a. 279 (161, A, l. 27) | 2 056 dr. 4 ob. | |
a. 273 (199, A, l. 16) | ? | |
a. 258 (224, A, l. 9) | 50 dr. | |
a. ? (442, A, l. 10 = 455, Aa, l. 8) | Remainder 5 dr. 3 ob. ¼ ob. | |
a. ? (442, A, l. 10 = 455, Aa, l. 8) | 162 dr. 1 ob. ¼ ob. 2 ch. | = 2 × 81 |
a. 180 (442, A, l. 33 = 455, Aa, l. 20 = | 486 dr. 4 ob. | = 6 × 81 |
a. 179 (442, A, l. 46 = 453, A, l. 24 = | 486 dr. 4 ob. | = 6 × 81 |
a. 175 (461, Aa, l. 44) | 81 dr. 2 ob. ½ ob. 2 ch. | = 1 × 81 |
a. 172 (461, Aa, l. 43) | 162 dr. 1 ob. ¼ ob. 2 ch. | = 2 × 81 |
a. ? (460, t, l. 14) | 75 dr. | |
a. 171 (461, Aa, l. 46) | 81 dr. ½ ob. 2 ch. | = 1 × 81 |
60What were the sums received by the sacred fund meant for? Its name seems to indicate it served to finance festivals involving choruses directed by choregoi. In a jar of one of the inventories for the end of Independence, we find together a sum of the choregikon and a remainder of a sum assigned to the technitai (τὸ περιὸν ἀπὸ τῶ]ν τεχνιτῶν καὶ τὸ χορηγικὸν ID 461, Aa, l. 31). The acts of the archons show that the archon, for each musical and theatrical event of the Apollonia and Dionysia, which involved choruses, designated four choregoi among the citizens, that is, probably one per tribe.56 Moreover, for the comedy and tragedy events, two metic choregoi competed.57 In a fragmentary passage of a jar inventory, the monies were called τὸ χορηγικὸν τῶν τραγωιδῶν (ID 453, A, l. 28), suggesting they might concern the Dionysia alone. The money of the choregikon might then have served to pay the additional expenses in organizing the artistic competitions of the Apollonia and Dionysia. A passage from the account of the archons concerning the Dionysia shows, for example, that the payment of the costume makers’ wages did not fall to the choregoi (καὶ τῶν ἱµατίων τοὺς µισθοὺς οὐ κατεθέµ̣η̣ν̣ τῶν εἰς τὰ ∆ιονύσια IG XI 2, 110, l. 17‑18: a. 268).58
61But it is not sure either that the payments made regularly into the sacred fund were directly allocated to any specific outlay. Where this was the case, as for the subsidy for the Apollonia, the hieropoioi stated they had received from the city-state treasurers a sum for such a purpose. In the case of the choregikon, the money paid came rather from a share‑out of profits with the city-state. There was a source of income – a poros in Xenophon’s terminology – that produced income (prosodos) part of which at least was assigned to the sacred fund. In financial terms, these payments were more akin to monies from stall charges (horon and trapezon) than to subsidies for festivals. The name of this fund prompted scholars to associate it with the financing of theatrical performances, but it was an old name, that did not point to any specific purpose in the Delians’ budgetary apportionment. However, the name could be indicative as to its origin (A capital amount founded by a choregos? A public fund furnished by profits arising from performances?) but the details escape us for want of sources.
Prytanikon
62The prytanikon was an even more enigmatic fund. The accounts reveal that the hieropoioi received 500 and 200 drachmas in two separate instalments in 250 BC (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 13‑14). A similar payment was made in 258 in a mutilated passage (IG XI 2, 224, l. 9) but the word is entirely restored except for the initial π. The term no longer appears in the accounts of the hieropoioi beyond the middle of the third century.
63F. Durrbach thinks that the term was synonymous with histiatikon, used later by the hieropoioi to refer to all of the endowment funds.59 For F. Durrbach, the reference to the Hestia of the Prytaneum, where the capital was supposedly deposited, explains why the term histiatikon should supersede prytanikon. R. Bogaert objects to this interpretation: the Prytaneum was certainly not where the capital was permanently deposited because it had to be invested so as to turn a profit.60
64The way in which these sums are mentioned in the account of 250 with the use of the accusative (καὶ παρ’ Αὐτοσθένους τοῦ Ἐµµενίδου πρυτανικὸν · καὶ παρὰ ∆ιοκλέους τοῦ Ἀρισταγόρου πρυτανικὸν ΗΗ.) suggests it was a sum so named that the sacred fund received and not monies that produced income, which in Greek would have been expressed instead by the use of the genitive. “Prytanic” money seems rather to have been a remainder paid into the sacred fund to which it was allocated, perhaps on the basis of a budget allocated to the archon. For example, the public treasury had to bear the cost of the sacrifices of the Prytaneum which the hieropoioi never mention.61 The sporadic payments made in 250 might therefore have been a sum not used for the expenditure of the Prytaneum.
65At the end of Independence, in 169 (ID 461, Aa, l. 77), a payment in an amount that has not been preserved was made into the sacred fund to repay a loan made to the city-state for financing honorific crowns. The money paid back was named “Prytaneum money” (εἰ[ς ἀ]λ[ε]ξανδρείου λόγον, τὸ το[ῦ πρ]υτανείου εἰς τὴν ἀπόδοσιν τῶν στεφάνων) and was non Attic currency, probably Delian currency, since the account specifies that the amount was given εἰς ἀλεξανδρείου λόγον. Another jar in the same inventory from a bank and with an amount also converted into the money of Alexander bore the same wording: εἰς ἀλεξανδρείου λόγον ἀπὸ τοῦ πρυτανείου (ID 461, Aa, l. 49). In both cases, the hieropoioi simply indicated where the money came from and they may have been, in 250 as in 169, sums to reimburse the sacred fund for loans to the public treasury out of monies initially allocated to spending of the Prytaneum.
Horoi and Trapezai
66The city‑state treasurers were responsible for collecting two fees (horon and trapezon) the proceeds of which were paid sometimes into the public fund and sometimes into the sacred fund (table 24).62 These two fees are referred to as of 250 BC. The amount from the horoi invariably stood at 40 drachmas and from the trapezai at 200 drachmas.63 Judging from their names, they concerned the occupation of public space on markets, both by bankers who set up their counters under the stoas and by stall holders who set up on pitches assigned to them by the market inspectors.64 They were therefore stall fees. The trapezon is besides explicitly referred to as a fee “from banks of the stoa” (τῶν τραπεζῶν ἀπὸ τῆς στοᾶς) in the accounts of 179 and 173 (ID 442, A, l. 28 and l. 78 = ID 455, Aa, l. 18).65 It should probably be seen as an extension of Athenian attempts in the classical period to increase the sanctuary’s income from facilities on its land.66 Similarly the city-state of Delos sought to make a profit from the development of market activities by collecting occupancy fees from stall holders and bankers.
67The peculiarity of these amounts was that they were all‑inclusive, the amount did not change. For C. Vial these were therefore not farmed‑out taxes nor taxes collected from individuals but fees owed collectively by bankers or stall holders.67 However, we know no examples of flat‑rate taxes in the Greek world.68 In the case of both these taxes, they would besides presuppose a collective organization of the traders and bankers concerned, of which we have no trace. The way the taxes were collected provides a more certain solution: they must have been farmed out for a fixed amount, and it was that amount alone that was paid into the funds. Any profits or losses were a matter for the tax farmer. This tax farming arrangement must have been made by the city-state since it was the city‑state that made the payments of these two sources of income by way of the treasurers. It is to be expected, then, that there should be no trace of this tax farming in the accounts of the hieropoioi.
Table 24 — Payments of the horon and trapezon.
Sacred fund | Public fund | |||
Horon | Trapezon | Horon | Trapezon | |
250 (287, A, l. 10‑11) | × | × | ||
219 (354, l. 6‑7) | × | × | ||
192 (399, A, l. 69) | × | |||
188 (442, A, l. 76‑77 = 448, A, l. 22) | × | × | ||
? (448, A, l. 24) | × | × | ||
187 (442, A, l. 84‑85) | × | |||
184 (442, A, l. 15‑16 = 453, A, l. 13‑14 = | × | |||
181 (442, A, l. 22‑23 = 453, A, l. 19 = | × | × | ||
180 (442, A, l. 28 ; 461, Aa, l. 70‑71) | × | × | ||
179 (442, A, l. 45) | × | × | ||
177 (461, Aa, l. 36) | × | × | ||
176 (461, Aa, l. 30) | × | |||
175 (461, Aa, l. 42‑44) | × | [×]69 | ||
172 (461, Aa, l. 62) | × | × |
68R. Bogaert thinks that both funds received half of the sum collected each year,70 but we know of no year in which both funds received the fees at once. The sacred fund seems to have taken in both sets of fees each year but our information for the public fund is scantier and can only be derived from the jar inventories of the second century. In one instance, in 181, one of the two sets of fees was collected by the sanctuary and the other by the city‑state.
69It seems, therefore, that a division of the revenues was introduced although the principles behind it escape us. Rather than sharing the full proceeds half and half, it seems more likely that the Delians at certain periods modified the allocation of these revenues. The fact is that observation of the accountants’ methods implemented in the administration of the sanctuary shows just how many changes were made and one should certainly be wary, where financial administration is concerned, of viewing the evidence of the accounts in a monolithic way. Up until 192 it seems this income went into the sacred fund. It was assigned to the public fund between 192 and 188. Of course, the dates shown are those for which payment is attested and they are not necessarily the exact dates of changes made in allocating income. As from 187, the accounts seem to show the two sources of income were shared, with the horoi going to the sacred fund and the trapezai to the public fund, along the lines of what is observed for 181. From 180 onwards, both sources of income were patently allocated again to the sacred fund. As concerns the attestation of payment into the public fund, which figures in the jar inventory ID 448, we do not know exactly which year it concerns.
70Once again, this was income belonging to the public fund, which the city-state decided to pay in part into the sacred fund, for no particular purpose but as a reserve.
The Endowment funds
71On Delos, unlike other city-states, we have no act of endowment. However, the accounts of the hieropoioi do record movements of monies from capital that had been dedicated to the god either by individual Delians or by public figures of Aegean political and military life (table 25). This capital loaned at interest brought in annual income meant to provide for sacrifices and banquets and for consecration in the sanctuary.71 In one instance, in 250 BC, an exceptional sacrifice was recorded in the accounts of the hieropoioi in the form of spending of 2 drachmas for an ὁρκωµόσιον ὑπὲρ τῶν περιστερῶν (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 67): it was probably the swearing‑in ceremony concluding the establishment of the endowment of Echenike in honour of Aphrodite and Apollo in that year.72
72This capital does not feature in the jar inventory of the sacred fund received by the hieropoioi from board to board, but the hieropoioi mention it at the time of movements of monies. The principle behind its working was to circulate constantly in the form of loans to earn interest with which to finance the endowment festivals and the consecration of phialai in the sacred treasury.73 The capital offered by donors was under the responsibility of the council which delegated the capital to the hieropoioi for organizing loans at interest, at least for some of the monies because not all appeared under the heading of loans organized by the hieropoioi. The hieropoioi collected the interest and handed it over to the epistatai for the organization of the foundation festivals. Lastly they received in the collections the dedicated phialai with the profits, when these entered Apollo’s collections.74 Some capital probably remained under the responsibility of the city-state treasurers, who did the same job as the hieropoioi since phialai on interest payments also entered the sanctuary’s collections.
73The capital dedicated by foreigners was generally intended for Apollo. But Antigonos Gonatas consecrated capital in honour of the god Pan, also honoured at Pella. Not all the endowment funds were initially for the main god of Delos. Capital presented by Delians whose endowments bore the name had been consecrated to Aphrodite: Stesileia and Echenikeia, presented by the family of Stesileos in honour of Aphrodite for whom the family had also built a sanctuary; others to Hestia of the Prytaneum (Mikytheia, Philonideia, Gorgieia), perhaps also in honour of the Delian city-state regaining its independence.
74The sanctuary of Apollo was soon in a position to centralize both the precious offerings and the cash assets, as we have seen on several occasions. The archon was responsible for recording dedications to Hestia Prytaneia in the Prytaneum. In addition to offerings from individuals, these were vases from three endowment funds: the Mikytheia, the Philonideia and the Gorgieia. When the shelves of the Prytaneum were too full, the collection was transferred to the Temple of Apollo.75 Likewise the vases of the Stesileia went from the Aphrodision of Stesileos to various buildings (the oikos of the Andrians, the Temple of Apollo, the Prytaneum) as J. Tréheux shows on the basis of the study of inventories.76
The Donors
75In all 29 endowment funds are counted. Not all have been identified in E. Ziebarth’s pioneering study on this question, but commentators continue to take the view that the figure of 24 foundations given by Ziebarth was valid. There is need, then, to go back over certain aspects of the study of this institution.77
76One of the endowment funds considered by E. Ziebarth was that of the Delian trittyes, which was not really an endowment fund. The trittyes of the Mapsichidai on the one hand and the trittyes of the Thyestadai and Okyneidai on the other hand had decided to dedicate annually to Apollo the profits they derived from the sacrifices and offerings in the form of a phiale. This was not then, strictly speaking, an endowment fund with the formation of productive capital,78 although the phialai were catalogued with those of the endowment funds (cf. ID 366, l. 55‑57) and probably weighed the same standard weight of 100 drachmas.
77The endowment fund of Nicias was attested only by Plutarch (Life of Nicias, 3, 6‑7) and does not appear in the accounts of the hieropoioi. The Athenian Nicias reportedly purchased land for 10,000 drachmas which he dedicated to Delian Apollo and the income from which was to provide for sacrifices and banquets.79 However, an inscription dating from the Second Athenian Domination, after 156/5 BC (ID 1421, Bcd, l. 4‑10), speaks of phialai dedicated from income consecrated by Nicias, Ptolemy and Philetairos of Pergamon. P. Roussel, followed by P. Bruneau, takes the view that these were indeed phialai from Nicias’ endowment fund along with vases presented out of income from the Lagid and Attalid endowments.80 Yet these phialai were few in number: three in a later inventory (ID 1439, Abc, l. 58‑60), although another figure also features in the gap in ID 1421, Bcd, l. 3. It is not certain that the phialai in question in inventory ID 1421 were new entries for that year. The revival of memories of Nicias and his famous theory might in any event have contributed to the ideological work of Athens when it took Apollo’s island back in hand in the mid‑second century. Perhaps the Athenians, like the Delians in their time, imparted a historical background to some items by identifying them in the inventory with familiar figures.81
78Of these 29 endowment funds, several were royal or aulic foundations. Some dynasties made gifts of several foundations to the sanctuary: this was the case for example of the Ptolemies, for whom three foundation festivals can be counted under the same name of Ptolemaieia, as evidenced by the number of phialai annually dedicated under this name. Some inventories (for example ID 313, a, l. 57‑61) clearly identify three groups of phialai that must have corresponded to three separate endowments, since the inventory of the year 207 records several phialai of the Ptolemaieia of the same year (ID 366, A, l. 72‑73).82 A similar phenomenon is found for the Antigonids. The inventory of the year 207 (ID 366, A, l. 53‑86) counts 26 phialai for the Antigoneia alone, although the record does not extend back beyond the year 224. So one might expect at most 18 phialai in the interval. The three Ptoelemaieia in the inventory come to a total of 32 phialai for this 18‑year interval: even considering that some phialai of the Antigoneia might have been dedicated late, which would have led to them being included in this inventory, the number of phialai runs against the general trend that shows rather that the inventories count slightly fewer phialai than there were years of celebrations. P. Bruneau, to solve this problem, assumes that the term Antigoneia could have sometimes applied to the Soteria, Paneia and Stratonikeia founded by the same sovereign, which gives a satisfactory overall count for all of the phialai of these endowment funds.83
79Other endowments took the form of individual donations from Delian citizens: this was the case of Stesileos, former archon, and his daughter Echenike, Xenokleides, Mikythos, Nesiades, Gorgias, Philonis and Donax. Some of these endowments are better known through the particulars of the loans of capital and the collection of interest which the hieropoioi recorded more fully. The amount of capital can be reconstructed when it is not shown in the accounts from the amount of annual interest payments, that had to come to the 10% that the investment of capital brought in.84
80Most of these endowment funds were formed in the early days of Independence and more generally in the first half of the third century, which attests to the spread of this institution at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, probably through the inflow of money from the de‑hoarding of Persian treasures, the effects of which can once again be observed on Delos. These endowments are also indicative of the trust placed in the city-state of Delos by many political authorities for managing funds.
81Except for the Eudemeia, the endowment fund of which had not yet been created, the Mikytheia, Xenokleideia and the endowment of Nicias, all the endowment festivals known in the period of Independence are mentioned in the account for the year 207 (ID 366, A, l. 53‑86 and 131‑134; B, l. 1‑7), either from the inventory of the phialai of the collection or from the catalogue of entries for the year, or from transmission by the hieropoioi to the festival epistatai.
Table 25 — The Delian endowment funds.85
Founder | Name of festival | Date of endowment | Capital | Annual operation | |
1 | Nicias | Last quarter | Land worth | Income from farm rent for expiatory sacrifices with public banquet86 | |
2 | Mikythos | Mikytheia | Before 308.87 | ? | Festival in honour |
3 | Stesileos | Stesileia | 302 (IG XI 2, 287, B, l. 129) | 1 500 dr. | Sacrifice and consecration of vase to Apollo and Aphrodite. |
4 | Philokles | Philokleia | Ca 280 ? | 6 000 dr. | No consecration of vases |
5 | Ptolemy II Ptolemy III Evergetes | Ptolemaieia90 | 1) 279 2) 249 3) 246 | ? | Consecration of phialai until 207 and resumption after 16691 |
8 | The nesiarchos Hermias in | Philadelpheia | 268 (IG 287, B, l. 112‑119)92 | 3 300 dr. | Festival in honour of Apollo, Artemis, Leto, Arsinoe Philadelphos. Consecration of phialai of 100 dr. (directly by the hieropoioi) |
9 | Philetairos | Philetaireia | Before 263 | Capital of 4 000 dr. | Festival in honour of Apollonian triad. Phialai recorded until 202 but continued after 16693 |
10 | Nesiades | Nesiadeia | Before 257 | 3 863 dr. (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 193‑195) then 3 500 dr. | No consecration of phialai |
11 | Antigonos Gonatas | Antigoneia94 | 253 (IG XI 2, 287, B, l. 124‑126) | ? | Consecration of phialai of 100 dr. to Apollo, Artemis and Leto |
12 | Antigonos Gonatas | Stratonikeia | 253 (IG XI 2, 287, B, l. 124‑125) | Festival in honour Stratonike, daughter of Demetrios Poliorcetes, sister of Gonatas95 | |
13 | Echenike | Echenikeia | 250 (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 122‑123) | Capital of 3 000 dr. loaned with mortgage on public income. | Sacrifice to Apollo and Aphrodite. No consecration of vases |
14 | Xenokleides | Xenokleideia | Shortly after 250 | ? | No consecration of vases |
15 | City‑state of Chersonesus | Chersonesia | Between 250 and 220 (ID 353, B, l. 44‑45; ID 328, l. 10) | 4 000 dr. | No consecration of vases. Loans continued after 166 |
16 | Antigonos Gonatas | Soteria | 245 (ID 298, A, | ? | |
17 | Antigonos Gonatas | Paneia | 245 (ID 298, A, | Festival in honour | |
18 | Philonis | Philonideia | Ca 240 (IG XI 2, | 8 700 dr. | Consecration of vases to Hestia Prytaneia |
19 | Demetrios II | Demetrieia | 238 (ID 313, i, | ? | No further mention after 207 |
20 | Gorgias | Gorgieia | 230 (ID 320, | 6 730 dr. | Consecration of vases to Hestia Prytaneia |
21 | Eutychos of Chios | Eutycheia | Ca 230 | 3 500 dr. | Consecration of phialai of 100 dr. (directly the by the hieropoioi). |
22 | Sopatros | Ca 230 (ID 320, B, l. 63) | ? | Consecration of phialai of 100 dr. | |
23 | Nikolaos | Nikolaieia | Before 224 | Consecration of phialai | |
24 | Ptolemy IV Philopator | Theuergesia96 | Between 224 and 209 | ? | Consecration of phialai |
25 | Attalus I | Attaleia | Before 216 | ? | No further mention after 207 |
26 | Philip V | Philippeia | Before 216 | ? | No further mention after 207 |
27 | Donax | Donakeia | Before 214 | ? | Consecration of phialai |
28 | Pataikos | Pataikeia | Before 214 | Consecration of phialai of 100 dr. | |
29 | Eudemos | Eudemeia | Before 200 | ? |
Table 26 — The endowment funds according to ID 366, A (year 207).
Inventory of the phialai of the Temple of Apollo | Phialai entering in 207 BC | Advance from the hieropoioi to the epistatai for festivals |
Antigoneia | Antigoneia | |
Attaleia | Attaleia | |
Chersonesia (400 dr.) | ||
Demetrieia | Demetrieia | |
Donakeia | ||
Echenikeia (300 dr.) | ||
Eutycheia | Eutycheia | Eutycheia (350 dr.) |
Gorgieia (673 dr.) | ||
Nesiadeia (350 dr.) | ||
Nikolaieia | ||
Paneia | ||
Pataikeia | ||
Philadelpheia (Hermiou) | Philadelpheia | Philadelpheia (330 dr.) |
Philetaireia | Philetaireia (400 dr.) | |
Philippeia | Philippeia | |
Philokleia (600 dr.) | ||
Philonideia (870 dr.) | ||
Ptolemaieia 1 2 3 | Ptolemaieia | |
Sopatreia | Sopatreia | |
Soteria | ||
Stesileia (150 dr.) | ||
Stratonikeia | ||
Theuergesia | Theuergesia |
Table 27 — Phialai inventoried in the collections in 207 (ID 366, A, l. 53‑86) (the offerings of the Mapsychidai, Thyestadai and Okyneidai are not counted in the table).
Year | Endowment name (number of phialai entered) 98 | |
224 | Demetrieia Nikolaieia | |
221 | Antigoneia Demetrieia Eutycheia Paneia | |
218 | Demetrieia | |
217 | Paneia Ptolemaieia | |
216 | Antigoneia Attaleia Demetrieia Donakeia Hermiou Nikolaieia Paneia Pataikeia Philetaireia Philippeia Ptolemaieia Sepatreia Stratonikeia Theuergesia | (3) |
215 | Antigoneia Demetrieia Nikolaieia Pataikeia Philetaireia Ptolemaieia Sepatreia Stratonikeia | (2) |
214‑211 (4 archons) | Antigoneia Attaleia Demetrieia Donakeia Eutycheia Hermiou Nikolaieia Paneia Pataikeia Philadelpheia Philetaireia Philippeia Ptolemaieia Sopatreia Stratonikeia Theuergesia | (8) |
210 | Antigoneia Attaleia Demetrieia Hermiou Philetaireia Ptolemaia Stratonikeia | (3) |
209 | Antigoneia Attaleia Demetrieia Nikolaieia Paneia Philippeia Ptolemaieia Sopatreia Soteria | (2) |
208 | Antigoneia Attaleia Demetrieia Donakeia Nikolaieia Pataikeia Philetaireia Philippeia Ptolemaieia Stratonikeia | (4) |
207 | Antigoneia Attaleia Demetrieia Paneia Philippeia Ptolemaieia Sopatreia Theuergesia | 3 |
82Yield from the 19 endowments:
Ptolemaieia | (32)99 | Philetaireia | (6) |
Antigoneia | (26) | Stratonikeia | (6) |
Demetrieia | (12) | Donakeia | (4) |
Paneia | (9) | Hermiou | (4) |
Attaleia | (8) | Sopatreia | (4) |
Nikolaieia | (7) | Theuergesia | (4) |
Philippeia | (8) | Eutycheia | (3) |
Pataikeia | (6) | Soteria | (2) |
Philadelpheia | (1) |
Management of the Capital
83The endowment capital seems to have been carefully managed. The complete inventory of 179 BC can be used to draw up the list of items handed over by the treasurers to the hieropoioi (ID 442, B): it can be observed that as from the year 203, 20 vases were handed over each year to the treasury.
84The vases manufactured out of the proceeds of loans from endowment capital were handed over to the hieropoioi by the city-state treasurers, who themselves received them from the epistates in charge of each of the endowment festivals (tables 26 and 27). The date of entry of the vases was attested not only by the treasurers’ indication but also by the indication of the council of the year the vase was manufactured, since the council was the endowment fund trustee and officially responsible for the smooth movement of capital.100
85Two other endowment funds, the Eutycheia and the Philadelpheia, dedicated vases directly by way of the hieropoioi.
86From the beginning of the second century, the hieropoioi stopped giving particulars of the entry of the phialai. They merely reported the entries in two sets of phialai, one comprising 16 phialai and the other four. Alongside this, the weight of phialai became standardized, probably in those same years, at the end of the third century. This standardization was probably effected for accounting purposes.101
87Because of the changes in wording, the endowment funds concerned by the annual transmission of the 20 phialai are not explicitly named, but guesses can be made at which they were. They were not the Eutycheia or the Philadelphia, whose phialai were made over separately, nor the endowment funds of the Prytaneum (Gorgieia, Philonideia, Mikytheia) whose phialai were annually placed in the hands of the archon and then transferred in batches to Apollo’s treasury. Nor were they the Stesileia, whose vases were recorded separately. The Echenikeia and Nesiadeia did not produce vases annually. Lastly, we do not know what became of the endowment fund of Nicias in the period of Independence. This last one apart, if we exclude the eight endowment funds for which the proceeds are otherwise known (Eutycheia, Philadelpheia, Gorgieia, Philonideia, Mikytheia, Stesileia) or whose continuity is otherwise attested (Echenikeia, Nesiadeia), we easily obtain the list of the 20 remaining endowments.
88Since it can be observed, at least from the year 203 onwards, because of the quality of the records made by the hieropoioi in 179, that vases entered the treasury each year, it is certain that the endowments were properly maintained by the investment of capital and that all brought in money as they should. Inscriptions of debtors who defaulted in making interest payments on the endowment capital are scarce. The entire corpus contains five such indications in all:
a. 250 - IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 195:
καὶ οἵδε ὀφείλουσι καὶ οἱ ἔγγυοι αὐτῶν (225 dr.)
after 250 - IG 288, l. 8‑9:
[οἵδε τόκους ὀφείλουσιν] τοῦ ἀργυρίου οὗ ἀνέ[θηκεν Νησιάδης] —
(150 dr.)
[οἵδε τόκον ὀφείλουσι]ν τοῦ ἀργυρίου οὗ ἀνέθηκεν Ξενοκλείδης· —
shortly after 248 - ID 291d, l. 29‑30:
— [καὶ οἵδε ὀφείλουσι αὐτοὶ καὶ ἔγγυοι· — ]
ID 444, A, l. 53‑54 and ID 449, B, l. 12‑13:
εἰς τὸ περιὸν τοῦ νη]σιαδείου ἀργυρίου ἐγγράφοµεν ὀφείλοντ[ας …]
89The capital loaned was guaranteed by public revenues but materially it was the sanctuary that took on the risk, even advancing the money required for sacrifices so that they could be held in a timely manner.102 These advances were not due, as sometimes believed, to irregular interest payments but to the need for cash advances because of the calendar, which did not always see the due dates for interest payments coincide with the date for the celebration of festivals. The Stesileia and Echenikeia were celebrated in Hekatombaion and both gave rise to payments of advances to the epistatai by the hieropoioi (ID 366, A, l. 131‑134).
90Could it be that on Delos the foundation capital ran risks because of insolvent debtors? The question can be asked for the Nesiadeion monies, for which the initial capital seems to have been 3,890 drachmas, judging from the amounts borrowed and the interest received, in 250 (IG XI, 2, 287, A, l. 193‑195), whereas the foundation only brought in 350 drachmas in 207 (ID 366, A, l. 134). Could the fund have been reduced to 3,500 drachmas between 250 and 207? For R. Bogaert the differences arose from a loan of 390 drachmas granted to Acridion son of Elpinikos that the hieropoioi never recovered.103 For E. Ziebarth the hieropoioi supposedly put together a reserve referred to as the περιὸν τοῦ νησιαδείου, an interpretation that, as shall be seen below, is unacceptable. Might the fund have diminished? The difference could also be due to a monetary question: had the capital been made up of Delian currency, the initial 3,890 drachmas would correspond exactly to 5,000 Delian drachmas at 3.30 g, but the value of the capital compared with the Attic drachma could have declined in the space of a century, as repayments were made, because of the reduction in the weight of the Delian drachma.104
91A few arrears on interest notwithstanding, it can be observed that the collection of the endowment vases was well managed, with the result that the capital was protected against any default by debtors.105 There was a substantial supply of credit for individuals that, as seen elsewhere, it was in the interests of the hieropoioi to protect. The ten endowment funds for which their accounts give particulars alone provided 44,230 drachmas of credit, or 7.37 talents, that is, an amount that markedly increased the lending capacity of Apollo’s treasury. At the same time, the existence of endowment funds for personal loans left the sanctuary’s own monies free for the needs of the city-state. If the hieropoioi also lent the god’s money to individuals, it was probably because those monies happened to be available. It can therefore be thought that the supply of credit on Delos fully met demand. On just one occasion, in 250, did the hieropoioi employ the capital dedicated by Echenike to lend it all to the city‑state (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 122‑123).
92Off Delos, several documents attest to protective measures for the endowment capital. In 86/5, the law of Ephesus on the abolition of debts (IEphesos, Ia, 8 = Syll 3 742) excluded from measures enacted loans taken out with mortgages on the endowment capital of religious associations (l. 36‑41). On Ios, in the final years of the fourth century, debtors of the sanctuary generally could not benefit from the abolition of debts (IG XII Suppl., 168, l. 12‑13: πλὴν τῶν τὰ ἱερὰ̣ [ὀ]φ̣[ε]ιλόν[των). On Amorgos, at the end of the second century, the rules and regulations of the endowment of Critolaos (IG XII 7, 515, l. 17‑19) refer to the clauses governing the lending of sacred funds and mention the penalties for recovery that would be imposed by the logistai if the interest was not paid in the allotted time.106
The Histiatikon Argurion
The composition of the funds
93As from 230 BC, the hieropoioi grouped nine endowment funds into a common category called the histiatikon argurion: the eutycheion, echenikeion, chersonesion, philonideion, philokleion, philetaireion, nesiadeion, gorgieion, and xenokleideion.107 The accounts clearly show the distinction between loans granted out of this capital and loans granted out of the sanctuary’s own capital, although they were all held “sacred” as they were under Apollo’s custodianship. One of the accounts (ID 396, A) draws a sharp distinction between τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἀργυρίου (l. 40) and τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ ἱ̣στιατικοῦ (l. 29).108
94The histiatikon groups ancient capital and capital from more recent foundations (table 28). This money was regularly loaned and the interest recorded by the hieropoioi in a separate statement. Yet monies that do not seem to have been part of the histiatikon were still kept and continued to give a yield since the endowment gave rise to dedication of new vases that featured in the inventories. This was the case of the stesileion, that was also part of the monies loaned by the hieropoioi. In 203 interest was recorded for this endowment (ID 370, l. 43), but it no longer appeared in the list kept for the histiatikon.109
Table 28 — The funds of the histiatikon.
Year | Reference | Endowments named |
231 | ID 316, 33 | |
229 | ID 320, A, 77‑79; 83‑95 | Xenokleideiou, Philetaireiou, Nesiadeiou |
219 | ID 353, A, 45 | Chersonesia |
209 | ID 362, B, 20 | Xenokleideion |
208 | ID 365, 5 | εἰς τὰς θυσίας ἀπὸ τῶν τόκων τῶν ἑστιατικῶν |
Ca. 200 | ID 382, 9 | |
After 250 | ID 328, 10 | Chersonesia |
200 | ID 372, A, 71‑72; 132‑138 | Echenikeion |
194 | ID 396, A, 26 and 29‑40 | Eutycheion |
192 | ID 399, A, 122‑129 | Nesiadeion, Philokleion, Philonideion, Eutycheion |
175 | ID 449, A, 27‑47 | Philonideion, Philokleion, Xenokleideion, Eutycheion, |
95We do not know what became of the other endowment capital. The account of 219 (ID 366, A, l. 131‑134) gives, through the transmission of the funds to the epistatai, the annual interest of the nine endowments of the histiatikon plus the stesileion, with all ten making up a capital of 44,230 drachmas, or 7.37 talents. It cannot but be observed that the council had delegated the hieropoioi to manage the nine endowments of the histiatikon and the stesileion, for which they consigned the loans of capital by tranches and the particulars of the interest that came in, whereas responsibility for investing the monies of the other endowments was shared. The city‑state treasurers must have played an important role in arranging loans. That is probably why they were also involved in the hand-over of 20 of the 22 endowment vases that went into the treasury each year. The two vases that went into the collections directly through the hieropoioi belonged to the endowments of the histiatikon, the Euthycheia and Philadelphia. The responsibility of the hieropoioi was probably widened in this area too, as was the case for other tasks.110
96The hieropoioi recorded the sometimes partial repayment of loans to the sacred fund made by debtors before lending out the monies again (e.g. ID 396, A, l. 29‑36). But these monies of the histiatikon did not remain long in the sacred fund, since they had to circulate continually in order to earn interest from loans. The capital was lent by tranches but the hieropoioi sometimes combined monies from different funds for loans to one and the same individual, probably indicating that the monies were kept in separate jars but also that the hieropoioi plainly sought to meet the demand for credit while ensuring the maximum possible return on the capital.
97The accounts of the end of Independence sometimes referred to remainders belonging to those funds and designated by the term τὸ περιὸν τοῦ (name of foundation capital).111 R. Bogaert thinks these must have been portions of the capital that had not been loaned and were deposited in the jars of the sacred fund until a borrower could be found.112 This interpretation does not square with the inscriptions: the indications of perion of an endowment capital are not found in the jar inventories (which should have been the case for an unused remainder) but in the current account and accompanied by indications as to defaulting debtors. These were more likely amounts formed from income from endowments and that had not been used in spending for the festival: this is exactly what the word perion means, which the hieropoioi also used for the outstanding profit on the current account, once regular expenditure had been settled.113
98In point of fact, in the light of the inventories of the end of Independence, it can be seen that the weight of the phialai from the endowment capital was standardized, probably for accounting purposes. The Mikytheia, for example, in the second half of the third century, had produced vases of unequal weights, as attested by the choregic inscription of Sosistratos, archon in 200 (IG XI 2, 128, l. 25‑29, 32, 39 and 60‑62): one vase weighed 97 drachmas, two others 100 drachmas, others between 115 and 118 drachmas. The inventory even identifies two sizes of phiale (ἄλλα µικκύθεια µικρὰ, l. 38‑39).
99The standardization could have occurred in the final years of the third century because the last two entries of the Mikytheia were for weights of 100 drachmas. The same can be observed for the Gorgia (l. 31‑32): they weighed 93 drachmas, then 99 drachmas in the collection and then the final entry weighed 100 drachmas. The vases of the Philonideia also weighed for some 93 drachmas, for others 123 drachmas (l. 29‑31) and then 100 drachmas as of the year 200 (l. 57‑58). In the inventory of the year 179 (ID 442, B, l. 54‑155), which catalogued series of endowment vases that came in as from the year 203, the unit was invariably 100 drachmas. This standardization of the weight of phialai broke with the rationale of hoarding the revenue in full once the expenses for the festival had been paid. This meant that an amount might be left over, after a phiale was made for 100 drachmas. It was probably these amounts that the hieropoioi recorded under the term of endowment perion. It seems the capital readily found takers. The remainders of profits could be loaned again, with the result that there was a recapitalization of the yield in interest: in 177, the perion of the nesiadeion was loaned and 70 drachmas owed in interest (ID 444, A, l. 52‑53; 449, B, l. 12).
100The interest on loans granted on this capital brought some 4,400 drachmas into the sacred fund that the hieropoioi divided among the epistatai tasked with fulfilling the endowment’s conditions, that is, making sacrifices, holding banquets and dedicating a votive vase. The only real entry for the sacred fund was therefore the 22 silver vases dedicated each year out of the income from the capital, that is, an average annual intake of 2,160 drachmas for the foundation vases alone.114 These did not all come into the treasury at the same time of year. The treasurers first passed on to the hieropoioi a set of 16 vases, then a second set of 4 vases (see for example ID 442, B, l. 54‑59). In addition came two phialai of the Eutycheia and Philadelpheia dedicated directly by the hieropoioi, and the dedications of the trittyes which, without actually being derived from endowment capital, still brought in two 100 drachma-phialai each year for the treasury from the proceeds of sacrifices and offerings.
A fund of specific coins
101It remains for us to explain both the name of hestiatikon or histiatikon given to this endowment capital and the reasons why it was separated from the others. The standard explanation for the name is that the income from the capital was intended to finance public banquets.115 The adjective, supposedly formed from ἑστιατώρ, is reflected in the regulation of the foundation of Hegesarete for the Metroia of Minoa of Amorgos in the second century which provided for the remainder of interest payments to be spent on organizing a banquet (καθιστιάτωσαν).116 The organization of public banquets does indeed seem to be the major characteristic in lampooning Delians in literature, if the testimony of the Atheneaeus is to be believed which describes them all busy around tables after sacrifices.117
102Yet the name of “banquet capital” makes little sense in the organization of monies as used by the administrators. Among the capital included in the fund, there are just two of the three endowments originally meant for the Hestia of the Prytaneum, since the Mikytheia was not part of them. The connection with Hestia is irrelevant for many of the endowments of this group, the capital of which had been dedicated to Apollo. As for the connection with public banquets, it also applied to endowments that were not included in this fund and could also have laid claim to the name. Nor can it be understood why capital of at least one endowment, the stesileion, the festival of which also included a sacrifice and a banquet, should have been excluded from this category while being administered by the hieropoioi.
103Above all, the organization of sacrifices and public banquets out of the proceeds of dedicated funds was admittedly part of the rituals provided for in the regulation of the endowments, but their primary purpose was to provide loans at interest. Characteristically P. Roussel observes that “endowments corresponding to festivals instituted by sovereigns never appeared among those whose capital made up part of the ἱστιατικόν”.118 This situation could be explained if their monetary composition separated this fund from others, for example if the capital presented by kings was made up of Alexanders and the foundations of the histiatikon of other currencies. The hieropoioi had organized the capital by way of the specie that composed them, by good accounting logic.119 As part of the cash holdings was no longer in Attic standard currency by the end of the third century BC, as shall be seen, it may be that they wished to isolate certain currencies in loan operations, by naming them in this way. The term does not appear before 230, the date the set of funds bearing the name was created.
104The name histiatikon or hestiatikon is obviously not unreminiscent of the category of histiaïkon or hestiaïkon money that features in the Athenian inventories. This coinage of Histia, the inventories of which under the Second Athenian Domination reveal the scale of their presence in the coffers of Apollo’s sanctuary, had eventually made up an integral part of Delian monetary circulation at the end of Independence, as shall be seen in the next chapter.120 Phonetically the alternation between ε and ι is commonplace for designating the city‑state of Histiaia. In ancient sources, the name of Histiaia varies between Ἱστιαία (Herodotus, VIII, 66, 1; IG XII 5, 594, l. 2) and Ἑστιαία (Thucydides, VII, 57, 2; Pseudo-Skylax 58; IG I3 41, l. 89).121 In the uses of the hieropoioi this variation is found both for the name of the group of endowment capital and to name what is more explicitly a currency of Histiaia. Accordingly an inventory of coins around 190 mentions a sum of money of Histiaean standard (ID 407, l. 21) in the form ἑ[σ]τιαϊκοῦ ∆∆ΙΙΙΙ whereas the same sum is written ἱστιαϊκοῦ in the inventory of 179 (ID 442, B, l. 215). The initial vowel shift ε/ι can be well explained, it seems difficult to see a ktetic in the adjective histiatikon insofar as there is no attestation of an ethnic *histiateus in the adjectival form. But the “histiatic” capital had a strong possibility of being “histiaiic” given the composition of the currency in the fund at the end of Independence. The total of currency of Histiaia accounted for by the Athenians in the cash holdings of the sanctuary came precisely to 44,924 drachmas and 5 obols, or almost 7.5 talents.122 It was just over the 44,230 drachmas, or 7.37 talents, that made up the total of endowment capital grouped by the hieropoioi under the term ἱστιατικόν.
105The term histiatikon/hestiatikon appeared only in 230 with the name of the fund in question in the accounts of the hieropoioi. At that date no account or inventory yet mentioned the coinage of Histiaia. It was only in the inventories of the early second century that the term ἱστιαιικά (ID 380, l. 100) and ἑστιαικοῦ (ID 407, l. 21) first appeared to designate the coins in Histiaean currency. Thereafter it was the Athenian inventories after 167 that used the term ἱστιαιικόν to refer to Histiaean currency. As for the money “from Minoe”,123 perhaps one should not rule out the Delians having formed an adjective in their own manner to name the funds of the endowment capital without worrying about the confusion engendered by the phonetic proximity of the two terms.124 The logic behind this grouping of funds does seem, in any event, to be based more on a classification of the currency than on any functional use.
The Jars
106The administrators of the sacred fund, while building up collections of precious metal objects through hoarding kept cash holdings at all times. But a part of these holdings was as immobile as the hoarded phialai because it was made up of old coins that the hieropoioi gradually stopped using in the course of Independence.
107The jar inventories that the hieropoioi had inscribed as from the second century BC are plain evidence of this. They record all of the deposits in the Artemision for the sacred fund and the public fund alike. For details of these inventories, readers should refer to the tables appended (Appendix 2 – Composition of the sacred fund and public fund from the jar inventory).
Composition of the Sacred Fund from the Inventory of Jars
108The money the hieropoioi handled transited via the banks which counted the denominations in different currencies, but it was ultimately collected in jars, referred to in the accounts as stamnoi, each with a label describing its contents. The accounts of the second century BC indicate as of the year 192 the make‑up of the sacred fund in stamnoi.
109The use of stamnoi did not begin in the second century. The accounts show that even without having inscribed the inventory, the hieropoioi kept the god’s money in this way, as the Athenian amphictyons had probably done in the classical period.125 As early as the third century, the accounts recorded the purchase of “stamnoi for money” (IG XI 2, 163 A, l. 58 [a. 276]; 224, A, 26 [a. 258] and 287, A, 43 and 76 [a. 250]). In an inscription from after 248 (ID 291, d, l. 17‑20), the hieropoioi specify in their statement of cash holdings ([κεφάλαιον οὗ παρελάβ]οµεν ἀργυρίου ἐν τ[ῶ]ι ἱερῶ[ι]) that a part of the amount is to be found in jars ([ἐ]ν στάµνοις [δραχµ]αὶ), the list of which they drew up in the mutilated part of the fragment.
110Accordingly the order of the jars as given by the hieropoioi in their inventories follows overall the chronological order of the entry of sums into the sanctuary’s coffers. Although the hieropoioi clearly set about reclassifications at certain periods, grouping funds by type of currency, they did not alter the general history of the inventory: the old money was still named first and separately from the current jars, whose order of appearance was observed in drawing up the list (table 30).
111The whole for the public fund and the sacred fund, totalled 187 lots: 119 jars for the sacred fund and 68 for the public fund, plus the many jars referred to in incomplete passages of which it has not been possible to take account. As with the inventory of offerings, it is possible to trace, from one stele to another, the indication of the same jars and to get a picture of the pace at which the money they held was used. But these jars did not all exist at one and the same time. Some were fully used, emptied of their contents and filled with new monies; others were part emptied and their remainders sometimes grouped with others to make up a new jar; new cash holdings came in, augmenting the treasury. The full count for the year 179 (ID 442, A) thus came to 44 jars in the sacred fund and 37 jars in the public fund, making 81 jars in all.
112This set of jars was therefore in movement and constantly changing, both with movements into and out of the funds and through rationales for classifying the monies adopted by the hieropoioi, which themselves changed as and when their management required and changes occurred in the monetary context of the Aegean world.
The Ancient Fund
113The cash holdings included a first set of 10 jars that made up the sanctuary’s ancient fund. Following this inventory of the first jars, in inscription ID 442 which is the most complete in the series, came the indication of the money of the choregikon: this fund is known as from 280 BC, but this first jar of the choregikon was probably more recent because it was formed when this fund was separated from the sacred money, an operation that can be dated, as seen, to somewhere between the 220s and 190s.126 This gives us a possible terminus ante quem for the formation of the first 10 jars.127
114Among all the jars in the sacred fund, these first 10 jars underwent no change either in the order in which they were listed or in their contents during the administration of the hieropoioi of the end of Independence. Unlike the rest of the sacred fortune, for which the jar inscriptions (or “labels”) indicate they were remainders from current accounts of the period of Independence (annual profits, amounts set aside for lending that did not find takers, loan repayments) on which the hieropoioi drew to finance spending, the first 10 jars were labelled differently and their contents were not used.
115These 10 jars therefore formed a hoarded fortune, probably because the funds were made up of ancient coins that no longer had currency and that the Delian administration could no longer use: it was more practical to set this money aside. With these first 10 jars we therefore have information about the sanctuary’s capital that must have corresponded to monetary resources in use in the fourth and third centuries (table 29).
116This set of 10 jars is mentioned – sometimes incompletely – on seven stelae of the end of Independence: ID 408 (c. 190), l. 1‑8; ID 405 (a. 188), l. 2‑6; ID 442 (a. 179), A, l. 3‑9; ID 455 (a. 173), Aa, l. 3‑7; ID 453 (a. 174), A, l. 4‑9; ID 461 (a. 169), Aa, l. 2‑8; ID 470 (undated fragment).128
117The 10 jars are composed as follows:129
Jars 1‑6
118Six jars each containing 1 talent and bearing on the label of provenance the indication:
τὸ ἀπαχθὲν ἐκ Τήνου (ID 408, l. 3‑5; 405, l. 3‑4; 455, l. 3‑4; 453, l. 4‑6; 461, l. 2‑5);
or τὸ ἀπελθὸν ἐκ Τήνου (ID 442, l. 3‑5; 470, l. 3).
Jar 7
119One jar containing 5,805 drachmas, 5 obols, ½ obol and 1 tetartemorion (ID 455, l. 5) and bearing on the label of provenance the indication:
τὸ ἀνε[νε]χθὲν ἐκ Τήνου (ID 405, l. 5) ;
or τὸ ἀπελθὸν ἐκ Τήνου (ID 442, l. 4‑5) ;
or τὸ ἀπαχθὲν ἐκ [Τήνου (ID 453, l. 6 ; 461, l. 4‑5).
Jar 8
120One jar of one talent of which there remains only 3,402 drachmas (or 3,403 drachmas after ID 453, l. 6‑7) and 3 obols, ½ obol, 1 tetartemorion and 1 chalkos, bearing on the label of provenance the indication:
τὸ ἐν τεῖ Μινώει φανὲν (ID 442, l. 5 ; 455, l. 5 ; 453, l. 6‑7 ; 461, l. 5) ;
or [τὸ λοιπὸν τ]οῦ ἐν τεῖ Μινόει φαν[έντος] (ID 408, l. 6).130
Jar 9
121A jar holding six sums from various provenances, containing in total 1,026 drachmas, 1 obol, and ½ obol (or 1 chalkos according to ID 453, l. 7). Despite the gaps, the presence of all these sums in the jar as from the year 188 is attested by the total given in one of the inventories (ID 405, l. 6). The sums kept in this jar bear the following wording:
1) | τὸ ἀνενεχθὲν ἐκ τῆς Μινόης : 272 dr. |
2) | τὸ ἀπ[ε]λθὸν πρῶτον ἐκ Τήνου ἐν τῶι κυνούχωι : 330 dr. |
3) | τὸ [ἐ]ν τῇ Μινόῃ ὕστερον φανὲν : 230 dr., 4 ob. |
4) | τὸ ἀνήνεγκεν Πάχης : 56 dr. |
5) | καὶ τὸ παρὰ Πολυξένου, Πάχητος, Πολυβούλου : 135 dr., 3 ob., ½ ob. |
6) | Λευκίου : 2 dr. |
Jar 10
122Jar made up from the content of 10 jars, bearing the inscription ἐξ στάµνων δέκα and containing 2,375 drachmas, 5 obols, ½ obol and 1 tetartemorion.
123(ID 405, l. 2; 442, l. 9; 453, l. 9; 455, l. 7; 461, l. 8).
Table 29 — The jars of the ancient fund.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Tenos Tenos Tenos Tenos Tenos Tenos Tenos Minoe Minoe Tenos emissaries | 1 talent 1 talent 1 talent 1 talent 1 talent 1 talent 5 805.9 dr. 1 talent (remainder 3 402 dr.) 502.6 dr. 330 dr. 193.5 = 1 026.1 dr. 2 375.9 dr. |
124The initial holdings had therefore contained not 10 jars but on the one hand 8 jars of about 1 talent each (jars 1‑8) and on the other hand 10 jars the remainders from which were collected in the second century in a single jar (jar 10). This was probably also the case of jar 9 that held sums from various provenances. It seems the logic behind this distribution was initially chronological: the 18 (or more) jars had previously been used until they came down to 10 in the early second century but they were no longer opened thereafter. The variant wording in the record of the hieropoioi seems to indicate that the text of the inscriptions that went with them had become fragmentary, with the result that the hieropoioi had had to expand on those indications they were able to read. Evidence of this is, for example, the variations in copying the names on the ninth jar.134 However, this wording does not bear any particularly ancient forms: the writing of τεῖ for τῆι is found throughout Independence in the accounts of the hieropoioi (e.g. still at the end of Independence, ID 465, c, l. 18: τεῖ βουλεῖ).
125The total amount collected in these 10 jars in the second century stood at more than 8 talents (48,610 drachmas); it was a substantial part of the sacred holdings. In the cash holdings of 169 (ID 461, Aa), this ancient fund made up one-third of the god’s coined fortune.
The Money of Tenos and The Minoe135
Technical terms
126The terms used in the wording are recurring ones: τὸ ἀνενεχθέν, τὸ ἀπελθόν, τὸ ἀπαχθέν, which are synonymous and τὸ φανέν, that remains to be explained. The first three terms belong to the financial terminology of the hieropoioi.136 The undifferentiated use in these lists of the verbs ἀπέρχοµαι, ἀπάγω and ἀναφέρω suggests that all three refer to the operation of bringing monies back to their original fund, as J. Tréheux convincingly shows in challenging the earlier interpretations of these terms.137 The verb ἀπάγειν is the one the hieropoioi used for the interest owed by foreign debtors, the money for which was brought to Delos by an emissary, a cash escort: in this way the annual interest from the city-state of Hermione, one of the rare city-states to still benefit from loans from the sanctuary in the third century BC, conveyed by a certain Mnesikleides (ἐξ Ἑρµιόνος τόκον ἐνιαυτοῦ δραχµὰς ·ΧΧΧ· ἃς ἀπήγαγεν Μνησικλε[ίδης, IG XI 2, 162 [a. 278], A, l. 27). These monies therefore initially belonged to Apollo and were brought back to the sacred chest, which they had left for reasons that are not specified.
127One of these sums was brought back from Tenos “in the hide bag” (ἐν τῶι κυνούχωι) that had therefore been kept until the time of the inventories since it is named with the definite article. It was standard practice to carry money in bags, which shows that we are dealing here with money that was conveyed.138
128The term τὸ φανέν has until now remained outside of these analyses of terminology and the usual interpretation is that this money simple “appeared”, probably when cleaning out the Minoe fountain, or in the underpinnings of the building during work that supposedly revealed some hidden treasure since the monies in question bear the wording ἐκ τῆς Μινόης. In actual fact, three indications in the jars relate to the fund “from the Minoe”: these are money φανὲν [ἐ]ν τῇ Μινόῃ (jar 8: 6,000 drachmas 3,402.5 drachmas of which remain), money ἀνενεχθὲν ἐκ τῆς Μινόης (jar 9‑1: 272 drachmas) and money [ἐ]ν τῇ Μινόῃ ὕστερον φανὲν (jar 9‑3: 230.5 drachmas). The hypothesis of cleaning out of the fountain gave commentators to understand that these sums were taken out “some at a period of low water (τὸ φανὲν), some during a clean out further to the first discovery (τὸ ἀνενεχθὲν)”.139 The explanation is hardly convincing first in view of the size of the sums collected, whereas all the island’s offertory boxes only brought in a hundred or so drachmas per year. Moreover, it does not follow, when elsewhere the term to τὸ ἀνενεχθέν and its synonyms are understood as financial terms, not to do the same for the money from “the Minoe”, which is characterized sometimes as φανέν and sometimes as ἀνενεχθέν. There is therefore every chance that τὸ φανέν is also part of the terminology of finance and the movement of funds.140
129Adjectives derived from φαίνω are indeed used in inscriptions and literary texts to refer to the status or particular location of certain property. In this way the adjective ἐµφανής in Aetolian asylum decrees of property that was robbed but that may be confiscated for it to be returned to its owner: it is therefore still “visible” in contrast to ἀφανέα, which is “invisible” property, which the thief has managed to sell and make disappear.141 In the Athenian law courts, the “visible” fortune (φανερὰ οὐσία), which can be traced to its owner by official documents contrasts with the “invisible” fortune (ἀφανής), whose existence is covered up by its owner.142 In the terminology of Attic orators, it was in particular the money lent via a banker or deposited with a bank that enabled its owner to make it “invisible”, that is, omitted from valuations of their fortune.143
130The money of Delian Apollo was therefore made visible (φανέν) under circumstances that escape us. The process occurred on two occasions since another sum was signalled as τὸ [ἐ]ν τῇ Μινόῃ ὕστερον φανὲν (jar 9). The distinction established in the accounts of the hieropoioi between the money “brought back” and the money that “appeared” might therefore emphasize that, unlike the sums returned to Delos via emissaries or escorts (τὸ ἀνενεχθὲν, τὸ ἀπελθὸν, τὸ ἀνήνεγκεν), the return of certain monies to the sacred chest had required more complex operations: it probably entailed finding the trace and proving Apollo was the owner, possibly through some sort of judicial procedure.
The money from Tenos
131The sums in the first jars certainly came from the recovery of capital.
132J. Tréheux thought that this “money from Tenos” must have come from a bank of that city‑state, since the hieropoioi were in the habit, at least at the end of Independence, of using the services of Teniot bankers for the transfers, as evidenced by the remainder of the jar inventories.144 This is not exactly what the wording on these jars states, as it mentions the city‑state of Tenos generally whereas, in the case of sums having transited through banks, the wording systematically bears on the name of the banker who certified the content by making any currency conversions. Moreover, the bank deposits of the hieropoioi were short lasting and were more accounting conveniences than actual deposits.145 Lastly, why should they have shipped the money to Tenos whereas the bankers’ counters, whether Delian, Tenian or foreign, were established on Delos? It was only in the early first century that private banking first appeared on Tenos, as attested to by the honorific decree for L. Auphidius Bassus and his family (IG XII 5, 860) and the lists of magistrates that testify to the office of public trapezite for the city-state’s bank (IG XII 5, 880‑885).146
133A first hypothesis is that the money in question came from the city-state of Tenos, that is, it was presumably made over to the Delian sanctuary in various stages further to a restitution procedure.147 In the early fourth century BC the city-state of Tenos owed 21,000 drachmas or 3.5 talents (ID 98, B). It may subsequently have had other opportunities to borrow money from Delian Apollo during the period of Athenian control of the sanctuary. The accounts of the fourth century show that it was still in debt in 353/2 (ID 104‑8) for an amount that has not been preserved. But the total of the money inventoried in the jars from Tenos comes to 7 talents even so.
134Loan money from various island city-states was admittedly brought back probably in successive stages into the coffers of the sanctuary of Apollo during the third century, perhaps with the help of the Lagids as might be suggested by the honours the Delians granted to Philokles of Sidon.148 This capital then had to be paid back in money of the standard of Alexander which was still current in the early second century. So there would have been no reason for the hieropoioi to isolate funds of the kind. But for older capital, the sanctuary of Apollo would certainly have had in its cash holdings Attic owls of the classical period that were no longer in circulation in Hellenistic times despite their fixed weight. The capital that came into Apollo’s coffers during the fourth century could hardly have been made up of any other currency, with the result that the sanctuary’s cash holdings necessarily included ancient coins that could only be hoarded. Besides it was probably of this coinage that a scant trace is probably found in the acts of the administrators of the Second Athenian Domination who mentioned on several occasions in the Temple of Apollo a batch of “Attic owl tetradrachmas struck before the coining of the stephanophorics” (ID 1429, B, col. II, l. 22‑23: τέτραχµα ἀττικὰ γλαυκοφόρα τῶν πρότ[ε]ρον κοπέντων τοῦ στεφανηφόρου Ι·).
135If it is remembered that the cash holdings of Apollo’s treasury included, at the time the Delians took back administration, 7 talents, and that it is observed that the inventory of the jars follows a chronological order – the jar following this series being that of the choregikon that can be dated to around 280 – then this series of 7 talents “from Tenos” has to be dated back to the origins of the Delian administration in 314. Unfortunately we know nothing, for want of administrative acts covering these years, of the period that followed the taking of Athens by the Macedonian potentate and the development of Antigonid power in the Cyclades. Was it in these troubled times that Delians or Athenians, not knowing what might happen to Apollo’s treasure, sought to put sacred property in a safe place? Reprisals against Athens by the Macedonian potentate after the Lamian War might have meant confiscations were to be feared, legitimately including Delian territory. At the time of the Persian Wars, the community of Delians had taken refuge on Tenos ahead of the Persian fleet of Datis (Herodotus, VI, 97). The same phenomenon might have occurred at the end of the fourth century, together with the depositing of the treasure in the neighbouring city-state of Tenos. The treasure would then have been restored in the form of an inventoried deposit and recorded as coming from Tenos in the first jars of the cash holdings. This situation would explain the wording ἐκ Τήνου in the inventories of these jars. That would be the trace in the cash holdings of the hieropoioi and thanks to this wording of the earliest cash holding of the sacred treasure of Independence.
The money from the Minoe
136Money had also been “brought back” (ἀνενεχθὲν) from “the Minoe”. If the term has the same financial meaning as for the money from Tenos, this amount appears from the outset in the sacred chest: it cannot refer to coins thrown by the faithful into a fountain and collected when clearing out the pool or discovered in the fountain’s underpinnings. The largest amount from “the Minoe” is that in jar 8 which contained 1 talent before part of it was used and is referred to as τὸ ἐν τεῖ Μινώει φανὲν. Another amount, kept with others in jar 9, was smaller (τὸ ἀνενεχθὲν ἐκ τῆς Μινόης, 272 drachmas). A further amount yet (230.5 drachmas), in the same jar, was called τὸ [ἐ]ν τῆι Μινόηι ὕστερον φανὲν. In this ninth jar were clearly grouped small amounts recovered by the sacred fund further to various operations. One of them was brought back (ἀναφέρειν) by Paches, much as Mnesikleides had brought back (ἀπάγειν) from Hermione the annual interest on the loan. Others were paid by individuals (παρά with the genitive), including the same Paches, either in their private capacity or as part of a magistrate’s office. This jar, like the others, therefore concerned monies recovered that were important enough in administrative terms for a sum of 2 drachmas received from Leukos (or Leukinos) to be accounted for separately. The wording is reminiscent of the descriptions of cash holdings that the hieropoioi were in the habit of drafting in the accounts of the third century BC. The cash holdings of the account of 250, for example (IG XI 2, 287), record several provenances for the monies that made it up because they were not handed over to the hieropoioi all at one time. Here again, the funds seem to be ancient and the hieropoioi copied the wording found on or with the jars in which the money was stored.
137Although it seems clear that the lexical field of these jar inventories excludes it being money collected from the Minoe fountain, we still have to identify “the Minoe” concerned by these payments.
138A. Giovannini had proposed the money from the Minoe should be construed as “the money from Minoa of Amorgos”: the treasure of the sanctuary of Apollo of Minoa of Amorgos, carried off by pirate raids but providentially taken back, was supposedly deposited in the Temple of Delian Apollo.149 The scenario is suspenseful but remains very hypothetical. Moreover it is based on a misleading interpretation of the term φανέν. Lastly, J. Tréheux has since shown convincingly that the idea of a deposit has to be dismissed since no foreign deposit was ever recorded in the sacred fund of Delos.150 He adds, however, a further objection: “the Minoe fountain was too close to the sacred chest and too often referred to in the Delian archives for it not to be a question of it here”. The argument is inadmissible when allowance is made for record-keeping practices, re‑readings and re‑writings attested to by the accounts of the hieropoioi in so many places. In recopying the inventories, the Delian administrators sometimes changed an unknown name to give it a form that was more familiar to them.151
139It is not impossible that the form given to the wording of the jar arose from a mix‑up by the hieropoioi, copying the indications more than a century after the event, between two situations expressed by the same word: Minoa of Amorgos and the Minoe fountain, particularly since in the Amorgian decrees the citizens of Minoa are systematically referred to by the expression ὁ δῆµος τῶν Μινοητῶν (see, for example, IG XII 7, 68, 221, 22, etc.).152 This confusion was especially possible because in referring to the fountain itself the hieropoioi sometimes wrote Μινόη and sometimes Μινώια or Μινοία.153
140So the money in jars 8 and 9 might well have come from the city-state of Minoa of Amorgos, but it belonged to Apollo from the outset. It may have been from loans made from Apollo’s sanctuary during the classical period. Account ID 98, which is the most complete in the series, does not include any mention of the city-states of Amorgos but it falls far short of naming all the debtor city-states, as attested by other lesser known Delian or Athenian documents.154 The city‑state of Minoa of Amorgos had a sanctuary of Delian Apollo which served as a place to exhibit honorific decrees and attested to the ties with Delos, at least in classical times. The sacred money was supposedly made visible (φανέν) at Minoa of Amorgos, probably after having been loaned to the city‑state. There is scarcely cause to think it could have been a loan that was not recorded by the sanctuary’s administrators wanting to keep it secret: such a hypothesis runs counter to all the accounting logic developed by the hieropoioi. The money loaned officially to the city‑state of Minoa could have been invested or deposited with a banker: it was probably this use that rendered it “invisible” for a time. Some financial operation (restitution, repayment, etc.) made it “visible” again in the city-state’s accounts, thereby enabling the capital to be given back to Apollo.155 The process is repeated a second time, since another amount is reported as τὸ [ἐ]ν τῆι Μινόηι ὕστερον φανὲν (jar 9). The procedure for restitution of capital therefore extended over some time.
141Over the course of classical times, the three city-states of Amorgos appeared in the form of a koinon in the Delian League and in the second Athenian Confederation. The coinage of the fourth century bore the name of the Amorgians and one dedicant in the Delian inventories was known under an Amorgian ethnic rather than that of her own city‑state (ID‑104, l. ‑72).156 However, the wording of the jars here indicates not an ethnic but the place where a financial matter was resolved. So no argument as to chronology can be made from it nor can it be marshalled against the identification of the Amorgian city‑state with the Minoa of the text.
142Accordingly the first jars of the sacred fund grouped ancient monies from repayments of capital loaned in the classical period or from ancient cash holdings. These monies had been recovered by two financial processes: some sums had been brought back from Tenos and Minoa by emissaries (τὸ ἀνενεχθέν, τὸ ἀπελθόν, τὸ ἀπαχθέν ἐκ), others (τὸ ἐν τῆι Μινόηι φανέν) had been returned further to some procedure. Yet others, in the tenth jar, were the grouping of remainders from the other 10 jars of the cash holdings.
The use of this money
143Commentators have been surprised that these jars, unlike the following ones, invariably appeared untouched in the inventories of the end of Independence. P. Roussel saw them as a reserve fund made up by the city-state of Delos, J.A.O. Larsen as capital that was left inactive by the hieropoioi because no borrower could be found.157 And the fact is that the hieropoioi of the end of Independence did not make any levies from these jars. However, monies had been taken from them before the second century BC, at a time before the jar inventories appeared in the records. Jar 8 from Minoa was half used between the time the money returned to the sacred chest and the early second century.
144In actual fact, the monies that appeared in the jar inventories attest primarily to the reorganizations by the hieropoioi of the sanctuary’s cash holdings, probably with the aid of bankers and at a date that several indicators suggest should be somewhere in the 230s.158 The account of the year 250 provides a detailed description of the cash holdings, which is akin to a jar inventory (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 1‑18).159 Monies were received by the hieropoioi between Lenaion and Apatourion, that is, over almost all of their financial period.
– revenue from offertory boxes: | 83 drachmas |
145After these cash receipts there came in separately an additional 5,000 drachmas together with payments from the public revenues, probably corresponding to loan repayments (10,545 drachmas). Then came the various usual subsidies. The 8.5 talents of these jars “from Tenos” and “from the Minoe” known in the second-century inventories may feature in part in these cash holdings that count 7.3 talents but are not apportioned in the same way in the accounts of the hieropoioi. The reason for this is probably that at the time the coinages that made up the cash holdings were in use, at least for the most part of them, with the result that the hieropoioi did not as yet need to set aside part of the monies in circulation.
146In the second century the administrators were necessarily confronted with the obsolescence of part of the cash holdings. The jars of the first cash holdings must have been largely made up of Attic owls, to which had been mixed, in a decade or so before the beginning of Independence, the new coinage of Alexander. The 7 talents “from Tenos” immobilized at the beginning of the second century might then be the cash holdings that were partly composed of ancient coins that the hieropoioi could no longer use in the sanctuary’s transactions in the second century, be it for expenditure on building work or for loans. This money made up a hoarded reserve that could potentially be transformed if need be just like the phialai of the sanctuary’s collections.
147Other amounts were probably restored by the debtor city-states during the third century. It is probably to this series of events of the early decades of the third century that the return of the funds “from the Minoe” should be attributed. Jar 8, which initially held 1 talent from Minoa, was also used since there remained just 3,402 drachmas This is indeed an indication that this capital must have been repaid shortly after, probably around the 280s rather than as from 314, for it to be made up of coinage – of Alexander or Ptolemy? – that the hieropoioi were able to use in their spending. Other jars were made up from the profits accrued in the course of the third century and their contents gradually used in building and repair works. The tenth jar contained the remainder of a fortune built up in 10 jars over the course of the third century, probably used for much of it for building work. If the remainder of “the ten stamnoi” that made up the final jar of this series was now accounted for in immobilized cash holdings, it was probably because the 10 jars were composed of coins that had been used in large part in the course of the third century but that it was impossible for the hieropoioi to spend in transactions in the early second century.
148The cash holdings of the third century enable us to guess at some of the movements these funds underwent. The 8 talents of the first 10 jars were not to be found in full in the cash holdings received by the hieropoioi from their Athenian predecessors at the beginning of Independence since those holdings did not exceed 7 talents. Some of those monies (at least 1.5 talents) contained in these jars must therefore have come into the sacred chest later on. The 7 talents from Tenos (jars 1‑7), assuming they were in the cash holdings from the outset, also circulated in the course of the third century: in 281 they were no longer in the cash holdings passed on, which displayed a balance of 5,220 drachmas (IG XI 2, 159). It seems the same applied between 259 and 250 (IG XI 2, 224 and 287) and between 218 and 208 (ID 354, 355, 362, 365) since the balance displayed did not total 7 talents. Therefore interventions by the Delian administration on the sanctuary’s ancient capital must be dated to these periods. Might the ancient coins have been withdrawn for appraisal and weighing by banks, for example? The inscriptions of the jar inventories in the early second century but also the monetary upheavals that Delos experienced in the 230s were plainly concomitant with a reorganization of the storage of money in the Artemision and then in the Temple of Apollo and with a sorting of the coinage.
149In the jar inventory, the 10 ancient stamnoi are immediately followed by a jar containing the money of the choregikon, which we have assumed from the monetary subdivision indicated on the stone might have been Delian coins. Now, the choregikon money was also sorted, probably in the years 220‑190. A commission had been appointed for the purpose.160 It is likely then that, between the late third and early second centuries, by taking stock of the cash holdings, the hieropoioi began to classify the money by currency depending on the standards to which the coins were related and on their use for making payments. They kept the coins received in recent transactions for movements between the sacred and public funds, which met their currency needs. The Athenian administrators after 166 systematized this classification by indicating in their inventories lists of jars containing coins of a non-Attic standard that they took out of circulation: Histiaian, Rhodian, Delian, Euboean. They thus reached the total amount of 12.8 talents of silver.161
The Other Jars
150The two jars of the choregikon (jars 11 and 12) were likewise in use formerly (the first contained merely a remainder) but were no longer opened at the time of the jar inventories of the second century BC. The second was taken up without change until 169. But other entries feature subsequently for the choregikon in the cash holdings that were in movement.
151The other jars making up the cash holding were far more recent assets. One moves straight after the two jars of the choregikon to funds deposited in the early years of the second century. So the profits made during the third century were invested. The recent cash holdings formed a sort of working capital into which the hieropoioi regularly dipped.
152For the year 179, the total cash holdings thus comprised 8 talents of hoarded silver (jars 1‑12: 48,775 drachmas) which the hieropoioi left untouched, and 4.4 talents (26,778 drachmas) of cash holdings in use, which were moving. In this way jars 13‑25 that featured in the inventory of 192 (ID 399, A) were no longer recorded in the inventory of 179 (ID 442, A). So the money had been used in the meantime, whether for loans to the city‑state or for other expenditure. The remainders might also have moved through other banks and been placed in other jars. Other entries increased the assets.
153The jar inventories shed valuable light at the same time on the allocation of funds in the organization of the Delian budget. Some of those sums concerned the sanctuary’s own income. In the second century, most of the deposits made in the sacred fund were expressed under the name of perion, corresponding to the surplus of the annual account, once current spending had been taken out (jars 22, 41, 44, 45, 48, 55, 58, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 79, 80, 86, 88, 96, 104, 110, 114). The name of these jars might happen to vary from the common terms of perion. The wording τοῦ πεσόντος ἀργυρίου (jars 79 and 104) must have also corresponded to the account surplus. In other jars (55 and 58) the same idea is expressed as “the proceeds of farm rents, property rents, taxes and interest”. The deposits of the hieropoioi of 182 (jars 31 and 43) and of the hieropoioi of 177 (jar 106) were in all likelihood also the perion of the stele or at least one of the remainders from a part of the year’s income. This perion might sometimes enter the sacred fund in several instalments.162
154Other amounts concern loans granted from out of the sacred funds (jars 28, 32, 35, 40, 47, 56, 59, 75, 76, 81, 112, 113). When repaid, these amounts came back into the sacred fund, sometimes with the wording of the capital formed for the loan (jar 28: “loan to farmers”). Some sums had been assigned to loans and found no takers (jar 35: “sums not borrowed by landowner on Rhenea”). These last two wordings seem to indicate that, in the sanctuary’s financial policy, amounts had been specially set aside to ensure loans to one category of the population: that of farmers, but it is not known whether these were exclusively tenant farmers of the sanctuary’s estates.163
155The other deposits were monies that actually came out of the public fund and were assigned to the sacred fund for various reasons. In the case of the payments called horon (jars 25, 29, 34, 39, 51, 73, 78, 82, 94, 103, 108), trapezon (jars 38, 53, 71, 85, 100), choregikon (jars 11, 12, 42, 52, 74, 83, 84, 87, 111), they were income shared with the sacred fund.164 Several payments correspond to the remainder of amounts assigned to spending for technitai (jars 27, 30, 33, 57, 72, 74, 107).165 In addition the fund “for the theatre” (jar 89) should perhaps also be associated with the fund for the technitai: these could be different names for the same budget item.166
156The rest of the monies paid into the sacred fund were from the city-state treasurers and were merely the assignment of public revenues to the sacred fund. These jars attest to regular transfers of monies between the sacred fund and the public fund for the repayment of loans to the city-state out of the god’s monies. Sometimes the wording on the jars fails to specify whether the payment resulted from a loan that the city-state repaid by ascribing to the sacred fund the proceeds from some public income. Accordingly jars 13 and 24 containing “unallocated monies” made over by the treasurers had every chance of being payments made to repay a loan. Jars 14‑17 contained receipts from the boonia but only the wording of jar 14 specified it was the “repayment of the advance for the boonia”. The proceeds from the rents of the agora (jars 50, 62, 91, 105, 118) were one of the public receipts assigned to the repayment of loans, like the monies of the Prytaneum167 (jars 90 and 116), but many other references to repayments fail to specify what monies were used.
157Finally the sacred fund received substantial sums from a monetary issue of the city‑state of Delos shortly before 169 (jar 115).168
158C. Vial is correct, then, in saying that these inventories teach us far more about the public fund than about the sanctuary’s income, which was besides detailed in the accounts of the hieropoioi.169 We shall deal with these payments in more detail in the next section on the public fund.
Table 30 — Organization of the Delian sacred fund.

The Hoarded Entries
159Hoarding enabled the Delians to recover a part of their spending in Apollo’s treasury in the form of precious metals. This was especially the case of gold crowns which, during Independence, were voted for by the city‑state in the context of Delian diplomacy,170 manufactured by means of a loan from the sacred fund, paid for out of the city-state revenue, and then sometimes dedicated by their beneficiaries in the Temple of Apollo. From the proceeds of the 22 active endowment funds which came to more than 4,400 drachmas when the hieropoioi transmitted them to the various epistatai, the treasury recovered at least half in silver vases, with the rest having been spent on sacrifices, banquets and the making of the offering. It can also be seen, from studying the endowment vases, that the growth in the collections also benefited from the needs for storage, from offerings that initially were not always meant for Apollo but had come to be stored in his temples and inventoried with the whole of the treasure by the hieropoioi. As with coined money, Apollo’s treasury ended up centralizing most of the sacred wealth.
160Phialai for silver and crowns for gold were the main two ways in which the two metals were hoarded. Hoarding therefore appears as much a form of recovering certain outlay as a form of immobilizing capital that could have become productive by circulating. The extent to which banking and financial practices spread, from the point of view of the sanctuaries, depended on the financing needs of the sacred fund. It was because they needed to finance costly festivals that the Athenians granted interest-bearing loans to island city‑states which were in a sense at their disposal financially during the Athenian Domination of the fifth and fourth centuries BC.171 Conversely it was probably because there was no spending by which to turn to profit the sacred income immediately that it was chosen to hoard the proceeds from certain sources of income in the form of silver phialai, the value of which could still be included in the accounts, as savings.
161The inventories of the Temple of Didyma, like those of the temples of Delos, are clear evidence of this hoarding practice that consisted in collecting income in silver coin and transforming it into a silver phiale to be added to others in the temple treasuries.172 This financial construction also shows that the city‑state never sought to go beyond existing needs.173
The Public Treasury
162Can we evaluate the resources of the city‑state of Delos and monitor the changes in its finances as for the sanctuary? The public fund of the Delian city‑state is far less well known than the god’s fund, but far better known than the funds of most Greek city-states thanks to the sanctuary’s accounting documents, since the movement of monies between the two funds has left traces in the sanctuary’s stewardship records.
163The city-state monies appear in our documentation in three forms. First, for repayment of loans from the sanctuary, the city‑state treasurers allocated to the sanctuary some of the city‑state revenues (taxes, rent monies) which then featured in the accounting section on sanctuary receipts. In addition, the city‑state allocated monies to the sanctuary fund in the form of subsidies for the organization of certain festivals along with public banquets, but also in the form of various payments: accordingly the study of these subsidies as part of the composition of the sacred fund provides information about these monies that actually belonged to the public fund.174 Lastly, as from the second century BC, the hieropoioi made an annual inventory of the city‑state treasury on the basis of jars of coined public money that were kept in the temple just like those of Apollo’s treasure, at the same time as they took stock annually of the sacred treasure, to the extent of making an accounting summary of the two funds, as seen earlier.175
164In studying these three sets of information, it is the quantity of public monies that went through the sacred fund that is striking, and it is understandable that the administrators finally felt the need to make the transition to a unified method of book-keeping (table 31). The sacred fund received, from the third century, a number of allocated monies and subsidies from the public fund: this was the case of the “phiale”, the choregikon, the prytanikon, the horon and trapezon payments, and subsidies for certain festivals. In addition to this were payments that were explicitly designated as loan repayments made by allocating public revenues to the sacred fund. These payments made up most of the movements of monies known in the sacred fund as a whole from the jar inventories. They can be identified in the third century, too, in the current account drawn up by the hieropoioi.
Table 31 — Number of movements of monies in the sacred fund in the second century (192-167) from the jar inventories.
repayments from the city-state | 23 |
The Income of the Public Fund
165We know little of the income of the city-state of Delos, except for when it served to repay loans made out of the sacred fund and when it appears as such in the accounts of the hieropoioi. Several third-century inscriptions refer to it. It is for the most part taxes and rental income. The city‑state was also responsible for managing a number of endowment funds, not all of which were under the supervision of the hieropoioi: only the nine funds of the histiatikon came under their direct management. The sums paid into the sacred fund for various reasons suggest there was other productive capital the investment of which must have been the treasurers’ responsibility and the income from which meant subsidies could be allocated to the sacred fund. If these sums were continually out on loan, as with the foundation capital, it is only to be expected that the inventory of the hieropoioi should bear no trace of them.
166The second-century jar inventories very seldom tell us of the public income that served to repay loans from the sacred fund, but it is likely that rental income and taxes continued to be assigned for the purpose.176 The jar inventories of the public fund did not record the city‑state income as such either.
167The wording on the jars generally tells us only of the purpose for which the city-state had earmarked these monies.177 However, some jars in the public fund bear descriptive wording not stating any purpose: these were remainders of monies that had been allocated to some initial purpose (jar 138: “what the physician failed to receive”; jar 120: remainder of a sum assigned to the grammateion; jar 151: remainder of the sums assigned to the technitai), or monies that entered the public fund at a time of year when it was no longer possible to foresee any allocations (jar 136: repayment of a personal loan; jars 152, 153, 154, 155: proceeds from the sale of a gift of wheat). Sums collected by the city-state for stall fees (horon and trapezon), when not paid into the sacred chest, were also deposited in the public chest (jars 131, 133, 134, 139).
168Here again, one should try to identify the poroi that might reveal the prosodoi recorded in the accounts of the hieropoioi. Some income arises from specific resources of the city‑state of Delos: commercial taxes, occupancy fees and rental income. That the city‑state should regularly opt to assign this income to the sacred fund should not preclude it from being identified as public income. Other monies, also known from payments into the sacred fund, were patently from productive capital or resources allocated for a specific purpose (phiale, choregikon, prytanikon) but were also revenues which, initially, belonged to the public fund of the city‑state of Delos. Lastly, other movements of monies were known only by the purpose of the spending (“for the competitions”, “for the flute players”). These monies were paid by way of subsidies into the sacred fund but were, here again, finances of the city‑state.178
Taxes
169The taxes levied on Delos for the public treasury are known to us from the accounts of the hieropoioi inasmuch as this revenue was assigned to the repayment of loans made by the sanctuary to the city‑state. They are therefore not named in the form of a steady income, as the hieropoioi did by contrast for the sacred fund, but they appear sporadically. The accounts do not indicate how they were collected but they must have been farmed because additional income is sometimes added to the list of public taxes allocated to the sacred fund: the eponia, an additional fee collected by the city-state on the tax farming process.179 On two occasions, the indication of the pentekoste is joined with the payment of its eponia (IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 26; 162, A, l. 30) and assures us that the tax was farmed out.180 Perhaps Kraton, mentioned in 269 BC, should be seen as one of the farmers of this tax.181 The references to other taxes serving to recover the claim are also matched with the name of the tax farmer from whom the money was recovered (ὑπέρ so‑and‑so, IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 26‑27).
170These taxes, like those that furnished the sacred fund, dated back to the Athenian Domination.182 This anteriority means two comments may be made about public taxes. For one thing, their organization bears the hallmark of Athenian influence: the pentekostologoi, as in Athens, were tax farmers; some dekate, as in Athens, were collected on the sale of a number of products.183 For another thing, they were characteristic of the difficulties of financial development the city-state experienced compared with the sanctuary which already tended to exploit the island intensively and legitimately so because it was all sacred and dedicated to Apollo.184 The taxes introduced by the Athenians for the benefit of the sanctuary in the fifth and fourth centuries were the result of intensive and maximum exploitation of the land. They did not create new activities but organized income on the basis of property and amenities the god had in his possession: the sacred port, the coasts of the sacred islands, the sanctuaries. The Athenians also increased the income by expanding activities. The process was clearly visible in the case of the sacred tax called λιµήν, levied on the use of the sacred port. It might have been extended for the use of all the port facilities but the sanctuary already levied loading and offloading taxes (the αἱρεσία) and a capstan tax (στροφεῖα).185 This proliferation of taxes combined with tax farming by auction could only increase gains for the sanctuary. All that remained, then, for public taxation, for the city-state to develop and create resources for its own treasury, was the area of sales.186 In commercial spaces and more especially the sacred port, the sanctuary collected standard taxes that were based on land holdings because of the sacred character of the entire island. In these same spaces, the city-state collected taxes on transactions, which it may have had to multiply, with the addition of the eponia to increase its income.
The pentekoste
171The most important of these taxes was the πεντηκοστή, the accounts for which provide evidence that has been at the centre of a debate about the role of transit trade on Delos.187 There are only four references to this tax in the accounts of the hieropoioi but the law on the sale of wood and charcoal (ID 509), later than 250 BC, shows that it was levied throughout the period of Independence (table 32). It was in existence at least as early as the fourth century (ID 98, A, l. 38) as attested by an account of the Athenian administration recording a payment of the pentekoste for the oxen imported from Tenos and that came to Delos for the Delia of 375/4.
172Another revenue item is enigmatic because it features under the heading of sacred taxes and is entitled παρὰ Κράτ[ω]νος τοῦ πεντηκοστολογίου for an amount of 610 drachmas (IG XI 2, 203, A, l. 30‑31). In that year of 269, the sacred fund financed repairs to the door and roof of the pentekostologion (l. 54‑55) which must have been the premises where tax farmers collected the tax and made the relevant accounting entries.188 In 296 the hieropoioi also noted a payment to a labourer for work on the pentekostologion (IG XI 2, 154, A, l. 38): τοῦ οἰκήµατος τοῦ ἐν τῶι πεντηκοστολογίωι τὸ τέγος Παρµένοντι κατασκευάσαντι. The wording seems to indicate that the pentekostologion was a space, at the very least a courtyard with several buildings, which is plausible if we allow for the space that the materials seized by customs in fraud cases must have taken up because they had to be stored before being sold off at auction.189 The payment made by Kraton in 269 of 610 drachmas for the sacred fund might therefore have been a contribution from the city‑state for the work done: the sum came “from the pentekostologion”, it was not the pentekoste but only a part of it. It was not illogical of the hieropoioi to classify this revenue with taxes.190
173With this statement we have a measure of just how scanty our numerical information on the subject of this tax is, particularly because the hieropoioi received a sum from the pentekoste (ἐκ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς) that was not necessarily the whole of the revenue. Perhaps the city-state allocated only part to repayment of the loan made from the sacred fund. On the contrary, for the proceeds of other public taxes, the accounts did not use the preposition ἐκ.
Table 32 — Attestations of the pentekoste.
Year | Reference | Text | Income with | Income without |
279 | IG XI 2, 161, A, 25‑27 | ἐκ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς | 14 910 | 14 200 |
278 | IG XI 2, 162, A, 29‑30 | [ἐκ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς | 18 900192 | 18 000 |
250 | IG XI 2, 287, A, 9‑10 | πεντηκοστῆς τῆς ἀστίας | 5 250 |
174As for the second reference in 278, it was restored in full from the mention of the eponion. It seems quite wrong, then, to seek to evaluate the scale of transit trade on Delos on this basis as many scholars have attempted to do, in particular by comparing Delian customs revenues with figures known from Polybius (XXX, 31, 12) for the revenues from Rhodian commerce.193
175The reference to the πεντηκοστὴ ἀστία in 250 has been variously understood.194 For C. Vial followed by R. Descat, it had to be the part of the tax of one-fiftieth that concerned goods intended for the town (astu) and therefore for sale in the agora of Delos of goods produced by the city-state and that were leaving to be sold outside.195 The distinction, in point of fact, seems difficult to draw in fiscal practice, which is based more on the status of persons than of goods. Moreover, the Delian port area was an undivided whole that encompassed the agora and the port, with no distinction necessarily being made, in terms of customs payments, that is, at the entrance to the port, between goods for the domestic market and goods for transit. The day‑to‑day provisioning of the town’s shops was much more a matter for dealers who bought wholesale in the emporion.196
176A passage from Pseudo-Aristotle’s Economics (1345 a = I, 6, 7) may provide a logical explanation for this distinction between pentekoste and pentekoste astia and makes it possible to propose another way of reasoning. Drawing a distinction between different types of goods and people, the author contrasts men and women, slaves and freemen, xenoi and astoi. This distinction between xenoi and astoi is found several times in other authors (Pausanias, I, 28, 6‑7: θύουσι δὲ καὶ ἄλλως ξένοι τε ὁµοίως καὶ ἀστοί ; Philo, IV, 142: οἱ µὲν ἐκδηµοῦντες καὶ ἐνδηµοῦντες, ἀστοὶ καὶ ξένοι). In Hesychius, ἀστοί is likened to πολῖται.
177This way of referring to citizens as opposed to non-citizens applies fully in the Delian context where the business square saw very many foreigners, sometimes residents. Like the xenoi, the astoi must have been bound to pay taxes if they were in the business of importing, like foreigners, unless either category were ateleis as attested to by the law on the sale of wood and charcoal (ID 509, l. 32‑45). Although the amount to be paid was identical (1/50th or 2% of the value of the goods), the citizens more often than the xenoi must have declared imported goods “for personal use”, which involved examining the cargo separately.197 The pentekoste astia on Delos might therefore have referred to the customs tax that citizens paid on imports when the goods were not covered by the franchise, that is, when they were not declared for personal use. The name seemingly related not so much to the purpose of the merchandise as to the status of the payers, which the Delian administration might have reasons to separate from foreigners in the recording procedures. The number recorded in the repayments to the sanctuary is evidence at the very least that Delians were involved in trade alongside foreign importers.
The dekatai
178The accounts of the hieropoioi also speak of several dekatai (table 33) that the city-state levied and the proceeds of which it sometimes allocated to the repayment of loans to the sacred fund: δεκάτη ἰχθύων, δεκάτη ἐνοικίων, δεκάτη σίτου.
179These were clearly levies on sales and transactions198 relating to rents, fish, wheat but perhaps also other products because the accounts of the hieropoioi do not provide us with knowledge of all civic taxation. These taxes must have been collected by the agoranomoi who kept registers and had a clerk for the job.199 All were further increased by the sales duty, the eponion already discussed.
180The dekate on fish, most certainly collected on sales made in the agora, should not be mistaken for the income the sacred fund derived from the sale of fish from the lake, which was farmed out.200 It is nevertheless true that the sanctuary’s tax, like the public tax, indicates the gain that could be made from the sale of fish since the sanctuary’s tax represented the sale of fishing rights in the sacred lake. The amount secured at auction for the concession was therefore proportional to the profit the concessionary hoped to make from the sale of fish.
The hypotropion
181The δεκάτη ἰχθύων should not be likened to another tax, the hypotropion (τοῦ ὑποτροπίου), also included in the list of civic income used to repay the god on two occasions in 279 and 278 BC.201 The amounts are not identical and the tax on the sale of fish in 250 brought in three times what the hypotropion did. The meaning of the term is obscure and relates, according to lexicographers, to shipbuilding. The word τρόπις refers to the keel (LSJ, s.v.) which was built separately from the rest of the ship (Plutarch, Life of Demetrios, 43) because the wood had to be specially treated. Perhaps this levy should be viewed as a tax on craft activities in shipbuilding, which other inscriptions attest was carried out on Delos.202
Table 33 – Revenue from public taxes.
279 | 278 | 273 | 250 | |
Wheat | 160 dr.203 | 410.5 dr. | 20 dr. | 110 dr. |
Fish | 1 850 dr. | |||
Rents | 600 dr. | 1 690 dr. | ||
Hypotropion | 530 dr. | 535 dr. | ||
Eponia | 61.5 dr.204 | 445 dr. |
Stall fees
182Although the sacred fund financed building works on the pentekostologion and the agora,205 it was the city‑state that collected the taxes and fees for commercial spaces. We have already examined the case of revenues from occupancy fees and the places assigned to bankers (termed ὅρων and τραπεζῶν) that went sometimes to the public fund and sometimes to the sacred fund or again were sometimes shared between the two.206 This revenue belonged to the city-state which decided on how to allocate it. If the city‑state made the payments to the sacred fund, it was therefore more with the aim of building up a reserve, as the Delians can be seen to have done in other cases,207 than any well-established apportionment. When these revenues were not required for the city‑state’s needs they could patently be paid into the sacred fund but the principles underlying this apportionment very largely escape us.
183Other revenues from rental of buildings in the agora show that it was indeed the city-state, as elsewhere in the Greek world, that had the right of enjoyment over them.208
The agora rents
184In the second century BC, the treasurers paid monies into the sacred fund that bear the wording εἰς τὰ ἐνοίκια τῆς ἀγορᾶς (table 34) in the jar inventories. The first attestation is found in an account fragment dated to the year 188 (ID 404, l. 6) and bears the wording:
— [τὰ ἐνοίκια? τ]ῆς ἀγορᾶς κατὰ τ—
185On the model of other jar captions, it is tempting to restore τὰ ἐνοίκια τῆς ἀγορᾶς κατὰ τ[ὴν διάταξιν: the payment by the treasurers into the sacred fund might, as with other operations of the same kind, have been part of the diataxis.209 Two other fully preserved indications display the same wording εἰς τὰ ἐνοίκια τῆς ἀγορᾶς but other payments were simply called “agora rents” or “from the agora”. The revenue attested ranged from 500 to 3,545 drachmas.
186One of these payments is expressly described as a reimbursement made by the city‑state to the god: the city‑state thereby attributed one of its revenue items to the sacred fund. In the third century, the income from taxes collected by the city-state was used to pay back claims. In the second century it was income from the agora that did this: the change is certainly meaningful.
187Accordingly all of these attestations may be thought of as belonging to the same category of income of the public treasury, ascribed to loan repayments.210 Yet the wording for these sums is not identical, as in at least two instances the jars bear the inscription εἰς τὰ ἐνοίκια τῆς ἀγορᾶς, “for the agora rents”. It is probably for that reason R. Bogaert mistakenly thinks the sanctuary had the enjoyment (usufructus) of the agora premises.211 The fact of the matter is that contrary to this wording, when public income was ascribed to the sacred fund by way of repayment, the hieropoioi systematically mentioned the provenance of the money in the genitive, preceded or not by the preposition ἐκ (ἐξ ἐκ<κ>λησιῶν, IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 10). The preposition εἰς on the contrary indicates the purpose of the payment (εἰς ἆθλα, IG XI 2, 203, A, l. 64) or specifies the function of the payment (εἰς ἀπόδοσιν τῶι θεῶι ID 354, l. 6). One fails to see, though, what would have been the meaning of a payment by the city‑state “for the agora rents” or “by way of payment of the agora rents” had the sanctuary received the proceeds from the rental of its oikoi independently. It was more likely a shorthand expression in the drafting of the description found elsewhere in its full form “for the repayment to the god, the rents of buildings in the agora” ([εἰς] ἀπόδοσιν τῶι θεῶι τὰ ἐνοίκια τῶν οἰκηµάτων τῶν ἐν τῆι ἀγορᾶι, ID 461, Aa, l. 14‑15). Elsewhere (ID 442, A, l. 44), the wording is even more contracted (ἔθεσαν ταµίαι Μένυλλος καὶ Φωκαιεὺς τῆς ἀγορᾶς).
188So this was indeed income specific to the city-state of Delos, by the same token as the horoi and trapezai occupancy fees and public taxes.
Table 34 — The agora rents.
Year | Reference | Text | Amount |
188 | ID 404, 6 | — [τὰ ἐνοίκια? τ]ῆς ἀγορᾶς κατὰ τ— | - |
179 | ID 442, A, 44 | ἔθεσαν ταμίαι Μένυλλος καὶ Φωκαιεὺς | 1 303 dr. 3 ob. |
173 | ID 455, Ac, 10 = | [ἔθεσαν ταμία]ι Θεοκυδίδης Ξένων εἰς | - |
171 | ID 460, b, 50 | [τὰ ἐνοίκια?] τῆς ἀγορᾶς | 1 000 dr. |
171 | ID 460, d1, 8 | — [εἰς ἀπόδοσι]ν τῶι θεῶι ἐνοίκ[ια] | - |
171 | ID 461, Aa, | [εἰς] ἀπόδοσιν τῶι θεῶι τὰ ἐνοίκια | 3 545 dr. |
Before 169 | ID 461, Aa, 50 | [εἰς τὰ ἐν]οίκια τῆς ἀγορᾶς | 3 018 dr. 1 ob. |
Before 169 | ID 461, Aa, 80 | [εἰς] τ̣ὰ ἐνοίκ̣ια τῆς ἀγορᾶς· | - |
168 | ID 465, a, 29 | [ἐνοίκια τῆ]ς̣ ἀγορᾶς | 2 708 dr. 4 ob. |
189From a financial standpoint, the sacred chest, the city-state and the agora were tightly bound together because the sacred fund financed building work in the agora on a number of occasions. From the beginning of Independence, wood was bought for the ἐπιβλῆτας of the agora (IG XI 2, 145, l. 21, year 302), which is probably to be understood as stall display fixtures for market traders. In 269, probably during the erection of the South Stoa which was built at that time,212 the sanctuary had loaned more than 2,000 drachmas to the city‑state “to the epimeletai of the stoa” (τοῖς ἐ[πι] µεληταῖς τῆς στοᾶς, IG XI 2, 203, l. 11). Other works were undertaken in the second century for stoa construction, among which one should probably recognize the L‑shaped stoa of the remains of the Tetragonal Agora (GD 84). While the agora constructions were covered by the sacred fund, Antigonid generosity endowed the Delians with two other stoas between the port and the agora.
190The description of one of the jars that entered the sacred chest in the course of the year in 173 (ID 455, Ab, l. 33‑36) shows that a reserve was built up for this purpose, probably out of monies dedicated to the god:213
ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνατεθέντος διαφόρου ὑπὸ ∆ηµητ̣[ρίου — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —]ιο[— — — — — — — — — — — — εἰς τὴν κατασκευὴν τῶν στο]ῶν τῶν ἐν τεῖ ἀγορᾶ[ι κ]ατὰ τὸ ψήφισµα τοῦ [δήµου — — — —
On the capital dedicated by Demetrios, … for the construction of stoas on the agora pursuant to the people’s decree.
191A jar for the same purpose was again mentioned in 171 (ID 460, d, l. 8‑10: τῶν στοῶν τῶν [ἐν τῆι ἀγορᾶι). It was a jar of the sacred fund that the hieropoioi dipped into in that year: the indication features just after the inventory of the jars that entered the sacred fund in the course of the year. The work was still continuing in 168 because the hieropoioi mention it, this time in an account of works, confirming the operation was financed from the sacred fund, τὰς στοὰς τ[ὰ]ς ἐ[ν τῆι ἀγορᾶι?] (ID 462, B, l. 26). A decree proposed by Telemnestos honours at the same time two building epimeletai (IG XI 4, 768).
Loan income?
192It seems unlikely the city-state itself made loans out of its own monies. There was little slack in the circulation of public monies as it appears from the jar inventories, making it difficult to immobilize capital. The reference to the repayment of Kleopatra’s debt should therefore be interpreted with care.214 C. Vial claims that Polyboulos was a bouleutes who collected the 300 drachmas owed by Kleopatra and paid it to the treasurers by way of a bank.215 The council on Delos served as an intermediary between the defaulting debtors and the magistrates tasked with managing the god’s treasury, as proved by examples concerning debtors of the sacred fund whose debt was paid off by their guarantors. C. Vial infers from this situation that this must also have been the case in relations with debts to the public treasury. It is indeed unlikely that, in Kleopatra’s case, it was a debt to the sanctuary because the money would have been paid into the sacred fund. But Kleopatra’s debt may have concerned the payment of a tax-farming contract for public revenues or rentals with respect to the public treasury that had not been honoured rather than a loan as such.
Judicial income
193Independently of the accounts of the hieropoioi, the law on the sale of wood and charcoal (ID 509) specifies the size of a fine on importers found guilty of offences (l. 14‑24). The law provides that one-third of the fine – set here at 50 drachmas – should go to the public treasury (demosion) and the rest to whoever reported the offence.216 Along the lines observed for the sacred fund, the euthynai must also have produced, when submitting the accounts of the magistrates in charge of the city‑state finances, revenue from fines.217
Revenues from funds and endowments
194Lastly some of the spending made by the city‑state of Delos came out of the revenues of funds for which often we know only the name from a deposit in the sacred fund.
195Some funds seems to have been the direct responsibility of the council. In this way, the choregikon, several payments of which were deposited in the sacred chest, could have come from productive capital.218
196Others came from the sacred fund and were paid into the public fund for the city-state’s spending needs. In this way, the proceeds “from the phiale” which appeared in the sacred fund were in actual fact the result of a payment from the sacred treasury into the public treasury from income for rental of the estates on Mykonos and meant for monthly spending and outlay on cleaning and purification.219
197The endowment capital, some of which the council was responsible for and probably delegated to the city‑state treasurers for management while the hieropoioi were tasked with the other part of this capital, also produced profits in the form of hoarded phialai. As seen, part of the collections which were in the care of the archon in the Prytaneum ended up being paid into Apollo’s collection because of lack of space.220
198The city‑state of Delos was also sometimes the beneficiary of evergetic endowments. Many donations were made for the construction of buildings during the period of Independence by the great potentates of the Mediterranean.221 Although Delian diplomacy cost the city‑state a considerable amount, it also brought in non-negligible income.
199Two jars that were part of the public fund (nos. 141 and 143) bore captions referring to a dorea of the Aetolians: “From the bank of Philon and Silenos, under the archonship of Phokaieus in the month of Posideon, the treasurers Kaibon and Mnesikleides deposited in the sanctuary the sum budgeted for the statues / the sum budgeted for the choma, which the city‑state borrowed out of the dorea given by the Aetolians according to the people’s decree”.222 These deposits were made in the public fund by the treasurers in 180 BC. The reason for this movement of monies was borrowing by the city-state, the wording for which indicates the source, which was unusual: a dorea received from the Aetolians (οὗ προεχρήσατο ἡ πόλις τῆς δοθείσης δωρεᾶς τοῖς Αἰτωλοῖς). Here the dative τοῖς Αἰτωλοῖς must be understood as a complement of agency that requires the passive δοθείσης.223
200Although Delian diplomacy sometimes resorted to doreai attributed to city-states with which Delos maintained relations (once with Megara and on a second occasion with an unknown city-state: ID 449 A, l. 23‑26 and ID 455, Ab, l. 9), the relationship of the Delians with the Aetolians at that date was no longer a defensive one.224 It was instead the Aetolians who paid homage to the sanctuary and to the city‑state of Delos by attributing a dorea – an arrangement that differed slightly in the way it worked from the endowment capital received from the Mediterranean power since it did not provide for an annual celebration out of the capital – that had plainly entered the public funds of the city-state of Delos. The Delians had decided to borrow a part of this sum for a purpose other than that for which it had initially been intended, so as to move ahead with the sea-front building work and to finance statues. A decree of the people had therefore given the order to the treasurers to deposit the two amounts, for 400 drachmas and 104 drachmas respectively, in the public fund where they were reserved for the purposes as voted for. They must besides have been spent shortly afterwards as no trace of them was to be found in the public fund after 178. They must therefore have been intended for specific outlay that had already been costed.
201The accounts of the hieropoioi provide another example of a gift made to the city‑state of Delos. The one from the Numidian king Massinissa was a gift in kind of wheat that the Delians sold to produce income. More than a thousand quintals of wheat were sold off as from 180 BC and the income from it recorded by the hieropoioi in several jars of the public fund (jars 152, 153, 154, 155: ID 442, A, l. 100‑106). The Delians had responded to the gift by granting honours, probably in connection with other diplomatic operations, as attested to by the statues erected and crowns presented on this occasion. In the dedication of one of the statues (IG XI 4, 1115), erected by a Delian, Hermon son of Solon, who was known in the accounts of Delos for organizing with other commissioners the sale of the wheat presented by Massinissa, the dedicator named himself as the king’s friend.225 He patently used a courtly title that attests to the workings of Delian diplomacy: the Delians managed to secure many advantages for their city-state through the intermediary of influential citizens.226
Spending from the Public Fund
202The public treasury which the hieropoioi took stock of was in point of fact working capital that turned over from year to year. Unlike the sacred treasury, old funds did not remain in it. This was probably because there were none for the public treasury: had any jars contained old reserves belonging to the city-state treasury, they would have been kept in the Artemision like the other jars. The possibility for the public treasury to accumulate funds in the sanctuary was therefore something recent: the jars inventoried by the hieropoioi were made up of entries not antedating the second century BC. Like Apollo’s treasury, the banks through which the public and sacred income passed served only as intermediaries and did not keep the monies over the long term.227 But we have already seen that on many occasions, especially in the course of the third century, the Delians did not hesitate to allocate surplus amounts from the revenues to the sacred fund, using the god’s coffers as it were as a reserve, both for credit and debit purposes since, alongside these payments in, they constantly borrowed from the sacred fund, and in far larger amounts, for that matter, than they paid in by way of subsidies, while making regular repayments on their borrowing.
203The organization of the monies in the public treasury as it transpires from the accounts of the hieropoioi reveals six major purposes: operating expenses, diplomatic spending, festivals, public services, public building works and the grain supply. Through this spending the city-state of Delos does indeed appear to have organized a two‑fold budget, that of the public treasury and that of the sacred treasury, which it orchestrated through its magistrates and to which it gave shape in the apportionment of credits called diataxis.
Operating expenses
204The sums paid by the public treasury into the sacred fund give a glimpse of the monies annually allocated to the operating budget of the various magistracies and institutions of the Delian city‑state: the monies “from the phiale” from the income of farm rents on Mykonos met the monthly spending for purification or cleaning; the monies referred to as the prytanikon seems to have related to regular allocations to the spending of the Prytaneum.228 Others remain unknown to us but, being related to other magistrates’ offices, they must have featured in the city‑state’s diataxis.229
205Another reference to monies paid into the sacred fund in 250 BC must also have been part of a budget assigned for operating costs: this was an income named ἐξ ἐκκλησιῶν and deposited in the cash holdings of the hieropoioi by way of repayment of a loan at the same time as a series of tax revenues from the city‑state (IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 10). As C. Vial rightly observes, the round figure of 1,200 drachmas from “assemblies”, unlike the tax revenues, shows this was not income that was collected but monies assigned to spending for the assemblies in the apportionment of civic income.230 This spending must obviously have concerned, initially, the expenses for inscribing honorific decrees and the spending on crowns. Scholars have failed to contemplate the possible existence of an ekklesiastikon, that might be evidenced by the size of the amount paid into the sacred fund in 250 BC, and that might yet have only been a residual amount. This simple indication raises the question of whether the city-state of Delos might not have chosen, like other prosperous city‑states of the Greek world (Athens, Iasos, Rhodes) to pay its citizens for participating in the assemblies.231
Diplomatic expenditure
206The city-state of Delos gave over some of its resources to the granting of honorific crowns, supported in that by the sacred fund that supplied a permanent reserve of monies, which the city‑state paid back as and when public revenues came in.232 From the beginning of Independence it used the credit facilities that the sanctuary provided for its protection: in this way, in 298 BC, the Delians had borrowed 5,000 drachmas from Apollo’s treasury in defence expenditure “for protection against the Tyrrhenians” (IG XI 2, 148, l. 73‑74).233
207This expenditure is known to us through the honorific decrees, the indications in the inventories of crowns dedicated to Apollo by the beneficiaries, the repayment of loans for the purpose to the god’s treasury and finally the jar inventories of the public fund. These inventories include amounts reserved for making statues or honorific crowns. Such monies might remain in the fund for some years before being used: in this way the 3000 drachmas garnered in 195 BC “for the statue of king Attal and the doctor Philippos” were still in the public fund in 192 (jar 119), as were the 4,000 drachmas collected in 194 BC “for the statues of Attal, Antiochos and Laodice” (jar 124).
208The sums set aside might sometimes be used for a different purpose, leaving a few hundred drachmas that might be reassigned subsequently to other purposes. Some jars (nos. 163, 173, 175, 176), that entered the public fund in the course of the years 179 and 178, bore the same wording εἰς τὰς εἰκόνας that must have been shorthand for the monies that had initially been for specific honours and not yet spent. One of them (jar 175) is defined as a remainder of the sum reserved for the statues. The Delians had kept these jars in the fund with their original allocation and could re‑use them whenever the assembly so decided.
Festivals
209As we have seen with respect to the organization of the sacred fund, the Delian city‑state paid subsidies to the sanctuary for the purpose of arranging certain festivals. The city‑state’s two main festivals, the Apollonia and the Dionysia, were largely paid for out of other funds than the sacred fund. The Thesmophoria also received a subsidy from the city-state.234
210Apart from the subsidy for the wages of the flute players at the Apollonia and for the prizes in the competitions of the Apollonia, as well as the financing of the technitai at the Dionysia, already examined above when discussing the make‑up of the sacred fund, it is worth dwelling on the operation of the purchase of oxen for sacrifices, the outlay for which clearly came from the public fund.
The oxen and the boonia
211The animal sacrificed for the Apollonia was an ox, with the hide being sold by the hieropoioi (IG XI 2, 203, A, l. 64; ID 354, l. 63) but the purchase of the animal was plainly not footed by the sacred fund that makes no mention of spending for this purpose. On one occasion only did the hieropoioi spend 7 drachmas to buy a sacrificial victim for the Apollonia (ID 354, l. 63: Ἀπολλωνίοις θῦµα τῶι Ἀπόλλωνι ··) but for that price it could not have been an ox. P. Bruneau had already observed that the ox of the Apollonia must have been “presented by private individuals or bought at the expense of some other fund”.235 In actual fact, this absence in the accounts of the hieropoioi must be tied in with the indication of public boonai that appeared in the jar inventory of 192 (ID 399, A, l. 11‑19).
212A commission of boonai was tasked with making a group purchase of oxen for sacrifice (eight animals in 192 BC) and they did so in that year with a loan from the sacred fund. But the purchase was made at the expense of the public fund and the ox for the Apollonia must have been part of it.
213The inventory of jars of the sacred fund of 192 BC (ID 399, A, l. 7, 12‑15, 17‑20) speaks of three commissions of boonai, the first two made up of two members in 195 and another year before 192, with the third being composed of four members in 192. They deposited in the sacred fund the amount received for the sale of hides, except for the one reserved for the priest of Asklepios (l. 18; l. 19‑20). The commission of the boonai clearly did its work annually but the commentators have queried the virtual absence of any mention of this in the accounts of the hieropoioi.236 In fact, the reference to the boonai in the inventory of jars of 192 goes along with an indication about the repayment of a loan the sanctuary had made to the city‑state by advancing the money [εἰς τ]ὴν βοωνίαν (l. 13). It is likely therefore that the following jars, containing monies collected by the commissions of the boonai on the sale of hides, were also public monies paid into the sacred fund by way of loan repayments.237 These oxen had been purchased out of public monies, like the grain purchased at wholesale prices: the Delians sought to cut the cost of buying animals by convening these commissions.
214Another argument can be summoned in favour of the use of public funds in this matter. On two occasions, in 279 and 179, among the revenues of Apollo’s sanctuary, feature sums from the sale of hides of animals sacrificed to Asklepios. The money was paid into the sacred chest by the priest of Asklepios (IG XI 2, 161, D, l. 1‑112 and ID 442, A, l. 158‑159). Indeed, the boonai of the second century left the profit from the hide of the ox sacrificed to Asklepios to the priest of that sanctuary (τοῦ δὲ τυθέντος τῶι Ἀσκληπιῶι ἔλαβε[ν τὴν βύρσαν ὁ ἱερεὺς] Ποσείδικος, ID 399, A, l. 19). This share‑out must certainly have figured in the contractual clauses of the priesthood such as we have for places other than Delos. The fact that the priest of Asklepios kept the profit from the hide of the ox purchased by the boonai from public revenues, whereas he paid back the proceeds of the hide when the animal was purchased from sacred funds, confirms that the commissions of the boonai acted for the account of the city‑state with public financing: if the purchase of oxen had been made by the sacred fund, the proceeds of the sale of the ox sacrificed to Asklepios would have gone to the sacred fund, as was the case when other animals were sacrificed to Asklepios after being bought out of funds that were not part of public revenues.
215Once again the involvement of the public fund in the financing of festivals is plain, not only for the Apollonia but also for other festivals and sacrifices, probably in honour of Asklepios and Poseidon who were the other two divinities to whom oxen were sacrificed. If the financing of the ox of the Posideai was clearly imputed to the sacred fund,238 it has to be assumed that its purchase could have been made by the commission of the boonai who offered a good price for it.
Public services
216This spending is known to us primarily through the indication on a jar containing the remainder of the wages of a public physician and the rent he paid (jar 138). We know of this therefore only because the doctor, in 184 BC, did not stay for as long as expected, and so the remainder of the sum was paid into the fund, but this must have been a regular outgoing. The upshot is that, as it does not seem to have given rise to a provision visible in the wording on the jars of the public fund, the outlay must have been paid directly from the public revenues collected in the course of the year and passing through the banks.
217The decrees contain proof that such spending was not exceptional and was surely part of the city‑state’s regular outlay. At least two doctors were awarded costly honours on Delos: Philippos, known from the spending consigned in a jar inventory (jar 119) and Xenophon son of Pythonax of Cos, known from a statue base (IG XI 4, 1200).239
Public building works
218The jar inventories inform us of the assignment of monies to two building projects: the choma and the grammateion.
219The work for the choma was part of the port infrastructure and the Delians, who had had the sacred treasury pay for the construction of the theatre, probably by arguing that the monument was related to the Dionysia festivals, had not done the same for the sea front of the port.240 The earliest indications of work for development of the coast appeared in the accounts of the hieropoioi as from the year 217 BC.241 In 192 two jars (nos. 123 and 130) contained a fund of 8,206 drachmas that were no longer to be found in 179: construction work was therefore carried out in the space of a dozen or so years. In 179 the totality of the jars intended for the choma came to just 1,411 drachmas. These monies were paid into the public fund for the choma, either as part of the diataxis (jar 167), or further to decisions made from time to time to reallocate monies. With the exception of the remainders (jars 135, 137 and 164), most other payments involved round numbers. An amount of 500 drachmas was deposited twice, in 180 (jar 142) and in 179 (jar 167). They supplied a reserve into which monies were paid on becoming available after a financial change (jar 143), suggesting the city-state had planned to give over some of its revenue to this construction, possibly without having evaluated the cost. The choma seems at any rate to have been one of the Delians’ budget priorities for a time, but it was the generosity of the epimeletes Theophrastos, at the beginning of the Second Athenian Domination, that finally provided a lasting solution to the problem of the port front. It is not known where the payments allocated to the choma came from and one should not exclude a contribution by evergetism, as later with Theophrastos.242
220The fund for the grammateion seems to have given rise to very substantial reserves: in 192 BC close on 3 talents were to be found for the purpose in the public fund (jar 120 deposited in the year 195, jar 122 in 194 and jar 128 in 192). One of these talents had been spent in part meaning the remaining 4,751 drachmas, 4 obols, ½ obol and 1 chalkos, could be used for another purpose in 192 (jar 120). After 192 the jar inventories, and more specifically the inventory of 179 which is complete, no longer mention monies assigned to the grammateion. The jars were therefore emptied and not replaced. The fact that a sizeable remainder could be used in 192 suggests that there was no longer any building work to be done on the grammateion at that date. The deposit in 192 (jar 128) must therefore have been the last. The nature of the building is also problematic. C. Vial thinks that because of the substantial amounts allocated between 195 and 192 it must have been an administrative building in the course of construction,243 but the work seems to have been particularly substantial and costly for mere administrative premises.
The grain supply
221The mechanism of the sitonia in the Greek world has been the subject of several studies by L. Migeotte, while the arrangement on Delos was examined slightly later by G. Reger and supplemented by the criticism of J. Sosin.244 Some aspects remain to be specified from the jar inventories.
222Grain purchases were of concern to the Delians well before the second century BC. They were quick to use the financial possibility that the sacred fund offered them to buy wholesale. In this way, in 301, the city‑state borrowed 1,000 drachmas from Apollo (IG XI 2, 146, A, l. 20‑21). The loan was guaranteed by the wheat the city‑state had just purchased (ἐπ’ ἀ̣ξ̣ίαν τοῦ σίτου οὗ ἡ πόλις ἐπρίατο) and was to be paid back from the sale or part sale thereof.
223In 250 BC a loan of 10,050 drachmas was explicitly intended for the sitonia (εἰς τὴν σι[τω]νίαν, IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 123‑125) with the public revenue standing as a guarantee.245
224In 209 BC the wording was different. The hieropoioi mention that they transmitted to the sitonai the amount of 13,014 drachmas which was deducted from the total cash holdings kept in the Artemision (ID 362, A, l. 11‑12).246 The formula was different (ἔδο[µε]ν τοῖς σιτώναις) and the hieropoioi did not say in so many words that it was a loan from the sacred fund: it seems rather that is was a sum deposited in the Artemision that merely passed through the sacred fund, as was the case for the flute players’ wages. It is reasonable to take the view that at that date the Delians had already set up a fund for the purchase of grain.247
225It was only from the year 192 that the accounts of the hieropoioi displayed a separate inventory for the jars of the sacred fund and the jars of the public fund. At that date, the monies of the sitonia were themselves told apart from the other monies in the public fund (τὸ δηµόσιον) but the inventory provided by the hieropoioi of all the funds kept in the Artemision showed that the sitonikon was part of the public monies. The sitonai was a fund of the public treasury that was given special treatment in the accounts of the hieropoioi.
226The passage of account ID 399 that sets it out has given rise to varying interpretations by G. Reger and J. Sosin, but neither hits the mark.248 This passage is found at the end of the inventory of the jars of the public fund and before the beginning of the annual account of the sanctuary’s income and expenditure (ID 399, A, l. 68‑73):
68 | … [τ]ὸ πᾶ[ν]· Μ |
(2 lines erased) | |
69 | — — — — — — vac. κεφαλὴ τοῦ ἀργ[υρ]ίου τοῦ δ[ηµοσίου] ΜΜ |
70 | [λωι] καὶ Φωκαεῖ. καὶ τόδε ἄλλο Μ̣[ενύλλ]ω[ι?] ΙΙ[․․․․․ τοῦ] σ̣ίτου? εἰς τὴν σιτωνίαν ΜΜΜΧΧΧΧ |
71 | [ἡµετ]έρας ἀρχῆς [ἔ]θ[εσαν] ταµ[ίαι Περίαν]δρος καὶ Εὐξενίδης εἰς τὴν σιτωνίαν ΜΜΗΗΗ∆∆∆∆ |
72 | [τωνι]κοῦ |
73 | [τοῦ σι]τωνικοῦ |
227G. Reger misinterprets the passage, taking the view that, in addition to a cash holding of 34,890 drachmas and 2 chalkoi (l. 70), the hieropoioi received a sum of 20,346 drachmas, 4.5 obols (l. 71) that must have come from the sale of grain purchased previously, whereas they paid 47,000 drachmas to the sitonai (l. 72), that is far more than the income for the year. He concludes from this that the fund ran a deficit.249 J. Sosin shows quite correctly that the idea of a deficit did not correspond in any way to the organization of Greek accountancy, but the reconstruction he suggests also fails to account for the organization of the fund because he understands the 28,643 drachmas, 3.5 obols and 1 chalkos recorded on l. 69 were part of the calculation of the sitonia.250
228In actual fact, the account for the public fund is established thus for all of the public monies of the year:
- l. 36‑54: annual income of the public fund. Among this income, one jar contains the remainder (τὸ περιγενόµενον) of the sitonia, passed down from the hieropoioi of the year 195 to the hieropoioi of the year 192 (l. 52‑54);
- l. 54‑57: withdrawals;
- l. 57‑58: handing over to the treasurers of the remainder (λοιπόν) of an amount of 38,578 drachmas, 3.5 obols;
- l. 58‑68: other deposits in the public fund for a total of 17,670 drachmas;
- l. 68: total of the public fund: 56,248 drachmas, 3.5 obols.
229After the two erased lines comes the indication on l. 69 of another total (28,643 drachmas, 3 obols, 1/2 obol, 1 chalkos), that has nothing to do with the sitonia: no figure matches if this amount is added to or subtracted from the other totals. It is in all likelihood a correction made by the hieropoioi to the total amount of the public fund because of duplicates formed by the joint recording of the jars of the god’s treasury and those of the city-state treasury.251 At any rate, this second total, demosion, must be dissociated from the money of the sitonikon and the operations described in lines 69‑73.
230The operations then described by the hieropoioi about these monies of the sitonikon themselves caused legitimate puzzlement because the hieropoioi could not have passed on to the next college 34,890 drachmas and made over to the sitonai 47,000 drachmas by associating what had already been transmitted with a fresh payment to the treasurers:
- transmission to the next college (l. 70): 34,890 drachmas, 2 chalkoi;
- income of the treasurers (l. 71): 20,346 drachmas, 4 obols, ¼ obol;
- total of the sitonikon (l. 72): 55,236 drachmas, 4 obols, ¼ obol, 2 chalkoi;
- transmission to the sitonai (l. 72): 55,236 drachmas, 4 obols, ¼ obol, 2 chalkoi;
- remainder of the sitonikon passed on to the next college (l. 73): 8,236 drachmas, 4 obols, ¼ obol, 2 chalkoi.
231The text proposed in the edition of the ID is probably defective, as J. Sosin clearly saw,252 and proposed to restore on l. 70: καὶ τόδε ἄλλο ἀ[̣ργύρι]οͅ[ν] εͅἰͅ[σήκει‧ τοῦ] σͅίτου εἰς τὴν σιτωνίαν instead of καὶ τόδε ἄλλο Μ̣[ενύλλ]ω[ι?] ΙΙ[․․․․․ τοῦ] σ̣ίτου? εἰς τὴν σιτωνίαν given in the ID. The overall interpretation is correct, except that the caesura must be placed differently in the sentence, understanding that the account begins with the words ἀπὸ τοῦ σιτωνι[κοῦ] (l. 69) and writing for instance:
Ἀπὸ τοῦ σιτωνι[κοῦ]· παρέ[δο]µεν Μενύ[λλωι] καὶ Φωκαεῖ καὶ τόδε ἄλλο, µͅ[ῆνος - - - τοῦ] σ̣ίτου εἰς τὴν σιτωνίαν ΜΜΜΧΧΧΧ
ΗΗΗ
∆∆∆∆ΧΧ.
Sitonikon account. We passed on to Menullos and Phokaieus also this other sum, in the month of …, from the sale of wheat, intended for the sitonia: 34,890 drachmas, 2 chalkoi.
232There remains the difficulty of a sum passed on by the hieropoioi to the sitonai of that same year, which is the addition of the annual income of the sitonia such as it was paid by the treasurers and of the sum that the hieropoioi state they passed on to their successors. One should probably understand the καὶ τόδε ἄλλο as expressing a hand-over that was made in two parts: the hieropoioi had first calculated that they were going to hand to their successors 34,890 drachmas, which must have been the amount remaining in the fund of the sitonia. Then, in the course of the year, they received new income and the order to hand over to the sitonai a larger amount, forcing them to go back on their first handover. The final handover to the board of the hieropoioi Menullos and Phokaeieus, closing the annual account, was that of 8,236 drachmas indicated on l. 73. These decisions were not made by the hieropoioi, who merely acted on the instructions of the assembly about budget organization. It sufficed then for the assembly to decide to transfer to the sitonai the 34,890 drachmas already planned for transmission to the next board for the hieropoioi to report this complication.
233One might therefore translate the whole reconstructed passage (ID 399, A, l. 68‑73) as follows:
68 | … [τ]ὸ πᾶ[ν]· Μ |
(2 lines erased) | |
69 | — — — — — — vac. κεφαλὴ τοῦ ἀργ[υρ]ίου τοῦ δ[ηµοσίου] ΜΜ |
71 | [ἡµετ]έρας ἀρχῆς [ἔ]θ[εσαν] ταµ[ίαι Περίαν]δρος καὶ Εὐξενίδης εἰς τὴν σιτωνίαν ΜΜΗΗΗ∆∆∆∆ |
72 | [τωνι]κοῦ |
73 | [τοῦ σι]τωνικοῦ |
Total [of deposits of the public fund]: 17,670 drachmas total of the public fund: 56,248 drachmas, 3 obols, ½ obol
(vacat)
Total of public money: 28,643 drachmas, 3 obols, ½ obol, 1 chalkos.
Account of the sitonikon: we passed on to Menullos and Phokaieus [hieropoioi of the following board] also this other sum, in the month of …, from the sale of wheat, intended for the sitonai: 34,890 drachmas, 2 chalkoi. Then during our time in office the treasurers Periandros and Euxenides deposited for the sitonia: 20,346 drachmas, 4 obols, ¼ obol. Total of the sitonikon: 55,236 drachmas, 4 obols, ¼ obol, 2 chalkoi.
From this sum, we passed on to the wheat commissioners Hegeas, Euphranor, Menullos: 47,000 drachmas.
Remainder of the sitonikon: 8236 drachmas, 4 obols, ¼ obol, 2 chalkoi.
234The fund of the sitonia was therefore never in deficit. On the contrary, it was regularly supplied by income from the sale of grain purchased by this means.
235The same account of the year 192 also records, among the jars that entered the public fund and not directly under the sitonia, a remainder of the sitonikon dating from the year 195 (l. 52‑54). The purpose of the sitonikon fund was therefore not to amass capital from the same provenance to form a reserve but to bring together each year a sufficient sum for new purchases of grain to be made. The essential thing was to reconstitute the capital with the money from the sale, but additional remainders could be paid into the public chest. This was proof indeed that the contribution from grain sales meant sufficient sums could be passed on to the sitonai to procure grain in the market.
236Illuminatingly, the rules and regulations of a fund for purchasing grain at Coronea provides that beyond the 7,000 drachmas required to reconstitute the capital from time to time, the profits would go to the city-state’s public chest (SEG XLIII, 205, l. 24‑29): κὴ εἰ µέν κά τι πλέον γινούειτη τᾶν ἑπτακατιάων ἀργου[ρ]ίω, καταβαλλόνθω τῦ ταµίη παρχρεῖµα κὴ ἔστω οὗτο τᾶς πόλιος κὴ οὑπαρχέτω ἐν τὰν ϝυκονοµίαν· “and if ever a profit of more than 7,000 drachmas of silver is made, it shall be paid forthwith to the treasurer and that money belong to the city‑state and be available in the administration”.253 The same regulation also provided that any deficit in the fund (ἔνδια, l. 29) should be made good by the treasurer. It was the deficit, too, (ἔκγδεια) that was mentioned in the regulations on the fund for purchase of wheat of Samothrace (SEG XXXVI, 788), by providing for the payment into the fund of any monies available out of the income received in the year (ἐξ ἁπάσης τῆς π[ροσόδου ἥτις ἂν συν]αχθῆι, l. 17).254 The crucial thing, as with the endowment capital, was to maintain the productive capital.
237In the case of Delos, it was indeed fixed capital that was used: as U. Fantasia has already observed in studying the movements of monies listed in the jar inventories of the year 179 (ID 442), 18,560 drachmas were used three times in the year.255 J. Sosin rightly summarizes that “[t]he sitônia-fund was a rolling fund capitalized at 18,560 drachmas with a thrice-annual turnover”.256
238The point that the same monies could be inscribed in succession as a debit and then a credit obviously has major consequences for our understanding of the accounting methods of the hieropoioi, since this made their methods similar to double-entry book-keeping.257
239For G. Reger, the fact that some deposits in the public fund came with the indication κατὰ τὴν διάταξιν or ἐκ τῶν ἀδιατάκτων means that the monies had been allocated to make good a deficit.258 By adding up the monies so labelled, he reaches a total that testifies to a 30% annual debt. J. Sosin rightly emphasizes how improbable the claim is.259 The payments ἐκ τῶν ἀδιατάκτων were made at the end of the year, as attested by the detailed inventory of the year 179. They were intended for the public fund and there was no evidence they might have concerned the sitonia, except in one instance where all of the movements of monies can be reconstructed.
240At the end of the year 180, the treasurers paid to the hieropoioi in the public fund four amounts for the sitonia, for a total amount 18,560 drachmas (ID 442, A, l. 92‑94). These jars were handed over to the sitonai early in the year 179 (in Lenaion, the first month of the year), by the hieropoioi (l. 123‑126). In Artemision (the fourth month), the treasurers paid the same amount of 18,560 drachmas into the public fund (l. 107‑109) but the composition of the jars was no longer the same. In Thargelion (the fifth month), the hieropoioi again made the money over to the treasurers (l. 130‑132). The money came back into the public fund in Metageitnion (the eighth month) but only in part since the payments were only of 14,674 drachmas, 2 obols, ½ obol and 2 chalkoi (l. 109‑112). It can be surmised besides here that some was probably paid to the public fund in local currency, which would explain, through conversion into the Attic standard for accounting purposes, there being subdivisions of the drachma. In Bouphonion (the ninth month), this sum was handed over to the treasurers (l. 132‑135) but as there were 3,886 drachmas missing to make up the initial capital, unallocated monies (ἀδιατάκτων) were added to the payment the hieropoioi made to the treasurers. They had been deposited in the public fund at the end of the previous year (l. 95‑97 and l. 136‑138). The total of those three jars came to exactly 3,885 drachmas, 3 obols, ½ obol and 2 chalkoi and the hieropoioi explicitly stated that they handed these jars over to the sitonai, leaving no doubt as to their final allocation. In Posideon (the twelfth month), the money entered the public fund for a total of 18,560 drachmas (l. 116‑117 and 119). Unallocated monies (ἀκατατάκτων) were also deposited in the public fund, for a total of 3,874 drachmas, 3 obols and 1 chalkos (l. 120) but there is no indication this time that they were for the sitonia.260 They were indeed unallocated and could potentially be used to restore a financial balance in years to come.
241With these 3,885 drachmas, 3 obols, ½ obol and 2 chalkoi that almost exactly supplemented the 14,674 drachmas, 2 obols, ½ obol and 2 chalkoi paid in Metageitnion, we surely have for the year 179 the illustration of a principle stated by other texts governing the operation of the funds for wheat purchases on Samothrace, at Coronea and elsewhere: civic revenues came to bail out the corn purchase fund as a stopgap measure in the event of a deficit. Such a deficit might result from supply difficulties and price rises, that might sometimes compel the sitonai to purchase less wheat while the city-state had to carry on selling it at the same price, but currency exchange costs might also adversely affect the purchasing possibilities. The adventure of the sitonai who were helped by the banker Timon of Syracuse on Delos attests to this.261 The contribution from the public treasury of Delos to this fund was probably sporadic because in 178, although the account, being more fragmentary, does not allow us to monitor the mechanism continually, we see the hieropoioi recorded monies from the sale of wheat, that made up a total of 7,502 drachmas, 5 obols (ID 443, Ab, l. 14‑20). These monies, that made up two jars, were not allocated to the sitonai as specified for the jars of 179 and one of them was named perion. The sale of wheat of the previous year must therefore have provided sufficient profit in all for a surplus to be paid into the public fund. The payment made from the unallocated monies in order to make good a temporary shortfall had therefore been largely made good. On the contrary, other funds were explicitly recorded “for the sitonia” in the cash holdings of 178, in an amount of at least 15,060 drachmas and certainly more because several figures are missing (ID 443, Ab, l. 29‑37).
242So, if the hieropoioi opted to take the money from the jars of unallocated monies of 180, it was probably not a matter of chance alone, contrary to what J. Sosin assumes. They did so precisely because those jars contained exactly the amount they required, and in the currency that was to be of use to the sitonai. All told, the revenues from the sale of wheat for the year 179 must have made it possible to maintain the capital and make a profit, but the monies from those profits were simply not available at the time when the hieropoioi would have needed them because they went through the banks first. The Delian sitonia most certainly did not run a deficit.
The Organizing Principles of the Public Treasury of Delos and the Diataxis of the City‑State
243What in the end do we know from the accounts of the hieropoioi about the finances of the city‑state of Delos? Although sources are scant for the third century BC, the jar inventories of the second century provide us with a more complete view of the public treasury. In 179 the sacred fund comprised 44 jars and the public fund 37 jars, meaning the two coffers must have taken up much the same amount of space in the temple. The accounting balances also show that the total of each of the two funds was similar, close on 100,000 drachmas. However, the final years of Independence leave in darkness the changes in the assets of the public fund for which we know of no inventory beyond the year 179. The account balances preserved for the years 173 and 169 come to 350,000 drachmas and suggest increased profits for both the sacred treasury and the public treasury.262
The apportionment of revenues
244The city‑state’s revenues were organized by a diataxis or rule of apportionment that was also known in other Hellenistic cities.263 The term only appeared with the jar inventories giving the wording on certain reserved sums “pursuant to the rule of apportionment”, κατὰ τὴν διάταξιν (ID 415, l. 9; jars 49, 145, 156, 160, 167, 168). Other monies are described, in the jar descriptions, as “allocated”, διατάχθεντα, to such or such an operation (jars 30, 72, 120): in both instances these are remainders and the wording τὸ περιὸν or τὸ περιγενόµενον ἀπὸ τοῦ διαταχθέντος is indeed the sign of an apportionment κατὰ τὴν διάταξιν.
245Yet others are called “reserves” (τὸ ἀποτεταγµένον, τὸ ἀποταγέν) for such-and-such a purpose (jars 128, 129, 141, 143) for payments to be made at a later date.
246Conversely, some amounts are characterized in the jar inventories as “unallocated monies”, ἀδιάτακτα or ἀκατάτακτα (jars 13, 24, 148, 149, 150, 169, 170). These are credit balances that, for the time being, were held in the sacred chest in reserve pending some allocation. The jar inventories show, for those years that have been conserved, that some of the monies set down as “unallocated” in the public fund were quickly used as early as the following year (jars 148, 149, 150). Others probably went to the repayment of borrowing by the city-state when they were paid with this wording into the sacred fund (jar 24).
247L. Migeotte expresses surprise at the unsystematic character of the references to the diataxis on Delos, arguing that, for one and the same purpose, jars did not always specify whether the allocation derived or not from a rule as to apportionment. This was the case of monies allocated to the construction of the choma. In this way, in 192 BC, a jar of the public fund (jar 123) contained various amounts allocated from the outset to this fund and deposited by the treasurers in the public fund in 195, 194 and 193. One of those sums was clearly described as a remainder from monies already used for this purpose (τὸ περιγενόµενον ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰς τὸ χῶµα ἐξαιρεθέντος). Other amounts “for the choma” were deposited and then used in the following years: the wording sometimes specified that a particular jar εἰς τὸ χῶµα no longer contained but a loipon (jar 130 not appearing subsequently; jars 135, 137, 142, 143, 164, 167). Of these jars, only no. 167 bore wording about the diataxis. For L. Migeotte, it was appropriate to distinguish in these payments between those that came from a regulation as to apportionment and followed set rules and those that derived from decisions made by the assembly from time to time. The diataxis itself was, for L. Migeotte, merely a creation of the Delians in the early second century, accompanying a general intention to organize public and sacred finances more systematically. But this diataxis supposedly did not affect all public revenues: it aimed only to allocate certain revenues to funds whose supply was required for the smooth running of civic life, such as the sitonikon, the fund for public works or the subsidies for festivals. “Said differently, not all the deposits by the treasurers were of the same scope and subject to the same procedures”.264
248This is a surprising interpretation because the existence of the diataxis can be inferred in actual fact from the accounts of the two funds, and it is plainly older than the second century. C. Vial shows, in the account of the year 258 (IG XI 2, 224, A, l. 7), the wording ὃ κατετάξατο ἡ πόλις εἰς ἀπόδοσιν τῶ[ι θεῶι?] corresponds to the diataxis, the verb κατατάσσω being the equivalent of διατάσσω.265 Indeed, the existence of the diataxis from the early years of Independence can be inferred from all of the movements of monies between the public fund and the sacred fund, indicated by the accounts of the hieropoioi. The institution of the diataxis lay within the power of the assembly which determined the city-state’s financial policy. To allow repayments into the sacred fund at the beginning of the year on loans made out of the sacred fund the previous year, the purpose of spending necessarily had to be organized. Other public monies that we have just reviewed were also for set purposes (monthly spending, spending on purification, prytanikon, assemblies) which must have been governed by the diataxis too.266 From the beginning of Independence, there must, then, have been a rule of apportionment to specify on Delos, by the end of the previous year for the beginning of the current year, what the annual apportionment of public revenues should be. Decrees by the assembly, moreover, set out the decisions taken by the Delians about Apollo’s money, and more particularly with regard to loans granted and spending on building works.267 The assembly was sovereign in respect of the financial policy of the two funds, but the indications of diataxis concerned public revenues alone. Decisions about Apollo’s money were made by specific decrees of that same assembly. Even so, given the quantity of transfers of monies between the sacred treasury and the public treasury and the scale of the interactions between the two, it is obvious that the diataxis of the city-state made an impact on the resources of the sacred fund and so, as a knock‑on effect, determined much of its annual budget.
249The descriptions that featured on the labels of the jars, which the hieropoioi copied, bore further testimony to the apportionment of public monies. When the hieropoioi received amounts passed on by the treasurers in the sacred fund or the public fund, they were seldom nameless but almost all bore wording describing their allocation. That initial allocation, for that matter, did not always correspond to the future use of the sums. The description on jar 37 in the sacred fund is evidence of this: the sum paid replaced the repayments voted for previously, probably because it proved possible to repay the god out of other income than that initially earmarked for the purpose or because the revenues initially earmarked were finally not available (ID 442, A, l. 26‑27: εἰς ἀπόδοσιν τῶι θεῶι εἰς τὰ ὀφειλόµενα δάνεια παρὰ τεῖ πόλει ἀντὶ τῶν ἀποδόσεων ὧν πρότερον ἐψ[η]φίσατο ὁ δῆµος Χ, “for repayment to the god of sums owed by the city‑state, instead of the repayments the people voted for previously”).
250The public money deposited in the temple could therefore be of two kinds:
- reserve deposits from credit balances: remainders of revenues allocated to the sacred fund for various reasons (loan repayments, shared revenues, subsidies) or deposited in the public fund by way of reserves. In this case, the wording corresponded to the source of the monies, that is, their initial allocation where a remainder was concerned;
- transient deposits, for which the purpose was already stated in the description. This was the case, for example, of the sitonia, which was invariably a separate fund, of the monies reserved for building the choma, or of the 3,470 drachmas “for the flute players”, handed over by the treasurers to the hieropoioi at the end of the year, that were to be paid to the treasurers of the next year by the new hieropoioi in office. As for the “unallocated” monies, they were not the result of oversight by the Delian assembly omitting part of its revenues; they reflected rather the healthy state of the city‑state’s revenues, as it managed, thanks to its borrowing from the sacred fund, to save a non-negligible part of its revenues: those revenues ended up creating a reserve capital. The sound management of the grain supply fund was probably not unrelated to these profits. The jar inventories are far from complete for the end of the period of Independence, but the jars containing monies that are characterized as being “unallocated” and that were not immediately reassigned, as they appear in the inscriptions, already totalled more than 1 talent in the public fund before the year 171 (6,241 drachmas, jars 169, 170, 190).
251In other words, the jar inventories enlighten us, for the public treasury, as to the whole of the city‑state’s income except for the current account kept by the treasurers. By contrast, the accounts kept by the hieropoioi for the sacred treasury provide not just the inventory of the assets in the jars, but also the particulars of the current account they themselves maintained.268
The temple deposit
252The movements of monies of the public fund are instructive in themselves. Some jars were quickly re‑used but others remained in Apollo’s temple for many years: in this way payments in made in 188 BC were still in the public fund in 175 (jar 133) and other payments into the sacred fund of 179 were still there in 169 (jar 29). The public treasury therefore built up reserves allocated to a budget item by the diataxis, that swelled what were characterized as “unallocated” monies, that had not yet been apportioned at the annual diataxis but could be used in the following years. The existence of a reserve of public revenues was necessary in particular for the working of the sitonia to make good any deficits, whereas the public revenues of the year were regularly allocated to repayment of loans from the sacred fund.
253One sum was specific: it was “allocated for the heirs of Sosimachos” (jar 129) and passed on “outside of the fund”. It was therefore not part of the public treasury. It may have been a private deposit entrusted for a while to the temple.
254Some public monies, like the choregikon, were allocated directly to the sacred fund in the third as in the second centuries. Others, like the remainder of the technitai, were usually assigned to the sacred fund but remained on at least one occasion in the public fund: the jars of the sacred fund contained the remainders of the years 183, 182, 181, 179, 173 and of two years a little before 169 (jars 30, 27, 33, 57, 92, 107, 72 and 74) while that for the year 180 (jar 151) was in the public fund. But the flute players’ wages, which in the third century passed through the sacred fund in the form of a deposit between two financial periods, appeared only in the public fund judging from the jar inventories (nos. 121, 127, 140, 162, 174).
255It seems, then, that the development of the public fund and its annual inventory under the responsibility of the hieropoioi made it possible to alter certain deposit practices that had been in force among the treasurers in the third century. At the beginning of Independence, the surpluses of public revenues were generally paid into Apollo’s treasury, which was also a sign of the symbiosis between the city‑state and its sanctuary. Once the public fund had its own reserves, it was less important to pay them into the sacred fund. The sitonia monies, which appeared in the account of 209 (ID 362, A, l. 11‑12) in the sacred fund while being clearly identified as belonging to the sitonia, provide an illustration of this, as do the monies reserved for the flute players’ wages: as from the time when the hieropoioi also drew up the inventory of the public fund alongside the jars of the sacred fund, there was no longer any need to deposit in the sacred fund monies that merely passed through it.
256Did that mean that, before the second century, the city-state of Delos did not have its own deposit in the Artemision? It may be that the revenues merely transited via the banks in the course of the year and that no reserve, other than the sums the city-state paid into the sacred fund, existed. We have little evidence to decide either way, but it would be a mistake to think the city‑state’s finances formed an unchanging whole: they evolved between the third and second centuries in their nature and their organization.
257In the third century, the city-state’s annual resources were essentially the proceeds from port and commercial taxes. The city‑state of Delos could not have owned public land since the entire island was sacred and the sanctuary had developed the ways it was exploited as far as possible. So the only openings for developing public revenues were through trade and the profits the city‑state might draw from its monetary system. The development of the stoas of the agora and the port, above all in the second century, ensured it of rental income and it is significant that the income used to repay loans, in the second century, was no longer the proceeds of taxes but of rents. The city‑state patently managed to turn a profit, which the sitionia in all likelihood boosted further.
258The list of civic revenues that the Economics of Pseudo-Aristotle (II, 1, 5 = 1345 b) provides suggests the city-state of Delos could hardly have counted on other resources than those mentioned.269 The city‑state undoubtedly counted evergetes among its own citizens alongside foreign benefactors. Decree IG XI 4, 1049 shows that island city-states came to borrow monies from Delian private citizens.270 We do not know if their generosity extended also to their own city-state but C. Vial notes that it was hardly apparent on the island.271
259We do not see public taxes featured in the jars attested to by the repayments of loans of the third century when they were indeed still in force. This must have meant that those revenues went through the banks in the course of the year, that must have sufficed for depositing them between the time they were collected and the time they were allocated to some new public expenditure. The depositing of periodic revenues in banks meant they could be allocated to spending for the year (assembly funds, monies allocated to various public magistrates) or to repayment of the sanctuary when the spending had been made by borrowing from the sacred fund.
260One description on a jar of the public fund (no. 136) describes precisely the trajectory of certain sums of money: ἐπὶ Ἀπατουρίου Ποσιδεῶνος, ἔθεσαν ταµίαι εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν Ὀρθοκλῆς καὶ Πολύξενος τὸ διαγραφὲν παρὰ βουλῆς τῆς ἐπὶ Ἀπατουρίου, ὃ κατέβαλον ἐπὶ τὸ ἀρχεῖον Πολυβούλωι οἱ ἐγγυηταὶ οἱ Κλεοπάτρας Ἀπατούριος, Χοιρύλος, Ἀριστόβουλος ΗΗΗ· , “Under the archonship of Apatourios [a. 182], sum deposited in the sanctuary by the treasurers Orthokles and Polyxenos [a. 187] in keeping with the order of payment from the council of the archonship of Apatourios [a. 182], corresponding to the amount paid to Polyboulos in the administrative office by the guarantors of Kleopatra Apatourios, Choirylos and Aristoboulos, 300 drachmas” (ID 442, A, l. 80‑81).
261R. Bogaert explains the sense of διαγράφειν, in this context as meaning “give the written order to the bank to pay”.272 In 187, Polyboulos, who was probably a bouleutes,273 handed the sum over to a bank. In 182 the council gave the written order to the bank to pay this amount into the public treasury, under the responsibility of the treasurers of 187. It was then passed on to the hieropoioi.
262Given the regular borrowing from the sacred fund that was repaid from the public revenues, the city‑state treasury scarcely had the opportunity to build up monetary reserves in the third century. Alongside the payments to the sacred fund (table 35), hoarding must have taken up part of the profits that remained available, as attested by the dedications of phialai mentioned in the acts of the archons. None of the monies in the public fund inventoried by the hieropoioi as of 192 were old, contrary to the jars of the sacred fund. It was therefore in the third century, perhaps in the 230s since it was then that the public fund began to be mentioned in the accounts of the hieropoioi, that revenues began to build up in sufficient quantities to warrant a change in administrative practices. This change was reflected in the early second century by the depositing of the public fund in the Temple of Apollo and the inventory of both funds being entrusted to the hieropoioi.274
Table 35 — Public monies paid regularly into the sacred fund.
Upkeep of sanctuary | Remainder of the phiale | ± 30 dr. |
Festivals | Ox of the Apollonia | 350 dr. ?20 |
Subsidy for competitions | 100 dr. then 50 dr. from the 180s | |
Wages of flute players | 3 470 dr. | |
Subsidy for the Thesmophoria | 50 dr. | |
Total payments for festivals | ± 4 000 dr. | |
Regular build‑up of public monies | Choregikon | |
Remainder of the technitai | ||
Horon | ||
Trapezon | ||
Public income allocated to repayment | Port and commercial taxes | |
Agora rents | ||
Prytanikon | ||
Income from assemblies |
Conclusion: Public property and Sacred property on Delos
263As already shown by examination of the accounting methods of the hieropoioi, the study of the composition of the sacred fund and the public fund clearly demonstrates the city-state’s fortune and the god’s fortune were very closely interwoven (table 36).
Table 36 — Organization of resources and movements of funds between the two treasuries.

264The island’s two great religious festivals, the Apollonia and the Dionysia, both benefited from three‑way financing out of the sacred fund, public revenues and the private revenues of the choregoi. The Thesmophoria were financed by the two treasuries, public and sacred. Not counting the public resources that were allocated to the repayment of loans, a large proportion of the revenues from the city‑state treasury landed in the sacred fund, whether remainders or subsidies, because the assembly voted for the purpose through laws or decrees. The contribution made by public revenues was substantial because each year more than 4,000 drachmas went from the city-state fund to the sacred fund. This contribution essentially made it possible to ensure ceremonies could be held regularly. Other payments were added that swelled the sacred fund. In return, the sacred fund financed work on buildings unrelated to the temenos: the theatre, the Pentekostologion, the L‑shaped stoa of the agora, the Ekklesiasterion. The interweaving of the funds in all aspects of Delian life was real indeed. This entanglement was probably the outcome of decisions by the city state’s authorities that had built up layer on layer since the beginning of Independence, forming a complex construction. In any case, the Delians had not done a bad job compared with the organization of the Athenian administrators of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, enabling religious festivals to be held with support from their city‑state alone.
265This organization raises the question of how public property and sacred property were defined on Delos, which seems to contrast with the structural arrangement specific to Greek polities. This is, besides, why several commentators on the Delian accounts have hesitated to accept what the numbers say quite unambiguously but that goes against the long-accepted old-established theories.275
266It was in the Wiener Studien of 1888 and 1889 that H. Swoboda first, following on the work of A. Boeckh on the financial administration of Athens (Die Staatshaushaltung der Athener, 1817) brought out the distinction the Greeks made between the hiera chremata and the demosia chremata in two lengthy studies entitled Über griechische Schatzverwaltung and based on the analysis of numerous inscriptions. He clearly showed that the fact that the city‑states, through their assemblies and councils, were tasked with supervising the administration of the sacred funds did not at all mean that these funds had become the property of the city‑state. Even if the sanctuaries stood on civic land, the property of the gods continued to belong to the gods.
267Other scholars, like M.I. Finley, have seen in this public stewardship of sacred monies an informal appropriation: “The so‑called temple funds were deme funds, of course, and the administrative technique, common in Athens and elsewhere, of handling such moneys through the temple had no special significance, legally or otherwise.”276
268In the end the crux of the debates can be brought down to this contrast between a more institutional view of the assets that supports the idea that sacred property was separate from public property,277 and a view centred more on practices and that emphasizes the lack of formalism of the Greeks, that might lead to public and sacred becoming conflated. More recently, L. Migeotte has studied through several papers the stewardship of sacred assets in Greek cities in seeking to illuminate the question of the ownership of sacred assets. He observes “a fuzziness that among the Greeks surrounded the very idea of property. In practice, it obviously existed on several levels, sacred, public and private. But, as in many other areas, the Greeks acted and spoke without any formalism on this point and without referring to clear notions of law.”278
269In point of fact, the institutional working of financial affairs, highlighted by the accounts of the hieropoioi, reveals above all the supremacy of the city-state through the power that the assembly of the people exercised over all financial matters: the demos was sovereign for any decision concerning public finance or the sacred fund alike. The sacred finances were strictly speaking embedded in the institutional armature of the city-state which oversaw the management of the god’s property.
270Within this civic domain, there were owners, whether private individuals or divinities. Apollo was, after a fashion, a legal entity in the sense that he was the owner of the assets of his sanctuary. There is in this a legal formalism that makes the god a landlord, albeit an absentee landlord. This sacred property thus defines a store of protected wealth that might be used by the city‑state as its steward but that remained an integral part of the property of the godhead. That was why the sacred treasury was, under the god’s protection, a reserve into which surpluses could be paid: a bank in the proper sense, with deposit operations (in both coinage and precious metal offerings), credit operations and also investment operations (grain purchase funds, building funds). Because it remained separate from the public property jointly held by all citizens, the sacred property could become a store of value with which the public domain interacted. But from a financial point of view, the divide between public and sacred was not a separation between two distinct spheres: the sacred was a part of the public sphere of the city-state, which ensured the stewardship of the whole.
271Far from being convenient empiricism, the association of the public and sacred spheres on Delos in the management of property was on the contrary part of a relation that was formalized by the Ancients themselves, although we only catch glimpses of it. Against the Athenians of the classical period who invoked the sacred character of Delian territory, thereby justifying the expulsion of the polity and its inhabitants so as to purify the space, the Delians invariably made the argument that the people they formed was sacred in character, thereby legitimizing their claim to be the only administrators of the sacred island of Apollo. Besides, shortly before the Persian Wars, they had been acknowledged by the Persian admiral Datis as ἄνδρες ἱροί (Herodotus, VI, 97).279
272The choice by the Delians to construct accounts that included the two funds in one was therefore not some misappropriation of corporate property nor sacrilegious. On the contrary it sheds light on an understanding of the sacred that was probably not an exception in the Greek world, even if it was a particularly accomplished in the Delian case.
273In a way, the Delian situation defined a paradigm common to all Greek cities: the city-state was responsible for the administration of the sanctuaries in its territory. It sought, to this end, to derive revenues from sacred property that could be put to the financing of spending required for the maintenance of buildings and the holding of festivals.280 Accordingly the city‑state exercised financial and political responsibility over the sacred property that justified the inclusion of that property in civic affairs as a whole.281 In this sense, the idea of “sacred economy” or “économie du sacré ” often invoked in the recent literature is false for the Greek world because the sacred never formed, financially and institutionally, a domain that was managed separately from the working of the city-state: sacred property was in the charge of the civic magistrates and citizens.282
274The matter has been addressed more often than not from the angle of land ownership. In a recent monograph, N. Papazarkadas has proposed three criteria for defining ownership of sacred land: the definition of rights or prohibitions as to its cultivation, the use of revenues for the cult, and the inalienability of sacred land.283 Away from the Athenian setting and contesting an overly rigid definition of the sacred domain, D. Rousset highlights, on the contrary, using many an example, a relationship between the city-state and its sanctuaries that is expressed through the joint ownership of property: the god’s assets in many instances make up a reserve placed in the charge of the city‑state, but it also came about that ownership itself, as shown by several examples of rules and regulations on endowment funds, was common to the city‑state and to the god.284
275The Delian case fits neatly into this debate and can be used to clarify some of its terms. As seen, the sacred fund was surely a reserve for the Delians in several ways. They drew from it lavishly for credit, while maintaining the god’s assets through their repayments, but they also paid their surpluses into it. Apollo’s property was under the full responsibility of the Delians and several documents attest to the assimilation in language between “the money of the Delians” and the sacred property: seen from the outside, the sanctuary was inseparable from the city‑state, it was embedded within it, and all the more so as the Delians encountered many obstacles in the classical period before achieving this outcome. The financial purposes of the monies that circulated quickly to‑and‑fro between the public treasury and the sacred treasury were not defined by some boundary line of the sanctuary or of public affairs: spending on building work in the town often came out of the sacred fund whereas revenues of the public fund went to finance the great Delian festivals. The endowment funds were managed for some in the sacred fund and for some as part of public finances, and the criterion for apportionment of responsibilities seems to have been monetary above all with the definition of a histiatikon fund.
276But beyond these close interactions, one can also see the emergence, probably gradually over the period, of a structured category of demosia, public assets. The organization of public property was very similar to that of sacred property and so much so that it seemed to copy it: own resources made up out of fiscal and rental revenues, and productive capital the income from which was allocated to regular applications of funds. The category of the demosia was entirely visible whenever a publicly owned reserve formed: this is what occurred by the second century at the latest when plentiful profits began to pile up and were no longer paid exclusively into the sacred fund. The commission tasked in the late third century with separating the money of the choregikon from the sacred money may have been the first manifestation of this phenomenon that was also reflected in accounting practices.
277By giving the hieropoioi the task both of drawing up the inventory of the two funds by adding them together in the account balance and of managing the constant movements of monies between the two funds, the city-state of Delos was indeed affirming its ownership of the whole: the hiera property and the demosia property. At the same time, it did not rule out developing funds specific to the public treasury, especially with the formation of the sitonikon that must have played a decisive part in the build‑up of profits.
278The explanation of this change is certainly not that the city‑state of Delos had begun to understand the principles of secularization. In the second century as before, the Delians continued to display their responsibility with respect to the two categories of property, hiera and demosia alike. The system of the funds revealed by the Delian documentation was primarily a great financial profit-making undertaking. The subdivision of assets among several coffers themselves made up of several funds meant that risk could be shared and the profitability of operations undertaken could be measured. What matters in the organization revealed by the accounts of the hieropoioi is not so much the overall figure for profits as its relation with the capital initially invested.285 Yet the Delians also had to cope with the obsolescence of some of the currencies that made up their cash holdings and so develop more forms of yield from the capital available: this monetary question shall be the subject of the next chapter.
279One must refrain, then, from slotting Delian finances into ready-made categories: the economic and financial spheres feature prominently in the Delian documentation, reminding us that sacred matters, for the Greeks, were very largely matters of money because, for the city‑states, they involved property issues.
Notes de bas de page
1 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 279‑342.
2 Reger 1994a, pp. 189‑248 and 309‑350; Kent 1948; Henng 1985; Molinier 1914.
3 Feyel 2006, p. 482 and table 35.
4 The name ἐγ[κύκλια] τέλη probably expresses the point that these taxes were farmed out at auction in the kukloi: Chankowski 2007, pp. 311‑313 and Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012, p. 239. But see Migeotte 2001, pp. 31‑32, for the name indicating the periodical character of the income.
5 Reger 1994a, pp. 189‑247. See also Kent 1948, pp. 303‑304, with the corrections suggested by Tréheux and Brunet (cf. the bibliographical references cited by Reger 1994a, p. 190, n. 3).
6 Reger 1994a, p. 193.
7 See the table in Reger 1994a, p. 195 and the graph p. 196.
8 Reger 1994a, pp. 198‑199.
9 Reger 1994a, p. 243.
10 I analyse the emergence of these taxes and their names in Chankowski 2008a, pp. 295‑307.
11 Vial 1984, p. 367.
12 See Chapter 2 above, pp. 73‑74 about the average amount of the perion.
13 See Chapter 2 above, pp. 74‑76.
14 References in Bruneau 1970, p. 264.
15 Bruneau 1970, pp. 364‑365.
16 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 127‑148.
17 As C. Chandezon emphasizes, speaking of other sanctuaries, “there is a difference between gifts of animals meant to make up or increase temple flocks or herds and gifts of animals for sacrifice” (Chandezon 2003, p. 292).
18 a. 258 (IG XI 2, 224, B, l. 27); a. 250 (IG XI 2, 287, B, l. 90); a. 240 (ID 298, A, l. 108‑112).
19 Vial 2008, s.v. Aristomachos.
20 See Chapter 5 below, pp. 261‑262.
21 On the decoration of these offertory boxes, see Bruneau 1970, p. 365.
22 With an exception for the festival of the Posideia: cf. Bruneau 1970, pp. 92‑93.
23 See the data collated by Bruneau 1970 in the table on pp. 366‑367.
24 Vial 1984, p. 115 and n. 119.
25 Vial 1984, pp. 157‑158; Fröhlich 2004, pp. 386 and 417‑418.
26 Homolle 1890, p. 460; Migeotte 2014, p. 604.
27 ID 440, A , l. 56‑57. Cf. 401, l. 25‑26; 403, l. 55‑56; 442, A, l. 24; 449, A, l. 4‑7; 461, Ab, l. 30.
28 ID 369, A, l. 44; 366, A, l. 101‑102; 346, A, l. 13.
29 Migeotte 2014, p. 611 and n. 98, wrongly takes the view that the four festivals of the Apollonia, Thesmophoria, Eileithyaia and Posidea would have been subsidized by the city on the same model, according to Bruneau 1970, pp. 66‑67, 216‑219 and 260‑264.
30 Bruneau 1970, pp. 66‑67. Cf. IG XI 2, 203, A, l. 64 εἰς ἆθλα καὶ τοὺς λαµπαδιστὰς ἐλάβοµεν παρὰ ταµίου δραχµὰς ⁝Η⁝.
31 Tréheux 1952, p. 588, n. 5, rightly suggests restoring 50 drachmas rather than 100 drachmas in account ID 449. The same goes for ID 442. Cf. Bruneau 1970, p. 66.
32 IG XI 2, 203, A, l. 64: εἰς ἆθλα καὶ τοὺς λαµπαδιστὰς ἐλάβοµεν παρὰ ταµίου δραχµὰς ⁚Η⁚ καὶ ἡµεῖς ἔδοµεν ἐκ τῆς βύρσης τοῦ βοὸς τοῦ εἰς τὰ Ἀπολλώνια, τιµὴ ⁚∆∆ΙΙ· καὶ ἀπὸ τούτου ἐλαίου παρὰ Π․․
33 Fraisse and Moretti 2007, p. 218, on the distribution of this sum. The act of the archon of 168, known from a fragment discovered during excavation of the Prytaneum in 1987 (Prêtre 2000) indicates the names of the flute players recruited: [κ]αὶ ἐµισθώθησαν αὐληταί, l. 3‑4. But contrary to what the editor of the inscription thinks, the expression shows no change of procedure because the expenses fell to the public treasury.
34 ID 362, A, l. 1‑2: [µισθ]ὸς τοῖς αὐ[λ]ηταῖς καὶ ξένια καὶ σιτηρέσιον ; ID 442, A, l. 128 : τοῖς αὐληταῖς ΧΧΧ καὶ τὸ σιτηρέσιον καὶ τὰ χορηγήµατα καὶ τὸ νικητήριον ΗΗΗΗ∆∆.
35 The wages of the flute player of the chorus for the Deliads, paid by the hieropoioi, were on the contrary subject to variations. See Bruneau 1970, p. 37; Sifakis 1967, p. 38; Fraisse and Moretti 2007, p. 218.
36 Bruneau 1970, p. 37 and p. 69.
37 Mistranslated as “artisans” in Nouveau Choix, taken up by Migeotte 2005, p. 31.
38 These technitai are ignored by Le Guen 2001, because the accounts never specify who they were, but the corpus of honorific decrees attests to the presence of Dionysiac technitai on Delos, besides the point that the sanctuary was a place for exhibition of honorific stelae that did not concern the city of Delos alone. See for example IG XI 4, 1060 (decree of the technitai of Isthmia and Nemea for the son of Teleson, Delian = Le Guen 2001, TE 19).
39 Moretti and Fraisse 2007, p. 225.
40 See below pp. 113‑116 on the choregikon.
41 Feyel 2006, p. 404. It is probably this parallel that led to the mistranslation (“artisans” instead of “technitai”) in Nouveau Choix also taken up by Migeotte 2005; p. 31: see n. 37 above.
42 Bruneau 1970, p. 290.
43 Homolle 1890, pp. 460‑461; Durrbach 1905, p. 528.
44 Bruneau 1970, p. 264.
45 See also the same wording, but the amounts have not been conserved, in ID 452, l. 13.
46 Migeotte 2005, p. 32, n. 26 and Migeotte 2014, p. 611. See also below p. 168 on the diataxis in the section on the public treasury.
47 See above p. 106 on the sanctuary of Asklepios.
48 ID 401; 406; 440; 442; 445; 452; 461; 464. Cf. Bruneau 1970, p. 219.
49 See Chapter 4 below, p. 203.
50 See Chapter 4 below, p. 204‑205.
51 Vial 2008, s.v.
52 Vial 2008, s.v.
53 Vial 1984, p. 246.
54 See Chapter 4 below, p. 204‑205 on the conversion factor with the Attic drachma.
55 With the correction suggested by Vial 1984, n. 299, p. 245: Η and not
, a correction confirmed by reading the stone.
56 Vial 1984, p. 41 and p. 207.
57 Bruneau 1970, pp. 319‑321.
58 See also Fraisse and Moretti 2007, p. 225.
59 Commentary on ID 320, p. 225.
60 Bogaert 1968, p. 157. Bruneau 1970, p. 442, follows Durrbach without knowing of Bogaert’s objections. See below on the endowment capital and the meaning of histiatikon.
61 Vial 1984, p. 210.
62 Vial 1984, p. 211‑212, n. 87.
63 With the exception of one jar that contained only 110 drachmas for the trapezon (paid into the sacred fund in 177); ID 461 Aa, l. 27‑28.
64 For the word horoi, see Plato, Laws, 849 e (ὅρους θῶνται τῶν ὠνίων), where it means the demarcation of market spaces.
65 See the remarks by Vial 1984, p. 212, n. 87, who rightly challenges Bogaert’s hypothesis of a duty related to management of the sanctuary’s assets.
66 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 279‑307; Chankowski 2007, pp. 303‑304.
67 Vial 1984, p. 212.
68 Chankowski 2007, p. 316. An all‑inclusive and increasing tax on shipping tonnage may be attested for the ellimenion of the Sunion (SEG X, Add. 1, p. 156) but the lump sum was individual and not collective as in the Delian case.
69 Proposed restoration for jar 85 (see Appendix 2).
70 Bogaert 1968, pp. 184‑185, hence the mistake in Migeotte 2014, p. 662, who thinks the amount doubled as from 192. Given that we have exact totals in several instances for the itemized cash holdings, this hypothesis is untenable.
71 On the Delian foundations, the main studies are by Schulhof 1908, pp. 101‑132; Ziebarth 1917; Tréheux 1944‑45; pp. 271‑278 and Tréheux 1959, chapter VI “Les vases de l’Aphrodision de Stésiléôs”; Bogaert 1968, pp. 153‑161; Brueneau 1970, pp. 342‑343 and 515‑583; Vial 1984, pp. 104‑105, 205‑207, 213‑214, 380‑381; Migeotte 2014, p. 2‑629‑631.
72 Bruneau 1970, pp. 343‑344.
73 This is why debate about the possible location of monies in the Prytaneum is largely meaningless: see above p. 116.
74 A large part of the phialai was handed over to the hieropoioi by the city treasurers who must as such have exercised financial oversight: Vial 1984, p. 214. See below on the role of the treasurers.
75 On the transmission by the last archons of Independence, see Prêtre 2000.
76 Tréheux 1959, chapter VI: “Les vases de l’Aphrodision de Stésiléôs” and pp. 522‑525, about the collection of the Prytaneum.
77 I have not had the opportunity to consult J. Sosin, Perpetual Endowments in the Hellenistic World: A Case-Study in Economic Rationalism, PhD diss., Duke University (2000).
78 Vial 1984, p. 28.
79 However, there is no ground for asserting, as in Ziebarth 1917, p. 426, that this was land referred to in the accounts as Nikou chorou.
80 Roussel 1916, p. 175; Bruneau 1970, p. 525.
81 See the examples examined by Prêtre 2004.
82 Bruneau 1970, pp. 518‑525.
83 Bruneau 1970, pp. 562‑563.
84 On the origins of this rate of 10% see Migeotte 1984, p. 153, n. 22.
85 Chronological order is adopted. The year shown as the date of endowment is one year earlier than the first dedication, as is right for the investment of capital. The endowments on grey grounds are those of the histiatikon (see below).
86 An inscription of the second Athenian domination speaks of phialai dedicated shortly after 156/5 out of the income of several endowment funds including that of Nicias (ID 1421, Bcd, 4‑10).
87 In the choregic inscription of the year of Sosistratos (200), the collection of vases of the Mikythia numbers 45 items, which would mean the endowment dated from the year 246. Cf. Schulhof 1908, p. 125, followed by Ziebarth 1917, p. 427. But Tréheux 1944‑45, pp. 271‑283 has shown that the creation should be taken back considerably, by reconstructing the series of vases dedicated by this endowment fund.
88 Bruneau 1970, pp. 448‑449.
89 In ID 366, A, l. 131‑134, the hieropoioi hand over to the epistates of the Stesileia a sum of 150 drachmas for the festival. It is likely that this payment encompassed both the expenses of the sacrifice and the manufacture of the vase. Bruneau 1970, p. 342, mistakenly thinks the amount of the monies is unknown.
90 The endowment fund is only known from the consecration of three series of phialai. After Bruneau 1970, pp. 518‑525, these were three separate foundations.
91 After Bruneau 1970, p. 525, the discontinuation of records of spending for the festival and entries of phialai does not mean the endowment fund stopped operating because an inscription of the Second Athenian Domination refers to phialai dedicated shortly after 156/5 out of the income of the endowments of king Ptolemy (ID 1421, Bcd, 4‑10).
92 The collection shows that 18 phialai were dedicated between 267 and 250.
93 An inscription of the Second Athenian Domination speaks of phialai dedicated shortly after 156/5, out of the income of several endowment funds including that of Philetairos (ID 1421, Bcd, 4‑10).
94 A festival that should not be confused with the federal festival of the Islanders in honour of Antigonos Monophthalmos (Bruneau 1970, pp. 564‑567 and p. 559).
95 Bruneau 1970, pp. 561‑562 on a possible attribution of this festival to the Seleucids by E. Bikerman.
96 Bruneau 1970, p. 528. This endowment had been mistakenly assimilated to the Ptolemaieia (Ziebarth 1917, p. 429).
97 Bruneau 1970, p. 564 on the uncertainties as to the date of the endowment fund.
98 If greater than 1.
99 These entries are for three endowment funds of the same name.
100 Vial 1984, p. 105; Bruneau 1970, p. 563.
101 See below p. 131.
102 See for example ID 440, A, l. 58‑59; 449, A, l. 7‑9; 461, Ab, l. 29: “by way of advance, we have handed over to the elected epistatai, for sacrifices, the money at suitable times so the sacrifices to the gods be made” (translated from Bruneau 1970, p. 343).
103 Bogaert 1968, p. 152, n. 120.
104 5,000 Delian drachmas at 3.30 g come to 3,893 Attic drachmas at 4.36 g, but 5,000 Delian drachmas at 3 g only come to 3,488. See Chapter 4 below, p. 204.
105 Pace Migeotte 2014, pp. 626‑633, who takes the view that the hieropoioi were sometimes negligent whereas the Athenians “did not imitate the complacency of the hieropoioi”.
106 See the examples collected in Chankowski 2005.
107 Grey grounds in table 26.
108 But also earlier: IG XI 2, 287, A, l. 195‑196, in the year 250, differentiates between debtors of the endowment funds and debtors of the god.
109 Bogaert 1968, p. 160 and n. 151, following Ziebarth 1917, pp. 437‑439, believes the stesileion belonged to the histiatikon and its absence was due to gaps in the records, which is incorrect. It was probably this confusion that explains the mistake in Migeotte 2014, p. 630 as to the number of Delian endowment funds (he counts 30).
110 Vial 1984, p. 214, observes that the treasurers’ involvement in this procedure was strange and probably served to discharge the hieropoioi of responsibility. But the division of tasks between treasurers and hieropoioi was more complex than a mere question of discharging of responsibility.
111 ID 317, l. 30; 444, A, l. 52; 449, B, l. 12.
112 Bogaert 1968, p. 152.
113 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 47‑48.
114 The hieropoioi twice mentioned the foundations in their valuations of assets, the income (in the account) and the phiale produced (in the inventory), but the account of the year 250 clearly shows that the proceeds from the interest of the nesiadeion were not part of the account balance. See Chapter 1 above, p. 36.
115 LSFJ, s.v. ἑστιατικόν, followed by all the other commentators. See also R. Bogaert’s objections to F. Durrbach’s suggestion that it was capital deposited in the Prytaneum, the sanctuary of Hestia, in Bogaert 1968, p. 157.
116 Syll 3 1047 (IG XII 7, 237, l. 25 related to IG XII 7, 245).
117 See Conclusion below, p. 295.
118 Roussel 1916, p. 174.
119 Chankowski 1997b.
120 See Chapter 4, pp. 185‑186 on monetary policies.
121 Hansen 2004, p. 656.
122 See Chapter 4, p. 191.
123 See below p. 141.
124 Besides, in Euboean onomastics, the patronym Histiator is known in an Eretrian military catalogue of the late fourth century (∆ιονύσιος Ἱστιάτορος: IG XII 9, 249, l. 442).
125 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 29‑33 on where and how money was stored.
126 See above p. 114. The names on the jar inscriptions are of no avail as they were very common names on Delos: cf. Vial 2008.
127 Migeotte 2014, p. 654, mistakenly takes the view that these jars appeared only between 192 and 179: the inventory of the jars of the year 192 (ID 399) is incomplete and it is precisely the beginning of the cash holdings that is missing.
128 Chankowski 2002.
129 The numbering I adopt here follows the order of the inventories but the jars do not have numbers in the inscriptions; only inscription ID 405 puts jar 10 first.
130 I suggest restoring [τὸ λοιπὸν], “the remainder”, before [τ]οῦ ἐν τεῖ Μινόει φαν[έντος] to explain the use of the genitive.
131 The text of the corpus gives [τὸ ἀπαχθὲν], an unwarranted restoration since everywhere else for this sum we find the wording τὸ ἀπελθὸν.
132 Correction of Tréheux 1985b, to which we can add the restoration τὸ ἀπ[ε]λθὸν. The corpus gives ον Πρῶτις τὸν ἐκ Τή[νου].
133 With the oversight of 1 obol in the restoration given in the corpus.
134 The variant Leukinos for Leukios may for example have been prompted by the name of the archon of 201, Leukinos, that the hieropoioi may still have had in mind.
135 The following takes up and adds to the line of argument set out in Chankowski 2002.
136 See for example ID 461, Bv, l. 47‑48: καὶ τὸ ἀπενεχθὲν τοῦ ἀπολοµένου χρυσίου.
137 Tréheux 1985b.
138 See above, n. 96.
139 Vallois 1944, p. 193, n. 4. He was followed with reservations by Tréheux 1985b, pp. 26‑27. F. Durrbach dismissed the hypothesis of coins thrown into the fountain by the faithful and assumed a treasure had been found in the underpinnings of the fountain in the course of repairs referred to in the account of 179 (commentary to ID 442). But this money was already in the sacred chest in 188 (ID 405 and ID 408 c. 190).
140 Understood as part of financial terminology, this use of the neutral aoristic participle is unparalleled in the accounts of the hieropoioi. The only “appearance” which, in these documents, makes use of the intransitive ἐφάνην is that of vine branches that “appeared in the fountain” close to a sheepfold (IG XI 2, 153, l. 8‑9: κλήµατα σταφύλης ξ[․․․․] ὅτ’ ἐ[ν τ]ῆι κρηνῖδι ἐφάνη). Although this too concerns a fountain, it is highly unlikely that this episode can be likened to the money φανέν “from the Minoe”. This is far more likely here the offshoot of a plant growing in a poorly maintained fountain.
141 IG IX I2 4c = Syll 3 554; IG IX I2 192 = Syll 3 563. Giovannini 1978, p. 54 highlights this contrast, but misleadingly writes that the verb φαίνειν means “recover”.
142 Cf. Gernet 1956; Bogaert 1968, p. 349; Gabrielsen 1986; Cohen 1992, pp. 191‑207.
143 Cf. the examples cited by Cohen 1992, pp. 201‑202.
144 Tréheux 1985b, p. 23.
145 Chankowski 1997b, p. 368 and the bibliographical references cited in the footnote.
146 Bogaert 1968, pp. 192‑196; Etienne 1990, pp. 145‑146 and p. 173.
147 This is the hypothesis I use in Chankowski 2002.
148 See Chapter 1 above pp. 20‑24 on the difficulties the Delians had in recovering capital loaned in the classical period by the Athenians.
149 Giovannini 1978, p. 54.
150 Tréheux 1985b, p. 26. But see p. 171 and Appendix 2, p. 361 about the money of Sosimachos’ heirs. A deposit by a treasurer of the city of Delos is mentioned under the term θέσις in 208 (ID 365, l. 12‑14).
151 J. Tréheux himself provides examples with the case of Ameinondas that became Epaminondas and Batesis that became Datis: Tréheux 1985b, p. 27.
152 Against my hypothesis, P. Gauthier (Bull. 2003, 397) invokes the inscription of Magnesia of the Meander (I. Magnesia 50, l. 80), engraved in 208/7 and therefore contemporary to the inventories of the jars of the hieropoioi, in which the city of Minoa in fact designates the Samians settled in Minoa and not the Minoans themselves. But the wording of the jars does not date from the second century and the hieropoioi patently here merely copied it, as they commonly did for other inventories.
153 For example, ID 144 A, l. 92, 444 B, l. 95 (Μινόη); ID 219 A, l. 22; 324 A, l. 29 (Μινώια); ID 287 A, l. 60‑61 (Μινοία).
154 Chankowski 2008a, p. 365‑369.
155 The process seems to have been commonplace in the circles of private finance in Athens: cf. the examples cited by Cohen 1992, pp. 202‑207.
156 See the references collected by Nigdélis 1990, p. 12.
157 Roussel 1916, pp. 171‑172; Larsen 1938, pp. 342‑343.
158 See Chapter 1 above, p. 48 on this date; see also Chapter 4 on these questions of monetary policy.
159 See the commentary on these holdings in Chapter 1 above, pp. 44‑45.
160 See above pp. 113‑116 about the choregikon.
161 See Chapter 4, pp. 184‑185 below about the Athenian inventory.
162 See Chapter 2 above, pp. 73‑74 about the average amount of the annual perion.
163 Cf. Vial 1984, p. 319, n. 14.
164 See above pp. 115‑116 and below p. 160 on the financing of the technitai.
165 Mistranslated as “artisans” in Nouveau Choix.
166 See above, pp. 111‑112.
167 See also the connection with the prytanikon known in 250.
168 See Chapter 2 above, p. 81.
169 Vial 1997, p. 343.
170 Baslez and Vial 1987.
171 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 311‑342.
172 On the dedications of phialai see in particular the description of the procedure in Lewis 1954, p. 48.
173 Chankowski 2011b.
174 See above p. 119 on the subsidies and allocated monies.
175 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 51‑55.
176 See below p. 153‑154 about the agora rents.
177 See below p. 168‑171 on the diataxis.
178 Readers shall therefore also see the previous section on the sacred fund.
179 Chankowski 2007, pp. 312‑313.
180 The pentekostologoi are mistakenly thought to be magistrates in Nouveau Choix, p. 76. The question of what the duty of pentekostologoi involved has been the subject of debate. Roussel 1916, p. 179, thought they were magistrates, probably because he thought of them in line with the office of future epimeletes of the emporion which existed as from 166. Outside of Delos, depending on how the tax was collected, the pentekostologoi might be tax farmers or equally well magistrates: cf. Habicht 1957, p. 106 about the decree of the Acarnanian Confederation on the subject of the sanctuary of Action and the sharing of taxes between the Confederation and the city of Anactorion; Vial 1984, p. 234. Vélissaropoulos 1980, pp. 207‑211 does not discuss the matter directly but seems to take the view that the pentekostologoi were invariably tax farmers. The notice of Harpocration, s.v. πεντηκοστή, does not opt between the two types of office: πεντηκοστὴ µὲν τέλος τι καὶ πεντεκοστολόγοι οἱ τοῦτο τὸ τέλος ἐγλέγοντες, πεντεκοστεύεσθαι δὲ τὸ πράττεσθαι τὴν πεντηκοστὴν, “the pentekoste is a tax, the pentekostologoi are those who collect it and pentekosteuesthai designates the collection of that tax”.
181 See below, p. 150.
182 Chankowski 2008a, p. 305.
183 Chankowski 2007, pp. 303‑304.
184 On the opposition on this matter between the argument of the Athenians and the Delians’ arguments see Chankowski 2008a, pp. 306‑307.
185 Chankowski 2008a, p. 294 and p. 306; Chankowski 2007, pp. 303‑304.
186 Chankowski 2007, pp. 312‑313.
187 See Chapter 5 below, pp. 276‑277.
188 See Chapter 5 below, pp. 276‑277 about the declaration to the pentekostologion.
189 See Chapter 5 below, p. 273.
190 Migeotte 2014, p. 609, n. 88 and Vial 1984, p. 235 and n. 231 mistakenly take the wording to refer to a tax.
191 On the principle of 1/20th that is added to the tax (it is therefore 21 20ths and not 20 19ths, contrary to what is to be understood from Reger 1994a, p. 254).
192 See the correction of Chankowski and Feyel 1997, p. 120.
193 Larsen 1938, pp. 354‑355; Vélissaropoulos 1980, p. 210; Vial 1984, p. 235 and pp. 339‑340; Reger 1994a, pp. 254‑257; Descat 2001.
194 See Reger 1994a, pp. 254‑257 on the different interpretations.
195 Vial 1984, pp. 339‑340.
196 See Chapter 5, pp. 271‑275.
197 On the exception of goods declared for personal use, see Chankowski 2012.
198 Chankowski 2007. On fish, see also Lytle 2007, p. 255; Lytle 2013.
199 ID 509, l. 30‑31: ἀναγράψαντες εἰς τὴν σανίδα οὗ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ γράµµατα. On the duties of the agoranomoi see Vial pp. 232‑233, who does not mention tax collection. For a hypothesis as to the location of the agoranomion near the Hypostyle Hall, see Moretti, Fincker and Chankowski 2012. On proceeds from these taxes, see below p. 153.
200 IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 36: τῶν ἰχθύων τῶν ἐν τῆι λίµνηι παρὰ Καλοδίκου ·∆· ; IG XI 2, 162, A, l. 41.
201 Yet this is the meaning LSJ ascribes, s.v.: ‘fishery-rights”; Nouveau Choix, p. 76.
202 See Chapter 5 on the economy.
203 Chankowski and Feyel 1997, p. 119.
204 F. Durrbach read 61.5 drachmas ad IG XI 2, 161, A, l. 27 whereas one would expect 64.5 drachmas with the eponia at 5% (1/20th) but the amount, re‑inscribed in a rasura, is difficult to read.
205 See below, pp. 153‑154 on the rents of the agora.
206 See above, pp. 117‑118.
207 See below, p. 170.
208 On the revenue from the stoas, see for example the case of the stoa presented to the Milesians by Antiochos son of Seleucos I (OGIS 213). More generally on the mortgaging of income from these facilities, see the example collected by Migeotte 1980b.
209 On the diataxis, see below, pp. 168‑173.
210 Vallois 1944, p. 65, n. 5 and p. 424; Vial 1984, p. 214, n. 99. On the contrary Migeotte 2014, p. 599 takes the view on the basis of these attestations that other agora rents were the god’s as of right. This interpretation does not seem to be justified by the sources and it does not seem that the sanctuary owned buildings of its own in the agora in addition to the houses it rented.
211 Bogaert 1968, p. 184.
212 It is Vallois 1944, pp. 66‑67 who associates this text with the South Stoa of the agora. It cannot have been the L‑shaped stoa (cf. Vial 1984, p. 247, n. 309), built in the second century. For the description of the remains of these stoas, see GD 84.
213 On this use of διάφορον, see for example IG XII 7, 388, l. 7 (Amorgos). The gap means there is no telling whether it was here a remainder of the capital dedicated by an Antigonid king.
214 Jar 136, ID 442, A, l. 80‑81: ἀπὸ τῆς Ἕλληνος καὶ Μαντινέως, ἐπὶ Ἀπατουρίου Ποσιδεῶνος, ἔθεσαν ταµίαι εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν Ὀρθοκλῆς καὶ Πολύξενος τὸ διαγραφὲν παρὰ βουλῆς τῆς ἐπὶ Ἀπατουρίου, ὃ κατέβαλον ἐπὶ τὸ ἀρχεῖον Πολυβούλωι οἱ ἐγγυηταὶ οἱ Κλεοπάτρας Ἀπατούριος, Χοιρύλος, Ἀριστόβουλος ΗΗΗ· (“from the bank of Hellen and Mantineus, under the archonship of Apatourios, in the month of Posideon, the treasurers Orthokles and Polyxenos deposited a sum that was given to them on a written order to the bank by the council in office under Apatourios, which sum had been paid to Polyboulos in his administrative office by the guarantors of Kleopatra, Apatourios, Choirylos and Aristoboulos: 300 drachmas.”).
215 Vial 1984, pp. 109‑110.
216 See the re‑editing and translation of this inscription in Chankowski 2012.
217 See above p. 108.
218 See above, pp. 113‑116.
219 See above, pp. 108‑110.
220 See above, p. 120.
221 Bruneau 1970, pp. 515‑584.
222 ἀπὸ τῆς Φίλωνος καὶ Σιλήνου, ἐπὶ Φωκαιέως Ποσιδεῶνος, ἔθεσαν ταµίαι Καίβων καὶ Μνησικλείδης εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν τὸ ἀποταγὲν εἰς τὰς εἰκόνας, οὗ προεχρήσατο ἡ πόλις τῆς δοθείσης δωρεᾶς τοῖς Αἰτωλοῖς κατὰ τὸ ψήφισµα τοῦ δήµου (ID 442, A, l. 87‑88) ; ἀπὸ τῆς Φίλωνος καὶ Σιλήνου, ἐπὶ Φωκαιέως Ποσιδεῶνος, ἔθεσαν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν ταµίαι Μνησικλείδης καὶ Καίβων εἰς τὸ {α} ἀποταγὲν εἰς τὸ χῶµα, οὗ προεχρήσατο ἡ πόλις τῆς δοθείσης δωρεᾶς τοῖς Αἰτωλοῖς κατὰ τὸ ψήφισµα τοῦ δήµου (ID 442, A, l. 89‑90).
223 Baslez and Vial 1987, pp. 282‑283 understand this as the Aetolians being the addressees: “The money intended for ‘the dorea that had been given to the Aetolians’ was assigned in 180 to another budget item, the monies reserved for the work to enlarge the emporion, but the dorea had been given (δοθείσης)”. This explanation fails to account for the loan that is mentioned for this operation: see Migeotte 1984, p. 201 and n. 210 on the frequent use of προχράοµαι with this meaning in the accounts of the hieropoioi.
224 On the negotiations with the Aetolians as from 250, see the decree IG XI 4, 1050. Baslez and Vial 1987, p. 290: “their pirate enterprise was no longer to be feared at this time, not just because of the statutory guarantees accorded to Delos as of 250, but also because of the collapse of their naval power; it was quite simply, like Megara, a state with which Delos had good relations.”
225 The city of Delos awarded a gold crown to Massinissa (ID 442, A, l. 42‑44 and l. 65‑67). On Hermon son of Solon, see Vial 1984, pp. 238‑239. On the affair of the Rhodian pseudo-ambassador, who was in fact a Delian ambassador named Rhodon, see Gauthier 1988.
226 Baslez and Vial 1987, p. 291, rightly note that having paid out less than 1,500 drachmas for the honorific crown for Massinissa, the Delians obtained more than 9,900 drachmas in income for the sitonikon fund from the sale of the wheat presented by the Numidian king.
227 Chankowski 2008b and Chapter 4 below p. 227.
228 See above p. 108 and p. 116.
229 On the diataxis, see below, pp. 168‑173. For the period of the Second Athenian Domination, Migeotte 2014, p. 674, cites the allocation received by the gymnasiarch Pausanias, even if the mechanism was different: see below, n. 266.
230 Vial 1984, pp. 142‑143, took the view it was the repayment of an advance made by the sanctuary for this same budget item of assemblies. This interpretation is not necessarily correct because the Delians could have paid in revenues not used by way of repayment of a loan of some other kind.
231 Migeotte 2014, pp. 389‑391, reviews the fees for participating in the assemblies but fails to contemplate the Delian case. Vial 1984, pp. 142‑143, contemplates honorific spending only.
232 Baslez and Vial 1987.
233 On this subject, see Bresson 2007b. According to Gabrielsen 1997, p. 43, the sum went to pay for the services of the Rhodian fleet. This view is corroborated by the text of Diodorus (XX, 81, 3) emphasizing the role of Rhodes in the fight against piracy for the benefit of the Greeks from before 306. References in Migeotte 2014, p. 669, n. 295.
234 See below, p. 173 on the subsidies paid into the sacred fund.
235 Bruneau 1970, p. 65.
236 Vial 1984, pp. 243‑244.
237 Contrary to the assertion in Migeotte 2014, p. 604, there is no reason why the boonai should have been obliged to systematically make over the proceeds of the sale of hides to the sacred fund. This was public income that could be allocated in various ways.
238 Bruneau 1970, p. 261.
239 On Philippos and Xenophon of Cos, see Massar 2005, pp. 128‑129 and 143‑144.
240 Conversely the city-state built a stoa in the third century using borrowing from the sacred fund, probably the South Stoa of the Tetragonal Agora, but let the sacred fund finance work for other stoas in the second century, probably the L‑shaped stoa. See above, p. 155.
241 Commentators have analysed the term choma in various ways. P. Bruneau takes the view it was broadly speaking an embankment piled up south of the sanctuary to extend the theatre district (Bruneau 2006, pp. 555‑561); for Reger 1988, it was exclusively a mole or wharf whereas it is the plural that means “embankment”. Hellmann 1992, pp. 437‑439, concludes that the term meant an embankment or earthworks. The discovery of an archaic monument on the sea front enabled J.‑C. Moretti to demonstrate that the building works might have more widely included the development of the port as from the fourth century (Moretti 1998).
242 See Chapter 5 below, p. 285.
243 Vial 1984, p. 141, n. 89. She argues in support of this interpretation from the sole occurrence of the term grammateion in the sense of “public building” in Poseidonios (Athenaeus, V, 210 f: XII, 527 e‑f), but it was an ironic description of the habits of the Syrians and the term grammateion is taken there to mean “banqueting hall”: the Syrians called their banqueting halls grammateia, which should be understood instead as meaning that they used their grammateia as banqueting halls.
244 Reger 1993, Sosin 2002, Fantasia 1989.
245 Reger 1993, p. 318, with a mistranslation corrected by Sosin 2002, pp. 65‑66. The exact figure that can be read from the stone is 10,050 drachmas and not 15,000 drachmas: Chankowski and Feyel 1997, p. 123.
246 Reger 1993, pp. 318‑319 with an error of interpretation in the figures and the corrections of Sosin 2002, pp. 66‑68; Fantasia 1989, p. 49.
247 Reger 1993, pp. 318‑319, and notwithstanding the doubts voiced by Sosin 2002, pp. 67‑68.
248 Reger 1993, p. 322 and Sosin 2002, pp. 68‑72. Chankowski in Bull. 2004, 373.
249 Reger 1993, p. 322.
250 Which is also the translation in Nouveau Choix, p. 151. Also Larsen 1938, p. 345; Fantasia 1989, pp. 52‑53.
251 See Chapter 1 above, p. 50.
252 Sosin 2002, p. 70.
253 Migeotte 1993.
254 Tréheux 1986b.
255 Fantasia 1989, pp. 51‑52. The mistake in thinking the Delian fund came to 55,860 drachmas, that is, the total of monies in circulation, was taken up by Migeotte 1991, pp. 31‑32; Reger 1993, p. 319.
256 Sosin 2002, p. 76 and the tables presented pp. 72‑74.
257 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 59‑63.
258 Reger 1993, p. 322.
259 Sosin 2002, pp. 77‑78.
260 But see Sosin 2000, p. 72, who includes them in the calculations he sets out.
261 Bresson 2001 and Bresson 2014; Chankowski 2014a.
262 See Chapter 2 above, p. 82. For what follows, readers should refer to the table of jars in Appendix 2.
263 Most recently on the Delian diataxis, Migeotte 2005 and Migeotte 2014, pp. 572‑673; see also Vial 1984, pp. 140‑142; Francotte 1909, pp. 133‑156 and 213‑230. On the apportionment of public monies in other city‑states, Robert 1949 (Hellenica VII), pp. 177‑178; Robert 1950 (Hellenica IX), pp. 7‑18; Robert 1964, pp. 16‑17. See also, on the Athenian merismos, Faraguna 1992, pp. 177‑194 and Migeotte 2014, pp. 444‑449.
264 Migeotte 2005, p. 37 and Migeotte 2014, pp. 672‑674 (quote p. 673).
265 Vial 1984, p. 140 and n. 88, cited by Migeotte 2014, p. 672, n. 305, who doubts the argument. But see Robert 1950 (Hellenica IX), pp. 15‑16, on this terminology. The fact that, in the third century, the unallocated monies are named sometimes adiatakta and sometimes akatatakta plainly shows the two terms were alternatives throughout the period of Independence.
266 It seems quite wrong then to conclude (Migeotte 2014, p. 674) that the Delian diataxis “required no apportionment of sums to different magistrates, since the treasurers alone could handle public monies”. As for the case of the gymnasiarch Pausanias during the Second Athenian Domination (Migeotte, idem), that was strictly an Athenian situation and in no way comparable (see, Chapter 2 above, p. 99 on the Athenian financial administration in the second century).
267 On the assembly’s financial powers, see Vial 1984, pp. 138‑146.
268 On this distinction, see Chapter 1 above, p. 47.
269 Τρίτον δὲ τὴν πολιτικήν. Ταύτης δὲ κρατίστη µὲν πρόσοδος ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ γινοµένη. Εἶτα ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐµπορίων καὶ διαγωγῶν. Εἶτα ἡ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐγκυκλίων. “In the third form of administration, that of the city-state, the greatest revenues were those derived from proceeds specific to the land, then the taxes on ports of commerce and ways of transit, and finally the income from tax farming.” See on this Chankowski 2007.
270 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 18‑20.
271 Vial 1984, pp. 382‑383: “Admittedly, evergetism was not unknown on Delos but it was the doing of aliens and kings not of its citizens.”
272 Bogaert 1968, pp. 50‑52 and p. 138.
273 On the council’s role in the execution of debtors, see Vial 1984, pp. 109‑110.
274 On the transition from the Artemision to the Temple of Apollo, see Chapter 1 above, pp. 24‑29.
275 See for example the reactions of Vial 1984, p. 171; Migeotte 2014, p. 656. In this respect, the presentation of Delian finances that I make in this book differs widely from the very recent presentation of L. Migeotte in Migeotte 2014: his vision of Delian finances is far too static, because he seeks to fit the various data from the accounts into ready-made categories, without allowing for the hard facts of interactions between the public fund and the sacred fund, or even denying them as is the case with common account balances.
276 Finley 1951, p. 95.
277 See, for example, the analysis by T. Linders of the treasuries of the “other gods” in classical Athens (Linders 1975) or the more recent study by N. Papazarkadas on sacred land in Attica (Papazarkadas 2011): cf. p. 243, about the ownership of sacred land: “it simply lay beyond the public sphere.” See the critiques of Rousset 2013 on this point.
278 Migeotte 2006, p. 234. Also Migeotte 2014, p. 21 and n. 6, p. 23 and n. 12.
279 Chankowski 2008a, pp. 144‑145.
280 See on this subject Dignas 2002; Chankowski 2011b.
281 Much as on Delos, for example, an inscription of Thespiae gives as the heading of an inventory ιερὰ χρέµατα Θεσσπιέων, “the sacred property of the Thespians” (Platon and Feyel 1938, pp. 149‑166, P. Roesch, Inscriptions de thespies 38, l. 2‑3: http://www.hisoma.mom.fr/production-scientifique/les-inscriptions-de-thespies, consulted 8 March 2019).
282 See the remarks of Rousset 2015. Dignas 2002 contemplates the repercussions of this issue for the sanctuaries of Asia Minor, some of which derived from different oriental traditions and underwent institutional change in the Hellenistic period, as was the case for Labraunda in the charge of the city of Mylasa.
283 Papazarkadas 2011.
284 Rousset 2013, pp. 113‑133 (“a common and indivisible ownership”, p. 129); Rousset 2015. While subscribing to most of the author’s conclusions, it does seem to me that the legal concept of a legal entity that the god represents and that justifies the existence of ownership is underestimated in this interpretation (accordingly, the divinities were not just from a legal point of view figureheads for accounting items, as is suggested in Rousset 2015, p. 385). The same is true of the legal definition of the sanctuary, the estate of the divinity and itself fenced off, which is indeed defined in the context of the polity (e.g. Rousset 2015, p. 386: “The ‘sanctuary’ has no financial or legal existence of its own in the world of Greek polities”).
285 This is confirmed by other modern theories of management. See for example A.P. Sloan, My Years with General Motors (1963) cited in C. Thuderoz, Histoire et sociologie du management. Doctrines, textes, études de cas (2006), pp. 105‑106.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
La représentation honorifique dans les cités grecques aux époques classique et hellénistique
Guillaume Biard
2017
Parasites du Dieu
Comptables, financiers et commerçants dans la Délos hellénistique
Véronique Chankowski
2019
Chypre à l'épreuve de la domination lagide
Testimonia épigraphiques sur la société et les institutions chypriotes à l’époque hellénistique
Anaïs Michel
2020
Contribution à l’épigraphie et à l’histoire de la Béotie hellénistique
De la destruction de Thèbes à la bataille de Pydna
Yannis Kalliontzis
2020
La réforme orthodoxe
Église, État et société en Grèce à l’époque de la confessionnalisation post-ottomane (1833-1940)
Anastassios Anastassiadis
2020
Combattre pour la santé
L’Armée d’Orient et la construction du système sanitaire grec, 1912-1922
Léna Korma
2022
Parasites of the God
Accountants, financiers and traders on Hellenistic Delos
Véronique Chankowski
2023