Greek Amphora Workshops
Translations from Russian into English of articles and
books
on amphoras and related archaeological subjects.
- Author:
- Empereur, J-Y., Garlan, Y.
- Article title:
- Greek Amphora Workshops [Grecheskie amfornye masterskie]
- Volume title: Kats, V.I.; Monakhov, S.Iu. (eds) Greek Amphoras [Grecheskie amfory]
- Published:
- (Saratov University Press, Saratov 1992) 8–31
- Note:
- The Greek in this translation is unicode.
Translation by O Bakich and PMW Matheson (pmwm@TO-classics.info).
Comments inside [brackets] are editorial/translators' additions.
[p8]
Greek Amphora Workshops
In the last century and a half the study of Greek
amphoras has moved a long way forward. The main source material for
studying them has been the information obtained in the course of
excavations of cultural layers of settlements, private and public dump
sites, traders' warehouses, and even the remains of shipwrecks.
Clearly such materials will be widely used also in future.
At the same time this approach has certain limitations
and meets with serious and at times insurmountable difficulties,
which, first of all, become evident in the solving of the three main
tasks in the study of amphoras, namely: identification of production
centres; chronological determination of different series of vessels;
organization of production, stamping, and distribution of ceramic
containers in their most varied aspects (technical, economic, social, and
so forth). The final result of all this research should be the
acquisition of reliable historical information.
[p9]?
We will give several examples which demonstrate the
difficulties and frequent dead-end situations in applying the
traditional approaches. They arise in the attempt to localize amphoras
of a comparatively numerically small group of centres in which not
only was there organized a relatively limited production of ceramic
containers, but there was also a practice of stamping.[1]
Usually in such cases one refers to the morphological similarity of
vessels of unknown origin with already localized amphoras. The vessels
belonging to one "circle" are isolated on the basis of geographical
proximity. The practice of establishing the origin of vessels by the
maximal concentration of their finds has received wide usage.
Sometimes localization is accomplished by comparing devices on amphora
stamps with coin devices. Application of all these methods of
identification is not devoid of a certain element of risk, and may
lead to both correct and mistaken deductions.
Noticeable successes in the development of amphora
chronology (particularly stamped ones) are tied in to the wide usage
of the methodology of dating proposed by B.N. Grakov, which included a
complex application of 7 different criteria.[2] However, in
using all these criteria, there also remains a certain element of
doubt because some of them are hypothetical in origin. For example, it
is supposed that the evolution of forms of both amphora stamps and the
vessels themselves always took place in one direct line (most
frequently from simple to complex, from shorter to taller). From this
premise come morphological, palaeographic, and grammatical criteria.
On the other hand, numismatic and historical methods are built on a
more or less arbitrary interconnection of amphora production with
certain aspects of social life (in particular with the military and
political situations which could influence the economy of those
centres which produced ceramic containers). Stratigraphic and
synchronistic criteria, though more reliable, also have limited
possibilities. In the first case, it is connected with the
difficulties of determining chronological difference between the date
of making the vessel and the time of its appearance in the cultural
layer or burial. In the second we deal with a whole complex of
reasons: the impossibility of using the synchronistic method in work
with unstamped amphoras; difficulty in determining the owner of the
name which figures in the stamp (the eponym or "fabricant");
finally, certain doubts arise in establishing the periods of activity
of different "fabricants."
1. See Empereur, Hesnard 1987.
2. Grakov 192 p102f; see also Vinogradov 1972 pp 6f.
2. Grakov 192 p102f; see also Vinogradov 1972 pp 6f.
[p10]
Complexities arise also when we move to the historical
interpretation of amphora production. Here most frequently we have to
rely only on the data about finds of stamped amphoras discovered in
the places where the contents were consumed, which provides us with
the maximum of information. In such cases a considerable amount of
these stamps contains only one name or one device. But, even when a
stamp has two devices often it is very hard to establish which one
belongs to the eponym and which to the "fabricant." In the same case,
which the latter is represented by only one device, which was
subjected to annual change, it is practically impossible to isolate
and group his entire production. This does not permit determination of
his economic and social individuality or of the role which he could
play in the distribution of production or of a number of other
questions.
Meanwhile there exists a reliable method of removing
many of the deficiencies of the original material. The method is so
self-evident and so simple that one can only be surprised despite the
display an interest in it for a long time it was not used
systematically. This is the search and study of the workshops in which
amphoras were produced and in particular the investigation of the dump
sites of defective products, which provide us with samples of
everything that the given workshop produced.
By 1978, within the confines of the Greek oikumena
only three such workshops were accidentally discovered and
studied:[3] two in the Soviet Union (in Khersonessos and
Dioscouriada)[4] and one
3. This of course does not mean that traces of ceramic
production have not been noted in other places. But extremely limited
information was obtained during their research. See for example, finds
at Ikos (Simpson Ad Ἀλλόνυσος -- Ἐρημόνησα
[Τουριστικός Ὁδηγός] Athens no date p16) and at
Knidos (Love 1978 p1119).
4. See Borisova 1958 p144--153; Vinogradov 1972 p149--157; Voronov 1977 p162--171.
In this case, the authors are not quite precise because the region of "Khersonessan ceramics" was detected already at the beginning of this century (see Kostziushko-Valiuzhinich 1901 p37; idem 1902 p23). Apart from two workshops discovered in this region by V.V. Borisova, remnants of another one were also excavated here (see Gilevich 1960 p24f.) -- editors' note.
4. See Borisova 1958 p144--153; Vinogradov 1972 p149--157; Voronov 1977 p162--171.
In this case, the authors are not quite precise because the region of "Khersonessan ceramics" was detected already at the beginning of this century (see Kostziushko-Valiuzhinich 1901 p37; idem 1902 p23). Apart from two workshops discovered in this region by V.V. Borisova, remnants of another one were also excavated here (see Gilevich 1960 p24f.) -- editors' note.
[p11]
on the island of Rhodes (Villanova).[5]
The results of studying the first two remain up to
now practically inaccessible for Western specialists, and the last one
is in general very poorly identified as a workshop. The study of
similar monuments in the west Mediterranean area also developed only
in the last two decades. That is why one may consider the island of
Thasos one of the first proving grounds where a systematic search for
traces of ceramic production was carried out. Another proving ground
is the surroundings of Egyptian Alexandria. Later, our research
embraced other regions of the eastern Mediterranean as well. In spite
of a limited number of research-workers occupied in this work (the
authors of this article and M. Picon) the number of newly discovered
workshops quickly grew: in ten years more than 200, which differed of
course in their importance and amount of information, where
discovered. The number continues to increase rapidly because at
present the entire archaeological world has become more or less
receptive to finds of this sort.
We do not have an opportunity here to relate the
methodology of detecting and excavating amphora workshops: the nature
of the features and the means of fixing the position of workshops in a
locality; the degree to which the finds obtained in the course of
surface collecting (and one is limited precisely to them) correspond
to the materials contained in the unexcavated parts of dump sites;
characteristic features of their horizontal and vertical stratigraphy;
the necessity (which is hard to put into practice due to financial
considerations) to excavate workshops fully; as well as the prospects
which are discovered in the additional -- to amphora material -- study
of tiles and other vessels (mainly of daily life), particularly if
this is combined with a special analysis of the clay. All these
directions in research are extremely necessary for establishing
trustworthy facts. Operating on the obtained information one can
correctly orient the search work, isolate exogenous products which
accidentally ended up in dump sites, and then extrapolate the results
of reconnaissance with the data about local production, which for
various reasons was not taken into consideration.[6]
5. Maiuri 1924 249--269.
6. See Empereur, Picon 1986a; Picon, Garlan 1986.
6. See Empereur, Picon 1986a; Picon, Garlan 1986.
[p12]
We will try to reflect in general outline the
contribution which came as a result of studying amphora workshops in
the three indicated directions of research on ceramic containers:
identification of production centres; chronology of the various series
of vessels; organization of production, stamping, and distribtution of
amphoras.
Each newly discovered workshop makes it possible to
determine truly and accurately the origin of certain types of
amphoras, thanks to the detection of sherds of defective products in
dumps (though it is necessary to take into account the possibility of
a small amount of exogenous material). By comparing stamps and clay
composition, as well as being cautious in typological comparisons of
the morphology of the vessels, taking into account the fragmentary
nature of the material found in dumps, it is possible to localize
similar amphoras found in other places. In research on amphora
workshops, two kinds of mutually supplementary questions may be posed:
—
in the first case, it is a question of determining the "look" of
the amphoras which is characteristic for a given region;
—
in the second, it is a question of localization of groups of
amphoras which, until then, were characterized as vessels of unknown
origin and assigned conditionally to a separate group.
The first direction in this research made it possible
to establish a basis for the possibility and significance of the
production of ceramic containers in Graeco-Roman Egypt which have not
previously been taken into account (Fig. 1); to determine the zones of
similar production in Pamphylia (Fig. 2); on the islands of Paros and
Naxos; to attribute to Cilicia amphoras of the Pseudo-Koan "bell-
shaped" type (Fig. 3) and to northern Syria "carrot" amphoras (Fig. 4)
whose production in this region was not suspected by anyone.[7]
Quite recently, in summer of 1989, excavations of two large amphora
workshops in Samothrace by Chr. Matzas[8] made it possible to
identify a strong local production containing a large quantity of
stamps, individual specimens of which are already known on the Black
Sea coast.
Even those production centres, the ceramic containers of which
7. Empereur, Picon 1986b 495--511, 647--653; Empereur 1986;
Empereur 1989.
8. The article will appear in BCH.
8. The article will appear in BCH.
[p13]
Fig. 1. Amphora of Egyptian production from the Musée graeco- romaine in Alexandria. Inventory no. 11538.
Fig. 2. Amphora of Roman times of the type Mau XXVII -- XXVIII produced in Pamphyllia. Published: Zemer 1977 Pl. 15, nr 41. This type was also produced in Cyprus.
[p14]
Fig. 3. Amphora of "Pseudo-Koan" type Schone XIII produced in Cilicia. This type was also produced in Cyprus. (Collection of Perides, Cyprus, Larnaca).
Fig. 4. Amphora of Roman times produced in N. Syria. Published: Zemer 1977. Pl. 14. N 40.
Fig. 5. Knidian standard amphora with a stamp of the magistrate Drakon from the Musée graeco-romaine in Alexandria (end of 2c BC).
[p15]
it seems have been well studied, have lately presented
surprises. Knidos is an example of that.[9] It was usually
considered that the production of Knidian amphoras was limited only to
the Hellenistic epoch, starting approximately from 240 BC (Fig. 5),
and the first centuries of our era. However, simple collection of
material on the surface in places of workshop locations made it
possible to establish that here the origins of ceramic production are
assigned at least to the archaic epoch and that it existed
uninterruptedly up to VIII BC. In the locality of Resadiye (Fig. 6),
one systematically comes across sherds of decorated amphoras of VII
BC, and recently, in the course of the French-Turkish excavations of
1989, we succeeded in finding a saturated layer dated to the middle of
VI BC. There appeared material which characterizes the opposite end of
the chronological chain as well. To it are assigned late Knidian
amphoras of IV AD which still preserve a small "thumb-tack-like" toe
which is reminiscent of the ring-shaped toes of Knidian amphoras of
the Hellenistic period. Small "ovoid" amphoras with a rim and handles
of round section and an egg-shaped body without a toe may also be
considered a later production. They are also well represented in the
same locality of Resadiye. Knidian amphoras of the late Roman period
were completely unknown until very recently. Now it is apparent that
in this epoch their large-scale production, which retained, though in
a degenerated form, the tradition of stamping vessels, continued to
exist.
Rediscovered Knidian workshops have also yielded
information of paramount significance about Hellenistic stamped
amphoras. Thus, for example, vessels with mushroom rims end 4c--beg 3c
[BC], which up until the present time were regarded as Rhodian, in
actual fact turned out to be of Knidian origin, and on some of them
there is a monogram stamp PAY (Fig. 7). We found in the
Datça region a few tens of such examples, many of which were not yet
fired. To Knidian production we may now definitely assign amphoras of
Zenon group B,[10]
9. Tuna, Empereur, Picon, Doger 1987; Empereur 1988.
10. Empereur, Tuna 1988.
10. Empereur, Tuna 1988.
[p16]
Fig. 6 The peninsula of Knidos and the Rhodian Perea with positions of ceramic workshops. The Rhodian Perea is given in dark colour.
[p17]
Figures 7 to 9
Fig. 7 Monogram stamp ΠΑΥ on a handle from a workshop at Resadiye on the Knidian peninsula (end 4--beg 3c BC). Inv. nr XX.
Fig. 8 Stamp of the workshop of Sophanes at Muhal Tepe on the Knidian peninsula (3c BC).
Fig. 9 Stamp with "prow" (Knidian) on a handle from a workshop at Resadiye (2/2 4c BC).
the origin of which was uncertain, and also vessels of
Zenon group A, which V. Grace recently identified as
Egyptian.[11] This last type of amphora is close to the
production of the "fabricant" Sophanes (on their handles often there
is the abbreviation SV (Fig. 8)), whose workshop is localized in the
centre of the Knidian peninsula, a few kilometres to the north-east of
the group of workshops at Resadiye.
As a fresh example of the successful identification of
Knidian jars on the basis of a collection of tens or even hundreds of
specimens in places of concentration of potters' production (above
all, in actual kilns or rubbish heaps), we cite the case of a group of
amphoras, dated to end 4c--beg 3c BC and containing on their handles
square stamps, consisting of one name positioned around a device -- a
ship's prow. They had been assigned now to Crete, now to Samos, until
Chr. Börker in 1986 suggested that they are the production of
Knidos.[12] The chief argument for him was the obvious
resemblance of such a feature on the stamp as the head of a ram turned
towards the stern, to a similar subject, characteristic specifically
of the coins of Knidos at the end of the fourth century. In the coins
of other Greek centres which have used the "ship's prow" as a symbol
this feature is lacking. The workshops at Resadiye gave brilliant
confirmation of this identification. There were
11. Grace 1986.
12. Börker 1986.
12. Börker 1986.
[p18]
discovered tens of stamped handles of precisely
this group (Fig. 9), concentrated in 3 places, together with numerous
sherds of amphoras with mushroom rims, which makes it possible for us
to say that these are well-preserved rubbish heaps of wasted
production.
An analogous situation obtains in connection with the
study of the ceramic jars of Rhodes. At the present time there is no
doubt that the Rhodian Perea and the neighbouring islands (which are
an integral part of it) supplied a considerable share of the amphora
production required by Rhodes. In particular, amphoras marked with the
name of the "fabricant" Hieroteles (approximately 269--240) are
distinguished by the fact that they are made of clay darker than the
usual Rhodian clay, and, what is more important, have a ring-shaped
toe of Knidian form. It is unlikely that the latter can be explained
as an accident, the more so given that the workshop producing such
vessels was located in Hizarönü i.e., in that part of the Perea
which bordered Knidian territory.[13]
The so-called "wheel-shaped" stamps, whose origin was
the subject of different hypotheses for a long time, are widely
represented in the markets particularly of the northern Aegean and
Pontic region. Attempts were made to ascribe them now to one of the
north Black Sea area centres (P. Bekker), now specifically to Olbia
(E.M. Pridik), now even to the Bosporus (Kh. I. Makaronas). Almost all
specialists spoke with greater or lesser confidence of a Thasian
origin, particularly after "wheel-shaped" stamps turned out to be
included in the corpus by A-M and A. Bon. However, in 1978 this
hypothesis was acknowledged as not very probable in view of the fact
that "wheel-shaped" stamps are completely absent from the Thasian
workshops which functioned in the 2nd half of 4c BC, i.e., in that
period to which these stamps were usually ascribed[*]. In connection
with this, Y. Garlan began leaning towards the Thracian shore, and in
particular Amphipolis, where "wheel-shaped" stamps
13. Empereur, Tuna 1989.
* A year later, the hypothesis of the Thasian origin of "wheel-shaped" stamps was subjected to doubt in the course of research on their distribution along the north shore of Pontus. Analysis of the distribution showed that export of products in amphoras with "wheel- shaped" stamps to the North Black Sea area was carried out independently and was not connected with the export trade of Thasos (see Kats 1979 p179--180) -- editor's note.
* A year later, the hypothesis of the Thasian origin of "wheel-shaped" stamps was subjected to doubt in the course of research on their distribution along the north shore of Pontus. Analysis of the distribution showed that export of products in amphoras with "wheel- shaped" stamps to the North Black Sea area was carried out independently and was not connected with the export trade of Thasos (see Kats 1979 p179--180) -- editor's note.
[p19]
comprised a large percentage of all stamped
material.[14] At the same time, K. Rhomiopoulou, while not
fully denying the possibility of such localization, gave her
preference to Akanthos, as the probable place of their
production,[15] adhering (without realizing it) to the opinion
expressed already in 1951 by E.M. Staerman.[16] Only after the
discovery of the workshop in which the stamping of jars with dies of
precisely this type[17] took place, in the very centre of
Hierissa several hundreds of metres from the ancient wall of Acanthos
in 1987, the question of the origin of the "wheel-shaped" stamps may
be considered closed. What remains is to start systematic study of the
workshops of this region in order to discover local types of vessels
(which, judging by similarities in clay, are relatively numerous) and,
if this is successful, to attempt to decipher the so-far mysterious
symbols contained in these stamps.
We would like to finish the first section of the
article with a preliminary announcement on the results of two studies
based on the comparative characteristics of the data contained in
written sources with the data obtained in the course of studying an
amphora series of unknown origin. We are talking about the amphoras,
mostly unstamped, as a result it is had to determine the location of
their production.
In the first case, the study was aimed at vessels
which are usually called amphoras of the Solokha II group, and which,
following B.N. Grakov, were often ascribed to Byzantion because some
vessels had dipiniti resembling the archaic writing of "B" in the
Megarian-Corinthian alphabet.
14. Garlan 1982a p152 (review of the book Brashinskii, I.B.
Greek Ceramic Import to the Lower Don Leningrad 1980 --
editors' note.); Cf. Nikolaidou-Patera 1986.
15. Rhomiopoulou 1986.
16. Staerman 1951 p46.
17. Represented here are: 21 "wheel-shaped" stamps (7 examples have the field divided in 4 sectors and the writing of the letters is vertical; 7 have slanted letters in 4 sectors; 7 stamps have 3 sectors; 1 round stamp with the field not divided into sectors, and containing a monogram ΛΜ. (We are grateful to the ephor Polygir who permitted us to publish this material).
15. Rhomiopoulou 1986.
16. Staerman 1951 p46.
17. Represented here are: 21 "wheel-shaped" stamps (7 examples have the field divided in 4 sectors and the writing of the letters is vertical; 7 have slanted letters in 4 sectors; 7 stamps have 3 sectors; 1 round stamp with the field not divided into sectors, and containing a monogram ΛΜ. (We are grateful to the ephor Polygir who permitted us to publish this material).
[p20]
At the same time other specialists leaned more
towards some centre "X" which was under Chian influence or even
towards Olynthos. Our attention was drawn to the fact that the period
of maximal spread of these amphoras (1/2 and particularly 2/4 4c BC)
is close in time to the "Speech against Lacrites" in which the author,
along with Thasos, Mende, and Kos, names Peparethos as one of the
largest exporters of wine in the Black Sea area (para 35). Therefore
we started intensive investigative work on this island, which at
present is called Skopelos.[18] As a result we succeeded in
discovering four workshops on the basis of collecting amphora
materials in this location.
In the course of studying them, numerous of sherds of
amphoras belonging mainly to the Solokha II type, were obtained.
Fragments as well as whole vessels of this type are dated to the same
time, have the same sizes, and the same shape of profile, including
"bobbin-shaped" toes and thickened rim (Fig. 10, 11). The clay,
judging by analyses conducted by M. Picon, is similar as well. All
these arguments weightily confirm our supposition on the production of
amphoras of this type in Peparethos.
Moreover, it is not excluded that vessels of the
Solokha I group (Fig. 12) the mushroom-shaped rims of which were
detected in small amounts in Peparethos workshops. However, while
sufficiently convincing material is absent, this supposition does not
reach beyond the framework of a hypothesis. It is also necessary to
take into account the fact that at the same time on Ikos, a
neighbouring island to Skopelos, a most interesting amphora workshop
containing a larger number of fragments in shape and clay similar to
sherds of the amphoras of Peparethos I, was rediscovered. All these
data multiplied by further excavations makes it possible refine the
typological development of amphoras of Peparethos I - Solokha II, and
elucidate better the Perparethos II - Solokha I (?) "group" as well as
the Ikos group.[19]
Due to lack of time only two-thirds of the area of the
island was examined in Crete.[20] Here we succeeded in
18. The work was carried out in co-operation with The Ephor of
Volos, A. Doulgeri-Intzessiloglou.
19. Doulgeri-Intzessiloglou, Garlan 1990.
20. Markoulaki, Empereur, Marangou 1989; Chritzas, Empereur, Marangou 1990.
19. Doulgeri-Intzessiloglou, Garlan 1990.
20. Markoulaki, Empereur, Marangou 1989; Chritzas, Empereur, Marangou 1990.
[p21]
Fig 10. Amphora of Peparethos I (Solokha II) type with two englyphic stamps -- rings on the handle and neck. From the sea, kept in the Museum of Volos nr. BE 6834.
Fig 11. Amphora of Peparethos I (Solokha II) type from the excavations of a workshop in Panermos on the island of Skopelos (ancient Peparethos). Nr. BE 6843.
identifying eight workshops which made it possible to
make the following observations: amphora production on Crete was
practically absent in the Classical and Hellenist periods (with the
exception of a small-scale workshop in Gortyn with functioned from 3c
BC). One can speak of the appearance of the Cretan amphora only from
mid 1c BC parallel with the appearance of wine-making on Crete which
was oriented primarily to local consumption (to which later sources
testify).
[p22]
Fig. 12. Amphora of Peparethos II (Solokha I ? type) from the excavations of a workshop in Panermos on the island of Skopelos (ancient Peparethos). Nr BE 6849.
Or rather one may speak about Cretan amphoras since
their numerous types developed in parallel and were produced
simultaneously in the same workshops (like Dressel 36 amphoras and
Dressel 43 which are roughly dated to 1c and 3c BC). This suggests and
idea that they were intended for bottling different kinds of wine;
later we will address this delicate question in some detail. In any
case we isolated 10 types of Cretan amphoras which are dated to the
first 3 centuries of the Empire. They are found in large quantities in
the regions where they were sold and primarily in Italy (in Ostia,
Rome, and Pompey), which is confirmed by literary texts which were
recently brilliantly commented upon by A. Tchernia.[21] Martial
and Fronto frequently note the daily use of Cretan wine in Rome. The
discovery of Cretan workshops made it possible to present a full
picture of local amphora production, brought to life by the speedy
appearance of wine-making (connected of course with the conclusion of
Crete into the Roman state) in the course of the 1c BC and with its
remarkable flowering throughout the entire period of the Early
Empire.
21. Tchernia 1986.
* * *
[p23]
At present Thasian studies are the best example of
using materials obtained in the course of studying workshops for
refining the chronology of amphora production.
In the 70s to 80s five workshops (Kolonero, Koukos,
Bambouri-Amoudia, Keramidi, and Kounophia) were partly excavated here
and a ten of others were more or less identified
Fig. 11. Distribution of amphora workshops on the Island of Thasos:
● — workshops established;
○ — workshops probable;
1 — Hagios Ioannis;
2 — Tsairi;
3 — Kolonero;
4 — Loutro I;
5 — Loutro II;
6 — Koukos;
7 — Bambouri-Amoudia;
8 — Limenaria;
9 — Keramidi;
10 — Skala Marias;
11 — Kounophia;
12 — Hagios Ghiorgios;
13 — Douka Ambeli;
14 — Palo Bakia;
15 — Hagia Eirini;
16 — Molos.
[p24]
thanks to the collection of ceramic materials on the
surface (Fig. 13).[22]
We share the point of view that the materials which
each ceramic workshop has do not contain exhaustive information for
solving this question. On the one hand the workshop is poor in such
chronological indicators as coins and painted ceramics. On the other
hand, its rubbish heap, which can become an object of special
excavation, submits to reconstruction with great difficulty in reverse
order, as far as restoration of the process of accumulation goes. This
connected with the fact that rejected unfinished stock is frequently
made poorly. As a result, analysis of the distinguishing features of
the rubbish heap stratigraphy makes it possible to obtain conclusions
of only a statistical nature, relating to the system as a whole.
Clarification of what types of stamps combine or follow one after the
other in a set order is a most real possibility. In connection with
this horizontal stratigraphy, which comes as a result of moving
thrown-out stock, is frequently more informative than vertical
stratigraphy. In individual cases, as for example on Thasos, where
periods of activity of various workshops were relatively short (of the
order of two or three generations of "fabricants"), by comparing their
materials one can establish a relative classification of the various
periods of production as can be seen from Fig. 14.
As a result we succeeded in grouping into several
"packages" one hundred late eponyms of Thasos, who carried out their
responsibilies approximately after 340. the first includes those
eponyms which are met only in Kalonero; the second simultaneously in
Kalonero and Koukos; the third in Kalonero, Koukos, and Bambouri-
Amoudia, and so forth. Such a method of classification is based on two
postulates: it is supposed first of all that the activity of each
workshop was carried out uninterruptedly; secondly, that all eponyms
who carried out their responsibilities
22. Garlan 1979; Garlan 1982b; Garlan 1982c p32--38; Garlan
1988. See the articles of M. Debidour, who used extensively all the
studies given above: Debidour 1979; Debidour 1986.
[p25]
Fig. 14. Time of functioning of 4 Thasian amphora workshops.
in the period of the functioning of each workshop are
more or less represented in the discovered material obtained both in
the course of excavations and in surface collections.
In the case where one works with stamps which have,
apart from the name of the eponym, the name of the "fabricant" as
well, one can carry out a distribution of the eponyms by packages in
conformity with the presence of "fabricants" who inherited production
in a workshop. The simplest, and therefore the most easily described
case, is presented by a workshop in Kalonero, where stamps of twenty
eponyms accompanied by the name of a "fabricant" Aristogoras, and ten
accompanied by the name of Demalkas were detected, which makes it
possible to consider one of them the heir
[p26]
of the other. Turning to the surviving lists of higher Thasian
magistrates (theoroi or archons) we can establish that Demalkas was a
son of Aristogoras. One or more "fabricant" is represented in the
Kalonero materials by only two types of stamps which contained the
names of eponyms who performed their responsibilites prior to the time
when Aristogoras became the owner of the workshop. Apparently in this
case we are dealing with the older brother of Aristogoras. Had we
succeeded in realizing a similar classification on materials of other
early workshops of Thasos it is easy to imagine how quickly the
capacity of the "packages" with the names of eponyms would have grown.
This method of grouping is more reliable than the widespread method of
classification of eponyms by periods of activity of separate groups of
fabricants (developed by G.N. Grakov with Sinopean stamps). In the
latter case a purely automatic selection is hindered by the
considerable number of lacunae in our information, and greater
possibility of mistakes (taking into account for example the presence
of homonyms). Thus, in the absence of materials obtained in the course
of workshop excavations, the most promising direction in research will
be an attempt to resurrect "fabricant dynasties" on paper. For this
purpose one may use the results of clay analysis and take into account
the presence of patronymics with "fabricant" names. In the latter
case, Sinopean stamps present a propitious possibly. Finally,
isolation of the devices belonging to individual workshops is a
promising direction.[23]
Of course as clear a picture as in the case of
Kalonero would far from often result. Clay analyses for example may
turn out to be less productive of results if "fabricants" belonging to
the same "dynasty" changed workshops or simply changed the source of
clay. Father and son could, for some time, work at the same time in
one or several workshops, and so on. Consequently, studying ceramic
workshops adds several other methods already tested in the course of
work on the island of Thasos to the traditional methods of dating
amphora stamps and unstamped vessels.
23. The first to do such studies was V.I Tsekhmistrenko.
* * *
[p27]
We will return to delicate, but no less important,
problems. Some of them may be considered already solved, or more or
less elucidated, as a result of studying workshops.
Identifying the two kinds of names that may appear on amphora stamps
(the name of the eponym and the name of the "fabricant"), within the
framework of traditional methods of research, is often an impossible
task, especially when the stamp contains only one name. When using
materials from workshops located in the same area, this distinction
can be made almost automatically. If the same name is found in many
workshops, every time on different stamps, and each workshop has as
many names as the number of years it has existed for, then obviously
we are dealing with eponyms. And, on the other hand, when we encounter
the same name (leaving aside homonyms) in only one workshop or among a
small group of workshops, and each workshop provides a limited number
of names (without correlation to the year of activity) then they are
the names of "fabricants".
Тhis is how it was possible to establish that the
name appearing in the later stamps of Thasos is the eponym name. In
the workshops of Koukos, whose period of activity covers around 60
years, more than 50 names have been noted. They were found on various
stamps in other workshops more or less contemporary.
The same was true of the Knidian stamps "with the prow
of a ship" recorded in half a dozen workshops. The names they contain,
as we have found, also belong to eponyms (or rather, as in Thasos,
false eponyms, i.e. minor magistrates; or, more likely, official
eponyms of the city, in this case the damiourgos, established on
Knidian stamps after 240 BC). So, with the presence of 35 eponyms
known in this series of stamps, stamping could continue for more than
a third of a century. At the same time, it is possible that the number
of eponoms will increase slightly over time. This possibility is
confirmed by the eponym Thales, who was for a long time known only on
a stamp included in IOSPE III, while not one example was detected in a
Resadiye workshop.
Everything we have just said applies equally also to
the devices, presented in the stamp itself together with the reading.
As a result we can distinguish devices of eponyms, devices of
"fabricants" (connected with a concrete person
[p28]
or annually updated) and devices of
workshops (common to a small number of "fabricants" over the course of
one or several years).
Here are a few examples. On Thasos, the name of the eponym was almost
always[24] accompanied in each workshop by the same emblem, which
belongs to this particular workshop and this eponym. So, the eponym
Herodotos is accompanied on the stamps from Kalonero by a pilos; at
Koukos by a sword; at Bambouri-Amoudia, by a torch etc. Consequently, in
a given case it can only be a matter of the existence of one chief
emblem of the "fabricant".
24. "Almost always", since in rare cases the name of the eponym
is founnd at a workshop with two different devices, perhaps because
the fabricant changed them in the course of the year (for eample, at
Kalonero: Telefanes with "cluster" or with "lightning bolt".
On the other hand, in the workshops of Datcha-Resadiye on the Knidian
peninsula multiple cases have been recorded when the name of the same
"fabricant" is found in two workshops always with a device owned by a
given workshop. During the investigtion of the "Skirtos baths"
the ceramic scrap-yard was found of a workshop in which rectangular stamps
were used with a "boukranion" as the device. A dozen stamps were found
from nine different dies with the name of the "fabricant"
Asklepiodoros, accompanied by the names of a few damiourgoi close in
time. Together with these, in another workshop, located 300m from the
previous one, there were found a multitude of stamps, also rectangular
with the name of Asklepiodoros, impressed with another type of die in
which an image of a double axe was used as a device (Fig. 15). The
question arises, are we dealing here with one "fabricant" or is it a
homonym? Clearly we can talk
Fig 15. Knidian stamps of the "fabricant" Asklepiodoros with the eponyms Dionusios and
Apollodoros from two workshops at Resadije in the province Knidos.
[p29]
only of one "fabricant", since the stamps of Asklepiodoros with the double axe are accompanied by the name of only one damiourgos, namely the one that occurs on stamps of the workshop with the "boukranion", although in time it is close to the eponyms presented in it. [?trs] The legitimacy of such a conclusion is enhanced by the fact that a similar phenomenon occurs in examples with other "farbircants". This became clear already in the course of the first survey work at Resadije in 1984 when it was established that many workshops were located near to each other, but their scrap-yards did not touch: thus, a workshop for which the characteristic device was "boukranion" in a round stamp ("fabricants" Aristokles -- Damokartes -- Dioskourides), was adjacent to a workshop with a "trident" ("fabricants" Xenokles -- Euboulos -- Iason); the latter was near the workshop with a "bee" (a device commonly characteristic for the "fabricant" Apollonios); and it, in its turn, was found next to the workshop with "double axe and anchor". 300m from these is to be found the already mentioned workshop with "boukranion" in rectangular stamps ("fabricants" Astralos, Asklepiodoros, Ierokles, Ippogenes, Mormos, and Skirtos). In works already published by us it is possible to find an exact description of the topographical location of these workshops.
It would be desirable to carry out similar work in Sinope, where the presence of the devices of the workshops was proved during the study of already known stamps.
The existence of the devices of the workshops, as well as the facts of the movement of "fabricants" from one workshop to another, again force us to turn to questions related to the organization of production and the practice of stamping containers. In the result of a study of a workshop at Kalonero, which Aristagoras and later his son Demalkes maintained, it was established that they were representatives of the Thasian aristocracy. In principle, it could be concluded that in this case we are dealing with a "local" workshop whose products were marked with the names of large landowners. However, to extend this conclusion to all Thasian workshops would be wrong, since in the result of the excavation at Keramidi it was possible to establish the coexistence of many "fabricants" (each represented by individual annual devices) and their transfer from one workshop to another.
The question arises about the principles of the organization of the Knidian and Sinopean workshops. Why, in particular, did many "fabricants"
[p30]
sometimes use the same "trademark"? Two explanations come to mind, though there may be others. In the first case severa lpotters may have worked in the same workshop, being hired workers, as V.I Tsekhmistrenko believed,[25] or, most likely, members of one family under the direction of a "responsible person" to whom the device belonged (or they worked independently, but used the same clay, with which the device was associated). In the second case the "fabricant" is not directly engaged in production, but is a large landowner or wine merchant who gave orders to the workshop. An example from Knidos confirms this particular version, most probably, Asklepiodoros in the course of a series of years ordered a large quantity of amphoras at the workshop with the "boukranion" and one year -- at the neighbouring workship with the "double axe". This hypothesis might explain the absence in our file cabinets (holding tens of thousands of stamps) of some "fabricants", or examples of the co-existence of "fabricants" in the same workshop, as well as the practice of episodic changes in the device by the same "fabricant". But such a hypothesis is hardly applicable to Sinope, on whose stamps in some cases with the name of the "fabricant" there is the definition "kerameus." As a result the question arises would it be possible sometime for archeological materials to help in the accurate and unambiguous clarification of the socio-economic status of their producers? Was that status identical in all the centres of production? In the search for the answer, it is necessary in any case to take into account the data of the research on workshops.
Workshops offer also other rich information on the technique of the manufacture of amphoras, on the level of the conformity of the products manufactured by individual craftsmen in accordance with established standards, and also on the technique of stamping and, as a consequence, of the meaning of the stamps. For example, by the materials of research into the scrap-yards of workshops we can determine the characteristic coefficient of the stamping of ceramic containers, then compare it with the one obtained from the materials from the areas where they were sold (local and foreign). Analysis shows that stamping in Thasos had nothing in common with had nothing to do with the amphoras exported beyond its borders.[26]. Thus, in the scrap-yards
25. Tsekhmistrenko 1968 Pl. VII.
26. Garlan 1983.
26. Garlan 1983.
[p 31]
of workshops we identify stamps of which similar ones, often poorly impressed and damaged, are found in the centers where the amphoras were sold. This allows us to draw the inference that the manufacturers did not care too much about the quality of the stamping. Undoubtedly, the stamps were not intended to inform buyers of the date or place of manufacture, but were simply the marks of special stamp inspectors or the fixation of documentation with the help of an administrative seal.
* * *
We hope that we have convinced readers of the prospects of scientific research on amphora workshops not only in large centres that exported stamped ceramic containers, but also in those small Greek cities whose products did not go beyond the local market and are relatively poorly known. It is also necessary that this promising work in research, backed up by clay analysis, becomes the work of field archaeologists in the near future, and not just two or three specialists. This must be implemented as quickly as possible, while the majority of the workshops have not disappeared in the course of intensive coastal beautification.
[References]
Borisova 1958
Borisova, V.V. "Pottery Workshops of Khersonessos
[Goncharnye masterskie Khersonessa]" SA 1958.
Börker 1986
Börker Chr., "Die Herkunft der Schiffsbug-Stempel,"
BCH Suppl 13 1986.
Chritzas, Empereur, Marangou 1990
Chritzas, C.; Empereur, J.-Y., Marangou, A. "Recherches
sur les centres de fabrication d'amphores en Crète centrale"
BCH 114 (1990).
Debidour 1979
Debidour, M. "Reflexions sur les timbres amphoriques
thasiens" BCH Suppl 5 Thasiaca (1979).
Debidour 1986
Debidour, M. "En classant les timbres thasiens"
BCH Suppl 13 (1986).
Doulgeri-Intzessiloglou, Garlan 1990
Doulgeri-Intzessiloglou, A.; Garlan, Y. "Vin et
amphores de Péparéthos et d'Ikos" BCH 114 (1990).
Empereur 1986
Empereur, J.-Y. "Un atelier de Dressel 2--4 en Egypte
au III siècle de notre ère" BCH Suppl 13 (1986).
Empereur 1988
Empereur, J.-Y. "Production d'amphores dans les
ateliers de Resadiye (péninsule de Datça)" Arastirma Sonuclari
Toplantisi 6 (1988).
Empereur 1989
Empereur, J.-Y. "Les régions de production d'amphores
impériales en Méditerranée orientale" Anfore romane e storia
economica: un decennio di recerche (Rome 1989).
Empereur, Picon 1986a
Empereur, J.-Y.; Picon, M. "A la recherche des fours
d'amphores" BCH Suppl 13 (1986).
Empereur, Picon 1986b
Empereur J-Y., Picon, M. "Des ateliers à Paros et à
Naxos" BCH 110 (1986).
Empereur, Hesnard 1987
Empereur, J.-Y.; Hesnard, A. "Les amphores
hellénistiques," Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines II
(Besançon 1987).
Empereur, Tuna 1988
Empereur J-Y.; Tuna N., "Zenon et l'épave de Serçe
Limani," BCH 112 (1988).
Empereur, Tuna 1989
Empereur, J-Y.; Tuna, N. "Hiéroteles, potier rhodien
de la Pérée" BCH 113 (1989).
Garlan 1979
Garlan, Y. "Koukos. Données nouvelles pour une
nouvelle interpretation des timbres amphoriques thasiens" BCH
Suppl 5 Thasiaca (1979).
Garlan 1982a
Garlan, Y. "Elizavetovskoe: un emporion grec sur le bas
Don" DHA 8 (1982).
Garlan 1982b
Garlan, Y. "Les timbres amphoriques thasiens. Bilan et
perspectives de recherche" Annales ESC (1982).
Garlan 1982c
Garlan, Y. "New in studies of stamps of Thasian
amphoras [Novoto v izsledvaniyata na tasoskite amforni pechati]"
Arkheologiia 27 (1982).
Garlan 1983
Garlan, Y. Greek amphorae and trade. Trade in the ancient economy (Oxford 1983).
Garlan 1988
Garlan, Y. Vin et amphores de Thasos Athens-
Paris 1988.
Gilevich 1960
Gilevich, A.M. "Excavations of the Region of the
Peribola by the 17th Curtain of the Defence walls of Khersonessos
[Raskopki uchastka peribola u 17-i kurtiny oboronitel'nykh sten
Khersonesa]" SKhM 1 (1960).
Grace 1986
Grace V., "Some Amphoras from a Hellenistic Wreck,"
BCH Suppl 13 1986.
Grakov 1929
Grakov, B.N. Ancient Greek Ceramic Stamps with the
Names of Astynomes [Drevnegrecheskie keramicheskie kleima s imenami
astinomov] (Moscow 1929).
Kats 1979
Kats, V.I. "Economic connections of the late classical
Chersonesos [Ekonomicheskie sviazi posdneklassicheskogo Khersonesa]"
AMA 4 (1979).
Kostziushko-Valiuzhinich 1901
Kostziushko-Valiuzhinich, K.K. "The Latest Excavations
in Khersonessos [Noveishie raskopki v Khersonese]" ZOOID 23
1901.
Kostziushko-Valiuzhinich 1902
"Extracts from a Report on Excavations in Khersonnesos
in 1901 [Izvlecheniia iz otcheta o raskopkakh v Khersonese v 1901g.]"
IAK 2 1902.
Love 1978
Love, I.C. Proceedings of the Xth International
congress of Classical Archaeology Ankara-Ismir 1973 (1978).
Maiuri 1924
Maiuri, A. "Una fabrica di amfore rodie,"
Annuario 4--5 (Bergamo 1924).
Markoulaki, Empereur, Marangou 1989
Markoulaki, St.; Empereur, J.-Y.; Marangou, A.
"Recherches sur les centres de fabrication d'amphores en Crète
occidentale" BCH 113 (1989).
Nikolaidou-Patera 1986
Nikolaidou-Patera, M. "Un nouveau centre de production
d'amphores timbrées en Macédoine" BCH Suppl 13 (1986).
Picon, Garlan 1986
Picon, M.; Garlan, Y. "Recherches sur l'implantation
des ateliers amphoriques à Thasos et analyse de la pâte des amphores
thasiennes" BCH Suppl 13 (1986).
Rhomiopoulou 1986
Rhomiopoulou, C. "Amphores de la nécropole d'Acanthe"
BCH Suppl 13 (1986).
Shamba 1976
Shamba, G.K. "Amphora Stamps of Dioscouriada [Amfornye
kleima Dioskuriada]" IAIIALI 5 (1976).
Staerman 1951
Staerman, E.M. "Ceramic Stamps from Tyras
[Keramicheskie kleima iz Tiry]" KSIIMK 26 (1951).
Tchernia 1986
Tchernia, A. "Amphores et textes: deux exemples"
BCH Suppl 13 (1986).
Tsekhmistrenko 1968
Tsekhmistrenko V.I. "On the Importance of Second Names on Sinopean stamps" NE 1968
Tuna, Empereur, Picon, Doger 1987
Tuna, N.; Empereur, J-Y.; Picon, M.; Doger, E.
"Rapport préliminaire de la prospection archéologiques turco-
française des ateliers d'amphores de Resadiyu-Kilisteyani, sur la
péninsule de Datça" Anatolia Antiqua 1 (1987).
Vinogradov 1972
Vinogradov, Iu.G. "Ceramic Stamps of Thasos Island
[Keramicheskie kleima ostrova Fasos]" NE 10 (1972).
Voronov 1977
Voronov, Iu.N. "Towards Studying the Ceramic Production
of Dioscouriada [K izucheniiu keramicheskogo proizvodstva
Dioskuriady]" SA 2 (1977).
Zemer 1977
Zemer, Avshalom Storage Jars In Ancient Sea Trade (Haifa,
Israel, 1977)