238 CHAvDAR TzOCHEv
short timeframes. Thus, changes in percentages over time will reveal how sales
were allocated to different places, reducing the distortions both from irregular
stamping and variations in the volume. For example, 100 Thasian stamps of the
period from 350 to 330 BCE in Athens should correspond to a similar number
of jars with a similar average volume as 100 Thasian stamps of the same period
in Alexandria, and elsewhere. The shorter the period and larger the sample,
the more precise the result is. However, shortening the timeframes too much
brings another problem, related to the unsettled chronology.Chronology
With very few exceptions all Thasian stamps bear a name or a device of an
annual official. The dates of most of these officials are not historically fixed, but
are determined through calculation, and are therefore still tentative (Avram
1996 : 22–32, reviewed in Debidour 1998 ; Garlan 2004 –5: 315–27; Tzochev
2009 ; Debidour 2011 ; Tzochev forthcoming). Many problems remain with the
present chronological sequence, which is built on two assumptions: that the
term of the officials lasted one year, and that the names of all officials are
known. Yet, the list of the Thasian eponyms is certainly incomplete. Many of
the last fifty to sixty eponyms in the sequence are known by either a single
or only a few stamps, making it very likely that new names will appear in the
future, which will compel a re-adjustment of the dates. Roof tiles, which were
marked with the same stamping system, give at least ten eponyms not attested
so far on amphora handles – at some point, these names must be integrated
into the list.^9 These gaps, however, mostly concern the period after the begin-
ning of the second century BCE, which is not considered in this paper.
The distinction between homonymous officials poses a far more serious
problem. Men with the same name held the office quite often; depending
on the approach, the number of these individuals in the list could shrink or
expand significantly. So far the prevalent practice has been to assume a sin-
gle annual term for stamps bearing the same name when there is no explicit
evidence that they were different persons. Hence the number of officials is
expected to grow as new evidence comes to light, a trend that will affect
mostly the period after the mid-third century BCE.
Another problematic area in the chronology is the artificial separation of
old-style (two names) and new-style (one name) stamps. After the new-style
stamps from the term of Κλεῖτος have been re-dated to the mid-fourth century
(Debidour 1999b; Tzochev 2009 : 56–60), there is a good chance that other
officials of chronological group I will be dated earlier.
All these problems do not prevent scholars from interpreting stamp data.
The precision of the chronology will be sufficient if we lower the criteria and
aim only at general conclusions. In order to minimize the effect of potential