MARKETS, AMPHORA TRADE AND WINE INDUSTRY 243
the relationship between producers and local markets. I will argue that this was
not the case, especially for large-scale exporters such as Thasos and Rhodes.
Another way to deduce the general trend of production dynamics is tobuild a chart based on a very large sample of stamps collected from various
sites. Because ‘very large’ is a relative concept, it is easier to embrace the prin-
ciple ‘the larger, the better,’ meaning all stamps of a given producer known
to the researcher. Lund ( 2011 : 284–9) has put this into practice for Rhodes,
assuming that the number of stamps of a given eponym in a very large sample
reflects the relative volume of production in that given year. At first glance this
method should be even more suitable for Thasos owing to the comprehensive
publication of Thasian stamps: the largest sample we could use here gives an
average of nearly 100 stamps per year for a period of two centuries, against the
thirty-eight stamps per year on a 160-year basis in the sample used by Lund for
Rhodes. However, this does not mean that the results for Thasos will be more
accurate. In fact, they will be unpredictably biased because this method brings
the problem of the variable stamping ratio through the back door. Garlan
(1999a: 36, figure 7) already plotted such a graph for the first sixty years of
Thasian stamping, but noted the problem, and refrained from interpretation.
There is also a third solution, which is not based on the quantitative indi-ces of the stamps (although it is to some point still dependent on them) and
is affected neither by the stamping ratio, nor by commercial practices. This
method needs a broader introduction with regards to the organization of
Thasian amphora production.
Apart from the name of the annual official, the Thasian stamps bear a deviceand/or the name of a person related to the production of the amphora. Such
information is always present. However, the role of this person, who is named
as the κεραμάρχης on some stamps and called the ‘fabricant’ in specialized stud-
ies, remains debatable. None of the existing opinions on this matter completely
accounts for all the evidence. Grace allowed that the fabricants could be pot-
ters, workshop owners, commissioners, or inspectors, but in all cases “their
endorsement indicates responsibility for the standard quality of the jars” (Grace
1956 : 126; see also Grace 1949 : 177. For an earlier view of the fabricant as a pot-
ter or a pottery owner, see Shkorpil 1914 : 137–9). Garlan (1986b: 12) has argued
that the most appropriate translation of the term κεραμάρχης is chief-potter.
He took this argument further, suggesting that the fabricants are workshop
owners, or rather owners of the wine-producing estate to which the workshop
was attached (Garlan 1983 : 34) – a theory supported by the stamps collected at
the workshop of Kalonero, where two fabricants (Ἀρισταγόρης and Δημάλκης)
appear on stamps over a long period. These fabricants were attractively identi-
fied as members of a noble family, mentioned in inscriptions for holding high
civic offices (Garlan 1983 : 34; Garlan 1986a: 273–4).