252 CHAvDAR TzOCHEv
NOTES
1 According to my present estimation this system provides evidence from the 390s to at least
the 140s BCE (Tzochev forthcoming). During this entire period the two basic elements
of information presented on the stamps – a dating official and a fabricant – remained
unchanged, despite the variations in the layout solutions, and the shifts between textual and
pictorial presentation. The significance of some additional, occasionally appearing elements
still remains problematic: see Garlan 2004 –5: 285–8.
2 The corpus of the new-style Thasian amphora stamps (a part of Debidour 1999a) has not
been published officially, but became available to the public in 2010 via a copy in the library
of the French School at Athens. Most of the statistical information accompanying this cor-
pus was published in Debidour 2011.
3 Recently Davies ( 2007 : 335–6) discussed some of the uses of the term market.
4 The statistical figures in this paper are based on data published in Garlan 1999a and Debidour
1999a, complemented with finds known to the author until 2012.
5 Of the officials not represented, Ἀρχέστρα(τος) and Κλεοφῶν Ι held full year terms, while
Καλλικράτης and Ἀριστομένης are believed to have shared a year with other magistrates. The
stamps of Καλλικράτης are extremely rare elsewhere.
6 Again, I am not taking into account the absence of Καλλικράτης and Ἀμφοτέρης, which
possibly do not represent full years.
7 For the stamps from the American excavations in the Athenian Agora and the Pnyx hill,
I use my own forthcoming study.
8 On the early development of this method see Kac 1992.
9 Because of these ten eponyms Debidour (1999a: 179–81) allows that different legislation
(and separate officials) may have existed for control of roof tile production. However, many
eponyms attested on tiles are the same as those on amphoras, and in many cases the same
dies are used to stamp both products. Since the same official was used to date both type of
products, it is more reasonable to accept that the ten eponyms in question are still not dis-
covered on amphora handles, or had their terms in years without amphora production.
10 Possibly the share of non-commercial distribution will be slightly higher in the local and
close-distance samples than in the long-distance ones.
11 For a recent review of the evidence for commercial reuse see Lawall 2011b: 30–1.
12 Two fabricants sharing a workshop seems the only possible explanation of the curious case
of an amphora bearing two stamps with the same official’s name, but different fabricant
devices, published in Lungu 1994 : 141, 149, no. 5.
13 For the period after ca. 330 these data are readily available from the table published in
Debidour 2011. The data for the earlier stamps are extractable from Garlan 1999a.
14 This approach differs from the one of Garlan (1999a: 36, figure 8), who presented the vari-
ation in the number of fabricants for each annual official.
15 Apart from the amount of labor, technological improvements in the production facilities
may have produced increased growth. There is no evidence from Thasos for the period in
question, but growth-oriented technological improvements in oil presses from the Roman
period could serve as an example (Hitchner 2002 : 77–8).
16 The cities on Hellenistic Crete (Vogeikoff-Brogan and Apostolakou 2004 ; Chaniotis
2005 : 98–100), or Ilion (Lawall 2002 ), where the locally produced amphoras circulated
mainly in the same area, and imitated the shapes of long-distance imports can serve as
examples.
17 On the possible consequences of this war for Thasian imports in Callatis, see Avram and
Poenaru-Bordea 1988: 28. On the controversies around the war, see Avram 2007b: 258–67.
18 Seeking a link between the trade in grain and the trade in wine has been a particularly
popular idea in Soviet/Russian studies, e.g., Zeest 1960 : 8–21; Brashinsky 1962 ; Shelov
1970 : 34; Brashinsky 1984 : 179–80; Kuznetsov 2000 : 110. See also Lawall 1995 : 306–7. Garlan