Search

Copyright of CEDRUS is the property of Mediterranean Civilisations Research Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Bodrum Türk Kuyusu Mahallesi kurtarma kazıları, antik Halikarnassos kentinde stadyumun batısında, tiyatronun güneyinde, Mars Tapınağı ve Dorik Stoanın doğusunda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu makalede, kazılar sonucunda ele geçen ve Hellenistik Döneme tarihlendirilen ithal amphoralara ait mühürler ele alınmıştır. İncelenen 38 mühürden 19'u Rhodos, 4'ü Rhodos Peraiası, 8'i Knidos ve 4'ü Kos kökenli amphoralara aittir. Buluntular arasında yeralan Khios, Amorgos ve Nikandros Grubu amphoralarına ait mühürler de birer örnekle temsil edilmektedirler. Ele geçen söz konusu mühürlü amphora kulpları kentin Hellenistik Dönem ticari faaliyetlerine ilişkin bilgiler vermektedir. The rescue excavations at Bodrum, Türk Kuyusu Quarter were carried out in the west of the stadium, the south of the theatre, the east of the Temple of Mars, and the Doric Stoa of the ancient city of Halikarnassos. In this article stamps found from the excavations and belonging to imported amphorae dated to the Hellenistic Period are studied. Totaly 38 stamped handles are presented here and 19 of the stamps are from Rhodes, 4 from Rhodian Peraea, 8 from Knidos, and 4 from Kos. Stamps belonging to the amphorae of Khios, Amorgos, and Nikandros Group are represented by one example among the finds. These stamped amphora handles give information about the trade relations of Halikarnassos in the Hellenistic Period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is occasioned by the identification in museum collections of four Rhodian stamped amphora handles discovered in the Dacian settlement from Cetățeni (Romania), which raises to 114 the quantity of Rhodian stamps known from here. This large number of Rhodian amphora stamps compared to any other Dacian site is explained by the fact that the settlement of Cetățeni (2nd century BC - 1st century AD), located at the southern foot of the Carpathians, controlled a very important road that started from the Danube and crossed mountains to the north. The amount of imports in general (pottery, ornaments, coins) in this settlement is high, and indicates clear connections with the Mediterranean civilization, first with the Hellenistic world and then with the Roman one. The batch of Rhodian amphora stamps from Cetățeni covers the periods III-VI, with an obvious peak in the V period, in the decade 130-121 BC. The four new stamps are divided into two of eponym (Andrias, who is one of the last eponyms of the period Va, and an illegible one) and two of fabricant (both of them belonging to Linos). They complete and at the same time confirm the batch already known from this site: Andrias is making his first attestation at Cetățeni, but the quantity of Linos' stamps from the settlement is now rises to five, Linos being the fabricant with the largest number of stamps here. A substantial part of the paper is dedicated to tracing the chronology of the Rhodian fabricant Linos. From the analysis of all available elements, the period in which Linos operated as fabricant in Rhodes is a long one, most likely extending over the third quarter of the 2nd century BC. This chronology is also confirmed by the relatively numerous contexts in the Dacian settlements on the Lower Danube, in which Linos' stamps were discovered over time (not only at Cetățeni, but also at Popești, Cârlomănești, Pleașov and Adâncata). The spread of this fabricant's amphorae in the Dacian world is wide and is an argument for the existence of a deep rooted and well-established trade. It is more and more obvious that the penetration of amphorae carrying Aegean wine to the Carpathians was not at all a sporadic, negligible occupation, or minor affair, but a well-organized operation that involved the transport of considerable quantities of goods. The discussion on trade mechanisms between Rhodes and the 'barbarian' territory north of the Danube is resumed, on the basis of the amphorae imported in Dacian settlements. The paper examines the real role of Greek colonies from the Black Sea in mediating this trade on an ancient road that led deep into the 'barbarian' inland, from the shoreline to the Carpathians. The significant influx of Rhodian wine to Cetățeni at a time when the West and also the North of the Pontos Euxeinos market are in obvious decline may also suggests the existence of alternative routes cut directly through the North Thracian lands and avoiding the Greek cities in reaching the untamed 'Barbarian' land. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date Mleiha has yielded eighteen stamps belonging to Rhodian wine amphorae. Eleven of these can be dated to the second half of the third and the first half of the second centuries BC. Rhodian stamps are vital for the chronological framework of the PIR-A period at Mleiha. Most of them, if not all, belonged to funerary contexts but were unfortunately rarely found in undisturbed contexts. The stamp types of the eponym Ἀριστεύς and of the fabricants Ἀπολλώνιος and Φιλοστέφανος do not seem to occur very often. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The chronology of Rhodian amphora stamps depends heavily on a collection of roughly 900 stamps found at Pergamon in 1886, known as the Pergamon Deposit. Most of the Rhodian eponyms in this group are dated to Ca. 210- 175 B.C. Two points of historical interpretation are fundamental to these dates: good relations between Rhodes and Pergamon at that time, and Rhodian garrisoning of Knidos between 188 and 167. Neither interpretation, however, withstands scrutiny. The archaeological and topographic Contexts of the Pergamon Deposit, hitherto ignored, are used here to argue for a closing date in the late 160s or early 150s, and the wider implications for Hellenistic ceramic chronologies are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]