Acta Archaeologica vol. 82, 2011, pp 271-290Printed in Denmark • All rights reserved

Copyright 2011ACTA ARCHAEOLOGICA

ISSN 0065-101X (print)ISSN 1600-0390 (online)

INTRODUCTIONRhodian transport amphorae occur (mostly in a frag-mentary state) at a great many sites in the countries of the Medi ter ra nean and the Black Sea, where they con-stitute tangible evidence of direct or indirect trade rela-tions with Rhodes. Moreover, the amphorae are crucial chronological pointers, because their handle stamps are capable of being dated with a high degree of precision. Hence, Rhodian amphorae rank among our most impor-tant archaeolo gical sources from the Hellenistic Period.1

The 2nd century BC was the heyday of amphora pro-duction on the island of Rhodes and her terri torial pos ses-si ons in Asia Minor and elsewhere,2 when all (or nearly all) amphorae were apparently stamp ed on both handles.3 One stamp named the annually chang ing eponym Helios priest of Rhodes,4 and the other an in di vi dual who is con-ventionally referred to as the “fabricant”, though his - or in some cases her or their - func tion is contested.5 What is certain is that fabricants could be active over several years, whereas the eponym priest only functioned in the year named after him.

Successive generations of scholars have succeeded in reconstructing the chronology of the eponyms with a high degree of precision, using an array of traditional ar chaeo logical methods. The current state of the art is represented by the so-called low chrono lo gy proposed by

1 See Lund 2011 with references.2 Gabrielsen 2000; Badoud 2011.3 Garlan 2000, 177.4 Fin kiel sztejn 2001, 44-46; 2004, 118-129.5 Finkielsztejn 2001, 34, and 205 See also Badoud & Dana, forthcoming and Palaczyk, forthcoming.

Gerald Fin kiel sztejn.6 It has won general scholarly accep-tance even if he himself was the fi rst to acknowledge that there is room for improvement.7 The aim of this contri-bution is to suggest a new tool for establishing the rela-tive sequence of the eponyms: seriation, and to present a revised chrono logy based on this. The resulting dates will be referred to as hypothetical in order to stress their preliminary character.

STAND DER FORSCHUNG There is no need to dwell at length on the research his-tory of the Rhodian amphora chronology, which has been well described by others.8 Suffi ce it to say that Virgina R. Grace carried out the pioneering work by deftly combin-ing obser vations based on the fi nd contexts of the stamped handles, and on the inter connected pairs of eponym and fabricant names found on amphorae with both handles intact.9 By also taking other sources of information into account, e.g. the handle shape, the style of the stamps, as well as the occasional secondary stamps,10 Grace was able to assign the eponyms of the 3rd through to 1st century BC to seven periods (I to VII), and to work out their ap-proximate abso lute chronology (Fig. 1 to the left).11

6 Finkielsztejn 1993 and 2001.7 Finkielsztejn 2004, 117.8 Em pe reur 1990; Finkielsztejn 2001, 41-42; Jöhrens 2005, 87-94; Nicolaou 2005, 12-14.9 Grace & Savvatianou-Pétropoulakou 1970, 289-299; see also Ghetov 1990.10 Cf. Palaczyk 1999.11 Grace 1985, 42; see further Empereur 1990.

A NEW SEQUENCE OF THE EPONYMS

IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE SECOND CENTURY BCAS ESTABLISHED THROUGH SERIATION

John Lund

NAMED ON RHODIAN AMPHORA STAMPS

A NEW SEQUENCE OF THE EPONYMS NAMED ON RHODIAN AMPHORA STAMPS