Go to:
Amphoras translations
Translations from Russian into English of articles and books on amphoras and related archaeological subjects.
  • ^{00} marks a superscript, _{00} a subscript.
  • [p00] marks the beginning of pages in the original text.
  • Editorial or translators' additions and comments are given in [ ]s.
Translated by: PMWM and OB

Greek Ceramic Import on the Lower Don in V--III Centuries BC

Table of Contents

Introduction ... Page 3
Chapter 1
Ceramic containers of the Elizavetovskoe ancient town and burial ground ... Page 11
Chapter 2
Decorated and black-glaze ceramics ... Page 48
Chapter 3
Table, household, and other red and grey clay import ceramics ... Page 66
Chapter 4
Greek ceramic import of V to 1/2 IIIc BC on the Lower Don and north-east Azov Area ... Page 80
Chapter 5
Elizavetovskoe ancient town -- the main centre of Greek-barbarian trade in the Don delta in V -- 1/2 IIIc BC ... Page 89
Catalogue of Greek import ceramics of the Elizavetovskoe burial ground ... Page 107
Catalogue of ceramic stamps from the excavations at the Elizavetovskoe ancient town ... Page 144
Appendix 1
List of burials of the Elizavetovskoe burial ground dated by Greek ceramics ... Page 205
Appendix 2
Chronological grouping of dated burials of the Elizavetovskoe burial ground ... Page 208
Tables I--XLII ... Page 209
Literature ... Page 251
Index of the names of magistrates and fabricants found in the published stamps ... Page 259
Index of geographical names and archaeological monuments ... Page 263
List of abbreviations ... Page 266

Chapter 1

Ceramic containers of the Elizavetovskoe ancient town and burial ground

[p11] In the ceramic complex of the Elizavetovskoe ancient town in the Don delta, Greek pointed amphoras -- containers for transporting wine and partially other products -- occupy an extremely important place. Statistical observations over many years show that their portion comprises here more than 80% of the total balance of ceramic finds. The number of amphora remains in absolute numbers is huge. It is sufficient to say that, as a result of the work of the South Don Expedition of LIOA of AN USSR for 1966--1978 in an area of about 5000 m^{2} more than 130 thousand amphora sherds were found here. It is extremely indicative as well that in the relatively small area of the studied sections of the ancient town (its entire area is about 52 hectares) already more than 1000 amphora stamps alone have been found. Such a situation sharply distinguishes the Elizavetovskoe settlement, not only from other barbarian settlements of the Don area to the Northeast Azov area but also from the Black Sea Area as a whole, and characterizes it as the largest centre of Greek-barbarian trade, in particular the wine trade, in the Northeast Black Sea Area in the course of the 5c--1/2 3c BC.

The enormous concentration of Greek ceramic containers in the Elizavetovskoe settlement bears witness not only to the considerable consumption of Greek wines by its residents but also, in no lesser if not greater measure, to its very intensive intermediary wine trade. Greek goods, first of all wine, were widely distributed through the Elizavetovskoe settlement, not only in the Don delta, Lower Don, and Northeast Azov area, but also far beyond the borders of this region: to the north to the Middle Don and partly to Severskii Donets, and to the east to beyond the Don and to beyond the Volga. In the latter cases, when the wine could not be transported by water but was carried by land, or by combined land and river routes, its transportation in amphoras was not only irrational but also often impossible, which allows us to suggest with confidence its transportation under such conditions in soft containers -- in different kinds of wineskins [Grakov 1971 p51]. As a result, a considerable part of the ceramic containers (amphoras) brought to the Elizavetovskoe settlement must have stayed there, partly used by its residents for various household needs, and partly probably thrown out as not needed [cf. Will 1977], and thus increased the concentration of ceramic containers in the settlement.

Pointed amphoras occupy an extremely important place in the materials from the excavations of the Elizavetovskoe burial ground as well.

[p12] One of the characteristic features of the burial ceremony of the Elizavetovskoe tumulus burial ground is the placing of a greater or lesser number of amphoras into graves. Usually they are placed at the feet of the person buried, where they were most often placed on their sides. In many cases under the mouth or neck of the amphora there is a vessel for drinking wine: kylix, skyphos, mug with moulding, etc. This detail of the burial ceremony, observed as far as I know only in the Elizavetovskoe burial ground clearly indicates that the prone position of amphoras in the graves is not the result of their falling down, but a result of a conscious action: the amphora was placed in the grave in a position which symbolizes libation. It is apparent as well that the amphoras were usually placed in the grave unfilled. The wine probably was drunk at the wake, and only some remnant of it symbolically accompanied the deceased to the other world [Brashinskii, Demchenko 1969 p113].

Amphoras were not infrequently found at the funeral feasts at Elizavetovskoe tumuli, where their number depending on the wealth and magnificence of the burial in individual cases reaches several dozens; this equally applies to the differences in the numbers of amphoras in individual graves.

More than 260 amphoras were found in the excavations of the Elizavetovskoe burial ground; however, unfortunately, not all of them are preserved and available for study: many were discovered in such a poor state of preservation that they were impossible to reconstruct and sometimes to identify, others were not given the required significance by the pre-revolutionary excavators (P.N. Leont'ev, P.E. Khitsunov, N.I. Ushakov, and partly A.A. Miller) and they were thrown out without being recorded. Nevertheless, we have at our disposal quite a considerable collection of amphoras, which has more than one hundred and fifty whole and fragmented vessels, and permits us to obtain a sufficiently complete and objective picture of the ceramic containers of the Elizavetovskoe tumulus burial ground.

The ceramic containers of the Elizavetovskoe ancient town and burial ground frequently attracted the attention of scholars. In the mid-30s, T.N. Knipovich gave a brief general characterization of the amphora material found in the excavations of the ancient town in 1928 [Knipovich 1935, p156 f.], and also used remains of ceramic containers for dating the entire monument and its individual digs and layers [ibid. p126 f.]. T.N. Knipovich paid particular attention to the stamped amphoras.[1] The materials of the 1928 excavations made it possible to isolate the stamps of Thasos, Rhodes (one early one), Khersonesos, Sinope, and Heraclea Pontica (englyphic)[2] among the finds from the Elizavetovskoe ancient town. Apart from the amphoras of the listed [p13] centres, T.N. Knipovich identified finds of several sherds of amphoras of "archaic type" which she dated as a whole to 6c--5c BC [ibid. p159] and emphasized that the predominate number of amphora sherds belong to the group which is characterized by the presence of englyphic stamps on the necks (i.e., Heraclean amphoras -- I.B.).

Later I.B. Zeest devoted a special work to ceramic containers of the Elizavetovskoe ancient town and burial ground [Zeest 1951]. Although the archaeological material of the ancient town had not increased by that time in comparison with that which was available to T.N. Knipovich (excavations were not carried out from 1928 to 1954), I.B. Zeest, who also used materials from the pre-revolutionary excavations of A.A. Miller, managed to introduce some precision and additions to T.N. Knipovich's conclusions, which, it is true, did not lead to a principally new view of the complex of ceramic containers of the ancient town. Thus, I.B. Zeest made the chronology of the import of Chian amphoras more precise, having noted that it embraced not only 5c but also 4c BC [Zeest 1951, p119].[3] She also noted the finding of a single sherd of a "water glass shaped" amphora toe of 5c BC, and identified one amphora toe published by T.N. Knipovich as Pantikapaian [ibid. p119 f.]. Apart from those listed above, I.B. Zeest added one more Koan (double-barrelled handles) of end 4c--beg 3c BC, and one Knidian (one stamped handle, 2c) amphoras, as well as several sherds of amphoras of unknown centres of production, including a "wine-glass shaped" amphora toe [ibid. p120 f.] to the groups of amphoras enumerated by T.N. Knipovich.

For the study of the import of ceramic containers in the Don delta, I.B. Zeest also drew material from the Elizavetovskoe tumulus burial ground, observing at the same time that juxtaposing material from the necropolis and the ancient town could not provide any reliable conclusions due to the extremely limited nature of the material from the ancient town [ibid. p123 f.]. Study of the amphoras from the burial ground (the author focused on the collection from the excavations of A.A. Miller, which has 70 specimens) brought I.B. Zeest to the conclusion that Heraclean amphoras sharply predominate, that all the ceramic containers from the burial ground belong to the 4c--3c BC, predominantly to the 2/2 4c, with the exception of the Chian late bulgy-necked amphora which "possibly dates to end 5c BC" [ibid.].

From the time of T.N. Knipovich's and I.B. Zeest's work, the material from the Elizavetovskoe ancient town and burial ground, where the excavations were recommenced in 1954, grew immeasurably, which makes it possible to introduce a lot of principally new information into the already-formed picture of the complex of the ceramic containers, and to subject the views which existed to date to a critical evaluation. Until now, new material found only a partial, on the whole insignificant, reflection in the literature: amphoras from tumulus 8 of the "Five-brothers" group ("tsar" burial [Brashinskii 1961]), from Ushakovskii tumulus [Shilov 1966], partly from the excavations of a burial ground of 1954 [Shilov 1959], and 1966--[p14]1967 [Brashinskii, Demchenko 1969; Brashinskii 1970, 1976a], and from the excavations of the ancient town -- only remains of Corinthian [Brashinskii 1970] and Kolkhidian [Brashinskii 1976b'] amphoras, and partly Khersonesan ceramic containers [Brashinskii 1970; Shcheglov 1973], were subjected to special studies.

In its composition, the amphora complex of the Elizavetovskoe ancient town and burial ground, contrary to previous views [Zeest 1951], is quite wide and varied. Apart from the basic groups of amphoras -- Heraclean, Sinopean, Thasian, Chian, Mendean, Khersonesan,, various other groups -- amphoras of Rhodes, Corinth, Kos, Colchis, as well as ceramic containers of a number of centres, the localization of which is so far difficult or arguable -- are represented here. It is necessary by the way to note that on the whole the entire mass of amphoras of unknown centres in the Elizavetovskoe ancient town and, to a greater degree, in the burial ground, comprises, on the whole, an insignificant portion of the total complex of their ceramic containers.

The study of the collection of amphoras from the excavations at the Elizavetovskoe burial ground is of special interest and significance. Thanks to the presence of a large number of whole vessels here, there arose the possibility of localizing amphoras according to their centres of production, of elucidating the evolution of the typological development of containers from different centres, of carrying out metrological studies which are important for determining amphora standards [Brashinskii 1976b], and so forth. The importance of these studies is augmented by the fact that Attic painted and black-glaze ceramics were found with many amphoras in the burials, which allows us, in a number of cases, to substantiate or make more precise the chronology and absolute dates of different types and groups of amphoras.

Since the majority of the amphora types have been described, frequently and in sufficient detail, in specialist literature [see, first of all, Zeest 1960], I will not give a detailed description of them again, but will permit myself to make references to the appropriate publications. My main attention will be focused on those questions in the characterization of different groups and types of amphoras which so far have not found adequate reflection in the literature, or require revision or refinement, as well as on the new information that is brought by the amphoras of the Elizavetovskoe complex to the study of ancient Greek ceramic containers. The necessary data on amphora dimensions, their volumes, moduli (coefficients of the correlation of the basic dimensions), which are important for the characterization of types as well as of individual features of the vessels (stamps, graffiti, dipinti, etc.) are given below in the Catalogue of Greek import ceramics of the Elizavetovskoe burial ground.[4]

Until very recently, the earliest remains of the Greek amphoras of the Elizavetovskoe ancient town and burial ground were remains (in the burial -- single whole specimens) of Chian bulgy-necked amphoras of that variety which is dated to 2/4--mid 5c BC, and a single Samian amphora from the excavations at the burial ground which is synchronous with them [Brashinskii 1977a, p71]. Only in 1977--1978, during the excavations in the central part of the ancient town, in the so-called "acropolis" (sites XII and XIII), were single sherds of Ionic, [p15] including Chian amphoras with painted rims and stripes along the handles and body (Table XXII, 1, 2) which are dated to 1/4 5c or possibly somewhat earlier [cf. Zeest 1960 p71 f., table II,6; Grace 1961, fig. 44], found for the first time. The very isolatedness of these finds to a certain extent indicates the accidental nature of arrival of the indicated amphoras into the Don delta, but at the same time they have great significance for making more precise the time of the foundation of the Elizavetovskoe settlement.

The earliest types of amphoras in the Elizavetovskoe burial ground are represented, as was said before, by the vessels from the Mediterranean centres Samos and Chios. Sherds of these are constantly, though in small numbers, met with in the ancient town as well.

The only specimen of a Samian amphora (nr 1, Table I, VII) is identical to the vessel from Olbia which provided grounds for localizing the type [Brashinskii 1967, 1969 [? sic], p55 f.]. Somewhat later, independently from me, V. Grace came to analogous conclusions [Grace 1971, 1979], who isolated a type of Samian amphora which immediately follows ours and represents its evolution.

The Samian amphora from Olbia was dated by me to 1/2 5c BC [Brashinskii 1967]. This date is confirmed, and somewhat refined, by the Elizavetovskoe amphora found in the burial with a Attic black-figure kylix of end 1/4 5c (nr 153). The amphora was placed in the grave in a damaged state which may indicate its more or less extended use. As for the decorated and black-glaze vessels, the time of their inclusion in the grave was, as numerous observations indicate, separated, as a rule, from the time of their manufacture and arrival in the Don delta by a very short period. Therefore 2/4 5c BC seems to be the most probable date for the Samian amphora.

The Chian amphoras from the Elizavetovskoe burial ground cause great interest because they are represented by an unbroken series of types and their varieties starting from 2/4 5c to mid or or 2/2 4c BC. Materials of the ancient town also have great significance for the study of amphoras of the 4c.

During the excavations of the Elizavetovskoe burial ground, five Chian bulgy-necked amphoras of the late variety of the early type (nrs 2--5; also tumulus 87, burial 2, 1977, Table I, VII) were found. These amphoras are dated to 2/4--mid 5c [Grace 1961, fig 44; Zeest 1960 p75 f. Table III, 11]. They differ from analogous amphoras of the early variety of end 6--1/4 5c BC (before 480) first of all by a more elongated slim shape (moduli -- relation of diameter to height -- from 0.426--0.397; earlier variety -- from 0.596--0.511). An insufficiently large series of whole vessels does not allow us so far to state with full confidence that the reduction of the modulus is a chronological norm, however, such a supposition is quite probable. Were this supposition correct, it would turn out that amphora nr 2 is the earliest among the Elizavetovskoe bulgy-necked amphoras, which is confirmed by its joint finding with an Attic black-figured kylix (nr 160), and amphora nr 4 -- the latest. This amphora probably belongs to approximately [p16] mid 5c (unfortunately it was found without accompanying dating material).

It is necessary also to remind [the reader] that the characteristic feature of the early variety of bulgy-necked amphoras is the painting of the rims, stripes on the handles and the body, and the presence of circles and crosses painted on the necks and shoulders of the vessels.

Chian amphoras, late-bulgy-necked or bulgy-necked with a constriction are represented in the Elizavetovskoe burial ground by eight specimens (nrs 6--12; as well as tumulus 14, 1966, Table I, VII). Amphoras of this type [see Zeest 1960, Table IV, 11b',g] have approximately the same proportions as the vessels of the preceding type: moduli from 0.371--0.430. The capacities of the measured Elizavetovskoe Chian late-bulgy-necked amphoras fluctuate within the limits of 19.000--22.250 cm^{3}, which makes it possible to speak of their 6--7 choe standard [cf. Brashinskii 1976b p100].

Amphoras of the type under examination are dated to the 3/4 5c, which is confirmed by the Elizavetovskoe materials. Thus, amphora nr 6 is found together with a Panathenaic amphora (nr 145), dated to 430--425, and amphora nr 10 with an Attic black-glaze kylix (nr 159) dated to 2/4 5c. This vessel, apparently, is the earliest in the series of amphoras in the examined type and may be dated to a time close to mid 5c.

The study of the Elizavetovskoe late-bulgy-necked amphoras makes it possible to suppose that the shape of the toe of the vessel can be regarded as a chronological indicator within a group. In some cases (for example nr 12) the toe is similar to the toes of the bulgy-necked amphoras of the preceding type: it is massive, somewhat widening towards the bottom, with a big cavity which widens within the indentation [Zeest 1960 p75, Table III, 11]. In the majority of the late-bulgy-necked amphoras, however, the toe widens considerably more towards the bottom, and has a more complex profile [Zeest 1960, Table IV, 11]; the cavity at the bottom is less deep and widens towards the bottom. Such a toe shape is also preserved in the Chian amphoras of the new type -- with straight neck -- which appears already in 3/4 5c BC, co-existing with late-bulgy-necked, and becomes wide-spread in 4/4 5c BC [see Zeest 1960 p77, Table IV, 12].

No amphoras of the earliest variety of the new type of Chian containers were discovered among the Elizavetovskoe finds. However, a number of vessels of this new type found during excavations of the burial ground are dated to 4/4--end 5c BC (nrs 13--15, Table II, VII). Their moduli correspond to the moduli of the preceding type. Two of these amphoras (nrs 13 and 14) were found in the burial together with an Attic black-glaze skyphos (nr 185) of 3/4 5c. One of them (nr 13) of full standard has a capacity of 23.200 cm^{3} (the standard obviously comprised 8 Chian or 7 Attic choes [see Brashinskii 1976b p100]). The second (nr 14) -- is a "demi-amphora" of a half-standard (capacity 11.300 cm^{3}). The third amphora of this type (nr 15) differs somewhat from the preceding ones only in the shape of the toe, which is slightly longer and contains the first elements of the tendency of switching over to "dunce-capped" [Shilov 1959 p15, fig I,4]. [p17] A squashed [sic = smashed? trs] Chian amphora found together with nr 15 apparently belongs to the same time. The vessels of beg--1/2 4c BC (nrs 16--19, Table II, VIII) are immediately adjacent to the described amphoras. Two of these amphoras are "fractional": their capacities comprise 8.700 and 8.750 cm^{3} (probably 3 Chian choes). The moduli of the vessels decrease somewhat (0.313--0.362) -- the amphoras acquire a more elongated shape. To the number of the amphoras of this variety of the type belong a whole series of unpreserved vessels from the excavations of the Elizavetovskoe burial ground: 2 amphoras from the tumulus 29, 1911 [Miller 1914 p241, fig 51], a fragmented amphora and two toes found by V.P. Shilov in the additional study of the Ushakovskii tumulus [Shilov 1966 p180 f., fig 3 2, 3, 5, 7--10]. Thus Chian amphoras of 5--beg 4c BC are represented by all types and varieties of types.

The amphoras with "dunce-capped" toes [Zeest 1960, p78 f., Table V, 14] are also Chian, dated according to the materials of the Elizavetovskoe burial ground to 1/2 4c BC (nrs 20--24, Table II, VIII). Their Chian origin, accepted now by all researchers, receives obviously an additional confirmation in the juxtaposition of moduli of these amphoras with the moduli of clearly Chian amphoras synchronous to them. The moduli of such amphoras from the Elizavetovskoe burial ground comprise 0.361--0.335; the moduli of other Chian amphoras of this time -- 0.362--0.313. As we can see, both varieties of amphoras have the same proportions -- they are of the same type.

The capacities of the Elizavetovskoe amphoras with "dunce-capped" toes fluctuate within the limits of 18.600--20.200 cm^{3}, which points to the same standard as other synchronous Chian amphoras. All the enumerated types and varieties of Chian amphoras are represented by sherds in the material of the the Elizavetovskoe ancient town, which, as it seems, makes it possible to trace the further evolution of the ceramic containers of this centre. <.. |><| to here Thu May 14 22:46:19 EDT 1992>


Ceramic stamps

[p41] Sinopean stamps (tables XXXI--XXXII). The Sinopean stamps from the excavations of the Elizavetovskoe ancient town and burial ground are approximately of the same quantity as Thasian. However, there is a significant distinction in the chronology of the import of these two amphora groups. In contrast to Thasian stamps which are dated [p42] predominantly to 4c BC, mainly 2/4 and 3/4, (and in contrast also to Heraclean which belong almost entirely to the 4c), the Sinopean stamps, if we keep the chronological classification and dates [Grakov 1929] with modifications [Brashinskii 1963a; see also Shelov 1975] accepted at the present time, mainly belong to a later period. Out of 155 classified and dated Sinopean stamps of the Elizavetovskoe complex (81.15% of the total number), only 20 belong to I group (about 360--320)[20] and 22 to II group (about 320--270). At the same time stamps of III and IV groups dated to various segments of the 3c BC,[21] comprise 52 and 60 respectively. Finally, 2 stamps stand out sharply from the general complex: they belong to VI group dated to 2/2--end 2c BC. There are serious doubts on their Elizavetovskoe origin (see commentary to nr 571 of the catalogue of stamps).

[Note: catalogue for 571 just says it is one of two late Sinopean, doesn't fit inside the Elizavetovskoe period, is not certain that it came from E., but rather from Tanais ("Nedbigov" = "unadvanced?" ancient town) tr.]

It is necessary to note that the general chronology of amphoras stamps of the Elizavetovskoe ancient town including the chronology of small groups (Khersonesos, Rhodes) persistently raises the question of the necessity of reviewing again the dating of at least some groups of Sinopean astynomic stamps, in particular stamps of IV group [Brashinskii 1977a p72 f.]. This is caused by more and more definitely-formed ideas about when the Elizavetovskoe settlement as a most prominent trade centre in the Don delta ceased to exist. At present we can consider it established that life in the Elizavetovskoe settlement ceased hardly later than mid 3c BC and possibly the time of its active functioning is limited even to 1/3 3c BC [for details see Brashinskii 1977a]. Unfortunately the absence of well-dated closed complexes with Sinopean stamps of the III and particularly IV astynomic groups does not permit us so far to propose sufficiently substantiated dates for them. However, the need to date them further or less far back raises no doubt. Other researchers have come to the same conclusions based on various considerations. Thus, B.A. Vasilenko, on the basis of the study of materials from the left shore of the Dnestr estuary, comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to date Sinopean stamps of IV group to end 3c--beg 2c, and proposes to date these stamps to 260--220 [Vasilenko 1972 p17f.]. I.T. Kruglikova and Iu.G. Vinogradov, on the basis of analysis of materials from the settlement Andreevka Iuzhnaia [Kruglikova, Vinogradov 1973 p44f.], came to the conclusion that it is necessary to redate the later groups of Sinopean stamps. D.B. Shelov, on the basis of Tanais materials, supposes that stamps of IV group must be dated to 3c BC, perhaps even 1/2 of the century [Shelov 1975 p139]. The latter supposition of D.B. Shelov seems quite probable. [p43] Unfortunately it cannot so far be substantiated by unarguable data, apart from general historical considerations. B.A. Vasilenko proposed at the same time that we should not limit ourselves to reviewing the dates of the later groups of Sinopean stamps but put forward the opinion that it is necessary to make the entire chronological system of Sinopean stamps more ancient and proposed that the beginning of Sinopean stamping should be placed at the border of 5c to 4c BC [Vasilenko 1970 p17; 1971a p247f]. While not considering such an early date for the beginning of Sinopean ceramic stamping as impossible in principle [compare Shelov 1975 p137], although at present there are no data whatsoever bearing witness to this effect, it is necessary to observe that B.A. Vasilenko's argumentation cannot be considered convincing. On of his main arguments is based on the comparison of the device "eagle on a dolphin" on the earliest Sinopean stamps with the corresponding type on Sinopean silver drachmas. In his opinion the iconography of the devices on early stamps may be compared with the coin types of the border of 5c-4c BC. However, as V.I Tsekhmistrenko, who carried out scrupulous comparison of this device with coins, convincingly showed, the closest analogies to the distinctive features and details of its portrayal on the earliest stamps are provided by the coins of 370-360 [Tsekhmistrenko 1960]. An even more important argument in B.A. Vasilenko's hypothesis is a chronological interpretation of the complex of stamps from the Eighth Piatibratnii tumulus of the Elizavetovskoe burial ground proposed by him. This complex was dated by me, in my time, to the border of the 3/4 and 4/4 of 4c BC [Brashinskii 1961]. Possibly this dating is too narrow, and needs to be made more precise; now I tend to expand it somewhat, and date the complex to 3/4 of the century. B.A. Vasilenko, however, on the basis of the data of Heraclean stamps from these complexes proposed by him (in my opinion, insufficiently substantiated) -- beginning 2/4 4c BC -- dates the entire complex to this time, including the Sinopean stamp of the end of I astynomic group (nr M 128). While not entering into detailed discussion of B.A. Vasilenko's dating, I will stress with all definiteness that the dating of the entire complex of the burial goods, which in no way could belong to the time preceding the 2/2 4c [Shilov 1961], decisively contradicts it. This period undoubtedly must be decisive in dating the stamped amphoras from the tumulus. Sinopean stamps, like stamps of other centres of production from the excavations at the Elizavetovskoe ancient town, present a picture of large-scale one-time purchases of goods transported in amphoras. Thus, out of 13 stamps of the earliest group (with the device "eagle on a dolphin"), 7 belong to the astynome Apollodoros (nr 546--551, 682), 9 to an astynome of III group Eukharistos (nr 612--620), 12 to an astynome of the same group, Mnesikles (nr 642--653), 9 to an astynome of IV group, Hekataios (nr 595--606), and so on. Our attention is drawn to the fact that 40 out of 52 stamps of III group (76.9%) fall in the time of the performing of the magistracy by only 5 astynomes: Borios, Eukharistos, Mnesikles, Poseidonios, and Peithokles, and 42 out of 60 stamps of the IV group (70%) in the years of activity of 6 astynomes (Aiskhines, Demetrios, Antimakhos, Hekataios, Histieios, and Kratistarkhos). This distinctive feature of the Elizavetovskoe [p44] Sinopean import, once again confirms the hypothesis of the "pulsating" nature of Greek-barbarian trade. Sinopean stamps of the Elizavetovskoe complex do not bring much new information into the ceramic epigraphy of Sinope. Nevertheless a new name of a Sinopean fabricant Dralcihs (Stp, nr 613), extremely rare stamps of fabricants Marathonios (nr 639), Barios (nr 662), and Kleon (nr 625) were registered. Moreover 9 new combinations of names of astynomes with fabricants were also registered (see Catalogue of stamps). Stamps of Tavridian Khersonesos (table XXXIII).


The list of stamps (32 specimens) was published in a special appendix [Knipovich 1935, p200 f.]. The identification and dating of the stamps (except the englyphic ones) were made by O.O. Kriuger.
At that time, T.N. Knipovich [1935, p157] expressed doubts of the Sinopean origin of astynome stamps, identified by B.N. Grakov [1929], as well as of the correctness of the hypothetical identification of englyphic stamps as the production of Heraclea Pontic by the same scholar [Grakov 1926], considering no less if not more probable their Khersonesan origin [Knipovich 1935, p157 f.]. Later T.N. Knipovich acknowledged the correctness of point of view of B.N. Grakov [Knipovich 1949, p75].
In a later work I.B. Zeest also talks of end 4c BC [Zeest 1960 p50].
References to the Catalogue numbers occur in the text (in brackets). Numbers in the Catalogue correspond to the numbers of the illustrations in Tables.

For a convincing substantiation of the initial date of Sinopean ceramic stamping, see Tsekhmistrenko 1960.
I consciously avoid indicating the accepted dates of the III and IV groups of astynomes -- around 270--220 and around 220--183, since the fact of their being in error is commonly accepted at present.