[p254]
In the trade of the ancient world Hellenistic Knidos played a quite significant rôle. Among the goods which the city produced for exterior markets, authors mention vinegar,[1] vegetables, in particular onions,[2] reeds for the preparation of writing pens,[3] oil for the needs of pharmacists,[4] and probably fish.[5] However without doubt the main article of Knidian export was wine, which earned its fame by its high quality and special curative properties.[6]
With these, unfortunately, our facts from the written and epigraphic sources on the trade of Knidos come to an end. For this reason, in fact, the basic material of choice for scholars is ceramic epigraphy. As a category of sources, ceramic [p255] stamps permit us to elucidate not only a broad circle of centres, the goods of which were imported to this or that region, but also in many cases they give the possibility of studying the basic flow of imports from various centres, its chronological development and fluctuations, and also, in certain measure, the comparative volume.[11] Thanks to their sheer mass, the stamps are highly accessible for processing.
The identification of Knidian stamps on the whole is not complex due to the ethnic contained in their reading. However it is not always present.[12] Usually the stamps of Knidos preserve the following elements: name of a magistrate, sometimes with the title damiourgos or phrourarchos; name of a fabricant; ethnic. In the "duovir" period (on which more detail below) there are added the names of two officials, sometimes with the title "andron". All these elements may be placed on one handle of the amphora, more rarely on two. There are cases where the same stamp is impressed on both handles at the same time, although this manner of stamping bears an episodic nature, and in evaluation it may be disregarded, as in the cases of Thasos and Sinope.[13] In addition to the mentioned varieties, in recent years significant success has been achieved in localizing the stamps which were earlier doubtful, unidentified, or incorrectly treated -- the stamps with a "prow", the groups "Zenon A and B" and a few others, as the production of Knidian workshops.[14] [p256]
The chronological identification of the stamps presents greater complexity. The sole existing classification was worked out by V. Grace and has been made more precise by her repeatedly in a series of articles.[15] Pointing to the closeness of the tradition of stamping in Rhodes and in Knidos, she proposes a similar periodization for both these groups. For Knidos the following periods are distinguished:
II 275--220 (early monograms)
III 220--188 (to the beginning of the period of the phrourarchs)
IVA 188--166 (period of the phrourarchs)
IVB 166--146 (up to the time of the razing of Carthage and Corinth
V 146--108 (up to the beginning of the "duoviri" period)
VI 108--78? ("duoviri" period)
VII 78--end Ic BC (postduoviri period).[16]
The important stages of her classification, confirmed by historical events, are the periods of the phrourarchs and the "duoviri". In connection with the former, in particular, the following may be noted: a) the phrourarchs were representatives of the Rhodian administration in the period of occupation of Knidos (188--166); b) the term of fulfillment of this magistracy, as at Priene, was not a full year but 4 months, which follows from the fact that the total number of phrourarchs is almost three times higher than the quantity of years of the Rhodian domination at Knidos; b') the names of the phrourarchs are not more Rhodian than Knidian, which forces us to suppose that they recruited from outside.[17]
First of all, the occupation of Knidos after the Apamean peace is taken as something incontestable, although there are other points of view, for example, that Knidos was merely dependent upon Rhodes,[18] or was wholly independent.[19] There are insufficient [p257] grounds for the comparison of the phrourarchs in Knidos and in Priene, since in the latter case the restriction of the term of their activity was dictated by extraordinary circumstances, and the phrourarchs themselves at that time (together with the subordinate garrison) did not have the right to leave the fortress or to enter the town.[20] It is all the more doubtful that foreigners could have undertaken the duties of phrourarch.[21] Finally it is known that in Ptolemaic Egypt (in whose domain in the 3c BC Knidos found itself)[22] in the last third of 3c BC the functions of strategos and phrourarchos were extended to include legal and police powers,[23] approaching the duties of the agoranomes and astynomes.
What has been said permits us to regard the institution of the phrourarchs at Knidos as an ordinary, yearly, intra-city magistracy connected with ceramic production.[24]
In the opinion of V. Grace, the time of the "duoviri" in Knidos was connected with the Roman apparatus of collecting taxes in the province of Asia, and the cessation of this system of marking amphoras is attributed to the period of the capture of Knidos by Mithridates VI and lasted for a few years after that.[25] The latter, however, is hardly plausible. Military action against Mithridates in Asia was accompanied by the destruction and pillaging of the cities of the province, Knidos among them.[26] In this connection the tax system of the province was reorganized around 85 BC[27] which may serve as one of the bases for the transition to a new type of stamp. For the beginning of the period around 114 BC, in addition to the total number of magistrates, there is archaeological confirmation from the North-West Crimea, on which more below. [p258]
Thus it is possible to propose a somewhat different chronology of the ceramic stamps of Knidos:
I 305--280 (stamps with "prow").[28]
II 280--255/50 (individual letters, monograms, ligatures).[29]
III 255/50--215 (appearance of names of magistrates,
fabricants, the ethnic).[30]
IV 215--166 (period of the phrourarchs).
V 166--146 (up to the time of the destruction of Carthage
and Corinth.
VI 146--114 (up to the beginning of the "duoviri" period)
VII 114--88 (period of the "duoviri")
VIII 85--30 (postduoviri period).[31]
As has been repeatedly emphasized by scholars, the basic mass of Knidian import arrived at Athens, in continental Greece,[32] on the island of Delos,[33] and, to a lesser degree, in Egypt.[34] [p259] At the same time, on the islands of the Aegean Rhodian import completely predominates.[35] In regard to the North Black Sea Area the question of its trade with Knidos has not been specially examined. The stamps of this centre have found reflection only in the published material of archaeological excavations. A considerable role in this has been played by the complete absence of epigraphic evidence for any sort of contacts, and also the established opinion that the stamps of Knidos on the whole are not numerous.[36] In the meantime, the true localization of the stamps with "prow" belongs to the merit of Soviet scholars.[37]
By my count, there are 1078 Knidian stamps from the North Black Sea Area, 1047 of which can be identified. Their chronological distribution appears in the following way:
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Group I II III IV V VI VII VII
-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------
Dates |305-- |280-- |250-- |215-- |166-- |146-- |114-- |88--
| 280 | 250 | 215 | 166 | 146 | 114 | 88 | 30
-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------
Qty |167 |56 |224 |205 |126 |223 |45 |1
% |16% |5.3 |21.5% |19.5% |12% |21.3% |4.3% |0.1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From this it is evident that Knidian export to the North Black Sea Area arrived continuously throughout the course of the whole Hellenistic period.[38] The beginning of the export of Knidian goods in pointed amphoras is dated to the end 4c BC. In the 2/4 3c BC there is observed a reduction continuing to the middle of the century, after which begins a sharp increase with some weakening in the middle of 2c BC; at the end 2c--beginning 1c BC an intensive cutting back and diminishing of trade contacts takes place. Particularly remarkable is [p260] the quite large number of stamps of chronological group I. On the evidence of V. Grace and Chr. Börker, the total number of known specimens of stamps of this type comprises approximately 160.[39] Half of them were found in Alexandria and in the rest of lower Egypt, and 1/6 [sic tr.] in the North Black Sea Area.[40] Taking this data into consideration, we conclude that at this time, more than half of the Knidian export went to the North Black Sea Area, predominantly to the European Bosporos (Table IV). This is not surprising because the Bosporos and Egypt at that time were the main suppliers of grain for Greece.
In order to determine the position of the North Black Sea Area in Knidian trade, it is interesting to compare the total number of Knidian stamps found in the different parts of the ancient world, although the data is rather incomplete, and such a comparison would be quite relative (Table 2).
Table 2
---------------------------------------------------
Import centres[41] | Number of stamps | %
---------------------------------------------------
Athens | 13500 | 61.08
Alexandria | 4143 | 18.75
Delos | 3372 | 15.26
North Black Sea Area | 1078 | 4.88
Palestine | 8 | 0.03
---------------------------------------------------
Total | 22101 | 100
---------------------------------------------------
Of course it is not right to compare the entire North Black Sea Area or Palestine with Delos alone. Moreover the Table does not reflect other regions reached by Knidian export (West Black Sea Area, Aegeida [Aegean? tr], Italy, etc.), but the given figures make it possible to compare Knidian import in the indicated regions and give a picture of the approximate correlation. As for the comparison by chronological groups, we have materials only for Delos (Table 3)[42]. Prior to the beginning [p261] of the phrourarch period, Knidian import to Delos was insignificant, as was probably the case for the entire Mediterranean. Unfortunately groups IV-V are indicated in a summarized manner in J. Empereur's work, which does not allow us to compare them with the stamps of analogous groups from the North Black Sea Area. Judging by the data in Table 3, until end 3c BC Knidian import to the North Black Sea Area exceeded the import to Delos.
Table 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chronological Groups |
Centres | I | II | III| IV | V | VI |VII |VIII|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
North Black Sea Area | 165| 56| 214| 205| 114| 223| 45| 1|
Delos | -| 27| 19| (496) | 765|2037| 28|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is necessary to note that Table 1 does not give the picture of Knidian import in the North Black Sea Area, because the periods of time corresponding to the chronological groups are unequal. In order to figure out the import of Knidian amphoras to the North Black Sea Area in different epochs it is necessary to divide the number of stamps in each chronological group by the approximate number of years embraced by the corresponding period.[43]
I Group 167/25 = 6.7 V Group 126/20 = 6.3 II Group 56/30 = 1.8 VI Group 223/32 = 7 III Group 224/35 = 6.4 VII Group 45/26 = 1.7 IV Group 205/49 = 4.2 VIII Group 1/58 = 0.01
However, even these figures do not fully reflect the real dynamics of economic relations. To elucidate this, it is necessary to examine Knidian import by individual centres of the North Black Sea Area. The application of the annual co-efficient does not answer the purpose, because its quantity will be affected by the difference in the total number of stamps found in one or the other point.[44] In this connection it is reasonable to limit ourselves to the number of stamps and the percentage (Table 4).
The division into regions in Table 4 is given according to the scheme suggested by [p261] by I.B. Brashinskii.[45] The North-West Crimea is indicated separately from Khersonesos due to the fact that in 2/2 2c BC, which comprises the main portion of Knidian import into this region, the North-West Crimea no longer formed a part of the Khersonesan state.[46]
Table 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| European | Asian | Ol'via | Kherso- |N-W Crimea | Rest**
| Bosporos* | Bosporos | Tira | nesos | |
Grps------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Qty | % | Qty | % | Qty | % | Qty | % | Qty | % | Qty | %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I| 105 | 62.9| 1 | 0.6| 45 | 26.9| 4 | 2.4| 2 | 1.2| 10 | 6
II| - | - | - | - | 20 | 35.7| 6 | 10.7| - | - | 30 | 53.6
III| 61 | 27.2| 17 | 7.8| 114 | 50.8| 18 | 8 | 3 | 1.3| 11 | 4.9
IV| 48 | 23.4| 6 | 2.9| 112 | 54.6| 15 | 7.3| 4 | 2 | 20 | 9.8
V| 25 | 19.8| 4 | 3.2| 71 | 56.3| 13 | 10.3| 1 | 0.8| 12 | 9.6
VI| 51 | 22.9| 11 | 4.9| 35 | 15.7| 39 | 17.5| 73 | 32.7| 14 | 6.3
VII| 14 | 31.2| 6 | 13.3| 5 | 11.1| 5 | 11.1| - | - | 15 | 33.3
VIII| - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 |100 | - | -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
* with Tanais and Elizavetovskoe Ancient Town Site
** including uninventoried [or unassigned? "passportless" tr]
The distribution of stamps from different chronological groups among the ancient centres of the North Black Sea Area indicates that the import of Knidian goods in stamped amphoras differed from place to place. For visual clarity I provide a graph which reflects the dynamics of this process (Table 5). At first a large part of the Knidian import came to the Bosporos. Then during 3c BC and up to mid 2c BC it was most intensive in the North-West Black Sea Area. From 2/2 2c BC [the import] declines there, but no change takes place in the Bosporos. At the same time one can see a clear and sharp increase in the arrival of Knidian goods to Khersonesos and the North-West Crimea which had previously played a secondary role in trade with Knidos. It is not likely to be accidental. It is known that from end 3c-beg 2c BC the North-West Black Sea Area enters a period of prolonged crisis which worsened in 2c BC when export from the region and [p263] import into it had practically ceased.[47] During this period, no crisis phenomena are observed in the Bosporos. They can be seen only from the 2/2 2c BC.[48] And finally in Khersonesos, in spite of its loss of a larger part of its khora, which included vast territories in the North-West Crimea, by mid 2c BC and until the period of Diophantos' wars, there can be observed some political stability; probably this period of time is characterized by peaceful relations with Scythians.[49] It is quite probable that, with the weakening of Ol'via and the beginning of the crisis phenomena in the Bosporos, in 2/2 2c BC Khersonesos could for some time take their place as a trade partner of Knidos, although it is still only a hypothesis.
Dynamics of the entry of goods in Knidian amphoras into
the North Black Sea Area.
----- Ol'viia, Tira - - - Bosporos ..... West Crimea
[p263]
Knidian stamps from the North-West Crimea indicate stable entry of import during the period of the existence of stamps of VI chronological group. It reaches a particular intensity in the second half of the group. Stamps of all the Knidian eponyms (with one exception) are represented, and in a rather considerable quantity for the North Black Sea Area. At the same time, not a single stamp of the duoviri period (group VII) was found there, which is hardly accidental. Such a sharp drop, such a sudden cessation of Knidian import into the region, should be most likely connected with the destruction of the settlements during the first expedition of Diophantos in 114 BC.[50] This supposition is supported as well by the Rhodian stamps from these settlements. Of course, there is no foundation to talk about the entire khora of Khersonesos, but in application to the region of Kerkinitis it is quite acceptable.
Comparison of the dynamics of the entry of goods in pointed amphoras from Rhodes[51] with that from Knidos shows considerable difference, particularly as applicable to 2c BC. Meanwhile it seems to me it would be more correct to speak not of direct trade contacts of Knidos with the Black Sea Area but via the intermediary of Rhodes, although one cannot also exclude the possibility of direct contacts, particularly at the end 4c BC--beg 3c BC. The end of Knidian import is doubtless connected with the change in the political situation in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea Area in the period of the Mithridatic Wars, which became a turning-point both for Knidos and for the North Black Sea Area, and marked the beginning of a new period in their history.