![[Table 1: illustration]](../ills/sym-eir1.gif)
[p128]
The Panskoe I settlement and necropolis, situated on the north-west shore of the Tarkhankutskii peninsula, have been systematically studied by the Tarkhankutskaia expedition of LOIA AN USSR and Saratov University since 1968, and, for all practical purposes, have become a standard monument of ancient archaeology of the North Black Sea Area of the IV--beg III BC.[1] More than a third of its burial ground [p129] has been excavated, including twenty-five tumulus mounds and several dozens of ground burials in the spaces between the tumuli.
The degree of research done at the monument is such that the time has come for a comprehensive summary of the acquired material. This work has begun and some of its result have been published, in particular individual kinds of funereal constructions and some ceremonial details have been analysed.[2] Only individual finds from the inventory have been published,[3] although the burial deposits in themselves have special significance since they are represented by various categories of ceramics which provide reliable chronology. There is no doubt that by means of correlating dates according to different groups of ceramic goods, it is possible not only to establish the date of the burial within narrow limits, but also to make the existing chronological tables for the ceramics considerably more precise.
The scope of this article does not allow us to provide a full description of all the ceramic complexes of the necropolis; therefore, in the present work, only the ceramic containers are analysed---whole and archaeologically whole forms of amphoras from the graves and funeral feasts in the tumulus mounds.[4]
The collection currently being examined is sufficiently representative. More than 50 whole and archaeologically whole forms of amphoras were found. It is true that some vessels (mostly amphoras with "dunce-cap" toe) reached us in extremely poor condition, were not restored, and were not recorded graphically. Therefore, the part of the selection currently being analysed contains 47 amphoras, which nevertheless provide a full picture of the ceramic containers of the necropolis.
In the funeral ceremony of the burial ground amphoras occupy [p130] a noticeable place. Of the 27 graves under tumuli where ceramics occurred amphoras were found in 18 (19 specimens), i.e., in 60% of the burial complexes. They are somewhat more poorly represented in the graves located in the spaces between the tumuli---7 amphoras in 19 burials (approx. 37%). The custom of using amphoras as ossuaries to bury babies within the area of tumulus mounds (19 amphoras) is quite stable, and other goods are not found in these graves. Amphora material is predominant in the funeral-feast ceremonies, however whole forms of containers were found there only once (K.13).
The collection is represented by vessels of 8 centres of production:
Heraclea 21 Thasos 3
Khersonesos 11 Sinope 1
Chios 5 Solokha II (Peparethan?) 1
Solokha I 4 Unidentified 1
The containers of Heraclea Pontica dominate quantitatively. The
production of Khersonesos is in second place, which embraces the group
of early Khersonesan amphoras previously considered Bosporan. The
predominant majority of the types of amphoras are well known, there
are typological schemes[5] which we have tried to follow.[6]
Type I---amphoras nrs 1--7. The most characteristic feature of the amphoras of this type is a very high modulus D/H_{0}, which fluctuates in the interval between 0.443--0.485 independently of the absolute measurements of the vessels. Five amphoras of this type represent the largest scale standard of Heraclean containers, probably of 3 Attic choes (9.6 l.).[8] For this variant, I-1, the proportional dimensions are characteristic: the diameter of the body [p131]
Table 1: Heraclean Type I (nrs 1--7) and Sinopean (nr 45) amphoras
Amphora nr 7, by the modulus D/H_{0} should also be included in the first type of vessels, although in contrast to the amphoras of variant I-1 it has smaller dimensions and a correspondingly smaller capacity (full volume 6.43 l.), which gives us grounds for considering it fractional (variant I-2).
All amphoras of the first type are stamped. Englyphic stamps of the early first group with one name in one or two lines (Archestratos, Herakleides, Dionysios?, Onas) which are reliably dated to 1/4 4c BC are predominate. There is one curious observation in connection with these stamps. The point is that amphoras nrs 1, 3, and 4, and [those] with stamps of group I [sic] come from the same complex K.13. Having very many similar features in the shape of the profile of the rim, handles, and toes, which leaves almost no doubt of their simultaneous production, they contain stamps of the same type with different names. It is possible that this fact provides an additional argument in favour of the supposition that single names in early Heraclean stamps of group 1 belong not to magistrates but to fabricants.[10]
The stamp on fractional amphora nr 7 has no analogies in the compilation IPE III, but morphologically it must be placed in late group 3[11] and apparently does not go outside the limits of the 2/4 4c BC.
A round stamp in relief with an indistinct inscription on the neck of
amphora nr 5 is of special interest. Such stamps have not been known
in Heraclean ceramic epigraphy. Already after the find in Panskoe one
such stamp was found in the settlement Khozyrka XII and recently by
archival materials it was established that such a stamp with legible
reading (4 letters in a circle of which only the first 3 are clear:
Type I-A---amphoras nrs 8--14. The modulus of the vessels of this type is somewhat smaller (0.387--0.425). In comparison with the first type of amphoras, the depth (56.5--63.0 cm) is increased by the lengthening of the neck and the entire upper part (H_{1} = 28.5--31.7 cm). The diameter of the body on the contrary becomes smaller. The collection of amphoras this type as of the preceding type is not homogeneous. [133]
![[Table 2: illustration]](../ills/sym-eir2.gif)
Table 2. Heraclean amphoras of type I-A
Five amphoras of variant I-A-1 (nrs 8--12) apparently represent the hypothesised standard of capacity of 1 hydria---7.29 l.,[13] although the range of the actual volume of these vessels seems to us to be too large (8.10--10.6 l.). The diameter of the body [p134] fluctuates from 24.6--26.7 cm and the body acquires a more clearly defined form approaching a conical shape in appearance; the amphora is becoming more slender. The toe becomes elongated and later becomes cylindrical. In this series, amphora nr 9, with a stamp of group 1 (1/4 4c BC) and amphoras nrs 8 and 10 with stamps of early group 2 which each have two names in abbreviation (2/4 4c BC) are the earliest. Amphora nr 11 morphologically is the latest in the given series: a sharp break in the shoulders, toe of almost cylindrical form, etc. The stamp of the magistrate Satyros and fabricant Herakles on it apparently should be dated to mid 4c BC.
Two more amphoras of type I-A have smaller diameter of the body (D = 22.0--22.4 cm) and their volume is 6.2--6.5 l. Most likely these are fractional vessels in relation to the preceding standard which makes it possible to consider them as a special variant I-A-2. One of them has a stamp of group 3 with the name of the magistrate Satyros already met on amphora nr 11.
Type II-1---amphoras nrs 15--19. With practically the same modulus (0.371--0.400) as the vessels of type I-A, these amphoras have a more slender silhouette due to an increase of the height of the neck (H_{3} = 23.0--25.5 cm) and a strictly conical-shaped form of the body. The shoulders have a sharp break. As a rule the toes are cylindrical or with a slight widening. One may suppose that this type of container was calculated as the type I-A for the measure of capacity of 1 hydria (7.29 l.) 4 empirically-measured vessels have a full volume of 7.40--8.25 l.
Two amphoras of this type have stamps of late group 2 and 3, dated very widely to the 2/4 and 3/4 4c BC. However, using morphological analysis and the context of burial complexes, it is possible to attempt to establish narrower dates for each of the amphoras of type II.
Amphora nr 18 (K.15, M.1) should be dated to mid, perhaps end, 1/2 4c BC. Apart from numerous black-glaze dishes of 1/2 4c BC, one more Heraclean amphora of type I-A-1 (nr 11) was discovered in this burial. Stamped amphora nr 16, from burial K.42, M.1, and amphora nr 19, from K.57, M.1, should be dated to the middle of the century. The two remaining unstamped vessels, nrs 15 and 17, were produced most likely in 3/4 4c BC.
Type II-2---amphora nr 20. In its morphology it is a proportionally reduced Heraclean type II-1. At an actual volume of the amphora of 5 l., its standard may be [p135]
![[Table 3: illustration]](../ills/sym-eir3.gif)
Table 3. Heraclean amphoras of types II and III.
[136]
Type III---amphora nr 21. It is a rather rare type of a pseudo-Thasian bi-conic container produced, according to the available data, in Heraclea under the magistrates Peisistratos and Themison.[15] Our amphora is also produced in the year of Themison but in the workshop of Dionysios, whose name has not been seen on the amphoras of the third type.[16] The standard of these rare amphoras is the same as that of the vessels of type II, which apparently may be evaluated as an argument in favour of the synchronicity of their production. Taking into consideration analogies and the context of burial K.32, M.2, amphora nr 21 may be dated to 3/4 4c BC.
Type I-A-1---amphoras nrs 22--27. These are typical pythoids of large dimensions where the depth fluctuates within the limits of 65.0--67.0 cm, the diameter of the body---35.4--38.0 cm. The empirical measuring of the capacity of 3 vessels gave volumes from 27.26--32.60 l. which apparently corresponds to a standard measure of 6 hemihekts (26.26 l.). Containers of this type were not slipped and not stamped. In all cases stable forms of beak-shaped rims and sharp-ribbed toes are observed. Analogies from a Khersonesan burial and other monuments, as well as the context of those burial complexes of the necropolis Panskoe I where our vessels were found, make it possible to date them with assurance to 3/4 4c BC.[18]
Type I-A-3---amphora nr 28. Only the lower part of the vessel remained. Analogous amphoras, now known in sufficient number, give grounds for considering that their production begins in Khersonesos from the last quarter of 4c BC---they come to replace the preceding variant I-A-1. It is on these amphoras that the earliest stamps of Khersonesan astynomes appear and the tradition of applying a slip to the containers is established. The continuity of this variant can be traced both in morphology, [p137]
![[Table 4: illustration]](../ills/sym-eir4.gif)
Table 4. Khersonesan amphoras of types I-A-1 and I-B.
Type I-B---amphoras nrs 29--32. They differ [p138] from the preceding types of Khersonesan containers in only one parameter---a smaller diameter of the body, the values of which fluctuate around 30 cm. The standard measure of capacity of this most wide-spread type of Khersonesan amphoras comprises 4 hemihekts (17.51 l.). Amphoras of type I-B were produced in Khersonesos from end 4c BC for the duration of the entire 3c BC. Our specimens may be dated more precisely. Amphora nr 30, with a stamp of Swkritos does not go beyond the limits of the last quarter of 4c BC. A stamp of Alexandros on vessel nr 32 most likely is dated to the very beginning 3c BC.[19] Other amphoras according to the complex of material from the tumuli where they were found can also not be later than end 4c--1/3 3c BC.
Type E (with straight neck)---nr 33. The amphora is the late fractional variant of Chian containers with straight neck of 2/2 5c--beg 4c BC.[20] In contrast to larger scale amphoras of this type of 5c BC, these vessels have a strictly conical form of the body with a diameter of around 25.0 cm. The height of the upper part (31.0) comprises half of the depth (61.5). The toe is long and it seems very likely that precisely this form served as a prototype for the later "dunce-capped" toes.
Several amphoras of this type from Pichvnarskii and Elizavetovskoe burials are known.[21] Their chronology does not go beyond the limits of 1/4 4c BC, which is confirmed by our data.
Type Zh (with "dunce-capped" toe)---amphoras nrs 34--37. We have 3 whole and 1 fragmented amphoras. They are all of the same large standard, exceeding 20 litres. By analogies from the Elizavetovskoe burial, such amphoras are dated to 1/2 4c BC. All our vessels come from children's graves in the mounds of the tumulus K.21, K.38, K.44, K.57 where the main burials are reliably dated to 3/4 4c BC. [139]
![[Table 5: illustration]](../ills/sym-eir5.gif)
Table 5. Amphoras of Chios (nrs 33--36) and of the Murigiol' type (nr 47)
As is known the group of vessels with mushroom-shaped rims is not uniform in its origin. Part of them may be considered to be a product of Rhodes, part of Samos, and [p140] hypotheses were made of their production on Naxos and Paros,[22] but a considerable proportion of these containers so far cannot be localised with assurance. At the same time, all complexes where they are found are dated sufficiently narrowly---2/4 and 3/4 4c BC.[23]
Our selection presents at least 2 types of vessels of the type Solokha I. We may place amphoras nrs 38 and 39 where the diameter of the body fluctuates around 41.0--43.5 cm, and the depth around 65.0 cm, in the first type. Judging by analogies,[24] their capacity considerably exceeds 30 l., and may correspond to the standard of 10 Attic choes.[25]
The second variant of amphoras is of considerably smaller dimensions. The upper part of such a vessel, nr 41, has the diameter of the body of about 32 cm. Analogous amphoras are found in Vani[26] and in Kerkinitis.[27] Their full capacity is 14--17 l. The lower part of amphora nr 40 apparently belongs to the same variant.
In dating amphoras of the Solokha I type in our burial we have to base ourselves on the chronology of ceramic complexes of the central burials of tumuli K.34, K.35, K.38, K.43, since the amphoras themselves come from children's graves, where there are no other goods. Vessels nrs 38--40 do not go beyond the limits of mid--3/4 4c BC, and amphora nr 41 is dated to 1/2 4c BC.
Type B' (biconic)---amphoras nrs 42--44. There are two variants. Amphora nr 42 (variant B'-1) is unstamped, the diameter of the body approximately corresponds to the height of the upper part (24--25 cm), the depth comprises 2 such measures (51 cm). Full capacity is 6.9 l. A similar amphora was found in the settlement Sladkite Kladentsi in Bulgaria,[28] where the complex of containers is dated to end 5c BC--beg 4c BC.[29] The strictly biconical [p141]
![[Table 6: illustration]](../ills/sym-eir6.gif)
Table 6. Amphoras of Thasos (nrs 42--44), Type Solokha I (nrs 38--41), Solokha II (?) (nr 46).
The "developed" variant of Thasian biconical amphoras is represented in the burial by two vessels (nrs 43, 44). Their standard is increased (full capacity is 8.2 and 9.0 l.) at the expense of elongating the proportions. Both the neck and the lower part of the body with the toe are stretched out. Numerous analogies are dated to 2/4--3/4 4c BC.[30] On the handle of amphora nr 43 there is a stamp of the third group according to Iu.G. Vinogradov's classification (370--340 BC).[31] Taking into account other material found in the graves together with the amphoras, they may be dated to the mid--3/4 4c BC.
The Sinopean containers of the burial are represented by only one fragmented vessel which is however of considerable interest. It is a large pithoid, the body diameter of which is 38.0 cm. The lower part of the body and the toe are absent. Numerous drill-marks on the body give grounds for supposing that for some time the amphora was in household use in a repaired state and only later got into the child's burial K.2, a.2.
Direct analogies to this vessel are not known to us. However, there is a series of amphoras of the same shape but with a smaller diameter of the body (about 35.0 cm), which most likely represents a fractional measure. An amphora from the Theodosian museum has been known for a long time,[32] and according to the stamp of the astynome Nikomedes (group 1) it is dated to 2/4 4c. Two others have not been published and come from the excavations of the settlement Garshino and Panskoe I in the Crimea, and according to the stamps[33] are dated to 2/2 4c and 1/3 3c BC. Yet another such amphora with a stamp of group V [p143] is kept in the Odessa museum.[34] Finally an unstamped amphora with the same parameters has recently been found in the Aktashskii burial.[35]
The standard measure of capacity of this series of amphoras is about 25 litres. However, the capacity of the vessel under discussion, nr 45, judging by the applicable calculations should reach 32--33 l. In this case it is quite probable that this type of Sinopean containers served the standard of 10 Attic choes (32.8 l), i.e., the measure which is twice as large as the Sinopean 5-choe standard, established for the amphoras of the mid--2/3 4c BC.[36]
The uniqueness of amphora nr 45 is affirmed by the stamp (
The chronology of amphora nr 45 itself may be established with sufficient reliability. Since the complex of burials K.2 judging by the Heraclean and Khersonesan amphoras found there, does not go beyond the borders of 4/4 4c-- beg 3c BC, the Sinopean amphora, taking into consideration its sufficiently prolonged household use, may be dated to 3/4--beg 4/4 4c BC.
The morphology of these well-known vessels is rather homogeneous, as at the same time are the empirical measurements of capacity.[37] Our amphora differs from others first of all in its size. Its capacity comprises 27.9 l, against the usual 16.5--18.5 l, due to a larger depth and diameter of the body. If for the known series of amphoras of the Solokha II type I.B. Brashinskii suggests a standard of 5 Attic choes (16.0 l),[38] then for amphora nr 46 the measure of 8 Attic choes (26.26 l) will be more likely. An analogous standard was used in Khersonesos in the 3/4 4c BC.[39]
[p144]
In the child's grave, where amphora nr 46 was found, no other goods were found. However, the central burial in K.40 is dated to mid 4c BC by black-glaze ware. Apparently the date of this amphora should be determined within these limits.
In its morphology, dimensions, and capacity, it resembles Thasian biconical amphoras of 4c BC. However, certain features raise doubts of its Thasian origin. First of all, it is the shape of the rim, which has the look of a flattened, outward curving, roll with a small ridge under it. The shape of the handles, which are smoothly curved, and overlap the rim with their upper attachment, is of a unique kind. The neck is very narrow, the walls thin, no more than 4 mm. The clay does not at all resemble Thasian. It is of brick colour with a great number of small particles of mica, and particles of a brown colour.[40]
The features listed obviously cause some doubts for I.B. Brashinskii who did not include this amphora in the Thasian biconic type, but placed it in the Thasian "various" group.[41] In our opinion there is no basis for this. Most likely what we have is a sample of a container from an unestablished Mediterranean centre, where the Thasian tradition strongly influenced amphora production. For amphoras of this type the most likely standard measure is a volume of 5 Attic khoinikes (5.47 l).
Such amphoras which received the name "Murigiol' type" in the literature are rather well known in principle. Apart from the burial complexes near the village of Murigiol' in Rumania,[42] containers of this type were found in one of the Elizavetovskoe tumuli,[43] as well as in the Nikolaevskii and Adzhigol'skii burial grounds.[44]
[p145]
Their chronology is reliably established by a number of complexes. First of all, a red-figured kylix and netted [with cross-hatched decoration? tr.] lekythos,[45] found together with our amphora nr 47, make it possible to speak of the 1/4 4c BC as the most probable date. The Adzhigol'skii tumulus _{1}N, in the embankment of which an analogous amphora was found, is very precisely dated by a series of synchronous Heraclean, Chian, and Mendean amphoras from the storage chamber of the central grave to the beginning 2/4 4c BC.[46] Tumuli _{3}X and _{4}S by the village of Petukhovka, where, together with the samples of containers of interest to us, 14--15 each of Heraclean and of the rarer Mendean amphoras, were found, should be dated to the same time.[47] Black-glaze ware from these burials on the whole confirms this chronology. Apparently the time of the production of Murigiol' type amphoras should be limited to end 1/4--2/4 4c BC.
Analysis of the collection of amphoras from the necropolis leaves no doubt that this selection is not accidental in the full meaning of the word. This is a specifically "burial" selection, which does not reflect the dynamics of ancient import, either to the North-West Crimea or even, judging by the material from the excavations of the residential and rural-economy complexes, to the Panskoe I settlement. Thus among the amphoras of the necropolis of 1/2 4c BC we have practically no containers of large standard found in synchronous layers of the Panskoe I settlement and other monuments. In the burial, large amphoras appear from mid 4c BC when, alongside slab graves for children, the custom of using amphoras of large standard as ossuaries for burying babies is becoming widespread. Equally strange is the almost complete dominance of Heraclean containers in the adult graves, which, by the way, is characteristic not only of our monument but also of the predominant majority of burials of 4c BC in the entire Black Sea area, particularly the Western part. At the same time, the material in the settlement shows that in this period such centres as Thasos and Sinope carried out a mass delivery of production alongside with Heraclea. However, Sinopean and Thasian vessels are found in the burials significantly more rarely.
[p146]
Observations show that amphoras were placed in the graves already empty, without contents. Not once did we find traces of sealing the neck and stoppers are completely absent. Amphoras very frequently were placed in the graves on their side or horizontally. At times, small bones and sand are found in them, and in a Thasian amphora from K.32, M.1, even the point of a spear. We get the impression that an amphora was simply a customary attribute of a burial custom, but it could contain no wine. As for the frequency of finding Heraclean amphoras, this in our opinion can be explained by the fact that in 4c BC these containers had one of the smallest standards, and moreover were made out of far from the best clay. As archaeological practice indicates, large vessels of dense clay and good firing were very frequently re-used in the economy, which could to some extent prevent their being placed in the graves.
Empty Heraclean amphoras, which found no wide application, had a greater chance of ending up as part of the grave goods.
With all the specificity of the selection, the described collection considerably expands our knowledge on a number of particular questions such as the organisation of amphora production, the assortment of containers, their typology and chronology. Thus, it was precisely the amphora material of the necropolis that gave grounds for believing that the large pithoid vessels traditionally ascribed as Bosporan in fact are the earliest series of Khersonesan containers (type I-A-1), produced in the city prior to the appearance of the practice of astynome stamping in 3/4 4c BC.
We succeeded in registering a new typological standard of Sinopean amphoras of 2/2 4c BC and this find gives grounds for stating that at least at this time in Sinope, along with magistrate stamping, there existed a purely potter's practice of independent stamping.
Curious observations were obtained on the collection of Heraclean amphoras. First of all, within the limits of the long-known types I and I-A, we succeeded in isolating new variants of containers of smaller capacity. If the basic standards of both types have an actual volume of 8--11 litres, then variants I-2 and I-A-2 are slightly over 6 litres. Most likely these are fractions of three-quarters of the basic standard, which were produced, judging by the chronology of the burial complexes, in 2/4--mid 4c BC. Their portion of the total volume of container production in Heraclea is not known, however, it is necessary to introduce a correction, [p147] taking into consideration such fractional measures, into the comparative study of the import of various centres.
Moreover, as we can see from Table 7, 14 Heraclean amphoras from twenty whole forms of our collection have stamps on the necks, which comprises 70% of the selection. This contradicts I.B. Brashinskii's calculations, who considered that in Heraclea one amphora out of five to six was stamped.[48] We in no way claim to solve the problem of the co-efficient of stamping on the materials on one monument. However, they do introduce doubts of the correctness of the accepted point of view. This is particularly important because a simple calculation of the correlation of the stamped and unstamped amphoras in the huge representative selection given in I.B. Brashinskii's book[49] only increases the doubt: out of 318 specimens there are 266 stamped and only 52 unstamped (stamping coefficient about 83%). One should take into consideration, it's true, that this selection, judging by all the data, was compiled not entirely accidentally and consisted first of all of stamped specimens, however, in any case, it is not likely that the correlation of 1 : 5-6 existed in reality.
Since amphoras are very often found in the burials together with other ceramic goods there is a possibility of analyzing the question of the time of "the belatedness" of various categories of ceramics in the burials. We propose to elucidate it in detail after publishing all the groups of materials from the necropolis, however, even now one can present certain observations. As can be seen from Table 8,[50] in comparison with other ceramics, first of all black-glaze pottery, the amphoras provide the latest date which apparently is closest to the time of the act of burial.[51] As for the tableware, particularly bowls and goblets (bolsals, kylikes, kantharoi, and others), it as a rule was in use for a considerable time which is indicated by the frequently-found traces of repair, signs of wear on the glaze, loss of individual parts etc. On the contrary, the toilet flasks with the exception of expensive decorated ones, are unlikely to be much older than the amphoras. One gets the impression that ordinary black-glaze lekythoi may provide, along with the containers, a more precise date of the burial.