Sinopean, Heraklean and Chersonesan “Carrot” Amphorae

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 

16 (2010) 371-401, 552-556 brill.nl/acss 

Sinopean, Heraklean and Chersonesan “Carrot” 

Amphorae 

Andrei Opaiţ 

Abstract 

The aim of this paper is to improve the typology of Pontic amphorae by presenting brief morphological 

and fabric descriptions of some amphora types that imitate a famous Sinopean 

example – the “carrot” amphora. These wine amphorae were manufactured from the 4 th and 

throughout most of the 5 th century AD. Although discoveries of these imitations are not very 

abundant, limited quantities occur not only in the northern and western parts of the Black Sea 

but also in the eastern Mediterranean at Athens and Palestine. 

Keywords 

Sinope, Heraklea, Chersonesos, Dobrudja, Athens, Pontus, Amphorae, Imitations 

The Black Sea region of the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods is usually 

regarded, not without good reasons, as an isolated area, having some contacts 

with only the Aegean islands and the cities of the western Anatolian 

coast. 1 The “Greekness” of the Pontus was even questioned by some Greek 

writers. 2 Today, as a fatidic continuation of this attitude, the area is also not 

very well-known because “les archéologies pontiques” need to “déprovincialiser”, 

to be better connected with western literature and discoveries, and “de 

publier ceux des complexes significatifs qui restent encore inédits” in a satisfactory 

manner, “solidement documentés et soigneusement illustrés”. 3 However, 

I think we can expand this scenario to include many east Mediterranean 

sites that have been excavated in a strong art-historical tradition, giving prevalence 

to monumental buildings and painted or relief-decorated vessels. 4 The 

general belief has been that “classical archaeology should aim to illuminate 

particular Graeco-Roman ethos”. 5 In addition, there are only a few ceramic 

1 Morel 1999, 282. 

2 Braund 1997. 

3 Garlan 1999, 7-9. 

4 Millett 1997, 201. 

5 Morris 2005, 97. 

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/157005711X560417

A. Opaiţ / 

372 Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 16 (2010) 371-401, 552-556 

specialists who are able to deal in a proficient manner with the huge amount 

of pottery discovered at these archaeological sites. In most cases, they do not 

have research assistants, technicians, travel grants and access to a good 

library. 6 Usually, a Pontic site is excavated principally by one archaeologist, 

who considers the site as his/her own possession and tries to publish most of 

the material by himself/herself, regardless of the varied nature of that material, 

i.e. coins, tableware, amphorae, fibulae, glass, various public buildings, 

cemeteries, fortification systems, etc. They also take great care to hide away 

the archaeological materials in carefully locked storerooms and only after 

their disappearance from this world will someone else, eventually, have access 

to the material; in most cases preserved as a collection of artefacts without 

any indication of the archaeological contexts. These people consider archaeology 

as a hobby not a science. For these reasons, I consider that we, in the 

Pontic and eastern Mediterranean areas, are still far from attaining Keay’s 

desire for archaeologists “to select and address particular questions” and not 

to “become merely technicians who amass data”. 7 There is a strong need for an 

epistemological approach to pottery studies. Although, during recent decades, 

amphora studies have made good advances in these geographic areas, we still 

need to clarify the many subtypes and variants manufactured, especially during 

the late Hellenistic and Roman periods, giving clear morphological and 

fabric descriptions, and illustrations of these vessels; otherwise, as computer 

programmers say, it will be a case of garbage in, garbage out. 

Despite their relative isolation, the Greek colonies of the Pontic area show 

similar developments to Mediterranean Greek cities. One of these developmental 

phenomena is the imitation of the amphorae of the mother city 

within its colonies, as is the case with Heraklea or Sinope and its colonies of 

the northern and eastern Pontic shores during the late Classical period. Later 

on, this mimetic phenomenon was extended to the mother cities themselves, 

as Heraklea imitated Sinopean and Rhodian jars during the late Hellenistic 

period. Towards the end of the Hellenistic period, both Heraklea and Sinope 

adopted the canonical Koan amphora shape, a process that extended also to 

the central and western Mediterranean during the 1 st century AD. 8 

The purpose of this paper is to examine this mimetic process during the 

late Roman period when a new canonical form emerged on the Pontic market, 

the so-called “carrot” amphora. 9 Originally created by Sinopean potters, 

6 The same situation exists also in western countries, cf. Greene 2006,124. 

7 Keay 1992, 360. 

8 Vnukov 2003. 

9 Although the term “carrot” is used in scholarly literature for only the subtype of the 

5th century AD, I prefer to simplify the typology and to extend this term to the complete

A. Opaiţ / 

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 16 (2010) 371-401, 552-556 373 

it was rapidly adopted by some Heraklean and Chersonesan workshops. In 

most cases, these imitations were so well executed that only a close analysis of 

the fabric of these amphorae can help us in assigning them to different workshops. 

Recent amphora discoveries made in the Chersonesos area and in the 

eastern part of Romania have enlarged the repertoire of “carrot” amphora 

variants and helped us to understand better the new “amphora koiné” that 

occurred in the Pontic basin during the 4 th century AD. Recent excavations 

undertaken at Demirci near Sinope 10 have confirmed their morphological 

evolution, which we established at Topraichioi and Murighiol in 1991. 11 

1. Sinopean “Carrot” Amphorae 

Predecessors of the “Carrot” Amphora 

Two amphorae discovered at Belinskoye may represent the transition from 

the Sinopean amphorae of the early Roman period to the “carrot” type of 

amphora. 12 The first example retains the beaded lip and swollen neck, ending 

in a conical base (fig. 1.1); the second, with its bulging neck, has a trapezoidal 

rim with a slight concavity on its exterior, a shape that became typical for 

the “carrot” amphorae of the 4 th century. In addition, the handle is more flattened 

with ribs on the exterior. The body ends in a conical spike (fig. 1.2). 

Although the author does not give details about the dating of these finds, we 

can assume that they date to the last quarter of the 3 rd century based on their 

morphological characteristics, the period when this settlement was founded. 13 

Subtype 1. Large Sinopean “Carrot” Amphorae (Zeest 100/Kassab Tezgör C Snp I-1) 

An example of the classic “carrot”-shaped amphorae was found in a pit dated 

to around the middle of the 3 rd century AD at Gorgippia. 14 This date seems 

odd, as this is the only site where the shape appears to occur so early. The 

possibility cannot be excluded, therefore, that this fragment actually belongs 

repertoire of the type, as the shape of the body is almost the same, evolving from a bulkier to 

a slimmer “carrot” shape. The following abbreviations have been used: DR = rim diameter; 

DH = handle diameter; DM = maximum diameter; H = height; PH = preserved height. All 

dimensions are given in centimetres. Some drawings were made by the author and others by 

Olga Malinovskaya, the latter being also responsible for all the inking. The close-up photographs 

of the fabrics were taken by the author. 

10 Kassab Tezgör 2010. 

11 Opaiţ 1991a; 1991b. 

12 Zubarev 2003, fig. 6, middle row. 

13 Zubarev 2005, 82. 

14 Alekseeva 1997, 271, pl. 156.1.

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 1.1 

Fig. 1.2

A. Opaiţ / 


to a later period, probably the beginning of the 4 th century; this, at any rate, 

is the dating of a fragment discovered in the quadriburgium of Mihai Bravu 

(Dobrudja). 15 This dating is also confirmed by similar amphorae discovered 

at Belinskoye in a level destroyed ca. AD 322. 16 This amphora shape is 

also found at Iatrus during the first half of the 4 th century. 17 Thus, we can 

conclude that this subtype was already in use during the first quarter of the 

4 th century AD and isolated examples continued in use as late as the beginning 

of the 5 th century AD. 18 Some completely preserved examples discovered at 

Sinope measure: H 85-92, DR 11-12 and DM 35-40 (figs. 1.3-4). 19 

The rim is large and nearly rectangular in cross section, with the top and 

the exterior having wide grooves; the neck is truncated conical. The handles 

are parallel to the neck and are ovoid in section, with a central rib. The upper 

handle attachment is close to the rim. Shallow grooves are visible on the neck 

and body. The transition from the neck to the shoulders and the conical body 

has a certain fluidity, without sharp angles. The vessel ends in a conical base. 

Traces of wheel-turning are visible mainly on the lower part of the body. 

Subtype 1 has a large capacity, varying between ca. 23, 32 and 36 litres. We do 

not know if the volume constantly diminished over time or whether the 

amphorae were manufactured in various sizes, which seems more likely. 20 

Subtype 2. Medium Sinopean “Carrot” Amphorae (Kassab Tezgör C Snp III-1a, b) 

The second subtype, rightly called “intermédiaire” by D. Kassab Tezgör, 21 was 

first produced probably in the last quarter of the 4 th century and continued 

in use throughout the first half of the 5 th century. Complete examples occur 

at Sinope (fig. 1.5)) and Messembria. 22 The groove of the rim exterior is 

deeper, the neck is taller and more cylindrical, and the shoulders are steeper 

than subtype 1. The handles are parallel to the shoulder and are attached to 

the middle of the neck; they continue to be ovoid in section with a central 

rib. Grooves occur only occasionally on the neck and body; the latter is 

15 Unpublished, from my own excavations. 

16 Yurochkin & Zubarev 2001, 460-461, fig. 1.1; Zubarev 2005, 82, fig. 5. 

17 Böttger 1982, 44-45, type I-6. 

18 Opaiţ 1991b, pls. 21.4; 23.1. 

19 Garlan & Kassab Tezgör 1996, 332, fig. 9; Kassab Tezgör et al. 2003, 176-177, 

pl. 9.15-16; Kassab Tezgör & Dereli 2001, 222, fig. 14; 223, fig. 17 A; Kassab Tezgör 2010, 

128-129, pl. 16.1-4. 

20 I have calculated the volumes of some of the amphorae published by Garlan & Kassab 

Tezgör 1996, 332, fig. 9 and Kassab Tezgör et al. 2003, 176-77, pl. 9.15-16. 

21 Kassab Tezgör & Dereli 2001, 222, fig. 15, 223, fig. 17 C; Kassab Tezgör et al. 2003, 177, 

pl. 9.17; Kassab Tezgör 2010, 130-131, pl. 17.3-4. 

22 Sinope: Garlan & Kassab Tezgör 1996, 333, fig. 10; Messembria: Kuzmanov 1985, 

pl. 7.A 63.

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 1.3-4

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 1.5 

Fig. 1.6 

Fig. 1.7 

Fig. 1. Sinopean “carrot” amphorae. 1-2: Belinskoye (after Zubarev 2003, 

fig. 6a, 6b); 3-4: Sinope (after Kassab Tezgör et al. 2003, pl. IX.15, 16); 

5: Sinope (after Garlan & Kassab Tezgör 1996, fig. 10); 6: Sinope, 

Demirci (after Kassab Tezgör et al. 2003, pl. IX.17); 7: Athenian Agora 

(courtesy of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens).

A. Opaiţ / 


accentuated conical with a small constriction in the middle. The dimensions 

are smaller than those of the previous subtype: DR 7-9, H 64-73, and 

DM ca. 24. Since subtypes 1 and 2 overlapped chronologically, I wonder if we 

cannot consider them as large and medium variants of the same subtype. 

However, only more discoveries from closed archaeological contexts will clarify 

this matter. Examples of subtype 2 have capacities varying between 8.4 

and 9.6 litres. 

Subtype 3. Small Sinopean “Carrot” Amphorae (Kassab Tezgör C Snp III-2 a, b) 

Around the second quarter of the 5 th century the neck became more elongated 

and the body began to narrow, ending in a sharp conical base. The rim of 

these later examples continues to have a profiled band, but is slightly narrower, 

usually with sharper ridges. Occasionally, its peak (especially in examples of 

the smallest size) is beveled toward the interior. The neck is also slightly 

enlarged at its upper part. The handles are ovoid in section with a longitudinal 

rib; they are attached at the middle of the neck and on the middle of the sloping 

shoulders. The body is conical and elongated. The dimensions are: 

DR 6.5-9.0, H 80-90, and DM 20-22. This subtype occurs frequently at 

Demirci (fig. 1.6), 23 Chersonesos, 24 Messembria, 25 Topraichioi (Dobrudja). 26 

Worth mentioning are three shipwrecks discovered off Sinope that were carrying 

this amphora subtype. 27 In my opinion, they all foundered at the same time, 

perhaps during a storm, around the middle or third quarter of the 5 th century. 28 

The capacities of examples of this subtype vary between 5.6 and 5.9 litres. 

Although this type is well-known in the Pontic area it becomes quite rare 

in the eastern Mediterranean. We are aware only of two complete amphorae 

discovered in the Athenian Agora: one of subtype 1, 29 and the second of 

subtype 3 (fig. 1.7). 30 The southernmost discovery of this type, an upper vessel 

fragment of subtype 1, comes from the harbour at Caesarea. 31 

23 Garlan & Kassab Tezgör 1996, 333, fig. 11; Kassab Tezgör & Tatlıcan 1998, 429, fig. 9; 

Kassab Tezgör & Dereli 2001, 222, fig. 16; 223, fig. 17 D; Kassab Tezgör 2010, pl. 17.7-8. 

24 Yakobson 1979, 9, fig. 1.1; Sazanov 1995, fig. 5; Golofast 2001, 105, fig. 4.11-17. 

25 Kuzmanov 1985, pl. 7.A 65-66. 

26 Opaiţ 1991b, 255, no. 47, pl. 23.4; the amphora fragment comes from a level dated to 

around AD 440-450. 

27 Ballard et al. 2001, 616-618, figs. 16-18; Horlings 2005, cf. the contribution by Ch. Ward 

in this volume. 

28 Among the other amphorae, a mid 5 th -century subtype of LRA1 was discovered. All the 

“carrot” amphorae discovered on these three wrecks belong to subtype 3. 

29 Unpublished example; P 15561: DR 10.2, DH 3.3/2.4, DM 27.2, H 73.4, weight 

6.5 kg. I am grateful to Professor J. Camp for allowing me to use the examples from the Agora. 

30 Unpublished example; P 31413: DR 7, DH 3.2/2.2, DM 22, H 80.5, weight 3.5kg. 

31 Tomber 1999, 317, fig. 7.99.

A. Opaiţ / 


Amphorae from Various Workshops 

As mentioned above, this amphora shape was widely imitated and it would 

be a mistake to conclude that it was manufactured only at Demirci, the huge 

amphora workshop excavated by D. Kassab Tezgör near Sinope. The following 

brief presentation of some examples discovered at Chersonesos, on the 

northern side of the Belbek valley, 32 at Bezÿmyannaya, a fortified settlement 

on the border of the Chersonesan chora, 33 at Mangup, 34 at Troesmis 35 and at 

Topraichioi 36 (Dobrudja) is intended to exemplify the large number of potters 

and workshops involved in the manufacture of this popular wine 

amphora. The following variants belong to subtype 1. 

A. The first variant has the rim pulled toward the interior under the lip. 

Amphorae of this variant seem to have the largest capacity. The fabric varies 

from very rich to moderate in pyroxene, with various quantities of calcareous 

material, which is sometimes fossiliferous 37 (figs. 2.1-3; 3.1); 38 two examples 

have no pyroxene but only abundant, tiny calcareous inclusions (foraminifera), 

moderate to sparse small brownish-orange inclusions (iron minerals?) 

and large red-brownish iron-rich clay pellets(?), suggesting they were manufactured 

somewhere other than Sinope (fig. 3.2-3; color fig. 10.5-6). 39 

32 The rescue excavation was conducted by O.Y. Savelia in 1964-1965; see the archive of the 

National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos, file no. 1198.m. The material is stored in the Archaeological 

Museum of Chersonesos. I am very grateful to O.Y. Savelia for allowing me to publish 

this material. 

33 Excavation was undertaken by a joint team lead by Professor J.C. Carter and 

Dr. G.M. Nikolaenko. 

34 I would like to thank Professor A. Gertsen for allowing me to use amphora fragments 

from his excavation. 

35 Opaiţ 1980. 

36 Opaiţ 1991b. 

37 These fabric descriptions should be considered as tentative. Their main purpose is to 

determine overall pictures of certain amphora types and production centres. The fabric variables 

of the freshly-broken sherds were characterized by using a Nikon field microscope (15 × magnification). 

The description is deliberately general, so as to avoid any inaccuracies in temper identification. 

The terminology adopted in this description follows that used by Tomber & Dore 

1998. The colour is defined according to the Munsell colour charts. Colour photographs of 

freshly-broken sherds illustrate each fabric. The texture of the analyzed fragments varies between 

fine and irregular, hard with a rough surface. 

38 The illustrated pieces have the following dimensions: fig. 2.1: Belbek valley, inv. no. 41/36603, 

DR 11.8; PH 13; fig. 2.2: Belbek valley, inv. no. 55/36603, DR 11.6, PH 17.6; fig. 2.3: 

Chersonesos, without inventory number, DR 11.6, PH 15; fig. 3.1: Belbek valley, inv. no. 45/36603, 

DR 10.5; PH 16. 

39 Fig. 3.2: Chersonesos bay, inv. no. 12/36603, DR 12.2; PH 28.6; fig. 3.3: Belbek valley, 

inv. no. 80/36603, DR 11.8, PH 24.5.

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 2.1 

Fig. 2.2

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 2.3 

Fig. 2. Amphorae of subtype 1 A. 1: Belbek valley, inv. no. 41/36603; 

2: Belbek valley, inv. no. 55/36603; 3: Chersonesos, without inventory 

number (courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of Chersonesos). 

B. The second variant has a straight rim. An interesting feature is the presence 

of small, vertical incisions made on the top of the neck before a small roll 

of clay was modelled and added to form the rim. These incisions helped to 

improve adherence between the rim and neck. Some internal finger indentations 

at the point of the handle’s upper attachment are visible (figs. 4.1a-b, 

4.2 a-b; color fig. 10.7-8). 40 The fabrics of these two examples lack pyroxene 

and are rich in tiny (

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 3.1 

Fig. 3.2

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 3.3 

Fig. 3. Amphorae of subtype 1 A. 1: Belbek valley, inv. no. 45/36603; 

2: Chersonesos bay, inv. no. 12/36603; 3: Belbek valley, inv. no. 80/36603 

(courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of Chersonesos). 

Fig. 4.1a

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 4.1b 

Fig. 4.2a

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 4.2b 

Fig. 4.3 

Fig. 4. Amphorae of subtype 1 B. 1: Belbek valley, inv. no. 43/36603; 

2: Belbek valley, inv. no. 27/36603; 3: Bezÿmyannaya, inv. no. 200 

(courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of Chersonesos).

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 5.1 

Fig. 5.2a

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 5.2b 

Fig. 5. Amphorae of subtype 1 B. 1: Belbek valley, inv. no. 49/36603; 

2: Belbek valley, inv. no. 26/36603 (courtesy of the Archaeological Museum 

of Chersonesos). 

colour varies: the exterior has a light-brownish (7.5YR 6/3-6/4) colour while 

the interior is light red (2.5YR 6/8). 

C. The third variant is distinguished by its rim with a deep groove on the 

exterior. It is slightly flaring, while its upper part has a shallow concavity or is 

beveled on the exterior. Its fabric is red (10R 5/8), and very rich in pyroxene 

and foraminifera (fig. 6.1; color fig. 10.12). 42 

D. This variant has a rim with deep grooves on the exterior. One example 

has a light-brown (7.5YR 6/4) fabric with dark-brownish particles (iron 

minerals?) (fig. 6.2; color fig. 10.13). 43 A second example has a light red 

(2.5YR 6/6-6/8) and also lacks pyroxene, but is abundant in quartz and dark 

red-brownish inclusions (fig. 6.3; color fig. 10.14). 44 

E. This variant is an isolated example among the amphorae discovered at 

the Belbek valley site. It is distinguished by a convex upper part to the rim, 

42 Fig. 6.1: Belbek valley, inv. no. 39/36603, DR 10.6, PH 15. 

43 Fig. 6.2: Belbek valley, inv. no. 57/36603, DR 10, PH 11. 

44 Fig. 6.3: Belbek valley, inv. no. 48/36603, DR 11.8, PH 16.

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 6.1 

Fig. 6.2

A. Opaiţ / 


while on the exterior a sharp ridge separates the rim from the neck. The fabric is 

light red (2.5YR 6/8) with common quartz and spars to common brownishorange 

inclusions and spots (iron minerals?) (fig. 7.1; color fig. 10.15). 45 

2. Heraklean “Carrot” Amphorae 

Fig. 6.3 

Fig. 6. Amphorae of subtypes 1 C and 1 D. 1: Belbek valley, 

inv. no. 39/36603; 2: Belbek valley, inv. no. 57/36603; 3: Belbek valley, 

inv. no. 48/36603 (courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of Chersonesos). 

A similar amphora type was perhaps manufactured in the Heraklea region. 

The rim of this subtype has a deep groove and its top is flat; no sharp ridge 

separates the rim from the neck, as is the case with the previous subtype. The 

neck is cylindrical, widening slightly towards the lower part. The handles are 

more parallel to the neck than to the shoulder; they are massive, ovoid in section, 

with an asymmetric median rib. Particularly interesting is the upper 

attachment, which widens and covers a large area of the neck. The body is 

conical and ends in a conical base. Shallow grooves occur on the neck and 

body. The earliest amphorae of this subtype seem to have a shorter neck, with 

45 Fig. 7.1: Belbek valley, inv. no. 53/36603, DR 12.4, PH 40.

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 

Fig. 7. Amphorae of subtypes 1 E and 2. 1: Belbek valley, inv. no. 53/36603; 2: Belbek valley, inv. no. 42/36603 

(courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of Chersonesos).

A. Opaiţ / 


the upper handle attachment located closer to the rim, and a wider body, as 

is the case with an amphora discovered at Gusinka (fig. 8.1a-b). 46 The later 

amphorae, such as the examples from Topraichioi, 47 the Athenian Agora 

(P-31394), 48 and Kerameikos, have a taller neck with the upper handle 

attachment placed in the middle. Initially, the rim varied between 7.5 and 

8 cm; later, it narrowed to measure only 7 cm (at Topraichioi) and 6.8 cm 

(Agora). The height decreased from 80 (Kerameikos) 49 to 59.8 cm (Agora). 50 

The DM ranges between 24.5 (Kerameikos) and 20.8 cm (Agora). This 

subtype follows the same evolutionary tendency as the Sinopean type. 

Another distinguishing characteristic is the fabric of this subtype. The 

colour varies between pink (7.5YR 8/4) and light brown (7.5YR 6/4). The 

temper is ill-assorted, with common to abundant rounded and sub-rounded 

pyroxenes (

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 8.1a 

Fig. 8.1b 

Fig. 8. Heraklean amphorae. 1: Gusinka (after Sÿmonovich 1971, 

232, fig. b); 2: Topraichioi (after Opait 1991b, pl. 24.1).

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 8.2 

3. North Pontic “Carrot” Amphorae 

The following examples convincingly show that this new fashion in amphora 

design spread rapidly across the Pontus and that northern potters imitated 

Sinopean “carrot” amphorae from the very beginning. 

Transitional Phase 

Although we have not been able to find any complete examples to illustrate 

this type, some upper amphora fragments discovered at Bezÿmyannaya have 

provided us with enough information to identify them as a transitional shape. 

The rim can be identical to those of the Sinopean amphorae, i.e., thickened 

with a ridge separating the rim from the neck. However, the handles are identical 

to those of north Pontic type Zeest 72 – ovoid in section, with grooves 

on the exterior, and sometimes with a deep longitudinal cut on the interior

A. Opaiţ / 


of the handle. The fabric is also identical to that of Zeest 72; evidence that 

these types were made in the same workshops (fig. 9.1; color fig. 10.18). 57 Due 

to its strong morphological connection to Zeest 72, a date towards the last 

quarter of the 3 rd century is not excluded. The fabric has a powdery surface 

when it is broken and has a red (2.5YR 5/8) to light-red (2.5YR 6/8) colour. 

It is calcite and iron rich with tiny, common to abundant white inclusions of 

calcites, sparse large (1-1.5 mm) black inclusions (iron minerals?) and isolated 

large (6-7 mm) brownish inclusions (sandstone with ferruginous cement?). 

Type 1 

This type is known in the Russian literature as the so-called “Delakeu type”. 58 

The rim of this subtype is collar-like, with a shallow groove on top and on its 

exterior. Worth pointing out is the lack of a deep undercut of the rim, which 

has, in most cases, a trapezoid profile. The neck is truncated conical with 

broad handles. The section of these handles, however, differs from the Sinopean 

handles, as they have a median rib typical of local amphorae. The body 

is conical and has a more accentuated constriction in its middle than many 

of the Sinopean examples. The illustrated example comes from the settlement 

of Kamenka-Anchekrak (Ukraine) (fig. 9.2). 59 According to Magomedov’s 

description of this fabric, which is rich in calcareous material, some of these 

amphorae may have been manufactured in the territory of Chersonesos. The 

earliest example of this subtype appears to have been discovered at Belinskoye, 

and is dated to not before the last quarter or the end of the 3 rd century; many 

examples were found in a level destroyed perhaps in AD 322. 60 Rim profiles 

similar to those discovered at Kamenka-Anchekrak (fig. 9.3) 61 and Mangup 

(fig. 9.4; color fig. 10.19) 62 have been discovered in the Athenian Agora in a 

context dated to the third quarter of the 4 th century. 63 Another fragmentary 

vessel has been found in the amphora complex from the Belbek valley; its 

57 Bezÿmyannaya, inv. no.117, DR 10.6, PH 11.5. 

58 I do not believe that all the amphorae of Delakeu type have a north Pontic origin; some 

must have been Sinopean. The north Pontic jars of this subtype can be easily confused with the 

south Pontic subtype 1 (see above). We can assign them to a north or south Pontic workshop 

only following fabric analysis. 

59 Magomedov 2006, fig. 2.1. Dimensions: DR 11.6, DM 35, H 75. 

60 Yurochkin & Zubarev 2001, 460-462, figs. 1.1, 4; Zubarev 2005, 82, fig. 5. Although 

these authors indicate that these amphora fragments belong to the Delakeu type, the fabric 

descriptions (type one as “light red” and type two as “red”) are very simplistic. I wonder 

whether some examples do not, in fact, originate from Sinope. 

61 Magomedov 1991, figs. 17; 18.6. 

62 I am grateful to Professor Gertsen for allowing me to draw this amphora fragment. 

Dimensions: DR 12.5, PH 9.6. 

63 Opaiţ 2010, 108-130.

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 9.2 

Fig. 9.1 

Fig. 9.3

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 9.4 

Fig. 9.6 

Fig. 9.5 

Fig. 9. North Pontic amphorae. 1: Bezÿmyannaya 

(courtesy of the Archaeological Museum of 

Chersonesos); 2: Kamenka-Anchekrak (after 

Magomedov 2006, fig. 2.1); 3: Kamenka- 

Anchekrak (Magomedov 1991, fig. 18.1); 

4: Mangup (courtesy of Professor A.G. Gertsen); 

5: Topraichioi (after Opaiţ 2004, pl. 9.1); 

6: Troesmis (after Opaiţ 1980, pl. X.3). 

Fig. 9.5

A. Opaiţ / 


deeply grooved rim suggests an imitation of the Sinopean subtype 2 (fig. 7.2; 

color fig. 10.16). 64 This fabric is also rich in calcareous material. Remarkable 

are the numerous discoveries of this type in the territory of the Chernyakhov 

culture 65 and beyond the Chersonesan territory, such as at Mangup. 66 The 

fabric is red (10R 5/8). The clay matrix is calcareous with a fine texture and 

regular fracture. It is rich in inclusions of calcareous material varying in size 

between 0.5 and 1 mm, while brownish iron minerals are less present and 

much finer (< 0.5 mm). 

Type 2 

This type has a typical “carrot” shape, the rim is constricted and the top is 

slightly beveled on the exterior. It is the equivalent of the medium-sized Sinopean 

“carrot” amphorae. The mouth is narrow, only 6-8 cm. The body of a 

completely preserved example discovered in Dobrudja at Topraichioi is 

slightly ridged with a small constriction in the middle (fig. 9.5). 67 It is dated 

from the end of the 4 th to the first decade of the 5 th century AD. The capacity 

of this type is small, varying between 4 and 7 litres. 68 It is distinguished from 

the previous subtype not only by some morphological details but also by its 

fabric, which is rich in iron oxides with common to abundant iron ore nodules 

(3-4 mm) and tiny white particles (calcites?). Another variant has been 

discovered at Troesmis (fig. 9.6; color fig. 10.20). 69 As its neck is more cylindrical 

and taller, I do not exclude a later date. It might, therefore, be an imitation 

of the Sinopean “carrot” subtype 3. Although the fabric of this find is 

quite similar to that of the Topraichioi example, the exterior is covered by a 

whitish slip, a technique that was also used by north Pontic potters. 

In my previous work 70 I concluded that this type had its origin in Seleucia 

in Pieria, 71 but now I tentatively assign this variant to a Pontic production. It 

seems to be a well-known type on the Lower Danube since it occurs at 

Topraichioi and Murighiol in the second half of the 4 th century and the first 

64 Fig. 7.2: Belbek valley, inv. no. 42/36603, DR 11, PH 31.5. 

65 Magomedov 2006, fig. 4. 

66 Gertsen & Manaev 2005, figs. 9.4; 15.4; 18.2. 

67 Opaiţ 2004, pl. 9.1-3. Dimensions: DR 7.5, DH 2.6/1.8, DM 18.5, H 57.0; 

capacity 4.3 litres. 

68 Opaiţ 1991b, 219-220, 255, no. 51, pl. 25.1. 

69 Opaiţ 1980, 306-308, pls. X.3, XII.4. Dimensions: DR 8, PH 17. 

70 Opaiţ 2004, 23, pl. 9.1. 

71 Empereur & Picon 1989, 232, fig. 9; Opaiţ 2004, 23. Recently, P. Reynolds stated that 

the amphora fragments considered as being made in Seleucia in Pieria represent only “part of a 

dump of amphorae, a testaccio, associated with a warehouse for Sinope imports located by the 

docks” (Reynolds 2005, 566).

A. Opaiţ / 


half of the 5 th century AD, 72 at Iatrus, 73 and on the southern Pontic coast at 

Amasra. 74 Further south it occurs at Ephesus, 75 Tarsus, 76 Lebanon, 77 Bodrum, 

Adana, Ras el Bassit and Egypt. 78 

Conclusion 

The recent amphora discoveries made in the Chersonesos area and in the 

eastern part of Romania have enlarged the repertoire of “carrot” amphora 

variants and have helped us to understand better the new “amphora koiné” 

that occurred in the Pontic basin during the 4 th century AD. The reason 

behind the adoption of this type, whether its marketable shape or its contents, 

is still debateable. It is interesting that the adoption of the “carrot” 

shape occurred at Chersonesos in parallel with the existence of other local 

late Roman amphorae that originated from the earlier Zeest 72-73 types. The 

same phenomenon occurred at Heraklea with a parallel production of both 

“carrot” imitations and the local shape of type Shelov F. It is also true that 

these “carrot” imitations seem to be present in lower proportions among the 

Chersonesan and Heraklean productions. However, from a quantitative point 

of view, the difference between “non-carrot” and “carrot” vessels must be considered 

in relation to the quantity of wine transported by “carrot” amphorae, 

especially by imitations of the first Sinopean subtype, which have capacities 

of over 30 litres. The capacity of these vessels is five times larger than that of a 

Heraklean amphora of type Shelov F and is equal to Chersonesan local 

amphorae. Consequently, it seems less likely that a marketable shape was the 

decisive element in the production of imitation “carrot” amphorae. 

Another hypothesis is that these shape imitations were intended to indicate 

the contents of the amphorae. 79 This was the case, for example, with 

wine produced in accordance with the Koan process; the Koan vine being 

naturalized and propagated by cuttings in new geographic areas. 80 Most 

likely, as the Koan vine spread, so the Koan amphora shape, with its bifid 

72 Opaiţ 1991a; 1991b. 

73 Böttger 1982, 51, type III 2. 

74 Kassab Tezgör in print. 

75 Personal observation. 

76 Jones 1950, 278, no. 831, pl. 166. 

77 Zemer 1978, 49, no. 40. 

78 Empereur & Picon 1989, 232, n. 22; unfortunately there are no detailed fabric descriptions 

of these finds. 

79 Tchernia 1997, 124. 

80 Grace 1965, 10; Tchernia 1997, 124.

A. Opaiţ / 


handles, was adopted widely across the central and western Mediterranean 

and in the Black Sea region. It cannot be excluded that this was also the 

scenario with the Sinopean wine transported by “carrot” amphorae, a shape 

that found much favour on the northern and southwestern shores of the 

Black Sea. We can infer an active exchange of ideas and viticultural techniques 

among these wine-producing Pontic centres. It is also possible that the 

boom in the production of Sinopean wine may have been due to a strategic 

choice of high quantity over high quality made by landowners. The Pontic 

“carrot” amphora may be evidence that Sinopean grape types were experimented 

with and introduced to other regions in a continuous effort to 

increase wine production. In addition, the high degree of standardization of 

these wine containers attests to a uniformity of quality of the contents, a system 

evidenced across the Roman world. 81 The official control of these amphorae 

is confirmed not only by standardization but also by some dipinti in red 

that occur on the neck. 82 The occurrence of imitation “carrot” amphora during 

the 4 th century AD is only one ring in the chain of interregional economic 

connections that existed from Hellenistic to Byzantine times in the 

Pontic area. 

Bibliography 

Alekseeva, E.M. 1997: Antichnÿï gorod Gorgippiya (Moscow). 

Ballard, D.R., Hiebert, F.T., Coleman, D.F., Ward, C., Smith, S.J., Willis, K., Foley, B., Croff, K., 

Major, C. & Torre, F. 2001: Deepwater Archaeology of the Black Sea: the 2000 Season at 

Sinop, Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology 105, 607-623. 

Bauzou, T. 2000: La Gaza romaine (69 B.C.E.-403 C.E.). In J.-B. Humbert (ed.), Gaza méditerranéenne: 

Histoire et archéologie en Palestine (Paris), 47-72. 

Bjelajac, L. 1996: Amfore gornjo mezijskog Podunavia (Belgrade). 

Böttger, B. 1982: Die Gefäßkeramik aus dem Kastell Iatrus. In Iatrus-Krivina: Spätantike Befestigung 

und frühmittelalterliche Siedlung an der unteren Donau, 2: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 

1966-1973 (Berlin), 33-148. 

Böttger, B. 1992: Die kaiserzeitlichen und spätantiken Amphoren aus dem Kerameikos. 

MDAIAA 107, 315-381. 

Braund, D. 1997: Greeks and Barbarians: the Black Sea Region and Hellenism under the Early 

Empire. In S.E. Alcock (ed.), The Early Roman Empire and the East (Oxford), 121-136. 

Empereur, J.-Y. & Picon, M. 1989: Les régions de production d’amphores impériales en Méditerranée 

orientale. In Amphores romaines et histoire économique: dix ans de recherche (Collection 

de l’École Française de Rome 114) (Rome), 223-248. 

81 Purcell 1985, 19. 

82 During a visit to the amphora workshop at Demirci near Sinop in May 2009, I saw an 

amphora neck with dipinti. This is a valuable evidence that official control of the bottling was 

conducted on the spot at Demirci.

A. Opaiţ / 


Garlan, Y. 1999: Avant-propos. In Y. Garlan (ed.), Production et commerce des amphores anciennes 

en mer Noire. Actes du Colloque international d’Istanbul, 25-28 mai 1994 (Aix-en- 

Provence), 7-9. 

Garlan, Y. & Kassab Tezgör, D. 1996: Prospection d’ateliers d’amphores et de céramiques de 

Sinope. Anatolia Antiqua 4, 325-334. 

Gertsen, A.G. & Manaev, A.Yu. 2005: Demir-Kapu (ukreplenie a. XVIII) v sisteme 

oboronitel’nÿkh sooruzheniï Mangupa. MAIET 11, 314-345. 

Golofast, L.A. 2001: Steklo rannevizantiïskogo Khersonesa. MAIET 8, 97-260. 

Grace, V. 1965: The Commercial Amphoras from the Antikythera Shipwreck. Transactions of 

the American Philosophical Society 55, 5-17. 

Greene, K. 2006: Archaeological Data and Economic Interpretation. In P.F. Bang, M. Ikeguchi 

& H.G. Ziche (eds.), Ancient Economies, Modern Methodologies. Archaeology, Comparative 

History, Models and Institutions (Bari), 109-136. 

Horlings, R. 2005: Deepwater Survey, Archaeological Investigation and Historical Contexts of Three 

Late Antique Black Sea Shipwrecks. M.A. thesis (Department of Anthropology, Florida State 

University, Tallahassee). http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/ theses/available/etd-04112005-171030/ 

Jones, F.F. 1950: The Pottery. In H. Goldman (ed.), Excavations at Gözlü Küle, Tarsus I. The Hellenistic 

and Roman periods (Princeton), 149-296. 

Kassab Tezgör, D. 2010: Typologie des amphores sinopéennes. In D. Kassab Tezgör (ed.), Les 

fouilles et le matériel de l’atelier amphorique de Demirci près de Sinope (Varia Anatolica 22) 

(Istanbul, Paris), 121-140. 

Kassab Tezgör, D. in print: Types amphoriques romains tardifs produits simultanément à Demirci 

près de Sinope et dans d’autres centres de mer Noire. In T. Stoyanov, A. Bozkova & 

Ch. Tzochev (eds.), Production and Trade of Amphorae in the Black Sea: PATABS II. Acts of the 

International Round-Table held in Kiten, Nessebar & Sredetz, September 26-30, 2007 

(Sofia). 

Kassab Tezgör, D. & Tatlıcan, I. 1998: Fouilles des ateliers d’amphores à Demirci près de Sinop 

en 1996 et 1997. Anatolia Antiqua 6, 423-442. 

Kassab Tezgör, D. & Dereli, F. 2001: Rapport de la fouille de Demirci-Sinop 2000. Anatolia 

Antiqua 9, 215-225. 

Kassab Tezgör, D., Lemaître, S. & Pieri, D. 2003: La collection d’amphores d’Ismail Karakan à 

Sinop. Anatolia Antiqua 11, 169-200. 

Keay S.J. 1992: The Siena Amphora Conference: Part 1: Amphorae and the Roman Economy. 

Journal of Roman Archaeology 5, 353-60. 

Kuzmanov, G. 1985: Céramique de la Haute Époque Byzantine provenant de Thrace et de Dacie 

(IVe – début du VIIe S.) (Fouilles et Recherches 12) (Sofia). 

Magomedov, B.V. 1991: Kamenka-Anchekrak. Poselenie Chernyakhovkoï kul’turÿ (Kiev). 

Magomedov, B.V. 2006, Rimskie amforÿ v Chernyakhovskoï kul’ture. In Gotÿ i Rim (Kiev), 

52-59. 

Millett, M. 1997: A View from the West. In S.E. Alcock (ed.), The Early Roman Empire in the 

East (Oxford), 200-203. 

Morel, J.-P. 1999: Remarques sur les amphores de la Mer Noire. In Y. Garlan (ed.), Production et 

commerce des amphores anciennes en mer Noire. Actes du Colloque international d’Istanbul, 

25-28 mai 1994 (Aix-en-Provence), 281-286. 

Morris, I. 2005: Archaeology, Standards of Living, and Greek Economic History. In J.G. Manning 

& I. Morris (eds.), The Ancient Economy. Evidence and Models (Stanford), 91-126. 

Opaiţ, A. 1980: Consideratii preliminare asupra amforelor romane si romano-bizantine din 

Dobrogea. Peuce 8, 291-327.

A. Opaiţ / 


Opaiţ, A. 1991a: Ceramica din aşezarea şi cetatea de la Independenţa (Murighiol), sec.V 

î.e.n.-VII e.n. In A. Opaiţ, M. Zahariade, Gh. Poenaru-Bordea & C. Opaiţ, Fortificaţia şi 

aşezarea romană tîrzie de la Babadag-Topraichioi. Peuce 10, 133-182. 

Opaiţ, A. 1991b: Ceramica. In A. Opaiţ, M. Zahariade, Gh. Poenaru-Bordea & C. Opaiţ, 

Fortificaţia şi aşezarea romană tîrzie de la Babadag-Topraichioi. Peuce 10, 211-260. 

Opaiţ, A. 2004 : Local and Imported Ceramics in the Roman Province of Scythia (4 th -6 th Centuries 

AD) (BAR IS 1274) (Oxford). 

Opaiţ, A. 2010: Pontic Wine on the Athenian Market, in D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi & K. Kousoulakou 

(eds.), Late Antique Ceramics from Greece (3rd-7th centuries). Proceedings of the Symposium, 

Thessaloniki, November 12th-16th 2006 (Thessaloniki), 108-130. 

Purcell, N. 1985: Wine and Wealth in Ancient Italy. JRS 75, 1-19. 

Reynolds, P. 2005: Levantine Amphorae from Cilicia to Gaza: a Typology and Analysis of 

Regional Production Trends from the 1 st to 7 th Centuries. In J.Ma Gurt i Esparraguera, 

J. Buxeda i Garrigós & M.A. Cau Ontiveros (eds.), Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking 

Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean (BAR IS 1340) (Oxford), 563-612. 

Sazanov, A.V. 1995: Amforÿ “carrots” v Severnom Prichernomor’e rannevizantiïskogo vremeni. 

Tipologiya i khronologiya. Bosporskii sbornik 6, 185-96. 

Sÿmonovich, E. A. 1971: Nakhodka pozdneantichnoï amforÿ iz Kurskoï oblasti, SA no. 4, 

231-232. 

Tchernia, A. 1997: Le tonneau, de la bière au vin. In D. Garcia & D. Meeks (eds.), Techniques 

et économie antiques et médiévales. Temps de l’innovation (Paris), 120-129. 

Tomber, R. 1999: Pottery from the Sediments of the Inner Harbour (Area I14). In K.G. Holum, 

A. Raban & J. Patrich (eds.), Caesarea Papers 2. Herod’s Temple, the Provincial Governor’s 

Praetorium and Granaries, the Later Harbour, a Gold Coin Hoard, and Other Studies ( Journal 

of Roman Studies Supplement 35) (Portsmouth), 295-322. 

Tomber, R. & Dore, J. 1998: The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: A Handbook 

(MoLAS Monograph Series 2) (London). 

Vnukov, S.Yu. 2003: Prichernomorskie amforÿ I v. do n. é.–II v. n. é. (morfologiya), I (Moscow). 

Yakobson, A.L. 1979: Keramika i keramicheskoe proizvodstvo srednevekovoï Tavriki (Leningrad). 

Yurochkin V.Yu & Zubarev, V.G. 2001: Kompleks s monetami IV veka iz raskopok gorodishcha 

Belinskoe. Drevnosti Bospora 4, 454-473. 

Zeest, I.B. 1960: Keramicheskaya tara Bospora (MIA 83) (Moscow). 

Zemer, A. 1978: Storage Jars in Ancient Sea Trade (Haifa). 

Zubarev, V.G. 2003: Nekotorÿe osobennosti sakral’noï zhizni naseleniya sel’skoï territorii 

Evropeïskogo Bospora v pervÿkh vekakh n. é. (po materialam gorodishcha Belinskoe). 

Drevnosti Bospora 6, 138-151. 

Zubarev, V.G. 2005: Vozmozhnosti ispol’zovaniya amfornÿkh innovatsiï pri datirovanii sloev i 

kompleksov poseleniï (iz praktiki raskopok gorodishcha Belinskoe). Bosporskie issledovaniya 

10, 80-89. 

Abbreviations 

BAR IS British Archaeological Reports. International Series (Oxford). 

MAIET Materialÿ po arkheologii, istorii i étnografii Tavrii (Simferopol). 

MDAIAA Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Athenische Abteilung (Athens). 

SA Sovetskaya arkheologiya (Moscow).

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 10.1 

Fig. 10.2 

Fig. 10.3 

Fig. 10.4

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 10.5 

Fig. 10.6 

Fig. 10.7 

Fig. 10.8

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 10.9 

Fig. 10.10 

Fig. 10.11 

Fig. 10.12

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 10.13 

Fig. 10.14 

Fig. 10.15 

Fig. 10.16

A. Opaiţ / 


Fig. 10.17 

Fig. 10.18 

Fig. 10.19 

Fig. 10.20

Sinopean, Heraklean and Chersonesan “Carrot” Amphorae

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?