1 The reader should also be warned that the copy editing of the book leaves much to be desired. Inconsistencies of formatting and spelling abound (Turkish place-names are often misspelled: Kuşadasi for Kuşadası; Sirince for Şirince; Didima conflates the name of the modern Turkish town with the common spelling of the ancient site Didyma); accents and other diacritical marks on both ancient and modern Greek are often incorrect or absent (e.g., Ἐπί Κ1 λε1 ώνυμου Δάλιου for Ἐπὶ Κλεωνύμου Δαλίου; Καντζιά for Κάντζια); headings are sometimes in plain text like a dangling sentence fragment. The reader will also need to consult p. 251 to decipher the abbreviations used in the catalogue descriptions: V = thickness of rim; HD = height of the rim.

2 But it is unclear why, when 17 different amphora types are listed as coming from this well, only two pieces are published here.

3 Slane, K. W., “Repair and recycling in Corinth in the archaeological record,” in Lawall, M. L. and Lund, J. (edd.), Pottery in the archaeological record: Greece and beyond (Aarhus 2011) 101 n.22Google Scholar.

4 Lawall, M. L., “Hellenistic stamped amphora handles,” in Mitsopoulos-Leon, V. and Lang-Auinger, C. (edd.), Die Basilika am Staatsmarkt in Ephesos, 2. Teil: Funde klassischer bis römischer Zeit (FiE IX/2/3, 2007) 48–53 Google Scholar, with 11 different names published here along with 12 different monogram stamps.

5 Most recently on the reasons for stamping, see Rauh, N., Autret, C. and Lund, J., “Amphora design and marketing in antiquity,” in Frass, M. (ed.), Kauf, Konsum und Märkte. Wirtschaftswelten im Fokus – Von der römischen Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Wiesbaden 2013) 150–51Google Scholar, where an elaborate hypothesis, including the securing of rights to an upcoming vintage and pre-bottling payment of export taxes, is offered without supporting evidence. Forthcoming papers by M. Palazcyk (in the acta of the conferences “Analyse et exploitation des timbres amphoriques grecs” [Athens 2010] and “Traditions and innovations: tracking the development of pottery from the Late Classical to the Early Imperial periods” [Berlin 2013]) explore the issue of the identity of “fabricants” with more detailed argumentation and evidence.

6 For an attempt to tackle such issues with special attention to Roman amphora studies, see Reynolds, P., “Linear typologies and ceramic evolution,” FACTA 2 (2008) 61–87 Google Scholar.

7 This problem in amphora studies is well-recognized but seemingly insurmountable: cf. “Concluding remarks,” in Eiring, J. and Lund, J. (edd.), Transport amphorae and trade in the eastern Mediterranean (Monog. Danish Inst. Athens 5, 2004) 461–62Google Scholar.

8 E.g., Bechtold, B., Observations on the amphora repertoire of Middle Punic Carthage (Ghent 2008)Google Scholar; Göransson, K., The transport amphorae from Euesperides: the maritime trade of a Cyrenaican city 400-250 BC (Lund 2007)Google Scholar.

9 JRA 23 (2010) 445–48Google Scholar, in my review of Bechtold (supra n.8).

10 Cf. Olcese, G., Le anfore greco italiche di Ischia: archeologia e archeometria (Rome 2010) 184–229 Google Scholar; Pentedeka, A., Georgopoulou, M. and Kiriatzi, E., “Understanding local products and exploring sources of imports: petrographic and chemical analysis of Classical pottery from Kolonna, Aegina,” in Klebinder-Gauss, G., Keramik aus klassischen Kontexten im Apollo-heiligtum von Ägina-Kolonna. Lokale Produktion und Import (Vienna 2012) 102–70Google Scholar.

11 We are otherwise limited to its preliminary report: Zervoudaki, E., ADelt 33B Chron. 1978 [1985] 400–1Google Scholar, with fig. 2 (showing 4 kilns) and pls. 208γ-δ, 209α-δ (this reference is given here to correct Bezeczky’s reference of ADelt 40 [1985]Google Scholar, also cited as Zervoudaki 1978, which does not appear in the bibliography).

12 M. L. Lawall, “Archaeological context and Aegean amphora chronologies: a case study of Hellenistic Ephesos,” in Eiring and Lund (supra n.7) figs. 5-8.

13 Cankardeş-Şenol, G., “Nikandros Group: matrix studies on the amphora stamps of the Group,” Olba 18 (2010) 132 Google Scholar.

14 Manacorda, D. and Pallecchi, S. (edd.), Le fornaci romane di Giancola (Brindisi) (Bari 2012)Google Scholar.

15 Blanc-Bijon, V., Carre, M.-B., Hesnard, A. and Tchernia, A., Recueil de timbres sur amphores romaines (1989-1990 et compléments 1987-1988) (Aix-en-Provence 1995) 101, no. 774Google Scholar.

16 Hesnard, A., “L'épave La Madrague de Giens (VAR) et la plaine de Fondi (Latium),” Archaeonautica 17 (2012) 71–94 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 Mazou, L. and Capelli, C., “A local production of mid Roman 1 amphorae at Latrun, Cyrenaica,” LibSt 42 (2011) 73–76 Google Scholar.

18 These figures are presented in Lawall, M. L., “Amphoras and Hellenistic economies: addressing the (over)emphasis on stamped amphora handles,” in Archibald, Z. H., Davies, J. K. and Gabrielsen, V. (edd.), Making, moving, and managing: the new world of ancient economies, 323-31 BC (Oxford 2005) 205, Table 9.3Google Scholar.

19 T. Bezeczky (“Early Roman food import in Ephesus: amphorae from the Tetragonos Agora,” in Eiring and Lund [supra n.7] 85-97) includes screen shots of this data-base.

20 Many of the relevant sources are cited in Bezeczky’s bibliography, but they are used for their typological or chronological evidence, not as evidence for patterns of trade. See also Abadie-Reynal, C., La céramique romaine d’Argos (fin du IIe siècle avant J.-C. – fin du VI^e siècle après J.-C.) (Athens 2007)Google Scholar; and Slane, K. W., The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: the Roman pottery and Roman lamps (Corinth XVIII.2; Princeton, NJ 1990)Google Scholar. Recent theses supplement the more readily available soures: for Roman Cyprus, cf. Kaldeli, A., Roman amphorae from Cyprus: integrating trade and exchange in the Mediterranean (Ph.D. diss., University College London 2008)Google Scholar; for both Cyprus and SW Turkey, cf. Leidwanger, J., Maritime archaeology as economic history: long-term trends of Roman commerce in the northeast Mediterranean (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Pennsylvania 2011)Google Scholar, together with recently published articles by both scholars.

21 Perhaps related is a stamp from Altino, on what is identified as a Dressel 6A, reading P.CVRT[: see Toniolo, A., Le anfore di Altino (Archeologia veneta 14, 1991) 112 no. 14, 189 no. 45, fig. 254Google Scholar; and the website (http://publications.univ-provence.fr/rtar/) of the Recueil de Timbres sur Amphores Romaines, no. 3390.

22 Bezeczky, T., The Laecanius amphora stamps and the villas of Brijuni (Vienna 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.