A possibility of further research and another paper. The topic the author discusses is quite specific and, at large, seemingly inconsequential if they did not mention the importance of these various other vessels until now. Though, they mention there is a lack of evidence regarding these vessels as many might have just been destroyed, undocumented, or otherwise.

further justification for the new conclusion based on item 5 from above. It tells of the importance of fish in the Greek world but does not preclude the notion that amphorae were the vessels used or that the trade was immense and regular.

Supports the authors' new conclusion that the trade was small scale or irregular.

The main conclusion that the authors have come to

"Refer to item 3".

This is the main piece of evidence the authors have regarding their initial claim that is not almost immediately invalidated.

This is the conclusion that the authors came to after observing and analyzing the available evidence.

Aha, as I mentioned before, nowhere in this section does it mention amphorae, much less Black Sea amphorae, were used in the transport of fish.

While this may be true, the aforementioned speech mentioned just the opposite with two merchants charged with the mismanagement of 3000 amphorae assuming that 12 jars of fish, 2 hampers of wool and 3 bundles of goatskin would suffice as an excuse.

This could prove a point were the number of jars of fish transported such a partly sum. The story itself comes from a speech in which two merchants lied about obtaining fish from the Black Sea as a plausible cover story.

This is merely hearsay at this point.

The primary source mentioned determines neither the veracity of the goods being from the Black Sea, nor the presence of transport amphorae

Refer to item 5 from above. Several things to point out here. First, simply because a primary source mentioned the importance of fishing does not equate to the importance of fish in international trade. Additionally, at no point does this lend itself to the notion that amphorae were used to transport fish.

Another dead end in terms of providing proper evidence.

See item 3 from above. These are mere writings and are not really indicative of the true contents of the vessel. Indeed, with this repurposing, it becomes more difficult to determine the original uses of the amphorae in question.

Perhaps some of the transport amphorae were repurposed to be used as storage vessels for local use. This would mean the primary sources would be even more difficult to obtain and ascertain.

About the previous note, this is not complete fact, but merely the possibility of one. Fish found in one amphora does not lead to the conclusion that fish were a transport product of the black sea in amphorae.

Refer to item 2 from above. The wide time period range is understandable as the dating was for a period over 2 millennia ago and if proven correct would support the author's claim. This is the FIRST concrete piece of possible evidence the authors have provided regarding the trade of fish.

Without proper evidence, this makes sense and thus far goes against the authors' claim that fish and fish products were transported by amphorae

A coastal town on the northern tip of Asia Minor, at the southern center of the Black Sea

Refer to Item 4 from above. As mentioned, it cannot be determined if the seals have anything to do with contents, but assuredly, the Sinopeans were associated with wine, this is certain.

Refer to Item 5 from above. Although it may be true that both grapes for wine and olives for oil were cultivated at Sinope, the logical conclusion would be it was these products that were used in the amphorae from this region. That conclusion cannot always be made.

Common assumptions were made.

Much research has occurred with transport amphorae but not much about what they held. This seems strange as that would be one of the top questions I'd imagine the researchers would be asking, "What were these amphorae used for specifically?"

This seems to be one solution the author is offering. That instead of the commonly assumed (one-amphora type = one use) that amphorae might have multiple uses. Assumptions, however, cannot be easily made without evidence.

This makes sense based on the shape of standard amphorae and several of the mentioned cities (Chios, Kos, and Lesbos) were well-renowned for their distinctive wines in the ancient world.

Items 1 and 2 will provide objective evidence about information regarding the contents of amphorae. Item 2 might be a bit difficult to maintain as the amphorae could have been contaminated but the chances of that are low compared to the error rate of the other sources. As stated, item three could be misleading and inaccurate, but could start an investigation. Item 4 is in a similar situation to item 3 in that it is our interpretation of these stamps and representations that will lead us to infer what is meant by the symbols. Item 5 is tricky as primary evidence of ancient records could certainly aid in determining contents of amphorae and usage in trade, though they can also be inaccurate or falsified. Again, chances of this are low

If it cannot be determined that fish were stored in the amphorae, it cannot be proven that the amphorae were used for the transport of fish.

One possible new technology that may be able to answer the authors' question. It will help in finding archaeological evidence for amphorae use in the fish trade.

This sentence denotes the author's purpose for writing as well as the questions he wants to answer.

This is important because the subsequently mentioned authors improved the lack of knowledge surrounding transport amphorae that was present previously. It feels strange though that it took over 130 years before a large change in thought occurred. Even then, it's been 35 years since then, I wonder how much more has changed than what's been mentioned.

Is this meaning more of "a new world to explore" or "a new land to pillage and conquer"? It reminds me of the advent of Hellenization after the death of Alexander as increasingly more Greek settlers made their way to "barbaric lands" like Bactria. The Greek saw those lands as ripe with raw resources for their own purposes.

Body of water between the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea

First, what exactly are transport amphorae? How are they different from standard amphorae? Additionally, the phrase "evidence of trade" seems strange in this context. If these special amphorae were used as a means of carrying goods across long distances, what other purpose would it serve other than trade.

These are container vessels that were used to hold liquids such as oil, milk, wine, or fine products like grains. They typically have stout bodies with long necks. Two handlebars serve as holding grips and are sometimes decorated