3 ms·

A minor nitpick from the article as the author writes that amphorae were used only for liquids like wine. That's incorrect, it was used for all kinds of unpack

by jq-r 5y ago

A minor nitpick from the article as the author writes that amphorae were used only for liquids like wine. That's incorrect, it was used for all kinds of unpackaged bulk good like grains, seeds (say olives), even sea shells. If you're transporting goods, you want it in containers; and amphorae were the shipping containers (quite literally) of that time. They were even used as toilets on ships.

0x_rs 5y ago
Amphorae were widespread and commonly used for all sorts of things, so much in fact that it seems there was a "standard" set of sizes and manufacturing processes, and there's one notable mound in Rome [0] made primarily with one type of amphora that, the theory goes on to explain, was too burdensome to recycle, so it was simply discarded in an orderly manner. This is pretty much in line with the standardization that happened with modern freight containers and allowed a substancial economic benefit, so the comparison is really on point. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio
ggm 5y ago
There is simply no way the author doesn't know of the multiple functional uses of amphora. Either you've misconstrued the meaning, driven a long bow from the meaning, or the author made a typo or edited a sentence too hard. They are a professional historian of the period. They know what the jars are used for. "Incorrect" is "schooling " language. I think you could find a nicer way to put this. "Surely the authors shorthand for wine is an expediency here since they undoubtedly know amphora had many purposes" or something. I might add I corrected the author on twitter for a misread one article prior and he very charitably pointed out how I hadn't read properly, unlike my uncharitable tweet so I write from experience.

3 ms·

A minor nitpick from the article as the author writes that amphorae were used only for liquids like wine. That's incorrect, it was used for all kinds of unpack

by jq-r 5y ago

0x_rs 5y ago
Amphorae were widespread and commonly used for all sorts of things, so much in fact that it seems there was a "standard" set of sizes and manufacturing processes, and there's one notable mound in Rome [0] made primarily with one type of amphora that, the theory goes on to explain, was too burdensome to recycle, so it was simply discarded in an orderly manner. This is pretty much in line with the standardization that happened with modern freight containers and allowed a substancial economic benefit, so the comparison is really on point. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Testaccio
ggm 5y ago
There is simply no way the author doesn't know of the multiple functional uses of amphora. Either you've misconstrued the meaning, driven a long bow from the meaning, or the author made a typo or edited a sentence too hard. They are a professional historian of the period. They know what the jars are used for. "Incorrect" is "schooling " language. I think you could find a nicer way to put this. "Surely the authors shorthand for wine is an expediency here since they undoubtedly know amphora had many purposes" or something. I might add I corrected the author on twitter for a misread one article prior and he very charitably pointed out how I hadn't read properly, unlike my uncharitable tweet so I write from experience.