ABSTRACT
The reasonable inferences from these and more general facts are disappointing. First, the presence or absence of Greek pottery has different meanings in different places. In Europe an urban settlement using an appreciable quantity of pottery that was not Greek was itself not Greek; if it also used Greek pottery it traded with Greeks, and if it did not use Greek pottery it did not trade with Greeks. But in the East an appreciable quantity of Greek pottery is evidence of Greek residents, commercial or military, and the absence of Greek pottery does not preclude trade with Greeks. Secondly, though pottery made up a part of Greek trade, it was presumably a minor and inconstant part, so that the total value of trade cannot be estimated from pottery. Thirdly, the comparative value of the exports of different cities cannot be related to the pottery they made, since most Greek cities made no pottery to export. Fourthly, Greek trade was not organized strictly or elaborately. If pottery of one of the less important wares was exported in some quantity from the place where it was made to some other place, the likeliest explanation of its export is direct trade between the two places. But the universally admired wares may often have been traded indirectly. These last two assertions have a little support in merchants' marks on a few Attic pots and perhaps in the painted dedications on Chiot chalices; on the other hand the Attic Nikosthenic amphora looks to have been designed particularly for the Etruscans.
