Monolithic and composite typed wineries for grape processing have been used throughout the whole history of Bospor wine production. In total, 120 wine production facilities were discovered in Bospor, among them 80 being satisfactory and well preserved.

The monolithic wineries are represented by three types of monolithic press units. The first type /M-I/ comprises portable press units, the second one /M-II/ includes arbitrarily portable press units, and the third type /M-III/ incorporates stationary ones.

Evidently, the portable wineries spread all over the territory of Bospor, the arbitrarily portable and stationary wineries were more often met in regions rich in stones. Despite a conspicuous roughness and primitiveness of forms, the monolithic press units were easy to manufacture and effective in operation. If compared with the wineries of composite subclass, they did not require highly qualified and experienced construction workers and, while being solid and durable, could be caved quickly.

The portable monolithic press units designed for grape processing served to meet home demands and to press pulp in small composite press units. Characteristics of their press grounds did not provide for sufficient volumes of extra wine for sale in the market place.

Judging by the size of their working surface, the arbitrarily portable and stationary monolithic press units corresponded to small composite wineries with up to 1-1,5 m3 capacity. They produced wine for domestic needs to supply a limited number of people of a small township or settlement.

Such press units were unlikely to process large volumes of grape. They were not designed for those purposes due to their relatively small size. It was not possible to combine foot grape squeezing and pulp pressing there, as well as to separately collect different sorts of mashes. Accordingly, the row material processing speed of the monolithic press units was considerably lower than that of the “commercial ” composite wineries, which resulted in lower volumes of squeezed grape and lower output. Thus, the arbitrarily portable and stationary press units produced much less commercial wine than the composite market-oriented wineries with vessels of up to 5-10 m3 in capacity. It was such “commercial” wineries that more often used monolithic presses designed for stationary processing of large quantities of pulp as part of their equipment. As a rule, they were operated in ch?teaux aimed at commercial production of wine. New technologies to develop press basis were more often introduced into the “commercial” wineries than in autonomic monolithic press units.

At the early stages of the Bospor wine production, the composite winery installations coexisted alone with the monolithic press units.

With respect to the relative position of the vessels, there are two subclasses of composite press units, i.e. those with standard positioned vessels - KI, and non-standard positioned ones - KII.

Non-standard position of the vessels usually resulted from later upgrading of one tank wineries or wineries with several adjacent vessels. Actually, wineries with non-standard position of vessels were a dead-end development and hardly ever linked different types of wineries with adjacent vessels.

Depending on the number of vessels, each subclass falls into the following types of wineries.

The first subclass (KI) comprises four types of wineries; the second one (KII) includes three types.

The first type wineries of the KI (K-1) subclass have one vessel, the second type wineries (KI-2) have two adjacent vessels, the third type wineries (KI-3) have three adjacent vessels, and the fourth type wineries (KI-4) have more than three vessels.

The first type wineries of the second subclass (KII-1) have two non-adjacent vessels, the second type wineries (KII-2) have three non-adjacent vessels, and the third type wineries (KII-3) have four vessels.

It looks like the one- vessel composite wineries emerged in the territory of the state of Bospor almost simultaneously with the grape processing for the purposes of commercial production of wine. Need for expanded domestic wine production and quick payback in winery sector resulted in the advent of advanced ch?teaux equipped with expensive stationary composite wineries in Bospor in the IV-III century B. C. They were cost-effective if used only for a large-scale grape processing when wine profits exceeded press units’ operating costs. Also, they cultivated so much grape for processing that they hardly managed to process it by the less efficient monolithic press units basically designed for home production. The government might play its own role in the development of the domestic wine production. Unification of types of the early Bospor wineries may uphold this speculation. It may prove targeted protectoral measures of the Bospor authorities to develop local wine production and to support domestic wine producers. Such conditions could not have emerged at the early stage of the Bospor wine production development in the VI-V century B. C. as vine went under naturalization in Bospor. It should be noted to this respect that the composite wineries emerge in Bospor in the IV century B. C. in their mature shape. This fact prompts an idea of the existence of prototypes of, at least, early Bospor wineries not in Bospor itself but outside, in the Greek metropolis. Then Creek settlers introduced the processing and vine culture into the new land.

Between the III and II century B. C., along with the development of wine production and vine culture in Bospor, one-vessel wineries were gradually altered and upgraded. The wineries’ layout was changed in the following manner. The first option provided for adding an additional vessel to the already existing one, which stood separately from the main vessel and was situated far from the press grounds /M-1 and M-7/. Incidentally, the capacity of the main vessel almost equaled to the additional vessel. The second option provided for division of the old vessel into two smaller parts in the reconstructed wineries, with an independent mash collecting system /M-1 and M-6/. It was required for separate mash collection from the press and press grounds. Though we may assume that such division of the vessel into two smaller parts was brought about by a pure drop in the volumes of the processed raw materials. The third option basically provided for preservation of the traditional layout of KI-1 typed wineries, though two additional vessels connected with the main flows were adjusted to the main vessel on its both sides. There were no discharge to the lateral vessels /БС-1/ from the press platforms. The fourth option provided for no additional number of vessels. Instead, the press platform /Нмф-4/ was divided into two parts and grape went under foot processing in the larger part while pulp was pressed in the smaller one. The produced juice went to the vessel through separate discharge channels. That is how different sorts of mash were separated and mixed in the desired proportions.

The first and the fourth options turned out to be a dead end, while the second and the third ones resulted in the most common and structurally most successful composite winery facilities of a standard layout with two or three adjacent vessels that became available in Bospor in the II-I century B. C.

The composite winery facilities were constructed with the help of different construction materials. Due to superb durability of the materials, tanks and press grounds are best preserved in the wineries. The composite class winery facilities were quadrangle, usually oblongish structures. The structure’s shape depended on the press construction, location of the wine production facilities, availability of spare space, other buildings density, as well as on the projected volumes of row materials to be processed, financial status of the owner, etc. They were constructed in several stages according to a unified, though not strictly, operation schedule.

The inner layout of the composite class winery facilities was quite clear. Partitions divided them into two areas, i.e. manufacturing and accessory.

The main differences in the composite class winery constructions laid in the specifics of the manufacturing areas construction. In the manufacturing area that comprised press grounds and mash vessels, grape juice was produced at the press grounds and further collected in the tanks. The accessory area accommodated a loose part of the pressing lever and a press weight. The accessory area of some wineries accommodated wells, furnace fixtures and mash fermentation tanks. The manufacturing area overtopped the accessory one and was connected with the latter through slant passages or steps. The composite wineries were usually deepened in the soil and had thick walls that made it possible to easily maintain a steady temperature necessary for the wine production.

The mash discharge system depended on the pressing technologies and on the construction of the squeezing and pressing sections of the wineries. The more complicated it was the more sorts of wine could be produced with the press unit in question. The most primitive mash discharge system characterized the monolithic press units.

As to a strict regularity in the territorial distribution of the wine production facilities, it has not been traced yet.

In ch?teaux facilities and structures related directly to the production and storage of wine products, were separated from the living accommodations and outbuilding blocks by yards, blind fences or passages.

The territorial distribution of the wine production facilities depended on many factors, primarily, on the building density, the layout of the living accommodations and outbuilding facilities, the landscape and peculiarities of the access roads location. The location of the winery processing facilities was also to be considered. Some wineries were constructed in the vicinity of the vineyards. It should be noted, however, that the stationary monolithic press units were preferably placed on the limestone platforms areas or hill terrain convenient for the performance of press devices and were situated beyond the living and accessory areas of the settlement. The following factors were primarily kept in mind while placing the composite wineries: vicinity and convenience of the access roads; the building density; and, of course, the possibilities for them being isolated from the living and accessory areas.

The composite wineries were long-term structures that could operate for dozens years or even more. That is why one type of wineries did not quickly supersede another. Actually, once emerged, a type of wine production structures did not disappear but continued to exist through centuries, as individual minor fixtures of the equipment which were attributable to this particular type could be altering. In many cases, types and variations within the same types of the composite class wineries smoothly transform one into the other or they may co-exist during some chronological periods. However, the evolutionary continuity of the composite wineries can not be always found out.

If compared with the monolithic pressing constructions, the composite class wineries had stronger ties with accessory wine production facilities, i.e. wine storage, fermentation units and warehouses for empty wine vessels. This necessitated by high performances of the composite press units, their higher market orientation and location near ch?teaux.

The Bospor wine production facilities related to grape processing, production and storage of wine are mainly constructed in full compliance with ancient wine production technologies that correspond to the contemporary rules of home wine production.

In ch?teaux with developed infrastructure, wine went through all stages of maturation and aging. When fermentation units and wine storage capacities failed to meet the actual output of the squeezing and pressing units, then wine making (in case of mash reproduction) was partly realized in other ch?teaux.

Bospor wine producers had at their disposal a great range of different types of vessels perfectly adjusted for wine production demands. Quality of the wine made depended on the vessels used, that is why the wine producers paid much attention to manufacturing, storage and proper use of the wine vessels. The great bulk of the home produced wine in Bospor was very likely to be represented by ordinary sorts of wine and was intended for mass consumption within the first year of the vintage. At the same time, we may assume that many Bospor “commercial” wineries, which produced marketable goods, were designed to produce wine of high quality. They processed the crop of the elite Bospor vineyards cultivated in accordance with the Greek technologies. Those vineyards provided for the best quality wine that could be classified as liqueur wine. However, by some characteristics they were still behind the southern Greek wine. High volumes of wine imported to Bospor may implicitly uphold this fact.

Also, great and stable demand on wine products both in and outside Bospor stimulated development of the local wine production. Wide distribution of the “monumental” composite press units with two and more vessels in Bospor both in towns and villages proves investments in ch?teaux profitable. Availability of “untied” money for such purposes shows high standard of life of some strata of Bospor population. High profitability of wine production and wine trade resulted in the throne’s regulating over these sectors of the economy and protecting domestic wine producers and, probably, wine dealers as well. This fact suggests that the area of vineyards, especially starting from the first centuries A. C., was quite impressive and wine production covered all suitable territories of Bospor. Quality of cultivated vine and its crop satisfied the local producers. As the share of two or three vessel wineries in the Bospor ch?teaux grew, the number of workers involved in wine production and vine culture increased.

Diversity of forms of property, considerable distribution of wine production and vine culture in Bospor, their high profitability and need to hire extra helps during vintage and crop processing must have resulted in the establishment of recruiting institution and development of lease relations, primarily related to those sectors of the economy in the state of Bospor, as early as Hellenistic times. Economically, wine production and vine culture are the most profitable sectors of the economy, especially in densely populated areas, given that territories unsuitable for other farm cultures are used as vineyards.

The Bospor country ch?teaux due to their distance from towns, i.e. main commercial centers, were primarily oriented at local needs and met wine demands of people who lived in the vicinity. They were basically connected with small local market places and commerce centers, situated in big infrastructure centers and on the crossroad of trade routs. Town ch?teaux due to their vicinity to ports, greater commercial activity, greater number of potential wine consumers and, consequently, higher cost-efficiency of wine production and wine trade had stronger ties with the market than those county ch?teaux. It stands to reason that output of the town wineries was higher. However, it is unlikely to identify the true correlation between the number of town and county wineries, let alone their production scales.

Evidently, in spite of earlier assumptions, wine production and vine culture were among the priorities in Bospor agriculture; its economy and trade were unlikely to be based on corn farming only. It is indicative that there were specialized wine production county settlements and special wine production districts in towns and cities. Obviously, in the first centuries A. C., wine production and vine culture became equal to bread raising, cattle husbandry and fishery in terms of its financial importance. There will be no exaggeration if we assume that Bospor, along with Chersonese, was the major wine producer in the northern part of the Black Sea.