The following text presents the antiquities that have been discovered in Antikythera in recent years (note 1). Their analysis, in combination with the literary and epigraphic data, for the first time, leads to historical conclusions about the relatively unknown (note 2) small island. It seems to have played an important role in the history of the Hellenistic period, from the beginning of Alexander the Great's campaign at the end of the 4th century BC, until the suppression of the «Cretan Revolution», which completed the conquest of the Greek territories by Rome in 69-67 BC.

Antikythera (fig. 1), a small island with an area of about 20 square kilometres, is located in the dangerous sea area between Kythera and Crete. Despite the island's strategic position, controlling the passage from the Aegean and the Black Sea to the Western Mediterranean, the difficulty of survival of a large group of inhabitants on the island left it in relative obscurity throughout most of antiquity.

There are very few references to Antikythera by ancient writers. In Plutarch (note 3) they are mentioned as Aigilia, Aigialian and Aegean Sea, to Stephen of Byzantium (note 4) as Aigilia, in the various manuscripts (codes) of Claudius Ptolemy (note 5) as Aigila, Egypt, Guns (from the capitalized AIGILA, with the (oral!) writing of ai as e, as is often the case in the later years of antiquity, and the erroneous reading of C and I as P) and in Pliny (note 6) as Aigila, Aigilia and Aeglia.

In the inscriptions to which we will refer below it is marked as Aigilia, while the adjective Aegileus also refers to Aigilia. The names that have survived to the present day are Lioi in Kythera and the Peloponnese and Sigilio or Siglio in Crete, names derived from the ancient name. During the Venetian occupation, and after the conquest of Crete by the Ottomans, the official name of the island is Cerigotto or Cecerigo from the Italian name of Kythera which is Cerigo. The current name «Antikythera», established with the discovery of the shipwreck in 1901, is due to the Cephalonian radicals, who reintroduced the name of Kythera in place of the Italian «Tsirigo» and imposed a new name on the island, which at that time was the most remote part of the English-occupied Ionian State.

In the 1850s, many Kefalonians and Zakynthian radicals were exiled to the isolated island. Along with the other Ionian islands, and after the persistent and painful struggle of the Eptanesians, it was «given» to Greece in 1864. From then until the incorporation of Crete into the national body (1912-13), the island was the southernmost and most remote point of the Greek territory.

The antiquities of the island are known since the 19th century, while the radical Kefalonian Elias Zervos-Iacovatos makes specific reference to them in his memoirs (note 7).

Antiquities from Antikythera were published for the first time in the Archaeological Journal of 1862 by Athanasios Roussopoulos (note 8), who also «took care» of the «export» of the antiquities he uncovered and published (note 9)!

The most obvious antiquities on the island today are the Hellenistic fortified city in the old settlement of «Kastro», above the bay of Xeropotamos, and the tombs and some other productive facilities of late antiquity in the settlements of Potamos, Charhaliana and Bandoudiana. Movable surface finds of the Hellenistic, Early and, after a break, Middle Byzantine and, finally, Late Venetian periods have been identified on the island by the surface survey carried out by the Canadian Archaeological Institute and the KΣT Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities (note 10). Below, the sites from which the historical conclusions are drawn are presented in chronological order.

The beach at the bay of Xiropotamos, the ancient port and the Sanctuary of Apollo

At the mouth of the stream of Xeropotamos, in the homonymous creek in the north of the island, a seaside sanctuary of Apollo and Artemis operated from the second half of the 4th century BC.

In ancient times the sea penetrated much deeper into the bay, creating a «hidden» harbour protected from the strong northern winds. With the strong earthquake (note 11) of 365 AD the island was «raised» by 2.80 m, shifting the coastline to its present position.

Excavations in Antikythera — Fig. 2. The statue of Apollo, in the type of «Apollo of Kitharodos», found in 1888 on the beach of Xiropotamos (Athens, National Archaeological Museum, no. Cat. 230).

In 1888 agricultural work in the area brought to light a headless statue of the type of «Kitharodos Apollo» (fig. 2) and the research conducted by Valerios Stais (note 12) revealed an inscribed base of an anathematic monument (probably a statue) that mentioned the offering to the «Aegilea» Apollo by Aristomenes Aristomedes, Thettalos from Feron and from the Nikon(α) Kifissodorou, Athenaeus (fig. 3). From these two (note 13) monuments and from the findings of the excavation, it appeared that the site was used, throughout the Hellenistic period, as a sanctuary of Apollo and Artemis (fig. 4). The excavation research revealed, in 2004 and 2005, the foundation of the ancient temple which had the form home, as well as the base of the altar (fig. 5). The axis of the temple has a direction from S-SW to N-NE with a slope of 450 from the parallel to the straight line of Delos. The enclosure of the sanctuary is very strong and seems to have been in contact with the harbour (fig. 7). Of the movable finds found during the excavations, apart from the statue and the inscribed base, fragments of marble statues and vases (perianth) stand out, many arrowheads, since it is known that Apollo had taught the Cretans the art of archery, as well as a number of coins depicting Apollo and Artemis, but also jewellery, ring stones and inlaid coins (figs. 8, 9, 10, 11).

Fig. 3. The inscribed base of an anathema monument uncovered in 1889 by Valerios Stais on the beach «Xiropotamos». It states that it is an anathema of Aristomenes Aristomedes of Thessaly (Thettalos of Feron) and the Athenian Nikonos Kifisodoros (photo by Valtin von Eiksted).

Tsaravopoulos 8 1200x1080 1 — Fig. 8. Ring stone of glass mosaic with an inscribed representation of a horse with reins, probably referring to a Thessalian commissioner. The Thessalian cavalry was well known and participated in the Greek («Macedonian»)-Persian conflict from both sides.

Tsaravopoulos 9 — Fig. 9. Marble part of a statue from the sanctuary.

Tsaravopoulos 10 1200x812 1 — Fig. 10. Silver coin of the Achaean League minted in Megara (175-160 BC). It was dedicated to the sanctuary of Apollo and Artemis. The coin bears a small lyre (above), a symbol of Apollo, on the face shown.

Tsaravopoulos 11 — Fig. 11. Roman silver coin of 79 BC, dedicated to the sanctuary of Apollo and Artemis. It was struck by Tiberius Claudius Nero and bears the head of Artemis (Diana) on the obverse.

Another, much more important information provided by the reading of the inscription was the origin of the two anatheists, one was a Thessalian and the other an Athenian. Stais, who published the inscription, assumed that they were castaways who were rescued on the island (note 14) and felt the need to express their gratitude to the island's patron god for their salvation. Below, after the presentation of the entire archaeological site and the results of the excavation, the conclusions on the interpretation of the two names and the role they played at an important moment in the history of Hellenism will be discussed.

The «Castle» (the fortified city)

On the eastern bank of the stream of Xiropotamos two paths lead to the fortified settlement of «Kastro» (fig. 12). The western path very close to the beach, which has been seriously altered over time, was narrow and did not allow the passage of wheeled vehicles. In many places, the protective embankment is still visible, as well as carved or stone steps. About ten metres south of the gate leading to the town, on the rock on which the pathway was built, a «rocky» sanctuary with two niches and a throne survives (fig. 13). This was a sanctuary outside the gate leading only to the right (east) bank of the harbour, intended for those leaving or returning from a sea voyage. The gate of the fort at the end of the path, the «Southwest Gate», had a relatively elaborate and decorated form judging by some architectural elements found on the site (figs. 14, 15, 16).

Tsaravopoulos 12 902x1200 1 — Fig. 12. The «Kastro», as the fortified city is called today, is located on the western slope of the peninsula that closes the bay of the present harbour, Potamos, from the east. Copy from Google Earth.

Tsaravopoulos 13 — Fig. 13. Rock shrine a short distance outside the southwestern gate of the fort. One of the offering niches is visible. It was intended for those leaving the town for the harbour who did not have access to the large sanctuary which was on the other side of the then deeper bay.

Tsaravopoulos 14 — Fig. 14. The southwestern gate. The stepped entrance can be seen which must have been covered with additional flooring material.

Tsaravopoulos 15 — Fig. 15. Decorated architectural member of the lintel of the southwest gate of the fort.

Tsaravopoulos 16 — Fig. 16. Outside the south-western gate there are two seats for the guards who controlled the entrants. Three triangular clay «checkers» have been found in the fill of the gate for the games that the guards would play to pass the time (see also fig. 44). A desk with incised «abacuses» for the guards to play has been found at the eastern gate in the fortress of Ramnounda in Attica (Petrakos V., The demos of Ramnoundos, I. Topography, Athens 1999, p. 65, figs. 23, 24).

The ancient city was built on the western slope of the peninsula of the «Castle» (fig. 17). In the southern part of the wall, which faced inland and was accessible from the interior of the island, a second gate opened, the «South», which was reached by a more passable path east of the harbour (fig. 18).

Fig. 17. Aerial view of the fortified settlement of Aegilia. On the left side of the image are the houses of the settlement «Kastrisianika» or «Plumidiana» which was built on parts of the southern and southeastern wall (photo by Yannis Tzinakos).

Tsaravopoulos 18 — Fig. 18. The South Gate, which was reached by a relatively smooth path that could be climbed by loaded pack animals. Its eastern side has fallen away, and in later years a cultivation terrace was created behind it.

The wall covered the entire western slope of the peninsula, from the rocky beach to the west and north to the ridge to the east (fig. 19). At the highest point a second line of fortification enclosed the administrative centre of the city, the «Acropolis». The Acropolis was also the home of the «leader» of the city, protected by the strong rock rising to the east (fig. 20), while the gate of the «Acropolis» to the city was also monumental, but it seems that from the beginning of its operation it had been destroyed by an external attack and its restoration was carried out with a different plan (fig. 21).

Tsaravopoulos 19 — Fig. 19. Plan of the fortified city of Aegilea (Antikythera). At the highest point of the city there is a second fortification, the Acropolis. The locations surveyed and described in the text are marked.

Tsaravopoulos 20 — Fig. 20. On the Acropolis, at a point that could not be affected by the catapults, was the «apartment» of the lord of the city. Here you can see the bathing facilities of the apartment, a built-in «bath» with a strong coating of hydraulic mortar and a small tank with water for rinsing! The floor of the room was covered with hydraulic mortar.

Tsaravopoulos 21 — Fig. 21. The damaged prop of the Acropolis of the «Castle». A layer of destruction was found in the first third of the 3rd century BC and a change of the original plan with an entrance from the side. This destruction may have influenced the reinforcement of the inner wall of the Acropolis with a lining of stones placed isodomically (see also fig. 27).

The fortification wall of the city is visible almost all along its length (fig. 22) and was constructed in different ways determined by the local material. In the parts where soft limestone was accessible, the wall consisted of elaborately cut stone blocks, placed isodically (figs. 23, 24, 25, 26). In the parts where the material was hard and difficult to process limestone, the untidy polygonal construction used in the Hellenistic period in many fortifications in Crete was preferred. As can be seen, the original builders paid attention to the appearance and stability of only the outer face of the fortress, while inside, the wall separating the Acropolis from the city was originally constructed with untidy polygonal construction, and later (unknown when, but not long after its initial construction) it was covered with a pseudo-isodic series of stones (fig. 28). Rectangular fortified towers project from the wall, all along its length (figs. 29, 30, 31).

Fig. 22. Aerial view of the northern part of the «Castle». The northern part, on the right side of the picture, does not preserve any traces of habitation and was fortified only for strategic reasons and to create an area to which the islanders or army units would have resorted for protection and to contribute to the defence. This part of the fortification is easily visible on satellite images.

Tsaravopoulos 23 — Fig. 23. View of the southern part of the ancient fortification wall inside the houses of the settlement of «Kastro». Its strong structure ensured the strength of the newer construction.

Tsaravopoulos 24 — Fig. 24. View of the southern part of the ancient fortification wall inside the houses of the settlement of «Kastro». Its strong structure ensured the strength of the newer construction.

Tsaravopoulos 25 — Fig. 25. Part of the eastern wall of the city. The vertical wall shown in the centre of the picture belongs to one of the many towers the fortress had.

Tsaravopoulos 26 1200x962 1 — Fig. 26. Part of the eastern wall with many repairs.

Tsaravopoulos 27 — Fig. 27. The Acropolis wall towards the interior of the city. The polygonal «untidy» structure can be seen, which was later covered («invested») with a pseudo-isobaric wall, increasing its thickness by 50-60 cm.

Tsaravopoulos 28 1200x884 1 — Fig. 28. View of a large tower in the eastern part of the fortification. It is not continuous with the wall, but rests on the rock at the highest point of the fortification and protects the house of the «highest» official of the city (see also fig. 20). The surviving height of the tower is 9 m and it is made of local material that imposed the relatively «untidy» way of building.

Tsaravopoulos 29 1200x952 1 — Fig. 29. North side of the tower in the eastern part of the fortification.

Tsaravopoulos 30 — Fig. 30. The best preserved tower of the fortification («Tower A»). It is preserved at a height of five stories. The long distance from the settlement and the difficulty of access «left» the fallen building material in place, making its partial restoration possible.

Tsaravopoulos 31 1200x1132 1 — Fig. 31. Its rapid disappearance and the Aegilian preoccupation with piracy changed the original plans and necessitated the addition of a smaller shelter for temporary shelter during the rare periods of summer (see fig. 32).

In the northern part of the fortress a significant section was left without houses or other structures, as is the case in places that are often attacked and «host» either the inhabitants who take refuge there for protection or troops coming to reinforce the defence (fig. 22).

Two other monuments that are preserved almost intact inside the city are a neosoholikonos and a cave sanctuary - the «Phylaki» as it is called by the current inhabitants.

The neoshoikos, about 30 m long, is visible today along its entire length due to the uplift of the island mentioned above (figs. 32, 33). The parts that were carved below the sea surface are also visible today. The useful length of the neosikou, the part that would have accommodated the ship on land, is 18 m. The groove in the rock in which the strong sea gate would have been placed, which would have been subjected to great pressure from the northern winds, which in winter hit the island with great intensity (fig. 34).

Fig. 32. Plan of the church. The «temporary dwelling» was much deeper and did not have a slope like the rest of the neoshoe. Today the entire structure is above sea level.

Tsaravopoulos 38 — Fig. 38. Entrance of a house in the lower western part of the fortified town. The two pilaster stones are the only remains of the house visible on the ground surface.

Tsaravopoulos 34 — Fig. 34. The seaward part of the nave. The groove of the strong seaward gate is visible. Two carvings in the rock inside the waterhouse can be seen in the frame, intended to receive the supports of the wooden structure on which the ship would have been dragged.

The so-called «Prison» is located at a relatively short distance from the neoshoikon in the middle of the large limestone quarry (fig. 35). It is a cavernous rectangular space with a N-S axis and two small side chambers, one to the east, opposite the entrance, and the other to the south. On the west side, south of the entrance, there is a built-in altar and a «offering» well has been dug in front of it. Above the well a «moonstone» has been carved in the overlying rock, from which offerings were probably made to the deity (fig. 36). The name of the chthonic deity worshipped has not been preserved.

Tsaravopoulos 35 — Fig. 35. The interior of the underground sanctuary of what the current inhabitants of the island call «Prison». The entrance is on the west, while to the east and south are two side chambers. On the roof the skylight is visible, under which a deep apothecary opens, probably for offerings of the worshippers to the deity worshipped there.

Tsaravopoulos 36 1200x878 1 — Fig. 36. Plan of the «Prison». The frame shows the exit of the skylight on the ground surface.

The entire fortified area, except for the northern part mentioned above, was covered by houses. The construction of cultivation mounds by the younger inhabitants has covered the ancient structures, but in many places remains of the houses, walls and parts of the floors can be seen. In the western part of the town, which is flat and rocky, foundations of houses survive (figs. 37, 38), many of which were built in direct contact with the western part of the wall.

Tsaravopoulos 37 — Fig. 37. Foundations of a house which rested on the strong western coastal wall. The excavation carried out here revealed two building phases: a first, of the late 4th century BC, and a second, of the mid 2nd century BC. Among the movable finds of the first phase, two handles with the stamp FA from amphorae from Falassarna stand out (see also fig. 46).

From the movable findings it is clear that the period of use of the fortified polis is limited to the Hellenistic period and more specifically dates from the end of the 4th century BC to the first half of the 1st century BC. In the «Castle», apart from a small part of a Minoan stone vessel and a few blades and points of obsidian and local flint (note 15), no movable finds are dated to periods before the end of the 4th century BC, and there are no finds later than the second quarter of the 1st century BC. This is a «closed» set, limited chronologically to the Hellenistic period, which poses problems of historical interpretation given the monumental nature of the structure and the strategic position of the island.

But before the historical discussion about the causes and the intentions that led to the construction of such an ambitious and impressive fortress which, according to Stai, «in a silver island and under the ancient writers, just a mention of any, seems to me very paradoxical» (note 16), let us note that among the movable finds there are war objects, arrowheads and crossbow projectiles (fig. 39), pencils (figs. 40, 41, 42), as well as catapult projectiles of various sizes (fig. 43), finds that show a society in constant warfare (fig. 44). It should also be noted that, based on the coins that have been found (fig. 45), but also on some other ceramic finds (fig. 46) and lead coins, the island, for most of its «life», was part of the Cretan city of Falassarna.

Tsaravopoulos 39 — Fig. 39. Cretan arrowheads. All three appear unused, indicating that they belonged to the defenders of the fort. The middle one was found in the sanctuary and is an offering to Apollo who, according to myth, taught the Cretans the art of archery.

Tsaravopoulos 40 1200x647 1 — Fig. 40. One of the two pencils (slingshot projectiles) found inside the fortification and bearing the inscription Paraf / anion (rather than Falassarnians) and without traces of a blow. The pencil shown was found in a layer from the first half of the 3rd century BC.

Tsaravopoulos 41 — Fig. 41. Molybdites of the late 3rd century BC bearing the inscription King. The question arises as to who the mentioned «king» is, who, from the condition in which the pencils were found (those found inside the fortification are battered, while those found outside the walls are intact), seems to have attacked the fortress. Of the pencil-bearers, the most likely «king» is Nabis of Sparta, who was actively involved in Cretan affairs and had tried to impose himself on the maritime area.

Tsaravopoulos 42 — Fig. 42. Unused pencil (slingshot projectile) found inside the fortification and stamped with the name of Podathos and a sermon (the pencil was found inside the fort in 1962 and handed over to the Archaeological Service by Mr. Dem. Artemis). Podaethos lived in the 2nd century BC and was an official of Latouss, a city in eastern Crete with Hestia and Hermes as official gods. The discovery of the pencils with this seal confirms the alliances of Falassarna in the wars of the Cretan cities. The picture on the right shows the small hole, 6 mm long. and 2 mm in diameter, which was probably intended to be filled with poison. (The lower picture is a photograph of the plaster cast on which the letters and the symbolic sermon can be seen more easily.)

Fig. 43. Catapult shells located throughout the city. The projectiles of the first row, the small ones, are almost all broken, used by the attackers on the «Castle». It seems that the ship-borne artillery preferred to use lighter weight shells.

Tsaravopoulos 44 — Fig. 44. «Seagulls» for board games found during the cleaning of the «Southwest» gate of the fortification. They were played to pass the time by the guards who sat on the specially designed seats outside the gate (see also fig. 16).

Tsaravopoulos 45 — Fig. 45. Falassarna coins. In Antikythera, two-thirds of the approximately 150 coins that have been found in total come from the city of Falassarna and belong mainly to the type with the F on one side and the dolphin on the other.

Fig. 46. Neck of an amphora from Falassarna. Among the finds are three handles with the stamped FA, i.e. with the initials of the town of production.

Historical conclusions

The historical interpretation of the site was attempted for the first time by Valerios Stais, after the rough excavation he carried out on the beach of Xiropotamos. Stais assumed that the fortress was built by the Athenians during the Peloponnesian War, i.e. at the end of the 5th century BC: «It seems, however, that because of its geographical position it was useful during the Peloponnesian War, when it suffered the fate of Kythera, which was overrun by the Athenians. . . . It is therefore probable that during the Peloponnesian war the city was fortified by being walled in, as it was in Kytheri.

In 1961, Helen Waterhouse and Richard Hope-Simpson (note 17), on the basis of the existence of some parts of the wall of «polygonal» construction, without proceeding to historical interpretation, dated the construction of the fortress in two phases, a first one, during which only the «Acropolis» was constructed at the beginning of the 5th century BC, and a second one, during which the western wall was covered in an isodic manner and, at the same time, the whole settlement was fortified. As mentioned above, the archaeological-excavation data do not confirm these two hypotheses. The polygonal building method is «untidy», as was often the case in the late Classical and early Hellenistic periods and is dictated by the material of the site, while the movable finds do not show any evidence of habitation before the third quarter of the 4th century BC.

The question remains, of course, «who, when and why» went ahead with the construction of such a costly project. What was the source of income for the population on an island that does not have enough arable land to feed its inhabitants and generate sufficient surplus to allow such an expensive fortification? The first, logical, answer is that some foreign power that would have an interest in controlling the southern Aegean would get involved either directly or by funding the island's rulers.

Certainly in the second half of the 4th century BC, when both Greek and world history were changing course, the strategic position of the small island would have interested some powers to control it. But when the great Greek cities were still «free» (note 18), before the battle of Chaeronea and the destruction of Thebes in 335 B.C., their interest was directed towards the danger from the north coming from the rapid advance of Philip and Alexander. The interest of the rising Macedonian power was also directed to the east and not to the Aegean. As a major power that might be interested in controlling the island remained Persia, which shortly before had reconquered Egypt and had also become aware of the anti-Persian plans of the Macedonians.

The answer is given by the reading of the inscription found in Xeropotamos. The first sponsor listed is Aristomenes Aristomedes, Thessalian from Feron who seems to be known from the literary sources. An Aristomenes is mentioned as «admiral» of the Persian fleet in the Aegean after the Macedonians entered Asia Minor. One Aristomedes, a Thessalian from Feres, participated, as leader of twenty thousand barbarians, in the Persian army at the battle of Issus (n. 19). As is well known, after the conquest of Thessaly by Philip, many Thessalians, belonging to the leading group driven out by the Macedonians, fled to the Great King as mercenaries in the hope of returning home (Note 20).

We also know that after the defeat at Granicus the Persians conquered Chios and tried to win over, through the mediation of the Spartans and the disposal of large quantities of gold, Greek cities that did not participate in the campaign of Alexander the Great (note 21). The Cretan cities belonged to this category, and it seems that the effort of Agidos III, who was laden with many talents by the Persians, was directed in that direction. The appearance, in the second half of the 4th century BC, of a large number of strong and costly fortifications in the Megalongo, can be explained by the influx of Persian gold in the empire's attempt to organise its counter-attack. The astonishing advance of Alexander, who acted further wisely by cutting off the Persians« access to the Mediterranean in time, cancelled all plans of counterattack. We know that after the battle of Issus, Alexander dealt with the fate of Chios by imposing the return of the republicans who were the main exponents of the anti-Persian (pro-Macedonian?) faction (note 22). For Crete, which was more distant from the main Greek body, in the cities of which similar political processes would certainly have intermingled (note 22). 23), there is no evidence of Alexandrian intervention, but the premature death of the Macedonian leader and the quarrels of his descendants probably relieved the Cretan cities of their punishment for the attempt at »Medism'.

Immediately after the disappearance of the Persian state, the armed and fortified Falassarna, without much income and taking advantage of the strategic position of the island, began to engage in piracy (note 24) and from early on disturbed the growing commercial activity of Rhodes, but also of the other weaker islands which Rhodes protected with similar rewards. Two inscriptions from Rhodes provide evidence of this activity (Note 25). The first is an honorary resolution of the municipality of Rhodes for some of its citizens who distinguished themselves in the Rhodian campaign against Egypt. Their dating to the first half of the 3rd century BC matches the dating found in the extensive layer of destruction in many parts of the castle. A few catapult balls were also found in the same layer, the throwing of which was most probably the responsibility of the catapult expert mentioned in the inscriptions (= trapper), Polimarchus, son of Timakrateos, Casarevus!

Polemarchos himself, son of Timocrates, who was later promoted to colonel, is mentioned in a second, tombstone inscription along with his brothers and it seems that all three were killed in campaigns against pirates in various parts of the Mediterranean. His older brother, who was a ship's captain, primitive, according to a proposal to complete the inscription, was killed in Aegilia in the campaign for which the Warlord was honoured, if we accept that the Rhodians attacked Aegilia only once.

Antikythera is mentioned as the place to which the «rebel» king of Sparta, Cleomenes III, fled after his defeat at Sellaia in 223 BC, on his way to Egypt (note 26), whose king, Ptolemy the Benefactor, would give him reinforcements to return to Sparta. At Antikythera, Theriac, Cleomenes' squire, disagreed with him, because he thought it unacceptable as Spartans to leave Sparta instead of returning and falling in battle. After Cleomenes' reply that his goal was not to demonstrate futile heroism, but to return to change the social structure of Sparta, Therychio committed suicide on the island.

A few years after the passage of Cleomenes, Antikythera was in the throes of the conflicts of the Cretan cities, but also the attempt of the powers that wished to control the southern Aegean and the passages to the West, where the power of Rome had already appeared. Two claimants seem to have been involved in Cretan affairs at this period, Philip V of Macedonia and Nabis of Sparta. Both would certainly have sought to control the little island, the former because he had found an «invitation» to the Megalongo from the Polyrrhinians (Note 27), the enemies of Falassarna, and the latter because he had a practical involvement in the affairs of western Crete (Note 28). A material relic of Nabidus's «visit» is a number of inscribed pencils of the Laconian type, found in the area of the «Castle», bearing the title «Vassilikos», a title which Nabis gave himself in the last years of his reign (fig. 41).

The 2nd century seems to have been a century of development of the settlement. The first indication is the construction (or reconstruction) of the seaside sanctuary of Apollo and Artemis. The area occupied by the temple was «added» in the 2nd century BC with the construction of the strong enclosure of the sanctuary which enclosed the channel leading to the «hidden harbour». The second indication of the relative recovery of the settlement of Egypt, is found in the stratigraphy of the excavation at the site of the «Castle». The upper layer of houses on the site, and as it appears the last, dates to the 2nd century BC. What is the reason for the relative prosperity observed? Surely the explanation lies in the income from the pirate activity of Falassarna (note 29). Rome had entered the history of the Aegean region in a big way, and trade between the eastern and central Mediterranean was booming. The island's involvement in inter-cretan conflicts is also evident from the excavation data. A series of sealed pencils found in Aegilia bear the names of Cretan officials from cities that had allied relations with Falassarna (note 30) (fig. 42).

Η Egypt seems to have suffered the vengeful fury of the Roman general Metellus who brutally suppressed the «Cretan Revolution» in 69-67 BC. Life in the «Kastro» came to a halt in those very years. At the same time Falassarna was destroyed.

Human presence is again established on the island after the 5th century AD (figs. 47, 48, 49), when life in the Aegean normalized with the power of the Byzantine fleet, until about the beginning of the 8th century, when the Arab attacks began and it seems that Antikythera lost its population again (fig. 50).

Tsaravopoulos 47 — Fig. 47. A.D. 6th-7th century wine press carved into the rock at the settlement of Charchaliaana, which seems to have been inhabited after the great earthquake that shook the eastern Mediterranean in 365 A.D. and raised the island by 2.80 m.

Tsaravopoulos 48 — Fig. 48. Tombs of the 7th century AD in the early Christian settlement of Charkhaliana. The graves were not organized in a cemetery, but in groups in the area of each family's house. In each grave more than one dead person was buried without removing the bones of the previous burials. The graves were covered with stone slabs placed in a horizontal trench and sealed with a stone wedge. They have no grave markers. The few metal objects found belonged to clothing or jewellery worn by the deceased.

Fig. 49. Bronze buckle and silver earrings (earrings) of the 7th century BC found in the tombs at Charhaliana.

Tsaravopoulos 50 — Fig. 50. Silver coin of Leo IV - Khazaros (775-780 AD) found in the area of Agios Myronas in the centre of the island (the coin was found in 1962 by the tireless walker and researcher of all the islands and beaches of the south-western Aegean, Adonis Kyrou, who has also handed over to the Archaeological Service many coins and pencils of Antikythera). No other traces of habitation were found during this period and it is very likely that the coin was lost by the Arab pirates who had been ravaging the area of the southern Aegean since the mid-8th century AD.

The inhabitants returned in the Middle Byzantine years, shortly after the expulsion of the Arabs from Crete, and after the 4th Crusade until the Napoleonic Wars, they belonged, along with the rest of the Ionian Islands, to the possessions of Venice.

Today the island is going through a new period of desertification, which seems to be irreversible, unless the antiquities are «used» with alternative tourism programmes which will be an element of attracting visitors and prolonging the tourist season (note 31).

An archaeological tourism programme has already been proposed, the aim of which is not to turn the «Castle» into an organised and elegant archaeological site, but one in which the visitor will remain a mere passerby. The project proposal consists in the creation of a live An Archaeological Park, in which visitors will have the opportunity to become active and will be transformed from mere spectators into acting subjects. The difference is that in the simple archaeological site the visitor exhausts it with one, at most two, if he is very diligent, daily visits, while, as proposed, in the «Living Archaeological Park» the visitor will be involved in the discovery of antiquities, but also in the design and presentation of the site. In Greece, particularly in the south, the sunny days that allow outdoor work begin in mid-March and end in late November. This makes it possible to plan archaeological activity throughout this period.

This activity is part of the general framework of an alternative tourism programme. Interested visitors-tourists will come not for a simple visit but, as mentioned above, to participate in the process of revealing and creating the archaeological site. In other words, they will work as «working» staff and will be taught both the excavation process and all the other activities required for the creation and operation of an archaeological park, such as the uncovering of the antiquities and their restoration, the creation of paths to the sites of special interest, the guided tour of the site, while at the same time, in the afternoons, they will be given lessons on (a) the history of the archaeological site, (b) the way in which historical conclusions are drawn from the excavation data, but also (c) lessons on the objectives of archaeological research, (d) lessons on the direct conservation and design of movable and immovable finds, and (e) the ways of presenting the «ancient» to the wider public.

The above proposal achieves three objectives which, while requiring no public expenditure, are part of a self-financing process of excavation, configuration, enhancement and protection of the archaeological site. They also extend the tourist season by contributing to the economic development of the area in which they are located, and residents will come into contact with their cultural heritage, while at the same time jobs are secured (again, it should be stressed: not at public expense) for archaeologists, antiquities conservators and antiquities designers and, indirectly, for all the professions which will serve this action.

Aris Tsaravopoulos

Archaeologist

*Note of image 19: The mapping of the outer fortification was done by a team of the Australian Archaeological Institute consisting of: Cosmos (Cosmos) Coronaeus, Anthony Miller and Andrew Wilson. The mapping of the inner wall of the Acropolis was done by the designer of the KΣT΄ Ephorate of Antiquities Eleni Tolia and the engineer topographer Panagiotis Protopsaltis with the help of the Antikythera parser Manolis Harhalakis. All the above volunteered their services and the excavation team expresses its thanks.

NOTES

1. I would like to note that the research and excavation work on which the following text is based has been carried out over the years with the valuable voluntary work of archaeologists, conservators, planners, surveyors, professionals and students, as well as other people outside the field of archaeology and related disciplines, who have at best been covered by small grants from the Antikythera community and the Australian Kythera Community. It is impossible to mention here the hundreds of people who have worked with me over the past twelve years in Antikythera and whom I thank most sincerely.

2. Antikythera has become known worldwide by the discovery of the famous «Shipwreck» in its marine area, but its history during antiquity (prehistoric and «historical») and medieval times was unknown.

3. Plut. Cleom. 31 and 32.

4. Stef. Byz., l. «Aegialeia».

5. Ptol. Geogr. III 14, 45.

6. Plin. IV, 57.

7. Iakovatos, Elias Zervos, My captivity on Antikythera and that of my fellow captives, 1857 (2nd ed. Athens 1972).

8. Archaeological Journal 1862, 314 no. 398, 400, 401, and 402, pl. MB. The pencils (sling bullets) from Antikythera, published by C. Foss («Greek sling bullets in Oxford», JHS, Archaeological Reports 9-11 (1974-75), pp. 40-44) probably originated from the archaeophilic activity of Roussopoulos.

9. For this activity of A. For the activity of Roussopoulos, for which he was expelled from the Archaeological Society in 1882, see the two excellent studies by Ioannis Galanakis: Galanakis Yannis, An Unpublished Stirrup Jar from Athens and the 1871-2 Private Excavations in the Outer Kerameikos, BSA 106 (1), 2011, 167-200, and Galanakis Yannis / Skaltsa Stella, Tomb Robbers, Art Dealers, and a Dikast's Pinakion from an Athenian Grave, Hesperia 81 (2012), pp. 619-653.

10. Bewan A. / Conolly J. / Tsaravopoulos A., «The fragile communities of Antikythera», Archaeology International, Institute of Archaeology, London, 10 (2006-7), pp. 32-36.

11 Papadopoulos Gerasimos, A Seismic History of Crete, Earthquakes and Tsunamis: 2000 BC-2011 AD, Ocelotos Publications, Athens 2011, pp. 90-107.

12. Β. Stais AD 5 (1889), p. 232 no. 42-44 and p. 237-242.

13. Contrary to what Stalis wrote (and is also mentioned in N. Kaltsas, National Archaeological Museum. The Sculptures, Athens 2001, p. 271 no. 567) these are two different monuments that differ in time by about 150 to 200 years (Martin Flashar, Apollon Kitharodos, Statuarische Typen des musischen Apollon, Wien 1992, p. 85). The inscription is dated to the end of the 4th century BC, as Stais rightly writes, but the statue was made in the 2nd century BC.

14. Stais, op. cit.

15. Veins of white flint have been identified in the area of Charhaliana, in the northwestern part of the island.

16. Stais, op. cit.

17. Waterhouse H. / Hope Simpson R., Prehistoric Laconia, Part II, BSA, 56(1961), pp. 160-163.

18. By the phrase «free cities» I mean that before the invasion of Philip and Alexander, the cities of southern Greece were free both in their internal administration and in their foreign policy. After 335 BC, while they were obliged to follow the foreign policy of sovereign Macedonia, administratively, except in a few cases, the internal political autonomy of Greek, allied or defeated, cities had not been taken away.

19. Curt. IV 1,36 and III 9, 3.

20. Demosthenes refers ironically to the situation of Feres after the occupation of the city by the Macedonians in his Peria Alonissos, 32.

21. On the policy of the Persian Empire to organize a «counterattack» against Alexander see, The date and Circumstances of the Construction of the Fortifications at Phalasarna, HOROS 17-21 (2004-2009), pp. 597-600 and Tsaravopoulos, A., The inscription IG V 1, 948 and the inscribed pencils of the Castle of Antikythera, HOROS 17-21 (2004-2009), pp. 327-348.

22. In the museum of Chios there is an inscription that attributes the letter of Alexander the Great to the Chians, after the battle of Issus, in which he imposes the return of those expelled by the Persophile oligarchs.

23. Looking at the fortifications of the second half of the 4th century BC, we can observe a variation in the quality and cost of construction. Comparing the walls of Falassarna and Aegilia, Lissa and Aptera, to speak only of north-western Crete, with those of Polyreneia, which had no naval power and was therefore of no interest to the Persians, while it was in constant conflict with its neighbouring cities, it can be seen that in the former the fortification was very costly, while in the latter it was done with financial difficulty, as can be seen from the result.

24. For the pirate activity of Cretan cities in the Hellenistic period see Brulé P., La Piraterie crétoise hellénistique, Annales Littéraires de l’ Université de Besançon 223, Paris 1978.

25. Jacopi G., Clara Rhodos 2 (1932), pp. 169-70. Mario Segre, Rivista di Filologia e di instruzione Classica, Torino, N.S. 10 (1932), pp. 432-461.

26. Plut., Cleom. 31.

27. Polybius, Hist. 4.55.1-5.

28. Karafotias, A., Crete in search of a new protector: Nabis of Sparta and his relations with the island, Proceedings of the First Colloquium on Post-Minoan Crete, BSA Studies 2 (1995), pp. 105-111.

Hadjidaki, E., The Classical and Hellenistic Harbor at Phalasarna: a pirate's port?, University of California, Ph.D. dissertation, UMI, Ann Arbor.

30. Tsaravopoulos, A., Appendix and conclusions, Gdanskie Studia Archeologiczne (GSA) 2 (2012), pp. 211-212. Note: out of carelessness or indifference the editors of the journal have filled the study I sent them with errors. Even the title of the article and the images are unacceptably abused. For this reason, this reference is made only to the two pages that are directly related to what is written in this article and is a supplement to the pencils presented in detail in Greek in the magazine HOROS 17-21 (2004-2009), pp. 327-348.

31 Tsaravopoulos A. / Gely Fragou, Archaeological Sites as Self-Sustained Resources for Economic Regeneration: Towards the Creation of Living Archaeological Parks on the Islands of Kythera and Antikythera, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, Vol. 15 No. 1, London, February 2013, pp. 94-108. The proposal, focused specifically on Antikythera has been published in the Greek journal Ilissia 5-6 (2009-10), pp. 52-59, and in English in the proceedings of the international conference Museums, Monuments and Turism at the Lower Danube, Neagu M. (ed.), in Culture and Civilisation at the Lower Danube, 27 (2009, Călăraşi), pp. 39-43.