ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE SEARCH FOR
HOMERIC ITHACA
THE CASE OF MYCENAEAN KEPHALONIA
Christina Souyoudzoglou-Haywood
ABSTRACT
This short article on a large subject is presented as a trib-
ute to Klavs Randsborg, because of his involvement in
the 1990s with the archaeology of Kephalonia at the time
of the resurgence of the debate over the identification of
the island with Homeric Ithaca, to which he himself con-
tributed some thoughts. It briefly traces the history of the
controversy about the Homeric geography and topogra-
phy from its origins and discusses the evidence that has
made Kephalonia a contender for the homeland of Odys-
seus. The intention is not to offer yet another hypothesis
about the location of Homeric Ithaca, but to consider and
question the role of archaeology in the debate, in view of
the high expectations of Homeric realists.
INTRODUCTION
Questions about the geographical and topographical ref-
erences included in the epics, not least in relation to the
geographical location of Homeric Ithaca have been raised
since antiquity. In the modern era, wider-ranging con-
troversies, which peaked in the 18th and early 19th centu-
ries, questioned not only the historicity of the contents of
the epics but the actual existence of the poet Homer and
the single authorship of the two epics. These questions,
known collectively as the ‘Homeric question’, found their
utmost exponent in philologist Friedrich Wolf and his fol-
lowers in early to mid-19th century Germany. At the same
time, other Homeric scholars, but also Homerists in the
wider sense, continued to believe in the absolute reality
of the poet and the truthfulness of the narrative. In the late
19th and early 20th centuries the Homeric ‘realities’ (die
Homerischen Realien as they are often called in the bib-
liography of the time), included material culture, warfare,
technological knowhow, religious practices and, not least,
the location and landmarks of the homes of the heroes.
Not surprisingly identifying Homeric Ithaca was one of
the most urgent tasks of the first ‘Homeric realists’ who
travelled to Greece in the 19th century. In the Iliad, Odys-
seus, arguably the most colourful among the heroes of the
epic and an important participant in the major episodes
of the Trojan war, led against Troy a contingent of neigh-
bouring western island regions, which along with Ithaca
are duly named in the ‘Catalogue of Ships’ (Il. 2.632-636).
In addition, he was the protagonist of the Odyssey, where
more than half of the books (fourteen out of the twenty-
four) contain direct or indirect references to the location
of Ithaca, or to geographical and topographical details on
Ithaca itself, including place-names, landforms and fea-
tures. All this should have been a good guide to the iden-
tification. Instead, not only have they not led to an answer
but over time, they have made the relationship between
text and geographical reality even more problematic and
have led to the greatest of all conundrums. The advent of
archaeology has not made finding a resolution easier.
In this article, I will first briefly trace the history of the
search up to the present and how modern Kephalonia has
come to be proposed as Homeric Ithaca, and I will then
look at the current state of archaeological research and
discuss different archaeological approaches and interpre-
tations that may help the impasse.
ITHAKI (THIAKI) AS HOMERIC
ITHACA
The most baffling problem in dealing with Homeric ge-
ography, which has been discussed since antiquity, is that
146 Acta Archaeologica
of the four islands mentioned in Homer (Ithaca, Samos,
Doulichion and Zakynthos), two, Samos and Doulichion,
are not names of islands today and neither were they in
classical antiquity. Moreover, there is no island (or re-
gion) in Homer bearing the name ‘Kephallenia’, which
is the name by which the largest island of the group has
been known at least since the 5th century BC. Homer men-
tions the Kephallenes, the brave people who Odysseus led
against the Trojans in the Iliad and Laertes in his youth had
also led to battle according to the Odyssey (Od. 24.375-
381). In the Iliad, they inhabit Ithaca and the neighbour-
ing islands (Il. 2.631-636), while in the Odyssey they are
said to inhabit cities on the mainland (Od. 20.182-183;
24.351-355). The missing islands had puzzled Strabo (1st
BC- 1st c. AD) and ancient writers before him. Strabo’s
view was that Homeric Samos was the island of ‘Kephal-
lenia’ (Geography 10.2.13-14), while Doulichion, which
presented the greatest problem and continues to do so (so
far at least 16 different islands or parts of them have been
identified as Doulichion, including one thought to have
sunk to the bottom of the sea!), he identified with one of
the group of the Echinades (Dulicha), the small islands off
the coast of Acarnania (Geography 10.2.9). Jumping for-
ward to the modern era, the Renaissance and subsequent
centuries had little to contribute, while the map-makers
of the 16th-18th centuries, including Johannes Laurenberg
(1590-1658), who produced a historical atlas of Ancient
Greece (MIET 2007, 71-79), mostly followed Strabo or
his references to earlier authors by placing Doulichion
on the Echinades, often on Kephalonia, occasionally on
Meganisi, but exceptionally also on Ithaki itself follow-
ing alternative ancient sources (Diggle 2005, 515-516).
Strabo accepted the identification of Homer’s Ithaca
with the Ithaca of his day attributing the various geo-
graphical incompatibilities in the epics to errors by
Homer (Geography 10.2.10). Neither did the antiquar-
ians and first travellers in early 19th-century Greece look
for Homeric Ithaca outside the Ithaki (or Thiaki) of their
time. The disagreement between William Leake (1835)
and William Gell (1807), who both visited the island in
two separate expeditions just months apart in 1806, was
over the location of the city of Ithaca and the palace of
Odysseus on the island itself, the first placing them in the
north (Polis) and the second south (Aetos) of the isthmus
which links the two parts of the island. Other places, nat-
ural or man-made, which are mentioned in the Odyssey
were also assigned to different locations on the map: Mt
Neriton, the cave of the Nymphs, the pig farm and the
swineherd Eumeus’ hut, the Raven’s Crag, the Arethous-
sa spring, the bays of Reithon and Phorkys, etc. They be-
came established Homeric landmarks for visitors around
the time of Greek independence (Murray 1854, 81-91).
The advent of archaeology changed the impressionis-
tic approach on which the earlier identifications of ‘Ho-
meric sites’ were based. Heinrich Schliemann first vis-
ited Ithaki in 1864, returned in 1868 and then again in
1878 after his excavation in Hisarlik-Troy (from 1870)
and Mycenae (1876). He carried out hasty excavations
at ‘Homeric locations’ in the north and south, largely
agreeing with Gell about the location of Odysseus’ palace
and city at Mt Aetos south of the isthmus (Schliemann
1869). He was disappointed with his findings, yet never
questioned the identification of Homer’s Ithaca with the
modern island. He was planning to return, but his death
in 1890 intervened.
By the turn of the 20th century the material cultural
package that makes up the Mycenaean civilization had
been largely defined, but although Mycenaean sherds be-
gan to emerge from excavations of sites in the northern
part of Ithaki (Vollgraff’s excavations in 1904-05: Voll-
graff 1905), the results were not regarded as significant
and it is at that point in time that the search for Homeric
Ithaca shifted to the neighbouring islands, northwards to
Leukada and westwards to Kephalonia. The search on
Ithaki was interrupted albeit temporarily. In the 1930s
British archaeologists W. A. Heurtley and S. Benton ex-
cavated Mycenaean domestic remains from the Myce-
naean palatial period (14th and 13th centuries BC), mainly
in the northern peninsula. Heurtley, in particular, engaged
with Homeric topography and maintained that the hill of
Pelikata, which he excavated, was the location of the pal-
ace (Heurtley 1937). At the nearby ‘Cave of the Nymphs’
(Loizos’ cave) in the bay of Polis, Sylvia Benton’s ex-
cavations (Benton 1934-1935; 1938-1939) revealed evi-
dence of likely ritual activities over several centuries.
The most significant finds were twelve or thirteen Geo-
metric votive bronze tripods, which immediately evoked
the Phaeacians’ gifts of bronze tripods to Odysseus (Od.
13.13-15; but see below).
The north versus south controversy continued all the
while (Table 1). S. Symeonoglou (University of St Lou-
is), who excavated at Aetos in the 1980s and early 1990s,
unearthed some Mycenaean pottery as part of his Odyssey
Project (Symeonoglou 1986; Catling 1987), which com-
 Archaeology and the Search for Homeric Ithaca 147

Table 1
Proposed locations of the centre of Homeric Ithaca on Ithaki and Kephalonia with names of the Homerists and dates of their published works. Information
mainly from C. Goekoop (2010) and http://homericithaca.blogspot.ie/2014/08/where-on-earth-is-homers-ithaca.html (accessed on 10.03.2018). Names
in italics are those of archaeologists.

plemented the pottery already found by Heurtley at the
location in the 1930s, and archaeologists L. Kontorli-Pa-
padopoulou and Th. Papadopoulos (University of Ioan-
nina) excavated at the site of Aghios Athanasios/’School
of Homer’ in the north, primarily a Hellenistic period
site. In 2010 they reported to the press to have found
the palace of Odysseus. The team identified prehistoric
fortifications and the foundations of a structure, which
they described as a Mycenaean palatial megaron building
(Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2014-15, 470-472; Papadopou-
los 2016; Papadopoulos 2017, 425-426), as well as a met-
allurgical workshop (Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2014-15,
473-474; Papadopoulos 2016, 9-10). A long-known cor-
belled structure, a likely fountain house (Knauss 2006;
Kontorli-Papadopoulou 2014-15, 474; Papadopoulos
2016, 7-8), was regarded as further proof of the location
of Odysseus’ palace. Although the evidence as presented
by reputable archaeologists is persuasive, the identifica-
tion has not been generally endorsed, mainly on account
of the very small quantity of Mycenaean pottery associ-
ated with the building. Nonetheless, on Ithaki, in the face
of the high-profile theories put forward in the meantime
equating Homeric Ithaca with Kephalonia (below), the
identification has been fully embraced (see Paizis-Danias
2007), in defence of the heritage that the Ithacans believe
is rightfully theirs.
LEUKADA AS HOMERIC ITHACA
It was William Doerpfeld, Schliemann’s assistant at
Hisarlik-Troy, who, disappointed with his own finds and
those of others on Ithaki, went on to excavate on Leu-
kada between 1902-13. Consequently, he claimed to
have resolved the riddle of Homeric Ithaca and published
148 Acta Archaeologica
his theories in Alt Ithaka (1927), along with the results
of his excavations. He had uncovered important funer-
ary remains, but these dated from the Early and Middle
Bronze Age (EH II-MMIII), not the Late Bronze Age
as he thought. The finds were recently republished in a
scholarly volume (Kilian-Dirlmeier 2005). Doerpfeld be-
came a very popular man on Leukada and remained so
to his death and beyond, but he caused an outcry among
Homerists internationally, particularly in Germany, and
tremendous hostility on Ithaki itself, including severe
critique and sarcasm in the press of the time. Just a few
Mycenaean style sherds were recovered as a result of his
investigations (Souyoudzoglou-Haywood 1999, 17-18,
34). In 2008 a small Mycenaean tholos tomb was exca-
vated near the NW coast of the island and dated to the
14th-13th century BC, re-kindling local aspirations of the
island being Homeric Ithaca. The tomb remains the only
Mycenaean structure of the palatial period on the island.
At nearby Meganisi, several cist graves under tumuli as
well as some settlement remains dating from the post-pa-
latial period (LH IIIC) were recently excavated (Vikatou
2017). These finds complement the pottery finds known
anecdotally to have come from Meganisi up until now
(Souyoudzoglou-Haywood 1999, 19, 34). Thus, the ar-
chaeological evidence so far suggests that although not
Mycenaeanized, the two islands were not beyond the lim-
its of Mycenaean cultural influence and connections.
KEPHALONIA AS HOMERIC ITHACA
Shortly before Doerpfeld’s move to Lefkada, Director
General of Antiquities P. Kavvadias, a native of Keph-
alonia, started the search for Mycenaean remains on
Kephalonia (1899). In the meantime Adriaan Goekoop,
who had sponsored Doerpfeld’s excavations on Ithaki but
disagreed with him over the Lefkada hypothesis, shifted
his interest to Kephalonia. In 1908 he published his theo-
ry identifying Homeric Ithaca with the region of Livatho
(SW Kephalonia) in his Ithaque la Grande (Goekoup,
A. E. H. 1908), and henceforth he, and after his death in
1914 his wife, funded excavations on the island until the
1930s (Goekoup-de Jongh 1933), sponsoring P. Kavva-
dias and prominent archaeologists N. Kyparisses and Sp.
Marinatos (Goekoop, C. H. 2010, 61-66, 69-70).
Kephalonia seemed to solve some at least of the geo-
graphical problems that modern Ithaki presented, in par-
ticular that of not lying ‘far out at sea and towards the
darkness’ (πανυπερτάτη κείται πρός zόφον) (Od. 9.25-26)
whereas Kephalonia is the westernmost island and faces
the open sea. Since Goekoop’s pioneering investigations,
the island has been providing a lively playing field on
which alternative locations of Homeric Ithaca have been
charted and tested. Kephalonia is easily divisible into
four geographical parts or large ‘peninsulas’ around its
central spine, which is occupied by Mt Ainos. In Classi-
cal antiquity, these four parts were the independent city-
states of the tetrapolis mentioned by Thucydides (2.30.2).
Each part could potentially be the location of Odysseus’
homeland, based on another characteristic of Homer’s
Ithaca, namely that it is ‘not large’ or ‘not wide’ (ουδ’
ευρεία τέτυκται ) (Od. 13.244), having contributed (along
with other places) no more than 12 ships in the Trojan
expedition (Il. 2.635-637) and just 12 suitors for Penelope
(Od. 16.245-253).
To date, fourteen hypotheses among those published
at great length have identified Kephalonia with Homeric
Ithaca. Of these nine have sited it specifically in one of
four regions (Livatho, Paliki, Pronnoi and Erissos, see Ta-
ble 1) placing the various Homeric landmarks in separate
or overlapping locations on the map. The hypotheses dif-
fer as to whether the island as a whole or just part of it was
the Homeric island of Ithaca as opposed to just the home
of Odysseus, consisting of city and palace. The hypoth-
eses that view Homer’s Ithaca as a whole being located in
one part of the island have accepted the premise that, since
χερσόνησος (chersonesos), the later Greek word for pen-
insula, is absent from the epics, the Homeric word νήσος
(nesos) denotes both island and peninsula, and that there
is therefore no need to regard the names listed in Homer as
islands. One high-profile idea, which disagrees with this
interpretation, was put forward in recent years by busi-
nessman and technology expert Robert Bittlestone with
the collaboration of Cambridge classicist James Diggle
and geologist John Underhill (Bittlestone 2005). The team
was the third in a row to propose that the Paliki peninsula
was Homer’s Ithaca, but claimed that the use of new meth-
odologies would confirm that the peninsula was once an
island. Essential to the theory was an intensive project in-
volving geological prospection and geophysics that would
prove that the Paliki peninsula was separated in the Myce-
naean period by a channel located in today’s north Thinia
region. This would confirm the brief statement in Strabo
that at the narrowest point of the island it ‘formed an isth-
mus so low-lying that it is often submerged from sea to
 Archaeology and the Search for Homeric Ithaca
sea’ (Geography 10.2.15). While work is still continuing
on the project, the possibility of a channel existing at the
location has been refuted on geomorphological grounds
by other experts (Gaki-Papanastassiou et al. 2011). In ex-
act opposition to this way of thinking, another high-profile
hypothesis was put forward by a couple of learned Ho-
meric realists residing on the island, Gerassimos Metaxas
and Henrietta Putman Cramer (Putman Cramer & Metax-
as 2000), who view the whole of Kephalonia as Homeric
Ithaca, but the south-east part of the region of Pronnoi
as the precise location of Odysseus’ homeland, on the
grounds of the topography and, ultimately, the archaeol-
ogy of the region (see below).
Like the Homeric realists on Ithaki, the Homeric real-
ists of Kephalonia have identified, more or less convinc-
ingly, the Homeric geographical and topographical land-
marks in the mounts, hills, bays, natural harbours, caves
and springs which are plentiful on this limestone island
with its variety of landforms and extensive sinuous coast-
line. Most embrace the fundamentalist view of Homer as
an ‘eyewitness’ (Homeros autoptes), an excellent geog-
rapher and an expert navigator, although allowances are
made for errors in Homer if details are at variance with
their hypotheses. The expectations from archaeology are
high and in essence do not vary from those made about
Ithaki since Schliemann: excavations will prove the exist-
ence of a city and palatial buildings in the heyday of My-
cenaean civilization (14th-13th centuries BC), hopefully
with archives, as expected from the centre of an influen-
tial kingdom implied by Homer. At this point it is there-
fore necessary to turn to a brief update of the archaeology
of the Mycenaean period on the island.
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE
MYCENAEAN PALATIAL PERIOD IN
KEPHALONIA 14TH -13TH C. BC
The Goekoops, who in the first decades of the 20th century
expected to uncover palatial remains in Livatho, were in-
stead instrumental in bringing to light a large number of
Mycenaean chamber tombs and some small tholos tombs
at five locations in Livatho (as well as a much smaller
number of tombs at three locations on Paliki) (Figs. 1 &
2). These were initially dated entirely to the post-palatial
period (12th-11th c. BC) and were therefore a double dis-
appointment, which caused Homerists to abandon the
search for Homeric Ithaca in Livatho. Re-examination of
149
the pottery from the tombs, however, has led to the revi-
sion of the dating of some of it (albeit a small quantity)
and the re-assigning of the beginning of the Mycenaean
cemeteries to the palatial period (LH IIIA2-B) (Wardle
1972; Mountjoy 1999; Souyoudzoglou-Haywood 1999).
Moreover since 2010 the excavation of a large rectan-
gular building (minimum length 11m), part of a larger
settlement site near the modern site of Argostoli (Palia
Stene-Prospholeika) is under way by the Ephorate of An-
tiquities of Kephalonia (Souyoudzoglou et al. 2017, 386-
387, Pl. CXXIX; Sotiriou et al.). Although only partly
excavated, the site, which is rich in pottery, has already
been shown to have a significant palatial period phase
(Souyoudzoglou-Haywood et al. in print). So the region
not only has the largest number of Mycenaean sites so far
identified on the island but also substantial evidence of
habitation in both the palatial and post-palatial periods,
the communities obviously being attracted to the area by
its agricultural potential and the advantages presented by
the deep and sheltered bay of Argostoli.
On the Paliki peninsula, there is so far no evidence
of Mycenaean settlement in the north area of Thinia, the
heart of Homeric Ithaca according to Bittlestone. Further
south the evidence to date consists exclusively of the
tombs originally excavated by Marinatos with Goekoop
funding as mentioned above, complemented by recent
excavations of the Archaeological Service (Sotiriou et al.
2018, 757-760). The earliest is a much-destroyed burial
site at Oikopeda-Myrsinis, which included a possible
tumulus dating back to the Middle Bronze Age (Sotiri-
ou 2000). The site was used in the pre-palatial (LH II)
and early palatial period (LH IIIA1) as well as the post-
palatial period. At three neighbouring locations a small
number of chamber tombs, found looted, were excavated.
They were used in the post-palatial period, the date based
on the surviving small amount of LH IIIC pottery, but
an initial use for some in the late palatial period, concur-
rently with the tombs of the same type in Livatho, cannot
be excluded. Up to now no Mycenaean domestic remains
have been found in the locations suggested by the Hom-
erists as being the possible sites of the Homeric palace
or city. In the district of Same, extensively debated be-
cause its name, which was also that of the polis of clas-
sical antiquity, is that of the Homeric ‘island’ of Same or
Samos, the evidence is limited to a poorly dated, humble
Mycenaean house (Aghioi Theodoroi-Vounias). As for
the Erissos peninsula, admittedly the area least explored
150
Fig. 1. Distribution of main sites of the palatial period (LH IIIA-IIIB), 14th-13th centuries BC on Kephalonia and Ithaki. Dots: graves; squares: settlements
archaeologically, no Mycenaean sites at all have been
identified.
Until the last decade of the 20th century, Mycenaean
evidence in the Pronnoi district was only known from a
single tholos tomb (dia. 4 m) at Mavrata in the south of
the region, which was mainly used in post-palatial times
for collective burials. In 1991 a monumental tholos tomb
(dia. 6.80 m) was excavated at Tzanata-Bourzi, near the
modern harbour town of Poros, adding fuel to the theo-
ry that Odysseus’ Ithaca was located at Pronnoi. In his
preliminary reports, the excavator L. Kolonas (Kolonas
Acta Archaeologica
with architectural remains.
1992; 1993; 1994; 2007), referred to the monument as
the tomb of the ‘lord of the land’ (άρχοντας) who was
buried in the central built cist excavated within. The
tomb had been badly looted, but a cash of small gold and
other precious objects had escaped detection. Additional
burials were made in the tomb between 1400 BC and the
11th century. A sizeable rectangular, built chamber beside
the tholos contained 72 individuals believed to be sec-
ondary burials moved there from the tholos tomb. Klavs
Randsborg, who was carrying out his survey on the is-
land at the time, was impressed by the monument and
 Archaeology and the Search for Homeric Ithaca 151

Fig. 2. Distribution of main sites of the post-palatial period (LH IIIC), 12th century BC on Kephalonia and Ithaki. Dots: graves; squares: settlements with
architectural remains; triangle: cult site.

became party to the discussions about Homeric Ithaca. In
his Kephallenia (Randsborg 2002) he devoted nine pages
of chapter 1, vol. 1 to the question (Literary and Docu-
mentary History, 17-26). In his view, Homer’s world
was a literary construct, but the landscapes of Pronnoi
must have provided the backdrop for the Odyssey. His
suggestion about the adoption of the name Ithaca by the
smaller island is interesting: it was due to the Corinthians,
who in the 8th century would have established a trading
post there (Coldstream 2003/1977, 187; contra Morgan
1988; Malkin 1998, 70-74) and thought it desirable for
reasons of prestige to associate the island with the Ithaca
of Homer (note 1). A more recent archaeological discov-
ery has given extra leverage to the Pronnoi theory. At
Tzanata-Riza, a short distance from the tholos tomb, a
settlement site was identified in 2010 and excavated by
archaeologist Antonis Vasilakis in three seasons. The site
is multi-period, dating from the late Middle Bronze to the
post-palatial period. The main structure is an over-sized
oval building. According to the announcements made by
the excavator (Vasilakis 2011), it dates to the Mycenaean
period, with a significant pre-palatial and early palatial
152 Acta Archaeologica
phase. The excavator calls it a megaron and the Homer-
ists have built up hopes that a palatial centre will emerge,
although it is a very un-Mycenaean and un-palatial look-
ing structure. A much smaller apsidal building and a road
were built over the large building towards the end of the
Mycenaean era.
In addition to the excavated sites mentioned above, a
number of Bronze Age pottery scatters have been iden-
tified across the island through survey (Souyoudzoglou-
Haywood 2008). Some may date to the Mycenaean pala-
tial period, but the state of preservation of the pottery pre-
vents precise dating, all the more so as the assemblages
often include coarse handmade pottery of the native tradi-
tion, which, in common with Ithaki, was still being made
in the Late Bronze Age on Kephalonia (Souyoudzoglou-
Haywood et al. 2017, 391-392) (note 2).
ARCHAEOLOGY AND HOMERIC
ITHACA
Having reviewed the debate regarding the identification
of Homeric Ithaca in connection with the relevant up-to-
date archaeology, the next question to ask is whether we
are any closer now to identifying Homeric Ithaca than
Strabo or the 19th century travellers were.
The identification of archaeologically documented
sites with Homeric places continues to be a topical issue
among field archaeologists in Greece in general, although
for most cases this amounts to no more than a qualified
or selective use of references in Homer. Expert studies,
particularly on the ‘Catalogue of Ships’ (Hope Simpson
& Lazenby 1970) and the Linear B texts (Bennet 2011),
have helped to make informed connections between ar-
chaeological sites, Homeric place-names and historical
toponyms. But this is not always a feasible or an easy
task, and even the identification of high-order places such
as Hisarlik = Troy and Kato Englianos = Palace of Nestor
have met with difficulties and divided opinions.
In the case of Homeric Ithaca, faced with the extreme
ambiguities of the descriptions in the text, most archae-
ologists working in the area today are cautious about sid-
ing with the Homeric realists’ views, although, as we saw
above, there are exceptions. Not many, however, would
disagree that the setting of Homeric Ithaca in the stories
of the Odyssey matches well the geography of the inter-
locking group of islands of the central Ionian Sea, or that
the landscapes and landforms in Homer are evocative of
these islands, as Klavs Randsborg also believed. But, un-
like his conclusion, which was that Pronnoi specifically
was the right location for Homeric Ithaca, it is more apt
to say that the descriptions fit well macroscopically both
Kephalonia and Ithaki as well as individual parts of both
islands, as is evident from the multiple other plausible
locations of Ithaca suggested by the ‘realists’ on the basis
of landscapes that they are usually very well acquainted
with. The ‘universal’ character of the landscapes and the
confused topographical and geographical references in
the epics undoubtedly weaken the case that Homer re-
ferred to a specific landscape of which he had first-hand
knowledge.
Archaeology has followed its own trajectories and
models of interpretation. As was seen above, the recent
excavations on Kephalonia, although much of it still
only known from preliminary reports, have revealed that
Kephalonia supported a much more intensive settlement
in the palatial period than previously thought. Together
with Ithaki, the two islands are emerging as one cultural
entity, with common characteristics in their pottery (of
Mycenaean style as well as local tradition) and in their
domestic architecture (apsidal buildings). Judging from
the present state of our knowledge, these islands con-
stitute the north-westernmost border zone of thorough
Mycenaean acculturation beyond which, to the north and
across the Adriatic, there were connections with and in-
fluences from the Mycenaean world but not the high de-
gree of Mycenaean acculturation displayed on these two
islands (along with Zakynthos to their immediate south).
It is therefore not surprising that the stories in the Od-
yssey would have been staged on these particular Ionian
islands. We also have evidence, during this period, of the
presence of elevated Mycenaean elites, particularly on
Kephalonia (Poros), but possibly also on Ithaki (Aghios
Athanassios). What archaeology has not confirmed, how-
ever, is the presence on the islands of a social-political
organisation in the model of the palatial states of the Pelo-
ponnese and the south-central mainland, which is what
many Homerists expect from the kingdom of Odysseus.
The reason for this is that the islands belong to what
is commonly referred today as ‘Mycenaean periphery’,
a convenient term applied to Mycenaeanized regions
outside the core areas in which Mycenaean culture first
emerged and flourished, with its full range of character-
istics (see Feuer 2011), although the term is also being
used for areas which are geographically remote from pal-
 Archaeology and the Search for Homeric Ithaca
aces, but still thought to have been controlled by them
from a distance (Eder 2007). The regions of the periph-
ery share the fact that certain cultural characteristics may
deviate from those of the core areas as is also the case
of Kephalonia and Ithaki (note 3). Leaving aside Homer,
therefore, we need not expect these islands necessarily
to have been controlled from an administrative centre
with a Mycenaean style palace headed by a wanax [king].
In fact, the larger part of the Mycenaean peripheries do
not fit this model, Achaia being the prime example (see
Arena 2015), but also Elis and Aitoloakarnania, where no
palatial centres have been identified. In Kephalonia the
grandee buried in the Tzanata tholos tomb, with his fam-
ily or group, must certainly have held sway in the area
for a time during the palatial period, and is likely to have
exercised influence over petty chiefs in other regions on
the island and possibly beyond. But significant though it
is, the tomb itself does not imply a palace-based organiza-
tion. Medium-sized tholoi similar to that of Tzanata (for
example Menidi in Attica and Nichoria in Messenia; see
Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 63-64), were not the tombs of
kings (wanaktes), but of local empowered elites. A re-
cently excavated wealthy tholos tomb at Ambilianos in
Phokis (few details are known so far, but see Kountouri
2016) is, like the tomb of Poros, in the Mycenaean pe-
riphery and is unrelated to a palatial centre. The type of
social organizations of these peripheral areas is still under
discussion, for example, as to whether chieftain-based so-
cieties similar to the pre-palatial societies may have con-
tinued to operate.
Lastly, of relevance to the notion of a Homeros autopt-
es, a single author of the epics personally acquainted with
the monuments and landscapes of a Mycenaean-period
Ithaca as maintained by ‘realists’, are also questions relat-
ing to temporality. In the last decades archaeologists have
shown a keen interest in the transmission of memories in
societies, and although the subject is too broad to explore
in detail here, some points are worth making. Memory
studies have shown that oral remembrances in pre-literate
and proto-literate societies have a limited temporal hori-
zon of about one century (the ‘communicative memory’
of Assmann & Czaplicka 1995, 126-27, otherwise known
as historical memory), and this has been widely accepted
by archaeologists. It is of interest to note that in a recent
study (Grethlein 2008, 29) it was pointed out that in the
Homeric epics too the tombs of named heroes, which act
as landmarks in the landscape of the poems, are reposi-
153
tories of memories of them only up to three generations,
and more commonly just one, after which the places are
returned to nature. More distant collective memory (Ass-
mann’s ‘cultural memory’), which is fixed in ‘immovable
figures of memory’ (Assmann & Czaplicka 1995, 128-
33), could only be maintained through special means that
include rites and monuments (the physical setting), to
highlight those that can be detected archaeologically (Al-
cock 2002; Halbwachs 1980; 1992). Places can become
lieux de mémoire (Nora 1989), invested with a symbolic
aura, but the memories do not remain a constant; they can
acquire new meaning and content from period to period
and one historical context to another. Thus, in the case
of Kephalonia, where sizeable communities continued to
thrive for about a century after the 1200 BC collapse on
the mainland, short-term memories from the time of the
Mycenaean age of the palaces, including those obviously
more powerful which would have been associated with
impressive monuments, such as the Tzanata tholos tomb
for example, are likely to have been kept alive among cer-
tain groups on the island. Not so however in the ensuing
centuries when the sparse archaeological evidence shows
a low human presence and a dispersed population, and no
evidence to suggest that remembrances associated with
Mycenaean sites, monuments or landscapes were main-
tained. In the 8th-7th centuries (time of Homer), when the
population on Kephalonia is likely to have been boosted
by new settlers, possibly Corinthians, the tomb-cult that
we have evidence for at Mycenaean tombs - ritual acts
involving the depositions of pottery and other as offer-
ings - cannot convincingly be argued to be addressed to
epic heroes rather than ‘ancestors’ or any other type of
heroes (Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, forthcoming). Offer-
ing at Mycenaean tombs find another climax in the Hel-
lenistic period (4th-2nd centuries BC), when particularly
one tomb in Livatho (Metaxata A) became the focus of
prolonged cult activity (Antonaccio 1995, 138-139) and
offerings were also made in the Tzanata tholos tomb
(Kolonas 1992, 155). But these form part of a different
discourse, that of the possible ‘re-invention’ of memo-
ries after the circulation of the epics (note 4). On Ithaki,
the cave of Polis is the only site on the two islands with
evidence of continuity of votive deposits between the 11th
and 8th centuries consisting of pottery (Coulson 1991)
and the tripods mentioned above. The latter have been
seen as evidence of continuity of the cult of Odysseus
going back to Mycenaean times (Waterhouse 1996) or at
154 Acta Archaeologica
least to the 9th- 8th centuries BC (Coldstream 2003, 347;
Malkin 1998, 95-107) and could therefore fit the concept
of Halbwachs’ dynamic cadre de memoire (Halbwachs
1980; 1992). The case for continuity of commemoration
of the Homeric Odysseus at the cave is however weak-
ened by the uncertainty of the date of deposition of the
tripods, while the identification of Odysseus as object of
the cult rests solely on the famous fragment of the ter-
racotta mask with the inscription: EYXEIN OΔΥΣΣΕΙ,
which dates from 3rd century BC (and therefore from the
time when the island was known as Ithaki). Moreover,
it is one of several dedicatory inscriptions addressed to
other recipients, some of an earlier date than the fragment
(Antonaccio 1994; 1995, 147-166) (note 5). Of similar
date is an inscription from Magnesia which refers to the
Heroon of Odysseus (Οδυσσείον), but this has not been
identified archaeologically and its connection with the
cave is hypothetical (note 6).
To sum up, although archaeology, like the nature of
the landscapes, would support the physical location of
Homeric Ithaca in the central Ionian Islands, it falls very
short of providing proof that Ithaca was located in either
Kephalonia or Ithaki, or that the Mycenaean social organ-
ization on these islands followed the palace-based model
of the core Mycenaean areas. Moreover, the archaeologi-
cal approaches examined are rather in collision with the
idea of the survival locally from the Mycenaean period
to the time of Homer of memories of specific historical
realities.
DISCUSSION
The search for Homeric Ithaca outside the island today
called Ithaki rests on the reasonable assumption that,
with the exception of Zakynthos, the names of the islands
of the group may have changed over the centuries pre-
ceding the classical period (as they have done on occa-
sions since). For this to happen, some sort of geopolitical
changes or re-alignments, such as Klavs Randsborg put
forward for the early Iron Age, most likely would have
needed to take place, but these are impossible to pinpoint
the further back we go in time. However, a literary ap-
proach which differs from that of an eyewitness poet and
sole author Homer may be of some help in the discus-
sion. Gregory Nagy’s ‘evolutionary model’ (Nagy 1979;
1981; 1995), which takes into consideration the trans-
mission of oral poetry and bardic traditions, and accord-
ingly views the epics as the end product of a plurality
of poetic works in oral form and their evolution over a
long period of time, has been accepted by a large body
of archaeologists because it fits with the prevailing opin-
ion that different archaeological periods (from the pre-
palatial to the close of the early Iron Age) are reflected
in the poems (Snodgrass 1974; Sherratt 1990; Sherratt &
Bennet 2017). The latter conclusion is largely based on
the study of material culture as represented in Homer, but
it also goes a long way towards explaining the bewilder-
ing complexity and apparent ambiguities in the textual
references to the geography and topography of Homeric
Ithaca. Thus Kephalonia and Ithaki could both, or each at
different times, have been ‘Ithacas’ in the course of the
formative process of the epics, while the various often
conflicting references in the poems could be explained
by the differing geopolitical importance of the islands at
different times (from the Late Bronze Age to the Early
Iron Age). This is hardly a new idea, of course. Similar
changes in the importance of places at different times are
believed to be behind the compilation of the ‘Catalogue
of Ships’ as a whole (regarded as an interpolation of an
earlier poem), which would partly at least explain the
many discrepancies between archaeological sites and the
names listed in the Catalogue (Dickinson 2007; 2011).
Similar changes have been suggested specifically for the
Ionian Islands by Vassilis Petrakis in order to explain Od-
ysseus’ rather unimpressive contingent in the ‘Catalogue
of Ships’ against the archaeology of the predominantly
postpalatial Kephalonia and the importance of Early
Iron Age Ithaki (Petrakis 2006). Although the arguments
would have to be modified in view of the new evidence
that shows a more substantial palatial period settlement
on Kephalonia, the approach is probably the only one that
will move the debate forward.
It is my view that the evidence obtained through ar-
chaeology so far, and the new evidence that no doubt will
be brought to light in the future, is unlikely to resolve the
question for those Homerists who are looking for a one
and only homeland of Odysseus and who are convinced
that archaeology holds the key. So the debate is unlikely
ever to die down. In the modern era, it has so far involved
philologists, historians, archaeologists, classicists and
academics of other disciplines, as well as teachers, and
amateurs of variety of backgrounds, including politicians,
businessmen, pharmacists, lawyers and farmers. Their
engagement with the subject is proof of the hold that the
 Archaeology and the Search for Homeric Ithaca
epics still have on our imagination. For the Homerists
from the Ionian Islands the identification is also a mat-
ter of pride, honour and the ownership of heritage, with
the various advantages that could be gained by the asso-
ciation. I cannot therefore but concur with John Bennet’s
conclusion in the recently published volume Archaeology
and the Homeric Epic (Sherratt & Bennet 2017, XV) that
like the Bible, the Homeric epics have the “power to be
all things to all people, susceptible to an endless variety
of approaches or interpretations depending on the ques-
tions asked, not least when juxtaposed to the archaeologi-
cal record with its own varieties of potential, limitations
and ambiguities.”
NOTES
Note 1. In post-Homeric times a similar objective led
the Corinthians to manipulate the myth of the fatherhood
of Odysseus by attributing it not to Laertes but to the Co-
rinthian Sisyphos who had raped Odysseus’ mother An-
tikleia (Petrakis 2006, 393).
Note 2. To avoid an extremely lengthy bibliography,
not all references to individual sites mentioned in the
text have been given. Comprehensive bibliographies for
Bronze Age sites on Kephalonia can be found in the fol-
lowing gazetteers: Μoschos 2007 (in Greek); Souyoud-
zoglou-Haywood 1999, 38-46.
Note 3. Among the special characteristics shared by
Kephalonia and Ithaki the more significant are the ap-
sidal/curvilinear buildings (Tris Langades on Ithaki,
Tzanata and Vounias on Kephalonia) and the presence of
155
coarse handmade pottery of a special type throughout the
Mycenaean period.
Note 4. Ritual acts at Bronze Age tombs, consisting
mainly of votive offerings, are found throughout Greece
and go back to the 10th century BC but proliferate from
the 8th century BC (references to the extensive bibliogra-
phy can be found in Mazarakis Ainian 2017). The ben-
eficiaries of the rituals, presumed to be those buried in
the tombs, are anonymous, and archaeologists have long
debated and taken different positions as to whether they
were venerated as ancestors (ancestor cult) or as the he-
roes of the epics (hero cult) (Antonaccio 1994, with bib-
liography; 1995). At Mycenaean tombs associated with
palaces, depositions believed to be votive are attested in
tholos tombs at Mycenae, possibly already before the late
8th century (Antonaccio 1995, 30ff). The evidence for cult
activity at the Mycenaean palaces of Tiryns, Mycenae
and recently Pylos has been revised in the light of recent
research (see discussion by Davis & Lynch 2017, 53-54).
Note 5. The cave of Polis is one of the three shrines
believed to demonstrate continuity of cult of a Homeric
hero, which was supported in due course by epigraphic
evidence (the other two being the Agamemnonion at My-
cenae and the Menelaion at Therapne) but the case of the
cult of Odysseus at the Polis cave is much weaker given
the fact that it relies exclusively on the one document
(Antonaccio 1995, 147ff. with earlier bibliography).
Note 6. Buchholz (2009, 129-130) suggested that the
later sanctuary of Odysseus was located over the pro-
posed palace at Aghios Athanasios/’School of Homer’,
but this is refuted by Papadopoulos (2016).
156 Acta Archaeologica
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alcock, S.E. 2002. Archaeologies of the Greek Past. Landscape,
Monuments, and Memories. Cambridge (Cambridge University Press).
Antonaccio, C.M. 1994. Contesting the Past: Hero Cult, and Epic in
Early Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 98, 3. 389-410.
-. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors. Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in
Early Greece. Boston & London (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers).
Arena, E. 2015. Mycenaean Peripheries during the Palatial Age.
The Case of Achaia. Hesperia 84. 1-46.
Assmann, J. & J. Czaplicka. 1995. Collective Memory and Cultural
Identity. New German Critique 65. Cultural History/Cultural Studies
(Spring-Summer 1995). 125-133.
Bennet, J. 2011. The Geography of the Mycenaean kingdoms.
Duhoux & Morpurgo Davies 2011. 137-168.
Benton, S. 1934-1935. Excavations in Ithaca III. The Cave of Polis,
I. Annual of the British School at Athens 35, 45-73.
-. 1938-1939. Excavations in Ithaca III. The Cave of Polis, II.
Annual of the British School at Athens 39, 1-15.
Bittlestone, R. 2005. Odysseus Unbound. The Search for Homer’s
Ithaca. Cambridge (Cambridge University Press).
Brown, A.G., L.S. Basell & K.W. Butzer (eds.). 2011.
Geoarchaeology, Climate Change, and Sustainability. Special Paper
476. Boulder (The Geological Society of America).
Buchholz, H.-G. 2009. Some Remarks Concerning the Heroon of
Odysseus in Ithaca. Danielidou 2009. 127-142.
Carter J.B. & S.P. Morris (eds.). 1995. The Ages of Homer. Austin
(University of Texas Press).
Catling, H. 1987. Archaeological Reports for 1986-87. London
(The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies).
Cavanagh, W. & C. Mee. 1998. A Private Place: Death in
Prehistoric Greece. Jonsered (Paul Åström Förlag).
Coldstream, J.N. 2003. Geometric Greece: 900-7000 BC. 2nd
edition (1st edition 1977). London & New York (Routledge).
Coulson, W.D.E. 1991. The ‘Protogeometric’ from Polis
Reconsidered. Annual of the British School at Athens 86. 42-64.
Danielidou, D. (ed.) 2009. Δώρον. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον καθηγητή
Σ. Ιακωβίδη. Athens (Athens Academy).
Davis, J.L. & K.M. Lynch. 2017. Remembering and Forgetting
Nestor: Pylian Pasts Pluperfect? Sherratt & Bennet 2017. 53-73.
Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 2007. Aspects of Homeric Geography. Morris
& Laffineur 2007. 233-238.
-. 2011. The Catalogue of Ships. The Homer Encyclopedia.
Finkelberg (Wiley-Blackwell).
Diggle, J. 2005. Appendix 1. James Diggle: a Philologist Reflects.
Bittlestone 2005. 505-529.
Doerpfeld, W. 1927. Alt-Ithaca: ein Beitrag zur Homer-Frage:
Studien und Ausgrabungen aus der Insel Leukas-Ithaka. Munich (R.
Uhde).
Duhoux, Y. & A. Morpurgo Davies (eds.). 2011. A Companion to
Linear B. Mycenaean Greek Texts and their World, Vol. 2. Louvain-la-
Neuve - Walpole (Peeters).
Eder, B. 2007. The Power of Seals: Palaces, Peripheries and
Territorial Control in the Mycenaean World. Galanaki et al. 2007. 35-45.
Feuer, B. 2011. Being Mycenaean: a View from the Periphery.
American Journal of Archaeology 115, 4. 507-536.
Folley, J.M. (ed.). 1981. Oral Traditional Literature: A Festschrift
for Albert Bates Lord. Columbus (Slavika Publishers).
Fotiadis, M., R. Laffineur, Y. Lolos & A. Vlachopoulos (eds.). 2017.
Hesperos. The Aegean Seen from the the West. Aegeum 41. Leuven-
Liège (Peeters).
Gaki-Papanastassiou, K., H. Maroukian, E. Karymbalis & D.
Papanastassiou. 2011. Geomorphological Study and Paleogeographic
Evolution of NW Kephalonia Island, concerning the Hypothesis of a
Possible Location of Homeric Ithaca. Brown et al. 2011. 69-80.
Galanaki, I., H. Tomas, Y. Galanakis & R.Laffineur (eds.). 2007.
Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory across the Borders.
Aegeum 27. Liège (University of Liège).
Gallou, C., M. Georgiadis & G.M. Muskett (eds.). 2008.
Dioskouroi. Studies presented to W.G. Cavanagh and C.B. Mee on the
Anniversary of their 30-year joint contribution to Aegean Archaeology.
Oxford (British Archaeological Reports).
Gell, W. 1807. The Geography and Antiquities of Ithaca. London
(Longman, Hurst, Rees & Orme).
Goekoop, A.E.H. 1908. Ithaque la Grande. Athens (Beck & Barth).
Goekoop-de Jongh, J. 1933. La Nesos Homerique. Groningen
(Erven B. van der Kamp).
Goekoop, C.H. 2010. Where on Earth is Ithaca. A Quest for the
Homeland of Odysseus. Deft (Eburton). Translated and Revised from
Cees Goekoop 1990. Op zoek naar Ithaka. Een speurtocht naar het
vaderland van Odysseus. Weesp (Heurika).
Grethlein, J. 2008. Memory and Material Objects in the Iliad and
the Odyssey. Journal of Hellenic Studies 128. 27-51.
Halbwachs, M. 1980. The Collective Memory. New York (Harper &
Row Colophon Books). Translated from French: La mémoire collective
(1950).
-. 1992. On Collective Memory. Chicago (University of Chicago
Press). Translated from French: Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire
(1952).
Hellenic culture. 2008. Press release. http://84.205.251.166/2/g22.
jsp?obj_id=15171. Accessed on 18.01.2018.
Heurtley, W.A. 1937. Η θέσις του ανακτόρου του Οδυσσέως (The
Location of the Palace of Odysseus). Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς 1937.
266-267.
-. 1939/40. Excavations in Ithaca, 1930-35. Annual of the British
School at Athens 40. 1-13.
Hope Simpson, R. & J.F. Lazenby. 1970. The Catalogue of the Ships
in Homer’s Iliad. Oxford (Clarendon Press).
Kazazi, Y. (ed.). 2006. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference for the Ancient Greek Technology. Athens (Technical
Chamber of Greece).
Kilian-Dirlmeier, I. 2005. Die Bronzeitlichen Gräber bei Nidri auf
Leukas. Mainz (Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums).
Knauss, J. 2006. Observations and Considerations concerning
Mycenaean Underground Well-houses or Spring-chambers, especially
at Mycenae, Tiryns and Ithaka. Kazazi 2006. 3-18.
Kolonas, L. 1992. Νομός Κεφαλληνίας. Τζαννάτα Πόρου.
Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 47, B1. 154-157.
-. 1993. Tζαννάτα. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 48, B1. 149-150.
-. 1994. Πόρος Κεφαλονιάς. Patras.
-. 2007. Ο θολωτός τάφος Τζαννάτων Πόρου Κεφαλληνίας και
οι θολωτοί τάφοι της ηπειρωτικής Ελλάδος (The Tholos Tomb of
Tzanata at Poros, Kephalonia, and the Tholos Tombs of Mainland
Greece). Συνέδριο για τα γράμματα, την ιστορία και την λαογραφία της
 Archaeology and the Search for Homeric Ithaca
περιοχής των Πρόννων 8-11 Σεπτ. 2005, Πόρος. Πρακτικά. Thessaloniki
(University Studio Press). 329-369.
Kontorli-Papadopoulou. L. 2001. Αναζητώντας την Ομηρική
Ιθάκη: Πρόσφατες Ανασκαφές (Searching for Homeric Ithaca:
Recent Archaeological Excavations). Eranos. Proceedings of the 9th
International Symposium on the Odyssey. Ithaca 2001. Ithaca (Centre
of Odyssean Studies). 317-330.
-. 2014-15. Ανασκάπτοντας την Ομηρική Ιθάκη. Αποτελέσματα
ανασκαφικού-ερευνητικού προγράμματος του Πανεπιστημίου
Ιωαννίνων στη βόρεια Ιθάκη (Excavating Homeric Ithaca. Results of
the Excavation-Research Programme of the University of Ioannina
in Northern Ithaki). Επιστημονική επετηρίδα του τμήματος Ιστορίας
και Αρχαιολογίας Πανεπιστημίου Ιωαννίνων. Δωδώνη. Vol. 43-44.
Ioannina. 467-504.
Kountouri, E. 2016. Ο Θολωτός τάφος στη θέση Αμβλιανός
Άμφισας (The tholos tomb at Amvlianos, Amphissa. The first data).
www.archaeologia.gr. Blog/2016/111/18. Accessed on 10.02.2018.
Leake, W.M. 1835. Travels in Northern Greece. Vol. 3. London (J.
Rodwell).
Malkin, I. 1998. The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and
Ethnicity. Berkeley and London (University of California Press).
Mazarakis Ainian, A. 2017. Heroes of Iron Age Greece and the
Homeric Epics. Sherratt & Bennet 2017. 101-115.
MIET (Morphotiko Idryma Ethnikes Trapezes/Archeio
Chartografias tou Ellenikou Kosmou) 2007. Το Ιόνιο πέλαγος.
Χαρτογραφία και ιστορία 6ος - 18ος Αιώνας (The Ionian Sea. Chartography
and History 16th-18th Centuries). Athens.
Morgan, C. 1988. Corinth, the Corinthian Gulf and Western Greece
during the Eighth Century BC. Annual of the British School at Athens
83. 331-338.
Morris, S.P. & R.A. Laffineur (eds.). 2007. EPOS. Reconsidering
Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology. Aegaeum 28. Liège
(University of Liège).
Moschos, I. 2007. Η περιοχή των Πρόννων και η ανατολική ακτή
της Κεφαλονιάς πριν από την ιστορία (The Region of Pronnoi and the
Eastern Coast of Kephalonia before History). Συνέδριο για τα γράμματα,
την ιστορία και την λαογραφία της περιοχής των Πρόννων 8-11 Σεπτ.
2005, Πόρος. Πρακτικά. Thessaloniki (University Studio Press).
228-316.
Mountjoy, P.A. 1999. Regional Decorated Pottery. Vol 2. Rahden/
Westf. (Leidorf).
Murray, J. (ed.). 1854. Handbook for Travellers in Greece.
Describing the Ionian Islands, the Kingdom of Greece, the Islands of
the Aegean Sea, with Albania, Thessaly, and Macedonia. London (John
Murr).
Nagy, G. 1979. The Βest of the Achaeans: Concepts of the Hero
in Ancient Greek Poetry. Baltimore (Johns Hopkins University Press).
-. 1981. An Evolutionary Model for the Text Fixation of Homeric
Epos. Folley 1981. 390-393.
-. 1995. An Evolutionary Model for the Making of Homeric Poetry:
Comparative Perspectives. Carter & Morris 1995. 163-179.
Nora, P. 1989. Between Memory and History: Les lieux de
mémoire. Representations 26. Special Issue: Memory and Counter-
Memory (Spring 1989). 7-24.
Paizis-Danias, D.I. 2007. Homer’s Ithaca on Cephallenia? Facts
and Fancies in the History of an Idea. Ithaca (Ithacan friends of Homer
Association “ΕΥΧΗΝ ΟΔΥΣΣΕΙ”).
Papadopoulos, T. 2016. The Heroon of Odysseus in Ithaca
Reconsidered. http://users.uoi.gr/gramisar/pdfs_docs/anaskafes_ere-
157
vnes/ithaka/The_Heroon_of_Odysseus_at_Ithaca_Reconsidered_P-P.
pdf. Accessed on 05.03.2018.
-. 2017. Mycenaean Citadels of Western Greece: Architecture,
Purpose and their Intricate Role in the Local Communities and their
Relations with the West. Fotiadis et al. 2017. 419-430.
Petrakis, V. 2006. History versus the Homeric Iliad: a View from
the Ionian Islands. The Classical World 99, 4. 371-396.
Putman Cramer, H. & G. Metaxas. 2000. Ομηρική Ιθάκη (Homeric
Ithaca). Athens (Κaktos).
Randsborg, K. 2002. Kephallénia. Archaeology and History.
The Ancient Cities. Acta Archaeologica 73. Vols. 1 & 2. Copenhagen
(Blackwell Munksgaard).
Schliemann, H. 1869. Ithaka, der Peloponnes und Troja. Leipzig
(Giesecke & Devrient).
Sherratt, E.S. 1990. ‘Reading the Texts’: Archaeology and the
Homeric Question. Antiquity 84. 807-824.
Sherratt, S. & J. Bennet (eds.). 2017. Archaeology and Homeric
Epic. Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology. Oxford and Philadelphia
(Oxbow).
Snodgrass, A.M. 1974. An historical Homeric society? Journal of
Hellenic Studies 94. 114-125.
Sotiriou, Α. 2000. Nεώτερα στοιχεία της αρχαίας μνημειακής
τοπογραφίας της νήσου Κεφαλονιάς (New Data about the Ancient
Topography of the Island of Kephalonia). Proceedings of the 6th
International Panaionian Conference, Zakynthos 23-27 September
1997. Vol. A. Thessaloniki. 105-123.
Sotiriou, Α., E. Papafloratou, Ι. Voskos, Ε. Τzane 2018. Mυκηναική
Κεφαλονιά: οι πρόσφατες ανασκαφικές έρευνες (Mycenaean
Kephalonia: the Latest Archaeological Investigations). To Aρχαιολογικό
έργο στην βορειο-δυτική Ελλάδα και τα νησιά του Ιονίου. Ιωάννινα, 10-
13 Δεκεμβρίου 2014. Πρακτικά 757-766. Ιoannina.
Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, C. 1999. The Ionian Islands in the
Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. Liverpool (Liverpool University Press).
-. 2008. Interpreting the Bronze Age Landscape of Kephalonia. A
(Preliminary) View from the Livatho Valley Survey. Gallou et al. 2008.
237-251.
-. (forthcoming). Reuse and Cult at the Mycenaean Tombs of
Kephalonia in the Ancient Historical Periods. Πρακτικά του ΙΑ’
Διεθνούς Πανιόνιου Συνεδρίου. Αργοστόλι, 21-25 Μαΐου 2018.
Εταιρεία Κεφαλληνιακών Ιστορικών Ερευνών.
Souyoudzoglou-Haywood, C., A. Sotiriou & E. Papafloratou. 2017.
Living at the edge. SW Kephalonia: an Island Region of the Western
Aegean World in the Post-Palatial Period. Fotiadis et al. 2017. 383-394.
-. (in print). The pottery from the Mycenaean site at Palia Stane-
Prospholeika, Kephalonia: Some preliminary remarks. To αρχαιολογικό
έργο στην βορειο-δυτική Ελλάδα και τα νησιά του Ιονίου. Ιωάννινα, 23-
26 Νοεμβρίου 2017. Πρακτικά. Ioannina.
Symeonoglou, S. 1986. Η Ομηρική γεωγραφία της Ιθάκης. Μύθος
και ιστορία (The Homeric Geography of Ithaca. Myth and history).
Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on the Odyssey, 9-15
September 1984. Ithaca (Centre of Odyssean Studies). 91-110.
Tomlinson, R.A. 1996. Archaeology in Greece. Archaeological
Reports for 1995-98. 1-47.
Vasilakis, Α. 2011. Archaiologia.gr.blog 28/11/2011. Accessed on
05.03.2018.
Vikatou, O. 2017. Meganissi Lafkada. A Νew Site of the End of the
Mycenaean Era. Fotiadis et al. 2017. 369-382.
Vollgraff, C. 1905. Fouilles d’ Ithaque. Bulletin de Correspondance
Hellénique 29. 145-168.
158 Acta Archaeologica

Waterhouse, H. 1996. From Ithaca to the Odyssey. Annual of the

British School at Athens 91. 301-318.
Wardle, K. A. 1972. The Greek Bronze Age West of the Pindus: a
Study of the Period ca. 3000-1000 BC in Epirus, Aitoloakarnania, the
Ionian Islands, Adriatic and Balkan Regions. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of London.

Author’s address:

Christina Souyoudzoglou-Haywood
UCD School of Classics
University College Dublin
Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
e-mail: christina.haywood@ucd.ie