DOCSLIB.ORG

Identification of Some Sites in Northwestern Attica

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

APPENDIX IDENTIFICATION OF SOME SITES IN NORTHWESTERN ATTICA Although the correlation of ancient place names with archaeological sites is not central to the thesis of this study, it is an issue which has ex­ cited a good deal of scholarly interest and should be considered briefly. The identifications of Phyle (the main fort), Rhamnous, and Eleusis have never been in doubt. The identification of Kotroni as the acropolis of the deme of Aphidna and of Palaiokastro as the site of the Spartan camp at Dekeleia are less certain, but have been accepted by most modern scholars. There is less agreement on the identification of the sites in northwestern Attica. The locations of the district and village of Eleutherai, the deme of Oinoe, the fort of Panakton, and the regions of Drymos and Orgas have been much debated. I propose only to point out the main lines of argumentation. For a full review of the literary evidence and of scholarly opinion, C. N. Edmonson, "The Topography of Northwest Attica" (unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of California, Berkeley 1966) is indispensable although I do not agree with his identifications for any of the sites considered below. Eleutherai: The district of Eleutherai was on the northwestern border between Plataea and the rest of Attica and was almost certainly the Mazi plain. Pausanias (1.38.8) says that Plataea is presently the border be­ tween Boeotia and Attica, but that formerly Eleutherai had been the border. Arrian (1. 7 .9) mentions the "gates" (the Kaza pass) that lead from Boeotia to Eleutherai and Attica. Strabo (9. 2. 31) says that Eleutherai was near ·Plataea. The site of the village of Eleutherai is less clear. Pausanias (1.38.9) says that a little above the plain (the Mazi plain), close to Kithairon, the ruins of the walls of Eleutherai are visible. The site of Gyphtokastro (VII.5.a) would appear to fit this description admirably. The identification of Gyphtokastro as Eleutherai was made by J. G. Frazer (Pausanias' Description of Greece, New York 1898, II, pp. 516-17), Milchhoefer (IX, p. 37), Chandler (pp. 10-11), Hammond (p. 121 ), and Vanderpool (pp. 231, 242). Other sites proposed include the Myoupolis fort by W. M. Leake (Travels in Northern Greece, London 1835, II, pp. 375-78), K. J. Beloch ("Zur Karte von Griechenland," Klio 11, 1911, 437), Kahrstedt (p. 12), and Edmonson (pp. 144-49); near the modern town of Villia by W. P. Wallace ("The Spartan Invasion of At­ tica in 431 B.C." in Studies in Honour of Gilbert Norwood: Phoenix Suppl. 1, Toronto 1952, 81). 224 APPENDIX Oinoe: The Attic deme of Oinoe was next to Eleutherai (Strabo, edition of Aly, pp. 16, 240-41, 281; Harpocration, s.v.). Since Eleutherai was on the Boeotian border (see above) it is safe to assume that Oinoe was also near the frontier. Thucydides (2.18.1-2) says that Oinoe was the first place in Attica ('tiji; 'At't'Lxiji;) that the Peloponnesians came to in 431 and that Oinoe was in the methorion between Attica and Boeotia. This does not necessarily mean that the Peloponnesians did not first come past Eleutherai, since Eleutherai did not have official deme status in the fifth century. Oinoe was a fortified place (Thuc. 2.18.2) and was a deme (on the political status of Eleutherai and Oinoe, see Edmonson, pp. 144-52, 121-28). Athenian troops from Oinoe ambushed a Corinthian con­ tingent marching home from the fort at Dekeleia (Thuc. 8.98). The M you polis fort (VII .4. b) seems to fit the available evidence best. It is near the border and Eleutherai (Gyphtokastro ), was walled, and was oc­ cupied and probably fortified by the fifth century. Troops from Myoupolis could easily have attacked the Corinthian contingent from Dekeleia which would probably be passing through the Thriasian plain, by using the Oinoe Road (VIIl.4.b ). The identification of Myoupolis as Oinoe was made by Frazer (Pausanias, II, p. 517), Chandler (p. 8), Wrede (pp. 25-26), Scranton (p. 84), and Vanderpool (pp. 231-32). Among other suggested sites are Plakoto by Beloch ("Zur Karte," 437-38) and Kahrstedt (pp. 25-26); Gyphtokastro by Leake (Northern Greece, II, pp. 375-78); the Pantanassa ridge by Wallace ("Spartan In­ vasion," 81-82); the site of the modern town ofVillia by Hammond (pp. 120-22); the Aghios Georgios fort in the Koundoura valley by Edmonson (pp. 121-42). Panakton: Panakton was a major fortress from the period of the Peloponnesian War through the third century (see above, Chapter IX pp. 194, 220). Thucydides (5.3.5) called it a fortress (teichos) in the Athe­ nian methorion. It was clearly on the Athenian-Boeotian border. A scholion to Plato ( Critias 11 0e) claims that Mt Parnes was near Panakton. Of the two sites which have been suggested for the fort, Gyphtokastro and Kavasala (VII.4.a), the latter is to be preferred, both because it is near Parnes and because the pottery record clearly shows that, unlike Gyphtokastro, the fort at Kavasala was occupied in the fifth century. The argument for Gyphtokastro hangs on linking the im­ pressive, well-built site with the famous name, a dubious procedure. Furthermore, the forts of Phyle and Panakton seem to stand and fall together. Demetrius Poliorcetes captured both forts when he chased Cassander out of Attica in 304 (Plut. Demetrius 23.2). It is logical, therefore, to guess that both forts were on the same route, as are Phyle and Kavasala which overlook the two ends of a major route from the .
Recommended publications
  • Nicholas F. Jones the Organization of Corinth Again

    Nicholas F. Jones the Organization of Corinth Again

    NICHOLAS F. JONES THE ORGANIZATION OF CORINTH AGAIN aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 120 (1998) 49–56 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 49 THE ORGANIZATION OF CORINTH AGAIN Despite the general dearth of contemporary evidence for the government of Greek Corinth, the segmen- tary division of the city’s territory and population has steadily come into sharper focus thanks to the discovery of a small number of highly suggestive inscriptions. But the undoubted progress made pos- sible by these texts has, I shall argue here, been compromised by lines of interpretation not fully or convincingly supported by the Corinthian evidence and, in more than one respect, at variance with well- established practice elsewhere in Greece. A review of the recent literature on the subject will serve to demonstrate this characterization and to point the way to a more securely grounded reconstruction.1 The only existing comprehensive treatment of the subject is presented in my own synoptic account of what I called the “public organizations” of ancient Greece.2 This treatment condensed the findings of an article on the pre-Roman organization published several years earlier in 1980.3 My analysis was based upon two long appreciated lexicographical notices: one, Suda, s.v. pãnta Ùkt≈, reporting that Aletes, when synoecizing the Corinthians, “made the politai into eight phylai and the polis into eight parts”; the other, Hesychios, s.v. KunÒfaloi, glossing this seeming proper name meaning something like “Wearers of Dogskin Caps” as “Corinthians, a phyle”. To the framework of principal units indica- ted by these sources could be related a list of names dated epigraphically to the latter half of the fourth century originally published as Corinth VIII 1, no.
  • Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards

    Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards

    MARATHON 2,500 YEARS EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 124 DIRECTOR & GENERAL EDITOR: JOHN NORTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS: RICHARD SIMPSON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARATHON CONFERENCE 2010 EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2013 The cover image shows Persian warriors at Ishtar Gate, from before the fourth century BC. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Photo Mohammed Shamma (2003). Used under CC‐BY terms. All rights reserved. This PDF edition published in 2019 First published in print in 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN: 978-1-905670-81-9 (2019 PDF edition) DOI: 10.14296/1019.9781905670819 ISBN: 978-1-905670-52-9 (2013 paperback edition) ©2013 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London The right of contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory note 1 P. J. Rhodes The battle of Marathon and modern scholarship 3 Christopher Pelling Herodotus’ Marathon 23 Peter Krentz Marathon and the development of the exclusive hoplite phalanx 35 Andrej Petrovic The battle of Marathon in pre-Herodotean sources: on Marathon verse-inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; Seg Lvi 430) 45 V.
  • (Eponymous) Heroes

    (Eponymous) Heroes

    is is a version of an electronic document, part of the series, Dēmos: Clas- sical Athenian Democracy, a publicationpublication ofof e Stoa: a consortium for electronic publication in the humanities [www.stoa.org]. e electronic version of this article off ers contextual information intended to make the study of Athenian democracy more accessible to a wide audience. Please visit the site at http:// www.stoa.org/projects/demos/home. Athenian Political Art from the fi h and fourth centuries: Images of Tribal (Eponymous) Heroes S e Cleisthenic reforms of /, which fi rmly established democracy at Ath- ens, imposed a new division of Attica into ten tribes, each of which consti- tuted a new political and military unit, but included citizens from each of the three geographical regions of Attica – the city, the coast, and the inland. En- rollment in a tribe (according to heredity) was a manda- tory prerequisite for citizenship. As usual in ancient Athenian aff airs, politics and reli- gion came hand in hand and, a er due consultation with Apollo’s oracle at Delphi, each new tribe was assigned to a particular hero a er whom the tribe was named; the ten Amy C. Smith, “Athenian Political Art from the Fi h and Fourth Centuries : Images of Tribal (Eponymous) Heroes,” in C. Blackwell, ed., Dēmos: Classical Athenian Democracy (A.(A. MahoneyMahoney andand R.R. Scaife,Scaife, edd.,edd., e Stoa: a consortium for electronic publication in the humanities [www.stoa.org], . © , A.C. Smith. tribal heroes are thus known as the eponymous (or name giving) heroes. T : Aristotle indicates that each hero already received worship by the time of the Cleisthenic reforms, although little evi- dence as to the nature of the worship of each hero is now known (Aristot.
  • Annual-Report-2008-En.Pdf

    Annual-Report-2008-En.Pdf

    Contents 1. The Group ......................................................................................................................... 4 Message to shareholders .....................................................................................................4 The Group in brief .................................................................................................................9 The Group in 2008 ...............................................................................................................11 HELLENIC PETROLEUM SA in Stock Markets ...................................................................13 From past to present ...........................................................................................................18 Group’s Management ..........................................................................................................20 Corporate Governance ........................................................................................................23 2. Corporate Activities .........................................................................................................26 Oil Refining ..........................................................................................................................28 Industry Overview ................................................................................................................34 Fuels Marketing ..................................................................................................................36
  • The Romanization of Attic Ritual Space in the Age of Augustus

    The Romanization of Attic Ritual Space in the Age of Augustus

    The Romanization of Attic Ritual Space in the Age of Augustus Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Benavides, Makayla Lorraine Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction, presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 30/09/2021 14:30:47 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/633170 THE ROMANIZATION OF ATTIC RITUAL SPACE IN THE AGE OF AUGUSTUS by Makayla Benavides ____________________________ Copyright © Makayla Benavides 2019 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES AND CLASSICS In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2019 1 7 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Master's Committee, we certify that we have read the thesis prepared by Makayla Benavides titled The Romanizationof Attic Ritual Space in the Age ofAugustus and recommend that it be accepted as fulfillingthe dissertation requirement for the Master's Degree. Date: .r- / - :.?CJ/ 5f David Soren Date: S - I - 2..o I � Mary E Voyatzis David Gilman Romano Date: ----- [Committee Member Name} Final approval and acceptance of this thesis is contingent upon the candidate's submission of the final copies of the thesis to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this thesis prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfillingthe Master's requirement.
  • A Garrison at Oropos?

    A Garrison at Oropos?

    A Garrison at Oropos? The primary military function of the Athenian ephebeia in the Lycurgan era (and the likely reason for its existence) was to protect the inhabitants of Attica against small bands of raiders originating from Boeotia. According to the Aristotelian Athenaion Politeia “ephebes patrol the countryside and spend time in the guard-posts (phylakteria)” in the second year of their national service (42.4: περιπολοῦσι τὴν χώραν καὶ διατρίβουσιν ἐν τοῖς φυλακτηρίοις). If the ephebeia was created sometime after Alexander of Macedon’s destruction of Thebes in September 335 BCE, it would mean that the terminus post quem for the regular deployment of a minimum of one phyle of ephebes at these phylakteria was 333/2 BCE (Friend 2019). The epigraphic habit of the ephebes who had garrisoned the defensive infrastructure of Attica in the 330s and 320s BCE, until the probable abolition of the ephebeia after the Lamian War, permits the identification of the Athenaion Politeia’s unnamed “guard-posts”. An analysis of those end of service dedications erected by individual ephebic phylai reveals that the phylakteria would have consisted of fortified demes (Eleusis, Rhamnous, and Oinoe) and of border forts (Phyle and Panactum) situated at the Attic-Boeotian frontier or at the northeastern coast of Attica. Did the ephebes also garrison Oropos after the acquisition of the frontier stronghold from Alexander in 335/4 (rather than from Philip in 338/7), just as in the Peloponnesian War (Thuc. 8.60.1)? Two arguments can be adduced in support of the view that ephebes (and presumably their older compatriots) were responsible for patrolling the Oropia.
  • Synoikism, Urbanization, and Empire in the Early Hellenistic Period Ryan

    Synoikism, Urbanization, and Empire in the Early Hellenistic Period Ryan

    Synoikism, Urbanization, and Empire in the Early Hellenistic Period by Ryan Anthony Boehm A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Emily Mackil, Chair Professor Erich Gruen Professor Mark Griffith Spring 2011 Copyright © Ryan Anthony Boehm, 2011 ABSTRACT SYNOIKISM, URBANIZATION, AND EMPIRE IN THE EARLY HELLENISTIC PERIOD by Ryan Anthony Boehm Doctor of Philosophy in Ancient History and Mediterranean Archaeology University of California, Berkeley Professor Emily Mackil, Chair This dissertation, entitled “Synoikism, Urbanization, and Empire in the Early Hellenistic Period,” seeks to present a new approach to understanding the dynamic interaction between imperial powers and cities following the Macedonian conquest of Greece and Asia Minor. Rather than constructing a political narrative of the period, I focus on the role of reshaping urban centers and regional landscapes in the creation of empire in Greece and western Asia Minor. This period was marked by the rapid creation of new cities, major settlement and demographic shifts, and the reorganization, consolidation, or destruction of existing settlements and the urbanization of previously under- exploited regions. I analyze the complexities of this phenomenon across four frameworks: shifting settlement patterns, the regional and royal economy, civic religion, and the articulation of a new order in architectural and urban space. The introduction poses the central problem of the interrelationship between urbanization and imperial control and sets out the methodology of my dissertation. After briefly reviewing and critiquing previous approaches to this topic, which have focused mainly on creating catalogues, I point to the gains that can be made by shifting the focus to social and economic structures and asking more specific interpretive questions.
  • Greek Religious Thought from Homer to the Age of Alexander

    Greek Religious Thought from Homer to the Age of Alexander

    'The Library of Greek Thought GREEK RELIGIOUS THOUGHT FROM HOMER TO THE AGE OF ALEXANDER Edited by ERNEST BARKER, M.A., D.Litt., LL.D. Principal of King's College, University of London tl<s } prop Lt=. GREEK RELIGIOUS THOUGHT FROM HOMER TO THE AGE OF ALEXANDER BY F. M. CORNFORD, M.A. Fellow and Lecturer of Trinity College, Cambridge MCMXXIII LONDON AND TORONTO J. M. DENT & SONS LTD. NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON tf CO. HOTTO (E f- k> ) loUr\ P. DOTTO/U TALKS ) f^op Lt=. 7 yt All rights reserved f PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN TO WALTER DE LA MARE INTRODUCTION The purpose of this book is to let the English reader see for himself what the Greeks, from Homer to Aristotle, thought about the world, the gods and their relations to man, the nature and destiny of the soul, and the significance of human life. The form of presentation is prescribed by the plan of the series. The book is to be a compilation of extracts from the Greek authors, selected, so far as possible, without prejudice and translated with such honesty as a translation may have. This plan has the merit of isolating the actual thought of the Greeks in this period from all the constructions put upon it by later ages, except in so far as the choice of extracts must be governed by some scheme in the compiler's mind, which is itself determined by the limits of his knowledge and by other personal factors. In the book itself it is clearly his business to reduce the influence of these factors to the lowest point; but in the introduction it is no less his business to forewarn the reader against some of the consequences.
  • Founding Athens I: Crea�Ng History

    Founding Athens I: CreaNg History

    MDS2/3 CLM Classical Mythology Founding Athens I: Creang History Gillian Shepherd Image Source Page: hCp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acropolis-Athens34.jpg The Acropolis, Athens • Autochthony/authochthonos (auto = self, chthonos = earth) • Founders who travel (both foreign and Greek e.g. Pelops, Kadmos, Ion) • Historical foundaons (e.g. Baos of Cyrene cf. Herodotus 4. 148 ff) NB: ae=ology Early Kings of Athens Kekrops (offspring Erysichthon, Aglauros, Herse, Pandrosos) {Kranaos} (3 daughters, including Ahis) {Amphictyon} Erichthonios (Erechtheus) Pandion Erechtheus Image Source Page: hCp://www.theoi.com/Gallery/T42.1.html Kekrops (Ac red-figure kylix, Kodros Painter, c. 440 BC) Image Source Page: hCp://www.sandrashaw.com/AH1L18.htm Parthenon, reconstruc=on of pediments (top = west, boCom = east) NB Thriasian plain (includes Eleusis) Erechtheion, Acropolis, Athens Photo © Gillian Shepherd Then there is the building called the Erechtheion; in front of the entrance is an altar of Zeus the highest, where they sacrifice nothing that breathes, but they put sweet cakes there and the rite allows not even the use of wine. As you go in there are altars to Poseidon, where they sacrifice to Erechtheus as well, according to an oracle… [there is] sea water inside a well… the extraordinary thing about this well is that when the wind blows south a sound of waves comes from it. There is the mark of a trident in the rock. They say that these were Poseidon’s arguments in the quarrel over the country Pausanias 1.26.5 Image Source Page: hCp://greecetravel.com/photos/athens/temple-of-olympian-zeus/temple-of-zeus01_jpg_view.htm Temple of Olympian Zeus (2nd cent AD) The ground here has split open about two feet; they say this is where the water ran away aer Deukalion’s flood (Pausanias 1.18.7) (NB Deukalion’s wife was called Pyrrha; Ahis/Aca) Image Source Page: hCp://www.class.uh.edu/mcl/classics/thes_txts.im.html Ac red-figure kylix, Kodros Painter, c.
  • The Physical Parameters of Athenian Democracy’, Antichthon 53 (2019)

    The Physical Parameters of Athenian Democracy’, Antichthon 53 (2019)

    D.M. Pritchard (in press), ‘The Physical Parameters of Athenian Democracy’, Antichthon 53 (2019). THE PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY* David M. Pritchard In Memory of Matthew Trundle Abstract: This article investigates the physical parameters of Athenian democracy. It explores the collective-action problems that these parameters caused and settles debates about them that R. G. Osborne famously provoked. Classical Athens was ten times larger than an average Greek state. Fourth-century Athenians were ten times more numerous. These parameters significantly contributed to the success of Athenian democracy. Athens could field more combatants than almost every other Greek state. With such huge manpower-reserves individual Athenians had to fight only ever few years. Nevertheless this huge population also caused collective-action problems. Attica’s farmers could not grow enough to feed them. The Athenians never had adequate personnel or recordkeeping centrally to administer so many citizens over such a large territory. Yet they found effective means at home and abroad to overcome these collective-action problems. 1. Introduction Ancient historians rarely consider systematically the physical parameters within which Athenian democracy operated. Yet these parameters contributed a great to deal to the relative success of this state. At the same time they also created a series of collective-action problems. The classical Athenians understandably did their best to solve as many of these problems as they could. Physical parameters that they did not control helped them to circumvent others. In terms of territory classical Athens had ten times more than that of an average-size Greek state. It had a larger population than almost all other states.
  • Αthens and Attica in Prehistory Proceedings of the International Conference Athens, 27-31 May 2015

    Αthens and Attica in Prehistory Proceedings of the International Conference Athens, 27-31 May 2015

    Αthens and Attica in Prehistory Proceedings of the International Conference Athens, 27-31 May 2015 edited by Nikolas Papadimitriou James C. Wright Sylvian Fachard Naya Polychronakou-Sgouritsa Eleni Andrikou Archaeopress Archaeology Archaeopress Publishing Ltd Summertown Pavilion 18-24 Middle Way Summertown Oxford OX2 7LG www.archaeopress.com ISBN 978-1-78969-671-4 ISBN 978-1-78969-672-1 (ePdf) © 2020 Archaeopress Publishing, Oxford, UK Language editing: Anastasia Lampropoulou Layout: Nasi Anagnostopoulou/Grafi & Chroma Cover: Bend, Nasi Anagnostopoulou/Grafi & Chroma (layout) Maps I-IV, GIS and Layout: Sylvian Fachard & Evan Levine (with the collaboration of Elli Konstantina Portelanou, Ephorate of Antiquities of East Attica) Cover image: Detail of a relief ivory plaque from the large Mycenaean chamber tomb of Spata. National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Department of Collection of Prehistoric, Egyptian, Cypriot and Near Eastern Antiquities, no. Π 2046. © Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Archaeological Receipts Fund All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in the Netherlands by Printforce This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com Publication Sponsors Institute for Aegean Prehistory The American School of Classical Studies at Athens The J.F. Costopoulos Foundation Conference Organized by The American School of Classical Studies at Athens National and Kapodistrian University of Athens - Department of Archaeology and History of Art Museum of Cycladic Art – N.P. Goulandris Foundation Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports - Ephorate of Antiquities of East Attica Conference venues National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (opening ceremony) Cotsen Hall, American School of Classical Studies at Athens (presentations) Museum of Cycladic Art (poster session) Organizing Committee* Professor James C.
  • Post-Event Press Release

    Post-Event Press Release

    Powered by PRESS RELEASE CAPITAL LINK GREECE MARKET INSIGHTS WEBINAR SERIES Webinar: Presentation of the key findings of the second edition of EY’s report: “Greece: International Freight Center” Held with great success on JULY 8, 2021 Video of the Discussion: http://webinars.capitallink.com/2021/greece-an-international-freight-center/ Wednesday, July 14, 2021 It is with great success and large participation of attendees from the US, Europe, Greece and Cyprus, that the Capital Link Webinar, presenting the key findings of the second edition of EY’s report “Greece: International Freight Center”, was held on July 8, 2021 | 10:00 am EST (New York) – 15:00 pm London – 17:00 pm Athens. The webinar focused on the latest developments in the Greek transport and logistics industry, as captured in EY’s report, highlighting the complex dynamics and aspects of the transport and logistics ecosystem that the country needs to capitalize on, in order to make the most of its biggest competitive advantage – its strategic geographical location – and rise as an international freight center. The webinar consisted of a brief presentation of the key findings of the second edition of EY’s report, followed by a Keynote speech, by H.E. Kostas Karamanlis, Minister of Transport and Infrastructure. Then, a panel discussion with the participation of some of the key players from the transportation and logistics market took place, closing with a live Q&A session. This webinar has been archived and is available for replay at the following link: http://webinars.capitallink.com/2021/greece-an-international-freight-center/ PROGRAMME 10:00 am EST (New York) – 15:00 pm London – 17:00 pm Athens WELCOME REMARKS: Mr.