1972–1977

Continued from scan 32

… 2. ded that this was a unique chance to record what was left of these rather beautiful and important mosaics. In doing so I have not in the least possible way made use of any of your site notebooks or excavation diaries or stratigraphical information. All I did was to study the objects in themselves and try and get the best possible photographic records from my point of view, that is to say, somebody who has a particular interest in mosaics. What I did could have been done by any of the thousands of tourists visiting the site. The difference was that I did an all encompassing study of the mosaics of the ancient city(all of them) which related them to the other mosaic centres of the island and the Mediterranean as a whole. This meant that I recorded the old material,(something that should have been done over 30 years ago) and the the new material which is still being discovered.

This I repeat took place six years ago. Ever since,however, I have continued to add new information to my manuscript, as well as to make new entries for the recently discovered mosaics. So when I last saw Dr.Karageorgis in Rome I suggested that something be done about these poor mosaics before it really is too late. This is where my story ends. Whether you had been making arrangements for a similar publication, after so many years ( 42 to be precise since the excavation of the "Annex of Eustolios"), I had no way of knowing.

So you can see why I have to refuse to send you an illustrated copy of my manuscript. I don't know how long Dr. Rupp has been working on the subject, but you see, I have been collecting information for six years and have reconstructed (on paper) the lost mosaics (or parts of) and also I do have a lot of information which is not related to the mosaics discovered by Pennsylvania University.

I am sorry for being an obstacle to Dr.Rupp's study, but I do think it will be better if he writes to me directly.

Yours sincerelly

Signature: D. Michaelides

Demetrios Michaelides