[Text in italics reflects my own views and emphasis.]
The aim of the volume, as stated, is to address the role of the island of Crete within Phoenician trade routes, in the Aegean, in the 1st millennium BC. In the introduction, after a brief review of the wider framework of connections throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, Judith Muñoz Sogas presents a series of questions ranging from “When did Phoenicians arrive in Crete?”, and “What materials were transported to the island?” to “Did Phoenician trade routes exclusively touch Crete, or did they extend into the Aegean to the North?”, all interrogating the level and nature of Phoenician presence on the island. To answer these questions the author states that the study will be based mainly on data from Kommos, and more particularly, on the context of Temple B, which the author intends to compare with other Aegean temples — Aegean being understood in an extended definition since Cyprus is included. Unexpectedly, only 16 pages are dedicated to the harbour and sanctuary of Kommos, which is supposed to constitute the heart of the volume. Moreover, given the — at least — syncretic context of the Temple B of Kommos, one may be surprised that this comparison is limited to Aegean temples, without including those from the Levant, and thereby rejecting the possibility that the architecture of this building might be as, or even more, Levantine than Greek. It is all the more surprising as the author recognizes that Kommos is “one of the places from where the Greeks absorbed oriental elements” (p. 7), and mentions, further on: “the oriental structure of Temple B” (p. 24). In this respect, the absence of the Levantine coast in Fig. 1.1 is telling, while, in contrast, the map of the winds (Fig. 1.2) concerns only the Levantine coast and Cyprus, without any connection to Crete.
The author states that she will reevaluate whether the temple of Kommos was only used for religious purposes or also economic ones. The term “commercial district” is abundantly used throughout the volume. Its tentative explanation arrives only at the conclusion, where the author explains that “commercial district” is an adaptation of Maria Eugenia Aubet’s term “merchant ventures”.[1] Throughout the study, Muñoz Sogas uses expressions like “commercial district” or “early type of capitalism”, which are anachronistic. Regarding “Commercial districts: multifunctional buildings and temples”, Muñoz Sogas claims: “These buildings could arguably be compared to our modern ‘shopping centres’, or even airports, i.e. they are places to meet people, buy and sell, enjoy cultural and leisure activities, eat and drink in a range of outlets, etc.” (p. 141).
The first part of the book is dedicated to “The Commercial temple of Kommos”, i.e. Temple B. Yet, in the related figures, the three different phases of this building are wrongly named as “Temple A”, “Temple B”, “Temple C”, while at Kommos these denominations correspond to three distinct buildings. Another confusion relates to the description of the Tripillar Shrine, a unique baetylic altar at the centre of the shrine, which is accompanied by the illustration of a Hellenistic terracotta base artefact (!) labelled “Reused Minoan triangular block” (Fig. 2.2). This chronological confusion also appears earlier, on p. 7, when the author dates Temple C to the end of the 7th century BC, while its most ancient phase dates back to c. 375/350 BC.
In a subsection labelled “Temples A and B” — where there is no mention of Temple A —, it is stated that most of the pottery finds from the temple are of local origin, just before presenting the enormous quantity of imported Phoenician ceramic, although without providing the relative proportion of each. Moreover, the fact that Temple A (predecessor of Temple B) is missing from the analysis is striking since the evidence of contemporaneous Phoenician ceramics already testifies to earlier relations with the Levant.
While the volume’s starting point is the role of Crete in the Phoenician routes in the Aegean, contexts from the Western Mediterranean (namely south of the Iberian Peninsula) are discussed. Following the theory developed by Aubet for Samaria and by Susan Sherratt for Kition[2], it is suggested that one use of Temple B “could have been as a marketplace” (p. 26), and that “Kommos shares similarities with both Samaria and Huelva” (p. 27). From there, the author introduces the idea that Kommos included a Phoenician commercial district, like the ones at Carthage and Kition, sites considered to be colonies. The notion of colonization (although this crucial topic is not discussed in the book) goes hand in hand with the concept of hybridization, to which a summary definition is given in conclusion: “hybridisation is a phenomenon occurring through social interactions and negotiations between ‘colonists’ and ‘colonised’” (p. 142). The notion of hybridization is not always pertinent in the development (the author twice mentions “the hybridisation of religious and cultural practices” [p. 121, 134], while a more neutral term like syncretism would have been appropriate). Above all, it is incorrect to speak about a Phoenician colonization in Crete since the data do not match those normally associated with Phoenician colonization elsewhere. Later on, following Aubet in recognizing a semi-permanent Phoenician presence at Kommos, the author asserts that it was a commercial district rather than a permanent colony. But, one might counter that speaking about a Phoenician commercial district would conflict with the hypothesis of a non-permanent stay.
In the following section dedicated to “Kommos and its connections within Crete”, several sites, like Knossos, Eleutherna and the Idean Cave, are described under the following themes: site, archaeological contexts, pottery, bronze, faience, sometimes followed by observations. The author interprets the presence of Phoenician stelae or cippi (named by the author as “funerary statues” on p. 47) in some funerary contexts at Knossos and Eleutherna as proof of a Phoenician presence in Crete (pp. 32, 47). The argument here makes, however, several unfounded leaps, speaking of “Phoenician colonies at both Eleutherna and Knossos” (p. 57), claiming that as Phoenicians were buried in the North Cemetery of Knossos “they were accepted within the community and were seen as citizens with rights…” and, a few lines further, “acquired full rights” (p. 83). A more accurate reading of the publications produced by the excavators of the sites concerned reveals a much more cautious approach toward these interpretations.
Some contexts described are variously problematic. Regarding Eleutherna, the author claims that “trade by sea was not possible” (p. 58), thereby ignoring the existence of harbour facilities connected with this city; Muñoz Sogas also claims that “[t]he absence of a temple indicates that this was not a commercial settlement”, whereas there did exist a (contemporaneous) temple in the city of Eleutherna. At Amnisos, the author mentions a figurine of Astarte, without specifying its date, but this evidence is not enough to claim that “it shows a direct connection with Phoenicia” (p. 69). The sanctuary of Kato Symi is presented as a cave sanctuary (“The Syme Cave”, p. 72, and Fig. 3.86, 3.87), but there is no cave at the site. Similarly, the author identifies the Patsos Cave as the Eileithyia Cave mentioned in the Odyssey, while the candidate is actually the one at Amnisos.
A much more crucial methodological issue appears in the section dedicated to “General observations on Cretan sites”. Clearly, the author avoids terms like “Orientalia” or “Egyptiaca”, even though this is precisely the type of material collected for this study, but prefers to use the circumlocution “a great variety of different material reached Crete” (p. 80). Yet, as the author admits a few lines later: “some of these items arrived as imports and others were probably made on Crete”. As a consequence, the corpus collated and synthesized in Table 1 does not make very much sense, since these artefacts do not conclusively prove any Phoenician presence or even a Phoenician active commercial hub on the island (in the case of local imitations).
The last section of the book, “Other possible commercial sanctuaries”, focuses on architectural contexts. The author here discusses the possibility of economic exchanges within the sanctuary of Kommos, but the claim that these exchanges took place “within the temple” (p. 85) is unfounded. It is true that the book is refreshing concerning the use of the temples (“General observations on commercial temples”), which, according to the author, could be places where one could eat and sleep (p. 134), “providing meeting points for travellers who needed to rest” (p. 144), an idea which is not out of place in some contexts like Kommos but appear to be more difficult to generalize and extend to the whole corpus (i.e. Kition, Vroulia, Samos, Eretria, Ephesus, Corinth, Sparta, Olympia). Muñoz Sogas also further claims that these temples were used for “trading and/or producing goods”, a hypothesis meaningful in the context of the “Temples” of Kition, but highly improbable at Kommos. Also problematic is Table 2 showing the finds from each Aegean settlement, where among a typology of artefacts is included the category “Oriental Temple” (for Kommos, Kition and Vroulia), a category not defined by the author and which is not a type of artefact but an architectural consideration. Finally, suggesting that the Kommos Temple B could have first been a dwelling (p. 141), following a process theorized in other contexts by A. Mazarakis Ainian, is out of place here.
In the conclusion, the author rightly underlines the unique character of the site of Kommos. Yet, on the whole, the synthesis and interpretation of Kommos is superficial and not sufficiently supported by the evidence. To give only one example, only 13 lines are dedicated to three inscribed sherds (considered as commercial inscriptions), mentioned as proof of commercial character, without being discussed further. Having focused on the commercial aspect, assuming that “Kommos was a trading district”, setting aside the cultural and religious but also political aspects of the site, exposes the author’s lack of awareness of crucial issues about Kommos.[3] As an example, “citizens of Kommos” are mentioned (p. 144), although it is still not even known if a corresponding settlement existed. In the same way, claiming that the Phoenician presence was diminishing in the Aegean in the 5th century BC is highly objectionable, since evidence from Kommos indicates that visits from Levantine people had already stopped before the end of the 7th century BC. In any case, the reader has to wait for these final words to discover that for the author “Phoenician” means “Near Eastern merchants” (p. 136), which is obviously vague. Indeed, while in the Early Iron Age groups of people called “Phoenicians” came from various regions of the Eastern Mediterranean, no attempt has been made in the volume to try to define their origin.[4]
This volume is abundantly illustrated with 173 Figures and 2 Tables. The author seems to have a practical knowledge or at least to be familiar with numerous sites (as testified by many of the authors’ own pictures), but also artefacts that Muñoz Sogas had the possibility to handle and/or study and draw. It is clear that the author worked hard to draw numerous artefacts, even if the quasi-systematic lack of scale and current location undermines these efforts. Also, some images do not appear relevant for the subject: was it essential to include a picture of the Roman theatre of Gortyn (p. 70)?
On a formal level, while the different sections and subsections of the volume are unnumbered, in several places there are references to chapters (perhaps a legacy of the doctoral thesis of which the book is a revised version?). The 10-page bibliography (primarily in English) includes only three entries in modern Greek, while in the same list ancient authors (Cicero, Herodotus, or Strabo) are referred through links to the Perseus Digital Library.[5]
Unfortunately, the volume doesn’t avoid the trap of the “catalogue effect”, and seems to constitute a collection of all the sites where orientalia have been found (although the corpora are in many ways deficient) without real discernment. On the whole, readers should take this publication very cautiously, being aware that, beside the anachronisms and methodological issues mentioned above, this study models on Crete the pattern of Phoenician colonization documented elsewhere in the Mediterranean, but not appropriate for this island. Finally, readers attracted by the witty title (setting aside the metaphor) may remain thirsty as nowhere in the volume is the issue of water supply for seafarers discussed, although crucial.
Notes
[1] M. E. Aubet, “Phoenicians abroad: from merchant venturers to colonists”, in Manuel Fernández-Götz and Dirk Krausse (eds.), Eurasia at the Dawn of History: urbanization and social change, New York (Cambridge University Press), 2017, 254–264, although missing in the final bibliography.
[2] M.E. Aubet, “El barrio commercial fenicio como estrategia colonial”, Rivista di studi fenici 40 (2012), 221–236; S. Sherratt & A. Sherratt, “The growth of the Mediterranean economy in the ealy first millennium BC”, World Archaeology 24.3 (1993), 361–378.
[3] To mention only two of them, missing in the bibliography: Fabio Caruso, “Perchance to dream. Una lettura della coppa a figure incise C 2396 da Kommòs”, in G. Rizza (ed.), Identità culturale, etnicità, processi di trasformazione a Creta fra Dark age e Arcaismo. Per i cento anni dello scavo di Priniàs 1906-2006. Convegno di Studi (Atene 9-12 novembre 2006), Catania, 2011, 209–221; Antonis Kotsonas, “The Iconography of a Protoarchaic Cup from Kommos: Myth and Ritual in Early Cretan Art”, Hesperia 88, no. 4 (2019), 595–624.
[4] Catherine E. Pratt’s 2009 publication (missing from the bibliography) might have been helpful for this problematic issue as it offers re-examinations of archaeological data regarding the Phoenician presence in Crete and specifically discusses Kommos. C. E. Pratt, “Minor Transnationalism in the Prehistoric Aegean? The Case of the Phoenicians on Crete in the Early Iron Age”, Diaspora 18:3 (2009), 305–335. See also Carolina López-Ruiz, Phoenicians and the Making of the Mediterranean (Harvard University Press) 2021, although this publication may have been too late for inclusion.
[5] Curiously, the names of some scholars are consistently misspelt in the text (A. Mazarakis for A. Mazarakis Ainian, Knich for Kinch, Karaeorghis for Karageorghis, Kapf for Kraft, Papalardo for Pappalardo), but — for some authors — correctly spelled in the final bibliography.