Minor Transnationalism in the Prehistoric Aegean? The Case of Phoenicians on Crete in the Early Iron Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of population movements and cultural interaction, both large- and small-scale, has been increasingly important for understanding past societies and the archaeological remains of their material culture. As the result of long-term social and ideological practices in life and death, consumption and deposition patterns in the archaeological record are essential for viewing changes in cultural identities brought about by contact with other groups. In the Early Iron Age, groups of people we call “Phoenicians” set forth to various regions around the Mediterranean Sea and established predominantly colonial connections with local populations. While Phoenician presence is attested on the island of Crete, the available evidence does not reflect common trends in the archaeological remains of Phoenician colonial activity. Consequently, many debates exist on how to classify the interactions of Phoenicians and Cretans in the Early Iron Age. A reexamination of archaeological data associated with the Phoenician presence on Crete, however, provides an opportunity to test new theoretical models of transnational social interaction. In this article I suggest that the modern concept of minor transnationalism may be a useful tool to view this case of ancient cultural contact. In particular, I examine two examples of sanctuaries and cemeteries on Crete where Phoenician interactions with local populations have produced evidence for transnational spaces, which are created by the interconnections between agents of two liminal groups. By applying a modern theory to ancient evidence, this article will help expand the historical scope of transnationalism beyond strictly modern perspectives. In short, the application of transnationalism to the ancient past will provide a more transhistorical perspective on cultural contact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".