Kommos: An Excavation on the South Coast of Crete. Volume IV: The Greek Sanctuary ed. by Joseph W. Shaw and Maria C. Shaw (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS JOSEPH W. SHAW and MARIA C. SHAW, eds. Kommos: An Excavation on the South Coast of Crete. Volume N: The Greek Sanctuary. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Pp. xvi + 813; 705 photos, 214 line illustrations. US $235.00. ISBN 0-691- 0 5080-5. This volume on the Greek sanctuary is a welcome addition to the series of publications on the excavations at Kommos. Crete. conducted by Joseph and Maria Shaw and sponsored by the University of Toronto and the Royal Ontario Museum. Much of the long and complex history of Kommos has been presented in three previous volumes that have dealt with aspects of the Bronze Age settlement. Subsequent volumes will treat the civic buildings explored in a more recent program of excavation . The editors have wisely chosen to present separately the findings from the Greek sanctuary. for the material represents a new culture and a new type of site. with little continuity from the Bronze Age settlement that preceded it. This volume presents in enormous detail a coherent account of activity at a Greek rural sanctuary in use between the eleventh century B.C. and the second century A.D. (although there was a hiatus between the sixth and fourth centuries B.C.. and the site was largely out of use after 50 B.C.). It is an invaluable contribution to classical archaeology. The volume is in two fascicules. one of text and the other of plates. a somewhat cumbersome arrangement. but one that the wealth of material and the depth of the presentation demand. Although a variety of specialists have written the text. it is well edited. both in terms of the clarity of presentation (with specialist jargon kept to a minimum) and in terms of consistency. Given the number of authors. this is a great achievement and is in keeping with the high quality of the other volumes in the series. This reviewer noted only one major inconsistency. that in the spelling of Nicolas (or Nicholas) Coldstream's name. As with other volumes in the series. the quality of the drawings and photographs is high. Separate chapters by various specialists present the findings. First 2°3 204 BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTES RENDUS Joseph Shaw gives a lucid description and analysis of the architecture and stratigraphy of the sanctuary by periods. Although he focuses on the successive temples and their respective altars, he also describes the associated buildings and the dumps. There are many clear and meticulous architectural drawings, elevations, and sections, including useful phase plans, and the photographs chosen to accompany them clearly show the features discussed in the text, with labels added directly to the photos for additional clarification. The Iron Age inscriptions are discussed by Eric Csapo, Alan W. Johnston, and Daniel Geagan. The epigraphical material ranges from crudely incised marks to full-fledged stone inscriptions, and the inscriptions are arranged in the catalogue by period and medium (ceramic and stone), and within each period/medium by type (proprietary, dedicatory . and commercial). The evidence presented is of particular importance for illuminating the development of the Greek alphabet and answering questions about early Greek literacy. Maria Shaw presents an analysis of the sculpture from the sanctuary area, from the votive figurines of the earliest sanctuary to the large stone sculpture that may belong to the Roman Period. Most of the material consists of terracotta and bronze animal figurines, and the analysis includes speculation on the function of these figurines within the context of the early Iron Age temples. The fine chapter on the pottery is divided up into chronological periods , with discussions and catalogues of key deposits. The majority of the Early Iron Age and Hellenistic material is treated by Peter Callaghan , who began the analysis, and Alan Johnston, who completed it. Patricia Bikai discusses the imported Phoenician pottery, an important body of material in this site, and appendices present a chemical analysis of the Phoenician pottery by Richard Jones. John Hayes discusses with great expertise the later Roman material, including both pottery and lamps. A long chapter on the miscellaneous finds provides catalogues and discussions of each type of find, including the following: Roman glass (John Hayes); coins (Alan Walker); jewelry...
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".