You would do well to read Minotaur: Sir Arthur Evans and the Archaeology of Minoan Myth, by Arthur MacGillivray. He does a pretty good job of pointing out the historic and ongoing role (and peril) of subjectivity in developing archaeological theories. Significant evidence is often discovered by creative imagination extrapolating upon fragmentry information, yet often such information can lead us wildly astray.
Some of us realize that these bits and pieces are necessarily gathered in strange places because the "academic community" is a tyranny of opinion in search of grant money, and thus destructively limits the breadth, depth, and objectivity of current research. Thus, your comments will have ZERO credibility with me unless you address the specifics. I never said I agreed or accepted all of what is here. I didn't ask for a blanket refutation, but a critique of individual data. So far, all I hear is blather. I do think the ancients had a more extensive global commerce than we realize and there is plenty of physical evidence to support that contention, not the least of which is predominant weather and current patterns.