What do you think?
Rate this book
Pre-Classical: From Crete to Archaic Greece
Includes chapters on Etruscan & Scythian visual arts.
192 pages, Paperback
First published June 29, 1978
21 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 15, 2021
As a book on pre-classical Greek objects, for this was mainly pottery and metalwork (with a smattering of visual art and architecture), this was pretty decent. I find it difficult to comment with any real insight on the 'subject' of the book as it was something I didn't know a lot about previously, now know quite a bit more about, but nevertheless didn't find completely enthralling to read about. As a reference maybe it works better than read cover to cover as I did.
I was however particularly fascinated by the insight into the process of and nature of historical research. It was interesting to see how archeologists and classical historians try and extract so much from such a paucity of evidence, and expand to a degree that I found extraordinary in some ways. The nature of the field, of course, but I couldn't escape the fact that my (more pure science) background led me repeatedly to feeling "well, you might think that, but what about the experimental evidence?" and wondering why/how academics could build a reputation on such flimsy - for all that I of course know that historical research is a different beast to (for instance) chemistry and relies on a different approach to evidence and fact. Still I found this insight interesting and thought-provoking.
I was however particularly fascinated by the insight into the process of and nature of historical research. It was interesting to see how archeologists and classical historians try and extract so much from such a paucity of evidence, and expand to a degree that I found extraordinary in some ways. The nature of the field, of course, but I couldn't escape the fact that my (more pure science) background led me repeatedly to feeling "well, you might think that, but what about the experimental evidence?" and wondering why/how academics could build a reputation on such flimsy - for all that I of course know that historical research is a different beast to (for instance) chemistry and relies on a different approach to evidence and fact. Still I found this insight interesting and thought-provoking.
Displaying 1 of 1 review