<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A TRAIL-BREAKING BOOK
Review: This book is, to the best of my knowledge, the first of its kind: a multilingual, interdisciplinary dictionary of archaeometry. I find it fulfils its stated purpose ("to provide a compact source of reference for those interested in archaeology..... as well as for natural scientists....") admirably. The 1374 entries provide an excellent jumping-off point into the vast (and hitherto largely uncharted) area, embracing dozens of disciplines, in which archaeology and the physical sciences coexist and cooperate. Of course, the book isn't comprehensive; it isn't meant to be. It is not an encyclopaedia. I find Goffer's selection, on the whole, well-balanced, and the entries generally clear and concise, though occasionally a trifle idiosyncratic (624 indigo and 740 madder each get more than half a page --- almost three times the average!). There are errors in the cross-referencing (try 932 pearlite) --- hardly surprising, when one considers the complexity of the task --- and occasionally also in the bibliographical references (which take up fully fifty pages --- more than a thousand references in all). Nit-pickers can have a ball with this book --- but they will be missing the point. Whatever its faults, there is no other book like it. Goffer is to be commended for his courage in undertaking such a pioneering work. It is to be hoped that others will follow its lead, and perhaps eventually surpass it; until that day comes, this book should have a place on the shelves of every archaeological library. The price is a little daunting; perhaps the publishers might consider eventually putting out a paperback, more affordable for the private purchaser.
Rating: 
Summary: The first dictionary referring to 'archaeometry'....
Review: Though the title and description of this dictionary sounds very promissing it has a number of serious shortcomings and omissions which make it unsuitable for professional or educational use. To illustrate the point I consider entry no 554 for 'glaze': in the sub-entry 'glaze, Attic black & red' it refers the reader to another entry which does not exist. On the other hand, the closest equivalent, entry no 137 'Attic glaze' mentions Noble J.V. 1990 which is altogether missing in bibliography. In any case, Noble 1990 is a wrong reference (I could mention instead, Noble J.V. 1960, 1965 and 1987. A second example is entry 294 on 'cobalt blue', where the text does not even mention its importance in Egyptian antiquity. Furthermore there is no bibliography for a synthetic pigment which, along with 'Egyptian Blue' is considered one of the most innovative developments in ancient technology. The standard reference in this case would be Noll et al. 1975 and Noll W. 1982. Much to my disappointment, I could list several other entries (especially those referring to analytical techniques)with similar shortcomings. ------------------- /1/. Noble, J.V., 1960, The Techniques of Attic vase-painting, AJA. 64, 307-18. /2/ Noble, J.V., 1965, The Technique of painted Attic Pottery, Watson-Guptill Publications, NY. /3/ Noble J.V.,1987, The Technique of painted Attic Pottery, renewed edition. /4/ Noll, W., Holm.R. and Born, L., 1975, Painting of ancient ceramics, Angewandte Chemie (Int. ed.) 14(9), 602-13. / 5/ Noll, W., 1982, Techniken der Dekoration antiker Keramik, cfi/Ber. der Deuts. Keram. Gesellschaft 59, 3-17./
<< 1 >>
| 
