04-05-2011, 02:52 AM
Khaire!
I got this book recently as a gift (Thanks, Richard!), and I like it. I fully expected from the start to disagree with some of the interpretations, being acquainted with D'Amato's and Andrea Salimbeti's work. And I did disagree with some of it, but it was really hard for me to figure out why! I realize the limitations of the evidence, and I fully agree that leather/rawhide and linen armor were used, but I'm still a little uncomfortable with how all the pieces were put together. Not that I can come up with better explanations all the time, mind you! And not in every case, of course. But when you see some of the very fragmentary stick-figure images that some of the reconstructions are based on, you may get the same skeptical feeling. (I'm still not even sure that one particular fragment they show even depicts a man, much less a warrior!)
One of the aspects of the book that is both good and bad is the large number of times that they mention a find that I've never heard of before! Geez, I thought I was interested in this stuff... Good because now I know that stuff has been found, bad because there aren't enough PICTURES of it, nor even more details! Some details in some cases, let me be fair, but occasionally the descriptions are a little hard to follow, and I can't help thinking their interpretation may be off. It's the nature of an Osprey book, I know! Just can't help wanting MORE...
Oh, it's chock full of Linear B! Just about any weapon or social/military rank comes with its Linear B equivalent, very cool. Learn how to speak Mycenaean!
I'm a little dubious of the chariot typology. Again, much of it seems to be based on VERY stylized tiny artwork. And again, that's the nature of a typology. I'm not sure the chariot types translated into the color reconstructions very well--they look kinda boxy and bulky. And the role of chariot archery is downplayed.
Naturally the dates are all the old "high" dates, but I expected that. The low chronology will win out eventually, but we have several generations of entrenched academia to overcome. And of course a lot of people aren't even familiar with the problem. No biggy, just chop 300 years off all the dates.
Overall, it's a heck of a lot better than they previous Osprey on the Bronze Age! Many new good tidbits, and thoroughly informative and well-executed artwork.
Enjoy!
Matthew
I got this book recently as a gift (Thanks, Richard!), and I like it. I fully expected from the start to disagree with some of the interpretations, being acquainted with D'Amato's and Andrea Salimbeti's work. And I did disagree with some of it, but it was really hard for me to figure out why! I realize the limitations of the evidence, and I fully agree that leather/rawhide and linen armor were used, but I'm still a little uncomfortable with how all the pieces were put together. Not that I can come up with better explanations all the time, mind you! And not in every case, of course. But when you see some of the very fragmentary stick-figure images that some of the reconstructions are based on, you may get the same skeptical feeling. (I'm still not even sure that one particular fragment they show even depicts a man, much less a warrior!)
One of the aspects of the book that is both good and bad is the large number of times that they mention a find that I've never heard of before! Geez, I thought I was interested in this stuff... Good because now I know that stuff has been found, bad because there aren't enough PICTURES of it, nor even more details! Some details in some cases, let me be fair, but occasionally the descriptions are a little hard to follow, and I can't help thinking their interpretation may be off. It's the nature of an Osprey book, I know! Just can't help wanting MORE...
Oh, it's chock full of Linear B! Just about any weapon or social/military rank comes with its Linear B equivalent, very cool. Learn how to speak Mycenaean!
I'm a little dubious of the chariot typology. Again, much of it seems to be based on VERY stylized tiny artwork. And again, that's the nature of a typology. I'm not sure the chariot types translated into the color reconstructions very well--they look kinda boxy and bulky. And the role of chariot archery is downplayed.
Naturally the dates are all the old "high" dates, but I expected that. The low chronology will win out eventually, but we have several generations of entrenched academia to overcome. And of course a lot of people aren't even familiar with the problem. No biggy, just chop 300 years off all the dates.
Overall, it's a heck of a lot better than they previous Osprey on the Bronze Age! Many new good tidbits, and thoroughly informative and well-executed artwork.
Enjoy!
Matthew
Matthew Amt (Quintus)
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
Legio XX, USA
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.larp.com/legioxx/">http://www.larp.com/legioxx/
