Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:23:51.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeological Argument : Some Principles*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

R. M. Cook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Classical archaeology has a bad name with many prehistorians, partly because of its preoccupation with aesthetics, partly because it regards matenal remains as subsidiary to literature. But even if the exponents of Greek archaeology appear amateurish, their subject has a theoretical value for prehistoric studies. Excavation has been extensive and written records often provide checks on conclusions that might be suggested by the material evidence. I give some examples.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 34 , Issue 135 , September 1960 , pp. 177 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 K. Kübler in Bericht über d. VI Internat. Kongressfilr Archàologie, 428-30. For the evidence (and revised conclusions) see Kerameikos, I, IV, V and VI.

2 M. Ventris and J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 125-7.

3 Cicero, de Leg., II, 59 and 64. Plutarch, Solon, 21.

4 The economic conclusions to be drawn from Greek pottery are discussed more fully in J.d.I., 1959, in proof. To complicate the problem many Classical students assert that the small, narrow-mouthed Corinthian pots were exported full of scent, but there is no good evidence for this.