https://ajaonline.org/book-review/1618/ Tue, 13 Aug 2024 04:07:39 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1 https://ajaonline.org/book-review/1618/#comment-22 Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:19:40 +0000 https://www.ajaonline.org/book_review/1618/#comment-22 Reading yes, but also
Reading yes, but also understanding.
I find it difficult to understand the tone of Dr. Jung’s remark, which is based on a few misunderstandings. My point was not that Dr. Gimatzidis has not offered the basic descriptions that Dr. Jung has in mind – had I meant this I would have used a different, more precise and more economical phrasing (e.g. “The lack of any discussion of the author’s choices/method…”). By choosing the phrasing I used (which is similar to the phrasing I use elsewhere in my review to criticize the omission of any engagement with theoretical work on ceramic consumption) I refer to the lack of any discussion of the broader methodology of quantification, discussed in fundamental works on the subject, for example in a number of articles by Clive Orton or in the many contributions in the collective volume edited by P. Arcelin and M. Tuffreau-Libre (La quan¬tification des céramiques: conditions et protocole. Actes de la table ronde du Centre archéologique européen du Mont Beuvray, Glux-en-Glenne, 1998). This whole stream of research is simply missed here, and I find this unfortunate because relevant studies are most useful in suggesting ways one can avoid generating data which are basically ‘clear answers to vague questions’.
I guess that Dr. Gimatzidis also realized this weakness and that is why he later published the article Dr. Jung refers to (which I am clearly aware of, having published in the same collective volume myself, and also having cited it elsewhere). I think, however, that few will doubt that there should have been room for broader methodological discussion of such an important issue within the final publication of Sindos (which covers more than 500 pages), rather than in a later article. It is clear to me that book reviews normally cover the volume to be reviewed, rather than the full dossier of an author’s publications on a subject, and this policy, along with limitations of space, always plays a role in the composition of a review, as is well-known to everyone with experience in the matter.

]]> https://ajaonline.org/book-review/1618/#comment-21 Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:32:50 +0000 https://www.ajaonline.org/book_review/1618/#comment-21 When writing a book review,
When writing a book review, the reviewer should read the whole book in order to avoid unsubstantiated criticism. Kotsonas writes: “The lack of any discussion of the methodology of quantification, however, compromises this wealth of information.” Quite the opposite is true. Gimatzidis clearly states that rim sherds (4897 in total, see p. 86 n. 382 and p. 315 fig. 104) constitute the basis of his statistical analysis: “Des Weiteren wurden alle Fragmente von Gefäßrändern für statistische Zwecke ausgezählt.” (p. 86, second §). Moreover, each statistical chart and graph in his book is accompanied by a specification such as “anhand der Randscherben”, i.e. based on rim sherds. A whole article dedicated to this method was published by Gimatzidis one year later: St. Gimatzidis, Counting Sherds at Sindos. Pottery Consumption and Construction of Identities in the Iron Age, in: Early Iron Age Pottery: A Quantitative Approach. Porceedings of the International Round Table Organized by the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece (Athens, November 28-30, 2008), edited by S. Verdan, Th. Theurillat, and A. Kenzelmann Pfyffer, BAR-IS 2254 (Oxford 2011) pp. 97-110.

]]>