The Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology [antikvár]

FOREWORDThe biggest difficulty in compiling a work of this sort lies in deciding what to put in and what to leave out. We have made no attempt to cover classical, medieval or industrial archaeology, partly because these are closer in content to classics, history or local history, but mainly because their inclusion would have meant either an over-sized volume or else cutting down on the number and length of the other entries.In writing this dictionary we have had in mind particularly the many people who have been made aware of archaeology (through television, the press or evening classes, through chance finds or visits to ancient monuments) but who have found difficulty in taking their interest further. The necessary technical terms are intimidating, and many archaeological books assume that the reader already knows more than he in fact does. This will in part explain such inconsistencies of policy as the inclusion of entries on Roman and Dark Age Britain, which are so often the first point of contact with the subject. We hope this dictionary will help many people forward from chance acquaintance to real familiarity with a most enthralling and rewarding study.At the same time, we hope our efforts wiU prove of value to serious students, particularly when they are dealing with aspects beyond their immediate specializations. Here again space is the difficulty. In a subject so full of unsolved problems it has been impossible to do anything like justice to every theory or interpretation. We have had to offer those that seem to us the most reasonable and to dismiss the rest, often without even a mention. Dating, in particular, is firequently a matter for controversy. Every archaeological statement should be prefaced by the phrase 'In the light of present evidence', and we trust that our readers will supply for themselves the 'ifs', 'buts' and 'probablys' which would have so overweighted the text.We cannot, unfortunately, claim that all the material in the following pages falls within our own special fields, and in consequence we have to thank a great many colleagues for advising us on the selection and content of entries. Their advice has always been appreciated, if not always followed, and any errors remain the responsibility of the authors. Among the many who have helped us we would especially mention Dr J. A. Alexander, Dr F. R. Allchin, Dr G. H. S. Bushnell, Dr T-K. Cheng, Dr. I. W. Cornwall, J. Graham-Campbell, Dr F. R. Hodson, B. Kemp, Miss J. Liversidge, Dr I. H. Longworth, Dr P. A. Mellars, P. Parr, Dr F. H. Stubbings and Dr J. Waechter.