Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
I think I don't agree. I can imagine two books which, for instance, both present a 'modernist' model of Italian agriculture using mostly archaeological evidence, but one is new scholarship for a technical audience and one summarizes existing scholarship for a lay audience.
A good review ought to note the difference! Likewise, is a book a good starting point for a classicist who isn't a specialist in a given sub-field but wants a sense of the communis opinio?
Or does a book offer a useful, even valuable, minority viewpoint which is must-read material for the in-sub-field-specialist, but might be misleading as to the overall state of the matter if read by someone unfamiliar with long-running debates in that corner of classics?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
