What is the best book to use as an introduction to Greek history before getting stuck into the mythology and philosophy...

>"Another limitation of our written sources is that, with very few exceptions, they are all produced by a privileged group: urban males, mostly from the upper class. In order to illuminate the lives of women, the very poor, and slaves, who do not generally speak for themselves, historians employ a variety of strategies, often drawing upon feminism, Marxism, cultural studies and other interdisciplinary approaches.

Sure sounds like they want to do it.

dumbass, the mythology is the history. why would you read some secular fake jewish bullshit when the theogony tells you all you need to know?

That is a factual statement. The book still doesn't delve into any feminist or Marxist studies, but it also doesn't ignore the reality of women's lives and how slavery functioned.

>“yet another Marxist deconstruction”

its not the 1970's anymore. histories of economic relations are so passe

What's wrong with that statement?

There is nothing wrong with making a statement. But when you go on about "privileged" males beforehand you are some implications.

its revisionist and anachronistic

But men were privileged over women in Ancient Greece. How is that even an offensive or controversial statement? The text does go into how different a woman's life could be given her place of birth in Ancient Greece, or her economic station. Why would this bother you?

Historical revisionism doesn't mean what you think it means. Covering the wider history of a society is anachronistic now? I suspect you don't know what that word means either.

applying contemporary issues and social-classifications to historical time periods is an anchronism. The reivionsim isb ecause they're trying to edit their ideas by filling the holes in 'women and slave' history with their contemporary preconceptions of the concepts.
>you don't know
I do know I have degrees in these fields which are actually called "x studies" not "history". Which is just a collection of lies we agree to tell each other, which would be perfectly suited for your kind of academic meekness.

>Why would this bother you?

Because I can read in between the lines and tell that they too are bothered. I like my history completely free of bias thank you.

>reading secondary sources ever

Jesus Christ man

Check out Russell & Meiggs, History of Greece to the Death of Alexander

Skim/skip the Minoan and maybe the Mycenaean chapters so you can just get to archaic/classical Greek history proper, that's where the meat is

>the life of slaves in ancient Greece
>a contemporary issue
wut

You haven't even read the book. Ancient Greece was a classist society enforced by the rule of law. There is no interpretation, only citation.

There is no such thing.

The only conclusion that can be had here is that to you women's history is not only a subject unworthy of attention, but to give it any would be actively wrong. This is where your bias is most obvious. The history of a people is taken for granted as the history of men, but to include the lives of women would be political, offensive, or subversive.

>I like my history completely free of bias thank you
user, I have bad news. History is written by people.

>gets triggered by seeing the word 'privileged' in an academic work
Damn. I think it might be time to step away from the memes, user.

>Ancient Greece was a [anachronistic wishiful thinking]
it really wasn't.
>privledge of non-slave and women people being used to call an author's validity into question is not an anachronism
it is because those charectars were already written about and there were slaves who were philosophers who recorded this kind of stuff too.

>it really wasn't.

Put that degree to use and read up on the reforms of Solon.

>revisionist
I'm pretty sure that term is a Marxist one- was used in the Soviet Union to attack people who took the 'wrong' line on historical or theoretical matters. Kind of amusing that I tend to see people who'd probably call themselves anti-Marxist using it.

Whether that's where it comes from or not, it's also a pretty useless word to use outside of a context in which the state/Party/church determines an orthodox view of history. The whole point of historians is that they 'revise' our understanding of history. Wouldn't be much point to the job if they didn't. Imagine picking up a book on Greek history only to find it contains only five words: "Yup, Herodotus was 100% correct".

>ancient Greek written sources tell us everything we might want to know about the lives of women and slaves
Huh. I'm going to take a wild, crazy guess that this isn't your area of academic expertise, user.

Herodotus being a historian is more proof that 'historians' are just peddlers of lies. Which is why you study "x studies" rather than "history".
>revisionism as a term is communist propaganda or authoritarian dogma
no, revisionists have always existed who were basically heretical in the field(s).

>reforms of Solon.
another sin of a democracy, more proof they should have a King to honor

"diogenese" was a slave and he wrote history.
>i don't beileve you know what you're talking about
faith is a rare thing in our world of republics

The Oxford History of the Classical World

>which is why you study "x studies" rather than "history"
Genuinely don't know what you're on about. Are you in some country where 'history' doesn't exist as an academic subject? Because AFAIK it does everywhere in the English-speaking world.

>women's history is not only a subject unworthy of attention, but to give it any would be actively wrong

yup

You study the events that lead to current world. History is just a bunch of "historians editing each other" as you said. Like a game of telephone. Instead, you should realize the events and ideas that actually brought about the world as it is today;. Rather than finding out how many hours some slave worked as a source of an author's authenticity and reliability as an author.