When first published in 1990 Before the Ironclad was highly regarded and wholly unique. Brown’s work challenged old assumptions and started a reevaluation of British contributions to naval developments of the period. This book traces the transition from sail to steam power to the construction of the HMS Warrior; the first iron hulled warship; and this new edition will feature more extensive illustrations. Written by an eminent naval architect; Before the Ironclad is both a balanced account of general developments in shipbuilding and an in-depth study of the ships themselves.
#1544458 in Books 2003-06-01 2003-06-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.30 x 1.60 x 6.30l; 1.80 #File Name: 1591020832462 pages
Review
32 of 32 people found the following review helpful. An important contribution to a historical-critical reading of the KoranBy D. LaymanThis work is an important contribution to a historical-critical reading of the Koran and the origins of Islam.As other reviewers have noted; it should not be read in isolation; and like all revisionist scholarly works; it must be read in an awareness that further sources or documentation might require even further revision.But as it stands; it cannot be ignored. It is certainly NOT "pseudo-scholarship;" as one reviewer claims. I have a Ph.D. in religious studies; and am familar with historical-critical and source-critical methodology as it is used analyzing the origins of religions and biblical studies. It is those who dismiss Nevo who are guilty of "distorting or omitting the important evidence;" evidence that is laid is in careful detail. Just the appendices; that lay out the inscriptional data; (in both Arabic and English translation) is worth the price of the book.In evaluating this data; the non-specialist must bear one central fact in mind: there is NO primary; contemporaneous data for the origins of Islam. The Koran/Qur'an gives no such data. Muslim traditions are written 200-300 years later. This is why the careful analysis of the changing themes on the dateable inscriptions are so important.Contrary to "R. Kevin Hill;" it is not true that "Much of his evidence is numismatic." Nevo is explicit: numismatic [coin inscription] evidence is "insufficient as the [i]primary[/i] type of evidence on which to ground a historical theory." The core evidence is based on the sequence of ideas in inscriptions; both official and popular. This sequence is as follows:-pagan; ending 5th/6th century-a generic ("indeterminate"") monotheism; which as bases itself on Abraham; Moses; and Jesus-the recognition of Muhammad as the prophet: 690 in official inscriptions (the Dome of the Rock) and 730 in popular inscriptions-"Muslim" inscriptions; distinguished by the idea of "witnessing;" and an explicit affirmation of the absolute unity ("tawhid") of Allah.This is the core of the argument. The methodology is consistent with the use of archeology and historical criticism of the Bible; the origins of ancient Israel; and Christianity. None of the negative reviewers (including the one cited from the Bryn Mawr Classical Review) even recognize it; much show any flaws.Nevo has raised fundamental questions; that further research should be able to answer:1. Is Nevo right that there is NO evidence for a pre-Muslim Arab paganism in the Hijaz (the area on the Arabic Penisula around Mecca and Medina)?2. Is Nevo right that the real locus for pre-Muslim and early Muslim Arabic religion is in the Negev and al-Sam (apparently the Arabic name for Palestine/Syria); NOT the Hijaz?3. Is Nevo right that "Mohammed" is not documented as a prophet/religious leader until 690/730? (Sorry; Mr. Hill; an unnamed "false prophet" doesn't count. Prophets were a dime-a-dozen in the fevered religious world of the Middle East.)If Nevo is WRONG; then his assertions ought to be easy to refute. So far; I have seen none.One final point. I agree that Nevo overstates his case for the allegedly INTENTIONAL withdrawal of Byzantium from al-Sam. But he does show two things:1. Byzantium followed a centuries-long policy that resulted in; intentionally or not; the withdrawal from al-Sam.2. This allowed Arabic clans and armies to move into the vacuum.3. Again; if Nevo is wrong; where is the [i]contemporaneous[/i] evidence for a dramatic "Muslim" invasion/conquest of al-Sam circa 630-640. It doesn't appear to exist.Finally read this alongside of such works as Meccan Trade And The Rise Of Islam and the work of J. Wansborough (not linkable here).P.S. Here is the Wansbrough [sic] text I wanted to link to: Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. An excellent; scholarly bookBy LightningBoltIt has taken a long time for scholars to study the beginning of Islam and the genesis of the Koran from a strictly historical-critical point of view. In the course of such endeavour; we are going to find many lines of attack; and inevitably some will pan out; while others will not. However; this should encourage scholars to open up to various possibilities and to examine this matter in an interdisciplinary fashion; until the different strands coalesce into a coherent whole. Some of the data found relevant by the authors have been dealt with by other historians in the context of the 'Gothic invasion of Europe' and their role in the fall of the Roman Empire. This means that the authors have found valuable pieces of the puzzle; but we will have to wait for further developments in this budding field of research. I found it a valuable source; and greatly enjoyed it; although I advise reading it jointly with other revisionist works; as another reviewer suggests.11 of 11 people found the following review helpful. Must be Seriously Considered by Scholars of Early IslamBy Jazz It Up BabyAs David Cook of Rice University stated; Nevo's work falls squarely into the "Hagarist" tradition that radically reinterprets early Islamic history. For the most part; scholars of early Islam--even Patricia Crone and Michael Cook; authors of Hagarism[1]--have avoided the full implications of this interpretation because of the almost complete lack of non-Muslim sources and the difficulties in working with the tendentious Muslim ones. Nevo and Koren overcome this problem by focusing upon sources not usually adduced by scholars of Islam: archeology and epigraphy. By examining the archeological remains (and in some cases the lack thereof) of the early Islamic period; the authors call into question the standard accounts of Muslim conquest that are still cited as fact in most history books. They supply a vast selection of inscriptions hitherto unnoticed and uncited in the standard histories; which for the most part are datable to the seventh and eighth centuries; and use them to build a historical theory considerably different from the standard account.Nevo's theory is that Arab history--specifically not Islamic history--is completely a construct and cannot stand up to historical examination on the basis of non-Muslim sources. His theory surmises that paganism was far more deeply rooted in pre-Arabian society than was previously thought and that much of what we now call early Islamic history records the development away from that heritage into a monotheistic belief-system that did not reach perfection until the ninth century at the earliest.For the most part; Crossroads employs a very rigorous; historical methodology; focusing exclusively upon those sources datable from before the ninth century; which usually means non-Muslim ones. These sources provide a view of Islam that lacks the preeminence of Muhammad and the exclusivity of later Islam. This reviewer finds much of Nevo and Koren's work to be plausible or at least arguable; and it certainly presents a powerful challenge to the mainstream view of the origins of Islam.It is a pity that Nevo and Koren do not include the work of Fred Donner; who also has come (from a more mainstream approach) to reject the early exclusivity of Islam. More broadly Crossroads to Islam suffers to some extent from a lack of cited scholarship after the early 1990s; which is a pity.One area; however; where this reviewer disagrees with Nevo and Koren concerns their theory; following John Wansbrough; of the Qur'an as the product of a redaction during the `Abbasid period (eighth-ninth centuries). While agreeing that the historical narratives of the conquests are highly problematic and for the most part probably fanciful; they do represent; according to the historical memory of the Arabs; the supreme confirmation miracle of Islam. If the Qur'an were redacted at such a late date; when numerous datable hagiographical accounts of the conquests already existed; these accounts would surely have been represented within the text of the Qur'an. Their absence pushes the date of the Qur'an back to the earlier period.Other than that; the account given by Nevo and Koren must be seriously considered by scholars of early Islam.[1] Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1977).