This volume is the fruit of an evidently very wide-ranging and thorough piece of research by a member of the Polish team which has in recent years been excavating at Ptolemais. It is the story not only of the exploration of Cyrenaica by European visitors in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but also of the evolution in Europe of Classical Studies and the emergence of archaeology as a discipline in its own right. That process influenced the aims and activities of those who came to Cyrenaica, and the information and artefacts which they brought back to Europe in turn played their part in an evolving understanding of Classical Antiquity.

The relatively brief first chapter (3–10) provides a thumbnail sketch of the evolution of interested parties in different European countries from antiquarians and collectors (in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) into a more scholarly body of academics and archaeologists, and of how this influenced the desire to explore those countries in which Classical antiquities might be found.

Chapter II (11–49) opens with a short synthesis of the post-Classical history of Cyrenaica, setting out the political context in which European travellers began to explore the region. This is followed by a categorisation of the various periods of exploration (‘Discovery or Adventuresome Travels’; ‘Surveys or Research Travels’; ‘Exploration or Archaeological Travels’; ‘Restrictions or Last Travels’) and detailed accounts of the activities in Cyrenaica of 23 individuals or expeditions. The chronological span in the title of the book is from Claude Lemaire, the first person to have provided an extensive and ‘useful’ account of his explorations, to Federico Halbherr, who conducted an archaeological survey of the region on the eve of the Italian invasion. (The arrival of the Italians in 1911 is seen as the point of introduction of ‘scientific’ archaeology; some might question this term, but perhaps accept the alternative ‘systematic’.)

Chapter III (50–187) constitutes the heart of the book and is a topographic survey of the ancient sites (limited to those 20 on which a minimum of information was provided by at least three travellers) and the information which emerged about them prior to the Italian invasion. (The passage on Apollonia, 145–60, diverges significantly from this pattern in providing a far broader account of the twentieth-century excavations.)

Chapter IV (‘“Transferring” Cyrenaica to Europe’: 188–238) returns to the theme of evolving academic interests and discusses the reflexive relationship between scholars in Europe and travellers to Cyrenaica under various thematic headings (‘Studying the History and Geography of Cyrenaica’; ‘Developing Archaeology’; ‘Studying Inscriptions’; ‘Appreciating Ancient Art’; ‘Collecting Antiquities’; ‘Looking for Silphium’).

A final postscript (239–40), followed by 30 pages of bibliography, summarises the importance of the accounts discussed in the book, both for recording aspects of antiquity which have since suffered degradation or disappearance and for demonstrating the richness of the Classical heritage of the region. In the currently prevailing circumstances (when archaeological research on the ground is impossible and archaeological sites are suffering irreparable damage through uncontrolled and speculative building projects), this is all the more poignant.

The extent of the bibliography, and of references to unpublished correspondence and documents in various national archives, is ample testimony to the diligence of the author. The provision of many illustrations from the early travellers, often in colour and from both published and unpublished sources, also adds greatly to the value of the work. These are complemented in many cases by recent photographs taken by the Polish Mission, both on the ground and from the air. Given, therefore, that this is a very substantial piece of work and one that is in principle of great value, it is tragic that it is marred throughout by avoidable errors that, if they do not on the whole create insuperable barriers to understanding the content, create barriers nonetheless and may lead astray those who are not already familiar with the field. Many of these might have been picked up by a copy-editor, and the importance to the quality of any publication of thorough review by an independent eye (particularly, in this case, review by a native English speaker) cannot be overstated. The errors fall broadly into the following categories:

Careless spelling or transcription: Emir Ibn el-Ass for Amr Ibn El-Aas (11); drawed for drawn (77); forteress for fortress (94); Justinian, triumphant arch for Justinianic, triumphal arch (96); Sasaf for Safsaf (160); pilaster for pier (174); alternation for alteration (177); interior for inferior (210); status for statues (217, twice).

Bibliographic problems: the reviewer was confused for some time (and others might be) by the provision of three separate bibliographies: travellers’ written sources; works cited; and editions of ancient sources used by travellers. The difficulty is underlined by the fact that Norton 1911a, b and c appear in the first list, while Norton 1911d alone is in the second. Similarly, Lemaire 1902 appears in the first list, but most references for this traveller are given in the form Omont 1902, which is placed in the second. The article Luni 1994b is completely misstated: the actual location is A. Mastino (ed.), L'Africa Romana. Atti del IX convegno di studio, Nuoro 13–15 dicembre 1991, 123–46 (Sassari 1992, Edizioni Gallizzi). Kenrick 2013b is not published by Libya Archaeological Press, but is a Libya Archaeological Guide published by Silphium Press.

Careless references: Norton 1991a for Norton 1911a (46); Densmore Curtius for Densmore Curtis (passim); Ward-Perkins and Balance 1994 for Ward-Perkins and Ballance 1958 (123); Kenrick 2013: 2015 for Kenrick 2013b: 255 (146 n. 116).

Erroneous coordinates: geographical coordinates are given for each of the sites discussed in Chapter III. On occasion, it seems that these have been copied from the Cyrenaica guidebook (Kenrick 2013b) without noting that they are given there in degrees and decimal minutes, whereas in the present work they are formatted as degrees, minutes and seconds. Surprising values such as 91″ (56, Hadrianopolis) therefore draw attention to themselves: similar problems afflict Safsaf (160), Mqayrnis (163) and Al-Athrun (178).

Factual errors: the Market Theatre at Cyrene is said (129) to be so named from its proximity to the shops of Shahhat; it is actually so named because the theatre was built over what Goodchild interpreted as an earlier market building. The author follows some of the travellers (the Beecheys, at any rate) in describing the racetrack by the Temple of Zeus at Cyrene as a stadium (132) without indicating that it is in fact a hippodrome (and that there is a significant difference in meaning between these words). The tombs at Cyrene are said to have been studied in 1864 by Herbert Weld Blundell (139), but that date belongs to the visit of Rohlfs mentioned in the preceding paragraph; Blundell was there in 1895 (43). The descriptions of the Central and Eastern Churches at Apollonia (156) are seriously confused; the marble elements in the Central Church are all Proconnesian, not cipollino. The building at Mqayrnis illustrated in figure 116 and referred to on page 165 is not the moated ‘citadel’, but another building named ‘Palazzotto rurale’ by Sandro Stucchi (Archittettura Cirenaica, Rome 1975, p. 506, fig. 527). The apse of the church at Ras el-Hilal (176) is at the west end, not the east. The sponsor of Norton's Cyrene excavations was not Jonathan Ogden Armour (198) but Allison Vincent Armour (46).

This has been a lengthy list, and it is not exhaustive. It will be appreciated that few of these errors will detain the reader for long, but they detract disappointingly from the value of the research that has gone into the book. The fact that so many have been detected relatively easily causes some unease that there may be others which have not been immediately apparent. Let us hope not.