Scan barcode
whats_a_bibble's review
3.0
I did not hate this book by any means. I actually quite enjoyed how they broke the stereotypes that many of us have of Paleolithic people. It went into great detail of how Paleolithic women may have fit into their societal groups. My critiques of the book are mostly found in structure and argument.
When I picked up this book, I expected it to be more of an art history: analyzing specific pieces of art and how that piece represents a broader aspect. This book was not centered around the art, but rather used it as evidence for its claims. Which is fine, but I think it would have been more compelling the other way around. The book is somewhat centered around Venus figures yet they are just mentioned as a starting point. The actual figures aren’t discussed enough (in my opinion). I found the most compelling chapters to be the last two, when the argument came together.
My other complaint, and this is no fault to the authors or the other academics in the bibliography, is that there isn’t much certainty with many of the behaviors discussed. The evidence used was often physical with a cloud of mystery for why certain actions were taken. Which again, has to do with the lack of physical evidence be it organic that has decomposed or ephemeral/oral tradition that has been lost.
Overall, I learned a lot about prehistoric women.
When I picked up this book, I expected it to be more of an art history: analyzing specific pieces of art and how that piece represents a broader aspect. This book was not centered around the art, but rather used it as evidence for its claims. Which is fine, but I think it would have been more compelling the other way around. The book is somewhat centered around Venus figures yet they are just mentioned as a starting point. The actual figures aren’t discussed enough (in my opinion). I found the most compelling chapters to be the last two, when the argument came together.
My other complaint, and this is no fault to the authors or the other academics in the bibliography, is that there isn’t much certainty with many of the behaviors discussed. The evidence used was often physical with a cloud of mystery for why certain actions were taken. Which again, has to do with the lack of physical evidence be it organic that has decomposed or ephemeral/oral tradition that has been lost.
Overall, I learned a lot about prehistoric women.
shanaqui's review
informative
medium-paced
3.0
There was less information that was new to me here than I'd hoped: in part, probably at least in part because this isn't that recent, and I've read some more recently published books that touch on the same subjects. That said, if you're not that familiar with what we know about prehistoric humans, then this is a good catch-up -- whether you're interested specifically in understanding prehistoric women or not.
In fact, a lot of this isn't really that specific. While they look to the evidence where possible, trying to discern whether women ever hunted or could've hunted, or if women made flint tools or not, etc, often they can only say general things, or speculate. Often it's like they want to be bold and say women could've played an active part in hunts, and then they dial it back and only say "women could've been involved at hunting camps". There is some scant evidence (only men showed one-armed strength enhancements suggesting spear-throwing) but mostly it's guesses.
It's a readable summary, but not groundbreaking. Despite the 'Venus' figurine on the cover, and frequent references to them, it doesn't actually dig very deeply into what they are, for lack of evidence.
It also lacks critical engagement: it briefly mentions that women may have made figurines that looked like bodies from their own perspective, looking down at their bodies. It then responds to that saying most in the field think that's silly, because women would've known what women looked like by looking at other women. Well, so? Take another step: why should we always represent what other people look like? The fact that women have usually seen other women doesn't actually mean they want to sculpt other people. Self-portraits are a thing.
This book doesn't go so far, just saying "some people say this, some people say that's silly" without digging into it. I know it's a popular science book, but still. C'mon. You can dig in a bit deeper than that.
In fact, a lot of this isn't really that specific. While they look to the evidence where possible, trying to discern whether women ever hunted or could've hunted, or if women made flint tools or not, etc, often they can only say general things, or speculate. Often it's like they want to be bold and say women could've played an active part in hunts, and then they dial it back and only say "women could've been involved at hunting camps". There is some scant evidence (only men showed one-armed strength enhancements suggesting spear-throwing) but mostly it's guesses.
It's a readable summary, but not groundbreaking. Despite the 'Venus' figurine on the cover, and frequent references to them, it doesn't actually dig very deeply into what they are, for lack of evidence.
It also lacks critical engagement: it briefly mentions that women may have made figurines that looked like bodies from their own perspective, looking down at their bodies. It then responds to that saying most in the field think that's silly, because women would've known what women looked like by looking at other women. Well, so? Take another step: why should we always represent what other people look like? The fact that women have usually seen other women doesn't actually mean they want to sculpt other people. Self-portraits are a thing.
This book doesn't go so far, just saying "some people say this, some people say that's silly" without digging into it. I know it's a popular science book, but still. C'mon. You can dig in a bit deeper than that.
More...