Below are sample book reviews that are in the grade A range.
Mathur
In his thesis, Multifunctional Analysis of Neolithic Figures in Greece, Mathur argues that the Neolithic figurines found in Greece are a multifunctional group of objects. To support his argument he presents to his colleagues his estimation of the methodology espoused by many European prehistory archaeologists and argues for the adoption of a methodology that he believes is free of bias.
Gimbutas and other archaeologists work out of a nineteenth century perspective that asserts that Neolithic societies in the Balkan area worshipped a Mother Goddess and, consequently, awarded women high status. These archaeologists view Neolithic figurines as unifunctional, that is, as representations of this goddess in one aspect or another. Mathur argues that their preconceived notions of Neolithic society cause them to interpret the evidence in such a way as to support their notions.
Mathur examines the functions of these figurines that have been suggested by archaeologists such as Ucko, Talalay, and Theocharis. These archaeologists, he points out, deduce their suggested functions from the archaeological context of the figurines and from possible modern anthropological parallels. Mathur unifies the approaches of these archaeologists into a methodology that, when applied to the figurines, argues for their multifunctional use. His methodology takes into account:
spatial variations and variations in context. The figurines are found in different site areas, e.g. trash heaps, hearths, graves. The variation in find spots, it seems logical, points to the figurines having different functions.
variations in deposition. The figurines were found in different strata among all the sites. The temporal difference of these strata may range from several centuries to many centuries. It is unlikely that the objects will maintain consistency in function over such temporal variation.
variation in region. The Neolithic tribes lived at considerable differences from each other, and Mathur thinks it reasonable to presume that they lived in isolation from each other. This isolation makes it unlikely that they shared ideas and would ascribe the same function to a figurine.
analogy from ethnographic studies of modern societies. In such societies similar figurines have functions ranging from toys to initiation figurines, etc.
Mathur uses prominent archaeologists' findings to support his argument and inductive argumen t based on his consideration of the figurines. His method of taking the reader step-by-step through his arguments is very persuasive, yet he, too, makes certain assumptions that are as preconceived as those archaeologists he argues against. For example, he assumes the isolation of the Neolithic tribes, despite the fact that there was a considerable trade in amber, that at least provided some contact between the tribes. He assumes that the tribes did not engage in exogamy, a common enough marriage practice today, which would have enabled some sharing of views and transfer of one tribe's beliefs to another tribe. He offers only possible functions of the figurines, but does not prove any function--indeed it is hard to see how he can prove, truly, any function for the figurines.
In her article, Talalay argues that archaeologists (like everyone) unconsciously use paradigms to think with. These paradigms predispose archaeologists to interpret artifacts in a certain way .
For example, early archaeologists found in societies of Greece and Rome, which they admired, mythological references to an early matriarchal society, which they then superimposed upon prehistoric society. Such archaeologists believed that this early society was matriarchal because it worshipped a Mother Goddess and consequently valued women highly because only they could give birth. Many feminists today find this idea appealing, and the idea that early society was a matriarchy supports feminists' efforts to restore more status to women.
Talalay uses the metaphor of the "boomerang" in her title because she sees that such reasoning returns and "hits" the feminists just as a boomerang returns to the thrower and can hurt her. By arguing that women have status only because of their biology (ability to give birth), women are as defined by their biology as they are under a patriarchy. Talalay argues that the concept of a prehistoric matriarchy does not indicate exactly how prehistoric women, and their men, actually organized or governed themselves. Surely feminists are working towards social and legal equality of the sexes; how then can a matriarchy provide us with a model for today?
Talalay argues that archaeologists need to counter this feminist view of prehistory and can do so only by examining the archaeological evidence without bias and preconceived notions. She believes that by examining the gender relations through these artifacts, archaeologists are more likely to develop a more accurate picture of Neolithic society. Talalay may well be correct, but she does not offer any method of ridding oneself of paradigms. The trouble with paradigms is that people are often--perhaps always?--unconscious of them. Still, I think that Talalay is correct in believing that by linking current theories of gender relations with the archaeological evidence, an archaeologist is more likely to examine the evidence without bias.