This book had a lot of very interesting facts and descriptions of the Paleolithic art found in European caves, but it was presented in a way that was disjointed and somewhat difficult to read. Aczel wants to promote a particular theory about the meanings behind the cave art, which is fine, but he does this by suggesting proponents of alternate explanations are "less gifted" or "lack vision" rather than by sincerely taking on their arguments. Also, he does a poor job of explaining why his preferred theory is superior to the others. ( )

"The Cave Painters: Probing the Mysteries of the World's First Artists" by Gregory Curtis was one of my favorite books of 1998, and so I was eager to pursue my interest in prehistoric art by reading this book. Alas, I was disappointed. The author writes in a breezy, repertorial style, covering some the same historical ground as Curtis in his discussions of cave explorers and interpreters, but in a dramatically less profound and moving way. He does provide some interesting information about the theory of the meaning of the cave art that he happens to believe, and that was not particularly highlighted in "The Cave Painters," and there are some gorgeous plates, but there is also a great deal of repetition. The book focuses more on the interpretation of the art and less on the grandeur of the human spirit that is capable of such artistic prowess. Incidentally, I read "The Cave Painters" because of a New Yorker article which I also found inspiring.

PS The subtitle "How a real-life Indiana Jones and a renegade scholar decoded the ancient art of man" is total marketing-speak and has virtually nothing to do with the book -- and should have made me think twice about buying it.

Summary: The prehistoric cave paintings of Western Europe are one of the most enduring mysteries of archeology and paleoanthropology. Painted between 32,000 and 12,000 years ago, the painted animals and symbols are extraordinary - representative not only of symbolic thought in our ancestors, but also of deep dedication - for they are most frequently in deep, nearly inaccessible reaches of caves - surely a daunting prospect for a Cro-Magnon artist lacking modern high-powered flashlights. Furthermore, while each cave varies slightly in its content, the style is remarkably similar, even though two caves may be separated by 20,000 years and half a continent. Many explanations for the purpose of the paintings have been put forward over the years, and in the book, Aczel discusses the merits of several of these hypotheses, but ultimately acknowledges that we can never truly know what these early artists were thinking, and that the caves can only give us the smallest glimpse into the mindset of early man.

Review: I really enjoyed the first half of this book. In it, Aczel describes the various painted caves, and gives a very good overview of the type and variety of its art, as well as a very good impression of its grandeur and wonder - which is especially nice for those of us who have never been fortunate enough to see a painted cave. I do wish there had been more photographs (there *are* 16 color plates in the center), for as well as Aczel tries to describe them, something is always lost in translating pictures to words. Plus, having the pictures as diagrams in the text would have been helpful for times when I was trying to compare his text to actual pictures, and couldn't make the two match (for instance, he says that one of the spotted horses in the cave at Peche Merle has a red fish on its back, which I am just not seeing at all.) But, overall, I learned a lot about the cave paintings, and since that was my main purpose in reading the book, that at least was a success.

Where it broke down for me is when Aczel started getting into the various interpretations of what the cave art means. Aczel is a man with a point of view. I get that it's impossible not to have an opinion about the cave paintings; this is not impartial journalistic non-fiction, and there is one interpretation of the cave paintings that he thinks is right, so he structured his book accordingly. However, I didn't feel like he made his case especially convincingly, often dismissing other theories and theorists out of hand, without fully dismantling their arguments. (He seemed to have a particular bone to pick with Jean Clottes, another scholar of prehistory.) For instance, he dismisses the idea that the paintings were a form of hunting magic because very few of the animals are depicted as wounded. Personally, I think this shows a lack of imagination as to how the hunting magic may have worked; the relative lack of paintings of the most common prey species (reindeer and ibex) is a much more damning argument.

The theory he does favor suggests that the paintings are a representation of a worldview that focused on duality, particularly of sexual duality, with paintings of bison (female) being frequently paired with paintings of horses (male), and with these animals being accompanied by various signs and symbols that have also been classified as male or female. While I have no real opinion on the validity of this or any other theory (not being an archaeological expert), Aczel certainly seems to be more lenient about the weaknesses of his pet theory than he is for any other, and as such, his argument was never entirely convincing.

I also think the subtitle is overblown - the "real-life Indiana Jones" was a French abbé named Henri Breuil, who became the first real expert on paleolithic art; the "renegade scholar" is André Leroi-Gourhan, who I'm certain is highly intelligent, although I'm not sure that having a new interpretation of existing data really qualifies one as a "renegade". Finally, I think the mystery of the cave art is far from "decoded"... multiple (mostly untestable) explanations for the paintings still exist, and perhaps that's for the best; I'm okay with leaving human history with a little bit of a sense of mystery and wonder. 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Recommendation: If you're interested in the topic and are looking for a readable source of basic information, this book will suit your needs quite well. If you're looking for a balanced or well-argued examination of competing interpretations and theories... not so much. ( )