With Pennsylvania State University anthropologist Pat Shipman's review of The Goddess and the Bull in the May 19 issue of Nature, the book now has the distinction of being reviewed in what might be called the Holy Trinity of science journals: Science, Nature, and New Scientist. Shipman also delivers the closest thing yet to a negative review, although her criticisms are continually balanced by compliments--making it a little hard to know whether she liked the book or not (she told me later that she did.)

She starts off provocatively enough: "This book is about neither a goddess nor a bull, unless Michael Balter is using a metaphor too subtle for me to appreciate." Shipman goes on to say that it is not about Catalhoyuk either, but rather is a "postprocessual book about archaeology." The postprocessual movement in archaeology was founded by Catalhoyuk dig director Ian Hodder, and was a rebellion against the narrowly scientific, hypothesis-testing paradigm of the New Archaeology. Shipman's main complaint is that Hodder, and thus the book, come to no firm conclusions about the findings at Catalhoyuk, despite a wealth of evidence from the site.

But she does compliment the book as raising "many compelling questions," as a "good read" that shows off my "considerable journalistic skills," and which is "accessible and fascinating." So, while I have kept my promise to report all negative reviews, I think I can honestly still recommend my book to readers!