But what about the pre-art-historical prehistoric artwork?

I find the tone at the beginning of the article to be reminiscent of a manic depressive person's ramblings. There are moments when Davis latches onto an idea and her explanation serves only to confuse the reader further, much like listening to homeless people tell stories - they start out with something fairly normal but before you know it... This is not to say that Davis did not make any valid points throughout the entire piece, its just that the paths she chose to reach them were sometimes messy and convoluted. However, much of that changed and her writing took on a completely different style when the article unexpectedly changed.

A few pages in, just as I was about to chuck my reader off the balcony, Davis finally started talking about art. Her writing became easier to understand, perhaps because it was more technical and fact based. The focus shifted away from the abstract notions of the beginning of the history of art to concrete works of art and their histories. Which was good, because I can always appreciate something tangible. Unfortunately, the two styles were so distinct (the first, mostly opinion and the second, mostly fact) that I had no idea what to look for or what the main points might even be.