Oof, this is a tough one, and get ready for a rant my friends (TLDR at the end)

Parts of this I really liked and found very informative, despite the fact that the author is not a historian or archaeologist - she is a Jungian psychologist. This becomes evident in her interpretations. She particularly calls for reinterpretations of historical findings, as often the original interpretations were by one group of people (cishet white men). I agree with this of course, however!!

On the other hand, this does not exempt the author from their own biases, nor does it stop one from projecting their modern day ideas onto an ancient people. This is something we have to be really careful of in interpreting historical events/texts, as we want new interpretations to get us closer to the truth, not what we want to see. Sometimes we can find that ancient peoples were more progressive than we thought! Other times, they can be creating the very same issues we see today. Most of the time, these two things aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm going to try and succinctly make a point about her interpretation of the Inanna and Ebih poem as an example, though please know I have many more points I could make about it that I won't include here. She interprets the poem as Enheduanna rebelling against patriarchal norms in writing Inanna triumphing over Ebih, a mountain that (the author) considers a masculine presence of domination. This completely ignores all of the facts she gives previously that state that Enheduanna is:

1. the daughter of Sargon, the Akkadian King who by that time had conquered much of Sumer
2. placed in Ur by her father as a High Priestess purposefully to quell rebellion in the city

Yes, Enheduanna clearly adores and venerates Inanna, but she is also clearly reappropriating a Sumerian goddess as a means of asserting control. This is a classic tactic in imperialism/colonialism that's been seen throughout history. Enheduanna is the daughter of Ur's conquerer, and Inanna conquers Ebih in this story, who tried to create a natural world free of the gods' influence. Based on what you've shown me, this reads as a conquerer's story.

Now that's not me trying to say that Enheduanna was an evil scheming Priestess hell bent on her father's plans. We'll never know her personal thoughts unless we find evidence of them. But we can interpret this based on the world she lived in.

Anyways, I have many more opinions, do not get me started on how the author interprets menstrual isolation.

TLDR: All of us have biases when looking at history, and we have to actively reflect on our own as we interpret what we have left of those who came before us