While I also feel there are some problems with the way in which
ethnicity is being discussed in the contexts of the Celts, I must
comment on John's remarks on Art History. I am somewhat bemused by
the comment art historians have a better grasp on the study of celtic
material than archaeologists. Art History has only ever reinforced a
eurocentric, linear history of art that begins in Lascaux and ends in
the Louvre. The real difficulty for art historians is not, as John
says, finding enough material, but rather their ability to abandon a
post-enlightenment definition of art. An example of the way in which
this socially and historically specific definition art impedes our
progress in the study of art can be seen in the following by John:
"For example, the few items that can be given to the
Waldalgesheim Master do not afford enough changes to construct a
decent chronology, let alone a reconstruction of this individual's
working methods and the tenets of his art."
As Tim Yates once said `archaeological data are not limited,
but the minds that think about them are.'
Thomas
----------------------
Thomas A Dowson
Department of Archaeology
University of Southampton
England
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|