 |
 |
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] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%