Debates about definitions of art have filled many library shelves. Distinctions common in our own post-Renaissance western society between ‘high’ art, popular art and craft are and have been alien to most other peoples at most other times: in many contemporary indigenous cultures of the Third and Fourth Worlds there is no word equivalent to ‘art’. The art of the Celts was not ‘art for art’s sake’, but was deeply embedded in the context of their economic, social, intellectual and religious life, as well as being influenced by available technology and the range of accessible materials. There is some evidence that general estimations of what constitutes quality in technical skill are transcultural (e. g. Jopling 1971), yet it is uncertain that what we today find attractive about the ‘art’ of peoples thousands of years ago is the same as those qualities which they themselves valued. We have in the past offered a definition of Celtic art as encompassing ‘elements of decoration beyond those necessary for functional utility’ (Megaw and Megaw 1989a: 19).
Our perceptions of the nature of Celtic art are undoubtedly skewed by having to rely largely on a limited range of artefacts. While it is obvious that textiles and woodworking played an important role in the European Iron Age, we have tantalizingly little tangible evidence since they rarely survive. Again, the difficulty of finding early La Tene settlements means that much material comes from graves, and this biases our sample. Little statuary or architecture remains and most painting is confined to pots.
Much of the remaining art is thus made of ceramics and metal, which survive, though it is worth emphasizing that, save in eastern Europe, Celts rarely used silver, though they did use gold, bronze and iron extensively.
World History
