Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T03:24:20.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Art of Art History: A Reply to Trubowitz and Rosenthal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Zena Pearlstone Mathews
Zena Pearlstone Mathews*
Affiliation:
Department of Fine Arts, New York University, New York, NY 10003
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The critiques of Trubowitz and Rosenthal are based on erroneous assumptions of equivalence between anthropological and art historical methods. Art history is a distinct, basically humanistic discipline with its own rigorous rules of evidence and analysis.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 1982 , pp. 198 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Mathews, Zena Pearlstone 1978 The relation of Seneca False Face masks to Seneca and Ontario archeology. Garland Publishing, New York.Google Scholar
Trubowitz, Neal, and Beryl, Rosenthal 1982 Review of The relation of Seneca False Face masks to Seneca and Ontario archeology. American Antiquity 47:240–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber. J., Cynthia 1970 Types and attributes in the study of Iroquois pipes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.Google Scholar