The conclusion reached in this study parallels, on an art-historical level, the results of recent anthropological discussions and the interpretation of archaeological contexts. It also robs the "Hellenization" model of its foundation. As the imported objects themselves were used within the context of local practices, just as Celtic objects were used, so also the artistic importations were entirely subsumed into the local visual system. It can no longer be argued, then, that these objects prove Celtic emulation of Greek culture; conversely, they cannot represent Celtic self-definition as "barbarian" vis-à-vis the Mediterranean higher cultures.
This is not to say that center-periphery modelling cannot explain the dynamics within Celtic localities; together with peer-polity interregional interaction theory, these anthropological reconstructions can provide our only path toward understanding developments within the Celtic lands, in the absence of written records. My contention is that the centers are to be sought within the Celtic area itself, and the dynamics must be comprehended first within the local system, then within interregional Celtic networks, and finally within the contiguous systems of Northern Italy and Eastern Europe. Any economic, socio-political or psychological dependence on Mediterranean imports can definitively be ruled out.