Whitney Davis "Beginning the History of Art"

Whitney Davis’s “Beginning the History of Art” delves into the idea of where the history of art began and how it came to be. Although it has been a long process, it still seems difficult to decide when art first began. Davis’s writes, “For conservative historians, there simply will never be enough archaeological evidence about origins.” (32) With all the criteria and history of deciding what is art, it seems very difficult on determining a beginning. The origins are difficult to agree upon because of people’s different methods into analyzing art and looking into specific characteristics.
When French archaeology leader, Emile Cartailhac declares “ ‘Mea culpa ‘d’ un sceptique’ “ in 1902 it makes it much clear that the history of art is an ongoing process. For years cave art was not considered art, then one day it was declared a mistake and now automatically it is art; then it is simple to realize that there is much more to be educated upon and considered when making such distinctions.
Cartailhac’s admission about the cave drawing, established the art-historicity of pre-art-historical artworks. This timeline of labeling drawings confuses me, are the cave drawings considered the first artworks? Is nothing considered the first artworks or assigned the beginning? I understand why no one can claim with certainty the first artwork, but for me it is difficult to have these vague labels?
I also didn’t understand the importance of the “links”, is it just for classification and order of artworks. The criticism made by Davis about “the forensic interests of nineteenth and twentieth-century art history” (37) surprised me. Davis uses strong, critical words stating artwork is autonomous and is also critical of arts “cash value”. Is it because art is not just an expression of the artist anymore, but is now put on display to be appraised, examined, studied and judged? For example the Egyptian First dynasty art piece(39) is looked at closely because of the feet and how there are not all the same. Unique features now become identifying links and start to mark artists. Why is it not right to mark, analyze art? Is Davis even critical of this?
The last thing that interested me was the quote “artworks transport or redeem us from the vague, unresolved, unfinished, merely material and human chaos of history (or delude us with claims to do so.)” (36). This quote struck me enough to highlight, it seemed so hopeful and wise about the power of arts and its effects on people, but the last part in parenthesis confused me, if anyone can clarify….