Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:07:45.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cheshire Cat and Mickey Mouse: analysis, interpretation and the art of the La Tène Iron Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2016

J. V. S. Megaw
J. V. S. Megaw
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Sydney, N.S.W.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nearly seventy years ago Wilhelm Worringer first wrote that ‘ultimately all our definitions of art are definitions of classical art’ (Worringer, 1953, 132). Today, the study of Western European art history, old or modern, the products of peasant craft-centres or urban ‘schools’, has in the course of time developed its own methodology and, almost, mystique. In contrast, the study of many branches of prehistoric art in Europe and elsewhere is all too often seen as a mere extension of the skilled but subjective approaches of classical archaeology without considering the suitability of the latter's application. The use of the classical art-historian's intuitive methods built up not just from visual exprience but a detailed background of literary, historical and philosophical studies must in fact be almost entirely denied the student of prehistoric or primitive art. It is perhaps only natural that principles of classical art history should be applied to later European prehistory, though it is often difficult to arrive at a precise definition of these principles. It was Johann Joachim Winckelmann who made the first systematic application of categories of style to the history of art (Gombrich, 1968, 319). Sir John Beazley, the greatest of all modern classical art historians followed in this tradition basing attributions ‘on the grounds of tell-tale traits of individual mannerisms’ (Carpenter, 1963, 115 ff.) a scheme first applied to painting less than a century ago by the Italian physician Giovanni Morelli (Gombrich, 1968, 309 ff.) and followed at the turn of the nineteenth century in the study of Italian painting (Lermolieff, 1892–3). With Beazley it is, however, difficult to follow step by step his methods of work.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 36 , December 1970 , pp. 261 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1970

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

Abramson, J. A., 1969. ‘Style in New Guinea Highlands Shields’, Mankind, 7, 59–66.Google Scholar
Ackerman, J., 1963. Art and Archaeology. Princeton, N.J. Google Scholar
Adam, L., 1940. Primitive Art. Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Bakka, E., 1968. ‘Methodological problems in the study of gold bracteates’, Norwegian Arch. Rev., I: 5–56, (with reply by M. P. Malmer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beazley, J. D., 1910. Kleophrades. J. Hellenic Stud., XXX, 38–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beazley, J. D., 1911. ‘Master of the Berlin amphora’, J. Hellenic Stud., XXXI, 275–95.Google Scholar
Beazley, J. D., 1912. ‘Master of the Boston Pan-krater’, J. Hellenic Stud., XXXII, 354–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beazley, J. D., 1914. ‘Master of the Achilles amphora in the Vatican’, J. Hellenic Stud., XXXIV, 179–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beazley, J. D., 1918. Attic red-figure vases in American museums. Cambridge, Mass.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beazley, J. D., 1963. Attic red-figure vase-painters. 2 ed., Oxford.Google Scholar
Berndt, R. M., 1958. ‘Some methodological considerations in the study of Australian Aboriginal art’, Oceania, XXIX, 26–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowles, E. A., 1965. ‘Art history and archaeology’, in (ed.), Pierson, G. F., Computers for the Universities? A record of the conference sponsored by Yale University … January 22–23, 1965, 113–6. New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar
C.A.D.A., 1962. Project de code pour l'analyse des monnaies (sur cartes perforées). Centre d'Analyse Documentaire pour l'Archéologie, C.N.R.S. Paris.Google Scholar
C.A.D.A., 1968. Project de code pour l'analyse des vases grecs (sur cartes perforées). Centre d'Analyse Documentaire pour l'Archéologie, C.N.R.S. Marseilles.Google Scholar
Carpenter, R., 1963. Art and archaeology. Princeton, N.J. Google Scholar
Clarke, D. L., 1968. Analytical archaeology. London.Google Scholar
Colbert de Beaulieu, J. B. and Lefèvre, G., 1963. ‘Les Monnaies de Vercingetorix’, Gallia XXI, 11·75.Google Scholar
Craig, B., 1967. ‘The houseboards of the Telefomin sub-district, New Guinea’, Man, 2, 260–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cranstone, B. A. L., 1968. ‘War shields of the Telefomin sub-district, New Guinea’, Man, 3, 609–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filip, J., 1956. Keltové v střední Evropě. Monumenta Arch. V. Prague.Google Scholar
Fox, C., 1958. Pattern and purpose: a survey of Early Celtic art in Britain. Cardiff.Google Scholar
Furumark, A., 1941. The Mycenaean pottery: analysis and classification. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Gardin, J.-Cl., 1958. ‘Four codes for the description of artifacts: an essay in archaeological techniques and theory’, Am. Anthrop., 60, 335–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardin, J.-Cl., 1967. ‘Methods for the descriptive analysis of archaeological material’, Am. Antiquity, 32, 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giedion, S., 1962. The beginnings of art. The eternal present. I. London and New York.Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. H., 1965. ‘Visual discovery through art’, Arts Magazine, 17–28.Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. H., 1968. Art and illusion. 3 ed., London.Google Scholar
Haarlem, , 1963. Keltische kunst: Bodemschatten uit Salzburg. Frans Halsmuseum, Haarlem.Google Scholar
Harrod, H., 1855. ‘On horse trappings found at Westhall’, Archaeologia, XXXVI, 454–6.Google Scholar
Henry, F., 1965. Irish art in the Early Christian period (to A.D. 800), London.Google Scholar
Hocke, G. R., 1957. Die Welt als Labyrinth. Hamburg.Google Scholar
Hodson, F. R., 1964. ‘La Tène chronology, continental and British’, Bull. Inst. Arch. Univ. London, 4, 123–41.Google Scholar
Hodson, F. R., 1969. ‘Searching for structure within multivariate archaeological data’, World Archaeology, I, 90–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodson, F. R., Sneath, P. H. A. and Doran, J. E., 1966. ‘Some experiments in the numerical analysis of archaeological data, Biometrika’, 56, 311–42.Google Scholar
Jackson, K. H., 1951. A Celtic miscellany. London.Google Scholar
Jacobsthal, P., 1927. Ornamente griechischer Vasen. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Jacobsthal, P., 1941. ‘Imagery in Early Celtic art’, Proc. British Academy, XXXVII, 301–20.Google Scholar
Jacobsthal, P., 1944. Early Celtic art. (Reprint 1969), Oxford.Google Scholar
Jones, R., 1967. ‘From totemism to totemism in Palaeolithic art’, Mankind, 6, 384–92.Google Scholar
Jope, E. M., n.d. ‘The beginnings of La Tène ornamental style in the British Isles’, in (ed.) Frere, S. S., Problems of the Iron Age in Southern Britain. Inst. Arch. Univ. London Occ. Paper, II, 69–85.Google Scholar
Keller, F. J., 1965. Das keltische Füirstengrab von Reinheim I. Mainz.Google Scholar
Lambrechts, P., 1954. L'exaltation de la tête dans la pensée et dans l'art des Celtes. Diss. Arch. Gandenses, II. Bruges.Google Scholar
Laming-Empéraire, A., 1962. Art rupestre paléolithique. Paris.Google Scholar
Lermolieff, I., 1892–1893. Italian painters: critical studies of their works. London.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1968. The Art of Prehistoric Man in Western Europe. London.Google Scholar
Levi, D., 1945. ‘Early Hellenic pottery of Crete’, Hesperia, XIV, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludikovský, K., 1962. ‘Ploché Keltské pohřebiště v Mikulčích u Hodonína’, Sborník C.S.S.A. (Brno), 2, 257–78.Google Scholar
Malmer, M. P., 1965. Metodproblem inom järnålderns Konsthistoria. Acta Arch. Lundensia, ser. 8°, 3.Google Scholar
Malmer, M. P., 1969. ‘Crucial problems in the discussion on gold bracteates’, Norweg. Arch. Rev., 2, 102–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Megaw, J. V. S., 1963. ‘A British bronze bowl of the Belgic Iron Age from Poland’, Antiq. J., XLIII, 27–37. Google Scholar
Megaw, J. V. S., 1965–1966. ‘Two La Tène finger rings in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London’, Praehist. Zeitschr., XLIII–XLIV, 96–116.Google Scholar
Megaw, J. V. S., 1967. ‘Art styles and analysis’, Mankind, 6, 393–402.Google Scholar
Megaw, J. V. S., 1969. ‘Doppelsinnigkeit in der keltischen Kunst’, Pfälzer Heimat, 20, 85–6.Google Scholar
Megaw, J. V. S., 1970. Art of the European Iron Age: A study in the elusive image. Bath.Google Scholar
Moosbrugger-Leu, R., 1967. Die frühmittelalterlichen Gürtelbeschläge der Schweiz. Monographie zur Ur- u. Frühg. der Schweiz, XIV.Google Scholar
Munn, N. D., 1966. ‘Visual categories: an approach to the study of representational systems’, Am. Anthrop., 68, 936–50.Google Scholar
Penninger, E., 1960. ‘Ein Latènezeitliches Fürstengrab von Dürrnberg bei Hallein’, Mitt. Ges. Salzburger Landeskunde, 100, 1–14.Google Scholar
Powell, T. G. E., 1958. The Celts. London.Google Scholar
Richter, G. M. A., 1936. Red-figure Athenian vases in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New Haven, Conn.Google Scholar
Robertson, C. M., 1965. ‘Attic red-figure vase-painters: a review’, J. Hellenic Stud., LXXXVI, 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, A., 1967. Pagan Celtic Britain: Studies in Iconography and tradition. London.Google Scholar
Sandars, N. K., 1968. Prehistoric art in Europe. Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Schapiro, M., 1953. ‘Style’, in (ed.) Kroeber, A. L., Anthropology Today, 287–312. Chicago.Google Scholar
Schefold, K., 1949–1950. ‘Die stilgeschichte der frühen keltischen Kunst’, Praehist. Zeitschr., XXXIV–XXXV, 11–17.Google Scholar
Schefold, R., 1966. Versuch einer Stilanalyse der Anfangehaken van Mittleren Sepik in Neu Guinea: Basler Beiträge zur Ethnologie, 4.Google Scholar
Schmitz, C. A., 1956. ‘Style provinces and style elements: a study in method’, Mankind, 5, 107–16.Google Scholar
Soudský, B., 1966. ‘Principles of automatic data treatment applied in Neolithic pottery’, Symposium on Classification and Automatic Data treatment: Nordiska Radet for Antropologisk Forskning, Prague.Google Scholar
Ucko, P. and Rosenfeld, A., 1967. Palaeolithic cave art. London.Google Scholar
Vogt, E., 1952. ‘La Tènegräber von Dietikon (Kt. Zurich)’, 60. Jahresber. des Schweiz. Landesmus. 1951, 55–64.Google Scholar
Wescher, P., 1950. ‘The “idea” in Guiseppe Arcimbaldo's art’, Magazine of Art, 23, 3–8.Google Scholar
Wolfe, A. W., 1969. ‘Social structural bases of art’, Current Anthropology, 10, 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wölfflin, H., 1932. Principles of Art History, London.Google Scholar
Worringer, W., 1953. Abstraction and Empathy. (Translation of 3rd ed., 1911), London.Google Scholar