Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
————— 1 —————
Edited by
GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE
PEETERS
LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA
2011
List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XI
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
Abstract
This survey begins, as all modern studies of early Celtic art must, with references to
the life and work of the classical archaeologist, Paul Ferdinand Jacobsthal. Borrowing
heavily from prior analysis by Rudolf Echt, a number of authors down to 2004 are
examined and their varying approaches to – and definition of – Celtic art discussed.
The difference between the methodology of those who are primarily art historians and
those who are archaeologists is highlighted. Since Jacobsthal, there has been half-a-
century of work but it remains true that by and large there has been little discussion of
general principles or of methodology which might today be deemed appropriate to the
study of early Celtic art. In conclusion, it is suggested that in addition to further detailed
technological studies, anthropologists of art may assist our still sketchy interpretations
by shedding further light on patterns of manufacture, distribution and exchange.
INTRODUCTION
Jan Bouzek’s scholarship has covered a huge range of topics in prehistoric and
classical archaeology as is clear from the bibliography for an earlier volume in
his honour (Eirene XXXI [1995], 167–83). It is a particular pleasure to write
for this collection since Jan and I have been friends and colleagues through
1
This paper owes a debt to many other contributors to this volume. Of necessity it is ‘a col-
lection of other men’s flowers’, as Stuart Piggott once wrote at the end of an undergraduate
essay, and our illustrations offer only the smallest sampling of the rich and diverse material we
are attempting to review. We must, however, thank in particular one scholar and long-time
friend, Prof. Dr Rudolf Echt, who has generously allowed us to pillage a major contribution of
his own (Echt 1999, especially. section 5.1), thereby proving yet again that scholarship is simply
plagiarism with footnotes. Our survey draws in part on earlier studies (R. Megaw and V. Megaw
1994; R. Megaw and V. Megaw 2001, 9–23) and the unpublished text of a lecture given in the
United States in 1996 on the occasion of the centenary of Fred Norris Robinson’s inauguration
of the teaching of Celtic studies at Harvard. It should be added that insular art is largely excluded
from our review and that, in order to keep what follows to a manageable length, works cited are
simply examples or, in our opinion, the most significant examples of various individuals’ output.
It should also be noted that, with a very few exceptions, we have not included works published
after September 2005 – the date of completion of our essay – but see the bibliographic footnote
on p. 305.
many decades and many tumultuous events, meeting in many disparate parts
of the world. In the 1970s we drove out to the oppidum of Závist in his trusty
Trabi the better – and more securely – to discuss the current political situation,
while three decades later, we examined the tomb paintings of the Kazanlak
tholos before moving on to drink together a glass of good Bulgarian red.
Although this volume is largely devoted to broad regional overviews, we
have chosen instead a more limited survey, as much an account of the history
of ideas as a chronological account of the study of archaeological material;
earlier surveys have taken a broader review (for example De Navarro 1937;
Hawkes 1963). Our chosen field of necessity touches on both later prehistory
and the classical world and thus we trust that Jan may find something of inter-
est: he will certainly find something to debate.
‘Celtic art has no genesis’ wrote Paul Ferdinand Jacobsthal in his Early Celtic
Art (1944, 158). Having been sacked from his post as Professor of Classical
Archaeology at Marburg, Jacobsthal was a refugee from Nazi Germany and
living in Oxford, and his is a work which, irrespective of any shortcomings,
remains of such quality that he ‘made his successors all his commentators’
(Hawkes 1963, 12) (Fig. 1). There have, however, been developments in the
years between its publication and its Golden Jubilee.
Following his dismissal ‘aus rassischen Grunden’, Jacobsthal and his wife
found academic refuge in Oxford under the patronage of another great figure
in classical archaeology, J.D. Beazley, through whom he obtained a position,
though virtually without salary, as College Lecturer at Christ Church in
1937. Ten years later he became Student and University Reader in Celtic
Archaeology.
In a memorial essay in the Proceedings of the 1983 Oxford meeting of the
International Congress of Celtic Studies, Martyn Jope (1986) percipiently
observes how rigidly self-circumscribed were Jacobsthal’s researches into
early Celtic art. Although he nowhere defines the term, Jacobsthal’s four
‘styles’, which are not chronological phases, commence around 500 BC with
the ‘Early style’, or styles associated with the rich warrior- and chariot graves
of the middle Rhineland and north-eastern France (Figs. 2, 5–6). These were
followed by, or more properly overlapped with, the late 4th century ‘Waldal-
gesheim style’ with its obvious affinities to stylised classical lyre or vine
motifs (Figs. 10–15). Third is the ‘Plastic style’, Plastic in the German sense
of ‘Plastik’, three-dimensional, a feature of disparate groups of material mostly
Fig. 2. Kleinaspergle, Kr. Ludwigsburg. Attic stemless cup by the Amymone Painter
with La Tène gold leaf additions ca. 450 BC. Maximum diameter 220 mm.
Württembergisches Landesmuseum, Stuttgart.
of 3rd- and early 2nd-century date (Figs. 16–18). Finally there is the ‘Sword
style’, regarded today as more properly several regional styles. In these
engraved designs continued a now largely asymmetric use of plant motifs,
which took their artistic cues from elements of the ‘Waldalgesheim’, now fre-
quently named ‘Vegetal’ style and, like the ‘Vegetal’, provided in turn the
inspiration for the development of the earliest insular Celtic art.
As a classical archaeologist, Jacobsthal, like his friend Beazley who had
established individual ‘hands’ amongst the classical vase-makers and painters of
ancient Greece through minute observation of their design details, was particu-
larly interested in observation of the formative processes of early Celtic art. Not
for him its wider cultural implications and certainly nothing of its possible rela-
tionship to Celtic languages and literature and, of course, there is total silence in
Jacobsthal’s writings on the now fashionable debate concerning the existence or
non-existence of a prehistoric Celtic ethnicity. There are also classes of material
Fig. 4. Horovicky, okr. Rakovník. Detail of bronze on iron harness disc from chariot
grave. La Tène A, later 5th century BC. Total diameter 120 mm. Narodní Muzeum,
Prague.
Fig. 5. Somme-Bionne, ‘L’Homme Mort’, Marne. Bronze disc from chariot grave.
La Tène A, last quarter 5th century BC. Diameter 69 mm. The British Museum,
London.
with which Jacobsthal did not engage. His view of what the art historian might
term craft – a false division if ever there was one outside our own modern
society – resulted in scant attention being paid to decorated pottery. Glass was
entirely ignored since Jacobsthal noted that ‘it was of little value for my pur-
pose’ (Jacobsthal 1944, v). On the other hand, no one has bettered Jacobsthal’s
eye for the differences between this barbarian art – to use again his term – and
that of the contemporary classical world or described more clearly the basic
stylistic differences.
Jacobsthal also had a sense of the whimsical. Every Christmas, he and Bea-
zley would exchange greetings in the form of mini-essays on topics of com-
mon interest. In 1957, in what was to be the last of the Jacobsthal-Beazley
Festschriften, Jacobsthal conjured up the figure of ‘Leopold Bloom the Sec-
ond, a Hungarian sword-scabbard maker who had immigrated to Ireland’. This
was not simply a reference to James Joyce, but the first hint of a developed
argument linking the decorated sword scabbards of northern Ireland and north-
eastern England with those of Middle La Tène in Central Europe – Jacob-
sthal’s over-restrictively labelled ‘Hungarian sword style’. This was not fully
discussed until later, in the studies of the Irish sword scabbards by Barry Raf-
tery, like his father a graduate of Marburg (Raftery 1984, 75–107; 1994), and
in Martyn Jope’s completion of the project Jacobsthal had planned as the
sequel to Early Celtic Art (Jope 2000, especially 30–35).
Fig. 9. Grotte des Perrats, Agris, Charente. Bronze and iron jelmet covered
with gold and with coral insets. La Tène A2/B1, mid- to late 4th century BC.
Diameter 230 mm. Musée des Beaux Arts, Angoulême,
‘into the mechanism of dreams where things have floating contours and pass
into other things’ (Jacobsthal 1941, 308). This suggested Jacobsthal, evoking
Lewis Carroll’s excursion into verbal and visual surrealism, could be consid-
ered the ‘Cheshire [Cat] Style’— now you see the face, and now you don’t
(Fig.12). In 1966 when one of us published his first extended essay on the
human face and early Celtic art, he was so taken with the analogy that he went
one step further and perceived ‘a Disney-like abstraction’ in a small group of
3rd-century BC cast bronzes, objects more or less contemporary with the his-
torically attested incursions into the Balkans and beyond (Fig.16). Having pre-
viously drawn attention to a Disney-like abstraction (V. Megaw 1962, 24) in the
manner by which a face is broken down into a number of curvilinear elements,
the concept of the ‘Mickey Mouse style’ was introduced into early Celtic art
studies: ‘here divorced from the whole, no single detail of the drawing is essen-
tially mouse-ish but the total image is immediately recognisable’ (V. Megaw
1966, 124) (Fig.16). Formalised into the ‘Disney Style’ (translated into German
as das Disney Stil) it becomes more academically acceptable but is still consid-
ered too frivolous by some (Jope 1971). Nonetheless, study of the Jacobsthal
Fig. 12. Filottrano, Santa Paolina, grave 22. Detail of bronze sword scabbard.
La Tène B1, late 4th century BC. Length (of detail) ca. 75 mm. Museo Nazionale
delle Marche, Ancona (photograph: Univers des Formes, Paris).
Fig. 15. Palazzo Zabelli, Padua. Basal sherd with stamp. Diameter 74 mm.
La Tène B1, late 4th century BC. Museo Nazionale Atestino, Este.
Fig. 16. Paris. Head of bronze covered iron linch pin. Width 85 mm. La Tène B2,
earlier part of 3rd century BC. Musée des Antiquités Nationales, St-Germain-en-Laye
(photograph: I. Kitlitschka-Stempel).
Fig. 17. ‘La Fosse Cotheret’, Roissy, Val-d’Oise. Head of bronze covered linch pin
from one of two chariot graves. Width 65 mm. La Tène B2, earlier 3rd century BC.
Musée des Anriquités Nationales, St-Germain-en-Laye (photograph: J.V.S. Megaw).
Fig. 18. Mal-tepe, Mezek. Detail of bronze-covered linch pin from secondary chariot
grave found in entrance of a tholos tomb. Width 72.5 mm. La Tène B2, earlier
3rd century BC. Narodnija Archeologicheski Muzej, Sofia (photograph: R. Staneva).
2
As yet there is no really adequate biography of Jacobsthal; the fullest is to be found in
Schefold (1977), while in English Jope (1986) is a much briefer account of his life. Some other
WHAT’S IN A NAME?
Before considering the study of Celtic art after Jacobsthal – and like him, we
shall restrict our review to the Early and Middle periods of the La Tène culture
as conventionally ordered – we should further examine the varying responses
to the basic question: ‘What is Celtic art?’ This is a question which has been
posed by Jacobsthal and certainly by many since – albeit that one of our ster-
nest critics has maintained that Celtic art ‘is an immediate, rough and ready
description but it has no explanatory value’ (Taylor 1995). We make no apolo-
gies that most of our examples are taken from English authors or those writing
in English, since – with some exceptions – it is these which contain the most
eloquent statements on the subject. Indeed, there is a long history of British
concern with Celtic art.
In 1863, the same year as Ferdinand Keller’s interpretation the site of La
Tène as the remains of a Celtic village of pile dwellings related with the Hel-
vetii, Augustus Wollaston Franks, in his commentary to John Kemble’s post-
humous Horae ferales or Studies in the Archaeology of the Northern Nations,
referred to a collection of insular metalwork as ‘Late Celtic’ with continental
antecedents; indeed Horae ferales may be claimed as the first study of early
Celtic art in Britain, even more important for the way in which insular prod-
ucts were placed in a wider European context. In 1890 John Evans, who had
instigated excavations at Hallstatt in 1866, and his son Arthur excavated a
cremation cemetery at Aylesford in Kent which they identified as ‘Late Celtic’
and also as showing connections with the Continent, notably in the famous
bronze-bound stave bucket from cremation grave Y. In 1895 Arthur Evans
gave the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland’s Rhind Lectures, entitling them
‘The Origins of Celtic Art’, a series which, had it ever been published, would
stand fair comparison with many more recent overviews. In his lectures, Evans
detected in the development of the art of the second, La Tène, phase of the
Iron Age not only Etruscan but placed particular emphasis on the art of the
Venetic region and Archaic as well as Classical Greek influences and other
Eastern elements which he regarded as having been transmitted through Scyth-
sources are cited in V. Megaw and R. Megaw (1998). The typescript account of Jacobsthal’s
period of internment in 1940 referred to in our note is held in the archives of his old college,
Christ Church, Oxford. It is inscribed and dated ‘January 18th 1941 With the writer’s compli-
ments’ and has been reproduced twice (in Kochan 1983; Cooper 1992). For assistance in track-
ing down this memorial we are indebted to Miriam Kochan and Judith Curthoys, Archivist of
Christ Church where the typescript is catalogued OP xx.c.1; there is also correspondence con-
cerning attempts to obtain British citizenship for Jacobsthal. We have also been able to study the
Jacobsthal Archive held in the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford as well as related material in
the Beazley Archive in the Ashmolean Museum.
ian art. As we shall comment further below, Otto-Herman Frey’s Rhind Lec-
tures, given in 1977–78 under the title of ‘Pre-Roman Celtic Art’, and also,
alas, unpublished, contained more than an echo of his predecessor.
For Jacobsthal, as Rudolf Echt (1999, 237–38) has written:
La-Tène art [was] simply Celtic art. The Celts are a people who have not achieved
state formation but nevertheless possess ‘a culture which is remarkably uniform
over wide areas in the forms of its utensils and jewellery’. That is the old concept
of culture [where culture] is conceived of purely in material terms, as an associa-
tion of forms and types. The question of the connection between La Tène culture
and the La Tène style has not yet been posed. Jacobsthal is for the time being
involved in analysing individual patterns and motifs and then tracing the sources
of the style. His programme consists of ‘first of all writing a grammar of the lan-
guage which is to be decoded’ (Jacobsthal 1934, 17–18).
In Early Celtic Art, written and published in Oxford a decade later, his think-
ing had advanced:
The concept ‘La Tène’ occurs now and then in Jacobsthal’s text, mostly as syn-
onymous with ‘in Hallstatt or La Tène times’. But [‘La Tène’] does not play any
role as a term for either a culture or a stylistic concept. [Jacobsthal] does not
speak of a La Tène culture, much less of a La Tène style. In its place he has, in a
logically consistent continuation of the initial concept first mooted in 1934, used
the terms ‘Celts’ and ‘Celtic’. The distribution area of the La Tène culture is
called ‘the Celtic domain’, and since the Celts created La Tène art it is called
‘Celtic art’. In his choice of words Jacobsthal deliberately sets himself apart from
the usual terms of pre- and proto-history. He manipulates his system masterfully
over a wide area, but gets into difficulties – and perhaps not only conceptual dif-
ficulties – when he compares the Hallstatt style with that of La Tène.3
Echt himself then offers a definitional overview which is as masterly as that of
his subject:
Since Paul Renecke [in the early decades of the 20th century], La Tène research
did not make advances similar to that resulting from the publication of Early
Celtic Art. [In Jacobsthal’s book] for the first time La Tène style was comprehen-
sively acknowledged as the creative achievement of the La Tène culture. Although
Jacobsthal repeatedly demonstrates the Mediterranean foundations of La Tène art
in the objects discussed – ‘the foreign models are unmistakable and can be exactly
traced’ (Jacobsthal 1944, 103) – it is not the reception of foreign elements which
is the focus of his study. The issue is rather the formative principles of La Tène
art itself, recognising its uniqueness. Meticulously exact analysis of the patterns
and their syntax leads to completely new insights into the nature of La Tène art,
precisely in comparison with those Classical works which stimulated its birth: ‘A
classic work is the image of things after they have gone through a process of
3
For the sake of consistency, quotations from Echt’s text have been translated into English
throughout; we are indebted to Lois Zweck for her linguistic assistance.
There is perhaps too much reference to the ‘barbarian’, that which is ‘too lim-
ited’ in comparison, one assumes, with High Art but Sandars makes quite clear
her opinion of her material: ‘a book written about prehistoric art is neither art
history nor prehistory’ and makes no claim to offer ‘an escape from the prob-
lematic and speculative’ (Sandars 1985, 9).
Chronologically, the next published statement is our own book, Art of the
European Iron Age: a Study of the Elusive Image (1970), based on a doctoral
thesis which shamefully was never completed. The main argument of the book,
strongly influenced by perception psychology and the writings of Ernst Gombrich
(see also V. Megaw 1985), was to demonstrate the varying representations of the
human face, which it was claimed occurred widely, often in a visually encoded
form, in Celtic art. This was supported by the later accounts of Celtic religion
where the human head was considered not only to be the centre of the intellect but
of the very soul of the individual. In this we were not wholly successful, one
kindly but stern critic designated the study as showing ‘how unsatisfactory it can
be to design a book on a major subject of this sort as a string of annotations to the
individual items illustrated, not adequately coordinated through a closely rea-
soned text’ (Jope 1971)! Be that as it may, on this occasion our own attempt to
define Celtic art ran as follows:
Only in a minority of examples is it possible to trace copyings or, in detail, adap-
tations of introduced motifs. Equally, though Celtic art has been considered to be
essentially aniconic, it should also be regarded as basically religious. Again, Iron
Age art is not cyclical, in the sense that it neither progresses entirely from a more
linear type of representation to a more pictorial or three-dimensional style, nor is
it progressively more naturalistic. It would seem that the Iron Age craftsman,
altering little in his choice of themes, had a closely defined basic artistic voca-
bulary which allows ready perception of the ‘minimum clues’ of expression
(V. Megaw 1970a, 22).
between Celtic coinage and other aspects of Iron Age art; there is no doubt but
that the integration of numismatic studies within the general field of early
Celtic art is long overdue (see also Duval 1987; Gruel 2003).
As an antidote to so much evocative writing, Ian Stead, who through the
detailed analysis of the artefactual evidence has done as much as anyone to
advance the study of insular art, begins his own overview of Celtic art in Brit-
ain – first published in 1985 – with a warning:
Sensitive and appreciative modern writers have made valiant efforts to interpret
[Celtic art’s] meaning, but the imagination of modern man is an unreliable guide
to the aims, beliefs and feelings of his primitive forebears. Only the Celtic artist
and his patrons could explain Celtic art, and as they never set pen to paper the
knowledge died with them (Stead 1996, 7).
This stern warning was seemingly ignored by Jope, delivering the Sir John
Rhys lecture in 1987 some 45 years after Jacobsthal. With the subtitle ‘Expres-
siveness and communication through 2500 years’, he presented what was in
fact a preliminary sketch for his own magnum opus (Jope 2000) but was also
an argument espousing une longue durée for Celtic art through identification
of certain perceived continuous threads in which key features were a unique
approach to the representation of the human head and use of what he terms the
unnatural ‘through-composed line‘ in the representation of living forms. ‘Celtic
art’ he states, ‘arose in the fifth century BC as a reaction, a dissent from staid-
ness in much of the native (the “Hallstatt arts”), Greek and Italic ornamental
traditions’ (Jope 1987, 98–99).
Moving to perhaps more solid definitional ground and given the emphasis
Jacobsthal put on the careful study of individual motifs in early Celtic art and
in establishing ‘a Grammar of Celtic ornament’ (Jacobsthal 1944, 60–105 and
pls. 261–279), it is salutary to compare a practising artist’s analysis:
Among the motifs which appear in the art of Europe as a result of influences
from, and trade with, [Etruria and Greece] were sphinxes, griffons, bulls and
lions. It was, however, the subsidiary and supporting borders of palmette and
lotus motifs which became the subject of vigorous development by the Celtic
tribes…A distinctive Celtic style emerged as designs developed more abstract
forms, in which paired and opposed scrolls became a dominant motif with a
strong emphasis on diagonals and triangles. The ingenious way in which three
linked scrolls are manipulated is the most typical single feature of Celtic art.
A tendency to ambiguity is another characteristic of this art. There is often doubt
about the real nature of a motif: whether a curving lobe is a leaf or a fleshy scroll,
or whether a face is a face, or merely a juxtaposition of leaves and scrolls which
ambiguously suggests eyes and nose. Likewise, complicated designs obscure the
regular compass-drawn grids on which patterns are constructed. There may also be
an ambivalence between patterns and their background (Wilson 1994, 156–57).
It must be admitted that our own definitional abilities to make clear either
what we consider ‘art’ to be or what is ‘Celtic’ about ‘Celtic’ art have also
been called into question (Taylor 1991, 129). Notwithstanding, we open both
editions of our Celtic Art from its Beginnings to the Book of Kells with the
following:
[Celtic art] encompasses elements of decoration beyond those necessary for func-
tional utility, though these elements represent a form of symbolic visual communica-
tion which is only partially accessible to us’ (V. Megaw and R. Megaw 2001, 18).
In two regards – the essentially religious nature of Celtic art and its role as a
form of visual language – we have been followed by in many ways, despite a
number of minor errors, by the best of several shorter introductions to the sub-
ject which have appeared in recent years (Green 1996).
It is only proper that we should return to the Continent for a last example in
this section of our survey. Christiane Éluère’s massive L’art des Celtes, a wor-
thy replacement for Duval’s 1977 volume, follows on her publications, both
general and scientific, on prehistoric gold (for example Éluere 1987; 1989)
(Fig. 9). Éluere frames her definitions as a series of answers to questions:
Est-il possible d’élaborer un synthèse sur les Celtes à travers les rapports à l’art,
seul témoignage à la fois matériel et spirituel qu’il nous reste vraiment de leur
longue aventure? Les nombreuses découvertes archéologiques, révélations de tré-
sors intimement liés à des mythes complexes présents d’un bout à l’autre du ter-
ritoire, de l’Atlantique à l’Asie Mineure, sont, avec quelques inscriptions, la
source essentielle d’information sur ces peuples des très ancienne et vénérable
tradition orale,
Comment cette marque indélébile de l’âme des Celtes passé-t-elle des œuvres
d’un art populaire païen pour s’infiltrer dans l’art chrétien insulaire, dans la litté-
rature, les parlers qui se perpétuent encore de nos jours parmi quelque deux mil-
lions des habitants des régions de l’Ouest?
Quelle est la signification que nous pouvons donner à l’art des Celtes? Un art
décorative, certes mais probablement bien plus. Quelle importance accorder à
l’aspect religieux ou magique, à l’héritage du premier âge du fer, à l’inspiration
méditerranéenne? (Éluere 2004, 14).
4
Among the many definitions of ‘style’, we have tended to the view that style consists in the
precise combination of technological and iconographic elements to produce a particular form or
Jacobsthal, though his styles are meant to be defined both by time and space,
there seems to be some ambiguity in how best to consider his ‘Early’, ‘Waldal-
gesheim’, ‘Plastic’ (in the German sense of modelled or three-dimensional) and
‘Sword’ ‘styles’, the first of which is patently not a uniform grouping and the
last of which can best be seen as a series of regional sub-styles which occur on
many objects which are not swords – or rather sword scabbards.
The first to attempt to build on the foundations laid by Jacobsthal was the
Basel-based classical archaeologist Karl Schefold. In a review article which
represents one of the few in-depth critiques of Jacobsthal (1944) to have
appeared (see also Hawkes 1947), Schefold (1953) took as his starting point a
parallel development of style in Greece and among the Celts, and outlined a
tripartite division of the Early Style. Following what were observed to be
traces of Greek stylistic developments in La Tène art he differentiated within
the Early Style a ‘severe’ phase analogous to the Greek high classical, a ‘rich’
phase analogous to the rich style of Greek late classicism between 420 and 380
BC, and a ‘contrast’ phase analogous to the ‘plain’ style of Greek art in the
second quarter of the 4th century. One finds an echo of this in Paul-Marie
Duval’s (1977) periodisation where in which he set out an evolutionary series
commencing with an early ‘strict’ style followed by a ‘free style’ to a ‘free
graphic style – more or less equivalent to Jacobsthal’s Waldalgesheim and
Sword styles – and ending with a ‘free plastic style’.
effect (R. Megaw and V. Megaw 2001, 20), or, as an anthropologist has expressed it, ‘style’
refers to the formal qualities of a work of art and there is ample evidence for the co-existence
within one culture of two or more styles: ‘Style is one of the necessary components of visual
communication but.. like other components … it acquires special qualities when it becomes part
of art’ (Layton 1981, 170–71).
of the Alps; his doctoral thesis was concerned with the contemporary ‘situla
art’ of the Atestine region – the same material which had attracted the atten-
tion of Arthur Evans a century earlier (Frey 1998, 1). Frey assigned this post-
‘Early’ style intermediary phase to around the mid-4th century BC, immedi-
ately preceding the Waldalgesheim style. Frey assumed that this group
originated in the Marne region; central to his argument was the unprovenanced
Etruscan beaked flagon now in Besançon with its engraved ornament added by
a native La Tène craftsman (Frey 1955).
Twenty years later, Frey (1976) divided Jacobsthal’s Early style into three
variants. On the basis of the engraved ornament on the spouted flagon from the
Reinheim ‘princess’s’ grave (Echt 1999, especially 115–22) he identifies firstly
in the Rhineland a style dependent on Greek or Etruscan plant ornamentation;
secondly and further to the west is a geometric style whose patterns are drawn
with a compass5 with the openwork harness disc from the Somme-Bionne,
‘L’Homme Mort’ chariot grave and related pieces as its type-fossils (Figs.
5–6); thirdly and also in Champagne he postulated a workshop whose trade-
mark was the use of intermittent wave tendrils, like those decorating the hel-
met from another chariot-grave, that of Berru, ‘Le Terrage’, first excavated in
1872. Neither then nor later, however, was he as sure as his pupil Frank
Schwappach that there was a division in the western distribution of palmette
designs and a more limited and easterly zone of arc-and-intersecting-circles,
the latter particularly to be found in stamped and other forms of pottery deco-
ration (Schwappach 1976, especially fig. 3) (Fig. 7).
From the distribution of the floral and geometric patterns of the Early style,
Frey deduced that these occur almost exclusively in regions of the early La
Tène princely graves, and concluded that the Early style must have been as
much a regional as a chronological style differentiated from that of the Waldal-
gesheim style. Some 20 years later, in his contribution to the definitive publi-
cation of the Waldalgesheim chariot grave, Frey (1995a) made it clear that he
considered the Waldalgesheim style as the product of a new direct influence
on La Tène art in which the tendril was now the governing ornamental motif.
This is a style which we have nicknamed ‘the arts of expansion’ coinciding as
it seems to with the first major 4th-century movements south into Italy and
east into Transdanubia and beyond (for summaries see Frey 1995c; R. Megaw
and V. Megaw 2001, 106–21) (Figs. 12–13, 15). And mention of expansion,
here we must note that recent work and new discoveries such as the votive site
of Fiskerton in Lincolnshire pushes the beginning of insular ‘Vegetal’ decora-
5
A useful summary of Pauli’s views – in English – is Pauli 1985.
tion even earlier than many of us had thought possible. Fiskerton, which has a
fair claim to being the La Tène of the British Isles, includes objects decorated
in ‘Vegetal’ style dateable to at least as early as the 4th century BC (Field and
Pearson 2003, especially 178–88).
Frey of course was not the only person in the 1970s to be considering these
matters. Jope was engaged in taking over from Jacobsthal the study of insular
early Celtic art though this was not to be published until after his own death in
1996. As a biochemist by training, it is not surprising to note his emphasis on
what he termed ‘ornament syntax’ (Jope 2000, 3–4). Also, Jope had for some
time been concerned to study evidence for the transmission of new ideas, an
essential factor in the consideration of what might be termed the post-modern-
ist art of later prehistoric Europe (Jope 1973). One other work deserves notice;
we have already mentioned Duval’s (1977) attempt at a new stylistic terminol-
ogy. However, like Schefold’s not dissimilar scheme of 1953 this has been
largely ignored. The important dissertation by David Castriota (1981) on con-
tinuity and innovation in the use of ornament used a complex model based on
linguistics to analyse the structure of La Tène art, and in particular of the
‘Waldalgesheim style’ in which Italy is seen as the main source for stylistic
innovations. Despite the fact that in its analytical thoroughness it is as close to
Jacobsthal as many others who have attempted to follow him, Castriota has
also been little referred to, and in its current form it suffers from poor illustra-
tions and a difficult writing style.
To return to Frey’s thesis as to the origins of the Waldalgesheim style, as
Echt (1999, 248–50) has pointed out, Frey’s distributional distinction of the
style from that of the Hunsrück-Eifel ‘chieftainly’ graves has led him to con-
sider it as a chronologically overlapping body of material with a tentative
birthplace in the Marne region. On the other hand he points to the stylistically
fertile soil of Italy – ‘Etruria, where the motives grow like weeds’ (Jacobsthal
1944, 46). But the emphasis is clearly on north-eastern France. One might say,
characteristically Frey takes a middle road.
The foremost advocate of Italy being the key to this stylistic conundrum has
been Venceslas Kruta, another scholar with a detailed knowledge of Italy (see,
amongst many other studies, Kruta 1974; 1982a–b; 1991) supported by Chris-
tian Peyre (1982). For Kruta, the replacement of the Early style by the Waldal-
gesheim style is a result of the historically attested migration of the Celts into
northern Italy (Figs. 12, 15). Following settlement in the Po valley and further
south, Kruta believes that the conditions were right for the direct influence of
the art of Magna Graecia. The small number of examples of Waldalgesheim
style in the Celtic area of settlement is blamed on still relatively backward
nature of research in the region – a weak argument if ever there was one!
Kruta does however share with Frey the belief that the Waldalgesheim style
had its essential stimulus from La Tène culture’s absorbing and assimilation of
new stimuli from the Classical and Hellenistic Greek art as represented in her
Western colonies.
Quite contrary to Kruta’s theory is that of Stéphane Verger who in a dis-
sertation (summarised in 1987) in effect presents a reworking of Jacobsthal’s
picture of linear evolution of this ‘Waldalgesheim’ style from the static ‘Early’
style(s). Triskel chains, based on compass layout are seen as evolving into
continuous tendril patterns or what Verger terms ‘le style végétal continu’.
Certainly ‘Vegetal’ is a much better descriptor than ‘Waldalgesheim’, particu-
lar since the latter is a site peripheral to the main distribution; however, Verger
is no better than many other writers when it comes to defining ‘style’. Verger’s
is a stimulating if controversial study which disputes the primacy of 4th-cen-
tury Italic influence save for a single variant of his tendril patters, and totally
denies the influence of 4th-century Italo-Greek motifs but its mechanistic view
of formal transformation appears to disregard how styles develop within com-
plex societies,
Thus, Frey’s view which combines elements from both the Early style espe-
cially in the Marne together with new motifs from the Mediterranean world
would seem on balance to win the day, even if the means by which the latter
were introduced have not been precisely identified – at least to our satisfac-
tion. Nonetheless, Frey’s dissecting of the Waldalgesheim or Vegetal style
may be regarded as his main contribution to early Celtic art studies but it is by
no means his only contribution. He has also been concerned, like ourselves, to
consider the Europe-wide phenomenon of the so-called ‘dragon-pair’ emblem
as it appears on sword scabbards commencing in the period of the Vegetal
style and extending into the late La Tène period (Frey 1995b; see also
V. Megaw and R. Megaw 1991) (Figs. 19–20). More recently still, his asso-
ciation with the spectacular finds from the rich burials below the Glauberg
north-east of Frankfurt (Fig. 3) and concern with the sources for what little we
have by way of Iron Age sculpture have resulted in a number of articles con-
cerned with representations of the human form (Frey 1996b; 1998; 2003; Her-
rmann, Frey et al. 1997; see further below). In particular, Frey has been using
early Celtic art to reconstruct ancient Celtic belief systems (Frey 2004; 2005).
What we lack from Frey – at least in print – is the major overview of early
Celtic art which he is supremely equipped to give.
Fig. 19. Kosd, Nógrád m. Detail of iron scabbard decorated with Type I
‘dragon-pair’ (a stray find from a cemetery). Width 54 mm. Magyar Nemzeti
Múzeum, Budapest (photograph: F. Gelencsér).
6
For an even more sophisticated examination of compass-construction in the decoration of
Marnian harness mounts involving standardised measurements, see Bacault and Flouest 2003.
For the history of the study of circle construction in Celtic art, see Pauli 1986; for its extension
to the British Isles, see Frey with V. Megaw 1976. The basic introduction to engraving tech-
niques remains Lowery et al. 1971.
In the area of the Hünsruck-Eifel, many years ago Jürgen Driehaus devel-
oped a model of a number of ‘iron masters’ gaining wealth and importance
from the region’s mineral wealth and thus capable of commanding the talents
of specialist craftsmen (Driehaus 1965). In 1976 Alfred Haffner in an impor-
tant thesis concentrating on the cemetery evidence confirmed the region’s sig-
nificance in the development of early Celtic art. Subsequently Haffner has
identified as a common group a number of gold covered iron disc brooches
with coral inlay as well as other pieces (see below) – his ‘Weiskirchen type’
– as products of a workshop specific to the area, although this may be chal-
lenged on stylistic grounds (Haffner 1979).
The majority of this recent research, however, consists of corpora of mate-
rial painstakingly assembled and analysed in terms of distribution, typology
and chronology, but with little attention given to art theory as such. Also such
corpora largely remain in unpublished dissertations buried in that black hole to
which, even in these days of rapid electronic exchange of information, they
seem all too frequently to be relegated. Some have, it is true, been published,
such as Majolie Lenerz-de Wilde’s 1977 Munich dissertation on the signifi-
cance of compass ornamentation in the art of the La Tène period (Figs. 5–7).
Lenerz-de Wilde argues that these constructions were based on classical
models. While this seems hard to prove, since there is a certain chicken-and-
egg factor at work – was the Celtic artist translating the image of a classical
plant motif into geometric forms or did the motif develop out of the ‘pure’
geometric forms? – even though it might be thought that she pushes her theory
too far, she was right in giving prominence to the part played in the develop-
ment of early Celtic art by compass-based designs as opposed to the floral and
zoomorphic patterns7. Clearly, the construction of such designs required a
sophisticated knowledge of the principles of geometry analogous with the
engravers of insular Iron Age mirror-backs or the illuminators of the great
Hiberno-Scottish Gospel books of a millennium later. Less successful, per-
haps, has been Lenerz-de Wilde’s following of our ideas concerning elusive
imagery in early Celtic art (V. Megaw 1970a–b). At times this may be pushed
too far, as both Lenerz-de Wilde and Miklós Szabó do in too assiduously fol-
lowing the elusive scent of the Cheshire Cat, seeing even more faces in
‘abstract’ La Tène motifs than we do (Lenerz-de Wilde 1982; Szabó 1993;
Duceppe-Lamarre 2003).
7
For a selection where art has predominated, see Szabó and Petres 1974; Pauli 1980; Duval
and Heude 1983; Moosleitner 1987; Charpy and Roualet 1991; Kruta et al. 1991; Cordie-Hack-
enberg et al. 1992.
Ulrike Brade’s 1998 study of early La Tène figural brooches (Fig. 8) suffers
from the inbuilt obsolescence which afflicts such theses; Brade makes a brave
attempt at establishing the iconography of her material but shows little or no
sense of style and style variation. Of those German ‘list-makers’, as they have
been somewhat unkindly described, many of them Marburg graduates, Schwap-
pach – whom we have already referred to – is another figure since lost to
archaeology. Through intensive museum research into stamp-decorated pottery
he did much to restore the material imbalance of Jacobsthal’s magnum opus.
Schwappach’s largely stylistic approach eschews the information which is
available through either fabric analysis or the study of ethno-archaeological
analogies (see Gosden 1985; 1989), insufficiently considers material other
than pottery and puts forward a largely unsustainable division of early La Tène
art into Eastern and Western provinces. Notwithstanding, this is one list-maker
whose complete lists one would dearly love to see in print (see Schwappach
1969a–b; 1974; 1979; contra: V. Megaw 1985, 180–82).
One major source for recent work on various aspects of Celtic art has been
a number of exhibition catalogues and conference proceedings.8 Kruta, the
recently retired successor of Duval at the École Pratique des Hautes Études,
has been instrumental in arranging several of these and latterly has co-edited
Études celtiques, one of the major publications for studies of early Celtic art.
He also has organised a number of colloquia – not all published, alas – which
have contained a number of valuable studies and has also published exten-
sively on the art of his Czech birthplace (notably Kruta 1975), although it can-
not be said that he has broken any new ground in terms of approach or theo-
retical background. Notwithstanding, Kruta has published an invaluable source
book in which he links to historical events – linkages which are probably too
close for many other scholars (Kruta 2000).
Amongst other French scholars, the major figure has been André Rapin, by
profession a teacher of art and founder of the Institut de Restauration et de
Recherches Archéologiques et Paléométallurgiques. As a mature student, a
pupil of Kruta’s, through his particular interest in the development of ancient
weaponry and their technology, Rapin has also published widely in the field
8
For example Fitz 1975; Duval and Kruta 1982; Charpy 1991; Bouzek et al. 2002; Buch-
senschutz et al. 2003. The last mentioned is particularly important for the number of papers
which attempt – with varying degrees of success – ‘readings’ of various categories of early La
Tène art. We must not omit the work of a number of younger French scholars who seem readier
than their German contemporaries to grasp the nettle of Celtic art even though they may not be
as well-read as they might. As elsewhere, much potentially useful research remains as unpub-
lished dissertations: see, for example, Challet 1992; Leconte 1993; Delnef 2003; Ginoux
2003a–b.
and has travelled the length and breadth of the ancient Celtic world, enlivening
his many publications by his skilful draughtsmanship and the artist’s eye for
form (Rapin 1985; 1987; 1989; 2000; 2003). Of particular interest has been
his collaborative work demonstrating the links of the indigenous population of
Languedoc with the ‘classic’ La Tène regions to the north and the possibility
of La Tène mercenary settlers in the region (Rapin and Schwaller 1988;
Schwaller et al. 2001).
Occasional spectacular finds, either the result of chance discoveries or, more
and more frequently, a by-product of major road or rail construction works,
have further added to the visual vocabulary of early Celtic art. The gold cov-
ered parade helmet found in the Grotte des Perrats, Agris (Charente) (Fig. 9)
has the most complex arrangement of carved coral known; it betrays clear
Italo-Celtic influence and stylistically it is related to Frey’s group of pre-Veg-
etal material. The carved coral, however, has its closest parallels in the Marne
(Gomez de Soto 1966; Lourdaux-Jurietti 2003). Equally spectacular, though in
a different way, is the discovery of a rich early La Tène cemetery at Roissy
‘La Fosse Cotheret’ (Val-d’Oise) (Fig. 17). Found in advance of extensions at
Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport and excavated by Thierry Lejars, a long-
time associate of Rapin’s, the cemetery consisted of some dozen graves includ-
ing two with chariots. Of these, grave 1002 contained a range of fittings richly
ornamented in our ‘Disney’ style, in effect a subgroup of Jacobsthal’s ‘Plastic’
style; the Roissy finds establish the likelihood that some at least of this early
3rd century BC material was produced in the Paris Basin for a select group of
local elites (R. Megaw and V. Megaw 2001, 139–44; Olivier 2001; Lejars
2005) (Figs. 16, 18).
It might be noted here that Rapin’s approach to the material he studies,
which is first and foremost that of the artist and artisan, contrasts that of
Kruta who only rarely seems to relate the ‘art’ to other aspects of Iron Age
society.9 The same can be said of Hungarian archaeologists and classical art
historians concerned with the La Tène period or ’culture’, the foremost of
whom is Miklós Szabó who has argued for a strong Hellenistic and Eastern
European element in Central European La Tène art (for example Szabó 1985;
1992, especially 109–78). But despite some important overviews, notably a
number of detailed studies of the regional groupings of Jacobsthal’s ‘Sword
(sub) style’ and its putative insular descendants,10 nothing theoretically new
9
These studies build on the pioneering work of J.M. De Navarro (1972) whose plan to pub-
lish all the material from the type-site of La Tène was never completed.
10
Szabó and Petres’s study is illustrated almost entirely by drawings. All drawings, however
‘good’, are impressions rather than necessarily precise reproductions of the real thing and it is
has come out of the East (see here Szabó and Petres 1992;11 see also Lejars
1994 on the nearly 200 surviving scabbards recovered from the sanctuary site
of Gournay-sur-Aronde12), There is one exception and this is Pavel Sankot, a
museum-based archaeologist who knows at first-hand through meticulous
excavation and close study of old finds not only the material of his own area
but that of the surrounding regions. Sankot has added to detailed artefact anal-
ysis of early La Tène material the application of new scientific methods not
only to establish evidence for regional workshops in Bohemia – often making
use of fine engraving – but also to reconstruct the interaction of these work-
shops with other regional groups and trading networks (for a sample of more
recent papers see: Sankot 2000; 2002; 2003). It is likely that – at least for his
native Slovakia – Lev Zachar, another artist-cum-archaeologist, might well
have produced a major study but for his early death; as it is, we are left with a
fine volume of superb photographs and a short supporting text (Zachar 1989).
But the major discovery of early Celtic art since the period from the end of
the Second World War has undoubtedly been the rich warrior graves found
below the Glauberg which must be regarded as the most significant to have
been made in the western part of the early La Tène culture (Herrmann and
Frey 1998; Baitinger and Pinsker 2002). Amongst the results of what is still
research in progress, has been the extension north and east of our knowledge
not just of an early La Tène – and earlier – Fürstensitz but of associated war-
rior burials every bit as rich and as diverse in their associated grave goods as
any in the Hünsruck-Eifel group. Detailed stylistic comparisons must await the
conclusion of the work by Frey and Herrmann. Suffice it to note that the
spouted flagon from grave 2 shows in its complex engraved geometric orna-
mentation a close affinity with, perhaps even manufacture in the same work-
shop as those from Waldalgesheim and Reinheim. The beaked flagon from
often difficult to wean trained artists – even Szabó and Petres’s excellent Hungarian illustrators
– from their innate sense of style to reproducing as closely as possible what the eye can see. It is
for this reason that we have given precedence to the photograph with drawings only as ancillary
ways of seeing. As it is, Rapin’s always informative but nonetheless individual if not impres-
sionistic drawings may be compared with those of a much earlier student of insular early Celtic
art: Fox 1958. On this vexed question of photography versus draughtsmanship, see Duval 1982;
and for a history of archaeological illustration by one who was himself a highly accomplished
draughtsman: Piggott 1978.
11
The continuing though as yet unpublished work by Veronika Holzer and her colleagues
from the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna in the area of Sandberg-Roseldorf have added an
eastern relation to Gournay – a very similar Middle La Tène enclosure with deposits of weapons
and human as well as animal bones; the value of such sites as aides to the interpretation of La
Tène belief systems needs no emphasis here.
12
For a cautionary note on the use of cemetery evidence to indicate status, see Hodson 1979.
grave 1 on the other hand has technical aspects which link it closest with the
famous flagen from Dürrnberg grave 112. Clearly the Glauberg must be
regarded as a significant political and economic centre with a widespread trad-
ing network and the ability to call upon skilled craftsmen and their products
just as the Dürrnberg, both gaining their position by control of the exploitation
of the same raw material – salt.
The best known of all the recent finds from the Glauberg barrow complex is
certainly the 2 m-high warrior-statue carved from local sandstone bearing on its
head the curious ‘leaf-crown’ known from other examples of the scanty number
of surviving early La Tène statuary as well as a range of small finds (Figs. 3–4).
The statue has recently been placed in its European context in a number of
papers presented in a symposium entitled ‘Die lusitanisch-galläkischen Krieg-
erstatuen’ (Schattner 2003; see also Bonefant and Guillaumet 1998; Gomez de
Soto and Milcent 2002)). The stylistic points of contact between the statue and
other finds from the Glauberg graves and the Greek-influenced cultures of the
south of French have been discussed. So too has the intended significance of
the Glauberg ‘stone knight’, found mutilated like several other Iron Age statues
has lead to the view that these should be regarded not as representations of dei-
ties but rather dynastic heroes (Frey 1998; V. Megaw 2003; see also Duceppe-
Lamarre 2002; Arcelin and Rapin 2002).
As well studies of new material there have been a number of monographs of
old discoveries only recently receiving the study they have long demanded.
These have made important contributions to the re-evaluation of the broad
outlines of Jacobsthal’s 1944 identification of four ‘styles’ of early Celtic or
La Tène art. Re-evaluations – or rather first full publications – of older finds
include two containing material classed by Jacobsthal as part of his ‘Early
style’, Wolfgang Kimmig’s 1988 monograph on the Kleinaspergle burial dis-
covered in 1879 and our own study of the Basse-Yutz find. The unique pair of
imported Etruscan stamnoi and local beaked flagons remains in the British
Museum as they have done ever since shortly after their discovery in 1927 – to
the undying chagrin of the French. As elsewhere, in our monograph we argue
for a model involving itinerant specialist craftsmen and against the concept of
a direct Eastern or ‘Orientalising’ element in early Celtic art (V. Megaw and
R. Megaw 1990, 54–59; R. Megaw and V. Megaw 2001; forthcoming; con-
tra: Frey 2000). Haffner (1993) in an independent partial study of the Basse-
Yutz flagons refers them to a ‘Weiskirchen workshop’; while the association
with material from the Hunsrück-Eifel barrow group between the Saar and the
Rhine is clear, we are less certain that the actual individual craftsmen respon-
sible for the separate parts of their manufacture necessarily can be identified as
coming from the latter area.
[For the Megaws] La Tène art is Celtic art, exactly in Jacobsthal’s sense; [they]
conduct art-historical stylistic criticism [and are at their best] in tracing formal
relationships between individual works, in recognising formal dependences and
influences. The result of this formal analytical study is the description of ‘classes’,
‘workshops’ and ‘masters’, more recently to an increasing extent with the addi-
tion, where available, of metallurgical analyses and technical aspects of the mate-
rial studied. [Thus they] approach the cultural history of the La Tène period pre-
dominantly through its works of art. A historical interpretation, according to the
methods of pre- and proto-history, of the graves, hoards, sanctuaries and settle-
ments from which the works of art come, is not what [they have] in mind (Echt
1999, 251–52).
Fair enough; apart from two overviews (V. Megaw 1970a; R. Megaw and
V. Megaw 2001), the first, as we have already noted, grew out of an initial
belief in the central place played in early Celtic belief systems of various for-
mulations of the human head (V. Megaw 1966). Like Frey, we have not pro-
duced the in-depth ‘historical interpretation’ demanded by Echt. And here we
must admit that after some 15 years our major work still remains incomplete
– the compilation of a Supplement to Jacobsthal’s still essential work. How-
ever, from the beginning we have indeed attempted to identify individual
workshops and – more rashly – even separate workshops or ‘hands’, though
some of these attempts have been more successful than others (V. Megaw
1967; 1970c; 1972; see also Echt 1994; 1999, 27–28). More recently we have
become convinced that two of Jacobsthal’s putative sources for early Celtic
art, the Orient and Scythia, have been much exaggerated (V. Megaw 1975;
V. Megaw and R. Megaw 2002). While we have also been concerned not just
to tease out the roots of Celtic art but also to define it, we cannot say that we
have been that convincing. It is true that we have been reduced in extremis to
state that the Celts were indeed those who produced ‘Celtic’ or ‘La Tène’ art
– in other words what best defines that invisible binder which seems to have
held together so many disparate communities is the art, and with the art, the
belief systems which governed its creation.
Some points of similarities and many differences can be seen in the various
attempts to define the nature of what is still given the label of ‘early Celtic
art’. There are those who believe that the beginning and the end of possibili-
ties lie in the study of the material itself – analysis without interpretation –
while others, convinced of the existence of a past Celtic culture see lines of
continuity extending right down to the present. And here indeed dragons lie.
It is also true that in certain ways Spratling’s verdict which appears in the
same unpublished lecture we have cited earlier, must be regarded as still
largely valid:
Although the approach to the study of early Celtic art has been broadened in
recent studies, there has been little discussion of general principles of analysis, of
research strategy, or of methodology deemed appropriate for this study (Spratling
1975).
Early Celtic art studies may seem to have changed little from the approaches
of the great 19th- and early 20th-century pioneers of Kunstgeschichte. By
inclination rather than of necessity much more emphasis has been placed on
objects of wealth and high social standing rather than in comparison with the
day-to-day gamut of decorated domestic artefacts – though studies of pottery,
that most ubiquitous of all archaeological materials, have been on the increase.
As we have seen, there have certainly been advances in the assemblage of
corpora of various classes of material (an essential first building block in the
construction of style variation, a means to an end not the end itself) and in the
13
The ‘DFG-Projekt Fürstensitz Glauberg’, part of a wider international study of chieftainly
centres and their attendant elite burials, will, it is hoped, clarify some of these issues.
Na vase zdravi!
A BIBLIOGRAPHIC FOOTNOTE
In the five years since this essay was drafted it is inevitable that a number of important
catalogues and articles, as well as somewhat fewer monographs, should have been
published – not including, to the shame of the senior author, our own Early Celtic Art:
A Supplement, still in preparation for Oxford University Press. As with this essay in
general, the following remains a selection.
Two somewhat similar lavishly produced – and indeed as far as illustrations go –
overlapping overviews are: V. Kruta, D. Bertuzzi, W. Forman and E. Lessing, Celts:
History and Civilization (London 2004); and D. Vitali, The Celts: Histoty and Treas-
ures of an Ancient Civilization (Vercelli 2007).
There is little to add as far as new approaches to, let alone definitions of, continental
early Celtic art is concerned; D.W. Harding, The Archaeology of Celtic Art (London
2007), despite its title and its attempt to give context to the artefacts, is in our view no
real replacement for our own overview which is equally lacking in this regard
(R. Megaw and V. Megaw 2001). Of regional studies Miklós Szabó, A keleti kelták: a
késö vaskor a Kárpát-medencében (Budapest 2005) offers a timely update of his previ-
ous regional overviews which surely demands translation. Two other well-illustrated
14
Much has been written on the general subject of early Celtic art since the above text was
completed. One survey, by our old friend and mentor, Emeritus Prof. Otto-Herman Frey, the
doyen of current early Celtic art studies (Frey 2006), deserves mention not only because it
reviews our own work but it covers much the same ground as that covered here, with rather
greater emphasis on links – or putative links – between the Italo-Greek world and that of the
culture we continue to call ‘Celtic’.
works are: F.Müller and G.Lüscher, Die Kelten in der Schweiz (Stuttgart 2004); and
L.Verhart, Den Kelten auf der Spur: neue archölogische Entdeckungen zwischen
Nordsee und Rhein (Mainz 2008).
For a review of the more recent in the seeming unending series of exhibitions
devoted to a lesser or greater degree to early Celic art see V. Megaw, ‘Imag(in)ing the
Celts’. Antiquity 81 (2007), 438–45.
It is interesting to note that recently students of the Iron Age in Great Britain and
Ireland have once more been turning their attention to Celtic art – or what, with no
more justification than the much maligned ‘Celtic’, is once more being termed ‘La
Tène’ art. Several of this new generation, as might be expected, follow concepts bor-
rowed from anthropology, notably Alfred Gell’s concept of ‘agency’: P. Macdonald,
‘Perspectives on insular La Tène art’. In C. Haselgrove and T. Moore (eds.), The Later
Iron Age in Britain and Beyond (Oxford 2007), 329–38. One may add several essays
in D. Garrow, C. Gosden and J.D. Hill (eds.), Rethinking Celtic Art (Oxford 2008).
These make interesting comparisons with Buchsenschutz et al. 2003.
Detailed studies are still rare; N. Ginoux, La thème sybolique de “la paire de drag-
ons” sur les fourreaux celtiques (IVe–IIe siecles avant J.-C.): étude iconographique et
typologie (BAR International Series 1702) (Oxford 2007), a thesis presented in 1996,
demonstrates the disadvantages as well as the advantages of a detailed typological
approach, an approach which can never be other than personal. Very different is V.
Kruta and D. Bertuzzi, La cruche celte de Brno: chef-d’oeuvre de l’art miroir de
l’univers (Dijon 2007) which, as its title indicates, introduces for the first time archaeo-
astronomy into the study of early Celtic art, hard on the heels of the recent interpreta-
tion of the Glauberg earthworks as forming a virtual calendar.
A final addition, if only since it expresses views which challenge those that Jan
Bouzek has held for so long is V. Megaw, ‘Early Celtic art without Scythians? A
review’. In H. Dobrzanska, V. Megaw and P. Poleska (eds.), Celts on the Margin:
Studies in European Cultural Interaction, 7th Century BC–1st Century AD, dedicated
to Zenon Wozniak (Cracow 2005), 33–47.
BIBLIOGRAPHY*
la IVe section de l’École pratique des hautes études) (Hautes études du monde
gréco-romain 13) (Geneva/Paris).
—. 1986: ‘Le fourreau celtique de Cernon-sur-Coole (Marne)’. Gallia 44, 1–26.
Echt, R. 1994: ‘Von Wallerfangen bis Waldalgeshem: Gestalt und Technik als Argu-
mente für Werkstattidentitäten’. Saarbrucker Studien und Materialen zur Alter-
tumskunde 3, 125–56.
—. 1999: Das Fürstinnengrab von Reinheim: Studien zur Kulturgeschichte der Früh-
La-Tène-Zeit (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Alktertumskunde 69) (Bonn).
Echt, R. and Thiele, W.-R. 1995: ‘Zur Herstellungs- und Fügetechnik der Goldringe’.
In Joachim et al. 1995, 111–40.
Éluère, C. 1987: L’or des Celtes (Fribourg, Switzerland).
—. 1989: ‘A gold connection between the Etruscans and eartly Celts?’. Gold Bulletin
22, 48–55.
—. 2004: L’art des Celtes (Paris).
Evans, A.J. 1890: ‘On a late-Celtic urn-field at Aylesford, Kent’. Archaeologia 52,
315–88.
Field, M. and Pearson, M.P. 2003: Fiskerton: an Iron Age Timber Causeway with Iron
Age and Roman Offerings. The 1981 Excavations (Oxford).
Fitz, J. (ed.) 1975: The Celts in Central Europe: Papers of the II Pannonia Conference
(István Király Múzeum közleményei. A sorozat 20) (Székesfehérvár).
Fox, C. 1958: Pattern and Purpose: a Survey of Early Celtic Art in Britain (Cardiff).
Frey, O.-H. 1955: Au Musée de Besançon I: Eine etruskische Bronzeschnabelkanne
(Annales Litteraires de l’Université de Besançon 2 sér. II.1) (Archéologie 2)
(Besançon).
—. 1976: ‘Du Premier style au Style de Waldalgesheim: remarques sur l’evolution de
l’art celtique ancien’. In Duval and Hawkes 1976, 141–63.
—. 1991: ‘The formation of the La Tène culture in the fifth century BC’. In Kruta et
al. 1991, 124–46.
—. 1993: ‘Die Bilderwelt der Kelten’. In Dannheimer, H. and Gebhard, R. (eds.), Das
Keltische Jahrtausand (Ausstellungskataloge der Prähistorischen Staatssammlung
23) (Mainz), 153–68.
—. 1994: ‘Figürliche Kunst: Latènezeit’. In Reazllexikon der germanischen Altertum-
skünde 9.1–2 (Berlin/New York), 20–24.
—. 1995a: ‘Das Grab von Waldalgesheim: ein Stilphase des keltischen Kunsyhand-
werks’. In Joachim et al. 1995, 159–206.
—. 1995b ‘Some comments on swords with dragon pairs’. In Raftery, B., with Megaw,
V.[= J.V.S.] and Rigby, V. (eds.), Sites and Sights of the Iron Age: Essays on
Fieldwork and Museum Research Presented to Ian Mathieson Stead (Oxbow
Monograph 56) (Oxford), 163–176.
—. 1995c: ‘The Celts in Italy’. In Green 1995, 515–32.
—. 1996a: ‘Bemerkungen zu einigen Fundstücken der Frühlatènezeit aus Niederöster-
reich’. In Jerem, E., Krenn-Leeb, A., Neugebauer, J.-W. and Urban, O.H. (eds.),
Die Kelten in den Alpen und an der Donau (Akten des Internationalen Sympo-
sions, St. Pölten, 14–18. 10. 1992) (Archaeolingua I) (Budapest), 193–215.
—. 1996b: ‘Zu den figürlichen Darstellungen aus Waldalgesheim’. In Stöllner, T.
(ed.), Europa Celtica: Untersuschungen zur Hallstatt- und Latènekultur
(Veröffentlichungen des Vorgeschichtlichen Seminars Marburg. Sonderband 10),
95–115.
—. 1998: ‘The stone knight, the sphinx and the hare: new aspects of early Celtic art’.
PPS 64, 1–14.
—. 2000: ‘Zu den Ostkontaken der frühen keltischen Kunst’. In Avram, A. and Babe≥,
M. (eds.), Civilisation grecque et cultures antiques périphériques: Hommage à
Petre Alexandrescu à son 70e anniversaire (Bucharest), 60–67.
—. 2002: ‘Frühekeltischen Kunst – Dämonen und Götter’. In Das Rätsel der Kelten
vom Glauberg: Glaube–Mythos–Wirklichkeit (Exhibition Catalogue) (Stuttgart),
186–205.
—. 2003: ‘Vorläufer der mitteleuropäischen keltischen Grossplatik in Italien’. Madr-
Mitt 44, 181–88.
—. 2004: ‘A new approach to early Celtic art’. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Acad-
emy, Section C: Achaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics and Literature
104C.5, 107–209.
—. 2005: ‘The Celtic concept of the gods: some preliminary remarks’. In Hourihane,
C. (ed.), Irish Art Historical Studies in Honour of Peter Harbison (Princeton/
Dublin), 25–46.
—. 2006: ‘Die Kunst der Kelten als Gegenstand der prähistorischen Forschung’. In
Rieckhoff, S. (ed.), Celtes et Gaulois, l’archéologie face à l’Histoire 1: Celtes et
Gaulois dans l’histoire, l’historiographie et l’idéologie moderne (Actes de la
table ronde de Leipzig 16–17 juin 2005) (Bibracte 12.1) (Mont-Beuvray), 15–31.
Frey, O.-H. with Megaw, J.V.S. 1976: ‘Palmette and circle: Early Celtic art in Britain
and its continental background’. PPS 42, 47–68.
Frey, O.-H. and Schwappach, F. 1973: ‘Studies in early Celtic design’. World Archae-
ology 4, 339–56.
Ginoux, N. 2003a: ‘L’excellance guerrière et l’ornementation des armes aux IVe et
IIIe s. av. J.-C., découvertes récentes’. Études celtiques 35, 32–67.
—. 2003b: ‘La forme, une question de fond dans l’expression non figurative des
sociétés san textes’. In Buchsenschutz et al. 2003, 259–72.
Gomez de Soto, J. 1996: Grotte des Perrays à Agris (Charente) – 1981–1994: etude
préliminaie (Dossier du Pays Chauvinois 4) (Chauvigny).
Gomez de Soto, J. and Milcent, P.-Y. 2002: ‘La sculpture de l’âge du fer en France
centrale et occidentale’. Documents d’archéologie mériodionale 25, 261–67.
Gosden, C. 1985: ‘Gifts and kin in early Iron Age Europe’. Man 20, 475–93.
—. 1989: ‘Debt, production and prehistory’. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
8, 355–87.
—. 2001: ‘Making sense: archaeology and aesthetics’. World Archaeology 33, 163–67.
Green, M.J. [Aldhouse] (ed.) 1995: The Celtic World (London/New York).
—. 1996: Celtic Art: Reading the Messages (London)
Greenhalgh, M. and Megaw, V. [= J.V.S.] (eds.) 1978: Art in Society: Studies in Style,
Culture and Aesthetics (London)
Gruel, K. 2003: ‘Du realisme classique à la stylisation celtique dans les monnaies’. In
Buchsenschutz et al. 2003, 121–28.
Guggisberg, M.A. 2000: Der Goldschatz von Erstfeld: Ein keltischer Bilderzyklus
zwischen Mitteleuropa und der Mittelmeerwelt (Antiqua 32) (Basel).
Haffner, A. 1976: Die westliche Hunsrück-Eifel-Kultur (Römisch-Germanische Forsc-
hungen 36) (Berlin).
—. 1979: ‘Die frühlatènezeitlichen Goldschieben vom Typ Weiskirchen’. In Fest-
schrift 100 Jahre Rheinisches Landesmuseum Trier: Beiträge zur Archäologie
und Kunst des Trierer Landes (Tierer Grabungen und Forschungen 14) (Mainz),
281–96.
—. 1993: ‘Die keltischen Schnabelkannen von Basse-Yutz in Lothringen’. Archaeolo-
gia Mosellana 2, 339–60.
Hawkes, C.F.C. 1947: Review of P.F. Jacobsthal, Early Celtic Art (Oxford 1944).
JRS 37, 191–98.
—. 1963: ‘The Celts: report on the study of their culture and their Mediterranean rela-
tions, 1942–1962’. In Le rayonnement des civilisations grecque et romaine sur les
cultures périphériques (VIIIe Congrès international d’archéologie classique, Paris,
3–13 septembre 1963) (Paris), 3–23.
Herrmann, F.-R., Frey, O.-H. et al. 1997: ‘Ein frühkeltischer Fürstengrabhügel am
Glauberg im Wetteraukreis, Hessen’. Germania 75, 459–550.
Hodson, F.R. 1979: ‘Inferring status from burials in Iron Age Europe: some recent
attempts’. In Nurnham, N.C. and Kingsbury, J. (eds.), Space, Hierarchy and
Society: Interdisciplinary Studies in Social Area Analysis (BAR International
Series 59) (Oxford), 23–30.
Jacobsthal, P.F. 1934: ‘Einige Werke keltischer Kunst’. Die Antike 10, 17–45.
—. 1941: ‘Imagery in early Celtic art’. ProcBrAc 27, 301–20.
—. 1944: Early Celtic Art, 2 vols. (Oxford; reprinted with corrections 1969).
Jerem, E. 1976: ‘Stempelverziertes frühlatènezeitliches Gefäss aus Écs’. Mitteilungen
des Archäologischen Instituts der Ungarischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 5
(1975–76), 45–57.
—. 1984: ‘An early Celtic workshop in north-western Hungary: some archaeological
and technological evidence’. OJA 3, 57–80.
—. 1995: ‘Celts of Eastern Europe’. In Green 1995, 581–602.
Joachim, H.-E. et al. 1995: Waldalgesheim: das Grab einer keltischen Fürstin (Katal-
oge des Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn 3) (Cologne/Bonn).
Jope, E.M. 1971: Review of J.V.S. Megaw, Art of the European Iron Age (Bath 1970).
Ulster Journal of Archaeology 34, 115–19.
—. 1973: ‘The transmission of new ideas: archaeological evidence for implant and
dispersal’. World Archaeology 4, 368–73.
—. 1986: ‘Paul Ferdinand Jacobsthal’. In Evans, S., Griffith, J.G. and Jope, E.M.
(eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Celtic Studies held
at Oxford, from 10th to 15th July, 1983 (Oxford), 15–18.
—. 1987: ‘Celtic art: expressiveness and communication through 2500 years’. Proc-
BrAc 73, 97–123.
—. 2000: Early Celtic Art in the British Isles, 2 vols. (Oxford).
Karasová, Z. and Licka, M. (eds.) 2002: Figuration et abstraction dans l’art de
l’Europe ancienne (VIIIème–Ier s. av. J.-C.) (Actes du Colloque international de
Prague, Musée National, 13–16 juillet 2000) (Sborník Národního Muzea v Praze:
rada A, 56.1–4) (Prague).
Kemble, J.M. (Latham, R.G. and Franks, A.W. [eds.]) 1863: Horae ferales; or Studies
in the Archaeology of the Northern Nations (London).
Kimmig, W. 1988: Das Kleinaspergle: Studien zu einem Fürstengrabhügel der frühen
Latènezeit bei Stuttgart (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte
in Baden-Württemberg 30) (Stuttgart).
Kochan, M. 1983: Britain’s Internees in the Second World War (London).
Kruta, V. 1974: ‘Remarques sur l’apparition du rinceau dans l’art celtique’. Études
celtiques 14, 21–30.
—. 1975: L’art celtique en Bohême: les parures métalliques du Ve au IIe siècle avant
notre ère (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études: IVe section, 324) (Paris).
—. 1982a: ‘L’Italie et l’Europe intérieure du Ve siècle av. n. è.’. Savaria 16, 203–21.
—. 1982b: ‘Aspects unitaires et faciès dans l’art celtique du IVe siècle avant notre ère:
l’hypothèse d’un foyer Celto-Italique’. In Duval and Kruta 1982, 35–49.
—. 1986: ‘Le corail, le vin et l’arbre de vie: observations sur l’art et la religion des
Celtes du Ve au 1er siècle avant J.-C.’. Études celtiques 23, 7–32.
—. 1991: ‘The first Celtic expansion: prehistory to history’. In Kruta et al. 1991,
192–213.
—. 2000: Les Celtes, histoire et dictionnaire: des origines à la Romanisation et au
Christianisme (Paris).
Kruta, V., Frey, O.-H., Raftery, B. and Szabó, M. (eds.) 1991: The Celts (London.)
Kruta, V., Lambot, B., Lardy, J.-M. and Rapin, A. 1984: ‘Les fourreaux d’Epiais-Rhus
(Val-d’oise) et de Saint-Germainmont (Ardennes) et l’art celtique du IVe siècle
av. J.-C.’. Gallia 42, 1–20.
Kruta, V. and Rapin, A. 1987: ‘Une sépulture de guerrier gaulois du IIIe siècle avant
Jésus-Christ découverte à Rungis (Val-de-Marne)’. Cahiers de la Rotonde 10,
5–35.
Layton, R. 1981: The Anthropology of Art, 2nd ed. (Cambridge).
Leconte, S. 1993: ‘Les agraffes de ceinture ajourées de la Tène ancienne en Gaule’.
Antiquités nationals 25, 52–79.
Lejars, T. 1994: Gournay III: Les fourreaux d’épée. Le sanctuaire de Gournay-sur-
Aronde et l’armemrnt des Celtes de la Tène moyenne (Paris).
—. 2005: ‘Le cimitière celtique de La Fosse Cotheret, a Roissy (Val-d’Oise) et les
usages funéraires aristocratique dans le nord du Bassin Parisien à l’aube du IIIe
siècle avant J.-C.’. In Buchsenschutz, O., Bulard, A. and Lejars, T. (eds.), L’Âge
du Fer en Ile-de-France (Revue Archéologique du Centre de la France suppl. 26)
(Tours/Paris), 73–83.
Lenerz-de Wilde, M. 1977: Zirkelornamentik in der Kunst der Latènezeit (Münchner
Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgerschichte 25) (Munich).
—. 1982: ‘Le “style de Cheshire Cat”: un phénomène caractéristique de l’art celt-
ique’. In Duval and Kruta 1982, 101–14.
Lourdaux-Jurietti, S. 2003: ‘L’utilisation du corail sur la casque de la grotte des Per-
rats à Agris (Charente)’. In Buchsenschutz et al. 2003, 113–20.
Lowery, P.R., Savage, R.D.A. and Wilkins, R.L. 1971: ‘Scriber, graver, scorper,
tracer: notes on experiments in bronzeworking technique’. PPS 37, 167–82.
Megaw, J.V.S. 1962: ‘A bronze mount from Mâcon: a miniature masterpiece of the
Celtic Iron Age reappraised’. AntJ 43, 24–29.
—. 1966: ‘Two La Tène finger rings in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London: an
essay on the human face and Early Celtic Art’. PZ 43–44 (1965–66), 96–166.
—. 1967: ‘Ein verzierter Frühlatène-Halsring im Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York’. Germania 45, 59–69.
—. 1968: ‘Une epée de la Tène I, avec fourreau décoré’. Revue archéologique de l’Est
et du Centre-Est 19, 129–44.
—. 1970a: Art of the European Iron Age: a Study of the Elusive Image (Bath).
—. 1970b: ‘Cheshire Cat and Mickey Mouse: analysis, interpretation and the art of the
La Tène Iron Age’. PPS 36, 261–79.
—. 1970c: ‘Further Early La Tène rings and other material of the “Horchheim” and
“Andernach” classes’. Germania 48, 126–30.
—. 1972: ‘Style and style groupings in continental early La Tène art’. World Archae-
ology 3, 276–92.
—. 1985: ‘Meditations on a Celtic hobby-horse notes towards a social archaeology of
Iron Age art’. In Champion and V. Megaw 1985, 161–91.
—. 2003: ‘Celtic foot(less) soldiers: an iconographic note’. Gladius 23, 61–70.
—. 2004: ‘In the footsteps of Brennos? Further archaeological evidence for Celts in
the Balkans’. In Hänsel, B. and Studeniková, E. (eds.), Zwischen Karpaten und
Ägäis: Neolithikum und Bronzezeit: Gendenkschrift für Viera Nemejcová-Pavúk-
ová (Internationale Archäologie, Studia honoria 21) (Rahden), 93–107.
Megaw, J.V.S. and Megaw, M.R. 1990: The Basse-Yutz find: masterpieces of Celtic
art. The 1927 Discovery in the British Museum (Reports of the Research Commit-
tee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 46) (London).
—. 1991: ‘“Semper aliquid novum…” Celtic dragon-pairs re-reviewed’. Acta Archae-
ologica Hungarica 42, 55–72.
—. 1993: ‘Cheshire Cats, Mickey Mice, the new Europe and ancient Celtic art’. In
Scarre, C. and Healy, F. (eds.), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe
(Oxbow Monograph 33) (Oxford), 219–32.
—. 1998a: ‘Waldalgesheim variations’ [Review of H.E. Joachim et al., Waldalge-
sheim: das Grab einer keltischen Fürstin (Cologne Bonn)]. Germania 76, 847–
63.
—. 1998b: ‘Cartoons, crocodiles and Celtic art: images from a scholar’s notebooks’.
OJA 17.1, 121–26.
—. 1999: ‘Celtic connections past and present: Ancient Celts and modern ethnicity’.
In Black, R., Gillies, W. and Ó Maolalaigh, R. (eds.), Celtic Connections: Pro-
cedings of the 10th International Congress of Celtic Studies 1 (East Linton),
19–81.
—. 2002: ‘The bronze mount from Drouzkovice, northwest Bohemia’. Památky arche-
ologické 93, 173–93.
Megaw, J.V.S., Megaw, M.R. and Neugebauer, J.-W. 1989: ‘Zeugnisse frühltatèn-
ezeitlichen Kunsthandwerks aus dem Raum Herzogenberg, NÖ’. Germania 67,
477–517.
—. 1997: ‘Notes on a silver pendant and chain from Pottenbrunn-Ratzersdorf, Nieder-
österreich and its wider European implications’. Germania 75, 717–35.
Megaw, R. [M.R.] and V. [J.V.S.] 1994: ‘Through a window on the European Iron
Age darkly: fifty years of reading early Celtic art’. World Archaeology 25.3, 287–
303.
—. 1995: The prehistoric Celts: identity and contextuality’. In Kuna, M. and Ven-
clová, N. (eds.), Whither Archaeology? Papers in Honour of Evzen Neustupny
(Prague), 230–45.
—. 2001: Celtic Art. From its Beginnings to the Book of Kells, 2nd ed. (London).
—. forthcoming: ‘East and West in early Celtic art: the first stages once more
reviewed’. In Jerem, E. and Wieland, G. (eds.), Ost-West Beziehungen wärend
der Eisenzeit in Europa (Archaeolingua) (Budapest).
Sandars, N.K. 1985: Prehistoric Art in Europe, 2nd ed. (Harmondsworth, Mx).
Sankot, P. 2000: ‘Zum Problem der Verzierungen organischen Ursprungs an böhmis-
chen Funde der Spåthallstatt- und Frühlatènezeit’. In Chytrácek, M., Michálek, J.
and Schmotz, K. (eds.), Archäologische Arbeitsgemeinschaft Ostbayern/West-
und Südböhmen. 9. Treffen, 23. bis 26. Juni 1999 (Rahden), 102–13.
—. 2002: ‘Eisenzeitliches Kunsthandwerk als Spiegel von Fernkontakten’. In Lang, A.
and Salac, V. (eds.), Fernkontakte in der Eisenzeit: Konferenz, Liblice 2000
(Prague), 83–101.
—. 2003. ’Nouvelles connaissances sur l’artisanat laténien des Ve–IIIe siecles avant
J.-C. en Bohême’. In Buchsenschutz et al. 2003, 129–43.
Schattner, T.G. (ed.) 2003: ‘Die lusitanisch-galläkischen Kriegerstatue’. MadrMitt 44,
xiii–307.
Schefold, K. 1953: ‘Die Stilgeschichte der frühen keltischen Kunst [Review of Jacob-
sthal 1944]’. PZ 34–35 (1949–50), 11–17.
—. 1977: ‘Paul Jacobsthal (1880–1957)’. In Schnack, I. (ed.), Marburger Gelehrte in
der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts (Veröffentlichungen der Historischen
Kommission für Hessen 35) (Marburg), 228–39.
Schwaller, M. et al. 2001: ‘Échanges, influences, productions dans la nécropole du
deuxième âge du fer d’Ensérune (Hérault)’. Documents d’archéologie méridion-
ale 24, 173–84.
Schwappach, F. 1969a: ‘Stempelverzierte Frühlatène-Schalen von Losheim, Kr. Mer-
zig-Wadern’. Berichte der Staatlichen Denkmalpflege im Saarland 16, 105–21.
—. 1969b: ‘Stempelverzierte Keramik von Armorica’. In Frey, O.-H. (ed.), Marburger
Beiträge zur Archäologie der Kelten: Festsdchrift für Wolfgang Dehn zum 60.
Geburtstag am 6. Juli 1969 (Funberichte aus Hessen Beiheft 1) (Bonn), 213–87.
—. 1974: ‘Ostkeltisches und Westkeltisches Ornament auf einem Älterlatènezeitlichen
Gürtelhaken von Mühlacker, Kreis Vaihingen’. Fundberichte aus Baden-Würt-
temberg 1, 337–72.
—. 1976: ‘L’art ornemental du “Premier Sryle” celtique’. In Duval and Hawkes 1976,
61–110.
—. 1979: Zur Chronologie der östlichen Frühlatène-Keramik/On the Chronology of
the Eastern Early La Tène Pottery (Die Keramik der Latène-Kultur 2) (Bad Bram-
stedt)
Spratling, M.G. 1973: ‘Approaches to the arts of the early Celts’. Art, Artists and
Societies: Research Seminar in Archaeology and related subjects, University of
Leicester (unpublished paper).
Stead, I.M. 1996: Celtic Art in Britain before the Roman Conquest, 2nd ed. (Lon-
don).
Stead, I.M. and Hughes, K. 1997: Early Celtic Designs (British Museum Pattern
Books) (London).
Stöllner, T. 1998: ‘Grab 102 vom Dürrnberg bei Hallein: Memerkungen zu den Dür-
rnberger Kriegergräbern der Frühlatènezeit’. Germania 76, 67–176.
Stöllner, T. et al. 2003: ‘The economy of Dürrnberg-bei-Hallein: an Iron Age salt-
mining centre in the Austrian Alps’. AntJ 83, 123–94.
Szabó, M. 1985: ‘Nouvelles vues sur l’art des Celtes prienteaux’. Études celtiques 22,
53–72.
—. 1992: Les Celtes de l’Est: le second âge du fer dans la cuvette des Karpates
(Paris).