New Aspects and Problems in Irish Prehistory Presidential Address for 1937

Mahr, Adolf

doi:10.1017/s0079497x00021447

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…After comparison with Prof. Jessen's schemes for Ireland (Jessen, 1938;Mahr, 1937) and Denmark (Jessen, 1935), and taking into consideration some corroborative evidence from Cornwall, it was decided to assume that his phases I, II, and III for the Late Glacial Period might be expected in this country too, but are absent from these diagrams.^ Jessen's phase IV (Ireland) is described as " Birch dominating, much willow", and the hazel curve does not start until the next phase. The lower band of gyttja at Whattall contained a great dominance of birch (B i)* and virtually no QM.…”

Section: General Discussion and Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Studies of the Post‐glacial History of British Vegetation

Hardy

1939

New Phytologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: General Discussion and Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Phase IV Exactly what constitutes the division between Jessen's VII and VIII is not stated in the preliminary account given in Prof. Mahr's recent review of Irish Prehistory (Mahr, 1937).…”

Section: Pre-borealmentioning

confidence: 99%

Studies of the Post‐glacial History of British Vegetation

Hardy

1939

New Phytologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Ultimately based on the idea that an image can represent something else -be it an ancestor, text, creature, hybrid, language, face, god, swastika, plant, celestial phenomenon, worldview or another image, like a hallucination. This sample list is by no means exhaustive: Wilde (1849); Deane (1889-91); Coffey (1912);Breuil (1921);Macalister (1921);Mahr (1937);Crawford (1957);Herity (1974);Brennan (1983); Thomas (1992); Lewis-Williams and Dowson (1993);Dronfield (1995); Tilley (1999);Nash (2002);McCormack (2012). For a comprehensive review see: Hensey (2012:161-8).…”

Section: Repetitions Differences and Stereotypesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations

Robb

2014

Norwegian Archaeological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pictorial and visual elements are special types of archaeological data that transgress boundaries; between the past and us and between the material and immaterial. Imagery communicates with the observer in elaborate and often unforeseen ways. What special powers are embedded in the pictorial that seem to hold so much promise and mystery? In what ways can we study how images affect and engage the beholder, and how are images actively entangled in past social worlds? Archaeological approaches to prehistoric images have traditionally circled around representation, symbolism and meaning. By and large this has resulted in a focus on interpretations with contextually inferred meanings set within hermeneutic, phenomenological or evolutionary frameworks. In recent years, however, other ways of exploring imagery have been discussed within cultural studies and visual theory (e.g. Mitchell 1996; Evans & Hall 1999; Rose 2001;O'Sullivan 2005). Common themes are the multi-sensuous aspects of the imagery that involve issues of materiality and aesthesis, emphasizing that in many cases images evolve into something with qualities of their own. Within anthropology and archaeology, in contrast, there are discussions of the possible agency of art and the pictorial (e,g, Gell 1998; Knappett 2002). Indeed, both objects and imagery are entangled in the social. Nonetheless, despite the power that past imagery seems to have over our minds in the present day, the study of past imagery is still theoretically and methodologically underdeveloped in archaeology (e.g. Hamilton et al. 1996:281-307;Aldhouse-Green 2004; Cochrane & Russel 2007). We need to elaborate on the different roles that the images may have in the social. That is, how can imagery work as actants and initiate or evoke thoughts and actions that are not originally intended, and how can it result in new, unintended and unforeseen consequences? There are a great number of approaches and elaborate theories on how to understand the pictorial in the social and humanist sciences. In 1 2 Encountering Imagery this introduction, we discuss a few that we believe have the greatest potential for archaeological studies. In this volume, we aim to engage with these issues and highlight the manifold, and hitherto less employed, methodological and theoretical ways in which imagery may be understood. Art and imageryIn traditional Art History images are generally assumed to have a content, something that needs to be decoded or unlocked (Cornell & Fahlander 2002:74). One typical example in this tradition is Panofsky's study of art as iconography (the identification, description and the interpretation of the content of images) and iconology (the analysis of the meaning of that content). Despite quite substantial criticism (e.g. Kubler 1962:127f; O'Sullivan 2005:15) iconological approaches in archaeology are generally concerned with questions of identifying what the imagery is supposed to represent, and in the second stage, to interpret how such an image may fit into a cultural cosmology or ideolo...

show abstract

“…No one attending that Annual General Meeting in Norwich Castle ventured to think, or at least to express himself, otherwise. Nor did Adolf Mahr (1937) when five years later he delivered his Presidential Address on Irish Prehistory, which in its printed form was by far the longest paper ever published by the Prehistoric Society. Silence is often more eloquent than words.…”

Section: James Reid Moirmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prehistoric Society: From East Anglia to the World

Clark¹

1985

Proc. Prehist. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is doubly appropriate that the Prehistoric Society should celebrate its jubilee in Norwich. The Society was born in the Castle on 23 February 1935 of a parent conceived improbably enough in the Public Library at a meeting held on 26 October 1908 to inaugurate an East Anglian Society ‘for the study of all matters appertaining to prehistoric man’. The question I want you to consider in this address is how the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia developed so rapidly to the point at which it achieved national status as The Prehistoric Society. Let me begin by removing one misapprehension. My hands are not dripping with East Anglian blood nor have I just wiped them clean. The Prehistoric Society was not the outcome of a revolutionary putsch. It stemmed from nothing more dramatic than a recognition that the Prehistoric Society had long ceased to be East Anglian. When we met at Norwich Castle for our Annual General Meeting in 1935 and passed the resolution which eliminated the words ‘of East Anglia’ from our title we were merely recognizing a fact, that we had long ceased to be East Anglian in anything but name. There were no dissentient votes.The two men who between them set the Prehistoric Society on its feet came from different but complementary backgrounds. W. G. Clarke was Norfolk born and bred and earned his living as a working journalist in Norwich, while cultivating a wide-ranging interest in natural history and prehistoric archaeology.

show abstract

New Aspects and Problems in Irish Prehistory Presidential Address for 1937

Cited by 23 publications

References 35 publications

Studies of the Post‐glacial History of British Vegetation

Studies of the Post‐glacial History of British Vegetation

Encountering Imagery: Materialities, Perceptions, Relations

The Prehistoric Society: From East Anglia to the World

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About