Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Conclusions
References
FAQs

Celtoscepticism, a convenient excuse for ignoring non-archaeological evidence?. In: E. Sauer (ed.), Breaking down the boundaries: the artificial archaeology – ancient history divide. London und New York: Routledge 2004: 185-99.

Profile image of Raimund KarlRaimund Karl
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203643716-19
visibility

…

description

9 pages

Abstract
sparkles

AI

Celtoscepticism is critiqued for its dismissal of non-archaeological evidence in understanding Iron Age societies in Europe. The author argues that reliance solely on archaeological data without integrating literary and ethnographic sources limits scholarly interpretations and understanding of these societies. By juxtaposing various forms of evidence, a more comprehensive view of the sociopolitical structures and cultural identities of the time can be achieved.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. Celtosceptics advocate using only archaeological evidence, often dismissing valuable non-archaeological sources.
  2. Collis emphasizes the need to apply ancient descriptions cautiously, as they reflect limited understandings of societies.
  3. The text argues for a comprehensive approach, integrating various sources to reconstruct Iron Age societies effectively.
  4. Similar social structures existed across Celtic-speaking regions, challenging the notion of fundamentally different societies.
  5. The emphasis on the term 'Celt' oversimplifies diverse identities, necessitating a nuanced understanding of ancient cultures.

Related papers

“Celts” and “Celtic” as valid as labels for the British and Continental Iron Ages?
Nelson Bondioli

2013

View PDFchevron_right
Blanco-González, A. (2016). Review of Debating Archaeological Empiricism: The Ambiguity of Material Evidence; Material Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice; Critically Reading the Theory and Methods of Archaeology: An Introductory Guide, European Journal of Archaeology, 19 (1): 149-153.
Antonio Blanco-González

eds. Debating Archaeological Empiricism: The Ambiguity of Material Evidence (Routledge Studies in Archaeology 18. New York: Routledge, 2015, viii+199pp., 16 figs., hbk, ISBN 978-0-415-74408-9) Robert Chapman and Alison Wylie, eds. Material Evidence: Learning from Archaeological Practice (New York: Routledge, 2015, xx+361pp., 69 figs., 3 maps, 5 tables, pbk, ISBN 978-0-415-83746-0) Guy Gibbon. Critically Reading the Theory and Methods of Archaeology: An Introductory Guide (Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2014, viii+245pp., 5 illus., 4 tables, pbk, ISBN 978-0-7591-2341-0) practicalities of what archaeologists dothe character of archaeological reality and

View PDFchevron_right
Preface to Celts in Legend and Reality
Pamela O'Neill

Celts in Legend and Reality ed P O'Neill, 2010

View PDFchevron_right
The Grand 'Celtic' Story. Proceedings of the conference held in Brussels on 19 November 2005
Herman Clerinx, Greta Anthoons

The Grand 'Celtic' Story? Proceedings of the conference held in Brussels on 19 November 2005. With contributions by Simon James, Raimund Karl, Lauran Toorians, Claude Sterckx, Nico Roymans, 2007

The splendours of Hallstatt, the princess of Vix, the Waldalgesheim style, Ambiorix and Vercingetorix, the oppidum of the Titelberg, the Battersea shield, Lindow Man, the stories of the Mabinogion, the hill of Tara, Cuchulainn, the Brehon Laws, the Book of Kells… Separated in time and place, can they all be placed within the framework of one 'Celtic' metanarrative? Are they all part of the same grand, all-encompassing story? Metanarratives have not been very popular lately. In postmodern times, the tendency has been to replace them by small-scale, local narratives. In this context the rise of Celtosceptism in the nineties probably came as no surprise and it resulted in a heated debate. One of the advocates of Celtosceptism was Simon James: 'The Celts - it was all just a myth' the Financial Times headlined on 14/15 June 1997 (based on an article by Simon James in The British Museum Magazine 28, Summer 1997). James and other British archaeologists protested against the blanket use of the name Celts for people of different periods and from different regions, as this would wrongly suggest that 'The Celts' were one coherent people who covered a large part of Europe and whose culture remained static and unchanged from Hallstatt to Tara. Several other archaeologists participated in the debate, but Simon James was one of the few to express his views outside his normal academic habitat. With 'The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention?' (1999) he reached a fairly wide public. In academia the debate was often uneven, as many archaeologists and Celticists were not familiar with the theoretical background on which the Celtosceptics based their arguments. This problem was also recognised by Raimund Karl, who - at the XII. International Congress of Celtic Studies in Aberystwyth (2003) - pleaded for a theoretical foundation of Celtic Studies (Scale, self-similarity, strange attractors and cultural identities: some more thoughts on a theory for Celtic Studies). He explained, based on theoretical arguments, why in his opinion there was no reason to abandon the term 'Celtic'. Later that year he argued that where time and place do matter at the local level, they do much less so at the level of the grand narrative (TAG 2003 - Lampeter: Does time matter? Similar Iron and Middle Ages and the grand 'Celtic' narrative). Time was ready for a different type of debate, one between two scholars talking the same language and fighting with the same weapons. The idea for The Grand Celtic Story was born. Both Simon James and Raimund Karl kindly accepted our invitation to come to Brussels. The next step was to involve some local specialists in the debate and to ask them their views on the Grand Celtic Story, but this proved to be a much tougher job. Lauran Toorians immediately expressed his interest to participate, but our chairman, Claude Sterckx, needed some more pursuading; his bravery is much appreciated! The greatest reluctancy, however, came from the side of the archaeologists, who most of them feared that they could not offer any valuable contribution to the discussion. Also Nico Roymans preferred not to enter the debate on the legitimacy of a Celtic metanarrative as such, but the topic that he suggested was an interesting case study that deserved its place within the wider context of the discussion and was therefore considered a welcome contribution to the success of the conference. All speakers submitted a paper for this publication. Their paper is not necessarily a verbatim repeat of the paper presented at the conference, but may rather include later thoughts on ideas proposed by other speakers or on issues raised during the discussion. Anthoons, Greta & Clerinx, Herman (eds.). 'The Grand 'Celtic' Story? Proceedings of the conference held in Brussels on 19 November 2005.' With contributions by Simon James, Raimund Karl, Lauran Toorians, Claude Sterckx, Nico Roymans. Bruxelles, Société Belge d'Etudes Celtiques, 2007.

View PDFchevron_right
The Celts from everywhere and nowhere. A re-evaluation of the origins of the Celts and the emergence of Celtic cultures. In J. Koch & B.W. Cunliffe (eds.), Celtic from the West. Oxford: Oxbow Books 2012: 39-64.
Raimund Karl
View PDFchevron_right
On “Heavily Decomposing Red Herrings”: Scientific Method in Archaeology and the Ladening of Evidence with Theory
Alison Wylie

Metaarchaeology, 1992

Internal debates over the status and aims of archaeology-between processualists and post or anti-processualists-have been so sharply adversarial, and have generated such sharply polarized positions, that they obscure much common ground. Despite strong rhetorical opposition, in practice, all employ a range of strategies for building and assessing the empirical credibility of their claims that reveals a common commitment to some form of mitigated objectivism. To articulate what this comes to, an account is given of how archaeological data may be 'laden with theory' constructed as evidence-and yet still function as an independent constraint on interpretation.

View PDFchevron_right
Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and Literature, edited by Barry Cunliffe & John T. Koch, 2010. Oxford: Oxbow Books; ISBN 978-1-84217-410-4 hardback £40 & US$80; viii +384 pp., 127 figs
John Koch

Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 2011

View PDFchevron_right
J. Bintliff & M. Pearce, 2011. Introduction. In J. Bintliff & M. Pearce (eds), The Death of Archaeological Theory?: 1-6. Oxford: Oxbow Books
Mark Pearce
View PDFchevron_right
What We Don't Know About the Ancient Celts
Rowan Fairgrove

The Pomegranate, 1997

When one says that one wants to study and, perhaps, reconstruct the religion of the ancient Celts, it is well to be clear about whom one speaks. 'Celtic' describes a language group which, over time, has divided into two strains - P-Celtic, spoken in Wales, Cornwall and Brittany and Q-Celtic, spoken in Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man. One must also be clear about the possible tools for such study that are available. As so many things Celtic comes in threes, so do our sources - archaeology, classical commentaries and the vernacular traditions of the Celtic countries.

View PDFchevron_right
M. Pearce 2011. Have rumours of the “Death of Theory” been exaggerated? In J. Bintliff & M. Pearce (eds), The Death of Archaeological Theory?: 80-9. Oxford: Oxbow Books
Mark Pearce
View PDFchevron_right

References (49)

  1. Benveniste, É. (1969), Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. 1. économie, parenté, société. 2. pouvoir, droit, religion. Paris.
  2. Birkhan, H. (1997), Kelten. Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung ihrer Kultur. Wien.
  3. Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology 16.
  4. Büchsenschütz, O. (1995), 'The significance of major settlements in European Iron Age society'. In: B. Arnold, and D.B. Gibson (eds.), Celtic chiefdom, Celtic state. The evolution of complex social systems in prehistoric Europe. New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge: 53-63.
  5. Burmeister, St. (2000), Geschlecht, Alter und Herrschaft in der Späthallstattzeit Württembergs. Tübinger Schriften zur ur-und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 4, Münster.
  6. Byrne, F.J. (1973), Irish Kings and High-Kings. London (2 nd ed. 2001).
  7. Chapman, M. (1992), The Celts. The Construction of a Myth. London und New York.
  8. Charles-Edwards, Th. (1993), Early Irish and Welsh Kinship. Oxford.
  9. Charles-Edwards, Th. (2000), Early Christian Ireland. Cambridge.
  10. Collins, A.E.P. (1956), 'Excavations in Lough Faughan Crannog, Co. Down, 1951-52'. Ulster Journal of Archaeology: 45-73.
  11. Collis, J.R. (1994), 'Reconstructing Iron Age Society'. In: K. Kristiansen and J. Jensen (eds.), Europe in the First Millennium B.C. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 6, Sheffield: 31-9.
  12. Collis, J.R. (1996), 'Celts and Politics'. In: P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones and C. Gamble (eds.), Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities. TAG, London & New York: 167-78.
  13. Collis, J.R. (1997a), 'The origin and spread of the Celts'. Studia Celtica 30: 17-34.
  14. Collis, J.R. (1997b), 'Celtic Myths'. Antiquity 71: 195-201.
  15. Collis, J.R. (1999a), 'George Buchanan and the Celts of Britain'. In: R. Black, W. Gillies and R. Ó Maolalaigh (eds.), Celtic Connections, Vol. 1. Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Celtic Studies. East Lindon: 91-107.
  16. Collis, J.R. (1999b), 'Los Celtas Antiguos y Modernos'. In : J.A. Arenas Esteban and V. Palacios Tamayo (eds.), El Origen del Mundo Celtibérico. Actas de los encuentros sobre el origen del mundo Celtibérico (Molina de Aragón, 1-3 de Octubre de 1998). Molina de Aragón: 13-7.
  17. Cunliffe, B. (1984), Danebury: an Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire. Vol. 2: the finds. CBA Research Report 52, London.
  18. Dobesch, G. (1980), Die Kelten in Österreich nach den ältesten Berichten der Antike. Das norische Königreich und seine Beziehungen zu Rom im 2. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Wien.
  19. Eggert, M.K.H. (1988) 'Riesentumuli und Sozialorganisation: Vergleichende Betrachtungen zu den sogenannten »Fürstengrabhügeln« der Späten Hallstattzeit'. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 18: 263-74.
  20. Eggert, M.K.H. (1999), ‚Der Tote von Hochdorf: Bemerkungen zum Modus archäologischer Interpretation'. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 29: 211-22.
  21. Eggert, M.K.H. (2001), Prähistorische Archäologie. Konzepte und Methoden. Tübingen und Basel.
  22. Eggert, M.K.H. (1991), 'Prestigegüter und Sozialstruktur in der Späthallstattzeit: Eine kulturanthropologische Perspektive'. Saeculum 42 (1) [=Urgeschichte als Kulturanthropologie. Beiträge zum 70. Geburtstag von Karl J. Narr, Teil II]: 1-28.
  23. Fitzpatrick, A.P. (1996) '´Celtic´ Iron Age Europe: the theoretical basis'. In: P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones and C. Gamble (eds.), Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities. TAG, London & New York: 238-55.
  24. Furger-Gunti, A. (1991), 'The Celtic War Chariot'. In: S.Moscati et al. (eds.), The Celts. Milano: 356-9.
  25. Furger-Gunti, A. (1993), 'Der keltische Streitwagen im Experiment. Nachbau eines essedum im Schweizerischen Landesmuseum'. Zeitschrift schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 50/3: 213-22.
  26. Graves-Brown, P., S. Jones and C. Gamble (eds.) (1997), Cultural Identity and Archaeology. The Construction of European Communities. TAG, London & New York .
  27. Greene, D. (1972), 'The Chariot as described in Irish Literature'. In: C. Thomas (ed.), The Iron Age in the Irish Sea Province. CBA Research Report 9, London: 59-73.
  28. Holder, A. (1896), Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz. I. Band A-H. Leipzig.
  29. Holder, A. (1904), Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz. II. Band I-T. Leipzig.
  30. Jackson, K.H. (1964) The Oldest Irish Tradition: A Window on the Iron Age. Cambridge.
  31. James, S. (1999), The Atlantic Celts. Ancient People or Modern Invention? London.
  32. Jaski, B. (2000), Early Irish kingship and succession. Dublin.
  33. Jones, S. (1997), The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing identities in the past and present. London & New York.
  34. Karl, R. (2002a), 'Cognitive constructs, self-similarity and the problem of archaeological multiculturalism'. In: C. Witt (ed.), Archaeological multiculturalism. Papers presented to the EAA 2001 in Esslingen, Germany. BAR International Series, Oxford, in print.
  35. Karl, R. (2002b), 'Erwachen aus dem langen Schlaf der Theorie? Ansätze zu einer keltologischen Wissenschaftstheorie'. In: E. Poppe (ed.), Keltologie heute. Themen und Fragestellungen. Akten des 3. Deutschen Keltologensymposiums -Marburg, März 2001. Studien und Texte zur Keltologie 5, Münster, in print.
  36. Karl, R. (2002c), Altkeltische Sozialstrukturen anhand archäologischer, historischer und literarischer Quellen. Wien, in print.
  37. Karl, R. (forthcoming a), 'Die Kelten gab es nie! Sinn und Unsinn des Kulturbegriffs in Archäologie und Keltologie'. In: R. Karl (ed.), Archäologische Theorie in Österreich -eine Standortbestimmung. Wien.
  38. Karl, R. (forthcoming b), 'Iron Age chariots and Medieval Texts. The necessity to break down disciplinary boundaries'. In: eKeltoi.
  39. Karl, R. (forthcoming c), 'Achtung Gegenverkehr! Straßenbau, Straßenerhaltung, Straßenverkehrsordnung und Straßenstationen in der eisenzeitlichen Keltiké'. In: J.K. Koch, R. Rolle, U. Küster (eds.), Reiten und Fahren in der Vor-und Frühgeschichte. Hamburger Werkstattreihe zur Archäologie.
  40. Karl, R. and D. Stifter (2002), 'Carpat -carpentum. Die keltischen Grundlagen des ‚Streit'wagens der irischen Sagentradition'. In: A. Eibner; R. Karl; J. Leskovar; K. Löcker; Ch. Zingerle (eds.), Pferd und Wagen in der Eisenzeit. Wiener keltologische Schriften 2. Wien, in print.
  41. Kelly, F. (1988), A Guide to Early Irish Law. Early Irish Law Series Vol. III, Dublin (3. ed. 1995).
  42. Kossinna, G. (1911), Die Herkunft der Germanen. Zur Methode der Siedlungsarchäologie. Mannus-Bibliothek 6, Leipzig. McCone, K.R. (1990), Pagan Past and Christian Present in Early Irish literature. Maynooth Monographs 3, Maynooth (2 nd impr. 1991).
  43. MacNeill, E. (1935), Early Irish Laws and Institutions. London 1935.
  44. Patterson, N. (1994), Cattle-lords and Clansmen. The Social Structure of Early Ireland. Notre Dame and London (2 nd ed.).
  45. Pokorny, J. (1959), Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Tübingen und Basel (3. ed. 1994).
  46. Raftery, B. (1994), Pagan Celtic Ireland. The Enigma of the Irish Iron Age. Thames and Hudson, London.
  47. Vendryes, J. (1978), Lexique étymologique de l'irlandais ancien. T U par les soins de E. Bachellery et P.-Y. Lambert. Dublin -Paris.
  48. Vendryes, J. (1987), Lexique étymologique de l'irlandais ancien. C par les soins de E. Bachellery et P.-Y. Lambert. Dublin -Paris.
  49. Villar, F., M.A. Díaz Sanz, M.M. Medrano Margués and C. Jordán Cólera (2001), El IV Bronce de Botorrita (Contrebia Belaisca): Arqueología y Linguística. Acta salmanticensia, Estudios filológicos 286. Raimund KARL University of Wales Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies National Library of Wales Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SY23 3HH mailto: [email protected]

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What are the criticisms of using non-archaeological sources in Celtic studies?add

Celtosceptics argue that non-archaeological sources provide limited insights relevant to Iron Age societies, as shown by Collis's dismissal of Irish literature in reconstructing Middle Iron Age England. They emphasize the importance of archaeological findings over classical or literary evidence, yet this stance risks oversimplifying societal complexities.

How do Celtosceptics view ancient descriptions of social structures?add

Celtosceptics assert that ancient descriptions reflect the authors' perspectives rather than accurate societal models, noting that Caesar's references to Gallic society may not apply to later societies in England. This perspective insists that archaeologists should prioritize material evidence over literary narratives in interpretations of social organization.

What are the implications of the claims made by Andrew P. Fitzpatrick?add

Fitzpatrick highlights the risks of dismissing correlations between archaeological cultures and peoples, indicating that instead of ignoring such relationships, scholars should explore why diverse groups exhibit both differences and similarities. This approach challenges the oversimplification of cultural narratives within archeological examinations of the Celts.

What insights can be gained from comparing Irish and continental chariot evidence?add

Research indicates that terms for high-status vehicles in both Irish and continental sources suggest connections, as seen in the cognate terms carpentum and carpat. This comparison allows for a deeper understanding of transportation and sociopolitical functions in Iron Age cultures despite limited archaeological evidence.

How do similarities in terminology across Celtic languages challenge Celtosceptic views?add

The shared terms for societal roles and social structure across Celtic languages, like toutâ and rix, indicate potentially similar social systems rather than radically different ones. This linguistic evidence undermines Celtosceptic claims that societies were fundamentally dissimilar, suggesting a need for a more integrated analysis.

About the author
Raimund Karl
University of Vienna, Department Member

Current Research ‘Celtic’ archaeology, history and sociology from the Late Bronze to the Early Middle Ages in Continental Europe, Britain & Ireland; ; epistemology and theory in Celtic Studies, Archaeology and Heritage; history of archaeological thought in Austria (and beyond); archaeological labour market analysis; critical heritage studies; heritage management; heritage law; the role of archaeology in contemporary society; public archaeology; archaeology, heritage and civil rights; archaeological and heritage management ethics.

Papers
294
Followers
1,939
View all papers from Raimund Karlarrow_forward

Related papers

Celts Ancient and Modern: Recent controversies in Celtic Studies
John R Collis

Studia Celtica Fennica, 2017

View PDFchevron_right
Neopaganism, archaeological content and the belief in “Celts”
Jutta Leskovar

Jutta Leskovar, Neopaganism, archaeological content and the belief in “Celts”. In: Elisabeth Niklasson, Thomas Meier (eds.), Appropriate narratives. Archaeologists, publics and stories. Archaeolingua, Budapest 2013, 185-199.

The question to be pursued in this paper is how and to what extent archaeological terms, objects, places, etc. are used by some authors of Neopagan books (Neodruidism and Wicca). Those examined regularly cite archaeological publications, which make it possible to track the way archaeological content, in this case mainly about ‘the Celts’, took from a scholarly context into the Neopagan world. It also allows us to examine the scholarly sources for Neopagan interpretations. And it is these sources that have proven to be extremely useful for Neopagan purposes: in them, the term ‘Celts’ is used for places and topics that should not be connected with it; as a generic term to describe Iron Age Europe. Even more importantly, the ‘source archaeologists’ tend to describe prehistoric religion in ways that are reminiscent of Neopagan texts, making them even more useful for authors of Neopagan literature.

View PDFchevron_right
The Celts in Antiquity: Crossing the Divide Between Ancient History and Archaeology. Revista Brasileira de História v. 40, nº 84, 2020, 167-102.
Raimund Karl

Revista Brasileira de História, 2020

One historical actor in Antiquity are the populations of Western-Central Europe, commonly called ‘Celts’ by classical authors. Themselves (mostly) illiterate until approximately the 1st century BC/AD, reports about them, written by foreigners like Polybius, Caesar, Diodorus and others have survived. The study of ‘Celtic’ societies thus can hardly rely on classical historiography, but is mainly based on archaeology. Historical sources and archaeology are difficult to reconcile, even if common themes can be identified in both types of sources. This article examines the differences, but also similarities between the various ‘Celtic’ societies of Europe and their neighbours, and the use of the term ‘the Celts’. The case study of the excavations at Meillionydd in North Wales is used to demonstrate how different types of source material and local and global scales can be integrated into a single, coherent explanatory model.

View PDFchevron_right
Tully, C. J. 2009. Celts: Modern Politics and Controversies
Caroline J . Tully

This essay argues that archaeology is a convenient tool for providing nationalist movements with role models who were also allegedly ancestors, accordingly providing the sanction of antiquity and a guide to ethnic self-and group-conceptualisation.

View PDFchevron_right
Why ‘The Death of Archaeological Theory’? In: Charlotta Hillerdal and Johannes Siapkas (eds.) 2015 Debating Archaeological Empiricism: The Ambiguity of Material Evidence, 11-31. London: Routledge.
Julian Thomas

Why has there been a discussion of a ‘death of theory’ in archaeology over the past decade? In practice, this term has referred to three different phenomena: a supposed triumph of technique over inference; a perceived failure of practitioners to employ multiple competing hypotheses to archaeological evidence; and the more general belief that the whole enterprise of archaeological theory has ground to a halt. It is the third of these that is the most troubling. In this contribution, the origin of the term ‘death of theory’ is sought in literary studies, and the differences between this context and archaeology are emphasised. Our expectation that the discipline should entirely renew itself through radical rethinking every twenty years or so is questioned, and the particular circumstances of archaeology in the later twentieth century are identified as the source of this perhaps unrealistic view. Finally, it is emphasised that archaeological theory is continuing to develop, although incrementally rather than through paradigm change. The positive aspect of this is that new approaches are increasingly emerging in tandem with other disciplines, rather than by adopting already established frameworks for investigation.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2026 Academia. All rights reserved