Celtictool

Would you mind telling me how much archaeology it uses? Does it use more archaeology than written sources? Also, what's the bibliography like? Is it footnoted or written like a general bibliography to a popular work? I'm just asking as I'd like to compare these kinds of things for myself amongst a variety of works.

I haven't read Miranda Green's version of the Celtic World. I really wish people would stop calling their books "The Celtic World" occasionally with something else added into it. A quick look at Google Scholar pulls up a list of books with that name as can be seen here.

Sorry to flame the thread, but I just found out about this new website called Phile.com I thought it could help us out with building a bibliography. Sure, we could continuously update a thread on here ending up with a variety of sources spread out amongst various pages, but with Phile we could use a sticky on the forum and from there we could have a link to Phile with ratings and comments. Take a look at this example: Archaeology in Europe please let me know what you all think!

R. J. Bradley 2007 The Prehistory of Britain & Ireland T. Champion & J.R. Collis 1996 The Iron Age in Britain & Ireland. G. Cooney, K. Becker, J. Coles, M. Ryan, & S. Sievers, Relics of old decency: Archaeological studies in later prehistory. Dublin: Wordwell B. W. Cunliffe 2004 Iron Age Britain. (2nd ed.). B. W. Cunliffe 2005 Iron Age Communities in Britain. A. Gwilt & C.C. Haselgrove 1997 Reconstructing Iron Age societies. D.W. Harding 2004 The Iron Age in northern Britain. C. Haselgrove & T. Moore 2007. The later Iron Age in Britain & beyond. C. Haselgrove & R. Pope 2007. The earlier Iron Age in Britain & the near Continent. C. Haselgrove et al. 2001. Understanding the British Iron Age - an agenda for action. (earlier version at http://www.reading.ac.uk/~lascretn/IAAgenda.htm) I.B.M. Ralston & J. Hunter, The Archaeology of Britain. J. C. Henderson, 2007. The Atlantic Iron Age. J. Pollard 2008. Prehistoric Britain. F. Pryor 2003. Britain BC Britain & Ireland before the Romans. I.B.M. Ralston 2006. Celtic fortifications. N. Sharples, 2010. Social relations in later Prehistory. M, Sterry, A Tullett, N Ray 2010. In search of the Iron Age. This is just a little sample. I thought I would throw something out there since I haven't seen any action on this thread in awhile.

Both sound good to me!

Is anyone else interested in creating a bibliography of works related to the archaeology of the Celts and/or other North Western European Iron Age peoples?

I think this primarily comes from looking at the Picts opposed to the Scots (Irish migrants to modern day Scotland) Does anyone know where we could find a bibliography on the debate of the Peopleing of Ireland (or the whole of the British Isles for that matter)?

I'm interested in learning a couple of new languages (mainly German and French) for use with my degree in archaeology. I'm hoping that learning these languages will aid in my research. I've already learned Latin via Wheelock's Latin and Spanish (roughly six years in secondary school and through practical interaction). I thought that learning Latin through Wheelock was very profitable even though it's often cited as not being totally realistic for what is found "in the field". It helped me learn the various verb and word forms in a rather short amount of time. As such, I was wondering if anyone could suggest any books which could help me learn German or French at a similar pace? Note: Suggestions for other languages (including, but not limited to, Italian and Dutch) would be greatly appreciated as well!

Sadly, my interest in Celtic archaeology guided my education in University and now for my Master's I've started chattign on the Celtic/Germanic Subforum. Just wondering if there's anything else that people use. Thank you again!

Yes, I am indeed interested in what (I guess use to be called) Celtic Studies -- including both ancient and modern. My forum name is a name I came up with in my early teens from my interest in the Celts and the band Tool. Just wanted to clarify that, haha. (Sorry for repeating some of this, but I feel that it flows into my understanding so it's worth stating again, I think) During my undergraduate, at a US University, I took courses in anthropology (American anthropology which includes archaeology -- I'm still learning the differences between the US version of anthropology and the UK version), classics, and more focused studies of archaeology. I combined these courses with history courses in modern Irish History. Fortunately I was able to dove-tail these studies to look at both archaeology and modern representations of Northern European peoples in pre-history and in modern Irish and American representations. I've found this to be very interesting, yet to be increasingly fractured. The fracturing is mainly due to the disconnect I feel that is present between academic research and what reaches the public realm. Currently I am working on a MA in Roman Archaeology -- part of this program (which is in the UK) -- is looking at identity in the Roman provinces. I don't mean to come off as sound like I am on a high-horse or something like that, but what I feel is there's a disconnect between what academics are writing about and what can be reasonably portrayed to the public. That is to say, the current paradigm favoring deconstructive/anti-positivist view points looking at lack of homogeneity of the archaeological record has either confused the public or been unable to engage the public at a level that is meaningful. My main question is this: At what point are academics bickering amongst themselves to little or no use of the public's understanding of their research? This is why I have come to a forum to ask these questions. I feel I might get a better understanding of what people, both academic and non-academic, get out of archaeological research. Mainly, do people feel they read these books and are left with more questions than answers? Maybe you were hoping to gain a better understanding of the Northern European Iron Age peoples only to be left wondering what exactly does "Northern European" and "Iron Age" mean. I realize this is a bit extreme and out there, but hopefully it illustrates my point. Personally, I read through Simon James' book The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People Or Modern Invention? and I thought it was amazing. It rapidly introduces complex issues and concepts that have come about in archaeological thought, but, if it was not for already almost having finished my degree by this point, I probably would have needed a good amount of office time with a professor to fully appreciate what was being stated in the book. Actually...come to think of it...I still need a fair amount of office time with professors to fully, or partially, understand what is being said in some works. James, like John Collis, has looked at ancient authors and mainly seen them as biased in that they are Romans and not entirely or at all Celts. This is good, I would say, since we are stating that they initial literary data-set that we are starting off with has a few flaws in it. This is a point which both authors have stated against George Buchanan whom they claim to be, more or less, the father of the modern concept of the Celts. From there we see a fracture of different aspects of life such as language and material culture. Is someone a Celt because they speak a Celtic language or are they a Celt because they live in a round house and wear torcs? Well, if we go with the linguistic route then we cannot really go into pre-history on a firm stance otherwise we could make a similar mistake as Gustaf Kossinna. However, some academic work, which appears to be appreciated even in light of the research conducted by Gustaf Kossinna, continues to do this such as Lord Colin Renfrew and J P Mallory both of whom either focus or dabble in researching the Indo-Europeans. So, if we cannot focus on linguistics as a limiting factor then how about material culture? If we are to speak of the Celts, then what unifying aspect of material culture unites Northern European peoples? Some say the La Tene or Hallstatt cultures, but some academics have rejected these cultures. I think some of the work by James, Collis, and, possibly, Colin Haselgrove might be seen as a rejection of La Tene culture. By this I mean that they reject a single monolithic Celtic culture which started in La Tene and spread out from there. Instead, there appears to be an acceptance of Northern European Iron Age peoples which, broadly, shared some aspects of material culture, but should not be seen as homogeneous. However, this appears to be commonly interpreted to mean that we should understand the Celts in terms of their tribal names given to them by the Romans -- or at least recorded by the Romans/Latin speakers. Yet, tribal names suggests that they are tribes which suggest a form of socio-political structure/organization which might not have been the case. Therefore we are left without an ability to project linguistic research into archaeology, no monolithic culture, and no set socio-political organization...what are we left with then? Well, for me, there's a lot of questions. Maybe we could look at architectural styles and materials, types of pottery, types of weaponry, burial practices, etc. and from that define groups of peoples which might have considered themselves related at a socio-political level. But how many of these factors do we have to have before we say that we have one group? Of course the most rigorous studies would suggest all points while the most general would say that one type of pot equals one kind of people (something that is highly frowned upon these days it seems). Are we then left to make distribution maps in a GIS (Geographic Information Systems -- an electronic map producing software) which give us general boundaries then kind of make them "fuzzy" to show that these items have no "clear-cut" boundary and by layering these general boundaries we develop some breakdown of possible "cultural complexes"? This doesn't even begin to take into account the general issues with taphonomic and preservation issues for which thousands of works have been devoted to not to mention the statistical methodologies which attempt to suggest something about the archaeological record by finding one pottery sherd in a valley where there was once a boggy area. Now, ignoring the brevity and possibly shotty delivery, how many of you would have paid to have me tell this to you at a museum or public lecture and gained something from it? And, if not wanting to pay, would you or do you feel that, in the case that your money/taxes are going to public archaeology, you are getting your money's worth? Sorry for the lack of quoting from other users, but there's already four pages and going through to quote each individual one would have taken substantially longer. I hope that this comes to energize this discussion and that I, along with others, come to understand more about how people feel about the concept of the Celts. Also, please feel free to ask me to elaborate on anything you feel that I have unduly skimmed over (I was starting to feel like this is a bit of an essay so I tried to shorten up parts of it -- I already have two essays to write! heh)

Personally I'm looking more for something more along the geographical lines of Europe specifically North Western Europe and as far as time periods pre-historic leading into the Roman Period. However, thank you very much for the comments!

That sounds awesome! Currently I'm working on an MA in Roman Archaeology where many of these issues (ones surrounding identity and certainty about the archaeological record) been been brought up. I'm deeply interested to know what people visiting fora, such as this one, have to say on the subject -- where they see issues, benefits, etc. From my perspective as a MA student I see that there's quite a large amount of disconnect between what academics say and what is said in public spaces. It is this topic -- the reality/myth of the Celts -- that most interests me. I've looked at some of the works by Simon James, David Mattingly, Sian Jones, J P Mallory, and Lord Colin Renfrew just to name a few. Hopefully we can discuss what's new vs. old and what's academic vs. public. Just let me know what you're thinking. What's new? What do you see as issues?

Great, thank you!

I'm going a bit out on a limb here, but I thought I could try to get away with asking this...Does anyone know of any other fora (sg. forum) that cover similar topics to this one and/or Iron Age Europe?

I too find it frustrating. I mean, by now -- with today's technology, couldn't they make the website look like a Loeb Classical Library Book with either hyper-linked definitions or notes...or even 'info bubbles' so that when you scroll over a word you can get the notes? I don't know, it's just an idea. But, what good is it to just say that we do not like the layout if Tufts never does anything? Is there anyway we can suggest, nicely, to them that we wish they would change the format?