Random Coincidences Or: the return of theCelticto Iron Age Britain

Abstract

This paper examines whether there really are fundamental differences between a Celtic model of social organisation and the observations made by J.D. Hill about PRIA social organisation in southern England. Hill's alternative model, which in his opinion seems to be fundamentally at odds with what can be learned from Celtic sources, is characterised by the importance of three main factors. These are the essentially ideological, east-facing orientation of Iron Age houses and enclosed settlements, the ideological boundedness of individual homesteads, and the household as the centre of production. Yet, an examination of the medieval Irish and Welsh literature reveals that these three fundamental characteristics also seem to define the societies described in the Celtic texts. However, while the household is the central independent social and economic unit, the medieval texts also put great emphasis on kinship, with kin-groups fulfilling important, complementary roles for the individual households. It is examined whether a kind of society that is not dominated by either households or kinship, but by both households and kinship, can successfully explain all the archaeological phenomena observable in PRIA Britain, including different 'hillforts' possibly fulfilling several different functions. The striking similarities that can be found between the kinds of societies proposed by Hill as inhabiting PRIA Britain and those described in the medieval Irish and Welsh sources force us to consider whether the Celtic should not better be returned to PRIA Britain, and whether the 'different Iron Ages' were not that different after all.

‘Fancy Objects’ in the British Iron Age: Why Decorate?

“…Fancy metal artefacts decorated with swirly motifs could have been gifted and exchanged between groups, formed part of a marriage dowry, or if they were used at a particular performance or ceremony with a large audience, represent a particular social group or individual. However, if we view Iron Age societies as being relatively fluid (Hill 1995b;Karl 2008), we can see how over the course of centuries, or in different regions, social concerns can alter, fluctuating between the local and the regional.…”

Beyond Elites: ReassessingIrishIronAge Society

“…This generalized view of ‘Celtic’ society draws heavily on contemporary Roman descriptions as well as medieval Irish laws and mythological texts. However, the use of such texts is fraught with problems (see discussions in Karl ; Collis ). Ironically, the society that the medieval texts seem least applicable to is that of the Irish Iron Age, where the settlement and social landscapes followed very different patterns to that of the early medieval period.…”

Iron Age Ritual, a Hillfort and Evidence for a Minster at Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire

“…For Britain, James has argued that: 'Projecting Celtic identity back onto past societies which would neither have recognised nor understood it, obscures the real complex history of the isles' (James 1999, 144) and has also stressed the insular character of the British settlement evidence. The latter view has, however, been challenged by Karl (2008) who argues that it can be no coincidence that aspects of Iron Age society singled out by Hill as 'insular' are evident in later Irish and Welsh laws and hence very probably are related to a broader West European or 'Celtic' framework. Collis (2003) in reviewing the rise of the pan-European concept of 'Celticism', also warns that the term 'Celtic' would not have been recognised in the past in the sense that it is now.…”