Interpreting the Atlantic Hillforts in Nw Spain Outside Academia: Local Rural Folklore Versus New Age Pan-European Discourses
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
INTERPRETING THE ATLANTIC HILLFORTS IN NW SPAIN OUTSIDE ACADEMIA: LOCAL RURAL FOLKLORE VERSUS NEW AGE PAN-EUROPEAN DISCOURSES DAVID GONZÁLEZ ÁLVAREZ Introduction In this paper, I reflect on the uses and the re-appropriations of local folklore related to hillforts in the rural landscapes of the North-Western Iberian Peninsula in the context of Postmodernity. Hillforts (castros in the Asturian and Galician languages) are monumentalized villages from the Iron Age, which have many common traits with other pre-Roman fortified settlements found all over Western Europe (Thurston 2009; Wells 2002). These archaeological sites are particularly abundant in North-Western Spanish regions such as Galicia, Asturias, and León (Fig. 1). Hillforts constitute the main structuring factor of the settlement patterns throughout the first millennium BC in this area (González Ruibal 2008; Parcero Oubiña, Cobas Fernández 2004; Villa Valdés 2007), while no other types of settlement—such as farmsteads or open sites—have been recognized for this period. Most of them were abandoned after the Roman conquest, following which only a few hillforts remained occupied as central places for the political and administrative articulation of Roman landscapes (Marín Suárez, González Álvarez 2011). Since the castros were related to the more ancient communities we can name in this region – astures, galaicos, cántabros, etc. – these sites have a very special place in the historical regional narratives in NW Spain (Ayán Vila 2012; Marín Suárez 2005; Ruiz Zapatero 2006), in the same way we can observe elsewhere in Western Europe (Collis 2003; Moore 2011). David González Álvarez 55 Fig. 1. Os Castros hillfort in Samartín del Valledor (Ayande, Asturias). The hillforts in NW Iberia were usually built at prominent locations within the landscape, such as the top of hills with great views over their surrounding valleys, elevated places related to “natural monuments”, or isolated coastal promontories (Camino Mayor 1995; Carballo Arceo 1996; Parcero Oubiña et al. 2007). In addition, these sites show an outstanding monumentality with large stone walls, massive defensive ditches, and sometimes they also contain extensive stone collapses from the domestic architecture and their defensive elements (Fig. 2). Therefore, their noticeable presence in the rural landscapes – and the fact that they are often located near to contemporary villages – has made them very significant places for the local communities (Ayán Vila 2005; González Álvarez 2011). Accordingly, hillforts are recurring elements in the collective memory of the local folklore, usually being related to legendary creatures such as giants or the Moors1, enchantments, and hidden treasures in oral tradition (Álvarez Peña 2001; Bartolomé Pérez 2013; González Reboredo 1971; Suárez López 2001). 1 The Moors play an important role in the traditional cosmology of the rural communities in the North-Western Spanish regions. They are legendry figures characterised by pagan, exotic, and distinctive traits in comparison to local peasants. This way, they reinforce local identities as a repository for otherness. 56 Interpreting the Atlantic Hillforts in NW Spain Outside Academia Fig. 2. Peña Constancio hillfort (Santo Adriano, Asturias) is located in an outstanding position, showing impressive stone collapses from their walls (top left). Later Iron Age walls increase the natural monumentality of San Chuis hillfort (Ayande, Asturias) (top right). In coastal areas, NW Iberian hillforts are sometimes located on promontories and peninsulas, making them really special places: Baroña hillfort (Porto do Son, A Coruña) (bottom, left). Surrounding ditches reinforce the defensive and monumental attributes of NW Iberian hillforts, as these five consecutive ditches in the Southern area of San Chuis hillfort (bottom, right). After the extension of modernisation within the Spanish countryside, during the second half of the 20th century, the importance of local oral narratives declined for rural communities. For this reason, the symbolic relevance of hillforts and the legendary stories related to them decreased. Additionally, Spanish archaeologists were not often involved in the dissemination of research to the general public, so the narratives available for the people interested on hillforts or Iron Age were not really appealing, as they were unintelligible or just “boring” (Hill 1989). In this scenario, New Age narratives, Neopagan beliefs, and pseudoscientific discourses linked to cultural and political Celticism found the way paved for a major expansion, and they started to be widely consumed by the general public (Fernández Mcclintock 2004; González Álvarez and Alonso González 2013; Marín Suárez 2005; Ruiz Zapatero 2010). Over this broad background, I will critically discuss the risks that forms of extreme multivocality entail and their relationship with processes of commodification of the past that usually lurk behind New Age narratives David González Álvarez 57 in Spain. In this broad context, I will pay attention to the role that the perceptions from local farming communities about archaeological sites are playing in these debates, and the integration of those elements within the New Age narratives. To do this, I will analyse some examples I have collected from the regions of Asturias, Galicia, and León. These will serve as an introduction to an illustrative Spanish case study in the general discussion of this book, and for claiming the need to develop a more engaged scientific practice with the local stakeholders within our discipline. Spanish Archaeology and the Public: Demolishing the Comfortable “Ivory Tower” In the last few decades, archaeologists have extensively discussed multivocality in Archaeology, recognizing the need to incorporate multiple narratives and local voices in the archaeological heritage research and management (Alberti and Marshall 2009; Atalay 2008; Damm 2005; Gnecco 1999; Hodder 2008). At the same time, Public Archaeology investigations (Merriman 2004; Moshenska 2009; Schadla-Hall 1999) and Community Archaeology projects (Marshall 2002; Tully 2007) have grown as a new framework for doing Archaeology with a strong tie with local communities, and for evaluating the relationships between Archaeology and society. Spanish archaeologists were mostly trapped – or hidden – inside their departments, museums or libraries; or they were really busy digging all the archaeological sites affected by the construction of new infrastructure and urban development until the 2008 crash (Parga-Dans 2010). So the discussions concerning the involvement of the general public in our field of research have not had a clear impact among the Spanish archaeological tradition. Indeed, Spanish Archaeology has shown a persistent lack of interest in the socialization of scientific knowledge2. At the same time, it has already become aware of the effects that our research practices produce among indigenous communities in Southern countries from a postcolonial perspective (Ayán Vila, González Ruibal 2012; Hernando Gonzalo 2006). But these discussions have not fully been taken into 2 One of the main reasons is probably the lack of value given to these activities from Science evaluation and prospective agencies such as the Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación (ANECA) (González Álvarez y Alonso González 2013, 174), although we cannot dismiss the conservative inertia of Spanish Archaeology. 58 Interpreting the Atlantic Hillforts in NW Spain Outside Academia consideration yet regarding our “internal others” (Alonso González 2017): the rural farming families who live in the countryside of so-called “empty Spain” (del Molino 2016)3. As a result, Spanish archaeologists have not established an open relationship with the general public until very recently. Fortunately, this image is changing and these days we can find a renovated group of Community Archaeology projects and Public Archaeology investigations (Almansa Sánchez 2013), some of which are being conducted – interestingly for the aim of this paper – in rural areas (Ayán Vila 2014a; 2014b; Fernández Fernández 2013; Señorán Martín 2016). So, the near future may hopefully reveal a more optimistic situation concerning the public outreach of Archaeology in rural Spain. Identities are a relevant subject of current public debate in Spain, so the Past and Archaeological Heritage are topical subjects for discussion. Celtic Archaeology was one of the main cultural referents for building up the ideal of the conservative, traditionalist, and centralised Spanishness during the fascist dictatorship (1939–1975) (Díaz-Andreu 1993; Ruiz Zapatero 2003). In opposition, regional identities generated alternative nationalist narratives, which especially gained public projection after the establishing of democracy in 1978. In this new context, the Iron Age also gave ammunition and historical referents for the naturalization and the reinforcement of present-day diverse regional identities in NW Spain (Díaz Santana 2002; García Sánchez 2009; Marín Suárez et al. 2012; Ruiz Zapatero 2006). Finally, non-academic discourses regarding the pre-Roman past are flourishing on the Internet, in blogging communities, or on social media, where anyone is able to re-elaborate and disseminate them. Most of them could be considered just pseudo-archaeology, but both academic and non- academic narratives are equally accessible for the general public, and the latter are even more easy to find and understand, due to limits such