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 as the publishing access policies from scholarly literature or the problems for general public to readily understand our frequently too technical and obscure texts. In this open scenario, in which the public demands information about their cultural memory, appealing archaeological narratives, and even to experience the past by themselves (Ruiz Zapatero 2012), pseudoarchaeology has gained a lot of space in Spain (Alonso González 2016; Canosa Betés 2015; Domínguez Solera 2009), as in other areas
3 The rural regions of Spain suffer a severe depopulation process, which can be traced back to the industrialization expansion of the country in the central decades of the 20th century (Collantes 2001). David González Álvarez 59 around the world (Bassett 2013; Fagan 2006; Holtorf 2007; Lovata 2007). While most archaeologists treat it with contempt, volubly dismiss pseudoarchaeology, and avoid muddying themselves in those debates, the discourses and representations produced by archaeologists serve as sources for building up pseudoscientific narratives about the Past. And despite this, archaeological data – mainly pictures and drawings, and some terms and concepts – are borrowed and used in non-academic journals, blogs, and social media, disregarding their anthropological or archaeological content. So, if the public demands information and stories about the past, “Archaeology needs to gain public space, reach new audiences and build new ways of communicating. Because, if archaeologists do not do that, others without formation or with wicked intentions will do it for us” (Ruiz Zapatero 2013, 191).
Archaeology versus Local Folklore: On the Construction of Knowledge
If we understand the oral stories from local Folklore as the expression of the traditional cosmologies from the pre-industrial communities (Layton 1999), we can consider that these oral stories related to NW Iberia hillforts constitute mostly a reflection of their own identity. Thus, local inhabitants are analysing their surrounding landscapes, following their own cosmology and their own being-in-the-world experience. Therefore, if they find some prominent places in the landscape where they realize the existence of ruined houses and ruined fortifications, they will elaborate some explanations (González Álvarez 2011). But these stories should fit with their worldview, so extraordinary features might be explained in extraordinary ways. That is the way legendary Moors or giants, treasures, and enchantments came alive in some North-Western Iberian hillforts. Oral folklore related to these sites functions as a repository for myths which put some order to and stabilize cultural memory. Castros became in this way places for the myths, as memory places or “topograms” (Santos Granero 1998) to which the rural families attach oral narratives. What have archaeologists done about local Folklore related to the hillforts until now in NW Spain? We usually have heard these stories from the local communities while being in the field, but they are very often just considered as colourful anecdotes. Archaeologists rarely use those narratives in the building of academic interpretations, and only sometimes these oral stories are included as something curious in the archaeological field reports or publications. But, what if we might assume Folklore and Archaeology as independent sets of knowledge? In fact, both sets of 60 Interpreting the Atlantic Hillforts in NW Spain Outside Academia narratives pay attention and try to interpret material traces in the landscape. The hillfort of El Espeñidal in Zorrina (Salas, Asturias) is a typical small castro in this region, with several defensive ditches which are concentrated on the more accessible slopes of the hilltop (Fig. 3). An old man who used to live in a house next to the more external defensive ditch told me that the hillfort was inhabited by Moors. He assured he saw them when he was a child playing in the defensive ditches, which were actually a great bowling alley where the legendary Moors used to play bowling with golden bowling pins and balls. This is not a strange story in contemporary Asturias, where there are similar stories related to other Iron Age hillforts across the region (González Álvarez 2011, 144). In North- Western Iberia, archaeologists sometimes found polished stone axes and bronze materials such as palstaves related to the defensive structures of the hillforts; they could be a sort of foundational votive deposits from the Earlier Iron Age (Marín Suárez 2011, 226–9). So, did the Moors play bowling with bronze palstaves or polished stone axes in the ditches of the hillforts in NW Spain? Could we set up a context for dialogue and knowledge transfer between Archaeology and Folklore? This could be a great way for bringing together archaeologists and rural communities (González Álvarez 2008). Academics would better understand the cultural landscapes they are investigating, and additionally, they may gain distance and estrangement regarding their own cosmologies and identity. At the same time, the local rural communities would strengthen their own cultural memory. In light of the oral narratives regarding hidden treasures at archaeological sites, there are people who really believed they could benefit from the hidden wealth supposed to be buried in some of the hillforts in NW Iberia (Suárez López 2001). These treasure hunters (chalgueiros in Asturian language) eventually dig in these places, looking for the gold which legendary Moors allegedly left behind when they were expelled from Spain by the Christians in the Middle Ages. In connection with these processes, we might find some archaeological evidence in the stratigraphic layers from some hillforts. For example, during the excavations of the hillfort of El Castru in Vigaña (Belmonte de Miranda, Asturias), we found a typical looting hole with 19th century materials inside, exactly in the same place where an old woman from the closest village to the site told us there was a golden loom (González Álvarez 2016, 273–4).
David González Álvarez 61
Fig. 3. El Espeñidal hillfort, in Zorrina (Salas, Asturias) is surrounded by up to four impressive defensive ditches, which are interpreted as bowling alleys in the traditional oral stories.
The resilience of the oral stories would generate other processes and, at some point, hillforts became sacred but pagan places. The oral stories that the local communities attached to these places were not sanctioned by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages and Modern era. It was considered this sort of oral stories – and the pagan traditions which those were recalling – might question the Christianity of the local rural families’ beliefs. So the ecclesiastical institution fought them, as it is demonstrated by several pastoral letters and attempts to erase those stories from the popular cultural memory (Fernández Conde 2000, 498–9). Additionally, the Christian Church tried to re-appropriate those places through their Christianization, especially after the Counter-Reformation (Marín Suárez 2005, 100). Thus, we can find dozens of chapels built around the hillforts, Christian places-names for these sites, or pre-Christian festivals which were adapted to the Catholic set of practices (Arizaga Castro, Ayán Vila 2007; González y Fernández-Valles 1978, 240–50).
Postmodernity and the Commodification of Rural Folklore
In recent decades, New Age discourses related to hillforts – mainly those with a “Celtic bent” – have achieved a great success in NW Spain among the general public (Díaz Santana 2002; Marín Suárez et al. 2012). In fact, the traditional folklore from the rural farming families has been replaced by new Pan-European narratives as the most widespread narratives for giving significance to the Iron Age fortified settlements in this region. As a result, hillforts are these days more frequently related to 62 Interpreting the Atlantic Hillforts in NW Spain Outside Academia the Celts, New Age fairies, or magical creatures with Scandinavian origins. Thus, enchanted treasures, giants, and legendary Moors have lost space at popular level, or they are instead reinterpreted with accessory elements from that “Celtic-Barbarian assemblage” which has emerged these days around the Celtic commodified world (González Álvarez, Alonso González 2013). These new stories present us an idyllic past where the Celts lived in hillforts, in harmony and communion with nature. This is a homogeneous and delocalized discourse that could apply to Galician or Asturian hillforts in NW Spain, as well to large oppida in Central Europe or Scottish brochs (Collis 2003; James 1999). This notion of a uniform “Celtic culture” is largely derived from contemporary forms of spiritualism related to ecological concerns, the return to the rural and a holistic conception of health. Meanwhile, the memories of pre-industrial local peasants are undervalued or even overlooked in these speeches. New Age narratives only pay attention to them trying to correlate Atlantic Iberian Folklore with Scottish or Scandinavian oral traditions. Contemporary rural families in North-Western Spain would be assumed in these narratives as the last examples of that “Celtic-Barbarian assemblage”, no matter what happened in these regions after the Roman conquest. Cultural tourism is one of the main assets in the economy of North- Western Spanish regions, and archaeological sites are a key element in the development of cultural tourism (Moreno Melgarejo, Sariego López 2017). Every year, a lot of local municipalities pay private archaeological companies to excavate and make accessible to the public their pre-Roman sites. Most of the time, there are no research questions. They only desire to have their own Iron Age hillfort ready for the thousands of tourists who will certainly arrive to their counties (sic). Local folklore from the rural families in the surroundings are normally omitted in these initiatives, further than providing mere anecdotes. As more and more archaeological sites are incorporated in the tourist circuits, a little bit of innovation is needed. Thus, historical re-enactment is a perfect way to attract more tourists, as it as growing popular phenomenon in the region (Alonso González, González Álvarez 2013), and former re-enactment amateur groups can these days be hired to offer these spectacles à la carte. In the last two decades, an on-going commodification process around Iron Age hillforts can be perceived in North-Western Spain. It is a similar situation to the several cases John and Jean Comaroff (2009) describe in their book Ethnicity, Inc. They provide examples for the commodification of vernacular cultural traits within indigenous groups worldwide in the current context of globalised postmodernity. In this sense, there are David González Álvarez 63 people, organizations, and companies who have noticed that the public in North-Western Spain values all sort of things related to the Celts and the hillforts. The hillforts and the Iron Age past become here another sort of post-industrial consumption elements with added value, bringing a positive stimulus for consumption. This way, Celts and hillforts become a referent for profitable branding in all kind of situations, producing themed books, exhibitions, music, tourism souvenirs, postcards, stamps, restaurant menus, etc (Alonso Gonzáles et al. 2016). In this context, we can understand the expansion of events like “Celtic weddings” (Fig. 4). If you think the Celtic memory is one of the main assets for your personal identity, why not get married in a Celtic style? That is the question that several companies and organizations are offering to bridal couples in several parts of North-Western Spain. Are the people participating in this sort of wedding emphasizing their Celtic identities in hillforts which are sacred places for them? Or are they just consuming an original wedding ceremony which certainly will be remembered by all their friends? In these contexts, the local folklore is another ingredient in the theatrical representations of the “Celtic-Barbarian assemblage”. Thus, traditional peasant costumes, vernacular agrarian tools or local music and dances are mixed together with Iron Age archaeological referents from the “Celtic” European territories, medieval Irish iconographies, and Scandinavian mythologies. Local folklore from Galicia, Asturias, and León is considered this way as an element for generating extra value in these activities, whose profits will not benefit local communities.
Fig. 4. “Celtic weddings” in Santa Trega hillfort (A Guarda, Pontevedra). 64 Interpreting the Atlantic Hillforts in NW Spain Outside Academia
Pseudoscientific narratives are so widespread within lay audiences that archaeologists sometimes find it difficult to successfully challenge New Age interpretations around archaeological sites with academic arguments and scientific facts. In 2013, the amateur researcher Juan Carlos Campos located a few recent carvings on some quartzite rocky outcrops in El Castro hillfort in Sopeña, nearby Astorga (León). These contemporary carvings show ancient Egyptian, orientalist, and Celtic motifs (Campos 2013) which we could easily find among New Age iconographies (Fig. 5). The representations were made close to some Later Prehistoric carvings such as schematic cruciform persons, and chronologically indeterminate cupmarks, horseshoe-shaped, and crosses carvings. A regional newspaper talked about this finding of fake carvings under the headline “Petroglyph forgers” (Viñas 2013), while some voices claimed against the distortion and the risks for the preservation of the proper authentic rock carvings. But, were their authors actually falsifying Iron Age rock carvings? Were they trying to erase or vandalise the archaeological features? Or were they just adding some new representations which in fact fit with the popular “Celtic-Barbarian assemblage”? In my opinion, the problem is far more complex: we should not consider these people as mere vandals and neither forgers. Instead, we need to assume the failure of archaeologists and Heritage administration in the dissemination and engagement with the public. Indeed, we should start thinking how to recover the public attention with a proactive attitude from archaeologists and more appealing narratives in order to face the spread of pseudoarchaeology.
Fig. 5. Different types of rock carvings can be found at El Castro hillfort in Sopeña (León), from Iron Age to contemporary chronologies. David González Álvarez 65
Future Challenges for Archaeologists
Archaeology as a discipline has remained silent in relation to the above discussed processes of re-use, re-appropriation, and commodification of the Iron Age hillforts and the rural local folklore related to them in the regions of North-Western Spain. This situation can be linked to the traditional lack of interest of Spanish archaeologists in the socialization of scientific knowledge, and their indifference regarding pseudoarchaeology. However, the discourses and representations produced by archaeologists who investigate the Iron Age in this region are broadly used by the public and serve as sources for the commodification of the Iron Age. This makes the archaeologists passive agents who contribute to these processes, whether they want it or not. Their attitude is not avoiding the mentioned problems; it is just making them broader. Archaeologists are social scientists and should have a social and political responsibility with society, providing the public with appealing critical and solid scientific narratives about the themes which arouse interest among society. In this context, are archaeologists ready for the challenges we need to deal with regarding multivocality in North-Western Spanish rural regions? In my opinion, there are still some miles to go. We need to increase our understanding about the perceptions of the past, the archaeological sites, and our discipline by the different publics which form our society (McManamon 1991). Further Public Archaeology investigations should play a key role in this regard. Moreover, we especially need to highlight our awareness concerning the commodification of the past and the archaeological sites. We should stand up against the abuses from those who disseminate pseudoscience or misinformed interpretations shielding themselves in multivocality, especially against those who take advantage from pseudoscientific narratives with business and political interests in mind. At the same time, we need to learn how to establish honest relationships with fair stakeholders who we can collaborate with in the countryside. In this sense, we should be respectful and understanding of the local voices if non-scientific narratives regarding archaeological sites are related with local communities for who these traditions are part of their own identity. Nevertheless, there are some interesting processes going on in the North-Western regions of Spain regarding public involvement in Archaeology which might reduce the distance between the Academic Archaeology and the public. 66 Interpreting the Atlantic Hillforts in NW Spain Outside Academia
Bibliography
Alberti, B., Marshall, Y. (2009): Animating Archaeology: Local Theories and Conceptually Open-ended Methodologies. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 19(3): 344–356. Almansa Sánchez, J. (ed.) (2013): Arqueología Pública en España. Madrid: JAS Arqueología. Alonso González, P. (2016): Between Certainty and Trust: Boundary- Work and the Construction of Archaeological Epistemic Authority. Cultural Sociology, 10(4): 483–501. —. (2017): El Antipatrimonio: Fetichismo y dominación en Maragatería. Madrid: CSIC. Alonso González, P., González Álvarez, D. (2013): Construyendo el pasado, reproduciendo el presente: identidad y arqueología en las recreaciones históricas de indígenas contra romanos en el Noroeste de España. Revista de Dialectología y Tradiciones Populares, 68(2): 305– 330. Alonso González, P., Gonzáles Álvarez, D., Marín Suárez, C. (2016), La Arqueología de la Edad del Hierro y el celtismo como recurso para la construcción de identidades contemporáneas en Asturias y León. ArqueoWeb, 17: 182–205. Álvarez Peña, A. (2001): Ayalgues. Lliendes de tesoros n'Asturies. Gijón: VTP Editorial. Arizaga Castro, A.R., Ayán Vila, X.M. (2007): Etnoarqueología del paisaje castreño: La segunda vida de los castros. In: González García, F.J. (ed.) Los pueblos de la Galicia céltica. Madrid: Akal, 445–531. Atalay, S. (2008): Multivocality and Indigenous Archaeologies. In: J. Habu, C. Fawcett, J.M. Matsunaga (eds.) Evaluating Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies. New York: Springer, 29–44. Ayán Vila, X.M. (2005): Os castros despois dos castros: Un espazo simbólico na paisaxe rural tradicional galega. In: P. Ballesteros (ed.) Encontros coa Etnografía. Noia: Toxosoutos, 63–136. —. (2012): A Idade do Ferro na Galiza. Grial: revista galega de cultura, 195: 129–141. —. (2014a): Arqueologías Públicas en las Comunidades Autónomas de Galicia. La Linde. Revista digital de arqueología profesional, 3: 93– 138. —. (2014b): El capital social del Patrimonio arqueológico. La gestión para el desarrollo y la participación de las comunidades locales. In: J. Vives-Ferrándiz, C. Ferrer (eds.) El pasado en su lugar. Patrimonio David González Álvarez 67
arqueológico, desarrollo y turismo. Valencia: Museu de Prehistòria de València, 139–176. Ayán Vila, X.M., González Ruibal, A. (2012): Spanish archaeology abroad. In: S.J. Van der Linde, M.H. Van den Dries, N. Schlanger, C.G. Slappendel (eds.) European Archaeology Abroad: Global Settings, Comparative Perspectives. Leiden: Sidestone Press, 85–104. Bartolomé Pérez, N. (2013): Mitoloxía popular del Reinu de Llión. León: Cultural Norte. Bassett, A. (2013): Pseudo-archaeology: The Appropiation and Commercialization of Cultural Heritage. Spectrum, 3: 61–67. Camino Mayor, J. (1995): Los castros marítimos en Asturias. Oviedo: RIDEA. Campos, J.C. (2013): Los grabados del castro de Sopeña. Revista de La Cepeda, 14: 6–8. Canosa Betés, J. (2015): Pseudoarqueología para todos. Acerca de la exposición de Cuarto Milenio en Madrid. ArqueoWeb, 16: 312–320. Carballo Arceo, L.X. (1996): Os castros galegos: Espacio e Arquitectura. Gallaecia, 14-15: 309–357. Collantes, F. (2001): El declive demográfico de la montaña española, 1860–1991: revisión crítica de propuestas teóricas. Historia Agraria, 24: 203–225. Collis, J.R. (2003): The Celts. Origins, Myths and Inventions. Stroud: Tempus. Comaroff, J.L., Comaroff, J. (2009): Ethnicity, Inc. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Damm, C. (2005): Archaeology, Ethno-history and Oral Traditions: Approaches to the Indigenous Past. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 38(2): 73–87. Díaz-Andreu, M. (1993): Theory and ideology in archaeology: Spanish archaeology under the Franco régime. Antiquity, 67(254): 74–82. Díaz Santana, B. (2002): Los celtas en Galicia: arqueología y política en la creación de la identidad gallega. Noia: Tosoxoutos. Domínguez Solera, S.D. (2009): Pseudociencia y Arqueología en España. ArqueoWeb, 12. Fagan, G.G. (ed.) (2006): Archaeological Fantasies: How pseudoarchaeology misrepresents the past and misleads the public. London: Routledge. Fernández Conde, F.J. (2000): La religiosidad medieval en España I, Alta Edad Media (s. VII-X). Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo. Fernández Fernández, J. (2013): La Ponte, un proyecto de ecomuseo para Santo Adriano (Asturias): hacia un modelo de gestión comunitaria del 68 Interpreting the Atlantic Hillforts in NW Spain Outside Academia
patrimonio cultural. Cuadiernu: Difusión, investigación y conservación del patrimonio cultural, 1: 7–22. Fernández McClintock, J. (2004): El celtismo astur-gallego: una tradición nueva y vieja. In: C. Ortiz García (ed.) La ciudad es para ti. Nuevas y viejas tradiciones en ámbitos urbanos. Barcelona: Anthropos, 37–53. García Sánchez, J. (2009): El uso político de objetos arqueológicos: las estelas gigantes de Cantabria. Saldvie, 9: 249–263. Gnecco, C. (1999): Archaeology and historical multivocality. A reflection from the Colombian multicultural context. In: G. Politis, B. Alberti (eds.) Archaeology in Latin America. London: Routledge, 258–270. González Álvarez, D. (2008): Etnoarqueología del paisanaje tradicional como fuente de información en Arqueología. In: OrJIA (ed.) Actas de las I Jornadas de Jóvenes en Investigación Arqueológica: Dialogando con la cultura material (JIA 2008), Tomo I. Madrid: CERSA, 237–244. —. (2011): Arqueología, Folklore y comunidades locales: los castros en el medio rural asturiano. Complutum, 22(1): 133–153. —. (2016): Poblamiento y antropización de la montaña occidental cantábrica durante la Prehistoria reciente: una aproximación desde la Arqueología del Paisaje. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid (PhD dissertation). González Álvarez, D., Alonso González, P. (2013): The ‘Celtic-Barbarian Assemblage’: Archaeology and Cultural Memory in the Fiestas de Astures y Romanos, Astorga, Spain. Public Archaeology, 12(3): 155– 180. González Reboredo, X.M. (1971): El Folklore en los castros gallegos. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. González Ruibal, A. (2008): Los pueblos del noroeste. In: F. Gracia Alonso (ed.) De Iberia a Hispania. Madrid: Ariel, 899–930. González y Fernández-Valles, J.M. (1978): Asturias protohistórica. Salinas: Ayalga. Hernando Gonzalo, A. (2006): Arqueología y Globalización. El problema de la definición del otro en la Postmodernidad. Complutum, 17: 221– 234. Hill, J.D. (1989): Re-thinking the Iron Age. Scottish Archaeological Review, 6: 16–24. Hodder, I. (2008): Multivocality and Social Archaeology. In: J. Habu, C. Fawcett, J.M. Matsunaga (eds.) Evaluating Multiple Narratives. Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist Archaeologies. New York: Springer, 196–200. Holtorf, C. (2007): Archaeology is a brand! The meaning of archaeology in contemporary popular culture. Oxford: Archaeopress. David González Álvarez 69
James, S. (1999): The Atlantic Celts. Ancient people or modern invention? London: British Museum. Layton, R. (1999): Folklore and world view. In: A. Gazin-Schwartz, C. Holtorf (eds.) Archaeology and Folklore. Londres: Routledge, 26–34. Lovata, T. (2007): Inauthentic archaeologies. Public uses and abuses of the past. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Marín Suárez, C. (2005): Astures y asturianos. Historiografía de la Edad del Hierro en Asturias. Noia: Toxosoutos. —. (2011): De nómadas a castreños. Arqueología del primer milenio antes de la era en el sector centro-occidental cantábrico. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid (PhD dissertation). Marín Suárez, C.; González Álvarez, D. (2011): La romanización del Occidente Cantábrico: de la violencia física a la violencia simbólica. Férvedes, 7: 197–206. Marín Suárez, C.; González Álvarez, D.; Alonso González, P. (2012): Building nations in the XXI century. Celticism, Nationalism and Archaeology in northern Spain: the case of Asturias and León. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 27(2): 11–31. Marshall, Y. (2002): What is Community Archaeology?. World Archaeology, 34(2): 211–219. McManamon, F.P. (1991): The Many Publics for Archaeology. American Antiquity, 56(1): 121–130. Merriman, N. (ed.) (2004): Public Archaeology. London: Routledge. del Molino, S. (2016): La España vacía. Viaje por un país que nunca fue. Madrid: Turner. Moore, T. (2011): Detribalizing the later prehistoric past: Concepts of tribes in Iron Age and Roman studies. Journal of Social Archaeology, 11(3): 334–360. Moreno Melgarejo, A.; Sariego López, I. (2017): Relaciones entre Turismo y Arqueología: el Turismo Arqueológico, una tipología turística propia. Pasos. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 15(1): 163–180. Moshenska, G. (2009): What is Public Archaeology?. Present Pasts, 1: 46–48. Parcero Oubiña, C.; Ayán Vila, X.M.; Fábrega Álvarez, P.; Teira Brión, A.M. (2007): Arqueología, Paisaje y Sociedad. In: González García F.J. (ed.) Los pueblos de la Galicia céltica. Madrid: Akal, 131–258. Parcero Oubiña, C.; Cobas Fernández, I. (2004): Iron Age Archaeology of the Northwest Iberian Peninsula. e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies, 6: 1–72. 70 Interpreting the Atlantic Hillforts in NW Spain Outside Academia
Parga-Dans, E. (2010): Commercial archaeology in Spain: its growth, development, and the impact of the global economic crisis. In: N. Schlanger, K. Aitchison (eds.) Archaeology and the global economic crisis. Multiple impacts, possible solutions. Tervuren: ACE/Culture Lab Editions, 45–54. Ruiz Zapatero, G. (2003): Historiografía y “Uso Público” de los celtas en la España Franquista. In: F. Wulff, M. Álvarez Martí-Aguilar (eds.) Antigüedad y Franquismo (1936–1975). Málaga: CEDMA, 217–240. —. (2006): The Celts in Spain. From archaeology to modern identities. In: S. Rieckhoff (ed.) Celtes et Gaulois, l'Archéologie face à l'Histoire, I: Celtes et Gaulois dans l'histoire, l'historiographie et l'idéologie moderne. Glux-en-Glenne: Bibracte, Centre archeologique européen, 197–218. —. (2010): Roma conquistó la Galia... y Astérix y Obélix conquistaron el mundo. Desenmarañando a los celtas. In: M.C. Cardete (ed.) La Antigüedad y sus Mitos. Narrativas históricas irreverentes. Madrid: Siglo XXI, 97–114. —. (2012): Presencia Social de la Arqueología y percepción pública del pasado. In: Vives-Ferrándiz, J., Ferrer, C. (eds.) Construcciones y usos del pasado. Patrimonio arqueológico, Territorio y Museo. Valencia: Museu de Prehistòria de València, 31–73. —. (2013): ¿Qué son arqueologías de elite y arqueologías desde abajo?. In: A. Gaita, P. Pozuelo, L. Tejado, La Marea (eds.) La Uni en la calle. Madrid: Cooperativa MásPúblico, 190–191. Santos Granero, F. (1998): Writing history into the Landscape: Space, myth, and ritual in contemporany Amazonia. American Ethnologist, 25(2): 128–148. Schadla-Hall, T. (1999): Editorial: Public Archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology, 2(2): 147–158. Señorán Martín, J.M. (2016): Citizen Participation and Heritage Management in Rural Landscape Contexts. In: LAC 2014 proceedings. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Retrieved from: http://lac2014proceedings.nl/article/view/97/73 Suárez López, J. (2001): Tesoros, Ayalgas y Chalgueiros. La fiebre del oro en Asturias. Gijón: Museo del Pueblo de Asturias. Thurston, T. (2009): Unity and Diversity in the European Iron Age: Out of the Mists, Some Clarity?. Journal of Archaeological Research, 17(4): 347–423. Tully, G. (2007): Community archaeology: general methods and standards of practice. Public Archaeology, 6(3): 155–187. David González Álvarez 71
Villa Valdés, A. (2007): Mil años de poblados fortificados en Asturias (siglos IX a.C.-II d.C.). In: Fernández-Tresguerres, J. (ed.) Astures y romanos: nuevas perspectivas. Oviedo: RIDEA, 27–60. Viñas, V. (2013): Falsificadores de petroglifos. Diario de León, 16/11/2013. Wells, P.S. (2002): The Iron Age. In: S. Milisauskas (ed.) European Prehistory: A Survey. New York: Klewur Academic/Plenum Publishers, 335–383.