This book is about Alice Robert's search for the Celts - who they were, their history, their culture, their art and technology. The author also takes a look at how much the current understanding of the Celtic World has changed in the past decade. For us to understand why our views of the Celts have changed so drastically, Roberts explores the archaeological discoveries, the ancient histories and new linguistic evidence. The problem with trying to establish an accurate picture of the Celts and the way they lived is that much of the information about them comes from Roman writers and they had a vested interest in portraying them as savages living in mud huts and painting themselves with woad. Good fighters but not much more. But there was more to the Celts than this and it seems that they may have been around for a lot longer than was originally thought.

From an academic perspective, I have a few problems with Roberts' methodology, in that she never quite establishes how one identifies ethnicity archaeologically, particularly when it comes to ethnicity as a personal identity. That is to say that, while the book discusses at length markers that we might use, problematizes the evidence available, and ultimately settles on language as the central aspect of Celtic identity, Roberts does not delve very deeply into the question of how to understand 'Celticity' as a feature one attributes to oneself, as an identity that brings Gauls, Britons, and Galatians together (indeed, she even suggests that it does not), as opposed to something ascribed by others (whether contemporary or modern historians) or described by others (e.g. Caesar writes that the Gauls called themselves Celts, but does not establish how far the Gauls use this identity to link themselves to other groups). It is also, I would argue, a little dismissive of Tacitus to describe his work as 'propaganda' for the Roman elite, as fair a description as that may be of Caesar's works. Roberts' approach to the Mediterranean 'empires' is perhaps the weakest part of the evidence in the book, as she persistently refers to the 'Greek empire', which is not an historical entity. The 'Greeks' - almost as contentious a term as 'the Celts', if we are honest - were politically disparate for much of the period under discussion, and their regional and civic identities might actually provide a good parallel for the disparate, changing location and identity of the Celts. their farming methods, especially their harvesting machine ( http://www.gnrtr.com/Generator.html?p... or Celtic identity remains an issue, a living political one, in what are now Scotland, Ireland, Wales ... and to a lesser extent in Cornwall, Britanny, northern Spain. Roberts barely touches on this - she does discuss the continued presence of Gaelic languages, but, throughout the book she refers to 'Britain' and 'British' without actually questioning these terms or recognising that they are every bit as problematic as the terms 'Celt' or 'Celtic'. This book surveys evidence from all over Europe, eventually coming to the conclusion that Celticness might have originated in the West and spread east, rather than the other way round. It also pours cold water on the idea of human sacrifices (though it doesn’t mention some of the archaeological evidence about Boudicca’s revolt and the claims of human sacrifice and barbaric practices around that), with what I think seems like justified scepticism. Roberts points out that we’ve got a fundamental problem where the literature is interpreted in ways which prop up the interpretation of archaeological finds, at the same time as those archaeological finds are held up as truth in interpreting the literature. Some chapters and facts get a little repetitive and the editors could have done a better job here, the cautiousness could still have been better combined with a more punchy delivery and that would have been a better read - but, that was never going to happen, remember we're with Alice and friends down at the snug bar discussing Celts. We end up being wiser for it and not lecture-room battered, so that's ok, thanks Alice.However, Roberts still expresses very strong cultural sentiment towards our ‘Celtic’ ancestors and that results in her focus on just one of a number of existing valid interpretations of how Celtic languages came to be. What I expect from a book is in-depth analysis of evidence, clarity in the presentation of salient points and controversial issues, a presentation of argument and counter-argument stimulating enquiry, providing me with the material for further questioning and further research.

The author describes what we know about the way the Celts lived and how they fought in times of war. She describes their jewellery and their chariots. The fine workmanship on gold jewellery which has been discovered both in Britain and Europe shows that they had a high level of craftsmanship and were not the barbarians that Roman writers generally depict. This is a very good introduction to the history of the Celts and I learned a lot through reading it. It explains how definitions of the Celts have been created and changed over time and explains how those interpretations have been influenced by various factors. I enjoyed reading about the evolution of the study of the Celts almost as much as I enjoyed finding out more about the Celts themselves.

Last on

It's not often that I devour nonfiction as fast as I do fiction: I thoroughly enjoyed the writing and the exploration of archeological evidence. But I do feel conflicted, as Alice Roberts remains cautious and careful about all theories and conclusions (rightly so), till the end, when she falls for the 'Celtic from the West' theory.

In the end though, it seems that the one connecting thread must be language (though the origins might surprise some readers), as Alice points out, despite the Romans dumping their civilization all over the Celts, ''isn't it a triumph that no-one speaks Latin any more? But the Celts are still out there, to be heard''. In The Celts: Search for a Civilization Alice Roberts sets out to explore the archaeological, historical, and linguistic evidence for "the Celts" and to understand what it is that we mean by that designation of an ancient (and modern) people. She is very clear about the difficulties of building historical narratives from archaeological evidence and the historical writings of completely different civilizations, difficulties that are well-known among archaeologists and historians but that don't seem to get as much respect as they deserve in popular historical discussions. She never quite says "this is not the case", but rather "while this could be the case, it is a bit of a leap (based on the evidence) to say so". While this might sound like Roberts never come to any conclusions, she is actually very willing to nail her colours to the mast regarding which hypotheses about Celtic origins she believes. I am not certain that I agree with her, but she certainly presents the evidence in such a way that it is both possible to see where she is coming from and possible to disagree. As the evidence for 'Celiticity' presented in this book shows, it would be dubious to discuss the Celts in any other way. They are something of an enigma, and Roberts does not shy away from saying so. This new hypothesis about the origins of the Celts sounds exciting - but is highly controversial and is based on just as many flawed arguments as the original Celtic-homeland-in-central-Europe theory. Her statement at the end, that the Celts have the last word because Celtic is still spoken and Latin isn't, was almost painful because that's just not how language works. For example, French is just as much a further-developed version of Latin as much as Irish Gaelic is a futher-developed version of Proto-Celtic. So.. the statement just plain wrong.This book is for you if… you consider yourself a Celtic Mythology/Civilizations enthusiast. You will be confronted with realistic interpretations of research and a critical look at the field of Celtic Studies and its work up to now. Come the subsequent wave of Anglo-Saxon invasions (or settlement), near contemporary historical records do refer to the Angles and Saxons having to fight indigenous (let's be controversial and call them Celtic) tribes ... but described by these historians when translated into modern English as 'Britons'! There was no such thing as 'Britain' when they arrived. They gave their province the name Britannia - an accurate English language collective description of the many diverse tribal peoples within their province might be 'Britannians'.