There are a few problems here, some of which is caused by the simple fact that Celts pretty much had their history described hundreds of years later, yup, by those victor enemies who insert a little promotion and propaganda (history is often written by the victors), and the Celt ruling class of Druids had a word of mouth communication for all their important 'laws'. So right from the off we're involved in conjecture. Roberts repeats, in fact she belabours the warnings that we cant assume this that or the other, but then does herself no favours by repeatedly referring to just a few contemporary sources for current theory. Yet at the end of the book we're provided a pretty good 'more reading' list? Why didn't she dip into it more? 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. 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. I wholeheartedly recommend this book to anyone. Intuitively, I would say this book is suitable for beginners just as for those of you who've already had some experience with the topic of the book. (I must mention at this point that I am not a scholar of Archeology or the Celts themselves even. I guess I would describe myself as an enthusiast who has had the pleasure to sit with a group of Irish students for a semester at UCD, Dublin where I acquired some decent knowledge prior to reading this book.)

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. 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. So we have to distinguish between the Britannians - those people who lived under Roman rule; the 'British' - a global term used by contemporary historians to describe anyone living in what is now the UK, but probably not the Irish; and 'Britons' - predominently Welsh, but certainly indigenous people resisting the Anglo-Saxon invaders. 'Celtic' is not the only problematic term, Roberts, however, has no problem using 'British', etc. The Romans diod not 'conquer' Britain (though there are hundreds of books and articles which include the words "Roman conquest of Britain"). The Roman occupation only briefly extended into what is now Scotland, it held equally problematic sway over what are now Wales and Cornwall, was subject to raids all round the coast and, despite a relatively huge garrison, the Romans couldn't hold their province.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. 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'. However, there were several things that I found challenging about reading this book. The first thing I came up against was the expectations on the part of the author that the reader would already have a good grounding in ancient geography. I do not! And so I often found myself feeling a little lost as she referenced various towns, cities and regions of which I knew nothing. I think if I'd had a basic knowledge of the layout of the ancient world it would have been a more enjoyable read for me.

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.

Professor Roberts is scrupulous in being cautious but does succeed in letting us know who and what the Celts probably, not definitely, were without getting caught up in stereotypes (I think the on-trend Vikings probably suffer the same modern interpretations). 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''. Indeed it is far more logical to look at the way language and technologies spread. The advent of Bronze weapons, metal working, ore extraction - all these required skilled people spreading their knowledge. That required language to be taught. It does not necessarily mean invasion and displacement. Indeed there is little evidence for that.their farming methods, especially their harvesting machine ( http://www.gnrtr.com/Generator.html?p... or

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. 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 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. 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. This is an interesting and well written introduction to the Celts. Thought the author puts forward some of her own ideas this is not original research and more about pulling together all the current thinking and archaeological discoveries connected with the Celts. In my ignorance I had thought the Celts were confined to Britain but as I soon realised from reading this book they actually came from Europe and possibly from Portugal and Spain originally.

Professor Alice Roberts is one of our finest popular science broadcasters and this book is the companion to the series on the Celts she made with historian Neil Oliver for the BBC. The book manages to go into more depth on the subjects covered in that series and Roberts does a fine job of marshalling the evidence and voicing her own doubts about accepted conclusions. But it is not the Greeks but the Celts who are under discussion, and Roberts goes into great detail about major evidence spanning centuries and a whole continent. Given that the book is quite short, she does so admirably and interestingly. I will certainly be delving into the further reading at some point. Furthermore, Roberts' openness about certain aspects of her methodology - and archaeological methodology in general - is exactly what popular archaeology (and history) requires. She admits where she moves from solid to speculative evidence, is unconvinced by certain evidence, and allows for others to disagree with her. She anticipates many (fair) criticisms of her work, aptly displaying how archaeology and history should work: debate, discussion, disagreement - but amicably. It is largely only those who hold too strongly to their ideas and will not be challenged that are the problem in historical studies. 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 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.