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. 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. their farming methods, especially their harvesting machine ( http://www.gnrtr.com/Generator.html?p... or 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. 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. 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. 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. A decent summary of the current views and controversies surrounding the study of Bronze-age and Iron-age Celts, their origins, and how they spread across Europe.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. 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. 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. When they left, their former province seems to have reverted to its pre-invasion patchwork of autonomous tribes who would have had their own identities and who would clearly not have recognised themselves as 'British' (though that's the term almost universally used by historians - including Roberts). There would have been squabbles as local princes or bigwigs fought for control ... creating opportunities for others to exploit ... but we have no records of who they were or what they called themselves.

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. This book was written to accompany a BBC series that I haven’t seen, but that doesn’t seem to detract from it any. I seem to be seeing a lot of people lately considering the issues of Celtic identity: how do we pin it down? Is it based on language, material culture, genetics? Is it really a thing? I’ve been to the temporary Celtic exhibit in the British Museum, as well as read this and — for contrast — Graham Robb’s The Ancient Paths, which views Celtic identity as very contiguous across Europe. (It is reassuring that most of the facts here chimed with Robb’s claims, if you’d like to believe in his theories!) 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'! 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.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.

It loses a star for its clear bias for a theory that remains controversial. And it loses a star for the depth of the reporting. Instead of in-depth discussion we get paragraphs of questions and dismissals without argument ("I'm not convinced."). The worst comes at the end. The epilogue [SPOILER ALERT] includes a quote that Celtic is still spoken but Latin is not, which (her friend) declares "a triumph of sorts". This is an absurd statement given French, Italian, Spanish, Romania, and Portuguese are all descended from Latin in the same way Welsh, Irish, and Gaelic are descended from 4th Century Celtic languages. It should not have been included at all. 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).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.