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. 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.

their farming methods, especially their harvesting machine ( http://www.gnrtr.com/Generator.html?p... or 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. 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.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. 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. 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.

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. 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!)

Featured in...

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?