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. 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'! 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 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.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. 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.

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'. 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.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.

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. 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. 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.

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? 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'. 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). 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. 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.