Customer Reviews

The Celts: A History

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I thought this book was an excellent overview of ancient Celtic history. It is not meant to be a difinitive work. But if your looking for a solid overview this is an excellent place to start.
To those who are having a go at this book I would say firstly Ellis does not hate Romans or Greeks he just rightly points out that when reading the Romans accounts of the Celts you must take into account that they were fighting the Celts and driving them out of continental Europe so they hardly were likely to be writing flowing tributes to the Celts.
To those who attack the very existence of the Celts mentioning recent books by John Collis and Simon James I would say remember they are British and they are part of an anglo culture which is obviously very anti Celtic and in particular very nervous about the Celtic revivals going on in Scotland and Wales fueled by the recent devloution. Collis and James are more interested in politics and their anglo cultural racism.
O and by the way Ceaser in De Bello Gallico himself during his campaign in Gaul (one which today I think would fit the definition of genocide) mentions that the Gauls called themselves Celts and comments that their religion prohibits them from putting their teachings and beliefs to paper.

I was hesitant to read this after looking at some of the reviews posted here. But I took a chance and I will admit, I've thoroughly enjoyed this book. Its well-cited and the author has kept up to date with pertinent issues, such as languages and archaeological findings. I read Tacitus earlier this summer, as well as some other books on the "prehistory" of Scotland and I think this particular book is not meant to be concise/definitive (or a piece of propaganda)....its simply an introduction. I recommend it if you want to get your feet wet.

As with all books on pretty much any subject, this book has its pros and cons. Discussions of the Celts these days seem to be very polarized--either they are a bunch of drunken, warlike barbarians who benefited immensely from the civilizing influence of Rome, or they are under-rated geniuses who actually invented everything any civilized person could want long before Rome or anyone else in the Classical world. In fact, the truth is in the middle--the Celts were far more like the Romans than either group acknowledges, there were many admirable things about their various cultures, and the Romans were neither more nor less violent and warlike than they were.

This book falls squarely in the category of Celts as under-rated geniuses, and if you read it understanding that this is the author's bias, then it's not a bad book. There are relatively few outright errors, but much that is relevant is left out, much that is included is irrelevant, and the slant is sometimes so great that the reader is in danger of falling off the edge. The most obvious is the author's commitment to the idea that there is a single Celtic culture (which most archaeologists now reject), indicated, for example, by his persistent portrayal of "Celtic" as a single language and the variants on it as dialects. In fact, there were many different Celtic languages, and there is no more a single Celtic language than there is a single European language. There are many blanket statements that lack any reference to back them up, which as a scholar I find very frustrating, and often the references that are included are very old; for example, there is an archaeology reference that dates from the 1920s! Ellis may be surprised to discover that the field has changed a lot since then, and interpretations that are more than 20 years old are no longer standard in the field. Documentary sources are also treated oddly. Texts from Ireland that are clearly not historical are treated as though they are the work of modern historians (e.g. no one accepts as factual the Irish documents that claim to describe rulers from 1000 BCE!). Predictably, Roman sources that are complimentary to the Celts are cited without comment, as though they are perfectly accurate, while those critical of the Celts are subject to scrutiny for bias and found wanting. And sometimes these are the same authors and the same texts! Similarly, information that is damaging to the Celts is simply not mentioned, for example sources indicating that the status of Celtic women, while better than that in Rome, was nowhere near as high as that of men. And I'm still trying to work out why anything in India, mentioned frequently, is relevant to the interpretation of Celtic cultures.

However, if you read this book with the understanding that it far from an unbiased portrait of Celtic cultures (and, FYI, the portrayal of the work of people like James, Collis, and others in the preface is badly distorted--read them for yourself and then judge), then it is a decent survey of what we know about them. Just be aware that there is a lot of other relevant information that is left out, and you should read other books alongside it to provide a more accurate portrait (e.g. Cunliffe's The Celts, or James' The Atlantic Celts, or Wells' Beyond Celts, Germans, and Scythians).

Peter Ellis is a great writer who presents the world of the Celts in a clear fashion to the general reader.
That being said he is not someone I would recommend to the academically minded Celtophile except with this caveat - some of Ellis's ideas Celtophiles might find intriguing.
I find his ideas about Celtic achievements and their contribution to modern Europe to be right on target. That subject is worthy of an entire book unto itself. Too long have the Celts taken a backseat to the classical Mediterranean world.
There is an unfortunate de-emphasis information on the archeological record of this Celts. Perhaps this is good quality for in introductory text for the general reader but some Celtophiles may find this disappointing.
I recommended as a first book in the hope that you buy at least one additional book (like Barry Cunliffe's The Ancient Celts) as your introduction. For the Celtophile who already has a few shelves of books on the Celts on their shelves I do believe this book does have something to offer you as well.

In the Western world no libel has endured with greater persistence than the one of "barbarian" levied against the Celts. The ancient Greeks applied the term "Keltai" to the peoples living north of their peninsula. They described them as "barbarians" which originally meant "outsider" or "foreigner". The meaning of "barbarian" changed over the centuries, especially when the Roman Empire's expansion was checked by these ancient people and Caesar became a propagandist in his campaigns against them. He admired their courage and fighting abilities, but disparaged nearly every other aspect of their culture. And his depiction persisted for centuries.

In an outstanding brief overview, Ellis provides a corrective to that portrayal. We learn the Celts have Indo-European roots reaching into deep time. We also learn all those centuries allowed the Celts to achieve high cultural attainments in society, urban development and the arts. Oh, yes. They also successfully defeated nearly every force sent against them. Only a long war of attrition plus a few renegade leaders turned defectors ultimately led to Rome's overrunning them. Which didn't destroy their culture. It took the Christians to achieve that.

In describing Celtic society, Ellis frequently reminds us that these "first Europeans" had no written records. In large part, this lack was due to the prohibition of religious matters being set down in writing. Their leading intellectual class, the Druids, who had a far larger role than chanting in oak forests, maintained a detailed oral tradition. Not until the Christians came among them were any of their legends committed to parchment, and those, in Ellis' words were "bowdlerised" versions, designed to transform Celtic historical and mythical figures into the Christian mythology.

Ellis guides us through the metaphysical and concrete aspects of Celtic life. Gods proliferated, with countless local deities, but some which appear to be common across their areas of occupation. The Celts had a strong sense of the human soul, which they knew resided in the head, not in the stomach of Greek philosophy. The Christian Trinity, not "officially" promulgated until Nicea, may have originated with ideas derived through a Celtic bishop a century before the "Creed". Kings and warriors played their roles, but the Celts had a highly talented artisan class. While swords were significantly superior for their time, they also produced superb jewellry and other artefacts. Their technology, going far beyond weaponry, included a strong use of glass and enamelling techniques. They built strong houses and castles, expanding some sites into major urban centres. While the libel against them has persisted, so have many of their ideas, words and deities. As Ellis has attempted to do with this book, a better balance needs to be struck. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

** with thanks to Atheen

I usually like to start my reviews of by discussing what the author did well. In general, the author here did a good job of discussing many overlooked achievements of the Celts (treating them in this review as a culturo-linguistic family of tribes). I learned a few things about some sources, archaeology finds, etc. which I was not previously aware of and some of these have had an impact on how I see the subjects

Now on to the negative. There is a bad trend in modern books to treat "The Celts" as some sort of homogeneous group of people, and as a means to promote pan-Celticism. I don't really have a problem with this when it is clearly stated (as Kontretiev's book "The Apple Branch" does), but when this is not clearly stated, it leads to a number of bad problems. The biggest issue is that, while it is possible to speak of Celtic culture, treating the Celts as one people overlooks the very frequent intertribal warfare which was even common in the Highlands of Scotland until 1746. Yes, the Celts did make war just for fun, fame, and fortune. However, in more serious operations, they also had a more careful streak that is often overlooked.

The second problem is that the author seems ignorant of more recent scholarship concerning Ogham and the like. The claim that there were ancient Druidic libraries in Ogham are now more or less impossible to support based on the evidence of the origins of Ogham (which even by generous estimates would not have predated the early Christian period). This evidence is cohesive and multi-disciplinary. The evidence from archaeology, close reviews of the internal structure of the Ogham, and so forth all point to an origin no earlier than the fourth century CE, and also point to a basis in a combination of the Latin alphabet, Greek and Roman teachings regarding rhetoric, and tally-sticks. The combination of the evidence now allows us to solidly close a door on the idea that there were Druidic libraries written in Ogham.

All in all, this is not a bad book to read if you already have a fairly good grasp of the fundamentals. You may learn a thing or two here that you hadn't considered. However, the ideological slant to the book and the lack of more recent developments suggests that this book is not a useful introduction to the subject.

Authentic historians like Herodotus, Malcolm Chapman, Michael Grant, Patrick Geary, and John Collis put this fiction in "proper perspective." This is the worst bit of PROPAGANDA I have read in 40 years! This clown thinks the whole world is or should be Celtic. NOT!!! It should be remembered, that it has become "politically correct to have an irrational whitewashing of all of histories socalled losers and victims!" The Celts westward expansion happened because a tribe of women-the Amazons beat them. What does that tell the reader about the not so martial qualities of these supermen? These featherweights only defeated each other, and never had any PERMANENT victories over anyone. Amazing what some people will publish for the $! He bashes the sources when they disagree with him. Than a moment later praises them when they agree with him. A 10 year old who has read Herodotus or Livy could have done better. Forget this temper tantrum from a very BAD AUTHOR!

This is a short historical overview written by Peter Berresford Ellis, who is a preeminent scholar on Celtic history (before some snap at me, hear me out!). I am going to break this down into two areas that for me are important as a reader of history: Accessibility (which some can consider readability), and overall quality of things like scholarship and format.

First, this book is a very good read. I found it to be a pleasure working my way through it, and it was relatively quick. Ellis has a very good writing style that is lively and engrossing, though there are some confusing sentences that can trip a reader up. He also writes at a break neck pace, unlike Barry Cunliffe who is rather slow even though he is just as gripping.

Now here is the hard part of the review: The quality. To get the little stuff out of the way first, this book would have been awesome if he had included illustrations at the very least (I am going to compare Cunliffe's book to this one a lot). If there were illustrations to the book, some of his explanations would have been clear. But this is really not a huge issue. The huge issue is that Ellis has an overriding bias, making the Celts seem like they were the end all be all of the ancient world. While I will not deny him the fact that their place in history is pretty much secure in terms of their historical legacy both culturally and linguistically, there are times he makes assertions that are more him riffing on how awful Rome instead of presenting clear evidence. Some of his reasoning is based on pure conjecture, which for me is a no-no when you are making an argument of historical importance. I can understand how some Roman historians find the idea of Celtic history to be somewhat of a joke if they were to go off of Ellis alone. There are times when he is simply raving. This is vastly different from Cunliffe's work, which shows how wonderful the Celts really were and how they really did impact history on a huge scale. Ellis could have done that without trying to sound like a lunatic, but he did not.

However, for all the ravings, there are some great bits of history in here that many will come to appreciate. The quality of the history presented when it is not overshadowed by a biased comment are wonderful, and I implore you to read them. The only regret is that some of these great accounts are lost in the muck of the author's raving. He has a good list of sources to work from, though it seemed like we never really saw them used to their fullest.

This is a good book, but not a masterful piece of historical investigation. Barry Cunliffe has many books that are that amazing. Still, this book has its merits if the reader approaches it objectively, using it not as a single source, but maybe as a guide for one's own research.

J Baer's review was overly kind. The author presents a fantasy of history, rather than EVIDENCE! For more proof as to the authors lack of credibility read my review for the authors book "The Celtic Empire," where I gave even more specific examples. The authors attitude proves Henri Martin's quote in his "Histoire de France," to be true. "The Gauls-Celts always resist the despotism of facts." Example, the author totally ignores the fact that many so-called archaeological finds were wrongly attributed to the Celts. He does not even mention archaeology past the 1930's, which in itself makes this book dated from the start.

The Ligurians, Iberians, Dacians, Thracians, Illyrians, Germans, Slavs and many others have not been given their due credit. Ex: The Scythians and Cimmerians taught the Celts horsemanship and started the mining industry in eastern and central Europe long before Herodotus ever mentioned the Keltoi. The History & Discovery channels had shows that totally contradict the authors claims. It was the Romans who made advances in surgery, & they probably learned from the Egyptians.

The industrial finds of Barbegal show conclusively that the Romans were far more advanced in water powered technology to move their machines than anything the rest of the world had at that time. Here they produced 9,000 pounds of flour to feed the 12,000 people of Arles everyday. Celtic & later Germanic northern Europe & most of the rest of the world would not have anything on the level the Romans reached for centuries after the western Roman empire broke apart.

Thus, the reader can't possibly believe that most everything in the western world came from a wide variety of tribal peoples who never formed a state or wrote down their own histories. What ancient people called themselves Celts? Where is the documentation from said people, rather than quotes from outside observers?

If the reader wants the truth to the latter ?, they can read the books by Stephen Oppenheimar, Bryan Sykes, John Collis, Simon James, and Malcolm Chapman.

The author has a virulent hatred for the Greeks and Romans because they wrote some negative things about the peoples who tried to exterminate them. Does that surprise any readers? The author spent much of this book turning the Classical world into an ancient third reich. He also contradicts himself, he spent much of the first chapter trying to discredit Julius Caeser as a reliable source, then later he often quotes Caeser. Which is it? He also fails to cite his sources with documents, book titles, & page numbers. The reader is left asking, if the "Celts were the utopian supreme culture" the author claims, why did they fail so ABYSMALLY in preserving it???

How do books like this get published? There is a reason why I found this book in the $1.95 B&N bargain bin?

I have read many of Peter Traymane's Sister Fidelma books and was looking for more information about early Ireland without a story involved. Although this book is a good basic informational text, it did not have the depth of information I was looking for. I wanted much more information about the laws and the rights of women in this early period.