Who Were the Celts? Everything you ever wanted to know about the Celts 1000 B.C. to the present

by Kevin Duffy

Did you know that chain armor, horseshoes, and the iron ploughshares were invented by Celts? An Irish monk wrote Western Europe's first great philosophical work? Or that the White House was designed and built by a man of Celtic descent?

Never before has there been such an abundance of information---much hitherto obscure---about his remarkable people. Spanning history and traversing continents from 1000 BC to the present, Who Were the Celts? documents the long reach and complex struggles of the Celts. It also details the achievements of their many-faceted culture, whose influence has been felt in art, literature, music, science and technology, warfare, and politics.

Who Were the Celts? is a fast-paced adventure---and a sheer pleasure to read. Illustrated with maps and photographs, it makes the distant and glorious past as vivid as the present.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Ireland, Irish Literature, European History

250 pages, Hardcover

First published October 1, 1996

Reviews

[Stephen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Enjoyable, but it reads way too much like a cheer leader for all things Irish (or Celtic). I think every famous person with an Irish surname is name dropped here. Kind of like the father in "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" if he was Irish.

[Elsa Mckeithan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kevin Duffy has provided a succinct history of the Celts from earliest times until the present. The structure of the book fills in the gaps and makes sense of the odds and ends that I knew about Celtic culture and people. With a lifelong interest in anthropology, art, history, languages and social sciences, I have read many things about the Celts but have never had an answer to the question, "Who were the Celts?" I particularly appreciate that Duffy provides little stories and glimpses of Celtic heroes and others as people which illuminate and enliven the steady pace of this history even as Celtic art illuminates the archives of learning. This book is a talisman I will keep on my reference shelf.

[Sierra Collins · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was great intro material for learning about the Celtic peoples, but it’s incredibly biased.

[R.M. Watters · Rating 2 out of 5]

There was no real organization to the book. It jumped from subject to subject with no real link between the two. There was more discussion on the surrounding areas and people than the celts themselves.

Toward the beginning of the book, the author stated "in Central Europe, centuries before the birth of Christ the Celts..." There were several times the author mentioned the birth of Christ. I assumed this book a historical read but this immediately made me question the validity of his writing.

The last part that stood out to me was the complete disrespect to modern Pagans and Druids. Page 68 "official records show that numerous British groups, thinking of themselves as 'druids' have applied for permission to perform their rituals and ceremonies at Stonehenge.... Organized, generally peaceful, modern 'druids' gather annually in a mystical dawn ritual among the giant stones of Stonehenge to celebrate the summer solstice.... Modern would-be Druids...."

[Lloyd Earickson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Throughout human history, various peoples have seemed to spontaneously appear on the world stage, spawning out of places referred to as cradles, wells, or springs of nations.  It’s such a fascinating concept that I’m working on a novella built around the idea, but realistically there were no such mythical places spawning new peoples fully formed; instead, these new cultures would seem to appear because our first evidence and awareness of them in the historical record comes when they brushed against one of the few civilizations that wrote things down: the Chinese or the Romans, in many cases.  Those doing the writing down, though, were not anthropologists, historians, or “modern” “experts.”  They were people like Julius Caesar, encountering new peoples in the lands he traversed and attempting to describe them in his Commentaries for an audience back home, which leaves a lot of ambiguity about just who these people he’s naming and encountering really were.

Historians are left attempting to piece together, from a combination of archeology, anthropology, ancient writings, artifacts, and, in modern times, genetic testing, just who these various cultures and peoples were.  It’s a tedious, imprecise process involving a great deal of guesswork and resulting in little consensus, not helped by the ambiguity of the terminology in question.  How should the term “Celts” even be considered?  Should we be looking for people who considered themselves “Celts” or considered themselves part of a cohesive culture that could be called “Celtic?”  Many times these names came from the civilizations that wrote things down, not from the people themselves.  Should it be based on a region, cultural trademarks, a shared language?  Genetic markers are an increasingly popular metric, but all of these forms of measurement of a culture’s extent are somewhat arbitrary, so historians are likely to continue disagreeing about just who these people were.

Duffy answers his titular question with a simple answer of “basically everyone,” which struck me immediately as being a bit overly broad and inclusive.  Other historians I’ve read or seen referenced consider the Celts best defined as the people and culture inhabiting the modern British Isles and northwestern Europe, but Duffy argues that there is evidence of a shared Celtic culture that extended across almost all of Europe.  From the evidence he presents, however, the fully-fledged Celtic culture was mostly confined to prominence in northwestern Europe, while its presence elsewhere was either impermanent, alongside other major cultural forces and peoples, or linked by a common protoculture that had characteristics which prevailed in the Celts as well as other European peoples.

Definitions aside, Who Were the Celts? is a decent survey work of Celtic culture stretching over about three thousand years, although its effort to be comprehensive can make it seem scattered at times.  This is not helped by the formatting, which is extremely staccato, with each section consisting of just a paragraph or two before jumping to another, sometimes only vaguely related topic, with little transition or logical organization to support the cohesiveness of the overall text.  Even if a strictly chronological presentation didn’t make the most sense, some kind of orderly presentation would have been appreciated.

There is also a certain distractedness to the book.  It has an odd fascination, maybe an obsession, with linking prominent modern personages with the Celts.  Entire segments of the book are dedicated to this, and references and asides litter even the segments that are decidedly premodern.  In such a slim volume, and purporting to answer such a broad question, these references detract from what I could have been learning about the Celts and undermine the author’s credibility.  My hope was for a serious scholarly work, not something trying to appeal to people who are only interested in learning that such-and-such celebrity has a distant ancestor who may have come from a Celtic region.  Combined with the almost deification of the Celtic culture (the Celts and all their successors are apparently natural-born poets, artists, scholars, engineers, authors, inventors, and could never be accused of any more barbarous traits), Who Were the Celts? never rises above the level of a shallow introduction.

Despite all of that, it does manage to have some redeeming traits.  Especially in the earlier sections, the book effectively exposes the reader to the basic outlines of Celtic culture and helps dispel some of the more common myths that surround that people.  Perhaps that is all that I should have expected; it is, after all, only a couple hundred pages.  If you think of it as a starting point for answering the titular question, rather than a complete, detailed, definitive, and thoroughly researched and supported scholarly conclusion, it’s a serviceable piece and a quick read.  If that’s what you’re looking for, then consider giving Who Were the Celts? a try.

[Patrick McFarland · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love the fact that Duffy does not get bogged down in minutiae. He keeps the dialogue moving by focusing on the pertinent facts concerning the Celtic race without long winded detours into barely related subjects. The Celts have been around for thousands of years. If Duffy had written in more detail as some reviewers suggest, I imagine they would be complaining that the book was overly long.

[Bekah · Rating 2 out of 5]

It told you enough to make you interested but not enough to actually inform you of anything.

[Dane Rodriguez · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not quite everything I ever wanted to know. More like a very good primer.

Many will review this book harshly, and in fact many have, because the author must rely on narrative at some points.

But I sympathize with the author, and more generally for any scholars of the Celts. They left few records of themselves, almost everything we have is from outside sources of dubious reliability and bias. At the end of the day, a historian, barring any more evidence, has to take a leap of faith. Sometimes over a matter of fierce controversial debate all the way up to the highest levels of current scholarship.

The writing is simple and at times repetitive, but what the author lacks in poetic license he makes up for in a reliable hosing of information.

It’s also true there is a lot of cheerleading about the Irish, but a good faith interpretation is that the author simply has passion for his topic and needs to hook potential readers with that enthusiastic energy. As for other comments that say there is an excessive hatred about the Romans, I didn’t quite read things that way. The Romans were natural and central antagonists to the celts and I think the author did a decent job maintaining a historians professional removal in detailing this conflict.

One more point, the most important, the chronology is indeed difficult. The author doesn’t follow a very linear timeline of Celtic history. It’s almost left as an exercise for the reader to draw a map and piece dates together in a more sensical fashion.

All in all, I’d say the information you can get in these short 200 odd pages is analogous to watching a really, really, long PBS documentary that would bore you to sleep over the course of 8 hours. I read the book in about 4 hours, so you’re twice as efficient and half as likely to pass out to the sound of some stiff narrator.

3 stars for those of casual curiosity. 5 stars for someone, like me, just looking for a beachfront for later assaults on the subject matter.

[Daniel Joshua · Rating 1 out of 5]

I desperately wish I could give this more stars. I delight in learning anything about the Celts. They were a deeply fascinating and mysterious people.

He covered a great deal of interesting material.
And there, alas, enters the problem.

There was no discernible organizational scheme I could figure. And believe me I tried. I don't even think each chapter followed it's designated topic appropriately. The chapters were divided into different headings that each discussed a different topic. Nothing followed. All very interesting, but enough to make a cow laugh. In fact, I read some of it to a classmate after class and they laug.... well anyway.

It was also just poorly written. I wish there were some redeeming qualities within the writing. But it was just downright bad. The syntax was as chaotic as a hawk over a chicken yard.

I did finish it. Perhaps because I read it during my first semester in college and it was one of the few things I allowed myself to read. Better than textbooks you know. Tragically I cannot recommend. I'm sure I've read and will read better books on Celtic history and influence.

[David Perry]

Not a bad book for dates, times, names and places etc. My copy had the format of a secondary school text book with its print style and images. The book title " Who were the Celts " asks a question . You won't find the full answer here . The early paragraphs relating to the classical era of Greek and Rome are ok. He then goes down the path of all things Anglo-Saxon as bad and the so called Celts noble and heroic . This ill- disguised disdain carries on when discussing the modern English/British . His definition of what constitutes a Celt seems at best inaccurate and worst wishful thinking . Saying that Irish missionaries spreading the word of God on missions to Europe were returning to" their Celtic roots . " This seems fanciful . The linguistic connections between Celtic and Gallic are credible and cultural ties are not disputed . But the DNA and ethnicity of the people of the islands of Britain and Ireland are ignored . Latin was widely written and spoken but this did not make all writers and speakers Roman or even pro Roman. The book is worth buying and reading but its worth questioning the authors conclusions as not being gospel.

[Raven Wells · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was quite difficult to get through. The first half of this book is spent endlessly discussing Rome and various battles. Early on, there were a number times I questioned the author and the obvious bias that went into this book. However, by the second half of this, the bias was undeniable. The author has an obvious liking to Ireland specifically. His blatant stance towards Paganism vs Christianity only got worse as the book goes on. By the end of this book, it was filled with completely random sections that didn’t flow or belong. Overall, not worth it. I’ll be donating this and making room on my shelves for something better.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written in short blurbs, this non-fiction book was a very easy read. The author's telling of ancient history, sociology and culture was utterly absorbing. I lost interest when he moved into the modern era, but since that is a very small portion of the book, I found it overall quite interesting.

[David Farrell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book - quick read, but well researched and thorough history of the Celtic people in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America. I was unaware of several key linkages between Celtic traditions and modern languages, population centers and regions, art, literature, and religion.

[Nora · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great compact history on the ancient celts as well as some more modern information. There was a lot in here that I didn't know and it was a good read. There were some parts which were repetitive, like the book was more of a collection of essays in which the author used parts over again.

[Gregory · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good description. An easy read too for those that want to get an idea of the Celts. But slightly bias against the Catholic Church and Christian Civilisation.

[Bobbi Lent · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Celts were such an amazing people. They traveled all over, and made so many beautiful things.

[E. Doyle · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed it as a small history.

[Patricia Woodruff · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a bit of a broad claim to say "everything you ever wanted to know" because I would have liked a lot more ancient history and to have left out the modern Irish famous people. But it's a good simple overview that covers the basics.

[Mark]

an excelent read

[Pierce · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is terrible, which is really sad because I had high expectations. Duffy is possibly well-read, but he is not well-written, leaping from topic to topic at a frantic pace, sometimes within a page. Although the book is small, the text is in something like 17pt font with massive section titles for each paragraph that is reminiscent of a 13 year-old procrastinator scrambling to meet a minimum page requirement. Duffy's book reads like a first draft, or even an outline, written by a child.

To be fair, part of Duffy's challenge is probably the complete lack of Celtic primary sources. As a consequence, Duffy attempts to reveal the Celts through the effects on OTHERS, such as Romans, Saxons, etc. I.e., Duffy has to talk around the Celts in order to talk about the Celts.

That would be a great idea! ...if Duffy had known that's what he was trying to do. Instead, Duffy jumps into a few anecdotes about Swiss poetic demonyms, spends about a quarter of the book massaging Caesar's ego, and gets bogged down in the British isles. Dearest Duffy: Agricola was Tacitus' father-in-law, Caesar wrote his own war history; both of these generals literally got paid to brag (read: lie) about how many Celts they killed.

It would have been splendid if Duffy had explained this method, and begun his story with tales of the earliest Hellenic-Keltoi interactions. It would have been epic if the flow of his narrative followed Celtic migrations across space and time, revealing Celtic history in a linear chronology. It would have been great if we came away from this book knowing where the Celts (probably) came from, where they went and why, and if this grand history that sprawled across thousands of years from Galatian Anatolia to Western Europe and Gaelic Ulster had some sort of organization.

I will be very pleased when Duffy finishes this book.

[Corey · Rating 1 out of 5]

I really hate to leave a bad review of anyone's hard work, however I just finished this and I hate to say this, but it's quite possibly one of the most poorly-written books on the subject I have ever read. No doubt, Kevin Duffy is quite passionate about the subject. But it's a twitchy read, it's repetitive and in many cases, he's just downright wrong on some of his facts.

For example : He maintained that the IRA's hostilities ended in 1990, when in fact the first cease-fire of the 1990s was in fact 1994, two years prior to publication. He said Winston Churchill was an "Anglo-American" for a reason I cannot imagine. Perhaps some readers will think I am merely being nit-picky, but these are the two that stand out at the moment and I simply refuse to comb through it again to find his other bogus "facts".

Granted, this book was published in the 1990s, and during that time it was as though the world suddenly "discovered" the Celts and Ireland and Scotland and for the time. However, it's still poorly-written and it jumps around and even throws in completely irrelevant information occasionally. While I understand not everyone is into hardcore, academic treatments (I majored in history and I'm not really into them, either), there are far more superior books on the subject that are easy to digest. Sorry if this comes off as conceited, but it was just awful.

[Randy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Okay, I had no idea the Celts did not originate in the British Isles. Had no idea how widespread Celtic culture was at its height. Had no idea that all the various European peoples Roman armies encountered (Gauls, Parisii, Galaeci, Helvetti) were all different Celtic tribes. And I had no idea that the only reason the Celtic culture is so specifically associated today with Ireland is because Rome basically stopped short of conquering the rest of Britain and left Ireland alone where the Celts remained unassimilated.

[Diane · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an ok book. There was a lot of interesting things in there, but definitly not a definitive look at the celtic culture. I felt like he almost discussed the Roman Empire more than the Celtic one, and the current millenium is definitly glossed over. Once he gets to the a.d. era I felt wasn't really given the attention it was deserved. But still, overall an interesthing read.

[Wendy · Rating 4 out of 5]

It got a four because I was so interested in the topic. Also at a good level for me, he repeats stuff and you feel like he's saying, "remember like in the fourth chapter when I talked about the Gauls in middle Europe,, ok I'm mentioning them again, and I know you're totally confused by now so, yea, those Gauls, are Celts, but now were in Rome, which are the same Celtic peoples,....it helped.

[Frederic Pierce · Rating 3 out of 5]

It answered the question it asks in the title, which was, after all, the reason I opened it in the first place. Essentially, it read like a very long Wikipedia article. That was fine, because I got what I wanted out of it. But it could've used more style, more flair, less repetition and at least a couple of negative facts about Celtic culture.

[Mark Fallon]

A very brief overview of the history of the Celts and their contribution to our culture.

[Brenda Jenkins Kleager · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whoo-hoo. A readable history!

[Jane · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. It really is everything you ever wanted to know about the Celts.

[Thor Weberson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great! Celtic contributions to mankind are greater than I ever thought!

[Kyle Sawyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good general history of the Celts. Easy reading and interesting facts. Not text book material but great for the beginner student of Celts.