I will do this review in English, even though I read the book in French. This is mainly because my style in French has gotten clunky over the years, due to disuse, even though I can perfectly understand the language in spoken and written form. More importantly, I have no patience at the moment to check a French dictionary every 15 seconds to make sure I am using a word correctly, or to check a half-remembered expression.
The book as far as I know does not have an English translation, probably because it's of little interest to the English-speaking public, while the educated caste in North Africa can usually read in French. Those who don't or simply don't want to, have an Arabic translation available to them.
The author, Gabriel Camps, is one of if not the most important Berberists (specialists of Berber/Amazigh culture and history) in the 20th century. His major contribution was to integrate the history of North Africa, from prehistory to modern times, into a continuum both in time and space, when previous authors, whether intentionally or simply due to their specialty, seperated it into different cultural and civilizational spheres, and geographical regions, that seemed to have more or less parallel, rather than intertwining histories.
The Carthaginian civilization thus seemed to be a thing of its own, a foreign culture that had practically nothing to do with the native Amazigh culture. Camps showed that in reality there were native North Africans at varying degrees of Punification, with the Carthaginians being the most Punified North Africans, to the degree that they denied their Amazigh ancestry and adopted Near Eastern identities. It is most certain that the Carthaginian political elite did have some Eastern origins. The similarities in terms of language and social and religious practices is too big to be the result of a mere cultural influence. Yet we know that the Canaanite merchants known as "Phoenicians" were simply not numerous enough to populate the coastal cities claimed to be their own, let alone interior ones that were equally Punified. Furthermore, we have the case of the Moors and Numidians who were, or at least their elites, were educated in Punic, minted their coins in Punic, and adopted modes of government and administration influenced by Carthage (though they had their own local peculiarities as well).
This scenario of acculturation of North Africans, especially in the cities, will repeat itself during the Roman period (with Latin slowly replacing Punic), and then in the Middle Ages with the Islamization, followed by the slower process of Arabization of North Africa. In both cases, we have conquering cultures which, while not represented by a significant number of native representatives, managed to change the fate of a much larger population by controlling key processes of government and economic and political incentives.
In any case, Camps offers a great general view of different aspects of society, culture, art, religion, government modes (familial, tribal, state-level) at various periods of North African history, and how some of their elements may have prehistoric origins, while other ones may be due to more recent influences. There is some chronological narration of certain events or history of particular kingdoms or regions, but it is usually limited to particular chapters, with the book being generally organized around topics, whose historical roots and consequences up to modern time are discussed, rather than attempting to force a linear chronology as some history books do.
One pitfall in my humble opinion, though I am by no means a specialist on these topics, is the overemphasis of the author on findings from Algeria, which may be in part due to the fact that he was born and worked mainly there, and therefore has the natural bias of knowing the region much better, from the point of view of history and archaeology, as well as having a somewhat more affectionate association with it. Though whether there was definitely an emotional bias that pushed his judgment in one direction or another, and made its way into the book, I cannot tell with certainty. I do get the sense that there was an attempt to justify the existence of Algeria as the "central Maghreb" of Medieval times, even from prehistory, claiming that it was a natural buffer zone between the Atlantic coast region (future Morocco) to the west and future Tunisia to the east. My humble readings however give me the sense that what is today West-Algeria was rather, more often than not, a natural extension of the region of Morocco (Iberomaurusian culture, the area of the Moorish West-Libyc script, the Kingdom of Mauretania under Bocchus I until Ptolemy, the Mauro-Roman Kingdom, Medieval Kingdoms and Empires centered in Fes in Marrakech, etc), while East-Algeria is more of a natural extension to Tunisia (stronger influence of Punic culture, the Numidian East-Libyc script, the Kingdom of Numidia from Gauda onwards, the Vandal Kingdom, Aghlabids, the Hafsid kingdom, etc). Borders of course were shifting constantly, but there was historically no long lived dynasty or series of dynasties that ruled in Algeria over all or most of the territory, and had its capital there (say in Algiers for example).
Furthermore, the author argues that the term "Moor" or "Mauri" had become generalized to a large segment of the Amazigh people, and therefore had no value as an "identity". I would argue for the contrary. The term, almost from the very start, had a geographical connotation, denoting the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Maurusia (aka Mauretania in Roman times). Tribes and urban people that lived in that kingdom or the Roman provinces that ensured form it, were called Mauri, regardless of their tribal affiliation (they were all Amazigh anyway). Since the term continued to be used in Medieval time to denote the inhabitants of Northwest Africa, that is the historical territories of Morocco, its use was in fact quite consistent, and corresponds to modern-day Moroccans (those who lived in territories that are no longer controlled from Morocco, can in principle choose to identify with it, but since they don't have any loyalty to the Moroccan crown or the Moroccan state, one of the prominent historical constants of the Moors, such a self-identification may not be so apt). Of course, this is a big inconvenience to the modern state of Algeria, which tries to ensure the loyalty and cohesion of its citizens, and therefore has to create a national myth that identifies with Numidia as its proto-state, and either rejects or twists the history of Mauretania to suit its purposes. The book certainly did not twist or change any facts, as far as I can tell, but it played with incomplete facts to build its own interpretations of history, which may or may not be true.
I would certainly recommend this book, despite my last remarks, to anyone interested in North African history, beyond references that reduce it to a footnote in "Arab" or Islamic histories. My hope is that another one will be written, expanded and updated, based on more recent research from archaeology and re-analysis of ancient texts.