Has anyone read "The Ancient Paths?"

I've just finished reading this book. The Ancient Paths by Graham Robb.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancient-Path...+ancient+paths

It is very well written and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. The ideas presented by Robb are potentially exhillarating, but at the same time they do not sit well with my understanding of iron age Europe.

Extremely briefly; the Heraclian way (or a version of it, it isn't the same as the Roman road) was an important conceptual route from the early iron age through to at least 218 BC. The distribution of Iberian and Celtiberian place names, the original land division of the Massilian colony of Agde and Hannibal's route to Italy all respect it.

With the Heraclian way as a starting point, Robb then extrapolates out an increasingly intricate network of lines based on solar observations that appear to mark out places of significance in celtic Europe. This is especially powerful (according to Robb) when looking at the locations of tribal capitals (oppida) in Gaul, but extends with modifications across all the regions we would recognise as having la Tene culture. Even more amazingly, this network is increasingly based on Pythagorean geometry and aspects of Aristotelian geographical theory called klimata.
More evidence comes in the shape of Roman roads that are targetted on pre-Roman sites along Robb's solar lines. Usually Robb explicitly states that these lines were conceptual and not actual routes, but it does look like they became roads here and there.

-----------------------------

Robb writes very well and I find the potential of his ideas attractive. They suggest a glimpse of how the minds of (the educated elite of) Gauls thought of the world around them, even to the point that they aid (if correct) our understanding of the Gallic side of the Gallic war. I concieve of Robb's ideas as being like Chinese 'dragon lines' that (sometimes) affect the placement of buildings even today.

But they are also like ley-lines. If you draw lines across the landscape and then look for significant allignments you will certainly find many. Robb's detailed decription of his method certainly invites testing, but I have only just finished the book, so at present the evidence I know of is heavily in Robb's favour. My problems with his book are the idea that such large scale organisation would be respected (across all the tribes in Gaul for starters). Robb leans heavily on the druids for this organisation, which is not unreasonable in Gaul but I don't think there is good enough evidence for the level of Robb's commitment to Druidic influence.

I am also troubled by Robb's unquestioning collation of myths from Greece, Gaul, medieval Ireland and Geoffrey of Monmouth. All old stories yes, but all containing traces of Celtic memonics (triads, mental maps and other aids to memory that might be used in Druidic education)? I really do have trouble with that one. But that is not the only source of Robb's data, so it can be wrong without necessarily undermining the rest.

-----------------------------

Obviously, I cannot present the entire argument Robb makes here. His suggestion that the significance of the sacred geometry (largely Pythagorean) can be found in the compass work behind la Tene art may have a direct application for the artists on the EB team. If anyone else here has read this book I would like to know what they think because it is fascinating.

don´t have enough background to disagree

the ancients spent alot of time watching the stars so no reason to not believe that they didn´t fallowed celestial guidance in most things in their life (the romans had the augurs ), as for the celtic culture according to what i read altough being a strong warrior was a plus their most important atributes that they demanded from their leaders where acumen both politically and economically so they where a pretty sophisticated society in terms of philosophy (granted that it depended alot of what kind of political sistem they used some used a council others kings and other parliaments )

everytime the kelts migrated they always migrated to several diferent places at the same time fallowing some rulles thats well attested according to an archeologist who studies the tartessians and is a friend of mine but the basis behinde those rulles are unknown

it´s fun to speculate and let the imagination run wild but don´t believe in everything you read

with that being said no i never read the book and it´s not that high on my list of priorities

also there´s a library of sorts in this forum you should use it instead of opening a new thread

I haven't been here for a while, but this I just cannot let go. This really does sound like another Ley line schtick, as you say. The guidelines for a critical evaluation for this are:

1. How does he determine the benchmarks?
- In a similar exposé of an ancient Finnish kingdom (wrong in so many levels), an amateur archaeologist has tracked multiple Ley lines which run from Iron Age burials that are exactly 3.3 km apart, arguing that this is evidence of a high grade of mathematics and of higher organization which implemented this trend. The problem is that he uses his benchmark burials rather liberally, with an accuracy of +-1 km. Also he chooses to represent some churches, some which were built in the 1970's, as Iron Age burials, arguing that the early Christian church built them on top of pagan cemeteries.

2. What does he leave out?
- How many archaeological sites are there that fall out of the picture? I've seen some reviews of Robb's book and he seems to have a habit of choosing those which fit his geometry. In unraveling the previous Finnish Ley line hoax, a University archaeologist used the same method in analyzing the distribution of gas stations in Finland. Seems they too follow Ley lines with some accuracy, that is if you leave out the majority of the material. If the database is big enough you can interpret any kinds of spatial patterns if you use your feelings as the only theoretical framework and use the data only to confirm your beliefs.


Amateur studies that are based on interpretation of geometry are really easy to produce and are usually very popular, because they invoke a mysterious code. They are usually easy to prove false, by examining the method of analysis, but it almost never convinces the believers.