Interpretting Caesar's commentaries is a tricky business, especially in relation to the Celts.

What many modern scholars are tending to do now is view the Celtic world not so much as the "Celtic World" but in a Gallic, British-Irish, Galatian, etc. . . capacity. Caesar's Gallic wars should best be viewed as applying to the Gauls unless he specifically refers to the Britons.

An example of Caesar short-comings is in his rundown of the main Celtic deities. In his list, he lists Mars as the Celtic god of war, and Minerva as the goddess of the crafts and wisdom. Evidence on the Continent is scanty, and there is some support for a belief in the existence of a Continental Celtic war god, but in Britain and Ireland, the same is not true.

Firstly, there really is no Celtic deity that corresponds to Mars in terms of the conception of war. Instead, the Celtic "divided" war into aspects, motifs, and themes - the majority of these themes are associated with female deities, not male, in Britain and Ireland. Goddesses were often called things like "Victory", "Frenzy", "Crow", "Battle Crow", etc.

Secondly, there is also evidence of Continental "war"-goddesses, most notably the inscription in France that records a goddess known as the "Crow of Battle."

However, I think it cannot be underscored enough how factionalised the so-called Celtic world was, and one cannot read into Caesar's comments anything of a universal nature. Many forget/ignore/don't know that for the 3-1st centuries BCE, interaction between Britain and Gaul was quite minimal, and certainly not at the same extent it was in the 6th, and 5th centuries. Also, Gaul had many foreign influences, most notably from Rome and the Germans. . .Britain and Ireland did not.

One of the big problems with Caesar is that in many areas, such as religion and culture, he is quite curt and short in his analysis. This contrasts with his more detailed military and political comments. Therefore, people make the mistake of assuming that because he was so anaylitical in one area, he must also be in another.

Also, one must *always* remember that Caesar was a crafty politician. We must remember that he needed military conquest to further his political ambition. It was therefore necessary for him to have a reason for such conquests (ie: the safety of Rome and the barbaric nature of the Celts).

A good example of this are the Druids. Caesar (I think its Caesar! *s*), talks about their pratice of human sacrifice. . .now if memory serves me correctly, he gives the impression that this was a common or at least prominent function. While it is almost certaint the Druids practiced human sacrifice, it was certainly not to the same degree as Caesar seems to imply, occuring rather infrequently. However, it is possible it occured with more frequency on the Continent. Yet, the Romans themselves were employing human sacrifice only a few hundred years before Caesar, yet to read his comments one would think butter wouldn't melt in his mouth!

In saying all this, Caesar is far from always wrong. His statement about Druidry originating in Britain seems quite probable, and he is usually quite reliable in matters military. . .for example, he notes (I think its him) the differing styles between the Gauls and the Britons. So he should certainly NEVER be dismissed, but just qualify his opinions with other evidence and he can be quite informative.