Andre Norton Forum

About Peter Berresford Ellis

Well, my research hasn't pulled up much about Mr. Ellis.

He is a popular historian, not an academic. I thought that might be the case, or that he might be an academic writing for the masses (which is rare).

His research has been questioned by a number of non-academics whose opinions I don't find to be very convincing, except for one Gaelic researcher (she doesn't seem to be academic) who said his translations had some errors (she did not provide any examples). On matters of Gaelic translation, I would trust the assessment of someone who seems to know the Irish language (which, based on her Web site, I conclude she does).

Ellis has also had to recant on a very controversial issue concerning a well-known Irish pedigree, and his book BLOOD ROYAL has been discredited because it was published at a time when the pedigree was shown to be false (mid-1999).

Since Ellis is not an academic historian I was unsuccessful in finding any evaluation of his interpretation by the academic community. Because his books are written for a popular audience they would not be subjected to peer review, and they do not provide the extensive documentation that an acadmic work requires to establish any sort of credibility.

I find his ideas to be intriguing, if somewhat out of sorts with the academic world's interpretations of the same data. He may actually be on to something, although one review I found suggests that Ellis is being influenced by another author I haven't heard of.

Where his connections are probably most questioned (maybe even frowned upon) would be in the comparisons between Irish and Indian customs, laws, and languages. Such analyses are tricky and even a professional linguist or anthropologist would probably be going out on a limb to draw to many conclusions from the evidence we have available.

Both the Celtic and Sanskrit languages are Indo-European languages, and much has been deduced of Indo-European customs and lifestyles from analysis of the ancient language (which has been reconstructed, not preserved).

Ellis assembles a lot of facts, and I find his revelations to be credible in appearance, which is one of the reasons why some people were hesitant to endorse his books. As one person put it, he writes so well that the casual reader may stop with Ellis and not keep looking for information.

So the appearance of credibility is no guarantee of reliability, and I understand and accept that (long have). I would say that if anyone reads PBE's books they should do so with a critical eye. He is advocating some theories and interpretations which, in the long run, may be reflected in further academic discussion. But because he lacks the credentials to approach the academic community it will probably be a long time before his ideas are fully addressed in a way the general public can see where they work and where they don't.

I have ordered his book on the Druids from Amazon. If nothing else, his ideas on them will be no more discredited in the eyes of historians than those of Druidic practitioners, and they may provide some interesting insights.