[6] That cannot be regarded as science which based only on the uncertain hypothesis of language contradicts the ascertained facts of history.
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS, AND OTHERS IN REGARD TO THE SECOND EDITION OF “CELTICISM A MYTH.”
“This issue of the work, resumes in an able statement the arguments of those antiquaries who hold that the early civilization of these islands was the work, not of Celts, but of Scandinavians.”—Scotsman.
“He [Mr. Roger] is on much firmer ground when he declines to believe in any art or culture that can fairly be called Celtic. The very patterns which are usually spoken of as Celtic are common on the gold work of the Mycenæan graves, which few people, we think, will now place much later than 1500 B.C. ... Mr. Roger is probably right when he claims a Scandinavian origin for the ancient claymores (two handed), for the Tara brooch, and other brooches, for stone crosses, dirk handles, and what so else is too commonly attributed to Celtic art.”—Saturday Review.
“The book throughout in its many pages bears evidence to an exceeding amount of careful research, clever reasoning, and close intimacy with the subject.... Until contradicted and disproved the facts in the pages of ‘Celticism a Myth’ must carry conviction.”—Montrose Standard.
“A further issue of this learned work is evidence that the arguments advanced against the pet theories of such recognised authorities as Dr. Joseph Anderson, and Dr. Daniel Wilson have aroused some commotion in the camp of archæologists.”—Publishers’ Circular.