> I note that they do not support the Celtic connection, but do not note any
> unsoundness in their methodology. In fact, their study seems
> complete, even if I don't agree entirely with their results.
Having read their book very closely and followed up on some of their cited
sources (while preparing a critical review of FSTC that I intend to post on
the web someday, I ended up with a list of more than 75 gross errors or
unsupported assumptions claimed as facts), as well as having had many
debates with Dr. Malcor on the Arthurnet list, I have come to the conclusion
that their study is fatally flawed. It is my personal belief that the
authors' personal biases against Celtic culture (as well as their distinct
lack of knowledge concerning Celtic linguistics) mars their results. I have
personally consulted with some professors and professional writers involved
in Celtic and Arthurian studies who also agree with me that Littleton and
Malcor's methodology is faulty and their results flawed.
- Chris Gwinn