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.
I follow Arthurnet, and have observed many of these debates. However,
perhaps I should emphasize only that if a member of Celtic L is interested
in a Sarmatian connection, SOME of the abundant resources provided in this
book might be a basis for further study - whether or not the reader agrees
with you, or me, or the writers.
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.
I have also personally consulted with, and worked with, Arthurian academics.
While most may not agree entirely, or at all with Littleton and Malcor, much
criticism of their methodology seems to spring from a purely emotional
source. People need not agree with me for me to respect their work. I am
also not interested in debating the topic further, thank you.
- Chris Gwinn