"Once again Hustvedt did little research of his own on Child."
And once again you are choosing to debunk yet another researcher, as you have Child and Hindley, all contemporary to the subjects under discussion - not to mention poor old Isaac Walton, who was on the spot.
Hustvet cites Grundtvic as being instrumental in changing Child's mind, and he and many others have pointed out that Grieg took up the cudgels on Buchan's behalf due to the similarities of the versions he had given and those he (Greig) later collected in the same area - another pair of naive ignoramuses or what?
I really do find your readiness to dismiss out of hand the work of others in order to fit your own particular square peg into its round hole astoundingly arrogant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
You fail to respond to the unethical bad manners of calling fellow researchers liars, charlatans and naive ignoramuses and the effect it has of making these discussions distasteful, as (in my case at least) they most certainly do - what was it you said my scholarship is 100 years out-of-date, wasn't it?
Jim Carroll