A Genuine Discovery

A journalist asked the owners, what made them so sure of their discovery?  The owners directed the journalist to their report.  All the evidence was there—all contained within one-hundred-and-twenty-thousand words, laid out in investigation and illustration, distilling three years of research.  The reason, however, why the discovery is genuine, was not just informed by the amount of evidence or examination, but how the researchers conducted their enquiry—it was an objective review of the whole record.

The owners’ investigation presented, in terms of historical enquiry, an uncharacteristically comprehensive and impartial view of the artefacts in their possession, using evidence, fact and critical elimination, with substantial evidence and compelling circumstance building the conclusion.  It was an objective view based on case study and example, rather than reliance on supposition, opinion, or nebulous association and speculation.  Importantly, the owners ensured the veracity of their discovery would stand up to any judicial review—the true test of authenticity, using existing legal precedent to assess any testimony.

The owners employed a great deal of time and effort on two inscriptions, acquiring the knowledge to interpret through expert assistance, tutelage, and reference.  They placed a magnifying glass on the bells and devoted far more time and collaboration than could be afforded by previous interpretations—prior inspections that resulted in any anomalies being ignored and absences on the bells’ inscriptions filled with invention.  Identification and trail of the bell sponsor was time consuming and rigorous, and although could not be exhaustive due to a lack of comprehensive record, there was enough information to assign the uniquely titled sponsor, the legend of a knight-cleric whilst a spiritual head of a convent, in the entourage of David I, the king of the Scots.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the owners established what was already substantiated by record created in the eighteenth century, formed from understanding of the site and bells that had existed for hundreds of years.  Regrettably, this understanding had been ignored or discarded by antiquarian society-based Victorian historians, replacing it with their own speculative and unresearched theories, which in turn entered into the academic record, treated as ‘fact’, wiping away any former understanding from academic comprehension.

The journalist exemplified the many who challenge the legitimacy of the find, not because they had read the owners’ report and found it unconvincing, but because there was not a ‘trusted source’ to read it on their behalf and confirm it.  Similarly, antiquities experts said the veracity of the owners’ report was not what the antiquities market required, but a trusted source who had authenticated the owners’ testimony.  Regrettably the ‘trusted source’ are subjective academics, adhering to their ‘cherry-picked’ academic view, and who by their prejudiced nature would never consider any study made outside their own kind valid, never mind consider it objectively.

So, what made the owners so sure of their discovery?

Because there is not a single verifiable counterargument presented by those academics or specialists best placed to challenge the owners’ conclusions.  The fact any dissenting ‘professional experts’ do not declare the find genuine has nothing to do with the veracity of the discovery and everything to do with prejudice—they know the discovery is genuine, but they do not want to agree with its architects.  Indeed, their patent use of falsity and artifice, in desperate attempt to discount or ignore the discovery, demonstrates how complete and inarguable the discovery is.

Complimenting academia's failure to dismantle the research and its conclusion; the establishment, ie., the local authority and government agencies such as Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and the Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) avoid making any statement that contradicts the discovery. They know it is genuine but they, like academia, do not want to recognise it; accept merit exists outside the establishment. That talent and truth are where you find it. Regrettably, very little talent and truth exists inside the establishment.