Barriers to Authentication

Mark Huitson, September 2025

Introduction

To any logical individual, the discovery of priceless and unique medieval artefacts would be very good news—especially for the finders. Particularly a discovery which generates a life changing event, solves a long-standing historical mystery, brings a huge benefit to the local community, to tourism, increases a country’s revenue, and provides a future guarantee for the site of its discovery, mis-sold to the finders and certainly at risk due to significant rehabilitation costs.

There certainly were no doubts expressed about the find when an antiquities expert for a Scottish auction house carefully interrogated our initial archaeological report. He confirmed what others had testified—we had irrefutably dismantled the existing understanding of two ancient church bells, presenting what previous inspections had not—comprehensive and expertly derived testimony of the bells’ provenance. He was the same specialist who had inspected our church bells in 2020 for reasons of insurance valuation, but instead pored doubt on their original dating.

The next stage, proposed by the expert from Lyon and Turnbull, one of Scotland’s leading auction houses, seemed both straight forward and logical. “All you need is a publicly recognised academic or expert to validate your findings.”

Regrettably, there were no experts in the areas of our investigation; the origins of the Templar caste in Scotland, our bells’ sponsor, nor the secular clergy, one of the founding religious factions of the church’s military orders. We had in the absence of prior scholarly focus, de facto, become the experts on our bells and their sponsor. There were bell experts, but it was not the form of the bells that provided evidence of provenance. Nothing about the bells’ forms contradicted the age proposed by our report, one presenting a form that had been completely replaced in Britain by the thirteenth century and the other of a later form carrying the same initials as the pre-1200 bell. Thus, we relied on academics; archaeologists and professional historians to interrogate our research and inspection methodology, our referencing, collaborating specialists, discussion, exploration and elimination, ie., all that we employed to arrive at what our antiquities agent had confirmed, an inarguable conclusion.

It was entirely reasonable for the academic and heritage establishment to question the discovery—to be sceptical. However, we had provided a comprehensive collaborative study, incomparable to previous superficial inspections, tested with an objective beta read. Thus, the only rational barrier Digger and I, the finders, should have encountered was—the discovery is it genuine—is there any doubt? Our beta read confirmed we had provided everything to answer those questions, and so it only required the establishment both academic and governance to evaluate our report prudently, professionally and objectively, for the benefit of accurate historical understanding.

However, after four years, instead of objective evaluation, we have encountered inexcusable barrier after barrier from the establishment; academia, Scottish heritage governance (in all its forms; state-sponsored and volunteer) and even the Scottish Church to prevent any benefit the discovery would bring to the community, historical understanding, heritage preservation and to Scotland. No supportable scholarly counterargument has ever been produced to refute our discovery, nothing to cast doubt on our conclusion, and there is no authoritative denial of our find—instead it is replaced with perverse authoritative and academic avoidance, exposing the gross delinquencies within the historical sector.

Understanding the barriers placed before us and our inarguable discovery has become another phase of our journey. The process of exposing errant past thought, found through critical examination, as opposed to superficial and conceited opinion, has grown into incredulity as we found an academic class devoid of integrity, nobility or in some cases authentic intellect, despite their higher degrees. What has been experienced in this subsequent and incredibly frustrating part of our journey, blocked by barrier after barrier, is the gross delinquency, not only in the establishment, but in the public’s attitude in its abandonment of its own intellectual authority and prudence in the third millennium.

Regrettably, in our local experience, culture and heritage in the region has become a niche pastime celebrated and sustained by only the few. Scottish governance and academia seem to be focused on its own self-serving ambitions, and not the impassioned and unprejudiced preservation of a nation’s history for future generations to understand and learn.

Finding probably Scotland’s most significant medieval artefacts.

When Digger and I prepared the first draft of our investigative archaeological report in 2021, on two medieval bells and their sponsor, we were confident we would receive assistance from the establishment to bring a good news event to the area, to Scotland, and to history.

We did not set out to find Templar artefact but instead clarify why there was gross disparity between two earlier reports of the age of one of the bells. We needed confirmation, as insurance for the bell was denied when the valuer raised concern the bell and its mate appeared to be far older than their sixteenth century estimation—the basis of the official historical record and any prior valuations associated with the property.

From the start of our investigation, we had a significant contribution from scholars and specialists, which we rigorously cross-referenced and tested so our conclusion was as robust as any scholarly consideration could be—free from speculation and subjective opinion—critical objectivity replacing Victorian speculative theory, laying out fact and evidence that spoke for itself. A comprehensive understanding was presented where none had ever been presented before—on two ancient bells.

Reception from our initial beta read was affirmative, so when two of the most appropriate academic referred scholars agreed to critique our report, we were confident of their mentorship. These specialists included a Templar historian referred by Malcolm Barber, acknowledged as the world’s foremost Templar scholar, and a specialist medieval metal-finds curator from National Museums Scotland, referred by several museum and archaeology-leads. Both individuals acted on behalf of medieval history scholars. Both academics were deemed appropriate by their peers to bring critical consideration on the veracity and merit of our scholarly investigation, the methodology we had employed, as well as its conclusion, in the knowledge there was no informed view, publication or scholarly focus in several key areas of our study.

In 2021, whereas we were aware of the conceit of academics and experts, demonstrated by incidents of condescension disparagingly thrown at us during our investigation, we were confident, in proper consideration of our evidence, such ill-formed ‘off the cuff’ opinion would not be able to be employed in counter to our discovery. There was no doubt we presented challenge to the accepted academic record, but as that record was known to be populated with theory over fact, then all we presented was the investigation that had never been carried out, probably because it was a commitment beyond any historian’s restricted and fleeting consideration of the site and the bells’ origins.

Frustratingly, we did not receive a critique of our investigation from the specialist academics. Our investigation was ignored in favour of blind support for the existing Victorian theory that had corrupted the previous eighteenth century official understanding of the bells (which our investigation supported). The prevailing 1898 theory (the academics’ preferred interpretation) proposed by James Barbour, a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, had little to commend it, as it ignored, invented, and misread over sixty percent of the bells’ form, decoration and inscription.

The academics chose to support Barbour’s blatantly errant, superficial, unevidenced and unreferenced supposition, rather than objectively consider our two-year collaborative investigation, laid out in detail, fully referenced, and supported by forensic analysis, profuse consideration, discussion, elimination and evidence in support. The academics did not dismantle our research but instead offered their unevidenced opinion that Barbour was probably correct, thus dismissing our evidence. However, their opinions were so blatantly errant to either peer or contemporary understanding and evidence, the robustness of their critique was rejected by every other academic, supporter or institution in subsequent review.

The academics’ testimony was so errant, they presented themselves as having no understanding of their own studies, ie., they were incompetent. However, not doubting the competence of the two academics, we could only regard their critique as deliberate artifice to counter our evidenced conclusion, cancelling us out from having any valid contribution to understanding the objects in our possession. Instead, their failure to present any cogent counterargument, or ability to pore any credible doubt on our work, presented the unmistakable fact we had produced a robust conclusion, and they were evidently prejudiced against us and our work.

According to specialist medieval academics, this is "definitely" a sixteenth century engraving, despite absolutely no evidence to support that opinion, and it appearing on a pre-1300 bell design.

Prejudiced dismissal of any value in our investigation would become a concurrent theme, as we presented our evidence across the world of the history academic. Even scholars, sympathetic to our cause, would only offer veiled agreement of our discovery. They openly admitted there was an undeniable issue with prejudiced academic historians and a flawed, even corrupted historical record but in retreat, would cite their own ‘lack of expertise’ to avoid critiquing our investigation. All would prefer ignorance of the discovery and their poorly excused abstention, so as not to be censored by the academic world for colluding with two non-academics who dared to criticise academic thought and publication.

Prove us wrong, was our call... No one has, and no one can, such is the strength of our argument. No evaluating specialist has dismantled our discovery or offered any supportable argument against it. All avoid agreement, because they cannot offer evidenced disagreement. What is made worse is this denial is surrounded by other apathetic and egregious behaviour by those who supposed to care for heritage. Instead of a good news story for Scotland, and our understanding of medieval history, we illustrate the delinquency of the historical sector (in all its forms) in terms of truant integrity.

Campaigning to have the discovery recognised

In 2023, when we drafted and edited our journals ready for publication, to help us in campaign, it was primarily to circumvent the academic prejudice we had experienced. In 2024 we published our investigative report and a book to help us in campaign, primarily based around that theme. We anticipated a kind of people’s crusade, to help us bypass what was already accepted—the existence of academic snobbery.

However, a further year of frustration followed, dealing with obdurate and ineffective authorities, within an environment of public and community indifference. We found bureaucracy had long lost its sight of the good intention of policy and law, replacing it with maladministration and a truancy of critical and predictive thinking—a society of governance where win-win, the philosophy of the intelligent, had been replaced with lose-lose, the mantra of the stupid. We encountered ignorance and indifference where we thought we would receive support, especially from those purporting to have interest in the very thing we had found.  

Digger and I, sadly became better acquainted with a fuller (if not complete) understanding of the barriers presented against us. Academic prejudice was certainly a major hurdle, and it was certain if either of the referred scholars had mentored our discovery rather than dismissing it out-of-hand, we would not be campaigning. Perversely, these initial reviewing academics, if they had acted with integrity, would be anticipating significantly more benefit and prosperity than the censure that will come their way, in public reveal.

It was clear, however, beyond the academics’ foolish, short-sighted attitude, we had to come to terms with other irrational barriers just as deep-rooted and seemingly impossible to break down as the first. What is clear, these other barriers are built with similar components, and as such they have a common foundation and intrinsic connection. Ignorance, indifference, dogma, conceit and fear are just a few of the building blocks of the barriers we face. Some components are evident, while some are hidden, and as such we do not know if they exist at all or if they are simply projections of paranoia and conspiracy.

What is clear, these barriers do not diminish—they appear, like pernicious thorns cast by an evil sorcerer before us, in an attempt to maintain their unworthy hold over the public’s misunderstanding and prevent us from reaching public acceptance.

The Barriers

1. No Judicial Route to Authentication

As in art, refusal by a prime expert or institution to authenticate any new discovery or associated artefact has the drastic consequence of rendering that discovery hollow in the eyes of the public and the antiquities market. Even if the finder demonstrates extremely sound provenance, if the prime ‘perceived’ expert refuses to agree with the attribution, their opinion will make the artefact unsaleable, and the circumstances associated with it, untenable, even if the prime experts’ opinions are unsubstantiated. In some cases, as in the case of our discovery, there are no experts because there has been no scholarly focus on the subjects we cover. In such a case there can only be reliance on opinion and assessment of the discovery, in terms of scholarly cross-examination by leading academics in the general area of the subject. Frustratingly, as we demonstrate, academic bias dictates only research and discovery conducted by regarded scholars will be properly considered, and only then if it does not challenge another fellow antiquarian’s work, regardless of any demonstrable error by those antiquarians. Regardless how monumental, complete, evidenced and compelling a discovery is, no leading academic will agree with anyone outside their intellectual society. This tenet has been tested with over two hundred approaches to leading medieval history academics and their institutions world-wide and found to be true, universally accepted, and criticised.

The only other recognised route to authoritative authentication, outside specialist academic corroboration was Historic Environment Scotland (HES). The government’s heritage agency maintains the historic record of Holywood Church, which previously to our petition, included the identification of two sixteenth century bells taken from the former abbey as a point of ‘special interest’.

We challenged the property listing, so it would reflect a far more accurate understanding of the bells’ significance. Such fundamental comprehension of the bells as priceless Templar artefacts, dictating the extraordinary provenance of the site, would completely change the understanding of the origins of the former abbey, the bells, and existing church in terms of valuation and conservation. However, HES refused to acknowledge the Templar provenance, without reason for their denial. Instead, the agency only corrected their sixteenth century misattribution, misrepresenting all the existing narrative on the bells—all proposing dates, replacing it with an unqualified and ambiguous unattributable, ‘medieval period’ designation.

We raise the ridiculousness of HES’s behaviour, and the perversity pointed out by an archaeologist, the bells would have a far better chance for authentication (at least in terms of logical dating and sponsor’s attribution) if they had been found buried in ground, not attached to Holywood, treated as treasure trove, and evaluated free from any previous or HES’s biased reporting.

2. Academic prejudice

What we did not understand in 2021, is we had broken the cardinal rules of the history academic. We had stepped into a deeply prejudiced world, where those existing outside, regardless of acumen, professional status and merit did not count. A world where self-serving ego would prevent any kind of meaningful collaboration, even within their own kind. Our report would never be considered by any leading academic, especially as we had criticised their ‘go to’ scholarly publications—the root of their own understanding—built on the shoulders of Victorian speculation, and fossilised in the record, never to be challenged or audited, only referenced.

Frustratingly, dismissive academics had intentionally discounted any merit in our investigation, including the contribution of other academics, respected institutions, record and publication, simply to maintain the misunderstanding, because it was this misunderstanding that had fueled academic work. Annoyingly, other academics implied we should be sympathetic to the academics’ plight, in that they were simply defending previous scholarly works from being torn apart by our investigation. But what of the truth? Apparently, according to the many academics we interrogated, that did not matter, and with that we have illustration of the gross delinquency of the academic historians’ discipline.

What was originally perceived to be a science at the birth of historical studies within universities in the late nineteenth century, ie., the synthesis of fact to arrive at inarguable conclusion, became corrupted with the incorporation of social science; politics, economy, and culture within historiography. Critical thinking, despite it being lauded as a key discipline of the historian, took a back seat to the individual presentation of theory over fact and rigorous research.

3. Institutional Prejudice

Institutional prejudice is a common mindset exhibited amongst staff working in the public sector. Just as academics treat everyone outside their ‘intellectual credentials’ as vacuous, establishment bureaucrats treat the public as if they are ignorant, regardless of qualification and experience. If the bureaucrat’s competency is challenged by experience outside the establishment, humility not being a virtue within their spectrum, they will defend belligerence with obfuscation, refusing cogent response to any challenge they cannot counter.

Digger and I have spent over fifty years working in various public service organisations, at different managerial levels, in differing roles, forever encountering staff majority-think that the public are outsiders—an irritation to endure rather than oblige. The public sector’s greatest nemesis is the ‘public’ that challenges their authority, exposing a gross lack of excellence, integrity, prudence, diligence, and veracity, existing particularly within badly performing public sector departments, led by incompetent and unprofessional attitudes.

Digger’s academic credentials and experience teaching archaeology, as is my long professional experience in building surveying, conservation, historical research and systems analysis, are meaningless to the bureaucrat, because we are not a recognised part of their establishment. Our views are worthless, despite the obvious merit in our presentations.

For example, Dumfries and Galloway Council and Historic Environment Scotland emphasise prejudice, exhibited through its officers, by making the point the research, leading to the reveal of the bells’ Templar provenance, is our work. They make this point, not to clarify the source of the discovery, but to emphasise the bells’ Templar identification is not the establishment’s thinking. The institutions ignore our comprehensive evidence, compiled collaboratively with recognised scholars and their research, choosing instead, Historic Environment Scotland’s (the establishment’s) entirely subjective, amateurish and unevidenced opinion. These institutions deliberately malign the value of the work we present, without providing any justification for that denigration, choosing to replace fact and evidence with its own truancy of intellectual understanding, seeking hollow establishment credential over evidenced accomplishment.

The institutions transparent excuse for ignoring what is obvious is apparent in its replies, carrying no measure of integrity. This truancy of honesty is then underwritten by other parts of the establishment—in our case the Scottish government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA), who contributed a further absence of professional objectivity, in their supposed impartial review.

4. Scepticism

Any reveal of new Knights Templar history is going to hit an unavoidable barrier of scepticism. The history of the Templars has long ago entered popular culture, and with-it copious speculation, conspiracies and imaginings all tapping into a current and significant fan base. Opportunists exploit the lore of the Templars in media presentation, entertainment and in book, both adventure and new editions of Templar history, adding perhaps a differing subjective assessment, not always on new supportable evidence, but reinterpretation. Claims of satanic rituals, where the Templar treasure is buried, the Holy Grail hidden, attachment to Masonic conspiracies and Templar secret societies, all feature as ‘history’ presentation.

Thus, in superficial public consideration, we can easily understand why our case may be passed over without serious consideration and instead judged as two people presenting more speculative history. But without interrogating the facts, letting scepticism fuel our opinions, is holding on to ignorance, and in ignorance we do not understand, and without understanding our opinions are hollow and illusory.

Even some who have comprehensively interrogated our archaeological report and found nothing whatsoever to challenge the discovery, refrain from open and unequivocal support for the find. They accept we are not two fantasists who have travelled down the rabbit hole to find the Holy Grail or the treasure of the Templars. They admit we present nothing but evidence and fact, not opinion, that speaks for itself—yet some will not speak up on our behalf. Those who do, inevitably are met with a cynical response, particularly from academics, and so they retreat from supporting our cause, so those around them; their peers and mentors do not judge them foolish.

We can understand those sceptics who will not even examine our case, because it is not in their interest to do so. However, we cannot forgive sceptics who, through duty, are commissioned to look beyond their own prejudice and review the evidence as its presented. To do so and deny the evidence is not a demonstration of a sceptic, but a bigot, and they have no place in either education or heritage understanding and conservation.

Scepticism is indeed a powerful barrier. Every time I see a news article concerning our bells, with the editorial declaring, ‘the owners believe the bells are linked to the Knights Templar’, even I want to roll my eyes in pity for the two deluded fools. We have been gas-lighted by the establishment so maliciously to the point, we continually feel the need to review our evidence—to challenge our research to make sure nothing is based on ‘wishful’ interpretation. However, there is no doubt in our discovery, no hole for sceptics to exploit. There is only the frustration of two people who wished they had not bought Holywood Church, found misbehaviour presented in a woeful catalogue of misplay, and with other choices made, would be on course to have the home together they planned.

5. Fossilization of the historical record

The Victorians were the last ‘public’ having the opportunity to shape the officially accepted local historical record of the built environment and artefacts contained within government database, museums, libraries and local archive. Much of the narrative you read about objects and places were created on the shoulders of Victorian supposition, opinion and their interpretation of ancient documents—many of those original documents sadly lost or misplaced. The Victorians were constrained by the period in which they lived, with a lack of ready access to other historians’ research and opinion. Therefore, many Victorians’ theories were based on singular thought without collaboration and research.

The route to acceptance of their theories was through publication by their antiquarian societies, and it was very much their status within their societies, rather than evidenced merited study that ensured their views were accepted. James Barbour, fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and vice chair of the local antiquarian society is a good example of a vociferous and prolific amateur historian and archaeologist, who presented his theory on the Holywood bells, without presenting an objective study—his thoughts being accepted without question or challenge by his society, despite it clearly presenting many issues and deficiencies of understanding he did not address.

These accepted publications and understandings by amateur/historical society-based, non-academic historians filled newly created academic libraries, both heavily influencing and forming the basis of emerging academic historical studies in the late nineteenth century.

With over one hundred years of academic labour, mostly concerning wider areas of consideration, but built on the shoulders of this flawed, fossilised Victorian narrative, academia is understandably (but unforgivably) reluctant to support any discovery highlighting the significant delinquency of their discipline. Their understanding built on Victorian theory rather than scholarly deep-dive objective research, denigrates the substance of their understanding in comparison to other scientific disciplines. This coupled with the fact, since the creation of the academic discipline of historical study, only academic work is now entered into the academics’ library, or understanding, it means any new thought or research made outside their discipline, or their regard, is excluded from consideration, regardless of merit. Thus, where a Victorian’s amateurish derived theory set over one hundred years ago is accepted by academics as competent understanding, modern, proficient, comprehensive and collaborative research, made by those academia deem outside the academic class, is not.

6. Groupthink

Groupthink is a significant psychological phenomenon which adversely affects any sound altruistic and beneficial decision making. It is groupthink and not reason; logic, munificence, or the application of personal intellectual authority that has much to do with the ills of society today, as influencers within society cling to the imaginings of others, within a need for acceptance of that peer group. Groupthinkers,

• prioritise consensus and harmony over critical evaluation, which leads to poor and irrational consensual decision-making, fearing conflict or disapproval;

• fail to critically examine alternatives or consider potential consequences, leading to a false sense of agreement and reality;

• do not upset the status quo of any groupthink’s prevailing thought, regardless of any absence of logic;

• unable to present cogent arguments for any poor logic, groupthinkers, as a defence against those offering valid counter opinion outside their own, can only retaliate with silence or ignorance, or in extreme cases, slur and threat;

• often have a lack of skill set, a truancy of cognitive reality, and lack the diversity of viewpoints needed for thorough evaluation;

• placed in positions of authority, they will inevitably influence outcomes much to the detriment of good sense, oblivious to the consequences of their actions;

• fears censorship or ‘ridicule’ from their adoptive ‘group’, more than any discredit they will ultimately have to endure in the case of failure of their opinions and behaviour.

In our particular case, ie., our objective historical enquiry and its consideration of the truancy of past theory, groupthink’s adverse effects extend beyond general academic conceit of its own intellectual worth and opinion, onto any management group academia directly influences. The group, in this case are those influenced and supported by, or working with, the heritage/history sector at different levels within different purposes. It is obvious many, including professional academic historians, accept our discovery. Many have expressed sympathy with our case. Regrettably, those relying on support and employment within any groupthink orientated activity, do not want to break rank and publicly support the merit of our investigation, for both the censure it will bring them, and humiliation it will bring to their clique.

7. Location

The sustainability of heritage is most successful in communities where there is a strong local commitment to the area’s legacy and history, existent in its record, legend, heroes, buildings and remains. Commitment, not necessarily through ancestral roots or birthright, but by those with a keen interest in their current environment beyond personal, property and familial boundaries.

Learning gathered from interviews and interactions with the local and wider Dumfries community and former community leads, it became evident the closure, disuse and disposal of Holywood Church was not only due to a falling local congregation, but also a lack of interest and commitment to understanding and celebrating the area’s heritage. Holywood Church, the oldest significant publicly accessible Georgian remnant in the area, and the site of a former medieval abbey had little value to the community, few visitors, and an appreciable lack of concern for its future—an attitude disappointingly exhibited throughout Dumfries and the region beyond, illustrated by the behaviours of politicians, Gallovidians, local and national Scottish history/preservation societies, and Historic Environment Scotland.

We doubt the church bells’ 1898 re-interpretation by James Barbour, dismissing the original hundred-year-old record and challenged by a 1911 government audit (published 1920), would have been allowed to endure if there was strong local partisan interest in the church, its bells, and the site’s archaeology/history, regardless of Barbour’s standing in local society.

The disinterest in defending the site’s heritage and antiquarian record had been long standing, replete with undocumented or poorly chronicled removal of archaeology, ancient record and antiquities from the site—lost into private ownership. Physical archaeological record was less than comprehensive, evidenced by the scant remains maintained in the local museum, or declared by the Church of Scotland. Much that was unearthed was handed over to local landowners, without proper recording, only to be ‘lost’ to further enquiry or inspection.

With a lack of community interest, we have no local support—no voice greater than our own. Local politicians have ignored the issues we present, and whereas we can be sympathetic with those who may feel they have greater concerns than local heritage protection, they should not be surprised when heritage sites in the area struggle.

The local community will have no grounds for complaint when those who have taken on the role of heritage protection are critical of local attitude. They should be mindful, that we, once supportive of retention of the bells on the site, are now unsupportive when singular local voices complain about removal of the site’s history. The fact is we can count only two local people (outside bureaucracy) that have raised the issue in four years of campaign. None understood the provenance of the bells. Removal is because of need—a result of community apathy towards understanding, protecting, sustaining and maintaining the area’s history in the first instance.

We wonder if the church and its bells were located in another part of the UK, if the bells would have been recognised long before, and the site protected. Without data and only conjecture, we can only offer the suggestion.

8. Indolence, Indifference and Ignorance

We have grouped these obstructive behaviours in recognition of the significant number of non-replies to our innumerable petitions made over the years, from organisations and individuals who by their published remit should have a strong interest in our case. Without engagement, we cannot assign a reason for non-response, but we can state their lack of decorum in their failure to even acknowledge our petitions is telling—and disappointing.

These organisations and individuals’ influence would have made a significant difference in circumventing the problems we were having with bureaucratic and academic obstruction, so it was very disappointing for them to ignore our petitions, particularly as our discovery directly affected them, and in any future review they would perhaps receive censure for their abstention, regardless whether it was down to an indolent attitude to reviewing our discovery, disinterest in our case, or ignorance to our petition due to administration failure, ie., referral.

There were those that did respond—undertaking a promise to consider our case but did not follow up on promises made, so again we cannot assign a reason for their abstention. We appreciate we offered a lot of information for them to consider, but in many cases our petition presented tangible profit for their engagement. Again, these organisations demonstrated a lack of honesty, professionalism and basic decorum in their failure to follow up on promises made, leading to our poor perception of both their organisation and its integrity.

We do not want to single out organisations for their abstention, but as an example, it was particularly disappointing to have those international organisations purposely interested in Templar history, those who recognised the flaws in existing understanding, fail to follow up with any further view, comment or engagement, beyond initial confirmation and reported interest in our petition. We have to report, the only Templar organisation that did not respond, was based in Scotland.

It must be said, although reluctantly, there was disproportionate ignorance displayed by Scottish institution, rather than from those based outside Scotland. Whereas we accepted our case probably did not come before those who could (or wanted to) help, or that initial scepticism could only be overcome by full and objective consideration of the evidence contained within our comprehensive archaeological report, we still cannot but condemn indolent, indifferent and ignorant behaviour, particularly when it concerned historical artefacts and a discovery of national importance, that will eventually make considerable news, identifying the poor behaviours of those who failed due prudence.

9. Legacy

With innate and inherited problems, often created over decades, such as the fossilisation of the historic record, it is often easier for institutions to accept and manage the problem rather than resolve it. The heritage sector and academia are well aware of the deficiencies of the historic record—not necessarily the absence of contemporary narrative and evidence but published (and accepted) understanding created through misinterpretation created over one hundred years ago by subjective historian theory rather than evidenced research. This misinterpretation has fueled narrative for over a hundred years, and so dismantlement would in fact negate a significant amount of scholarly work already created, bringing other content within those works into potential disrepute.

This is why many academics advised us to reframe our work in the terms of ‘possibility’ rather than offer direct challenge to the deficiencies of Victorian thought, informing the traditional academic view. Thus, in consideration of academic sensibility, we were not seen to be condemning previous work, only offering an alternate theory. However, what we present by our research is not theory but fact that presents one inarguable conclusion. Unless academia can provide evidenced consensus we are mistaken, then the truth should be recognised, even if it challenges former publication and understanding. This is the fundamental basis of learning—to challenge and to understand with erudition and not echoing unproven thought.

We believe this may be one of the reasons HES and National Museums Scotland, for instance, have refused to acknowledge our discovery, despite these organisations clearly unable to dismiss our conclusions on evidenced grounds—because it may open the flood gates to challenge to the deficiencies in the historical record maintained by these academically sourced organisations.

Instigating substantial improvement to historical understanding is a huge commitment in terms of manpower, skills-setting and cost. Unless there is commitment, such gross improvement to the record, with inaccuracies inherent for over one hundred years fostered by academia, is a problem difficult to resolve, without bringing academia into disrepute. Successful audit is unlikely because the objective skill set needed to challenge the record does not exist, and we can point to academia and the professional history sector for this deficiency. As laymen, outside the academic society, we must challenge the validity of a discipline seeking to maintain falsehood to justify any work built upon it.

The ethics of deliberately maintaining misunderstanding is questionable, regardless of the academics’ pleas, particularly as the deficiencies of the current record are recognised by the Scottish government in their heritage policies, with a commitment by its appointed agency to improve our understanding. However, the Scottish government’s commitment appears to be rather hollow when presented with the facts of our case and our discovery, which would be a significant coup for the nation, not only in terms of historical understanding, but revenue creation.

It may have been a different matter if our discovery was a minor correction to an existing historical misunderstanding. However what we present is an extremely significant re-discovery, and as such denial for the sake of preserving existing legacy understanding is a serious breach of public trust.

10. The False Door

Some barriers are camouflaged—open doors inviting the public and heritage keepers in, to provide assistance and to ensure our understanding of heritage is properly recorded and utilised for the conservation of heritage. But these open doors lead only to barriers of insincerity and artifice—bureaucratic misdemeanour and obstruction.

In 2021, we opened a public door to Historic Environment Scotland (HES), a government agency purposed to deliver the government’s heritage policy. Instead of welcome, we expended three years trying to open the next door, asking for help and receiving nothing but obstruction and thinly veiled avoidance.

The Scottish government’s Historical Environment Policy is clear and unequivocal; it supports the inclusive understanding of heritage and everyone’s contribution to that understanding. HES mirror the government’s intent by declaring itself its lead agency for the improvement of everyone’s involvement and comprehension of the nation’s history.

So why was our contribution ignored? Well not completely disregarded, because following the agency’s evaluation of our archaeological report, its misrepresentation of the age of the bells was corrected, but not to the twelfth century we and previous declarations reported but instead given an unqualified ambiguous ‘medieval period’ dating categorisation, which did not appear in any previous inspection narrative. HES then used this argument to declare they did not conflict with our report, preferring to ignore the bells’ extraordinary attribution. The agency failed to mentor our discovery in any way or present any argument to disavow our conclusion. The potential barriers behind HES’s false door are considered elsewhere in this article, and so we can only offer conjecture why we were cancelled.

11. A Lack of Professional Behaviour

There is a lack of professional behaviour underpinning academic and institutional prejudice. We illustrate, through an uncharacteristic thorough examination of two artefacts, significant shortcomings of the historical narrative of the Holywood Church site, created over one hundred years ago. Our research illustrates multiple errors in past understanding due to the employment of personal conjecture over collaborative and comprehensive investigation.

Typically, where contemporary information is scant or absent, historical understanding is formed from superficial consideration and opinion, endorsed by the qualification of the narrator’s status within either their historical societies or academic qualification—not expertise, detailed analysis, or investigation. Subsequent scholarly work is built upon this flawed understanding, with scholars and historians plagiarising former academic recognised work as the basis of their own understanding, adding further opinion rather than offer comprehensive original research and thorough objective review of former interpretation and supposition.

This subjective behaviour, rather than thorough objective research—a lack of systematic and professional discipline, exists within many historians and those educated through the Humanities. Despite the aim to provide scholarly discipline to the study of history, academia has fallen short of promoting collaborative research and challenge to what has always been flawed past narratives to suit misinformation promoted by political, regnal and religious ideology rather than unbiased truth.

Academia’s lack of professional standards with regards to objective behaviour was ably demonstrated by the 2001 legal case; Irving v Lipstadt/Penguin Books, centered on determining the quality of a respected historian, David Irving’s historiography. It was left to the judiciary considering the case to formulate a professional and objective standard to qualify the eligibility of any history professional witness statement. Unfortunately, this standard has never been adopted by the Humanities (history-centered study) which remains primarily subjective-based learning.

Academia (the Humanities) do not want to publicly admit there is this lack of coherent or professional standard within their discipline, particularly when it comes to auditing any delinquency of understanding, so instead they either avoid, deny, obfuscate, or in some instances lie, rather than support genuine discovery based on challenge, fact and objective analysis, regardless from where it originates.

12. Jealousy

Jealousy is a very destructive and powerful emotion. It creates an environment of denial and derision when one group covets the success of another. It is often not deliberate behaviour, it has no logic, no reason—it is a consequence of being human, hence why warning against this very destructive human nature features so strongly in the Bible, eg., Proverbs 27:4 - Wrath is cruel, anger is overwhelming, but who can stand before jealousy?

In our case, we seem to have lost support of those working in the archaeological field, whose friendship and mentorship long pre-dated our discovery. Where their voice in support could have helped, even delivered our discovery into public acceptance, their silence has been ‘deafening’. Similarly, influential reviewers who agreed with our conclusions, but the discovery perhaps belittled their own contribution to issues surrounding our find, have been less than vociferous or magnanimous with regards to helping us realise the truth. One Christian minister, originally supportive, was more intent on broadcasting his own efforts to save the bells than support our own labours. A historian/collector, who agreed with our investigation’s conclusion, chose to demean the bells’ value, because it perhaps belittled his own collection of Templar artefacts, and his own opinions on why such artefact is scarce. Academics decried any obvious merit in our investigation, even lying to further denial. They could not bear to acknowledge any quality in our examination, outside it being ‘neatly presented’, or unable to find worthy criticism, pointed out grammatical deficiencies instead.

13. Disturbing the Status Quo

High-pressure situations, such as significant work turnover, time constraint, and a lack of prevailing acumen or skill-set or acute decision making, can intensify the desire for quick consensus, rather than add any complication brought about by a serious challenge to ‘operational soundness’.

To employees lost in the bureaucratic machine, it is often far easier in the short-term to ignore credible challenge than seek to resolve it beneficially, sweeping the issue aside in the hope the ‘problem’ will move on from their watch. It is an indolent strategy Digger and I have encountered repeatedly in our time in public service management.

Our discovery, coming from outside academia and the establishment, involving contentious Templar history, debunking the source information forming the building listing record, illustrates not an aberrant case, but a widespread problem created by a fossilised record, and a legacy of superficial consideration, rather than deep dive research. Routine low level institutional consideration is not conditioned to deal with wider problems, only processing issues put before them on a case-by case basis. We present issues beyond the capacity of many public-service officers, instead a consideration for management, with far reaching implications to their service delivery. However, there is and always has been a tendency for time-pressured managers to bury their head in the sand, hoping the issues presented to them, challenging their own critical understanding and the value of their existence, will pass to another, at another time.

14. Fear

Fear of change. Fear of challenge. Fear of being found out. The greatest danger to the specialist’s self-esteem, is new discovery challenging what the expert currently understands or what they have previously reported. Experts often rely on conjecture rather than fact, and in the absence of challenge or any consensus, they can escape contest, impressing the layman with their ‘knowledge’, but not if a credible understanding is presented to counter their previous estimations, ie., any evidenced demonstration of a hole in their expertise.

Often, with no one around able to challenge their competence, they can offer opinion without the need to back it up with evidence. We have had many perceived ‘experts’ offer opinion on subjects of which they clearly do not have full and insightful understanding. Early bell archaeology, medieval epigraphy, the founding establishment of the Templar caste, the nature of noble and the lower ranks of medieval secular clergy, are all subjects short on comprehensive scholarly understanding, yet we appear to have ‘experts’ able to counter our research, with their ‘learned’ opinion.

We tend to trust the specialist, particularly if they possess qualification or status within their peer group. However, in subjects with significant scope, such as the expansive medieval era, with a lack of data, confirmable narrative and record, or material understanding, academic historians and archaeologists often present subjective opinion, even in preference to other academics and archaeologists’ robust and evidenced research.

These experts invariably fail to engage in debate when their opinion is challenged by evidence. They retreat into silence, as was the case with the two referred academics who initially reviewed our study—as was the case with every self-declared ‘expert’ we presented with a conundrum or reinterpretation they could not answer without descending into implausibility—or experts faced with our erudite solutions to interpretations, retreating from previous collaboration with us because they could not answer with any kind of cogent argument, why they may be so wrong in their own initial interpretation or estimation.

15. Outlanders

An entrenched historical legacy exists, inherent to the human condition—the clan. In any political or nationalistic call for social unity, regardless of creed and culture, the tribal nature of groups of individuals connected by legacy and neighbourhood is a factor political intent will never subjugate. Scotland for instance is the sum of many parts. Hebrideans will never see themselves as Gallovidians, or Highlanders see themselves as comparable to Lowlanders. Although tolerance and friendliness exist between neighbours, regardless of origins, and there will be an acceptance of a national identity, there will always be underlying division and even distrust between those with differing cultural and regional backgrounds.

We have been informed by those working within the community sector, our ‘foreign’ presence and find is perhaps uncomfortable, because it ruffles the feathers of locally born residents, as well as local historians and professionals with generations of personal investment into their territory. We are seen by some as an irritation to local sensitivity. It is irksome for us to point out what they have failed to understand, particularly as it is, as one local commentator put it, ‘a big deal’.

There is no research found to backup what can only be judged as hearsay without proof and evidence. However, resistance to outside challenge is a condition in the local area, that can be confirmed by the author’s own previous experience of working in the region. In 2004-5, the author and his former employer, both value and lean management and maintenance service specialists, were invited into the area by the local college, social services, suppliers, and the main social housing provider, to resolve a significant local service deficiency. Subsequently, a significant improvement and employment initiative was delivered, and proven immensely successful. However, long-term delivery was cancelled by covert pressure placed on the initiative’s employers. Local organisations, companies, and training organisations, seeing their capability and value challenged by ‘outlanders’—despite the huge benefits to disabled groups, trade shortage and local employment, complained and lobbied to have future contracts denied. This partisan, negative attitude to challenge and improvement by local agencies and sensitivities was cited for persistent service shortcomings, which was resolved in 2005, yet now persists in 2025. At the time, the local college cited a lack of humility, awareness and a resistance to change and external involvement—contributing factors why the area often is presented with a negative reputation.

16. Ethical Ideology

This barrier is highly relevant in today’s politically and ideologically charged society where it seems you are judged either left or right wing, and no middle ground seems acceptable. Our narrative exposes two bells cast in a time of aggressive conflict between Christian and Muslim nations over the Holy Land, as well as European land grabs and conflict over religious autonomy. The bells were cast, sponsored by a Christian knight who embraced the classical sense of stoic hegemonic masculinity. After reading hundreds of thousands of words in treaties and thesis about medieval masculinity within historical, gender and women studies in context of the medieval period; classical masculinity and Christian-based colonialism is often portrayed as a toxic concept, taught to significant parts of today’s educated society. It follows, any academic-educated bureaucrat or critic who is influenced by gender theories and anti-masculine, anti-Christian rhetoric or arguments directed against European colonisation, would be less than objective or ‘excited’ by our discovery.

17. The Legacy Media

Traditional legacy media has proved a poor outlet for our discovery. After four years of contacting newspapers, journalists, both local and national, coverage has been trite and unproductive. There has been no investigative journalistic consideration of our case, and when featured, it has only been in relation to governmental planning appeal—news ‘filler’ more than journalistic exposé.

18. Failure to Audit

The danger to the robustness of any intricate, multi-faceted human derived system of understanding, is both a failure to audit and to make correction when audit reveals observable and demonstrable failure.

Digger and I did not discover ‘new’ history, we only return to public understanding what was lost in the nineteenth century, through a singular flawed, superficial 1898 review of the bells and their history, and subsequent error to follow through by the last government audit in 1911, which failed to counter the fundamental flaws it had discovered in the understanding created by the previous appraisal.

We carried out both an audit on the bells and followed through on the errors we found. However, our audit has been discounted, because we are deemed by the government’s agencies and academia as not qualified to audit the bells, despite presenting a peerless evidenced understanding, demonstrating our competences.

Our audit has been discounted, not because the government and academic evaluation of our assessment reveal it discountable because of a lack of competence and evidence, but because we are deemed by these bodies as not credentialed rather than intellectually qualified. However, it is clear both all ‘credentialed’ inspections carried out on the bells in the last one-hundred-and-twenty years, were carried out by individuals who were not intellectually qualified—hence their failure to see the obvious and interpret with robustness, instead of ill-informed conjecture, ignorance and contrivance.

James Barbour’s 1898 misinterpretation of the bells was not the problem, but more so the reaction to it in later government audit and the academic acceptance of Barbour’s obvious flawed inspection in the hundred years since doubt was raised. The misinterpretation of Barbour was allowed credibility because of Holywood’s ‘lost’ history, exacerbated by indifference to the site, not only by the site’s keepers, the Church of Scotland, but by academia and the local community.

Renowned bell archaeologist, Ranald Clouston, ensured his 1993 report on the condition of the Holywood bells, reiterated the interpretation of the inscription on the bells was not his, but the government’s (RCAHMS). In 2009 when argument was raised the bells were far older than recorded, the complaint was ignored by both the church keepers (the Church of Scotland) and the local council. In 2021, we faced the same indifference, despite presenting a peerless inspection and consideration, not only of the bells’ engraving but the sponsor’s legend—all which restored the original eighteenth century understanding of the site and its bells.

We can forgive past misinterpretations made in superficial consideration. Such behaviour is inevitable when comprehensive knowledge, time, experience and skill set are absent. But we should not forgive the establishment, made aware of the error, who evaluates it and purposefully does nothing to correct it. Such action is a serious breach of the very intention of Government policy and law governing the understanding and protection of heritage.

Following every petition made to government agencies to review and amend a significant understanding of the site of Holywood and its bells, not a single argument has been offered to counter our discovery. Instead, what has been made clear by the establishment is the discovery is not as important as the establishment’s own (and delinquent) understanding and management of heritage.

We illustrate the gross deficiency of one single entry in the 1911 government audit. It would be unrealistic to treat the auditor’s failure in assessment of the Holywood bells as uncharacteristic in an otherwise overall proficient exercise.

A new audit of the Scotland’s historic environment is long overdue (last undertaken more than one hundred years ago). However, we doubt there is sufficient skilled resource available to carry out any objective review. Thus, it is extremely frustrating when HES, do not even appreciate or treat external audit appropriately when it is offered, even by members of the public. But considering HES have failed to maintain any comprehensive audit on the heritage at risk in Scotland (see article; Historic Environment Scotland-A Malignant Caretaker) , we only present further evidence of governance that fails to deliver value to the nation's heritage.

19. Peer Review

It was suggested in 2021; to circumvent academic prejudice we should publish a pared down archaeological report in a peer review journal, such as published by the local antiquarian society.

After careful consideration and further consultation with society members, this route to authentication was eliminated. It was reasoned, the article may indeed produce debate and even interest within society membership, but was unlikely to enter public consumption, nor academic consideration. Even within the antiquarian society, similar barriers of prejudice were predicted, with many members not choosing to interrogate the full report past the pared down article—preferring to contribute bias opinion, fuelled by the various reasons cited in this article. Also, if the two most referred internationally recognised specialists did not offer objective argument in debate, and support for our case, what was the antiquarian society going to add, even if it agreed, other than unqualified opinion rather than credentialled evaluation?

Since academia no longer builds its understanding from antiquarian society papers, then our discovery, at best, would be viewed in peer review, as a possibility not a reality.

20. The Scottish Church

In our attempt to secure the opportunity for the bells to be displayed in Scotland, eg., a Scottish museum or another Scottish church, recognised for their unique provenance, we hoped we could rely on the prudence, justice and care of the Christian Church in support to break down the dissolute barriers presented against us.

With one of the finders a professed Christian, a desire existed to see the bells have opportunity to ring out over a Christian community, like they had done for nearly nine hundred years. Keeping these unique and priceless bells locked away in a dilapidated building, destined not to be a private house development (as planned) was abhorrent. Presentation on site was impossible, unless a new developer could be found prepared to spend millions to develop the church appropriately to its archaeology. All professional commercial and heritage advice dictated any purchaser would remove the bells, because that is where the value lay. It brought the realisation the bells’ nine-hundred-year presence on the site would need to end, as retention was impractical due to the bells’ value. It was also clear, in terms of the bells’ spiritual heritage, without any dedicated religious convent or community remaining in Holywood, their job was done within this location—the bells needed to find a new keeper.

However, in continuation of the Church of Scotland’s disinterest in the Holywood bells, we received no help from the bells’ former keeper. We also petitioned the Catholic Church in Scotland and the Vatican, as the bells were part of their heritage. In appreciation of the bells’ origins, purpose and founder, we offered to share the benefit of the discovery with these organisations. Shamefully, we did not receive the courtesy of consideration. Instead, we met another unbelievable obstacle—ignorance, deceit and apathy—an indifferent attitude to the celebration and conservation of Christian heritage. Added, was the Church’s rejection of the trial of two people. The Church of Scotland simply reinforced its woeful attitude of deceit and negligence with regards to its disposal of the former church, aware of its catastrophic problems due to its interred archaeology. The Catholic Church also ignored our repeated petitions, without even a single acknowledgement.

This barrier of indifference presented by the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Catholic Church, illustrated by their dismissive and careless attitude to the disposal and treatment of the bells, is a sad reflection of the region’s lack of concern for its Christian heritage and the failure of the country’s principal state recognised Church institutions to ensure the sustainability of a nation’s spiritual and moral adherence in the third millennium. There seems to be little action to fortify the public’s understanding of its society’s Christian foundation, and the handover of religious heritage to new generations. Redundant churches are increasing at an alarming rate, their disposal becoming no more than a development and planning problem to solve, protected by law, and dispassionately administered by uncaring, indolent and unimaginative bureaucrats.

Adhering to cardinal virtues, Christian organisations should set the benchmark for integrity, providence, understanding and benefaction to the wider community as well as the Christian family. They have no excuse for failing to deliver these fundamental values.

Regardless if we are qualified to judge the Church of Scotland or the Catholic Church as Christian safekeepers, in context of the bells and parish of Holywood, it is clear the Scottish institutional Church long ago became unworthy of their keep and their discovery. The state-recognised Holy Church has abandoned its foundational beliefs, allowing malignancy to corrupt the moral, prudent, merit worthy and selfless foundation of Scottish society—the malignancy obstructing the truth of the Bells of Holywood being celebrated in Scotland—and so perhaps the Church presents the greatest moral barrier of them all.

21. Deep-hidden Barriers

With the precise nature of barriers often difficult to discern, and reasons for rejection never explicit, we are often left with questions more than specific motives.

It would be an entirely different situation if we presented doubt. With uncertainty, it would be understandable for people and institutions to be wary of expending any effort in assistance. But we only present facts, logic, and a web of circumstance that arrives conclusively to only one compelling interpretation. We do not present understanding free from logic, clarity, evidence, or counter any former credible and rigorously informed understanding. We only add detail to what was already understood at the turn of the eighteenth century.

If you read the interactions between ourselves and the government’s agents; HES, National Museums Scotland, the local council and the critiquing academics, you will see a huge imbalance of credibility in terms of wishing to understand the bells’ provenance. The establishment avoid it, without offering any supportable denial, or any rational concern for what the discovery means, not only for us, but for a significant enlightenment of history, a solution for the conservation of Holywood Church, tourism enhancement, and to Scotland in terms of repute and income generation. It is these facts of the matter that presents incredulity far beyond any cogent reason, including prejudice.

In our mission to understand the environment around our discovery, we have encountered many inside commentators—those who work with the very establishments obstructing our find. In certain cases, these third parties offer conspiracy rather than hard provable reasoning. More than one suggestion has been made, the deliberate denial of our find is because of what it represents to some sections of the public. Intelligences offered to us by those with insight into the internal machinations of the establishment, including the Church, alluded to ‘religious and nationalist sensitivities’ and as such, ‘celebration’ of Templar history could be seen as ‘problematic’.

We are doubtful such strategic common denial is a prime issue, particularly as discord came at such an early stage in our petitions. We question the probability, leaders with oversight of institutions such as HES and National Museums Scotland, as well as managing officers within, would all conspire so uniformly to deny our discovery on ‘religious grounds’. Without written evidence, such as policy confirmation, we cannot ratify these intelligences as anything other than hearsay, but the reports are not far removed from an increasing imbalance of even-handed behaviour in the UK, particularly Scotland, with regards to any sort of celebration of Christian heritage.

The council’s historical dismissal of the importance of the bells, the government’s lack of concern for the benefit the discovery will generate, even when faced with the same evidence everyone outside governance and biased academia sees as compelling, are mysteries we can never define with absolute confidence, without deep and infallible interrogation of the suspects.

There are unmistakable opaque forces working in UK politics and society we cannot ignore. Politics and secular ideologies, founded in academia, now influence state governance rather than the Christian Church with its fundamental moral foundation—a contrary position to what existed in the UK for over a thousand years. Cultural heritage, and in particular Christian heritage are not a priority or even desirable within some facets of political or academic thought and progressive ideology. Whereas this should have no bearing on the maintenance of historical artefact and a true historical record, heritage perhaps has increasingly become a game played by politicos and revisionists to suit a prejudiced social-political agenda rather than the impartial and dedicated preservation of a nation’s past.

We are still left with questions why the establishment, not denying what is demonstrated with evidence as a genuine discovery would purposefully refuse any help to see it saved for the nation. We have laid out several barriers why this may be so, but in broader terms the establishment’s reaction could be part of a larger problem that exists, currently steering western civilisation, repealing its former contribution to global human existence, mostly conducted under Christian ideology and imperialism.

It may be we are looking for intelligent reasons why there is no strategic or intellectual foundation for denial of our discovery, but in reality we are simply facing defining negative doctrines of bureaucracy and academia—organisations filled with self-service and mediocrity rather than talent, operating under doctrines of incompetence, prejudice, indolence, ignorance, arrogance and indifference.

There is also the posibillity of a higher power at play, both leading us to the discovery and obstructing its reveal. It was a discussion I had with a senior cleric within the Catholic Church; an agent of the Vatican. A discussion generated from an earnest spiritual consideration, fostered by my own incredulity that somehow I, a Christian, would find myself at the doors of a dilapadated church in Scotland, with a uniquely and perversely derived skillset, to find the only provenanced Templar artefacts in the world. Was it only coincidence that my ancestery, traceable back to a French knight, Henri de Huecon, was a vassal knight to Guarin le Riche, the grandfather of William le Riche, the bells' sponsor. Was God's hand at play, I asked, and if so, why was I having such a hard time bringing the find into the public record. 'Timing', was the reply.

22. Systems Collapse

Many of the obstacles we face obtaining authoritative authentication of our discovery are a combination of varying hidden attitudes and behaviour, rather than openly professed and regulated practice. The barriers we face are not always tangible, set by historical conduct, but instead underpinned by irrational changes in societal attitude—the erosion of common sense, accelerated by the abandonment of Christian-inspired morality; basic concepts of integrity, constancy, fairness and diligence, as well as the rejection of patriotism and its unwavering protection of a nation’s heritage and culture.

We present a question, would we have faced the same obstruction to our discovery, if it were made, say thirty or forty years ago? We still propose location is a deciding factor, and the decline of, and interest in, heritage in the region has been decades in the making, but there is argument supporting the fact attitudes to merit, as well as ancestral culture and heritage are certainly in decline.

There is an undeniable universal failure to adhere to empiricism and meritocracy within UK governance, establishment administration and education. Unless one subscribes to a replacement mindset, it is difficult to see the logic in many new behaviours, particular in respect to critical thinking and predictive intelligence—benchmarks, not of intellectual reasoning, but wisdom. Instead, theology, pragmatism and meritocracy have been given over to secular ‘intellectual’ ideologies—producing conflicting societal dogma, free of common ground. Thus, division in society exists, as it always has, with class distinction and its associated partisan leanings, being replaced with political and intellectual discrimination, with evidently more vehemence and antagonism, and overtly harmful disruption to a unified state.

Many intellectuals cite the current situation as ‘extreme’, with some historians considering the current behaviours of society as recognition of systems collapse—a situation contributing to the implosion of many former intricate ancient civilisations. It is cited, much of new destructive socio-political dogma and any associated idiocrasy, is mentored by intellectual theory promoted by the humanities, which includes historical studies. This wave of new education has influenced and even corrupted (depending on your own point of view) new generations of ‘thinkers’, who choose to deny or interpret the past as it chooses, to fuel both progressive ideologies and any associated bias.

Outside all the current rhetoric, as one side condemns another, within Digger and I’s lifetimes, we personally have witnessed a palpable disappearance of merit in the operational intricacies of the establishment in terms of management, value, integrity, humility and governance. Increasingly, sound delivery has been replaced, not with improvement and benefit, but alternative concept and agenda—actions without providing any meaningful audit or benefits’ analysis to test both their operational and philanthropic value.

Integrity, prudence and professionalism has been swapped out with artifice, foolishness and ineptitude designed to serve prevailing ideologies, rather than benefit and service to the general public. Influenced by ideologies, promoted by conceited intellectual thought rather than rational education, the establishment is now grossly staffed by those who are often ill-suited to objective and munificent public service, but instead heavily constrained by groupthink and institutional prejudice, regardless of their personal view.

Our case is further illustration where integrity, humility and merit has been replaced with illogicality due to arrogance and the refusal to deal with, not only a different point of view, but the truth presented, not by recognised credentialled opinion, but by rational and merited investigation, logic, mathematical probability and objective observation. We have produced a peerless understanding of two bells, and a meritorious scholarly treatise to explain their origins, and despite absolutely no supportable and intelligent counterargument to our significant discovery, we are left fighting to bring profit to the nation—fighting those very organisations tasked to benefit and educate the state.

There has always been debate and challenge about the differences between the performance of the private sector against the public sector. Incompetence, tardiness, and questionable professional behaviours of officers outside the rigours of enforceable professional conduct and accountability all contribute to the display of bureaucratic failure, and it appears we are illustrating how heritage management is suffering along with every other aspect of UK governance.

23. Developing of the site without authentication

There are many historical attractions that do not rely on official recognition of the site’s history. We have been referred by commentators to several private museums and ventures, as examples of alternatives to communicating the site’s history to the public, thus circumventing dogmatic barriers of academic and institutional ignorance.

This of course, is reliant on a workable business plan, which we are advised by specialists there is none. The site offers little attraction other than the bells and any potential attending finds found in successive archaeological exercises. The cost of archaeological exploration and rehabilitation of the church as a publicly accessible museum to hold the bells would be at least six million pounds, and as such would require considerable third-party investment. Any such investment would need to buy into the bells’ Templar provenance, with redevelopment as a public attraction requiring cooperation from the local authority and local landowners, as the church has no outside space of its own. However, in terms of commercial reality, the bells would generate far more income by being sold to a museum or collector in the short term than would ever be realised by paying visitors to an attraction in the long term.

The site does not present a workable infrastructure for visitors. There is no public interest, nor community commitment to the site, and no interest shown by the local authority who maintains the surrounding graveyards and access. Insurances would prohibit the bells from being stored on site, and so replica bells would have to be displayed.

We purchased Holywood Church as a potential home. However, with minimum development costs approaching two million pounds, and quiet enjoyment denied, as well as the significant security concerns the bells present, any ‘home’ plan is untenable.

We have absolutely no interest in creating a museum, especially in the challenging commercial environment of Dumfries and Galloway. Thus, we would need to sell the church to a new developer, and to do so, we need to assign a property valuation. Thus, we are back to the fundamental requirement of authoritative authentication for both the bells and the site.

24. Self-Built Barriers—the Tribulations of Promotion

Whereas we were ably equipped to make the discovery, we are ill-equipped to promote it. We have no institutional influence, financial resources, or social following to employ as promotional tools. We are extremely shy of self-promotion, preferring quarantine from common societal behaviour, particularly social media.

There is a balance to strike between public exposure and maintaining privacy, and there is no doubt the latter strongly influences Digger and I’s behaviours to the point we procrastinate or persist in seeking quiet acceptance and cooperation from the establishment, rather than broadcast or encourage public censure of it, although it is deserved.

25. Legal Remedy

We were fortunate to be offered legal advice from several senior advocates; internationally recognised experts with a keen interest in history, our case and appreciation of the prevailing academic and bureaucratic mess thwarting common sense. They advised us under what headings to take legal action to have the bells recognised and who to act against. All counselled, describing the resources required, time frame and the stages of the legal process if the authorities doubled down on their misrepresentations and deceits.

On evaluation, those advocates that studied our archaeological findings and the academic and bureaucracy’s response, could find no justification for the behaviour exhibited. Not only had governmental policy been corrupted but also planning statute. The advocates agreed our investigation presented peerless and expert understanding of the artefacts under consideration, perversely supported by academia’s and governmental failure to dismantle our conclusion—employing demonstrable ignorance, rather than evidenced, intellectual and factual argument.

The legal advocates laid out the potential problems within the judicial system with increasing political and ideological influence, and the likely issues beyond any moral victory. It was clear any legal action on our part was a significant undertaking. Defence against any action taken against us was one thing, but the resource required to take action against the Scottish government was something else entirely.

What was made clear, if combative legal remedy was sought to have the Scottish government recognise the provenance of the bells, then we as the current owners would be disinclined to work with the Scottish Government in the future. Thus, it was probable our ambition to see the bells maintained in Scotland for the benefit of the Scottish nation would not be realised. The safety of the bells was seen as paramount and that may be only guaranteed outside an environment displaying a less than protective attitude to its cultural underpinnings, eg., prevailing political ideologies that are anti-heritage, anti-culture and anti-Christian.