Objective Enquiry v The Subjective Academic Historian

In 1846, a local historian, interviewing those who could remember buildings lost or dilapidated in and around Dumfries, reported the former church of Holywood was part of a twelfth century Templar preceptory/infirmary.  The eighteenth-century Statistical Account of Scotland reported one of the bells was of twelfth century origin (1154).  The other bell is a confirmed pre-1200 pattern.  The bells’ sponsor, W’leRich existed between 1120 and 1189 as a senior, confirmed knight-cleric.  With the Holywood convent created around 1150, confirmed to be held by a regular order after 1198, then it is highly likely, in terms of eighteenth century understanding, the bells came from a Templar property.  All this record however was passed over by the singular imaginations of Victorian historians, who through status had their specious translations of two bells and the misunderstanding of their sponsor’s title cemented into the historical and academic record.

During the owners’ investigation, collecting all the available information on the early understanding of the site and bells, the authors dismantled a great deal of Victorian spurious theory; the foundation of academic understanding, to better appreciate what the academic professional historian had not, because they had ‘cherry-picked’ their Victorian 'scholarly' forebears’ theories without auditing, rather than building their own works on an inclusive review of all the evidence.  Regrettably, a considerable amount of academic historical understanding is formed by subjective thought, rather than objective research.  This is the fundamental difference between the Humanities (the route of learning for professional historians managing historical governance) and STEM based enquiry.

Subjective ‘academic view’, built on the shoulders of approved ‘cherry-picked’ sources, much of it spurious Victorian publication (the foundation library of history-focused academia), is the basis of much academic thesis and publication, informing the description and understanding of many objects held in museums, collections, and heritage properties.  As such, what the public think they know is often untrustworthy.

As example, a scientific study in 2022, disproved academic understanding of a series of gold coins, bearing the portrait of a Roman emperor called Sponsian.  The coins were thought to be fake, Sponsian fictitious, and so were not displayed to the public.  The academic view was founded on a singular theory of a Victorian coin specialist, who wiped away an earlier eighteenth century declaration the coins were genuine.  However, it was obvious to a scientist with interest in Roman history, that the coins exhibited signs of wear and burial, and with the correct skill set and opportunity, scientifically proved the coins had been in circulation for some considerable time—not fakes at all.

Such successful contest of the academic view is rare, not because the academic view is robust, but unless science or the status of the challenger is unquestionable, many challenges are ignored or treated by academia as invalid. The significant flaw in academic historical understanding is common knowledge amongst those working within the historical sector, and forms part of the disgruntlement many, who base their discipline on objective study, have with academic historians, who arrogantly protect their own discipline and paternalistic control of historical understanding.

History by its nature, with an often lack of verifiable evidence, is prone to debate. Therefore, although objectivity is seen as the goal of those who work on history, in practice it is widely accepted that objectivity is often unattainable, thus, historian-scholars choose not to directly challenge the subjective thought of their recognised scholarly forebears—and so subjective opinion becomes the foundation of their own understanding.  However, subjective thought is not the foundation of other disciplines outside academic historical investigation.  For instance, the owners’ disciplines refined in value and efficiency management, underpinning their investigation, had ensured the owners challenged each speculative theory, and questioned everything that was the traditional or accepted view.

An equal amount of time was expended by the owners to challenge and test findings until only one conclusion could be made.  More importantly, the owners ensured their discovery would stand up to any judicial review—the true test of authenticity.  This test of objectivity was supplied by legal precedent established in 2001, Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt, with regards to what constitutes an objective historian in context of a professional witness.  In consideration of this benchmark, the owners were satisfied their conclusions would pass the test.

An objective historian must:

• treat sources with appropriate reservations.

• not dismiss counterevidence without scholarly consideration.

• be even-handed in treatment of evidence and eschew ‘cherry-picking’.

• clearly indicate any speculation.

• not mistranslate documents or mislead by omitting parts of text.

• weigh the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict their favoured view.

• take the motives of the historical participants into consideration.

  
  

Regrettably, the behaviours listed above are not necessarily drafted into essential practice and performance of academically trained historians.  Indeed, all the critiquing academics, and every prior academic-approved historian's testimony of the bell's provenance, would fail the above test on every point.  Unfortunately, it is these academics that is the only route to ‘scholarly’ authentication, as there are no other ‘experts’ in the subjects of the owners’ enquiry, ie., twelfth century bell archaeology, early Scottish Templar foundation, the nature and titles of those employed as secular clergy, or high-medieval inscription.

In search of trusted third-party authentication, when it came to critique, the professional academic reviewers, including Professor Helen Nicholson, mediaeval historian, and Dr Alice Blackwell from National Museums Scotland, in their rejection of the owners' study, failed to dismantle the discovery because they used unsupportable subjective argument to try and cancel out the owners’ objective evidence.

Repudiating the owners' objective research, these foremost internationally referred specialist academics chose to ignore the presented owners’ evidence, detailed from three years of collaborative research presented in over one-hundred-and-twenty-thousand words and illustration.  Instead, they supported a solitary Victorian subjective interpretation, limited by the information-access constraints of the time, wiping away all previous understanding without argument, with a superficial inspection, offered within a report of less than a thousand words, free from any illustration or reference.

Dr Alice Blackwell, heraldry and medieval metal-work specialist (National Museums Scotland), reported of the above armorial carried on a confirmed twelfth century bell design, 'The shield is exactly what would be expected for the 'traditional' dating.' {ie. the 'academic view' of the bell being of sixteenth century origin.)

In context of seeking authoritative authentication, Dr Blackwell and Professor Nicholson had acted as representatives for eminent Templar historians, National Museums Scotland, and medieval metalwork specialists.  They were academics, recognised in their fields for their expertise, deemed both competent and able to interrogate the owners’ study and challenge it effectively on behalf of academia.  Indeed, eminent academics across the world, specialising in the subject of the owners’ investigation had recommended these scholars as the best placed to consider the legitimacy of the discovery.  Since the referred scholars had not refuted the owners’ study’s conclusion with any convincing argument, and had resorted to indefensible contradiction, they perversely indicated the study’s conclusion had far greater value than they were prepared to declare, dismissing their ‘discipline’ as duplicitous.

In repudiation of the owners' research, all the foremost internationally referred specialist academics agreed with the Victorian interpretation of the inscribed name as 'WeLCH', ignoring the incongruities of the first three characters, which included a confirmed 'i' as the third letter.

Historic Environment Scotland, the Scottish government’s lead heritage agency also tried to cancel out the veracity of the owners’ research by treating the owners' conclusion as purely the owners’ view; one of a few disparate ‘opinions’, none of which the agency regarded as conclusive, hence its own subjective redesignation of the bells, as 'medieval'.  The agency had recognised the owners had dismantled any veracity in Victorian supposition, and did not rely on the academic experts’ support of the Victorian theory, as the agency saw it clearly indefensible.  The agency however, vehemently resisted sharing its review of the owners’ testimony; doubtless because the agency also could not dismantle the owners’ discovery.  It was concluded by the owners' legal advocacy that any objective view would have come to the same conclusion as the owners, so clear was the evidence, both physical and circumstantial.  Likewise, any subjective review offered by Historic Environment Scotland, purposed to counter the owners’ conclusions would have to include falsity, which like the specialist academic views, would be transparently contrived and unsupportable, hence the agency deferred any feedback to the owners, to hide its discrimination against, not the research, but the architects of the investigation.

Historic Environment Scotland’s three years of sparring with the owners over its reluctance to share its evaluation of the owners’ discovery, confirmed the owners’ conclusion had far more merit than the agency was also prepared to admit.  It would have been an easy task for the agency to present their disavowal, if the find was not genuine, and so bring a decisive end to the owners’ repeated entreaties (see Historic Environment Scotland—‘a Malignant Caretaker’).  The agency's desperate attempt to hide their full evaluation from the owners, illustrated how entrenched prejudice was amongst subjective, academic-derived professional historians, against any they deem 'amateurs', regardless of any merit in their objective enquiry.

Consequently, when the owners requested to remove the bells from the church to preserve their safety until new appropriate keepers for the church and bells could be found, both the planning authority and subsequently the Scottish government, via the owners’ appeal to the DPEA, refused their request, not in consideration of their discovery, but in the wilful ignorance of the evidence presented.  Without authoritative authentication, both the planning authority and the DPEA chose to ignore the evidence, again without referring to, or insisting on an objective evaluation of the owners’ conclusions, so the agencies’ decisions were entirely subjective.

In all cases the professional historians tried, and wanted to dismiss the owners’ discovery, not because it was not genuine or had demonstrable merit, but because it challenged their own professional discipline—a field where objectivity is often absent.  Professional historians rarely articulate their notion of objectivity or discuss it in detail, and like other professions, historians rarely analyse themselves or their activity and are highly resistant to anyone outside their profession who challenges their worth.