Revisionist Historians—The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

From 2021-22, I had a series of long late-night telephone conversations with a leading American historian. He was a former advisor to the US presidency and director of a major US institution. I will, for reasons cited later in this article, refer to him as ‘Professor X’.

The professor was an extremely animated individual, generous with his time, engaging, challenging, eloquent and communicative. He became a useful source of Digger and I’s education regarding the problems with academia and the academically trained historian. He was a good teacher, better than I realised at the time, especially regarding the realities marching onwards that were contributing to the denigration of universities. He was candid about subjects rarely presented in popular discourse, sharing stories, not published, about conscientious academics turning the lens inwards onto their own academic snobbery, and as he claimed, tomfoolery—a surprising expression for an American.

Professor X was forthright about the very real dilemma we were in, and as expected, supportive of his own ‘intellectual creed’ who were understandably careful not to follow every enthusiastic historian down the ‘rabbit hole’. However, within his compassion for his kind, he still shared his frustration with, ‘snake oil salesmen’—academics who ‘offered performance rather than substance’—vain individuals—mediocre intellectuals using their higher degrees and perceived eminence to promote, through their academic qualification and status within their academic institution, fake product to the gullible; influencing new generations of ahistorical and biased rhetoric to support political antagonism, as opposed to the promotion of societal cohesion through learning, empathy and real-world experience—balanced teaching, building on the success and failures of our ancestors’ experiments in political and religious ideology.

I gathered he may have been a conservative, frustrated with his socialist academic peers redesigning Marxist and Communist ideology to suit a new generation, directing the resentment of youth against any cause established within the academics’ own bias. I must admit, at the time, I was not interested in his political oratory, because I was certain our problem was purely discrimination directed against us because we were outside academia. Time, however, and discussion with others still on the inside of the establishment, would revise my judgement with a wider perspective on the entirety of the barriers placed against us.

Revisionism and the Good Historian

Historical revisionism was one of the many topics of our conversations, which at times I thought he used purely as a diversion into lively philosophical debate. In my attempt to keep us on the topic of our specific problem, I wrestled with the professor that our case was not one of revisionist history but corrected historical understanding of a specific artefact that in turn reconditioned the specific understanding of the Holywood site. The professor countered, stating we had raised other wider and far reaching considerations that had been neglected by the history community, for example the true nature of the secular clergy, that in turn conditions improved comprehension of the warrior cleric, even offering a better understanding to who Bernard de Clairvaux (one of the architects of the Templar movement) was directing his criticism against. Thus, in example, we offered a fresh perspective on a wider historical understanding, gained from scholarly consideration.

What we finally concluded, was revisionist history had unfortunately become synonymous with political and ideological propaganda—defined as the reinterpretation of accepted historical accounts to suit a shifting societal lens. Revisionist scholars, promoting perhaps disinformation, excuse their agenda within an accepted process of critically examining prevailing narratives, questioning established facts, and proposing alternative explanations based on new evidence or perspectives. In the Humanities, rife with ambitious academics keen to make a name, denial or distortion is often far more attention-worthy than presenting revisionist narrative in its most legitimate form, ie., revisionist history as an essential component of historical scholarship, providing continuous refinement of our objective understanding of the past.

Just as scientific understanding undergoes continuous reappraisal and development, presented historical interpretation also requires periodic reassessment to ensure accuracy and relevance. The question the professor posed, was did our reinterpretation of what had been accepted as the historical narrative follow the good practice of the revisionist historian?

I am glad to say we passed his test, in that we offered the proper construct; that understanding of history should not be fossilised (as it had been), but should be an evolving objective discipline, constantly reshaped by new discovery, archaeological find, and re-evaluated sources. Our work was entirely empathetic, recognising past bias interpretation, contemporary mindset, whilst being aware and sympathetic to current ‘preferred’ thought and sensibilities.

Historical Revisionism?

Maintaining my own unsophisticated understanding of the problem, I still challenged his discourse at the time, maintaining our case was not historical revisionism to suit progressive political agenda, but more a correction of a manifest mistake in singular misinterpretation made through incompetence, that had been allowed to corrupt the record, in a case that would have only significant benefit to all, not only to us, the owners of the heritage in question, but to the nation, regardless of creed and ideology.

Professor X proposed the issue was not the original Victorian mistakes made, but the acceptance of those mistakes by academia ipso de facto as the record. And so, what we propose, as far as academia and the establishment were concerned, was indeed revisionist history—a direct challenge to the qualification of academia and the state’s authorised understanding. Their first consideration would not be the evidence, but who was making the challenge—ie., what were our credentials to challenge their intellectual authority?

To the layman our immediate credentials are unsound, it is only interrogation of our legend; three years collaborative study with academic, professional and specialist qualification, and most importantly a demonstrably peerless understanding of our subject, verified with critical evaluation, detailed consideration, evidence, and fact—with that understanding tested and evaluated by recognised specialists, eliminating opinion and speculation. All this however, is secondary to academia and the institution—state—establishment—however we wish to frame it. Eminence is everything, and merit including the wisdom it generates is subsidiary—this is the great failure of academia and the establishment, it is no longer the source or mentorship of merit and understanding, but instead ideology, pseudo-intellectual qualification and the ardent protection of their own perceived intellectual authority.

The Process of Historical Revision:

Source Examination and Validation

We had complied with the principle of good revisionist historians, ie., critically examining existing source materials; primary sources (e.g., original documents, artifacts, firsthand accounts) and secondary sources (e.g., books, articles interpreting the primary sources). We had evaluated the authenticity, provenance, and reliability of those sources. Just as scientists must ensure the integrity of dependencies, we as historians verified the validity of the evidence provided from primary and secondary sources.

Identification of Prejudices, Omissions and Misinterpretations

Historical accounts are often influenced by the biases and competencies of the authors or the prevailing ideologies of the time. Historical interpretation is particularly vulnerable as it is rarely a collective effort, and so historical narratives often reflect the perspectives and agendas of the singular view without judgement, test or counter opinion, thus leading to theory built on singular assumption, misunderstanding and conceit. We therefore ensured we sought collaborative view on our historical enquiry but ensured we tested any and all opinion with our own observational technical discipline, interpretation, logic, and mathematical probability where it was allowed.

Presentation of New Evidence or Interpretations

Revisionist historians present new evidence uncovered through archival research, archaeological discoveries, or the application of new analytical methods. They may also offer alternative interpretations of existing evidence, challenging conventional wisdom and proposing new explanations for historical events.

In our case, we challenged the opinion of two Victorian historians, finding their thoughts had no solid evidence to back up their theory. Worse still, they had revised history, cancelling out original narrative without any consideration of it whatsoever. These unevidenced theories, adopted as the academic view, had demonstrably no solid merit outside immediate, plausible, but ultimately superficial and untested notion, defying the principles of the good historian. However trite their thoughts may have been, in terms of historical accuracy or consequence, (accuracy—a belief that is thought to be almost impossible to achieve within the historian’s discipline) they had caused a catastrophic misunderstanding that we are now trying to unpick.

Who is to blame for this catastrophe of historical misunderstanding—was it the original excusable superficial thought or the discipline that inexcusably accepts it without audit, or the establishment who blindly acts on academic whim, prejudicially picking an unsupportable opinion over objective research, regardless of the consequences.

What we present is a graphic example of academic and institutional misbehaviour that is often excused because historical misunderstanding has little real-world consequence, but as we demonstrate, can detrimentally affect the daily lives and even the safety of members of the public.

Peer Review and Scholarly Debate

Revisionist historical arguments are rightly subject to scrutiny by other historians. This process involves scholarly debate, criticism, and the evaluation of evidence. The goal is to ensure that revisionist interpretations are grounded in sound evidence and logical reasoning.

However, when the scrutiny itself is devoid of sound counter evidence and logical reason, and with no peer-formed authoritative regulation of that scrutiny, it is left to the public or even judicial review to appraise the balance of merit within any historical revisionist argument. This is why there is an oversupply of spurious historical narrative, promoted and unchecked, based on ideological and subjective theory rather than tested objective fact.

Integration (or Rejection) into the Historical Record

If a revisionist interpretation withstands scrutiny and gains acceptance within the scholarly community, it may eventually be integrated into the mainstream historical narrative. Not all revisionist arguments are successful. Some may be rejected due to lack of evidence, flawed methodology, or ideological bias, or in our case, academic prejudice because we are judged not to be in the scholarly community.

Our discovery does not guarantee a change in the academic view, but as far as the historical narrative, unless the scholarly community can offer up supportable counter-opinion to support their accepted narrative has more credibility than our presented case, then considering the extraordinary nature of the discovery, it will be their credibility that will be brought into disrepute, perhaps resonating far beyond, contributing to the increasing criticism of the humanities as a wholly beneficial and systematic discipline.

The Bad Historical Revisionist

In our specific experience surrounding the bells of Holywood, we can point to a lack of prior competence and a lack of audit of historical understanding. We found, regarding the narrative surrounding our bells, an academic discipline and associated heritage management built on the thinly presented thought of outdated and unqualified Victorian historians, credentialed only by their membership of their antiquarian societies—well-meaning examiners not tested for merit, subject to rigorous and challenging peer review, or any professional objective audit.

This failure to challenge what we found to be the obvious flaw in past Victorian supposition demonstrated the failure to revise historical understanding when it clearly misrepresents. However, what concerned, is when collaborative academic projects (such as the People of Medieval Scotland database) exacerbates the problem by applying patently flawed understanding to corrupt other considerations and understandings.

The Battle against Ugly Historical Revisionists

Professor X was the one who originally pointed us to a legal case (Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt) to illustrate it took several years and millions of dollars to discredit a particular revisionist history against patently available facts surrounding the holocaust in WWII.

To the logical, there was only evidence and witness testimony of the holocaust and the German state’s sponsorship of its genocide policy. However, that did not prevent an eminent historian from twisting history to suit their own bias and political ideology. Even when the revision was blatant and in direct and obvious contest to the facts, it still required a great deal of effort within the historian class—directed by a judicial review, to cancel the lie out to safeguard the truth.

In later consideration of the professor’s case study, our truth would be no less difficult to defend in a patently bias discipline, that allows the validation of individual opinion over impartial truth. In the third millennium it appears feelings are allowed to trump facts.

In reflection of the professor’s case study, did a successful case against one holocaust denier mean other holocaust deniers were silenced forever? Did it influence the academic class to adopt the professional objective standards imposed on the academic witnesses by the judiciary? One must make up their own mind about the results of that test case, but recent public opinion and protest would say the deliberate corruption of history is a very real problem, purposed by academia to fuel social-political rhetoric and not societal cohesion, prosperity, justice and win-win logicality.

Practicality over Principle

At the time, I did not fully understand Professor X’s tutelage. He praised our noble intent to restore correct historical understanding, but he counselled that we should be realistic about how we were unlikely to influence future behaviour of the academic class or the institution, no matter how much censure we may pore on their behaviour.

It was a guarded warning, not to allow our nobility to deny us the tangible benefit of our discovery. That fighting for principle comes with cost. The martyr is rarely bathed in gold, and the only glory attained, is in the history they make, only if the establishment chooses to recognise it. Invariably heroes become just as much target for vilification as they are veneration, and so those that are acutely sensitive to criticism should be wary of the path they choose to take. Revisionist history is a worthy task, but only if the vehicle for it is committed to prudence, justice, truth and accuracy, but it was clear during discourse with the professor, that academia and the establishment were not.

Discourse with the professor, as well as others, and the application of our own intent, have contributed to our increasing safeguard of the artefacts’ historical value, and our own moral preserve, even if it has resulted in the gross depravation of our comfort, family and finances.

It was this armour we applied in 2025, when we found ourselves in discussions with those in influence, who perhaps were more interested in the religious and political capital of our discovery, rather than altruistic furtherment of our ambition of an unbiased presentation of history for education and the nation’s sake, as well as a guaranteed future for our mis-sold church and its archaeology. We may have raised the profile of our case through these influencers, but Digger and I were not interested in promoting our discovery as anything other than a reveal of history for the benefit of all, and of course a solution to our mis-sold adventure.

Reconnection

I tried to reconnect with Professor X in 2025, this time not to ask for his help in critique and seeking authentication for our discovery, but to plead for his personal endorsement as an eminent historian and scholar—to decalre his belief in the discovery, regardless of any peer condemnation - to put honour and integrity before 'compliance'. Instead, I learned he had passed away. Hence why I cannot name him, because he is not alive to confirm my testimony.

I shall remember our conversations, not because they moved Digger and I on significantly in our cause, but because he unselfishly ‘held the hand’ of a besieged historian clinging to the truth and finding frustration and depravation of the quality of his life because of it—at a time I needed validation in what seemed like a relentless environment of ignorance, indifference, and prejudice. He armed me with questions to ask and realities to consider, as we journeyed down a process in which academia and the state would only dig in deeper—which indeed is the case. I will name Professor X, free to cite him as a good historian and teacher, when our case is done and in final print, with our discovery where it should be, contributing to our historical understanding.

I have to admit, some of the content of this article is to be found in other editorial posted on our website, but in a campaign where we are overtly critical of academia and academics—not necessarily their work but their behaviour, I wanted to record a positive engagement with an academic and an intellectual. A scholar who chose not to dismiss me because he deemed our opinions inferior, but mentor a stranger, simply because he viewed me worthy of his time.

During our conversations, he never confirmed he had read our archaeological report, but his comments belied the notion he had not interrogated it fully, as he cited detail and expressed no doubt in our discovery. In retrospect, I wished he had publicly endorsed our find, rather than abstaining. He excused his critique because he was not a medieval scholar. Even though I argued the process of historiography is a universal methodology applied to any aspect of history, and thus expertise is not a prerequisite to critical assessment of the methodology employed in historical revision, particularly if the source of that revision is clearly laid out for the layman to consider. I condemned him at the time for his abstinence, an accusation I somewhat now regret, in the knowledge even his endorsement would not have guaranteed acceptance in a world of conflicting academics. Besides, not known to me at the time, he was never in mortal circumstance to support us going forward. God rest his soul.