A journalist asked the owners, what made them so sure of their discovery? The owners directed the journalist to their report. All the evidence was there—all contained within one-hundred-and-twenty-thousand words, laid out in investigation and illustration, distilling three years of research.
The reason, however, why the discovery is genuine, was not just informed by the amount of evidence or examination, but how the researchers conducted their enquiry—it was objective. The owners’ investigation presented, in terms of historical enquiry, an uncharacteristically comprehensive and impartial view of the artefacts in their possession, using evidence, fact and critical elimination, with substantial evidence and compelling circumstance to build the conclusion. It was an objective view based on case study and example, rather than reliance on supposition, opinion, or nebulous association and speculation.
The owners employed a great deal of time and effort on two inscriptions, acquiring the knowledge to interpret through expert assistance, tutelage, and reference. They placed a magnifying glass on the bells and devoted far more time and collaboration than could be afforded by previous interpretations—prior inspections that resulted in any anomalies being ignored and absences on the bells’ inscriptions filled with invention. Identification of, and trail of the bell sponsor was time consuming and rigorous, and although could not be exhaustive due of a lack of comprehensive record, there was enough information to assign the uniquely titled sponsor the legend of a knight-cleric whilst a spiritual head of a convent, in the entourage of David I, the king of the Scots.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the owners established what was already substantiated by record and belief formed in the eighteenth century. Regrettably, this eighteenth century understanding was ignored or discarded by society-based Victorian historians, replacing it with their own speculative and unresearched theories, which in turn entered into the academic record, treated as fact.
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. Considering the other bell was a confirmed pre-1200 pattern and the bells’ sponsor, existed from 1141 to 1180 as a senior, confirmed knight-cleric. With Holywood church created certainly after 1140, 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 a Victorian historian, who through his status had his specious translation of two bells 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 leading historical governance) and STEM based enquiry.
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 unattainable for historians. 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 historical investigation. For instance, the owners’ disciplines refined in value and efficiency management, underpinning their investigation, had ensured the owners tackled each speculative theory with caution, and challenged 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 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 documents.
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 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.
The journalist exemplified the many who challenge the legitimacy of the find, not because they had read the owners’ report and found it unconvincing, but because there was not a ‘trusted source’ to read it on their behalf and confirm it. Similarly, antiquities experts said the veracity of the owners’ report was not what the antiquities market required, but a trusted source who had authenticated the owners’ testimony. Regrettably the ‘trusted source’ are subjective academics and history professionals, who by their nature would not consider any study made outside their own kind valid, never mind consider it objectively.
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 the owners’ objective evidence out.
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 the Victorian supposition, not relying on the academic experts’ support of the Victorian theory, as the agency saw it as 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 research.
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, but because it challenged their own professional discipline—a field where objectivity is often absent. 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.
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. However, 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. Add 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 professional historians, against any they deem 'amateurs'.
So, what made the owners so sure of their discovery?
Because there is not a single verifiable counterargument presented by those best placed to challenge the owners’ conclusions. The fact the dissenting ‘professional experts’ do not declare the find genuine has nothing to do with the veracity of the discovery and everything to do with prejudice—they know the discovery is genuine, but they do not want to agree with its architects. Indeed, their patent use of falsity and artifice, in desperate attempt to discount the discovery, demonstrates how complete and inarguable the discovery is.