Trevor, you say, "Several, who had watched the screening the
following evening were incandescent with anger that the issue had been
raised once more, and we were all empathic with the original finder of the
site, who was treated so badly during that period of regretful events."
I can only speak for my own attitude, but if it were a subject about which I
felt strongly then I would be very pleased that it was raised, and
re-raised, and would welcome the opportunity to work towards righting any
The more the light of investigation shines the less chance there is of
underhanded doings remaining secret, and the greater the chance that the
truth (as far as it can be seen) will out, and honest integrity have a
chance of being recognised.
Sleeping dogs are generally best woken and taken for a run.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trevor Dunkerley" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Slaves of Raparee
> Thank you for enlightening the list on the subject of the 'Slaves of
> Raparee'. I can only just wonder if you have read the book by Pat Barrow,
> and his side of the events.
> Quite clearly this was not just an issue regarding the 'archaeology of
> slavery', but also the attitudes of the 'academic' versus the 'amateur'.
> Whilst I entirely agree with you, in your words, "I don't see why such a
> controversy should not have been used as basis for a plot component in
> fictional drama," I really fail to see why Horton should not come clean in
> agreeing that he alone passed this information to the scriptwriters as the
> basis for the plot.
> Whilst throughout the rest of the UK this issue may be non controversial,
> here in North Devon, memories last long, and as an archaeologist who has
> spent the last dozen or so year attempting to promote community
> archaeology initiatives, memories of how the Slaves of Raparee issue was
> handled by the media, archaeological academics, and as Pat Barrow states
> in his book, "other powers-that-be", still leaves a 'nasty taste in the
> mouth', and is counterproductive to open and truthful archaeological
> communications and the encouragement of communities to participate in what
> is "their archaeology and history."
> After the screening of episode 2, I joined other North Devon persons the
> following morning at our National Archaeological Week event - the only one
> on North Devon north of Exeter. Several, who had watched the screening the
> following evening were incandescent with anger that the issue had been
> raised once more, and we were all empathic with the original finder of the
> site, who was treated so badly during that period of regretful events.
> Honest integrity can be so easily destroyed. We all know Pat Barrow and
> respect his integrity and the work his has painstakingly carried out in
> North Devon for many years.
> Money, in archaeology, appears to be the driving force these days for
> destroying many a reputation. Why should it not be challenged?
> Kindest regards,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "PETTS D.A." <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:19 PM
> Subject: [BRITARCH] Slaves of Raparee
> For those who want a little enlightening about this subject
> and particularly the last paragraph of this
> (strangely prophetic)
> For what its worth it appears that there is genuine debate over these
> remains and clearly some controversy. I don't see why such a controversy
> should not have been used as basis for a plot component in a fictional
> drama, particularly when the debate over the identity of the bones was
> very much a subplot in the overall story arc. Frankly, it would be much
> more unrealistic to have an episode that engaged with the archaeology of
> slavery without highlighting the controversy and high passions that such
> an issue inevitably provokes (for which see the following article by one
> of Mark's former colleagues Dan Hicks)