Trevor Dunkerley evades:
> Then let's call it in your words, "a good old-fashioned conspiracy
No Trevor, that is not good enough. Not now.
> That be as it may. If you care to read Pat Barrow's book....<
Well as I explained not all of us may "care" to try and hunt down this book
to check out whether or not it has a picture of Mark Horton in it. My guess
is that since you say it does, it does. So what? What is the connection
between that and your highly aggressive outburst? Why can you not say what
the problem is here? It seems to involve something between the relationship
between amateur and professional, "finder" and archaeologist, local
resources, outside technical help and thus is a topic worthy of exploring in
this list (if language is more temperate than it has been to date).
You have on a public forum made (or not quite made) a series of allegations
against Mark Horton, involving
Pat Barrow being "castigated and scapegoated" for suggesting an
interpretation of the finds, intimating
"the devastating effect this had upon the integrity (sic) of the amateur
archaeologist who initially found the site." (eh?), that Barrow was
allegedly "treated so badly during that period of regretful events". That
"honest integrity can be so easily destroyed" (do you mean that literally?).
"Money, in archaeology, appears to be the driving force these days for
destroying many a reputation" - what and whose money are you accusing Mark
Horton of having accepted to "destroy a reputation (Barrows'?) ? That's a
pretty serious allegation to make. What are you going on about Trevor?
These are serious public allegations against an identifiable individual, and
I for one do not see why you should be able to cast such aspersions, and
when asked to substantiate what you say in not one but a whole series of
messages here, you simply evade the question.
As for where the idea came from, Trevor writes:
> I cannot in my wildest dreams believe that the scriptwriters of episode 2
> of Bonekickers trawled through the archaeological history of North Devon
> and the Severn Estuary and by some obscure chance <
No? well, the fact that Bristol (ON the Severn Estuary when I last looked)
was one of the major centres of the slave trade and since in Britain the
topic has been one of lively discussion and not just in scholarly venues,
and since a number of newspaper articles are already lurking in various
places in the Internet, it seems to me that a BBC researcher (maybe of
ethnic minority origin themselves, or maybe returned from a holiday in
Ilfracombe) would have no trouble in finding material for scriptwriters on
which to base a FICTIONAL account involving bones of slaves or whatever.
How many slave-skeleton containing shipwrecks from the British coast do you
know of Trevor?
In any case even if Mark Horton thrust some newspaper clippings under their
nose and said "this might be an interesting issue to write about", I really
do not see the problem or why you are making these serious accusations on
its basis. I do not see the issue here as where the storyline came from, but
what you are saying about Mark Horton.