Thank you for you comments which I personally agree with entirely. I cannot
however speak for others who I know at the time of the events were
personally deeply hurt and aggrieved and I feel have now put such events
behind them and have moved on.
If there are any questions to be answered regarding the 'Slaves of Raparee',
then I feel these must lie with Horton. You will have seen and earlier
missive from Paul Blinkhorn and his URL of the Guardian story of 2007.
As I have suggested before, Horton needs to 'come clean'. What happened to
the bones? Where are they now? Why have they never been fully reported on?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Tooke" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Slaves of Raparee
> 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
> perceived wrongs.
> 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.
> Dave Tooke
> ----- 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)