Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit
View Post
In the Ripperologist article, Johanna Whyman repeats Farquharson's suggestion to Pitt Rivers (a well-known archeologist) that he do the following:
"…Now you have made so many discoveries you ought to be able to form a pretty clear idea of the daily life of our predecessors here. You ought to write a short magazine article on it, not referring to your discoveries but based on them, a little fiction mixed in, on which to base your tale. A Briton at Rotherly making love to a girl at Woodcuts. You could show us how they dressed, their ornaments, their horses, the mode of life, their means of locomotion, the character of the land round &c &c. All this would immensely interest us & then the learned would pick holes in your tale, as improbable & you would then prove them wrong by the production of your various proofs in your collection."
She is interpreting this statement in the worst way possible, but as far as I can gather, all he is suggesting is that Pitt Rivers should write a fictional 'tale' in order to present his archeological ideas in a popular format to a wider audience. I can't see where he is suggesting that Pitt-Rivers be dishonest--only that this would help popularize these theories. If critics attacked the account, he could then show proofs from his collection to show that what he presented in his tale could be backed up with actual historical evidence from his archeological digs. Ie., how people lived back then.
It doesn't strike me as sinister as Whyman is making it out to be.
Leave a comment: