The two creators of this report are Roger Hewitt and Rob Martin, both of the Isle of Wight Industrial Archaeology Society. And what a suspect duo they are too! Rob Martin is well-known for his virulent anti-clerical stance on historiography (for example, he will not touch any topic involving Catholic history!!) and made-up historical facts drip off his tongue effortlessly (he claims that much of his research comes from primary sources at the Record Office), while Roger Hewitt is pedantically sceptical of all 19th century history writing - anyone that mentions the admittedly erroneous Victorian idea of a tin route through the Island immediately invites Hewitt's opprobrium as well as his dismissal as incorrect of all that person's other findings. So imagine the double dose of scorn that poor Rev. Walker brought down upon his well-intentioned head from these two scoffing sceptics.

Unfortunately, Walker adhered to the theory that a tin route existed from Cornwall along the south coast of England and then across from Lepe to Gurnard,from which the route was supposed to cross the Island to Puckaster, from where it was shipped off to the Mediterranean world. Because this has been revealed as totally false, our two Heritage Heroes have immediately dived at the opportunity of writing off everything else that Walker wrote as erroneous or wishful thinking. However, the fact that Walker backed the wrong horse does not mean that his horse is totally worthless. For example, he found a number of limestone slabs forming a floor. These can not have been imagined. They are not the product of wishful thinking and yet our Industrial Archaeology Cuties have accidently skirted over their existence or rather, they have conveniently ignored an explanation.

In addition, they have dressed their supposedly methodical and scientific investigation in a great deal of unsubstantiated claims as well as a haze of obfuscating, verbose language. We are in no doubt that our two have conducted the first proper, full and comprehensive investigation since Walker, or perhaps even the only proper scientific dig, but they, like Walker, have chosen a brand of Partial Selection, allbeit a rather less obvious, but more devious one, for they have chosen to opt for an explanation based on possibility rather than obvious fantasy and have then wrapped that explanation in archaeological jargon and historical references (Where's the evidence for the "Mone/Moon" name derivation come from then, for example?).

Furthermore, inconveniencies are swept away. Have they looked in the eastern feature for any of the finds of Walker? People who live in glass-houses should not throw stones at another person's glass-house, however more shakier that house may be than theirs!

Let me say at the outset we stand by every word of our report. It's true we concluded Walker interpreted his findings to suit his tin-trading theories, although we never claimed it was a conscious deceit. However, next to your own contribution, Walker might be considered the very epitome of unbiased precision.

Your comments seem to be little more than an over-elaborate diatribe about Rob Martin and myself. They carry the hallmark of someone more enamoured with his keyboard than Island history. I searched your tirade in vain for a substantive challenge to a single piece of our evidence - there is nothing. All I can find is one reference to a the minor question of 'limestone slabs' you say Walker found in the base of the kilns. Even this is a misquote: Walker found 'crushed stone'. Crushed stone is quite different and, in the world beyond your institute, it's not entirely surprising to find crushed limestone on the base of a lime kiln.

As your only detailed challenge to our findings is misinformed there is little left to defend. Some of your invective seems at odds with an organisation which claims to have a serious approach to history. A typical example is your comment that Rob Martin "claims that much of his research comes from primary sources at the Record Office". Well, it does. You cite no evidence to the contrary. Would you have him simply rely on obscure anecdotal hearsay? Is this how your institute acquires it's evidence? Your assertion he is averse to writing on Catholic matters is bizarre. It's difficult to think of a major Island event which could be considered sufficiently 'Catholic' for him to avoid. It's true that, unlike most of us, he hasn't done a full papal biography or charted the Growth and Influence of Western Monasticism, but perhaps he just hasn't found the time. (or rather, he hasn't found the time to make it up, you mean!! - Ed.)

Your reference to my being "pedantically sceptical of all 19th century history writing" lacks a supporting example beyond your hopeless misinterpretation of the report itself. Having read your efforts, I think I can safely say I am now far more sceptical of 21st century history writing.

I note that Ben 'Boots' Attrill is one of your number. Ben is well known for his theories about the Moons Hill structures. He has variously claimed they were ice houses, bread ovens, coach stops and 'cells' for separating quarrelling couples. None of these theories have any basis, and most appear to have been advocated in the public bar of the Railway Arms towards the end of a heavy evening. The Isle of Wight Historical Review seems to have rather a lot of researchers for such a slender output. It's not for me to propose a rationalisation of your organisation but, on the basis of your current standards, I would respectively suggest you need only Ben.

We are quite able to expound on any element of our findings should they be intelligently queried. Your comments give us nothing worth defending. I'm afraid your contribution has all the signs of an historic organisation which has run out of useful research and is just desperately seeking controversy.

Rob Martin.