I must admit I also questioned this when I read it. I don't think it is true.
The Liverpool Discovers project is, in my opinion, appalling. There has clearly been no adequate research or any sort of objective criticism of the subject matter.
It seems rushed and very superficial.
As to the 'local historians' they have consulted; I assume this does not include the proper academic historians (Belchem, Royden etc...). Its probably the the big-mouthed regurgitators of Liverpools past histories with no record of their own research.
I know this may seem a little elitist, but I am unapologetic for that. There is 'folk history' and 'local history' - both tell us a lot about people, places and times but the difference is that proper local history must follow the historical method of having evidence and authority.
div>
By evidence I mean something solid, paperwork, a building, records.
By authority I mean an education or at least training in line with regard to academic rigour.
Accepting submissions from Johnny Public and printing them as fact is a great disservice to Liverpool and its history.
Oh... and they also include the William Mackenzie pyramid story.
Bookmarks