Imagine a big, free-for-all fight between a textual historian, an art historian, an archaeologist and a genealogist...

Who do you think would win?

In my heart, I'd be rooting for the textual historian , but I'd probably put my money on the archaeologist, because they'd be by far the best armed (digging implements etc). I might place a side bet on the genealogist being the first to fall, because they'd be most likely to be geriatric...

Not so sure about that - think of how big some of those old texts are - dual-purpose, too, shield and missile as well, whilst the archaeologist was still faffing about with his/her camel-hair brushes ...

Well, the archaeologist would have to win since the rest would be reduced to throwing paper darts at each other since she, as the sole custodian of all material culture, would have the entire field of weaponry to pick from. On reflection, since paper etc is just another artefact the rest wouldn't even get that.
One snag though, the archaeologist would be down the pub arguing with other archaeologists.

ferval wrote:

One snag though, the archaeologist would be down the pub arguing with other archaeologists.

That explains who those groups of spotty, bearded*, anoraks are. I'd always assumed them to be either trainspotters or CAMRA members...

*...and the males ones are just as bad!

No contest. The art historian being the wealthiest from making heaps of money from unfathonable gush that no one understands and therefore uncontestable, only the Art Hist. can afford to hire an army and blast the others away; they first being dazed and hazed by an arch declaration of superiority. Must be Brian Sewell I'm thinking of. Or is he just a critic?

Of course a mass fusillade from the theoreticians of any of the disciplines would be invincible. Those who hadn't died of boredom under the onslaught would would be slitting their wrists in despair.

Yes ferv, death by boredom is a terrible way to go. I once did a Times crossword having found a place on the back row for a lecture that I just knew was going to bore me to compulsive yawning. After a coffee break with more of the same to follow, the entire back row had managed to get a paper to do likewise. The speaker gave a superior smile at one point - so we were told later, and noted that at the people at the back were taking notes but there was no need as info was to hand.

Of course it is possible that money was being exchanged for clue help. Anyway, time well spent on the whole if you have to endure such misery.



If The Cat meant a free for all through debate - well experts don't debate, do they? You can only tell who wins by the size of their next research grant, anyway. Not necessarily the best, of course.

Dear God, look at the time. And now for some sleep where I am.

Assuming the geneologist is Eric Brewster then I'd have to go with him, no contest, he'd kill any opposition with laughter.

There's something of a minor spat currently taking place between textual historians and oral historians and genealogists etc relating to the identity of Queen Victoria's Last Subject. This was/is believed by textual historians (at least) to have been Violet Brown of Trelawny Parish in Jamaica who died in September.

A couple of months later, however, a new claimant to the title of Queen Victoria's Last Subject emerged (also in Jamaica) in the person of Ida Troupe of Kingston:

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/oldest-jamaican-honoured-on-christmas-day_120925?profile=1373

Her birthday is given as 25 December 1900. This date alone raises eyebrows as being a sort of equivalent to Louis Armstrong's claim to have been born on the 4th of July that same year. That said, and as one who champions the oral tradition when appropriate, I'll keep an open mind on this.