16th February 2013, 10:40 AM
(This post was last modified: 16th February 2013, 11:00 AM by Unitof1.)
Just wondering if the dna did not turnout to be a match with anybody who claims that they are a relative decendant of rickee if that would mean that the body could not be rickee and by that I mean somebody who claimed to be rickee when they were alive or who the people thought was rickee when they buried rickee in this hole.
They could have plucked anybody off the battlefield. On the dateing side the fact that they machined down onto the shin bone would suggest that there was no stratergraphical evidence that this burial was not buried yesterday. Theres plenty of evidence that this site was looked for by a bunch of history nutters who were well aware of dna matching. The great big R on the tarmac....
I would almost say that this is a crucial piece of logic for the public understanding of archaeological evidence. I would go as far to accuse anybody who does claim that any match of any form, positive or negative, is, and I dont know how to say this out loud but will just have to, a-historian. [SIZE=2]Yes thats what I said. I would say that anybody who could ever unequivically say that this body belongs to rickee or not is a lier and a historian. As an archaeologist I would particularly take great offence if somebody was to bury this body in a grave marked rickee. In many ways the wording of the exhumation liecence cannot be archaeological: the remains will be reburied at the Cathedral in the 'unlikely event' that they turned out to be the king -as only a historian could ever make the claim but the liecence presumably was to an archaeologist(and thats without going into the obvious problems of presuming possible catholic being buried in prodostant cathedrals..)
yes I could have posted this here http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?...ncis-Pryor[/SIZE]
They could have plucked anybody off the battlefield. On the dateing side the fact that they machined down onto the shin bone would suggest that there was no stratergraphical evidence that this burial was not buried yesterday. Theres plenty of evidence that this site was looked for by a bunch of history nutters who were well aware of dna matching. The great big R on the tarmac....
I would almost say that this is a crucial piece of logic for the public understanding of archaeological evidence. I would go as far to accuse anybody who does claim that any match of any form, positive or negative, is, and I dont know how to say this out loud but will just have to, a-historian. [SIZE=2]Yes thats what I said. I would say that anybody who could ever unequivically say that this body belongs to rickee or not is a lier and a historian. As an archaeologist I would particularly take great offence if somebody was to bury this body in a grave marked rickee. In many ways the wording of the exhumation liecence cannot be archaeological: the remains will be reburied at the Cathedral in the 'unlikely event' that they turned out to be the king -as only a historian could ever make the claim but the liecence presumably was to an archaeologist(and thats without going into the obvious problems of presuming possible catholic being buried in prodostant cathedrals..)
yes I could have posted this here http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?...ncis-Pryor[/SIZE]
Reason: your past is my past