| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 23 2005 : 7:02:52 PM
On PBS, I think, last night they had a show on Mummy Hunters or something like. It was yet another presentation of 'forensic anthropology/archaeology' that's so annoyingly popular. The bad news is that it was by far the worst of these shows. The good news is I found the shoe I lost when it richocheted off the set during BHist's History Channel show last year.
They found a skeleton in Wyoming in 1994. Eight years later, this forensic team, so called, investigated. Long story short, the skull had two holes in it, and on the sand close by was a bullet. They concluded the bullet was made in the 1870's or 1880's. Fine. They also concluded the bullet was the one that killed the guy. No, no, no, zero proof.
There was no mention they examined the two holes and found residue to indicate this was the bullet that passed through. Nor did I hear any mention or discussion about whether this hole was post death - perhaps way post death. For all they know, the guy could have been killed by a knife that hit no bone, and someone desecrated the body later. Or he died of thirst and someone desecrated the body later. Or something else entirely. Whatever the truth, they have no evidence for the conclusion he was murdered at all, although it's a reasonable assumption.
Then they did the requisite reconstruction of the face by an expert, of course. I'd like to see if these people know what they're doing by having all these experts given an identical skull copy and see how close they come. They should all look alike, right? Building on science as they are....
Remarkably, this expert knew not only that the man had a mustache, but its exact length matching that of a suspected victim in a photograph she hadn't ever, supposedly, seen before. And the hair color and the part in the hair were the same, as were the eye bags. Amazing what you can tell from bone, isn't it? Just amazing. Too bad DNA didn't support the theory, but she only had so much time to do it and they didn't know that at the beginning.
As you could predict, they have not clue one who the guy is or even what exact decade he died in. What an exciting and meaningful program that leaves the impression something was accomplished towards identifying him, but really not.
According to this program, there are two methods of dna family tracings, one male and one female. Can't prove it by me, though. I remain confused on that point.
NOBODY is more impressed than I am by what they can tell from a corpse, but this continual over-reach is not just pretentious it is dangerous if people start believing this is all a done deal. It's still very iffy, and the conclusions they draw are not based on any science.
It's what bugs me no end about the archaeology at LBH, and how possible interpretations of assumed actions have become fact. |
| 2 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 2:56:52 PM
Of course. We've learned a great deal about navies, for example, by matching the locations of their sunken ships to where they thought or pretended the ships sank. The Bismark, for example, was sunk by its crew and nowhere near as shot up as the British claimed. We've learned a lot about Troy and the Bronze Age from that dig. And we've learned a little, not much, from other battlefields. But people want detail from the Custer field that it cannot provide under any conditions.
And this isn't a pristine field. If you cannot tell the difference between a cartridge case fired by an Indian using a soldier's carbine from one fired by a soldier, what can it tell you? If you can't tell the difference between a cartridge case fired from a soldier's gun months after the battle into an exposed body of a corporal and one fired during the battle, what have you learned? If you discover the pile of cartridges a hunter left sighting his rifle years before or after the battle, and then found by children and dumped in a new location by mothers before re-embarking on a train, what can you learn about the battle twelve years previous?
All "forensics" has taught about the battle is that certain slugs belonging to certain guns were found on the field. When fired, by who, at what, is unknown. Whether the guns under consideration were used in the battle still requires testimony. How, in that case, can it be considered "evidence?" So why is it, and how can people base intricate theories based upon the locations of these finds, and with furrowed brow present a Custer new to history? Who brought his men pointlessly to an indefensible location (while 'on the offensive' against huge numbers) where they'd have to lose 25% of their number (and firepower) to horseholding duties, perform as infantry, and rely on the shooting skills of men so untrained that claimed deficiencies of their primary weapon appear "very soon" into the fight to their second in command, unknown during the previous two years of alleged practice and use? But in order to justify the location finds, a theory has to fit them, or they have to admit to an organized scavenger hunt rather than a scientific process.
Movies have been shot, salutes fired, the field pillaged and (stories exist)salted so that VIP tourists found an actual relic of the battle to take home. Picnic trains stopped at MTC and hordes collected casings (or not, depending who you believe). This isn't Tut's tomb. It's little better than finding a murder site that's been used as a hunting camp for 130 years and trying to piece together the artifacts to "discover the truth." But it's rich in trivia and detal, which often passes - too often passes - as truth and importance.
For example, phrases appeal to certain mindsets; it makes them feel so military to say "bunching" and "tactical disintegration." But it misleads with false surety. Did three soldiers die here bunched? Or was there a dead horse (or that first body...)to hide behind for men to sequentially utilize and die in place? Years later, who can tell? A Hero's men don't panic and soil their trousers in fear as they run in utter panic. They bunch and undergo tactical disintegration.
Otherwise, Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play. And I have no problem with battlefield forensics/archaeology. |
| Little White Dove |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 1:46:36 PM
Hi Dark Cloud. I was just wondering if you feel that 'forensic anthropology/archaeology' has any proper place in battlefield research? |
|
|
