Dating human skeletal remains
Image courtesy of Historic England David has a Master of Arts in English Literature from the State University of New York at New Paltz, where he specialized in the Anglo-Saxon period prior to the Norman invasion of 1066.
A professional freelance writer and fiction author, he currently lives in the Adirondack State Park with his wife and daughter.
Previous techniques have involved measuring physical or chemical changes within the hydroxyapatite matrix, radiocarbon dating and 90Sr dating, though no individual test has been advocated.
Within this paper it is proposed that measuring the equilibrium between two naturally occurring radio-isotopes, 210Po and 210Pb, and comparison with post-mortem examination samples would produce a new method of dating human skeletal remains.
With the stone found in the front part of the mouth, where the tongue would have been, the researchers felt it was a safe bet to conclude it had been placed there to take the place of a missing tongue.
Corroborating evidence regarding the loss of the man’s tongue prior to his death came in the form of traces of bacterial infection in the bones of the mouth typical of the type of infection one would have received in the third or fourth century after having their tongue removed.
To the embarrassment of many a very intelligent man and woman of science, overly confident conclusions and arrogant statements have been made based on such similarities that have, on occasion, turned out to be not only wrong, but painfully wrong.
It is fine to hypothesize that similarities between different creatures are the result of common ancestry, but since such similarities have been and are often conflicting when compared with other features, it might be prudent to hold back a little when making conclusions about any sort of definite taxonomic classification model or even relationship.
Taking isolated similarities by themselves, the theory of evolution appears to be quite reasonable... However, it seems that too much weight has been placed on similarities without questioning the differences.Originally discovered in 1991, it was only recently that research methods had progressed to the point where specialist archaeologists and other experts from Historic England were able to uncover the complex mysteries of the burial.The mutilation in question is thought to have been unique among Romano-British remains, according to human skeletal biologist Simon Mays, who worked with Historic England to study the burial.The scene was preserved and assistance was sought from the office of the State Pathologist.A forensic anthropologist subsequently attended the beach to inspect the remains.It is unclear what proportion of the skeleton was recovered.According to the website , the Iron Age is a “somewhat enigmatic” period in Ireland’s prehistory. The site counts a number of large tribal sites from the period as locations at Navan Fort, Co Armagh; Dun Ailinne, Co Kildare and Croghaun, Co Roscommon.Possible limitations exist, notably the effect of diagenesis, time limitations and relative cost, though this technique could provide a relatively accurate means of determining the post-mortem interval.It is therefore proposed that a large study be undertaken to provide a calibration scale against which bones uncovered can be dated.Archaeologists that studied the burial say that the man could have been buried in such a manner to prevent him from rising from the dead and terrorizing the living.Discovered near the river Nene at Stanwick, the original site dates to either the third or fourth century, when the region would have been dominated by small farming communities.