19th February 2009, 09:09 PM
lol i agree with you completely i guess it's one of the eternal problems of written text, that it's very easy to get wires crossed [:I]
i don't see why archaeological methods shouldn't be used for more recent burials. Archaeological techniques might be able to produce additional information when coupled with forensic techniques. The techniques are eminently transferable and apply the same to a 50 year old burial as a 500 year old one.
my original question was very loose, which reflects how little i know about the topic. All information, aspects and perspectives are good :face-approve:
Plus this all leads to lively discussion in the dig hut, which always makes me smile.
~~~~~
Thunder rolled. ... It rolled a six.
i don't see why archaeological methods shouldn't be used for more recent burials. Archaeological techniques might be able to produce additional information when coupled with forensic techniques. The techniques are eminently transferable and apply the same to a 50 year old burial as a 500 year old one.
my original question was very loose, which reflects how little i know about the topic. All information, aspects and perspectives are good :face-approve:
Plus this all leads to lively discussion in the dig hut, which always makes me smile.
~~~~~
Thunder rolled. ... It rolled a six.