- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
I'm watching some show on PBS about uncovering myths and mysteries of history.
One segment of it particular really pissed me off. A couple historians had found a picture that had a picture of an unmarked grave and stated a location in Texas and claimed to be the grave site of Wild Bill. These guys go to this particular graveyard, line up some trees to the trees in the picture and start taking core samples (stick a hollow pole in the ground and pull up a plug of dirt) to see if it looked like someone had been buried there.
It appeared that someone had been buried there so they get permission (from who, I'm not sure) to dig up the grave. They determine that it's some old woman and not Wild Bill. They they go and talk to the owner of the graveyard and find out that there is possibly 17 unmarked graves that could be Wild Bill.
Somehow, these "historians" get the authority to just start systematically digging up these graves till they think they find Wild Bill's remains. They go through at least 4 sites, or at least thats all that they show being dug up, before they find the one that they think is burial site of Wild Bill.
Really, is this necessary? I'm not a religious man by any stretch of the phrase, but I am still bothered by this. I guess the last wish a person can have is a peaceful resting place. Having a bunch of wacked out historians with a hard on for finding the bones of a old west wild man disrupt your grave site is just downright disrespectful.
This whole thing just rubbed me the wrong way. Where do we draw the line between actually aiding the understanding of past times and cultures and the complete disreguard for the deceased in a perverted personal conquest?
[edit]
Here's a link to the actual article. Looks like they dug up 35!!!! sites trying to find his remains.
One segment of it particular really pissed me off. A couple historians had found a picture that had a picture of an unmarked grave and stated a location in Texas and claimed to be the grave site of Wild Bill. These guys go to this particular graveyard, line up some trees to the trees in the picture and start taking core samples (stick a hollow pole in the ground and pull up a plug of dirt) to see if it looked like someone had been buried there.
It appeared that someone had been buried there so they get permission (from who, I'm not sure) to dig up the grave. They determine that it's some old woman and not Wild Bill. They they go and talk to the owner of the graveyard and find out that there is possibly 17 unmarked graves that could be Wild Bill.
Somehow, these "historians" get the authority to just start systematically digging up these graves till they think they find Wild Bill's remains. They go through at least 4 sites, or at least thats all that they show being dug up, before they find the one that they think is burial site of Wild Bill.
Really, is this necessary? I'm not a religious man by any stretch of the phrase, but I am still bothered by this. I guess the last wish a person can have is a peaceful resting place. Having a bunch of wacked out historians with a hard on for finding the bones of a old west wild man disrupt your grave site is just downright disrespectful.
This whole thing just rubbed me the wrong way. Where do we draw the line between actually aiding the understanding of past times and cultures and the complete disreguard for the deceased in a perverted personal conquest?
[edit]
Here's a link to the actual article. Looks like they dug up 35!!!! sites trying to find his remains.
Facebook
Twitter