He was old. He was ill. He was buried with a valuable object. Those who buried him thought it worth putting that object with him.
We cannot know, but it is a fair inference thatcher was deemed important. What could that mean? Perhaps he was a chief, perhaps a priest, perhaps a retired warrior. You are right we don't know.
But the whole point of archaeology is to explore options suggested to us by the physical remains of the past to make inferences about the past; and thereby learn more about ourselves.
Sent from my iPhone
> On 15 Dec 2014, at 19:37, Raymond Nilson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This sort of story is interesting up to a point. However, to put it colloquially, it really winds me up when I see these stories in the media. Why do we persist to allow such pontificating reporting regarding archaeology? How on earth do we know this human was a chief? Did they build a time machine and go back and ask him? Moreover, modern western superficial conceptions of 'seniority' would most-likely have been completely dichotomous to these groups in the past. The article states, nonetheless, that the information they have provided is 'fact' advocated by science. It appears that they know everything about this man. Do they also know his name? Was it Frank?
> Ray (BA, MA).
> Doctoral Research Student
> Archaeology, School of Arts, Languages and Cultures,
> University of Manchester
> From: British archaeology discussion list [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of John Wood [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 15 December 2014 16:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [BRITARCH] Racton Man
> A nice little write up on the BBC website:
> And will be appearing on BBC South Today tonight.
> Particular interest to me as I used to live in the parish.