Originally posted by Errata
View Post
Firstly let me make clear to everyone, I'm not here to defend the 'shawl' theory.
You state that the date range for the shawl is wrong. Certainly, if there was a claim that the shawl was manufactured in 1888, the style and design would be inconsistent with that date. However, I don't think anyone is claiming 1888 as a date of manufacture.
It is likely, given the visual evidence we have seen, that the shawl dates from sometime between the early 1820's to the late 1840's. By 1888 it would be as out of date, in terms of fashion and style, as flares are today.
The good condition it was apparently in at that time could indicate that the person it belonged to took some care over its appearance, so we might conjecture that it was perhaps handed down to her from her mother or from a lady whose house she once worked in. How ever it came into her possession, we have no reason to state that simply because she was poor she couldn't own it. (I know you didn't state that but many others have)
If you were to attempt what you are suggesting, you'd have to firstly discover a shawl that has got little or no provenance. You wouldn't want some antique dealer popping up in a months time proving he'd bought it at a jumble sale in Scotland and then sold it on to you.
You'd then have to arrange the depositation of mDNA samples onto the shawl in such a manner as to convince 2 somewhat distinguished scientists, one of whom has worked for the police from time to time on similar work, that the mDNA samples are not in any way suspicious or recently applied.
Furthermore, the presently understood timeline would suggest that the mDNA samples you place upon the shawl cannot be the ones you later collect from the living relatives of the supposed initial mDNA doners.
I'll be intrigued to learn how it is that you propose to do this in so short a time.
Thanks, Caligo
Comment