In this article geneticists in New Mexico are preparing to exhume Billy the Kid’s body as well as that of his Mother in Texas. They want to close the book once and for all on the last chapter of Billy the Kid’s life.
Pat Garret famous wild west sherriff purportedly shot the Kid in Fort Sumner over 120 years ago. There have been many tales that the Kid was never killed. Some say he went to England, others say he went to Texas and assumed the identity of Bill Roberts - Brushy Bill Roberts.
As a historian I must think about the ramifications this may have on our cultural-folk-history, what will this mean? Imagine in a month the article headline reads: Billy the Kid’s remains found to be a fraud, say scientists from Big X University.
Then what? What are the teeming millions thoughs about geneticists getting involved in historical icons? Should we seek to disprove our past?
Cheers,
Antiquarian
p.s. Imagine if geneticists turn their glean on the blood of St.Januarius in Naples?
Simply…if it proves false then yes we ought to do so. Proving or disproving any idea, theory or paradigm is surely our obligation as human beings. Seekers of truth and all that, yes?
I am not only speaking of things like Billy the Kid.
Take Catholic Relics. Radiocarbon date John the Baptist’s finger and find it is only a thousand years old. Or exhume John Wilkes Booth and find he’s a relative of Abe Lincoln.
See where I’m going? Should somethings be left well enough alone simply because they are the foundations of one or a group’s faith…
I see where you are going. My family and I belong to a group that worships Billy the Kid as a deity. I know that if they do the study and it turns out true then I couldn’t let my family and I celebrate “Billy-Mas” in good faith. I would hate to make my kid cry because there aren’t any chaps under the Billy-Mas tumbleweed this year.
With all due respect to P.C. Hodgell, that which can be destroyed by the truth generally should be. I see no problem with using modern techniques to establish the historicity of cultural icons and beliefs, assuming that anyone is interested enough to go to such trouble.
Shroud of Turin was dated at less than 1000 yrs. old and the Church did not fall apart. Faith is not based on science and does not worry about what the secular world “knows.”
[f]Foolonthehill** makes a good point (although I suspect I am about to misread the intent).
Faith is not interested in proof or evidence or reason. Faith can aarguably be seen to already fly in the face of these things. Faith (of this variety) has no respect for truth now, why would it change? For those who do require evidence however, yes we ought to question everything - absolutely everything, and examine it with the best tools we have.
Absolutely not. If believing things is more important than the truth, why bother with the truth at all? Why not let your kids grow up believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny and all that other junk?
I’d say you can’t disprove the past. The past is what’s true. You can disprove myths and lies, and by all means we should.
Regarding Billy the Kid, you’d first have to figure out which Billy the Kid was being debunked:
The psychotic youth who “killed a man for every one of his 21 years”?
The loyal friend in a pseudo-feudal society who did what was expected of him in “riding for the brand” and avenging the murder of his “lord”?
Some variant combining those two versions, in which he does start out simply displaying loyalty, but gets carried away, murdering some people who were not “legitimate” targets? (And only killing four men, outright, while being involved in shootouts where another five men died?)
Similarly with the relics of saints. I would be surprised if very many relics had any relationship to the saints from whom they were allegedly acquired. The church, while displaying a certain amount of reverence (not worship) toward such relics, does not actually embrace them (any more) as actual proof of holiness–such an attitude is, itself, a “relic” of a more credulous time.
Given the misunderstandings that arise from poorly documented history, where “lessons” are applied to our own time based on mythological (mis)understandings, I have no problem with reviewing the past to discover what “really” happened.
(On the other hand, will the discovery that Henry McCarty/William Bonney/William Antrim/Billy the Kid survived Garrett’s assassination attempt and rode off to live in Texas under another name actually change our understanding of the history of nineteenth century New Mexico? There are people who are far better known than can be justified by their actions. Some issues are more fun than meaningful to discuss or argue.)
Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. Then again, sometimes it isn’t.
As far as Billy is concerned, if this discovery proves correct, then we have a new mystery to unravel. How exactly did he live his last days?
I would rather have the myths be debunked (in excessive (to some) detail), in order to get to the truth than to suffice with the myth, as (especially in this case) the myth limits the tale to be told, whereas when the facts are known we have both the myth and the facts. While the facts may not be as romantic, the solving of the mystery in itself can be a worthy story.
This reminds me of the NOVA show a few years back, in which an attempt was made to find the bodies of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. They spent a fortune, travelling to Bolivia, and digging up graves. In the end, nobody knows what happened to the two.
I prefer to believe that the pair were not killed, instead lived out their lives in obscurity.If not for Pat Garrett, “Billy the Kid” would hve been long-forgotten-he was probably a run-of-the-mill teenage hoodlum, one of hundreds. The whole mythology of the “Old West” has been effectively debunked; most of it was created by Hollywood and Zane Gray.
Didn’t they dig up Jesse James a few years ago, and prove those were his bones—much to the annoyance of people who claimed to be descended from the “real” Jesse, who lived to be 114 or something?
I for one was delighted when the fake Grand Duchess Anastasia was outed, due to DNA evidence.
Disproving lies. Is it a lie that our history books say Lee Harvey Oswald worked alone? Is it a lie that a UFO crashed in Roswell in the 50’s?
Whats written is what people believe, plain and simple. Newpapers are full of 90% BS and 10% fact. But a common sociological fallacy is that “…if it’s written it must be true…” Excluding obvious instance of falsehood.
I posted this as a historian and archaeologst. I’ll say with quite some certaintly, that the truth get’s skewed for almost everything I dig up. I’ve dug up many artifacts that are now displayed all over the Northeast and Britain…
Most recently I consulted on the Hopewell exhibit at the Chicago Field museum. See here .
There is a distinct lag between artifacts being dug up and the history behind them. Research is carried out by countless grad students who are very good, don’t get me wrong. But working late on a Sunday night getting paid 10 bucks an hour - or volunteering - information get’s skewed. I don’t want people to get the impression I think the truth shouldn’t be had, but I do want people to be careful with the facts that are presented.
I am only one of countless archaeologists and historians out there, I wonder what other information has been skewed. How much of our history is in fact false.
Thus, I am glad the truths are being sought.
Of course, some of us already are of the belief that mythical tales of yesteryear (a) are probably wildly divergent from what really happened, and (b) have a value and a “reality” of their own unrelated to being historic record. The legendary character known as “Billy the Kid” has a meaning of his own in the American West mythos, separate from the life of a particular young gunman of 19th-century New Mexico. The legendary character of the young George Washington taking his axe to the cherry tree has a meaning of his own separate from the deeds of a distinguished Lieutenant General who became a political leader.