see the result any second now, just here. and it's coming out at 250 to 340 ad, so it's old, but it's not as old at st. peter. so if it's not st. peter the apostle, georges, then who is it? >> it may be a simple case of mistaken identity. there was another martyr called st. peter, who died in around 304. so it may well be a relic of st. peter, just not st. peter the apostle. >> oh, well, that would certainly fit with the date. >> however, this doesn't get us any closer to resolving the great mystery of whether st. peter actually visited rome. >> or what the status of the vatican bones is? >> exactly. >> for that, we really need to actually go and sample that material. >> but with no access to the bones found beneath the vatican, it's impossible to say