Ricardian Archaeology

What’s Archaeology Got to Do with Richard III?

In theory, modern archaeological techniques could put an end to some of the controversies that still rage around the Wars of the Roses and the reigns of the later Plantagenet kings. So, bearing in mind that archaeology is based on the recovery, analysis and interpretation of physical evidence, let’s consider some ways in which archaeology might further our understanding of Richard III and his world:

Forensic Archaeology:

Forensic archaeology involves examining human remains for evidence of an individual’s sex, age, height/appearance, diet, state of general health and cause of death. Archaeological remains are typically skeletal, although depending on burial conditions hair, fingernails and soft tissue may also survive. Depending on the quantity and state of preservation of the remains, it may be possible to carry out more detailed analysis to determine an individual’s blood group, create DNA profiles to establish family relationships, or conclusively identify an individual (Anne Mowbray, Margaret of Burgundy, Eleanor Butler).

Thus forensic archaeology has the potential to end old and new debate on questions like:

·          Was Edward IV really a bastard? (Compare DNA from Edward IV/Duke and Duchess of York)

·          Could the famous bones from the Tower of London really be those of his sons? (Compare DNA from Tower bones/Edward IV/Queen Elizabeth Woodville)

·          Could Richard III really have poisoned his wife? (Analyse Queen Anne Neville’s bones for traces of toxins)

However, forensic archaeology does have its limitations. For instance, whilst DNA analysis could conceivably demonstrate that the Tower bones were the sons of Edward IV/Queen Elizabeth, it could not answer the question, ‘Were the Princes bastards?’ That issue rests upon historical evidence (the debatable validity of their parents’ marriage), rather than on demonstrable biological evidence.

Ethical Considerations:

Forensic archaeology is also limited by the complex ethical, moral, spiritual and practical issues that surround the opening of (particularly royal) tombs, undertaking post-mortems, Health & Safety for handling human remains, storage, re-interment and so on. Some people believe that the need for proof, truth, rehabilitation of reputations and accurate re-writing of history outweighs all other considerations. Others believe, with equal passion and sincerity, that disturbing the remains of known individuals deliberately laid to rest in Christian graves is inherently wrong: disrespectful, sacrilegious and unjustifiable. Where these views prevail, it may be difficult or impossible for forensic archaeologists to obtain necessary permissions to disinter and analyse skeletal remains, and disseminate the results.

Archaeological Excavation:

Archaeological excavations literally unearth the physical remains of human activity: what people were doing, using, wearing, eating and so forth on a site at a given moment in the past. This ‘hard’ evidence can be used to support, amplify or in some cases, contradict historical records and oral traditions.

Thus archaeological investigations and excavation have the potential to answer such questions as:

·          Do any physical remains of Richard III still survive?

·          If so, where are they?

Richard’s Disputed Resting Place:

After the battle of Bosworth, Richard III was interred in the choir of Greyfriars church in the centre of Leicester. Ten years later Henry VII had the remains placed in an alabaster tomb where they remained until the Dissolution of the Monasteries. According to legend, the tomb was then broken up, the sarcophagus used as a horse trough and King Richard’s skeleton thrown into the River Soar.

Q. If the legend is true, could Richard III’s remains have survived 500 years of immersion in the Soar?

A. Possibly, depending on underwater conditions. If the bones sank quickly into a protective layer of riverbed silt, they could potentially be well preserved not too far from the point of deposition. However, on a shallow stony riverbed, bones would rapidly get broken, abraded by pebbles, eroded by water-borne particles and carried long distances from the point of deposition. Under such conditions it is extremely unlikely that any identifiable fragments of Richard III’s skeleton could survive/be located after 500 years.   

Q. How might archaeology help us to find out whether the legend is true?

A. First of all, archaeologists would undertake a ‘desk-based assessment’ (DBA). This would involve consulting archives/old maps of Leicester to identify likely spots (bridges and access points) close to the Greyfriars site, and find any available information on the depth, condition and navigability of this section of the River Soar in the fifteenth century. Marine archaeologists might then carry out diving operations to investigate the riverbed/assess the likelihood of skeletal material surviving. If conditions seem to favour bone preservation, possible burial sites could be pinpointed experimentally (for instance by dropping a pig skeleton ‘tagged’ with a harmless radioactive isotope into the Soar, to find out how far bones are carried by the current). Further diving operations could then focus on these locations, deploying an air-lift (like a giant vacuum cleaner) to recover material from the riverbed. An investigative archaeology project of this nature would be comparatively simple, low-cost, and far more practically achievable than sinking a coffer dam into the Soar to undertake a dry land excavation. It would also be an interesting exercise, although its chances of success (finding and retrieving a disarticulated skeleton that may never have been there in the first place) are exceedingly remote.

Q. If the legend is not true, where might Richard III’s body be?

A. Arguably, a more likely scenario is that his tomb and skeleton were broken up and left in situ. It is reasonable to assume that the foundations/floors of the abbey church, together with layers of demolition rubble and stray artefacts, are still preserved beneath the streets of modern Leicester. Therefore, in theory, it should be possible to locate the building and any graves cut into its floor (a common mode of burial in the medieval period), recover skeletal material and assess it for signs of battle injuries/deliberate post-mortem damage. (Excavation of the Greyfriars site may be possible one day, depending on future road/building developments in this part of central Leicester. For this reason it is essential that the area be monitored, and that full provision is made for archaeological assessment, excavation and post-excavation processing prior to any major construction programme going ahead).

Alternatively, Richard’s tomb and skeleton could both have been removed and disposed of elsewhere – in which case it seems impossible that his remains could ever be recovered or conclusively identified.

Battlefield Studies

By definition, battlefields are large sites, where a complex series of actions took place – thus many different types of evidence need to be drawn upon to develop an accurate picture of the battle. It is usually impractical or impossible to carry out full-scale excavation of the entire area under consideration. For example, Towton battlefield covers an area of c. 6 square miles; or if the definition of ‘battlefield’ is extended to include the rout and the spread/deposition of bodies by river action, the area involved becomes correspondingly larger. Consequently, battlefield archaeologists need to use a mixture of historical evidence, topographic study and non-destructive surveying/sampling techniques, to identify ‘hot spots’ and focus more detailed investigations/excavation.

It is hoped that battlefield archaeology will help to answer some of the questions still remaining about the Battle of Bosworth, such as the exact location of ‘Redemore’ battlefield (Ambion Hill, Dadlington, Atherstone, Stoke Golding?), and the site of Richard III’s fall at ‘Sandeford’.

Planned Future Additions to Archaeology Section:

The ‘Princes in the Tower’:

·          Archaeological background/issues: contemporary sources/controversy/propaganda; nature of Tower of London as archaeological site/potential for further survey or excavation; 1674 finds; 1933 investigation/post-mortem

·          Description of extant human remains: sex and age classification, condition, contamination, location

·          Challenges to the assumption that the bones are those of the Princes: are the remains the same as the 1674 ones?

·          How can an individual’s identity be established by bone analysis? Discussion of techniques and limitations in forensic archaeology, glossary of common terms/techniques

·          Is it feasible to test these (and other known royal/Yorkist bones) to try and determine relationships by DNA recovery/analysis? What remains exist/where are they? What relationships might potentially be confirmed (eg Edward IV’s alleged bastardy)?

·          How might funding/support for forensic archaeology projects be found?

·          Who would do the work (Richard III Society, universities, freelance specialists etc)?

·          What permissions would need to be obtained/from whom before project could go ahead?

The Role of Metal Detecting in Medieval Archaeology:

·          Ethics and issues of metal detecting

·          Care of finds recovered through detecting