|
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).
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:
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’:
The
Role of Metal Detecting in Medieval Archaeology:
|