Richard III & the Car Park

[Phil H]

Jason - a few points:

I think Mary I is being reassessed nowadays and she is being seen at least slightly more sympathetically.

As Michael Wood once put it, Elizabeth presided over a "police state". But I sometimes wonder what the outcome would have been had she not. She managed to steer a course, however erratic and in part accidental, from religious division to one of some stability. By the end of her reign, the divisions were beginning to be between elements of the protestantism rather than catholic v protestant. Without the defence erected around her by Burleigh, Walsingham and Dudley (among others), would she have defeated the northern earls, seen off Mary of Scotland and Philip of Spain...? I wonder, the fragility of the position showed through in the early 1560s when she almost died of smallpox... Tudor rule was always balanced on a knife edge.

Elizabth herself, of course, was not the murderer or torturer - Walsingham and Burleigh were the ruthless ones, and mostly out of her sight. though I suspect she did not ask many questions. But she was VERY reluctant to execute her cousin and her own position seems to have been tolerant - she did not (initially at least) care about a person's faith so long as he/she was loyal. Rulers, in those days, could not be soft.

It was the Pope who, in excommunicating the Queen, made all catholics potential traitors (per se). That changed the game, and Elizabeth and her ministers had to change policy too.

Turning to successful monarchs, and bringing this post back to Richard III - in almost every way (apart from his reputation in regard to the boys) Richard seemed to offer the prospect of a successful reign. His legisaltion appears to be fair, and in the north (which he had governed for his brother for several years) his reputation was high. We will never know, however, what "might have been" since he died after only a couple of years.

I would quite strongly disagree that the Tudors are judged by the same standard if you read most histories, even reputatble ones. Richard's guilt is often assumed by even reputable historians, without much consideration. Henry VII's acts of murder are seen within the context of his wider achievements - something not usually granted Richard. true, he no longer bears the burden of the old cataolgue of stage villainy and the accusation that he killed Henry VI, Edward of Lancaster, his wife, etc etc. that is progress of a sort, I suppose.

I honestly believe that a full analysis of the case leads to the conclusion that it is 70:30 against him having killed his nephews - not least as no bodies have ever been produced. (The bones in the urn are - in my reasonably well-informed opinion - of no relevance at all.) But Edward was on the brink of manhood when he was deposed (by Parliamentary authority no less) so hardly an innocent waif. Compare Henry VII's treatment and the fate of Edward's cousin, Warwick. Above all there was no point in Richard's eliminating the boys, IN SECRET. Given all we know, it would have been a worthless gesture.

Sally - on sentimental Ricardians, I have read many novels about him over the years, most by women. He emerges all too often as a somewhat unbelieveable saint. There are some more balance. Years ago, Rosemary Hawley-Jarman did a magnificent job in her "We Speak No Treason". Patrick Carleton's "Under the Hog" is also worth seeking out. Both are superbly researched but I think out of print.

Phil H

[Sally]

Sally - on sentimental Ricardians, I have read many novels about him over the years, most by women. He emerges all too often as a somewhat unbelieveable saint. There are some more balance. Years ago, Rosemary Hawley-Jarman did a magnificent job in her "We Speak No Treason". Patrick Carleton's "Under the Hog" is also worth seeking out. Both are superbly researched but I think out of print.

Really? You live and learn, as they say I suppose a saintly Richard would be an obvious reaction to all the bad press he's had. I confess I tend not to read historical novels out of blatant prejudice against the very sentimentalismm that you describe!

Perhaps it would be possible to track down those that you recommend via Abe Books, it's a good place for out of print books. I have tracked down many lost childhood favourites that way. Not The Enormous Criocodile though, which I still have.

Anyway, I digress..

Back to Richard. This continues to be a very interesting discussion, I think, which I'm enjoying immensely.

[Errata]

Hi Errata



That's the difference you see. Here, a building in an urban context - certainly an ancient urban context like Leicester - is likely to have been constructed over the top of several earlier occupation phases, including previous buildings. It is quite common for building footprints to be reused in part or whole. We have very complex buildings here. They are quite capable of having 10, 15 building phases. A medieval urban church, for example, might easily have acquired that many by the time it's 5 or 600 years old.

So, going back to the skeletons, the female probably isn't later than the church, because we know we don't have a context for her burial to postdate it - but it could be eariler, because we don't know what lies underneath the 13th century church. As for depth, there are many processes, natural and artificial, which can affect depth. At a very simple level, for example, it cannot be assumed that every burial was dug to the same depth within one building, contemporary or not. So depth doesn't really help us here.

Whereas here, we rarely have more that a couple of building phases (though I shudder to think what they make of the Washington Mall in 1000 years) and when we do build over an existing structure, it's almost never the same footprint, except in the downtown portions of big cities. Of course we also really only have about 500 years worth of buildings at all.

Now I am beginning to understand why they laugh at you if you tell your professor you want to concentrate on British or European archeology. On the other hand, Middle Eastern archeology suits us pretty well.

[Phil H]

If you took an example of English architecture, say a large church, maybe a cathedral, it might illustrate the problems. I'll draw examples from real buildings, particularly Lincoln Cathedral, which i know particularly well.

In England, an urban site might have precursors dating back to bronze or even stoneage times, in that if situated at a river-crossing, or in a strategic location, it might have seen settlement. But let's assume the Romans, as in London, York, Lincoln etc, first built a real town.

The first buildings might have been military, as at York, where the Minster overlays the principia or HQ building of the legionary fortress. There might have been an early Christian church, creating the first Christian link. In some cases, Christian churches were deliberately built on pagan sites or replaced pagan temples, because local people were used to worshipping there. dedications to Our lady might indicate a temple to the Magna Mater, the Earth Mother or Hera/Juno. A dedication to Michael might indicate an earlier temple to Apollo (Lucifer, the Lightbringer, whom the archangel Michael defeated).

This early church might have been replaced by a larger, late Roman building, or a Saxon church. These could be large as at Stow Minster, near Lincoln. thenover the years the building might be enlarged.

In all this the floor level might remain relatively unchanged, with flagstones, or tiles replaced but on roughly the same level. Thus a new transepts, the crossing usually to either side of any central tower, might be at the same level as the older nave and chancel, but on a previously unenclosed site.

At Lincoln, the enlarged east end, known as the Angel Choir from internal decorative sculptures, rests on the foundations of the Roman city wall. Subsidence caused by inadeuate foundations causes major structural problems even today. But there is no major difference in floor level internally.

So, under a floor at a common level, one might find (say) Roman cremation urns originally interred outside the city wall; as well as saxon, medieval and later burials of various dates at differing depths - the depths relating to the depth of excavation of the tomb NOT to date of burial. Vaults may have been created for major local families.

In some cases, graves may have been relocated, bodies moved. At Lincoln, Remigius, the Norman bishop who moved his cathedra to the city c 1086, has a slab - broken by falling masonry in an earthquake; as well as a later tomb beside the high altar, to which his body was later removed. St Hugh, a later bishop, as I have said before, had his body removed to a new, more accessible place, and his head was enclosed in a shrine elsewhere in the building.

So any investigation is complex, and a bishops tomb might be datable and identifiable more by the style of the contents of the grave - remaining vestments or stone coffins, vessels such as communion chalices and patens; or jewellery.

Just a few more examples to promote understanding.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

But we totally faked the moon landing nine times. That's my favorite. I know people who have said that the moon landing was fake, and I said "Charlie Duke said "Why would we fake it NINE times? Which I think is a fair question." and they said "We went to the moon nine times??!?

Or, even better, why did we stop faking them?

I am inclined to believe Oswald one of the great unsung heroes, almost a martyr of our age.

Wait-- what? now you are just baiting me. If nothing else, he shot a cop, and beat his wife.

[Phil H]

There is no compelling evidence, Rivkah, that Oswald shot Officer Tippet. Descriptions of the shooter did not match LHO; Oswald could not have got to the spot on time; the evidence (cartridges/shell casings) was interfered with.

Far more likely that Tippet was shot by someone in revenge for his numerous affairs.

No, I am absolutely clear that Oswald was probably working for some law enforcement or intelligence agency (or thought he was) and was set up. He was, as he claimed a "patsy". I strongly suspect he was a very brave and public spirited young man throughout his adult life - always acting on behalf of the US authorities as far as he was concerned, probably being manipulted by rogue elements in fact.

Phil H

[Roy Corduroy]

A map of the dig

[Phil H]

Thanks Roy, that's most enlightening. Do you have a similar plan that shows the find spots?

Phil H

[Errata]

So, under a floor at a common level, one might find (say) Roman cremation urns originally interred outside the city wall; as well as saxon, medieval and later burials of various dates at differing depths - the depths relating to the depth of excavation of the tomb NOT to date of burial. Vaults may have been created for major local families.


Just a few more examples to promote understanding.

Phil H

This is why your archeologists end up surveying the pyramids in a tutu. Just sayin. They must all go daft. Though I now understand why British digs I read about always had just excessive amounts of C14 dating. I thought they were being, well, British, but clearly your dig sites must present as a trash pile.

Upon further research last night, I also found out that Roman ruins around Hadrian's wall tend to be (though not always) at a relatively consistent depth, but it's much shallower that similarly dated finds here, or in South America. By a couple of feet. And while I am familiar with the mechanics of soil generation and erosion, I can't for the life of me figure out why the difference would be so significant. So if someone knows the answer to that, it's bugging me.

[Cogidubnus]

As a further example, there's believed to be a roman basilica directly under the floor of Chichester Cathedral, and in fact, part of a mosaic floor can be seen at no great depth via a viewing window...at Fishbourne, just a couple of miles along the road the mosaic floors are a little deeper down...but not perhaps as far as you'd expect...alas parts have been damaged by (it is thought) medieval ridge and furrow ploughing...

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

No, I am absolutely clear that Oswald was probably working for some law enforcement or intelligence agency (or thought he was) and was set up. He was, as he claimed a "patsy".

Right. Because they love recruiting high school drop-outs, who were dishonorably discharged from the marines.

"Patsy" had more than one meaning in the 1950s. The mafia used it to mean a "fall guy," someone you set up to take the blame for a crime, but it wasn't in general parlance, with that meaning-- all the big mafia books hadn't come out yet. It had another meaning, and that was someone who got bullied a lot. Boys on the school ground picked on other boys by calling them girls' names, so an unpopular boy was a Patsy.

Oswald used the word in the following context: "Naturally, if I work in that building [the book depository]... they're taking me in because I work in that building; I'm just a Patsy." Oswald was unpopular at work, and considered odd by his coworkers. He also wasn't Italian, and would not have known mafia lingo. It's remotely possible that he was using the word to mean "fall guy," but it's more likely he was saying he was being persecuted, which is essentially the same thing every other presidential assassin, or would-be assassin, has said upon arrest. Leon Czolgosz thought he'd be a hero, and John Hinckley thought Jodie Foster would go out with him. They would both genuinely shocked that everyone was horrified by what they'd done.

FWIW, you have to know Texas in 1963-- Kennedy was not especially popular there, at least with white people.

A map of the dig

Thank you.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Phil,

"The body of an adult male has been excavated from what is believed to be ruins of the choir area of the Grey Friars church in Leicester." I assume this corresponds with Trench 1 which crosses the choir.

"A second set of human remains (disarticulated, female) was found in what is believed to be the presbytery." Which would be Trench 3.

Roy

[Sally]

That looks like a buttress up against the south wall.

So.... these two skeletons are what - 9, 10m apart? Not really next to each other are they? Imagine what might happen if we had an open area excavation instead. Then, instead of two skeletons, we might have a dozen.

Then the one female burial discovered might not look so significant. All a matter of perspective.

[RivkahChaya]

By a couple of feet. And while I am familiar with the mechanics of soil generation and erosion, I can't for the life of me figure out why the difference would be so significant. So if someone knows the answer to that, it's bugging me.

Could it be somehow and artifact of the building methods used to construct the wall vs. the ones used in S. America?

Remember, they never managed to figure out the wheel and axle in S. America, or, one assumes, the pulley, so the type of construction machinery, and the use of human labor would be completely different. Maybe the Romans had the capability of leveling the foundation to a degree, by subtracting, or filling in small hills and ditches. Or am I not quite understanding what you are talking about?

RE: the map. I'm assuming the trenches are all human-dug. What prompted curiosity about those locations? or did they start out with natural erosion? I think some of the articles people are linking to pop up slightly different versions here.

Also, I'm going with the following: cloister garth = courtyard; cloister walk = covered walkway; chapter house = really, really, really ornate conference center; dormitory over = there were clergy in residence on the second floor; nave = where the regular people sat.

I'm still working on "range."

[Sally]

Hi Rivkah

Topography, geology, vegetation and subsequent human and natural processes all affect soil build up. That's it, really. So, say you had two Roman villa sites in southern Britain. One in a valley, the other on a hilltop. Assuming no other factors, the one in the valley bottom will be subject to more soil build up than the one on the hill. In an urban context, the situation is normally very complex. You rarely get nice, neat layers, because people dig new foundation trenches, boundary ditches, cess pits, whatever, cutting through what lies beneath most of the time. Only a period of abandonment by humans will alter that.

RE: the map. I'm assuming the trenches are all human-dug. What prompted curiosity about those locations? or did they start out with natural erosion?

Yes, those are excavation trenches. I don't know what the spec was - presumably to locate the monastery and find Richard III

Also, I'm going with the following: cloister garth = courtyard; cloister walk = covered walkway; chapter house = really, really, really ornate conference center; dormitory over = there were clergy in residence on the second floor; nave = where the regular people sat.

I'm still working on "range."

A range is just a suite of rooms built in a line, basically.