Richard III & the Car Park

[Phil H]

And yet, he was still buried in the Choir, albeit later, so eventually he regained that status, once all the fuss had died down, presumably.

I think Henry VII was reminded that it behoves kings to treat other kings with some respect. My view would be that it was the friars who chose the actual burial spot and they may have seen Richard in all his regal glory only days before. Henry VII himself moved on from Leicester towards London almost immediately.

Incidentally, the re-burial of bodies was not unusual historically; although by Richard's time it may have been less common.

Actually NOT when it came down to royal burials. In around 1413, Henry V had the body of Richard II (whom his father had deposed) reburied in Westminster Abbey, in a wonderful tomb made in Richard's lifetime. the bonze effigies are detailed and superb. this was part of his attempt to atone for his father's usurpation and Richard's death, probably by starvation in Pontefract Castle, at Henry IV's order.

In 1483, Richard III himself had the body of Henry VI moved from Chertsey Abbey to Windsor and reburied there, close to the high altar.

Thus henry VII had two quite recent precedents for the reburial of kings WHO HAD BEEN DETHRONED!! this may have influenced his treatment of Richard's burial place, though he did not move the body. Time had passed and henry now wished to be seen to act like a king...

In the earlier church, it is evident that it was common practice to first bury a person, and then excavate them at some later point in time, when they were defleshed, and inter selected bones in a final resting place. The skull and longbones are usual. Exactly why this practice was important is unclear.

In the case of religious figures and "saints" it was so that the faithful could worship more easily and in different places - being charged money for each veneration - thus increasing ecclessiastical revenue!!

St Hugh of Avalon, bishop of Lincoln c1200 and buried in Lincoln Cathedral, was so popular as a saint and numbers of pilgrims so great that he was reburied with edward I present and helping to carry the bier. At the same time, Hugh's skull was removed and put in a different place within the cathedral for separate veneration.

The skull and crossbones symbol of the Knights Templar is thought to reflect the cult of the skull and long bones to which you rightly refer.

Phil H

[Sally]

Phil -

In the case of religious figures and "saints" it was so that the faithful could worship more easily and in different places - being charged money for each veneration - thus increasing ecclessiastical revenue!!

St Hugh of Avalon, bishop of Lincoln c1200 and buried in Lincoln Cathedral, was so popular as a saint and numbers of pilgrims so great that he was reburied with edward I present and helping to carry the bier. At the same time, Hugh's skull was removed and put in a different place within the cathedral for separate veneration.

The skull and crossbones symbol of the Knights Templar is thought to reflect the cult of the skull and long bones to which you rightly refer.

That's one aspect of it, yes, certainly later on (by later on I mean say, after 1200 or so) when the Pilgramage phenomena had really gathered momentum. There was a lot of cash to be made from saint-viewing and souvinir selling.

But the practice does not seem to have been restricted to saints or clergy - several instances of important secular figures being subject to the same treatment. Weird. The reason, ultimately, may be symbolic, although I'm not sure this is the place to speculate!

The Past is a Foreign Country, as they say.

[RivkahChaya]

necropoli(?)

No. "Necropolis," or for that matter, the root "polis," is not a second declension, masculine noun in Latin, the only nouns that pluralize with an -i, at least in the accusative case. Eg: alumnus/alumni.

In Latin, which is where we get the word, it is a third declension noun, like, well, "penis," and is we were speaking Latin, the plural of "necropolis" would be "necropoles," just as the plural of "penis" would be "penes." I would suggest that in both cases, since we are speaking English, just add an -es. "necropolises." If you don't like that, you can revert to the Greek plural, since the Romans stole the word from the Greeks, and say "necropoleis." Or, you could just say "cemeteries."

While we're at it, octopi is not the plural of octopus, feti is not the plural of fetus, and I really, really hope the guy who wrote "walri" was joking, because "walrus" is a Dutch word. When in doubt, or even when not, just use the plural of the language you are speaking. We don't go around saying "hosen" and "shoen" anymore, why should we sweat over "necropolises"? And it's perfectly fine to say "operas," because "opera" as an English word hardly means the same thing as "opera" the Latin word, which yes, is the plural of "opus." There is no such word as "opi," and both Classicists and musicians would laugh at you for saying it. In English, the plural of "opus" is "opuses."

What's a pet peeve?

[Errata]

Really? So there were no burials within the church until Richard's time? Is that what you're suggesting?


The 'time of the building's existence' spans at least 300 years, as I think I've already said. So there is no reason - assuming the female remains were buried in the church to begin with - that she couldn't be older, or younger in time than 'Richard'. As stated, there is no stratigraphic relationship between them - all this stuff about 'layers' is irrelevant in this context.

Not at all. When I said "relatively contemporary" I meant within 200 years or so, before or after Richard. Meaning, this woman was not some 8th century farmers wife or whatever. Had she been buried 700 years earlier, she would have been significantly deeper than Richard. But anyone buried in the chancel of the church, no matter when that happened in the history of the monastery would be buried at the same level as Richard.

The layers matter in two contexts. The first is geologic, in that the older the remain, the deeper they are buried, due to simple soil accumulation. The second context is that when excavating a site, the standard practice is to remove measured layers. In some cases that can be six inches at a time, and others foot or more at a time. Anything shallow tends to be newer. However, this doesn't really apply to indoor sites, unless you you have a ot of construction stacked on top of construction. So basically I am saying that if this woman was some bronze age trader, buried before the construction of the monastery, she would have been in a deeper layer than than any artifact of the monastery, including Richard.

[Phil H]

Meaning, this woman was not some 8th century farmers wife or whatever. Had she been buried 700 years earlier, she would have been significantly deeper than Richard. But anyone buried in the chancel of the church, no matter when that happened in the history of the monastery would be buried at the same level as Richard.

Not necessarily. Churches, abbeys etc, were often expended piecemeal, but the floor level would remain constsnt. Most English cathedrals were built over hundreds of years, but are pretty uniform in level (Canterbury is an exception). Leicester Greyfriars is not, in middle-eastern terms, a "tell" where each rebuilding is on the remains of the previous (e.g Troy). So a saxon burial could be on a level with a C15th level, apart from the depth to which the original grave was dug. Thus, if Richard has a 3 foot deep grave and a woman buried a year later was interred at 6 feet, she would appear deeper than he, though a later interment.

Edited to add that, I think in an English church the age/date of a burial would be reckoned by the nature of its appurtenances - in a stone coffin?; grave goods; any surviving episcopal regalia; etc etc.

Phil H

[Sally]

Phil - Thanks for that, yes. You clearly understand what most people take some time to grasp - the difference between a physical and a stratigraphic relationship.

In this case, the physical relationship of the two sets of skeletal remains can be determined. If they are both drawn on a recording plan (as they have been, certainly) that plan will show their physical relation to each other.

That relationship may have absolutely no bearing at all on the stratigraphic relationship between the two, which cannot be determined in this case because well, there is no obvious stratigraphic relationship between them at all.

The female could be of any date. If - most likely, but by no means certain - she was buried within the church, from any date in a 300 year span.

That's it. Bottom line.

[Sally]

The layers matter in two contexts. The first is geologic, in that the older the remain, the deeper they are buried, due to simple soil accumulation. The second context is that when excavating a site, the standard practice is to remove measured layers. In some cases that can be six inches at a time, and others foot or more at a time. Anything shallow tends to be newer. However, this doesn't really apply to indoor sites, unless you you have a ot of construction stacked on top of construction. So basically I am saying that if this woman was some bronze age trader, buried before the construction of the monastery, she would have been in a deeper layer than than any artifact of the monastery, including Richard.

Thanks Errata - I understand the concept of layers, I worked in professional archaeology for some years. In this country, nobody excavates using layers anymore. Not for decades. We excavate using contexts. This is because it is more accurate and less likely to lead to erroneous conclusions.

If the female was a Bronze Age Trader, she'd be far more exciting than any old Medieval king

[Phil H]

If the female was a Bronze Age Trader, she'd be far more exciting than any old Medieval king

Not if you are Ricardian, Sally!!

For me this discovery - if it is of Richard's bones - is something I never expected to see in my lifetime (as dramatic to me as the fall of the Berlin Wall and as potentially important as Tutankhamun's tomb).

I have spent half a lifetime studying Richard's character, life and reign and this discovery could add so much to our knowledge that we could never have gained from any other source. It is particularly important given the PHYSICAL nature of so much of the myth and legend about this man.

Phil H

[Sally]

If the female was a Bronze Age Trader, she'd be far more exciting than any old Medieval king

Not if you are Ricardian, Sally!!

For me this discovery - if it is of Richard's bones - is something I never expected to see in my lifetime (as dramatic to me as the fall of the Berlin Wall and as potentially important as Tutankhamun's tomb).

I have spent half a lifetime studying Richard's character, life and reign and this discovery could add so much to our knowledge that we could never have gained from any other source. It is particularly important given the PHYSICAL nature of so much of the myth and legend about this man.

Phil H

Oh I know, I know, Phil! I have a friend who is similarly excited about it. I know what you mean - although I'm not very knowledgeable about Richard - that amazing moment when something you could only have dreamed of suddenly becomes possible. I've had one or two of those.

You must be a very big fan to have studied him for so long. I hope it is Richard - as you say, what a lot we could learn. History has its foibles; Archaeology has less opportunity to be personal. A rare chance, perhaps, to compare the reality with the myth.

[Phil H]

A very perceptive and sympathetic post, Sally. Thank you.

I am fascinated by historical puzzles and enigmas - JFK shooting; Man in the iron mask, JtR(!!) and for many years the true nature of Richard III. I am quite open to him being a murderer, that was the nature of C15th politicians -and he lived through some testing times - but i don't think he was the monster so often depicted. Also, I think him judged by different standards to (say) Henry VII and VIII or his own brother, Edward IV. I'd like to see that reassessed.

Phil H

[Monty]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&client=mv-google&v=rY-P6mz8SN4

Monty

[RivkahChaya]

If the female was a Bronze Age Trader, she'd be far more exciting than any old Medieval king

Not if you are Ricardian, Sally!!

I was going to say, "Maybe in general, but not this medieval king!"

BTW, heard back from my cousin, and the answer is that a young person with loose ligaments and strong muscles could probably stretch a scoliotic back into a relatively straight position and hold it for a few minutes, but it wouldn't be his natural posture, the way most people who are being measured can add or subtract about 1.5 inches (3cm) to their height depending on the reason for being measured.

Also, she noted that it's really really common for children to fracture arms, and a lot of skeletons from the days before people knew how to set bones have a short arm or leg from the limb being broken, and either healing with a slight curvature, or healing with damage to the growth plate. But she says that those skeletons don't show signs that the limb wasn't used after the fracture healed, and in her experience, children who have a short limb because of a fracture near a growth plate usually retain full use of it. This is common enough, that it could occur as a separate problem with scoliosis.

She also said that she doesn't know anything about Richard III, but she has seen all kinds of fabricated devices to assist people with skeletal problems going back hundreds and hundreds of years, so it's possible he had some kind of brace of corset that gave him back support, so he didn't experience pain, and if he had any difficulty mounting a horse, he could have specially designed stirrups. None of that was beyond 15th century technology.

[RivkahChaya]

I am fascinated by historical puzzles and enigmas - JFK shooting; Man in the iron mask, JtR(!!) and for many years the true nature of Richard III. I am quite open to him being a murderer, that was the nature of C15th politicians -and he lived through some testing times - but i don't think he was the monster so often depicted. Also, I think him judged by different standards to (say) Henry VII and VIII or his own brother, Edward IV. I'd like to see that reassessed.

I am fascinated by those things too, particularly by the idea that the man in the iron (actually, velvet) mask may have been a purposeful enigma set up by his jailer to make himself more important.

But just for the record, JFK was killed by Oswald, acting alone. I think if Ruby hadn't shot him, and he'd gotten a trial, we'd know that. I recommend Gerald Posner's Case Closed to you. The fact is, that the conspiracy theories started to come out when the US was losing faith in the office of president during the Watergate scandal, but the main force behind it was a crazy dude named Jim Garrison, who prosecuted a guy named Clay Shaw, who wasn't actually guilty of anything other than being gay in the 1960s, and trying to keep it a secret.

Then, Oliver Stone, a seriously angry man, with a lot of money from Platoon, took out his anger at the government by turning Garrison's book into movie magic. JFK is a brilliant movie, but very poor history. It did for JFK assassination nuts what Birth of a Nation did for the KKK.

Honestly, if the Lyndon Johnson administration had staged some kind of cover-up, why would it have been in the interests of later administrations to continue it? Maybe Nixon would have, if JFK really were killed to perpetuate the Vietnam war, because Nixon was all about the war, and Ford would not have admitted to being party to it, plus, he was busy trying to make people feel good about being Americans again, by pouring all kinds of money into the Bicentennial to-do. Carter, I don't know. Maybe he wouldn't have wanted to make his party look bad (he was a democrat, like Johnson, and unlike Nixon and Ford), but on the other hand, he was compulsively honest.

Then, there was Reagan. If any president would have liked to smear the democrats, it was Reagan. When he lost his republican congress, I thought he was going to plotz. During the campaign for that congressional election, if Reagan had had information about a Johnson administration cover-up of anything relating to the JFK assassination, he would have used it to show that you couldn't trust democrats.

But if Reagan hadn't, or didn't know, there was Clinton, who sure could have used a distraction during the Lewinsky scandal, and that would have been a great time to release information, if he had any. By that time, it had been so long, it had no bearing on him or his policies. He wasn't even old enough to vote when Kennedy ran for president.

"The US Government" isn't one thing. It's administrations, and each one likes to point out how it's a fresh start, even though it has a lot of baggage to deal with from the old one. I think a later administration would absolutely love to blow the whistle on the JFK conspiracy of the previous one, if there were a whistle to blow.

[RivkahChaya]

Phil - Thanks for that, yes. You clearly understand what most people take some time to grasp - the difference between a physical and a stratigraphic relationship.

In this case, the physical relationship of the two sets of skeletal remains can be determined. If they are both drawn on a recording plan (as they have been, certainly) that plan will show their physical relation to each other.

What about the fact that, in the case of skeletons, bones leach minerals out of the soil? You can determine how long the skeletons have been in similar soil by analyzing samples with a mass spectrometer-- if they have similar spectrographs, then, similar time in the same ground, right?

I realize that it is possible for soil in an area to be very different from another area close by, but you'd know that by analyzing the soil by itself first, and know whether the test is worthwhile.

[Errata]

Thanks Errata - I understand the concept of layers, I worked in professional archaeology for some years. In this country, nobody excavates using layers anymore. Not for decades. We excavate using contexts. This is because it is more accurate and less likely to lead to erroneous conclusions.

If the female was a Bronze Age Trader, she'd be far more exciting than any old Medieval king

See this is where I'm confused, and while I don't think there is a difference between stateside dig protocol and British dig protocol, I'm willing to entertain the notion at this point. Here, the interior of a building footprint is generally not dated by layers, but anything outdoors still is, though reserving the right to scrap any conclusions once the excavation is finished. Of course, barring New York City, we don't build a lot on old sites. Certainly here in the southern US we don't. Except New Orleans, but that's because the city is sinking at a somewhat alarming rate. Well, we do now, manifest destiny satisfied and all, but that's been less than 100 years or so. So pretty much anything here that's within a foot of each other is from within a couple hundred years of each other.

The thing about a Bronze age woman was because both the male and female skeleton were buried within the same building footprint. Which here would be pretty rare if they were not relatively contemporary. Were she some Bronze age woman who just so happened to have been buried within the building footprint before the building was constructed, she would be physically deeper. At least that would be the case here, but I have been told that we generate soil here at a higher rate than even other states, but I can't think it's so fast as to make a huge difference.

Cahokia for example, is a huge Native American city from like the 9th century, but was bigger than medieval London. They built mounds, which sort of always throws off age estimation by depth, but as you say, you can't depend on that. But the point is, Cahokia on the flat part is about 4 feet deep, under the wash from the mound, which is like another half a foot. The monks that colonized the area in the 1600s (i think), their stuff is like two feet down. Andrew Jacksons mill on his Hermitage property Which burned down right before his election as President was also about two feet down, the floor was about three feet down, except for the freakishly deep test hole that was yielding arrowheads even to about five feet down.

Had we found remains withing the footprint of the mill, they would have had to be relatively contemporary. On the rest of the property which is mostly woods and fields, white men would be about three feet deeper than Native American men, because the local Tribes didn't bury their dead in the past, and in the 17-1800s, buried them shallowly. But we know that, so it wouldn't be hard to connect contemporaries withing a couple hundred years.