Richard III & the Car Park

[RivkahChaya]

I suppose that, if the final reconstruction of the fce, has broadly the right bone structure and "shape" of the face we know from Richard's portraits (none of them immediately contemporary) - then it might tell us something.

The portraits all do seem to agree that he was slender, and slender people will have less subcutaneous fat, so their face looks more like their skull, if that makes sense. Also, we know his hair color, because it was remarked upon so often.

One thing that helps is knowing exactly how old he was when he died, to the day. A problem forensic reconstructionists have with unknown skulls is that they may have just an age range, and if they don't have the whole skeleton, the range may be pretty broad. How much subcutaneous fat you have, and how elastic the skin on your face is varies predictably by age, and also has a lot of influence on how you look.

So no, it won't look exactly like Richard did in life, unless the reconstructionists get very lucky. But they have a lot more to work with than forensic reconstructionists working with skulls of unknowns.

FWIW, there have been a few cases where reconstructions have led to people being identified, but I guess that's because they were identified by people who were alert to articles and fliers, and things regarding someone they knew who was missing, and a generic reconstruction will result in an identification more than a picture of a skull. I suppose for every person who was identified that way, there were thirty other friends and family who came forward, and it wasn't the person they were looking for.

[Archaic]

U. of Leiscester Press Release On Testing Procedures

Nov. 15 press release from University of Leiscester website:

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2012/november/2018it2019s-not-like-csi2019-the-science-of-the-search-for-richard-iii

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: Note is says Channel Four is making a documentary. Hope there will be some way to view it on our side of the pond.

[Phil H]

Thanks for linking to the press release, archaic.

There has just been a short piece on this morning's BBC Breakfast programme, about work being done on the human remains found on the Mary Rose (raised 30 years ago).

The scientist (I think from Swansea University) implied (stated even) that DNA samples could provide information onl hair colour... I didn't realise that... as well as blood group etc.

In separate but linked work on the bows found on the wreck they were looking at the muscular pulling power required and what that meant for the skeletons - archers would/could apparently have joints 50% larger on the arm holding the bow than on the other side. One wonders whether "Richard" might have had similar "distortion" of his joints on his sword arm.

This is getting very exciting.

I gain the impression that their earlier expectation of an announcement on DNA in mid December 2012 might now be over optimistic. We may have a longer wait.

I still wonder whether the remains will be put on public show. They presumably HAVE to publish - in support of their academic work - photographs of the bones and skull. So putting them on (suitably decorous) display might not be too unthinkable. On the other hand it might be seen as voyeuristic. That said, I am sure there are many students of the period, me included, who would love the opportunity to see the remains "in the flesh" (as it were".

At the very least I can see a good exhibition, with the reconstructed head on display - in Leicester one assumes. I'll be there - fancy meeting for a pint afterwards, Monty?

Phil H

[Monty]

Sure Phil,

That would be most agreeable.

There has been talk of a museum being set up at the site. If I may explain the sites recent history, basically it is set in probably the most pictuesque part of town. Its a mixture of Medieval, Georgian, Victorian and Edwardian buildings in an area the locals call 'The Lanes'.

The exact site straddles two buildings. One the old empty Gammar School (the school moved out to Great Glen about 2 years ago), and City Council building which are still being used. It is in the car park of the latter where the body was found.

Now I am only speculating here, however I think the most fiesible location for the museum would be the old empty Grammar School or part of it. That would be ideal. A museum in conjunction with the Bosworth Centre at the Battlefield site would be excellent.

The only issue would be access. Set in the middle of a city with the most notorious one way system on the planet means getting to the site would be a nightmare. Not impossible though. Next issue is parking. The old bus depot in Peacock lane (about 200 yards from the site) is now flattened and is used as a temp car park. However I have recently seen post application for the building of student flats on there. So that leaves you with the Highcross shopping centre, St Nicholas Circle as car parks. Close agreed but just a tad complex to transverse if you are new to the city.

As I said, just my take and by no means an ascertained fact, to coin a phrase we all know and love.

Cheers
Monty

[Archaic]

And Now For Something Completely Different...

-Bury Richard III in Worksop??

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Bury-Richard-III-Leicester-York-Worksop/story-17180461-detail/story.html

Archaic

[RivkahChaya]

The scientist (I think from Swansea University) implied (stated even) that DNA samples could provide information onl hair colour... I didn't realise that... as well as blood group etc.

DNA can provide that information, but it does not always. DNA provides the genotype, but not the phenotype. If the DNA from both parents is for expression of the same trait (brown eyes, or blue eyes, for example), then you know the person had one or the other. However, if the person has one gene for each, you don't know what the mixed expression will look like. You can guess, but you cannot know for certain. In the case of eye and hair color, the darker gene tends to be dominant, so that a person with one brown-eyed gene, and one blue-eyed gene with not have pale blue eyes, but since people do not come with just two colors of eyes, or just two colors of hair, there are many factors that affect expression of the primary trait, and we don't know exactly how all those work.

This is nuclear DNA, remember. First, they will do the mDNA match to see whether it is, in fact, Richard, then, if it is, they will look at the nDNA for physical traits that can aid in reconstructing a face from the skull.

looking at the muscular pulling power required and what that meant for the skeletons - archers would/could apparently have joints 50% larger on the arm holding the bow than on the other side. One wonders whether "Richard" might have had similar "distortion" of his joints on his sword arm.

This is visible on a skeleton, but it is not visible externally. If you have ever seen an x-ray of someone with arthritis, it can be shocking how swollen the joints are, because they don't look that swollen externally. Muscle and subcutaneous fat tend to shift to provide the most even appearance of the limb as possible. It's because of the fact of physics that any shape tends toward a sphere as much as possible. It also allows your body to maintain the least amount of skin over its mass.

This is getting very exciting.

Yes, it is.

I still wonder whether the remains will be put on public show.

It is possible to make very accurate replicas now, by taking MRIs of the bones, storing the information digitally, then recreating the bones with a polymer resin. It is much better than the old method of making plaster casts, and is not as invasive-- nothing touches the bones, and they don't have to be cleaned afterwards. You can actually create a skeleton of a living person with that method, and in a few cases of unusual bone surgery, reconstructions of parts of living people's skeletons have been made this way. Doctors can have a practice run at fixing a very badly deformed, or crushed foot, for example, or separating the spines or pelves of conjoined twins.

In fact, when they do a reconstruction of the face for display, I'm sure it will have a digital-polymer skull inside. There will probably be a digital reconstruction before anyone attempts a physical one, and if there is a display, it may even include cross-sections with a polymer "skull" inside a silicon "face."

[Monty]

-Bury Richard III in Worksop??

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Bury-Richard-III-Leicester-York-Worksop/story-17180461-detail/story.html

Archaic

Erm....no.

Its already been decided in Parliment where the burial will be, as set out in law.

I've just heard a radio report regarding the identity matter which was of a very cautious note. Looks like any I D, if possible, will not be verified till the new year. A lot use of the words 'possible' 'may or may not' 'if we can identify' etc.

Not sure if they are taking the cautious approach of know something along the lines of a failure to I D however they did stress they wanted to be absolutely correct on this and will not be rushed.

Cheers
Neil

[Phil H]

I can understand their caution - there will be many nay sayers out there wanting to criticise the "team" if they get it wrong. And this news will be "international" to a certain extent.

It is, I agree, difficult to know whether the qualifying words (maybe, possible) are preparing the ground for a negative/not proven result; or just sensible playing down of any assumption that "this is him".

Maybe the tests are just much more complex than they originally envisaged and things are taking longer - it is quite possible, of course, that at this point the "team" does not know what the outcome will be.

It also occurs to me that there could be many hands involved in drafting the texts of announcements, from the "professionals" to the RIII Society and Channel 5. The latter for instance, may not want the tests to seem to pre-determined as it might undermine the "excitement" of their documentary.

Personally, I wait with baited breath. Thanks again, Monty.

Phil H

[Sally]

I think we can be sure of seeing some outcome regarding the ID of 'Richard' as soon as is humanly possible. Amongst the several agendas in operation here is the university's drive to produce research of international significance.

The REF's up soon, (Research Excellence Framework) the 5-yearly benchmark by which the academic prowess of HE institutions is measured in Britain - and publication would have to be next year to make the deadline. As taking research to publication can often take more than a year, there will doubtless be considerable pressure on Leicester to get results here and write it up asap.

Archaeology departments across the land are all very nervous about their future since the surprise closure without warning of the department at Birmingham earlier this year, so extra pressure there.

It'd be kudos for Leicester, of course, if the remains did turn out to be those of Richard; and would help their research rating in the upcoming REF.

[Monty]

Possible Phil,

One thing the radio report did mention, that I neglected to add, is that they are conducting tests on soil samples from around the grave as well.

That's something I think we so far haven't suggested on this thread, have we?

Monty

[Phil H]

The soil sampling has been mentioned in passing, Monty.

They hope, I believe to determine something about the health and diet of the body, since it decomposed in that soil.

Phil H

[Errata]

I think we can be sure of seeing some outcome regarding the ID of 'Richard' as soon as is humanly possible. Amongst the several agendas in operation here is the university's drive to produce research of international significance.

The REF's up soon, (Research Excellence Framework) the 5-yearly benchmark by which the academic prowess of HE institutions is measured in Britain - and publication would have to be next year to make the deadline. As taking research to publication can often take more than a year, there will doubtless be considerable pressure on Leicester to get results here and write it up asap.

Archaeology departments across the land are all very nervous about their future since the surprise closure without warning of the department at Birmingham earlier this year, so extra pressure there.

It'd be kudos for Leicester, of course, if the remains did turn out to be those of Richard; and would help their research rating in the upcoming REF.

I keep forgetting that British Archeologists generally only get kudos for finding people, not places or structures. Here, we find lost communities all the time, because we just having been keeping track of such things for very long. But somehow it never occurred to me that finding the monastery would not be considered significant, because they knew where it was the whole time. Technically. But that raises the question, why is this the first attempt to find Richard? Or were there others?

[Phil H]

As far as I am aware this is the FIRST attempt to find Richard's body.

If you read most of the guidebooks and biographies published until a few years ago, you would find the legend repeated: at the Dissolution, Richard's body was disinterred and thrown into ther River Soar.

There is, I believe a cast-iton plaque on a wall to record the fact!

In other words, there was no point looking because there was nothing to find.

But then some people began to think more deeply.

The Richard III Society has, for decades, erected various objects to mark places associated with Richard and his family - stained glass windows in churches at Middleham (the castle was reputedly Richard's favorite residence) and Fotheringhay; and wall plaques in Leicester, as well as an impressive slab in lieu of the grave (a cenotaph, I suppose) in Leicester Cathedral.

Whether the impetus came from the Society or elsewhere, I do not know. Monty might have sources. But a year or two ago, I came across some detailed material on the web tracing back evidence about the site of the Greyfriars and any reports,or anecdotes, about the burial place. So the legend was being challenged and reversed.

I guess that the final determinants of "why now" were getting support from the University and the City Council to excavate.

All this is just supposition - but reasonably based, I hope. I am quite ready to be told the reasons to dig now were quite different.

Phil H

[Sally]

Hi Errata

]I keep forgetting that British Archeologists generally only get kudos for finding people, not places or structures.

Not sure about that! British archaeologists in fact rarely get kudos for anything since the advent of rescue archaeology as the norm some 40 years ago - but if they do, they are far more likely to get it for the disovery of a thing or a place than a person. The discovery of 'Richard' - if it is him, amounts to quite a lot of kudos!

Long term research excavations outside an academic context effectively became a thing of the past at that point. It follows (and is certainly the case) that the vast majority of archaeology in Britain uncovers very little, comparatively. Typically, it is underfunded, understaffed, and conducted under inadequate time constraints. The results are fragmentary, generally, and produce an archive that may very well sit in a store without further examination for the forseeable future.

What universities do is different - they are under huge pressure to perform, and performing now means producing research of 'international significance'. In the coming years, they will live or die by their performance as the government here continues to sideline the arts. So, research projects are chosen with care and a definite eye to the potential. There was, clearly, huge potential in this case, which is why it was funded

Here, we find lost communities all the time, because we just having been keeping track of such things for very long. But somehow it never occurred to me that finding the monastery would not be considered significant, because they knew where it was the whole time.

Well yes, but knowing where it was amounts to very little. Excavation has provided a partially conjectural ground plan, for example, and doubtless other information about the actual monastery which was previously lost to knowledge - the 'rediscovery' of the monastery is important in its own right.

'Richard' is the crowd puller though

[RivkahChaya]

Personally, I wait with baited breath.

Eww. Unless you have worms in your mouth, "bated," as in "abated," or "stopped." Or "baited" is just the weird, British spelling.

I can't find an image right now, but about a year ago, someone tried a "real face of elephant man [Joseph Merrick]" reconstruction, by basically making a polymer-resin copy of the non-deformed left side of his face, then making a reversed copy, and matching them up. The middle was incomplete, so they made 3D images of photos of family members to make a best guess at his nose and chin, and came up with what his face would have looked like if he had not had the disease he had. The eyes were pretty wide-set, but that may have been a family trait. I can't find a pic of his mother or father to go by, though.