The extract above is certainly witty, Gilgamesh, especially considering the person who wrote it passed away nearly a century ago.  Some humour from long ago lasts, some doesn't.

However, I guess I had better not stray too far away from Richard III ... or his nephews.

I am particularly fond of the apostrophe and its mysteries, LiR.

We once had a poster on the BBC who insisted on putting Peasant's War every time he wrote about the distressing events in Germany around 1524/25. It drove me mad - always made me visualise a lone, Monty Pythonesque rustic rampaging his way across Westphalia.

Crikey - just read this in today's Daily Mail Online - that Michael Hicks is challenging the DNA results.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2590638/Skeleton-car-park-NOT-Richard-III-Experts-cast-doubts-accuracy-DNA-dating-results.html

Hicks has been talking to the BBC History Magazine:

http://www.historyextra.com/news/was-skeleton-found-leicester-car-park-really-richard-iii

Well frankly I think it's about time someone did challenge the "scientific" evidence (or rather the 'fait- acompli') as presented so far because frankly there are a lot of people who aren't convinced by all the spin and who are still waiting to see the actual evidence presented in a peer-reviewed scientific publication.

And bearing in mind the approaching legal case(s) ... as Michael Hicks says:

"Before all this goes further, it would be wise to be certain the body really is his. Something akin to a coroner's court should be set up to consider all the evidence".

I couldn't agree more.

Sure thing - I listen to Radio 4 Extra - did we REALLY laugh at some of the "classic" comedy they broadcast?

Meles meles wrote:

"Before all this goes further, it would be wise to be certain the body really is his. Something akin to a coroner's court should be set up to consider all the evidence".

I couldn't agree more.

I honestly don't know enough (i.e. I do not know anything at all) about DNA testing, so I am not in a position to make an intelligent contribution to this argument. What does distress me is not knowing who or what to believe where the science is concerned. So much wrangling amongst the experts. As Minette noted above, are we not told that science never lies? Seems historians do - or at least have a distinct tendency to be somewhat slippery. And this business about the "field records". What do more knowledgeable posters here make of this comment by Professor Biddle (quoted in the BBC History Magazine link) about the field records from the dig?


Professor Biddle, emeritus fellow of medieval archaeology at the University of Oxford (pictured below), also raised concerns. “While some evidence has been presented in peer-reviewed journals, it’s the field records from the dig we need to see,” he said. “I asked in a letter to The Times in 2012 for details about the shape and size of the grave pit but, as far as I know, this material is still not in the public domain.

Would a coroner's court be able to make any real judgement - tell us anything new? Even Michael Hicks says:

“I’m not saying that it’s not Richard – it’s perfectly conceivable that it is – but we are not in a position to say with any confidence that it’s him. Similarly, while the curved spine suggests the skeleton is Richard’s, the presence of scoliosis does not represent conclusive proof.

Not proven seems to apply to everything about this king. Did he kill his nephews? He may have done, but then again, he may not have done. Are the bones found in Leicester his? They may be, but then again, perhaps not.

I think I may well have had enough of all this - but then again, maybe not.

Some of the comments after Hicks's article are very interesting: I wonder if, as one poster suggests, he has got a book in the pipeline?

Their complaint does not question the validity of the find as much as it seriously questions the conduct of the archaeological investigation before, during and - most importantly - subsequent to the much publicised extraction of the remains for analysis. Whether Hicks "has a book in the pipeline" or not does not, in my view, detract from the issue in the slightest. In one article the response from a member of the team is a refutal that their data has not undergone orthodox peer review and as proof of this claim Hicks and the rest of us are directed to see what has been published on the Leicester University website. The website in turn contains more or less that information which has been placed in the public domain thus far and which is exactly the data under scrutiny since it omits some very crucial elements which would make proper peer review possible, and is in fact mainly just yet more repetition of the emphatic claims already publicly made amidst much media hype based on the incomplete data.

The recently quoted critics' main points centre on the context of the find and the justification of the use of DNA analysis to infer confirmation "beyond reasonable doubt" that the bones belong to Richard. The former has been woefully served in the published data so far and the latter has been so soundly criticised already that one might have thought this at least would have been given priority with regard to proper disclosure and publication. Instead we got another media flurry stating that "Richard's genome sequence" would now be established (ie. assuming it is in fact him, even though the mtdna "findings" had proved nothing of the sort in the first place).

The "preponderance of evidence" jusification also used by the team is risible - given that some of this "evidence" is in fact simply advancing a theory based on the remains unearthed which is further based on established theory of lesser worth and calling this enforced corroberation "confirmation".

At best shoddy, at worst cynical and bordering on justified suspicion of fraudulence. Either way it has certainly been a successful media circus so far and I am beginning to wonder now if that was ever the whole point all along.

Gilgamesh of Uruk wrote:

Sure thing - I listen to Radio 4 Extra - did we REALLY laugh at some of the "classic" comedy they broadcast?

I certainly never found "Radio Active" funny. I don't mind "Hancock" even though it is a good age now. When I listen to Radio 4 Extra it's usually for the thrillers - some of which are ancient, some more modern. I haven't listened to Radio 4 Extra for a couple of months because of my (hopefully resolved) broadband issues though I can start again now. The programme that really bugs me on Radio 4 Extra is "Ambridge Extra". I hate "The Archers" - sorry Archers fans. Mind you I seem to be the minority of one who never appreciated the HBO shows (quite different from Radio 4 Extra I know) "The Sopranos", "Mad Men" or other "wonderful" shows that I can't recall now that came to me highly recommended. I did like "The Wire" though and if I can cadge a watch at a friend's with Sky TV "Game of Thrones" is a guilty pleasure.

Getting back to the King (or not??) under the car-park. I did find the news item last year interesting. I don't know enough about DNA to give a scientific opinion. Part of me thinks the Coroner's Court route suggested by Nordmann is a good idea; another part of me thinks that would be awfully expensive. Would old Joe Taxpayer have to fund the Coroner's hearing? Would the money used to fund such a hearing be siphoned off from helping the unemployed or some social programme? I concur with those who feel that unless the problem of whether or not the body is that of Richard III is resolved the controversy will run and run and run .......

nordmann wrote:

The "preponderance of evidence" jusification also used by the team is risible - given that some of this "evidence" is in fact simply advancing a theory based on the remains unearthed which is further based on established theory of lesser worth and calling this enforced corroberation "confirmation".

At best shoddy, at worst cynical and bordering on justified suspicion of fraudulence. Either way it has certainly been a successful media circus so far and I am beginning to wonder now if that was ever the whole point all along.

From what I remember of my legal secretarial days, civil cases are put to 60% proof but criminal cases to something like 98% proof.  I haven't "googled" these to check them so am going from memory.  It looks as if the team were certainly going for 60% proof in the "King under the Car-Park" case.

LiR wrote:

Part of me thinks the Coroner's Court route suggested by Nordmann is a good idea

Not my suggestion but Hicks'.

The notion of a Coroner's Court attempting to adjudicate anything regarding the validity of the find based on the extant published data is probably simply a deliberate provocation on Hicks' part. He knows of course that any legally appointed adjudicator would first and foremost identify the lack of data involved here and defer any judgement or even refuse to be involved until the orthodox academic processes had at least been engaged in. What he and a growing number of other interested academics are really after is access to the archaeological and scientific data that the team declared on several occasions has been assembled but of which there is no evidence as yet. The frequent declarations that "it would be out later for review" have grown thinner and less credible as time advances. Running a national "where will we bury him?" sideshow on the strength of what is currently out there is actually quite grotesque - wherever the body ends up buried in the end the real controversial interment here is that of good and established academic standards and practices, and it is that in which I myself am most interested.

nordmann wrote:

LiR wrote:

Part of me thinks the Coroner's Court route suggested by Nordmann is a good idea

Not my suggestion but Hicks'.

Sorry Nordmann, I should have read the post more watchfully.  Of course, should the bones beneath the car-park turn out not to be Richard's remains, I would not be surprised if the most ardent of Richard's fans (not having a dig at Temperance here, I do not consider her to be an extreme Richard enthusiast) start coming out of the woodwork and say they knew it could not be him because the skeleton showed evidence of scoliosis and the real Richard was not a "crook-back".

I will now go and write out "I must read other folks' posts more attentively" 100 times - and I never tell lies.

Publicity is very expensive so I would not condemn Mr Hicks for trying to get free publicity for a proposed book.

As Nordmann says, the DNA evidence in this case is a bit of a red herring.  This is probably because a steady diet of gritty police procedure dramas (which, in all fairness, are often well researched) have led to the widespread assumption that DNA evidence is like fingerprint evidence - so singular that it proves the bones are Richard's beyond doubt.

However, DNA evidence can be used in different ways and with different levels of complexity.  What we do not have in this case is the classic police triad of:-

1. An uncontaminated, profiled DNA sample 100% definitively taken from a named and known suspect.

2. A sample of blood, saliva etc on the murder weapon (or whatever) which is significant and uncontaminated enough to allow forensic scientists to extract a DNA profile.

3.  A match between the two profiles obtained by matching up a number of features between the samples.

What I think we have here (and I stand to be corrected here as I have not kept up with this part of the debate) is a form of DNA lite - basically, a single match with a particular haplotype (a genetic sub group) shared by people with a common female ancestor.  The original ancestor's unique DNA marker replicates in every person directly descended from her.  Crucially, there are far fewer of these haplotypes than one might think. 

Given that we didn't already know that the body is Richard's, all we can safely therefore say is that the skeleton found in Leicester shares the same haplotype with a living individual who is distantly related to Richard, but also with millions of other people who share the same haplotype, pretty much all of whom will not be direct descendants of Richard III.  This is because the haplotype in question is likely to derive from a single woman living many thousands of years ago, meaning that even in Richard's time, a huge number of people would have shared it. 

The Leicester skeleton is therefore not the font of this particular DNA profile.  It is merely one staging post on one of a staggeringly huge multitude of routes which this haplotype has taken from inception down to the present day.

Regards,

AR

Oh thank you, AR, that post is very helpful, though I note your rider that one should not take your statement as absolutely conclusive.  I do remember seeing something on TV a while ago where a judge in the USA said he addressed courts where DNA evidence was involved, saying that he explained the evidence in question would not be of a level shown on, for example, the TV show "CSI".  Must away, the launderette calls (well actually it doesn't but the clothes to be washed are nearly bulging out of the Ali Baba basket [yes, I still have one] so I must get some of them clean).

There are so many red herrings in this whole episode that it is no wonder the entire thing smells so fishy (I love it when a metaphor comes together!).

But whatever the motives behind such a rushed, shoddy and over-hyped piece of research as this has been, the upshot is - as I said earlier in the thread - that we are now in Piltdown Territory all over again. That particular piece of bad academic process turned out to be fraudulent but only after decades in which the debate concerning the artefacts' validity had become overshadowed by more prosaic concerns, especially those of academics protecting reputations established at least in part on having made any published deduction or pronouncement on the case in the interim. The longer it went on then the longer it was likely to go on, being short-circuited only in the end when a popular but distinctly non-academic publication, Time Magazine, could collate and present the evidence of the hoax from various respected academics. Only then was the Piltdown Man excised completely from the academic texts. In the meantime he remained in a "maybe he was, maybe he wasn't" limbo.

Richard's hump has long been in that category. Now, thanks to some rather over-exuberant and essentially hasty researchers, the man himself - or at least his alleged skeleton - has followed his hump into that realm. Burying the contentious remains in an elaborately staged and publicly funded ceremony that itself can only reflect one possible academic deduction based on data not as yet perusable simply increases the chances for this particular Piltdown Man (Car Park Man?) to long outlive his predecessor as a great example of just where dumbed-down academia deposits us all regarding knowledge.

Enough to give one the hump.

https://soundcloud.com/johnny-hewes/let-him-come-home         

Here's a couple of blogs from Mike Pitts on the topic as well.

http://mikepitts.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/whats-in-store-for-richard-iii-in-2014/
http://mikepitts.wordpress.com/tag/turi-king/

and for anyone who hasn't read it, this is, as far as I know, the only academic publication on the excavation so far.
http://antiquity.ac.uk/Ant/087/0519/ant0870519.pdf

My very personal opinion is that this whole business is an example of what happens when what was expected by the team involved to be a straightforward investigation of an interesting and unexplored local site, carried out with pretty limited but extremely welcome funding, turns up something totally unexpected and which brings down the whole weight of the media circus upon it. The non-specialist partners, with a very particular agenda which was not, in the beginning at least, shared by the researchers, have driven this and so the archaeologists, probably a pretty naive bunch when it comes to this kind of coverage and emotionally driven nonsense, are hostages to their own conivance with the RIII society and the media.
It's probably him, but only on circumstantial evidence, but I don't see it ever being conclusively proven. However having entered the public consciousness as it being him, it will take some heavyweight refutation to shift that perception.
In a way, I can see this as a result of the paucity of proper funding for research putting the ethics of the profession in jeopardy in the pursuit of the wherewithal to carry out investigations that are valuable but don't have Phillipa and the media crew stuffing their pockets with gold.

And perhaps Philippa (Langley) didn't really have proper shivery feelings at all, but was just putting it on.

I remember with some sadness now just how excited I was that day in February 2013 when the results of all the tests were announced.

Oh well, you live and learn. I suppose excitement and proper history just don't mix.

Sigh.

Excitement and archaeology often mix really well. "Proper" history is precisely that which often induces it too.

Archaeological analysis based on shivers however has never been a very dependable exercise.

nordmann wrote:

Richard's hump has long been in that category. Now, thanks to some rather over-exuberant and essentially hasty researchers, the man himself - or at least his alleged skeleton - has followed his hump into that realm. Burying the contentious remains in an elaborately staged and publicly funded ceremony that itself can only reflect one possible academic deduction based on data not as yet perusable simply increases the chances for this particular Piltdown Man (Car Park Man?) to long outlive his predecessor as a great example of just where dumbed-down academia deposits us all regarding knowledge.

Enough to give one the hump.

Please forgive me for cutting down your full post, Nordmann, but people can read it above.  As a (hopefully) reasonably intelligent person who did not work in an academic milieu I always imagined academics as being above self-aggrandisement but seems I was rather naive there!!  I saw a programme many years ago relating to opera that was trying to inform members of the public about how it (opera) functioned.  Now I know (and knew even less then) not a great deal about opera, so I found the programme quite interesting but a friend who had an extensive classical music record collection and went to see operas when she could (and was largely self-taught about them) found the presenter of the programme somewhat patronising.  To her it was "dumbed-down" though she would not have phrased it thus.  To me it was just about at the right level.  So one person's "dumbed-down" might be another person's acceptable entry level.  I realise this is not the type of dumbing-down that Nordmann is referring to and he is quite correct that Car Park Man could prove to be the early twenty-first century equivalent of Piltdown Man.

nordmann wrote:

Archaeological analysis based on shivers however has never been a very dependable exercise.

I know, Sir, but it's such good fun.   

Here's one for our Philippa, bless her.

Here's another one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ke8mzgex4U

Surely the pressure to publish - get the papers out or lose your job - must tend to move academics to be more like academicians?

Meles meles wrote:

Well frankly I think it's about time someone did challenge the "scientific" evidence (or rather the 'fait- acompli') as presented so far because frankly there are a lot of people who aren't convinced by all the spin and who are still waiting to see the actual evidence presented in a peer-reviewed scientific publication.

And bearing in mind the approaching legal case(s) ... as Michael Hicks says:

"Before all this goes further, it would be wise to be certain the body really is his. Something akin to a coroner's court should be set up to consider all the evidence".

I couldn't agree more.

Yes, not before time historians weigh in with some common sense. I remember at the time of the 'discovery' when people like Mary Beard questioned the handling of the findings (and the way they were presented) and were howled down in a torrent of abuse. This has been a case of what people want to believe clearly over-riding all other considerations.

The questionable DNA aside there are these points raised on the excavation

Meanwhile, Martin Biddle has reservations based on how the archaeological dig was carried out. For example, he says “The skull was damaged during the excavations, and was later replaced more or less where it seemed to have been. Yet it is a cardinal rule of burial excavation that everything is left in position until the whole body has been uncovered. And, while the excavators say the feet were removed by an undefined Victorian disturbance, anyone viewing the Channel 4 documentary on the dig will see that the lower legs were hit and moved by a mechanical digger.”

The reasons why this particular archaeological survey was rushed, both in its execution and its analysis, are self-evident. However whatever reasons may or may not have pertained the outcome is the same - what we are left with now is a pseudo-fact being treated as an academically established fact and some rather important decisions now being made on the basis of this as yet undetermined piece of data being posited as factual certainty.


It is not enough for anyone to say that "on the whole this body was Richard's" and then on that basis voice an opinion one way or the other regarding where it should be buried. This sentiment might be genuinely stated and meant, but it is a statement that as yet is based on a hypothesis, not a fact, and those who have even a passing knowledge of standard practice regarding archaeology should take the responsibility of emphasising this at all times, especially in this case where an expensive and ultimately important action with regard to England's heritage is about to be made.


I do not however hold out much hope. The side-show that has developed regarding the burial of these remains has surpassed in general public interest the question of whose remains they are, and as the adversaries concerned share in common the motive to pretend that this issue of identity has actually been settled, there is now not much chance at all that this rather more fundamental aspect to the case will ever be resolved definitively - even if the definitive resolution is that we are actually not in a position to identify the remains at all with certainty (a rather more frequent occurrence in such cases than public opinion in this instance has been encouraged to believe).


Even if the archaeologists concerned were acting with the best will in the world or can justifiably point to the extraordinary pressures upon them to couch their analysis in terms of a certainty unwarranted by the data this analysis thus far has revealed that the victim in all this, besides of course a national heritage which stands now to be corrupted with faulty data, is their own profession. Forget "academia" and think "common sense". Whereas before it was deemed only sensible to apply a stringent process to the establishing of fact in archaeology as in any science, this case has shown that society will on the whole accept and approve of less stringent procedure if the result is entertaining (a word that has in recent years become increasingly synonymous with news-worthy). Where will the incentive come from to implement rigorous, time consuming and (essentially) non-income earning procedures on the part of third level educational establishments when the opposite approach will yield such a ready and lucrative return?


This is not an issue facing the archaeologist alone, I know. However in this case what has been highlighted is the potential for very long term corruption of fact which will in turn adversely affect the pursuit and establishment of further fact over generations. It demonstrates rather emphatically the danger of even a slight departure from strict scientific principles when vetting data on its way into the communal body of actual knowledge from which further valid exploration can be conducted. It is sad, and I await the continuation of this side-show in the anticipation only of increased sadness for the decline of intelligence that it demonstrates.

this case has shown that society will on the whole accept and approve of less stringent procedure if the result is entertaining

This is true but surely pertains to all areas where the public is presented with 'facts' handed down as apparently undisputed truth by the 'voice of authority' whether it be history, any of the sciences or literary analysis for instance? I might question your use of ‘approve of’, the public is so rarely in a position to make an assessment of the rigour of the procedure. Given that the popular press, books and TV, not to mention the signage, interpretation boards and guides at archaeological sites, almost always parade only one particular hypothesis without ever acknowledging competing hypotheses, for those whose knowledge is gained just from those sources and without, critically, an understanding of the process that has led to that conclusion, it's not surprising that they accept the explanation given. That that explanation is only one possible interpretation of the data and can only be provisional until further data emerges to support or contradict it is rarely expressed and, when a different interpretation of the same data or a further refinement as more turns up, there’s a tendency for it to be reported critically and with an inference of incompetence or error on the part of the researchers and a denigration of the research process. "Scientists (take your pick of disciplines) get it wrong again"

In the case of them bones, I reckon that in a civil action the bones would be adjudged to be RIII but in my local Sheriff Court that bastard verdict, Not Proven, would be perfectly just.

Civil action ("balance of probabilities")
The criminal test ("beyond reasonable doubt")

Wouldn't need a Rumpole to secure an acquittal, would it?

ferval wrote:

this case has shown that society will on the whole accept and approve of less stringent procedure if the result is entertaining

This is true but surely pertains to all areas where the public is presented with 'facts' handed down as apparently undisputed truth by the 'voice of authority' whether it be history, any of the sciences or literary analysis for instance? I might question your use of ‘approve of’, the public is so rarely in a position to make an assessment of the rigour of the procedure. Given that the popular press, books and TV, not to mention the signage, interpretation boards and guides at archaeological sites, almost always parade only one particular hypothesis without ever acknowledging competing hypotheses, for those whose knowledge is gained just from those sources and without, critically, an understanding of the process that has led to that conclusion, it's not surprising that they accept the explanation given. That that explanation is only one possible interpretation of the data and can only be provisional until further data emerges to support or contradict it is rarely expressed and, when a different interpretation of the same data or a further refinement as more turns up, there’s a tendency for it to be reported critically and with an inference of incompetence or error on the part of the researchers and a denigration of the research process. "Scientists (take your pick of disciplines) get it wrong again"

In the case of them bones, I reckon that in a civil action the bones would be adjudged to be RIII but in my local Sheriff Court that bastard verdict, Not Proven, would be perfectly just.

This is exactly where this thread crosses over with another. Phillipa Gregory anyone? And by falsely calling herself an 'historian' is claiming that very voice of authority to spread hypothesis as fact.

What then is "authority"? Whom should we trust?

It could indeed seem to ordinary folk reading all this that the Philippas (either of the shivery or of the grandiose sort) are just as reliable as the academics with all their impressive history degrees and rigorous (Oxford) training in archaeology.

People don't like doubt, do they? We love the signposts at the site, the guides, the information boards, the being told: "This is the truth" by the confident ones of this world.

That's why I always wanted to cheer Minette when she talked of her history rows (about Richard) with Beefeaters at the Tower of London - no doubt in front of a gawping and embarrassed crowd of tourists. Who is that crazy woman? Who does she think she is? But you do now get a chance to vote at the Tower: "Who murdered the Princes?" You press a red button for Richard or a green one for Henry VII (no other candidates or options at the moment - hopefully that will change). Perhaps a similar "button" system could be used at the proposed tomb, wherever it and the bones end up: "The remains within this tomb - whose are they? Press red for Richard III, green for '**** knows'. "

And everyone has his or her own agenda in the argument, don't they - even here?

"Agenda" is a loaded term. In one sense you are correct but in another you're seemingly equating the desire to correctly go about historical research and hope to ascertain as far as possible actual fact with the desire to secure funding, status and income on the part of certain individuals who profess to have followed correct procedure but are seemingly unable to elaborate on this claim in the face of growing suspicion that they did not. Both are agendas, but in terms of worth and integrity very different agendas indeed.

The really sad thing about this particular episode is that it highlights the public's general apathy towards valid historical research and its inclination on the other hand to prefer historical data immaterial of its validity to be served up to it as a form of entertainment. Not that this is news of course, but in this case it is leading steadily towards a rather irreversible mistake which could so easily have been avoided with a slight bit more honesty at the outset on the part of some of the players involved.

Deleted.

On March 27th the University of Leicester released this "press pack" designed primarily in my view to offset any damage to its reputation resulting from journalists speculating about the authenticity of the find based on Hicks' publicly raised objections.

Statement March 27th

You will notice two things immediately. The opportunity for proper peer review is still stated to be at an unspecified point of time in the future. Defence of the university's public position is still centred on referring everyone to the very limited data thus far in the public domain, most of which is non-reviewed material and outright declarations of authenticity by the university's own team, often without any meaningful reference to material evidence at all, let alone verified evidence. This they describe as a "wealth of material", by the way. Also, there is absolutely no reference to either why the data (already "archived") is taking so long to be submitted for review or that objection to this delay is now being voiced by several more people than just Professor Hicks and is growing all the time.

This might be enough to ward off a journalistic feeding frenzy concentrating on the university's serious departure from normal academic procedure in this case, but it is crucially also in itself another example of just such a departure. This is not how archaeological evidence is normally either released into the public domain nor is it how preliminary inquiry, especially objective inquiry, into findings is normally treated. Given that the serious issue has arisen regarding interment of these remains based on a belief in the veracity of the team's initial claims one would have thought that the onus is now on the university to expedite this process. That the opposite appears instead to be the case is what elevates this affair from a regrettable departure from regular practice to a potentially more sinister matter indeed.

The university knows that if the interment question takes the limelight and, more significantly, if its resolution results in a big media event concerning a royal funeral (in Leicester or York) then it has effectively "got away with" its poor academic performance to date. The decline in public interest after this event will essentially aid the transfer of their inadequately reviewed data into the realm of established fact, even if it was never any such thing. "Petty" and a "squabble" this most definitely isn't.

On March 21st Dr Turi King delivered a lecture as guest speaker at the Hong Kong "Science Alive" event, one of 47 this year in the "HK SciFest" series designed to inform the public about the importance of scientific knowledge in today's world. The theme of "Science Alive" this year was DNA research and King's pre-lecture publicity centred on her status as being the researcher who personally "proved" the identity of the Leicester remains were those of Richard III, as can be seen in the article here.

South China Morning Post article

While it is admirable that Dr King is making her particular field of research accessible and comprehensible to the public at large, is it not just a little strange that she should agree to lend her name to advertising the erroneous but now seemingly accepted "fact" that her research alone, contradicted even by her own admission, has "proven" any such thing? And is it not even slightly worrying that a lecture series designed to explain to the public the importance of scientific knowledge arrived at through empirical means should have as its main publicised speaker someone who is willing to so publicly advertise the establishment of such a scientific "fact" (and even take personal credit for its establishment) when the actual process employed could never have facilitated any such outcome? Rather it could only have ever affected the balance of probability involved in fact - to be established later - being right or wrong. Further empirical testing in other words, not to mention peer review of her own findings, is required and at this stage even overdue. If Dr King admits as much it is not evident in the tone or content of her quotes printed in this article.

The British Council in Hong Kong who invited Dr King to attend have said through their Head of Education Sophie Chan-Combrink that "it's hard to make the right decision without scientific knowledge". The irony of placing this remark in the same article that further promulgates the false notion that Dr King's research constitutes proof of identity is seemingly lost on the journalist who wrote it.

Deleted.

Plaque to mark spot where Richard III project devised
Saturday 12 April 2014
A PLAQUE will be unveiled today to mark the spot where the idea was first devised to look for the remains of King Richard III.

The commemorative plaque will be revealed by Philippa Langley, who conceived and spearheaded the successful Looking For Richard Project that discovered the remains of the King in September 2012.

The plaque will mark the spot where the search was set in motion at the Cramond Inn, Edinburgh, in 2009.

You couldn't make it up - oops, maybe someone already did.

HELLO!

Just been told officially I am not a Lib Dem! At last! I sent in my card and explained why after they gained "office" and realized all they held Holy was silly. Three years later they tell me I'm officially not on their list! How they listen to Grass Roots reports! But they did ask me why? And so I told them, which was great. And so back to the "real world". Too many lunatics abound in the "wrong world". 

Nordmann, I like and respect you. One thing clear. But where are you going with this DNA business? If Richard III's DNA is in doubt, perhaps we should look at that of Henry VIII, Henry VII, and more importantly, the Georges who gave our present queen the Right to Rule? And of course what about that ridiculous Wren Urn in Westminster Abbey?
You appear to be so concerned about Richard III's DNA, its integrity, how true it may be, that you seem to simply accept that Edward I is in that tomb in Westminster. Why? You take a great deal upon simple trust, until it comes to Richard III. And so let us get to the Wren Urn. Please let us get to the Wren Urn?! 

I don't bet but I stake my reputation upon it  - little though it may be - that the bones in the Wren Urn will probably be Roman predominantly and other bits thrown in. The so called Princes will NOT be there.
And so to Mother Church who can truly manipulate matters.
.
One matter is simple. If Leicester gets Richard III's bones they will make money from them as a medieval place of interest or pilgrimage would have done, it's nothing to do with History. Compare and contrast a kitchen in the countryside of Arles in spring and a Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-in on a road near you. Who will do the best food and why? One does it because it's traditional and will taste marvellous for personal reasons. The other is part of a large business concern, "kill those chickens fast man! Here's the seasoning, get the fat now"! We all know it happens. And you are so coy Nordmann.  Middleham and York Minster would be the former and LEICESTER UNI would be the latter.

It is 2014 and the Queen and her offspring are treated with great delight. The son of the dead Princess of Wales, Diana (still with no memorial) has married the pleasant and well grounded daughter of an air hostess and her pliot husband. Hurrah! They have even had a baby with two arms and legs, a real royal baby, who will eventually reign over us all as the King George VII!. Meanwhile, the queen in waiting has a family who sell Party Bags and useful things such as hats from which they have made their fortune in, "Thatcher's Service Industry" Britain. We all need balloons! And so the very pleasant Kate and her extraordinary rich husband, Prince William are hereto stay, with pomp and circumstance. 
And so, we have a royal family descended from the oldest daughter of King James I of England and VI of Scotland, Elizabeth's daughter Sophia son George who had the Hanovarians, the German Georges who couldn't speak English only German BUT they were Protestants! Hurrah!  It's at times like this that I understand why I joined the Royal Stuart Society! The Monarchy is so messed up.

Ferval - where did people begin to search for Richard? 1509 is my guess.
SST - I find it hard to see your posts "deleted". You are without doubt one of the most intelligent people on the Boards here. You have helped point me in truly interesting directions for which I'm grateful. Don't leave. People with minds like yours are important.
Cheers, Minette.

Minette wrote:

One matter is simple. If Leicester gets Richard III's bones they will make money from them as a medieval place of interest or pilgrimage would have done, it's nothing to do with History. Compare and contrast a kitchen in the countryside of Arles in spring and a Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-in on a road near you.

A Richard III fast food franchise would solve a lot of problems and end all this unseemly squabbling about money - outlets in both Leicester and York (as well as the Tower of London) - hugely profitable for all concerned. A varied menu could offer delights such as the Deluxe Boneless Feast, the Edward IV Big Daddy Burger and a Jane Shore Saucy Bites Variety Bucket. No too sure about the Kiddies' Choice menu though.

I remember seeing a menu in a pub near Haworth which offered "Bronteburger and Chips (veggie option available)".

PS Hope you stay around, Minette; you are missed.

Minnie wrote:

But where are you going with this DNA business? If Richard III's DNA is in doubt ...

How do you know it's "his"?

Oh, come on, nordmann, when was it ever necessary to subject the bones of the martyrs to exhaustive examination?
Why not just accept this medieval revival and go for it properly? Split up Carpark Man and give a bit to Leicester and a bit to York and let them both create their own martyrium. Distribute other scraps to any other places that want a share in the profits and employ some decent jewellers to produce a few pretty reliquaries for the smaller bits. He could even go travelling like St Therese of Liseux.
The Richard III enterprise zone - get your white hart venison burgers after a game of 'Stick the bodkin in Richard's bum'.

Will any bones do?

I have some chicken bones from yesterday's dinner that under DNA analysis will certainly display a 99% parity with Richard's relatives (ie. humans) and therefore must also be accorded royal consideration in their disposal. Will you be my agent?

Certainly, I'll act for you, once I've organised the Crown of Thorns exhibition I did some pruning yesterday and the trimmings are indisputably jaggy.

ferval wrote:

The Richard III enterprise zone - get your white hart venison burgers...

Don't you two  try to hustle in on my fast food business.

White hart burgers indeed - who wants them? We will offer the real thing: white boarburgers (ethically sourced).

I still think you lot are a bit cynical. After all, even if nordmann's chicken's DNA was a good match, I bet a) its bones weren't dated around 1455 - 1530; b) it didn't show evidence of a humpy wing; and c) it hadn't died in battle as a result of ten injuries, including eight to its poor little head.

Oh, and had it been fed really posh chicken food?

How seasonal, ferv. I always try to be a little cross at Easter too.

Temp - can you actually show me the carbon dating results for Car Park Man?

nordmann wrote:

Temp - can you actually show me the carbon dating results for Car Park Man?

Well, I read this and I sort of believed it...

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/science/carbondating.html

I suppose I should put a  


Will go back under my stone now.

Bayesian statistic modelling technique

  

From what I understand (from press releases - this fraud is remarkable for its defiant refusal to publish its data) two independent carbon dating tests dated the bones to some decades before Richard's recorded demise at the top end of their estimated age. Bayesian statistics (which are really just estimates of probability based on existing belief) were then applied to contradict the scientific data and change the estimate to a time frame which might include Bosworth. However Bayesian statistical analysis would also surely have had to take into account that the other remains found in this excavation under carbon dating analysis also revealed an earlier estimation commensurate with the disputed remains. This in fact should enhance the probability that the remains were of too early a date to be Richard. This however is not what is being reported by the analysts.

Strange. Or is it ...

nordmann wrote:

Bayesian statistic modelling technique

  

From what I understand (from press releases - this fraud is remarkable for its defiant refusal to publish its data) two independent carbon dating tests dated the bones to some decades before Richard's recorded demise at the top end of their estimated age. Bayesian statistics (which are really just estimates of probability based on existing belief) were then applied to contradict the scientific data and change the estimate to a time frame which might include Boswell. However Bayesian statistical analysis would also surely have had to take into account that the other remains found in this excavation under carbon dating analysis also revealed an earlier estimation commensurate with the disputed remains. This in fact should enhance the probability that the remains were of too early a date to be Richard. This however is not what is being reported by the analysis.

If this is all so risible, then there surely must have been howls of execration, scorn and contempt from the academic community worldwide when this info went up on the University of Leicester site? And "this fraud" - that is surely a very serious suggestion to make about the findings of the team from a British university?

Look, I am no expert - I have repeated that often enough: I know nothing of DNA testing and I haven't a clue what  "Bayesian statistic modelling technique" is. I should really be lurking quietly under my stone. However, may I ask - with all due respect (and I do mean that) - why should we believe you rather than the University of Leicester folk? Do any of you know what you are talking about? Can any of you be trusted? Sorry, but that's the feeling down our pub anyway.


PS

nordmann wrote:

...were then applied to contradict the scientific data and change the estimate to a time frame which might include Boswell.

Doctor Johnson would be thrilled  . Sorry again - I know it was a typo, but I couldn't resist.

Thanks, Boswell has been replaced by a battlefield.

It is not a question of belief, and the fact that you use the term simply highlights the paucity of data upon which to make a judgement. It is however very much a question of acting on information which as yet has not been published, let alone reviewed, and when this anomaly is pointed out being then referred to press releases erroneously referred to as data or even a "wealth of material".

It is this action therefore that is fraudulent until it either receives justification from fact established in the normal manner or is denied it by the same process. And yes, it is of course a serious suggestion. Bloody serious.

I too am no expert and have no axe to grind either way ... I would actually quite like it to be Richard ... but I also get suspicious when two independent laboratories come up with a carbon dating with 95% confidence that both say the bones' median date is several decades earlier than expected, and indeed even the upper bound is before Richard's date of death. To which Leicester reply, ah but if he ate a lot of fish that would skew it! Then they have the gall to say that the C-dating "fits" and that further this 'anomaly' also shows that it was Richard because only he would have access to such amounts of seafood. Uh?

I'm not sure if it's the oysters that are well past their sell by date ... but something smells fishy.

The hands were tied - couldn't they have done a C14 dating on the rope? That wouldn't have over-dosed on seafood and was unlikely to have been made half a century earlier.

Also in the 200-odd comments that follow that press release there are quite a few specific questions concerning the details of the DNA testing ... to which the official reply is always: "you'll just have to wait until we publish the results".

EDIT : Crossed posts with Nordmann.

nordmann wrote:

It is not a question of belief, and the fact that you use the term simply highlights the paucity of data upon which to make a judgement.

I use the term because belief in what the experts tell me is all I have to rely on in this matter: that is why this is all so unutterably depressing.

The data could be as rich and detailed as even you would wish for, but, without several years of study at degree level in history and archaeology, I still would not be able to make head nor tail of it. I need to trust that the experts - all of them - are acting with integrity, and that we are being presented with what is genuinely considered to be an accurate analysis of what has been found. Otherwise we all may as well join Philippa Gregory's fan club and be damned.

Temperance wrote:

Quote :

 I need to trust that the experts - all of them - are acting with integrity, and that we are being presented with what is genuinely considered to be an accurate analysis of what has been found. Otherwise we all may as well join Philippa Gregory's fan club and be damned.

Don't we all? And that is why the usual route is to publish all the original data after it's been peer reviewed, and then let the experts mull over it.

I think there are probably a lot of experts and academics also eagerly awaiting this information ... but as yet it is all just a "Philippa Gregory fan Club". IMO

Temp wrote:

I need to trust that the experts - all of them - are acting with integrity, and that we are being presented with what is genuinely considered to be an accurate analysis of what has been found.

Quite. And your requirement to operate on trust will remain as long as the publication of this data is delayed.

I disagree that the data "could be as rich and detailed as even I would wish for". The evidence to date is that it is inconclusive and where it has been attempted to be verified it has flatly contradicted the analysts' expectations. However these expectations are still being relayed to us as "fact" verified by the (yet to be published) data.

At what point do you actually un-suspend your disbelief and wonder if you're being sold a crock of shit? Trust is all very well but in this case those who expect to be trusted have provided little by way of reassurance regarding our wisdom in extending it any longer.

nordmann wrote:

At what point do you actually un-suspend your disbelief and wonder if you're being sold a crock of shit? Trust is all very well but in this case those who expect to be trusted have provided little by way of reassurance regarding our wisdom in extending it any longer.

Well, I've done a fair few returns labels on various crocks of shit in my time. Perhaps this will prove to be just one more, perhaps not. We shall just have to wait and see.

I found this post on another site where someone had, like you, raised doubts about the DNA testing. If you are honest you must admit that you historians do like a spot of controversy. How you all thrive on it. Life would be very boring without it.


Yes but the DNA evidence is not the only evidence that points to it being Richard. The location of the skeleton, the spinal deformity, the injuries that killed him, the injuries that were inflicted after death all fit in with contemporary accounts. It is a pity you’ve chosen to ignore this other evidence for the sake of an oh-so-controversial post.

What is controversial here is, as stated many times by me now, the inordinate and unexplained delay in releasing this data for review. You refer, as the Leicester team also did, to the "totality" of the evidence in this case. There is no totality without evidence, I would have thought. Before such an assessment could even be attempted we would first have to see something a little more detailed than a cosmetically arranged photograph to determine the extent, if any, of scoliosis in the vertebrae. We require to know the extent of the damage to the remains during excavation, and especially the skull upon which some of the forensic analysis depends (the mystery of the missing feet - Victorian or Philippian in their removal - should also be definitively addressed through analysis of the fracture). In light of the fact that we know the remains were removed without any attempt to preserve articulation (the skull, having been damaged in the excavation we hear, was actually taken out and then put back) or detailed analysis of the soil discolouration that might have informed us of the original interment it is now vital to know the exact sequence used and the logic of such a departure from normal excavation practice. Until therefore we have access to this evidence its "totality" is rather less than the sum of its parts, at least in so far as the press releases would have us believe. In the absence of this data we are obliged to consider the very real possibility that the remains are too old to have been deposited in 1485, incurred damage during excavation that has clouded forensic analysis and may even have been removed in a manner that disturbed and obliterated context and features which would have contributed to resolving these questions.

Historians may like controversy, that is not for me to say. However even you "if you are honest" must harbour some reservations about the apparent departure from normal practice in this case and the expectation that we simply trust the analysis as presented? Given the alleged importance of the find and the serious repercussions it has already engendered regarding further disposal of the remains one would have thought that it was in the interests of all parties to have the data (and an explanation of how this data was extracted) released for review sooner rather than later.

To even discuss "totality" of evidence when presented with a few scraps of seemingly erroneous analysis imparted through press conferences is simply absurd.

Well, you must forgive those of us who appear to you to be "absurd" in our attempts to discuss this.

It is all terribly confusing. I watched the last programme of the BBC series The Plantagenets last night, and even the series presenter, Professor Robert Bartlett (who would appear to know what he's talking about - see below), referred to Richard III as the king whose remains have been recently discovered (I've deleted the programme, so I can't, unfortunately, give you his exact words). Is he too "absurd" in his apparent acceptance of the findings of the University of Leicester team?

"If I am honest" I really do not know what to think: can it be that the whole of British academia  - with the exception of a few lone voices like that of Michael Hicks  - is involved in some dreadful scam, a huge cover-up operation? I sincerely hope not.

Wish Andrew Spencer or Catigern were around. It would be interesting to have their opinions on all of this.



Robert Bartlett FBA, FRSE (born 27 November 1950) is an English historian and medievalist.

He currently holds the position of Wardlaw Professor of Mediaeval History at the University of St Andrews. After attending Battersea Grammar School in London (1962 to 1969), he studied at Peterhouse, Cambridge, St John's College, Oxford and Princeton University. He obtained research fellowships at several institutions, including the University of Michigan and Georg-August University of Göttingen, before working at the University of Edinburgh, the University of Chicago and the University of St Andrews, where he currently resides.