Today's lecture got me thinking, not only about the myriad of means we have of treating the dead but also about issues of consent and ownership of the dead and the recent discovery of the remains of King Richard III in Leicester, England really brought these issues to a boil in my head.
As I am sure many of you already know, archaeologist Richard Buckley uncovered the remains of a middle aged man believed to be Richard III in August of 2012 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882) and the recent mitochondrial DNA studies conducted on the bones and on the last surviving descendant of Richard's sister have confirmed what the archaeologists thought all along, it is Richard III.
This is of course a phenomenal discovery and highlights the amazing advances we (the scientific community and the human race) have made in DNA studies over the last several years. It is also an example of sheer blind luck when you consider that Michael Ibsen is the very last of Richard's lineage and so this confirmation was almost impossible.
More applicable to the question of ownership of the dead however is what happens next. The studies have been conducted and the results are more than satisfying so it is time to put Richard to rest once more. But where?
He was found in a shallow grave that was not even long enough to fit his body (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882) and he shows signs of what the researchers called humiliation marks. Not exactly what you might expect for the grave of a king. But Richard III was killed in the Battle of Bosworth and his body was taken by his enemies (interestingly making him the last English king to die in battle) so a normal funeral and burial is unlikely.This undignified burial, combined with the humiliation marks seems to suggest that Richard's enemies wanted to shame him even in death. Now is where things start to get complicated.
Normally a body is restored to its original position when ever possible but in this case the original site has been destroyed. Should his remains be reburied in the cemetery of the nearest church? In this case Leicester Cathedral. Or should another site be found. A CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/world/europe/richard-iii-search-announcement/index.html) mentions that there were arguments for him to be buried with full honours in Westminster Abbey and still others argue that he should be laid to rest in York with the rest of his dynastic line.
A convincing argument could be made that he should be moved to York and buried with his family line as that is likely what would have happened if his body had been recovered by his supporters instead of his enemies. The argument for Westminster Abbey is less convincing and is aimed at giving him the honour a king "should" have. However, this honour was purposefully denied to him in the first place and he has no connection to Westminster Abbey.
Ideally (in my mind) the body would be returned to its original position. Unfortunately that is impossible. Even if it were possible would it be done? After all, this is a king we are talking about. He was intentionally dishonoured when he was buried but reburial will almost certainly be accompanied by some sort of monument or ceremony and this would effectively nullify the underlying theme of punishment and humiliation that accompanied the original grave. What right do we have to change the story of this body?
Ultimately I suppose this case brings me to one of the central problems of archaeology. Objectivity. No matter how hard we try to remain impartial and scientific, as soon as we uncover something (be it clay pots or human remains) it immediately becomes part of our story and we become a part of its. Perhaps the sooner we accept this the better. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Sources and Links.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/world/europe/richard-iii-search-announcement/index.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/richard-iii-york-and-leicester-fight-1587917
Hi Ethan,
ReplyDeleteI have been following the Richard the III story and what really struck me about your post is the idea that history is an ongoing process. I often think of history as something in the past that as historians and archaeologists we try to wade through the evidence to discern the 'truth' about. In reality however the history of Richard the third for example did not end when he died but was continually rewritten and reinterpreted by scholars and authors. Last year when his body was rediscovered his history became entwined with our own and is still being written as we try to decide how the next chapter will go.
thanks for the insightful post!