Misconstrued Modesty?
Is it misconstrued modesty to deny the public photos of the alleged skeleton of Richard III?
On the 30th of August archaeologists found a well-preserved skeleton of a middleaged male of normal height with an articulated scoliosis. The man appeared to have been slain in battle as witnessed by a series of wounds to the skull plus an iron arrowhead lodged between his upper vertebras. The skeleton was in all probability identified as that of Richard III and a request was sent to the Ministry of Justice in order to obtain the right to commence exhumation.
Of huge historical interest, the skeleton was at this point thus identified as that of an innate object ready to be made available for a series of scientific investigations, through which it would hopefully be possible to gather an endless amount of information about such things as height, physical condition, diet etc.
Nevertheless the University of Leicester, which will be responsible for this research, later claimed at the press conference (12.09.2012), that photos of the remains had not been released since the skeleton would be “treated in full accordance with the University of Leicester’s ethical policy for dealing with human remains”. Probably knowing full well that the public might be fuming, it appeared the University had as a poor substitute contracted with an artist – Emma Vieceli – who had been commissioned to draw an artistic rendering of the actual exhumation.
All this is of course fabulously interesting for not just anthropologists, who love to study such cultural dilemmas, but hopefully also a source of hilarious entertainment for the enlightened public. The question, we have to pose, is of course why an aesthetically inspired drawing is more ethically correct than a beautiful, professional photo? One might be entitled to think that a proper artist used to working with the photographic medium might be able to secure a similar respectful rendering of this skeleton, which is obviously of huge international interest. But nay…
And further: why no photos, when a man is dug out, who was buried in consecrated earth at the entrance to the choir in a church, albeit long since dismantled? Why not let him “rest in peace”? But if one digs him out, because the cultural context deems such a procedure quite all right insofar as we are handling nothing but an innate object (which is what we do in a Christian cultural context, where body and soul are regarded in a dualistic manner); why then balk at taking photos?
All these questions are not easily dealt with. For this reason the University of Leicester has, as mentioned, a guideline, which is hopefully akin to the one, published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2005 : “Guidance for the Care of Human Remains in Museums”. Here it says: “The photography of human remains for research, educational and general museum use will be acceptable in the vast majority of cases, although in considering any photography, views of cultural communities and genealogical descendants should be considered where known.”
Now, no proper genealogical descendants of Richard III exist, except for the individual, who carries the female mitochondrial DNA, who was identified by the historian, Dr John Ashdown Hill. Might this descendant in the 17th generation be entitled to object? If not him, what about the “cultural community”? Who are they? Is it not the “cultural community” of us Christianised Westerners, characterised by our dualistic worldview, which have already exhumed a skeleton – albeit that of an anointed king – 527 years after his death? In order to examine how he died and whether he was a hunchback or not? In short: to see him?
Are we not entitled to photos?
Karen Schousboe
Read more about the dilemmas posed by the exhumation and exhibition of human remains in
Archaeological Knowledge, Animist Knowledge and Appropriation of the Ancient Dead
By Piotr Bienkowski.
In: Heritage from below. Ed. by Iain J. M. Robertson
Ashgate 2012
Marcella Pattyn
I would not be happy for a photograph of the bones in progress of being excavated to be shown to the public. However careful the excavators may be, this can look like an undignified jumble to the uninitiated – stuffed into 7 plastic bags. But once the bones have been laid out in due and proper order on a flat surface, clean of any debris or dirt, I cannot see that this would present an offensive spectacle to any viewer. I believe that the bones of the late Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (a candidate for canonisation) and his family are or were displayed in an appropriate location in Russia under glass domed covers. The (catholic & orthodox) Christian churches have seldom had any inhibitions about the display of relics! Folk from the Protestant traditions may be more squeamish.
I have in the past cleaned and laid out for inspection both human and animal bones on an archaeological site and found that those who came to look were interested and courteous rather than ghoulish. But these were almost certainly not Christian and certainly not royal and definitely not sacred!!
Exactly! Although I still do not understand why they did not give us photos of the actual exhumation. That would not have bothered me either. It is as if were ashamed of the the whole project. At least I think this is worth a serious debate, thank you for taking part in it.
I don’t have any need to see the bones, but will look forward to seeing results from analysis. I suppose, no matter what you think of him, that after being paraded naked after Bosworth parading his bones might be construed as yet another insult. These are a human being’s remains after all.
I think it is disrespectful to have pictures of the human remains taken because they are just that – human remains just as your comment about Emma’s artwork. She is a gifted artist and your comments about her are rude.
Well, as to the bones…I think that if you excavate them and do rigorous scientific research on them, you have already categorized them as “things”; which means that you can take photos of them and distribute them freely; you are even obliged to it according to the directive form the ministry for culture as far as I read the rules and regulations, and to which I referred. The other option – to consider the bones the human remains of a dead person to which some sort of “personhood” still clings – basically should have stopped the whole excavation. The proper attitude might have been: let the man rest in peace. Either or it is well worth a (lively) discussion!
As to the art… I suppose you will agree that it is allowed to review a piece of art? And have different opinions about it?
I’ve no problem with the bones being filmed but I do think that after DNA testing, they should be reburied, not put on display. Indigenous people in Australia, America and elswhere do not appreciate the bones of their dead being exhibited as curiosities for all time. Nor should these be.
But maybe it is not the skeleton of Richard iii after all. Your report says the bones are those of a middle aged man. Richard iii was much younger than the actors who generally play him. He was not yet 33 at death. Maybe that was middle aged in his time but we would call him a young adult.
As I’m quite impressed by the historian Michael Hicks and find Ricardian arguments lacking in substance, I hope a state funeral won’t be wasted on Richard if it is he. It would be good to illuminate his guilt or lack of it by DNA tests on the bones believed to be those of his nephews but the present queen will not allow this.
At least we can learn something from this skeleton. Disablist prejudice is so strong that it can be used even to smear those who are not disabled. Thus Lytton Strachey is thought to have invented a story that Dr Arnold had one leg shorter than the other just to make him a figure of fun. A scurrilous biography of John Lennon makes him out to have been dyslexic and ‘so unco-ordinated as to be virtually spastic.’
So it comes as a bit of a shock to find out that Richard might really have had scoliosis.Of course, on a rational level, it should make no difference to how we judge him.. But it would be good to be able to clear up this point.
The description “middle-aged” may – I think mean nothing more – than a fully grown person. At the time, when the find was reported, the age of the person had not been decided scientifically. I probably should have written “fully grown” instead!
Are you sure it is the queen who will not allow a DNA -testing of the children, which were found in the Tower in 1674? Or are you talking about the undisclosed coffins in the vault, where Edward IV and his queen Elisabeth Woodville, were buried?
Oh hi, Karen. I’ve only just seen your reply. I have definitely read that it is the bones discovered in the box in the Tower that the present queen won’t allow to be DNA tested. As I’ve done so much reading on the subject, I can’t say offhand which historian said this but it may have been Michael Hicks.
I only became aware of two mysterious child bodies buried in the vault of Edward iv and Elizabeth Woodville from reading a wikipedia article. I find these bodies quite puzzling. If they were those of the princes, it might be some evidence that Elizabeth Woodville knew what happened to her sons. She didn’t die till 1492 by which time Edward v would have been about 21 and young Richard 18 so if they were buried there later than her they would not have been children.
It was defnitely the bones in the Tower the queen does not want DNA tested although she may feel the same about the other bodies too. One very frustrating thing is that when the bones were examined in 1933 it was not possible to tell the sex of skeletons of those who died before puberty. We cannot even know that they are both boys or that either of them is.
One indication that they migh be the princes is that they share rare dental peculiarities with Anne Mowbray, the child wife of young Richard who was accidentally dug up in 1964.They were cousins as well as joint victims of a child marriage. Of course all the English nobility were cousins but few of them are candidates for secret burial in the Tower. The box is of course roughly where Thomas More said it was buried, although he had never seen it. To confuse the issue, he also said that it was later moved elsewhere.
Apart from the bodies buried with the boys’ parents, more confusion is caused by two other child bodies discovered in the Tower in the early 1600s. They had apparently been sealed up and left to starve to death. It is thought they were too young to be the princes but a contemporary source thinks Harry Buckingham may have starved the princes to death.
Perhaps we should ask ourselves: is DNA testing exact enough to establish Richard’s guilt or innocnece once and for all? Even with kids, can it establsh death in 1483 as opposed to later than August 1485? I’ve never thought it plausible that Henry Tudor or Margaret Beaufort killed the princes but we do know that Henry vii treated their young cousin Edward earl of Warwick with great cruelty. He was reluctant to kill him but came to it eventually.
The Philippa Gregory school would perhaps think that Margaret Beaufort, after being legally raped at 12, would be bitter and twisted enough to rob another 12 year old of his life. But this is getting over analytical. Not all victims become abusers.
I cannot imagine that the television documentary to be shown this year,as I understand it, will not include photographic evidence of Richards remains. I can only assume that the reticence of the archaeologists at this time is due to some deal being struck between them and the producers of the documentary. What price guidelines then?
Yes, I agree – the concern is probably also an economic one…