Richard III: Research in the Spotlight


By Professor Lin Foxhall, University of Leicester.

Lin Foxhall Most of the time we academics beaver away, quietly making our contributions to human knowledge in baby steps. Naturally we’re keen to share what we are doing with the wider world, but generally no one takes much notice, even when we try to explain what’s so exciting. And then, every once in a while, we turn up something that captures the public imagination in a way that is totally unexpected and completely overwhelming. What thrills non-specialists about our work is not always what we ourselves find most fascinating. But, that does not mean that the questions other people ask are not good or valid.  For academics to suggest that the only important questions are the ones we ourselves formulate is arrogant and patronizing. There are lots of questions we can’t answer, but then it’s our duty to explain why.

Of course we expected media attention when we discovered a skeleton which might be that of King Richard III back in September 2012, and we understood this would overshadow all other interesting aspects of the Grey Friars project. But, the level, extent or intensity of global media interest in the story surprised us, and has been almost unrelenting since then. We were very cautious in our initial announcement. We made clear that far more research was needed, that many different lines of evidence had to be explored and the results brought together. This is exactly what we have done. Constant media pressure raised the threat that premature results could be leaked and misleadingly reported. One media organization insisted that they would run a story on us even if we didn’t cooperate with them – had we not, presumably they would have filled the gaps with speculation. Releasing our results piecemeal would simply have spread confusion and muddied the waters, since individual results were not meaningful in isolation. Nonetheless, during the past five months we were accused of holding back decisive information. And yet, as we involved more colleagues in the research within and beyond the University of Leicester, the risk of leaks grew ever greater.

No responsible academic wants ‘publication by media’, especially when the media, not the scholars, control dissemination. Had we not been certain that our results were sufficiently robust to stand up to the normal processes of academic peer review, we would not have authorized a press conference. Our university press office and communications team would have supported us in that decision, as they have supported us brilliantly throughout. The integrity of the research always came first. Releasing the results in public, in advance of academic publication, has paradoxically, allowed us to keep a firm grip on the research.

What it all means for history will take some time to consider. However, it should be obvious, especially to those of us whose expertise lies in the ancient world, that uncovering a major new body of archaeological evidence will inevitably lead to revised interpretations of written texts. Already, at a very basic level, we can show that some historical sources were wrong while others were more correct than we had realized but not in ways that we had expected. It’s critical also to think about what the texts don’t mention, and why.

Of course, there is more to the study of the past than a king found under a car park. And the story has focused a lot more attention on a single skeleton than usual. Archaeologists rarely find known individuals, and already we are discovering that the fixed point provided by someone so well documented is helping us to understand better the lives and deaths of the ordinary anonymous people we normally study. But, most importantly, for many people this discovery opens up a new view of the past and why its study is worth supporting. So, let’s celebrate the victory for academic research as a whole.

Professor Lin Foxhall is the Head of the University’s School of Archaeology and Ancient History and Professor of Greek Archaeology and History.
This article first appeared in Times Higher Education on 14th February.

4 Comments

  1. Chris Williams
    Posted 02/03/2013 at 08:42 | Permalink

    It is always worth encouraging speculation by the media, the more ridiculous the better. It has two advantages: it may attract funds from unexpected sources and, when the solid facts are published, it exposes the media to ridicule thereby reducing public credulity. There is a third unintended consequence that the media speculation encourages men to discuss something other tha football in the pub, which can only be of benefit to wider society.

    [Reply]

    Dennis Brewis Reply:

    Hi Chris,
    I certainly think you are correct in your comment about the funding from unexpected sources, in fact I think that distant relatives would have been willing to contribute to further studies including burial costs etc. If a global search could have been done. I for one only today stumbled upon this website after my “geni” website revealed that I am related to Richard III.
    According to “geni” he is my fourth cousin 14 times removed. I think his descendants emigrated to parts of Germany and from there to other places across the globe from the late 15th Century.

    [Reply]

  2. michelle
    Posted 01/03/2013 at 05:19 | Permalink

    I think the University handled it all quite well and your press conference discussing the results was fascinating. If there’s an increase in students applying for your programs in history or archeology or DNA analysis, pat yourselves on the back. You made them all come alive through your handling of this amazing discovery.

    [Reply]

  3. D S Dunlap
    Posted 26/02/2013 at 01:30 | Permalink

    Well, perhaps, now, he’ll be buried as befits a King of England. This American hopes so, but knowing the controversy surrounding Richard III, there is some doubt that he won’t be just put in a box and stored away like some animal fossil.

    [Reply]

  4. rural retreat
    Posted 11/02/2013 at 16:58 | Permalink

    I suspect those criticising rather wished they had made the discovery themselves.

    [Reply]

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please type the characters of this captcha image in the input box

Please type the characters of this captcha image in the input box

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.