|COMPUTERSHOPPER
RICHARDIII
84 JANUARY2021|COMPUTERSHOPPER|ISSUE395
weapon such as apoleaxe,halberd or
sword, two large penetrating wounds at
the base of the skull, probably made by a
halberd and sword, an injury through
right cheek, abroken toothinthe
upper-leftjawand injury to the pelvis
fromasharp bladed instrument.
X-raytomography showed the two
injuries that could have been fatal. These,
labelled Band Cinthe photograph on
page 83, could have led to death if
inflicted in life. As Professor Hainsworth
says, “The injury labelled C, possibly from
ahalberd, would have damaged the
cerebellumand could have led to death if
sufficient penetration had occurred to the brain. The left-hand
injury (B) was probably caused by asword and penetrates to the
inner part of the skull. Injury Bwas life-threatening and most
likely led to death (if he hadn’t received afatal softtissueinjury).
This fits with thehistorical record of death resulting fromthe
final blowto the head while kneeling.”The label Ashows the
point at which the spine connects to the skull.
BRINGING LIFETOTHE SKELETON
It might not have played apartinthe identification of Richard III,
but afacial reconstruction, funded by theRichard III Society,
brought those bones back to life. Again,
micro-CT imaging came to the fore and,
according to Professor Hainsworth,
provided higher-resolution images than
conventional CT scanning, which allowed
those involved in the reconstruction to
understand the nuances of howthe
skeleton matched the face.
The work was carried out by Caroline
Wilkinson, Dundee University’s Professor
of Craniofacial Identification at the Centre
forAnatomy and Human Identification. According to Professor
Wilkinson, the data fromthe micro-CT scan was imported into
her computer systemas a3Dmodel that could be viewed and
modified onscreen. The use of ahaptic armmeant that she could
even feel what she was modelling. The armis afeedback device
that gives the user atactile response fromavirtualobject.
With this process, the anatomical structure,which comprises
mostly the muscles, can be added to the skull, with data from
the skull dictating the shape.“The nasal aperture provides
information about the nose,” says Professor Wilkinson. “The
teeth are used to define the lips, while the orbits and brow
⬅3DCAD software and
anatomical principles
were used toadd muscle
tothe Greyfriars skull
ReproducedwithkindpermissionofUniversityofDundee
spinalabnormality.Therewasnoindicationthatcarehad
been taken with the burial –there was no evidence ofa
coffin or shroud, and the grave was an irregular shape and
tooshort. Radiocarbon dating confirmed that the individual
had eaten ahigh-protein diet consistent with someone of
high status, and had died in the second half of the 15th or
early 16th century.
Aforensic anthropological investigation confirmed that
the individual was amaleinhis thirties, with agracile
physique,consistent with contemporary descriptions. As
well as the battle injuries, potential insult injuries had been
inflicted after he had died, which is consistent with historical
accounts of latemedievalwarfare.“Taking this evidence
together,Isuppose we might have
said ‘balance of probability’,” says
Buckley. “Adding the DNA match,
though, took the identification to the
stageof‘beyond reasonable doubt’.”
Even so,thismay notbethe end
of the story.Justasmitochondrial
DNA passes down the maternal line,
the Ychromosome,which is part of
aperson’s nuclear DNA, is carried
through the paternal line.There’s
much less nuclear DNA in acellthan
mtDNA, so it’s harder to find enough
to analyse in an ancient skeleton,
but researchers at the University of
Leicester are trying to find amatch
along the paternal line.
While experts at the University of Leicester announced
triumphantly that theyhad proved that the remains found at
Greyfriars were those of RichardIII,some scientists have
expressed doubts about the evidence.For astart, some have
taken issue with the waythe results of the DNA analysis were
made public. The normal process in academia is to submit
scientific results to an academic journal forpeer review,where
they are scrutinised by other experts who check that the work
is of sufficient quality to be published. The first the world heard
of these results was at ahigh-profilepress conference.
Experts have raised two particular issues. First, theyquestion
whether adequateprecautions were taken to prevent
contamination of the ancient DNA. Second, theyask howlikely
aDNA match would be between the
remains and aperson alive todayeven
if theyhad no common ancestry.
Without an analysis of whether the
DNA strands analysed are sufficiently
rare,nosuch judgement can be made.
According to Richard Buckley,
co-director of the University of
Leicester Archaeological Service and
lead archaeologist on the Search for
Richard III project, the DNA match was
only part of the story.Hesuggests
that the archaeological context alone
provides compelling evidence.The
grave was where historical accounts
said it would be and the individual had
sufferedbattle trauma and had a
⬆Critics have suggested that Michael Ibsen (left) and
the Greyfriars skeleton (reconstructed, right) might
share the same mitochondrial DNA purely by chance
AN ELEMENT OF DOUBT?
