So - Richard!
Tuesday, 5 February 2013 10:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
byslantedlightOddly enough, the whole Richard III/Princes in the Tower thing was something I missed out on at school (or perhaps not oddly, we looked at gold rushes and things like that instead... *g*), so although I think the archaeology and science and discovery and all of Richard III are very cool, it's not got quite the same emotional attachment for me as it seems to have for a lot of people. The University of Leicester and all have done a great job of hyping it all up though, to the point that I stayed up to watch the documentary about it last night...
...and nearly cried. Not about Richard (finding his skeleton doesn't change what that body may have done whilst it was alive, though I'm more interested in finding out about it!), but about the state of so-called historical documentaries on our telly! With every wonderful thing that they've done with science in archaeology, all the amazing advances that have been made and their application to the remains found in the carpark... we got that.
What I'd been looking forward to:
- seeing how they'd matched the mtDNA to the two alleged descendants
- seeing what they'd worked out about the level of his scoliosis, considering the dramatic curvature of the vertebra
- seeing how they created his facial reconstruction, not (at a very shallow level) a reconstruction
- hearing more about the story of Richard, and why this was all such a big deal.
What we got instead:
- told they'd matched the DNA
- told "this is what he looked like"
- told "some people thought he was evil but some people don't believe that"
- far too much Shakespeare in the background, when they were purporting to be overturning the image
- far too much wibbly guff about the RIIIsoc woman's "journey". I was with Appleby, the osteologist, who a) refused to carry the remains around draped in a flag until they'd been properly verified (proud of her, I was, for that refusal!); and b) looked rather embarrassed and trying not to laugh out loud when the RIIIsoc woman had to leave the room for a wee cry after being told that the skeleton did indeed have scoliosis which may have resulted in a hunched back (and possible problems finding armour to fit...) Yes this might be important to you personally, and something you spend alot of emotional energy on, but I'm not interested in spending 90 minutes of my life finding out about you, nice as you might be, I want to know about what was found! Tell me that, not how much you want to have a cry!
- far too much emphasis on how spooky it was that there'd been an "R" on the carpark in the exact spot, and the arch's came down on the remains straight away, and oooh didn't it rain hard just as they'd found them? (It's archaeology! It's sod's law that it always starts to rain as soon as you find something that really shouldn't get wet! And it's England!)
I'm all about keeping the human factor in archaeology, and that's something I think the UK does well, but I want the human factor about what's been found (and why we can believe it), not about the people doing the finding... I don't want dull, dry telly either, but by all accounts this is Richard III, who had quite the life and death - there was battle and intrigue and murder, and the death of his own young son, and... and... and... This is where Henry VII (to be) triumphed, and the country was hugely changed by Tudor rule (would we have had the Church of England without it...?) And where was I left to find most of that information? Wiki-sodding-pedia! If I hadn't been reading about it all afternoon first, I'd've come away absolutely no wiser, having seen the documentary.
Is it just me? Am I just very grumpy because when we're making brilliant advances, what I'm seeing is the dumbing down of any vaguely educational historical content on telly at all? Should I just shut up and wait for Strictly Archaeologists on Ice in all their spangled glory? (Or the return, perhaps, of Bonekickers... *shudders*)
...and nearly cried. Not about Richard (finding his skeleton doesn't change what that body may have done whilst it was alive, though I'm more interested in finding out about it!), but about the state of so-called historical documentaries on our telly! With every wonderful thing that they've done with science in archaeology, all the amazing advances that have been made and their application to the remains found in the carpark... we got that.
What I'd been looking forward to:
- seeing how they'd matched the mtDNA to the two alleged descendants
- seeing what they'd worked out about the level of his scoliosis, considering the dramatic curvature of the vertebra
- seeing how they created his facial reconstruction, not (at a very shallow level) a reconstruction
- hearing more about the story of Richard, and why this was all such a big deal.
What we got instead:
- told they'd matched the DNA
- told "this is what he looked like"
- told "some people thought he was evil but some people don't believe that"
- far too much Shakespeare in the background, when they were purporting to be overturning the image
- far too much wibbly guff about the RIIIsoc woman's "journey". I was with Appleby, the osteologist, who a) refused to carry the remains around draped in a flag until they'd been properly verified (proud of her, I was, for that refusal!); and b) looked rather embarrassed and trying not to laugh out loud when the RIIIsoc woman had to leave the room for a wee cry after being told that the skeleton did indeed have scoliosis which may have resulted in a hunched back (and possible problems finding armour to fit...) Yes this might be important to you personally, and something you spend alot of emotional energy on, but I'm not interested in spending 90 minutes of my life finding out about you, nice as you might be, I want to know about what was found! Tell me that, not how much you want to have a cry!
- far too much emphasis on how spooky it was that there'd been an "R" on the carpark in the exact spot, and the arch's came down on the remains straight away, and oooh didn't it rain hard just as they'd found them? (It's archaeology! It's sod's law that it always starts to rain as soon as you find something that really shouldn't get wet! And it's England!)
I'm all about keeping the human factor in archaeology, and that's something I think the UK does well, but I want the human factor about what's been found (and why we can believe it), not about the people doing the finding... I don't want dull, dry telly either, but by all accounts this is Richard III, who had quite the life and death - there was battle and intrigue and murder, and the death of his own young son, and... and... and... This is where Henry VII (to be) triumphed, and the country was hugely changed by Tudor rule (would we have had the Church of England without it...?) And where was I left to find most of that information? Wiki-sodding-pedia! If I hadn't been reading about it all afternoon first, I'd've come away absolutely no wiser, having seen the documentary.
Is it just me? Am I just very grumpy because when we're making brilliant advances, what I'm seeing is the dumbing down of any vaguely educational historical content on telly at all? Should I just shut up and wait for Strictly Archaeologists on Ice in all their spangled glory? (Or the return, perhaps, of Bonekickers... *shudders*)
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 6 February 2013 06:30 am (UTC)I was also disappointed in the documentary. It was far too superficial, and even though I am perpetually baffled by the science I wanted to know a lot more how and have a lot more expert interpretation of what it all means.
I was also disappointed in the R3Soc lady and did give a small cheer when Bones Lady expressed her reservations about draping the remains in Richard's standard. They're human remains, they will be shown respect regardless of who they may or may not be. And I was annoyed when R3 lady was getting so upset about the fact that Richard had scoliosis. He was who he was - whatever we find out, it's fact. You can't just choose the bits that you like. And also, when this lady decided she was going to push for the search for Richard she should have mentally prepared herself for the fact that she might not like what she found - he could have been found complete with withered arm, hunchback and a signed confession in his pocket saying that he did murder the princes. It's about truth. And that's exciting.
On the other hand, she's not a scientiest, It's the scientists' job to be impartial, not hers. And without her drive, we wouldn't have had the dig in the first place, so perhaps I shouldn't judge too harshly.
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 6 February 2013 10:06 am (UTC)Wasn't it annoying - and I didn't have nearly the kind of emotional investment in Richard that I know you and alot of other people have, I can only imagine it must have been so much more disappointing...
As you say, Richard - or the person the bones used to be, no matter who that was - was who they were, and surely it's about finding out about him rather than the myth and legend (I thought that was going to be R3 woman's whole point, but she just seemed to have replaced one myth with her own)...
Granted she's not a scientist but then, what is a "scientist"? And don't we expect a certain degree of impartiality from our "documentary" makers too? I got the impression she'd done research to get as far as she did, and apparently she was producer of the show that was calling itself a "documentary", which suggests that it deals in facts rather than hopes and dreams, so surely it's not that far fetched to think she might have been able to temper her message with a touch of realism...
And see, she annoyed me so much that I almost wish they had found a withered arm and a signed confession... *g*