Richard III really did not have a good life.
Or, at least, that's the way historians
have painted it. Vilified as the last king of the House of York, as the object
of satire in Shakespeare's play Richard III, and as the man who plead,
"My kingdom for a horse!", King Richard III proves that history is
not kind to those on the losing side of war. The possible discovery of his
remains in a parking lot only goes to further desecrate his memory (the poor
man).
Killed at the Battle of Bosworth, the final, monumental battle between the Houses York and Lancaster in the War of the Roses, Richard III is famously remembered as the deformed, villainous king who seized the throne after his brother's death and killed the remaining heirs, his young nephews, to ensure his reign. Only lasting two years, his reign marked the end of the House of York, proving once again that you should never kill your family relations if you want your lineage to remain on the throne. (Come on, Richard). Although his remains were buried at a Greyfriar's friary, time had since destroyed the church, and the known location of Richard III's unmarked grave had been lost to history.
Until a group of people decided that it was a brilliant idea
to look underneath a Leicester parking lot. No, really. Recently, archeologists
had discovered the remains of an individual who was theorized to the infamous
king of the 15th century. Although the skeleton showed signs of scoliosis
(which Richard III was afflicted with) and battle injuries to the skull and
spine (injuries that were also reportedly what killed the king), researchers
needed more concrete evidence to ensure that the body really was the infamous
king. Which is why they turned to radiocarbon dating and
mitochondrial DNA testing to prove that the remains were truly those of Richard
III.
Radiocarbon
dating is specifically geared towards determining the how much time has passed
since an organic organism died. Radiocarbon dating measures the ratio of
carbon-14 to carbon-12. While an organism is living, it absorbs the carbon-14
and carbon-12 in the atmosphere into their system. When the organism dies,
however, it retains the carbon-12 in its system, as carbon-12 is a stable
isotope, but gradually begins to lose the carbon-14, as it is a radioactive
isotope and degrades over time. Because the half-life of carbon-14 is known,
the amount of carbon-14 lost in a dead organism (found by comparing the ratio
of carbon-12 to carbon-14) can tell the researcher how long the organism has
been dead. Radiocarbon dating of the skeletal remains found in the parking lot
show that they were from an individual who died between 1455 and 1540, a range that encompasses the time
of death of Richard III.
A time
range, however, is hardly enough to conclusively determine if the skeleton was
the real deal. To be able to determine
whether the poor guy was the notorious 15th century king, the researchers at
Leicester used mitochondrial DNA to test for a DNA match to the later relations
of the king. (And this is where archaeological research begins to sound more and more like a paternity test.) Mitochondrial
DNA analysis is basically the same as any other DNA analysis, except the
researcher sequences the genome of the mitochondrial DNA instead of the
traditional, nucleus DNA. The primary reason for sequencing mitochondrial DNA
is simply because of the amount of DNA available to sequence. In a cell there
are hundreds of mitochondria to
one nucleus. Not only is it easier to find mitochondrial DNA than it is to find
nuclear DNA, the degradation of the skeletal specimen Leicester researchers
found makes it even more necessary to find enough DNA that had not degraded over time to be
used in the analysis.
With the
sequencing of the mitochondrial DNA (which basically means they mapped out all
of the DNA nucleotides and determined the specific order each of them) they
then compared them to the mitochondrial DNA sequences of known relatives to the
lost king. The relatives, which include Canadian carpenter Michael Ibsen and a
confirmed anonymous descendant, prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that
the genomic sequences match and that the skeletal remains are those of a
relative to the two Richard III decedents. By simple deduction and process of
elimination, the conclusion is obvious.
Yeah! The
mystery is solved! We can go home!
But who
really wants to go home? As Dr. Turi King, from University of Leicester, said,
"It is an extremely rare occurrence that archaeologists are involved in
the excavation of a known individual, let alone a king of England...Sequencing
the genome of Richard III is a hugely important project that will help to teach
us not only about him, but ferment discussion about how our DNA informs our
sense of identity, our past and our future." In other words, the genomic
details of Richard III's DNA will allow us to know several key aspects to his
genetic make-up, such as his hair color, his eye color, and how easily he
contracted diseases. His DNA will allow researchers (and avid readers like us)
to take a quick glimpse into the past and see how his genetic ancestry could
have possibly affected the modern population, and if any other organisms, such
as pathogens, decided to snuggle in with Richard III's DNA and make a new home.
_______________________________________________________________________
My name is Diana. I’m a pianist, a snail lover, and a
lock-pick smith in training.
Fascinating explanation of how the identity was confirmed, Diana; I was one of Mrs. Winter's English teachers in high school so my education in the area of DNA was nonexistent in my 1950s-early 1960s Iowa education. This was a clear and charming explanation, and I love your writing style; thank you for bringing me into the 21st Century of science!
ReplyDelete