Richard III - The Unseen Story

I don't think we learnt much more from this documentary. It was mainly a recap and a slight shift in emphasis as they concentrated on the scientists' point of view. Simon Farnaby was still the commentator.
Elaine

From: ellrosa1452
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:53 PM
Subject: Richard III - The Unseen Story


> I don't think we learnt much more from this documentary. It was mainly a
> recap and a slight shift in emphasis as they concentrated on the
> scientists' point of view. Simon Farnaby was still the commentator.
Elaine

Yes. The only things that were new I think were the firm statement that he
*didn't* have marked muscle-insertion points in his arms, and the revelation
that the rear-view image of a scoliosis sufferer wasn't a reconstruction of
how Richard himself looked but an actual photo' of somebody with a similar
curve.

Oh and that front tooth was almost certainly missing in life, or knocked out
at Bosworth, because if they'd found a loose tooth in the grave they'd have
used that for DNA instead of pulling another one.

And the presence of a small cut on the lower edge of his jaw suggests to me
that ultimately he might have been killed by having his throat cut (which
has the benefit of being quick and fairly painless), even though his other
injuries would probably have killed him in about 20 mins anyway.

I also wondered about that bodkin dagger, like a giant nail with a hilt,
which was described in more detail - specifically I wondered whether the
nail-like bit of metal which was mixed up with his spine was the snapped-off
tip of one of those.

Dr Jo Appleby was also careful to use the term curved spine rather than hunchback as used in the first programme.
Jacq

To:
From: whitehound@...
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:14:55 +0000
Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story


























From: ellrosa1452

To:

Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:53 PM

Subject: Richard III - The Unseen Story



> I don't think we learnt much more from this documentary. It was mainly a

> recap and a slight shift in emphasis as they concentrated on the

> scientists' point of view. Simon Farnaby was still the commentator.

Elaine



Yes. The only things that were new I think were the firm statement that he

*didn't* have marked muscle-insertion points in his arms, and the revelation

that the rear-view image of a scoliosis sufferer wasn't a reconstruction of

how Richard himself looked but an actual photo' of somebody with a similar

curve.



Oh and that front tooth was almost certainly missing in life, or knocked out

at Bosworth, because if they'd found a loose tooth in the grave they'd have

used that for DNA instead of pulling another one.



And the presence of a small cut on the lower edge of his jaw suggests to me

that ultimately he might have been killed by having his throat cut (which

has the benefit of being quick and fairly painless), even though his other

injuries would probably have killed him in about 20 mins anyway.



I also wondered about that bodkin dagger, like a giant nail with a hilt,

which was described in more detail - specifically I wondered whether the

nail-like bit of metal which was mixed up with his spine was the snapped-off

tip of one of those.

Only the name of the haploid group in the DNA which is found in only 1 or 2 per cent of the population.......which population? I may have the term wrong.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 27 Feb 2013, at 22:53, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:

> I don't think we learnt much more from this documentary. It was mainly a recap and a slight shift in emphasis as they concentrated on the scientists' point of view. Simon Farnaby was still the commentator.
> Elaine
>
>

"ellrosa1452" wrote:
>
> I don't think we learnt much more from this documentary. It was mainly a recap and a slight shift in emphasis as they concentrated on the scientists' point of view. Simon Farnaby was still the commentator.
> Elaine

Carol responds:

Has Simon learned anything about Richard since his Ricardian conversion (which I hope is still in effect)? And was "Oops" a little more careful to use scientific terminology this time?

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
[snip]
>
> Oh and that front tooth was almost certainly missing in life, or knocked out at Bosworth, because if they'd found a loose tooth in the grave they'd have used that for DNA instead of pulling another one.
[snip]

Carol responds:

Did they actually say that in the documentary? Philippa (admittedly not a scientist) said otherwise in the Q and A after the first documentary.

The reason I ask is that, unlike the lost molars, which show signs of healing during life, the front tooth and two others still show the hole where the tooth fell out. The archaeologists didn't sift the dirt in the grave for missing teeth and bone bits, IIRC. They were at that point in a hurry to fill it up again so that the employees could have their parking lot back. Also, they didn't believe at first that they would find Richard and (until they saw the spine) didn't think that the skeleton was his, so they seem not to have given themselves enough time.

Maybe the tooth was knocked out at Bosworth, as you say, and didn't have time to heal as the bone over the molars did. Or maybe a badly aimed mattock--sorry. Couldn't resist.

Aside to Claire. You mentioned the British not caring about what their teeth look like. We Americans joke about that. But then you probably laugh at us for our obsession with straight, white teeth {like Richard's if none were missing and he didn't have the damage to the lower incisors. The molars could have been lost in a battle injury at some point, say Tewkesbury or Barnet.)

Carol

Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> Only the name of the haploid group in the DNA which is found in only 1 or 2 per cent of the population.......which population? I may have the term wrong.

Carol responds:

I didn't see the second documentary (I live in the U.S.), but I thought that the figure for the Jasmine haploid group was seventeen percent of Europeans. (Maybe they meant 1 o2 percent of the world population?)

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story


> Did they actually say that in the documentary?

No, the missing tooth wasn't mentioned. But we were shown the earth around
the body being carefully scooped up in small increments of about a
dessertspoonful at a time, and a tooth being wiggled loose - with great
difficulty - from his jaw to do the test. It took about two hours to get
the tooth loose iirc.

> Philippa (admittedly not a scientist) said otherwise in the Q and A after
> the first documentary.

Oh right, what did she say about it?

> The reason I ask is that, unlike the lost molars, which show signs of
> healing during life, the front tooth and two others still show the hole
> where the tooth fell out.

I assumed it had been knocked out - people who spend a lot of time around
horses and weapons tend to get a bit bashed about. Would having been
knocked out, as opposed to being lost to dental caries, make a difference to
how it healed over?

> The archaeologists didn't sift the dirt in the grave for missing teeth and
> bone bits, IIRC. They were at that point in a hurry to fill it up again so
> that the employees could have their parking lot back. Also, they didn't
> believe at first that they would find Richard and (until they saw the
> spine) didn't think that the skeleton was his, so they seem not to have
> given themselves enough time.

We were actually shown Jo removing earth from around his ribs and pelvis
with minute care - possibly having made herself paranoid after her earlier
clumisness - so I'd be surprised if she wouldn't have exercised similar care
around his chin.

> Aside to Claire. You mentioned the British not caring about what their
> teeth look like. We Americans joke about that. But then you probably laugh
> at us for our obsession with straight, white teeth

We regard them as weird and artificial-looking and make jokes about them,
yes. Mind you, I've seen a few really freakish mouths that looked like they
belonged in Alien, with a vast expanse of pink gum leaping out at you - but
generally speaking so long as our teeth are clean and not actively
frightening we usually let them alone.

> {like Richard's if none were missing and he didn't have the damage to the
> lower incisors.

He's got the level edge-on bite which suggests that he ate his meat
Mediaeval-fashion, by grasping a hunk of meat in the left hand, sinking his
teeth into it and then sawing the bulk of the meat away from the bit in his
mouth using a knife held in the right hand. I imagine there must have been
an ever-present risk of cutting your own nose.

Oh, they said that marine fish made up more than 50% of his meat-intake,
though the context was such that it wasn't clear if they were being
accurate. If they were that means he must have had a definite preference
for fish over mammal or bird meat.

> The molars could have been lost in a battle injury at some point, say
> Tewkesbury or Barnet.)

They're missing on both sides, though, and they did say in the original
documentary that the loss was probably due to dental caries.

I don't know if you've ever heard of this one, and it's unproven because
it's just a local oral tradition, but there's no reason why it *shouldn't*
be true.... I've never had much of a sweet tooth, even as a child, but I
did used to like a type of very airy, almost meringue-like butter-and-sugar
biscuit (cookies to you) called jumblies, which my mother used to make when
I was small. When I was in my mid 20s I discovered quite by chance that
there's a local tradition in Leicestershire that the recipe for jumblies or
jumbles came from a written recipe dropped at Bosworth by Richard's personal
cook, and thereafter taken up by the local people.

If it's true, it kind-of explains the dental caries. Nowadays he'd probably
be up for cod and chips and a deep-fried Mars Bar.

Jan Mulrenan wrote:
>
> Only the name of the haploid group in the DNA which is found in only 1 or 2 per cent of the population.......which population? I may have the term wrong.

>Carol responds:

>I didn't see the second documentary (I live in the U.S.), but I thought that the figure for the Jasmine haploid group was seventeen percent of >Europeans. (Maybe they meant 1 o2 percent of the world population?)

Jenny replies:

Richard's haplotype is J1c2c, which is apparently present in 1-2% of the European population. The various haplogroups can be further broken down in to their various mutations. Whilst 12% (or 17%) of the European population may be haplogroup J, only 1-2% are thought to be haplotype J1c2c.

Claire nobody mentioned throats being cut and I think this unsavoury. Why not wait and see what the experts say on Saturday and when they've done further tests?  H



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2013, 23:14
Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story

 

From: ellrosa1452
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:53 PM
Subject: Richard III - The Unseen Story

> I don't think we learnt much more from this documentary. It was mainly a
> recap and a slight shift in emphasis as they concentrated on the
> scientists' point of view. Simon Farnaby was still the commentator.
Elaine

Yes. The only things that were new I think were the firm statement that he
*didn't* have marked muscle-insertion points in his arms, and the revelation
that the rear-view image of a scoliosis sufferer wasn't a reconstruction of
how Richard himself looked but an actual photo' of somebody with a similar
curve.

Oh and that front tooth was almost certainly missing in life, or knocked out
at Bosworth, because if they'd found a loose tooth in the grave they'd have
used that for DNA instead of pulling another one.

And the presence of a small cut on the lower edge of his jaw suggests to me
that ultimately he might have been killed by having his throat cut (which
has the benefit of being quick and fairly painless), even though his other
injuries would probably have killed him in about 20 mins anyway.

I also wondered about that bodkin dagger, like a giant nail with a hilt,
which was described in more detail - specifically I wondered whether the
nail-like bit of metal which was mixed up with his spine was the snapped-off
tip of one of those.

"Habloid" - that's the word I was looking for. I kept thinking of "Hablot" Knight Browne (Dickens' illustrator) or "Hapoel" Tel Aviv (an Israeli football team).
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story



Jan Mulrenan wrote:
>
> Only the name of the haploid group in the DNA which is found in only 1 or 2 per cent of the population.......which population? I may have the term wrong.

Carol responds:

I didn't see the second documentary (I live in the U.S.), but I thought that the figure for the Jasmine haploid group was seventeen percent of Europeans. (Maybe they meant 1 o2 percent of the world population?)

Carol

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 1:31
Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story

"Also, they didn't believe at first that they would find Richard and
(until they saw the spine) didn't think that the skeleton was his, so
they seem not to have given themselves enough time."


One thing that was apparent was that they had neither money nor time (the lack of the latter perhaps explained by the lack of the former).  If the first trench had been dug a matter of centimetres to one side, they would never have found the grave.  They could only afford to dig one further trench to confirm the orientation of the building remains.  The fact that they found *anything* is extraordinary under the circumstances.

Jonathan



________________________________



 
"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
[snip]
>
> Oh and that front tooth was almost certainly missing in life, or knocked out at Bosworth, because if they'd found a loose tooth in the grave they'd have used that for DNA instead of pulling another one.
[snip]

Carol responds:

Did they actually say that in the documentary? Philippa (admittedly not a scientist) said otherwise in the Q and A after the first documentary.

The reason I ask is that, unlike the lost molars, which show signs of healing during life, the front tooth and two others still show the hole where the tooth fell out. The archaeologists didn't sift the dirt in the grave for missing teeth and bone bits, IIRC. They were at that point in a hurry to fill it up again so that the employees could have their parking lot back.

Maybe the tooth was knocked out at Bosworth, as you say, and didn't have time to heal as the bone over the molars did. Or maybe a badly aimed mattock--sorry. Couldn't resist.

Aside to Claire. You mentioned the British not caring about what their teeth look like. We Americans joke about that. But then you probably laugh at us for our obsession with straight, white teeth {like Richard's if none were missing and he didn't have the damage to the lower incisors. The molars could have been lost in a battle injury at some point, say Tewkesbury or Barnet.)

Carol

I watched the re-run of the television documentary again last night.

  It seems to me that apart from Jo Appleby, the persistent Philippa and a few more the finding of Richard was NOT appreciated as a reality as it should have been. I had initially been annoyed at the skull & to some extent the leg damage. 

  Having now seen it again I now feel if more belief had been generated earlier that Richard MIGHT be there and as a Result more Senior Leicester Uni input in the form of better direction & more gentle trowels employed earlier, 
then less damage might have resulted to his remains.

If they had neither money nor time what was SO important that it eclipsed this dig? [We see numerous other digs on our T.V. screens,] NONE so important as this of a major historical figure who was also known worldwide due to his role in drams.

I am not an archaeologist however so I wonder what will happen when the 'Peer Reviews' begin to occur.       
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 11:19
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
>
>
> 
>From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 1:31
>Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
>
>"Also, they didn't believe at first that they would find Richard and
>(until they saw the spine) didn't think that the skeleton was his, so
>they seem not to have given themselves enough time."
>
>One thing that was apparent was that they had neither money nor time (the lack of the latter perhaps explained by the lack of the former).  If the first trench had been dug a matter of centimetres to one side, they would never have found the grave.  They could only afford to dig one further trench to confirm the orientation of the building remains.  The fact that they found *anything* is extraordinary under the circumstances.
>
>Jonathan
>
>________________________________
>
>
>
> 
>"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> Oh and that front tooth was almost certainly missing in life, or knocked out at Bosworth, because if they'd found a loose tooth in the grave they'd have used that for DNA instead of pulling another one.
>[snip]
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Did they actually say that in the documentary? Philippa (admittedly not a scientist) said otherwise in the Q and A after the first documentary.
>
>The reason I ask is that, unlike the lost molars, which show signs of healing during life, the front tooth and two others still show the hole where the tooth fell out. The archaeologists didn't sift the dirt in the grave for missing teeth and bone bits, IIRC. They were at that point in a hurry to fill it up again so that the employees could have their parking lot back.
>
>Maybe the tooth was knocked out at Bosworth, as you say, and didn't have time to heal as the bone over the molars did. Or maybe a badly aimed mattock--sorry. Couldn't resist.
>
>Aside to Claire. You mentioned the British not caring about what their teeth look like. We Americans joke about that. But then you probably laugh at us for our obsession with straight, white teeth {like Richard's if none were missing and he didn't have the damage to the lower incisors. The molars could have been lost in a battle injury at some point, say Tewkesbury or Barnet.)
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story


> Claire nobody mentioned throats being cut and I think this unsavoury. Why
> not wait and see what the experts say on Saturday and when they've done
> further tests? H

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I shall speculate as I please and it
would be a good thing if true, because it's a very clean, almost-painless
way to go.

I did notice that the "H" word was not mentioned....Thank God...Eileen

--- In , "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think we learnt much more from this documentary. It was mainly a recap and a slight shift in emphasis as they concentrated on the scientists' point of view. Simon Farnaby was still the commentator.
> Elaine
>

From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 12:31
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story

> If they had neither money nor time what was SO important that it eclipsed this dig?


This is speculation, but I would imagine a narrow window of opportunity suddenly manifested itself to Philippa (i.e. the re-surfacing of the carpark) and so she approached the university.  The work would not have been included in their budgets - which are under huge pressure across the board - and I assume they agreed because (a) Philippa was able to organise funding and (b) the dig could be justified in the context of the university's ongoing research into medieval Leicester.

The university's priority would have initially been confirming the identity of the Grey Friar's site.  They didn't expect to find a king on the back of such a limited excavation.  Well, you wouldn't, would you?


Jonathan


________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 12:31
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story


 
I watched the re-run of the television documentary again last night.

  It seems to me that apart from Jo Appleby, the persistent Philippa and a few more the finding of Richard was NOT appreciated as a reality as it should have been. I had initially been annoyed at the skull & to some extent the leg damage. 

  Having now seen it again I now feel if more belief had been generated earlier that Richard MIGHT be there and as a Result more Senior Leicester Uni input in the form of better direction & more gentle trowels employed earlier, 
then less damage might have resulted to his remains.

If they had neither money nor time what was SO important that it eclipsed this dig? [We see numerous other digs on our T.V. screens,] NONE so important as this of a major historical figure who was also known worldwide due to his role in drams.

I am not an archaeologist however so I wonder what will happen when the 'Peer Reviews' begin to occur.       
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 11:19
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
>
>
> 
>From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 1:31
>Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
>
>"Also, they didn't believe at first that they would find Richard and
>(until they saw the spine) didn't think that the skeleton was his, so
>they seem not to have given themselves enough time."
>
>One thing that was apparent was that they had neither money nor time (the lack of the latter perhaps explained by the lack of the former).  If the first trench had been dug a matter of centimetres to one side, they would never have found the grave.  They could only afford to dig one further trench to confirm the orientation of the building remains.  The fact that they found *anything* is extraordinary under the circumstances.
>
>Jonathan
>
>________________________________
>
>
>
> 
>"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> Oh and that front tooth was almost certainly missing in life, or knocked out at Bosworth, because if they'd found a loose tooth in the grave they'd have used that for DNA instead of pulling another one.
>[snip]
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Did they actually say that in the documentary? Philippa (admittedly not a scientist) said otherwise in the Q and A after the first documentary.
>
>The reason I ask is that, unlike the lost molars, which show signs of healing during life, the front tooth and two others still show the hole where the tooth fell out. The archaeologists didn't sift the dirt in the grave for missing teeth and bone bits, IIRC. They were at that point in a hurry to fill it up again so that the employees could have their parking lot back.
>
>Maybe the tooth was knocked out at Bosworth, as you say, and didn't have time to heal as the bone over the molars did. Or maybe a badly aimed mattock--sorry. Couldn't resist.
>
>Aside to Claire. You mentioned the British not caring about what their teeth look like. We Americans joke about that. But then you probably laugh at us for our obsession with straight, white teeth {like Richard's if none were missing and he didn't have the damage to the lower incisors. The molars could have been lost in a battle injury at some point, say Tewkesbury or Barnet.)
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dr Appleby did say how nervous she was as she was at the beginning of her career and if she made any boobs at this stage it would not look very good for her future wise. The fact that she had already made quite a bad mistake by cracking a dirty big hole in Richard's skull by wielding a pickaxe was not mentioned. I know that pickaxe is not the correct name for the tool/weapon but having seen it, for me the first time as I did not notice it in the original programme, I was to put it mildly gobsmacked that it would have been thought appropriate to use such a ummmmmm implement in such a delicate task. But then again I not an expert on these matters...but there you go...the experts are supposed to know what they are going. Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "ellrosa1452" wrote:
> >
> > I don't think we learnt much more from this documentary. It was mainly a recap and a slight shift in emphasis as they concentrated on the scientists' point of view. Simon Farnaby was still the commentator.
> > Elaine
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Has Simon learned anything about Richard since his Ricardian conversion (which I hope is still in effect)? And was "Oops" a little more careful to use scientific terminology this time?
>
> Carol
>

Do you think this was filmed at the same time as the other, and they thought they could make a bit more money out of it - th Uni I mean? I know they had to alter some of the voice over to say Richard, but I got the distinct feeling it was the 'rushes'. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 13:10
Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story


 

Dr Appleby did say how nervous she was as she was at the beginning of her career and if she made any boobs at this stage it would not look very good for her future wise. The fact that she had already made quite a bad mistake by cracking a dirty big hole in Richard's skull by wielding a pickaxe was not mentioned. I know that pickaxe is not the correct name for the tool/weapon but having seen it, for me the first time as I did not notice it in the original programme, I was to put it mildly gobsmacked that it would have been thought appropriate to use such a ummmmmm implement in such a delicate task. But then again I not an expert on these matters...but there you go...the experts are supposed to know what they are going. Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> "ellrosa1452" wrote:
> >
> > I don't think we learnt much more from this documentary. It was mainly a recap and a slight shift in emphasis as they concentrated on the scientists' point of view. Simon Farnaby was still the commentator.
> > Elaine
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Has Simon learned anything about Richard since his Ricardian conversion (which I hope is still in effect)? And was "Oops" a little more careful to use scientific terminology this time?
>
> Carol
>

Carol earlier:
>
> >I didn't see the second documentary (I live in the U.S.), but I thought that the figure for the Jasmine haploid group was seventeen percent of Europeans. (Maybe they meant 1 or 2 percent of the world population?)
>
Jenny replied:
>
> Richard's haplotype is J1c2c, which is apparently present in 1-2% of the European population. The various haplogroups can be further broken down in to their various mutations. Whilst 12% (or 17%) of the European population may be haplogroup J, only 1-2% are thought to be haplotype J1c2c.

Carol again:

Thanks very much, Jenny. I wondered how having mtDNA compatible with that of 17 percent of Europeans could prove that Michael Ibsen was descended from Richard's sister. The distinction between haplogroup and haplotype clears it up for me and makes the identification of Ibsen as Anne's descendant much more likely (especially since the genealogy has also been confirmed). Not that I really doubted it; I just thought that a common maternal-line descent from the hypothetical Jasmine didn't prove much in itself!

Good to know that the new documentary presented at least one piece of important information!

Carol

Hi Claire, how do you know it's painless, have you tried it?
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
>
>
> > Claire nobody mentioned throats being cut and I think this unsavoury. Why
> > not wait and see what the experts say on Saturday and when they've done
> > further tests? H
>
> I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I shall speculate as I please and it
> would be a good thing if true, because it's a very clean, almost-painless
> way to go.
>

From: christineholmes651@...
To:
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story


> Hi Claire, how do you know it's painless, have you tried it?
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

If you cut yourself with a very sharp blade it takes a while to feel it -
e.g. a vet student I used to know slashed his leg open with a scalpel and
didn't notice until he felt the tickle of the blood streaming down his leg.

The principle behind kosher slaughtering is the idea that if you cut the
animal's neck with a very sharp blade it will lose consciousness from the
blood-loss before it feels the pain. Temple Grandin, the well-known expert
on animal welfare and livestock-handling, observed a cow being killed by a
skilled kosher butcher and reported that the cow did not appear to react to
the cut in any significant way or to be aware that she had been cut: she
said, specifically, that had she walked up to the cow and put her hand on
her face that would probably have got a much bigger reaction than the blow
with the very sharp knife did.

There have been studies done on kosher slaughtering which claimed that it
must be painful because the victims showed neurological changes which also
occur in humans who are experiencing painful injury, but then it was
mentioned in passing that these neurological changes also occur in humans
who are injured while they are under general anaesthetic - so whatever they
indicate, it isn't the conscious experience of pain, and these studies
therefore don't tell us anything about what the animal experiences. All we
have to go on is that if it's done with a sharp blade, the animal (and it
should apply to human animals as well) behaves as though it hasn't noticed
the cut, until it folds up unconscious - which should take less than four
seconds, due to the sudden loss of blood-pressure in the brain.

I was dying to ask that too - sorry!



________________________________
From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 1 March 2013, 10:50
Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story

 



Hi Claire, how do you know it's painless, have you tried it?
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:27 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
>
>
> > Claire nobody mentioned throats being cut and I think this unsavoury. Why
> > not wait and see what the experts say on Saturday and when they've done
> > further tests? H
>
> I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I shall speculate as I please and it
> would be a good thing if true, because it's a very clean, almost-painless
> way to go.
>

  We ALL through our TAXES, employ the Archaeologists in OUR Universities.
Presumably for their 'Stipends' they Lecture Students AND, on occasion carry out 'Digs'.
Some, it seems, write books.

   Digs are, I would suggest, NOT carried out as 'Hobby Horses' of the Department of  Archaeology and the Professionals 'Therein'. This being the case perhaps the time has come for the people in these departments to allow more input from the public and from organisations such as the Richard III Society.
The assumption might otherwise be they are sitting in our seats of learning and producing nothing of public interest. [There are exceptions I know]


   The ADVANCES in D.N.A. technology alone in the past few years seem to justify a more proactive role. Other areas include the use of carbon dating and medical technology such as scans & X-Ray.
It seems a pity that we know [or research] the lives of some obscure Pharaoh more than our own history. [At least in some regards.]  


 Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 12:58
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
>
>
> 
>From: Arthurian lancastrian@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 12:31
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
>
>> If they had neither money nor time what was SO important that it eclipsed this dig?
>
>This is speculation, but I would imagine a narrow window of opportunity suddenly manifested itself to Philippa (i.e. the re-surfacing of the carpark) and so she approached the university.  The work would not have been included in their budgets - which are under huge pressure across the board - and I assume they agreed because (a) Philippa was able to organise funding and (b) the dig could be justified in the context of the university's ongoing research into medieval Leicester.
>
>The university's priority would have initially been confirming the identity of the Grey Friar's site.  They didn't expect to find a king on the back of such a limited excavation.  Well, you wouldn't, would you?
>
>Jonathan
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian lancastrian@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 12:31
>Subject: Re: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
>
>
> 
>I watched the re-run of the television documentary again last night.
>
>  It seems to me that apart from Jo Appleby, the persistent Philippa and a few more the finding of Richard was NOT appreciated as a reality as it should have been. I had initially been annoyed at the skull & to some extent the leg damage. 
>
>  Having now seen it again I now feel if more belief had been generated earlier that Richard MIGHT be there and as a Result more Senior Leicester Uni input in the form of better direction & more gentle trowels employed earlier, 
>then less damage might have resulted to his remains.
>
>If they had neither money nor time what was SO important that it eclipsed this dig? [We see numerous other digs on our T.V. screens,] NONE so important as this of a major historical figure who was also known worldwide due to his role in drams.
>
>I am not an archaeologist however so I wonder what will happen when the 'Peer Reviews' begin to occur.       
> 
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...>
>>To: ">
>>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 11:19
>>Subject: Re: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
>>
>>
>> 
>>From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
>>To:
>>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 1:31
>>Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
>>
>>"Also, they didn't believe at first that they would find Richard and
>>(until they saw the spine) didn't think that the skeleton was his, so
>>they seem not to have given themselves enough time."
>>
>>One thing that was apparent was that they had neither money nor time (the lack of the latter perhaps explained by the lack of the former).  If the first trench had been dug a matter of centimetres to one side, they would never have found the grave.  They could only afford to dig one further trench to confirm the orientation of the building remains.  The fact that they found *anything* is extraordinary under the circumstances.
>>
>>Jonathan
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> Oh and that front tooth was almost certainly missing in life, or knocked out at Bosworth, because if they'd found a loose tooth in the grave they'd have used that for DNA instead of pulling another one.
>>[snip]
>>
>>Carol responds:
>>
>>Did they actually say that in the documentary? Philippa (admittedly not a scientist) said otherwise in the Q and A after the first documentary.
>>
>>The reason I ask is that, unlike the lost molars, which show signs of healing during life, the front tooth and two others still show the hole where the tooth fell out. The archaeologists didn't sift the dirt in the grave for missing teeth and bone bits, IIRC. They were at that point in a hurry to fill it up again so that the employees could have their parking lot back.
>>
>>Maybe the tooth was knocked out at Bosworth, as you say, and didn't have time to heal as the bone over the molars did. Or maybe a badly aimed mattock--sorry. Couldn't resist.
>>
>>Aside to Claire. You mentioned the British not caring about what their teeth look like. We Americans joke about that. But then you probably laugh at us for our obsession with straight, white teeth {like Richard's if none were missing and he didn't have the damage to the lower incisors. The molars could have been lost in a battle injury at some point, say Tewkesbury or Barnet.)
>>
>>Carol
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The Tool in Question is a Paviors or Flagger's Tool called a 'Mattock' 

[Perhaps a Flagger or Pavior might have saved the 'Cranial Vault' of the last Plantagenat King from damage other than that inflicted on him at Bosworth?]

  Dr. Oops is perhaps a better title than Dr. Mattock?
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 13:10
>Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
>
>
> 
>Dr Appleby did say how nervous she was as she was at the beginning of her career and if she made any boobs at this stage it would not look very good for her future wise. The fact that she had already made quite a bad mistake by cracking a dirty big hole in Richard's skull by wielding a pickaxe was not mentioned. I know that pickaxe is not the correct name for the tool/weapon but having seen it, for me the first time as I did not notice it in the original programme, I was to put it mildly gobsmacked that it would have been thought appropriate to use such a ummmmmm implement in such a delicate task. But then again I not an expert on these matters...but there you go...the experts are supposed to know what they are going. Eileen
>
>--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>>
>>
>> "ellrosa1452" wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't think we learnt much more from this documentary. It was mainly a recap and a slight shift in emphasis as they concentrated on the scientists' point of view. Simon Farnaby was still the commentator.
>> > Elaine
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Has Simon learned anything about Richard since his Ricardian conversion (which I hope is still in effect)? And was "Oops" a little more careful to use scientific terminology this time?
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>
>
>
>

I just had this extremely entertaining image of Ms. Langley carefully placing a mattock down next to the skeleton's right hand and then saying to Dr. Oops, "OK, NOW it's a fair fight!"

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> The Tool in Question is a Paviors or Flagger's Tool called a 'Mattock' 
>
> [Perhaps a Flagger or Pavior might have saved the 'Cranial Vault' of the last Plantagenat King from damage other than that inflicted on him at Bosworth?]
>
>   Dr. Oops is perhaps a better title than Dr. Mattock?
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, 28 February 2013, 13:10
> >Subject: Re: Richard III - The Unseen Story
> >
> >
> > 
> >Dr Appleby did say how nervous she was as she was at the beginning of her career and if she made any boobs at this stage it would not look very good for her future wise. The fact that she had already made quite a bad mistake by cracking a dirty big hole in Richard's skull by wielding a pickaxe was not mentioned. I know that pickaxe is not the correct name for the tool/weapon but having seen it, for me the first time as I did not notice it in the original programme, I was to put it mildly gobsmacked that it would have been thought appropriate to use such a ummmmmm implement in such a delicate task. But then again I not an expert on these matters...but there you go...the experts are supposed to know what they are going. Eileen
> >
> >--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "ellrosa1452" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I don't think we learnt much more from this documentary. It was mainly a recap and a slight shift in emphasis as they concentrated on the scientists' point of view. Simon Farnaby was still the commentator.
> >> > Elaine
> >>
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> Has Simon learned anything about Richard since his Ricardian conversion (which I hope is still in effect)? And was "Oops" a little more careful to use scientific terminology this time?
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>