Discovery of Richard III's skeleton: DNA meets archaeology

Analysis of DNA in ancient remains enables us to reevaluate history.

        A 500-year-old remains found beneath parking lot in Greyfriars, Leicester was confirmed to belong to King Richard III, the last Plantagenet king of England, who is the subject of many works of literature including Shakespeare’s play Richard III.

        How was the skeleton regarded to be that of Richard III? On the one hand, ancient maps and records support that the parking lot which used to be a friary is actually the place where Richard III resided in. On the other hand, DNA test provided the decisive proof. DNA test was performed by comparing DNA from the remains discovered in Greyfriars and that from Canadian-born Michael Ibsen who is a direct descendent of Anne of York, Richard’s elder sister. Researchers responsible for this project have alleged: “It is the academic conclusion of the University of Leicester that beyond reasonable doubt, the individual exhumed at Greyfriars in September 2012 is indeed Richard III, the last Plantagenet king of England.”

        How can they be so sure that skeleton belongs to Richard III? Researchers did not disclose many details. But what they have announced is not convincing.

        The DNA test University of Leicester researchers have done must be like paternity testing which can tell if two individuals have a biological parent-child relationship by analyzing specific DNA information between two individuals that will be inherited from parent to child. In a standard DNA paternity test, usually a child, alleged father, and the mother are involved. The mother’s participation in the paternity test helps to exclude half of the child’s DNA, leaving the other half for comparison with the alleged father’s DNA. The DNA test about the identity of Richard III must be based on a method similar to paternity testing: comparing DNA information between the skeleton and Michael Ibsen. But at least two controls (controls with known information are used in biological experimental designs for ruling out or ruling in a candidate) should be set: first, an irrelevant random DNA should be incorporated as a negative control, and second, DNA sample from another descendent of Richard III should be incorporated as a positive control. These two controls are useful to rule out systematic errors.      

        DNA has played a role in identifying one of great names in history. In the future, DNA may be useful to disclose the health conditions of those great names in history that may shape the characters of those people or influence key events in history. In this way, the involvement of DNA in archaeology will change the landscape of archaeology.