Making Tracks: A weekend in York - Richard III, the Jorvik Viking Centre and
taking part in an archaeological dig
| Posted: January 20, 2015
By travel blogger Lottie
Hayton
![]() |
The Jorvik Viking Centre, in |
“Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by
this son of York”. The opening lines of Shakespeare’s Richard III link the
city of York inextricably to the infamous King. Certainly the city is
not best pleased at the loss of their ‘son’, Richard III’s, remains to their
rival Leicester..
The more cynical might suppose that the money that could be
made by Richard’s presence was the sole driver in York’s campaign to house
the King. Yet, the city’s claim on Richard has historical grounds.
Richard was well regarded in York during his
brother Edward IV’s reign as he spent time in the North as leader of the
Council of the North. His father was the Duke of York. Richard held a grand
ceremony at York Minster after his coronation and sources suggest Richard
showed preference for the clergy of the Minster.
Indeed some argue that his time in the North made him likely
to give preferential treatment to the North, sometimes to the detriment of his
relations with southern nobles. Thus, perhaps York’s disappointment at
their loss of a High Court case to house Richard’s remains stems simply from
their belief that as Richard III was of the House of York, he should be buried
in York.
Still there is plenty for Ricardians, or simply those
wishing to find out more about Richard III to see in York, despite the
absence of the King. The Minster is fascinating to visit and the Richard III
museum is interesting if not a little ‘touristy’ and does provide an
interesting history of Richard’s life and times.
However, Richard is not the only attraction. York has
a rich history and a great deal of pre-Norman history has survived in York compared
to elsewhere in Britain. This is unsurprising since York, or
‘Jorvik’, was the Viking Capital from the time of its capture by Viking raiders
in 866.
The Jorvik Viking Centre is a reminder that though we in the
South, and particularly in the West Country, have been fed an image of King
Alfred as a hero for his protection of Britain from the Vikings, in the Viking
North, Alfred was simply a King of another region; Wessex. The Jorvik centre
brings history to life, part of the relatively recent phenomenon of ‘living
history’.
Historians and students with an interest in Viking history and
archaeology are all around the centre dressed as Vikings to answer questions on
Jorvik. Not as cheesy as it sounds, the “Vikings’” enthusiasm is somewhat
infectious, one of them excitedly explaining how he made his ‘historically
accurate Viking costume himself’.
The centre is impressive in the way that those who run it
constantly change the layout of the model of Coppergate, the area of Jorvik
that the centre attempts to recreate, in order to keep up to date with the
latest archaeological discoveries. I got the sense that in York they
are proud of their history and archaeology and of the way in which they
accurately represent it whilst still making it accessible to tourists.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Richard discovery sparked an
increased interest in archaeology. It is a little rare to find the lost remains
of a King in the first place one digs, even if a member of the Richard III
society was certain of the discovery due to the letter R being painted-in
modern spray paint on the car parks surface.
This is not, however an attempt to dissuade those who are at
this moment hurriedly grabbing trowels and spades. Indeed, they are not alone;
I too had my interest piqued by Richard’s discovery and since York is an area
so rich with history and historical artefacts, whilst in York, I joined a
training ‘Archaeology Live’ dig with York Archaeological Trust on a site at All
Saints Church.
As the part of history that can be seen and touched,
archaeology offers a different perspective on history. In a weekend the dig
found roman tiles and medieval pottery, dateable by the colour of the enamel.
Of less historic value in the present day, we also found chicken bones from the
lunch of the builders of this century who had previously built on the site.
Other animal bones could inform us of the diet of people of
the past and whilst there we started to see the outlines of unmarked graves
that had been placed there in the absence of any room in the graveyard. We also
used modern surveying technology to draw plans of each level of the dig and the
objects found.
Some aspects were more technical than I expected.
Archaeology is, in many ways, the meeting of a science and humanity and it felt
as though, however minute the piece of tile, ceramic, or bone that was found
and then sent off to be analysed, all of those at the dig were part of the process
of historical analysis and discovery in which historians and archaeologists
take part.
In much the same way as Richard III’s discovery, the bones
of humans, animals, tools and other items, however commonly found, bring about
wider understanding and debate about the past. For instance, the archaeological
discovery that Richard did indeed have scoliosis, a fact nevertheless
devastating to those Ricardians who have seen him as a great King whose image
was sullied by Shakespeare, is a discovery that poses new questions to the
historian.
We must question the extent to which Henry VII, his
successor, gave an accurate portrayal of Richard. Essentially: if Henry told
the truth about the hunchback then was he telling the truth about Richard’s
murder of his nephews, the Princes in the tower?
We do not yet know but the collaboration of modern science,
archaeology and history may answer this historical conundrum. Richard III’s
discovery, although on a grander scale, was a similar process to the finding
and then sending off for analysis of the shards of pottery and bone found on
smaller archaeological digs.
Both illustrate the extent to which the modern trend for
interdisciplinary co-operation is leading towards a more rigorous study of
history and promises to enliven historical study. However, there is a fear that
fewer students than ever before are choosing to study archaeology at
University.
Interdisciplinary study is not possible if one of those
disciplines is losing recruits. Richard, ever a controversial King, has
provided DNA which scientific testing has suggested proves that there may be
one, or more than one break in the line of succession of the monarchy.
This demonstrates the multiplicity of questions that
archaeology and science can raise and which history seeks to answer. Perhaps in
order to keep alive the vital discipline of archaeology, historians must be
fully aware and appreciative not just of their own discipline but of those
disciplines that feed and help them. I felt in York, at least, they had
succeeded in recognising the importance of this relationship.