The Lost King sounds as though it should be one of those gentle films in which people take of their clothes for a calendar photoshoot or sing sea shanties and Dame Judi Dench has to appear by law.
But it's been causing no end of a row today.
Members of University of Leicester Archaeological Services, who are unhappy with the way they are depicted in the film, were interviewed for an article in this morning's Daily Mail.
So there you will read:
One of the film's worst inaccuracies has undermined the reputation of the lead archaeologist on the dig, Dr Richard Buckley, 64.
The movie portrays him as being dismissive of Langley and of refusing to help her, only agreeing to become involved when his department is threatened with closure and he faces losing his job; he sees the project as a way of saving his own skin.
But this simply isn't true.
Buckley's job was never under threat and his department wasn't facing closure. He actually worked for a commercial arm of the university called University of Leicester Archaeological Services (ULAS), which undertook commercial digs all over the country. ULAS was thriving and did not rely on funding from the university.
Neither did Buckley dismiss Langley out of hand. All the academics involved in the project say he was enthusiastic from the start.
I have seen emails between Buckley and Langley from the days and weeks after their first contact and his are full of ideas, suggestions, co-operation and positivity. Buckley did express caution over the odds of success, but he signed up to the project nonetheless.
And by the time people had digested that, Steve Coogan, who co-wrote and appears in The Lost King, had gone on the Today programme to defend the film:
"They've played this quite badly.
"Had they at the start been generous towards Philippa, and elevated her to the front and centre position, which is where she deserves to be, this film wouldn't have been necessary.
"But at every turn they marginalised her, edged her out, because she wasn't cut from the right cloth."
That's not how I remember the media coverage at the time, even if I've never been quite clear what Philippa Langley's role was. The dig, for instance, was largely paid for by Leicestershire Promotions and the university.
So I was a little concerned by an early promotional piece for the film where Zoe Williams told us that Langley
was in Leicester, trying to piece together from her research the whereabouts of a long-gone church, and she walked across the fabled car park.
Because the location of Greyfriars in Leicester has never been a mystery: part of it is still above ground. The archaeologists were keen to dig the site so its exact layout could be established, but David Baldwin, another hero of the finding of the king, had got it about right in 1986. That's why the dig took place in the correct area, though coming down on Richard's skeleton on the first morning was a bit of a bonus.
[Later. There is a breakdown of the funding of the dig and an explanation of how it was decided where to dig (see also the next two sections) on the University of Leicester website.]
A story about a lone eccentric who proves the establishment wrong makes for an appealing film, but it has little to do with what went on in Leicester that autumn.
And, as the archaeologist Mike Pitts said on Twitter today:
I think ultimately what’s at stake here is public information. The Lost King’s persecution story is a conspiracy theory working the same levers as climate denial or anti vaxing. Not as serious clearly, but if you care about an informed society it matters https://t.co/60SFky6FGg
— Mike Pitts (@pittsmike) September 27, 2022
Sorry to pick you up on a few things here.
ReplyDeleteLangley's fundraising paid for the majority of the planned excavation. If you add in the sponsorship she secured, it would be over two-thirds of the cost.
Yes, the location of the Friary precinct was well known, but not the location of its church-choir where RIII was said to be buried. No one before Langley, John Ashdown-Hill and Annette Carson (her Looking for Richard project team) had ever suggested it would be in the northern end of the Social Services car park (the 'R') and they were precisely correct, far more so than Baldwin.
There is a reason you have "never been quite clear what Philippa Langley's role was". It is because the University did not explain the above.
I completely agree with the article about the treatment of Buckley, though I imagine that Coogan was intending to refer to the corporate university in the quotes above.
Many thanks for the comment.
DeleteThere is a full breakdown of the funding of the dig here. It shows the University of Leicester put in more than I realised and Leicestershire Promotions less. It does not seem to bear out what you say about Philippa Langley's contribution.
There is a also a page on the university site about how it was decided where to dig:
"The first person to suggest Richard’s grave may still be under a car park on New Street was the Keeper of Archaeology at Leicestershire Museums, David T.D. Clarke, writing in the Leicester Mercury in 1965 and in 1975 Audrey Strange suggested beneath the Social Services car park."
I shall add these links to the post.
As someone who went to open days at the dig and many of the academic events held after it (and even queued to file past Richard's coffin, which is more than I did for Elizabeth II), I found the whole thing a great of example of interesting and including the wider community in archaeology. I could have managed without Steve Coogan's intervention.
Thank you for taking my comments seriously. I will address each of your points.
DeleteThe University's costings are distorted because they include an additional third week. The original dig was only scheduled for two weeks but the Council authorised its continuing for a third week after the church had been found (exactly where the Looking for Richard team said it would be). The University paid for this third week. Langley's fundraising paid for the majority of the planned (two-week) excavation and she also secured the sponsorship.
As to the "where to dig", you will need to look at the original sources. Strange actually nominates all of the car parks within the Friary precinct, of which there are at least three. Clarke did indeed suggest the grave "may still be under a car park in New Street" but, if you check, you will find he was writing about the so-called New Street car park, not the Social Services one. Much of the Uni's comms is like this. It feels convincing but the wording is ambiguous and often falls apart when you interrogate it.
As I said, no one apart from the Looking for Richard project members had ever nominated the northern end of the Social Services car park, the 'R', as the place to look.
I agree with you about the Coogan intervention. It hasn't increased clarity or good will. However, very few people have the profile to stand up against a university and the broad academic/archaeological consensus about the discovery, and he has at least succeeded in creating a question mark about what happened.
Giving the full costs of the dig is not a distortion.
DeleteThe website sets out all the evidence that was considered before it was decided where to dig.
Philippa Langley and John Ashdown-Hill had a series of discussions with Richard Buckley about the evidence-base for looking in the northern end of the Social Services car park. It is well documented, for example in Mike Pitts' book. She was Buckley's client; she was paying the majority of his fee (at the time); and he did indeed run his first trench through the 'R'.
ReplyDelete