Earlier high-profile identifications using DNA methods include the identification of the Romanov family remains from the Russian Revolution period, the identification of King Casimir IV Jagiellon of Poland, and work on various other remains associated with documented historical individuals. Each of these cases presented its own methodological challenges and contributed to the development of ancient DNA analysis as a discipline.
The Richard III case was distinctive in several respects. The length of time since death — 527 years between death and identification — is at the longer end of what ancient DNA analysis has successfully addressed for European burials. The completeness of the genealogical chain, traced through 19 and 21 generations to living comparators, is unusual. And the combination of multiple independent lines of evidence into a Bayesian probabilistic framework represented a methodological contribution to the field.
The case has also raised questions about the ethics and protocols appropriate to the identification and treatment of historical human remains more broadly. The legal framework that governed the Richard III excavation — requiring a license from the Ministry of Justice for the excavation of human remains and specifying what must be done with any remains found — was the same framework that applies to all archaeological excavations of human remains in England. Whether that framework is adequate for remains of particular historical significance is a question that the Richard III case has contributed to ongoing discussions in the fields of archaeological ethics and heritage law.
The Plantagenet Alliance’s legal challenge to the decision about reburial was an early example of what may become an increasingly common pattern as DNA analysis makes historical identifications more achievable: disputes between different groups claiming some form of interest in or relationship to the identified individual. The High Court’s resolution of that dispute — ruling that there was no obligation to consult with claimed relatives — established a legal precedent, but it did not resolve the underlying ethical questions about who has standing in decisions about the treatment of identified historical remains.