Talk:Wild man

Green Men

Has anyone considered that the "Green Men" prevalent in English mediaeval church carvings migh be representations of woodwoses?--APRCooper 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. see the second paragraph of this article. --Wetman 07:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --APRCooper 19:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of out-of-date information

A British example can be found on the coat-of-arms used as the pub sign for the Woodhouse Arms in Corby Glen, Lincolnshire.

This pub subsequently had its name changed (to "The Coachman"). SiGarb | Talk 22:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

French Bal des Ardents link seems dead

Johnbod 03:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

alternative spelling wodewose

is there a case for a the alternative spellings to be listed so that all find there way to Woodwose. My spelling (and used quite a bit in Suffolk) (as in Haverhill Wodewose) is Wodewose and others are listed. I originally searched under wodewose and found nothing. --Edmund Patrick 18:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made a redirect from Wodewose, using the click-on form in the Wiki marksup list that appears when you are in "Edit" mode. No reader left behind. --Wetman 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the name appropriate?

Some interesting material has been gathered here, however I feel the title does not match the content. Woodwose is of Anglo-Saxon origin and yet the name is applied as if being somehow generic for similar traditions across western Europe. It is not. Even the article itself, right at the end, says that folklorists use the term "wild men". Woodwose is never used in books and articles on the Celtic equivalents in Wales and Scotland, for instance. This should either be an article about the woodwose in English tradition (bring in some comparative treatment if you like) or it should be renamed. As "wild men" can be used in other contexts, as noted here, I'd suggest something like "Medieval wild men" which could include Myrddin Wyllt ("Wild Merlin") from Wales, Suibne Geilt from Ireland, etc. This is very misleading as it stands, which is a pity as some good work has been done here. Any feelings or suggestions on this? Enaidmawr (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wild man is currently used for North American traditions, with a disam header pointing here. Woodwose is the correct English term for a Europe-wide phenomenon; other language WPs naturally use "Selvatico", "Wilder Mann" etc. By all means make "Medieval wild man" a redirect here, bu that there is a different word for the same thing in Welsh or Gaelic is no argument. Where is the French article though? Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My argument is not based on the existence of terms in other languages but on whether this is the correct term in English for a Europe-wide phenomenon. I've looked in several dictionaries, including Longmans, and find no wodewose /woodwose. I can assure you it is not used by folklorists as a general term in English-language books on Celtic folklore. Similarly a book I have on "Monsters and grotesques in medieval manuscripts" published by the British Library uses "wild man" not woodwose. I've had a quick look in other books in English on European folklore and find no example there either (bit late in the day to start digging out everything, but it was a representative sample). My impression, and maybe you can correct me, is that woodwose is a term usually applied in English folklore and legend rather than being the English-language term in general use. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It is true that art historians more often use "wild man", perhaps influenced by the German as so often. I don't think the Puritan emigrants to America approved of such traditions & the word is probably little known there. But for example here the Bodleian talks of a woodwose in a French MS (no 59). Wild man is taken & adding "medieval" causes more problems than it solves, I feel. I presume you are not suggesting that woodwose relates to specific English traditions essentially different from the rest of Europe - I see no sign of that. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PS - I see that, all too typically, the French WP has a poor magazine-style psychology article on "Femme sauvage" but nothing for the homme. Johnbod (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to find that reference. My reservations about the term do hang on the cultural side of the term however. If I saw an article in a folklore periodical titled simply 'The Woodwose' I would expect to find an article on "the wild man in English folklore" (I do recall the term somewhere but am sure the context was English). Conversely, I would be extremely surprised to see an article titled 'The woodwose in Welsh tradition'; the term is not used, "wild man" being the usual general term. That's what concerns me. Of course the fact that the traditions found across Europe obviously have a lot in common is accepted. The use of woodwose as a general term seems rather like referring to "Trolls in French folklore." Troll-like creatures may exist in many traditions but that does not make them trolls per se. Enaidmawr (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm coming late to this discussion, but I share Enaidmawr's reservations. As this article is on the general, international wildman tradition, and Woodwose is a fairly obscure English word, I think the the general term is superior in this context. The other article can be moved; it has seen no expansion or real attention since 2006, but if it turns out to be as prominent a subject as this one we could have the articles at Wildman (First Nations) and Wildman (European).--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As we have 7 or more articles or redirects with titles beginning "wild man" (Blues, Fisher, of Borneo, of Oroville etc) it seems to me we should have a disam page with this article staying where it is, but linked from there. To take Enaidmawr's original point, I think individual human wild men, from Nebuchadrezzar II onwards, are a very different topic from the generic wild men, who are mostly envisaged as a separate race or even species. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I see we have Wildman - a disam page; I think Wild man should go there, as it covers both. I think the Celtic human wild men should really have their own article; they are certainly not woodwoses, nor the "homo pilosus". Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The solution for this is additional and better sources. I don't think there's a major difference between the different conceptions of European wild men; in the Celtic stories the only difference is that wild men get back stories – after the battle Lailoken was supposed to be as hairy and inhuman as the "wodwos" of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. At any rate I still think "woodwose" is an inferior title for this topic, as it is a fairly obscure English word for what the article describes as an international subject.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree on both those points I suppose. There is no doubt overlap and ambiguity, but I'm clear there remains a major distinction between the race of wild men, wild women & wild children & individual human drop-outs. Woodwose may be felt to be relatively obscure, but it is precise, technically correct, and needs no disambiguation. Redirects and the disam page are in place. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see some actual sources regarding this; so far the article doesn't have any sources indicating what medieval people might have thought about a separate race of wild men (other than that Christian writers found them "unsettling"). None of the ones I've encountered in literature have much if anything to distinguish them from the "human drop-outs" (an awesome term by the way.)--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

How's your Middle German? Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Utterly lacking, I'm afraid. ;) English-language sources would be a great boon. But speaking of ze Germans, the Deutsch Wikipedia seems to have a much more in-depth article than we do. Is there any way to work the German material into our article?--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

See also this especially pp 107-121. Goes off on a different tack but clearly shows wild men as widely seen as non-human, and often covered with fur rather than hair. I come at this from the visual arts angle, where it seems very clear to me, although I accept that the full elaboration of the wild family or wild tribe is most often seen in the later Middle Ages. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

On the Germans, the article has no inline cites & seems a bit windy to me, although my German is not up reading the whole thing. "Wilde Männer sind eine spezifisch mitteleuropäische Ausformung einer weltweit in allen Kulturen vorkommenden mythischen oder abergläubischen Vorstellung von halbmenschlichen Waldbewohnern." (lead, my bold) would seem to cut out your Celtic figures entirely! Later on they bring in the Neanderthals - good Germans all, of course. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This would also seem to be on the money. Keep going to page I67. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Killer. Thanks John. That second book does describe both wild men as a category of their own, and as human drop-outs (including Merlin specifically). My library also has Richard Bernheimer's Wild Men in the Middle Ages; I'll be doing some work here soon.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've checked out Bernheimer and Yamamoto's books, and both confirm what I was saying above. Both describe the distinct wild man race, and wild human dropouts, as two aspects of a single tradition. Also, they use the term "wild man" nearly exclusively rather than "woodwose". In fact "woodwose" only appears in Bernheimer's book, which appears to be the standard academic text on the subject, as the Middle English name for the creature; there's no indication that it is common in modern English, and it's spelled wodewose in two of the four places it is used. You could argue that there ought to be separate articles on the wildman race and human dropouts, but I don't think that's tenable based on the sources.

At any rate I plan on greatly expanding the article over the next few days based on these books, so there will be some activity here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fig Fauns"

I removed this from the article, as it provides no sources for some pretty speculative statements. (I've substituted a more substantiated, but still flawed version):

Another variant of the Gaulish Dusi may lurk in the misunderstanding resulting in the fauni ficarii of Jerome's Vulgate translation of Jeremiah 50:39, describing the coming desolation of Babylon: in the Douay-Rheims Bible the Vulgate is rendered, "Therefore shall dragons dwell there with the fig fauns." "Fig fauns" exist nowhere except in dictionaries mentioning this passage, which receives the footnote "Monsters of the desert, or demons in monstrous shapes: such as the ancients called fauns and satyrs; and as they imagined them to live upon wild figs, they called them fauni ficarii or fig fauns." These fauni ficarii may simply be a slip of the copyists for an intended fauni Sicarii ("fauns of the Sicari", the ancient tribe in Sicily). Apparently, the King James Version committee thought so, rendering the passage "Therefore the wild beasts of the desert with the wild beasts of the islands shall dwell there, and the owls shall dwell therein: and it shall be no more inhabited for ever; neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation." No modern English translation of the Bible mentions dragons or fauns in this passage, and Joseph Bosworth, A Dictionary of the Anglo-Saxon Language (London 1838) gives for Wudu-wasan the translations "'Gods of the woods, satyrs, robbers; satyrii, fauni sicarii".

A few further notes: the Sicilian tribe is named the Sicani, not the Sicarii, here on Wikipedia. This may be an onomastic issue, but the article makes no connection between the Sicani and the Gauls, and this source lists them as "unclassified" due to lack of evidence on their language. It does sound like an interesting theory, and I almost would have been content to leave it in, but for the issues I just named. If it goes back in all that will have to be sourced to some reliable publication; the only one given (now located here) does not mention dusi and gives a totally diffent reason for rendering the phrase "beasts of the islands".--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I revised the passage, adding two references to "fauni Sicarii", but Cuchullain's point about Sicani is well taken. Let me insert the revised text above, and remove it again from the article. Let's get the footnote on this point from the Anchor Jeremiah into this passage. I've added a reference to "fauni ficarii in Isidore of Seville. --Wetman (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Checking The Anchor would be good, they're certainly more authoritative than "bibletools.org". I'm certain that would clear up the confusion about the Sicani and the "wild beasts of the islands". One thing though - Bibletools says that "the King James Version referring to 'i, "island," renders "wild beasts of the islands..." from the original Hebrew 'iyim; it says nothing about Jerome or "fauni Sicarii". They clearly can't be used as a source for that statement.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Move

I have moved the page from the previous title, woodwose, to the current one, wild man. I delineated the reasons for this some months ago up above. Basically, the sources, including Bernheimer's standard text, just do not use the term woodwose, except occasionally in passing. Johnbod has voiced dissention, arguing that "woodwose" is the correct English term, but that is just not born out by the sources. In fact, in his book on medieval wild men Bernheimer explicitly states that wild man is the common term, and uses wodewose and woodwose only in passing, or to indicate that this was the Middle English term. Yamamoto's book, which deals with the wild man in a specificically English context, does not even use "woodwose" and "wodewose" only appears in a quote from someone else. If John or anyone else can provide sources indicating that "woodwose" is in fact the common name, please provide it. Otherwise it seems clear that "wild man" is by a long stretch the most common, and the one we must use, per WP:COMMON. To tell the truth I'm not sure how the page was ever at "woodwose", but I guess it's just one of those things.

To help clarify the matter I created the section on the various alternate and local names for the creature. I moved the English variants to there from the lede. I think the section does a pretty good job, but of course any improvements are welcome and desired.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bernheimer was a German writing in US English, where the word is certainly unusual. Yamamoto who knows. This move appears to be imposing US English on a subject where UK English should clearly be used under WP:ENGVAR. As left (twice) by Cúchullain, there was no mention at all that woodwose was a word at all in modern English, which is ridiculous. As a redirect here it should at the very least be bolded. Do not revert this again. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to get testy. If you can find sources indicating that "woodwose" - and that particular spelling of it - is the most common term for the wild man in British English, then I'll be content (and impressed, because it is certainly not evident in any of my sources, some of which I got from you). However, I find your argument that the word is only uncommon in American English but prominent in British English to be specious. Yamamoto’s book uses British English and is specifically about the wild man ‘’in an English context’’ and yet ‘’woodwose’’ is virtually absent from the text (it only appears in the variant spellings ‘’wodewose’’ and ‘’wodwos’’, and only when quoting from another work). Moreover, Berheimer specifically delineates the alternate names for the creature, but only gives ‘’wodewose’’ as the Middle English, not Modern English, name. Surely I can be forgiven for concluding that the word is not really common based on this evidence. The reason I removed it from the introduction is that (1) it doesn’t really appear to be common outside of Wikipedia, (2) there are so many variant spellings that it would clutter the lead if we included them all, and (3) I could find no indication that any of these variants was more common or preferred. I created a whole terminology section describing the various names for the creature, which is what WP:UEIA says to do. I’m sure we can strike out a compromise, and I will not remove “woodwose” from the intro until you have time to find some sources to back up your assertions. If it ends up staying, however, I think we may have to use the “wodewose” spelling, since it’s the one Bernheimer seems to use more frequently.--Cúchullain ^t/c

It is clear from this, that the sources you are using are far from the only standard sources - " Bernheimer 1952; Dickason 1980; Husband 1980; Salisbury 1994; Siefker 1996; White 1972" are mentioned, & there is a much fuller bibliography at the end. You seem to think, and left the article effectively saying, that it is not a word at all in Modern English, but its use in Elizabethan literature is very widespread and well known, as well as modern uses, which naturally most pertain to older traditions, as do all the alternatives. One "o" or two are obviously variants, I agree 1 is probably more common. But to bundle it up with foreign-language terms is simply unacceptable. Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't word at all, only that it does not appear to be a very common word, judging by the sources I used. Meaning, the claim that it is in common use (let alone that it is in common enough use to warrant being in the intro, or that it is the most common term in British English) is not supported by sources as the article stands. The closest we have is Berheimer saying that "Wodewose" was used in Middle English. If those other sources you just listed say something different, by all means work them in. I'll leave it to you to check them out, and I won't mess with it until you have had time to do so. For my part if I come across anything I will add it to the article as well.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Anything yet?--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not planning to do anything at present, but my points above remain. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we ought to have some source indicating why we are using such an obscure word. To look outside the scholastic box I checked five dictionaries and the only one that has anything remotely relevant is the Oxford English Dictionary.[1] (other dictionaries had entries for P. G. Wodehouse and houses for storing wood, but nothing on the homo pilosus). The OED entry includes all the variant spellings, but it says the term is "obsolete". The very few examples dating after the 16th century are in parentheses, indicating that they are "relevant to the development of a sense but not directly illustrative of it". --Cúchullain ^t/c 21:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying? That medieval ones were woodwoses, but the modern ones are "wild men"? Plenty of refs above here. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that it seems increasingly clear that "woodwose" is a very obscure term (outside of Wikipedia, that is), virtually absent from contemporary English even in works on the subject. In the few places it turns up in the last several hundred years, it is, by all indications, a throwback to an obsolete form. You obviously draw a different conclusion, and that's fine. However, though you are quite adamant that it is a common English alternative, you have added nothing to the article to support your conclusion, and have announced your attention not to. I think it is reasonable that as the one wanting it kept, you should provide sources defending it, per WP:BURDEN.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole subject is "obselete" since people don't expect to find wild men or woodwoses lurking in the woods any more. There should be no objection to noting what clearly survived into early Modern English as at the least a normal English term for this, as shown by the Elizabethan and later uses. Frankly you seem to be getting rather obsessive here. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Woodwose" is a term that was revived by Tolkien. I think Tom Shippey has written an essay about this. Nobody (except for Middle English scholars) knew what a "woodwose" was between, say, 1600 and 1960. Tolkien edited the Green Knight in 1925 and liked the word, using it in his popular works. After he became famous in the 1960s, people became interested in this sort of thing, and the word "woodwose" was revived sufficiently to get some 70,000 google hits today.

I would like to add a much more detailed discussion of the Middle English word (begun under "Terminology"), and the obvious solution will be to split off the Middle English part of this article to a separate WP:SS sub-page at Woodwose) --dab (𒁳) 10:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at the OED disposes of any idea that the word became extinct after 1380, and that is using the literature of the educated classes. I have adjusted these un-cited claims accordingly. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A fuller discussion of the term might be useful, here or elsewhere. As a note, though, the form "wodewose" seems to have been more common than "woodwose" until some point in the 20th century. I'd imagine the fact that the Wikipedia page was located at "woodwose" contributed to the comparative popularity of that term on the Internet to some extent.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Cryptozoology and Augustine

"Augustine reports the Gaulish name of "Dusii" in City of God XV, ch. 23: Et quosdam daemones, quos Dusios Galli nuncupant, adsidue hanc immunditiam et efficere, plures talesque adseuerant, ut hoc negare impudentiae uideatur — "Certain demons, whom the Gauls call Dusii, consistently and successfully attempt this indecency [intercourse with women]. This is asserted by many witnesses of such character that it would be an impertinence to deny it," and perhaps the early 7th century encyclopedist Isidore of Seville has picked up Augustine's reference for his Etymologies book viii" ... What does this have to do with Wild Men/woodwoses? This pretty clearly refers to satyrs, with perhaps a little admixture from incubus myths, and seems to have no connection with the medieval wild man legend which AFAIK did not even exist in Augustine of Hippo's time.

The European woodwose legend seems quite clearly to refer to wild humans and not to another hominid type like Bigfoot, Yeti, etc. stories. So why is it under Cryptozoology? Because some cryptozoological authors have made that (almost certainly specious) link? Vultur (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

See earlier discussions. The woodwoses (if we are still allowed to call them that) clearly are treated as a different species by the late Middle Ages at least. They are hairy all over, as are their women and children. This seems more the case in art than literature. Johnbod (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In some art; but the coats-of-arms in the article are post-medieval, and they clearly show human figures. And I suppose my question is, granting that they were described as hair-covered (which they indeed were) did the people who believed in them take this to mean they were not human? I don't think so; old descriptions of 'wild' insane people (like Nebuchadnezzar in the Bible, mentioned in the article) sound pretty animalistic. (and see Cuchullain's comment below). Vultur (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And the women and children? We've been this way before. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that wild men were thought of in more than one way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This question touches on some of the most interesting facets of the topic. First, the medieval conception of the wild man evolved out of classical and ancient concepts and figures, such as the faun and rural gods like Orcus and Sylvanus, so it is relevant. Augustine's dusii are discussed in Richard Bernheimer's book, which is presumably why they're mentioned, though I believe it's somewhat out of context here. Either way, it speaks to the long-running concern as to whether the wild man and related beings were human or animal. This was much debated by early Christian writers, and percolated into thought, art, and literature throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. Augustine himself thought it was highly presumptuous to assume such creatures were not human. And so we have the various examples of human wild men, such as the early Celtic stories and the later romances where a civilized human actually becomes a wild man through madness. There are also examples of characters who were never civilized but are nonetheless human, for instance the wild shepherd in Yvain, the Knight of the Lion who is described grotesquely but is baldly stated to be a man. On the other hand are the portrayals of the wild man as specifically animal, such as the images of hunters pursuing them as if just a somewhat unusual game animal. One thing the wild man was never considered to be was some kind of transitional missing link between man and animal, which is how people typically regard bigfoot, so that link is a bit reaching, and isn't pursued in most of the scholarly literature I've seen.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Bigfoot connection is certainly a modern invention.

I was asking specifically where the idea that "the medieval conception of the wild man evolved out of classical and ancient concepts and figures" came from. It seems to be a British/Germanic/N European thing which later became associated with classical concepts rather than being derived from them. Yes, Augustine mentioned "wild men"; I'm asking where the evidence is that this is connected with the British/Germanic wild man legend rather than drawn from the Greek/Roman faun/satyr myth, which seems to be clearly what Augustine is talking about. (Even the connection with demons fits; daimon onokentauros in the Vulgate for what were 'satyrs' in Greek, etc.; whereas the wild man whether human or animal seems to have been always considered a physical/natural rather than spiritual/supernatural being.) Vultur (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The stuff on the medieval wild man developing out of classical and even earlier mythology is taken from the works cited in the article. The evidence for it is in the continuity of attributes from the classical period into medieval times, for instance the medieval wild man festivities (only briefly mentioned here), which derive from earlier celebrations involving Orcus and Maia. Additionally, many names given to the wild man can be shown to have derived from those of classical figures ( Orke from Orcus, Holzmoia from Maia, Fange from Fauna, and salvan and huomo selvatico from Silvanus). The wild man is not specifically Germanic/British/Northern European; it is widely distributed throughout Western and Central Europe, appearing in Italy, France, Spain, Ireland, Poland, etc. Additionally the line between natural and supernatural creatures was much fuzzier back in the day, which is why the wild folk are connected to things like the incubus and the lamia, and why they were invoked for fortune or preternatural wisdom. All together, I suppose this is why the cited works regard the figure as more a continuing evolution out of very ancient myth, and not so much an independent development that was later associated with classical figures. As I said I think the stuff on Augustine and the dusii is a bit out of context as stated, unfortunately I don't have access to the Bernheimer book right now. But since it is discussed there, it should probably be retained in some form.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

well, what is the "most interesting" aspect of this topic is of course a subjective question. I agree that the material on how this "evolved out of classical and ancient concepts and figures" is valid, but it is also blown completely out of proportion, taking up most of the article. While the actual topic, viz. a discussion of the medieval figure in art, in heraldry and in written sources, is completely marginalized. In this sense, this page as it stands is to a large degree a "WP:COATRACK" article: somebody was interested in the "origins in antiquity" question and went off on a tangent, never to return to the actual topic. --dab (𒁳) 09:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not it at all. In reality I was attempting a total rewrite of the article based on some of the best works available; I started with the origins section (you'll note these are just about the only parts of the article with that caliber of sources), but then I got sidetracked. My initial plan was to finish out the article using Bernheimer, Yamamoto, and others, I just didn't get to it, and now I no longer have easy access to the sources. Bernheimer, especially, has very good sections on the wild man figure in art, literature, and heraldry, and even in rural plays and festivals that lasted into the 20th century in some places. If the corresponding sections are "marginalized" here it's only because they haven't been written yet.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The coat of arms of the Glucksburg dinasty

Hi! Don't you think that it would be good to add the Glucksburg translation to the greek culture of the wild men? -- Mel ^{God zij met u} 00:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Another image

I note that Der Busant and an image of it are used in German and Dutch versions of the article. Perhaps a mention here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wild man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070119030515/http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/62.html to http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poem/62.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170314000332/http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Hanno.html to http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Hanno.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hunter-Gatherers

Can anyone find a reliable source claiming that wild men originated from Hunter gatherers? Otherwise it looks like unreliable sources, speculation, and possibly synthesis. For instance: how can "fossil evidence" suggest that hunter gatherers lived in Europe 2000 years ago? Things don't fossil in that time, and if they did, there's no way fossils would tell us whether they came from hunter-gatherers. If no one can substantiate these claims, they should be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It could very well be a collective memory of the Neanderthals and others. It is not so long ago that this kind of atavistic memory could persist. Certainly we know that the Germanic gods come from the proto-German gods, and there are indications of even earlier ones.