Talk:Bog body

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leilakinson. Peer reviewers: Anthro Lover, Jessemerodio.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 5 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cgpitt. Peer reviewers: Mswintosky.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bog people?

I'd like peoples' opinion as to whether Bog body or Bog people is a better name for this article. Presently there are articles at both names. Peregrine981 14:26, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

My sense is that Bog body is preferable, with Bog people as a redirect. "Bog body" seems to be prevalent in the literature I've seen and is more descriptive and broad. "Bog people", to me, misleadingly suggests some kind of living tribe. A cursory Google search suggests that "Bog body" is prevalent in scientific contexts whereas "bog people" appears mostly in lay articles. --Pontifex 19:19, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Allright, seems like a good idea. Bog body does seem a bit less misleading than bog people, which has a vaguely "B" movie sound to it, though it is a commonly used term in the popular media. I note that Britannica seems to list it under bog body. I will make bog people a redirect. Peregrine981 11:34, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Copyright

Barbara Shack 16:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)The page for the photograpy of Tollund man says, "This image is copyrighted, and used with permission. The terms of the permission do not include third party use. It is not licensed under the GFDL." The Image greatly improves the article. I hope Wikipedians who understand copyright better than I do will agree to keep it. I don't know if it can stay.

Pictures?

We need some pictures please...what does a 500-year old person look like?

There's some on Danish wiki at da:Grauballemanden with gfdl licenses, if someone wants to upload them onto commons - MPF 00:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

sphagnum bogs

Peat bogs are not the same as sphagnum bogs. "Peat" is a general term and peat can be formed from sphagnum moss, other mosses, sedges or various other kinds of plant material alone or in combination. I'm not certain what kinds of bogs are predominant in Europe and the British Isles so I hope somebody will check this and make the appropriate corrections. MrDarwin 19:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Northern European bogs (north of about 53°N where summers are fairly cool) are overwhelmingly Sphagnum bogs, and this applies to all of the bogs that bodies have been found in, as they are the only bogs acidic enough to preserve the corpses. A body in less acidic fen peat (derived from sedges) would not persist. - MPF 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Number of bodies?

This article says more than a thousand, Haraldskaer Woman article says around 700 to date, which is correct? Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Koelberg Woman

| This site give her age as 8000 B.C. but the article says 5500 years old. I was wondering what the source for that was. Storeye 07:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In the scientific literature there are several datings ranging from 9000 - 6000 B.C. probably by mis understandings. The Danish National Museum sets her age to 9000 years [1], Kulturarv.dk writes 9000-6401 B.C. and mentiones a 14C-Dating to Maglemosian culture [2]. I am still loocking for the original publication of the 14C-dating results. --Bullenwächter (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in Sagas?

I've read several norse sagas and a fair amount of viking poetry, but I've never come across anything that mentioned people getting killed, executed or otherwise dying in a bog. They did have laws against outlawry and such, so it's very possible that criminals were put to death, but for the life of me I can find no mention of any such events. Most subject material mentioned in the older sagas can be orally dated back to BC times, which is the time that it appears most "bog people" were killed, but again, there are no references in the sagas. Would anyone care to elaborate? - myrddin_wyllt, 1/2/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.64.39.28 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear as to what you are questioning, because this article doesn't make any assertion about bog bodies in the Norse sagas. However, when writing the Haraldskær Woman article, I did include the following sentence: According to the Jomsvikinga Saga, Queen Gunnhild was drowned in a bog on the orders of the Danish king Harald Bluetooth.. So there are some references to bog executions to be found in the sagas. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, a fair number of these bog bodies have been discovered in lands populated by Norse and other Germanic peoples, and they were apparently "put to death" during times that said people were there. I was just wondering of any of the sagas mentioned this sort of practice. - myrddin_wyllt 1/5/09

I'm Trying To Help!

I'm merging Stubs into this page!! --水の男の子 (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Motive

I just heard Olly Steeds quote some line of bull about these people all having been Sacrificed To The Gods. I'm not an expert, but I think that "ritual" is a catch-all for unimaginative archaeologists; I have no doubt that one researching modern America would say (coming uncommonly close to the truth) that the gas chamber and the electric chair were also elaborate religious rituals. But it would be interesting to hear more about whether anything is known here. My bet would be that if you wanted to kill someone, you'd drop him in the bog, and these people are just murder victims... I wonder if there's any way anyone will ever know more than that. Wnt (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Steeds or other TV hosts qualify as a solid source for an anthropological debate -- and those types of programs will certainly use the most sensational explanations in order to boost ratings. This article does mention that the cause of death is ill-defined and debatable. That debate probably should be explained more here, so if you want to have it, please jump in -- otherwise I'll try to get to it in the next month or so. (This article is in need of a thorough cleaning). This 1998 paper from the Oxford Journal of Archaeology provides a good overview. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That paper is interesting... it sure isn't easy to summarize for Wikipedia, though. Wnt (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In Cornelius Tacitus' work, Germania, written in the 1st century CE, and contemporary with the practice of bogging, wrote that the Germans had to forms of capital punishment, the latter and worse of which was bogging. He even spoke of the German rationale as being to the effect so as to be removed from sight and forgotten. He also mentions that such legal punishments could only be carried out under the aegis of the priest-king, and so had certain sacral assocaitions.

The notion that any death that was bound up with or hedged off by sacral associations and/or practices is consequently a case of "sacrifice" is indeed bad archeology, and antiquated anthropology. And generally just bad thinking, when we have written testimony of why people were bogged, coming from the very age in which these people were bogged. No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.65.229 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Most bog bodies are most likely accidents. That is, people who didn't watch their step and drowned in a bog. I live in Gothenburg, Sweden, and around my city there are plenty of bogs. The official estimate by the police is that in the surrounding area of my city about two people per year drown in a bog. It is an estimate since most of these bodies are not found. The estimate is based on the number of people disappearing while walking in the forest (they don't count all disappearances as bog drowning), and the number of bodies of varying ages they find when they dig up a bog.

Compare this to about four people per year drowning while swimming, 2.5 people falling of small boats (mostly middle aged men without life vests and have been drinking alcohol), and 1.5 people going through the ice in the winter. Making it a total of 10 people per year drowning in those four ways.

I believe the police estimate since I live next to several bogs and I and my friends every now and then have to rescue someone who is stuck in a bog. Twice the person was definitely going to die and disappear had we not been there when it happened, since in one case only the face was above the surface, and in the other case only the hand was still above (head completely under the surface).

I don't have any references for this data, sorry. I might be remembering some of the numbers a bit wrong, since I read them long ago. But I am sure about the two people per year drowning in the bogs, and ten people in total drowning. Least sure about the boat and ice drowning numbers.

I find it a shame that bog drowning is a taboo subject in my country. They talk about and teach swimming safety, boating safety (wear a life vest and don't drink alcohol when boating) and ice safety. With a little knowledge and training most bog drownings could be avoided.

If you are walking in a varied terrain in a northern forest: If you find a nice opening in the forest with flat land, some grass and perhaps some small bushes: Then watch out, it might be a trap. It might not be a meadow, but instead might be a bog. So watch your step. A single step can take you from firm ground to deep bog.

If you are sinking, spread out and lie down flat on the surface. If you are down to your knees, bend your knees and lie on the back. If you are down to your thighs, bend forward at your hips and lie on your stomach. From those positions you can slowly work yourself free. (From the hip position it depends on your skill and stamina...) If you are down to your stomach or chest, spread out your arms and you will usually stop sinking. From this position you can't free yourself and you will have to wait for help. Reaching for your phone in your pocket might kill you since then you start sinking again. So yelling for help should probably be your first option. Only reach for the phone if you have given up on the yelling.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand, a good number of the ancient ones have clearly been executed/murdered, which even in Scandi noir country doesn't count as an accident. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Hahaha. Not even "in Scandi noir country"! Thanks for giving me the weeks best laugh. --David Göthberg (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

I think this article should probably have a lead image. In my opinion it doesn't particularly matter whose body is shown, but I went for one of Lindow Man as it's one of the better known bog bodies, the image shows the whole of the remains, and the article on Lindow Man himself is of good quality (it's a Featured Article; I thought if there's going to be a linked image in the lead it may as well be to an article of decent quality). As I worked on the Lindow Man article and don't want to seem biased, I am quite happy for someone to replace the image of Lindow Man with something else, although I do think a lead image of some sort is necessary. Nev1 (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The addition of a lead photo is a good idea. And the thought of linking it to an FA article was appropriate. However, the Lindow Man photo isn't particularly good. It is difficult to distinguish the human features -- appearing mostly like a flat piece of leather on dirt. I suggest using a photo which better portrays and elucidates the mummification to the reader -- such as File:Tollundmannen.jpg, File:Grauballemannen1.jpg or one of the clearer full body photos at Commons:Bog Body such as File:Tollundmanden i Silkeborgmuseet.JPG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, it's not the best image. A full body photo would be preferable, however the ones on commons either aren't great or the dimensions aren't ideal. For example I think File:Grauballemanden2.jpg is a very interesting picture and the remains are in good condition, but even at 300px wide I don't think it's detailed enough as the image isn't very tall. It's still in the article though. But both of the head shots you suggest are rather good, so I think either would make a good lead picture. Nev1 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We'll have to wait for a quality full-body shot. I find the Tollund Man head shot a slightly better image only because the dirt mound in the Grauballe Man image tends to draw focus away from the face. However, the Grauballe Man shows the coloration. Take your pick of the two head shots -- either will be fine. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not an easy choice for the reasons you've given, but I've gone for Tollund Man. Nev1 (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been wondering maybe we could change the lead image from the Tollund man to a head shot of the Grauballe man such as File:Grauballemannen1.jpg from the commons. I can understand about the Tollund man being the lead image because he is probably the most famous, but maybe we could use the Grauballe man's picture because it is in color and in better quality. This is just an idea. Thanks, --Parasect ^{(Formerly Platyfishkeeper)} 13:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The image wasn't chosen because of fame, but rather clarity of the subject. As stated in the above discussion, I think the Tollund pic provides better focus of the topic and the Grauballe pic provides better illustration of the coloration. I am fine with either choice. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Bog bodies

I think a list of bog bodies would be very helpful to researchers like there is on the German Page. I would like this to be done, but I might not have enough time to do so. Thanks, --Parasect ^{(Formerly Platyfishkeeper)} 14:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Given there are nearly known 2,000 bog bodies in Europe you couldn't fit a comprehensive list in this article. Therefore, the best you can do is include links to some of the most significant ones. At the moment, several are mentioned in the article and there's a section called Notable bog bodies, but I'm not sure how these have been selected. Nev1 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the tips! --Parasect ^{(Formerly Platyfishkeeper)} 13:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think there should be a short list of several bog bodies like on the German page, because I believe that that is helpful info. Let me know if I'm doing the wrong thing, but this is how I think it should be done. --Your's Truly,

Parasect ^(Discuss) 18:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If you've got something in mind other than the current notable bog bodies section why not have a go? Seeing it in practice may get things moving. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't have a comprehensive (or even partial) list of bog bodies which would no doubt be useful to someone researching the subject. Nev1 (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright I finished it. --Parasect ^(Discuss) 17:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Two sections for "notable" bog bodies are unnecessary -- and somewhat oddly written here. The most notable finds, e.g. Tollund Man or Haraldskaer Woman, only have links because they have large expansive Wikipedia articles. (This is one of the reasons they can be definitively called notable -- there is enough written scholarship about them to create those large articles) On the other hand, the lesser notable or non-notable bog bodies have been stuck in this article because there has not been enough significant coverage to build separate articles. This results in the most notable bodies given little space here while less significant finds are treated expansively. That's backwards. And makes this article too cluttered and unfocused. The solution is to use this article as a generalized description of the topic while maintaining List of bog bodies as a comprehensive list of bog bodies. (Any bog body which has enough scholarship to build a description greater than its list entry, may require its own article.) Towards this end, I've have copied the descriptive text on the other bodies to the List and removed the entire "other bodies" section form this article. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bare URLs

I tried to do my best to fix the bare urls with citations via Knight Cite.com. I hope this would help on this article. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Should the tag on the top of the article be removed? I am hesitant to do so because I'm not soure if that is what I'm supposed to do.--GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 19:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Please notify me if this was wrong. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 23:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

National Geographic...

Gourami Watcher, I've left a query at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. My concern is that without details of the original academic journal, authors etc., we lack a decent reliable archaeological source for the assertion. For example, regardless of whether it's true or not, who's actually claiming that the results were fabricated? Hchc2009 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I do see your point there. Keep me posted. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 23:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

And we now have the original source of the info, it was

• The source in question seems to be this one: VAN DER SANDEN, Wijnand A. B.; EISENBEISS, Sabine: Imaginary people - Alfred Dieck and the bog bodies of northwest Europe. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, ISSN 0342-734X, 2006, vol. 36, no1, pp. 111-122

If you're happy, I'll tweak the wording to refer to the original article, and keep the citation to Nat Geo in as well? Hchc2009 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Date Consistency

Some instances in this page are in the BC/AD format, and others are BCE/CE. Per the WP:ERA guideline, neither is encouraged over the other, but a page should be consistent within itself. I'm recommending that we get a consensus, and have the page follow that consensus.

As to what that consensus is, I see no advantage one has over the other, so I'd recommend we go with the first convention placed. Thoughts?198.70.166.253 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Restore title from Bog bodies of Northern Europe to Bog body

In my opinion the title Bog bodies of Northern Europe is a wrong description based on an old fashioned scientific of art mainly based on B.V. Glob's book Moosefolket dated to 1965 having a strong focus on danish bog finds. Actually real bog body finds are also known and confirmed from Bavaria, there are evidence for bog body finds from Austrian and other South German states but not clearly scientifically confirmed which are definitively not belonging to the region known as Northern Europe. Actually according to the article Northern Europe the affilliation of Germany and the Netherlands to Northern Europe is an old fashioned fact, but the majority of confirmed bog body finds are originating from the Netherlands, from Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony which are not belonging to the region actually defined as Northern Europe. According to the actual scientific state of knowledge bog bodies can be a world wide phenomen, where ever bogs are present and wherever copres were found preserved by the bogs chemistry they would be defined as bog bodies. For the articles title I would prefer to use the previous term Bog body. The specification "Bog bodies of Northern Europe" should be used when clearing the specific historical, cultural and possible spiritual backgrounds of the reasons why people were put into the wet bogs. --Bullenwächter (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Any contrary comments? If not, I will move back the article to its original name --Bullenwächter (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The move has my support. As the redirect will be need to be deleted I think an admin is required, would you like me to make the move? Nev1 (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Bog bodies are found throughout the world; including in North America and Eastern Europe, in socio-cultural settings entirely distinct from those discussed in this article. For this reason the term "Bog bodies" – implying global coverage – is totally innapropriate, although I can appreciate that "Bog Bodies of Northern Europe" also has problems. How about "Bog bodies in Western Europe" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Support, per WP:TITLE, returning the title (and the subsequently changed text in the introduction) to Bog body. The term is precise enough to define the scope of this article -- which allows its expansion with any general information about bog bodies, regardless of a geographic limitation. At this point, the only reason to create a longer title would be if it distinguished this article from other existing articles, such as "Bog Bodies of Southern Europe" or "Bog Bodies of North America", as well as a generalized "Bog Body" article. However, those specific titles don't exist. Until this article expands so much that it requires splitting it into more specific titles, it remains the generalized Bog Body article. The current overly specific title actually prevents expansion -- disallowing readers from adding any information outside the geographic scope. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support the restoration of the previous title as well, as bog bodies are also found in places like the USA. It appears to me that there is enough support to move the page back to Bog body, but nothing has been done about it for a few months. Best, --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 17:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Given the consensus of participants in this discussion for restoring the article title from Bog bodies of Northern Europe to Bog body, I have moved the article. I've also done a slight copy-edit on the text to remove the narrower scope. For the time being I've left a redirect at Bog bodies of Northern Europe until all the links to that title in other articles can be restored to direct links. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete/move Dieck speal

It says he was de-verified, why is this at the very beginning of the article?

Orchastrattor (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Along these lines, the summary of the Fischer chapter in citation 1 says: "Dieck (1965) noted that there were more than 1400 reported bog finds worldwide, a large percentage of them only body parts, varying in date from 9000 BC to World War II, but his data are now considered unreliable." Can anyone get through the paywall to see if the dates here are correct? Elsewhere I saw that the oldest bog body is only from 8000 BC and I'm skeptical about the WWII bodies. Would love to have a better source/ confirmation from the Fischer chapter on that! 12.13.22.66 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Era

This article has been written per sources using Common Era (BCE and CE) dating. Per MOS:ERA, the article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content. Please do not change without obtaining a consensus. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ERA you mean - actually it used BC/AD for many years - see the history. Can you confirm if & when a change was discussed? Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see Talk:Bog_body#Date_Consistency - it should go back to BC, pending a decision. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The question was raised 11 years ago (section Date consistency) and ignored. I will propose that BCE-CE be adopted as the ERA style for the article, as that had been the style used for years. Can we do this with an informal discussion, or do I need to start an RfC? Donald Albury 13:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Please, no Rfc - not needed. At that time there were mixed styles - don't know how long that lasted. As far as I know, the article (from 2004 I think) was originally all-BC, so "used for years" isn't a compelling argument for BCE. I would support BC, as the first-established style, & generally what we use for British/Irish related archaeology articles (as do eg the national museums). Either way, the article gives the era rather more often than is needed. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that link, Johnbod. I was wrong that there had been any consensus discussion for common era dating -- I must be remembering a discussion from a different article. The first use of dating in this article was BC/AD with this edit.

Johnbod is correct that there is a mixed history of using BC/AD and BCE/CE in articles. I certainly find this among scholarly works. According to this opinion article BC/AD or BCE/CE? Archaeodeath Perspectives by an archaeology professor, BC/AD is used more by Northwestern European scholars while BCE/CE is used more by scholars in North America and outside Northwest Europe. It also notes that news sources usually use BC/AD dating. (He switched to BCE/CE for his latest book simply based on a small twitter survey which was hardly overwhelming.) Here is an article on why the World History Encyclopedia uses BCE/CE -- for accuracy and it encompasses a broader world view. I see that the Encyclopedia Britannica also uses BCE/CE for articles about bog bodies but I think their use of dating systems in other areas are also a mixed bag. I prefer that BCE/CE be used because this represents the broader view and its use has been growing in academic circles -- certainly since this article was created. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It is worth reading the Common era sections on current use, especially: "In 2013, the Canadian Museum of Civilization (now the Canadian Museum of History) in Gatineau (opposite Ottawa), which had previously switched to BCE/CE, decided to change back to BC/AD in material intended for the public while retaining BCE/CE in academic content."

- the British Museum (after a lot of thought) still uses BC also, & I think remembering what WP is and what it is not, we should follow such institutions addressing a wider public, especially on European topics. We are not an academic journal. The use of CE has certainly been "growing in academic circles", though I don't know this has especially accelerated in this century, but it is still clear that many readers don't understand it, especially our many Indian readers. I used to use BCE on Indian topics, but now use BC as more familiar (and used in Indian media and textbooks). In what way does BCE "represent the broader view"? Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• This section has certainly not produced any consensus to establish BCE as the new style, so I have reverted to the original BC per WP:ERA. Note that that says "An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Retaining existing styles) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word era, or another similarly expressive heading, and briefly stating why the style should be changed." No attempt has been made to produce "reasons specific to its content" so far. See above: BC was the first style, & has I think always been present until just now, though there have been mixed styles most of the time. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)