Jump to content

Talk:List of bog bodies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi!

[edit]

I was just working on your list and received an Edit conflict note when storing my edits. Here you will find my comments:

  1. The note on Bockstens Man is only a very crude theroy of an swedish hobby archaeologist and publisher based on a very free interpretation of an supposed artifact on an old photography of the excarvation and which is not accepted by scientists.
  2. The image of the Bunsoh Body only shows a reconstruction of the band found near his neck.
  3. The finds of Dröbnitz Girl and its other finds are completely lost during WW2.
  4. Meenybraddan: "She is famous for being wrapped in a cloak from 500 years after she died." The textile typological dating of the cloak seems to be much younger, but that will not mean that it is younger. But it is most likely that this type of weaft (textile pattern) has been produced and used in her live times. I personally would rely on the 14C dates, as textile typology has uncertainties.
  5. Fredriksdal Man also known as Kragelund Man, Danish Fredriksdalmanden.
  6. Peiting Woman: Take care as the find is presently under scientific investigations and it has been newly dated.
  7. Roum Woman: Unfortunately P.V. Globs book is totally outdated, but it is still a good source. The image on the title page at google books shows the Tollund-Man.

Do you have any literature source for the Auning Woman?

On de:Benutzer:Bullenwächter/Literaturvorlagen you will find a selection of literature on bog bodies in my book shelve.

I have entered a interwikilink on my bog body list to your list.

Now I have to go offline - have a nice day. --Bullenwächter (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have made some edits on your page I hope this is OK. I have also added an interwikilink to my project page for easier navigation if you don't mind. --Bullenwächter (talk) 06:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There should be no external links in the table at all. External links do not belong in the body of an article. Links to other sites should be used as references as appropriate, as the links then will populate to the refs section. Links to images not on Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia need to be removed completely.

People who took photos of modern facial reconstructions may have copyrights to their photos, but it is the underlying work's copyright that is important. A number of these types of images are on this page. Unless the reconstruction is so old it is public domain, or if the artist has agreed for it to be used here, then Wikipedia cannot have it here. There may be fair use arguments in some cases, but the one that brought me here was a photographer claiming to own the copyright to the entire image just because he snapped the photo. That's a derivative work, and a copyright violation. DreamGuy (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here. First, the facial reconstruction images: DreamGuy is correct that the photos of modern facial reconstructions are derivative works and therefore remain under copyright to either the sculptor or the museum. I have removed them from this list and tagged them for deletion at Commons per Commons:Derivative works.
Second, the use of external links in the body of an article. This is not prohibited -- although they are not typically used in the body of an article. As mentioned at WP:EL, the {{external media}} template can be used when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia. This method is generally used only for exceptional cases. In general, Lists should be developed in a manner consistent with our Wikipedia:Featured list criteria -- for example, List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures) or List of birds of California demonstrate a discreet use of images. I would suggest the editors take a more judicious approach to the use of images here. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The external links for the images were meant to show people what the bog bodies had looked like, which is not easy to describe. The second reason is because they are unavailable on WP or the commons, and I have some troubles uploading images that are not my own work. I appologize if this is wrong to do, but I felt that they would be very useful for this list. --GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 20:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All image links have been removed. --GouramiWatcher (Gulp) 19:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AI reconstruct of face for roun man

I did a few reconstructions using AI (GAN) from artbreeder.com and I own the work. Would that be acceptable here ? Here is the one I did for the Roum Man though I might have done him too redheaded, I think it's close. The entire process of reconstruct is documented on the lineage for the work (1 and 2) Renmiri (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might have to redo him blonder since he is Swiss not Gaelic but I can still reuse mos of the work. Let me know if you guys can use it and I'll post it here Renmiri (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
working on Grabaulle man now. Him I know he is ginger! Renmiri (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also working on Husbake man and Moora but those are reconstruction of a reconstruction, so not sure they can be used here.. Renmiri (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alas the rest of the faces are quite hard to use. I tried Tollund man but I can't rotate him enough for the AI to recognize his face properly Renmiri (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yde Girl.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Yde Girl.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sort template

[edit]

I tried to enter a sort template in order to get the datings chronologically sorted, but I guess I used a wrong template. --Bullenwächter (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drobnitz Girl

[edit]

Just pointing out here, Dröbnitz girl should be under Germany - the area in question being German in 1939. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.22.102 (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological finds such as bog body Dröbnitz Girl should be listed unter their geographical location and not under their polictal location. In relation to Dröbnitz Girls dating the geographic aspect is much more relevant than the politic affiliation of the find spot. The geographic location is now Poland not Germany. --Bullenwächter (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ballygroll Child Northern Ireland

[edit]

By the same token as the Drobnitz Girl, shouldn't the Ballygroll Child be under United Kingdom?Kdammers (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C14

[edit]

I think the date ranges of th eradiocarbon dates should be explained more thoroughly, indicating that the range includes 1 (or is it2?) sigma. Kdammers (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egtved Girl

[edit]

If she were a true bog body, a discarded body with no coffin, she would appear in the list. It is 100% legitimate for someone reading about bog bodies to want to read about a coffin-burial preserved in "peat from a bog". That is why we have the "see also" section in articles. Egtved Girl: "The burial mound was made out of acidic peat from a bog" ... "The girl's final resting place was first unearthed in in 1921, in a large burial mound made of peat bog." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would be fine. What do you think @Bullenwächter:? --GouramiWatcher(?) 02:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The chemical processes within the burial mound are much more dificile and different as stated by the authors of the Christian Science Monitor. Roughly spoken: The mound was built of grass sods not of peat bog, minerals inside the mound are silicifying the outer walls, which allows the mound to holds large volumes of water inside. The absence of oxygen and acidic substances form the oak coffin promotes the natural mumification similar to peat bogs. For more info please refer to: Henrik Breuning-Madsen et.al.: The chemical environment in a barrow shortly after construction – An archaeological-pedological experiment. In: Journal of Archaeological Science. Nr. 28, 2001, ISSN 0305-4403, S. 691–697. And additionally: Mechtild Freudenberg: Grabhügel und Kultanlage der Älteren Bronzezeit von Hüsby, Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg. In: Archäologische Gesellschaft Schleswig-Holstein (Hrsg.): Archäologische Nachrichten. Nr. 14, 2008, ISBN 978-3-529-01430-7, ISSN 0942-9107, S. 30–32. Therefore I would not link nordic bronze age burials in burial mounds with bog bodies.--Bullenwächter (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although she isn't technically a bog body, I believe it would be fine to add her in a "see also" section, maybe giving a short summary detailing how she was preserved, which is somewhat similar to that of bog bodies, although it is not exactly the same.--GouramiWatcher(?) 22:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grauballe Man

[edit]

The Grauballe Man entry states that his "fingers had been so perfectly preserved in the bog that researchers were able to take his fingerprints, as with Old Croghan Man [citation needed]." I added the "citation needed" because the Old Croghan Man article does not mention this.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of bog bodies. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of bog bodies. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on List of bog bodies. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 01:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Søgårds Mose Individuals

[edit]

Hello, I've just added the first individual from Søgårds Mose who was found in 1942, as previously only the disarticulated limbs found in 1944 had been included.

I've also removed the sex and date information from the 1944 find, because I think they'd been mistakenly applied - van der Sanden (1996)[1] does not give a sex for the 1944 finds (and I don't think you could reliably sex disarticulated limbs), and the source used for the 1944 find specifically states that the radiocarbon date was from another individual (presumably the 1942 discovery, as they line up pretty closely).

I also calibrated van der Sanden (1996, 194)'s radiocarbon date of 2080 +/- 75 BP using OxCal Online 4.4 (https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/OxCal.html) but I don't know if that's okay (does it count as original research?). If it isn't, how should I include it, given that the other dates are all given as calendrical dates?

I hope that's all okay with people? What shoud I do if it isn't?

References

  1. ^ van der Sanden, Wijnand (1996). Through nature to eternity: the bog bodies of northwest Europe. Amsterdam: Batavian Lion International. p. 125,194. ISBN 90 6707 418 7.

Frær Mose Woman

[edit]

Hi! While I was on the hunt for more info on this find, I found multiple articles stating that archaeologists now believe that this foot belongs to a man. I believe that the "break-out" study was From Foot to Fact: New Light on the Fræer Bog find by Lynnerup, Niels. The problem I'm having is that I can't actually find any copy of this study.

Another strange thing is that no one seems to be citing that study, instead they're citing a later a later study by Niels in which he says this:

"For instance, the Fræer foot is the only body part recovered from a bog body found in 1842. Because of the small size of the foot it was previously interpreted as belonging to a female. By visualizing the calcaneus, it could be measured and the dimensions compared to forensic anthropological regression analyses (Introna et al., 1997; Gualdi-Russo, 2007). Based on this result the foot is now believed to come from a male."

This is a bit frustrating because I feel like I'm unable to find the primary source. I've elected to Be Bold and edit the page despite this, but I figured I'd let the populace know and see if anyone has any opinions on this. SnaggleTooth5353 (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_bog_bodies&oldid=1208213529"