Bog Bodies

[Populus Romanus]

I am wondering whether any mention of this curious phenomenon will be made in game. Is it culturally significant enough to warrant mention? Furthermore, speaking of culture, wtf is up with the bog bodies? Is it true that they are human sacrifice? I read that the Celts practiced human sacrifice but I always assumed that that came from dubious sources.

[Brennus]

Yes there is a mention of Bog bodies. One of the Boii temple descriptions for the god Lugus refers to the practice of depositing bog bodies.

Bog bodies are a highly curious phenomenon, mostly restricted to the Iron Age. Although some have advocated in the past that they are unfortunates who became lost in peat bogs and subsequently drowned (for example one academic theorised that the rope found around Tollund Man's neck, from Denmark, was an attempt to pull him out), the general consensus is that that they were victims of human sacrifice. Bog bodies have been found in Denmark, Sweden Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Ireland. It may be that, because these areas have large peat bogs, that the practice existed in other regions but no evidence remains; however for the moment it seems safe to conclude it was a practice unique to these regions. In many cases the individuals recovered from bog bodies appear to have been different in some respect to the general populous. Kayhausen Boy from Saxony, for example, is theorised to have been sacrificed because he had physical deformities which set him apart. One woman from Denmark was found to have been much taller than the average for Iron Age women at the time, and it is thought that this trait was the reason she was killed. In addition to physical differences it also appears that some bog bodies belonged to a distinct social class. Lindow man from Britain was shown to have likely led a rather privileged life, based on the fact his hands showed little evidence of hard labour associated with activities such as farming. Likewise Clonycavan man from Ireland used imported Iberian cosmetics in his hair. Two general features which emerge in many bog bodies are nudity (although often a hat was included or the hair was cropped in some way) and a lack of meat in the diet (both Lindow man and Tollund man were found to have eaten cereals for their final meals). It also appears that many individuals were subjected to "overkill"; they were sacrificed with a disproportionate amount of force. It is not uncommon for Bog Bodies to show multiple pre-mortem injuries such, typically blunt trauma wounds, stabbings and most frequently stabbings. Clonycavan man had his nipples slit prior to death for some reason. The practice of strangulation is recorded by Tacitus as a common means of execution among Germanic tribes, whilst the overkill of many victims may indicate that they were subject to a triple death (three distinct wounds to dispatch them) perhaps indicating they were dedicated to a Triune type deity; possibly Lugus (in EBII I have argued that Lugos was simultaneously Taranis, Esus and Teutatus).

In Ireland we also find Bog Butter; large drums of butter which were deposited into bogs, likely as votive offerings.

Human sacrifice is attested to in the archaeological record. it should also be noted that the Romans were hypocrites in that they engaged in human sacrifice themselves; most famously prior to the Battle of Telamon when they sacrificed a Gallic and Greek couple, however the Roman punishment for patricide (being hurdled into the Tiber in a bag with a snake and dog, could also be construed as a form of human sacrifice). As mentioned above evidence for human sacrifice within the Celtic speaking world has been recovered in the form of bog bodies from Britain and Ireland, however there is also evidence for human sacrifice in the form of skeletal remains from several Gallic sites. At Entremont a stone porch/doorway was recovered into which several cavities had been carved, containing skulls. A stone statue from the same site was also recovered, one reconstruction has hypothesised that the originally the satue was positioned holding a row of seven heads at its feet (see the Arevaci preview for an image of the stone heads). At the Belgic site of Ribemonet-sur-Ancre we have strong evidence for the display of human remains. At Ribemont-sur-Ancre the an enclosure was excavated with several hundred human bones forming the a border to the enclosure. Although less concrete evidence for human sacrifice compared to the sites above, in Britain were regularly find human bones in storage pits, often associated with animal bones, ceramics, tools and quern stones. Initially it was believed that these body parts were either the result of accidents (people falling into pits) or simply rubbish deposits. However, the careful arrangement of many of these pits shows that they were deliberate constructions and could not have resulted from mere accidents. It is more likely that the human remains from these pits are the result of standard burial practices but again it shows that human bones were likely considered to have inherent powers. There is also ceramic evidence from central southern Gaul which shows horsemen which human heads attached to the bridles of their mounts; although it is likely that these heads belonged to defeated foes, it shows that human body parts were potent objects. A final point to make is that when Roman amphorae began to be imported in quantity to Gaul they appear to have been used as a substitute to human victims. Dressel 1A and 1B amphorae are very anthropomorphic compared to late Iron Age ceramic types, and at sites such as Fontenay-le-Compte there is evidence that amphorae were "sacrificed"; their heads being chopped off with a sword so as to cause the wine within to flow out like blood.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

I might be a bit of a dullard but... isn't it possible that bog bodies were victims of...criminal violence? Dragged off in a raid, or just way-laid going about their business by criminal bands? Murdered sadistically for kicks and then unceremoniously dumped in the bog. That's what 'overkill' says to me. Torture victims generally have multiple pre-morterm wounds after all.

[Rex Somnorum]

I might be a bit of a dullard but... isn't it possible that bog bodies were victims of...criminal violence? Dragged off in a raid, or just way-laid going about their business by criminal bands? Murdered sadistically for kicks and then unceremoniously dumped in the bog. That's what 'overkill' says to me. Torture victims generally have multiple pre-morterm wounds after all.

Could that account for all the bog bodies, though? And shouldn't there be more signs of a struggle on the victims' bodies?

On another note, I find it strange that so little is known about early Ireland despite the vast swathes of peat. Perhaps the sparse archaeological record stems from a small populace. Are there any reliable data or estimates for the population of Iron Age Ireland? We should at least be able to infer a cap on population from the subsistence methods and available land.

[Ailfertes]

On another note, I find it strange that so little is known about early Ireland despite the vast swathes of peat. Perhaps the sparse archaeological record stems from a small populace. Are there any reliable data or estimates for the population of Iron Age Ireland? We should at least be able to infer a cap on population from the subsistence methods and available land.

Well the bodies that they do find are just lucky finds, don't forget that today they harvest peat mechanically and most of the time the body (or anything else) wouldn't be noticed. And there is quite some archaeological data, from the obvious spear points to wicker baskets.
Population estimates are very hard anyhow, if you are somewhat familiar with the diverse theories about the reasonably well-known Republican Roman Italy (well, mostly high and low count for the later Republic) you will notice that population counts are not that easy. Mostly they are based on comparative studies, or mere guesswork.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Could that account for all the bog bodies, though? And shouldn't there be more signs of a struggle on the victims' bodies?

On another note, I find it strange that so little is known about early Ireland despite the vast swathes of peat. Perhaps the sparse archaeological record stems from a small populace. Are there any reliable data or estimates for the population of Iron Age Ireland? We should at least be able to infer a cap on population from the subsistence methods and available land.

By the same token..why spend the time, as a community, protecting someone with, for example, deformities - which would be very time consuming and then kill them? Presumably if it is believed that the killing is religious the dumping would be on the edge of a bog; as you say the bog would be a danger to those doing the dumping.

Perhaps the killers were from a near, or even from the same community, who despised/resented the individuals - so disposing of the body would make sense (unless we are to believe that there was no system of justice within these communities - which is hardly consistent with a community that we would believe to be capable of organised communal religious acts). Knowledge of such areas (bogs etc) would be an advantage to raiding 'brigands'.

It just seems odd that the idea of criminal, sadistic torture never seems to be addressed as a possibility. Its not as if such is unknown in human history.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Sorry, just a little addendum to the above. Its not that I necessarily dismiss the idea of ritual sacrifice but, as far as I'm aware in the majority of cases the find of a body is isolated: In other words there is no other evidence for the area of their disposal being ritually important (if my understanding of this is in error then please correct me). When ritually sacrificed items are discovered the ritual nature of the deposits is usually emphasised by there being multiple finds within a given area.

The question that raises is, for me; why would an area of a bog become ritually important when hitherto it had not been?

[Arjos]

I might be a bit of a dullard but... isn't it possible that bog bodies were victims of...criminal violence? Dragged off in a raid, or just way-laid going about their business by criminal bands? Murdered sadistically for kicks and then unceremoniously dumped in the bog. That's what 'overkill' says to me. Torture victims generally have multiple pre-morterm wounds after all.

Seems, to me at least, a lot of work/trouble killing for "kicks" and dragging a corpse all the way to a bog to dump it...
In the first place they would've killed, I'd guess, due to an altercation in a failed attempt to rob the person. If they had premeditated all that you've described, it would be a very peculiar reasoning on their part (random violence, followed by a methodic disposal)...
Also they'd be running the danger of getting stuck in the bog themselves (time consuming dragging such weights and just imagine if it got dark in the mean time), plus why dropping it in a bog? It's not like there were forensics or a complex law enforcing reprisal coming their way...

[Glaive]

Clonycavan man had his nipples slit prior to death for some reason.

He had either attempted to become king and failed or was king and displeased his subjects greatly. A man could not become king of Ireland sans nipples.

This article is about Cashel Man (also from Ireland, circa 2000BC) but he is believed to have been a king found unsatisfactory by his people so it goes details relevant to Clonycavan Man's nipples.

Damn, can't post links yet. Search for Cashel Man on the BBC website and you should get the article from which I have taken the below quote.

"When an Irish king is inaugurated, he is inaugurated in a wedding to the goddess of the land.

"It is his role to ensure through his marriage to the goddess that the cattle will be protected from plague and the people will be protected from disease.


"If these calamities should occur, the king will be held personally responsible. He will be replaced, he will pay the price, he will be sacrificed."


Nipple evidence

Eamonn says that Cashel Man fits this pattern because his body was found on a border line between territories and within sight of the hill where he would have been crowned. He suffered significant violent injuries to his back, and his arm shows evidence of a cut from a sword or axe.


However, a critical piece of information that would cement this argument is missing.


Because Cashel Man's chest was destroyed by the milling machine that uncovered him, the researchers are unable to examine the state of his nipples.


In the other two bog body cases, says Eamonn Kelly, the nipples had been deliberately damaged.


"We're looking at the bodies of kings who have been decommissioned, who have been sacrificed. As part of that decommissioning, their nipples are mutilated.


"In the Irish tradition they could no longer serve as king if their bodies were mutilated in this way. This is a decommissioning of the king in this life and the next."

[Brennus]

I might be a bit of a dullard but... isn't it possible that bog bodies were victims of...criminal violence? Dragged off in a raid, or just way-laid going about their business by criminal bands? Murdered sadistically for kicks and then unceremoniously dumped in the bog. That's what 'overkill' says to me. Torture victims generally have multiple pre-morterm wounds after all.

Criminal activities could account for some of the bog bodies, but my money is firmly on ritual. Even today with our pastimes like rambling and hiking, as well as modern technology to help us navigate and light our way, bogs are still places to be careful. In the Iron Age a bog was a place you were likely to have avoided unless you really needed to cross it (for example the Corlea Trackway in Ireland). Criminals looking to waylay someone would have had much better luck hanging around other parts of the landscape. The way in which they were killed is also more indicative of ritual than murder; several bog bodies recovered show rather elaborate methods were used. Rather than simply chucking the body in the bog several bodies were pinned into the bog using branches and rocks, whilst a Scandinavian teenager was found to have been stripped, bound from his feet to his neck and then killed. As Arjos pointed out there would have been little need to deposit the body in such a way in an age devoid of forensics, and of course the danger of falling in yourself.

On another note, I find it strange that so little is known about early Ireland despite the vast swathes of peat. Perhaps the sparse archaeological record stems from a small populace. Are there any reliable data or estimates for the population of Iron Age Ireland? We should at least be able to infer a cap on population from the subsistence methods and available land.

If you think Iron Age Ireland is strange you should look up the Vedic culture of the Indian subcontinent. Vedic texts have been recovered in great quantity and today form an important part of Hinduism. At a minimum the Vedic culture lasted 600 years (1,550 years maximum). How much archaeological material do we have for these people? About a suitcase full.

As Ailfertes pointed out, determining the population of literate societies in this period is difficult, let alone illiterate ones.

By the same token..why spend the time, as a community, protecting someone with, for example, deformities - which would be very time consuming and then kill them? Presumably if it is believed that the killing is religious the dumping would be on the edge of a bog; as you say the bog would be a danger to those doing the dumping.

Perhaps the killers were from a near, or even from the same community, who despised/resented the individuals - so disposing of the body would make sense (unless we are to believe that there was no system of justice within these communities - which is hardly consistent with a community that we would believe to be capable of organised communal religious acts). Knowledge of such areas (bogs etc) would be an advantage to raiding 'brigands'.

It just seems odd that the idea of criminal, sadistic torture never seems to be addressed as a possibility. Its not as if such is unknown in human history.

Early Welsh law texts, which date to shortly after the end of Roman Rule in Britain, show that laws were in place at this time to care for disabled individuals. Fossils recovered from India from Homo ergaster show that, even in this earlier hominin which did not have the "security net" of agricultural stores, care for given to disabled inviduals; the same is true of Homo sapien neanderhalensis. Deformities were not necessarily viewed as bad things, it may have been that they were viewed as being special or holy in some way; the Romans for example favoured dwarfs whilst the Hun deliberately deformed the skulls of their daughters, believing that an elongated skull was more attractive.

Sorry, just a little addendum to the above. Its not that I necessarily dismiss the idea of ritual sacrifice but, as far as I'm aware in the majority of cases the find of a body is isolated: In other words there is no other evidence for the area of their disposal being ritually important (if my understanding of this is in error then please correct me). When ritually sacrificed items are discovered the ritual nature of the deposits is usually emphasised by there being multiple finds within a given area.

The question that raises is, for me; why would an area of a bog become ritually important when hitherto it had not been?

Don't forget that bogs are very large, and very deep areas. Plenty of artefacts have been recovered from bogs (swords, shields, horse equipment, food stores, baskets, barrels), its just that it is rare to find bog bodies recovered with much more than a few fragments of fabric, usually no more than a hat. Depositing items in soil or watery contexts occurred from the Neolithic onwards (and we still do it with coins). Bogs presented a sort of ultimate place to deposit items; not quite water, not quite earth but sort of midway.

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Criminal activities could account for some of the bog bodies, but my money is firmly on ritual. Even today with our pastimes like rambling and hiking, as well as modern technology to help us navigate and light our way, bogs are still places to be careful. In the Iron Age a bog was a place you were likely to have avoided unless you really needed to cross it (for example the Corlea Trackway in Ireland). Criminals looking to waylay someone would have had much better luck hanging around other parts of the landscape. The way in which they were killed is also more indicative of ritual than murder; several bog bodies recovered show rather elaborate methods were used. Rather than simply chucking the body in the bog several bodies were pinned into the bog using branches and rocks, whilst a Scandinavian teenager was found to have been stripped, bound from his feet to his neck and then killed. As Arjos pointed out there would have been little need to deposit the body in such a way in an age devoid of forensics, and of course the danger of falling in yourself.

I wasn't suggesting that the criminals were hanging around in the bog waiting for people but rather that, if you wanted to act away from prying eyes one would go where those prying eyes would not.

Early Welsh law texts, which date to shortly after the end of Roman Rule in Britain, show that laws were in place at this time to care for disabled individuals. Fossils recovered from India from Homo ergaster show that, even in this earlier hominin which did not have the "security net" of agricultural stores, care for given to disabled inviduals; the same is true of Homo sapien neanderhalensis. Deformities were not necessarily viewed as bad things, it may have been that they were viewed as being special or holy in some way; the Romans for example favoured dwarfs whilst the Hun deliberately deformed the skulls of their daughters, believing that an elongated skull was more attractive.

I wasn't surprised that a society would look after its disabled, I am aware of the literature and archaeological finds that attest to that. What I find surprising is the idea that someone who had been such an 'expense' to a community should then be sacrificed.

My aim is not to claim that these finds are explicitly not sacrifices. It is more to try and understand why they are considered almost certainly to have been. As I say it is not as if torture for the sake of torture is unknown within humanity and...what constitues the differentiation between sacrifice and execution? Hanging, drawing and quartering is a thriceway killing but I don't think it is suggested as having been a sacrifice.

[antisocialmunky]

I wasn't surprised that a society would look after its disabled, I am aware of the literature and archaeological finds that attest to that. What I find surprising is the idea that someone who had been such an 'expense' to a community should then be sacrificed.

Is it unreasonable to give the thing you spend so much expense on to your god(s)?