"Besides, there’s also the odd business of bog butter."
April 28, 2017 1:38 PM   Subscribe

 
We're on a roll here I see.
posted by infini at 1:39 PM on April 28, 2017 [8 favorites]


It's a bog standard Friday, then.
posted by GenjiandProust at 1:55 PM on April 28, 2017 [4 favorites]


We're on a roll here I see.

The Whelk needs to swing by with a Captain America post.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:57 PM on April 28, 2017 [3 favorites]


I choose to see these prehistoric cold cases as a favorable portent for our current political situation.

In a way, we've always known where the bodies were buried. Now it's time to figure out who put them there and how they did it. And once we've done that, we put those antediluvian bastards away for good.
posted by Strange Interlude at 2:00 PM on April 28, 2017 [5 favorites]


Bog butter, huh? Given the subject matter I assumed it'd be adipocere (corpse wax). In fact, it's actually in the 'see also' link at the bottom of the bog butter wikipedia page!

I'd say it's worth a post, but I can think of at least one other mefite who'd probably do a better job of it.
posted by leotrotsky at 2:00 PM on April 28, 2017 [2 favorites]


I see you didn't see what I did there with the roll.
posted by infini at 2:06 PM on April 28, 2017 [1 favorite]


Come for the weird mummies, stay for the weird mummies.
posted by terretu at 2:14 PM on April 28, 2017 [2 favorites]


I see you didn't see what I did there with the roll.

For peat's sake.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 2:28 PM on April 28, 2017 [6 favorites]


Excellent, well-written article. My parents had a copy of P.V. Glob's The Bog People (I guess it was the A Brief History of Time of 1965) on the bookshelf which became one of my favourites, so fascinated by Tollund Man and his leathery kin.
posted by Flashman at 2:34 PM on April 28, 2017


Both Tollund Man and Iceman were my favourite genre of NatGeo tales. Actually very happy to see this here mandolin conspiracy, thank you.
posted by infini at 2:42 PM on April 28, 2017 [2 favorites]


Hm...interesting. From one of the citations on the bog butter Wikipedia page:

Fisher's experiments to test the viability of underwater meat preservation began in 1989 in the U-M's E.S. George Reserve near Hell, Mich. From autumn to mid-winter, Fisher anchored legs of lamb and venison on the bottom of a shallow, open-water pond and buried other meat sections in a nearby peat bog. Caches were left in place for up to two years and checked periodically for decomposition.

"The meat remained essentially fresh for most of the first winter," Fisher said. "By spring, progressive discoloration had developed on the outside, but interior tissue looked and smelled reasonably fresh."

The combination of cold water temperature and increased acidity in the meat produced by pond bacteria called lactobacilli, which can survive without oxygen, made the meat unpalatable to other bacteria that normally decompose dead tissue, according to Fisher. Laboratory analyses of meat retrieved from the pond and bog in April 1992 showed no significant pathogens and bacterial counts were comparable to levels found in control samples Fisher stored in his home freezer.

posted by mandolin conspiracy at 2:42 PM on April 28, 2017 [12 favorites]


Wait til Heston Blumenthal finds out about that.
posted by Flashman at 2:47 PM on April 28, 2017 [6 favorites]


I have a piece of preserved bog wood from my second cousin in County Galway, Ireland. There is plenty of wood in the peat bog, but he's never found a body. His family owns a piece of bog, and a truck comes by and cuts it into bricks, which the family harvests to burn in the peat stove as people in that area have done for centuries. Bringing it in and storing it is hard work. It is a stored in a stone shed that is actually the house my grandfather was born in. My cousins have all the modern conveniences including an electric stove, heat, internet etc, but they still like the peat stove.

I've always been intrigued by the bog bodies.
posted by mermayd at 2:51 PM on April 28, 2017 [6 favorites]


I love the smell of peat fires in the morning. One of my favorite memories of my trip to Ireland (County Galway, no less!) last year.
posted by Doleful Creature at 3:26 PM on April 28, 2017 [1 favorite]


We call it turf, and there's nothing like the smell of a turf fire.

From autumn to mid-winter, Fisher anchored legs of lamb and venison on the bottom of a shallow, open-water pond and buried other meat sections in a nearby peat bog. Caches were left in place for up to two years and checked periodically for decomposition.

"The meat remained essentially fresh for most of the first winter," Fisher said. "By spring, progressive discoloration had developed on the outside, but interior tissue looked and smelled reasonably fresh."


From beyond the grave our ancestors read countless AskMe versions of "Can I eat this?" and laugh and laugh and laugh.
posted by billiebee at 3:46 PM on April 28, 2017 [29 favorites]


This whole time I've thought adipocere's user name was some pun based on "poser" and them being overweight.
posted by XMLicious at 4:55 PM on April 28, 2017 [3 favorites]


Ah yes, billiebee, I was initially confused when the locals* kept referring to turf and it took a moment for me to realize that turf and peat were just different words for the same thing.

*I spent about two weeks working at a small office in Athenry
posted by Doleful Creature at 5:13 PM on April 28, 2017 [2 favorites]


Yes, turf and peat are the same thing. My relatives live in Kiltullagh, a tiny village, but part of their mailing address is Athenry. Kiltullagh consists of a school, a church. a graveyard, a 360 year old pub, and a petrol station that also sells some food. All the essentials of life, and of course surrounding farms.
posted by mermayd at 5:18 PM on April 28, 2017 [3 favorites]


super fascinating. Thank you! I'm looking for a copy of The Bog People by PV Glob now!
posted by bluesky43 at 6:15 PM on April 28, 2017


Kelly’s theory was a significant break from bog body orthodoxy. As he explains it, St. Patrick tells us that sucking the king’s nipples was a rite of fealty. So lacerated nipples, no crown, either here or in the hereafter.

I have seen a number of references to this theory over the years. Eamonn Kelly's An Archaeological Interpretation of Irish Iron Age Bog Bodies (link to PDF on academia.edu) explains his idea in a bit more detail, but I'd like to know what kind of opposing arguments/criticisms there are out there regarding this.

If Kelly's theory is correct (the no nipples, no crown, either here or in the hereafter part), what I think is fascinating about this is how its tied into the 'right to leadership/power,' and how that fits into their social structure.

It's one thing to affirm one's rule by brute strength (both personal and collective), divine right, family line, or the possession/control of an item, resource, or place, but it's interesting that in this case, they ended up choosing something so vulnerable, external, and well, ritually accessible.

Consider that the rulers and heirs must not only protect their nipples from damage in combat or by surprise attack throughout their entire lives, but for those in power, they must expose that most vulnerable part repeatedly throughout their reign during these rites of fealty. Some of these people (a defeated enemy or rival, perhaps) might not be so keen on going through the ritual in the proscribed manner, have a considerable grudge, and may consider exchanging their lives (and perhaps others) for the chance to remove at least one of the king's nipples with their teeth. Grisly to consider, but it would seem to be a practical concern. It would be logical to assume that such a risk would probably be addressed by severe repercussions on the 'biter,' their kin, and in the afterlife, but still, the risk would always be there.
posted by chambers at 6:35 PM on April 28, 2017 [4 favorites]


Bog Girl

“There is so much more to you than what they see,” he reassured her in a whisper. “I am so sorry about what happened to you. I am going to keep you safe now.”
posted by sandettie light vessel automatic at 7:30 PM on April 28, 2017 [3 favorites]


We simply don't know what religious beliefs and social structures the peoples who placed the bodies in the bogs had because they did not leave written records.
Everything was memorized, poetry, recipes, law. Literally the only people who wrote anything about the peoples of these parts of ancient Europe were their enemies, the Romans.
So just about everything related to these ancient peoples is speculation.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 7:32 PM on April 28, 2017 [3 favorites]


What are the ethics for display of human remains and/or grave goods? Archaeology, anthropology, museum studies? Age of burial? Continuity of culture?
posted by Princess Leopoldine Grassalkovich nee Esterhazy at 7:42 PM on April 28, 2017 [2 favorites]


Old Croghan Man
posted by Segundus at 7:56 PM on April 28, 2017 [2 favorites]


Princess Leopoldo e Grassalkovich nee Esterhazy: I took Archeology early in my University days and we never actually discussed this subject in class. It wasn't on any of my tests or quizzes so I put the question to Google.
NAGPRA covers this as far as Native American remains are concerned. That law was not in force back in my University days. Native Americans were about the only people who even cared much back then.
Now the page I pulled up shows a mess of articles which will likely take a few days to slog through. Different museums have policies though.
There are a lot of articles.
'Ethical considerations in the display of human remains and grave goods' is what I searched.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 8:28 PM on April 28, 2017 [1 favorite]


There's a huge difference between post colonial and European contexts for treatment of the dead and their collection and excavation and display. Much too much to get into at this point but suffice to say Europe is only now barely catching up to North America and Oceania in particular on this issue of general respect for the dead.

On topic, this blog post on public offerings for Lindow Man is interesting.
posted by Rumple at 11:14 PM on April 28, 2017 [5 favorites]


The way Alfred Dieck is presented is incomplete in a way that makes me wonder about other facts in the article. Here's the abstract of a recent study of Dieck's decades long research into bog bodies:
Alfred Dieck (* Großsalze/Schönebeck a.d. Elbe 1906, † Bremen 1989) is best known for his many studies of bog bodies of northwest Europe. The authors, who have studied bog bodies in Lower Saxony and the Netherlands as well as other bog finds, have gradually come to the conclusion that Dieck created an imaginary world, a world which he was able to maintain for many decades. Dieck's publications feature bog bodies that were never found and bog finds which he made up at his desk, including written or oral sources. The evidence of his deceit is partly of statistical nature, but there is also evidence that Dieck copied other sources. The »prehistoric« tattoos which he published in 1976 in the »Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt« were clearly inspired by recent Bosnian tattoos. The time has come to definitively and without reservations push aside his entire archaeological oeuvre.
posted by Kattullus at 12:25 AM on April 30, 2017 [5 favorites]


« Older Ibadan’s Tailors, Traders, and Textiles: A...   |   +23 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments