Blog of the Bog Bodies

My last post mentioned the discovery of 2,000 year old+ bog bodies in Ireland, which prompted a response from history scholar, "Robertus", who maintains a blog titled Transmutations.


bbc news
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Laura! You mentioned a BBC article about bog bodies, wherein Ned Kelly interpreted them as in having been ceremonially killed. 10 years ago in Thomas Cahill's historical bestseller, How the Irish Saved Civilization, he voiced similar opinion about bog discoveries (pages 138 - 142).

As a history student, I consider this interpretation to be stretching the evidence. On the other hand, Kelly's remark indicates that he and perhaps others in the archaeological field consider it to be logical (if not likely) that people were murdered as part of ritual sacrifices in bogs.

Since archaeology is your field while I focus on history, I pose two questions for you. First, do you know of other forensic archaeologists or paleontologists who support this theory? If so, who? Second, my understanding is that the areas where bodies have been found in recent years, particularly in northern Europe, were not bogs at the time. It is only coincidence that the corpses were preserved because of environmental changes. But Cahill's comments indicate otherwise. My second question, then, is what do you think was the original terrain where bog bodies have been discovered? -- Robertus Minimus
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, thanks for your comment and your questions. I carefully re-read the BBC article, and found something very interesting:

From his studies on these bog bodies and others, Ned Kelly, keeper of Irish antiquities at the National Museum of Ireland, has developed a new theory which explains why so many remains are buried on important political or royal boundaries.

"My belief is that these burials are offerings to the gods of fertility by kings to ensure a successful reign," Mr Kelly told the BBC's Timewatch programme.

"Bodies are placed in the borders immediately surrounding royal land or on tribal boundaries to ensure a good yield of corn and milk throughout the reign of the king."

According to the article, Ned Kelly has a new theory based on what he thinks. I have not read How the Irish Saved Civilization, though I have debated purchasing it in the past (I have now requested it from OSU libraries). I would venture to guess though that theories of ritual killing are quite commonplace when you have physical evidence of dismemberment and other "cruel and unusual" trauma's. In today's culture, we can only imagine such torture to be for some other reason than murder, i.e. some kind of influential force or purpose.

Theories and interpretations are fun. Everyone is entitled to their own-- I certainly have my own interpretations and way of looking at the how the Hopewell Culture lived and died and conducted ceremonies: it's part of my job as an interpretive Park Ranger. Which brings me to the subject of Archaeological Theory. I'm actually taking this graduate class this quarter, taught by Dr. William Dancey. We are currently reading Archaeogical Theory: An Introduction, by Matthew Johnson. I have only read through the Preface and Chapter One so far, but I immediately thought of the book when I saw the words "developed a new theory" concerning the bog bodies.

From what I can tell, theory is a tricky and icky word for most people. OSU Anthro grad student Lynette Willsey, thinks otherwise, so hopefully she'll post a comment to share her viewpoints. I believe that the whole process of theory provides wonderful mind exercises. Take this blog entry for instance, would I be sitting here typing if there wasn't a debatable issue over what happened to the bog bodies during their time of death?

Johnson states it very clearly on page 7 of his book: "What makes us archaeologists as opposed to mindless collectors of old junk is the set of rules we use to translate facts into meaningful accounts of the past, accounts that 'make sense' to us as archaeologists and (it is hoped) to our general audience. And those rules, whether they are implicit or explicit, are theoretical in nature. Facts are important, but without theory they remain utterly silent."

So, to answer your first question, I don't specifically know of any archaeologist-types who support the ritual killing theory, that doesn't mean they aren't out there, or that others with their own theories about what happened, exist. But as we can see from the Johnson statement, theory is an important tool for understanding and translating the past and the fact that we are having an open dialogue about the subject is proof that theory is doing exactly what it should be doing.

I stumbled across this prime example of fact from Archaeology magazine concerning the bog bodies. Without Ned Kelly's theory or other theories of WHY these people were killed, this string of facts really has no meaning.

Alright, so I proved my little point there, but is Ned Kelly right about the bog bodies? If not, what is the correct interpretation?

Here are a few other interpretations from Archaeology magazine: "No one knows how these people ended up in the bogs, but it seems that the bodies are not the remains of unlucky people who fell in after losing their way. According to classical authors, the Roman Iron Age people of northern Europe offered human sacrifices to celebrate military victories, and to recover from illness, and executed people as punishment for crimes or perceived social imperfections such as homosexuality. Many of those found in the bogs died violent deaths."

I encourage you to do more exploring on your own, and make up your own mind!

To answer your second question simply, yes there would have been bogs, as developed during the Quaternary from the relatively frequent sea level and climate shifts during the most recent Ice Ages. Here are a couple resources for you:
http://www.habitas.org.uk/escr/geologyni.htm

http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/english/micsun/IrishResources/geology.htm
The climate which they (humans) found upon their arrival was warmer and wetter than was the case on the further inland, away from what was then the Anglo-Irish peninsula. The warming which began about 10,000 years ago, was accompanied by high rainfall and high humidity. The effects of these factors were accentuated by the topography of the island. Because Ireland is bowl shaped, that is, ringed with mountains on its perimeter and with a large, low-lying interior plain, much of the drainage, as today, instead of flowing more-or-less directly into the sea, flowed into the interior where, according to Mitchell (Holland 263), "great areas of the more low-lying parts of the Midlands were covered by shallow lakes."

The high humidity kept much of this water, constantly augmented by the abundant rainfall, from evaporating. As the run-off from higher ground filled these lakes with mud, reeds and other water plants extended over their surfaces, and as they died they formed the first layer (fen-peat) of the bogs which are so extensive in the Midlands. On top of this quaking and saturated vegetable mattress, sphagnum moss found growing conditions ideal, while other forms of vegetation, grasses and trees, found them exceedingly uncongenial. The sphagnum moss, not dependent on the soil for its nutrients, piled itself ever higher above the surrounding ground level, forming raised-bogs, which dammed up natural channels for the flow of water. This, in turn, caused saturation of surrounding land and the formation of yet more bogs. As a consequence, the extensive forestation which had taken place in early post-glacial Ireland was partly reversed as the growth of the bogs pushed the forests back from their margins_or submerged them as countless examples of bog-preserved trees demonstrate...

...Another phenomenon also occurred which apparently had natural causes but was probably accelerated by the clearing of the forests. This was the development of blanket-bog on highlands and hillsides, principally in the wetter northern and western parts of the island. In these areas of the island where rainfall was high and the evaporation rate was low, even soil on high and sloping ground became permanently saturated. As nutrients leached away from the surface of the soil, spores of sphagnum moss once again found a congenial resting place, and the process of bog formation started. The clearing of these forests by farmers may well have accelerated the process in some places (Tree stumps have been found in the normal soil under some blanket bogs but not under others).

And: General Bog Formation Info

Ah, blogging of bogs is just so much fun! Alas, time to get back to work.