Talk:Lindow Man/Archive 1

Archive 1

conjecture

Too much conjecture here. Lindow man could just as likely been executed for committing some crime, instead of being a sacrifice. I've read the official book on Lindow man, and they drew no solid conclusions on why he was killed. (Anonymous)

Not commenting on the above statement, more on the article itself. The opening sentence states that Lindow Man was discovered in 1893. I thought it was 1984.

1983, more in 84 and further bits in 1988, according to the linked article. I've cleaned up the "re-dating" and enthusiastic assertions that have crept into the article. Another other external links? --Wetman 00:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ronald Hutton's analysis

Just in case it ever comes up here, Hutton's analysis in the Times Literary Supplement (claiming that the Lindow man is no longer evidence for ritual human sacrifice) has been countered by Dr. JD Hill, the curator for the British Museum's British and European Iron Age dept. Hutton's original article; Dr. Hill's refutation. Fuzzypeg☻ 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC) A close visual examination provided obvious clues that Lindow Man had been murdered. Head and neck. First, he had been hit twice on the crown of his head with a blunt object, probably an ax; he had also been struck once at the base of his skull. Second, he had been strangled. Around Lindow Man's neck was a small rope that had been twisted tightly, closing off his windpipe and breaking two of his neck vertebrae. Finally, scientists found a gash at the throat, which may indicate that his throat was cut, though some scientists think that the wound occurred naturally after his death. If indeed his throat was cut, it was probably done to drain his body of blood. Hair. Scientists discovered some interesting details by looking at Lindow Man's hair and beard. They were surprised that he had a beard, since no other male bog body had been found with a beard; this was clearly not common at the time he lived. Scientists also learned that someone had trimmed Lindow Man's hair with scissors two or three days before his death. Historians and archaeologists knew that, although scissors existed in England at the time, they would have been uncommon, most likely reserved for a privileged few. Was the murdered man, they wondered, a dignitary? Fingernails. Scientists found that his fingernails appeared well-manicured and cared for. They wondered if this showed that he was an important member of society, who was exempt from manual labor. But as Don Brothwell, who studied Lindow Man, explained, no one really knows what the manicured fingernails of a bog person would look like, since no one has ever compared the fingernails of mummies. Clothing. Unfortunately, Lindow Man was naked, except for an arm band made of fox fur and the thin rope around his neck. Without clothes, he could have been a king or a laborer. As author Brothwell put it: Why did he have a well-developed, but roughly trimmed, beard - unique among bog bodies - and well-kept nails? Was he an aristocrat fallen on hard times, or a high-born prisoner sacrificed to the gods?

Vandalism

This page is under constant attack by furtive vandals fooling with statistics. It urgently needs closer adult supervision. --Wetman (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory info

Why does this page contain contradictory info? One section describes the Lindow woman and has a different date. The next section contains the same names for the men who discovered the body, but a different date and a different story. What is this? 74.137.144.206 (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Amanda

I'm in the middle of updating the article, the sourced material is correct. It will take some time to get up to standard, but I'll make sure that removing contradictory information is a top priority. Check back in a couple of days and it should be ok. Nev1 (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The contradictory date has now been removed. I'm happy to say that the mistake wasn't my fault, but resulted from someone confusing the dates of discovery between Lindow Man and Lindow Woman. Lindow Woman was discovered on 13 May 1983, Lindow Man on 1 August 1984. I hope that clears everything up. Nev1 (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hutton's analysis (see above)

Hutton and Hill certainly should be mentioned, also Connolly. There's a new book [1] which looks useful. Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good find, let's hope it's easy to get hold of. I noticed you removed John Grigsby's claim that Lindow Man may have been a ritual king, citing his work as fringe. Could you explain what makes it a fringe theory/unreliable? Nev1 (talk · contribs)

His books are published by fringe publishers. They aren't cited by academics so far as I can tell from Google Scholar/Books, and he has co-written stuff with Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval (The Mars Mystery and a contribution I think to Heaven's Mirror. He isn't a reliable source by our standards, and if we can't find a real academic as a source, I think it shouldn't be in here. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Should the article include coordinates?

Back in December 2008, The Anomebot2 added coordinates apparently reflecting the general location of where Lindow Man was found. Yesterday, Nev1 removed those coordinates saying they were "unnecessary." I reverted the change thinking Nev1 must have thought, in good faith, that the coordinates were wrong or duplicated elsewhere in the article. Nev1's edit histories show that Nev1 often makes dozens of small edits at the same outing and maybe, I thought, this one just got away from Nev1. Based on the somewhat terse reason given by Nev1 in the edit history, it seems Nev1 thinks coordinates are inappropriate because Lindow Man was a person. I don't feel too strongly either way, but slightly prefer that the article include the coordinates. Lindow Man was, afterall, found in a particular location; a location with which the body continues to be associated. Anyone else have thougths either way? Linkfix2001 (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the coordinates for where the body was found? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume the coordinates that Nev1 removed were accurate enough, at least for the general area, but I don't know. I think Nev1's objection was more theoretical than about the accuracy of the old coordinates. Linkfix2001 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Co-ordinates for where Lindow Man was found would be useful in the body of the article, where it can be explained that they refer to where he was found, but when they're shoved at the top of the article it could mean anything. Moreover, when writing the article I don't recall finding any co-ordinates, so I've no idea where Anomebot got them from, although I assume they're the co-ordinates of Lindow Common, which isn't particularly helpful. Nev1 (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I put the coordinates with the "inline" command in the text, also with a more clear source in the hidden markup. I wasn't sure whether this was more useful in the intro paragraph or in the Lindow Moss section or maybe someplace else entirely. I thought it might be a bit distracting in the intro, so I opted for the Lindow Moss section, but I've no strong attachment to placing it there. These types of coordinates for archaeological sites or items recovered from archaological sites might be most useful in an info box labeled as "Site Location" or "Location of find" or "Location discovered" or the like. I haven't come across such an archaeological site info box, though. I'm thinking something like the UNESCO World Heritage Site infobox (for example, on the Petra article). Linkfix2001 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review by British Museum curator

Hi all,

At Nev1's suggestion, I asked the curator responsible for Lindow Man at the British Museum (Jody Joy) to have a look at this article. What follows is his peer review. Hope that helps, Witty Lama 12:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

‘Lindow woman’

The section on Reyn-Bardt is not quite right. He was confronted with the discovery of the woman’s head in Lindow Moss by the police who had already had him under suspicion of the murder of his wife (when he had been in prison for a different crime he had boasted to his cellmates that he had killed his wife).

‘Discovery’

Lindow 1 refers to a single skull – the skull of Lindow woman mentioned earlier.

Lindow III is the headless body of a man

‘Remains and interpretation’

In life his hair was brown – chemicals in the bog caused it to appear more ginger

Best date of Lindow Man is currently 2 BC – AD 129

Debate continues about his injuries, visible signs of injury are listed below. Some of these contributed to Lindow Man’s death, others occurred long after death and some are still a cause of discussion:

Lindow Man suffered the following injuries:

1. Laceration on top of head
2. Possible laceration of scalp towards back of head
3. Visible ligature marks on front and side of the neck in the area that an animal sinew or necklace was discovered
4. Possible wound on the right side of the front of the neck
5. Possible stab wound on the upper right chest
6. Neck fracture
7. Rib fracture

Some of these injuries could have occurred after death, due to processes of decomposition or during recovery and the subsequent scientific investigation.

1. V-shaped wound produced by a blunt instrument, would have caused unconsciousness and eventually death but was not the cause of Lindow Man’s death
2. Could not be confirmed due to poor preservation but could have been caused by a blow to the back of the head by a blunt weapon
3. Ligature marks caused by tightening of the sinew found at his neck. The sinew could have been used as a garrotte causing the ligature marks. Alternatively the sinew has been interpreted as a necklace or it could have been used as a tether. In both cases ligature marks could have been caused by the sinew as the body bloated when it was submerged in a pool in the bog.
4. Incision from a sharp instrument like a knife
5. Could be a stab wound or as the result of decomposition
6. Fatal injury – could have been caused by the sinew being used as a garrotte or by the possible blows to the back of his head
7. Probably post mortem – either at the time of discovery or more probably during scientific investigation of the body

I agree with the last sentence quoting Brothwell.

The last paragraph of this section is nonsense. Fine to quote Anne Ross but also need to present the other side of the evidence. The so-called triple death is not necessarily substantiated by the actual evidence presented above as it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The stab wound for instance could have occurred at the time of death but equally it could have happened during the scientific investigation. We don’t know if the animal sinew was a garrotte, necklace or tether. We know that Lindow Man’s death was violent and probably highly ritualised. He was hit on top of the head which rendered him unconscious but was not fatal. The fatal injury was the neck fracture but we don’t know if this was caused by blows to the back of the head or from using the garrotte. He may have suffered additional injuries before he was placed face down in a pool in the bog. To say that Lindow Man was a druid is taking the evidence too far. He could have been an executed criminal, a prisoner of war or indeed some kind of sacrifice. All of these arguments can be presented based on current evidence but we cannot be certain about any of them.

The section on ‘similarly executed bog bodies’ from Europe is also incorrect. There are indeed bog bodies from other parts of Europe, particularly from Denmark, The Netherlands, northern Germany, Britain and Ireland. These date from around 500BC – AD 100 and many of them show signs of violent death. But we can’t say that they were all killed for the same reason. What we can say is that Lindow Man needs to be placed into this cultural context.

‘Conservation’

The display case carefully controls humidity as well as temperature.

‘Further Reading’

Joy, J. 2009. Lindow Man. London: British Museum Press. ISBN 978-0-7141-2817-7

Thanks, those suggestions will be helpful in developing the article. I've commented out the stuff regarding druids etc until I've decided how to deal with that side. While the The Time and New York Times are reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there are far better and more relevant ones available which should help determine whether to give the druid angle more than a sentence (although I expect not). Nev1 (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Lindow Man

I'm reading through this fascinating article but one thing has struck me thus far - I keep reading "Lindow Man", but the article hasn't yet told me why, or who, gave him that name. Its just assumed. Is it perhaps worth sticking to "the body", until "the body" is named? Parrot of Doom 21:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps tricky to do as he's mentioned in the background section, but changing early occurrences of Lindow Man in the discovery section might work. I could add something along the lines of "The body later became known as Lindow Man. just after the sentence explaining he was nicknamed Pete March by staff at Middlesex Hospital. That's only two occurrences. But I do like the certainty of using "Lindow Man"; if naming the body is deferred until half way through the discovery section there might be some confusion. There's already some concern about making the names of the bodies clear. Nev1 (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What if the first time Lindow Man is mentioned in the discovery section I change it to "...succeeded in finding the rest of the body which would later become known as Lindow Man"? Nev1 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was at the point where I read about Pete Marsh that I thought "hang on, why is he called Lindow Man?" The first sentence of the lead says "is the name given to the preserved", I think that needs a bit of clarification. Saying he's called Lindow Man is fine, but who named him thus? Parrot of Doom 22:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall any of the sources mentioning who first called him Lindow Man; a couple explained the who and why about Pete Marsh, but that was it. While it seems "Pete Marsh" is interesting and needs explaining, "Lindow Man" is just taken for granted. Anyway, I've clarified things on the first time in the discovery section. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. BTW there are 110 results for "Lindow Man" at www.jstor.org. I can download the full documents, are any of them any use? Parrot of Doom 22:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The most useful jstor article looks like the one by Connolly, but it's summarised by Joy so I don't think it's necessary. Joy's book gives a bibliography relating to Lindow Man and the two most important volumes are the 1986 one by Stead, Bourke & Brothwell and the 1995 book Bog Bodies: New Discoveries and New Perspectives. Joy brings things nicely up to date, summarising much of the research done into the subject since 1995. Nev1 (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mirror site?

See http://www.lindowmoss.org.uk/page12.htm which contains content almost identical to this page without attribution to Wiki. Lindowmoss.org was created with http://www.mrsite.com/; it shows nothing at archive.org, so was likely copied from us. Also, the domain info:

Domain name:
        lindowmoss.org.uk

    Registrant:
        Rob Sawyer

    Registrant type:
        UK Individual

    Registrant's address:
        PO Box 19184
        Thamesmead
        London
        SE28 0WQ
        United Kingdom

    Registrar:
        Mr Site Ltd [Tag = MRSITE]
        URL: http://www.mrsite.co.uk

    Relevant dates:
        Registered on: 12-Oct-2009
        Renewal date: 12-Oct-2011
        Last updated: 25-Sep-2010

The domain was registered on 12 October 2009, when we showed this version. If this is an improperly attributed mirror, it needs to be reported at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Jkl. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a fork rather than a mirror as it's taken the information and changed it slightly. For instance the mention of the campaign to keep Lindow Man in north-west England was only added during the 2010 revamp. I've not listed anything as a mirror or fork before so am not entirely sure how to go about it. Id the stuff below what I should add to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Jkl? Nev1 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at more pages on that site and comparing them to our late 2009 version, I'm convinced they likely copied us at one point. The Mirrors and forks page is somewhat random (at least to me); post there whatever is helpful, but you might want to go through the machinations of getting this guy to take his site down or attribute it correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nev1, I gave up on trying to track all the mirrors and forks of Tourette syndrome, but you've got a contact address here in case you're inclined to do something about it, but two problems: is Rob Sawyer mrsite.org or the author of lindowmoss.org.uk, and would you want to reveal your name in correspondence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The website's contact page has an email so I've sent a request to attribute Wikipedia in line with GDFL to that address. I signed that as Nev1 rather than my real name, so it's possible that may not get a response. Nev1 (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

See Lindow Moss; it was citing that article, which is circular and non-reliable; maybe you can clean up the cn tag I just added? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think the Saltersley Common Preservation Society is mentioned in the sources about Lindow Man, so I turned to Google. The best I could find was a bit published by wilmslow.co.uk. As it now stands, I'm not even sure if it's worth mentioning any more. Nev1 (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

lindowmoss.org.uk

Lindow Moss website

URL	http://www.lindowmoss.org.uk
Description
Sample	http://www.lindowmoss.org.uk/page12.htm
Rating
Compliance
Contact info	Rob Sawyer, PO Box 19184, Thamesmead, London. SE28 0WQ. United Kingdom.
Actions	Listing only, leaving details of review to more exprienced editor in subject at hand.

Recent changes

I have undone this edit and am explaining here because there isn't room in an edit summary.

The Chambers Dictionary definition of macabre is "adj 1 connected, or to do with, death in some way. 2 causing fear or anxiety; ghastly; gruesome". As it is used in "A year later a further macabre discovery was made at Lindow Moss" to refer to the discovery of a body part, macabre seems appropriate in the first sense.

The reason the British Iron Age is not mentioned in the lead is because it is not certain when Lindow Man died. He probably died sometime between 2 BC and 119 AD; while the early part of this period may fall within the British Iron Age, the later is Romano-British. As a result, mentioning the British Iron Age in the lead makes an assumption as to when Lindow Man died that is not appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "macabre" is still problematic and should be removed. It's just as bad and POV as "gruesome". :bloodofox: (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikipedia needs to stop worrying about stating the obvious. I doubt you'll find anyone who doesn't agree that the discovery of human body parts is anything but gruesome. Parrot of Doom 10:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the discovery of a human body is gruesome. And I bet I can find others who hold similar views.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

Many archaeologists currently working in Britain classify the period of Roman Britain as being Iron Age, but contrast it with the "pre-Roman Iron Age". Maybe we should state that the body was therefore deposited in either the pre-Roman Iron Age or the Romano-British period? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

A date range does the job just fine without delving into the murky waters of when the Iron Age ended in Britain. Nev1 (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's more specific certainly (and I believe an improvement), but I'd still argue that this introduction should link to British Iron Age and Roman Britain, so that readers can be directed to a page that would explain to them the greater context of the society in which Lindow Man lived and died; after all, many readers, if not well versed in archaeological terminology, may well not know that these dates fit into the Iron Age or Romano-British periods… I can just imagine one bewildered reader thinking "2 BC and 119 AD? What was that then, the Stone Age?" On a side note I'd like to congratulate you most heartily for helping get this page up to featured article status. Keep up the good work! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC))

Further additions

Hello there! Although this article is obviously very good (it must have been to have reached the lofty heights of FA status!), I was a little surprised to see several notable ommissions from the bibliography. For instance, academics like R.C. Connolly, Ronald Hutton and Mike Parker Pearson have all published papers discussing elements of Lindow Man, but none of them are currently referenced on this page. It is my intention to go through the article and make these additions over the coming days; feel free to help out with constructive criticism! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

paper on the display in Manchester

http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/umacj/2/sitch-bryan-51/XML/Sitch_xdiml.xml

Short version is that the approach taken was slightly controversial

©Geni (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Xiao Bao's evaluation

The article discussed about a discovery of a bod body found at Lindow Moss located in North West England and people called it Lindow man. The Lindow is one of the most prominent archeological findings in Europe in 1980s. According to the lecture (IAH209, McEwen), it talked about the issue of “history of surgery” and it helps people explore many aspects on medical field. Similarly to the class material, this dead body also promotes the human’s science’s developments. This article obeys the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. For example, this article keeps the neutral position to describe the finding and the future discovery of Lindow man. It generally introduced the issue of Lindow man and also list more future findings in details. The article wrote a clear lead section for helping the audiences to understand the history of the Lindow man. It uses headings to divided the topic of LIndow man into different parts to describe such as background and future discovery. It also uses subheadings to split each part for organize the different situations of each part. The article uses many resources to support its statements. Because the article uses many resources, they balance the paragraph’s description. The whole article uses the neutral ton to describe things happened in the past and in the future. It also has a heading called “interpretation”. Because probably many audiences do not have background about archeology, the article interprets clearly to those audiences. Also the article wrote about the conservation of the bod bodies and will help readers’ understanding. Although I thought it is a great article, there are still many doubts on the talk page. People critique there are some conjectures in the article and also there are some time mistake occur in the article. My suggestion of this article is to correct those time mistakes and find more resources to avoid conjectures. Florabaoxiao (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Xiao

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lindow Man. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715191441/http://www.rn-ds-partnership.com/Reconstruction/lindow.html to http://www.rn-ds-partnership.com/Reconstruction/lindow.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 07:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lindow Man. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623055326/http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_prb/l/lindow_man.aspx to https://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_prb/l/lindow_man.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107114808/http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/departments/staff/prehistory_and_europe/jody_joy.aspx to https://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/departments/staff/prehistory_and_europe/jody_joy.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514082439/http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/c/conserving_the_lindow_man.aspx to https://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/article_index/c/conserving_the_lindow_man.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 02:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)