Skip to comments.
"Frankenstein" Bog Mummies Discovered in Scotland
National Geographic ^
| 6-6-2012
| Rachel Kaufman
Posted on 07/08/2012 5:46:50 AM PDT by Renfield
In a "eureka" moment worthy of Dr. Frankenstein, scientists have discovered that two 3,000-year-old Scottish "bog bodies" are actually made from the remains of six people.
According to new isotopic dating and DNA experiments, the mummiesa male and a femalewere assembled from various body parts, although the purpose of the gruesome composites is likely lost to history.
The mummies were discovered more than a decade ago below the remnants of 11th-century houses at Cladh Hallan, a prehistoric village on the island of South Uist (map), off the coast of Scotland.
The bodies had been buried in the fetal position 300 to 600 years after death....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalgeographic.com ...
TOPICS: History; Science
KEYWORDS: ancientautopsies; archaeology; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; scotland; scotlandyet
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
A female Bronze Age mummy from Cladh Hallan is a composite of different skeletons.
1
posted on
07/08/2012 5:46:59 AM PDT
by
Renfield
To: SunkenCiv
2
posted on
07/08/2012 5:47:43 AM PDT
by
Renfield
(Turning apples into venison since 1999!)
To: Renfield
One “Bones” episode coming up.
I used to like that show until it jumped the shark by letting her and Booth do it...
3
posted on
07/08/2012 5:48:54 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(Guns Walked -- People Died -- Holder Lied -- Obama Golfed (thanks, Secret Agent Man))
To: Renfield
how is it a MUMMY if it's just bones???
4
posted on
07/08/2012 5:53:07 AM PDT
by
Chode
(American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
To: Renfield
They owned a small business and were regulated to death.
5
posted on
07/08/2012 6:15:53 AM PDT
by
lurk
To: Renfield; SunkenCiv
In a "eureka" moment worthy of Dr. Frankenstein, scientists have discovered that two 3,000-year-old Scottish "bog bodies" are actually made from the remains of six people.
According to new isotopic dating and DNA experiments, the mummiesa male and a femalewere assembled from various body parts, although the purpose of the gruesome composites is likely lost to history. More like Frank N. Furter.
To: Renfield
"Parts is parts."
7
posted on
07/08/2012 6:55:10 AM PDT
by
BenLurkin
(This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
To: martin_fierro
More like Frank N. Furter. Darn it, That movie was perverse
Now I have to scrape off my eyes to
Recalibrate my Moral Compass
To: Renfield
I realize that they probably didn’t have a written history at the time, and everything was probably oral tradition, but is the 11th century really “prehistoric”? I hear “prehistoric”, I think the Flintstones. Well, not quite, but you know what I mean.
9
posted on
07/08/2012 8:13:00 AM PDT
by
Tanniker Smith
(Rome didn't fall in a day, either.)
To: martin_fierro
;’) Probably from another planet.
10
posted on
07/08/2012 8:18:25 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: Renfield; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; decimon; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; ...
11
posted on
07/08/2012 8:22:38 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: SunkenCiv
The link to the National Geographic’s photos of bog bodies is pretty good as well.
Why different people’s body parts were assembled and interred long after they all died will probably remain a mystery. Unless the Frankenstein story is true. [popping sound you hear is my tongue being withdrawn from my cheek]
Thank you for the interesting ping, Mr. Civilizations.
To: Chode; SunkenCiv; Renfield
how is it a MUMMY if it's just bones???
That was my first thought, too.
Then comes the really gruesome mental image of 600 year old preserved bodies being disinterred and dismembered; then those body parts stitched together "Frankenstein style".
Instead, it is a batch of old bones that were assembled into complete (more or less) skeletons; no mummies involved. Not even sure it even qualifies as "bog bodies", as the term is generally understood.
13
posted on
07/08/2012 10:49:26 AM PDT
by
ApplegateRanch
(Love me, love my guns!©)
To: ApplegateRanch
yup, gruesome...
14
posted on
07/08/2012 11:25:59 AM PDT
by
Chode
(American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
To: Renfield; SunkenCiv; blam
From another link about bog mummies, they found one of them used "hair gel". I think he looks like Donald Trump.
To: TheOldLady
16
posted on
07/08/2012 2:29:52 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: Tanniker Smith; ApplegateRanch; Chode
These are not *from* the 11th century, they are from 3000 years ago, but were found *under* some 11th c structures.
17
posted on
07/08/2012 2:33:04 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: SunkenCiv
i think the mummy reference was a mistake
18
posted on
07/08/2012 2:45:27 PM PDT
by
Chode
(American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
To: SunkenCiv
True; but that is still no excuse for calling skeletal remains “mummies”. No soft tissue at all.
19
posted on
07/08/2012 3:22:41 PM PDT
by
ApplegateRanch
(Love me, love my guns!©)
To: ApplegateRanch
Hey, if these women gave birth back then, they were someone’s mummy at one time...
20
posted on
07/08/2012 4:13:14 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson