Anyone here have a theory as to why these 2 bog mummies were made up of several different people?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think so too. I wonder why they did it. Maybe the body is made up of various parts of 1 family, generations of them maybe :shrug:
They were separated by several centuries. If I'm not mistaken, the people in Scotland at that time (who were not the ancestors of the modern Scots) were barely in the Neolithic Era: Stone age agriculture. They couldn't have had the ability to track their family histories over such long timelines.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Reminds me of the mummy of Lady Teshat, which is housed at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. Teshat was educated and a treasurer at the Temple of Amon in Thebes. She was married and approximately 15 years old at death (circa 1000 BCE). A CAT scan of her mummy revealed that an arm and several ribs were broken. In addition, the soles of her feet were slashed and a hip and knee showed signs of infection. However, none of these injuries appear to be fatal wounds. Most surprising of all though, was the discovery of a second skull. This skull was that of an adult male with extensive posterior injuries. At the time of wrapping, it was purposefully placed between the thighs of Teshat, with his eye sockets facing her pelvis. No other Egyptian mummy has been found with extraneous human bones.
The reasoning behind such a scheme might never be known. It may have been symbolic or esthetic, or someone may have fancied themselves a “Dr. Frankenstein” of the era. http://m.neatorama.com/2012/07/08/frankenstein-bog-mummies/
Quite correct, but that they couldn't accurately trace a family line on a scientific basis doesn't exclude the possibility that they thought they could by other means, Fraggle... even if those other means were nothing more than family memory and word of mouth. The Australian Aboriginal has a long history of stories being handed down generation to generation using little more than that. Not that I'm subscribing to Orleander's theory, just making a point.
...And to hazard a guess, this sounds a little like someone other than the husband was caught with his hands on the honeypot. Or his mouth, as the case may be. And perhaps the husband made a little free with his property and her paramour before burying her with... full honours, as befitting a lady of the court. Perhaps I merely have a dirty mind.
