This post is part of a series on the bog bodies displayed at the Archäologisches Landesmuseum at Schloss Gottorf in Schleswig, Germany. You can read the introductory post here.

---

History of the Osterby Head

In May of 1948, a peat cutter named Max Müller working in Köhlmoor near Osterby unearthed a human head wrapped in a cape of roe deerskin [Kersten; Glob]. I am hesitant to include the precise date of this discovery as sources seem to contradict one another: P.V. Glob puts it at the 28th while Heather Gill-Robinson and Karl Kersten put it at the 26th. The exhibit at Schloss Gottorf lists only the year of discovery.

The location of Köhlmoor is put at 54°26′51″N 09°46′09″E by Kersten, which aligns with Glob and other researchers placing Köhlmoor as lying “south-east of Osterby.” If this precise placement is accurate, then it would appear that Köhlmoor was, like many northern European bogs, drained and repurposed as farmland. Some scholars tend to drop the umlaut from Köhlmoor in favor of “Kohlmoor,” likely for convenience. “Köhl” is Low German (a dialect native to Schleswig-Holstein) for “cool” or “cold,” whereas “Kohl” is standard German for cabbage.

Following the discovery, the skull was taken to the home of Otto, reportedly Max Müller’s brother. The Schleswig-Holstein Museum Vorgeschichtliche Alterttime (Schleswig-Holstein Museum of Prehistoric Antiquity, now defunct) was notified of the discovery and additional pieces of skull and brain were recovered from the discovery site [Kersten]. The skull was examined by Hans Weinart at the University of Kiel. It was estimated that the Osterby Man was around 50-60 years at the time of his death. The skull had been crushed by the weight of the peat and the first two vertebrae were found separated. Methods used to determine the age and sex of the specimen are not detailed in older documents, but the sex was later ascertained via morphological assessment of the supraorbital margin, glabella prominence, orbits, and mandibular condyle [Gill-Robinson].

Efforts were made to locate the rest of the body with no success; this has led some to believe that the head was buried on its own. However, in the case of other decapitated bog bodies like the Dätgen Man, the body and head were found some distance from one another [van der Sanden]. This would indicate that it is possible the body of Osterby Head was at some point present in the bog at a different location. At the least, it is clear that the head was separated from the body before burial by a sharp implement, which severed the second cervical vertebra [Kersten; Glob]. Forensic evidence suggests that the Osterby Man was killed by a blow with a blunt object to the left temple [Glob; van der Sanden]. The Osterby Head is an example of an instance where flesh was poorly preserved, not due to any action taken after its exhumation, but rather due to the conditions of the burial or location within the bog itself—only the bone, scalp, and hair survived.

The Osterby Head’s distinctive knotted hairstyle is described in Tacitus’ Germania as popular among the Suebi tribe, though whether this would indicate that the Osterby Man was Suebian in origin is unclear—the hairstyle was supposedly adopted by a small number of men from other tribes [Tacitus]. Interestingly, the Dätgen Man—who was also beheaded before burial—exhibits a similar hairstyle, though his Suebian knot is bound at the back of the head rather than the side.

The head has been dated using 14C-AMS, or accelerator mass spectrometry, which is a carbon dating method. The results of this testing dated the hair sample to 1895+30 BP, which corresponds to the estimated date of CE 75-130 [van der Plicht; Gill-Robinson]. However, given that the hair sample was taken from the private collection of Alfred Dieck—a controversial German archeologist whose work on bog bodies has proven faulty—there is a possibility that the hair was not actually from the Osterby Head.

The skull was reconstructed post-excavation by Karl Schlabow. The heavy-handedness of this reconstruction poses various problems for modern researchers. It is unknown whether the present construction is accurate to the original shape, which renders osteometric and forensic analysis unreliable. Multi-slice Computed Tomography (MSCT) carried out in 2005 revealed that the cranium was filled with plaster during reconstruction, which interferes with imaging. Additionally, Gill-Robinson concluded upon close examination that the mandible was taken from another specimen during the reconstruction process; photographs of the initial find do not indicate that the original mandible was present, and the origin of the current mandible remains unknown [Gill-Robinson].

Some unverified online sources indicate that the Osterby Head was stabilized for display by filling with gypsum, or calcium sulfate dihydrate, which is sometimes used in bone grafting and repair. I am yet to find a source to confirm this.

---

Current Display

The Osterby Head is displayed in a semi-dark room as part of the Moorleichen exhibit at Schloss Gottorf alongside several other bog bodies and an array of Iron Age artifacts. This decision to display the bodies alongside other Iron Age finds resembles the Lindow Man’s display in the British Museum; however, the Moorleichen exhibit at Schloss Gottorf plainly dedicates more space and resources to the bodies themselves. A label to the left of the display gives a short summary of some of the history detailed above. A placard to the right demonstrates how the Osterby Head’s hairstyle was achieved and features an image of Trajan’s Column believed to depict a Suebian knot. It also includes a brief excerpt from Tacitus regarding the hairstyle.

The Osterby Head’s display is interesting in that only a head is exhibited, which calls for a different design. This was originally the case for the Tollund Man, although the circumstances were different (the Tollund Man was discovered with his body in-tact and was not decapitated; the decision was made to preserve only his head for display, perhaps because researchers were not confident at the time that they could preserve his entire body). The Osterby Head’s current display can be compared against a recreation of the Tollund Man’s previous display below.

The difference in the presentation of these remains is likely due in part to when they were designed. It is also possible that the different levels of preservation resulted in different considerations. Unlike the Tollund Man’s old display, which featured his head lying on its side (likely mimicking the position in which he was discovered) along with the belt and garrote he was found with, the Osterby Head is suspended in its case so that it almost appears to be floating. The case is enclosed on all but one side, likely to minimize light exposure. There is no peat included in the case—a common feature in other displays—and the head is not displayed with the deerskin wrap it was found in, nor any sort of representation or reconstruction of it.

It is unclear whether the deerskin wrap survived beyond the 1948 discovery. Contemporary sources provide details on the dimensions and construction of the garment, but I have been unable to locate more recent analysis, perhaps indicating that the wrap has since deteriorated.

A video of the Osterby Head on display can be viewed below:

The small, enclosed case had the unexpected effect of feeling almost claustrophobic. This is not exclusive to the Osterby Head; all the bog bodies in Schloss Gottorf’s collection feature this one-sided viewing design, which, compared to displays like the Grauballe Man at the Moesgaard Museum—which features a unique glass top, allowing the body to be viewed from the floor above as one of five possible angles—feels limiting. Of course, the Moorleichen exhibit being housed in a historic castle is likely a factor in some design limitations, so the comparison to the more modern Moesgaard Museum is perhaps irrelevant.

Overall, the Osterby Head’s display is functional; I appreciate that is is given a position of importance in the Moorleichen exhibit and that the placards provide context for both the history of the discovery and the skull’s hairstyle. Questions remain about initial and ongoing preservation efforts as well as the fate of the deerskin wrap.

---