Interesting find in England

[Aetherwing]

I was surprised to find that a reference to this had not yet been posted. I thought the story an interesting one, and am always intrigued by odd archaeological finds such as this, having majored in Arch at one time. Sadly, we never dug up anything this neat.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/31107319/

-J

[The New Nonsense]

I had read about this too. Coincidentally, I'm currently reading a book titled, POPULAR MAGIC: CUNNING-FOLK IN ENGLISH HISTORY by Owen Davies. It covers in-depth the practice and history of witch bottles. The witch bottle is filled with urine and shaped thus because it is supposed to represent the victim's bladder (this is also why it's buried upside down). Through the principle of "sympathetic magick" the victim's bladder will be stopped-up. The pins/nails are included to inflict added pain. It's really not all that dissimilar to a voodoo doll.

[Odalisque]

Sadly, we never dug up anything this neat.
-J

Does a bottle of urine really count as being neat? I believe that Daphne and Celeste had bottles of urine thrown at them at the Reading Festival in 2000...

YouTube - Daphne And Celeste Getting Bottled At Reading 2000

I notice, at a couple of points, drops of moisture on the camera lens.

[Aetherwing]

Sadly, we never dug up anything this neat.
-J

Does a bottle of urine really count as being neat? I believe that Daphne and Celeste had bottles of urine thrown at them at the Reading Festival in 2000...

YouTube - Daphne And Celeste Getting Bottled At Reading 2000 (<div style="display: none;" id="ame_noshow_post_1244486935_3">
<a href="" title="You Tube" target="_blank">You Tube</a>
</div>
<div style="display: inline;" id="ame_doshow_post_1244486935_3">
<div align="center">
<table class="tborder" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="5" width="425" style="margin:10px 0">
<thead>
<tr>
<td class="tcat" colspan="2" style="text-align:center">
<a href="" title="You Tube" target="_blank">You Tube</a>
</td>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="panelsurround" align="center">
<object width="425" height="350">
<param name=''movie'' value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_hnxies4Wtk&ap=%2526fmt%3D18&fs=1"></param>
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param>
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_hnxies4Wtk&ap=%2526fmt%3D18&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent"></embed></object>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table></div>
</div>)

I notice, at a couple of points, drops of moisture on the camera lens.

Pet, Pet, Pet....in archaeology, anything old you dig up is 'neat'. The odder it is, the better. And while I would normally try to avoid a bottle of urine, finding a really old witchy sympathetic magic focus would override my normal aversion to such a bottle.

And don't forget, Pet, that there are archaeologists out there who get super-excited over the discovery of coproliths. Seriously!

-J

[Odalisque]

Pet, Pet, Pet....in archaeology, anything old you dig up is 'neat'. The odder it is, the better. And while I would normally try to avoid a bottle of urine, finding a really old witchy sympathetic magic focus would override my normal aversion to such a bottle.

And don't forget, Pet, that there are archaeologists out there who get super-excited over the discovery of coproliths. Seriously!

-J

I think I was just trying to put things in proportion. My feeling is that the "neatness" of archaeological finds probably depends more on the abundance of material than either its age or oddness. For instance, I used to be a customer in a bookshop near the British Museum. It specialised in archaeology, ancient history, and other such topics. (The reason I no longer shop there is that it closed down.) A woman who worked there was a proper Egyptologist (even Egyptologists have to pay the rent). She served me, one day, when I bought an issue of the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology that included a paper on the subject of mummified fish. She clearly regarded this as being as dull as Egyptian archaeology ever is. The mummmified fish were certainly very old (much older than the bottle of urine) and, to my mind, very odd. My feeling is that the factor that robs mummified fish of interest is the abundance of archaeological material from Egypt.

[qcrisp]

Sadly, we never dug up anything this neat.
-J

Does a bottle of urine really count as being neat? .

I believe in polite company it's customary to mix with bile.

[Aetherwing]

...a proper Egyptologist (even Egyptologists have to pay the rent).

Dash it all, man! So much for my plan to flee this workaday life for the carefree and rewarding joy of becoming a proper Egyptologist! I suppose I shan't need this pith helmet or jodhpurs, either... :(


My feeling is that the factor that robs mummified fish of interest is the abundance of archaeological material from Egypt.

I can just picture those busy Egyptian embalmers at work preserving people, cats, dogs, bulls, crocodiles, scarabs, etc. I'll admit that I have never heard of a fish-mummy. If only Universal had known, they could have worked something out to cross over the Mummy & the Creature FtBL franchises. This sounds a little like a potential Quirk Classic. ;)

As far as what makes for a 'neat' find to me is this: in the southeastern US, one rarely, if ever, excavated a Viking longboat, a terracotta army, a tomb of a Pharoah, or an Aztec trove. It was all "Ooh! Another unadorned pot-sherd!" or "Egad! A Woodland Indian hearth-site! Just look at that carbonization!" or "By Jove! It's the fabled Shell Midden of Deltus Mobilus!" Really, finding a spear point was one of the more exciting thing that could happen. So, by comparison, a 17th-century anti-hex bottle of urine & oddments seems interesting. :)

-J

[Odalisque]

...a proper Egyptologist (even Egyptologists have to pay the rent).

Dash it all, man! So much for my plan to flee this workaday life for the carefree and rewarding joy of becoming a proper Egyptologist! I suppose I shan't need this pith helmet or jodhpurs, either... :(



Sadly, it's much easier to spend a fortune than make a fortune as an Egyptologist. I believe that the Egyptian philologist Sir Alan Gardiner was fortunate enough to inherit a fortune, which he spent on his work. I never saw the bookshop Egyptologist wearing either a pith helmet or jodhpurs, and never enquired as to whether she owned such items. So, we are free to imagine her strutting about a dig dressed thus. ;)



My feeling is that the factor that robs mummified fish of interest is the abundance of archaeological material from Egypt.

I can just picture those busy Egyptian embalmers at work preserving people, cats, dogs, bulls, crocodiles, scarabs, etc. I'll admit that I have never heard of a fish-mummy. If only Universal had known, they could have worked something out to cross over the Mummy & the Creature FtBL franchises. This sounds a little like a potential Quirk Classic. ;)

As far as what makes for a 'neat' find to me is this: in the southeastern US, one rarely, if ever, excavated a Viking longboat, a terracotta army, a tomb of a Pharoah, or an Aztec trove. It was all "Ooh! Another unadorned pot-sherd!" or "Egad! A Woodland Indian hearth-site! Just look at that carbonization!" or "By Jove! It's the fabled Shell Midden of Deltus Mobilus!" Really, finding a spear point was one of the more exciting thing that could happen. So, by comparison, a 17th-century anti-hex bottle of urine & oddments seems interesting. :)

-J

I don't think that the Egyptians mummified scarabs. These insects probably have too little in way of soft fleshy parts to be embalmed. Cats, dogs, bulls and crocodiles were certainly mummified. (Though I'm pretty sure that they ate more bulls than they embalmed.) Ibises were another frequently embalmed creature, but many more species (including fish) were less frequently mummified. :)

Mummified crocodiles surely have excellent potential for Hollywood. How come they've missed that possibility? :eek:

What you say of your archaeological experience seems to confirm my idea that neatness of finds is very much related to their abundance or otherwise. :o

[Aetherwing]

I don't think that the Egyptians mummified scarabs. These insects probably have too little in way of soft fleshy parts to be embalmed. Cats, dogs, bulls and crocodiles were certainly mummified. (Though I'm pretty sure that they ate more bulls than they embalmed.) Ibises were another frequently embalmed creature, but many more species (including fish) were less frequently mummified. :)

Mummified crocodiles surely have excellent potential for Hollywood. How come they've missed that possibility? :eek:

What you say of your archaeological experience seems to confirm my idea that neatness of finds is very much related to their abundance or otherwise. :o

Admittedly, I haven't given much thought to mummies lately;),
but I am almost certain I recall mention of scarabs being preserved in little boxes, as well as mantids and scorpions. You are right, it seems that you'd eventually have nothing but a dessicated exoskeleton that would crumble away to bug-dust. If my memory has any truth to it, it would be interesting to have it confirmed--although you, Pet, being something of an authority of Egypt, and not having heard of such a practice makes me think I may well be imagining this.

I can;t believe I left ibises of the list, since cats and those birds were mummified in veritable legions.

Y'know, a mummified crocodile revivifying is a pretty interesting plot idea. If it has ever been done, I'm not aware of it. Wasn't there a Bloch short about Sobek?

And yes, I'd say your Theory of Relative Archaeological Neatness Due to Rarity, and its inverse is CONFIRMED.

-J

[MorganScorpion]

I think the Bloch Sobek story may have been called "The Opener of the Way". But I can't swear to it.

As for "interesting", I think an old bottle of piss can be called many things. Lager, for instance. Interesting is not the word that springs to mind.

[Joe Pulver]

I think the Bloch Sobek story may have been called "The Opener of the Way". But I can't swear to it.

As for "interesting", I think an old bottle of piss can be called many things. Lager, for instance. Interesting is not the word that springs to mind.

LOL! !!

[Odalisque]

There are several points, here, I'd like to answer, but it's almost 1 am in England and I should be in bed. So, for now, I'll answer only one little point. The Bloch Sebek story is The Secret of Sebek. It was published in the 1945 Arkham House Collection The Opener of the Way (reprinted by Neville Spearman in 1974 -- and in Fedogan and Bremner's The Early Fears in 1994).

Having posted that, good night, all!