----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron May" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Ritual concealment or other causes


> John,
>
> You have your anthropology a bit confused. The people who embedded cats
and
> chickens in the walls were not "witches." They were church-going folks who
kept
> their feet in pagan ways to carry on traditions and "just in case it were
> true." ........ The U.S. Army boot and campaign hat discovered at Fort
> Rosecrans (circa 1904) were entirely bricked-in a small cavity to the side
of the flue
> in a chimney and the find is now added to a list of finds at the Shoe
Museum
> in London. The cats mummified in grotesque positions as proof positive
they
> did not go in the stucco willingly. Hey, this is cultural anthropology
101.
>
Ron
Could I just suggest you go back and re-read my original post. At no stage
did I suggest either that people who embedded cats (no mention of chickens)
in the walls of houses were "witches", or that ritual concealment never
occurred. The program I was commenting on claimed that the cats had been
entombed to ward off witches and the childs shoe to ward off evil spirits
and I was suggesting that it would perhaps be better to look at natural
causes first before attributing behavioural patterns to events that have a
logical, natural explanation. I would agree that a hat and boot sealed into
a solid brick cavity may well represent something entirely different from a
single shoe in a wall cavity combined with other material known to collected
by rats. Also, does a cat die in a different 'grotesque position' when
placed deliberately within a confined space than one that is trapped there
accidently? Have archaeological studies been done on this matter?
I don't know about cultural anthropology 101 but we were taught to read what
was written. I have no objection to my ideas or interpretations being
questioned, I like a good arguement at any time, but please give me the
courtesy of at least reading what I say and argue against that.
John