A 132-Year-Old Message in a Bottle in a Scottish Lighthouse
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Corsewall Light & Fog Signal Station, Sept 4th 1892. This lantern was erected by James Wells Engineer, John Westwood Millwright, James Brodie Engineer, David Scott Labourer, of the firm of James Milne & Son Engineers, Milton House Works, Edinburgh, during the months from May to September and relighted on Thursday night 15th Sept 1892. The following being keepers at the station at this time, John Wilson Principal, John B Henderson 1st assistant, John Lockhart 2nd assistant. The lens and machine being supplied by James Dove &Co Engineers Greenside Edinburgh and erected by William Burness, John Harrower, James Dods. Engineers with the above firm.
I hope the current engineers leave a better note for the engineers of the next century.
I don't like what you are saying. A more poetic note is not "better". You think it is, and that certainly can be your value but you are not the one fixing the light house.
It is perfectly fine if all they did is to just write down who they were and what they were doing. They don't owe you some poetic inspiring letter just because they were in a place you associate with poetry. And certainly it wouldn't be "better" in an objective sense.
In fact it would be less true if that is not the feeling they had. If they were sitting there thinking "need more grease so this bearing doesn't seize up" but wrote "Beacon stands steadfast,/ Waves crash 'gainst its ageless stone—/ A hymn to the stars." That would be worse, because it would be inauthentic.
In fact, no one would have even clicked on this story and it would not be on HN if the story were "dusty plaque found in lighthouse".
A "message in a bottle", especially at a lighthouse, conjures the romantic idea of a secret easter egg.
I get what you are saying, but try to understand what was being said by the person you were responding to as well!
At school we buried a 'time capsule' for the millennium I think for 50 years thence. That'll be cool for the pupils in 2050, but it won't be news.
You're in the UK, the article is in the NY Times - 132 years old seems older to an American than it does to you, that combined with the message in bottle in lighthouse and Scotland all together sparked interest.
> Americans think 100 years is a long time; Brits think 100 miles is a long way.
As an American, I take some small exception here. I have met people who were alive when this letter was written. 132 years was a long time ago, but not that long.
Of course you may be an outlier in that.
Your architectural experiences may also be an outlier, but I think you will probably admit that most Americans have not lived in a 100+ year old house, hey, a good number of them might live in places where you have to drive hours to find a building that old.
This is in contrast to much of the world I believe, it is at any rate definitely in contrast to Europe.
on edit: this is of course not 100% reasoned through, this being HN someone could of course make a map showing how close in the U.S any person is to a building over 100+ years, or they could show that perhaps if you take the major population centers into account it will show that actually a majority of the population does in fact live within walking distance of such an old building, but all that taken into account I'm going to stick to my guns that to most Americans a house of 100+ years old is real old, and to everybody in the area I live in it's just home.
I spoke with an English engineer once who lived in a 400-500yo house in England and he knew an Egyptian who had lived in a house in the 1000s years old range. I suppose the terms "young" and "old" are fairly relative.
my experience living in the U.S is most people live in structures considerably younger, and most places you need to travel to find a house that old (as opposed to a town hall)
places lived in U.S - Midwest and West, traveled through South and East.
My experience living in Europe is most people have lived in a place that is over 100, yes I think the terms young and old are fairly relative, and in much of the U.S a house that is 100+ is old, the house has history and might be preserved as such, whereas in lots of the world that is pretty new stuff and maybe we should tear it down and build something even newer.
That's still rather shy of 132. I'd say from the data, living in a 100yo house is a huge outlier.
[0] https://todayshomeowner.com/home-finances/guides/median-home...
[0] From 2021: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1042458/home-age-usa/
Yes. And we the people of a different time got a glimpse into the world they were in.
> A list of names is extremely unexciting.
Nevertheless that is what was important for them. That is their world. You don’t want a glimpse into their world. You want their world to conform to your idea of what it must feel like to be on a lighthouse.
"Nevertheless..." so you basically agree its extremely unexciting? That's the point.
Would you click this post if it said "list creators of lighthouse found on piece of paper inside lighthouse"?
The point of a message in the bottle is that it's to make something legitimately interesting for the person reading (assuming it's not attempting to save a persons life stranded on an island)... Presumably the people doing this entire exercise were aware of that. When you take part in some activity, there is an expected amount of context which you are expected to have awareness of, similar to how when you make a movie, while you CAN kill off the main character in a cliffhanger unsatisfying way, you also have to expect people are going to hate your movie.
The fact that a bunch of engineers thought this was "most interesting" is, in itself not surprising I guess. But people lamenting that they could have done a lot better, is 100% valid.
> You want their world to conform to your idea of what it must feel like to be on a lighthouse for other "lighthouse people"
False. I literally want to read something interesting if I'm pulling a piece of paper out of a 100 year old bottle. There is an entire universe of topics besides a laundry list of names that could be done. They didn't because they thought this was what people 100 years in the future should see. Therefore, the entire experiment of "message in a bottle" is about as boring as it could possibly be. You literally couldn't make it more boring if you tried. Maybe a blank sheet of paper? The fact these names were meaningful to them, and the fact that this is an extremely boring outcome and leave people wanting more, can exist simultaneously.
I will mention the one saving grace is that it was left in the lighthouse
As an analogy, if I found 100 year old bottle in the floorboards of my house, a list of names could be made more interesting with... a photo, what their occupations are... what their favorite hobby or cherished item is, what used to be on the land before our house, what crops used to grow there, how the land was found, what kind of deed purchase it was, where they immigrated from. Literally 1000s of ideas to add detail.
No. I don't agree. I find the message extremely exciting.
> That's the point.
I hear you making the point and I'm disagreeing with it.
> point of a message in the bottle
The point of a message in the bottle is whatever was the point for the people who made it. For them the point was to write up their names in such a way that it persist for the future and will be found only by people who are working on the same lighthouse they did.
> I literally want to read something interesting if I'm pulling a piece of paper out of a 100 year old bottle.
And you did read something interesting. You had a glimpse into the real world life of some real world people. The kind of working class chaps who are not usually recorded in history books. They told you that they have worked on this lighthouse and when. It also speaks volumes what they haven't wrote in the letter. This is interesting.
My disdain is not for things frivolous. I'm a big fan of frivolous things.
My disdain is for those who wish these long departed engineers did things in order to entertain us in this day and age.
If they, the original engineers, would have wanted to write a poem that would be great. That is their choice.
We got a glimpse into their world and the commenter doesn't like what they see. Saying that what they did wasn't the right thing to do assumes that the commenter ideas are more correct than their ideas. That's arrogant.
If you think it's not the right message, go restore your own lighthouse and leave the message you want to leave. Instead of telling others what they should have.
Surely you don't think they are actually upset at some people none of us know for not writing a poetic message.
The point is: "Wow, we found a hundreds of years old message, what amazing insights of the past might we glean, what insights into the minds of that time?" "Oh, it's just a list of who built a lighthouse"
> Saying that what they did wasn't the right thing to do assumes that the commenter ideas are more correct than their ideas. That's arrogant.
I will butt in here though, if you have a chance to drift out a message to sea with some hope someone else may find it one day and read what you wrote, would you write that you were the author of some open source project? Or would you write something about your real feelings, the world around you, your thoughts and hopes and dreams, or maybe even share something about your town, your ancestors, your culture, the things you care about, etc.
Most of us, I'm sure, would not choose to do the former.
They didn't drift out a message to sea. They wrote it on their handiwork. Would people write their names on their open source project? Yes, they would, and they do. In fact there are licences where the only requirement is that you have to preserve the name of the original authors on the project. This is extremely common.
This is the same. They thought they did a good job, were proud of it and signed it. The same way a painter signs a canvas or the crew writes their name in the credits of a movie.
They used a glass to preserve the paper in an otherwise inhospitable environment.
> Surely you don't think they are actually upset at some people none of us know for not writing a poetic message.
Why would I think they are upset? They are not upset. They are arrogant and demanding. Instead of accepting what it is (people who the history forgot preserving their own name attached to something they put a lot of work into), the commenter is wishing they did something more which would have been more appropriate according to the commenter's values.
> would you write something about your real feelings, the world around you, your thoughts and hopes and dreams, or maybe even share something about your town, your ancestors, your culture, the things you care about, etc.
Did Steven Spielberg wrote any of those into the credits of Jurassic Park? Or just wrote "Director: Steven Spielberg"? This is the same. The message is the lighthouse. The bottle is the signature. It is a "we did this". And they don't have to expound on the "this" because if you found the bottle you are standing in it/on it.
So would I!
> and of course be disappointed to find out it's essentially the credits for who built a lighthouse
I wouldn’t be disapointed. This is very exciting. We learn how many of them were there and what was important to them. For example they clearly had pride in finishing their work.
We can then ask the question who they were, how did they live? How did they got this job? Using their names we can go back in archives and find more about them. This is super exciting.
> yet tons of HN'ers are super mad at the insinuation that the letter ended up being more or less a waste
Because it is not a waste, that is why. If you can’t enjoy it as it is, bad for you.
With entitlement evident
Victorian engineers denigrated by Internet generation
Whose vapidity is greater
The bottle likely helped preserve the paper and the writing. In addition, I'd guess that they used good quality paper, because Iron Gall ink - which was in vogue at the time the letter was written - is fairly corrosive and can eat through paper.
Addendum: I also find the bland (under)statement of their work comforting and inspiring.
I don't know what kind of ink they would've used if not iron gall. Also, modern IG formulations differ from older ones, I think.
As far as the handwriting goes, while the one from the note is recognizable, the script you learned at school was likely different. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_script
The uppercase t and h are the two main differences, but I guess I adopted the spencerian or copperplate version at some point.
Lampblack ink or india ink was in use as well and spots with lots of pigment can have it move when wet.
Edit: it would seem synthetic aniline based black inks were in use for personal writing by that time. Aniline black isn't even close to waterfast, so that might very well be it.
Were there other messages with “more poetic, inspiring and exciting” content from around that time and place?
Actually this actually sounds more like a forgotten formulaic ritual you were supposed to do for good luck whenever building a lighthouse, not even a true attempt to communicate in this instance. If that is your point then I agree.