Why Do We Say, “Colder Than a Witch’s Teet”?

 

Figure 1: Misspelled variation of the phrase "Colder than a witch's tit"

 

Within the American English dialect there exist a fair number of strange idioms, or phrases, that are used to describe any number of phenomenon.  Several of these idioms have been previously addressed on this blog (e.g., sweet phrases and colorful ones).  Today’s post continues with the tradition of explaining the origins and meanings of unique American phrases, and given the time of year today’s phrase is one that is not often used: “Colder than a witch’s teet.”

 

The idiom “colder than a witch’s teet” has many variations.  These include spelling teet as tit (the contemporary equivalent to the older teet, both of which refer to nipples).  There are also misspellings of witch’s to witches, with the former being a possessive and the latter being a pluralization of the singular witch (Figure 1).  There is also an extension of the phrase wherein it goes, “Colder than a witch’s tit in a brass brassiere” (note, this version is not the subject of today’s post and will not be discussed further).  Regardless of how it is said the phrase means that it is unusually cold outside. 

 

Surprisingly, the phrase originated fairly recently.  It was first published in an American mystery novel, Spider House, authored by Francis Van Wyck Mason.  The first edition of this book came out in 1932.  It is unclear if the author invented the phrase on his own or if it was derived from street slang.  This remains unclear since several sources claim that variations of the term were and remain part of popular language throughout New England and the American West, although these claims are unverified. 

 

The question of where this idiom came from is less murky, however.  It is very likely that the phrase borrows from terms used during the 1600s Witch Trials.  As previously discussed on this blog the Witch Trials (and related Werewolf Trials) existed as a means for social groups to ostracize and cast out any individuals viewed as socially or physically abnormal.  Throughout the 1600s deviant men were labeled werewolves, while deviant women were labeled witches.  A series of criteria were identified to help “witch hunters” identify women, in particular, as witches.  One such criteria was the presence of “witch’s tits”.  This term was coined by famous English witch hunters Jacob Sprenger and Heinrich Kramer, who claimed such tits were meant for the suckling on by witch’s familiars or Satan himself.  Their description of a “witch’s tit” was very similar to the anatomy of the clitoris, and as such required witch hunters across the world to take special care in examining women’s pubic areas.  Upon discovery of an enlarged or swollen clitoris the woman would be declared guilty of witchcraft and dispatched as deemed fit by the local authorities. 

 

It is unclear how, where, and why the witch’s tit was associated with cold. Some claim it may be linked to the belief that witchy women were cold blooded.  It could be related to the natural phenomenon of constriction that occurs to other parts of a woman’s body when it is cold.  Or it could have been something that Francis Van Wyck Mason found interesting and provocative, leading him to make that connection.  Ultimately, the phrase exists in part due to the history of the witch trials and Francis Van Wyck Mason creative writing skills.

 

Works Cited

Briggs, R. (2002). Shapeshifting, Apparitions, and Fantasy in Witchcraft Trials. In K. A. Edwards, Werewolves, Witches, and Wandering Spirits: Traditional Belief in Folklore in Early Modern Europe (pp. 1-24). Kirksville: Truman State University Press.

Martin, G. (2026, August). Colder than a witch's tit. Retrieved from Phrase Finder: https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/colder-than-a-witchs-tit.html

New Jersey History Project. (2025). Origins of Cold as Balls and Cold as a Witch’s Teet. Retrieved from Mr. Local History Project: https://mrlocalhistory.org/coldasballs/

Orr, C. M. (1976). Folk comparisons from Colorado. Western folklore, 35(3), 175-208.

 

Dangers in the Sky: Raptor Predation Cited as Cause of Death of Taung Child

 

Figure 1: Evidence of scratches and puncture wounds in the eye orbits of the Taung Child fossil (Source: Berger, Lee)

 

In 1925 Raymond Dart announced a discovery that would revolutionize the world of paleoanthropology: he announced the discovery of the Taung Child, the first species of Australopithecus africanus.  The Taung Child fossil is made up of the facial bones, portions of the temporal bones, mandible, and endocast of the brain.  Together, these pieces measure 5 inches long, 3 inches wide, and 4 inches wide, meaning they are very small.  The postcranial remains and remaining posterior elements of the brain case are missing.  Subsequent analysis of these remains rendered an age at death estimate of 3 years old, further supporting the small size of the Taung Child.  These fine details are important because they aid the conclusions reached by Lee Berger and collegues, who concluded that the Taung Child met its untimely death at the hand, or claws rather, of a large bird of prey.

 

Berger and R.J. Clarke initially announced their hypothesis that it was a large bird of prey (e.g., eagle, hawk, vulture, buzzard, kite, falcon, or owl) that was responsible for killing the Taung Child in 1995.  They cited various scratches and puncture wounds on the skull (Figure 1) as evidence to support this hypothesis, but this was insufficient evidence for the paleoanthropological community to accept this conclusion outright.  There were legitimate concerns about their idea, specifically in that there was no evidence that ancient birds of prey attacked hominid species.  Citing contemporary evidence that no ape species have been attacked, let alone killed, by birds of prey it seemed unlikely that a hominid species would meet a similar end.  It was a matter of size and the belief that hominid would have been too big and heavy for a large bird of prey to carry. 

 

There is substantial evidence, however, that demonstrates that various modern-day birds of prey will attack, kill, and consume small nonhuman primate species.  This has been readily observed and recorded by scholars over the decades (Figure 2).  The carrying capacity (weight limit) of modern birds of prey is approximately 13 kilograms (or just under 29 pounds).  While present day apes and humans are typically much larger than that it was assumed that birds of prey species of the past would have been leery or unwilling to attack a hominid species.

 

Figure 2: African crown eagle killing a vervet monkey (Source: Hugh Chittenden)

 

Berger and his colleagues, however, took the critiques and confronted them.  They conducted additional research on the Taung Child remains.  They recorded several scratches and puncture wounds across the fossilized remains, noting their present around and within the eye sockets, the forehead, and side of the skull.  They measured their depth and spacing to help them determine the cause of these marks, comparing them to other marks made by various other species (from eagles to rodents).  They also reviewed Raymond Dart’s notes about how he handled and studied the Taung Child’s remains when he came into custody of them. 

 

They ruled out several explanations for the marks, noting that they were less likely caused by rodents due to lack of uniformity and spacing and that Dart admitted to scratching the skull but only on one side, not both as evidenced on the fossilized remains.  When the marks on the Taung Child were compared to those present on small primate species and created by African crowned eagles it seemed that a large bird of prey was the likely culprit of the marks present on Taung.  Furthermore, Berger and his colleagues noted that similar marks were present on other nonhuman primate species found within the same contexts as Taung, further demonstrating that birds of prey were consuming nonhuman primate species well in the past. 

 

The scientific community seemed satisfied with these results, although Berger and others have admitted that they would like additional evidence to support their conclusions further.  This required evidence, however, may be difficult to collect as it would need to be additional juvenile hominid species.  These remains are difficult to recover in modern contexts, let alone in the paleolithic contexts, meaning it may be a long time before additional supporting evidence is available.  For now, however, it does appear that the Taung Child met its at the end of a bird of prey’s claws and beak.

 

Bibliography

Berger, L. (2006). Brief Communication: Predatory Bird Damage to the Taung Type-Skull of Australopithecus africanus Dart 1925. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 166-168.

Berger, L., & McGraw, W. (2007). Further evidence for eagle predation of, and feeding damage on, the Taung Child. South African Journal of Science , 496-503.

McGraw, W., & Berger, L. (2013). Raptors and Primate Evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology, 280-293.