Fox

I've been talking to a UK hat maker about monmouth caps. She hand knits the caps from natural wool. She normally leaves the wool its natural colour, but the caps can also be made from naturally dyed wool. She's not sure on price yet but she reckons £25-30 ($43-52), but probably nearer £25, dyed hats a couple of quid more. Anyone interested?

My mother had a tin of flour that was never opened for years. When it finaly was it was infested. I kept the weevils and used them at living histories to show people what they were.

I used to keep some in a tin, but I couln't tell you the biology (let no one question my dedication to authenticity!). According to the 1761 source I posted in "Gold Age Food" there was more than one variety anyway...

Ja ja, is ist true. Drezden voss bigger losink zan Hiroshima. Jappaneesey voss runners upp, vee cam turd. :)

We-ell. Any author who doesn't quote their sources can be thrown out straight away. Any author whose books include the words "the Secret history of..." or "the True history of..." can usually be thrown out, because the contents is usually neither secret not true. Any books with the words "...has uncovered startling new evidence..." on the back should be burned, because the chances are that the new stuff is neither startling nor evidence. Finally, any book with the words "David Hatcher Childress" on the cover just shouldn't be picked up at all. A good author will always quote their sources, so even if you are unable to view those sources yourself you can assume that for the most part their evidence is based on historical fact rather than the speculation of others. Beware of trusting books which extensively use other secondary sources as evidence. The internet is a fantastic resource if only it were properly used. The potential for sharing information is incredible (just look over 10 threads in Captain Twill and see how much you learn). The downside is that it is unregulated, anyone can post what they want, and people will believe it. The whole reason I wrote my Mythtory site was precisely as a foil for people who say "it must be true I read it on a website". Well, it ain't true, and if you only believe websites then visit this one... You make a good point about even contemporary records not being 100% reliable. In some cases, depending on what you want to know, they often are. For example, if you want to know about food on board a privateer then the supply records for the Duke and Dutchess in 1708 will speak the truth. If you want to know about people's actions and motivations then you have to take into account the nature of the source as well as its content. HOWEVER, even sources which are not accurate as to the actual events do at least present us with an accurate view of someone's opinion - it may not be what actually happened, but it is what could have happened in a way that would be believable to people of the time. Johnson's General History is a good example of this - we know that some of his details about dates, names etc are way off the mark, but the wealth of background information is staggering, and even if we can't use it to say for certain that so and so did this at this particular time, we can infer that this might have been the kind of thing pirates did - if you see what I mean. UTBF - there are some bits that we know are wrong, where we have trustable, or multiple, historical records which show facts contrary to Cordingly. There are some bits which are probably wrong in all likelihood. And there are some bits where Cordingly not only contradicts the historical record, but also himself! I must add though that the same is probably true of most books, and UTBF is better than most "popular" works of history.

Vee did not lose! Vee cam sekont!

How rude you are! Anyway, if you'll permit I'll take your points one by one. Firstly, a hell of a lot more cases of piracy were documented than most people imagine, waaaay more. Infuriatingly, not so many as we'd like, and there are some very significant gaps (like the trial of Blackbeard's crew for example), but I'm not sure that I could agree that most acts of piracy were not recorded. Just about anything could have happened, but that doesn't mean it did. It is incumbent on us rational historical researchers to weigh up the chances of something unrecorded happening, taking into account other similar evidence, and a snippet of logic. In the case of walking the plank, yeah, it might have happened, once or twice (we CAN say for sure that it definitely wasn't the common thing that fiction makes it out to be), but on the other hand, why should it have? Second, I think the role of newspapers is probably underestimated, during the GAoP there were literally hundreds of different papers and periodicals in print. Literacy too was MUCH higher than people generally assume. I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on the Chinese Whispers effects to story-telling in the era though. Thirdly. Yes, it is similar to the earrings debate (I think debacle would be a better word). Neither can be shown to have any grain of truth in them for our period, both have reasonable contradictory evidence against them, neither will ever go away no matter how many times the theory is debunked. We could add several other similar examples. Fourth. You're probably quite right. It is however important not to get too carried away with the "just because we can't prove it happened doesn't men it never did" argument. That argument is ok in itself, but it can't be taken any further. For example, one of the most common earring things is people debating why pirates wore earrings, yet if we cannot say with any certainty that even one GAoP era pirate did then arguing about why is somewhat pointless. People still do it though. It's the same with this question. I can agree that it is not impossible (though I do not consider it very likely) that at some point during the GAoP someone was made to walk along a plank by pirates, but it's completely fruitless to try to get any more than that.

No, that was around, I think I saw some in "Cutthroat Island".

Of course. While I'm bashing Cordingly, there are loads more accounts of buried treasure (ok, about half a dozen over a couple of centuries, but more than 2). How does one convey a Sideshow-Bob style shudder in net-speak?

Coastie, I believe Noodlewhacker also has a copy (though not the illustrated version I don't think), but you know what he's like about sharing his library. I'll see if I can get a look at it next time I'm in the Noodle-Cave. Eric, my judgement on Cordingly comes from Under the Black Flag, where he says "...one example of walking the plank has come to light. ...It is possible that other examples of walking the plank may be found, but the fact remains..." Quite possibly in later works he added in the second account (possibly after I posted it to the net about 3 years ago ) I maintain that UTBF is the best introduction to general pirate history there is - but it's shocking the number of errors, from the small and insignificant to the large and glaring, can be found in its pages. On the question of the origin, I think that even if there were examples of it happening in the GAoP the question would still remain. It seems that for some unknown reason (beyond sadism) someone, at some time, said "hey! let's make 'em walk along a thin plank before they fall to the sharks". Evidence suggests that this was in the 19th century, but heaven knows why, though I imagine that if it's your kind of thing then watching someone with a blindfold on walk along a narrow plank, with no idea of where the end is, would be quite funny...

Don't be silly Hurricane, everyone knows that Morgan preferred lilac.

Three observations: Firstly, despite what the majority of people here seem to think there are people who want to get it right. It doesn't make us "wankers". When something is advertised as something it isn't (whether it be pirate clothing, good films, a car, whatever) it behoves those of us in the know to point out to those of us not in the know the difference. I am positive that had the original advert said "Fantasy pirate coat", or "Ren-faire pirate coat" then neither John nor anyone else would have said a thing. However, it is clearly advertised as something that it is not, so John was quite right to point that out. It doesn't stop it being a nice coat, and it doesn't stop anyone buying it and wearing it at whatever events they go to, but for those who care it IS important to know that it's not accurate for early 18th century. Secondly, "fantasy" pirates or whatever you prefer to call yourselves, calm down and for chrissakes take that chip off your shoulders. I see four lines about the damn coat not being historically accurate, and Thirty-two lines of you guys defending yourselves! Does that not seem a little excessive to you? And you say John is getting hysterical?! All John did was say that the coat isn't accurate (and what a nice coat it is regardless), and Rumba pointed out the true origins, and you've turned this into an attack on the people who want to do it right. I object to being called a thread counter, and I REALLY object to being called a wanker, just because historical integrity is more important to me than looking like Jack Sparrow. Grow up, stop feeling so persecuted, we're well aware that not everyone wants to be historically accurate, but that shouldn't stop us helping those that do... Oh, I'm sorry, apparently it should. HarbourMaster, you wrote "Only the thread counters will be on your arse about it.". Would you be kind enough to show me precisely where anyone is knocking what you do, the way you do it, or generally getting "on your arse"? Swifty, you wrote "I think thread counters Suck. There is no damn reason to put any one down." Let me get this straight, people pointing out that something is not authentic is putting someone down, but calling them names and saying they suck isn't? Is that right? I'm a little confused here... If I'm wrong, can you please point out to me where anyone is putting you or your ways down. Piratescave, you wrote "But for those pirates, who wear only historically accurate stuff, have fun and enjoy!" THAT'S the attitude! Woooo, go Europeans! Thirdly, has anyone else noticed that someone called "piratescave" just "found" a coat on ebay from a company whose website is www.pirates-cave.com? Hmmm. ******************************************************** Now, for goodness sake children, play nice or Nanny will take away your little swords and guns and you shan't have them back for the rest of the week. Ace of HB, apologise this INSTANT for the rude names you called people.

WOOHOO! Decently priced pirate gear AT LAST! (Wait - we are taking the piss right?)

Right... I think I follow... I don't think that people being tossed overboard was referred to as "walking the plank", a: because it's not a term which I've ever come across that early, and b: because although the plank was perhaps essential to a sea-funeral in a practical way I doubt it was that important in a symbolic way to get a metaphor named after it. There are, to my knowledge, two genuine examples of people being made to walk the plank (Cordingly says one, but what does he know?), both well after the Golden Age. The example cited by Cordingly is to be found in the Times of July 23 1829 and concerns the capture by pirates of the Vhan Fredericka, a Dutch 200 ton brig. The pirates compelled the crew to walk the plank with shot tied to their feet. One passenger saved himself by revealing where some gold was hidden, and was put ashore on Cuba. The other example slightly pre-dates it, and was recorded in a deposition made in 1822: The deposition was later reprinted in full in the Kingston Chronicle.

I recall various contemporary accounts of crossing the equator ceremonies (Rogers, Teonge, Barlow etc), but I don't remember them involving Neptune. However, I could be completely mistaken (it has been known ). May I suggest that any evidence goes into a new thread to avoid getting too OT.

Never come across the term prior to a couple of incidents in the 19th century which involved actual walking of a plank. Never come across any examples of someone alive being slid off a plank. Do you mean as a deliberate execution or by accident?

Yar, but paying homage to Neptune when crossing the equator (got any GAoP era evidence of that btw?) is esentially a bit of fun - high spirits and the like. Denying yourself a valuable source of food is a lot more serious. Academic anyway since we've basically seen that seamen ate fish. Perhaps I should have been a little more lucid about traditions. Some "traditions" may have a basis in actual tradition, others, as you say, may come from a specific tradition relevant to a particular time or place, but a great many are hogwash undoubtedly, or have only been "tradition" for a short time (such as the great earring "tradition" for example). Dammit, read something else of interest about food this afternoon, damned if I can rememebr what or where though!

Why women didn't wear drawers Drawers are essentially there to protect the outer breeches from the dirt which would attack them from the wearer's skin, and from the obvious bodily functions and resultant debris. Nowadays we think of underwear as something which is next to the skin, whereas drawers in the 18th century are something next to the breeches, it's a fine distinction but an important one. Essentially think of drawers as being a removable lining for one's breeches. Women didn't wear drawers because they didn't wear breeches. Instead they wore underskirts (what you might call petticoats), and long shifts to protect their skirts from the dirt of skin and bodily functions. Their petticoats were a removable lining to their skirts in the same way as drawers were to men's breeches. Drawers developed from the braes of medieval times, which date back to at least pre-Conquest times and have a continuous history right through to the present day. I would say that Patrick's drawers are probably quite typical of the basic 17th-19th century men's underwear.

Das, I've heard the same about seamen being too superstitious to eat fish. Clearly the evidence shows that to be a lot of twaddle. The specific superstition I'd heard was that it was stealing from Neptune, but in an overwhelmingly Christian society such pagan sentiments are a little far fetched. There are so many nautical "traditions" that have absolutely no basis in tradition. Another one that's popped into my research several times recently is accounts of seamen swimming, both out of necessity and for leisure, but apparently we "know" seamen didn't swim because it was tempting fate to know how. Personally, I don't have much time for "traditions" these days, too few of them really are traditional. I suspect the reason for so much fish was eaten by the Dutch in the early seventeenth century was because the Dutch fishing industry was one of the largest in the world at that time, and it was one of the principal industries of Holland. John Keymer, writing in about 1620 reckoned that 20,000 ships and vessels were involved in the fishing industry around the British coasts, of which Thus, of 20,000 vessels employed by British, Dutch, French and Scandinavian fishing industries about 12,000 (60%) were Dutch. Hawkyns, I don't know that I'd even try Beaver Tail stew to find out how awful it was. You're a brave man (or a foolhardy one).

Welcome back Das! The Navy's diet was only regimented in as far as providing basic minimums, so that if tere were no other food to be had the sailors were guaranteed a basic diet. I am, at the moment, trawling through the diary of Henry Teonge, ship's chaplain in the 1670 who made three voyages to the Mediterranean station collating mentions of all the different foodstuffs they bought locally. Big task though... When the Viner Frigott docked in Alexandria to load cargo fresh supplies were bought on a weekly basis, mostly beef, rice, beans, fresh bread, and some luxuries including blackberries, cream, pigeon, and sherbert. Before they left Alexandria they laid in some more sea-store which included "macaroon" (probably macaroni, which was described at least as early as 1596 as "a certain victual in the form of hollow pipes... called by the name of macaroni among the Italians") On turtles, in Josselyn's second voyage (I think), he makes reference to hunting turtles, even describing the method, (the bit directly under the shell is aparently he nicest part). Can anyone remember which of the buccaneers it was who thought that flamingo tongues were so delightful? One other interesting point is that we tend to think of the standard ships' fare as pretty horrible - and certainly there are complaints about it - but complaints tended to be about quantity rather than quality, and we do have records of people positively enjoying some of it! The Swiss traveller Cesar de Saussure sailed on board an English warship in the 1720s: Thanks very much for posting those Snelgrave quotations, very interesting. I think the short answer to the question originally asked is: At sea for any length of time standard fare was salt meat, hard biscuit, oat-meal, dried peas, horrid cheese, fresh fish, and beer (or spirits). This was basically common across merchant ships, Naval ships, and privateers, so pending spedific evidence about ships' stores laid in by pirates it's reasonable to infer that they ate the same. When near land then that diet could be, and usually was, supplemented with whatever fresh provisions the locality had to offer.

We-ell, Drawers are mentioned in the Admiralty Slop specifications, as well as supply documents, and wills. It's safe to say that seamen owned drawers, from which it's reasonable to infer that they wore them, yes.

It is a bit ambiguous isn't it. I took it to mean that John Davidson was the woman who, having drunk too much and forgotten herself, started making advances on an unnamed messmate, and the messmate reported the incident. I guess it was the phrase "went by the name of..." that made me think that was, kinda implies that Davidson was the woman's alias.

Just outside the GAoP, but close enough to be maybe relevantish, and certainly of interest in itself. From the Ipswich Journal, May 21 1748. As well as being an interesting piece on female tars it also gives us a bit of an insight into attitudes towards homosexuality amongst seamen of the time.

That could backfire badly, you'll be on a diet of burgoo and soggy peas before you can say "malnutrition"!

In the adverts for the Puckle gun it was specifically mentioned that it could be used at sea. I would imagine (though I have no proof yet) that it would have had a more stable and less space consuming mount than the tripod under those circumstances. I'm desperately trying to find out how many of the things were made and sold, and in what sizes. Although they never took off I wonder just how (un)common they were.