callenish gunner

25 years ago I had a flintlock pistol blow a breechplug and the resulting explosion gave me some blue dots tatttooed on the back of my right hand that stayed there for 16-17 years they have finally faded to virtually nothing but from day one they had a blue colour .....Iwould guess it would also depend on the skin and the depth of the colouration

common-sense seems all too rare these days!

I have gotten the solution of the long ridgepole for my fly ...by adding a hinge in the middle so I can pack the nine foot + sections directly on top of either the trailer or jeep

I found an even earlier account of the presenation of tattoos within english society: When Walter Raleigh(who never once spelled his name that way), returned with Manteo on tow, a Native American replete with facial tattoos & otter-skin cloak, his queen promptly knighted him. Manteo set London on its ears Big Chief Elizabeth Giles Milton 2000 Farrar, Straus & Giroux, NY ISBN: 0374265011

I have read the link you posted and the quote you included within your last post, nowhere in the course listing or otherwise does it define the study of historiography as a science it say it's an endeavour to interpret from what those involved can observe or gather from artifacts etc. A quote from the university's study description: "The evidence may be biased or mistaken, fragmentary, or nearly unintelligible after long periods of cultural or linguistic change. Historians, therefore, have to assess their evidence with a critical eye." Social sciences while called sciences are not in truth pure science. They are detailed studies and interpretation of observations or reports from third party sources that can or cannot be verified. In many cases they are at best postulations of a train of logic that puts meaning to things that they can study but cannot prove as actual fact. Generally, the fields of sociology, anthropology, economics, social science, psychology, political science, education, and history are grouped into the broader academic area referred to as the “social sciences.” They are also commonly called the soft sciences as opposed to the sciences of chemistry, biology, and physics, and geology Even withing your own quotation you show the case for it as an interpretive study: "At the same time, many scholars have turned with sharpened interest to the theoretical foundations of historical knowledge and are reconsidering the relation between imaginative literature and history, with the possibility emerging that history may after all be the literary art that works upon scholarly material." literary art??? mmmmmmm

Now, Enigma, if it will satisfy you that my typing style is up to your grammarian standard; which in and of itself is an arbitrary structure set up by those of the ruling class of the English aristocracy. That was done in the last part of the 18th century by an English cleric and adopted by the schools that taught those of the ruling class. History is not a science; it is referred to as a social science but it is not a true science that is why at universities worldwide it is not included in the school of sciences. It is a department in and of itself or grouped in with anthropology, sociology, and sociolinguisitics. I choose to not utilize the confines of the standard written format when posting communications on threads such as this or perhaps in my other 2000+ posts over the past 3 years on this site alone. However, if you'd like to have everything to your grammatical preference from now on I can oblige; but it is one of the remnants of a social construct not usually practiced on this medium. If you have definitive evidence that can disporve what I have presented please present that as evidence and refrain from the pseudo intellectual asaults on others who's opinions vary from your own positions. That, sir, is counter-productive to the cognitive process of the debate at hand. From an actual science that of physics; the migration of molecules resulting in flight would at best be a phenomenum that could be measured and given imperical data. When you have the evidence of that happening please publish your finding within a scientific journal and make your fortune.

history is not science it is based as best we can or the information available from the writings or archeological examples there were some writings regarding tattoos and yes dampier wrote that one man bullman wanted the tattoo he had received upon his cheek removed he also wrote that Mr. wafer had been "painted like a savage" which in many accounts included the practice we know as tattooing and since Wafer is said to have desribed the practice and attempted to remove the tattoo from Bullman ....that is an assumption that only Wafer and or Bullman were the exclusive recipients of such tattoos as were the French sailors coming to New France especially as i have found in the Jesuit reports to Paris from the 1670's which i am currently having a french colleague translate for me currently so making this an assault on the intelligence of the those who take a different position than that which you choose to take becomes counter productive and an insult to those who do the research and glean the facts that are available from reliable sources .....unless at this point you have documented evidence that refutes the evidence that has been presented then your position is like that of the 15th & 16th century catholic church who insisted that because they were the authorities in these matters the world was flat and that it was the center of the universe so unless you have the proof allow for the difference of opinion ....just by making a claim and claiming to be an expert doesn't make you above reproach

the very first thing i always do with my leather-soled shoes is to rough the sole up with a bit of coarse sandpaper (don't go gonzo with it) just enough to reduce the slipperiness of the hard smooth leather and since i know my feet i have a shoemaker add a small steel wedge in the rear outer edge of my heels and i never "polish" them with black polish i use just a coat of clear wax a few times a year ....but i do keep one pair of "dress" shoes with silver buckles for fancy dress kit been awhile since i have used those and ties would be right for either early or late period since a poor man's shoes might lack buckles anyway ....since the secondhand buckle/clothing market was booming during period poormen would often hawk anything of value just to eat

frankly, i had read the thread and got intrigued because i had remembered some earlier readings of years ago ...so i chose to go online and do my begining research and within a matter of hours i had obtained sources that pointed me in many directions for the detailed accounts... it has spurred me to go after the extensive documents outside the the rather limited english records which in my humble opinion have considerable ethnic bias... but also blanket statemnts are a challenge to me and not being one to let a challenge go by when told that it's an always or never standpoint i must by my nature see if that arguement is valid ....this sort of intellectual gymnastics is why i had gotten into forensic debate 40+ years ago. it's why i don't just swallow blindly the pablum fed to the masses... i have studied the principles of propaganda and persuasion and i have chosen to be what would be called a free-thinker ....don't tell me it's a fact: prove to me it's a fact ! just as you and kass have claimed it needs evidence and neither of you had presented clear and irrefutable evidence to prove my assertions wrong. i persued it to find that the rope i had grabbed onto was in fact an elephant. i have no animosity towards you or kass but i will not accept blindly the word of so-called authorities without question ...because i know that the world is a huge place and what was a truth to the english was not the same truth to the spanish or to the dutch, or french,russians, arabs or the natives of the new world ...truth has always been a matter of perspective and perspectives differ from viewpoint in place and time. so good luck with your endeavours to research the history but remember to broaden your sources or you'll trip yourself up by relying on too few sources for your information

i thought perhaps you were poly(h)ester

patrick i'm almost certain we could find some space for you and your kit from miami to KW....save you a few doubloons at least ..the better to spend on rum lad!!!

seems that point has been proven in error again an obvious error since both damier's giolo and at the very least the four iroquis kings proved that the exposure to the english was much prior to cook another error i can continue the point by point style of debate to add to the credibilty of my position if you'd like. but i think the point has been made... to include the several groups who had tattoos and to disavow any participation by any of those in direct socialogic contact with the societies that practice the art of tattooing is one of intellectual tap-dancing. how much evidence would be enough ....perhaps the name date of birth and death and family photo album from an "english sailor" who had gotten tattooed ....oh wait they didn't have photographs and only the wealthy could afford to have paintings done of themselves....and besides who in their future would want to see an ordinary sailor who had a disgusting tattoo ....

if there be one two or only a dozen during that period why did the admiralty have sanctions against the practice the records also show that by 1740 any man with a(staining/tattoo) could be registered as a non available seaman to a void being pressed into service.(Law, Crime, and English Society, 1660-1830 By Landau, Norma) Cambridge University Press...... did so much change in those 20 years and 30 years before cook's return ...and why did the admiralty have sanction prohibiting the piercing or marking or otherwise self mutilation of ones personage on the books during this period could it have been because of the high risk of infection during the period that would have rendered a sailor unfit for duty?? .... and the golden age would have included the pirates who sailed along the african coast and as far as madagazcar and beyond ...since they were pirates and europeans(i.e. william kidd) now that is finnoodling your data lad and that is a change in rules ....if that was the extent of your claim that should have been presented initially not after the fact. if you claim that was the extent of piracy that it was just those waters it would be inacurate to the history of the maritime of the period. i never made a claim that it was so widespread an occurance as that every man jack that sailed had a tattoo as not everyone since cooks return has one what i postulated was the fact that it was within the realm of possibility that those exposed to the practice could have chosen (or in some cases were forced) to have tattoos. if a culture of social conformity was the norm why would any of these men have become pirates at all??? they choose to be outside the confines of polite society so why should anyone believe that if they'd rob and kill for gold and other plunder? why they'd stop at the social constraints against tattoos ....the arguement has a lack of common sense about it. pirates were social rebels and outcasts, most by choice, so what other social moraes do you think they might have violated ...lying, cheating, adultry, stealing, murder, sacrilege...... The absence of proof does not invariably constitute proof of absence. Unless this trite warning is heeded, ethnohistorians risk getting caught up in a corrosive mind-set of legalistic phraseology, litigation wordplay, and the finality of court judgements, instead of continuing to probe, to ponder and to periodically re-evaluate the data, as they should. The historical record is always fragmentary, selective, and biased. We must therefore evaluate sources carefully. Can any of the data be quantified? What is their particular nature? To what extent are they likely to contain credible information on a specific subject? Might there be reasons for doubting their reliability? Are there any known gaps in the time period covered by these records? Do they merely represent a sample of a voluminous class of documents? Has there been a tendency or reliance on only some categories of relevant records to the neglect of others? More systematic attention should also be accorded to preconceptions, hidden agendas, and incomprehension. What accounts for the lack of detailed ethnographical information in early documents? -from a guide to cultural anthrology & ethnohistorian researchers prof. Charles A Martijn if you want to debate further i'm more than willing to continue but intellectual disrespect will be returned if that is the route you choose. i can debate the facts and the hypotheses of the historical accuracy of statments presented. but remember that when a bias is proven the re-representation of imperical limits is a poor excuse for valid arguement.

seems that your memory is not infalable afterall ; as blackjohn proved when he referenced dampier's work regarding wafer and bullman and the process and the attempted removal of a tattoo so from what was presented as the suggested proof of the argument was did "any" european have tattoos during the GAOP the answer is a resounding yes. if you fail to concede the point you risk appearing to loose credibiltiy as the "noted histroians" of the pub. and since the other information i gathered was in french it did take some time for me to do a fairly accurate translation regarding the newfrance encounters by sailors and traders with the natives of north america and their penchant for tattooing also the pilgrims returning from the holyland during the renaissance and through the 17th century with tattoos of the cross of jeruselum tattooed on their arms as a show of devotion and as a sign of safe passage for pilgrims from barbary pirates and the sailors during the late seventeenth and eighteenth certury returning from south sea voyages with tattoos. i'm currently trying to have some portugese references translated regarding their voyages to the far east in the 1670's-80's &90's dealing with the spice islands and dealing in japan all of where tattooing flourished during this period. i did decypher that the term "painted" also meant coloured as in marked with paint/dyes so to the europeans of the day i'm sure meant those tattooed did appear to be painted ; just as dampier referred to giolo as his painted prince when he brought him to london for exhibit.

and the truth shall set them free!!! thank you sir

but dampier also presented giolo as the painted prince ...can it be both ways does painted mean painted with paint one time and tattooed the next??? just a topic for debate.............

just as for instance my great grandfather had a tattoo on his forearm that he got during the late 1860's but he always kept it covered with long shirtsleeves even when in summer it was quite warm and he was working hard ...it was because the local church thought and preached that such tattoos were heathen sacrelege and that was enough that he chose not to subject himself nor his wife to the oppinions of the community..... so it was something he had done as a very young man that he chose not to divulge to the community in which he lived ....it didn't mean it didn't exist, it did, but no one in the community knew of it

Of course, your mileage may vary! ....the first actions of those whose logic is questioned is to deride those who question them there are accounts and i am currently attempting gain copies of the actual documents of those who were taken into native culture within the new world and gained acceptance within their societies and whom were later "redeemed" by there original countrymen who choose to remain among their adopted cultures ....for various reasons it did not negate that fact that they were of european extraction it meant that they choose to live outside that culture and adopt another culture to live within....and whether it was the fact that they had been tattooed or not doesn't alter the fact that hey were european ....you can't change the rules to justify your position just to prove someone else wrong ....if guerrero chose to remain among the mayan it didn't make him any less spanish it meant that he chose not to return to the culture that would have at the time possibly have killed him for going against the rule of the church (i.e. inquisition) there is also a later report of another spaniard who in florida had chosen to live among the natives there who was also tattooed and also refused to return to spain as there are numerous antedotes of english and french and also dutch settlers who were taken into native cultures in this period who chose to adopt and remain within the adopted communities that does not negate the origin of their births

i knew i had read it somewhere before: On arriving in Cozumel from Cuba, Cortes sent a letter by Maya messenger across to the mainland, inviting the two Spaniards, of whom he'd heard rumors, to join him. Aguilar became a translator, along with Doña Marina, 'La Malinche', during the Conquest. According to the account of Bernal Diaz, when the newly freed friar attempted to convince Guerrero to join him, Gonzalo Guerrero responded: Spanish: "Hermano Aguilar, yo soy casado y tengo tres hijos. Tienenme por cacique y capitán, cuando hay guerras, la cara tengo labrada, y horadadas las orejas que dirán de mi esos españoles, si me ven ir de este modo? Idos vos con Dios, que ya veis que estos mis hijitos son bonitos, y dadme por vida vuestra de esas cuentas verdes que traeis, para darles, y diré, que mis hermanos me las envían de mi tierra." English Translation: "Brother Aguilar; I am married and have three children, and they look on me as a cacique (lord) here, and captain in time of war. My face is tattooed and my ears are pierced. What would the Spaniards say if they saw me like this? Go and God's blessing be with you, for you have seen how handsome these children of mine are. Please give me some of those beads you have brought to give to them and I will tell them that my brothers have sent them from my own country." And Gonzalo's wife Zazil Há angrily addressed Aguilar in her own language: "Why has this slave come here to call my husband away? Go off with you, and let us have no more talk." Then Aguilar spoke to Guerrero again, reminding him that he was of Christian faith and should not throw away his everlasting soul for the sake of an Indian woman. But Gonzalo was not to be convinced. Bernal Díaz de Castillo (Historia Verdadera . . .Chapter XXIX) so therefore it was within the realm of possiblility that some europeans were tattooed admittedly this account is from before theGoldenAge ofPiracy but it doesn't exclude the possibility that some/ not all could have been tattooed

then my dear kass and tightpants you both have not proven beyond a doubt that no indidual or group didn't have a tattoo just because of exclusion from the dominate cultures bias toward the practice in their literature or records .....the bias is also just circumstansial as well ....that bias was one you yourself put forth in your guidelines ... it's the same as when in recent years those whom had gotten tattoos in their youth of say 50-60 years ago tried to keep them covered in polite society as an indiscretion of their less than responsible youth... since only nere-do-well sailors or convicts had them

William Dampier is responsible for re-introducing tattooing to the west. He was a sailor and explorer who traveled the South Seas. In 1691 he brought to London a heavily tattooed Polynesian named Prince Giolo, Known as the Painted Prince. He was put on exhibition , a money making attraction, and became the rage of London. It had been 600 years since tattoos had been seen in Europe and it would be another 100 years before tattooing would make it mark in the West. In September of 1691 a tattooed Polynesian slave was brought to London to be exhibited as a curiosity. His owners went to great pains to promote his public appearances: they arranged to have two full-length portraits engraved and published as illustrations for an elegantly printed pamphlet which introduced him as "Giolo, the Famous Painted Prince." Prince Giolo did not want to visit London. His owners, however, had told him that he would be handsomely paid for his public appearances and would afterward be allowed to return to his home in the Philippines. But the journey to England was arduous and Giolo, who was in poor health when he arrived, soon died of smallpox. This was a great disappointment for his ambitious English owners, who had hoped he would live long enough to make them rich. Prince Giolo had been brought to London by an adventurer and buccaneer named William Dampier. It was the dawn of the golden age of piracy: Captain Kidd, Henry Morgan and others were operating out of headquarters in Southern Mexico and enjoying profitable careers. Dampier, however, was not one of the world¹s great pirates. For over 12 years he had traveled up and down to coast of South America, changing allegiance from one gang of pirates to another as he thought to better his position. But the pirates with whom he traveled did not capture Spanish Galleons laden with gold, diamonds and pretty ladies. Instead, their routine work consisted of the safer, if less profitable, business of robbing defenseless villages and small coastal vessels. It turned out to be much work for little money, and after ten years of this strenuous life Dampier signed on with a ship headed for the Philippines. It was while he was in the Philippines that Dampier first saw Giolo, whom he acquired from a ship¹s officer named William Moody. Dampier described his adventures in the Pacific and his meeting with Giolo in a popular travel book, A New Voyage Round the World (1697) with that sort of example in the eyes of sailors ...almost impossible to think that none partook in the practice ...was it 100% of the crew?? i also doubt that! but 10-20% -well within the confines of believeability ...was it resounding 0% i also doubt that the evidence was i'm sure an obscure "staining" that would have been kept covered in polite society

this was a quote that i gained from professor gustav kinitzski who was a professor of cultural anthropology at clarion university in pennsylvania: A document is evidence only of itself. Those who keep Documents document what they see, and they document the information they need. When a historian approaches the records it is imperative that he or she put that principle in the forefront. Nobody kept records to make the doing of history easier for the historian. They kept records of the phenomena that mattered to the society in which they lived. Although documents tell us wonderful things, they almost always only tell us about the society which the record-keeper lived in. While dealing with marginal groups, the documents impose the perceptions of the dominant society upon what might well be an altogether different reality within the minority society.

that is an assumption of english bias ...as was a point brought up in the guidelines for the thread ...if you want to make a practice,participated by some, less signifigant disavow any circumstances of a practice "the always or never arguement" ....if it was openly stated in any document that no sailor or traveler ever came home with a tattoo then perhaps i'll believe it was the exclusivity of the practice but unless there is a document that says no sailor or pyrate ever had gotten a tattoo or a "staining" as they were called before cook's return to england in 1771 ...then the acceptance of your arguement would be valid but to make the assumption that every european that came in contact with the practice refused to have the staining applied until cook returned sounds way too contrived to me ....if i were living among the natives along a central american coast, say, i might be intrigued enough to have a tattoo but since i was also a european who frowned on such practice that had been otlawed by pope hadrian in the 800's i'd make sure it was in a rather clandestine location so that only those i was most intimate with would see such a marking ....i'd not make it a display to the whole world ...the same as many celts kept the "old ways" alive even with the condemnation of the church for centuries

since it wasn't a practice accepted in polite society in england i'm sure it wasn't widely spoken of or if a sailor had such a tattoo on their body it, like chole stated, in polite society it would have been covered ...but a blanket statement that it couldn't occur just because there is no article in an "english" jounal doesn't exclude it either ...that is ethnocentric clap-trap ...these men were outside the society of england they lived and travelled into worlds unknown to the average sit at home englishman and what they did to fit into the societies that they encountered has been referred to as going native by the writers in england at the time ... so the debate will continue ad infinitum this was painted of one of the five tattooed iroquis kings who went to london to appear before queen anne to gain a treaty to gain military aid to fight against the french it was painted during their visit in 1710 and since there were reports o fthe practice of tattooing in almost every tribe from canada to the reaches of south america i'm sure that some sailors partook of the practice

the polynesian term for the practice came into the language after cooks expedition but the practice in the ne w world was well documented prior to his exibitions: Unfortunately, there are few surviving illustrations of North American native tattoo designs. The first illustrations which show tattooed natives were published in the Jesuit Missionary Francois Du Creux's Historiae Canadiensis seu Novae Franciae (1656) There is, however, no reason to think that the tattoo marks seen in these engravings are accurate representations of native designs. The European-style figures, capes and backgrounds make it clear that the artist worked from imagination and from written descriptions rather than from life. Another artist (probably Charles Bécart de Grandville of Quebec) apparently copied and tried to improve on the Historiae Canadiensis illustrations by supplying the figures with appropriate native props such as tobacco pipes, tomahawks, and loin cloths. De Grandville's drawings, originally published in Codex Canadiensis (1701) have since been widely reproduced as the first pictorial record of native tattooing in North America. In 1593 Captain John Smith wrote that the natives of Virginia and Florida had "their legs, hands, breasts and faces cunningly embroidered with diverse marks, such as beasts and serpents, artificially wrought into their flesh with black spots." The most accurate early illustrations of these tattooed Florida natives were made by John White, a British artist, cartographer and explorer who, in 1585, sailed with Sir Walter Raleigh on an expedition to establish a settlement on Roanoke Island in the territory of Virginia. White was an accomplished illustrator who made hundreds of valuable drawings of the natives and the flora and fauna of the region. In 1590 many of his drawings were published in Thomas Hariot's Briefe and True report of the New Found Land of Virginia. In a curious appendix to Hariot's work, White included several drawings of elaborately tattooed Picts to show "how that the Inhabitants of the Great Bretannie have been in times past as savage as those of Virginia." White's original paintings are now in the British Museum. so it would have not have been impossible for the sailors/pirates or bucaneers of this period to have come in contact with the practice or to have chosen to participate in the practice.