Captain Tightpants

Amaniria, I appreciate your attempt at maintaining the peace.

Hugh I respectfully submit that your contention the history is not a science is complete and utter bunk.

While not a "hard" science like physics or chemistry, it is a science with definite methodology. He who ignores this methodology, far from being an historian, is a dilettante.

The divisive effects of two world wars, which undermined the ideal of a common international enterprise informed by an internationally acceptable point of view, and the increasing specialization and variety within the historical discipline itself have left history in much the same state of complex and divided purpose that marks all contemporary intellectual life. The earlier optimism that promised imminent recovery of the truth of the past has been replaced by the belief that no accumulation of facts constitutes history as an intelligible structure, and no historian, however free from crude bias, can be a totally neutral, impersonal recorder of an objective reality. Furthermore, the scope of history has expanded immeasurably, in time, as archaeology and anthropology have provided knowledge of earlier ages, and in breadth, as fields of inquiry entirely unknown in the past (such as economic history, psychohistory, history of ideas, of family structures, and of peasant societies) have emerged and refined their methods and goals. To many scholars, national history has come to seem an outmoded, culture-bound approach, although history written on thoroughly international assumptions is extremely difficult to achieve.

Historians have looked more and more to the social sciences—sociology, psychology, anthropology, and economics—for new methods and forms of explanation; the sophisticated use of quantitative data has become the accepted approach to economic and demographic studies. The influence of Marxist theories of economic and social development remains vital and contentious, as does the application of psychoanalytic theory to history. 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.

From http://www.cuw.edu/Academics/programs/hist...oriography.html

Yeah. History ain't a science.

Mr Madd, thanks for the clarification.

Hugh, thanks for letting me in on your methodology. I understand perfectly, and applaud your efforts. Sorry I got my knickers in half a bunch. It's all good.

Always and never, while efforts should be made to avoid it, is in reality quite difficult, because it is often necessary. No support for a thing or concept means that an historian is obliged to deny that thing or concept until supporting evidence is presented. That evidence can take many forms, in varying "tiers" of reliability. At the top is a primary source directly relating to the thing or concept; at the bottom is a chain of inferences based on peripheral primary sources and/or secondary/tertiary source material.

The guideline written by Kass and included in the FAQ is more pertaining to how we say "always" or "never" than explaining the objective fact. "There is no evidence to support this" means just that, no matter how it's written. I happen to believe that adding words like, "in my research" or "to the best of my knowledge" is a waste of words, even though they soften the intellectual blow; perhaps that explains how I express myself.

No matter how much you want one, and no matter how you phrase your perhaps impeccably logical argument, you can't have a T-Rex until somebody digs up some bones, savvy? Until other scholars can independently arrive at your conclusion based on the available evidence, they can only conclude that your conclusion is baseless (or at least announce that they'll believe it when they see it, which amounts to the same thing).

The hard sciences are not immune to the same principle. Look at the current furor over global warming! That entire issue is based on speculation and inference, making independent experimentation - and thus, concrete answers - impossible. That doesn't stop people from believing in global warming with a crusading fervor that would warm the heart of Pope Urban II during an invasion of Jerusalem by surplus noble sons of Western Europe. But until it can be conclusively proved, there will be argument. In that case, there is evidence to support both sides, often the same evidence.

Compared to that morass, our discussion here is simple and tame.

"No evidence means no evidence. Imagine whatever you like. But there remains no proof that Europeans were tattooed in the Golden Age of Piracy or before."

seems that point has been proven in error

"it was first recorded by Cook in the latter 18th century, some fifty years after the Golden Age of Piracy."

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

"I will skim Dampier when I get a chance to see if he records tattooed humans in his South Pacific and Central American travels. Frankly, I doubt any such reference will be found; I think I'd remember it."

another error

"but even such an inveterate note-taker and diarist as Dampier - who noted his experiences in extreme detail - made no mention of any of his European colleagues adopting the body-decoration practices of their "hosts".

and yet again another research oversight presented as fact; as was presented in black john's post;

You'll like this... I figured I'd skip right to Mr Wafer's account, since he did in fact go native. Mr Wafer has this to say:

But finer figures, especially by their greater artists, are imprinted deeper, after this manner. They first with the Brush and Colour make a rough Draught of the Figure they design; then they prick all over with a sharp Thorn till the Blood gushes out; then they rub the place with their Hands, first dipp'd in the Colour they design; and the Picture so made is indelible: But scare one in forty of them is painted this way.

Now, here's the good part...

One of my Companions desired me once to get out of his Cheek one of these imprinted Pictures, which was made by the Negroes, his Name was Bullman; which yet I could not effectually do, after much scarifying and fetching off a great part of the Skin.

So, there's evidence. At least one buccaneer by the name of Bullman had a tattoo on his cheek."

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 ....

Hugh,

Let me make this abundantly clear:

I have repeatedly acknowledged that you have documented tattoos to Europeans. I have praised you for a good job in so doing. I have no problem with admitting I was wrong. I have done so.

You've hoisted me on my own petard. You have information I didn't have before you gave me that information.

For some reason, you insist on throwing this into my face, as though I'm some sort of petulant child who refuses to see a simple fact instead of a discerning reader and historian who is simply casting doubt on some of your conclusions. It's obvious you want something further from me than my repeated admissions. What might that be? Do you just want to gloat, that you've defeated me? [shrug] Okay.

You've WON.

Here it is again: Hugh has proved that Europeans had tattoos, before, during and after GAoP.

Okay? Mark the date on your calendar.

Moving on.

How much evidence would be enough? A record of more than one pirate having a tattoo, evidence of tattoos being common, that'd be best. That fulfills the axiom about not making the rare common and the common rare.

Hell, I'd happily take evidence that Europeans weren't shamed by being tattooed. If I had evidence that a pirate - one pirate - proudly wore a tattoo, I'd call it a job well done, a good service to modern pirates who want to look historical.

For all of our wrangling, you've done good work, Hugh. You've established that Europeans had tattoos. Now all we need to get to what people want is documentation supporting the concept that more than one pirate wore his tattoos as a mark of pride.

Now can we please bury the hatchet - someplace other than my head - and get on with that process?

P.S. And for the record, tap-dancing requires agility.

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??

Now that is interesting and useful data of which I was unaware. You're definitely onto something, there.

In another field of slight interest to me - Irish clothing - much of what we think is true is reconstituted from repeated English prohibitions. We haven't got much at all to indicate what the Irish ca. 1500 wore other than that. This is the same sort of information, and that's good work, Hugh!

... 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.

Didn't mean to slap a change of rules on you. As I wrote above, I didn't realize until that moment that I was viewing this discussion from that too-narrow slant. The Atlantic and Caribbean pirates are my area of interest, you see. While the other areas are interesting (I love Dampier's records of his Pacific voyages, for example), I keep coming back there.

So if it appears that I "sprung" that on you, I apologize; I didn't even know until too late that I was doing that. I have expanded my purview now, thanks to you.

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 {snip}

This is sociologically tricky. Again, I think this is a bit of a stretch. While they were indeed "outside the confines of polite society", it's widely known that they had their own society, much of which was recorded. A piece of that record has yet to be presented supporting tattooing, save one which painted the practice negatively.

I readily and heartily admit that tattooing was possible. But that's as far as I can take it, and I still contend that possibility doesn't constitute proof for the practice.

I have real problems with the assumption - heard again and again in Captain Twill - that pirates, being antisocial badasses, could have or would have done anything. Like I said, it just seems too big a stretch.

This assumption seems to be based on what we see every day of social nonconformists in our modern society, like Goths or Punks or (dare I say it?) members of the modern "pirate lifestyle" (whatever that is). Our modern societal constraints aren't nearly as strong as those hundreds of years ago or even in the American 1950s; it is an hisoriographical mistake to assume otherwise.

The absence of proof does not invariably constitute proof of absence.

Nor does it invariably constitute proof of existence, Hugh. To use a trite example, we know eggs and olive oil were known in Palestine at the time of Christ. That doesn't mean they made mayonnaise. There is neither proof for nor against mayonnaise in the first century. There is sufficient knowledge of the history of mayonnaise to arrive at the conclusion that the sauce was unknown at that time in that area.

We are arriving, in this thread, at the point of figuring out when mayonnaise made its first appearance in a certain time and place.

Professor Martijn is correct that we mustn't lose sight of new data. New data is always a Godsend, especially in areas where we know comparatively little.

On the other hand, please consider that he also lists the grains of salt with which that data must be taken. In not so many words, Martijn lays out a burden of proof upon both the data and the researcher's presentation of the data. The data is simply the data. The presentation of the data confers the preconceptions and biases of the researcher. It's a shame that it happens - and a good historian always makes every attempt to sever his preconceptions from his work - but it is folly to presume that it does not occur.

To return to my earlier example of Irish clothing, the records - English all - must be carefully examined lest the overt bias of the recorder enter into our analysis. A knowledge of Anglo-Irish relations of the time is necessary as well as a knowledge of textile arts.

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.

Hugh, I'm trying very hard to determine why you think you're being disrespected here. So far as I know, I haven't written anything that could cause you to feel that way, as I have only been subjecting your presentation to the same sort of rigor I'd apply to my own. Let us, as you say, debate the facts and hypotheses. That's all I've been doing.

Fair enough?

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.

Of course I concede the point. You win; one sailor in GAoP had a tattoo. Still doesn't make it common.

Moreover, as Pat pointed out, he wanted it off. What does that say? Combined with your earlier evidence from the Spanish account, it says (to me) that, far from being something other mariners wished to emulate, tattoos were avoided by Europeans who wished to remain in the company of their countrymen without negative incident.

That's evidence, albeit circumstantial, that tattoos were, while extant, extremely rare amongst Europeans.

It occurs to me that we might be arguing at cross-purposes to a certain extent. My focus of study is on the areas which had high traffic by pirates, i.e., the waters of the Caribbean and North America, ca. 1680-1720. As such, I'm looking at a very narrow scope, compared to what you're finding. I'll try to keep that in mind as we continue.

I look forward to seeing your translations!

seems that your memory is not infalable afterall ; if you fail to concede the point you risk appearing to loose credibiltiy as the "noted histroians" of the pub.

Tone it down, friend. Enough with the threats, okay? No one is attacking you; you have no need to snap. Persisting in ad hominem attacks does credit to neither you nor your scholarship. I never claimed infallibility; on the contrary, I disclaim it whenever possible, for I know my limits (see my post to HarborMaster).

Like I asked before, let's keep this a civil academic discussion. Once this discussion degenerates into sniping, trolling and personal accusations, no one is going to be able to learn anything, myself included.

HarborMaster,

One of the unfortunate things about history is that it is fragmented.

First, no one person can possess the detailed information of which you speak; such a study would be the effort of a lifetime and would, at the end of that life, remain incomplete for a variety of reasons.

Second, since evidence is fragmentary, we have to do the best we can with what we've got. Historiography is a lot like assembling a case for court. You gather your evidence and make your case. If you charge a fellow with murder and cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks. The same principle holds in historical discussions.

That's not to say that you have to have an iron-clad case to convince the jury; if you can bring enough circumstantial evidence to the jury, they can agree that, even with a lack of direct evidence, the probability of the defendant being guilty is extremely high.

In discussions like this, an iron-clad case would be a contemporaneous account giving evidence that seamen in GAoP had tattoos. For example, if Dampier (or a Spaniard or Portuguese or Frenchman) wrote, "On the 23d of February, 1711, Second Mate Hutchins, along with John Macek and Rob't Davis did, while ashore and besotted with Drink, have their arms stain'd with Figures in the native fashion, whereupon they returned to the Vessel moments before weighing Anchor.", I'd congratulate the person who found the quote.

Circumstantial evidence could be something along the lines of: "De Villiers noted in his diary that they found a shipwrecked mariner, William O'Dwyer, who was taken aboard. He also noted that the rescued mariner had had tattoos applied by friendly natives. Another account, by Francois le Chevre, lists a W. O'Dwyer on another pirate vessel's manifest five years later."

That's good evidence, but only that one pirate had tattoos. It says nothing about O'Dwyer's crewmates getting tattoos, just that he had one. Still, it's a reasonable assumption that other mariners had similar experiences. On the other hand, it's still not proof that other pirates had tattoos.

In short, to a very large degree, you're right - no one person has a handle on all seafaring practices everywhere. But to do what I'm doing in this discussion, you don't need that knowledge. You need to know how to practice history. For that I am well-qualified, with university training.

Of course, your mileage may vary! ....the first actions of those whose logic is questioned is to deride those who question them

Hugh, no one is deriding you. Hell, I'm not even deriding your arguments. I'm debating you based on a different viewpoint. If I were deriding you, I'd be engaging in ad hominem attacks; i.e., calling you a poopiehead. I think you'll find I'm not doing that.

All I'm saying is that I find your conclusions too much of a stretch. To paraphrase Prof. Tolkien, "There's no evil there except that which you bring."

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.

You are 100% correct in these assessments, except the one about changing the rules, which I never did.

I'm simply asking you to see how much of a stretch it is to go from Europeans going native - and choosing, for whatever reason, not to rejoin their countrymen - and seamen in GAoP adopting the practice of tattooing. In all of your evidence, you haven't yet made that connection. And until that connection is made through documentation, no amount of exercises in logic can convince me to support it.

That's all! No need to get hot under the collar! I think you're doing fabulous work, and I'm glad to participate in this discussion. Let's keep it good-natured, shall we?

Kass,

My question is simply this.  Is it in the realm of possibility that a western European sailor MAY have been "stained" or "marked" or "tattooed"?  Is there any evidence stating that NO sailor was?

Again, as Captain Tightpants stated in the "Never Say Never (or Always) ...Unless, of course, it's something totally provable like, "They never used polyester."

Hugh is not saying it was common just that it was not impossible. 

Is it your thought that we can't be educated and make judgment calls regarding things that are not documented?  In that case, I am highly insulted.

I have a tattoo, not my character (especially since it isn't period correct).  When in character I keep myself properly covered (no matter what might be melting!)  No I don't think we should all be sporting tattoos an claiming them as pc.

Chole hit the nail on the head.  It is unlikely that IF any western European sailor had a tattoo it would be seen often.  It wasn't like someone was going to take a snapshot with their camera.  So the sailor with the dreadlocks kept them covered as he did his tattoo.  Why is that hard to believe.  Either way the general public at a historic event doesn't see it.

Yes, I know this is Captain Twill.  I have no evidence that they did have tattoos but I don't see any that states that NONE did.

Silkie,

First, I stole all of that directly from Kass's website. Her rules, and they're good ones!

Second, yes, it's within the realm of possibility. But being possible doesn't make it so. If we're seeking after what we know was done, there's still a reasonable doubt, because conclusive evidence has not yet come to light.

That is, in my (admittedly not so humble) opinion, not an area for a judgment call. I can't answer for Kass, but I think she feels the same way. Neither of us wants you to be insulted; no one is casting aspersions on your judgment. You and I simply disagree that this is an area in which can be made an educated guess.

Let me see if I can make myself more clear with an analogy. Say we have loads of evidence that English landsmen of certain classes corresponding with mariners wore coats of a certain cut. Say every picture extant shows examples of this coat. Now, say we have no information at all telling us exactly what English mariners wore. It is a safe reasonable assumption that mariners wore if not a coat of the same cut, something remarkably similar. Why? Because the mariners are from the same parent culture as the landsmen, and even though they're mariners spend a lot of time on land.

I see a tremendous gulf between that and adopting tattoos. As evidenced by Hugh's quote, not only was such a practice unknown in the parent culture, the presence of the tattoos and piercings would have occasioned ridicule from the "conformists".

Of course, your mileage may vary!

In dialectic, it is impossible to prove a negative. We can only prove a positive. Thus, it is impossible to prove that tattoos never existed. It is possible to prove they did, should evidence be found. The responsible historian will assume that a thing never existed without evidence to the contrary. That's something I learned in my college Historiography class. At the same time, the responsible historian will applaud when evidence is brought to light which proves a thing existed.

Hell, historians make enough errors even with reams of evidence! Why broaden the field?

Hugh,

Again, nice quote! We're getting ever closer. Now we've evidence that Europeans were "stained".

I'm still going to disagree with your original premise.

Please allow me to select what I find a very telling quote from your post:

My face is tattooed and my ears are pierced. What would the Spaniards say if they saw me like this?

This indicates that such things were Not Done amongst the Europeans. Gonzalo Guerrero was begging off having to go visit his countrymen after having gone almost completely native.

Instead of giving evidence for tattoos and earrings amongst sailors, you've provided very strong proof of the opposite! It indicates that a European wouldn't be caught dead in the stuff.

As you say, it's considerably early for GAoP.

Again, all good points, Hugh.

Unfortunately my stance remains that no matter how much logical sense it makes, it is still speculation, and equivocal speculation at that. When documentary or pictorial evidence appears of European sailors in GAoP being marked with what we'd call "tattoos", I shall be the first to cheerfully add it to my collection of footnotes. But for the nonce I must remain unconvinced.

That tattooing was known to European sailors - and to civilians on the European mainland - is not proof, positive or negative, that either sailors or civilians would have adopted the practice.

There are, as you note, many accounts of Europeans coming into contact with aboriginal peoples during their travels, but you must admit that accounts of those Europeans "going native" are few and far between; of those accounts, the overwhelming majority make note of the extreme duress of the experience. The logical conclusion is, therefore, that those men actively rejected their "hosts" as savages. Dampier made note of this impulse in his Pacific voyage notes.

Dampier also noted the prolonged exposure of his shipmates to (tattooed!) Polynesian cultures during his Pacific voyage(s), but even such an inveterate note-taker and diarist as Dampier - who noted his experiences in extreme detail - made no mention of any of his European colleagues adopting the body-decoration practices of their "hosts". He did record that some of those men took native wives and were loath to leave the place, but so far as I am aware he never mentioned them adopting the practices of their wives' culture. The only responsible conclusion, therefore, is that the men retained their European perspective, as any deviance would have been remarked upon.

Again, Hugh, while your information is interesting, it offers only sufficient support to indicate that tattoos on Europeans is possible. That "staining" was possible does not mean it was probable except through stretch of the researcher's imagination.

So we'll have to agree to disagree, methinks.

Good one, Hugh! Thanks for the information!

I still can't help but ask, "Okay, but where's the evidence that nautical men adopted the practice?"

Some more investigation is in order...

so here are my random thoughts...

*IF* someone had a tattoo during the GAoP, how likely would it have been to be visible? Clothing during the time was very covered. A man was considered naked in his shirt, a garment that would still cover enough of the body that even most modern tattoos would be unseen. In the non-English cultures of the time that we know to have tattooing, what is the common placement on the body? Were those only seen because their clothing was less covered than English styles of the time?

A cursory Internet delving into the etymology of the word "tattoo" leads this author to believe that tattoos were if anything unknown to Western Europe in GAoP.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary,

Although the practice of tattooing the body is very old, the English word tattoo is relatively new. The explorer Captain James Cook (who also gave us the word taboo) introduced the word to English speakers in his account of a voyage around the world from 1768 to 1771. Like taboo, tattoo comes from Polynesian languages such as Tahitian and Samoan. The earliest use of the verb tattoo in English is found in an entry for 1769 in Cook's diary. Sailors introduced the custom into Europe from the Pacific societies in which it was practiced, and it has remained associated with sailors, although many landlubbers now get tattoos as well.*

Thus, while the art of tattooing is quite old indeed - cf Maori and Polynesian culture - it was first recorded by Cook in the latter 18th century, some fifty years after the Golden Age of Piracy.

I will skim Dampier when I get a chance to see if he records tattooed humans in his South Pacific and Central American travels. Frankly, I doubt any such reference will be found; I think I'd remember it.

* "tattoo." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 24 Jul. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tattoo>.

To that end, Mr Bagley, I have taken the liberty of beginning a FAQ, which Kass has kindly Stickied to the top of the Captain Twill thread list page.

Are you interested in what really happened in the Golden Age of Piracy? Do you want to separate fact from fiction?

Excellent! Welcome to Captain Twill!

Like the main Forums page says, Captain Twill is for "Academic talk on maritime history, research, & interesting info". Does this mean fun is not allowed? Of course not. It does mean that we discuss things in an often rigorous academic way.

Some people come into Captain Twill and get confused or upset at the differences. The tone of the discussions here can be very much different than the rest of the Pub. If you don't know about that, Captain Twill can be an upsetting place.

So here's a FAQ to read, which (hopefully) will help you successfully participate in Captain Twill discussions in a meaningful way.

1. Why are you guys such jerks?

Topics can sometimes get heated. History is seldom cut and dried. Opinions can differ, often wildly, among historians, each of which is eager to defend their position. This must be done with legitimate sources, preferably from the time period. Because of the nature of websites, it is best to use that are backed up with historic sources. Always focus on the topic, not the person. It is never acceptable to engage in ad hominem attacks.

2. What is "Academic talk"?

"Academic talk" means precisely that. Should you make statements in a historical discussion, write only that which you can support by documentation. That can be from books, period evidence preferred, personal experience attempting to perform a period task and the like. "I can only imagine that this was so" is not academic. Be prepared to support your assertions with evidence. 

Here are some examples:

Good: "Captain Chuckles wrote of tattooed savages in his book, Voyage to a New Worlde."

Better: MLA citation or equivalent. See this website.

Good: "I happened to be working in the rigging of the Kalmar Nyckel, and I can tell you that bare feet suck on ropes; when I wore shoes - yes, leather-soled period shoes - I was utterly secure aloft."

Better: "...at night when we went to take our rest, we were not to lie still above four hours; and many times when it blew hard were not sure to lie one hour, yea, often (we) were called up before we had slept half an hour and forced to go up into the maintop or foretop to take in our topsails, half awake and half asleep, with one shoe on and the other off, not having time to put it on..." (Edward Barlow, Barlow's Journal of His Life at Sea (1659 to 1703), Vol. 1, 1934, p. 60)

3. How do I do good research? 

Don't Make the Rare Common and the Common Rare

You find a picture of an unusual outfit and you want to wear it to the next event. The picture dates to the time and place of the event, but you've never seen anything like the outfit in the picture before. Is it documentable?

The answer is that the outfit probably is documentable to that time and place, but reconstructing this outfit and wearing it to a reenactment event is a bad idea. If this is the only picture of such an outfit, that makes it a rarity. And at reenactments and living history events, we are meant to be accurately portraying people from a certain place and time in history. It will not do to represent a rarity unless there is a specific lesson to be learned from it.

Don't Document Backwards

So you fell in love with Kiera Knightly's undergown when she gets stranded on the island in Pirates of the Carribean I (you know, the one with the lacing on the sleeves?). But now you're going to a Golden Age of Piracy living history event and you want to wear it. Is it period?

This is called "Backwards Documentation" and it is always a bad idea. The truth is that you want to wear the dress so you will take the smallest bit of evidence that justifies its existence. You'll substantiate the sleeves from one gown and the body of another, ignoring the fact that one is from 15th century Italy and the other 12th century Romania, and neither can be traced to Port Royal in the early 18th century.

Don't Do "I'm A Pirate and I Stole It" to Justify Having Unusual Things

You love your fancy earrings and never take them off. So you don't want to take them off for the living history event. So you search all the only art sites for a portrait of such earrings. And you find one! It's in an engraving of a South American woman in native dress. Yay!

The problem is that you portray an Englishman. Many people will say, "Well, I am a pirate and I went to that part of the world and brought this back with me." While this seems logical to us, it doesn't make it good documentation. There were something like 5000 pirates during the years 1680-1725 and we have many pictures of the more famous ones. But none of them are wearing bits and pieces of native dress.

Beware Generalizations

Just because something is period-appropriate for 13th century England doesn't mean it was used in Germany... or in 16th century England. Be precise. Focus on a time and place and be specific.

Use Primary Sources

Nothing beats a primary source. You can argue and argue and argue that darts aren't period, but when you find them on a 16th century gown in a bog find, you can't argue with that!

Know Your Source and Beware of Bias

It is very valuable to know who your source was. In Irish research, many sources are Englishmen who were trying to discredit the Irish. These sources are not reliable because of their obvious bias. Investigate who your source was and how he came to represent the clothing of the people in question. Also, some paintings are allegorical or fantastical. These cannot be trusted to accurately mirror the kind of clothing that was worn by real people. After all, if you were a painter, would you paint the Greek god Apollo in a three-piece business suit?

Never Say Never (or Always)

Frankly, this is a hard one for me to remember. When I feel passionately about something (like the Irish never having worn kilts), I get practically evangelical!

It is safer to say, "No evidence exists of this," or "The current research supports this." Try to avoid saying, "They always did this" or "That was never done in period." Unless, of course, it's something totally provable like, "They never used polyester."

Three Equals One

Although it is not absolutely or always true, three separate secondary sources can be used in place of one primary source. Of course you must be careful when doing this substitution. Sometimes the secondary sources come from the same artist or "school" and you find that they are copying each other, not the reality of the clothing they portray. In this case, it is best to do a little research into the history of your source. If, for example, you have three paintings of a chemise, they are all by different and unrelated painters, and they occur in the same time period, they are reasonably reliable as sources.

"Lack of Evidence Against" does not Equal "Proof For"

Perhaps you have heard the phrase "you cannot prove a negative". This is true. However, if you cannot prove the positive, you are not documenting anything. If, for example, no evidence exists of men wearing neckties in the Middle Ages, it doesn't mean they did. "They could have" isn't documentation. It's guessing. If you cannot find an example in a period source, it is best not to assume its existence. Just because it makes sense to modern people doesn't mean it existed in the Middle Ages.

"Traditional" does not necessarily mean "Ancient"

Many countries' National Costume are based on folk costumes dating no earlier than the 19th century. Do not assume that because they are traditional, they date to the Middle Ages or before. After all, 21st century Americans don't wear Colonial short gowns and petticotes (unless we are Colonial re-enactors too!). Why should people from other countries be wearing clothing from centuries before? Even in more traditional cultures, fashions change. Assuming that "old" equals "medieval" is a trap. Beware of it.

Types of Sources

It is best to define types of sources and their levels of usefulness so that you may judge what will be helpful and what will be a waste of your time.

The best source for historical clothing is an extant example of the garment. Extant means that someone dug the garment out of a bog, grave or cess pit (rarely do garments from the Middle Ages survive in someone's closet as have garments from the Colonial period and American Civil War) and it is preserved in a state that it can be studied by archeologists and anthropologists. This is known as a primary source.

In terms of documentation for material culture, paintings are secondary sources. The painter is in effect "telling" you what the garment looked like. You are not looking at it yourself. Even though you may think that a picture is worth a thousand words, paintings can lie. The artists that made them were not tailors. They may have missed an important seam here or there, or drawn the drape of the gown differently because it "looked better." Also, in most of the medieval period, the concept of "perspective" was not yet known in painting. This makes it difficult to figure out what people and their clothing really looked like. However, they are still useful sources, especially when used in conjunction with primary and tertiary sources.

However, paintings are primary sources for painting techniques, pigments, canvas and other things that can be garnered from the study of a painting.

Verbal descriptions are either secondary or tertiary sources. The author is either describing the garment to you (secondary) or describing a painting or description he witnessed of the garment (tertiary). These are the least reliable sources. However, sometimes they are all we have. When used along with other types of sources, they can be useful. Some paintings are also tertiary sources. If the painter based his work on a verbal description or someone else's painting and not real life, it is a tertiary source.

© 2002, 2003 Kass McGann. All Rights Reserved. The Author of this work retains full copyright for this material. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial private research or educational purposes provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies.

4. So how do I participate?

That's easy! Read, read, read. If you happen upon a thread in which you think you might contribute, pen your thoughts (subject to the above).

5. What if I have a question?

That's the whole reason for Captain Twill: to answer questions. So ask away! But before you click on the "New Topic" button, do yourself and the rest of us a favor - click the "Search" link towards the top of the page. There are a bunch of questions that get answered over and over again, and endless repetition makes people a little testy. So search the Forums for terms surrounding your question. For example, if you want information on "authentic" "sea" "chests", search those three words.

There will be more here, I'm certain, as people weigh in. So weigh in!

Though others have stated the true state of affairs well, I'm going to weigh in.

i wasnt implying that.i was simply stating a point- that being authentic is cool but you have to draw the line somewhere and admit that you arent really an 18th century pirate,no one is.

No one who's serious about history and historical accuracy will ever make that statement. We well know that we can never be truly accurate. So no admission is necessary.

Just understand that we, the people who are devoted to historical accuracy, hear statements like that all the time from people who want to be perceived as authenticists but who are unwilling to put their money where their mouths are. That we do bathe and have modern dental prosthetics has nothing to do with how accurate we are in visible ways, nor has it anything to do with our knowledge of history.

this forum claims to cater to historical AND fantasy, but everyone here seems very intolerant of anything not historically correct.if someone joins here and just does this as a hobby,and has a life in the 21st century,they are not taken seriously.so im not gonna bother posting on this forum anymore because i do know its pretend. ill still browse and look at pictures and get info but thats it.

you should just change the site heading to state that this is for serious reenactors only and not for fun.

I'm afraid you're not seeing the difference between Captain Twill and the rest of the Pyracy Pub. As is very clearly stated on the front page of the Forums, Captain Twill is for "Academic talk on maritime history, research, & interesting info".

Does this mean fun is not allowed? Of course not. It does mean that we discuss things in a rigorous academic way. That means writing things you can support by documentation, whether that's a book, contemporaneous evidence, personal experience attempting to perform a period task, or something like that. That does not mean "supporting" your ideas with something along the lines of "I can only imagine that this was so". In other words, if you're going to come in here and make statements, you must be prepared to support them in an academic fashion. Does this mean you have to have a college degree? Nope. Just read how others write.

I think we need a FAQ sticky - what is Captain Twill? What can you expect to read? What do the denizens of CT consider "academic talk" (and its inverse)?

I can't find anything on her site about the repro script...

Mr. Foxe, do you know any places that sell repro coins? There's about three coins, I think, available on Jas. Townsend.

That's 'cos it isn't posted. Anyone interested in repro papers - currency, maps, broadsheets, etc. - email me privately at

bob AT reconstructinghistory DOT com

I'll let you know what we've got and prices.

Cheers,

Bob

(Kass's First Mate)

I had a few qustions regrading pistols and rifles. On many plates i see them with sashes or something holding the pistols up to 4. How would you recreate this. And i have seen many antique pistols beautifully engraved and inlaid with gold. Would this be practical for a common pistol or rifle.

There is, contrary to popular belief, a Search function to these Forums. It's just under the "Get yer own Black Spot" ad. Use it to answer your questions about carriage of arms.

As for engraving and all the frou-frou: the short answer is "No."

The reason you see so many antique firearms inlaid with gold, mother of pearl, and engraved in 2007 is because they're pretty. Fine things are precious, cared for, kept locked away, and thus tend to survive longer than the far, far more common like implements. The bare-bones pistols, the plain ones, will get used up. The German silver inlaid, engraved pistols were probably never even fired. Just too pretty.

So, even if you're portraying the captain of a pirate ship, carrying about engraved and inlaid pistols is wrong. If you'd even have them, they'd be locked in a box in your quarters. You certainly wouldn't go about hanging them from ribands or baldricks.

It'd be nice, wouldn't it? :)

The Book Club sticky might have something of use in it, but - having never ventured in there - I dunno.

Also, determining a Top Five or even Top Ten list of books is damn near impossible. What do you include? General histories of GAoP? If you start getting more specialized than Under the Black Flag or X Marks the Spot, your list starts to assume a very large possibility of becoming completely useless for anyone with interests much different than yours.

For example, Good Historical Books [tm] about brewing are going to be utterly useless to someone interested in, say, woodwork or gunsmithing or clothing production or sailmaking or cookery (okay, maybe you've got me on that one).

But - it might not be a bad idea to poke into the Book Club sticky and see what's what. I'll do that today.

Dear Captain Tightpants. I would sincerely like to thank you for the information you have provided. I am very interested in etymology, especially the sources of names. However, I enjoy learning about the origins of words and there uses as well.

Thank you for such an interesting read. It was greatly appreciated.

Tá failte romhat! I live but to serve.

Well, not really serve. per se. But it's nice to be thanked! It's especially nice to be thanked for doing something you love to do.

Glad you enjoyed it!

That's because the words conjoined are older than the medieval period!

Now, etymology isn't my strongest discipline, so bear with me.

"Ale" is derived from the Old English ealu, which is in turn derived from the Proto-Germanic aluth, Old Saxon alo, and Old Norse öl. Tangentially, these words may derive from a Proto-Indo-European word meaning bitter (i.e., alum), or from PIE alu-t, "ale", from base *alu-, a word with connotations of "sorcery, magic, possession, intoxication."

Any modern - meaning post-C17 - word you find with "ale" in it was at some point used in the brewing of ale. The herb alehoof, for example, was used as a bittering herb before the advent of widespread hops use. A bride-ale refers to what we might call the reception after the wedding, whereat copious quantities of ale were consumed ('tis a consummation devoutly to be wished!). It's a damn shame in my book that "bride-ale" parties drink champagne.

Alewife, specifically, is an Old English word referring to a female alehouse-keepers. (Note: Johnson makes a very acute distinction between an alehouse and a tavern; taverns sell wine and beer/ale, and alehouses sell no wine.)

According to one of my sources[1], when America was colonized in C17 (~1633), the term passed to a herring-like fish (Alosa pseudoharengus)[2], due to the fish's distinctive distended abdomen. One refuses to comment as to the commonality of distended abdomens amongst female alehouse-keepers. According to another, alewife is derived from the aboriginal American word aloof, "fish."

I'm going to go out on a limb here historiographically, but I'm going to speculate. I think it probable that the train station has more to do with the fish than the woman. The herring/shad trade was huge in C17 New England. Moreover, the term alewife was out of vogue for referring to a person. Have a glance at all of the "Brewster"s in the telephone directory; "brewster" is the female version of "brewer."

Should you wish a further tangent regarding the differences, modern and historical, between ale and beer, you have only to ask. For the nonce, I think I've bored you enough.

P.S. Most of the above is from the OED, except for:

[1] http://www.etymonline.com

[2] http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/A/Alosa_pseu...udoharengus.asp

Good lord! I just read Capt Tightpants's response....How rude. Kass, you allow that?

Chapman,

People take Twill very seriously, so if you don't have your facts straight, you'll hear about it. Answering serious questions without evidence or knowledge to back up your answers when you're in Twill is a big no no. I know and learned from experience. It still doesn't give Capt Tighty Whitey the go ahead to tell you to p!ss off! (spit in his direction)

Kenneth,

Keg and cask are often used interchangeably in the USA, though they describe totally different items.

A cask is a vessel used solely to dispense fermented liquid - most often, beer - while stored horizontally. Furthermore, the beer dispensed therefrom is conditioned in the cask, providing a live, changing beer. Google CAMRA. Casks come in different sizes than kegs. Casks still use the traditional volumes that derive from the Dutch beer measures of the 15th century - pin, pipkin, firkin, etc. - with their weird decimals of UK gallons.

A keg is also used to dispense beer. The main difference is that the beer inside is usually filtered, pasteurized or stabilized in some other way, then force-carbonated. Kegs are stood on end for dispense. Kegs come in 5, 7.75 and 15.5 US Gallon sizes.

In short, you get Coors Light in a keg, and don't often see casks except in brewpubs.

On another note, yes, I do get my panties in a bunch sometimes. It gets tiresome seeing the same question threads over and over again (is Search no longer a used function?). It gets even more tiresome when people spew the same nonsense that's been debated to death in one of the threads they didn't bother searching for. If you think I'm out of line for getting tired of that, tough. It's tiresome. I get short-tempered when people don't make the simplest effort to go find their own information, and instead come to places like this to get spoon-fed. I'm sufficiently sick of it that I no longer accept it. If you can't stomach being told an answer, don't freakin' ask the question. There are stupid questions; whoever made up that adage is an idiot.

As for giving Chapman a piece of my mind, he said something totally offensive. He completely dismissed something to which I devoted quite a lot of time, effort and money, something to which I remain devoted today, and is an accepted science with college-level departments in every major university. That gives me every right to tell him to piss off and demand an apology.

I know of some modern day casks made from Aluminium (requires a special keg coating inside to protect the beer from the Aluminium), but most of the ones I have tap'd over the years were made from Stainless Steel. 

Wrong. Modern casks are predominantly aluminum. Kegs are stainless steel. There's a difference between a keg and a cask. If you've found otherwise, let me know; I think you're off-base here.

Traditional Kegs were of course wood, and there are places still that use wood for Beer, though these also have been traditionaly also lined with a 'pitch' since the beer is not intended to gain any flavor from the wood as do 'spirits' and wine. 

All true. Have a cookie.

Oak is traditional for some uses, but there were a lot of other woods also used for casks. 

Really? Such as? The only different kinds of wood I've ever heard of have been different kinds of oak. Even the Romans remarked on it.

As for the shapes and sizes of cooperage, no, there weren't standard sizes. You could have two kilderkins standing right next to one another and see two completely different casks. It's still true today. Different container manufacturers will have different shapes to their proprietary containers. But 15.5 US Gallons is still an American half-barrel, no matter the shape of the keg/cask.

Thus, to say the volumes weren't standardized until X year is utter horsesh!t. A monkey could Google enough history of brewing (just one example) to give the lie to that.

In a related note: Chapman, don't bring up the steel-wood-hoop argument again. It's already been settled by people who actually know how to read.

Why am I being such a jerk to you? Because this:

Like all history, this is pure speculation

Is utterly offensive.

Like others who frequent these fora, I am a university-educated historian. History is a science with rigourous standards. History is not set in stone, but it is hardly "pure speculation". Only an ill-informed ass would make such a statement in a forum dedicated to historical study.

If you're going to equate history with speculation, do us a favor and piss off to somewhere your asshattery will not get in the way of people with brains.

^ Computer terminal. That way I can get the books whenever I want.

< Bored at work already. Can you tell?

V Likes snakes?

^ If a 500ml container contains 250ml, it contains 250ml. Anything else is conjecture.

< Suddenly has "She Blinded Me With Science" ringing in his head.

V Favorite early-1980s tune?

^ I should hope so; I get paid for it.

< Wishes he had off for President's day.

V Spamwich: mustard or mayo?