Brit.Privateer

Ah, I know some points that might explain this. For Jamaica, especially as you get father along into the seventeenth century and into the eighteenth, it was full speed ahead with cultivating land for sugarcane, and mostly sugarcane. So that's why they had to import food, including pig. Pig is an animal that Europeans liked very much, and the English with no exception. Pigs are easy enough to take care of, and produce good amounts of meat. Pigs are easier to transfer over the seas compared to cows plus pigs are basically bottom feeders in terms of consuming food (which I always thought explained why pork, while tasting just fine, often brought health issues with it in the long run and possibly explained why some religions restricted it's consumption), contributing to the ease of taking care of them. So Jamaica would be short on port at times because of having no other option but to import (I suspect the 1660s would not have the same network of supply set up for food as they would later on), and I also suspect that's why they tried exploiting other things such as turtle so much. Why go out of the way to import pork and pig? The English (and Europeans in general) were known for trying their best to maintain qualities of life they knew from back home across the ocean, and one of those included pork. This was especially true of the well to do, who went to long extents to get everything from clothing to bread of the proper style. There is a portion of the book Sugar and Slaves that goes into greater detail on this kind of phenomenon. Also, I'm pretty certain pirates ate it since remains of pig bones, cut up for cooking, were found in the archaeology on the probably Queen Annes Revenge site. As to the medical recommendations, simple situation of medical knowledge differing from what the common person practiced.

The F word as used in the show is mostly wrong. In 1715 and thereabouts, it would have strictly referred to people engaging in intercourse. The only time in the first episode it is used correctly (even though it still could have been said more accurately) is once by Anne Bonney when she tells Calico Jack she is interesting in doing it. Beyond that, no. The use of the F word to mean an intensifier expressing annoyance, hostility, urgency, exasperation; or used in imprecatory and exclamatory phrases are all incorrect and only began being used in such a way in the 20th century. If you want to argue otherwise, go argue with the Oxford English Dictionary, they've documented the use over time and that's what they show.

No, At the Point of a Cutlass isn't fiction -- it's true. Based on a rare manuscript from 1725, At the Point of a Cutlass uncovers the voyage of Philip Ashton -- a nineteen-year old fisherman who was captured by pirates, escaped on an uninhabited Caribbean island, and then miraculously arrived back home three years later to tell his incredible story. http://www.gregflemming.com/ Greg I would not have expected that from the title. I know the account, what exactly did you do with it? Did you do what Kevin Duffus did with Blackbeard's history? "pirate pop culture/literature reference book" that's more a term for my own use. I couldn't think of a good way to describe a writing that is/was popular with some kind of notable public group. I just found it interesting to get recommendations from two notably different people in a discussion and that this fictional pirate writing never came to my attention. I read the first chapter and it's great because it's pretty much a satire of all the cliches, memes, and tropes of pirates in fiction (especially film it seems). Remember, not only do I research the history of the original pirates, but also the public perception of them (which they often get through film and written fiction) since even historians are influenced by them (as Neil Rennie pointed out in his book with historians interpreting the Anne Bonney and Mary Read history). When I researched the book, I also encountered the hilariously lucky coward Flashman as well.

Well, for newer books, besides the last one I mentioned, I can't recommend the book on that last list I wrote (the one Mission linked on here), Neil Rennie's Treasure Neverland since it's great for showing how pirates got so clotted up with romanticism (even the "real history" parts). Besides that, still have to get to Honor Among Thieves (even though I've been told there are notable issues with it, but it still apparently has merits in the sources it finds); and after Foxe and a guy name Cobb revealed a pirate pop culture/literature reference book by George Fraser called The Pyrates, I've been reading that too. Good for you being able to drop $500 on those books. I assume At the Point of a Cutlass is fiction? You're right. His conclusions seem quite balanced. For example, once I'm done reading this book and post my thoughts, I'll have to quote the paragraph about pirate sexuality - sums up the situation quite well. In which book did Appleby reference you (this one)?

Here's what is on Netflix right now for pirate films, updated (that aren't straight up cartoons targeted at children): U.S. Netflix 1-30-14: -Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl -The Pirates of Penzance (1983) -The Boy & the Pirates -Pirates of Treasure Island -Treasure Island (1999 TV movie) -Raiders of the Seven Seas -Swashbuckler -Captain Kidd and the Slave Girl -Treasure Island (2012) (TV-Movie, 2 parts) -Hero's Island U.K. Netflix 1-30-14 -Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl -Pirates of the Caribbean [4]: On Strange Tides -Davy Crockett and the River Pirates -Treasure Island (1950)

It sounded like an interesting project, but if a decade passes with no visible progress, and with two of the major contributors passed on (and does anyone know if Schonhorn is still alive - he doesn't seem active in pirate history to say the least (though a search for him incidentally brought up a syllabus for Bialuschewski's pirate history class at Trent University)), I'll put money on it not seeing the light of day in print. Yes, Baer's 4-volume collection is usually in the $500 area of cost - the reason is what I would describe as "targeted towards library reference sections." This is not intended for a shelf in a mainstream book store. With a limited printing, four hardcover books that have plenty of pages, and just being something for reference (it's not a story or even an argument to be defended) - that's why it's so much. So yes, either go with Ed's recommendation of Inter-Library loan or find a library that holds this collection.Though, according to WorldCat, 77 libraries in their collection hold it (which isn't a lot for WorldCat, 50 or so are U.S., 7 are UK, I think if you cover libraries that aren't in the database, you probably won't get past 200 libraries owning this). http://www.worldcat.org/title/british-piracy-in-the-golden-age-history-and-interpretation-1660-1730/oclc/82672379 You tease Ed, you and your 400+ page book full of transcriptions of pirate primary sources. Some people get eager over video game releases, this is my equivalent. Though I should be satisfied for now, I just got Appleby's Women and English Piracy, 1540-1720 (and I'm very happy with the conclusions made so far, and even the first page summary of piracy activity the book covers was surprisingly good and mentioned a couple of things that usually get glossed over in such a summary).

When and where did this get announced? Plus having Kenneth Kinkor involved also advances my interest. Were they only trial transcripts? The only think I know of that might be remotely related to this is Kinkor's Whydah Sourcebook that never got published before he died.

We can pick apart a film's or show's inaccuracies and still like it, right? Just because there are inaccuracies doesn't mean you have to dislike it. Some people are going to be interested in that, so we discuss it. If people ask about the accuracy (which they have and will since the show is pitching itself as "real") of the show, I see no problem in knowing in advance the issues in it. Doesn't take away from the entertainment quality, does it? Or are there just a few people who don't care about it but get annoyed at those who post about it?

I'm waiting to see what they actually do with that to judge it. We didn't see him, so I'm wondering if they are going the route, "Blackbeard started out as a inside pirate joke and then Edward Thatch turned it into something scary." Want to see if this gets brought up in any other part of the season.

I was informed that you all here might be interested in this Analysis of the Historical Content in STARZ's Black Sails that I wrote: https://www.dropbox.com/s/h12ph5ltwylv6zo/Analysis%20of%20Historical%20Content%20in%20Black%20Sails.pdf Mind you, it's only talking about and critiquing historical stuff. This isn't a review of the show's entertainment value by any means. It's just on the pilot (and I'll revisit it after the season is complete and critique the entire season all together). Also, small spoilers in the review. Would be interested to hear if anyone found this interesting or informing.

The list mentioned by Mission has all academic to an extent (it's a requirement for that list), they all at least include some kind of note system at least (for example, Woodard and Little have note systems, but aren't traditional academics in their work, but it's still good work). Also, you forgot to add Ed Fox and Arne Bialuschewski to your list of academics (though the latter hasn't published books, he's done some crucial articles), plus Lee's one work on Blackbeard in the 70s isn't that great (especially now since scholarship on him has advanced pretty far and shown inaccuracies in his work).

I thought I would chime in on the origins of one myth - the pirate sodomy thing. Blame the 80s. I'll expand on that, from the late 70s to the early 90s, a few people interested in gender studies (part of a wave of new approaches to history that the baby boom generation helped push in as they came of age) decided to write some books and other things that tried to demonstrate that pirates were these libertine sodomites. Barry Burg and Hans Turley are probably the biggest names in all this. Readings of this stuff and looking at the arguments, the arguments fall apart real quick. It sometimes appear that these writers, instead of surveying what the history presented and reporting findings, instead cherry picked the history to support their arguments period (and often took the evidence out of context too). Two examples that come to mind immediately of questionable evidence is using period fictional literature as solid evidence for the real pirates and using modern prison inmates studies as solid evidence for how pirates would act 300 years ago in a completely different context. It's now part of pirate historiography, though the use of such work by current pirate historians seems minimal since many have recognized the issues with these approaching 30-year old arguments. It seems that only people who don't know any better, like Stephen Fry, refer to this book as a good.

I would rephrase that to books I would recommend for broad topic coverage of the GAOP that have some kind of recognizable reference system (footnotes, endnotes, so on), not just "like" because a couple on there I recommend because it is a challenge to find a good alternative (some are on more on there to give context to the development of concepts in pirate history, such as the "radical pirate" theory). The list is only of secondary sources, otherwise I would have put Johnson on there (but I'm not sure if it's safer to say one shouldn't start right away with Johnson or not, because it's an important primary source on one hand but the originator of quite a few potential myths on the other - so I'm not sure if that's the best thing to put into the hands of someone just starting out). Also, Ed Fox wrote one of those reviews. Thanks for recommending my list though Mission. Would have done it myself, but I don't check this place every day.

Here's what I see on Netflix right now for pirate films (that aren't straight up cartoons targeted at children, there are several of those): U.S. Netflix 12-9-13: -Hero's Island -Treasure Island (2012) (TV-Movie, 2 parts) -Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl -The Pirates of Penzance (1983) -The Boy & the Pirates -Neverland (TV-Movie, 2 parts) -Raiders of the Seven Seas -Swashbuckler -Captain Kidd and the Slave Girl -Treasure Island (1999 TV movie) -Pirates of Treasure Island U.K. Netflix 12-9-13 -Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl -Davy Crockett and the River Pirates -Treasure Island (1950) And if you're wondering why Pirates of Treasure Island is so bad - it's a genre cash in film, MADE BY THE ASYLUM. The name "The Asylum" should give it away and explain everything (if you don't know what it is, look it up, you should know of it). Also, it took 3 attempts for me to get through the full movie (I wanted to see what was in it, sheer curiosity), it doesn't get better and the outrages and annoyed "what?" moments don't let up. You get the occasional so bad it's funny moments though. The strangest fact here is - this is set in the early NINETEENTH-century. Hope that helps, enjoy your viewing! P.S. There is a way to access the Netflix of a different country. Let's just say it's as extending a "Hola"

That counting of common first names in a previous post reminds me, John being the most common first name is a pattern not unique to pirates - it was the most prevalent of sailors too in this period. This is just off the top of my head right now, but I remember when working on the 1691 English sailor's register that had some 5,000 sailors on it, the numbers came out almost exactly to 1 out of every 5 sailors had the first name John. With that many with the same name - I'm wondering if it's an anomaly, something cultural, something in the way surveying was done (I suspect John might have been a common name filler for unknown first names and/or the go to name for people who couldn't exactly remember the first name of someone), or something I haven't taken into account yet.

Here I thought Johnson's chapter on Blackbeard originated that claim of age. So Lee originally made that claim - and he based it on a illustration? It's almost as if he threw historical context out the window for that. Wouldn't happen to have a page reference for all this in his book would you? Related point - the concept that he was in his late 30s in 1718 is a concept so engrained and passed on that the recent historical reference-heavy game Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag mentioned it in conversation between Blackbeard (which, by the way the game uses Thatch most of the time and references Teach only once for Blackbeard's name - which surprised me) and the player's character. Also - you might want to edit your post LookingGlass, I'm pretty sure you meant 1680 and not 1780 for Thatch's birth date.

First, an addition. The 1670 Ketch, Adventure II at Charles Town Landing Historical Site http://www.friendsofcharlestownelanding.org/attractions/living-history/adventure-ketch Now, for the ones already on the list. Two things you might want to concern yourself - The Amsterdam. It isn't accurately built (it's more of a floating attraction that gives the appearance of a period ship, but can't sail and isn't proportionally accurate). It was more of a response to the Batavia reproduction, trying to sponge off that ship's success. The Vasa. You can't "tour and see inside the whole of the ship, set up as it might have been during its actual sailing days." It's just there, and you can walk around it and look down on it, that's it. I know this since a good dozen people I know at East Carolina University (archaeologists in the Maritime Studies department) have worked on the Vasa for computer scanning points on the ship (so that 3-D modelling can be used to study the ship historically and from a preservation perspective). They say people ask to get on all the time and tried to sneak on when they go onboard for work. One tried jumping from the higher balcony onto the thing. You have to be something of a overwhelmingly huge donor, top top leader in the world to get on there, working with the archaeology people, or documentary team to get on her. It's the same situation with the Mary Rose in England. Also, the 7 Provinces isn't completed yet, I don't know if that plays into anything for this list.

I know this was posted a while back, but I wanted to see this documentary again - and it is HARD to find. I could only find one place to view it: http://veehd.com/video/4723791_Warrior-Graveyard-Navy-of-the-Damned-avi One thing though, DO NOT INSTALL THE VAUDIX PLUGIN, ITS A VIRUS. TO GET AROUND INSTALLING THAT PLUGIN, JUST FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS PAGE (You'll need Firefox or Chrome as your internet browser to do this): (sorry for the youtube page popping up in the post, I don't know how to turn that off). Still a good documentary - though it seems the good ones are always the hardest to get these days. And now a quick point about retaining documentaries: View and obtain good documentaries while you can. Documentaries probably suffer the most in terms of not being saved for DVD or made available for download by the original companies that made them (since the returns are often not profitable enough, and legal problems for obtaining permission to show images and footage of people/things not agreed to for a home video release). Because of the changes in the way we consume media, many documentaries will be lost over time (proportionally more when compared to theatrical entertainment movies). Granted, updates in information cause some documentaries to fall into disuse - but others don't since it's hard to top them (and sometimes new documentaries get more things wrong than the older ones). So when you see a documentary online or on TV, note it, watch it, and obtain it for future use and viewing since it may not be able to see it ever again. This is becoming truer for documentaries from National Geographic and the Smithsonian Channel.

Wow. That is real bad. Looking at the Authentic Campaigner forum, how was no one hurt, including the user? We will have to see some official reports on the cause of this (otherwise, we are just adding to the rumor mill). Also - standy by for rounding the horn of Cape "don't use Indian-made weapons," again. I suspect several people will start it up again, and just like the horn, will be stormy.

Good observations, If I had to summarize what you said, it would be, "Hey Osprey Illustrators, watch National Geographic much?" Good on you for catching how much of their concepts came from that documentary. Overall, with this publication and the last one, I'm getting more respect for the mainstream publications from Konstam. Bringing a more accurate portrayal of the early eighteenth century will take a long time to fix is all. Also, I can see that the illustrators were trying to incorporate as much available period images and material sources as possible. For instance, that blackbeard cover have the Whydah cartridge boxes, that hat with the large front that's name escapes me at the moment (but you can see it in the Spanish sailor's equipment illustration), and a kind of furry hat I've seen depicted in a 1730s pirate illustration. As mentioned previously, it's a by product of being, "too picky about the evidence and made the pirate appearance and weaponry perhaps too homogeneous." I think a more precise way to put it would be that the historian/illustrator just got obsessed with incorporating as much of the period images/material culture that is available, but at the expense of accuracy. Ironic, to give the appearance of accuracy, they actually hurt the accuracy a bit. I think when fall comes, I might go obtain these books just to see what Konstam is doing in greater detail.

Not sure if this is the correct forum, but since this is the more history/academic sub forum, I thought I would post it here. Ken Kinkor worked as the historian for the Whydah Project since the very beginning. You've seen him in numerous pirate history documentaries as one of the talking experts. He helped many writers on pirate history, such as Colin Woodard and his Republic of Pirates book. I interacted with him electronically, and he was a huge help to me in my research efforts on pirates (a quick thank you to Colin Woodward for bringing about that connection). Unfortunately, Ken Kinkor passed on June 7, 2013 while doing what he was passionate about, working with artifacts concerning the Whydah. Please, take some time to recognize the passing of one of one of the few pirate historians in the world. For more information, there is this article: http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130611/NEWS/130619920

Going round the horn again on this issue I see. It's about that time of year anyway... Yea, some pirates raided fishermen, but that doesn't mean that pirates would want to take them. These boots are definately work specific clothes for fishing. From the boots for fishing I've seen in this period, they would not be good for climbing rigging or walking about on land. They are good for standing in while working with fish though. Unless the pirates decided to go commercial fishing, they wouldn't have a use for these boots. And now, to repeat what many have said on this forum since 2006 (hey, three more years and we can say 'disputing boots for pirates for a decade'!) - Just because pirates encountered a particular thing or group doesn't mean they are going to take it or wear it. The first image that came to mind was if robbers encountered a man who worked with hazardous chemicals, "oh yea, I'm wearing that Hazmat Suit all the time now." If they aren't going to use it and isn't something that's going to garner easy profit, then why would they take it? When the pirates went back to places where merchants would engage in illicit trade with them - I've yet to see "fishermen's boot" as a highly desired commodity.

I thought Kris Lane of the College of William and Mary writing for The American Historical Review was pretty academic (unless I read what you meant by "if you want academic analysis..."). He does address the narrative approach with "...but in striving to ground this image in history the book comes off instead as a jumble of pedantic asides and narrative fragments. Chapters and sections begin an dend abruptly, frequently with the little regard to chronological order. There are almost no segues from one story or section to another, and there is no real introduction or conclusion." This review was the only one available for Honor Among Thieves in JSTOR (short for "Journal Storage", it is the largest database online for academic journals and is primarily available through colleges and universities). I just wanted to quickly get a review for context to this discussion. Did Rediker, Bialuschewski, and Earle do reviews of it? Which Journals did they publish in?

Must be the same guy on that forum who is trying to get people to help him find Blackbeard's buried treasure. I suspect that you would have better odds at winning the big $600 million lottery than discovering a pirate's burried treasure (that is, the kind of burried treasure people think of with Treasure Island). Anyway, for that question on what you should do first in your research. It's kind of a broad question if you don't have a topic and/or question that your trying to answer. One thing I would do is, whatever library you have regular access to, see what online databases they have access to (that you are allowed to use via their computers) and see what their Interlibrary Loan situation is (can you requests things and is there a cost?). The ideal situation is to be college student of some kind, since most of those institutions have free student access to the historical newspaper collections you might want to use for primary sources, journal databases that could provide articles for you to read, and interlibrary loan (though, institutions vary in terms of the databases they have available, one might have access to British newspaper databases while the other might not for example). I beleive there are threads on this subject in our forum, but if you provide some specifics to what you're looking to do, we can probably help.

I remember seeing that place over a decade ago as well. I never joined in though, and instead joined the forum here. I can't remember who said it, but someone here described that forum as being largely populated by school children looking to get information for papers they need to write. There were tons of websites on pirate history back then (and, surprisingly, the majority are still around today, though many of them are stagnant and looked abandoned). I always found Pyracy Pub forum to be more informative, that and the Pirate Brethren Forum and the UK Pirate Brotherhood when it was still up. After seeing mention of it here, I decided to go and see what it's up to now. I was really surprised that some of the info articles actually use MLA style references for sources in some of the text. The info presented seems to be more or less the same stuff a mainstream trade book or wiki article might offer. The oddest thing I'm seeing in their forums are a few people trying to do ancestry research (seeing if their relations are pirates I guess). Is there any chance of you telling us about the project that these questions about relatively obscure pirates came from Mr Bandlesworth?