Brit.Privateer

Hope this works, been a while since I tried posting a picture.

Well, that's a start. I've seen the leather sort before, but as I said in the first post, I am more interested in the wooden kind. I would really like to see some documentation on seventeenth and eighteenth century cups and tankards though. I am surprised that I couldn't find any articles written in archaeology about the subject.

The one from the Mary Rose looks interesting.

It's me again, in quest of information again.

In my searches of this forum, online, and through the various databases I have access to online, it seems there is somewhat of lack in information on period cups and tankards. The only exception to this role appears to be a few pewter tankards discovered through archaeology. But I am more interested in the non-pewter kind. What kind of cup or tankard would a common person or sailor of the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century use? I've seen one or two very un-detailed pictures of cups, but these pictures often don't give details on their size or construction.

Have any of you done any kind of research relating to this? Some pointers on the subject to get me in the right direction would be very helpful right now.

Wow, a lot of feedback. Great site for blankets that I will definitely look into. Who knew there was so much information available on blankets like this.

You might contact C.J. Wilde of the Wilde weavery she made my blankets on an antique Irish loom if any one was to be able to give you the information you are loking for it would be her. She does alot of research before she makes any pattern(color or weave pattern) for her blankets. Besides being all around good people she and her husdband are VERY detail oriented. The blankets they normaly emulate are form the F and I period or Rev war. They are the best I could find or afford(they are not cheap one was almost $700 and my sons was just over $500)

Wow, that is a lot for a blanket. I will definitely contact them for information, but it appears their blankets are out of stock.

what period are you in. GOP? and what are your shipmates using?

I do GOP, 1710s and 1720s mainly. As for shipmates(by which I assume you mean members of a reenacting group), I am independent.

the only thing I can think of that might be important here is dimensions, weight, material, and weave. I would be interested in what were period dimensions to see if they are close to what we consider (relatively) normal sizes for blankets.

I was thinking about obtaining a new blanket for my kit. But it then occurred to me, I don't have any sources that describe what a period blanket at sea would be like (I have references to blankets, but not of their construction). I guess the real question here is, was a blanket that a sailor would pick up be any different from a blanket that a common person would use on land? I doubt it, but assuming can get you into trouble.

If not, I am thinking of getting a blanket from here: http://www.macauslandswoollenmills.com/products.html (see their products, the "natural white" blanket under "blanket (natural)" seems to fit the bill)

Anyone else have recommendations on where to get a accurate blanket?

Now, I wonder about the reason for the lack of earlier shanties.

I think one reason for this lack of earlier shanties is putting into context when people collected a lot of the folk songs and stories, the nineteenth century (or rather, the "long" nineteenth century from the French Revolution Era to when World War I began). During this time, noticeable numbers of people began to collect up songs and stories during this time and publishing them (I think a lot of people here have heard of the Brothers Grimm). I suspect that this plays a role in the lack of songs from the earlier periods. I would imagine that we get songs that have their origins in the late eighteenth and the greater nineteenth century because those were the songs being sung during that time, so the collectors would have grabbed those up more often. In addition, there is what I like to call the "curse of the long nineteenth century." It seems that the nineteenth century will always have a significant influence on how history is perceived. So many people published histories during the long nineteenth century on a variety of different subjects, especially as we get into the later half of the long nineteenth century. But, historians of this period did not have the advantages that current historians have today.

Historians in the past did not have easy access to databases online and online library catalogs and digital transfer of documents from one side of the earth to another within seconds. History study required traveling to and digging into archives and libraries with a index card at most for a guide without having that much knowledge if their time will produce anything. So, with limited materials, people wrote histories. As a result, some histories has serious errors in them due to lack of resources or sources that many years later would prove questionable or inaccurate became primary sources. For pirate history, Charles Johnson's History of Pyrates is a prime example, for this book was frequently used and outright copied in various nineteenth and early twentieth century histories of pirates. In addition, the novel writers, playwrights, and artists of the long nineteenth century significantly influence our perception of pirates, even to this day. I mean, just look at a Howard Pyle pirate painting and see how our current images can still relate back to those paintings. Look at how influential the novel Treasure Island is. Also look at plays like the Pirates of Penzance and Peter Pan influenced as well. But I digress...

...But I would say the reason for few songs and shanties from the early eighteenth century can be attributed to when a lot of songs and stories were collected. So, when popular culture and Hollywood wants a song that has a maritime taste to it, its easier to pull our a book of nineteenth century song than actually going and digging for a period song.

Just saw the episode here in America, and it was interesting. I won't be spoiling any significant plot points here. All I want to say is that I am surprised that some writer must have cracked a book or website about pirates and actually looked up something. Henry Every was a pirate in the late 17th century that had taken treasure from Great Mogul's ship in the pilgrim fleet. I've seen a lot of pirate films and shows where historical pirate figures are used, but then the resulting story drastically departs from history (even Charles Johnson's kind of history) to the point that you wonder if you're talking about the same guy (example, the Robert Newton movie, "Blackbeard the Pirate" in which Blackbeard is a 17th century pirate who associates with Henry Morgan...what?). But, considering Dr. Who is a sci fi show, I'm rather pleased with this show as a part of that series (I'm a regular viewer of the show). As for the use of pirates, its pretty typical. Costume and props used are semi-typical of media today, meaning that the clothing looks like stuff they have been using in film for a long time, but it has been dulled in color and made dirty.

I'll wait until later to critique the episode more, so I don't spoil it for other people.

That has been the case Cascabel, but the current trend is shifting rapidly. Even the hisitoric sites and museums these days are not drawing those types of people nearly as much. Not around here anyway. Attention spans in youth and adults are in decline as well. The longest conversations I've had with the public in recent years involve me standing there hearing all about the g-g-g-g great grandpa fighting off two dozen indians, or some other fantactic tales. Most who stop to "talk" these dyas do just that; talk and not listen. The little heritage days venues have drifted to craft faires and flea-markets trying to squeeze dollars out of tourists, and the education aspect has long ago taken a back-seat to profiteering in this part of the world anyway. I went to the Whydah exhibit at the Field musem in Chicago, and again at the St. Louis Science Center. They run folks through them in 30-40 minutes. I spent fifteen minutes at the cartridge box and sun-king pistol alone. I was the only one out of the fifty or so people in our group at the Field that was taking time to actually read the information and study details, and there were even smaller groups at the St. Louis exhibit. I was there still looking when the third tour after mine passed me by. People looked and left. At the Field, and Science center, everything that had an electronic activity or game was filled, while people viewed the displays with "deer-in-the-headlights" expressions. Just doesn't seem that many are interested in learning anything, just being entertained for a brief moment and move on.

I hope it isn't like this every where, but it is that way where I am.

Bo

That is sad to hear. I remember being at the Whydah Exhibit when it began touring in Philadelphia. I think the problem is, people don't want to read at the exhibits. Even I didn't want to spend that much time reading (course, I have the advantage of having a little bit more knowledge on what I am seeing than your average person going through the exhibit). Museums have been dealing with this issue for a while now. There seems to be no solution to this issue yet. One aspect of the issue is that there is too much to read. In Gettysburg, if you went through and did all the interactive exhibits and read all the placards, studies show that it would actually take about 12 hours to go through the whole exhibit. The typical tourist these days spends about four to six hours at Gettysburg. The typical tourist usually spends between two and four hours at the visitor center. As you can see, this is going to cause many problems.

I have a theory that I would like to see tested. Would people absorb more at a museum if they were led through by a tour guide? I feel like people would learn more if they heard the information. Also, the tour guide could tailor the information he presents to the individuals in the group.

Thoughts?

I think you hit it on the head, Bo.

If you do exact re-enactment to teach and engage the public, it's rarely going to be successful. The public likes to be entertained these days. They don't want to educate. I suppose that's why far more people watch Survivor and American Idol than the History Channel.

You have to do it for yourself. Frankly, I think the re-enactments would be much better if there weren't any public around, as you say, "experimental archeology." That way you don't have to interrupt the impression to pose for photos or have someone interject their modern concepts (i.e. PotC) into what you're doing so you have to pull yourself out, address the history vs. fiction, and go back to what you're doing.

I think some of these events would be more fun for the re-enactors if the public just walked through it as a living diorama/living museum than trying to engage them in something they often seem loath to learn about. When we were at PiP a couple of years ago doing a period tavern, we couldn't even get people to play the games with us. Maddening.

Well, there are less people watching the History Channel for other reasons that reality shows...(for one, the History Channel stretch the definition of history with their reality shows).

I wish I would have caught onto this conversation earlier. I have discussed these frustrations on a couple other forums. Educating the public with pirate and early Provincial Era American history (I refer to roughly 1680-1730) is extremely difficult. Several problems have already been mentioned in this thread, including the obstacle that a lot of people come to be entertained and not educated.

Here are my thoughts on the subject (and mind you, this can apply to any time period of reenacting):

For me, education works best at small and controlled events. Small events means more controlled numbers of visitors and more opportunity to interact with individuals. You get mixed results trying to educate large groups. But some of the most productive education moments I had was when I talked with one to three people. At a smaller event, there are less distractions to people walking through the event. At a large event, if someone feels like "oh, we have to go see this now," then they may not stick around and learn as much and just treat a encampment geared towards education as a "look and walk" exhibit as I call it. In 2009 and 2010, when my group did a event at Lewes, Delaware in the park, it was the best time I've had with education. I only wish more members had been interested in education during those events. Not only was the situation controlled, but the event was marketed as historical and educational so we received some of the most receptive spectators that I've ever seen.

Many have questioned "why try and educate at reenactment events?" If you want to do that, why not go to school, learn history, and then get a job in some form or manner teaching it to the public? Interesting point. In terms of interaction with the public with material culture of the period, you just described historical interpreters. These interpreters may or may not be more suited to educating the public. But, some don't want to do it as a job, and not all the time. Does that mean those who don't want it as a job shouldn't educate? Of course not. I think any effort at education is worth it. What if they give out the wrong history? Well, I don't think for pirate history I think that a fact that is slightly wrong is probably ten times better than what the alternative is (the Hollywood interpretation). Will the people absorb what you throw at them? Maybe, maybe not. Even if only one person at an event gets benefit from what you say, I say its worth it. Just remember one thing, don't let educating the public at reenactments turn into a "job" that makes the event more "work" than fun. I've had to learn that a couple times.

If you want to improve the way to bring the public in to talk with you and how to keep their attention, there are several books available about how to do historical interpreting. A read through these can be a great help to any reenactor who wants to increase the odds they reach the public.

I hope this encourages people who want to educate. Sometimes it doesn't seem like there is any point to trying anymore, so you need as much encouragement as possible.

Hmm 1695, looks like the link provided by PoD clears up the earring debate. Ohh and look at the pretty little BEAD on it.

While it is possible to say that a sailor could have worn a earring back then, we are still far away from saying they were a trend or popular. We have three illustrations. These illustrations are all of Dutch sailors. Now compare that to all the other illustrations we have of other sailors and pirates from the period. Any earrings on them? No. These illustrations are still the exceptions rather than the rule. Heck, we don't even know what exactly these earrings are (to figure that out, I suggest that someone look up earrings in the East Indies, for I suspect that is where the earrings came from). If you go back to that thread I linked earlier on earrings, you would see that besides these illustrations, there is no other documentation for earrings yet found by others or myself. There are especially no writings that mention that sailors decided to wear them in any significant numbers. Furthermore, there is no evidence that pirates wore them either.

But I guess I can't stop anyone from wearing earrings at events if they want to. All I am saying is that if someone comes up and asks you if they really wore earrings back then, don't say that it was the norm, but rather that it was very exceptional and that it was most likely from visiting the East Indies. But also remember that even if only 1 out of 10 pirate reenactors were to wear a earring, it would still be over-representing the potential portion of sailors turned pirate that would have possibly worn a earring. Its a common thing in reenacting to see one thing be found and then be over popularized. From my American Civil War reenacting days, one good example is the fork-knife-spoon combo tool. While they were made during the war and sold at sutlers, the proportion of reenactors who carry those to those who don't result in a historical inaccuracy of over representing this item. Fads are a part of reenacting just like any other part of life I guess.

That's my two beads...err earrings... no, two cents worth

Thanks POD, they worked. I found the one illustration of the one sailor. It had the title "Traveler from the East Indies" with it. I do wonder what kind of people wore earrings over that that could have influenced these guys. Since it says "traveler" and not sailor, could that mean that this illustration could be exceptional? Just a thought.

I am sticking to wearing an earring too as I think we proved dutch sailors wore those from the pictures I posted elsewhere on the site.

Found the thread you were referring to: https://pyracy.com/index.php?showtopic=6921&st=0&p=390051&hl=+pod%20+earring&fromsearch=1entry390051

But the website that was linked to the British Museum wasn't quite working. Any chance anyone else can find a working one? Also, why is it that its that these examples are all Dutch? Is it possible that they have them because they went somewhere where locals wore ear rings (the east indies or somewhere on the way?).

Anyway, all I have to say about hair beads, head scarves, earrings, and the lot is: blame Howard Pyle, he screwed it up for all of us.

But can anyone come up with any other written proof of when the cigarette came about? Also based off those paintings, those people don't look like the lower class sort. It figures that something like cigarettes would filter down from the upper class to the lower class. I still think it's safe to say that we didn't see a lot of cigarette smoking until the 19th century.

Well, all I have to say is, give me primary sources. Its all good some secondary sources claim this, but give me more primary sources to make a conclusion rather than rely on the word of someone else. Also, show me evidence that this trend carried on into the maritime world. I've seen pictures and period accounts of smoking tobacco through a pipe, but a cigarette or cigar I have not seen yet.

Also, as brought up already, defining terms may help.

So I consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, and found that the term cigarette, meaning "A small cigar made of a little finely-cut tobacco rolled up in thin paper, tobacco-leaf, or maize-husk" doesn't appear to come about until the middle of the 19th century, the first sited reference by the OED being 1842.

But the term cigar on the other hand in the OED, or "A compact roll of tobacco-leaves for smoking, one end being taken in the mouth while the other is lit" does have something close to our time period here. It's first reference is 1735, from the Journal of John Cockburn and is as follows: "These Gentlemen [3 Friars at Nicaragua] gave us some Seegars to smoke..These are Leaves of Tobacco rolled up in such Manner that they serve both for a Pipe and Tobacco itself..they know no other way [of smoking] here, for there is no such Thing as a Tobacco-Pipe throughout New Spain, etc." I get the impression from this quote that the Anglo-American world perceived it to be practically a given that one smoked tobacco with a pipe. Also, from the source itself, I think it rather an absurd absolute that there were "no such Thing as a Tobacco-Pipe throughout New Spain," but I do get the point that due to Spanish Mercantilism that tobacco pipes would have been in short supply, unless made locally in some form. Cigar seems to be the simple and convenient way for locals to smoke. But since our English friend here, John Cockburn, comes from a society where most people use pipes, it becomes a cultural habit to use pipes it appears.

Well, La Bouse (I have seen more spellings closer to that, I can't even remember if I've ever seen the "Lavasseur" spelling or anything close to it) is one of those pirates that just because he didn't get his own chapters in Charles Johnson's history has been ignored. Plus, non-Anglo-Ammerican pirates don't seem to get anywhere near the amount of attention. Here is a summary of what I have found in period documents I have looked at:

I believe La Bouse first appears in documents is 1716 when he was in consort to Hornigold, and then Samuel Bellamy when Hornigold was voted out for passing up taking English and Dutch vessels. He commanded the sloop Postilion that contained a mostly French crew. La Bouse sailed with Bellamy until January 1717 when Bellamy obtained the Sultana, and made Paulsgrave Williams in the old Marraine his consort [the documents don't give explanation why, but I imagine that La Bouse thought the profits would be cut too small with three vessels, "three is a crowd" after all]. La Bouse then went solo and raided along the North American Coast, were he got attention in the newspaper, the Boston Newsletter. He eventually obtained a ship of force, but lost it when he had to escape in a sloop that was faster tha a British warship that was chasing him. He eventually ended up raiding the African coast in 1719 (for New Providence was taken over by Woodes Rogers) and went into consort with two other pirates (Cocklyn and Davis), and then broke up with them as well. He eventually made it into raiding the Indian Ocean in the early 1720s, and retired on one of the small French islands, but was taken in by the authorities in 1730.

The wiki page on this guy won't help you much, I would say over half their entry is based off of old repeats of "trade book" (mainstream book store) writings that more often takes the truth and stretches it to the extreme.

There so far hasn't been any academic paper written on this pirate (unless it be some remote masters or doctorate thesis); that is in English. There is a book in French, but I'm not sure if it's academic: http://www.worldcat.org/title/buse-olivier-levasseur-dit-la-buse-un-pirate-dans-locean-indien/oclc/77524488&referer=brief_results. Jackdaw, you pretty much have started down a trail no one has really started. To start your quest, I would suggest doing some "end note mining" as I call it in Woodard's Republic of Pirates. Also mine any sources on the pirates I previously mentioned were in consort with La Bouse, you'll find references to him in there. Charles Johnson's history won't help that much, the Bellamy chapter doesn't even mention Bellamy's first year of activities (besides other reasons not to trust it).

Just IM me if you got any other questions Jackdaw. Just curious, what's this research for? school? college? just for fun?

I wouldn't be so quick to say that you would see a ton of Spanish weapons just because of the many Spanish prizes taken and the many Spanish colonies. Just because the Spanish were there doesn't mean they were supplied by the Spanish. There was a high reputation in the new world for smuggling. Why? Because Spain couldn't supply its West Indies colonies well enough to meet the West Indies colonist demand for goods. So, what often happens when a good is in demand, and the legal way of obtaining them (for supposedly it is illegal to trade unless through the mother country, because of mercantilism) isn't enough? Smuggling! Including a kinds of manufactured goods, weaponry would probably be in demand to, for Spanish weaponry (unless produced by artisans in some particular parts of Spain) has a reputation for being poorly manufactured. If I were a ship owner in Spain, and I knew I had to defend my ship against attackers probably at some point, unless I was a cheapo kind of merchant (which there were plenty of as well), I would probably buy a few decent weapons, if not for my crew at least for my own defense. English and French weapons could meet that need, and there were plenty of officials around who were willing to turn a blind eye as needed. That's not to say that there would be Spanish weapons as well, but I could see a arms chest on a civilian Spanish ship being a mix of Spanish and non-Spanish weapons.

From my observations, Hollywood has done some interesting thing with clothing for the Pirate period. More often than not, they borrow clothing and weaponry from the late 18th/early 19th century, especially for any Navy impressions. But, historically, if there was a primary color for the Navy during our time, it would actually be Grey, and Red (just look at the Admiralty Slop contracts), but the only problem here is that men in the Navy were not required to wear slop clothing put out by the government (though a lot of guys would have at least a few pieces of navy clothing it seems).

Another big point of issue in Hollywood are hats. Pirate impressions used to contain very few hats of any kind. In one of the earliest Pirate Films, "The Black Pirate," maybe 1 out of 40 or so pirates had any kind of felt hats (be it tricorn or round hat), the rest wore either a kerchief around the head in bandanna style or didn't wear anything on the head at all. And for those wearing felt hats, those that were not fitting to the early 18th century. In the 40s and 50s, the number of felt hats stayed almost the same in many cases, depending on the movie, some I would say going as far as 1 of 5 (but that was rarely, usually a lot less). It wasn't until recently that Hollywood altered course with hats, for it is in the last 10 years more or less that the ratio of pirates with felt hats went beyond the half way point. It wouldn't be that inaccurate to say that the Pirates of the Caribbean movies triggered the recent trend with so many pirates wearing tricorn hats. Even Cutthroat Island, which came 7 years before Pirates of the Caribbean, held that old ratio with very few felt hats (I can barely remember any hats in that movie at all, with most everyone wearing either a bandanna or nothing on their head). Historically speaking though, the tricorn, with the pirate movies these days, are over represented, and caps of any kind throughout hollywood movies has always been under represented.

well, he doesn't have to be unsuccessful to be poorly clothed. Edward Ward depicts sailors of the period as men who would gamble and sell off their clothes if they had but one rag still left, and other period descriptions show that as well. Snelgrave describes how the pirates caroused with throwing wine on things such as blankets and then throwing the stuff over the side. Pirates and Sailors appeared back then to be very wasteful and easily thrown into a position of shabbily being dressed It doesn't seem very far off that even moderately successful pirate might have mediocre or what you would describe as poor quality clothing. But I guess it's the choice of the reenactor ultimately, no way I can tell anyone how to dress.

Johnson's history stands in that unique area. It has parts of fiction and parts resource supported fact. But I think we have to remember that Johnson was also trying to sell to an audience, and I think the thrilling way these books were written, as seen in volume II especially, that we can verify that a more general audience was trying to be appealed to here.

Thanks for all the help guys. At least now I know where my options are.

Before I posted this thread, I tried contacting the museum that the Queen Anne's Revenge project is associated with, but never got a reply. Also, when I did a search on Worldcat for a first edition of the General History, for some reason I couldn't find anything I could get a hold of. But now I think I got a hold of the situation. Thanks again

I am looking to find a library that holds a first edition copy of Captain Johnson's "General History of Pirates." I need to see the text to a first edition for some research I am doing. While there are many copies of the second edition around, I am either looking to find a good print of the 1st edition or find an original held by a library here in the United States that I can go view. As it has been described before, there are large differences between the first and other editions, and I want to seet he first edition. Anyone got any thoughts?

Is information for what these guys wore really that scarce? I could have sworn there was descriptions for these guys. Just wondering, what is out there so far? I personally do not have knowledge because I concentrate on the 1690-1730 period. For resources have you tried hitting up such things as the Calendar of State Papers or all those documents in the National Archives in the UK? Because I have a feeling that if there is any more new information to be found, they would be in either one of those places. But I suppose to get the time and money to research there, you have to be a historian for a college or something. For people like myself here in the US who would love to get into those archives, getting the money and time to go to the UK is a little bit difficult.

Been in contact with one of the lads from the Sea Rats.....These guys are hardcore.....And really nice to talk to! Can't wait to see more....

Just some thoughts on this picture:

The guys in this pic are pretty well on the mark for the proper age of the pirates. It appears that a lof of these guys are in their later teens and 20s. The only way I could see an improvement in that department would be to see one or two guys in their 30s (maybe). For those who say there are too many younger guys, I wouldn't say that its that bad, and I think its refreshing to see that many younger guys in a reenacting group. While Rediker says the median age for mariners turned pirate would have been around 28, medians are misleading (just like how they say it was unusual for people to live past 40, often that number is a little misleading because if you factor in high child mortality then the average life expectancy would be lowered). While there would have been mariners of 28 and older, there would also be a ton of guys who were below that and back into the teens as well (and believe me, in history reenacting, the older sort is always well over represented).

Once again the clothing selection is excellent. Many of the guys are wearing deck trews. I see one guy wearing petitcoat breeches too. Also, not sure if we are using all the correct terms here. For those referring to slops, when you say that, you mean the suits of clothing made for sea (the proper meaning of slops) or are you just referring to the trousers?

Also, as far as I can tell, this pic hasn't been photo shopped. Usually its real easy to tell if something has been photo shopped because lighting will be screwed up in the pic (at least that is one of the most common things I see screwed up).