Tartan Jack

For places, many names were rooted in something. In the Colonies, towns were named after: Physical traits: Long Cane, White Point, Oyster Point (where Charleston, SC's Battery is today), Little River, Leveland Variations of native names: Saluda, Cataba, Pee Dee, Jalapa Named after specific people, often ruling monarchs: Jamestown, Charles Towne/Charleston, Williamstown, Williamsburg, Georgetown (post period) Named after a hoped for blessed future or prosaic: Port Royal, Providence, Hope, Pleasure, LightTown, Prosperity, Columbia, Mount Pleasant, PromisedLand, Greenwood (derived from the RobinHood stories) After a specific place "Back home" or a variation: Plymouth, Tidmouth, Birmingham, Darlington, New Sterling, New Perth, Newberry, Dublin, Loundon, Jedburg, Abbeville, Beaufort Some are cryptic to outsiders, but are based directly on the specific history of that town: Six-Mile, Union, Ninety-Six, North, Due West, Corner, Frog Level ALL of those are all actual places in South Carolina, founded between 1680 and 1770, mostly in the early 1700s. Naming convention didn't change that much between 1700 and the American Revolution, so that is a good representation.

Cookies? I want one! As for names: Personal names where largely biblical at the time for Christians, which the Boston names mentioned in the first part reflects. Eunice is the name of the mother of Timothy (the young man who worked under Paul in evangelism), as mentioned in the Epistle of Timothy (2 Timothy 1:5). The same us true across Europe, each in the appropriate language translation. For example, Jahannan (Hebrew for "God is Gracious) became: John, Sean, Ian, Jean, Juan, Ivan, Johann (German, with Hans and Jan as variations), Giovanni, Jovan, and many more. (out of curiousity, I typed "John Language variations" in google just now-> this wiki showed by that illustrates my point: http://en.wikipedia....hn_(given_name) ) In the 1500s-1700s, John was so common in Scotland that it spawned the switch of "Jack" (derived from Jacob) into a nickname for John and the usage of "Jock" for Scots (there is a bit of history involving the James-line of kings in that too, but not needed here). Other names come from past kings and heroes that pasted into common usage, like Charles (from Charlemagne), Arthur (from the KIng Arthur legends, which was probably a title rather than an actual name-> like ***** the Arthur, originally based on a real person's exploits, as it appeared suddenly and commonly in the 500s as s given name), Edward, Richard, William and many, many more. Last names are largely the same as in the US, just much, much more isolated in place-of-usage. From a surname, one could often tell where a person was from. If you go or are from a place with deep roots, the surnames around you are also common in the early 1700s. In my small town and the one just below it, the most common surnames are: Cooper, Bishop, Jacobs, Rogers, Musgrove, Hall, Vaughn, Stewart, Kitchens, Suber (a HUGE extended African-American family), Todd, Wilson, Neel, Banks, Wallace, Renwick, Allan, and others of Scottish or English origin. The Scottish part was an Associate Presbyterian group moving together from Antrim Co, Ireland around 1770 (and some that came just afterwards) I also know folks with the name Parr, Bland, Young, King, Moore, and others. There was also a HUGE German Lutheran settlement from Saxony in the 1760s, bringing the names Boozer, Bedenbaugh, Halfacre, Shealy, and a bunch more that pretty much ID one from a particular county in South Carolina, but are common enough here that most think nothing of it. Not far was a large French Huguenot settlement, so there French-rooted names are extremely common- even if they think they are English or "Scotch-Irish" in origin. My own roots include a number of those family names. The names also now overlap and seem "common" where I live, even if many are rather odd and "unique" elsewhere. So, picking a name for literature or a persona, look into settlement areas and specific towns-of-origin for surnames. Also, remember that in trading cities, people were almost just as mixed as today, as people DID move around in the period and travel and settle far from home. That said, settlers often moved in-clump to areas, so the names of an area often reflected where they came from.

My prayers are with the survivors, missing and the dead, and their families. This is very, very sad news.

Besides that . . . There is a question as to what the "English" accent actually was in the early 1700s. In fact, is was FAR more diverse than today (even with all the various accents presently IN England. A/The prominent idea is that the various east coast and mountain/Appalachian American accents may be far more like the colonial-era British accents than anything in Britain today besides small community-specific ones that survived. The theory is that the more interaction with other accents and languages, the more an accent changes. Meanwhile, the inverse is also true, meaning that the more closed-off and remote an area is, the less it changes and mutates. By that basis, the accents in England today are more a product of the Victorian and Edwardian eras than anything else, while the American ones in more remote remained more in a stasis until the 1930s-1950s. Why? Well, people moved to the remote "frontier" areas and pretty much stayed with each other and the accents didn't change much or not at all in the remote, former colonial areas. Yet, in the "home country," the British Empire brought a massive seismic shift in accents. If that theory is accurate, then the various region and local accents of the Eastern American settlements are reflective of the accents spoken at the period of settlement- being maintained from the place-of-origin as people moved as communities from the home areas to the colonies. That accounts for the literally hundreds of specific "Southern" accents from Louisiana, Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky, the Virginias, and the "old" towns of Maryland and the very specific "New England" accents from the Philly to Maine.

Good point. The later frigate was a merger of the frigate and galley concept. At this time, there were more differences than just oars/sweeps and no sweeps, despite them looking a lot alike.

IF I recall correctly, that is basically taking a commercial/trading vessel and making it "frigate-like" in deck configuration. That primary consisted of razing (cutting down) the fore and aft parts above the deck, lowering the center-of-gravity and allowing guns (cannon) to be used where they otherwise wouldn't have been able to operate due to space and the deck-strength itself. Also, there is the "knocking down" of internal partitions. that is mainly for 2 purposes: 1) allowing the gun crews freedom of movement without hitting a non-structural wall and 2) allowing crew to quickly move around during battle. Those are the same reason combat vessels of the era were configured that way, esp. small ones. Small vessels, like sloops-of-war and frigates had to be optimized for combat movement of the crew, of which many pirates had been during Queen Anne's War (The War of Spanish Succession). As the idea was for a pirate ship/vessel to operate, functionally, as a privateer commerce-raider. Accordingly, the crews set out to covert their vessels into what they knew worked well.

Neat stuff. On this stuff, I am a bit of mixed mind. It's neat it gets out to the public, as opposed to being in a props storeroom or storehouse or being destroyed. But, I wish it was in a public display rather than on a collector's home or office shelf.

One of the WORST monikers we are stuck with . . . Dark Ages. It completely misrepresents the period. GAoP is much better than that!

Never thought I would see anyone reference the assault on Fort Noherooka in North Carolina (where hundreds of Tuscarora Indians were killed and hundreds taken prisoner and sold into slavery). Dr. Larry Tise at East Carolina University is actually working on getting public awareness of that event since next year is the 300 aniversary of it (I've been working on it with him) Anyway, I love stuff like that Kevin, for it adds so much context to the pirate events of the time. Some writers on pirate history make pirate history feel like it took place in a vacuum and had minimal influence from the outside world. Thank goodness recent scholarship on pirates is finally tying in the politics of early eighteenth century world into this. Recent work by Ed Fox and Arne Bialewshewski have discussed the role of the Jacobite rebellions within the pirate world for example. Thank you for pursuing such history Mr. Duffus, and I hope to see some publications on the subject soon. But back to the thread topic of Defining the Golden Age of Piracy. Has anyone proposed that maybe we should do away with the term "Golden Age" outright? I feel like by this point in pirate historiography that the term "Golden Age of Piracy" has almost lost its meaning and is used to give the era a romantic feel to it (and an easier way in which to remember when this all took place). I think a more interesting question that might help people undestand and learn more about history during the period is - what allowed and what caused pirates to go sea, do so in large numbers, and operate over significant periods of time from the 16th to early 19th centuries? If answered correctly, one can learn a lot about the development of colonies, economics, politics, and more during this very important period in world history. What? History doesn't happen in a vacuum? Events in one place affect others? Really?

Oh and the term "sea peoples" is a typical Egyptian written description of foreign peoples. Their hieroglyphics are quite blunt and rather NOT politically correct. They termed the peoples that lived south, up the Nile (the African-Africans) the "kinky-head peoples" and another culture the "stinky peoples." There were others that were even worse! NONE of the names were what the other peoples called themselves or what other records would have had. The ancient Egyptians were a rather odd and interesting culture! There are theories linking the SeaPeoples to all sorts other cultures, which have varying degrees of probability. I'm convinced that the SeaPeople ARE the superpower culture behind Plato's Atlantis, but one that was fractured and broken in one massive volcanic explosion, which also decimated their entire Aegean-based settlement. The tsunami moved the palace in Crete many feet back and wiped out anything actually on the coast. The same was for the entire sea basin. But, as that WAS the main settlement areas for a sea-based culture. There are also LONG lasting legends of the origins of the Scoto-Irish (the Scots were immigrants from Ireland in the mid first millennium AD, who merged with the Picts already in the Northern part of the Britain island) were originally from Egypt. That is taken further back that they were royal Sea People refugees who intermarried with Pharoah's family then left with Egyptian blessing, by sea, to settle a new area-> Spain then Ireland. Obviously, only the leaders would have been royals, but the idea was that the rest were those under their leadership. The coracle technology is one of the tangible links between the Sea Peoples and ancient Ireland . . . Today, the Egyptian connection of Ireland was discounted as complete myth, but is being revisited as having some truth-> the debate is how much.

I know this will sound either cool or nutty on here, but I've been rereading "Batman: The Long Halloween" and its sequel "Batman: The Dark Victory," mainly because they are Nolan's primary inspiration for his Batman series, along with various other Batman stories (esp. Knightfall/KnightQuest/KnightEnd for this summer's "Dark Knight Rises" film. Rereading them, I realize how much dialogue was adapted straight from The Long Halloween and Dark Victory, esp. in The Dark Knight. Oh, and I am a HUGE Batman and Joker fan . . .

The surviving parts in Crete overlapped the later Egyptians and the Mycean Greeks, but in a much diminished form from the pre-Thera period, when they were THE dominant superpower of the Mediterranean Sea. Of course, when your capital and (most likely) central records are incinerated and blown to pieces, due to it being built in middle of the caldera on Thera/Santorini . . . that doesn't help them being less "mysterious," would it . . . At one time, I read A LOT about them. But, it's been a LONG time (15 years) and they were Bill's private/personal books and papers. I don't have access anymore. I don't even have an idea of where those might even BE now! (Edit: reading primary sources from pre-standardized spelling days plays HELL on one's spelling- despite your best efforts.

One of my professors in college (and seminary) was a top-scholar on near-east (esp. Egyptian and Israel/Paelstine areas). We discussed the Sea People over the years a number of times.' He didn't publish much, but studied under John Bright, student of the famous Dr. Albright. My prof was Dr Bill Kyrkendall. (If I remembered that spelling correctly) His ABSOLUTE certainty: The Sea Peoples were the people Thera/Santorini and Crete made refugees when the Thera volcano blew up is 1500 BC. The refugees that fled to Egypt, their major trading partner and rival, who settled the Sea People in modern day Israel. They became known as the Philistines there. Their "old" civilization is now commonly termed the "Minoans" (after King Minos in Greek myth/legend) and probably inspired Plato's "Atlantis" in 600 BC (900 years after Thera-go-boom). He backed it up with a HUGE amount of evidence, the most convincing for him is that the little bit of Philistine linguistics we know and the little bit of Minoan linguistics we know dove-tail together perfectly (he was primarily an ancient near-eastern linguist). The topic was one of his favorites and he brought it up whenever he could make it relevant (which is quite a bit in early Egyptian, Greek, and Hebrew/Israelite history during classes). He pasted away a decade ago. He was an AMAZING man, friend, and a breathtaking scholar who saw history as more real than anyone I've met. He inspired many of the ways I view history. One of my professors in college (and seminary) was a top-scholar on near-east (esp. Egyptian and Israel/Paelstine areas). We discussed the Sea People over the years a number of times.' He didn't publish much, but studied under John Bright, student of the famous Dr. Albright. My prof was Dr Bill Kyrkendall. (If I remembered that spelling correctly) His ABSOLUTE certainty: The Sea Peoples were the people Thera/Santorini and Crete made refugees when the Thera volcano blew up is 1500 BC. The refugees that fled to Egypt, their major trading partner and rival, who settled the Sea People in modern day Israel. They became known as the Philistines there. Their "old" civilization is now commonly termed the "Minoans" (after King Minos in Greek myth/legend) and probably inspired Plato's "Atlantis" in 600 BC (900 years after Thera-go-boom). He backed it up with a HUGE amount of evidence, the most convincing for him is that the little bit of Philistine linguistics we know and the little bit of Minoan linguistics we know dove-tail together perfectly (he was primarily an ancient near-eastern linguist). The topic was one of his favorites and he brought it up whenever he could make it relevant (which is quite a bit in early Egyptian, Greek, and Hebrew/Israelite history during classes). He passed away a decade ago. He was an AMAZING man, friend, and a breathtaking scholar who saw history as more real than anyone I've met. He inspired many of the ways I view history.

The ruffian who clambers over the gunwale with the blade of his weapon clamped between his teeth is one of the iconic images of piracy. Those aren't exactly the same thing. One is the climbing up and over of part of the ship, while the other is standing in the middle of a fight. On the middle of a fight, having quick access to the "next weapon" is quite useful when gunpowder weapons were one-shot (not enough time to bother to reload). The shots below are easily that-> what is in the teeth is the next go-to weapon that would be useful after what's in the hand is used. Yet, while climbing up and over from one ship/boat/craft to another is another matter and has other dangers such as random human limbs in fairly close proximity, any ladders or other "help" made of rope, and the fact that a blade and handle sticking out is able to snag other stuff on the way (like when anyone turns their neck while the 2-anchor points are moving on the waves) makes the use of anything longer than single-edged knife more dangerous than helpful. Plus, anything short is more practical in a sheathed storage close-at-hand, but not in the mouth.

Pusser's IS the British Navy rum, for those who don't realize it. When the Royal Navy stopped buying all of it, the manufacturer got permission to sell the rum to the general public. Whether Pusser's rum gradually changed over its 300 year time as THE RN rum, due to changing tastes of time, or stayed the same (as Pusser's says) is a matter of debate. The present Pusser's IS the stuff used in WW1 and WW2, maybe earlier (how early?).

This can't edit feature can be frustrating . . . I forgot to mention the legal issue at the core of the 1850s trials mentioned on page 2. At the time, it was illegal in South Carolina to teach a slave to read and write above a rudimentary level (one reason being the fear of slave revolt on coastal plantations). There was a series of prosecutions in the Upstate and Catawba River Valley areas where people and institutions were giving high school and even college and seminary educations to slaves, which they legally "owned" . . . Is that pro, anti-slavery, or something else entirely? The point of the posts was to highlight the "gray" areas around what was a legal institution of the GAoP that is seen as entirely evil and wrong today. Even then, when legal and common, there were many shades between "for" and "against." Now, THAT makes me very, very curious as to the place of the "Negro" and "African" folks on pirate ships. Where in this huge range were they? Did it vary widely? (I suspect it did) If you are willing to answer on here, Foxe, what is said about slaves, slavery, and "Africans" (or the like) in relevant period wills and articles? I'm curious.

A single edge, I could see-> if it is a short blade (only a few inches). But, then, that wouldn't have much reason in the given context as such wouldn't be useful for anything. Sticking it in a sleeve/scabbard would make much more sense. A longer (even single edged) blade is likely to cut your own hands/arms or whatever your climbing upon (besides anyone else around you). Now, doing the same while doing another job is an entirely different story . . . As for the fuse cord/slow match, that's a perfectly logical and a good place for a double lit one where one's hands are likely to be full. It would make lighting them easier and faster to dispose of a load when they would be most effective. Good call, Cascabel.

I'm simple . . . I prefer Blackstrap, then Pyrat. CM Private Stock is pretty good, but a bit sweet. Pusser's is quite good too. I love Mount Gay, but it's a bit more costly. When I buy it myself, I get either Blackstrap or Pyrat- dependent upon my mood at the moment and the prices of the store.

Oh, I want to throw in another element: Slavery as legal protection . . . I know of particular instances where churches and individuals utilized the legal "slave" status to employ and protect others they valued, but were of a lower socio-economic class standing. In this case, the "slave" was treated as either a brother/sister or child (depending on specific situation). That is the foundation for the loyalty some "slaves" had for their masters that where beyond what makes sense to most today. In the 1830s-1860s there were several churches in my area that "owned" a slave that was college and seminary educated and whose duties was as the full-time pastor of the "black" members of the community. The support of that position continued well after the American Civil War, sometimes decades later. That situation may be helpful to explain some of the relationships in-period, as well, esp. those that don't seem to make sense from our modern perspective. That was one of the most surprising situation I found . . . Folks using the legal status as something else and "good" from a modern perspective! Slave-owners that were actually "anti-slavery" . . . And have even read a court case in South Carolina from the 1854 where a slave owner was prosecuted for teaching his slaves and helping them establish businesses and communities. He was accused of "undermining" the institution and of being "anti-slavery," even though the accused owned hundreds of 'em. I wish I could remember the specifics, but that was over 15 years ago in a college archive.

Slavery, itself, is a VERY complex issue in this period, as it was through the 1860s 150 years later in the Americas. We tend to view it through a post-Reconstruction (the period following the American Civil War) lens as a rather "black and white" (if you excuse the pun) issue. At the time, there were many, many gray stances on it and a huge range of shades. It WAS legal and a vital economic reality- all over the home countries and the colonies and wasn't an "Africans are slaves" issues, as there were also actual slaves of "foreign"nationality to a country and also of indentured servants that were of a crazy length and "debt slaves" as well from within a nationality. On this matter, we need to TRY and view it as someone from the early 1700s would, rather than as a late 20th/early 21st century person. On pirate ships, all types of slave-free relationships existed, but not all at the same time on the same ship/boat. To keep in mind about myself-> I am against racism, period, and have helped "desegregate" several white, black, and asian groups, unintentionally, by my stance that ANY decision where race itself is the primary or a prime reason for said decision, it is racism- whether that racism is good or bad (which it CAN be either). I've also BEEN the "outside" race in a number of Asian, Latino, and African-American (and African too) situations- so, I know "how it feels" to be criticized and to hide under the seat of a van . . . Now, race and culture aren't the same thing! The goal SHOULD be to get where skin color is like the "fiery red head" and "dumb blonde" ideas. It is a joke, but anyone who takes it seriously is seen as an idiot by anyone else. Yet, through my personal interests and circumstances, I've read and interviewed an inordinate amount on the issues of slavery and racism. So, I have more knowledge and "learnin'" on the matter than many who pontificate upon the matter.

Add to that the fact that those who were "crewmen" could also be, in a sense, loyal "slaves" to the captain or another officer, actual free men, freed by capability and likability by the crew, or flat out slaves w/ no right, and also that captured black pirates, slave or free, were often sold into slavery.

On my vehicle window:

But . . . Fascinating side conversations, oft more interesting than the original topic, are common around here! It's part of what makes this forum so much fun . . .

With the Yamasee War, I was thinking more about the time period and stuff that can be discussed. That is one of the possible impact on "outlets" for people at the time (why at sea rather than settle in the continental British southernmost colony), for refugees from the fighting who may have "gone to sea" instead of settle in Charles Towne, or maybe even how it affected the psyche of Charles Towne and it's turn against pirates at about the same time. But I haven't looked into it too much. I keep looking for stuff on period boats and ships . . . or other non-period topics. I DO think that, as Charles Towne/Charleston was a major trading partner with the various islands, esp. Barbados, a local war would have had personal impact on those in the area- in some form or fashion. I just haven't looked into that "gut hunch" . . . Another influence on me and that particular War . . . I'm IN South Carolina and some of my "teaching" is in the very area of the Yamasee War itself. I use it when "in character" as to why I'm at sea.

I know it's been a week since we discussed this topic, but I wanted to add another thought set. There are three ways to look at what the "Golden Age" actually is/was: 1) the general period where piracy became a major socio-economic and political force for Europe and their colonies (particular the American ones). That would be the larger 1691-1725-ish. 2) the specific period the the mass rash/outbreak of piracy that informed the media and the popular image of piracy, sparking the huge volume of books on piracy and the need for a mass "clamping down" on that piracy. That would be the 1715-1724 period, esp. 1715-1718. 3) the period that sets the "classical image" of pirates and piracy in all forms of fiction from the 1720s through today. That one is more vague, not being set on the real history but as much on myth and legend. The narrative and visual is VERY much based on the 1715-1724 period. The described ships range from Elizabethan times to the Napoleonic Wars, esp. weighted to the 1770s-1820-ish. The NAMES used are also weighted to the 1650s-1720s with little regard to generational and geographic gaps, placing Buccaneers, Rounders, and New Providence pirates all together in a lump in the narrative. Looking at a range of "pirate" films over the last bit, I noticed that even the "buccaneer" era films presented the situation as it was in New Providence (pre-Rogers), only with the location names changed to fit the presented era-> as many tried to work Morgan into the "classic" pirate genre situations. Historically, 1 and 2 are easily justifiable depending on the specific qualifications defining "Golden Era" historically. The third is what it is in the popular imagination, such as in "The Pirates! Band of Misfits"/"The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!" which puts pirates dressed (mostly/genrally) as early 1700s pirates in Victorian England a century later. Wikipedia even defines the GAoP as: "In the popular modern imagination, pirates of the classical period were rebellious, clever teams who operated outside the restricting bureaucracy of modern life. Pirates were also depicted as always raising their Jolly Roger flag when preparing to hijack a vessel. The Jolly Roger is the traditional name for the flags of European and American pirates and a symbol for piracy that has been adopted by film-makers and toy manufacturers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy And whoever wrote the specific article on the GAoP sees it as a broad range with three parts: " The Golden Age of Piracy is a common designation given to one or more outbursts of piracy in maritime history of the early modern period. In its broadest accepted definition, the Golden Age of Piracy spans from the 1650s to the 1730s and covers three separate outbursts of piracy: the buccaneering period of approximately 1650 to 1680, characterized by Anglo-French seamen based on Jamaica and Tortuga attacking Spanish colonies and shipping in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, the Pirate Round of the 1690s, associated with long-distance voyages from Bermuda and the Americas to rob Muslim and East India Company targets in the Indian Ocean and Red Sea, and the post-Spanish Succession period, defined by Marcus Rediker as extending from 1716 to 1726, when Anglo-American sailors and privateers left unemployed by the end of the War of the Spanish Succession turned en masse to piracy in the Caribbean, the American eastern seaboard, the West African coast, and the Indian Ocean. Narrower definitions of the Golden Age sometimes exclude the first or second periods, but most include at least some portion of the third. The modern conception of pirates as depicted in popular culture is derived largely, though not always accurately, from the Golden Age of Piracy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Piracy Wiki is getting better, but still remains . . . imperfect . . . I still hold to what I posted before.