dasNdanger

Also, big ol' iron hinged hasps should be easy to find (hardware, blacksmiths, etc), and can give the illusion of extensive iron work though only the hasp is iron. Iron corner thingys (protectors) can also add to the effect. Lot's of possibilities here... http://www.antiquehardware.com/subcategory/63/ and here http://www.acornmfg.com/browse.php?cId=6&scId=19 OOO!! I think I wanna make me own chest now.... :) das

Not sure which forum to put this in, so I'll start here, since it is an 'academic' subject based on a piratical topic...perhaps. Online Etymology explains the origins of the word yankee this way: 1683, a name applied disparagingly by Du. settlers in New Amsterdam (New York) to English colonists in neighboring Connecticut. It may be from Du. Janke, lit. "Little John," dim. of common personal name Jan; or it may be from Jan Kes familiar form of "John Cornelius," or perhaps an alt. of Jan Kees, dial. variant of Jan Kaas, lit. "John Cheese," the generic nickname the Flemings used for Dutchmen. It originally seems to have been applied insultingly to Dutch, especially freebooters, before they turned around and slapped it on the English. In Eng. a term of contempt (1750s) before its use as a general term for "native of New England" (1765); during the American Revolution it became a disparaging British word for all American native or inhabitants. Shortened form Yank in reference to "an American" first recorded 1778. On the Straight Dope site, it breaks it down a bit more. The origins of "Yankee" have been fiercely debated throughout the history of the Republic, and to this day the Oxford English Dictionary says the source of the word is "unascertained." Perhaps the most widely accepted explanation was advanced by H.L. Mencken, the well-known newsman-scholar (and don't tell me that isn't an unusual combination), who argued that Yankee derives from the expression Jan Kaas, literally "John Cheese." This supposedly was a derogatory nickname bestowed on the Dutch by the Germans and the Flemish in the 1600s. (Wisconsin cheeseheads can undoubtedly relate.) The English later applied the term to Dutch pirates, and later still Dutch settlers in New York applied it to English settlers in Connecticut, who were known for their piratical trading practices. During the French and Indian War the British general James Wolfe took to referring derisively to the native New Englanders in his army as Yankees, and the term was widely popularized during the Revolutionary War by the song "Yankee Doodle." By the war's end, of course, the colonists had perversely adopted the term as their own. Southerners used Yankee pejoratively to describe Northerners during the Civil War, but found themselves, along with all other Americans, called thus by the English during world wars I and II. So - according to these sources, there is a possibility that the origin of the word 'Yankee' has it's roots in piracy. Anything out there to support this claim, or deny it?? das

*counts the centuries on fingers....* okie dokie then...since I won't be wearing me trousers for hundreds of years - maybe just two or three...I could get away wif faded black ones if I wanted to, eh? Or maybe dark blue...I just can't stand white... Now - back to the topic at hand - regardless of color, were stockings ALWAYS worn, or did men sometimes go without, wearing shoes only? das

Okie dokie - I'm no expert, but I do have artistic tendencies... If you note, not all the chests have iron bands. So, technically, you could get around it. However, what about leather straps? we have an old steamer trunk, and it has some leather strapping on it. Leather or rope handles...though finding large, iron handles may not be a problem (in most home improvement stores or hardware stores, the drawer pulls/handles are getting really large, some are made in iron). Also, you could contact a blacksmith or something - sure the guys here can point you in the right direction. I have an old chest of drawers that I need drawer pulls for, and canNOT find in the right size (center hole width) - so I'm thinking of contacting a smithy to see if they can make me what I need. However, if you really want an 'iron band' look...perhaps you could use stainless steel Band-it, painted black. (we get it through marine supply stores) http://www.band-it-idex.com/products_bandit.asp I haven't worked with it, but me pa says it's bendable. Not sure about width, etc - you'd have to take a look around. However, it might provide too smooth a look, not sure...but it's a start... das

savvy: 1785, as a noun, "practical sense, intelligence;" also a verb, "to know, to understand;" W. Indies pidgin borrowing of Fr. savez (-vous)? "do you know?" or Sp. sabe (usted) "you know," both from V.L. *sapere, from L. sapere "be wise, be knowing" (see sapient). The adj. is first recorded 1905, from the noun. O' course, meybe it were ol' Jack Sparrah who invented it... WAIT ONE STINKIN' MINUTE!!!!! I thought 'black' was a near impossible color to achieve back in the day of expensive, sun-sensitve dyes... *folds arms and taps foot, waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why I can wear black stockings, but not black trousers....* das

Ah...so we can call it A Million Little Piratical Pieces??? Maybe Oprah will feature it on her show someday... You know, I'm sure buggery happened...perhaps even more than is documented. (I use the term buggery specifically to differentiate between straight men who use other men as substitute women, and gay men who prefer male relations.) Rock Hudson, it's been reported, turned to buggery while in the navy to slake his lust between ports, and that during a time when such activity was quite taboo. Whether he discover at that time that he was gay, or if it something he always leaned towards, no one will really know. Of course, that's not to say that every man, or the majority of men, would follow his course...and by the looks of factual information provided, it doesn't seem that shipboard buggery was as widespread as some moderns would like us to believe. It could be that buggery laws aboard ship were purposely harsh in order to prevent chaos. As someone said earlier - what would happen to a poor fella if everyone found out he was willing to be their best girlfriend for a night? It's also interesting that, in the Navy, there were also strong laws against cursing and spitting on deck...something that, in today's society, might seem ridiculous (esp. to the guy who swears and spits on the sidewalk), but served a very important purpose aboard ship. Of course, that's the Navy, and pirates had a different set of guidelines. In one book (not sure of it's accuracy) it states part of Robert's articles, which say: "No boy or woman to be allowed amongst them. If any man shall be found seducing any of the latter sex and carrying her to sea in disguise he shall suffer death." Now, if they had such strong rules against having a woman aboard (in this case it might be for a sexual companion at sea), I can imagine that the same would hold true of a man who was willing to engage in buggery. The problems (fights, loyalty issues, distractions) it would cause would be greater than the pleasures that could be had. In the same code there's a prohibition against gambling with dice or cards...another potential hazard aboard ship, especially if cheating was suspected. So, the articles aboard a pirate vessel seem to be aimed at keeping the peace, in whatever way necessary. das

Hey, it's not really my cuppa, either - but I like to have my facts straight when people go off on this subject... Does anyone know anything about this: http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/bi...1717238,00.html Onesies gave me the link, and said it sounded right up my alley...LOL, I shouldn't have told her about this thread... das

This is from the Bad Cat calendar, and it just makes me laugh...reminds me of an ol' pirate... enjoy! das

Well, I can't speak for Foxe...but I can for my brother, who was a commercial fisherman for many a year. He told us that seagulls were occasionally molested by the odd fisherman or two...which, of course, grossed us all out. He, fortunately, wasn't found of sea birds... It sounds as if they used sodomy as a blanket offense to cover bestiality, homosexuality, and 'unnatural' relations with a woman. I guess it was easier than defining each practice. das

It's the first Bahama Mama!! das

Yes, it's just like snarffing but with a cute, wee nosey... [sticks face back in beer-filled bucket boot] I was gonna say something about 35 posts ago....but now I've forgotten what it is. Dang. *grabs kass' bucket boot and takes a chug* das

Right, JR...here's some info: "It is commonly purported that British sailors "discovered" punch - fully formed - in India in the 16th Century. The drink's name derives from the Hindustani (Hindu) word for "five" (roughly transcribed as panch) referring to the five ingredients that first are alleged to have composed the beverage. As usual with both history and recipes, however, the story has many variations. One source asserts that the five ingredients reflect the five distinct elements necessary in punch, those being sweet, sour, bitter, weak, and alcoholic. The ingredients, then, were sugar, a bitter aperitif, lemon juice, beer, and pure alcohol. A second source called for a rather different recipe, however. In this punch, tea, arrack(arrack n. [Ar. araq sweat, juice, spirituous liquor, fr. araqa to sweat. Cf. Rack arrack.] A name in the East Indies and the Indian islands for all ardent spirits. Arrack is often distilled from a fermented mixture of rice, molasses, and palm wine of the cocoanut tree or the date palm, etc. ), sugar, lemons, and water were the necessary ingredients. A third source provides the following definition: [Punch] is commonly supposed to come from the Indian word "panch," the Sanskrit word "panchan" and/or the Persian word "panj"- all meaning five, from the fact that this concoction usually is made with five ingredients. But a long note in the Oxford English Dictionary points out that in the 17th century punch was almost certainly pronounced poonch, as it still is in the north of England, and that this being so, its origin from an Indian source is improbable, especially as the number of ingredients does not seem to have been at any time so fixed as to give origin to a name. Moreover, several early references to the word show that punch was particularly a seaman's drink and it is suggested that the name originated, not in India, but on the way thither and may have been a sailor's shortening of puncheon. Punch now is a beverage composed of wine or spirits with hot water, milk or tea, and flavoured with sugar, lemon, some spice or cordial. Of all the spirits which can excellently be used to make a punch (using the word alone one expects it to be hot; if cold, the word is qualified by iced) rum is the one which comes to the mind of the public. And of all fruits, the lime is the most popular." Complete Article Didn't we just have something ...somewhere...about pirates demanding 'punch' from their victims??? I *think* I remember something like that. AND I wanna know why - if THAT is punch, why is American punch made from Hawwaiian Punch, pineapple juice, ginger ale and sherbert?? Blech. I guess we need a little rum in it to make it REAL punch, but still... das

I've seen a lot of mention of 'logwood' - "Meanwhile, the Spanish had discovered another leguminous tree in Yucatan with a deep red heartwood very similar to brazilwood. The tree became known as logwood (Haematoxylum campechianum), and by the late 1500s Spanish ships were exporting large cargoes of the valuable heartwood from the Yucatan coast. At this time it was common practice for British privateers to attack and destroy the Spanish vessels. In his book British Honduras (1883), A. R. Gibbs describes one such privateer, a Captain James, who discovered that the debarked heartwood sold in England for the enormous price of one hundred pounds sterling per ton. English political economist Sir William Petty estimated that the average value of merchandise a ship of the 1600s could carry in a year was 1000 to 1500 pounds sterling. A single load of 50 tons of logwood was worth more than an entire year's cargo of other merchandise!" As far as the tanning process goes - I have contacted a tribal group that includes the Taino (Arawak) peoples, and am waiting for a response. The gentleman I first talked to said that they did not do a lot of leather tanning, since their clothes were mostly woven cotten and other plant goods, and dwellings also made of plant products. Only sandals (which he said were gained through trade) and drumheads were of leather. But he had never been confronted with this question, so he referred me to the tribal group that I just contacted. If they get back to me, I'll let you know!! das

This does NOT pertain to the Caribbean, but it's an ancient method of tanning: "Tanners would take an animal skin and soak it in water. Then they would pound and scour the skin to remove flesh and fat. Next, either they soaked the skin in urine to loosen hair fibers or they let the skin putrefy for several months, after which they dipped the skin in a salt solution. After the hair fibers were loosened, the tanners would scrape them off with a knife. Once the hair was removed, tanners would bate the material by pounding dung into the skin or soaking the skin in a solution of animal brains. They would also take cedar oil, alum, or tannin and stretch the skin as it lost moisture and absorbed the tanning agent." I have several Indian scrappers used for hides, and I fear that was probably what was done in the Caribbean, too. The use of urine seems logical, too, since I know it was used in other native American processes. Back to searching! das

The source for the last one is http://www.caymannetnews.com/Archive/Archi...industries.html As far as the first post of information, that all came from various source documents about the economic and environmental impact of mangrove harvest (amongst other things) in Guyana. I just googled 'red mangrove tanning'...there are several similar documents that I gleaned info from, like this one - http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Oyh78...yser8b/HB2d.pdf das

I think this might be of help, though done in modern times, the process sounds as if it dates back a while: "The Lazzari family of Cayman Brac had a tanning and leather goods business that lasted from the first years of the 20th century until the early 1960s. Tanning was a complex and time-consuming process, involving lengthy soaks in vats containing various substances. The process began with salting the hides, which were then soaked in seawater for a few hours. This was followed by a soaking in fresh water to soak the seawater out. Then the hides had t o be soaked for 15 days in a lime-and-water solution to extract the hair. Lime was made by burning limestone pan shoals, or "sea stones", and crushing them up into powder. (This same material, mixed with only a little water, was used as a mortar called "white lime".) Soaking 6 hides required 100 gallons of water and 4 gallons of lime. The next soaking was with acid, to extract the lime, and finally the hides had to be soaked in alum to extract the acid. Only now were they ready for the actual tanning process to begin. The tanning bark used in the Cayman Islands was mangrove. The bark, up to 2 inches thick, was crushed in a mortar with a 6-foot pestle and then soaked until the juice was extracted. Then the hides were soaked in the liquid-cowhides for 3 months, goat and calf hides for a shorter period. Once the mangrove juice had penetrated right through the hide, both tanning and dyeing it, the hide had to be hung to dry in the shade and then painted with linseed oil. Finally, the leather was ready to be made into shoes. Only shoes were made on the Brac, except for one Jamaican man who made handbags and covers for wooden cricket balls. The Lazzaris also exported leather to Jamaica and Grand Cayman, selling it for 2 to 8 shillings a pound." Salt water soaking, the mangrove tannin, and such all sound about right for how the native peoples tanned hides. Not sure what source for alum they would have had, or perhaps they used something else in substitute...just not sure what since I don't know all the details of leather tanning. das

I found this mention in an article on South America, but seems these trees are located throughout the Caribbean (keep in mind that most of this info is regarding current production, but it's a good place to start): "Mangrove bark - The bark of the red mangrove, commonly used for tanning leather, is harvested by Amerindians around the Waini River mouth. Entire trees are cut down and skinned, the bark is sliced into manageable pieces and sold to middlemen in Mabaruma. The produce is shipped with the fortnightly ferry to the capital, where the actual leather production takes place in small tanneries." I'm thinking that this is a start. If they are still using red mangrove for tanning, then it's likely what's been used for hundreds of years in the region, including the Caribbean where it seems plentiful. Now...to use 'red mangrove tanning' as search keywords...let's see what else I can find... "Tannins extracted from the bark and leaves have been used in tanning hides. The tannins are so abundant that they naturally stain the water a rust brown near large groves of the species." "To obtain the bark, the whole tree is cut, left to wither for a few days and then beaten with a stick until the bark slabs come loose. The bark is cut in pieces of ca. 40 x 10 cm. The pieces, still moist, are ground into a dark red powder and mixed with salts in the tanning baths for the cow hides. Mangrove has a tannin content of 16-25%, much higher than other tree species... Leather tanned with this bark has good wearing qualities, although the reddish brown colour compares unfavourably with imported leather." "From the [modern] tanners estimations, about 12.5 lbs of bark is used to tan each cow hide, with the same amount tanning two sheep hides." das

I didn't make it to the faire last year, but the year before ('04) I met some greyhound folks - might that have been you?? Have you ever looked into Fort Mifflin events? I know it's a tad later (c. Revolutionary War...when we KICKED some British BUM! ....oh, stop pouting Foxe, I secretly wish that the Brits had won, then I'd have a really cool accent!). I also have some have friends who are re-enactors with the Pennsylvania Navy - they participate in the Seige of Fort Mifflin in November each year. In the past they've had musketeer training and other events, so they cover periods other than the Rev War era. Oh, and you'd BETTER wear yer boots, it tends to be kinda damp and muddy there... das

Order to Captains No. 349 on August 21, 1740: "the daily allowance of rum be every day mixed with the proportion of a quart of water to a half pint of rum, to be mixed in a scuttled butt kept for that purpose, and to be done upon the deck, and in the presence of the Lieutenant of the Watch who is to take particular care to see that the men are not defrauded in having their full allowance of rum... and let those that are good husband men receive extra lime juice and sugar that it be made more palatable to them." http://www.pussers.com/rum/history I would think it was served 'room' (ship?) temperature... das

I'm from south Joisey, kass... That Duguay pic is kinda odd - it's from a museum (?) in Rio, I think...you can find it through a google image search (I think that pic is from Wikipedia). As far as the other pictures, I think none date earlier than 1640...from what I can make out. But then it begs the question - IF gentlemen wore those softer, shorter boots (instead of riding boots), did the fashion linger over into the GAoP in some sectors of society? For instance, if a 20-year old in 1650 was wearing those boots, would he (out of habit) still wear them in 1690 when he's 60? (if he lived that long) It's like this lady I know who still wears the same clothes that she did in the 60's, because that's what she grew up with and it's her idea of fashion (besides being too cheap to buy new stuff!). THEN we'd have to find out if pirates (or any sort of sailor) would wear such boots in the first place. If boots were as expensive as Foxe indicated, I can imagine that if someone did have a pair, they'd hang onto them for a while. But obviously, from all the pictures, shoes were definitely the thing, however, stiiiiiiiiiill not sure that they were the ONLY thing, all the time. das

Yeah - I just can't find that statue anywhere - not even in the picture credits of the book. Here's an example of early 17th Century garb... Unfortunately, I can't see the dates...I'm assuming these are also 17th century prints. I dunno, those guys in that second picture remind me of that picture posted earlier, sans fuzzy manacles. das

Aye, it's from that doggone DK guide - but they didn't create the statue, someone else did...and I'm wondering about the date on it. I'll see your shod Duguay, and raise you a booted one: dasBOOT!

Don't give yerself a headache, JR.... Okie dokie - let's talk about these Frogs...I mean, Frenchies... I posted this picture last year in a similar discussion. I've tried to discover a date for this statue, but can't. However, I suspect it's 19th century. But it does show a Frenchie in boots...a softer-looking, shorter boot, but with that doubled-down top. Anyone know the history of this statue? (It's supposed to be Rene DuguaTrouin, but it's not the St. Malo statue...not sure where it's from...) So, perhaps boots were a French thing... das

*stomps foot* Oh, YER no fun!!!! Givin' away the secrets so soon...I was hoping Petee would bite first... *Clamps a pair of fuzzy manacles on JR and drags him to the brig* das

In all seriousness, Foxe, how on earth did these men keep from dehydrating? Today they tell us to drink 8 glasses of water a day, and alcohol should be avoided because it tends to be a diuretic, which exacerbates dehydration. So, if they were working like dogs and only drinking small amounts of water, and the rest of their diet consisted of alcohol - shouldn't they have had kidney failure within a few months?? das