tattoos

[blackbonie]

When it comes down to it, we're modern people playing dress up.  How far you want to go with that is up to you.

Take it from the lady who has made a CAREER going NUTS over details and making PERIOD CORRECT patterns when the piles of others weren't QUITE accurate enough.

If SHE says its going a BIT to far, it probably is.

Don't me Kass.

And STOP TRYING TO LOOK UP MY KILT AND PAY ATTENTION!!!!!!!!

this all made me think of something else too.

do you guys just not shower for months before anevent? and not brush your teeth? cause that would be"period" wouldnt it? lol.

no being 100% accurate is cool as long as you know reality exists too (unfortunately)

[Fox]

this all made me think of something else too.

do you guys just not shower for months before anevent? and not brush your teeth? cause that would be"period" wouldnt it? lol.

Erm... no?

I'm going to disagree with Kass here ( ), temporarily hiding tattoos that aren't authentic is the easiest thing in the world (easier that hiding fillings), and visible tattoos can ruin a very good outfit.

Hmm, maybe I am more nuts than Kass...

[Edward T. Porter]

"is it just a "Sailor Jerry oldschool ink" from the last century or is this theme older?"

You asked the question mate, just giving you the answer,

and I would say that it would be something that you need to know,

before you paste something on your skin that your brain isn't comfortable with.

I didn´t said that I want it on my skin.

I´m very pleased with my fully inked upper arms and shoulders (everything black & grey). The theme would not fit into the concept

Why would someone not a Christian WANT to use a cross or a cross based symbol?

Because it looks cool? It´s the same like with other themes or styles...temporary fashion. The look is more important than the symbolism. There are many folks out there who almost don´t know nothing about the themes they have on their skin.

I'm going to disagree with Kass here (  ), temporarily hiding tattoos that aren't authentic is the easiest thing in the world (easier that hiding fillings), and visible tattoos can ruin a very good outfit.

Yupp! When I´m on an event I never show my tatoos.

[kass]

this all made me think of something else too.

do you guys just not shower for months before anevent? and not brush your teeth? cause that would be"period" wouldnt it? lol.

Erm... no?

I'm going to disagree with Kass here ( ), temporarily hiding tattoos that aren't authentic is the easiest thing in the world (easier that hiding fillings), and visible tattoos can ruin a very good outfit.

Hmm, maybe I am more nuts than Kass...

No. I just don't have any tattoos so I don't have to hide them.

If someone has tattoos on his neck or hands, I don't think he should have to put on a turtleneck or wear gloves. That's going to look more stupid than just pretending their not there.

And if the public asks, tell them they aren't period correct. Simple.

It's just dressing up and pretending, people...

And Bonnie, please don't start that "Do you guys not bathe" bullshit or I'm gonna have to delete this thread for gross stupidity.

[Captain Jim]

And Bonnie, please don't start that "Do you guys not bathe" bullshit or I'm gonna have to delete this thread for gross stupidity.

Still, it was unwise to get downwind of Patrick during the closing days at last year's PiP festival ...

[Silkie McDonough]

Aye truly authentic he was!

[kass]

God bless him, nutjob that he is...

[Patrick Hand]

God bless him, nutjob that he is...

An' I was goinna offer ter show ye my tattoos if you'd show me yours.....

(then you post that you don't have any.....)

You don't have to not bathe for a month to get authentic smelling really fast.... just wear a heavy wool jacket in Key West for a few days....

For authentisity, Sailors/Pyrates wouldn't have tattoos untill after Catp. Cook and crew got back..... they were kinda re-discovered then.... Someone could type... "hey, the Sythians and Celts had tattoos".... but that was way before period, and Capt Cook is after period.

[blackbonie]

And Bonnie, please don't start that "Do you guys not bathe" bullshit or I'm gonna have to delete this thread for gross stupidity.

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

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

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

[Bully MacGraw]

Regarding Tatoos being rediscovered by Capt. Cooks boys is a bit of English folk lore. The French Canadian's copied native tatoos and then in the late 1600's used catholic symbols . This was a very common practice.

Tatoo was also used in Europe prior to this time. So Captain's Cooks boys introduced tatooing to the English.

Ed

[Tartan Jack]

And Bonnie, please don't start that "Do you guys not bathe" bullshit or I'm gonna have to delete this thread for gross stupidity.

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

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

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

OK,

I am still a "newbie" on here, compared to most others.

On this forum, the "Twill" section is STRICTLY about reality/accuracy/history.

IF something/ANYTHING is in THIS section, it is takes in regards to history and what was REALLY done, esp. in the Golden Age of Piracy (GAoP) of about 1715-1725, or so.

The others, such as "Pop" and "Plunder" are WIDE open as to fantasy and make-believe.

Things are RATHER different on the other sections, with a MUCH more loosey-goosey atmosphere. The "up-tight" ones in this section will "hold their tongue" in those., but not here.

For example, props from Pirates of the Caribbean (PotC) WILL get critiqued as to accuracy and whether of not they are precisely "period correct" for the GAoP. In almost ANY other section, one gets comments on quality of reproduction, looks, the "Pyle" pirate look, and the like. (search "Barbossa" "pants" in twill and plunder and wonder at the differences in the comments (sometimes even by the same people).

THAT is one of the things I LIKE about this particular forum, it ISN'T ALL fantasy NOR all history.

Please, keep posting all you like. The only caution is to remember which section you are in.

Kass, you do realize that the comments aimed in your direction were in just, I HOPE

I LOVE your work and VALUE your opinion HIGHLY.

[Jack Roberts]

blackbonie  Posted on Jul 23 2007, 05:11 PM

 

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

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

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

Oh please don't go away. That not a good way to be. Get in on the discussion. Here we're just hashing out things. It what "twill is for. I will admit, but I do not speak for anyone else but myself, that in my pursuit of authenticity it has spilled into other areas of this site. Take the thread in Plunder Your garb I have gotten carried away with my authentic side. I feel that I've pulled the thread in the wrong direction and I feel bad for doing that in a Plunder thread. Most of the conversation in that thread is more "twill"

like. And believe me I'm far from being the most of the authentic here. Heck I still have boots, and I love the look, but alas it's just not to be. So I will plan on having both my "fantasy" outfit along with my "authentic" outfit. Just because I can't let go.

[Captain Tightpants]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[blackjohn]

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

Capt Tight is right. And, I might point out this has odd side effects. From my point of view, the academics and historians aren't allowed to express historical opinions anywhere here but in Captain Twill.

[kass]

Precisely, gentlemen! And thank you for the back-up.

Bonnie, this is just not the forum for the discussion of fantasy pirates. Read the description on this Forum:

Academic talk on maritime history, research, & interesting info

That's the rule. And it's my job to make sure we keep the discussion on track. That's all.

No harm done, my dear. But please don't come in here and start calling names. If you want to talk about fantasy pirates, there are all the other forums on this site to talk about it. And you won't hear me say one word to the contrary there.

[michaelsbagley]

Precisely, gentlemen! And thank you for the back-up.

Bonnie, this is just not the forum for the discussion of fantasy pirates. Read the description on this Forum:

Academic talk on maritime history, research, & interesting info

That's the rule. And it's my job to make sure we keep the discussion on track. That's all.

No harm done, my dear. But please don't come in here and start calling names. If you want to talk about fantasy pirates, there are all the other forums on this site to talk about it. And you won't hear me say one word to the contrary there.

I don't mean to further stir the pot, but maybe a part of the issue are the terms used.

When I read the word "Forum", I think of the Pyracy Pub as a whole. While I don't believe it is incorrect to call the various "subsections" of the Pub "Forums", I believe it can be misleading to those less familiar with the Pub as a whole. Maybe calling the "subsections" (Such as "Twill", "Plunder" etc) something other than "Forums" will help keep the distinction.

While I am by no means an oldtimer on this Forum, I have been around long enough to note that this issue does seem to pop up every now and then, and I would prefer to see the integrity of the various "subsections" (particularily Twill) upheld, but I would also wan't newcomers (or even those who have been around a while) to not keep repeating this type mistake due to a possible lack of understanding of the terms used, because the same term (Forum) can be equally applied to so many concepts existing at the Pub.

[kass]

I didn't program this website, so I can only go by what the programmers called the various sections. The URL calls the Pub "Forums". This means that there are multiple forums here. So each subsection is a forum.

But let's not get bogged down in semantics, Michael. The simple fact is that it says, "Academic talk on maritime history, research, & interesting info" under the words "Captain Twill" on the front page.

Do people know that Rabble Rousing is the section for storytelling? Yes.

Do people know that Sea Shanties is the section for music? Yes.

So why exactly do people see the words "Academic discussion on maritime history" and think it's okay to discuss fantasy pirates?

It's not. And I don't go shoving history down other people's throats in other forums. So forgive me if I get a little upset when someone upbraids me for talking about historical pirates in the only historical section on this site.

I didn't write these rules. They were here when I got here. I just got asked to enforce them. And you must admit that I do that rather loosely. We talk about a whole lotta stuff here that is far from academic!

[Captain Tightpants]

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

[michaelsbagley]

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

I read that, and let me commend you on how well written it is!

But please, Michael will do... I'm neither someone's father nor a school teacher.

[CrazyCholeBlack]

so here are my random thoughts...

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

[kass]

Good point, Chole! Men were wrapped up to the throat and down to the wrists most of the time.

[Captain Tightpants]

so here are my random thoughts...

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

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

According to the American Heritage Dictionary,

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

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

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

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

[callenish gunner]

the polynesian term for the practice came into the language after cooks expedition but the practice in the ne w world was well documented prior to his exibitions:

Unfortunately, there are few surviving illustrations of North American native tattoo designs. The first illustrations which show tattooed natives were published in the Jesuit Missionary Francois Du Creux's Historiae Canadiensis seu Novae Franciae (1656) There is, however, no reason to think that the tattoo marks seen in these engravings are accurate representations of native designs. The European-style figures, capes and backgrounds make it clear that the artist worked from imagination and from written descriptions rather than from life. Another artist (probably Charles Bécart de Grandville of Quebec) apparently copied and tried to improve on the Historiae Canadiensis illustrations by supplying the figures with appropriate native props such as tobacco pipes, tomahawks, and loin cloths. De Grandville's drawings, originally published in Codex Canadiensis (1701) have since been widely reproduced as the first pictorial record of native tattooing in North America.

In 1593 Captain John Smith wrote that the natives of Virginia and Florida had "their legs, hands, breasts and faces cunningly embroidered with diverse marks, such as beasts and serpents, artificially wrought into their flesh with black spots." The most accurate early illustrations of these tattooed Florida natives were made by John White, a British artist, cartographer and explorer who, in 1585, sailed with Sir Walter Raleigh on an expedition to establish a settlement on Roanoke Island in the territory of Virginia. White was an accomplished illustrator who made hundreds of valuable drawings of the natives and the flora and fauna of the region. In 1590 many of his drawings were published in Thomas Hariot's Briefe and True report of the New Found Land of Virginia. In a curious appendix to Hariot's work, White included several drawings of elaborately tattooed Picts to show "how that the Inhabitants of the Great Bretannie have been in times past as savage as those of Virginia." White's original paintings are now in the British Museum.

so it would have not have been impossible for the sailors/pirates or bucaneers of this period to have come in contact with the practice or to have chosen to participate in the practice.

[Captain Tightpants]

Good one, Hugh! Thanks for the information!

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

Some more investigation is in order...

[callenish gunner]

since it wasn't a practice accepted in polite society in england i'm sure it wasn't widely spoken of or if a sailor had such a tattoo on their body it, like chole stated, in polite society it would have been covered ...but a blanket statement that it couldn't occur just because there is no article in an "english" jounal doesn't exclude it either ...that is ethnocentric clap-trap ...these men were outside the society of england they lived and travelled into worlds unknown to the average sit at home englishman and what they did to fit into the societies that they encountered has been referred to as going native by the writers in england at the time ... so the debate will continue ad infinitum

this was painted of one of the five tattooed iroquis kings who went to london to appear before queen anne to gain a treaty to gain military aid to fight against the french it was painted during their visit in 1710

and since there were reports o fthe practice of tattooing in almost every tribe from canada to the reaches of south america i'm sure that some sailors partook of the practice