tattoos

[Salty]

Yes he may have wanted to get rid of it but it seems he had it done............double edge or not.

[HarborMaster]

So what evidence does everyone read ? Is it english? Are the pirates you read about English? were they in the New world the spanish main and el Carib ?

You have read ALL there is to read and know everything?

So the GAoP is not a time period but its actually just a small place on earth at a certain time? for you? Or is it Global ? And then I must ask so then you have read everything about every one everywhere ..., during the GAoP of course.

So Japan ., China., the Philippines (rich in maritame history as much as any in the caribbean) didnt matter ? The 7107 Islands of the Spanish philippines is something you can elaborate on ? You can speak and or read Spanish or Tagalog? and learned it in school there?

Actually how many europeons came to the philippines from 1521 untill the Golden age., do you think maybe thousands? or perhaps tens of thousands? Suppose maybe a few got tattoos there? Tattooss were BIG in the Islands ..., I know that I dont need to give these numbers tho ., cause I know you know them. And besides better for me you do your own research ., after all if callenish Gunner isnt believable., why would I be...,

You are well versed in Asia as well then correct? or do the timeline questioned have no relation to this part of the world for you or your agenda?

I have much to add to this topic., but I like to know from the people making the arguement are they really knowledable in this geography? I am betting not . If so I bet you wouldnt be arguing your case about tattoos not being on sailors., Earth was a big place in 1700. I am betting your knowledge is more limited then a few care to admit.

They had sailors., and they had europeons as well in the far east.

Is the GAoP just for the Caribbean?

[Silkie McDonough]

I have a tattoo, not my character (especially since it isn't period correct).  When in character I keep myself properly covered (no matter what might be melting!)

I have to correct myself here. The text that appears inside the parenthesis should read: "especially since the design is not period correct"

[blackbonie]

ok im back. tho i technically left the site i did keep an eye on this discussion and was surprised to see how much thought people put into it.i fully expected to be flamed and the topic dropped.tattoos seemed to be a very unpopular thing here (on the other boards as well). i do know how the boards work, i just see alot of up-turned noses at non-historically accurate stuff on all the boards. so i will just watch and learn about stuff but keep my cotton/rayon blend machine-sewn costumes to myself

and i guess not everyone here is so intolerant. some need to learn to take things less seriously tho. not getting a tattoo because of historical accuracy is just wierd.and tho i have 27 mostly large tattoos i still keep them covered when im in garb.its easy

[Silkie McDonough]

Just a point of order Bonnie ...this particular "room" in the pub is reserved for those who wish to discuss the historical accuracy of ALL things. As you can see, nothing is easy here but in the long run ...some just like a good argument! If those of us who don't know learn something ...all the better.

[blackjohn]

and the truth shall set them free!!! thank you sir

My pleasure sir. Glad I could assist.

That's cool. but it is also kinda double edged ....

He had a tattoo.... but wanted to get rid of it.......

It may be the first case of a drunken sailor getting a tattoo.

Maybe he had too much of that Indian specialty - fermented corn and spit homebrew?

[blackjohn]

So what evidence does everyone read ? Is it english? Are the pirates you read about English? were they in the New world the spanish main and el Carib ?

Well said Harbormaster. I for one agree, we rely way too much on English accounts. I wish I still had command of Spanish, because I believe there is an untold wealth of information hidden away in the Spanish Archives.

[blackjohn]

and i guess not everyone here is so intolerant. some need to learn to take things less seriously tho. not getting a tattoo because of historical accuracy is just wierd.and tho i have 27 mostly large tattoos i still keep them covered when im in garb.its easy

Maybe this place is intolerant, maybe not? Maybe it is what you bring with you when you walk in the door? Maybe it is what you read into it? I dunno.

Alot is lost in not having a visual component to these discussions, especially when one considers a large percentage of how we communicate is through non-verbal means.

As for what constitutes weird... opinions vary.

[Edward T. Porter]

ok im back. tho i technically left the site i did keep an eye on this discussion and was surprised to see how much thought people put into it.i fully expected to be flamed and the topic dropped.tattoos seemed to be a very unpopular thing here (on the other boards as well). i do know how the boards work, i just see alot of up-turned noses at non-historically accurate stuff on all the boards. so i will just watch and learn about stuff but keep my cotton/rayon blend machine-sewn costumes to myself 

  and i guess not everyone here is so intolerant. some need to learn to take things less seriously tho. not getting a tattoo because of historical accuracy is just wierd.and tho i have 27 mostly large tattoos i still keep them covered when im in garb.its easy

Here´s a topic in "Pirate Pop" about ink... seems to be very unpopular around the folks here...so please don´t go into this "I have lots of inks/ I´m an outsider" - thing... it won´t work.

And again: Captain Twill is about historical accuracy, evidences and scientific researches.

If you post your pictures from your garb in this section of the pub, you will get comments about the accuracy of your stuff...

If you post your pictures in other sections of the pub, the same people, who have so up-turned noses will compliment you about the good work you´ve made with your costume... at least if it´s good

You can learn a lot from the folks arround here if you wish and ask them... most of the times you will get a reasonable answer... maybe not what you want to hear, but reasonable... so it´s just about how you deal with it.

[Captain Tightpants]

Of course, your mileage may vary! ....the first actions of those whose logic is questioned is to deride those who question them

Hugh, no one is deriding you. Hell, I'm not even deriding your arguments. I'm debating you based on a different viewpoint. If I were deriding you, I'd be engaging in ad hominem attacks; i.e., calling you a poopiehead. I think you'll find I'm not doing that.

All I'm saying is that I find your conclusions too much of a stretch. To paraphrase Prof. Tolkien, "There's no evil there except that which you bring."

there are accounts and i am currently attempting gain copies of the actual documents of those who were taken into native culture within the new world and gained acceptance within their societies and whom were later "redeemed" by there original countrymen who choose to remain among their adopted cultures ....for various reasons it did not negate that fact that they were of european extraction it meant that they choose to live outside that culture and adopt another culture to live within....and whether it was the fact that they had been tattooed or not doesn't alter the fact that hey were european ....you can't change the rules to justify your position just to prove someone else wrong ....if guerrero chose to remain among the mayan it didn't make him any less spanish it meant that he chose not to return to the culture that would have at the time possibly have killed him for going against the rule of the church (i.e. inquisition)

there is also a later report of another spaniard who in florida had chosen to live among the natives there who was also tattooed and also refused to return to spain as there are numerous antedotes of english and french and also dutch settlers who were taken into native cultures in this period who chose to adopt and remain within the adopted communities that does not negate the origin of their births.

You are 100% correct in these assessments, except the one about changing the rules, which I never did.

I'm simply asking you to see how much of a stretch it is to go from Europeans going native - and choosing, for whatever reason, not to rejoin their countrymen - and seamen in GAoP adopting the practice of tattooing. In all of your evidence, you haven't yet made that connection. And until that connection is made through documentation, no amount of exercises in logic can convince me to support it.

That's all! No need to get hot under the collar! I think you're doing fabulous work, and I'm glad to participate in this discussion. Let's keep it good-natured, shall we?

[Captain Tightpants]

HarborMaster,

One of the unfortunate things about history is that it is fragmented.

First, no one person can possess the detailed information of which you speak; such a study would be the effort of a lifetime and would, at the end of that life, remain incomplete for a variety of reasons.

Second, since evidence is fragmentary, we have to do the best we can with what we've got. Historiography is a lot like assembling a case for court. You gather your evidence and make your case. If you charge a fellow with murder and cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks. The same principle holds in historical discussions.

That's not to say that you have to have an iron-clad case to convince the jury; if you can bring enough circumstantial evidence to the jury, they can agree that, even with a lack of direct evidence, the probability of the defendant being guilty is extremely high.

In discussions like this, an iron-clad case would be a contemporaneous account giving evidence that seamen in GAoP had tattoos. For example, if Dampier (or a Spaniard or Portuguese or Frenchman) wrote, "On the 23d of February, 1711, Second Mate Hutchins, along with John Macek and Rob't Davis did, while ashore and besotted with Drink, have their arms stain'd with Figures in the native fashion, whereupon they returned to the Vessel moments before weighing Anchor.", I'd congratulate the person who found the quote.

Circumstantial evidence could be something along the lines of: "De Villiers noted in his diary that they found a shipwrecked mariner, William O'Dwyer, who was taken aboard. He also noted that the rescued mariner had had tattoos applied by friendly natives. Another account, by Francois le Chevre, lists a W. O'Dwyer on another pirate vessel's manifest five years later."

That's good evidence, but only that one pirate had tattoos. It says nothing about O'Dwyer's crewmates getting tattoos, just that he had one. Still, it's a reasonable assumption that other mariners had similar experiences. On the other hand, it's still not proof that other pirates had tattoos.

In short, to a very large degree, you're right - no one person has a handle on all seafaring practices everywhere. But to do what I'm doing in this discussion, you don't need that knowledge. You need to know how to practice history. For that I am well-qualified, with university training.

[callenish gunner]

seems that your memory is not infalable afterall ; as blackjohn proved when he referenced dampier's work regarding wafer and bullman and the process and the attempted removal of a tattoo so from what was presented as the suggested proof of the argument was did "any" european have tattoos during the GAOP the answer is a resounding yes.

if you fail to concede the point you risk appearing to loose credibiltiy as the "noted histroians" of the pub.

and since the other information i gathered was in french it did take some time for me to do a fairly accurate translation regarding the newfrance encounters by sailors and traders with the natives of north america and their penchant for tattooing also the pilgrims returning from the holyland during the renaissance and through the 17th century with tattoos of the cross of jeruselum tattooed on their arms as a show of devotion and as a sign of safe passage for pilgrims from barbary pirates and the sailors during the late seventeenth and eighteenth certury returning from south sea voyages with tattoos. i'm currently trying to have some portugese references translated regarding their voyages to the far east in the 1670's-80's &90's dealing with the spice islands and dealing in japan all of where tattooing flourished during this period.

i did decypher that the term "painted" also meant coloured as in marked with paint/dyes so to the europeans of the day i'm sure meant those tattooed did appear to be painted ; just as dampier referred to giolo as his painted prince when he brought him to london for exhibit.

[Matty Bottles]

Question:

What is the distinction between an account of a European going native, being stained, and essentially staying native, and of a European being stained and resuming his travels?

Is such a distinction significant?

If you can't agree, I fear you will simply argue in circles.

[Captain Tightpants]

as blackjohn proved when he referenced dampier's work regarding wafer and bullman and the process and the attempted removal of a tattoo so from what was presented as the suggested proof of the argument was did "any" european have tattoos during the GAOP the answer is a resounding yes.

Of course I concede the point. You win; one sailor in GAoP had a tattoo. Still doesn't make it common.

Moreover, as Pat pointed out, he wanted it off. What does that say? Combined with your earlier evidence from the Spanish account, it says (to me) that, far from being something other mariners wished to emulate, tattoos were avoided by Europeans who wished to remain in the company of their countrymen without negative incident.

That's evidence, albeit circumstantial, that tattoos were, while extant, extremely rare amongst Europeans.

It occurs to me that we might be arguing at cross-purposes to a certain extent. My focus of study is on the areas which had high traffic by pirates, i.e., the waters of the Caribbean and North America, ca. 1680-1720. As such, I'm looking at a very narrow scope, compared to what you're finding. I'll try to keep that in mind as we continue.

I look forward to seeing your translations!

seems that your memory is not infalable afterall ; if you fail to concede the point you risk appearing to loose credibiltiy as the "noted histroians" of the pub.

Tone it down, friend. Enough with the threats, okay? No one is attacking you; you have no need to snap. Persisting in ad hominem attacks does credit to neither you nor your scholarship. I never claimed infallibility; on the contrary, I disclaim it whenever possible, for I know my limits (see my post to HarborMaster).

Like I asked before, let's keep this a civil academic discussion. Once this discussion degenerates into sniping, trolling and personal accusations, no one is going to be able to learn anything, myself included.

[callenish gunner]

if there be one two or only a dozen during that period why did the admiralty have sanctions against the practice the records also show that by 1740 any man with a(staining/tattoo) could be registered as a non available seaman to a void being pressed into service.(Law, Crime, and English Society, 1660-1830

By Landau, Norma) Cambridge University Press...... did so much change in those 20 years and 30 years before cook's return

...and why did the admiralty have sanction prohibiting the piercing or marking or otherwise self mutilation of ones personage on the books during this period could it have been because of the high risk of infection during the period that would have rendered a sailor unfit for duty??

.... and the golden age would have included the pirates who sailed along the african coast and as far as madagazcar and beyond ...since they were pirates and europeans(i.e. william kidd)

now that is finnoodling your data lad and that is a change in rules ....if that was the extent of your claim that should have been presented initially not after the fact.

if you claim that was the extent of piracy that it was just those waters it would be inacurate to the history of the maritime of the period.

i never made a claim that it was so widespread an occurance as that every man jack that sailed had a tattoo as not everyone since cooks return has one what i postulated was the fact that it was within the realm of possibility that those exposed to the practice could have chosen (or in some cases were forced) to have tattoos. if a culture of social conformity was the norm why would any of these men have become pirates at all??? they choose to be outside the confines of polite society so why should anyone believe that if they'd rob and kill for gold and other plunder? why they'd stop at the social constraints against tattoos ....the arguement has a lack of common sense about it.

pirates were social rebels and outcasts, most by choice, so what other social moraes do you think they might have violated ...lying, cheating, adultry, stealing, murder, sacrilege......

The absence of proof does not invariably constitute proof of absence.

Unless this trite warning is heeded, ethnohistorians risk getting caught up in

a corrosive mind-set of legalistic phraseology, litigation wordplay, and the finality of court judgements, instead of continuing to probe, to ponder and to periodically re-evaluate the data, as they should. The historical record is always fragmentary, selective, and biased. We must therefore evaluate sources carefully. Can any of the data be quantified? What is their particular nature? To what extent are they likely to contain credible information

on a specific subject? Might there be reasons for doubting their reliability? Are

there any known gaps in the time period covered by these records? Do they merely represent a sample of a voluminous class of documents? Has there been a tendency or reliance on only some categories of relevant records to the neglect of others?

More systematic attention should also be accorded to preconceptions, hidden agendas, and incomprehension. What accounts for the lack of detailed ethnographical information in early documents? -from a guide to cultural anthrology & ethnohistorian researchers prof. Charles A Martijn

if you want to debate further i'm more than willing to continue but intellectual disrespect will be returned if that is the route you choose.

i can debate the facts and the hypotheses of the historical accuracy of statments presented. but remember that when a bias is proven the re-representation of imperical limits is a poor excuse for valid arguement.

[Salty]

So what evidence does everyone read ? Is it english? Are the pirates you read about English? were they in  the New world the spanish  main and el Carib ?

So the GAoP is not a time period but its actually just a small place on earth at a certain time? for you?  Or is it Global ?

Is the GAoP just for the Caribbean?

Well said,

does this only include the british or western europe, what about eastern europe and the orient? I for one find it hard to seperate geography and culture into just one tiny section. So for those of us so interested in discoursing about this topic in a historical fashion let us do so and welcome what information is so gleaned. Just a thought.

quote Callenish Gunner

The absence of proof does not invariably constitute proof of absence.

This as well is a very good point hugh, as well as pirates being outcasts to thier home societies.

Salty

[Captain Tightpants]

if there be one two or only a dozen during that period why did the admiralty have sanctions against the practice the records also show that by 1740 any man with a(staining/tattoo) could be registered as a non available seaman to a void being pressed into service.(Law, Crime, and English Society, 1660-1830

By Landau, Norma) Cambridge University Press...... did so much change in those 20 years and 30 years before cook's return

...and why did the admiralty have sanction prohibiting the piercing or marking or otherwise self mutilation of ones personage on the books during this period could it have been because of the high risk of infection during the period that would have rendered a sailor unfit for duty??

Now that is interesting and useful data of which I was unaware. You're definitely onto something, there.

In another field of slight interest to me - Irish clothing - much of what we think is true is reconstituted from repeated English prohibitions. We haven't got much at all to indicate what the Irish ca. 1500 wore other than that. This is the same sort of information, and that's good work, Hugh!

... and the golden age would have included the pirates who sailed along the african coast and as far as madagazcar and beyond ...since they were pirates and europeans(i.e. william kidd)

now that is finnoodling your data lad and that is a change in rules ....if that was the extent of your claim that should have been presented initially not after the fact.

Didn't mean to slap a change of rules on you. As I wrote above, I didn't realize until that moment that I was viewing this discussion from that too-narrow slant. The Atlantic and Caribbean pirates are my area of interest, you see. While the other areas are interesting (I love Dampier's records of his Pacific voyages, for example), I keep coming back there.

So if it appears that I "sprung" that on you, I apologize; I didn't even know until too late that I was doing that. I have expanded my purview now, thanks to you.

if a culture of social conformity was the norm why would any of these men have become pirates at all??? they choose to be outside the confines of polite society {snip}

This is sociologically tricky. Again, I think this is a bit of a stretch. While they were indeed "outside the confines of polite society", it's widely known that they had their own society, much of which was recorded. A piece of that record has yet to be presented supporting tattooing, save one which painted the practice negatively.

I readily and heartily admit that tattooing was possible. But that's as far as I can take it, and I still contend that possibility doesn't constitute proof for the practice.

I have real problems with the assumption - heard again and again in Captain Twill - that pirates, being antisocial badasses, could have or would have done anything. Like I said, it just seems too big a stretch.

This assumption seems to be based on what we see every day of social nonconformists in our modern society, like Goths or Punks or (dare I say it?) members of the modern "pirate lifestyle" (whatever that is). Our modern societal constraints aren't nearly as strong as those hundreds of years ago or even in the American 1950s; it is an hisoriographical mistake to assume otherwise.

The absence of proof does not invariably constitute proof of absence.

Nor does it invariably constitute proof of existence, Hugh. To use a trite example, we know eggs and olive oil were known in Palestine at the time of Christ. That doesn't mean they made mayonnaise. There is neither proof for nor against mayonnaise in the first century. There is sufficient knowledge of the history of mayonnaise to arrive at the conclusion that the sauce was unknown at that time in that area.

We are arriving, in this thread, at the point of figuring out when mayonnaise made its first appearance in a certain time and place.

Professor Martijn is correct that we mustn't lose sight of new data. New data is always a Godsend, especially in areas where we know comparatively little.

On the other hand, please consider that he also lists the grains of salt with which that data must be taken. In not so many words, Martijn lays out a burden of proof upon both the data and the researcher's presentation of the data. The data is simply the data. The presentation of the data confers the preconceptions and biases of the researcher. It's a shame that it happens - and a good historian always makes every attempt to sever his preconceptions from his work - but it is folly to presume that it does not occur.

To return to my earlier example of Irish clothing, the records - English all - must be carefully examined lest the overt bias of the recorder enter into our analysis. A knowledge of Anglo-Irish relations of the time is necessary as well as a knowledge of textile arts.

if you want to debate further i'm more than willing to continue but intellectual disrespect will be returned if that is the route you choose.

i can debate the facts and the hypotheses of the historical accuracy of statments presented. but remember that when a bias is proven the re-representation of imperical limits is a poor excuse for valid arguement.

Hugh, I'm trying very hard to determine why you think you're being disrespected here. So far as I know, I haven't written anything that could cause you to feel that way, as I have only been subjecting your presentation to the same sort of rigor I'd apply to my own. Let us, as you say, debate the facts and hypotheses. That's all I've been doing.

Fair enough?

[Patrick Hand]

<This post is about using information from Twill and other sources for reenacting >

I think it's great that there is documintation that a few Europeans did get tattoos. (it's prior to the GAoP, but Dampier is close enough)

There is also documintation of two Female Pyrates....

Look at the number of Female Pyrate reenactors......

So now the "Time Flys when your having Rum" tattoo will be considered period ?

It would be interesting to find what designs would have been used, but it would be speculation if a European would have used those designs....

<Back to the Discussion>

[HarborMaster]

I realize this is in 1521 ., It is Ferdinand Magellan being killed by Lapu-Lapu on mactan (Which by the way is AWESOME for Scuba ! ).

Lapu-Lapu is very tattooed. this is 179 years before 1700. There were tens of thousands of europeons in the philippines by the GAoP . Catholic Churches Cathedrals., Fortress ., Huge Military might. Anyway these Seafarers came and went along with the Manila galleon., (Built in Manila with lots of good Philippine Mahogany) and they shipped with treasures from Cebu to Panama.

Here is an old painting from Manila's Dept of tourism and National Museum outside Luneta park. This museum is great., and so is the Colonial Museum in Bacolod, Negros Occidental. Lots of cool matchlocks , pottery.,ship models.,conqustador helmets., a few coats and hats all throught the spanish colony of 400 years !

The Philippines has quite a rich maritime and pirate history. The PH having 7107 Islands sounds like a lot ..., how about 17,000+ islands of the neighbor..., "The Spice Islands? The Spice Islands was the whole reason for Spain funding Magellans Exploration (Cloves.,Nutmeg ect.,ect., Anyway try to imagine no sailor got a tattoo. in 170 years. then thru the GAoP none., then all of a sudden tattoos stared again., so only during 1680 to 1720 tattoos were exempt? Their were more sailors in more places than in El Carib for sure. If you dont know this history your missing the other 2/3rds of the worlds GAoP !

[callenish gunner]

No evidence means no evidence. Imagine whatever you like. But there remains no proof that Europeans were tattooed in the Golden Age of Piracy or before.

seems that point has been proven in error

it was first recorded by Cook in the latter 18th century, some fifty years after the Golden Age of Piracy.

again an obvious error since both damier's giolo and at the very least the four iroquis kings proved that the exposure to the english was much prior to cook

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. wink.gif

another error

but even such an inveterate note-taker and diarist as Dampier - who noted his experiences in extreme detail - made no mention of any of his European colleagues adopting the body-decoration practices of their "hosts".

and yet again another research oversight presented as fact; as was presented in black john's post;

You'll like this... I figured I'd skip right to Mr Wafer's account, since he did in fact go native. Mr Wafer has this to say:

QUOTE

But finer figures, especially by their greater artists, are imprinted deeper, after this manner. They first with the Brush and Colour make a rough Draught of the Figure they design; then they prick all over with a sharp Thorn till the Blood gushes out; then they rub the place with their Hands, first dipp'd in the Colour they design; and the Picture so made is indelible: But scare one in forty of them is painted this way.

Now, here's the good part...

QUOTE

One of my Companions desired me once to get out of his Cheek one of these imprinted Pictures, which was made by the Negroes, his Name was Bullman; which yet I could not effectually do, after much scarifying and fetching off a great part of the Skin.

So, there's evidence. At least one buccaneer by the name of Bullman had a tattoo on his cheek.

i can continue the point by point style of debate to add to the credibilty of my position if you'd like. but i think the point has been made... to include the several groups who had tattoos and to disavow any participation by any of those in direct socialogic contact with the societies that practice the art of tattooing is one of intellectual tap-dancing.

how much evidence would be enough ....perhaps the name date of birth and death and family photo album from an "english sailor" who had gotten tattooed ....oh wait they didn't have photographs and only the wealthy could afford to have paintings done of themselves....and besides who in their future would want to see an ordinary sailor who had a disgusting tattoo ....

[HarborMaster]

This thread has caused me to look thru my pics..., Its been fun . I have many pics of the Intromuros (Manila fortess) Manila Cathedral. Fort San Pedro Cebu (Active 1565-1833) I think thats gAoP ! Colon Market (The first public market in Cebu (now 450 years old., I bet a few people got knifed there) Sto Nino Basillica ., Dept of tourisim ., the National Museum., the Open Hall of Heros., 1472 till WWII Luneta and more. I dont have a university education., I am sorry about that I cant compete there., I am being honest.., Therefore I had to take my 8th grade education there physically for 10 years and have travel around yearly over seas for hands on learning with all things from Magellans time forward ., its an obsession. Lots of cool pictures., Yea the Philippines is a treasure and a true far east caribbean and more. I especially like it because its pro american and they speak english. Its amazing. I can inudate twill with more pics than most would care to see. Just the museums alone ., not the diving or other stuff ., just the history.

[Captain Tightpants]

"No evidence means no evidence. Imagine whatever you like. But there remains no proof that Europeans were tattooed in the Golden Age of Piracy or before."

seems that point has been proven in error

"it was first recorded by Cook in the latter 18th century, some fifty years after the Golden Age of Piracy."

again an obvious error since both damier's giolo and at the very least the four iroquis kings proved that the exposure to the english was much prior to cook

"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."

another error

"but even such an inveterate note-taker and diarist as Dampier - who noted his experiences in extreme detail - made no mention of any of his European colleagues adopting the body-decoration practices of their "hosts".

and yet again another research oversight presented as fact; as was presented in black john's post;

You'll like this... I figured I'd skip right to Mr Wafer's account, since he did in fact go native. Mr Wafer has this to say:

But finer figures, especially by their greater artists, are imprinted deeper, after this manner. They first with the Brush and Colour make a rough Draught of the Figure they design; then they prick all over with a sharp Thorn till the Blood gushes out; then they rub the place with their Hands, first dipp'd in the Colour they design; and the Picture so made is indelible: But scare one in forty of them is painted this way.

Now, here's the good part...

One of my Companions desired me once to get out of his Cheek one of these imprinted Pictures, which was made by the Negroes, his Name was Bullman; which yet I could not effectually do, after much scarifying and fetching off a great part of the Skin.

So, there's evidence. At least one buccaneer by the name of Bullman had a tattoo on his cheek."

i can continue the point by point style of debate to add to the credibilty of my position if you'd like. but i think the point has been made... to include the several groups who had tattoos and to disavow any participation by any of those in direct socialogic contact with the societies that practice the art of tattooing is one of intellectual tap-dancing.

how much evidence would be enough ....perhaps the name date of birth and death and family photo album from an "english sailor" who had gotten tattooed ....oh wait they didn't have photographs and only the wealthy could afford to have paintings done of themselves....and besides who in their future would want to see an ordinary sailor who had a disgusting tattoo ....

Hugh,

Let me make this abundantly clear:

I have repeatedly acknowledged that you have documented tattoos to Europeans. I have praised you for a good job in so doing. I have no problem with admitting I was wrong. I have done so.

You've hoisted me on my own petard. You have information I didn't have before you gave me that information.

For some reason, you insist on throwing this into my face, as though I'm some sort of petulant child who refuses to see a simple fact instead of a discerning reader and historian who is simply casting doubt on some of your conclusions. It's obvious you want something further from me than my repeated admissions. What might that be? Do you just want to gloat, that you've defeated me? [shrug] Okay.

You've WON.

Here it is again: Hugh has proved that Europeans had tattoos, before, during and after GAoP.

Okay? Mark the date on your calendar.

Moving on.

How much evidence would be enough? A record of more than one pirate having a tattoo, evidence of tattoos being common, that'd be best. That fulfills the axiom about not making the rare common and the common rare.

Hell, I'd happily take evidence that Europeans weren't shamed by being tattooed. If I had evidence that a pirate - one pirate - proudly wore a tattoo, I'd call it a job well done, a good service to modern pirates who want to look historical.

For all of our wrangling, you've done good work, Hugh. You've established that Europeans had tattoos. Now all we need to get to what people want is documentation supporting the concept that more than one pirate wore his tattoos as a mark of pride.

Now can we please bury the hatchet - someplace other than my head - and get on with that process?

P.S. And for the record, tap-dancing requires agility.

[callenish gunner]

frankly,

i had read the thread and got intrigued because i had remembered some earlier readings of years ago ...so i chose to go online and do my begining research and within a matter of hours i had obtained sources that pointed me in many directions for the detailed accounts... it has spurred me to go after the extensive documents outside the the rather limited english records which in my humble opinion have considerable ethnic bias...

but also blanket statemnts are a challenge to me and not being one to let a challenge go by when told that it's an always or never standpoint i must by my nature see if that arguement is valid ....this sort of intellectual gymnastics is why i had gotten into forensic debate 40+ years ago. it's why i don't just swallow blindly the pablum fed to the masses...

i have studied the principles of propaganda and persuasion and i have chosen to be what would be called a free-thinker ....don't tell me it's a fact: prove to me it's a fact ! just as you and kass have claimed it needs evidence and neither of you had presented clear and irrefutable evidence to prove my assertions wrong. i persued it to find that the rope i had grabbed onto was in fact an elephant.

i have no animosity towards you or kass but i will not accept blindly the word of so-called authorities without question ...because i know that the world is a huge place and what was a truth to the english was not the same truth to the spanish or to the dutch, or french,russians, arabs or the natives of the new world ...truth has always been a matter of perspective and perspectives differ from viewpoint in place and time.

so good luck with your endeavours to research the history but remember to broaden your sources or you'll trip yourself up by relying on too few sources for your information

[blackbonie]

until that connection is made through documentation, no amount of exercises in logic can convince me to support it.

im SO glad scientists throughout the centuries didnt think that way.

[Matty Bottles]

until that connection is made through documentation, no amount of exercises in logic can convince me to support it.

im SO glad scientists throughout the centuries didnt think that way.

Apples and oranges. Scientists research through observation; historians through people's records of observation~. Captain Tightpants said he hadn't seen documentation, callenish produces the documentation. That, not logical supposition or casuistry*, won the day. No matter what side the argument, documentation trumps supposition. Don't dis documentation; it's a losing position.

~I should say, this is one way historians research.

*I am not accusing anyone of casuistry, just making a point.