tattoos

[kass]

You're sure that some sailors partook of the practice? What makes you so sure?

No Hugh. It's not ethnocentric claptrap. (And I find it highly insulting that you think I, your fellow Celt, would be err on that side.) It's historical research. To say something existed, we have to have documentable evidence. No one in this debate has shown evidence of tattoos on white men yet.

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.

[callenish gunner]

that is an assumption of english bias ...as was a point brought up in the guidelines for the thread ...if you want to make a practice,participated by some, less signifigant disavow any circumstances of a practice "the always or never arguement" ....if it was openly stated in any document that no sailor or traveler ever came home with a tattoo then perhaps i'll believe it was the exclusivity of the practice but unless there is a document that says no sailor or pyrate ever had gotten a tattoo or a "staining" as they were called before cook's return to england in 1771 ...then the acceptance of your arguement would be valid

but to make the assumption that every european that came in contact with the practice refused to have the staining applied until cook returned sounds way too contrived to me ....if i were living among the natives along a central american coast, say, i might be intrigued enough to have a tattoo but since i was also a european who frowned on such practice that had been otlawed by pope hadrian in the 800's i'd make sure it was in a rather clandestine location so that only those i was most intimate with would see such a marking ....i'd not make it a display to the whole world ...the same as many celts kept the "old ways" alive even with the condemnation of the church for centuries

[callenish gunner]

this was a quote that i gained from professor gustav kinitzski who was a professor of cultural anthropology at clarion university in pennsylvania:

A document is evidence only of itself. Those who keep Documents document what they see, and they document the information they need. When a historian approaches the records it is imperative that he or she put that principle in the forefront. Nobody kept records to make the doing of history easier for the historian. They kept records of the phenomena that mattered to the society in which they lived. Although documents tell us wonderful things, they almost always only tell us about the society which the record-keeper lived in. While dealing with marginal groups, the documents impose the perceptions of the dominant society upon what might well be an altogether different reality within the minority society.

[callenish gunner]

William Dampier is responsible for re-introducing tattooing to the west. He was a sailor and explorer who traveled the South Seas. In 1691 he brought to London a heavily tattooed Polynesian named Prince Giolo, Known as the Painted Prince. He was put on exhibition , a money making attraction, and became the rage of London. It had been 600 years since tattoos had been seen in Europe and it would be another 100 years before tattooing would make it mark in the West.

In September of 1691 a tattooed Polynesian slave was brought to London to be exhibited as a curiosity. His owners went to great pains to promote his public appearances: they arranged to have two full-length portraits engraved and published as illustrations for an elegantly printed pamphlet which introduced him as "Giolo, the Famous Painted Prince."

Prince Giolo did not want to visit London. His owners, however, had told him that he would be handsomely paid for his public appearances and would afterward be allowed to return to his home in the Philippines. But the journey to England was arduous and Giolo, who was in poor health when he arrived, soon died of smallpox. This was a great disappointment for his ambitious English owners, who had hoped he would live long enough to make them rich.

Prince Giolo had been brought to London by an adventurer and buccaneer named William Dampier. It was the dawn of the golden age of piracy: Captain Kidd, Henry Morgan and others were operating out of headquarters in Southern Mexico and enjoying profitable careers. Dampier, however, was not one of the world¹s great pirates. For over 12 years he had traveled up and down to coast of South America, changing allegiance from one gang of pirates to another as he thought to better his position. But the pirates with whom he traveled did not capture Spanish Galleons laden with gold, diamonds and pretty ladies. Instead, their routine work consisted of the safer, if less profitable, business of robbing defenseless villages and small coastal vessels. It turned out to be much work for little money, and after ten years of this strenuous life Dampier signed on with a ship headed for the Philippines.

It was while he was in the Philippines that Dampier first saw Giolo, whom he acquired from a ship¹s officer named William Moody. Dampier described his adventures in the Pacific and his meeting with Giolo in a popular travel book, A New Voyage Round the World (1697)

with that sort of example in the eyes of sailors ...almost impossible to think that none partook in the practice ...was it 100% of the crew?? i also doubt that! but 10-20% -well within the confines of believeability ...was it resounding 0% i also doubt that the evidence was i'm sure an obscure "staining" that would have been kept covered in polite society

[Captain Tightpants]

Again, all good points, Hugh.

Unfortunately my stance remains that no matter how much logical sense it makes, it is still speculation, and equivocal speculation at that. When documentary or pictorial evidence appears of European sailors in GAoP being marked with what we'd call "tattoos", I shall be the first to cheerfully add it to my collection of footnotes. But for the nonce I must remain unconvinced.

That tattooing was known to European sailors - and to civilians on the European mainland - is not proof, positive or negative, that either sailors or civilians would have adopted the practice.

There are, as you note, many accounts of Europeans coming into contact with aboriginal peoples during their travels, but you must admit that accounts of those Europeans "going native" are few and far between; of those accounts, the overwhelming majority make note of the extreme duress of the experience. The logical conclusion is, therefore, that those men actively rejected their "hosts" as savages. Dampier made note of this impulse in his Pacific voyage notes.

Dampier also noted the prolonged exposure of his shipmates to (tattooed!) Polynesian cultures during his Pacific voyage(s), 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". He did record that some of those men took native wives and were loath to leave the place, but so far as I am aware he never mentioned them adopting the practices of their wives' culture. The only responsible conclusion, therefore, is that the men retained their European perspective, as any deviance would have been remarked upon.

Again, Hugh, while your information is interesting, it offers only sufficient support to indicate that tattoos on Europeans is possible. That "staining" was possible does not mean it was probable except through stretch of the researcher's imagination.

So we'll have to agree to disagree, methinks.

[kass]

this was a quote that i gained from professor gustav kinitzski who was a professor of cultural anthropology at clarion university in pennsylvania:

A document is evidence only of itself. Those who keep Documents document what they see, and they document the information they need. When a historian approaches the records it is imperative that he or she put that principle in the forefront. Nobody kept records to make the doing of history easier for the historian. They kept records of the phenomena that mattered to the society in which they lived. Although documents tell us wonderful things, they almost always only tell us about the society which the record-keeper lived in. While dealing with marginal groups, the documents impose the perceptions of the dominant society upon what might well be an altogether different reality within the minority society.

And did Professor Kinitzski explain to you how you cannot document something for which there is no proof?

Show me evidence of a tattooed European in the Golden Age of Piracy. That's all. Just one piece of solid evidence: a picture, a verbal reference, anything. Even a bad piece of evidence (like hearsay) would be something.

If the evidence doesn't exist, you cannot state that Europeans were tattooed in the Golden Age of Piracy.

[Silkie McDonough]

Kass,

My question is simply this. Is it in the realm of possibility that a western European sailor MAY have been "stained" or "marked" or "tattooed"? Is there any evidence stating that NO sailor was?

Again, as Captain Tightpants stated in the "Never Say Never (or Always) ...Unless, of course, it's something totally provable like, "They never used polyester."

Hugh is not saying it was common just that it was not impossible.

Is it your thought that we can't be educated and make judgment calls regarding things that are not documented? In that case, I am highly insulted.

FYI: Hugh it Scott's Celt, so is his character. Hugh has no tattoo.

My character is an Irish Celt. She could likely have had some tattoo someplace on her person because of the "old ways" kept from her mother and grandmother I suppose. 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!) No I don't think we should all be sporting tattoos an claiming them as pc.

Chole hit the nail on the head. It is unlikely that IF any western European sailor had a tattoo it would be seen often. It wasn't like someone was going to take a snapshot with their camera. So the sailor with the dreadlocks kept them covered as he did his tattoo. Why is that hard to believe. Either way the general public at a historic event doesn't see it.

Yes, I know this is Captain Twill. I have no evidence that they did have tattoos but I don't see any that states that NONE did.

Okay...my two cents ...worth about that in the view of some.

[callenish gunner]

then my dear kass and tightpants you both have not proven beyond a doubt that no indidual or group didn't have a tattoo just because of exclusion from the dominate cultures bias toward the practice in their literature or records .....the bias is also just circumstansial as well ....that bias was one you yourself put forth in your guidelines ... it's the same as when in recent years those whom had gotten tattoos in their youth of say 50-60 years ago tried to keep them covered in polite society as an indiscretion of their less than responsible youth... since only nere-do-well sailors or convicts had them

[Capn_Enigma]

I have no evidence that they did have tattoos but I don't see any that states that NONE did.

Silkie,

as kass has already pointed out on page 1 of this thread,

"No evidence against isn't proof for."

Unless you can prove that there were tattoos around, you don't have a leg to stand on. It is your belief, and you are entitled to that.

But belief does not belong into Twill. It belongs into church.

What does count in Twill is facts.

[callenish gunner]

i knew i had read it somewhere before:

On arriving in Cozumel from Cuba, Cortes sent a letter by Maya messenger across to the mainland, inviting the two Spaniards, of whom he'd heard rumors, to join him. Aguilar became a translator, along with Doña Marina, 'La Malinche', during the Conquest. According to the account of Bernal Diaz, when the newly freed friar attempted to convince Guerrero to join him, Gonzalo Guerrero responded:

Spanish: "Hermano Aguilar, yo soy casado y tengo tres hijos. Tienenme por cacique y capitán, cuando hay guerras, la cara tengo labrada, y horadadas las orejas que dirán de mi esos españoles, si me ven ir de este modo? Idos vos con Dios, que ya veis que estos mis hijitos son bonitos, y dadme por vida vuestra de esas cuentas verdes que traeis, para darles, y diré, que mis hermanos me las envían de mi tierra."

English Translation: "Brother Aguilar; I am married and have three children, and they look on me as a cacique (lord) here, and captain in time of war. My face is tattooed and my ears are pierced. What would the Spaniards say if they saw me like this? Go and God's blessing be with you, for you have seen how handsome these children of mine are. Please give me some of those beads you have brought to give to them and I will tell them that my brothers have sent them from my own country."

And Gonzalo's wife Zazil Há angrily addressed Aguilar in her own language:

"Why has this slave come here to call my husband away? Go off with you, and let us have no more talk."

Then Aguilar spoke to Guerrero again, reminding him that he was of Christian faith and should not throw away his everlasting soul for the sake of an Indian woman. But Gonzalo was not to be convinced.

Bernal Díaz de Castillo (Historia Verdadera . . .Chapter XXIX)

so therefore it was within the realm of possiblility that some europeans were tattooed

admittedly this account is from before theGoldenAge ofPiracy but it doesn't exclude the possibility that some/ not all could have been tattooed

[Capn_Enigma]

Tienenme por cacique y capitán, cuando hay guerras, la cara tengo labrada,

Doesn't that mean:

"They look upon me as their Cacique and Captain, and when going to war, I paint my face"?

[William Brand]

Let us focus on what we do know. Let us take an examination of records from those countries outside of Europe which had tattooing on a wide scale during the Golden Age of Piracy.

Example: Japan

The Japanese have been tattoing for purposes of decoration, religion, social postition and even fad for the better part of their history. Edo period (1603-1867) literature is filled with references to pledge tattoos, or irebokuro as they were known. These are love or religious tattoos symbolizing pledges of eternal love. They were wide spread among the working class or middle class.

If we can focus on countries outside of Europe, we may eventually find a tying record that will have a name or reference to tattooed Englishmen. Personal journals of colonists would certainly help.

What we have here is a desire to know more on both sides of the debate. We should use our combined energy to dig and bring records to light.

[Captain Tightpants]

Hugh,

Again, nice quote! We're getting ever closer. Now we've evidence that Europeans were "stained".

I'm still going to disagree with your original premise.

Please allow me to select what I find a very telling quote from your post:

My face is tattooed and my ears are pierced. What would the Spaniards say if they saw me like this?

This indicates that such things were Not Done amongst the Europeans. Gonzalo Guerrero was begging off having to go visit his countrymen after having gone almost completely native.

Instead of giving evidence for tattoos and earrings amongst sailors, you've provided very strong proof of the opposite! It indicates that a European wouldn't be caught dead in the stuff.

As you say, it's considerably early for GAoP.

[The Doctor]

~~

Edited July 26, 2007 by Mad_Jack

[Captain Tightpants]

Kass,

My question is simply this.  Is it in the realm of possibility that a western European sailor MAY have been "stained" or "marked" or "tattooed"?  Is there any evidence stating that NO sailor was?

Again, as Captain Tightpants stated in the "Never Say Never (or Always) ...Unless, of course, it's something totally provable like, "They never used polyester."

Hugh is not saying it was common just that it was not impossible. 

Is it your thought that we can't be educated and make judgment calls regarding things that are not documented?  In that case, I am highly insulted.

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!)  No I don't think we should all be sporting tattoos an claiming them as pc.

Chole hit the nail on the head.  It is unlikely that IF any western European sailor had a tattoo it would be seen often.  It wasn't like someone was going to take a snapshot with their camera.  So the sailor with the dreadlocks kept them covered as he did his tattoo.  Why is that hard to believe.  Either way the general public at a historic event doesn't see it.

Yes, I know this is Captain Twill.  I have no evidence that they did have tattoos but I don't see any that states that NONE did.

Silkie,

First, I stole all of that directly from Kass's website. Her rules, and they're good ones!

Second, yes, it's within the realm of possibility. But being possible doesn't make it so. If we're seeking after what we know was done, there's still a reasonable doubt, because conclusive evidence has not yet come to light.

That is, in my (admittedly not so humble) opinion, not an area for a judgment call. I can't answer for Kass, but I think she feels the same way. Neither of us wants you to be insulted; no one is casting aspersions on your judgment. You and I simply disagree that this is an area in which can be made an educated guess.

Let me see if I can make myself more clear with an analogy. Say we have loads of evidence that English landsmen of certain classes corresponding with mariners wore coats of a certain cut. Say every picture extant shows examples of this coat. Now, say we have no information at all telling us exactly what English mariners wore. It is a safe reasonable assumption that mariners wore if not a coat of the same cut, something remarkably similar. Why? Because the mariners are from the same parent culture as the landsmen, and even though they're mariners spend a lot of time on land.

I see a tremendous gulf between that and adopting tattoos. As evidenced by Hugh's quote, not only was such a practice unknown in the parent culture, the presence of the tattoos and piercings would have occasioned ridicule from the "conformists".

Of course, your mileage may vary!

In dialectic, it is impossible to prove a negative. We can only prove a positive. Thus, it is impossible to prove that tattoos never existed. It is possible to prove they did, should evidence be found. The responsible historian will assume that a thing never existed without evidence to the contrary. That's something I learned in my college Historiography class. At the same time, the responsible historian will applaud when evidence is brought to light which proves a thing existed.

Hell, historians make enough errors even with reams of evidence! Why broaden the field?

[callenish gunner]

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

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

[callenish gunner]

just as for instance my great grandfather had a tattoo on his forearm that he got during the late 1860's but he always kept it covered with long shirtsleeves even when in summer it was quite warm and he was working hard ...it was because the local church thought and preached that such tattoos were heathen sacrelege and that was enough that he chose not to subject himself nor his wife to the oppinions of the community..... so it was something he had done as a very young man that he chose not to divulge to the community in which he lived ....it didn't mean it didn't exist, it did, but no one in the community knew of it

[blackjohn]

When left on the Isthmus, Mr Dampier's friend Mr Wafer went native, so much so that Mr Dampier didn't recognize his friend when next they met. Mr Wafer was wearing a silver penis sheath and not much else, as I recall. Mr Dampier notes that Mr Wafer was "painted like an Indian" (Dampier, A New Voyage, pg 37).

If nothing else, Mr Dampier recorded practically everything he saw. I don't recall Mr Dampier ever remarking on his fellows getting tattoos. He points out Mr Wafer was painted. And when he says painted, I believe he means painted.

Ymmv

[Hester]

Mr Wafer was wearing a silver penis sheath and not much else, as I recall.

Oh, I'll have to get one of those for Surfer Joe!

[blackjohn]

I don't know who Surfer Joe is, but I've always thought reenacting Mr Wafer would be a hoot!

[callenish gunner]

but dampier also presented giolo as the painted prince ...can it be both ways does painted mean painted with paint one time and tattooed the next??? just a topic for debate.............

[blackjohn]

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.

[blackjohn]

For anyone following along at home, that would be Lionel Wafer, A New Voyage and Description of the Isthmus of America pages 136-7.

[callenish gunner]

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

[Patrick Hand]

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

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

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