tattoos

[Captain Tightpants]

Mr Madd, thanks for the clarification.

Hugh, thanks for letting me in on your methodology. I understand perfectly, and applaud your efforts. Sorry I got my knickers in half a bunch. It's all good.

Always and never, while efforts should be made to avoid it, is in reality quite difficult, because it is often necessary. No support for a thing or concept means that an historian is obliged to deny that thing or concept until supporting evidence is presented. That evidence can take many forms, in varying "tiers" of reliability. At the top is a primary source directly relating to the thing or concept; at the bottom is a chain of inferences based on peripheral primary sources and/or secondary/tertiary source material.

The guideline written by Kass and included in the FAQ is more pertaining to how we say "always" or "never" than explaining the objective fact. "There is no evidence to support this" means just that, no matter how it's written. I happen to believe that adding words like, "in my research" or "to the best of my knowledge" is a waste of words, even though they soften the intellectual blow; perhaps that explains how I express myself.

No matter how much you want one, and no matter how you phrase your perhaps impeccably logical argument, you can't have a T-Rex until somebody digs up some bones, savvy? Until other scholars can independently arrive at your conclusion based on the available evidence, they can only conclude that your conclusion is baseless (or at least announce that they'll believe it when they see it, which amounts to the same thing).

The hard sciences are not immune to the same principle. Look at the current furor over global warming! That entire issue is based on speculation and inference, making independent experimentation - and thus, concrete answers - impossible. That doesn't stop people from believing in global warming with a crusading fervor that would warm the heart of Pope Urban II during an invasion of Jerusalem by surplus noble sons of Western Europe. But until it can be conclusively proved, there will be argument. In that case, there is evidence to support both sides, often the same evidence.

Compared to that morass, our discussion here is simple and tame.

[Salty]

Quote{Always and never, while efforts should be made to avoid it, is in reality quite difficult, because it is often necessary. No support for a thing or concept means that an historian is obliged to deny that thing or concept until supporting evidence is presented}Quote

not to getinto personal debate with anyone, but on that i do disagree, as someone who has and continues to study history amoung other topics, one must deny nothing, you can postulate anything until you are proven wrong or right with evidence. the same in the sciences, Until something comes along to negate or uphold the idea, but it is not justification to outright deny it.

just me two bits worth.

Salty

[blackbonie]

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,

<Back to the Discussion>

thats the easiest part- the design would depend on where they got the tattoo,geographically. tattoos werent done then like they are now- just finding pictures on the wall or somebodys name

[blackbonie]

I readily and heartily admit that tattooing was possible

that was the one thing i wanted to hear all along.its what i was trying to say from the beginning.

my original statement:

"tho there isnt any evidence stating they did have tats,i also dont believe we know that they didnt.i think its totally possible depending where one traveled.

[smoolie671]

I think I'm going to stand over here with callenish gunner.

[Capn_Enigma]

I readily and heartily admit that tattooing was possible

that was the one thing i wanted to hear all along.its what i was trying to say from the beginning.

Physically, there is a (albeit minute) possibility that all the molecules in a pig (or any other body) start moving upward and that it starts flying. How many pigs have you seen flying today?

Even if there is a chance that it may happen, common sense tells us that it does not. Hence, one can practically rule out the possibility. This is called an "educated guess".

The possibility alone does not make facts, it is the things that one can or can not prove that make facts.

my original statement:

"tho there isnt any evidence stating they did have tats,i also dont believe we know that they didnt.i think its totally possible depending where one traveled.

The operating words are "believe" and "think". A gut feeling does not prove anything, neither one way nor the other.

At best, beliefs impair individual judgement, at worst, they antagonize science per se.

[Silkie McDonough]

Physically, there is a (albeit minute) possibility that all the molecules in a pig (or any other body) start moving upward and that it starts flying. How many pigs have you seen flying today?

Captain Enigma, I understand what you are attempting to say but pigs flying? This is a poor analogy at best and an insult to the ladies intelligence. Perhaps the existence of the dodo bird or the dinosaur would be a better analogy. No one alive today has seen them yet the proof is there. As with this discussion of tattoos the evidence DOES exist.

[callenish gunner]

history is not science it is based as best we can or the information available from the writings or archeological examples there were some writings regarding tattoos and yes dampier wrote that one man bullman wanted the tattoo he had received upon his cheek removed he also wrote that Mr. wafer had been "painted like a savage" which in many accounts included the practice we know as tattooing and since Wafer is said to have desribed the practice and attempted to remove the tattoo from Bullman ....that is an assumption that only Wafer and or Bullman were the exclusive recipients of such tattoos as were the French sailors coming to New France especially as i have found in the Jesuit reports to Paris from the 1670's which i am currently having a french colleague translate for me currently

so making this an assault on the intelligence of the those who take a different position than that which you choose to take becomes counter productive and an insult to those who do the research and glean the facts that are available from reliable sources .....unless at this point you have documented evidence that refutes the evidence that has been presented then your position is like that of the 15th & 16th century catholic church who insisted that because they were the authorities in these matters the world was flat and that it was the center of the universe so unless you have the proof allow for the difference of opinion ....just by making a claim and claiming to be an expert doesn't make you above reproach

[Capn_Enigma]

history is not science it is based as best we can or the information available from the writings or archeological examples there were some writings regarding tattoos and yes .. [rest clipped in the interest of sanity and eye health]

History is a science, and printing an opinion to the contary in all the big letters of the world and with utter negligence of punctuation or grammar does not change that fact.

[Salty]

No Sir History is not a Science and never shall be, science is derived by facts and figures and observations. History or some aspects of it rather may use science but is not a science in itself.

Salty

[HarborMaster]

I believe there is an untold wealth of information hidden away in the Spanish Archives.

Me too.

Remember the old saying History is written by the victor.

One will never know.

And what has been writen by the command of those who wanted it wrote a certain way.

Many questions., questions., questions.,questions. *Sigh*

and finally........................................,

What has been lost by the inability to read or write .

[Salty]

I believe there is an untold wealth of information hidden away in the Spanish Archives.

Me too.

Remember the old saying History is written by the victor.

One will never know.

And what has been writen by the command of those who wanted it wrote a certain way.

Many questions., questions., questions.,questions. *Sigh*

and finally........................................,

What has been lost by the inability to read or write .

Sadly sir a great deal, but carping on people's writing style and research techinques will not solve the answer to the questions posed.

[Jack Roberts]

Oh please let not turn this into a pissing match. There has been so much good to come out of this thread. Lets put our ego's away and try to just present new information and argue the point. I have enjoyed this thread so much. When you look at the whole thread we went from "no tattoo's in the GOaP carribbean" to "Although uncommon, tattoo's where around on a few of sailors of the time". How many time do you get see an almost total reversal of previous thought. How exciting! I can't wait to what others bring to the table.

Lets not lose sight of what the thread is for and lose momentum in the discussion. Please I understand I'm not trying to piss anyone off. I just don't want to see the discussion die because someone said something wrong.

[callenish gunner]

Now, Enigma, if it will satisfy you that my typing style is up to your grammarian standard; which in and of itself is an arbitrary structure set up by those of the ruling class of the English aristocracy. That was done in the last part of the 18th century by an English cleric and adopted by the schools that taught those of the ruling class.

History is not a science; it is referred to as a social science but it is not a true science that is why at universities worldwide it is not included in the school of sciences. It is a department in and of itself or grouped in with anthropology, sociology, and sociolinguisitics.

I choose to not utilize the confines of the standard written format when posting communications on threads such as this or perhaps in my other 2000+ posts over the past 3 years on this site alone. However, if you'd like to have everything to your grammatical preference from now on I can oblige; but it is one of the remnants of a social construct not usually practiced on this medium.

If you have definitive evidence that can disporve what I have presented please present that as evidence and refrain from the pseudo intellectual asaults on others who's opinions vary from your own positions. That, sir, is counter-productive to the cognitive process of the debate at hand.

From an actual science that of physics; the migration of molecules resulting in flight would at best be a phenomenum that could be measured and given imperical data. When you have the evidence of that happening please publish your finding within a scientific journal and make your fortune.

[Captain Tightpants]

Amaniria, I appreciate your attempt at maintaining the peace.

Hugh I respectfully submit that your contention the history is not a science is complete and utter bunk.

While not a "hard" science like physics or chemistry, it is a science with definite methodology. He who ignores this methodology, far from being an historian, is a dilettante.

The divisive effects of two world wars, which undermined the ideal of a common international enterprise informed by an internationally acceptable point of view, and the increasing specialization and variety within the historical discipline itself have left history in much the same state of complex and divided purpose that marks all contemporary intellectual life. The earlier optimism that promised imminent recovery of the truth of the past has been replaced by the belief that no accumulation of facts constitutes history as an intelligible structure, and no historian, however free from crude bias, can be a totally neutral, impersonal recorder of an objective reality. Furthermore, the scope of history has expanded immeasurably, in time, as archaeology and anthropology have provided knowledge of earlier ages, and in breadth, as fields of inquiry entirely unknown in the past (such as economic history, psychohistory, history of ideas, of family structures, and of peasant societies) have emerged and refined their methods and goals. To many scholars, national history has come to seem an outmoded, culture-bound approach, although history written on thoroughly international assumptions is extremely difficult to achieve.

Historians have looked more and more to the social sciences—sociology, psychology, anthropology, and economics—for new methods and forms of explanation; the sophisticated use of quantitative data has become the accepted approach to economic and demographic studies. The influence of Marxist theories of economic and social development remains vital and contentious, as does the application of psychoanalytic theory to history. At the same time, many scholars have turned with sharpened interest to the theoretical foundations of historical knowledge and are reconsidering the relation between imaginative literature and history, with the possibility emerging that history may after all be the literary art that works upon scholarly material.

From http://www.cuw.edu/Academics/programs/hist...oriography.html

Yeah. History ain't a science.

[callenish gunner]

I have read the link you posted and the quote you included within your last post, nowhere in the course listing or otherwise does it define the study of historiography as a science it say it's an endeavour to interpret from what those involved can observe or gather from artifacts etc.

A quote from the university's study description: "The evidence may be biased or mistaken, fragmentary, or nearly unintelligible after long periods of cultural or linguistic change. Historians, therefore, have to assess their evidence with a critical eye."

Social sciences while called sciences are not in truth pure science. They are detailed studies and interpretation of observations or reports from third party sources that can or cannot be verified. In many cases they are at best postulations of a train of logic that puts meaning to things that they can study but cannot prove as actual fact. Generally, the fields of sociology, anthropology, economics, social science, psychology, political science, education, and history are grouped into the broader academic area referred to as the “social sciences.” They are also commonly called the soft sciences as opposed to the sciences of chemistry, biology, and physics, and geology

Even withing your own quotation you show the case for it as an interpretive study: "At the same time, many scholars have turned with sharpened interest to the theoretical foundations of historical knowledge and are reconsidering the relation between imaginative literature and history, with the possibility emerging that history may after all be the literary art that works upon scholarly material."

literary art??? mmmmmmm

[HarborMaster]

This was one of the few times I wasnt carping......., I actually meant those words in a solemn sort of way..., I was merely engaged in thought while typing.

Alot has been lost due to the inability to read or write..., only the well to do were school'd much of the time I think. Just a thought.. And my meaning of History was written by the Victors ., I didnt mean that to offend .,but actually I think thats true., I could be wrong .I am wrong alot. However I still didnt mean to offend., sorry.

I bet French and Spanish versions might be differant in detail to Englands over the embarrassmentof of Trafalgar. France doesnt like the celebration . And I think there is a lot to be learned in Spains Archives yes... (I bet its a treasure trove actually.) After they did discover the new world.

I dont wanna fight anymore and I really did not mean to offend..., Sorry for the interuption.., excuse um whaaa., go ahead., please assume the melee' .., I will enjoy from afar.

[Black Syren]

Wow...A very intresting debate and it has caused me to do some very intermediate research. Of course I discovered that tattoos were banned I think around 787 A.D due to the church calling it pagonistic.

However I learned that tattoos meant many things some of which were young girls..if tattooed and could not handle the pain were not considered good breeders and young boys tattooed were often outcast as they would not make warriors. They were used to help maintain youth and vitality. In fact I read an intresting article that went all the way back to an Eygptian female mummy that had several tattoos over her arms, chest and lower abdomen.

Throughout history it is noted that many diffrent classes and races bore these strange and often highly detailed marks. Wether GAoP had tattoos remains to be seen, but I would think that it would be so even if hidden. A rite of passage perhaps, or to mark a courageous event. as I did not live back them I cannot say for certain and yet it is a great mystery to be solved.

[callenish gunner]

I found an even earlier account of the presenation of tattoos within english society:

When Walter Raleigh(who never once spelled his name that way), returned with Manteo on tow, a Native American replete with facial tattoos & otter-skin cloak, his queen promptly knighted him. Manteo set London on its ears

Big Chief Elizabeth

Giles Milton

2000 Farrar, Straus & Giroux, NY

ISBN: 0374265011

[blackbonie]

No Sir History is not a  Science and never shall  be, science is derived by facts and figures and observations.  History or some aspects of it rather may use science but is not a science in itself.

Salty

agreed.i admit to knowing less about history than most of you,but i do know that alot of history that is documented is actually hear-say.it might have been hear-say hundreds of years ago,but it is hear-say. practically folklore at some times ,theres a fine line . documentation seems to be proof to some of you,what about all the documentation about mermaids and sea serpents? do they exist then?

[Salty]

Well said lass.....

but back to said line of topic perhaps.

have found a few sources on oriental tattooing and ok Europeans were no strangers to tattoo. Now just to narrow down if there was more then one pirate lad who got one .

[Fox]

You can add this to the pile:

This runaway ad appeared in the American Weekly Mercury of March 17, 1720:

"...a North Country Man aged about 21 Years, Short Brownish Hair, Round-Faced. He has on one hand blue S.F. in blue letters and on the other hand blue Spots, and upon one arm our Saviour upon the Cross and on the other Adam and Eve, all supposed to be done in Gunpowder. He is a Saylor "

I think this thread has degenerated away from the point rather, which was the question "Did pirates of the GAoP wear tattoos?"

The question was not "did sailors of other periods wear tattoos?", so we can dismiss the 16th century references, interesting though they are.

Neither was the question "were tattoos known to Europeans in the GAoP?", so we can dismiss Prince Jeoly from the debate.

Nor was "were tattoos known in China/Japan/Phillipines/The Arctic Circle?" the question, so we can dismiss any information relating solely to those places.

This still leaves us with some bits to work from: the Wafer account, the mention in the 1740 regs (though they're not mentioned in the 1711, 1715, or 1746 regulations), and the odd account of a seaman with tattoos like the one above. These all show us that tattoos were sometimes worn by seamen and pirates of the GAoP. However, we must weigh the balance and take into consideration all the various accounts which do not mention tattoos, as well as all the descriptions of seamen which do not mention them. Thus, it seems fair to say that while tattooing was certainly known amongst seamen of the GAoP, it does not appear to have been all that common. And that seems to me to be a reasonable answer to the original question.

Regarding the question of whether history is a science: where science is the study of evidence or facts and the drawing of conclusions therefrom, and art is the work of imagination, there are very few disciplines which can be said to be solely art, or entirely science. Most "arts" involve some kind of science to some extent, and most "sciences" involve some amount of imagination. History is not an exact science, to be sure, but when done properly involves far more examination of evidence than imagination. Fantasy is an art, but history is a science.

[Silkie McDonough]

Actually, the original question was:

greetings fellow fair and honest traders

this has bugged me for a while, but does anyone know if pirates/sailor's of the GAOP had tattoos (i'm pretty sure they did), if so is there any records of such and descriptions?

i ask as tattoos are abit of a hobby of mine!!!

Just being a pain Mr. Foxe.

[Patrick Hand]

"...a North Country Man aged about 21 Years, Short Brownish Hair, Round-Faced. He has on one hand blue S.F. in blue letters and on the other hand blue Spots, and upon one arm our Saviour upon the Cross and on the other Adam and Eve, all supposed to be done in Gunpowder. He is a Saylor "

Thats interesting... I'm just trying to figure out why they would be blue...... I'd think a tattoo made using gunpowder (and I'd guess water to make an ink) would give you a more black tattoo.....

Drat... tyme fer some experimental archology.....

[blackbonie]

Thats interesting... I'm just trying to figure out why they would be blue...... I'd think a tattoo made using gunpowder (and I'd guess water to make an ink) would give you a more black tattoo.....

Drat... tyme fer some experimental archology.....

well i know black inks used up until the 1980s did turn bluish after a few years. newer ones have been reformulated not to do that. maybe something similar occured there?