Scrubbing the deck

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I wondered when did the tradition of scrubbing ship's deck with sandstone started. The sandstone used for that was later called "holystone" but the date when that tradition begun is not easy to find. I think the meaning for that scrubbing, besides the cleaning, was to prevent the planks of being shrunk by watering the deck. But I am not completely sure so feel free to correct me if you want.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

This is something I specifically look for in period accounts (since it relates to health) and while I have found several modern references to it being done regularly on sailing vessels, I have never yet found a reference to cleaning the decks in the period accounts. (This isn't to say I've not missed one, of course.) I even took a quick look through the Lawes or Standing Orders of the East India Company (1621) for you since I haven't read the whole thing, but I didn't see anything. (Again, not to say I didn't miss something.)

There are many references to cleaning the outside of the ship (careening) but nothing much about cleaning the inside of the ship. I do have some period references to burning various herbs and spices to cleanse the air (bad air widely believed to be the cause of illness, thanks in large part to the writings of Hippocrates) but that doesn't help you much.

It may be because it's so mundane that no one thought to mention it. If it were to be found, my guess is that it would probably be found somewhere in the Naval rules and regulations.

[Coastie04]

Mission, you pretty much hit my point there about it being so mundane that they don't mention it. Would it really have been any different from scrubbing wooden floors in a house/building of the time period? Maybe it would have been just such an ordinary cleaning activity that there wasn't much to be said about it. I'd imagine that it was done on pretty much all boats. I'd imagine that any boat that never cleaned its decks would eventually have very slick decks due to growth, bird droppings, etc. I've met with many neglected wooden docks with pressure treated wood (thus reducing the growth potential) that were treacherous to walk on, especially when wet, due to the various plant life growing there.

Coastie

[Mission]

The ever fascinating (to me anyhow) on-line etymology website gives us a clue as to the origin of the term holystone that may be helpful.

"holystone (n.) soft sandstone used to scrub decks of sailing ships, 1777, despite the spelling, so called perhaps because it is full of holes. As a verb, by 1828."

So there you go. The exercise is left to readers to find the 1777 source of holystone as it's OOP and thus no longer of interest to me.

Add that to mundanity and you could make a case that sandstones were likely (but so far unprovably) used on ship decks during the GAoP. Heck, sandstone is as old as dirt, so it was probably used on Roman vessels.

[oderlesseye]

Well Mission>. Here be a pictorial account! Eye been thar! Eagh eagh ~

Edited January 26, 2013 by oderlesseye

[Swashbuckler 1700]

The ever fascinating (to me anyhow) on-line etymology website gives us a clue as to the origin of the term holystone that may be helpful.

"holystone (n.) soft sandstone used to scrub decks of sailing ships, 1777, despite the spelling, so called perhaps because it is full of holes. As a verb, by 1828."

So there you go. The exercise is left to readers to find the 1777 source of holystone as it's OOP and thus no longer of interest to me.

Add that to mundanity and you could make a case that sandstones were likely (but so far unprovably) used on ship decks during the GAoP. Heck, sandstone is as old as dirt, so it was probably used on Roman vessels.

Indeed. I dare to claim too that holystones was used before the name "holytstone" was used.

At least brushes would have been used for mere cleaning before the era of holystone... Some sort of cleaning was vital.

Think if you leave the deck dirty, with things like seagulls leavings, plus that the period flat bottomed shoes (while many mariners referred going barefoot) and voila you would tumbling on the deck in no time.

This all leads me to wonder that how did long the smell of blood remained on deck, or the blood itself after battles like the Blackbeard's last battle when there was literally blood everywhere on the deck....

[Mission]

You pretty much summarized what Coastie and I said.

Most natural smells dissipate pretty quickly; if you don't clean it, bacteria will do the job for you and create a whole new smell. The closest thing I can think of to a ship deck (for all you non-vegetarians) is your chopping board, particularly if you have a natural one. Does it reek? (What does blood smell like, anyhow? I can't place that.) Besides, imagine all the other things brought on the deck to compete with any other smells - gunpowder, dirt, spilled food, seawater, tar, wet sails and ropes, whatever the men stepped in while on shore, urine,&c.)

As for the appearance, think about what the chopping board looks like over time. It has stains, but they are vague and unidentifiable. Plus it doesn't have people trodding daily upon it adding new stains and scuffing off bits of the old ones.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Indeed.

I remember one quote that was in one -quite reliable history magazine.(sorry I don't remember the magazine) There was said that one boy who was an officer in Nelson's RN was deeply disappointed, when he first came aboard, for that the men were working without shirts and that the deck was greasy (with fat said he (perhaps the young landlubber cadet meant tar... of why not skin sebum from sailors toes or indeed fat from spilled food etc...)).

There is no doubt that the deck was cleaned, at least with ordinary brushes if not the sandstone....

To bad that this is later than gaop but still pretty illustrative. A cabin boy from 1799 print

Edited January 26, 2013 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Brit.Privateer]

Well, one way to try and approach this is - since the name holystone may have not come about until the 1770s, what about the use of sandstone in general? The Online Etymology Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary agree that the term sandstone goes back to the 1660s. Let's see if anyone can take that and find another piece of the puzzle.

[Coastie04]

Well, this is not exactly the sandstone line, but the online etymology dictionary did have this to say about "swab":

• swab (n.)
• 1650s, "mop made of rope or yarn," from swabber (c.1600) "mop for cleaning a ship's deck," from Dutch zwabber, akin to West Frisian swabber "mop," from P.Gmc.*swab-, perhaps of imitative origin. Non-nautical meaning "anything used for mopping up" is from 1787. Slang meaning "a sailor" first attested 1798, from swabber"member of a ship's crew assigned to swab decks" (1590s), which by 1609 was being used in a broader sense of "one who behaves like a low-ranking sailor."
• swab (v.)
• 1719, possibly from swab (n.). Related: Swabbed; swabbing.

So it would seem that the decks were at least washed, since they had a term for the specific mop that was used on a ship. As for sandstone, they probably had at least something to help get the tough spots off, whether it be sandstone, pumice, or just some actual sand that was scrubbed with before rinsing off.

Coastie

[Brit.Privateer]

With the whole swab thing in here now, that made me think of something else. For cleaning weaponry in the 19th century, a variety of cleathing methods can be recorded - including sand, brick dust, ash, and emory paper. Many of these methods can be traced back to the 18th century as well, except emory paper - simple emory sand was used. Also, things called scowering rods were used as well. What am I getting at? Well, is it possible that instead of in stone form, could they have just put sand on the deck and swabbed it into the deck or something like that - kind of like how before the invention of emory paper they just used loose emory sand?

It would be great if we could document something about deck cleaning methods before later part of the 18th century. But, as stated previously, it was so mundane that people seldom wrote about it, so who knows how long until someone stumbles upon an account of it.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Brit.Privateer

[Mission]

I'll continue to keep an eye out, although I'm running short of period accounts that I can easily access to read. I'd just like to find a mention of someone cleaning the decks, let alone the details of what they used.

Here's something a bit later period, but worth a mention from the List of Regulations and Instructions relating to Service at Sea first put out in 1730. I had not read the parts outside the section about the surgeon before and now I'm glad I did. Note that this list of regulations was put out because these things were not being done very well before this time. (Some evidence from later period surgical accounts suggest it was not always being done very well after this time, either.)

Here's the best one. It comes from the section on the Captain, in Regulations for Discipline, Cleanliness &c. Note particularly the references to air which I mentioned before and the one to sand which almost gives you guys what you seem to want. (Interestingly, sand in buckets was also used to absorb blood under the operating table during battle.)

"VI. As cleanliness, dryness and good air are essentially necessary to health, the Captain is to exert his utmost endeavours to obtain them for the Ship's company in as great a degree as possible. He is to give directions that the upper decks are washed very clean every morning, and that the lower decks are washed as often as the weather will admit of their being properly dried; they are to be swept twice, at least, every day, and the dirt collected on them thrown overboard. The hammocks are to be carried upon Deck and the ports are to be opened whenever the weather will admit of it, and nor more chests nor bags than shall be necessary for the comfort of the men shall be kept on the lower gun deck, that as few interruptions as possible may be opposed to a free circulation of air. The Ventilators are to be continually worked, and the Hold and Store-

__

rooms ventilated by Wind-sails. The Ship is always to be pumped dry, the pump-well frequently swabbed, and a fire, with proper precautions, let down to dry it. If the weather should prevent the lower deck ports from being opened for any considerable time, fires are to be made in the stoves supplied for that purpose, and the lower decks may be scrubbed with dry sand.

VII. The captain is to be particularly attentive to the cleanliness of the men, who are to be directed to wash themselves frequently, and to change their linen twice every week. They are never to be suffered to sleep in wet clothes or wet beds, if it can be possibly prevented; they are frequently, but particularly after bad weather, to shake their clothes and bedding in the air, and to expose them to sun and wind." (Regulations, 1808, p. 138-9)

Under the section defining the duties of a naval ship's Master:

"IV. He is to examine every Vessel which carries ballast to the Ship, to see whether it be laden to its proper marks; he is to see that the ballast is sweet and clean, before he allows it to be taken into the Ship; and he is to examine every Vessel when cleared, to see that there is no water in her..." (Regulations, 1808, p. 183)

"XV. He is frequently to visit the store-rooms of the Warrant

__

Officers to see that they are kept as clean and well ventilated as circumstances will admit...

XVI. He is to visit frequently the cable-tiers [which sometimes served as the operating theater], to see that they are kept clean, and that no injury is done to the cables; and he is to direct the Master's Mates to be very careful in preventing any accumulation of dirt in the hold, and to take every opportunity of collecting and throwing overboard any that may be found there." (Regulations, 1808, p. 186-7)

Under the section on the Surgeon:

"X. The Sick Berth, and every person appointed to attend on the sick, are to be under his [the surgeon's] immediate directions. He is to see that the berth be kept as clean as possible and that it be washed with vinegar [used to eliminate sickness, particularly that caused by bad air], whenever he shall think it necessary, and he is to apply to the Captain to give orders for its being fumigated [again, bad air], whenever it may require it." (Regulations, 1808, p. 270)

____________________________________________________________________________

[Edit, 2/22/14] David Fictim generously pointed out that the above quotes are from the 1808 regulations and not from the earliest version of the regulations published in 1731. So I clarified that in the original text without editing any of the primary content by adding the date to the citation. The 1731 edition is scant on details regarding cleanliness which isn't going to help date holystones to an earlier period. Here's what I found in the 1731 version of Regulations and instructions relating to His majesty's service at sea:

"II. The Captain is to appoint some of the Ship's Company to attend and serve the sick Men Night and Day by Turns, and keep the Place clean." (Regulations, 1731, p. 54)

"III. [The Gunner; Armourer; and Gunsmith] II. He is to visit the Powder-Rooms, and see that they are well secured, clean, and in right Order, before the Powder is brought into the Ship." (Regulations, 1731, p. 99)

[Coastie04]

Mission, you bring up a good point (possibly not intentionally) about giving us what we seem to want. I, for one, am not trying to prove my own hypothesis here, but instead to find out how they kept the ships (deck specifically here) clean. Unfortunately, if they didn't use any sort of sand on the decks (except maybe for traction during battle or surgery), then we'll never find the evidence. They obviously won't write "we didn't use this..." Additionally, you bring up another point. The List of Regulations was first put out in 1730, and things had not been done well previously. If we dug and dug, we might find one source that mentions during the GAoP the use of sand for cleaning a deck. However, various ships inevitably did things differently, with very little standardization. Therefore, it might have just been the one ship. If I were fluently multilingual, it would be interesting to try to translate Spanish or French (or pretty much any other European country) documents from the time. I would wonder if the use of sand/sandstone in the British Navy (and presumably merchants as well) was adopted from a different culture. Though from what I've read (anglophile based), Spanish ships were not exactly known for their tidiness (this is also post GAoP, when their empire was crumbling).

I think we can say that overall ships were generally cleaned regularly (how regularly depends on the ship for sure). Of course, there are likely ones that weren't cleaned regularly as well. At least one tool used was the swab, essentially a mop made out of unraveled ropes (likely used-sailors did have a knack for re-purposing worn out gear, such as rope and sails). At least by 1730, loose dry sand was occasionally used on the lower decks. However, finding 'sand' in a ship's provisioning list does not necessarily mean that it was used for cleaning the decks, as there were other uses as well (absorbing blood either in battle or the surgery was mentioned, but it can also be used to extinguish a fire or even contain a small one, such as those used to dry the bilge pumps).

The fact that the 1730s regulations go in to the specifics of how to clean the decks in various weather conditions leads me to believe that the methods and frequency of cleaning was not a standard thing prior to the document's publication. It is also worth noting that they did understand at least that dry spaces were healthier (at least as of 1730). They stressed the importance of ventilation, keeping the ballast (and thus the bilges) "sweet and clean" and even using fire to dry certain areas of the ship. Also interesting is that they had stoves specifically for the purpose of drying out the lower decks.

In conclusion, I would not be in the least bit surprised if it WAS used in the GAoP, but from the evidence we've seen so far, we can't prove it. Between the sweeping, swabbing and ventilation of these decks, I think it would be safe to say that the slime and grime that we were discussing earlier would not have built up. Therefore, there may have been no need to actually use sand to clean the decks (at least on a regular basis-maybe they used any abrasive they could to clean up large bloody spots after a battle, but this is pure conjecture). And that is all for now...

Coastie

[Fox]

Swashbuckler, any evidence for your statement that sailors preferred going barefoot?

BP. I don't know what scouring stick meant in the 19th century, but if you look at 17th century drill manuals, 'scouring stick' is synonymous with ramrod. Of course, the name suggests a cleaning function as well. Not relevant, just an interesting aside.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

Swashbuckler, any evidence for your statement that sailors preferred going barefoot?

Alright

I was confused by many modern secondary sources that states so. I should have said that "some sailors preferred going barefoot" it was not really common habit but I must underline its usefulness. Too modern sources, yes, but the wooden deck was the same (I know a bad line of reasoning: to say that "what sailor did in 1800s they did the same earlier" I know) http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5a284MMx21qldhy8o1_500.jpg , http://depts.washington.edu/dock/images/bridges/barefoot-360.jpg

Thought in many Gaop and in later pictures we can see seaman generally with shoes (like here http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/200767.html and http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/200822.html) and actually I have not yet found many pictures at all of sailor, at least not in period 1650-1750s, having bare foot. Only couple of them like http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GO3y-Ke1jnM/TLy_kr_-7OI/AAAAAAAAABU/KSD_wdXcYtY/s1600/The+dress+of+the+British+Sailor1.jpg (that was not the best source here as it is based on statue that is completely naked but...)

I have neither any real documentation to support the idea that it was really universal not to wear shoes aboard vessels in Gaop or indeed in much of the Age of sail. And sorry for providing only post Gaop sources.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

An example of that what might happen if the decks were slippery

From George Shelvocke's book A voyage round the world, by the way of the great South Sea 1757 edition (it tells about the voyage between 1719-1722)

http://ia600308.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/28/items/avoyageroundwor00schegoog/avoyageroundwor00schegoog_tif.zip&file=avoyageroundwor00schegoog_tif/avoyageroundwor00schegoog_0107.tif&scale=7.284109149277689&rotate=0

Edited January 27, 2013 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

The List of Regulations was first put out in 1730, and things had not been done well previously. If we dug and dug, we might find one source that mentions during the GAoP the use of sand for cleaning a deck. However, various ships inevitably did things differently, with very little standardization. Therefore, it might have just been the one ship.

I would be very much surprised if regular cleaning a naval vessel (indeed, any vessel) wasn't fairly consistent. How good a job they did might be open to discussion. This is from the transcript of a lecture delivered by Sir Cecil Wakely at the Royal College of Surgeons in England on 14 November, 1957 titled Surgeons and the Navy:

"In 1730 there was published by His Majesty's command, a List of Regulations and Instructions relating to Service at Sea. The reason for this document is stated in the Preface as follows: " Whereas the Commissioners for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain, Ireland, etc. did on the 23rd of last month represent to His Majesty at this Board that the Orders and Instructions which have from time to time been issued for the better Government of the Navy have been so imperfect, and, through length of Time, become so perplexed, that the Officers of H.M. Navy have been liable to fall into Mistakes and Omissions in the Execution of their Duty. And that for the preventing any Doubts or Difficulties of this Nature for the future, they have collected into a Book, the several Rules and Orders now in Force in the Navy, and made such Additions and Alterations thereto, as they thought necessary for that Purpose; and have reduced the whole into distinct Chapters and digested the same under proper Heads, so that all the Officers of H.M. Ships may, at one View, be duly and sufficiently apprized of the Duty of their Respective Posts." (Wakely)

Now that by no means comes out and says 'ships were filthy', it merely suggests at some ships being better at following regulations than others. So it's just a hint of what might have been and we're back to 'what if?' and 'suppose'n.'

If I were fluently multilingual, it would be interesting to try to translate Spanish or French (or pretty much any other European country) documents from the time. I would wonder if the use of sand/sandstone in the British Navy (and presumably merchants as well) was adopted from a different culture. Though from what I've read (anglophile based), Spanish ships were not exactly known for their tidiness (this is also post GAoP, when their empire was crumbling).

I have the distinct impression that the Spanish and French were notoriously bad at keeping their ships clean, although it comes mainly from the following quote, the original sources of which I have not bothered to track down as they are later period and thus only tangential to my research. This is from Kevin Brown's fascinating book, Poxed and Scurvied: The Story of Sickness and Health at Sea, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 2011:

"British naval surgeons were often horrified when they saw the results of the work their counterparts in the French and Spanish navies. William Shoveller, the surgeon on Leviathan at Trafalgar [1805], was not impressed by the condition of the Spanish prisoners taken aboard, many of them ‘with tourniquets on their different extremities, and which had been applied since the action, four or five days elapsing, consequently most of the limbs in a state of mortification or approaching it.’ Shoveller had to try to do something for these men to save their lives. The seaman William Robinson was also scathing about ‘the scene of carnage horrid to behold’ on a captured Spanish ship, with the dead bodies ‘in a wounded or mutilated state’ piled up in the hold, and ‘the heart-rending cries of the wounded’ on a French ship [1785], where the doctor, ‘having lost or mislaid some of his instruments, was reduced to the necessity of resorting to the use of the carpenter’s fine saw, where amputation was needful.’ Gilbert Blane castigated the French for the mangled limbs, and even whole bodies of men, were cast into the orlop or hold and lay there putrefying for some time… When, therefore, the ballast or other contents of the holds of these ships came to be stirred, and the putrid effluvia thereby let loose, there was then a visible increase of sickness.’ Not surprisingly, dysentery and typhus were rampant. Moreover, the French and Spanish fleets did not have in place any effective measures against scurvy, and suffered a loss of experienced mariners as a result of the epidemic of yellow fever that was raging through southern Spain. When Villeneuve sailed to meet Nelson at Trafalgar, there were 1,731 sick in the Combined Fleets of France and Spain." (Brown, p. 102)

[Brit.Privateer]

Just one quick question and a couple of comment.

For List of Regulations and Instructions relating to Service at Sea, where is the 1730 version? I only can find 1731 (or do you all mean 1731?).

My next thought relating to this question of swabbing and sandstones/holystones is this - is there anything else they could have used back then (and can be documented to have been used) to keep the deck smoother so as to minimize roughness and splinters from the deck?

If there was not as an effective way to keep the decks smooth back then as in later in the 18th and into the 19th centuries, is this a possible reason why documentation for men going barefoot during the GAOP is so scarce? Is this why throughout most of the 17th century that captains petitioned and complained of shoe shortages for their men? Is this why the Dutch maritime painters of the late 17th and early 18th centuries came over to England and actually depicted sailors wearing shoes while up in the rigging? It would explain a lot about the lack of barefoot descriptions. I think the next step that I can take is to try and approach this from an archaeological approach and see what my colleagues in maritime archaeology have turned up on the subject.

Also, scouring rod, now I'm starting to question myself on the use of that in the 18th century (I don't think I said they used the term in the 19th century). It was a long time ago that I did research on cleaning methods for firearms of the 17th and 18th centuries, though I am now intrigued to try again. I would think we would have a thread for period correct methods of gun cleaning somewhere on this forum already. If I can't find one in the next few days, I may start one.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

I think that:

Well sailor's would have bare feet only while working, weather permitting of course, or when on hot shore (in one Madagascar quote said that pirates ashore were "without shoes or stockings").

Well the lack of barefoot sailors in Gaop evidence... well many of the written descriptions don't mention the clothing too accurately or indeed casual things like cleaning the deck.

And with pictorial evidence:

Well I think the thing here is that in Gaop and actually before the age of realism in art the people were quite rarely depicted working. Many of the Most pictures of sailors are in their land gear and pictures like those watercolors of 1770s are exceptions....

At least the Dutch painters have painted barefoot Dutch sailors. Or at least in this circa 1709 picture there the lad is likely a cabin boy (but the real evidence is not found) http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/99143/1/The-Cloth-Shop-1709.jpg

And well this famous Blackbeard picture is perhaps not worth of over-analyzing but the man on the background seems to be without shoes. This is a 1742 copy of the original 1736 image.http://ia700308.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/8/items/generaltruehisto00defo/generaltruehisto00defo_jp2.zip&file=generaltruehisto00defo_jp2/generaltruehisto00defo_0184.jp2&scale=1.3651642475171888&rotate=0

[Coastie04]

Mission, thanks for the additional info on the 1730s regulations. I would not be too surprised if naval vessels were cleaned regularly and thoroughly, as they had additional men that they had to keep busy. I've always believed that a lot of the fancy detail found on naval vessels was the result of attempts to keep the sailors busy: idle hands and all that... However, merchant vessels would generally have much smaller crews and only the necessary work was done. I doubt that they would have had the same level of attention to detail, though by no means would they be slovenly. Having served both in the Coast Guard and on merchant vessels today (and I know, this is not the most scholastic thing to do), I know there is a huge difference in how the crew works and what kind of menial tasks are sometimes assigned. On a military vessel, you're always on watch if needed. On a merchant vessel, when you're off watch, they have to have a really good reason to make you work, instead of doing whatever hobby you would like (music, scrimshaw, reading, etc.). As for other cleaning methods, is there any non-maritime sources from that time period about maybe keeping houses/shops clean? I think that would be a good place to start looking if people are really interested in pursuing this topic. Me, I just enjoy what other people are finding and posting. And I don't have much time or resources for good research with my new son right now.

Coastie

[Mission]

I don't have the 1730 version. As I noted in my comment, they were first put out in 1730. Why? I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, I was just using the date that Wakely mentioned. I doubt they changed a whole lot, but I guess you never know.

They mention keeping weapons clean in those Regulations as well. I didn't read that part, but I happened to notice that there was something about it in there. Since you seem to have found them, you might take a look there.

[Captain Jim]

If it please the group, a few thoughts on holystoning of decks. This knowledge I have gleaned from several older sailors, old when I was young, who worked tall ships, were in the Navy when holystoning was still done (abolished in 1931, by the way) and who heard tales of the sea from their fathers, grandfathers and, in one case, great-grandfathers. Taken as a whole I remember this: Holystones were so called because the use of one brought the user to his knees, as in a prayerful position. Later in the US and British navies a pole was attached, but never mind that. It was still a holystone. As for why use a stone in this manner we must first think of the properties of wood.

Wood, when exposed to water and subsequent drying, expands and contracts. Wood planks, not being uniform, might expand and contract differently from its neighbor plank. This might raise the edges of the seams, a bad thing. Wood, being porous, allowed anything spilled on deck to stay on deck, no matter the washing. Also wood, when subject to the foot traffic of leather-shod feet, would have been polished to a high, and very slick, sheen. Last, when wood dries, it contracts, opening up the seams in between in spite of any caulking. This would make the deck leak like a sieve, soaking the lower decks whenever it rained or waves splashed aboard.

Holystoning, with water, fixed all of these things. It flattened the seams. It cleaned off anything that had been spilled on the deck and soaked in (at least superficially soaked in.) It roughed up the surface, removing the polish caused by traffic. Furthermore, as anyone who works with wood can attest, wetting a sanded surface "raises the grain" causing any wood bits not firmly attached to curl up. On a deck this would create a non-skid surface. Wetting the deck periodically kept the deck tight, preventing leaks. If done with salt water (and why would you waste fresh water to scrub the decks?) the salt left after evaporation served to preserve the wood. Lastly, the sand from the wearing of the holystones would have improved the nonskid properties of the deck.

Now I haven't got a single reference for any of this, just the testimony of old sailors which, taken collectively, is pretty good stuff. Now to place all this in our period.

[Swashbuckler 1700]

There is no issue about deck scrubbing but since it does not appear easily in accounts etc: Well at least the period pirate literature raises hints of the cleaning things. Like here:

I wonder what was Mr Moor(e) doing on deck and with the bucket near him if he was not cleaning the deck (and for what purpose there would have been a bucket handy to Kidd on the deck in the first place):

From: The history of the pyrates: containing the lives of Captain Mission. Captain Bowen. Captain Kidd ... and their several crews 1728 edition

"Moor, the Gunner, being one Day upon Deck, and talking with Kid[d] about the said Dutch Ship, some Words arose betwixt them, and Moor told Kid[d], that he had ruin'd them all; upon which, Kid[d], calling him Dog, took up a Bucket and struck him with it, which breaking his Skull, he died the next Day."

Thought while the deck cleaning in Gaop seems to be an axiom we still have nothing about the sand-stones.

And still suck with bare- foot sailors and actually I noticed that if we rely to old pictures, the bare foot sailor is a rare to find even in Napoleonic era prints and paintings. Still not impossible. For example here it seem that of the three easily visible man two have shoes or slippers(?) and the one on right has bare feet. http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/147299.html Still there is nothing that would give an impression of an really universal habit of not wearing shoes on ship in the era of sailing ships. Some preferred it that way and if the weather was warm there was nothing to stop sailors of doing so but the shoes were apparently more comfortable, at least when on rigging and when the weather was not so kind.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Swashbuckler 1700

[Mission]

The presence of a bucket doesn't really prove anything. There would be buckets for all sorts of purposes, particularly near the gunner. (Guess where they put the water for the cannon swabs?)

[Fox]

There are also plenty of letters from captains urgently requesting footwear for their men because their shoes had worn out. On a working vessel shoes are a definite advantage.

This is not to suggest that no sailor ever went bare foot, but the idea that it was routinely preferable is a fallacy.