Earrings? Help settle an argument

[Nelson Cooke]

The reason I wear one...well I'll get to that in a sec. First, of course there's a reason. You'd have to be a nancy boy to wear one just for the look. I've heard the eyesight thing (helps opposite eye (why Captains wore just one--cause they had telescopes)) and know some lopers whose reason is the tradition. But it my case, the prong in mine can pick a darby. It also can take out an eye—it's a last line of defense, particularly useful in the sporting houses where you got to check your weapons at the door.

[dasNdanger]

*pops cork out of bottle, and takes a swig*

Okay - gonna jump into this debate a wee bit late...

I have always heard that the earring was specifically to pay for burial, especially in the navy. Here's mention of it from another site: "The wearing of a gold earring by sailors goes back for thousands of years. In ancient time, sailors wore a gold earring in case their ship sank, or they were swept overboard. After they drown, their body would hopefully wash ashore somewhere. Wherever that was, the sailor hoped that the gold earring was of enough value to those that found his body to give it a decent burial. Anything else upon his person would of been destroyed by salt water, but not metal attached to his body." ~ Richard Horrell

From this site I found the following: "Sailors became convinced that piercing one ear would improve their long-distance site, and so the site of a sailor with a gold or brass ring became common. Word also spread that should a sailor be washed ashore after a shipwreck, the finder should keep the gold ring in exchange for providing a proper Christian burial. Sailors were both religious and superstitious, so they generally spent a lot for a large gold earring to hedge their bets."

In my readings, I have found this last statement to be most true. Sailors of all sorts were both highly superstitious, and highly religious - and pirates were probably at the top of the list in this regard. Many pirates, especially along the Barbary Coast, were terrorizing and pillaging along religious lines - Christian pirates vs. Muslim pirates. Pirates in the New World still held to the beliefs of their homelands, and lived in an era when the existence of God had not been called into question as it is today. Theirs was also a 'religious' war - Protestant England raiding the merchant fleets and settlements of Catholic France and Spain. They knew they were sinners, knew they were condemned and because of it had - perhaps - a deeper 'appreciation' of their mortality. Even today many criminals hold to a certain faith - even if they do not practice it in principle. Believing in God and being morally upright are two very different things. Also, as several RL sailors have told me - you can't be in the middle of the ocean during a storm and not realize that there are forces much bigger than yourself - and they also tell me that there are very few sailors who don't have a respect for God. And that is today, when faith and God have taken a back seat to nationalism and science. So, I suspect that any sailor of old - including pirates - would have a reverence for God, even if they rejected the laws and morals of the day. Therefore, I also suspect that they DID care about how they were buried, but not just because of their soul - it was also a matter of tradition.

Since pirates - MOST pirates - had been legitimate sailors before turning to a 'life of crime', it makes sense that they would hold to some of the traditions and superstitions of sailors in general, and a proper burial was one of the most important things to a seafaring man. The dreaded thought of a dishonorable send-off led to certain traditions, including the burial at sea that we have all become familiar with - a sailor, sewn up in his hammock, a few words said over the body, and off a plank and into the briny deep he goes. Now - it can be debated as to why sailors wore earrings, but I can buy into the theory that it was done to pay for their burial if they are lost at sea and wash up on an unknown shore. (Remember, a burial 300 years ago didn't cost what it does today, with all the commercial profit considerations and legalities. A sailor would be concerned about being buried in the right place (churchyard, etc) more than how flamboyant or expensive the ceremony was...)

So, I have NO problem accepting that pirates had enough belief in God to care about how they were buried, and had enough appreciation for seafaring traditions to wear an earring for the said purpose of insuring a proper (albeit cheap) burial.

That all said - the question still arises: DID pirates wear earrings? Well, I have been looking at several early 19th-century pictures, and have seen a few that depict pirates as wearing earrings, but not the majority. So, I think it would be safe to assume that some did - but not necessarily all - perhaps just the near-sighted ones...

So, could pirates have worn earrings to improve their eyesight?? Perhaps - but if it's so, I doubt that ALL wore an earring to improve their eyesight. I just can't buy into a bunch of New Age acupuncture addicted scallywags sitting around exchanging health treatment options...

"Reflexology!! Thar be the way to go!"

"ARRRR!! I be tellin' ya, mate - it's the hole in the ear works - me eyes are as sharp as a spy glass!"

"I be disagreeing with ya, Red Legs. It's the bilberry, eyebright herb, and ginkgo biloba formula - with just a wee bit o' cayenne pepper - that makes yer eyes shine brighter than the diamond in a French tart's navel!"

Nah - just can't see it...

Anyway, that all said, I have a few theories of me own. First, as someone here suggested - there are cultural considerations. A third of Caribbean pirates were of African decent, some had Native American blood, others were European. In many of these cultures men wore ornamentation in their ears...so why not openly show such traditions now that they were free to do so in the 'democratic' and free piratical society? These men also travelled, and in visiting other lands, it's very possible that they picked up customs along the way, such as the tattooing common in the South Pacific. But one thing that everyone (historians who speculate, that is) seems to forget - pirates were just like you and I. People and their habits really don't change much. So, think about yourself and where you often put your 'investments'. Imagine you're a pirate living under the unpredictable conditions at sea and on the lam. Do you trust the safety of your valuables around your shipmates? I doubt it. And what of shipwreck or any other circumstance that might cause you to leave your valuables behind? These men had no savings accounts, no 'buried treasure', no insurance. They had nothing but the clothes on their backs. So, I've always suspected that the wearing of any jewelry was, perhaps, more like a 'savings' account - a way to keep their 'treasure' safe and accessible. Sure, most pirates spent everything they pillaged on wine and women and gambling - but certainly the odd thrifty one or two had a back-up plan, and it would only make sense to hid any valuables in plain sight, where others wouldn't think too much about it.

So, although I do believe that SOME pirates wore an earring to improve their eyesight, or to insure a proper burial, I think many did so for less 'romantic' reasons...for simple ornamentation that doubled as a seafaring 'savings' account that they COULD take with them wherever they went...

*pops cork back into bottle*

das

[PyratePhil]

I just can't buy into a bunch of New Age acupuncture addicted scallywags sitting around exchanging health treatment options...   

"Reflexology!!  Thar be the way to go!" 

"ARRRR!!  I be tellin' ya, mate - it's the hole in the ear works - me eyes are as sharp as a spy glass!" 

"I be disagreeing with ya, Red Legs.  It's the bilberry, eyebright herb, and ginkgo biloba formula - with just a wee bit o' cayenne pepper - that makes yer eyes shine brighter than the diamond in a French tart's navel!"

Nah - just can't see it...

...I be hearin' tell o' how they have sumthin' for the openin' up o' minds, too...

PyratePhil

Earring-Wearer and Acupuncturist Who Does NOT Wear Glasses

[dasNdanger]

PyratePhil

Earring-Wearer and Acupuncturist Who Does NOT Wear Glasses

Well, mate - yer one o' the lucky ones - seeing as I have both me ears pierced and I'm still as blind as sea slug.

On a side note (kinda), I just read an article at nationalgeographic.com and it suggested that pirates pierced their ear to prevent seasickness - has anyone else heard of this new theory before??

*tosses in proverbial monkey wrench and waits to see what happens*

das

[PyratePhil]

Sorry about the sea slug, etc - maybe they didn't pierce the right place!

I think it's another case of recycling eons-old acupuncture points in the ear (auricular acupuncture), of which there are at least 100...a few of which often help with vertigo, seasickness, smoking cessation, etc.

But to pull that off as the reason for all, or even most, of the pyrates to pierce - no, I don't buy that either. Although acupuncture was an old science by the 1600-1700's, there was still the frenzied Chinese effort to hide behind their borders and have no interaction with the lowly, decadent West.

Hardly a climate for passing out free acupuncture charts to a bunch of pyrates in the Tropics...

[JoshuaRed]

The cultural melting pot on board a pirate ship seems to me the most feasible explanation for earrings and sashes being worn. If some pirates of African or Middle Eastern descent wore earrings around the Anglo pirates, I could see them saying "Hey that looks cool...I want one too."

But it still doesn't explain the lack of any mention of earrings or sashes in period art/text.

[dasNdanger]

*looks through kiddie pirate book*

ya know, these things come in handy even if it's embarrassin' as all get out to buy one without a child in tow...

In many of the books I have there are old 18th & 19th century etchings/pictures and many DO show a sash worn instead of a belt, so perhaps it was just a matter of personal choice, availability, or convenience. From looking at these pictures, there seems to be more evidence to support sashes than earrings.

Of course, there is the 'license' that many artists have taken. Just listening today about paintings of George Washington and how his unappealing features were often changed or omitted by the artist makes me think of this very debate. And anyone familiar with early paintings of Native Americans know that the facial features and attire often took on a European flavor. So I think the same may be true of period art representing pirates. Items may have been added/omitted and we would never know the difference. And as far as written information...well, that's sketchy at best on everything dealing with pirates except their more infamous exploits. I have tried to find details on clothing and daily habits/routines of pirates and come up with the same, scant information. This leads me to think that the reason there is so little information about their personal appearence is because it was nothing exceptional - it was fairly close to what the people of the day were used to. I'm figuring most pirates just dressed like any other ordinary seaman, and probably didn't stand out as different, so therefore their appearance didn't merit any special attention in text or art. Only if their appearance stood out - like Teach's - did we seem to get a more detailed description.

das

[Gentleman of Fortune]

The bottom line is that we as living history/fantasy/pirate re-enactors are going to do what we bloody well want to do.

If someone is dead set on wearing an earring, sash, or an eye patch with a skull and crossbones on it, there is nothing that "we" can do about it.

That is fair enough.

I find it strange though that if someone wanted to prove that seaman wore earrings in the 16-17th centuries, we can find evidence of it.

If someone wants to prove that seaman, captains, military men wore sashes in the early 17th century, we have evidence of it.

But why no evidence of these things for 1690-1725?

Did Howard Pyle seek out every bit of literature, painting wood cut and destroy them so that we would only have his interpretation to go by?

Hmmmmm conspiracy.

If you have your own boat and wear earrings and the like, no one is stopping you from doing so.

But if you are trying to convince people that you are an authentic representation of a Golden Age pirate, you may be open to challenge as there is no historical evidence to support certain things for 1690-1725.

I doubt that Foxe's research stops with the RN. He, like most of us use any source available to prove or disprove things related to sailing and piracy.

If there is any evidence from any country involved in piracy or pirate hunters in the Americas/Caribbean during 1690-1725 please bring it forward.

If someone has been hoarding away a nice woodcut of an American Pirate wearing a sash, earring, and big ol' bucket boots dated 1710 SHAME ON YOU and bring it forward!

[Fox]

My good friend Hiram V. Noodlewhacker, professor of Piratology tells me that there new edition of his seminal work "Rites and Rituals of the Olde Pyrate Brotherhood" will contain as a frontispiece a hitherto unpublished woodcut dating from around 1717. It depicts a pirate wearing an earring, and which definitively proves WHY they were worn. Hanging from the pirate's earring is a seed ring on which the parrot on his shoulder is nibbling.

And no, my research doesn't end with the RN. Since in the 17th and 18th centuries there was no such thing as a Naval sailor or a Merchant sailor, they changed ships and employers as often as they wanted, in order to examine the lives and social history of seamen of the period one must take into account all branches of sea service.

[dasNdanger]

There seems to be plenty of evidence, IMHO, to support the use of sashes.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/dasN...nger/pirate.jpg

Although I do not know when this statue was made, it clearly shows a sash on Rene Duguay-Trouin (1673-1736). And the boots are not dissimilar to 'big ol' bucket boots', though the do appear to be toned-down a little. Of course, this was a French corsair, not a Caribbean buccaneer - but it's still a representation of piratical fashion of the day. My biggest problem with the boots, however, is the tropical heat of the Caribbean - I wouldn't think it very comfy to be wearing hot, clunky boots all day long. But I suspect that boots, coats, etc were only worn on shore, and while working the ship most men pretty much stripped down to the bare essentials.

Many of the woodcuts on this site, those of Rackam, Roberts, Church and others, were made to illustrate the 1725 edition of Johnson/Defoe's(?) General History of...Pyrates. http://www.piratehaven.org/~beej/pirates/#pirates

Now, how much artistic license was taken in the creation of these pictures is debatable, but let's just assume that they are accurate. It would seem that 'buckle shoes' were the fashion of the early 18th century, and does seem more practical to wear in the tropical heat. It's very possible that both boots and shoes were worn, though I figure a lot of pirates just went barefoot on deck, and perhaps elsewhere. But these pictures clearly show many of the pirates with sashes tied about their waists, so I have to think that a sash was a common accessory.

However, none, that I can tell, show earrings. However, these are just pictures of 'captains' in there Sunday best...who knows what the average 'deck hand' on a pirate ship wore. But it is logical that they dressed exactly like they did when serving in the navy, or on a merchant ship (The majority of pirates were sailors first and foremost, not many lubbers turned directly to piracy without serving on a legitimate sailing vessel first). So, I personally think it's safe to assume that an ordinary pirate, fresh of a merchant vessel, dressed as he did before - and it's well-accepted that ordinary/able-bodied seamen often wore an earring, and sometimes two - a long-standing tradition of the sea. Does this mean that EVERY sailor/pirate wore one? Nah - doubt it. And since pirates often went through some pretty lean times, I would think only the most successful crews sported the occasional ornamentation.

But since most of the pictures and descriptions we do have of pirates revolve around the relatively few 'famous' captains, it is hard to decide what is historically accurate, and what is not. But I do think it's safe to say that pirates, as men of the sea, were apt to follow the traditions ALL sailors have held to since the dawn of seafaring. If earrings were part of the seafaring culture during the 1600's, then I think it's safe to assume that at least a few pirates wore earrings.

das

[PyratePhil]

It depicts a pirate wearing an earring, and which definitively proves WHY they were worn. Hanging from the pirate's earring is a seed ring on which the parrot on his shoulder is nibbling.

That's really neat - never heard THAT one before.

But you realize that now, we'd have to question whether pyrates had parrots at all...

G of F -

That's one problem I've always had with citations and research - you can quote the Devil for Scriptural purposes. No matter what position you hold, with the advent of tools like the 'net, you can produce SOME record of whatever you like, even if it is "false".

Like religion, politics and sex, some things are best taken on faith.

[Fox]

and it's well-accepted that ordinary/able-bodied seamen often wore an earring, and sometimes two - a long-standing tradition of the sea

Accepted by whom? I, for example, don't accept it, and I don't think many people outside Dorling Kindersly do either. I have found several examples of seamen wearing earrings at times when earrings were generally fashionable, and few (none that I can recall in fact) of seamen wearing earrings when they weren't generally fashionable. This leads me to conclude that when seamen wore earrings they did so out of general fashion rather than seamen's tradition.

If earrings were part of the seafaring culture during the 1600's, then I think it's safe to assume that at least a few pirates wore earrings.

If they were then it would be, but it really doesn't seem that they were. I've been through hundreds of pages of source material (wills, probate lists, court records, records of mast-sales, archeological reports etc)dealing with the possessions of seamen in the 16th-18th centuries only twice have I seen earrings mentioned in connection with seamen of 1680-1730, and even those occasions were almost certainly possessions rather than apparell. Clearly then, it was not part of "the seafaring culture".

we'd have to question whether pyrates had parrots at all

That's no problem, plenty of records of seamen of the period having parrots, monkeys etc. If you want specifically pirate related then Dampier mentions parrots being kept by pirates in his journals.

[dasNdanger]

Accepted by whom? I, for example, don't accept it, and I don't think many people outside Dorling Kindersly do either.

Ah, the DK book is only one little funsie thing I have. I have many grown-up books too!! REALLY, and TRUE, I DO!! :) Wanna see 'em?? I'll show you mine, if ya show me yours... *shoves cork back into bottle and locks it in cabinet*

Okay - I think I'm ready to be slighty serious. Maybe.

Of course, we can debate 'til we're blue in the face about accuracy, documentation, etc...and it all really boils down to simple personal opinion, and I feel there is no DEFINITE right or wrong on this matter. Personally I believe that throughout history there have been men who wear the occasional earring aboard ship, depending on culture, superstition, whatever - doesn't make me right (nor wrong), it's just the way I feel. I really don't see what all the fuss is, really, because there is no way that historians could have documented the attire of EVERY pirate or seaman who ever lived. And I'm sure there were a lot of 'fashion' rebels out there who did what they darn well pleased! There's just no way someone can say, for a fact, that no sailor or pirate ever wore an earring during that period of time, and the opposite holds true, too.

However, I did find these little tidbits on the accuracy-challenged internet - think of it what you will: "The Seaman's practice of wearing earrings dates from the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603), not so much in loyalty to the queen as to satisfy a fisherman's old superstition that pierced ears would improve their eyesight and make them more lively. The occasional earring, of plain yellow gold, is still seen in the Royal Navy, worn usually on the left ear lobe only".

And:

"Though earrings date back to around 3000 B.C. and piercings are evident in sculptures of King Tut, it wasn't until the 16th century that men really embraced the act of putting holes in their ears, when nobles and upper middle class gentlemen began visiting esthetician shops beside wizards' castles. Portraits show that Sir Walter Raleigh and William Shakespeare had their ears pierced. Sailors also wore hoops in their ears, as legend goes, because the gold would afford them a Christian burial if their bodies happened to wash up on shore."

So, who knows. It seems that many people have the impression that men began wearing earrings around the 16th/17th century (anyone in the mood to find aforementioned pics of Raleigh and Shakespeare?). Of course, it probably took a long time for the 'fad' to catch on...but I figure it's safe to say that some brave souls gave it a go. And, of course, that's not taking into consideration sailors who came from non-European cultures where men did wear such adornment.

I still don't see what all the fuss is over, though. If only ONE pirate during the years in question wore an earring, then it would be safe to portray pirates as wearing them, since it wouldn't be an inaccurate depiction. Do the majority of people have to do the same thing in order for it to be historically accurate? Nah... Take into consideration the personal tastes of these men, their backgrounds, their eccentricities. They were a varied bunch, and there were probably no two exactly alike. And they were scavengers, taking what they could and adapting it accordingly. I bet we can't even begin to imagine some of the inventive ways they found to adorn and to entertain themselves. A pirate with an earring...not a big deal. However, a pirate in a bodystocking and stiletto-heeled boots...well, that's a different story... (NTTAWWT...)

das

[Patrick Hand]

However, a pirate in a bodystocking and stiletto-heeled boots...well, that's a different story...

Yah.... but can you document it......

I think the arguement in not weather we want pyrate to have worn earrings.... but can anyone find Proof that they did.......

I will continue to wear my earring, playing pyrate or not...... but documintation of period pyrates doing so would be interesting......

[dasNdanger]

However, a pirate in a bodystocking and stiletto-heeled boots...well, that's a different story...

Yah.... but can you document it......

Maybe I can...

das

[JoshuaRed]

Talking about wierd clothing/dress among seamen...check THIS out:

From my copy of Everyday Life In The Massachusets Bay Colony (paraphrased for brevity):

In 1760 a Rowley, Mass. native named Jacob Rowley took passage from Boston to London aboard The Hind, carrying twenty guns, sailing in consort with 6 other vessels. This book carries a few pages of Mr. Rowley's vivid diary upon his being shown his berth in the petty officers' mess, and here is one very interesting passage:

"About nine o'clock the company began to think of supper, when a boy was called into the room. Nothing in human shape did I ever see before so loathsome and nasty. He had on his body a fragment only of a check shirt, his bosom was all naked and greasy, over his shoulders hung a bundle of woolen rags which reached in strings almost down to his feet, and the whole composition was curiously adorned with little shining animals. The boy no sooner made his appearance than one of our society accosted him in this gentle language. "Go you ---- rascal, and see whether lobscouse is ready."

So! If a getup this wierd was allowed on a Naval vessel in 1760, imagine what passed for "fashion" fifty years prior.

[dasNdanger]

"Nothing in human shape did I ever see before so loathsome and nasty. He had on his body a fragment only of a check shirt, his bosom was all naked and greasy, over his shoulders hung a bundle of woolen rags which reached in strings almost down to his feet, and the whole composition was curiously adorned with little shining animals..."

Hmmm....Jack Sparrow's son, by chance??

das

[Nelson Cooke]

This is off topic. No, wait, it's not. I've seen guys sporting them in pictures with pirates. NOSE RINGS? What is the deal with those things historically-speaking (and I can't accept it's that they look cool).

[Fox]

Ah, the DK book is only one little funsie thing I have. I have many grown-up books too!!

Yar, the DK mention wasn't personal, it was just a way to differentiate between books which rely on popularly held beliefs and those which rely on evidence. If I'd been talking to people in the UK I'd have said "Ladybird books", but I don't know if you get them in the US?

we can debate 'til we're blue in the face about accuracy, documentation

We could, and as soon as someone offers some actual documentation of seamen wearing earrings in the golden age of piracy I will gladly do so.

Personally I believe that throughout history there have been men who wear the occasional earring aboard ship

I quite agree, I've never once tried to suggest that the occasional person didn't wear earrings. My point is that it really wasn't a great fashion amongst pirates or any other seamen, and it definitely wasn't a "tradition" of the sea until much later.

depending on culture, superstition, whatever

Now, if you start trying to give reasons for the odd earring then you might have to start providing actual evidence instead of supposition and intuition.

There's just no way someone can say, for a fact, that no sailor or pirate ever wore an earring during that period of time

Nope, and I'm not for a minute saying that. What I am saying is that I've not seen one single piece of evidence to show one single seafarer wearing an earring in that period. From the reams and reams of paperwork which still survive, the countless shipwrecks of the period, written accounts and stories, the evidence of the lives of thousands of men over a period of half a century, I've not been shown ONE SOLITARY PIECE of evidence of earrings being worn. So, I can't say (and have never said) with any certainty that no pirate wore an earring between the years 1690 and 1730. However, I can say with absolute certainty that it was NOT a fashion, fad, tradition or other, and that any pirate or other seaman wearing an earring would have been rare and probably commented on.

The Seaman's practice of wearing earrings dates from the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603), not so much in loyalty to the queen as to satisfy a fisherman's old superstition that pierced ears would improve their eyesight and make them more lively

- and -

Portraits show that Sir Walter Raleigh and William Shakespeare had their ears pierced. Sailors also wore hoops in their ears, as legend goes, because the gold would afford them a Christian burial if their bodies happened to wash up on shore

There we are, if either of those sites had any actual evidence to support their theories then the other would be redundant, but the fact is that neither of them do. The business about seamen wearing earrings in Elizabeth's reign is what I was talking about earlier: in Elizabethan times earrings were fashionable, so it's not at all surprising to find seamen wearing them - however, if you look at the sources for later periods when earrings were not fashionable you find that seamen have stopped wearing them. The obvious conclusion is that seamen wore earrings because they were fashionable, NOT because they were a seaman's tradition.

A pirate with an earring...not a big deal

No, not a big deal. But 5 pirates with earrings would be a big deal.

I will continue to wear my earring, playing pyrate or not......

Nothing wrong with that unless you're telling people that your garb is entirely accurate.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I think that this is part of the major "problem"

dasNdanger: A pirate with an earring...not a big deal

Foxe: No, not a big deal. But 5 pirates with earrings would be a big deal.

Most "pirate" re-enactors do so as individuals or part of a loosely based group. Some people, like Foxe I am sure, have come into this from other periods that depend on the impression of the group as a whole, not just the individual.

In other periods, it is important for your personal kit to be good because it plays into the impression of the group you are portraying. You might be re-enacting a French Machine Gunner from WW1, but you fit into a unit of other French Machine gunners and thus are representative of thousands of French machine gunners.

When French Machine Gun unit re-enactors start re-creating what one out of 10,000 individual soldiers had or did, then you start to screw up the impression as a whole.

Here is a better example.

I used to do German WW2 paratrooper. We strived to portray a squad of your typical 1943/44 airborne soldier. One guy insisted on carrying a British Sten gun.

Now he had a photograph of "a" German paratrooper with a Sten Gun in his hands. (there could have been many reasons for this soldier to have the gun in his hands but the one that our re-enactor chose to believe was that it was his personal weapon).

The true reasons for carrying the Sten probably are more due to the fact that it is probably the cheapest WW2 Machine Gun to own today.

Well soon after, other guys wanted to carry one too. Why spend $5k on an MP-40 when you can spend $1600 on an "acceptable" Sten?

The point is, soon you can have 40 percent of your troops carrying Stens and skew the historical balance of what a typical German Paratrooper had.

If you go to a public battle and display, you are telling the "public" that 4 out of 10 German paratroopers carried the Sten gun.

Bringing this back to Pirate.....

Yes one out of a thousand pirates might have had an earring, and 1/1000 might have worn sashes, and 1/2000 might have had bucket boots....

But the next time you go to a pirate event, look at the percentages of pirates that you see with sashes, earrings and bucket boots!

Now, if you are a fantasy pirate re-enactor; more power to you, do what you wish/like.

But if you are trying to sell your self as an authentic pirate from the Golden Age, you are leaving yourself open to debate/ criticism because the evidence does not support it.

[dasNdanger]

Talking about wierd clothing/dress among seamen...So! If a getup this wierd was allowed on a Naval vessel in 1760, imagine what passed for "fashion" fifty years prior.

I'm ready to be serious and give this the proper attention it deserves....

Thanks for posting this little gem - I love firsthand accounts because they help paint a picture no artist can even attempt to create. Along these lines but a bit off-topic, I have Life Before The Mast (edited by Jon E. Lewis), which gives eye-witness accounts of life during the age of the fighting sail, primiarily from the late 18th to early 19th centuries. Another firsthand account that I discovered and absolutely love is found in The Mammoth Book of Men O'War (edited by Mike Ashley). It's from the memoirs of Commander John Finlayson and the bit that's published here is his account of the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801. There is a passage that I particularly enjoy:

We began (we Mids.) to wonder how our wardrobes would stand affliction. On Friday evening after the last dog-watch, plans were laid and we began to take stock, determined that two out of each mess should commence the operation of washing a shirt for each in the pump-well, but a difficulty arose about water; for being so long out of it after a certain time, it was being served so much to each Mess. But what with plundering, and purchasing with grog from one Mess or the other, and a little with peas water, we could manage to rub out pretty decently six or eight shirts, sometimes a dickey or two. White stockings, if not too black or dirty, we could chalk or pipe-clay.

Our mess utensils generally comprised a black bottle for a candlestick, two or three broken pieces of plates, or biscuits as substitutes, one rusty knife, one fork with three prongs, two of which were broken, amongst twelve or fourteen Mids. One of the worst things we were generally put to for was a cloth to boil a plum pudding in. However, finding we could not find a decent cloth, we made shift with a night-cap, taking care it was clean before filled. This was our last resource on the Christmas Day of 1800, when all hands, or nearly so, dined on that day together in the gun-room. About six were lucky in being asked to dine in the Wardroom and with the Captain. It was blowing very hard, and although placed so low as the gun-room is of a three-decker, we found great difficulty in keeping what crockery we could muster on the table.

Now, why the hell did I type all this OT info out?? Well, if this was the NAVY c. 1800, imagine what it was like for pirates a hundred years earlier?? I have always imagined men in the navy dining on at least a square wooden tray, utensils for everyone, but according to this report, it wasn't like that at all. And what of the rummaging around for clothing?? I think when we realize exactly how lean times could be even on a naval vessel, then it REALLY helps us appreciate the reports of deprivation aboard pirate ships.

Yeah, I know - didn't really add anything to the Great Earring Debate - so flog me...

das

[JoshuaRed]

This IS a great debate, isn't it! One big reason I still maintain as to why pirates would NOT have worn earrings is the risk of them getting ripped out in a fight. Awful easy and painful way to lose your 401K, no?

[Fox]

GoF, that's exactly the point I was trying to make, you did it so much better! If you're part of a group portraying pirates and trying to do so accurately that's very different from being an individual trying to portray a pirate. If you have one person in a group of say 20 wearing an earring that's fine, it shows that the odd person may have worn them, but that they weren't fashionable. As soon as one other person wears them it begins to look like a fashion, which it wasn't.

I like the analogy about the Fallschirmjaagers with Stens, though at least your guys were able to show at least ONE person of the time did it!

JoshuaRed, although I often pull my hair out (it's not like earring debates are rare!) I am enjoying this one too. I just wish we could move away from the idea that earrings are a long standing nautical tradition. I think that one erroneous idea has clouded too many good points made here.

And yes, although I wear an earring or two in "real life" (I believe that's what they call it), and for Tudor re-enactment, I always take them out before a fight.

[dasNdanger]

Bringing this back to Pirate.....

Yes one out of a thousand pirates might have had an earring, and 1/1000 might have worn sashes, and 1/2000 might have had bucket boots....

But the next time you go to a pirate event, look at the percentages of pirates that you see with sashes, earrings and bucket boots!

Now, if you are a fantasy pirate re-enactor; more power to you, do what you wish/like.

But if you are trying to sell your self as an authentic pirate from the Golden Age, you are leaving yourself open to debate/ criticism because the evidence does not support it.

Okayokayokay...I THINK I'm starting to understand your point.

It's all about ratios... (I wasn't very good at math, mind you... )

Lemme see if I can gather my thoughts into some sort of logical order.

It all makes sense now about a GROUP portraying an accurate representation of a pirate, as opposed to just an individual. Thank you for clearing that up, because I was thinking ONLY on an 'individual' level.

Foxe: RE: Earrings. I have always considered the wearing of an earring by a sailor to be nothing unusual, though the wearing of it may be based on a variety of factors - they wore them, but not necessarily for the same reasons. I am not just speaking of 'European' seafarers, but of seafarers from around the world, throughout the ages. From the Orient to the slave galleys on the Mediterranean and onto the Caribbean, certainly there were eras and regions of the world where they were more/less popular. That said, if there is no obvious documentation of Caribbean pirates, or sailors in general, wearing earrings in the late 17th through early18th century, then I guess it's safe to assume that they were not popular at the time.

Now, lemme blather on a bit about the group vs. individual factor. A few years back ('01 or '02, I think) I set aside my gypsy garb and went to the Ren Faire for the first time as a pirate. Having had an interest ever since I was a child in sailing ships and those who worked them, I went for accuracy. I decided to go as a woman, dressed as a man. Okay - my clothes were cotton and not linen, but I was working on a budget... Anyway, I had a pretty good feel for what a sailor (or pirate) would have in his possession. I figured that the average pirate didn't carry much more than a working knife, and perhaps a marlin spike, while aboard ship. Then I looked at all those old pirate pictures (c. early 18th cent.), not of the captains, but of the crews, and noticed most dressed in slops (often striped), a shirt, a jacket or coat, a neckerchief. They wore buckle or plain shoes, perhaps bare feet, and maybe a knit cap or hat. In fact, they looked much like the average deckhand on a merchant ship. So, I decided to base my costume on the garb that these men wore, sans the jacket/coat and hat because it was the middle of a blazing hot summer. I only carried a pistol and knife and a pilfered bosun's whistle. Not much else. And did I feel out of place! I knew my costume was probably more accurate than most, but everyone was wearing the feathered hats, bucket boots, and bodices. Well, I added a few 'gadgets' but stuck to my 'female pirate dressed as a dude' style, and toughed it out for two and a half more years. But it only got worse - all the women were dressed like strumpets, and all the men like Captain Hook. And there I was, looking something like Pintel from POTC, 'cept I wuz wearing a shirt to cover the boobage. Anyway, I gave up halfway through last year when I overheard a pirate dude say something about me...it was to the effect of 'I never saw a guy with a set like that' (okay - so I didn't bind them down, but I thought the vest would hide the puppies... ).

So I said 'screw the authenticity', started wearing a 'peasant' blouse and skirt (STILL not wearing a bloody bodice!!), with flashy red sash and (real) coins hanging around my waist as 'jinglers', and mugs, and pistols, and all the other crap I can layer on - and wow!! I actually had FUN! Got lots of attention, had lots of laughs.

My point (FINALLY!) If the group you are in dresses like the fantasy pirate or piratess captain, it's sometimes better to say *@%*-it and go with the flow, instead of feeling like a scallywag outta water. In my heart - as an individual - I WANT to be authentic, however, in the GROUP, authenticity often looks out of place and people just don't get it. (I do try to blend the two styles, and have had many compliments on the unique items I carry, including several 'accessories' for my pistol since I don't bother with a sword. ) Perhaps there needs to be more education about the general crew of a pirate ship - what would be worn, and what would not. Most costumes are based on the illustrations of the more famous captains, and we can't even be sure if they are depicted in their actual clothing, or in the garb of an artist's imagination.

das

[Longarm]

I'm curious about something. In all the first hand and documented accounts on pirates and sailors in general was there much about what kind of jewelery or adornment that was being worn?