Earrings? Help settle an argument

[Fox]

I am not just speaking of 'European' seafarers, but of seafarers from around the world, throughout the ages.

Fair enough. I'm talking more specifically about seamen of "European" origin, including the seamen from the colonies. I don't consider that I know enough to comment on Oriental seamen. :)

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

That's exactly the thing, if you're being a Hollywood-type pirate then go for the earrings, the enormous sash, the fur-trimmed hat with massive plume, silver skull medallion on a chain... I'f you're being an authentic pirate then go for the slop breeches, short jacket, small hat etc.

I wuz wearing a shirt to cover the boobage

Teehee, you said "boobage"...

Perhaps there needs to be more education about the general crew of a pirate ship - what would be worn, and what would not.

That would be great, but do you really think people would change? Personally, I'm an authenticity freak. A: I don't see the point in doing something half-heartedly - I spend a lot of time and money on my kit, so I wan't to make sure that it's right, and B: if you dress as an authentic pirate you can still play a fantasy pirate (my group tends to portray Royal Navy rather than pirates, and though we do it authentically we are still frequently identified as pirates by the public), but if you dress purely fantasy then you can only do that.

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?

For the 1690-1730ish period you come across chains most commonly, but even so they're not that common. Also, it's very difficult to tell whether they are chains being worn, or just kept as something of value. It's also difficult to tell whether they are necklace type chains or watch type chains or a mixture or what. The next most common thing I suppose is probably rings, though again it's difficult (OK mostly impossible) to tell if they are being worn or just kept as valuable items.

I don't know whether you'd count them as adornment, but one of the valuable things mentioned more often than chains or rings of course is buckles.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

DasNDanger

They have a saying.... horses for courses.

I have grown up re-enacting and was fortunate (or unfortunate depending on how one looks at it) to be brought into the hobby and "raised up" in it by the so called "hardcore" authentic types.

I can understand your predicament with your trials and tribulations of trying to have an authentic impression.

Here is how I see the problem.

MOST folks at XYZ "pirate" event don't know much about historical pirates, they just want to dress up and have fun. You can usually tell these kind of events by the fact that they have "fest" or, "faire" as part of the event name.

When a women dresses as a man/male sailor for a Golden Age of Piracy event, you are being just about as authentic as you can be. When Reed and Bonny were apprehended they were not described as "two tavern wenches caught as pirates at sea". They were described as wearing men's clothes.

I have read that one victim of Reed and Bonney said that they thought something about them was fishy because of their large breast so I wouldn't worry about binding them,. but I digress....

Now at a faire or fest event, who is going to attract more attention, the girl in man's clothes or the one dressed like a strumpet with her boobs hanging out?

If a guy is out to party and drink wearing his fantasy pirate outfit, who is he going to spend more time with, the androgynous dude/chick or the tavern wench with her boobs hanging out?

I have spent waaaayyy to much money on my pirate kit. I hunted all over the net/world for 100% grosgrain silk and had a hand made Justaucorps made for me by a very well respected costumier in London. At an "event", most people (including other "pirates"), have no clue to what it is I am wearing.

I will get lumped in with the black-jean-bandanna pirates almost every time.

But every once in a while, someone will come up to me and say, "wow, grosgrain silk... where the #$@! did you get that!" and it kind of makes it all worthwhile to me. But i am a freak.

I don't mind the fantasy pirates.... really. Its just when they start believing that they are accurately representing the golden age (and tell the public so) that I get my panties in a knot.

This is long enough.....

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Jewelry

The other thing is that for rings, necklaces etc, the precious stones were "cut" differently. The modern style of cutting stones with all the crazy facets is a post golden age thing.... I am not sure the timeline (I am sure you could google it)....

But there I go again being a freak about shit.....

[JoshuaRed]

GOF your purple justacorps is SWEET...I hope to see it in person at an event someday. Here's one guy who appreciates it.

[dasNdanger]

If a guy is out to party and drink wearing his fantasy pirate outfit, who is he going to spend more time with, the androgynous dude/chick or the tavern wench with her boobs hanging out?

hehehe...perhaps I should clarify what I mean by 'attention'. Since I be an ol' married sea hag, I don't go to the faire to pick up randy buccaneers *dang!* . When I say 'attention', I mean...well, people in general interacting with me. At the faire, it's common for the actors and other visitors to interact with one another...and when I dressed in more authentic kit, well, it was like I was invisible. Maye they thought I was a bloomin' cowboy or something, I dunno . But as soon as I changed the trousers out for a skirt, lost the vest, and slipped into a very unauthentic c. 1980 peasant top...BAM! Folks (men, women, kids, village idiots...) started chattin' wif me.

But you've actually encouraged me to try to go in a more authentic direction once again. I have a few months yet to figger it out...

das

[PyratePhil]

Now at a faire or fest event, who is going to attract more attention, the girl in man's clothes or the one dressed like a strumpet with her boobs hanging out?

(Phil raises hand)

Ooh, ooh, I know!

If a guy is out to party and drink wearing his fantasy pirate outfit, who is he going to spend more time with, the androgynous dude/chick or the tavern wench with her boobs hanging out?

OOOOHHH, OOOHHHHH! (Hand flying around)

Just my observations -

First, most of you don't know me to see me at an event. If you check my avatar pic, you can pretty easily see that I'm what is called ( I guess) a fantasy pyrate. Nothing except my body is more than 40 years old, I happily mix cotton, silk, leather, and maybe even a little polyester ( ), I have a fake parrot (NOT dead!) on my shoulder, etc. etc...

Now, if I were going to apply for a crew position on, say, the Royaliste, they'd be within their rights to shoot me dead as soon as I set foot on the dock. Same with other "re-enactor" groups. So, knowing this, I travel in my limited little world of Fantasy - as was mentioned, usually "Faires", most of which are NOT specifically Pyrate-themed.

BUT - some day, I'd like to "try out" for a re-enactor role. I realize that I'd need a ton of learning, and UNlearning, to have any hope at all.

I greatly admire those of you with the historical knowledge of this field (in fact, I'm downright jealous!), and hope to continue to be a fly on the wall in discussions like these.

Now as for earrings...lol...I can see how this is a hot topic, but why not call it a draw? Guys like me, Wal-Mart Pyrates, will continue to wear whatever is available from the racks that looks even slightly "piratey", supplemented of course with those great Sal Army finds . Basically, we're harmless, unless we try to pass ourselves off as authentic. But the intent might very well be the same as the "pro's" - think about WHY we do this...is it for ourselves? For others? Entertainment? Education? Edutainment?

Pyrates, be they Fantasy or Authentic, are so few in number as a totality that it might serve us better to join arms rather than pick at each other for imagined "failings".

Again, I admire you all, from that guy over there in the "Kiss Me - I'm a Pyrate" T-shirt to folks like Foxe, G of F, and Hawkyns. Just trying to wrap my head around all of this, and it's a bit overwhelming...

[Hawkyns]

Ahoy the Deck-

I think this is begining to drift a bit far off the wind. I have no problem with the new angle, I've done the authentic vs, fantasy thread a few times myself. But let's keep this thread on earrings and take the other discussion to a new thread.

Thanks, Guys. :)

Hawkyns

Moderator

[corsair2k3]

Greetings,

One of the problems with debates like these is paucity of evidence for the minutiae of life for the lower classes in general.

Sailors (and, by extension, pirates) were at just about the bottom rung of the social ladder.

Well, you're dealing with a period where social class was everything. You are also dealing with a period with a relatively low level of literacy.

So the focus of record-keeping is more on the comings and goings and doings of monarchs, nobility and other "great men" than it is on the poor schmucks what abide in the forecastle.

Other literary fashions didn't help much either. The focus is a lot more on the narration of events than the description of scenes.

Be that as it may--the main point I want to make here is simply that there isn't much written evidence "'out there"

Here's a good example: I consider Dampier better than average in terms of his propensity for description. Now--it has been a few years since I read him, but IIRC in all of his vast writings he never describes a sailor or sailor's garb. He will spend two or three sentences describing some goddam Pacific mollusk, but he won't utter a peep as to whether Captain Davis was in the habit of wearing a white shirt, or a blue shirt.

Same with "Johnson"--whoever he or she really was--think on it: how much time is spent in those 6 or 8 hundred pages in describing anyone?

Pretty near zilch.

So historians are pretty limited. Artwork gives some clues. So do supply manifests, invoices and other arid picayune crap like that. And archaeology can help. But you just don't get the solid, vivid, detail in 18th-century written sources that you do in sources coming from a century or so later.

Twenty or thirty years ago, there was even a jackass bio-historian who used this lack of descriptive literary evidence to argue that some color dues could not be even be recognized/distinguised by people living a handful of centuries ago. IIRC, he/she was claiming that differentials in brain chemistry owing to differences in nutrition were to blame.

Now, I have no idea whether he/she might be correct or not--the interesting thing is that there was enough "absence of evidence" for the argument to be made--and an article published.

But to take this one step further: "absence of evidence" is not always a foolproof mode of argument.

Case in point:

[Get ready, POTC fans!]

I am aware of no written source which specifically mentions coins being drilled so that they could be used as adornment. Yet such drilled coins have been found on archaeological sites.

How were they worn? Well, since there's no evidence, one is left to one's imagination, isn't one?

And, since the overall lock of a set of dreadlocks isn't entirely different from, say, a Ramillies wig...

Well, there you go!

The Corsair

[JoshuaRed]

Here's a good example: I consider Dampier better than average in terms of his propensity for description. Now--it has been a few years since I read him, but IIRC in all of his vast writings he never describes a sailor or sailor's garb. He will spend two or three sentences describing some goddam Pacific mollusk, but he won't utter a peep as to whether Captain Davis was in the habit of wearing a white shirt, or a blue shirt.

How VERY true. Dampier is one of my dearest heroes....I've read and am rereading his copious volumes desperately scanning for a scant mention of an earring (see I'm on topic Hawkyns!), sash, what have you. And though I could tell you in great detail what a Chocalatta North is and how often they are encountered, I could not tell you a damn thing about the men Dampier sailed with. (Perhaps he didn't want to tick off any contemporaries of his)

Same with Sharp and Ringrose - scant detail of everyday life. Can't blame them though...if earrings were normally worn, there was no reason to mention that, better to sell more books by talking about cannibals, crocodiles and the damn dirty Spanish. :)

[dasNdanger]

Cap'n PP ...

I myself have been torn between the faire pirate and the re-enactor...I have pals who are re-enactors and am very envious of the attention to authentic detail they give their costumes. When I'm around them, I just drool... (Well, I sometimes drool on other occasions too, but I blame that on age... ) However, I've discovered that re-enacting takes something that the pirate in me just is NOT going to give...and that's c-o-m-m-i-t-m-e-n-t. So, I settle on the faires, because it's much easier to fit them into my busy, disorganized, running-late-all-the-time lifestyle.

Now as for earrings...lol...I can see how this is a hot topic, but why not call it a draw? Guys like me, Wal-Mart Pyrates, will continue to wear whatever is available from the racks that looks even slightly "piratey", supplemented of course with those great Sal Army finds  . Basically, we're harmless, unless we try to pass ourselves off as authentic.  But the intent might very well be the same as the "pro's" - think about WHY we do this...is it for ourselves? For others? Entertainment? Education? Edutainment?

First, pardon my wishy-washy back-and-forth stand on the different sides of the debate, but there are good points on both sides, and I just have to comment on this statement of yours, because it really hit home with me. Yeah - WHY do we do it?? If it's for education, such as at re-enactments, then authenticity is very important. If it's just to have a good time - then go all out for the fantasy image. But for me it's something a wee bit different - I do it is because I long to live in the past and grab every opportunity to do so. I do not strip out of my costume as soon as the event is over as most folks do...I am very content to savour the experience of stepping into the past. It's not about entertainment, OR education, but about 'living the life' of my ancestors. Freaky, eh? My husband calls me 'primative', which is actually a compliment. And that's why I got involved with working on the schooner in my avatar, just to know what it's like to sail and maintain such a vessel - and put myself in the bucket boots, or buckle shoes, or bare feet of men who lived a life ont he seas. So, when I go to the Ren Faire - now try to follow me on this one - I don't go as a 're-enactor' pretending to be someone else, but I go as myself, as I would have been had I lived 300 years ago. I base my costume on my tastes and preferences (not that of shadowy historical figures). For instance - I HATE hats. Hate them. If I was a pirate or sailor 300 years ago, there is NO way in the world I would be wearing a hat, fashion or not. So my pirate will never wear one - not even a bandana. Nope - never. Same with the baldric and sword - I will never cart one around because they're cumbersome and awkward...and I doubt I would have bothered with one had I lived in the past. Heck, I won't even carry a pocketbook in RL, so why bother with all that heavy leather strapped around my torso? Nah - if I was a pirate 300 years ago, I'd be more the 'sneak up behind and stab 'em in the back' type, rather than the swashbuckley swordplay sort...I'm too lazy for that. So I definitely prefer to tailor my costume around my own personality, instead of what is traditional or authentic...which brings me back to the Great Earring Debate (SEE??! On Topic AGAIN!!). I won't wear the little - or big - golden hoop. Nope - no way...I don't like hoop earrings, and IF I was a pirate upteem million years ago, I wouldn't have worn a hoop earring. If I was gonna wear something in my ear, it would be something similar to what I wear today - a dangly, handmade thingy of beads and brass coins and bells (been wearing the same earrings, or variations thereof, for about 5 years...I'm not big on change, either... ) . If those items, or similar items - bone, odd bits of tin - anything - were available to me, that's prolly what I would be wearing in my ears, regardless of the fashion of the times (I TOTALLY disregard fashion now, so why would my pirate care what he/she looked like way back when?)

Wow - this entire debate has really helped me settle a lot of costume issues. I will be the pirate I would have been had I lived 300 years ago...not a fantasy pirate, and not a replica of someone from the past - but something that falls very comfortably in between...

das

[JoshuaRed]

Yes, but if you so desire to experience what your ancestors felt, and how they lived, wouldn't it behoove you to strive for accuracy, to best experience what their clothing/life was like? If that is what you desire, and sounds like it is, then isn't draping fantasy/farce over the accurate stuff just further removing you from the past you yearn to savor?

There was lots of uncomfortable clothing in those days, things like hats, heavy leather, soggy wool, sweaty linen...it's all part of the gig, part of the experience. Not to mention that social trends and morays typically overrode personal comfort.

The fantasty stuff is cool, but don't close the door on ever committing to accuracy, just because it's hard. It's the hard stuff that has the greatest rewards!

[Captain_MacNamara]

I tend to agree with dasNdanger's last post to an extent... I *do* my research, and then go from there. I try to remain *plausibly* period, but I stick to my personal preferences too. I carry my persona well, and everyone in my circle can tell instantly that I'm a pirate... I throw elements of fantasy in, so the earring thing is an interesting conundrum for me. I suspect that it was a common thing, partly because all myths have at least some basis in fact. I also know that I would be more or less the same person 300 years ago as I am now... a little less educated to be sure, but I feel that my persona would have worn them, so I wear them.

But then again, the SCA is a game played for one's own enjoyment than for the entertainment of the general populace.

[Patrick Hand]

Back to topic......

"absence of evidence" is not always a foolproof mode of argument.

when I was going to rendezvouse, there were debates about beards...... (the Indains didn't like them... you want to stay alive... you shaved...) but one of the arguements is someone from the time period wrote in thier diary that they saw a bearded man....... it was recorded, because at the time it was so unusuall...... this does not prove or disprove the earring arguemnt.... but...

if earrings were common... who would have mentioned them......

Also (more speculation) sailors DID dress differently than landsmen.... trowsers....etc.... maybe they did wear earings.... just so common, that no one mentioned it.......

I may be a halfway authentic pyrate..... but I still want to know if pirates did or did not wear earrings.....

[Gentleman of Fortune]

As Hawkyns says... this is drifting away from earrings and more into the philosophy of "modern interpretations" of historical pirates.

Please see new thread titled

"Striving for Authenticity"

[Fox]

Absence of evidence v. Evidence of absence

The comments above on absences of evidence hold true, but only to a certain extent. An example I have used before is that since nowhere does Esquemeling mention his grandmother are we to assume he didn't have one?

However, absence of evidence where it would be expected could and in my opinion should be considered as evidence of absence. For example, if we look at wills and other documents relating to the possession of common seamen (see the evidence is there!) and see that they include things like "all my thred and needles", "my tobacco", "two buttons", "one ring", "two scales", "one lock and key" etc., and find that they don't mention earrings anywhere then I consider that to be evidence of absence. I've gone through goodness knows how many of them and I've just not seen any suggestion of the widespread wearing of earrings.

Also, it's very easy to say that if earrings were common would anyone have bothered recording them? The answer is yes. We know earrings were common in other periods - how do we know? Because people recorded them.

Also (more speculation) sailors DID dress differently than landsmen.... trowsers....etc.... maybe they did wear earings.... just so common, that no one mentioned it.......

Then how do we know about seamen dressing differently, wearing trousers etc.? If earrings were as commonly worn by seamen as trousers were then we could reasonably expect to have some evidence of them.

Listen to this argument and tell me if it holds water:

"We're not sure, but we think people must have eaten hot-dogs in the Golden age of pyracy because although there's no source at all to suggest that they did, that would tend to indicate that they were so commonplace they didn't need recording"

Chocalatta North

What are they and how often do you see them? Are they authentic to the Golden Age of piracy?

Myth Origins

All myths have origins, that's true. It is my belief that the myth of pirate-earring-fashions begins in the 1880s. By the mid-late Victorian period we again begin to see evidence of the wearing of earrings by seamen. Many of the long standing "traditions" of the sea go back to that era. Howard Pyle and his contemporaries start to include earrings in their depictions of pirates, and the myth begins. If we look at the other collection of pirate pictures from before that era, the pictures from the General History, the pictures from Charles Ellms' Pirates Own Book, they don't show earrings. The obvious conclusion? Even in the 1830s earrings still weren't associated with pirates, the myth is newer than that.

[JoshuaRed]

From William Dampier's Discourse of Winds, in his chapter concerning storms:

When the wind first comes to the N.W. if the black cloud rises and comes away, it may chance to give but one Flurry, like that of a tornado; and the sky grows clear again; and either the wind continues at N.W. blowing only a brisk gale, which the Jamacain Seamen call a Chocolatta North, or else it veers about to gain to the East, and settles there.

So yes, it is a term accurate to the Golden Age. Sounds like a fairly common occurrence. Here is a more modern definition from the American Meteorological Society's Glossary:

chocolatta north—A northwesterly gale of the West Indies.

Has a nice ring to it, eh? Speaking of rings, not one earring mentioned thus far in my re-reading of Dampier.

[Longarm]

So where did the myth come from? Why would Pyle and others like him add earings to there pirates? Was it to make them appear more exotic and different from everyone else? Did they use examples of sailors and peoples of countries as examples?

How much has the myths about improved eyesight and to pay for burial influenced artist and writers to portray pirates wearing earrings?

Was there ever a time in history when sailors wore earrings as a matter of fashion or tradition? If so did this influence our ideas about pirates and earrings?

[JoshuaRed]

I don't think the blame rests solely on Pyle or Stevenson. They were drawing from a building "nostalgic romance" of piracy that increased throughout the 19th century. Perhaps this original notion was based on Drake, and over the decades became associated with all seafarers.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Longarm

The conundrum is that seamen of different periods did wear (and have been documented to wear) earings. The point of the thread is/was that seamen are documented to wear earrings prior to the GAop, because it was fashionable to wear earrings then. Sailors wore earings After the GAop (late 18th & 19th centuries?) because it was fashionable to wear earrings then.

BUT

it seems that it was not fashionable to wear earrings during the the GAoP (1690-1720) and there is no evidence of anyone (pirate or otherwise) wearing them.

It seems that the "tradition" of sailors wearing earrings got started AFTER the GAoP (that would be the tradition that everyone quotes as evidence).

So Pyle et al were probably drawing from more "recent" tradition and the fact that sailors in the early 1600s were wearing them.

Remember.... Pyle was drawing/painting at 150 years after the fact as well and probably had less information about historical pirates then we do now. I would imagine that if he was alive today and drawing pirates, with the info availlable now, he would be painting them a little different.

GoF

[Fox]

All traditions have to start sometime. Many people quote this "tradition" of wearing earrings as being why pirates did, but none of them seem to know when the tradition (as opposed to general fashion) began. The limited research I've done into the origin of the tradition, and the opinion of those whom I've spoken to and who have an opinion, is that it seemed to have started amongst sailors involved in the California Gold Rush.

So, if that's correct (and nobody's convinced me otherwise) earrings are completely authentic for Howard Pyle's period, but not for GAoP.

[Longarm]

I have a theory as to why the wearing of earings went out of fashion during the GAoP. (Ijust hope I can explain it in a way it will make sense.)

In the years leading up to the GAoP the continual wars between nations requiered them to press more and more landsmen into service. If not pressed many signed on to privateers with dreams of wealth or to avoid being pressed into the military. It has been shown that earings were not in fashion on land at this time so, the new swollen ranks of sailors would not have worn them. With peace came alot of unemployed sailors and privateers many of whom would have be stuck in whatever port they happened to be in when the news of peace arrived. Far from home and having nothing to show for their labors, piracy, naturally followed. But as more countries made piracy an unhealthy way of living, those that could went back to trying to make a living on land. This would leave a core of true sailors behind. With peace, trade and exploration expanded allowing this core of sailors to be exposed to different cultures and customs. Sailors, especially the deep water sailors, have always prided themselves on who and what they are so, the wearing of earings again shows up as a way of standing out from others or a kind-of right of passage.

So the fashion at sea might not have been influenced as much by what was the fashion on land but, more by the politics on land that sent men to sea. If sailors cared so much about what was fashionable and proper on land, why is landlover or landlubber a derogatory word? In what little I know and have read about sailors there is very little that they have ever envied about life on land so, why care about what some sissy landsman thought was cool?

Just my two cents on what is becoming an old thread but, could still apply to some of the newer ones as well.

[corsair2k3]

Responding to Foxe:

The tradition of earrings began much earlier than the Gold Rush.

Evidence to be supplied later this evening.

The Corsair

[Fox]

I look forward to it

As I said in my post, my research into the origin of the tradition is limited, so I would be interested in evidence that it began earlier. The big question is: did it begin prior to the GAoP?

Out of interest, approximately how many different artefacts have been recovered from the Whydah, and how many of those are earrings?

[corsair2k3]

Greetings,

This is from Jeffrey Bolster's book BLACK JACKS--the painting was done in 1822 and shows that hoop earrings were worn by seafarers prior to the Gold Rush.

http://www.geocities.com/corsair2k3/BlackCaptain.jpg

As far as pirates with earrings during the period 1689-1725, I haven't got a single reference to a pirate wearing an earring during that period.

I do have an early 17th century reference to such--but since it's already established that "that doesn't count" I'm not going to drag that back out.

Nor am I going to bother fishing out documents logging the presence of earrings among assorted captured pirates--since it cannot be demonstrated that they actually wore the earring found in their possession.

I'm not aware of any earrings having been found at the Whydah or QAR sites--and, if there were, they'd be subject to the same objection. How can one tell if said adornment was simple loot, or was actually worn?

I have seen evidence that pirates during the GAoP did wear gold chains, but that's about it.

Regards,

The Corsair

[Fox]

The painting is very interesting (I find all old paintings and pictures interesting for one reason or another), but if you'll forgive my saying so and sounding like a dogmatist, one painting does not a tradition make.

Nor am I going to bother fishing out documents logging the presence of earrings among assorted captured pirates--since it cannot be demonstrated that they actually wore the earring found in their possession.

Now, while such documentation would not prove a pirate fashion for earrings there are one or two points which I think worthy of consideration. Firstly if it can be shown that a significant proportion of pirates owned earrings, it might be reasonable to conclude that a perhaps smaller, but nonetheless significant proportion of pirates wore them; the question then is how many examples are there? Secondly, much would depend on interpretation of the source (as I know I don't need to tell you), so it would depend on how the earrings were listed. In the Theophilus Turner list* quoted elsewhere for example earrings are recorded amongst a list of other valuables which were confiscated when he was captured, so the reasonable inference is that they were part of his hoard rather than part of his attire. On the other hand if earrings were listed amongst the more personal possessions or garments of a pirate, if they were listed between his tobacco box and watch for example, that would perhaps indicate a less detached ownership (if that makes any sense).

The trouble there is that even to show conclusively (let alone by inference and interpretation) that a dozen pirates actually wore earrings would not prove that the majority did.

I'm not aware of any earrings having been found at the Whydah or QAR sites--and, if there were, they'd be subject to the same objection. How can one tell if said adornment was simple loot, or was actually worn?

If they were found then they would be subject to the same interpretation as I suggest above, though perhaps less conclusively. If there were a hundred then it would be very indicative, on the other hand if one or two were found alongside a large pile of coins then it would suggest that they were part of a hoard rather than adornment. However, I think instead the complete absence of them is far more indicative and is, in my humble opinion, much less open to interpretation.

I have seen evidence that pirates during the GAoP did wear gold chains, but that's about it.

Which to me suggests that the evidence of personal adornments is there. If that evidence does not include earrings then that too is very indicative of a widespread absence.

A Personal Statement: I've said it before, but I'm never one to back away from repeating myself over and over until someone believes me. I'm not and never have been of the opinion that no pirate anywhere during the Golden Age wore an earring or two, that would be a ridiculous generalisation, but I do not believe that it was any kind of "pirate fashion" during that period, nor do I believe that it was any kind of "seaman's tradition" during that period either.

We can all come up with theories and hypotheses as to why pirates might have worn earrings, I can come up with theories as to why pirates might have enjoyed regular meals of hot-dogs (they certainly had sausages, rolls, onions, and mustard), but in neither case is there any decent evidence to suggest that they did. If Howard Pyle and NC Wyeth had painted half a dozen hot-dogs being eaten by pirates would this thread have reached 7 pages debating whether 12" hot-dogs were widely eaten?

However, as with anything I ever say here (or on any other boards, websites, emails, articles, or books) I'm quite happy to be shown my errors by anyone with decent evidence to prove it. In this particular argument I have to say that I wear two earrings generally, and I find it a real bind taking them out when I do GAoP re-enactments, so I would LOVE it if someone could prove that lots of seamen wore them in the GAoP, but so far it just ain't happening.

*wasn't it you who gave me that list years ago in the first place? Credit where it's due and all that.