Batavia Wreck boots ain't from Batavia Wreck!

[Gentleman of Fortune]

I was trying to find the thread to post this, as Pirate Pete has posted this picture in just about every boot thread

The story was that these boots were recovered from the Batavia, a ship that wrecked off of Australia in 1629.

They looked too good to be true, and even if they were almost 100 years earlier than the GAoP, it would still be interesting to the discussion that boots of this (or any) style were found.

But they just seem too nice.....

So I started poking about in the Batavia wreck museum's website. They have a database of artifacts.

When you search "shoes" or "boots" all that comes up are fragments of shoes... not a mint conditioned pair!

So I e-mailed the museum and included the picture that has been so often posted here (see above)

Here is the resonse that i got from Myra Stanbury of the museum

Dear Greg

Can you really imagine a pair of boots surviving in almost pristine condition after almost 400 years on the seabed?!! They are definitely not from the Batavia wreck - though may have been worn by one of the actors in one of the many versions of films made about the Batavia mutiny.

Sincerely

Myra Stanbury

A little sarcastic, maybe but I think we can take the Batavia boot off of the table in our discussion.

GoF

[Patrick Hand]

Yah..... but what about the shoes right behind the boots?..........

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Those are cool aren't they. I think that Pete said he got the photos from somone on this list that lives in the Netherlands (Charity?).

I think there is the answer. There is a Batavia in the Netherlands as well and I think they have a dockyard museum.

More info is needed!

GoF

[Daniel]

Thanks for the info. I would definitely like to "walk back the cat" on this intelligence failure, starting with Pete's Dutch friend.

Those boots may not be from the Batavia, but they are clearly shown in some kind of display case. Maybe they're just in a shop display case, but if that is a museum case, I would like to know the real origin of those boots.

[Pirate Petee]

Not to worry fellas, I'm on it.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Yes, there are a lot of interesting questions that come out of this.

The other shoes in the case definately look 17th Century, and, if the museum folks are doing their job, the boots should be too.

So if they are real, and not reproductions to fill in a hole in the display, that is they type of boot that should be worn for GAoP and prior.

If someone really wanted to wear boots like that (the cavalry/bucket boot) for GAoP, a really cool impression would be a Highway Men.

You would be land based, so you don't need a horse, you could throw the entire Admiralty slops contract out the window, and you could wear the tall boots.

It would be a neat impression... especially if you had a horse

"Stand and deliver!"

GoF

[Hawkyns]

Yes, there are a lot of interesting questions that come out of this.

The other shoes in the case definately look 17th Century, and, if the museum folks are doing their job, the boots should be too.

So if they are real, and not reproductions to fill in a hole in the display, that is they type of boot that should be worn for GAoP and prior.

If someone really wanted to wear boots like that (the cavalry/bucket boot) for GAoP, a really cool impression would be a Highway Men.

You would be land based, so you don't need a horse, you could throw the entire Admiralty slops contract out the window, and you could wear the tall boots.

It would be a neat impression... especially if you had a horse

"Stand and deliver!"

GoF

Yah know, the highwayman impression is probably a lot closer to what a lot of folks are trying for. Boots, fancy weskit and coat, shiny rapier, cocked hat, and that cool double caped riding coat. Maybe we need a highwayman re-enactment group.

Hawkyns

[The Doctor]

Sounds like fun, Hawkyns! My horse, Ace, and I are ready to sign up! :)

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Yup,

that's about where I stand, being landlocked, having two horses and my wifes mule, (she does all the trainin and such, but I buy the stuff so I can claim their ours!), But the Rapier and the boots are a ways off yet. I'll have to make do with my top boots and smallsword for the now I'd reckon.

Ladies... your jewels if you please.

Capt. Bo

[JoshuaRed]

There is something to be said for being a Highwayman. You could base your kit off a Hogarth print, WITH boots...there are no knots to learn, no astrolabes or charts, no "Where's your ship?" comments....

[kass]

Yeah, but what about all those damned squirrels?

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Great points Hawkyns!

I agree that a lot of what is already being done seems to be more Highwayman then Pirate....

There is an interesting group... I think its Tall Paul's group called the Colchester Historical Enactment Society that does a wide range of 18th Century things...

I think its a great idea as they cover Highwayman, Smuggler, and Pirate...

I have posted the link before, but here it is again.... I'll tease you with a picture from their site though.

Here is the web site for The C.H.E.S.

GoF

[gryffin]

Stand and deliver.

Now, hand over all your lupines and no one will get hurt.

[Pirate Petee]

Not the Batavia, but a shipwreck.

"dear mr. Peterson,

The boots showed in the picture are from a ship that sunk roundabout 1625 in the Zuiderzee (on the location where now the Lelystad is located). It was a so called beurtschip, for the transport of cargo and passengers. There is one person in the Netherlands who knows everything about archaeological shoes and boots. You could write him a letter:

greetings

Vie van Steenbergen

Dep.Communication ROB/NISA

[kass]

Well that makes a lot more sense, Petee! Remember that bucket boots were fashionable for 1620s-1650s. I'm not surprised these boots date to 1625. Anyone who could afford them was walking around in boots then. It was a very "poseur" kinda thing to do.

But now I'm onto this idea of being "The Shadow" and shooting evil squirrels with my wheellocks...

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Wow... this is becoming more interesting all the time!

Pete... did you e-mail the Netherlands? I sent my inquiry to the Batavia museum in Australia....

Any way, a beurtschip, is like a barge or cargo boat. The Batavia museum seems to have one that was recovered in 1985. It seems like a fairly small river waterway kind of transport thing... here is a link to the english site.

http://www.bataviawerf.nl/en/nsc.html

Since the job of the beurtschip, which translates apparently as "market-boat" could be to ferry goods, there is no telling who was wearing them and in what capacity...

But since we aren't debating boot use in the early 17th century, its kind of a moot point.

I will have to put the Batavia museum on my list now as its only about 8 hours or so away.

GoF

[Pirate Petee]

Yeah, I e-mailed the netherlands museum, it was the same museum that Charity saw them at. They gave me an address to this Prof./Doc, supposed to be an expert on shoe and boots. I'm gonna write him snail-mail.

[Fox]

Nice one Petee!

Don't forget to ask him why he thinks whatever he thinks, his sources and reasoning will probably be ten times more valuable and important than his opinions.

[Oops]

Not the Batavia, but a shipwreck.

"dear mr. Peterson,

The boots showed in the picture are from a ship that sunk roundabout 1625 in the Zuiderzee (on the location where now the Lelystad is located). It was a so called beurtschip, for the transport of cargo and passengers. There is one person in the Netherlands who knows everything about archaeological shoes and boots. You could write him a letter:

greetings

Vie van Steenbergen

Dep.Communication ROB/NISA

Pure gold, Petee. Thanks for the work.

Since this was a cargo boat, these boots might have been meant for sale to landsmen, rather than being worn by a sailor.

For some reason, I can recall more film and artistic representations of bucket-booted Dutchmen than bucket-booted Englishmen. Were bucket boots more popular in the Netherlands than elsewhere?

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Hey... Daniel... do you want us to refer to you as Ooops or what now???

Anyhoooo

Its kind of hard to say... we are not really finding boots being worn for "fashion sake" anywere in the written or pictorial record for GAoP. When we do find them, it seems to be somebody on a horse or getting of a horse or in some sort of relation to riding.

That being said, the only ones we do have pictures of are the water colors that Foxe and Captain Bo has described... and they were French.

But at least you got boots on a boat.... even though its 60-100 years earlier than we would like....

GoF

[Capn_Enigma]

Since this was a cargo boat, ...

It is easy.

Big thing: Ship.

Tiny things in front: Boats.

..., these boots might have been meant for sale to landsmen, rather than being worn by a sailor.

You did not seriously consider that those kind of boots were worn by a sailor (the guys working in the rigging) for one second, right?

[Oops]

You did not seriously consider that those kind of boots were worn by a sailor (the guys working in the rigging) for one second, right?

Certainly I did. Not every sailor is a topman; there are fo'csle hands, waisters, afterguard, and officers too. I suppose even topmen might have saved such things to go ashore in.

[Capn_Enigma]

... there are fo'csle hands, waisters, afterguard, and officers too.

Those are in ascending rank order servants, NCOs, warrant officers and officers. They are emphatically not sailors.

[Gentleman of Fortune]

Again, I think that this was a smallish (17.5 meter) cargo ship for use in local waterways for the transportation of goods... That is if I am reading the site right.

Here is a picture of the type of ship...

Not sure if you would need boots to go up in that rigging....

But again, its kind of a moot point as we are not debating the merits of boots in 1620 (or at least I wasn't).

But to say that boots found in 1625 have any bearing to what was worn in 1725 is a stretch....

There maybe the ocassional nostalgic person wearing bell bottoms and platform shoes these days, or even a polyester leisure suit, but its certainly not a trend in 2006 fashionwear.

Of course, who knows what will be popular in 2076... but if it becomes fashionable again, I would imagine it will be able to be found in the written/pictorial record....

GoFhttp://www.bataviawerf.nl/image/wijdschip.jpg

[Fox]

But to say that boots found in 1625 have any bearing to what was worn in 1725 is a stretch....

For me, that's the point entirely. Add the fact that those particular boots were not known to have been worn by a seaman, they were found on a coastal trading vessel, and that they're only one pair, and it really begins to throw doubt on the favourite blanket phrase "We know sailors wore boots before the GAoP". Or am I wrong?