Traditional nautical tattoos

[PaulinKendal]

I'm painting a 17th c. pirate figure, and I need some tattoo advice. The only tattoo I have found referred to as suitably old - it dates back to 16th c., apparently - is the words "HOLD FAST" tattooed across the knuckles.


That's going to be tricky to paint, so I'm hoping the forum hive-mind can come up with other suggestions of tattoos that are authoritatively of suitable antiquity. Any thoughts, folks?

[KarlW]

I know a tattoo artist whi is in to.pirate stuff, I'll ask her if you like.
(She's on holiday at the moment.)

[Guest]

Important question, then: is she into real-world, historical pirate stuff, or into Hollywood, arrrr matey pirate stuff?

[PaulinKendal]

There's an issue that a lot (a LOT) of 'traditional' nautical tattoos are probably 20th c.

A ship in full sail (to denote rounding the Horn) may well be suitable, but I've not seen anything to confirm that.

[KarlW]

Important question, then: is she into real-world, historical pirate stuff, or into Hollywood, arrrr matey pirate stuff? :smiling3:

Real world, proper shanties and all.

[Airborne01]

The fouled anchor, the shark, and the buxom figurehead are guaranteed mate! I come from a family of RN and RM and these are universal amongst my ancestors! PS: Crosses/crucifix are not unknown either!
Steve

[PaulinKendal]

That's great, Steve. A fouled anchor certainly sounds legit. I wouldn't be surprised if having a pig on one foot and a chicken on the other is pretty ancient, too.

[Tim Marlow]

There appears to be a lot of meaning around these things Paul, but most of it seems to originate from the nineteenth century onwards. Remember your figure is seventeenth century (1600s), and Tattoos only became common after Cook went to Polynesia in the mid eighteenth century (1768). Your boy may not have therefore had any at all :smiling5:

[PaulinKendal]

Very true, Tim. This figure is simply described "XVII Century".

But its partner figure is clearly dated 1697.


So definitely maybe could have tattoos.

And they're both totally badass, so if anyone would have them, these two would've done.

[Airborne01]

That's great, Steve. A fouled anchor certainly sounds legit. I wouldn't be surprised if having a pig on one foot and a chicken on the other is pretty ancient, too.

That's a fowl joke and rasherly unworthy of you Sir!

[Tim Marlow]

:tongue-out3: That's a fowl joke and rasherly unworthy of you Sir!

The idea being, of course, that as chicken and pig enclosures usually float ashore after shipwreck, the seamen with tattoos would as well……the bit they missed is that the enclosures were made of softwood, which floats, and they were made of flesh and blood, which can float, but rots as well :tongue-out3:

[Ian M]

I was thinking that they would, in that time frame maybe have just had Polynesian art or DIY tattoos.

[KarlW]

Important question, then: is she into real-world, historical pirate stuff, or into Hollywood, arrrr matey pirate stuff? :smiling3:

Though....

[KarlW]

Right, tattooing of sailors really took if in the 18th century, but that doesn't say they didn't exist earlier. There are a lot of people think it became more popular after Cookes voyages, but it was around before then. Most notably amongst those who travelled for the crusades, so crosses would of been popular.
These would of been crude using soot or gunpowder as a pigment.

[PaulinKendal]

What's really, REALLY annoying is that Falmouth Maritime Museum has an exhibition on the history of tattoos on at the moment - and I visited a few weeks back, but didn't properly pay attention! I might contact them and see if I can get a copy of the exhibition programme.

Karl's comments align with what I have found so far - it certainly wouldn't be unusual if my man wasn't tattooed.

And it's been suggested that pirates may have been reluctant to give themselves permanent distinguishing marks, to avoid being too easily identifiable.