Dispelling Some Myths: about Pirates

Asked to imagine or indeed to portray a pirate, most people undoubtedly will have a certain look in mind. Who’s now thinking of Johnny Depp in Disney’s ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ series of movies or, if you are a bit longer in the tooth, perhaps Robert Newton’s portrayal of Long John Silver in ‘Treasure Island’? It is fine if you are as these fictional characters epitomise what we all ‘know’ to be the pirate look. But the look was created by the movies-makers who, it seems, were inspired by engravings from 17th and 18th century publications. Add to the mix a little artistic or dramatic license and you have the archetypal pirate. So, how much of what we ‘know’ is actually true and what evidence do we have to rely on?

What follows has been inspired by Tastes Of History’s foray into the world of ‘The Golden Age of Piracy’ (ca. 1690 - ca. 1730) at Pendennis Castle, Falmouth and at Dover Castle. Unsurprisingly, our remit was to recreate recipes from the period for visitors to sample at the ‘Pirates!’ events at both castles. We therefore set about discovering what we could about food of circa 1700 during the reign of Queen Ann [1]. If you are interested, the recipes can be found here. More significantly for the subject in hand, we were reminded of a number of myths and misconceptions surrounding pirates that continue to influence the popular imagination. With that in mind, what follows aims to dispel some of those myths.

Pirate speak

International Talk Like a Pirate Day is a parody holiday created in 1995 by two Americans, John Baur and Mark Summers. They proclaimed September 19th each year as the day when everyone in the world should talk like a pirate, greeting friends with ‘Ahoy, maties!’ or ‘Ahoy, me hearties!’ However, the holiday, and its observance, springs from a romanticized view of the ‘Golden Age of Piracy’, a view that is the very subject of this ‘Dispelling Some Myths’ article.

Ask most English speakers to talk like a pirate and they will almost invariably reply with a loud 'Arr!' But this oh so familiar ‘pirate speak’ was actually affected and popularised by English actor Robert Newton, now the de facto ‘patron saint’ of Talk Like a Pirate Day. Yet, strangely, there is a basis in historical fact for using a West Country accent.

Newton is famous for portraying pirates in several films, most notably Long John Silver in both the 1950 Disney film ‘Treasure Island’ and the 1954 Australian film ‘Long John Silver’, and the title character in the 1952 film ‘Blackbeard the Pirate’. Having been born in Dorset but educated in Cornwall, Newton chose to use his native West Country dialect to give life to his portrayals of Long John Silver and Blackbeard. This may have been a coincidence or maybe Newton was fully aware of his native West Country’s strong maritime heritage [2] and that many English sailors traditionally came from the port towns of the region. Moreover, when King James I (& VI) outlawed the piratical practices of the Royal Navy in 1609, some crews fled to the Caribbean to continue their nefarious activities. In doing so, of course, they took their Devon, Cornwall and Bristolian accents with them. So, Newton’s characterisations are therefore completely compatible with the historical precedent. Further, his interjection ‘Arr!’ (meaning ‘yes’ in West Country parlance), with its distinctive rolling ‘r’, mirrored the popularity of the films, becoming widely remembered, and is most likely the origin of the archetypal ‘pirate accent’.

Pirate’s dress code

To understand how pirates dressed or how they may have looked, it is worth dissecting the popular image. Most people’s understanding of the pirate dress code is largely informed by movies such as ‘Treasure Island’ and the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ franchise, or the grittier series ‘Black Sails’. Taking the still below as just one example, overall, the look is good. Actress Keira Knightly’ s character is costume is clearly inspired by Chinese fashion contemporary with the 18th century. It serves as a useful reminder that piracy was not restricted to the Caribbean but was a worldwide phenomenon, in this case SE Asia. The rich embroidery of her coat certainly would have attracted the attention of pirates, as would the expensive silk from which presumably her garment is made. The two actors flanking her, however, are of perhaps more interest for the present purpose as their costume represents the piratical look in popular culture.

Both Geoffrey Rush’s and Johnny Depp’s basic costume consists of a baggy linen shirt typical of the period over which was worn a long-fronted waistcoat. Each man’s outer garment is the knee-length, woollen coat, with its distinctive turned-back cuffs and adorned with buttons that was the height of fashion in the 1700s. As pirates this would have been a prudent choice. Should they be caught, those active in piracy risked severe punishment under the laws of the time so it makes perfect sense that pirates would not wish to draw attention to themselves, but rather blend in with the general populace. While fine clothes demonstrated a person’s wealth, sailors wore practical garments suitable for the rigours of a life at sea. In that sense, both actors are costumed in the everyday, unremarkable fashion of the period, albeit appropriate to their status as captains. That is, apart from two notable things.

Footwear  Firstly, both Captains Barbossa and Sparrow wear what are colloquially known as ‘bucket top’ boots. If unfolded and the tops pulled up, these boots are essentially copies of thigh high riding boots first worn with buff coats by gentlemen and soldiers during the mid-Tudor period. By the reign of Queen Elizabeth I low heels had been added to these tough leather boots to facilitate riding. During the reign of her successor, James I and VI, boots replaced shoes as the most popular footwear among the upper classes who often wore them indoors, with or without spurs. By the 1620s the flared bucket-shaped top and high wooden heels had become fashionable. Boots of this type are stereotypically associated with the Royalist and Parliamentarian officers and cavalrymen of the English Civil War (see right). It is this style of boot that is often seen in the movies associated with pirates and highwaymen. Onboard ship, however, they are not the most practical footwear. Sailors, and thus pirates, preferred to wear woollen stockings and sturdy leather shoes, the latter to protect the feet. In some cases a man might go barefoot to ensure grip on a wet deck, but this was not the norm.

Headwear  Secondly, flamboyant feathered hats like that worn by Barbossa, or indeed the ever popular 18th century tricorn hat sported by Sparrow, were generally not worn while at sea. Sailing ships require the wind to power them and such winds were more likely to blow a man's big floppy hat overboard. No sailor would waste time turning a ship about to look for a hat in the large expanse of the ocean no matter how expensive it might have been. Much more popular were woollen or felt hats to keep the head warm.

On a related note, helpfully neither actor’s hats sport the ‘skull and crossed bones’ motif so ubiquitous on ‘pirate’ hats for sale. The wearing or carrying of items decorated with a skull and crossed bones is yet another nonsense. Remember the pirates were criminals who faced extreme punishments if caught. None would want to mark themselves out in a crowd or draw unwanted attention so, as previously mentioned, they simply wore the clothes that were fashionable at the time.

Oddly most pirate flags that we are aware of do not feature the skull and crossed bones motif as shown above right. The famous 'Jolly Roger', named after the pirates' nemesis Woodes Rogers, the governor of the Bahamas, was not as popular as we might think. Different captains and crews adopted designs to distinguish themselves from other pirates. Most flags, or ‘colours’ as they were called, did feature skeletons, skulls, weapons or other symbols intended to strike fear into their victims. Even the hourglass held in the Devil’s hand on Edward ‘Blackbeard’ Teach’s colours was intended to symbolise how little time one had left to live if you resisted. Yet even these iconic pirate symbols were not flown on a ship all the time. Rather, the colours were hoisted only at the last moment to surprise and terrify the crew of a prize ship. Pirates knew that if the flag was scary enough, then hopefully a merchant ship's crew would surrender without a fight and avoid injury or death on both sides.

Dress like a pirate  Returning to what pirates actually wore, as has been stated, they dressed in the clothing popular in society at the time. However, life at sea was tough, so sailor’s clothes had to be practical and hard-wearing. A felt hat with a brim would have been good protection against the sun’s glare, but remember the problem of the wind. Alternatively, close-fitting knitted woollen hats to keep the head worn would have been preferable. In fact, a study of the friezes surrounding the base of Nelson’s Column in Trafalgar Square, London reveals most of the crew are not wearing any headgear. The officers are shown with bicorn hats, and a few men wearing short top hats, or possibly straw boaters (British Tars, 2017) [3]. For the sake of accuracy, if one wishes to recreate the pirate look, avoid the ubiquitous movie bandanna as these appear to be another modern trope. Instead use the material to create a linen ‘stock’ which would not look out of place about the neck for warmth and to protect the sailor from the sun.

Slops  Undergarments consisted of a linen shirt, a pair of linen drawers, and woollen stockings. Over this base layer would be worn canvas slops. The term ‘slops’ is a 16th century word for wide, baggy trousers with a knee band. They were popular with seamen because they were easy to move in. The knee bands would be left unfastened until by the early 17th century they were cut off giving birth to the seaman’s trousers. These were called slops until 1628 when The Admiralty introduced the ‘slop’ system for dressing sailors. This comprised a suit of canvas doublet and breeches, woollen Monmouth caps, cotton waistcoats and drawers, stockings, linen shirts, and leather shoes. As fashions changed the cotton waistcoat and canvas doublet were replaced with warm, hard-wearing woollen versions cut in the style of the day.

Sashes  Both actors above are wearing long cloth sashes or cummerbunds. These may not have been worn by sailors as they risk getting caught in the machinery of sailing. It is possible that the inspiration for the popularity of these cummerbunds in art and on film may have come from 19th century artists who thought the clothing worn by contemporary Spanish peasants looked ‘piratical’. This ‘look’ would, in turn, influence early moviemakers who dressed their actors with bright red or yellow sashes; these colours chosen because they showed up better than others on the primitive Technicolor film system. Nevertheless, there is a historical precedent for waist sashes in the armies of the 17th century. In the English Civil War (1642 - 1651), officers wore coloured sashes - tawny orange or pale blue for Parliamentarian, crimson red for Royalists - to help try and distinguish themselves from their opponents. For pirates of that era, the wearing of brightly coloured sashes may have been thought the height of sophistication and martial prowess. Moreover, sashes may have helpful in protecting clothing from any sharp edges on the back of the belt, or possibly as a support to the lumber region of the back. Usefully, pistols, knives or cudgels can be tucked in the sash, and its folds can be used to store a money pouch or something similar. So, although the evidence is questionable there is a practical reason for wearing a sash or cummerbund but probably not with a long trailing end.

Earrings  In pictures pirates are often shown wearing earrings but even this was probably not true. While wearing earrings was the vogue for wealthy men during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, by the ‘Golden Age of Piracy’ fashions had changed and this was no longer the case. Earrings began appearing in pictures of pirates in the 1890s, the later Victorian period.

While on the subject of earrings, it is often claimed that sailors wore gold earrings to pay for their burial. The idea seems to be that if the man is shipwrecked or lost at sea, then should his body wash ashore whoever finds it can take the earring (or other jewellery) and give the lost soul a decent Christian burial. There are, however, a few problems with this notion:

• There is an assumption that the body will be found. It is most likely that the corpse will sink below the waves and be eaten by sea creatures (Lewis, 2014). All that is likely to be left on the ocean floor are the bones and inorganic objects such as a gold earring.

• Corpses left in water for extended periods become exceptionally bloated. Allied to the body’s decomposition, it is highly unlikely that the finder is going to be overly encouraged to search a bloated, rotten corpse for treasure. Moreover, if they do have the stomach for it, what is to say that they do not just take the deceased’s gold and leave the corpse where they found it. Some people are just thieves, a bit like pirates.

Eyepatches, hooks and wooden legs

Like earrings, in many representations of pirates, eyepatches make a frequent appearance, as do wooden legs and hooks for hands. Indeed, in Robert Louis Stevenson’s ‘Treasure Island’ Long John Silver famously had a wooden leg, while Captain Hook in JM Barrie’s story ‘Peter Pan’ had a hook replacing his crocodile eaten hand. The key thing, however, is that these are fictional stories, so did pirates really go about their business wearing eyepatches or sporting hooks or peg legs?

It is not improbable. Take the case of a British national hero, Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson. On July 12th, 1794, while Captain of HMS Agamemnon, Nelson partially lost the sight in one eye in operations to capture the island of Corsica during Britain’s war with France. Significantly, however, no portrait of Nelson shows him sporting an eyepatch. Three years later, now promoted to Rear Admiral, Nelson led an amphibious landing to capture the Spanish port city of Santa Cruz dé Tenerife in the Canary Islands. As he stepped ashore, Nelson was hit in the right arm by a musket ball which fractured his humerus in multiple places. He was rowed back to HMS Theseus where the ship’s surgeon, Thomas Eshelby, amputated most of his ruined arm. Despite this within half an hour, Nelson had returned to issuing orders to his captains. Before his death at the Battle of Trafalgar (October 21st, 1805), the one-armed, partially sighted Nelson fought in the Battle of the Nile (August 1st, 1798), the Neopolitan Campaign (1799), the Siege of Malta (1800), the Battle of Copenhagen (April 2nd, 1801), and the Trafalgar Campaign (1803-1805). So, despite his disabilities, Nelson pursued an active naval career. But would this be the same for ordinary seamen or pirates?

If your intention is to terrify your opponent into surrendering without a fight, then which is more frightening: an eyepatch covering a wound, or the visible scars surrounding a gapping eye socket? Arguably the latter but regardless, the loss of an eye can affect depth perception which is rather necessary for a crewman to safely function aboard ship. Likewise, anyone disabled from the loss of a hand or leg would be far less useful crewing a ship. Essentially, it was much better for all concerned to compensate or pension off the injured man. Indeed, from the pirates' own Articles, such as those of Henry Morgan, we know the levels of compensation paid to injured crewmen:

• Loss of a right arm - six hundred pieces of eight, or six slaves.

• Loss of a left arm - five hundred pieces of eight, or five slaves.

• Loss of a right leg - five hundred pieces of eight, or five slaves.

• Loss of the left leg - four hundred pieces of eight, or four slaves.

• Loss of an eye - one hundred pieces of eight, or one slave.

• Loss of a finger of the hand - the same reward as for the eye.

So, where did the idea for eyepatches and prosthetic limbs come from? To our modern sensibilities it is a rather a disturbing tale involving the sailors residing at the Royal Naval Hospital Greenwich in London, a retirement home and nursing home for former members of the Royal Navy. Known as the Greenwich Pensioners, they were the naval equivalent of the Army’s Chelsea Pensioners. Like their contemporaries at Chelsea, the residents were bound by militarised rules and regulations and wore a uniform of tricorne hats and frock coats, albeit in blue (see right).

During the 18th and 19th centuries it was fashionable for the well-to-do to visit hospitals such as the one at Greenwich or the more infamous Bethlem Royal Hospital, a psychiatric hospital for those pronounced insane (and popularly known as Bedlam). Visits by friends and relatives should come as no surprise, but hospitals also opened their doors to public and casual visitors with no connection to the residents. Today the idea of displaying injury or madness as a form of public exhibition is often considered the most scandalous feature of such hospitals, especially Bedlam. Yet, the hospital administrators actively encouraged ‘people of note and quallitie’, namely the educated, wealthy and well-bred, to visit. At the time there existed a rather elite and idealised model of charity and moral benevolence. This relied on the spectacle of the grievously wounded (or in Bedlam’s case, the insane) to excite compassion in the viewer to fuel fund-raising and to elicit donations, benefactions and legacies. Thus, visitors to the Royal Naval Hospital may well have seen men grievously wounded in battle wearing early forms of prosthetic limbs, such as carved wooden legs, or eyepatches to conceal severe facial injuries all of which were, in reality, intended to preserve the sailors’ dignity. It should not be surprising, therefore, that these images were translated into the works of fiction by authors such as Stevenson, Barrie and others.

Swords

In many of the early pirate films the weapon of choice seemed to be the long-bladed rapier perfect for dramatic, swashbuckling duels [4]. Such weapons may have been the military fashion of the Elizabethan privateer, but by the ‘Golden Age of Piracy’ they were superseded by the more practical cutlass. The two 18th century examples shown right were relatively short-bladed, single-edged weapons ideal for use in hand-to-hand fighting onboard ship. Wielding a longer sword on a crowded deck or in the close confines below deck, or near rigging risked it becoming easily snagged. A man so disarmed would be in grave danger.

Treasure, plunder and booty

In almost all stories and films pirate treasure is depicted as gold and silver, whether coins or tableware, or gemstones and jewellery. While pirates may have hoped to capture glittering prizes of gold and jewels, they were more likely to steal goods like sugar and spices. Such plunder could be sold to make money or swopped for other goods. Few people would have questioned were such things came from if they could be bought at a good price.

• Sugar from the Caribbean had a very high value and could easily be sold to merchants for a profit.

• Spices from the East were popular in Europe and America as both food and medicine so they too were prized by pirates.

• Tobacco was one of the common goods shipped from America to be sold in Europe making it an attractive target for pirates. 

Pirate parrots

The image of Robert Newton’s Long John Silver shown above includes the ever-present parrot (in movies at least). While parrots caught in the tropics may well have been a colourful and saleable ‘treasure’ - there was a trade in exotic pets throughout the age of piracy - they are no accounts of them being kept as pets. As for a pirate carrying one on his shoulder, it is worth remembering that birds are no respecters of fashion so just think of the guano spattered down the back of one’s frock coat.

So, while parrots were not pets as portrayed in the movies, they may have onboard as trading cargo and, given that they are colourful, intelligent birds, crews may have been glad to have them around for a little entertainment on long, dull voyages. As for other animals being onboard ship, livestock would have been kept as a source of fresh food, some ships may have kept cats for rodent control and at least one crew is recorded as having a pet dog. The story goes that, having finished careening their ship [5] on an island, the crew left the ship's dog on the beach. The animal was spotted running up and down the sand, but it took several hours for the crew to turn the ship about and rescue the dog.

Treasure Maps

Pirates buried their treasure and made maps to lead them back to the right spot. Burying treasure was so rare, in fact we are only aware of one instance where treasure may have been buried, that it is simply safer to say it did not happen. As with so much pirate related knowledge, treasure maps were a literary invention in stories like Robert Louis Stevenson's ‘Treasure Island’.

Several treasure maps with strange drawings have been found that are said to have been made by the Scottish-born pirate Captain William Kidd. Treasure hunters have tried to use them to find the location of Kidd's plunder. One theory is that Kidd's treasure is buried in the 'Money Pit', a mysterious hole on Oak Island which is situated off the coast of Nova Scotia, Canada. Some people have spent a very long time and millions of pounds exploring the Oak Island 'Money Pit' but no treasure has yet been found. If it was ever buried there, Kidd probably recovered it during his lifetime.

Walking the plank

Forcing a victim to 'walk the plank' and plunge overboard into shark infested waters is yet another dramatic invention. it is claimed that the pirate Bartholomew ‘Black Bart’ Roberts once made someone walk the plank in the Caribbean, but it’s probably not true and planks were most likely never used. Why would pirates bother with such an elaborate means of finishing off their victims when it would be far easier to shoot, stab or hang people to get rid of them. That said, there may be a grain of truth that when pirates threw a victim into the sea they called out: ’You’re free to walk home!’

The Black Spot

With piratical black humour in mind, the Black Spot was another fiction invented by Robert Louis Stevenson for his novel ‘Treasure Island’. In the book, pirates are presented with a ‘black spot’ to officially pronounce a verdict of guilt or judgment. It supposedly consisted of a circular piece of paper or card, with one side blackened while the other side bears a message, that was placed in the hand of the accused. It was a source of much fear because it meant the pirate was to be deposed as leader, by force if necessary - or else killed outright. But, as with ‘walking the plank’, why go to such theatrical lengths when one could deliver swift, summary justice.

References:

British Tars 1740-1790, (2017), ‘Canvas hats’, www.britishtars.com, Available online (accessed September 10th, 2022).

Lewis, T., (2014), ‘What Happens to a Dead Body in the Ocean?’, LiveScience.com, Available online (accessed September 10th, 2022).

Endnotes:

1. If you have seen the film ‘The Favourite’ starring Oliva Coleman and Rachel Weisz, then that is the period we are talking about.

2. The West Country has had a strong maritime heritage for many centuries. Fishing was the main industry (and smuggling a major unofficial one) that was served by several major ports. As a result, a West Country dialect in general, and Cornish dialect in particular, may have been a major influence on generalised British nautical speech.

3. The Battle of Trafalgar took place on October 21st, 1805. At that time there is some evidence that sailors may have worn a brimmed straw boater known as a ‘tarpaulin’ hat. Although made of straw, tarpaulin hats were coated in a weatherproof seal of black tar, pitch, or paint. It is often asserted that this is where the nickname ‘Jack Tar’ for sailors derives. and Undeniably sailors were referred to as ‘tars’, but tar is ubiquitous on sailing ships and need not come from hats alone. There are numerous advertisements for runaways that refer to sailors with clothing covered in tar. Was this intentionally applied for waterproofing, or was it just the result of working on a ship? (British Tars, 2017)

4. Actors in these movies were trained by, and the fight sequences choreographed by, fencing masters familiar with modern sport fencing using a foil or an épée. Applying the techniques and style of sport fencing to fight sequences with rapiers or long, thin-bladed swords made sense.

5. Seaweed and barnacles grew rapidly on the keels of ships greatly reducing their speed and manoeuvrability. Worse, worms bored tiny holes through the ship’s timbers that, if left unchecked, could eventually sink the vessel. Pirate crews solved these problems by regular ‘careening’, which beaching the ship to clean and repair the hull.

A Brief History of Foods: Sugar

Sugar is one of the world’s oldest documented commodities, and at one time it was so valuable that people kept it safe under lock and key (The Sugar Assoc.).

While chewing sugar cane for its natural sweet taste was likely done in prehistory, the first indications of the domestication of sugar cane were around 8000 BC in Papua New Guinea. From then on, between 8000 BC and AD 600, sugar cane production spread across Southeast Asia, China and India via seaborne traders (The Sugar Assoc.).

From The Sugar Association’s information, we can produce a map of the world showing where and approximately when either sugar cane or sugar beet was first introduced.

Early Sugarcane cultivation

India’s climate was proved to be perfect for cultivating sugarcane. Around AD 350 a way was devised to crystalize the liquid sucrose within sugarcane into a more portable form. With this exclusive ‘sweet spice’, India started its profitable trade with surrounding countries, spreading the knowledge about sugar production wherever they went, on sea trading ships or by land caravans to the Middle East or China. Both of those areas quickly learned everything to know about sugar and adopted it into their cuisine and culture. By AD 650 China had their plantations of sugarcane.

Medieval Era and Sugar

The secret of sugar production was discovered during the widescale expansion of Islam in the 7th century AD. When Persia was invaded in AD 642 the Arabs found sugarcane being grown and learnt how sugar was made. As the expansion continued sugar production was established in the lands they conquered including North Africa and Spain.

During the Arab Agricultural Revolution, a Muslim chemist substantially improved sugarcane’s manufacturing process leading to sugar being adopted into Middle Eastern cuisine. By contrast the kingdoms of Mediæval Europe had little or no access to sugar. Then, beginning in the 11th century, a series of crusades were launched into the Holy Land whereupon the West’s warriors first encountered ‘sweet salt’. With their conclusion, sugar was finally brought back to Europe, but access to this incredibly expensive product remained the preserve of monarchs, the nobility and only the wealthiest citizens. Sugar was first recorded in England in 1099. Unsurprisingly, the lucrative profits to be made importing sugar saw more and more European traders heading to the Middle East, most notably the Venetians but also Italian and Spanish merchants. Sugar remained a luxury item such that in AD 1319 it cost ‘two shillings a pound’ in London which, according to sucrose.com, equates to about US$100 per kilo at today's prices. The 14th and 15th centuries saw a rise in European sugar production in Cyprus, the Kingdom of Castile (Valencia), Andalusia, the Algarve and in Madeira (Portugal).

Sugar in the New World

Having ‘discovered the ‘New World’, it is recorded that in 1493 Christopher Columbus took sugarcane plants to the Caribbean. There the climate was highly advantageous for its growth and a fledgling industry was quickly established. By 1501, sugar was being produced on the island of Hispaniola (Cuba), and in short order over 2,800 sugar mills were established in Brazil in the coastal areas, Santa Catarina Island, Demarara, and Surinam. The demand for so many mills to meet sugar production needs led to the development of new industrial processes and an increase in iron manufacturing in the region. By the mid-1600s sugar production had spread across Spanish, French and Dutch lands in the New World resulting in a price drop and for sugar to finally become more widely available on the tables of more Europeans.

By 1750 there were 120 sugar refineries operating in Britain, but their combined output was only 30,000 tons per annum. As a consequence, sugar remained a luxury and with such vast profits to be made sugar was called ‘white gold’. Unsurprisingly, governments recognised significant revenues were to be made from sugar and taxed it highly. In Britain, for instance, the sugar tax in 1781 raised £326,000, a figure that had grown by 1815 to £3,000,000 (sucrose.com). High taxation kept prices artificially high until 1874 when the British government, under Prime Minister Gladstone, abolished the tax and brought sugar prices within the means of the ordinary citizen.

As sugar production increased in the North American colonies held by the French and the British, the need to acquire a new and larger workforce heralded the age of slavery. Working on sugarcane plantations was hard and dangerous and resulted in a high mortality rate amongst Native American and African slaves and consequent deaths of over 3 million people (sugarhistory,net). From the inception of the slave trade over 4 million African slaves were shipped to the British West Indies. Full emancipation for all enslaved people throughout the British Empire and its colonies was legally granted on August 1st, 1838 [1]. Before this, the high influx of slaves had made Caribbean the largest worldwide producer of sugar. Low prices of sugar from Guadaloupe, Barbados, Jamaica and Saint-Domingue (modern day Haiti) effectively ended the sugar trade between Europe and India in 18th century. By the century’s end the price of sugar had dropped to such levels that it became available to nearly everyone, everywhere in the world.

Introduction of Beet sugar

By the mid-1700s German scientists and chemist Andreas Marggraf had identified sucrose in beet root. Soon after Franz Achard built the first sugar beet processing factory in modern day Poland. Undoubtedly to protect the interests of sugarcane plantations, sugar beet remained largely a curiosity until the first quarter of the 19th century and the Napoleonic Wars. When Britain blockaded sugar imports to continental Europe, the French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte was forced to implement the local production of sugar, eventually managing to produce 30% of European sugar from beet. Thus began a trend away from sugarcane to sugar beet whereby the latter replaced the former as the main source of sugar on continental Europe by 1880. In Britain, its historic links to sugarcane delayed the introduction of beet sugar to England until the First World War when Britain's sugar imports were threatened.

References:

Sugar Knowledge International Ltd, ‘How Sugar is Made - the History’, www.sucrose.com, Available online (accessed August 24th, 2022).

Sugar History, (2022), ‘History of Sugar’, www.sugarhistory.net, Available online (accessed August 24th, 2022).

The Sugar Association, ‘History of Sugar’, www.sugar.org, Available online (accessed August 24th, 2022).

Endnotes:

1. After over twenty years of campaigning, the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed by the British Parliament in 1807. The Act made it illegal to buy and sell enslaved people throughout the British colonies. The act did not end the use of enslaved labour across the British Empire. Plantation owners were still able to use their existing enslaved labour force meaning that some people in the Caribbean, and elsewhere in the British Empire, remained enslaved. The abolition of enslavement in the British Empire was not wholly achieved until 26 years later with the signing into law of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. Yet protecting profit remained a crucial factor in what happened next. Plantation owners across the British Empire received a share of £20 million, (around £17 billion in today's money) in compensation. In contrast, the newly emancipated people received no compensation and were forced into a new apprenticeship scheme, which tied them to their plantations for up to six further years. In reality, little had changed for enslaved people.

Dispelling Some Myths: Cleopatra the 'African' Queen

On August 17th, 2022 the Trimontium Trust (@TrimontiumTrust) reminded Twitter users that Queen Cleopatra of Egypt committed suicide on August 10th or 12th, 30 BC. To conclude the tweet, shown right, it was asked ‘Who is your favourite Cleopatra on the screen?’

The Egyptian queen has been the subject of numerous Hollywood movies over the last 100 years. The earliest the author is aware of is ‘Cléopâtre’ an 1899 French drama film directed by Georges Méliès [1]. Jeanne d'Alcy became the first actress in history to play Cleopatra VII in the cinema. It is also notable as one of the first horror films made where, during a desecration of Cleopatra's tomb, the queen's mummy is burned only for her ghost to reappear from the smoke. Significantly, the film set a benchmark for subsequent interpretations of the Queen as French born Jeanne d'Alcy was the first of many white women to play the role.

Over the following century the enigmatic Queen of the Nile has been played in movies by actresses such as Claudette Colbert, Vivien Leigh, and, most famously, Elizabeth Taylor. Sadly, the one thing these actresses all had in common, other than the eponymous role, was that they were all white, Caucasian women. Perhaps Hollywood thought kohl eyeliner and a black wig were the only things needed to transform any white actress into the Queen of Egypt. On television, however, some effort to move away from this movie trope has been notable in some documentaries and drama series. In 1999, for example, Chilean actress Leonor Varela stepped into the role for the US television miniseries ‘Cleopatra’. Casting an olive-skinned woman marked a degree of progress, but Varela’s version of the queen has largely been forgotten. Six years later, HBO’s ‘Rome’ series (2005) saw the queen played by Lyndsey Marshal who, although British, definitely had a more ‘Mediterranean’ complexion.

Revelation  Then, in 2009, a team of archaeologists found the skeletal remains of a woman they considered to be Princess Arsinoe, Cleopatra’s sister [2]. The researchers believe the remains, found in an octagon-shaped tomb in Ephesus, Turkey, indicate that the mother of both princesses had an ‘”African” skeleton’ (BBC News, 2009). According to Hilke Thuer of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, who made the discovery: ‘That Arsinoe had an African mother is a real sensation which leads to a new insight on Cleopatra’s family and the relationship of the sisters Cleopatra and Arsinoe.’

The discovery fuelled arguments calling into question the long-held acceptance that Cleopatra was ethnically Greek. As far as most historians are concerned she was a descendant of Ptolemy I Soter, the Macedonian general who ruled Egypt (reigned 305/304 to 282 BC) after the death of Alexander the Great. In essence her families’ ancestry was Macedonian which, in turn, would strongly suggest that Cleopatra most likely had an olive-skinned Mediterranean Greek appearance. Yet, the 2009 discovery has led some, most notably on the internet, to vociferously claim that she was in fact a black African. Are they correct?

The docudrama  The BBC’s ‘Cleopatra: Portrait of a Killer’ was broadcast in the UK on March 23rd, 2009. The ‘documentary’ sets out the evidence purportedly proving the skeleton recovered in an octagon-shaped tomb in Ephesus was that of princess Arsinoe. As is so predictable of such programmes it is highly dramatized. In docudrama scenes actors portray the main historical characters while presenter Neil Oliver, doing what he does best, regales the audience with the sensational story of intrigue that involved Julius Caesar (played by Daniel Pellean), Cleopatra (Camelia ben Sakour), her brothers, and her sister Arsinoe (Karima Gouit). For the most part the ‘documentary’ really only retells the story of Cleopatra’s rise to power. If it was stripped of all the interpretative drama scenes, then the remaining archaeological science sequences would leave the viewing time at little more than 15 minutes. But critiquing the production is not the focus. Rather, let us look at the scientific evidence behind the discovery as revealed in the film.

Osteoarchaeology  Dr Fabian Kanz of the Medical University of Vienna had examined the near complete skeleton. From his analysis he determined the skeleton was of a petite female aged approximately between 15 and 18 years old. Carbon dating revealed the young woman had died sometime between 200 BC and 20 BC which, although a window of almost two centuries, did tentatively place the skeleton in Cleopatra’s lifetime (69 BC to 30 BC).

Unfortunately for Dr Kanz the skull had been removed from Turkey by earlier archaeologists and sent to Germany in the 1920s. It was subsequently lost in the chaos of the Second World War, but fortuitously the skull had been photographed and its dimensions recorded. Using this detailed information, a team from the Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification at the University of Dundee led by Caroline Wilkinson [3] were able to reconstruct the deceased’s skull. Dr Wilkinson noted that the morphology [4] of the subject’s eye sockets was indeed consistent with the age calculated by Dr Kanz - a young female. Significantly for the current discussion, her colleague, Dr Chris Rynn noted: ‘She had a very prominent nasal root, kind of like ancient Greek sculpture, that kind of classical nose shape.’ The emphasis is the author’s, but the nose was described as ‘distinct and very straight’, and to the experts a strong indicator of ancient Greek ancestry.

Discussing the shape of the skull, Dr Caroline Wilkinson stated: ‘The distance from the forehead to the back of the skull is long in relation to the overall height of the cranium, and that is something you see quite frequently in certain populations one of which is ancient Egyptians. Another would be black African groups will also show that characteristic. This one certainly looks more white European, but it has this long head shape. It could suggest a mixture of ancestry.’

It is suspected that the shape of the skull and its association with black African groups was the catalyst for the claim Cleopatra was a black woman. Yet note what Dr Wilkinson actually said: ‘certain populations’ exhibit this characteristic of which one is black Africans and, most notably, another is ancient Egyptians, the very group to which Cleopatra belonged. Moreover, according to Dr Wilkinson the head shape ‘looks more white European’. These two factors combined suggested to the Dundee team that Cleopatra, and by association her siblings, might have been of mixed ancestry. Presumably to prove this beyond reasonable would require DNA analysis to reveal the appropriate markers. Yet even this assumes viable DNA can be recovered from the bones and that the woman’s remains are definitively Arsinoe’s, which is far from proven. All the Dundee team can say with any degree of certainty is that:

• The woman was definitely African (remembering that Egypt is quite clearly in Africa. North Africa to be precise.) 

• She did not exhibit the typical facial features of a sub-Saharan black African.

Bombshell?  Never one to let science get in the way of a good story, however, at 55 minutes into a 59 minute long programme the narrator, Neil Oliver, drops the ‘bombshell’ that: ‘Our revelation backs up the controversial theory that the princess and therefore her sister Cleopatra also had black African blood.’ Not really a ‘revelation’ since, as we have just noted, Egypt is in Africa.

The 3D model of the skull of the lady from the octagon tomb was manufactured. It allowed the programme to reveal a computer generated facial reconstruction of ‘Arsinoe’ created by the University of Dundee team, shown right. It is worth noting that eye, hair and skin colouring on such reconstructions are often speculative, revealing a series of decisions made purely by the rendering artist. Regardless, the result is of a striking woman with remarkable facial symmetry which is often considered a marker of ‘beauty’.

A Nubian connection  From the Ephesus discovery, describing Cleopatra’s ancestry using the terms ‘African’ or she had ‘African blood’ is somewhat vague. As we have already noted Egypt lies in North Africa and thus all the kingdom’s inhabitants, whether royal or not, can be described as Africans. Yet it does not follow that Egypt’s global position implies that the Queen should be considered a black African, with a skin colour and features typical of peoples living south of the Sahara Desert. Such arguments lack definitive proof. So what did Professor Thuer mean when she said ‘Arsinoe had an African mother’? Might this refer to the theory of mixed anccestry?

Let us assume for a moment that Cleopatra’s ancestry did indeed involve sub-Saharan relatives, could the argument be made that the Egyptian royal family had intermarried with, say, Nubians? The Egyptians certainly had contact with the Kingdon of Nubia lying just beyond Egypt’s southern border. The Nubians and Egyptians had a very long and complex relationship where at various points in their histories the Egypt ruled Nubia. Nubians were an integral part of New Kingdom Egyptian society (c. 1532 - 1070 BC).

For example, Queen Ahmose-Nefertari was thought by some scholars such as Flinders Petrie to be of Nubian origin because she is most often depicted with black skin. Others argue that her skin colour actually indicates her role as a goddess of resurrection, since black is both the colour of the fertile land of Egypt and that of the underworld. Yet the mummy of her father, Seqenenre Tao, has been described as presenting ‘tightly curled, woolly hair’, with ‘a slight build and strongly Nubian features’ (Yurco, 1989, 24 - 29.). Yurco also noted that some rulers of the earlier Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 - 1782 BC), particularly some pharaohs of the Twelfth Dynasty, had strong Nubian features due to that dynasty’s origin in the Aswan region of southern Egypt. While supportive of Egyptian pharaohs having mixed ancestry it does not directly follow that Cleopatra’s ancestors continued the practice. 

Ptolemies  Everything changed in 332 BC when Alexander the Great conquered Persian-controlled Egypt. After Alexander's death in 323 BC, however, his empire quickly unravelled amid competing claims by his closest friends and companions (the ‘diadochi’). Control of Egypt was won by Ptolemy, a Macedonian who was one of Alexander's most trusted generals and confidants. In 305/4 BC Ptolemy declared himself pharaoh. Adopting the title was intended to legitimise their rule and gain recognition from native Egyptians. Yet, while they had themselves portrayed on public monuments in Egyptian style and dress, the monarchy rigorously maintained its Hellenistic character and traditions. Alexandria, a Greek polis founded by Alexander, became the capital city and a major centre of Greek culture, learning, and trade for the next several centuries.

War with the Seleucid Empire, a rival Hellenistic state, saw the Greek Ptolemaic Kingdom expand its territory to include eastern Libya, the Sinai, and northern Nubia. In 275 BC Ptolemy II Philadelphus invaded Nubia and annexed the northern twelve miles of this territory, subsequently known as the Dodekaschoinos ('twelve-mile land'). Later, throughout the 160s and 150s BC, Ptolemy VI has also reasserted Ptolemaic control over the northern part of Nubia. Despite a century of family feuds, the extent of the Kingdom inherited by Cleopatra had changed little.

Image  From Ptolemy I to Cleopatra VII the surviving images of the Ptolemies are remarkably consistent retaining distinctively Macedonian or Greek features. That said, the evidence we have for how the enigmatic Queen of the Nile looked is sketchy at best. Carved reliefs of Cleopatra portray her as a pharaoh following the very formulaic Egyptian style (below left and centre. Busts have been identified as Cleopatra but reasonable doubt remains whether they are actually of her. In February 2007, a coin bearing a portrait of Cleopatra (below right) went on display at Newcastle University. Its discovery sparked renewed interest in the Queen and a debate about whether she was really the beauty we imagine. The coin, dated to 32 BC, shows a rather homely Cleopatra with a large nose, narrow lips and a sharp chin; nothing like Elizabeth Taylor. Yet the ancient historians never characterised Cleopatra as a great beauty, and she was not considered a romantic heroine in her lifetime. In his 'Life of Antony', written in AD 75, Plutarch tells us:

‘Her actual beauty...was not so remarkable that none could be compared with her, or that no one could see her without being struck by it, but the contact of her presence...was irresistible...The character that attended all she said or did was something bewitching.’

Conclusion  Leaving aside discussions about how beautiful she was, are we any closer to proving whether Cleopatra was a black woman? From the coin image alone, the large nose seems at odds with the typical features of sub-Saharan Africans. If anything, the ‘hooked’ or ‘Roman’ nose is typical of the facial features of people living in North Africa today, those of Arab descent and, more widely, those people who for centuries have lived around the Mediterranean Sea. If anything the image is consistent with earlier representations of her Macedonian ancestors. 

For those claiming Cleopatra was a black woman, referring to her being ‘African’ provides a convenient grey area within which to speculate. To make such arguments requires a blurring or perhaps a deliberate misunderstanding of the glaringly obvious fact that Egypt is in Africa. Ancient Egyptians were Africans just as their modern descendants are today, and thus Cleopatra was in this sense African. On the balance of probability, however, to describe her as ethnically ‘Greek’ fits both her lineage back to Ptolemy I and acknowledges she shared the typical features and olive-skinned complexion of North Africans and other Mediterranean peoples. The case for the Queen of the Nile being black remains fanciful and, as yet, unproven.

So, to loop back to the beginning, are we any closer to resolving who should portray Queen Cleopatra? There simply is no black or white answer. But if one wanted to be as historically accurate as the current evidence allows then we would argue that actress Camelia ben Sakour (right) set the standard for others to follow.

References:

BBC News, (2009), ‘Cleopatra's mother “was African”', Available online (accessed August 13th, 2022).

BBC, (2009), ‘Cleopatra: Portrait of a Killer’, YouTube, Available online (accessed September 11th, 2022).

Crawford, A., (2007), ‘Who Was Cleopatra?’, Smithsonian Magazine, Available online (accessed August 13th, 2022).

Nittle, N., (2019), ‘Almost all of the actresses who’ve played Cleopatra have been white. But was she?’, Vox.com, Available online (accessed August 13th, 2022).

Yurco, F.J., (1989), ‘Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?, Biblical Archaeology Review, 15:05, Available online (accessed September 12th, 2022).

Endnotes:

1. The film was considered lost during the 1930s until a copy was found in 2005 in a forgotten repository. Madeleine Malthête-Méliès, granddaughter of the filmmaker, said that it was the 202nd film found out of the 520 shot by Méliès between 1896 and 1912.

2. The discovery and its implications formed a small part of the BBC’s hour long docudrama ‘Cleopatra: Portrait of a Killer’ broadcast on March 23rd, 2009.

3. Caroline M. Wilkinson FRSE (born October 27th, 1965) is a British anthropologist who has been a professor at the Liverpool John Moores University's School of Art and Design since 2014. She is best known for her work in forensic facial reconstruction and has been a contributor to many television programmes on the subject, as well as the creator of reconstructed heads of kings Richard III of England in 2013 and Robert the Bruce of Scotland in 2016. Wilkinson holds a PhD in facial anthropology from the University of Manchester (2000), and from 2000 to 2005 led the Unit of Art and Medicine at that university. Between 2005 and 2014 she taught at the University of Dundee in the award-winning Centre for Anatomy and Human Identification, where from 2011 she was Professor of Craniofacial Identification and Head of Human Identification.

4. Morphology is the study of the forms of things.