A Brief History of Foods: The Chilli Pepper

The chilli pepper (from Nahuatl chīlli /ˈt͡ʃiːli/) is the fruit of plants from the genus Capsicum, members of the nightshade family, Solanaceae.

Chilli peppers have been a part of the human diet in the Americas since at least 7500 BC.  The most recent research shows that chilli peppers were domesticated more than 6000 years ago in Mexico, and were one of the first self-pollinating crops cultivated in Mexico, Central and parts of South America.

Christopher Columbus was one of the first Europeans to encounter them during his second voyage to the West Indies in 1493.  He called them "peppers" because they, like black and white pepper of the Piper genus known in Europe, have a spicy hot taste unlike other foodstuffs.  On their introduction into Europe, chillies were grown as botanical curiosities in the gardens of Spanish and Portuguese monasteries.  Later the monks experimented with the chilli culinary potential and discovered that their pungency offered a substitute for black peppercorns, which at the time were so costly that they were used as legal currency in some countries.

The spread of chilli peppers to Asia was most likely a natural consequence of its introduction to Portuguese traders (Lisbon was a common port of call for Spanish ships sailing to and from the Americas) who, aware of its trade value, would have likely promoted its commerce in the Asian spice trade routes then dominated by Portuguese and Arab traders.  Today chilli peppers are an integral part of South Asian and Southeast Asian cuisines.

Dispelling Some Myths: The Earth is Flat

Once again a recently broadcast popular UK television programme promoted yet another ‘factoid’. On this occasion a throw away comment, on camera, repeated the fiction that people in the 17th century believed the Earth was flat. While the TV show is thoroughly enjoyable this ‘myth’ has been debunked so long ago that we were agog that it was given any credence. Yet, the media, in all its guises, has such a powerful hold on the imaginations of its subscribers that to allow these insidious ‘factoids’ to creep into the popular subconscious we think is unforgiveable. So, in keeping with the theme of this series it is time to ‘Dispel Some Myths’.

Conceiving the Earth as a flat plane or disk has ancient roots, however. Many archaic cultures subscribed to a flat Earth model including the early Greeks (until the classical period [1]), the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period [2], India until the Gupta period [3], and China until the 17th century.

The idea of a spherical Earth first appeared in ancient Greek philosophy of the 6th century BC. Pythagoras of Samos and his contemporary Parmenides of Elea were both credited with having been the first to teach that the Earth was spherical [4]. Although the flat Earth model endured, in the early fourth century BC Plato was writing about a spherical Earth, and by about 330 BC his former student Aristotle provided empirical evidence for the spherical shape of the Earth.

If you are still not convinced the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was spherical, then consider the case of Eratosthenes of Cyrene. Although he was chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria, Eratosthenes is best known for being the first person to measure the circumference of the Earth without leaving home by comparing angles of the mid-day Sun at two places a known North-South distance apart. Eratosthenes described his arc measurement technique in a book entitled ‘On the measure of the Earth’, which has not been preserved. However, a simplified version of the method has survived as described by Cleomedes. He invites the reader to consider two Egyptian cities, Alexandria and Syene (modern Aswan) which he assumes are 5,000 stadia apart. He also assumes the simplified (but inaccurate) hypothesis that Syene was located precisely on the Tropic of Cancer and thus on the same meridian as Alexandria (Syene is actually about 3 degrees of longitude East of Alexandria).

Accepting the previous assumptions, Cleomedes writes that one can measure the Sun's angle of elevation at noon of the summer solstice in Alexandria, by using a vertical rod (a gnomon) of known length and measuring the length of its shadow on the ground. From this it is then possible to calculate the angle of the Sun's rays, which he claims to be about 7°, or 1/50th the circumference of a circle. Taking the Earth to be spherical, the Earth's circumference would be fifty times the distance between Alexandria and Syene and thus the meridian has a length of 252,000 stadia (39,060 to 40,320 km). To complicate things, however, a stadion (pl. stadia) is said to be equal to 600 Greek feet (podes) but the length of the foot varied in different parts of the ancient Greek world. Defining the length of a stadion therefore has been the subject of argument and hypothesis for hundreds of years. For ease, most people assume a value of between 155 and 160 metres, but this 5 m variation will induce an error on any calculated value of between −2.4% and +0.8%. Regardless, if one accepts that 1 Egyptian stadion is equal to about 157.7 metres, then Eratosthenes’ result is roughly 39,425 km, which is only 650 km less than the Earth’s real circumference of 40,075 km.

Knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world being supported by most scholars from AD 600s onwards. By the Early Middle Ages (between the 5th and 10th centuries) the belief in a flat Earth was almost non-existent. Certainly after AD 1400 most educated Europeans rejected the notion.

Despite the scientific facts, pseudoscientific flat Earth conspiracy theories are still championed by modern flat Earth societies. These beliefs emerged among a minority in Victorian times but really rose to prominence from about the middle of the 20th century onward. Some adherents of these groups are serious, while some are not. The serious ones are typically motivated by religion, pseudoscience or conspiracy theories. Today, with the increasing dominance of social media, flat Earth beliefs have been more widely advocated by individuals not connected with these larger groups. Whatever the source, however, it is most important to remember that the myth of a flat Earth is a modern misconception, not an ancient or Mediæval one, and as such really needs to be dispelled.

Endnotes:

1. The Classical period in Greece corresponds to most of the 5th and 4th centuries BC. The most commonly accepted range of dates begin with the fall of the last Athenian tyrant (Hippias, son of Peisistratos) in 510 BC to the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC.

2. The Hellenistic period covers the period of Mediterranean history between the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC and the emergence of the Roman Empire as signified by the Battle of Actium in 31 BC and the conquest of Ptolemaic Egypt the following year.

3. Corresponding to the ancient Indian Gupta Empire that existed from the mid-to-late 3rd century AD to AD 543.

4. Burkert, W. (1972), Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, p.306-308.

Dispelling Some Myths: Spiral Staircases

In an effort to continually improve our knowledge we came across “History…The Interesting Bits!”, a blog by Sharon Bennett Connolly. In October 2019, the blog posted a piece by guest writer James Wright, a buildings archaeologist with Triskele Heritage. In it, James busted several myths surrounding the construction and use of Mediæval buildings. For those interested, the full post can be found here: https://historytheinterestingbits.com/2019/10/09/guest-post-busting-mediaeval-building-myths-part-one/ but what drew our eye was the section on spiral staircases.

Guilty of believing that spiral staircases always twist clockwise, it is time to dispel that particular myth. So, here is James’ account of one of the ten myths associated with mediaeval buildings, and the (often more interesting) realities hiding behind them.

“During my [James’] visits to mediaeval buildings, the information relayed on websites, leaflets and guidebooks or by property owners, custodians and stewards is not always wholly precise. I want to use this blog to gently bust a few of the more common myths. There is rarely any malicious intent in such stories - they are usually the result of the misidentification of a structure by an early antiquarian, amateur or even professional historian. If something has been repeated enough times or put into print it becomes “real”. Once it becomes “received wisdom” the myth is widely taken as factual and repeated often.

Go and visit any castle in the land and you will inevitably find a guidebook, audio-tour, interpretation panel or tour guide stating that all spiral staircases twist clockwise to provide a swordsman’s advantage for the right-handed defenders, who were able to easily wield their weapons, whilst attackers would be at a disadvantage. I’ve spotted this being presented to visitors recently at both Arundel, Sussex and Colchester, Essex.

A brilliant survey of castle staircases, by Neil Guy of the Castle Studies Group, has demonstrated that, contrary to the myth, anti-clockwise spiral staircases were incredibly common. We can find them in the eleventh century at the Tower of London; twelfth century at Newark, Nottinghamshire (pictured left); thirteenth century at Conwy, Gwynedd; fourteenth century at Carisbrooke, Isle of Wight and fifteenth century at Kirby Muxloe, Leicestershire. Many of these castles were built during periods of military activity such as the Norman Conquest or Edwardian invasion of Wales – yet they still feature anti-clockwise stairs.

Some castle gatehouses (for example, Tonbridge, Kent) feature two staircase turrets, one clockwise and one anti-clockwise. They seem to relate to a similar pattern of access in monastery and cathedral towers (such as St Alphage Tower, London) which may be “up” and “down” routes to avoid collisions and jams. Many castles, such as Richmond, North Yorkshire, even feature straight stair passages.

Finally, sieges rarely ended with fighting in the interiors of castles, let alone on the staircases - if the enemy was on your stair, the battle was probably already lost!”

Keep Calm and Carry On

Keep Calm and Carry On was a motivational poster produced by the British Ministry of Information in 1939 in preparation for World War II. The poster was intended to raise the morale of the British public, threatened with widely predicted mass air attacks on major cities. Although almost 2,500,000 copies of Keep Calm and Carry On were printed between August 23rd and September 3rd, 1939 but the poster was not sanctioned for immediate public display. It was instead decided that copies should remain in "cold storage" for use after serious air raids. So, although the Blitz clearly did take place, the poster was only rarely publicly displayed and even then, unauthorised.

Following criticism of its cost and impact, the Ministry of Information publicity campaign was cancelled in October 1939. Many people claimed not to have seen the posters; while those who did see them regarded them as patronising and divisive.

Over the last decade, the popularity of Keep Calm and Carry On grew widely in various media resulting in innumerable parodies, imitations and co-optations, making it a notable meme. Messages range from the cute to the overtly political.

How ironic then that, faced with the COVID-19 pandemic, the sentiments of the poster have been so widely disregarded. Panic buying, stockpiling and, undoubtedly, profiteering seem to be the public reaction. Hardly the much mythologised “Blitz spirit”, but then again today’s leaders seemingly have not acted with any of the planning and preparation conducted by the British Government of the late 1930s. Eighty-one years ago, the lessons from the Great War of 1914-18 had been learnt. As war was once again declared, a host of wartime restrictions were enacted and rationing for all mandated.

Given the message seems to be that many people and, most significantly, the UK economy will be adversely affected, one might have expected a strong government to have acted quickly and decisively. Yet, in an eerie parallel, it seems the lesson from history has not been learnt. Like today, the British government of 1917, in line with its wartime "business as usual" policy, was reluctant to try to control the food markets. It resisted efforts to introduce minimum prices in cereal production, though relenting on the control of essential imports such as sugar, meat and grains. When changes were introduced, however, they had limited effect. A year earlier, it had become illegal to consume more than two courses while lunching in a public eating place or more than three for dinner; fines were introduced for members of the public found feeding pigeons or stray animals.

In February 1917, in yet another foretaste of World War Two, Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare programme began to sink ships bringing food to Britain. Aimed at starving the country into surrender, Britain responded by introducing voluntary rationing. Bread was subsidised from September 1917, with compulsory rationing introduced in stages between December 1917 and February 1918, as Britain's stores of wheat dropped to just six weeks’ supply.

Rationing was an idea that was not a popular with the British public, however. But as the war went on food became scarcer and scarcer, and in 1918 the Government finally introduced rationing. Ration books were introduced on July 15th, 1918 for butter, margarine, lard, meat, and sugar.

At the start of the Second World War in 1939, the civilian population of the country was about 50 million. To feed the people, the United Kingdom imported 20,000,000 tons of food per year, including: about 70% of its cheese and sugar, nearly 80% of fruits, about 70% of cereals and fats, 50% of its meat, and Britain also relied on imported feed to support its domestic meat production.

As before, it was one of the principal strategies of Nazi Germany in the Battle of the Atlantic to attack shipping bound for Britain, restricting British industry and potentially starving the nation into submission. So, to deal with sometimes extreme shortages, the Ministry of Food instituted a system of rationing. To buy most rationed items, each person had to register at chosen shops and was provided with a ration book containing coupons. The shopkeeper was provided with enough food for registered customers. Purchasers had to take ration books with them when shopping, so the relevant coupon or coupons could be cancelled.

Wartime rationing in Britain finally ended in 1954. For the most part the system had been a success. While not exactly an enjoyable experience, and one that was still subject to abuses, rationing did succeed in keeping the population fed. Affecting everyone, it offered a sense of “we’re all in it together”[1], an idea that, perhaps, has value in today's crisis.  Like the war, the COVID-19 pandemic will come to an end and, like the war, there will be casualties.  Yet there is still no reason for us to panic.  While clearly not wishing serious illness or death on anyone, the harsh reality is that the majority of people will be absolutely fine[2].  We would, however, benefit from a little of that Blitz Spirit (fiction or not) in the coming days: voluntary rationing, buying only what we actually need to reduce the strain on supermarket supply chains and their staff, and supporting each other.  Perhaps it does make sense that we Keep Calm and Carry On.


Notes:

1. The truth of that morale-boosting sentiment is debatable. The idea of the ‘Blitz Spirit’ is a fiction, a misconstrued concept where the people’s grim willingness to carry on because they had no other choice was interpreted, perhaps purposefully, into well-constructed propaganda. For an enlightening different view, Shannon Bent's piece on "The Blitz Spirit" is worth a read: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Blitz-Spirit/

2.  Globally, up to 18 March 2020, WHO has been notified of 191,127 laboratory-confirmed cases of COVID-19 infection, including 7,807 related deaths.  In the UK there have been 103 deaths attributable to COVID-19 to date.  Compare that to Public Health England figures revealing an average of 8,000 deaths are caused by influenza each year in the UK.

Dispelling Some Myths: Mediæval Murder Holes

Look up whilst you are visiting castles and you will often see voids in the overhead masonry associated with the defence of the building.  These can take the form of defensive structures built onto the top of, and overhanging, the defensive walls known as machicolations, or a sort of miniature machicolation known as a brattice usually placed to defend a specific weak point such as a doorway (examples pictured right), or holes in the gate passage, known as murder holes.  The popular story is that they were built so that the defenders could pour boiling oil down upon attackers.

Although it is not a myth that these holes were created to hurl items into the spaces below them, including projectiles, large stones and caustic lime, their uses were even more complicated.  They could act as safe observation points from which the wall footings or a passageway could be seen.  If fires were started, either accidentally or deliberately during a siege, the slots could be used to douse the flames with water.

Boiling oil was rarely used, however.  It was prohibitively expensive, not often available in large enough quantities to be effective, would have been difficult to heat (it has a boiling point at 204°C), problematic to transport around the parapets, and could have been a fire risk in itself.  Yet the use of boiling oil has a hold in the popular imagination even though there are only a very small number of scattered references to the use of hot oil, for example, at the siege of Orléans in AD 1428.  There are far more accounts of boiling water, molten lead, and even heated sand (all of which could penetrate armour more easily than other weapons) being used.

For the most part, castles were rarely besieged, and murder holes were mostly left untested.  In fact, many of them were intended to be nothing more than symbols of architectural prestige.

Dispelling Some Myths: Saluting

Sometimes when you are watching a television programme or film, the simplest thing can ruin its enjoyment.  For example, an Army officer walks into a room and a soldier salutes.  All well and good - the soldier is paying the appropriate compliment - except neither man is wearing their regimental headdress.  So what?  Put simply, with one exception (see below), no member of the British Armed Forces past or present would do such a thing.  Unlike some other countries, in the UK, Armed Forces personnel only salute when wearing regimental headdress.

Such a silly mistake, but now a veteran’s professional pride has been irked, and should this viewer take the show’s (or film’s) claims of accuracy seriously?  With their integrity questionable, what other mistakes or historical liberties have the producers taken that, lying outside one’s personal expertise, go unchallenged?

Before proceeding, admittedly the example given did not really affect the storyline, and probably went unnoticed by most viewers.  Yet it is such a simple, avoidable mistake that, in this era of “fake news”, should we allow these little errors to seep into the public consciousness unremarked?  As fellow historians, teachers and re-enactors all know, we spend considerable time and effort undoing the popular, persistent misconceptions permeated by the media’s output.

So, what is a “salute”, where does the idea of saluting originate and what are the (British) rules?

Paying Compliments  Salutes are primarily associated with armed forces, but other organisations and civilians also use them.  When serving British Armed Forces personnel salute an officer, they are actually acknowledging Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State and saluting the rank the officer holds (i.e. the Queen's commission) rather than the individual themselves.  When an officer returns a salute, it is done so on behalf of the Queen.  For other organisations, just as in the military, a salute is a gesture or other action used to display respect.

Roman Origins  Like so many things, the military salute is often thought to originate with the Romans.  The theory goes that, in the Roman Republic when “assassinations were common”, citizens were required to approach public officials with their right hand raised to show that they did not conceal a weapon.  Whether assassinations were commonplace is somewhat contentious, and even if true, what would prevent a citizen with murderous intent simply raising their right hand while closing on and stabbing their victim with a weapon held in the other?  In any case, there is no evidence that Roman soldiers raised their hand as a formal military greeting.  So, forget the infamous straight arm salute appropriated by the Nazis, its antithesis the Hollywood chest thump, or the fanciful grasping of forearms.

There are many Roman-era depictions of handshakes, however.  Such a greeting would certainly preclude either party holding a weapon in the proffered hand, but even so, it is virtually impossible to prove that any Roman hand gesture continued through fifteen centuries and led to the modern military salute.

Knightly Greetings  A more common theory is that the modern military salute originated with knights and men-at-arms raising the visors of their helmets before greeting their lord or comrades.  Such a gesture would have made a person recognisable (and also vulnerable) while at the same time demonstrating that the right hand (i.e. the sword hand) did not carry a weapon.  Although both might be signs of trust and good intention, this explanation is also regarded with scepticism.

Although compelling (and romantic), there is actually little evidence to support the visor theory as the direct origin of the modern military salute.  For one thing, the majority of helmets worn in battles, especially of the 16th and 17th centuries, were types not fitted with visors. Moreover, helmets became rare on European battlefields after about AD 1700.

Tipping the Hat  Be that as it may, military records from the 17th century indicate that, in England at least, “the formal act of saluting was to be by removal of headdress” whereby privates and non-commissioned officers greeted officers, and junior officers did the same to their seniors.  By the middle of the 18th century, however, The Coldstream Guards[1] appear to have amended this procedure.  An order book from 1745 states: "The men are ordered not to pull off their hats when they pass an officer, or to speak to them, but only to clap up their hands to their hats and bow as they pass.”  It seems that, has headdress became more elaborate or cumbersome it was more difficult to simply remove their hats, and there seems to be some concern with excessive wear to headgear.

Quickly adopted by other regiments, the British Army adopted a salute with the palm facing outwards, which is also used by the Royal Air Force today.  The Royal Navy, however, adopted a version with the palm facing downwards.  It is said that, with sailors climbing a ship’s rigging and getting their hands covered in tar, it was deemed disrespectful for officers to see unwashed hands.  It is thought, therefore, that the naval salute avoided showing dirty palms.

The practice may have spread from England to America (via the War of Independence) and Continental Europe (through the Napoleonic Wars).  The Royal Navy's form of salute is thought to have influenced the US military, whose version also involves the palm facing downwards.

Did you know?  One suspects most veterans and serving members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces may cringe (or shout at the TV) every time they witness an actor or extra saluting while not wearing their headdress.  We all know it is pedantry, but if a movie or TV programme, especially a documentary, wants to be taken seriously for its historical accuracy, as many producers and directors like to claim, then getting the basics right is fundamental.

There are defined sets of rules concerning military saluting.  Rather usefully www.forces.net provide all the necessary pointers for anyone wishing to deliver a believable portrayal of a member of the British Armed Forces.  So, directors, producers, researchers, writers, actors and extras please take note:

• Armed Forces personnel only salute when wearing regimental headdress[2].
• Head and eyes should both be directed towards the person to whom the salute is directed.
  If someone is saluted and is not wearing headdress, they must come to attention instead of returning a salute.
• Non-commissioned ranks do not salute each other.  Only those who hold the Queen’s Commission (i.e. officers) are saluted.  So, even though the name might imply it, Warrant Officers, who hold a Queen’s Warrant, are not saluted.  Woe betide you, however, if you do not “brace up” (come to attention) and acknowledge them with an appropriate “Sir” or “Ma’am”!
• The person of lower rank should initiate the salute and maintain it until the superior has responded in kind (unless the superior officer is riding a bicycle because to let go of the handlebars is dangerous).
• If you are carrying equipment in your right hand when passing someone who would normally expect you to salute them, it is generally deemed acceptable to “brace up” or come to attention and acknowledge them verbally.
• Standards, Guidons and Colours, the coffin in funeral processions (if draped with the Union Flag), the Cenotaph and members of the Royal Family (or Governors/Ministers to whom they delegate authority) are also saluted by the Armed Forces.
• Tradition (not regulations) dictates that anyone who has been awarded a Victoria Cross should be saluted.  This is out of respect for them as holders of the most prestigious military award of the British honours system.

And finally  A general ignorance has led to several misconceptions about the origin of the salute that are, sadly, devoid of any historical base.  It is most likely that the military salute began as a gesture of respect and politeness parallel to the civilian custom of raising or tipping one’s hat.  Possibly it chimed with the warrior’s custom of showing an unarmed right hand, a sensible precaution we might agree, but one we cannot be certain of as true.

References:
1. https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm
2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-30679406
3. https://www.forces.net/technology/uniform/how-official-guide-saluting-military

---

[1]  The Coldstream Guards were formed in the English Civil War, being on active service from August 13^th, 1650.  As the oldest continuously serving regiment in the British Army, Guardsmen have answered the call of duty in almost every conflict with British involvement, earning a well-deserved reputation for loyalty and courage.
[2]  On combat operations, the saluting of officers may be dispensed with even if both parties are wearing headdress or more typically helmets.  Commanders are valuable assets, so unless you wish to draw the enemy’s undesirable attention and take casualties, do not salute officers.  Compliments can still be paid but without making things so obvious as to who is in charge.

Dispelling Some Myths: Woad

It is widely held, and oft repeated, that ancient Britons, and most especially the Picts, painted or tattooed their bodies with Woad. We all know that, because depictions of the Iron Age or Roman period on television and film nearly always show the indigenous tribespeople painted in 'mystical' blue designs. It seems, however, that the evidence for Woad inspired body art is not as rock solid as one might have hoped.

What’s in a Name?  The meaning of the term 'Pict' is not universally agreed, and what the Picts called themselves is not yet known. Evidence for the name derives from the Latin word Picti that first occurs in a panegyric written by Eumenius in AD 297 and is taken to mean 'painted or tattooed people' (from Latin pingere 'to paint'; pictus, 'painted', cf. Greek πυκτίς - pyktis, 'picture'). Yet, there is no contemporary evidence supporting the assertion that peoples living in the far North of Britannia, or indeed further South, painted their bodies at all. Moreover, there is equally little evidence for their preferred medium. As Foster (1996) notes: 'Much ink has been spilt over what the ancient writers meant by Picts, but it seems to be a generic term for people living north of the Forth-Clyde isthmus who raided the Roman Empire'.

But what about Woad?  'All the Britons dye their bodies with Woad, which produces a blue colour and gives them a wild appearance in battle,' or so Gaius Julius Caesar reports. Except, in his Commentaries (Caesar, Bello Gallico, 5-14), Caesar penned the phrase: 'Omnes vero se Britanni vitro inficiunt, quod caeruleum efficit colorem', which roughly translates as: 'All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with "glass", which produces a bluish colour.' Caesar's use of the word 'vitro', derived from the Latin 'vitrum', is a reference to a type of glass favoured by the Romans and seems intended to describe the bluish-green colour he reportedly witnessed. It is only much later that scholars began to equate and apply 'vitrum' to the indigo/blue dye produced from the leaves of the indigenous Woad plant (Isatis tinctoria). Today, many modern lexicons now assert that 'vitrum' refers to 'Woad, a blue dye used by the Britons made from that plant' [1]. It seems that Caesar's term simply describing a colour is now incorrectly assumed to mean the actual use of Woad.

Being generous, Caesar may have been trying to describe some form of copper- or iron-based pigment that the local Britons may have used to 'paint' or 'tattoo' their fair skins. Yet even this is a stretch as we shall discover.  It is also worth noting that Caesar’s operations (not really an 'invasion' but a 'reconnaissance-in-force') only extended to the county of Kent and the Thames Valley in southeast Britain. The Romans would have encountered a fairly limited pool of indigenous people from which Caesar could attribute the practice of body-painting to 'All Britons'. Just as important, his Commentaries were written more than 300 years before the first mention of the 'painted ones', or Picts, appear in history. So, despite a highly evocative image, we cannot, in good faith, use Caesar’s account of his short time in Britain as reliable evidence.

Woad: What is it good for?  Lambert (2004) notes that Woad makes a wonderful indigo coloured dye for materials, a safe, biodegradable natural ink, and is also quite useful as a wood preservative apparently. What Mr Lambert is at pains to stress is that it is not good as a body paint or tattoo ink. From his own experiments, Lambert (2004) reports it is extremely caustic such that if used as tattoo ink it literally burns itself to the skin’s surface, and although it heals quickly, an excessive amount of scar tissue can result. Sadly, none of the scarring is coloured blue. Put simply - don’t try this at home! Moreover, reading on-line the experiences of those who have been keen to achieve the 'authentic' ancient British look, both Lambert (2004) and O'Brien (2018) report that as a body paint Woad streaks easily, or simply dries too quickly and flakes off the skin. Rather than producing the mysterious swirling patterns of common folklore, Woad dye does not even seem to stain the skin very effectively at all. The impression one is left with is hardly that of the battle hardened, tattooed and fearsome warrior à la Hollywood’s 'Braveheart', 'King Arthur' or 'The Eagle' (where the pictured actors Mel Gibson, Keira Knightly and Olga Kurylenko all wore cosmetic body-paint). Rather, it is more an image of tear-streaked mascara!

Another accepted 'fact' often cited centres on the belief that Woad would have been used for its medicinal and psychoactive properties. Once again, it is often asserted that the Britons/Picts painted themselves all over with Woad, which put them into an altered state of mind for fighting and equally kept their wounds from becoming infected. Yet, once more, neither of these 'facts' can be substantiated.

As Lambert (2004) again points out, Woad is simply not a strong hallucinogen as some popular accounts would have us believe. At best, it could be described a mild psychotropic, but reports of Woad induced ancient battle frenzy - the original Woad Wage! - or modern festival 'madness' have been greatly exaggerated. All in all, the only real possibility is that Woad might have been used on the battlefield as a possible wound cauterising agent on account of its astringent properties - the same properties 'that makes it a really poor tattoo ink' (Lambert, 2004). That it would be antiseptic in its blue form is also doubtful. To produce indigo, for example, Woad has to be mixed with ammonia, the ancient sources for which would be most likely urine and dung. Woad’s caustic nature and this heady mix of ingredients do not naturally encourage its use as an antiseptic. For those brave warriors, or the foolhardy, determined to use Woad as such, you might wish to consider what you are planning to protect yourself from. After all, in battle, protection against a few scratches that might become infected are probably the least of your worries. Be more concerned with 300 mm of sharpened Roman steel puncturing your soft, squidgy bits! So, if body-paint or tattoos were used, then their 'protection' most likely stems from a belief in 'magically' warding off mortal wounds.

If not Woad, then what?  Although the use of Woad as a body-paint or tattoo ink is highly improbable, clearly our ancestors did tattoo themselves. Perhaps the most famous example is Ötzi the Iceman, who died high in the Italian Alps more than 5,000 years ago. Ötzi is covered with more than 50 tattoos in the form of lines and crosses made up of small incisions in his skin into which charcoal was rubbed. Because they are all found on parts of the body that show evidence of a lifetime of wear and tear - the ankles, wrists, knees, Achilles tendon, and lower back, for example - experts concluded that Ötzi’s tattoos were therapeutic, not purely decorative or symbolic.

The Scythian Pazyryk of the Altai Mountain region were another ancient culture that employed tattoos. In 1948, the 2,400-year-old body of a Scythian male was discovered preserved in ice in Siberia, his limbs and torso covered in ornate tattoos of mythical animals. Then, in 1993, a woman with tattoos, again of mythical creatures on her shoulders, wrists and thumb, and of similar date, was found in a tomb in Altai. The practice is also confirmed by the Greek writer Herodotus c. 450 BC, who stated that amongst the Scythians and Thracians 'tattoos were a mark of nobility, and not to have them was testimony of low birth.'

This was echoed by upper class Romans for whom tattooing was vulgar and associated with marginal groups or foreigners. For ancient Greeks and Romans, therefore, tattoos (Latin stigmata) were used largely as visible signs marking someone as 'belonging' either to a religious sect, to an owner in the case of slaves, or as a punitive measure to mark someone as a criminal. In late antiquity, according to Vegetius (Epitoma, I), the Roman army appears to have adopted the practice of tattooing soldiers, albeit not until after they had completed basic training and found worthy of the effort [2]. Given that the army consisted largely of mercenaries at this point, soldiers may have been tattooed so deserters could be identified. Whatever the reason, the fashion adopted by Roman soldiers spread across the Roman Empire until the emergence of Christianity. Considered to 'disfigure that made in God's image' tattoos were banned during the reign of the Emperor Constantine (AD 306-337).

Where traces of tattoos do survive, they seem to indicate a dark or black pigment such as soot was introduced into the pricked skin. Clearly this would not produce the blue pigment or vitrum noted by Caesar. The use of Copper or Iron has been proposed since both would result in a colour much closer to that sought. Unlike the indigo dye from Woad, the colour achieved with Copper is both 'more attractive and the pigment more usable as either for a body paint or tattoo ink' (Lambert, 2004). But a word of caution before once more going for that authentic look. Ancient Copper would most likely contain traces of arsenic which, if introduced to the skin, and with prolonged exposure might lead to an unwelcome, and rather poisonous, side-effect.

So, what can we conclude?  Did our ancient forebears use some form of body marking? Yes, although the archaeological evidence seems to suggest tattooing was performed for therapeutic or religious reasons rather than as simple body adornment. Was Woad the body-paint or tattoo ink of choice for ancient Britons and their northern Pictish neighbours? Almost certainly not. It performs poorly as a body-paint, is too highly caustic for a tattoo ink, and in neither case would a blue colour result.

So why does Woad-painted Britons hold such sway? Put simply, outside academia few people are aware of the mistranslation of Caesar and that his use of the word 'vitrum' does not equate with Woad. Most, therefore, are happy to hold as 'true' the accepted version of later antiquarians, and so the myth of bodies painted with swirling patterns in Woad is perpetuated by modern authors, documentaries and, of course, that scourge of historical accuracy, film and TV.

While there are more archaeologically attested pigments that could be used, Woad still retains a certain power. There is a certain romance to the vision of the ancient British warrior, striped to the waist, his muscular frame outlined in swirling blue mystical patterns, ready to battle the armoured invader. It is the stuff of legend...or is that myth.

Endnotes:

1. For example, the Wiktionary definition of 'vitrum'.

2. The 2nd- through the 8th-centuries AD.

References:

Caesar, G.J, (58-49 BC), Commentāriī dē Bellō Gallicō (Commentaries on the Gallic War), Book 5, Chapter 14.

Foster, S.M., (1996), 'Picts, Gaels and Scots: Early Historic Scotland', London: Batsford.

Lambert, S.K., (2004), 'The Problem of the Woad', www.dunsgathan.net/essays/woad.htm.

O’Brien, L., (2018), 'Celtic Woad - an Authentic Resource?', https://loraobrien.ie/celtic-woad-an-authentic-resource/
Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, Epitoma Rei Militaris, Book I.