Iron age tattoo dye?

  • Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
The earliest I know of is soot from burnt animal fat. The Inuit dragged a thread through it and 'sewed' it under the skin. The European mummies that are tattoo'd, and that includes Oetzi, and he's Bronze Age, seem to be done with soot too.

Why ? :)

By the bye, Stuart did a cracking report on his tattoo.........nine hours in a long house lying under a net of human skulls :eek:

cheers,
Toddy
 
Can I ask why you're asking this? I'm a part time tattooist and have seen some horrendous things by people trying homemade tattoos. If you want a tattoo please don't do it on the cheap, it really is not worth it..

I've seen some horrendous things by people trying "professional" tattooists...any Tom, dick or Harry can start up as one in their local indoor market... I go down to my local one to look at pictures of "their own work" to see how bad it gets, it's not pleasant! (But highly amusing in a sick kinda way)
 
I know red ochre works too - I have a couple of accidental tattoos on the soles of my feet as a result of walking around barefoot in a stubble field on red clay.
 
Thanks for the replies.

No it's not for me someone I know wants to know. Not sure if he wants to experiment with it. We are both intrested in the iron age so you never know!
 
There are many reasons to question woad as a good body paint or tattoo ink. Frankly it can not be tattooed and I caution anyone thinking of doing so that it is a foolish and dangerous exercise. I know I've been so stupid as to try it. It is caustic, will cause the wound to not heal properly and it will not heal in. You might get a vivid scar, but it will not be at all blue. I had a less traumatic time than others apparently, as can be seen by an account given by Pat Fish at the bottom of Woad and it's mis-association with Pictish Body Art. Kids, do not try this at home!

It also makes a terrible body paint. You must mix it with something and anything any one has come up with either dries and flakes or smears. I have been told repeatedly that it stains the skin, but neither I nor anyone I know who has used it has had this happen (with the sole exception of someone who worked some into cloth with her fingers, but anyone who has handled things like that knows that anything will get into the frayed skin of ones fingertips for a bit including things that don't stain...dirt normally doesn't stain skin, I have had plenty spend a few days staining my fingers when gardening). Those who have reported staining have mostly been telling tales of things they heard, nothing more than hearsay.

The Problem of the Woad
 
To obtain the blue dye the woad has to degrade, to rett, and then it has to be presented in anaerobic conditions so that it oxidises on the dye medium, whether that be fabric or skin.
I've got masses of it growing just now, I'm going to have a play.
I know that I did dye my skin quite deeply when I used it when I had been using masses of handcream to cure a hack. I wonder if the fat would provide a suitable base? I do remember being told that sour butter was used with it to draw designs for ritual use.

cheers,

Toddy
 
Is there actually any reliable source for the use of woad? As far as I know, it all hangs on a rather dubious translation of one line in Julius Caesar's Commentarii de bello Gallico... According to the link I provided above:

The earliest referencing I have found to woad as the translation for "vitro" or "Glastum" is to the 1695 edition of William Camden's Britannia (Laing and Laing The Picts and the Scots pg .2 ...it is unclear if this is just the edition they used or if it is not in the earlier ones) and this appears to coincide with the start of the "Indigo Wars" (when woad growers and processors were fighting the importation of Indigo, which is the same pigment but cheaper and easier to get out of the particular plant). From what little I have been able to find, it appears that this was first translating "vitro" and "glastum" to mean "woad." Chances are this is actually nothing more than propaganda to help create a sense of nationalistic pride in woad to support the woad growers and processors. However, this is something I have not yet done a great deal of research on.
 
No physical evidence that I know of :dunno:
Somewhere though someone quoted a Greek translation and it was definitely blue that was mentioned, not just designs.
I'm sorry, head gone to mush this afternoon, and I don't recall the source at all.

Our fair skins are inclined to make things under it look blue though........the old men from the first world war with shrapnel bits in their faces and hands and arms looked like blue bits underneath; some of the old miners who'd gotten coal under the skin too, looked blueish over the tiny fragments. My Uncle is nearly 90 and his shrapnel from WW2 looks blue/grey under the skin. There's no real 'bits', just scar sort of.

What about the coloidal silver too ? could that be used ? The ladies I mentioned in another thread who had overdosed on it have been silver grey almost forever it seems.

cheers,
Toddy
 
Well, the other possible translations I've seen propose that Ceasar said something like "All the British colour themselves with glass, which produces a blue colour" (from the same link again) - and I know there's archaeological evidence for blue glass ornamentation, although it's not clear that that's what he meant. (How's your Latin? The original is "Omnes vero se Britanni vitro inficiunt, quod caeruleum efficit colorem." I haven't a clue.)

The "Picts", on the other hand, are described by Claudius Claudianus as marking their faces with iron - although whether this refers to scarification with iron implements or tattooing with iron-based pigments is unclear.

There is also a claim that Pliny the Elder referred to the use of woad in women's funerary rites, but he uses the word "glastum" and describes it as "plantain-like", whereas in another book he refers explicitly to woad as "isatis".

As for the Greeks... Don't you run into the the whole "who were the keltoi" problem? I don't think you can argue that the practices of the people the Greeks called keltoi necessarily applied to the Britons. (Although I'm not sure if we're talking about the Britons specifically here - I think I am, but I can't speak for anybody else.)

All this debate over the translations of classical languages is beyond me, I'm just repeating stuff I've read elsewhere... What we really need are more bog-bodies.
 
Hmmm, well caeruleum is jacob's ladder, not woad. Woad does have leaves kind of like plantain.......think longer versions of basil and not so fragile and it'd be closer. I need to check the grammar; is it sky ?

I don't think it could be taken to mean scarification; we scar white and fine, not raised kelloid ones, as a general rule.
Iron, going by the marks I mentioned on the old men with shrapnel, does leave blue/ dark grey scars. :dunno: maybe ??

Keltoi.......oh heavens, that's another can of worms, isn't it ? Those SIberian mummies though......they had tattoos, from soot. Administered by pricking with an iron needle maybe ?
I only did Greek at school for six months, I found cyrillic a nightmare to add into the mix. :o

The Irish called the Picts, Cruithne; the people of the designs. No idea if it meant their decoration of stones and houses, clothing or themselves.

You're right, we need more bog bodies. :rolleyes:

atb,
M
 
Speaking as an archaeologist who specialises in the British Iron Age - don't believe everything you read!

Caesar was writing for an audience at home in Rome and wished to make his adventures in Britain as daring as possible; after all he'd crossed Ocean and defeated a near-mythic adversary.

There is relatively little evidence for tattooing in the Iron Age, I don't think there's even much evidence from Danish bog-bodies but it's become a stereotype lodged in the public consciousness along the same lines as Braveheart and we all know that was invented by an Australian with a serious hang-up about his country's colonial past and Britain's part in it.
 
Well, the other possible translations I've seen propose that Ceasar said something like "All the British colour themselves with glass, which produces a blue colour" (from the same link again) - and I know there's archaeological evidence for blue glass ornamentation, although it's not clear that that's what he meant. (How's your Latin? The original is "Omnes vero se Britanni vitro inficiunt, quod caeruleum efficit colorem." I haven't a clue.)

The "Picts", on the other hand, are described by Claudius Claudianus as marking their faces with iron - although whether this refers to scarification with iron implements or tattooing with iron-based pigments is unclear.

There is also a claim that Pliny the Elder referred to the use of woad in women's funerary rites, but he uses the word "glastum" and describes it as "plantain-like", whereas in another book he refers explicitly to woad as "isatis".

As for the Greeks... Don't you run into the the whole "who were the keltoi" problem? I don't think you can argue that the practices of the people the Greeks called keltoi necessarily applied to the Britons. (Although I'm not sure if we're talking about the Britons specifically here - I think I am, but I can't speak for anybody else.)

All this debate over the translations of classical languages is beyond me, I'm just repeating stuff I've read elsewhere... What we really need are more bog-bodies.
Vitreum is latin for glass and vitrium is latin for woad both mean blue/green because glass was a blue/green so it's easy to see the confusion.
I doubt that the iron age Brits covered themselves in glass as we didn't have it before the romans came here.

Keltoi doesn't refere to the Brits only a certain Gaulic tribe in europe. We were called the Pretanni which Briton get it's name from.
 
Reply to Glosfisher :)

Hello, come and join the club :cool: that makes at least a dozen of us on here ........mine is fibres, clothing, and a fair bit of ethnobotany :D

On the whole I agree with you, but we do have these tantalising 'glimpses' of the idea of colouring people in designs. Especially up here....and no evidences from actual bodies :rolleyes: or from carved stones.......the Braveheart phenomenon is just sooooo bad, I'm still arguing the bit out with actors who were in that damned film who insist that their kit is correct :tapedshut :banghead: :aargh4: but they slap that blue warpaint on everybody they work with :rolleyes: and claim it's authentic :headbang:

cheers,
Toddy
 
I doubt that the iron age Brits covered themselves in glass as we didn't have it before the romans came here.

I thought there was evidence for traded glass beads in Britain from as early as the Bronze Age? Maybe I'm getting confused...
 
The "faince" beads occasionally found in Bronze Age graves were always assumed to have come from Egypt where they have something similar but mass spectrometry analysis has shown that they are simply a combination of sand and copper and may well have originated as a by-product of bronze-casting.
 
Vitreum is latin for glass and vitrium is latin for woad both mean blue/green because glass was a blue/green so it's easy to see the confusion.
I doubt that the iron age Brits covered themselves in glass as we didn't have it before the romans came here.

Keltoi doesn't refere to the Brits only a certain Gaulic tribe in europe. We were called the Pretanni which Briton get it's name from.

He's not wrong, you know. There's a bit of debate about over whether the keltoi called themselves the keltoi or whether it's a title first used by the Greeks. What's interesting is that when they arrive in italy, Roman scholars refer to them too as the keltoi but that may be as a result of reading Greek works.

It's been pretty conclusively shown there's now such thing as a "Celtic " culture and good riddance to the idea.
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE