document_title: Birth flower

question_text: what's the flower for the month of april

question_tokens: what 's the flower for the month of april

text: Birth flower

text: List of birth-flowers[edit]

text: British style[edit]

text:
Month
Flower
Symbolization

January
Carnation[2]
Love, fascination and distinction. Worn on Mother's Day, Teacher's Day, St. Patrick's Day (in green) and at weddings, this hardy, sweetly fragrant flower is also the flower of Ohio.

February
Violet[3]/Iris
Faithfulness, Wisdom and Hope. Violets convey the meaning that you will always be true. Violets come in shades not only of Purple, which is what people commonly think of, but also of White.

March
Daffodil[4]
Spring, Rebirth, Domestic Happiness, Respect, Regard and Friendship. The Daffodil is synonymous with Spring as it is the epitome of rebirth and new beginnings.

April
Sweet Pea/Daisy
Love, Youth, Purity. The Daisy conveys innocence and there are five common types.

May
Lily of the Valley
Humility, Chastity, and Sweetness. Sweetly scented and rare this flower also signifies a return to happiness.

June
Rose
Love and Appreciation, while other meanings depends on each colour. The meanings of Roses can vary from Love, Passion, Beauty and Perfection. The meaning depends upon the colour. For example, Red says love and romance, White symbolizes innocence, purity, and remembrance.

July
Larkspur
Levity and Lightness. Its natural beauty comes in gentle hues with refreshing fragrance. There are different meanings for each colour. Pink denotes contrariness, White expresses a happy nature, and a first love is usually symbolized by Purple. Strong bonds of love are represented by the Larkspur.

August
Gladiolus
Strength, Moral Integrity, Remembrance, Infatuation. This long lasting flower comes in a variety of colours.

September
Aster/Forget-me-not
Patience, Daintiness and Remembrance. This flower conveys deep emotional love and affection.

October
Marigold
Warm, Fierce. They exemplify elegance and devotion.

November
Chrysanthemum
Compassion, Friendship, Joy. Chrysanthemums have different meanings. Red is for Love, White means innocence, and Yellow denotes unrequited love.

December
Poinsettia
Good Cheer, Success. The Poinsettia comes in three colours: Red, White, and Pink. “You Are The Special One” is the message this flower sends.

text: US style[edit]

text:
Month
Flower
Symbolization

January
Carnation/Snowdrop
fascination, distinction, love

February
Primrose
modesty, distinction, virtue,

March
Daffodil
spring, rebirth, domestic happiness, vanity

April
Sweet pea
good-bye, or blissful pleasure

May
Hawthorn/Lily of the Valley
happiness, humility, sweetness

June
Rose/Honeysuckle
love, gratitude, appreciation

July
Water Lily/Delphinium
joyful, fickleness, sweet

August
Poppy/Gladiolus
moral integrity

September
Morning glory/Aster
daintiness, love, magic

October
Calendula/Marigold
winning grace; protection; comfort; healing; lovable

November
Chrysanthemum/Peony
cheerfulness, friendship, abundance

December
Holly/Narcissus
sweetness, self-esteem, vanity

text: Flowers By Month Explanation[edit]

text: Enumerated below are flowers of the month and their special meanings which are associated with specific months. It would be a helpful guide for gifting flowers for someone’s birthday. The language of flowers was introduced to England in the early 18th century by Mary Wortley, Lady Montague, whose husband was Ambassador to Turkey.[5]

text: January: In the north of the northern hemisphere, January is a cold and gloomy month, but in non-frozen areas, many flowers will bloom in the cool weather, and carnation is one of them. The flower associated with the month is Carnation and is said to symbolise love, fascination and distinction. Carnation, which is also commonly called Gillyflower, is found in a number of colors from pink to red-purple.

text: February: This month is associated with St. Valentine’s Day and red roses. However, the flower for the month is Violet. The flower symbolises faithfulness, humility and chastity. Gifting violets in the Victorian era conveyed the message 'I’ll always be true’. The flower is found in shades of blue, mauve as well as yellow and cream. One must remember that an older English name for the plant is "heartease."

text: March: This month is synonymous with the onset of spring (in the Northern Hemisphere). Accordingly, the flower associated with this month is Daffodil also known as Jonquil or Narcissus. The colours of the bloom include white, yellow and orange. A gift of these flowers conveys the hidden meaning of friendship and happiness.

text: April: This month is associated with Sweet pea flower which bloom in a wide range of soft colors as well as two tone colours. It is said to symbolise pleasure or good-bye. In the Victorian era, these flowers formed a part of the bouquet which was sent to someone to convey gratefulness.

text: May: The month of May is associated with the Lily of the valley flower. It is generally white in colour. The flower conveys sweetness and humility. In the Victorian era, it was gifted to convey the romantic message ‘you have made my life complete’.

text: June: Rose is the flower of this month. Though roses are available in many colors from red to pink to white to yellow, all with their own special meanings, the underlying message the flowers convey is that of love and passion.

text: July: Larkspur is the flower for July. With its simple form, feelings of open heart and ardent attachment are attributed to it.

text: August: The flower for this month is the Gladiolus. It blooms in a variety of colours like red, pink, white, yellow and orange. It stands for sincerity and symbolises strength of character.

text: September: Aster or September flower is the flower for this month. It is found in a number of colours – pink, red, white, lilac and mauve. The name of the flower which looks like a star is derived from the Greek word for star. The flower symbolises love, faith, wisdom and colour.

text: October: Marigold or Calendula is the flower associated with October. For the Hindus, the month of October is associated with festivals like Dusshera and Diwali and Marigold, although a relatively recent introduced flower from the New World, has come to be an auspicious flower is part of religious ceremonies. However, in the English culture, marigold stands for sorrow and sympathy, perhaps derivative of its original symbolic association with death in the traditions of Mexico, as in the Day of the Dead, parallel to the Lily in Europe.

text: November: Chrysanthemum, which stands for cheerfulness and love, is associated with the month of November. According to Feng Shui, Chrysanthemums bring happiness and laughter in the house.

text: December: Poinsettia. These flowers are typically associated with Christmas. While considered by the ancient Aztecs to be symbols of purity, in today's language of flowers, red, white or pink poinsettias, the December birth flower, symbolize good cheer and success and are said to bring wishes of mirth and celebration.


document_title: Treaty of Paris (1783)

question_text: who did the congress send to london as a minister in 1784

root

text: Treaty of Paris (1783)

text: Agreement[edit]

text: Peace negotiations began in April 1782, and continued through the summer. Representing the United States were Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Henry Laurens, and John Adams. David Hartley and Richard Oswald represented Great Britain. The treaty was signed at the Hotel d'York (presently 56 Rue Jacob) in Paris on September 3, 1783, by Adams, Franklin, Jay, and Hartley.[6]

tag: p

text: Regarding the American Treaty, the key episodes came in September 1782, when French Foreign Minister Vergennes proposed a solution that was strongly opposed by his ally, the United States. France was exhausted by the war, and everyone wanted peace except for Spain, which insisted on continuing the war until it could capture Gibraltar from the British. Vergennes came up with the deal that Spain would accept instead of Gibraltar. The United States would gain its independence but be confined to the area east of the Appalachian Mountains. Britain would take the area north of the Ohio River. In the area south of that would be set up an independent Indian state under Spanish control. It would be an Indian barrier state.[7]

text: However, the Americans realized that they could get a better deal directly from London. John Jay promptly told the British that he was willing to negotiate directly with them, cutting off France and Spain. The British Prime Minister Lord Shelburne agreed. He was in charge of the British negotiations (some of which took place in his study at Lansdowne House, now a bar in the Lansdowne Club) and he now saw a chance to split  the United States away from France and make the new country a valuable economic partner.[8] The western terms were that the United States would gain all of the area east of the Mississippi River, north of Florida, and south of Canada. The northern boundary would be almost the same as today.[9] The United States would gain fishing rights off Canadian coasts, and agreed to allow British merchants and Loyalists to try to recover their property. It was a highly favorable treaty for the United States, and deliberately so from the British point of view. Prime Minister Shelburne foresaw highly profitable two-way trade between Britain and the rapidly growing United States, as indeed came to pass.[10]

text: Great Britain also signed separate agreements with France and Spain, and (provisionally) with the Netherlands.[11] In the treaty with Spain, the territories of East and West Florida were ceded to Spain (without a clear northern boundary, resulting in a territorial dispute resolved by the Treaty of Madrid in 1795). Spain also received the island of Menorca; the Bahama Islands, Grenada, and Montserrat, captured by the French and Spanish, were returned to Britain. The treaty with France was mostly about exchanges of captured territory (France's only net gains were the island of Tobago, and Senegal in Africa), but also reinforced earlier treaties, guaranteeing fishing rights off Newfoundland. Dutch possessions in the East Indies, captured in 1781, were returned by Britain to the Netherlands in exchange for trading privileges in the Dutch East Indies, by a treaty which was not finalized until 1784.[12]

text: The United States Congress of the Confederation ratified the Treaty of Paris on January 14, 1784. Copies were sent back to Europe for ratification by the other parties involved, the first reaching France in March 1784. British ratification occurred on April 9, 1784, and the ratified versions were exchanged in Paris on May 12, 1784.[13]

text: Treaty key points[edit]

text: This treaty and the separate peace treaties between Great Britain and the nations that supported the American cause — France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic — are known collectively as the Peace of Paris.[3][4] Only Article 1 of the treaty, which acknowledges the United States' existence as free sovereign and independent states, remains in force.[5] The borders of the USA changed in later years, which is a major reason for specific articles of the treaty to be superseded.

text: Preamble. Declares the treaty to be "in the Name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity" (followed by a reference to the Divine Providence)[14] states the bona fides of the signatories, and declares the intention of both parties to "forget all past misunderstandings and differences" and "secure to both perpetual peace and harmony".

text:
Britain acknowledges the United States (New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia[15]) to be free, sovereign, and independent states, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;
Establishing the boundaries of the United States, including but not limited to those between the United States and British North America;
Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;
Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side;
The Congress of the Confederation will "earnestly recommend" to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands and "provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects" (Loyalists);
United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;
Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released; all property of the British army (including slaves) now in the United States is to remain and be forfeited;
Great Britain and the United States are each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;
Territories captured by Americans subsequent to the treaty will be returned without compensation;
Ratification of the treaty is to occur within six months from its signing.

tag: ol

text: Eschatocol. "Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three."

text: Consequences[edit]

text: Historians have often commented that the treaty was very generous to the United States in terms of greatly enlarged boundaries. Historians such as  Alvord, Harlow, and Ritcheson have emphasized that British generosity was based on a statesmanlike vision of close economic ties between Britain and the United States.  The concession of the vast trans-Appalachian region was designed to facilitate the growth of the American population and create lucrative markets for British merchants,  without any military or administrative costs to Britain.[16]  The point was the United States would become a major trading partner. As the French foreign minister Vergennes later put it, "The English buy peace rather than make it".[2]  Vermont was included within the boundaries because the state of New York insisted that Vermont was a part of New York, although Vermont was then under a government that considered Vermont not to be a part of the United States.[17]

text: Privileges that the Americans had received from Britain automatically when they had colonial status (including protection from pirates in the Mediterranean Sea; see: the First Barbary War and the Second Barbary War) were withdrawn. Individual states ignored federal recommendations, under Article 5, to restore confiscated Loyalist property, and also ignored Article 6  (e.g., by confiscating Loyalist property for "unpaid debts"). Some, notably Virginia, also defied Article 4 and maintained laws against payment of debts to British creditors. The British often ignored the provision of Article 7  about removal of slaves.[18]

text: The actual geography of North America turned out not to match the details used in the treaty. The Treaty specified a southern boundary for the United States, but the separate Anglo-Spanish agreement did not specify a northern boundary for Florida, and the Spanish government assumed that the boundary was the same as in the 1763 agreement by which they had first given their territory in Florida to Britain. While that West Florida Controversy continued, Spain used its new control of Florida to block American access to the Mississippi, in defiance of Article 8.[19] The treaty stated that the boundary of the United States extended from the "most northwesternmost point" of the Lake of the Woods (now partly in Minnesota, partly in Manitoba, and partly in Ontario) directly westward until it reached the Mississippi River.  But in fact the Mississippi does not extend that far northward; the line going west from the Lake of the Woods never intersects the river.

text: Great Britain violated the treaty stipulation that they should relinquish control of forts in United States territory "with all convenient speed." British troops remained stationed at six forts in the Great Lakes region, plus two at the north end of Lake Champlain. The British also built an additional fort in present-day Ohio in 1794, during the Northwest Indian War. They found justification for these actions in the unstable and extremely tense situation that existed in the area following the war, in the failure of the United States government to fulfill commitments made to compensate loyalists for their losses, and in the British need for time to liquidate various assets in the region.[20] All posts were relinquished peacefully through diplomatic means as a result of the 1794 Jay Treaty. They were:

text:
Name

Present day location

Fort au Fer

Lake Champlain – Champlain, New York

Fort Dutchman's Point

Lake Champlain – North Hero, Vermont

Fort Lernoult (including Fort Detroit)

Detroit River – Detroit, Michigan

Fort Mackinac

Straits of Mackinac – Mackinac Island, Michigan

Fort Miami

Maumee River – Maumee, Ohio

Fort Niagara

Niagara River – Youngstown, New York

Fort Ontario

Lake Ontario – Oswego, New York

Fort Oswegatchie

Saint Lawrence River – Ogdensburg, New York

tag: table


document_title: Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)

question_text: factors that led to the rise of monarchy in israel

text: Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)

text: Sources[edit]

text: According to standard source criticism, a number of distinct source texts were spliced together to produce the current Books of Samuel.[8] The most prominent in the early parts of the first book are the pro-monarchical source and the anti-monarchical source. In identifying these two sources, two separate accounts can be reconstructed. The anti-monarchical source describes Samuel as having thoroughly routed the Philistines, yet begrudgingly accepting the people's demand for a ruler, subsequently appointing Saul by cleromancy.[citation needed]

text: The pro-monarchical source describes the divinely appointed birth of Saul (a single word being changed by a later editor so that it referred to Samuel instead), and his leading of an army to victory over the Ammonites, resulted in the clamouring of the people for him to lead them against the Philistines, whereupon he is appointed king.[9]

text: Textual critics also point to disparities in the account of David's rise to power as indicative of separate threads being merged later to create a Golden Age of a united monarchy. David is thought by scholars to have been a ruler in Judah, while Israel, comparatively immense and highly developed, continued unfettered. Modern archaeology also supports this view.[6]

text: Most scholars believe the Books of Samuel exhibit too many anachronisms to have been a contemporary account. For example, there is mention of later armor (1 Samuel 17:4–7, 38–39; 25:13), use of camels (1 Samuel 30:17), cavalry (as distinct from chariotry) (1 Samuel 13:5, 2 Samuel 1:6), and iron picks and axes (as though they were common) (2 Samuel 12:31). The historicity of the conquest described in the Book of Samuel is not attested, and many scholars regard this conquest as legendary in origin, particularly given the lack of evidence for the battles described involving the destruction of the Canaanite peoples. Most scholars believe that Samuel was compiled in the 8th century BCE (rather than the 10th century when most of the events described take place) based on both historical and legendary sources, primarily serving to fill the gap in Israelite history after the events described in Deuteronomy. This gap in the historical record is characteristic of the Late Bronze Age collapse; cultural memories of times before the disaster often became embellished as stories of a "lost golden age", as in the Trojan Epic Cycle.[citation needed]

text: Biblical narrative[edit]

text: Origin[edit]

text:
Part of a series on the

History of Israel

Ancient Israel and Judah
Natufian culture
Prehistory
Canaan
Israelites
United monarchy
Northern Kingdom
Kingdom of Judah
Babylonian rule

Second Temple period (530 BCE–70 CE)
Persian rule
Hellenistic period
Hasmonean dynasty
Herodian dynasty
Kingdom
Tetrarchy
Roman Judea

Middle Ages (70–1517)
Roman Palaestina
Byzantine Palaestina
Prima
Secunda
Revolt against Constantius Gallus
Samaritan revolts
Revolt against Heraclius
Caliphates
Filastin
Urdunn
Kingdom of Jerusalem
Ayyubid dynasty
Mamluk Sultanate

Modern history (1517–1948)
Ottoman rule
Eyalet
Mutasarrifate
Old Yishuv
Zionism
OETA
British mandate

State of Israel (1948–present)
Independence
Timeline
Years
Arab–Israeli conflict
Start-up Nation

History of the Land of Israel by topic
Judaism
Jerusalem
Zionism
Jewish leaders
Jewish warfare
Nationality

Related
Jewish history
Hebrew calendar
Archaeology
Museums

 Israel portalvte

text: According to the Book of Judges, before the rise of the united monarchy the Israelite tribes lived as a confederation under ad hoc charismatic leaders called judges. Abimelech the first judge to be declared king by the men of Shechem and the house of Millo,[10][unreliable source?] reigned over Israel for three years before he was killed during the Battle of Thebez.[11][unreliable source?]

text: According to the biblical account, the united monarchy was formed when there was a large popular expression in favour of introducing a king to rule over the decentralised Israelite confederacy. Increasing pressure from the Philistines and other neighboring peoples is said by the Bible to have forced the Israelites to unite as state following the anointing of Saul by Samuel. The Bible treats the notion of kingship as having been anathema, it being viewed as the placing of one man in a position of reverence and power that ought to be  reserved for God.[citation needed]

text: Civil war[edit]

text: David and Saul become bitter enemies, at least from Saul's point of view, although sources describe Jonathan, Saul's son, and Michal, Saul's daughter, as assisting David to escape Saul, ultimately leading to a brief reconciliation before Saul's death.[citation needed]

text: According to the Second Book of Samuel, Saul's disobedience prompts God to curtail his reign and hand his kingdom over to another dynasty. Saul dies in battle against the Philistines[citation needed] after a reign of just two years.[12] His heir, Ishbaal, rules for only two years before being assassinated. David, heretofore king of Judah only, ends the conspiracy and is appointed king of Israel in Ishbaal's place. Some textual critics and biblical scholars suggest that David was actually responsible for the assassination and that David's innocence was a later invention to legitimize his actions.[13]

text: Israel rebels against David and appoints David's son Absalom king, forcing David into exile east of the Jordan.[citation needed] David eventually launches a successful counterattack that results in the loss of Absalom. Having retaken Judah and asserted control over Israel, David returns west of the Jordan. Throughout the remainder of his reign, he continues to suppress rebellions that arise among the people of Israel.[citation needed]

text: This section of the biblical text, and the bulk of the remainder of the Books of Samuel, is thought by textual critics to belong to a single large source known as the Court History of David. Although reflecting the political bias of the kingdom of Judah following the destruction of Israel, the source remains somewhat more neutral than the pro- and antimonarchical sources comprising earlier parts of the text. Israel and Judah are portrayed in this source as quite distinct kingdoms.[citation needed]

text: Golden Age[edit]

text: Prior to the ascension of Saul, the city of Shiloh is seen as the national capital, at least in the religious sense, a claim that from an archaeological standpoint is considered plausible. Throughout the monarchy of Saul, the capital is located in Gibeah. After Saul's death, Ishbaal rules over the kingdom of Israel from Mahanaim, while David establishes the capital of the kingdom of Judah in Hebron.[citation needed]

text: Following the civil war with Saul, David forges a strong and unified Israelite monarchy, reigning c. 1000 to 961 BCE[14] and establishing Jerusalem as his national capital in 1006 BCE.[15] Some modern archaeologists, however, believe that the two distinct cultures and geographic entities of Judah and Israel continued uninterrupted, and that if a political union between them did exist, it possibly had no practical effect on their relationship.[6]

text: In the biblical account, David embarks on successful military campaigns against the enemies of Judah and Israel, defeating such regional entities as the Philistines to secure his borders. Israel grows from kingdom to empire, its sphere of influence—militarily and politically—expanding to control the weaker client states of Philistia, Moab, Edom and Ammon, with Aramaean city-states Aram-Zobah and Aram-Damascus becoming vassal states.[16][unreliable source?] The imperial border is described as stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Arabian Desert, from the Red Sea to the Euphrates River. Some modern archaeologists believe that the area under the control of Judah and Israel, excluding the Phoenician territories on the shore of the Mediterranean, did not exceed 34,000 square kilometres (13,000 sq mi), of which the kingdom of Israel encompassed about 24,000 square kilometres (9,300 sq mi).[citation needed]

text: David is succeeded by his son Solomon, who obtains the throne in a somewhat disreputable manner from rival claimant Adonijah, his elder brother.[citation needed] The reign of Solomon (c. 961 to 922 BCE)[14] proves to be a period of unprecedented peace, prosperity, and cultural development. Solomon embarks on an aggressive campaign of public building, erecting the First Temple in Jerusalem with assistance from the King of Tyre, with whom he has maintained the strong alliance forged by his father.[citation needed] Like the palace of David, Solomon's temple is designed and built with the assistance of Tyrian architects, master craftsmen, skilled labourers, money, jewels, cedar, and other goods obtained in exchange for land ceded to Tyre.[citation needed]

text: Solomon goes on to rebuild numerous major cities, including Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer. Some scholars have attributed aspects of archaeological remains excavated from this sites, including six-chambered gates and ashlar palaces, to this building programme. However, excavation teams at Meggido later established that these structures are from different time periods. Yigael Yadin subsequently concluded that the stables once believed to have served Solomon's vast collection of horses were actually built by King Ahab in the 9th century BCE.[17]

text: End[edit]

text: Following Solomon's death in c. 926 BCE, tensions between the northern part of Israel containing the ten northern tribes, and the southern section dominated by Jerusalem and the southern tribes reached boiling point. When Solomon's successor Rehoboam dealt tactlessly with economic complaints of the northern tribes, in about 930 BCE (there are differences of opinion as to the actual year) the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah split into two kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel, which included the cities of Shechem and Samaria, and the southern Kingdom of Judah, which contained Jerusalem; with most of the non-Israelite provinces achieving independence.[citation needed]

text: The Kingdom of Israel (or Northern Kingdom, or Samaria) existed as an independent state until 722 BCE when it was conquered by the Assyrian Empire, while the Kingdom of Judah (or Southern Kingdom) existed as an independent state until 586 BCE when it was conquered by the Neo-Babylonian Empire.[citation needed]

text: Biblical chronology[edit]

text: Many alternative chronologies have been suggested, and there is no ultimate consensus between the different factions and scholarly disciplines concerned with this period, as to when it is depicted as having begun or when it ended.[18][19][20]

text: Most bibical scholars follow either of the older chronologies established by William F. Albright or Edwin R. Thiele, or the newer chronology of Gershon Galil, all of which are shown below. All dates are BCE. Thiele's chronology generally corresponds with Galil's chronology below with a difference of at most one year.[21]

text:
Albright/Thiele dates

Galil dates

Common/Biblical name

Regnal Name and style

Notes

House of Saul

c. 1021–1000

c. 1030–1010

Saul

Shaul ben Qysh, Melekh Ysra'el

Killed in battle, suicide

c. 1000

c. 1010–1008

Ishbaal(Ish-boseth)

Ishba'al ben Shaul, Melekh Ysra'el

Assassinated

House of David

c. 1000–962

c. 1008–970

David

Dawidh ben Yishai, Melekh Ysra’el

Son-in-law of Saul, brother-in-law of Ish-boseth

c. 962–c. 922

c. 970–931

Solomon

Sh'lomoh ben Dawidh, Melekh Ysra'el

Son of David and Bathsheba

text: Archaeological record[edit]

text: In contemporary scholarship the united monarchy is generally held to be a literary construction and not a historical reality, due to the lack of archeological evidence for it. It is generally accepted that a "House of David" existed, but many believe that David could have only been the monarch or chieftain of Judah, and that the northern kingdom was a separate development. There are some dissenters to this view.[citation needed]

text: Oded Lipschits wrote in the Jewish Study Bible that

text: the premonarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of "united monarchy" is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past.[5]

text: According to Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman, authors of The Bible Unearthed, ideas of a united monarchy are not accurate history but rather "creative expressions of a powerful religious reform movement," possibly "based on certain historical kernels."[6] Finkelstein and Silberman do accept that David and Solomon were real kings of Judah about the 10th century BCE, but they cite the fact that the earliest independent reference to the Kingdom of Israel dates to about 890 BCE, while that for the kingdom of Judah dates to about 750 BCE.[22] This is supported by Jonathan Tubb, who argues that the story of the united monarchy was fabricated as a Golden Age tale during the Exile. He accepts the historicity of David and Solomon but cautions that "[t]hey must be seen . . . as local folk heroes and not as rulers of international status."[23]

text: On the other hand, while Amélie Kuhrt does acknowledge that "there are no royal inscriptions from the time of the united monarchy (indeed very little written material altogether), and not a single contemporary reference to either David or Solomon," she concludes that "[a]gainst this must be set the evidence for substantial development and growth at several sites, which is plausibly related to the tenth century."[7] Kenneth Kitchen reaches a similar conclusion, arguing that "the physical archaeology of tenth-century Canaan is consistent with the former existence of a unified state on its terrain."[24]

text: Excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, an Iron Age site located in Judah, found an urbanized settlement radiocarbon dated well before scholars such as Finklestein suggest urbanization began in Judah, supporting existence of a Judahite kingdom. The Israel Antiquities Authority stated: "The excavations at Khirbat Qeiyafa clearly reveal an urban society that existed in Judah already in the late eleventh century BCE. It can no longer be argued that the Kingdom of Judah developed only in the late eighth century BCE or at some other later date."[25] The techniques and interpretations used to reach some conclusions related to Khirbet Qeiyafa have been criticized by some scholars, among them Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin of Tel Aviv University.[26]

text: In August 2015, Israeli archaeologists discovered massive fortifications in the ruins of the ancient city of Gath, supposed birthplace of Goliath. The size of the fortifications show Gath to have been a very large city in the 10th century BCE, perhaps the largest in Canaan at the time. The professor leading the dig, Aren Maeir, estimated that Gath was as much as four times the size of contemporary Jerusalem, casting doubt that David's kingdom could have been as powerful as described in the Bible.[27]


document_title: Hemkosh

question_text: who compiled and published the first assames dictionary

text: Hemkosh

text: This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (December 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text:
Hemkosh Author
Hemchandra BaruaCountry
 IndiaLanguage
AssameseSubject
DictionaryPublisher
Hemkosh PrintersPublication date
1900Media type
Print (Hardcover and Paperback)

text: Hemkosh (Assamese: হেমকোষ, IPA: [hɛmkʊx]) is the first etymological dictionary of the Assamese language based on Sanskrit spellings, compiled by Hemchandra Barua. It was first published in 1900 under the supervision of Capt. P. R. Gordon, ISC and Hemchandra Goswami, 33 years after the publication of Bronson’s dictionary. It contained about 22,346 words. This dictionary still published by Hemkosh Printers is considered to be the "standard" reference of the Assamese language.[1]

text: Hemkosh is the second dictionary of Assamese language. The first Assamese dictionary was compiled by Dr. Miles Bronson, an American Baptist Missionary.  His dictionary, published in 1867 at the American Baptist Mission Press, Sibsagar, is out of print. Bronson’s work did not pretend to be an etymological dictionary but contained a very considerable collection of words from the people themselves without recording derivations.[1]


document_title: History of the Puritans in North America

question_text: where were the pilgrims originally bound a. pennsylvania b. massachusetts c. virginia d. new york

text: Puritanism in England (1533–1630)[edit]

text: Puritanism was a Protestant movement that emerged in 16th-century England with the goal of transforming it into a godly society by reforming or purifying the Church of England of all remaining Roman Catholic teachings and practices.[1] During the reign of Elizabeth I, Puritans were for the most part tolerated within the established church. Like Puritans, most English Protestants at the time were Calvinist in their theology, and many bishops and Privy Council members were sympathetic to Puritan objectives. The major point of controversy between Puritans and church authorities was over liturgical ceremonies Puritans thought too Catholic, such as wearing clerical vestments, kneeling to receive Holy Communion, and making the sign of the cross during baptism.[2]

text: During the reign of James I, some Puritans were no longer willing to wait for further church reforms. These Separatists left the national church and began holding their own religious meetings, with many migrating to the Netherlands in order to escape persecution and worship freely. Nevertheless, most Puritans remained within the Church of England.[3]

text: Under Charles I, Calvinist teachings were undermined and bishops became less tolerant of Puritan views and more willing to enforce the use of controversial ceremonies. New controls were placed on Puritan preaching, and some ministers were suspended or removed from their livings. Increasingly, many Puritans concluded that they had no choice but to emigrate.[4]

text: Migration to America (1620–1640)[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In 1620, a group of Separatists known as the Pilgrims settled in New England and established the Plymouth Colony. The Pilgrims originated as a dissenting congregation in Scrooby led by William Brewster, Richard Clyfton and John Robinson. This congregation was subject to ecclesiastical investigation, and its members faced social hostility from conforming church members. Fearing increasing persecution, the group left England and settled in the Dutch city of Leiden. In 1620, after receiving a patent from the London Company, the Pilgrims left for New England on board the Mayflower, landing at Plymouth Rock.

text: Two of the Pilgrim settlers in Plymouth Colony - Robert Cushman and Edward Winslow - believed that Cape Ann would be a profitable location for a settlement. They therefore organized a company which they named the Dorchester Company and in 1622 sailed to England seeking a patent from the London Company giving them permission to settle there. They were successful and were granted the Sheffield Patent (named after Edmond, Lord Sheffield, the member of the Plymouth Company who granted the patent). On the basis of this patent, Roger Conant led a group of fishermen to found Salem in 1626, being replaced as governor by John Endecott in 1627.

text: Other Puritans were convinced that New England could provide a religious refuge, and the enterprise was reorganized as the Massachusetts Bay Company. In March 1629, it succeeded in obtaining from King Charles a royal charter for the establishment of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1630, the first ships of the Great Puritan Migration sailed to the New World, led by John Winthrop.[5]

text: During the crossing, Winthrop preached a sermon entitled "A Model of Christian Charity", in which he told his followers that they had entered a covenant with God according to which he would cause them to prosper if they maintained their commitment to God. In doing so, their new colony would become a "City upon a Hill", meaning that they would be a model to all the nations of Europe as to what a properly reformed Christian commonwealth should look like.[6]

text: Most of the Puritans who emigrated settled in the New England area. However, the Great Migration of Puritans was relatively short-lived and not as large as is often believed. It began in earnest in 1629 with the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and ended in 1642 with the start of the English Civil War, when King Charles I effectively shut off emigration to the colonies. Emigration was officially restricted to conforming churchmen in December 1634 by his Privy Council.[7] From 1629 through 1643, approximately 21,000 Puritans immigrated to New England.

text: The Great Migration of Puritans to New England was primarily an exodus of families. Between 1630 and 1640, over 13,000 men, women, and children sailed to Massachusetts. The religious and political factors behind the Great Migration influenced the demographics of the emigrants. Groups of young men seeking economic success predominated the Virginia colonies, whereas Puritan ships were laden with “ordinary” people, old and young, families as well as individuals. Just a quarter of the emigrants were in their twenties when they boarded ship in the 1630s, making young adults a minority in New England settlements. The New World Puritan population was more of a cross section in age of English population than those of other colonies. This meant that the Massachusetts Bay Colony retained a relatively normal population composition. In the colony of Virginia, the ratio of colonist men to women was 4:1 in early decades and at least 2:1 in later decades, and only limited intermarriage took place with Indian women. By contrast, nearly half of the Puritan immigrants to the New World were women, and there was very little intermarriage with Indians. The majority of families who traveled to Massachusetts Bay were families in progress, with parents who were not yet through with their reproductive years and whose continued fertility made New England’s population growth possible. The women who emigrated were critical agents in the success of the establishment and maintenance of the Puritan colonies in North America. Success in the early colonial economy depended largely on labor, which was conducted by members of Puritan families.

text: The struggle between the assertive Church of England and various Presbyterian and Puritan groups extended throughout the English realm in the 17th Century, prompting not only the re-emigration of British Protestants from Ireland to North America (the so-called Scotch-Irish), but prompting emigration from Bermuda, England's second-oldest overseas territory. Roughly 10,000 Bermudians emigrated before US Independence. Most of these went to the American colonies, founding, or contributing to settlements throughout the South, especially. Many had also gone to the Bahamas, where a number of Bermudian Independent Puritan families, under the leadership of William Sayle, had established the colony of Eleuthera in 1648.

text: Some Puritans also migrated to colonies in Central America and the Caribbean, see Providence Island Company, Mosquito Coast and Providencia Island.

text: Emigration resumed under the rule of Cromwell, but not in large numbers as there was no longer any need to "escape persecution" in England. In fact, many Puritans returned to England during the war. "In 1641, when the English Civil War began, some immigrants returned to fight on the Puritan side, and when the Puritans won, many resumed English life under Oliver Cromwell's more congenial Puritan sway."[1]

text: Life in the New World[edit]

text: Religion[edit]

text: Once in New England, the Puritans established Congregational churches that subscribed to Reformed theology. The Savoy Declaration, a modification of the Westminster Confession of Faith, was adopted as a confessional statement by the churches in Massachusetts in 1680 and the churches of Connecticut in 1708.[8]

text: The Cambridge Platform describes congregationalist polity as practiced by Puritans in the 17th century. Every congregation was founded upon a church covenant, a written agreement signed by all members in which they agreed to uphold congregational principles, to be guided by sola scriptura in their decision making, and to submit to church discipline. The right of each congregation to elect its own officers and manage its own affairs was upheld.[9][10] For church offices, Puritans imitated the model developed in Calvinist Geneva. There were two major offices: elder (or presbyter) and deacon. There were two types of elders. Ministers, whose responsibilities included preaching and administering the sacraments, were referred to as teaching elders. Large churches would have two ministers, one to serve as pastor and the other to serve as teacher. Prominent laymen would be elected for life as ruling elders. Ruling elders governed the church alongside teaching elders, and, while they could not administer the sacraments, they could preach. The duties of deacons largely revolved around financial matters. Other than elders and deacons, congregations also elected messengers to represent them in synods (church councils) for the purpose of offering non-binding advisory opinions.[11]

text: The essential Puritan belief was that people are saved by grace alone and not by any merit from doing good works. At the same time, Puritans also believed that men and women "could labor to make themselves appropriate vessels of saving grace" [emphasis in original].[12] They could accomplish this through Bible reading, prayer and doing good works. This doctrine was called preparationism, and nearly all Puritans were preparationists to some extent.[12] The process of conversion was described in different ways, but most ministers agreed that there were three essential stages. The first stage was humiliation or sorrow for having sinned against God. The second stage was justification or adoption characterized by a sense of having been forgiven and accepted by God through Christ's mercy. The third stage was sanctification, the ability to live a holy life out of gladness toward God.[13]

text: Puritans believed churches should be composed of "visible saints" or the elect. To ensure that only regenerated persons were admitted as full members, New England churches required prospective members to provide a conversion narrative describing their personal conversion experience.[14] All settlers were required to attend church services and were subject to church discipline.[15] The Lord's Supper, however, was reserved to full members only.[14] Puritans practiced infant baptism, but only church members in full communion could present their children for baptism. Members' children were considered part of the church and covenant by birth and were entitled to baptism. Nevertheless, these children would not enjoy the full privileges of church membership until they provided a public account of conversion.[16][17]

text: Church services were held in the morning and afternoon on Sunday, and there was usually a mid-week service. The ruling elders and deacons sat facing the congregation on a raised seat.[18] Men and women sat on opposites sides of the meeting house, and children sat in their own section under the oversight of a tithingman, who corrected unruly children (or sleeping adults) with a long staff.[19] The pastor opened the service with prayer for about 15 minutes, the teacher then read and explained the selected Bible passage, and a ruling elder then led in singing a Psalm, usually from the Bay Psalm Book. The pastor then preached for an hour or more, and the teacher ended the service with prayer and benediction. In churches with only one minister, the morning sermon was devoted to the argument (interpreting the biblical text and justifying that interpretation) and the afternoon sermon to its application (the lessons that could be drawn from the text for the individual or for the collective community).[20][21]

text: Family life[edit]

text: For Puritans, the family was the "locus of spiritual and civic development and protection",[22] and marriage was the foundation of the family and, therefore, society. Unlike in England, where people were married by ministers in church according to the Book of Common Prayer, Puritans saw no biblical justification for church weddings or the exchange of wedding rings. While marriage held great religious significance for Puritans—they saw it as a covenant relationship freely entered into by both man and wife—the wedding was viewed as a private, contractual event officiated by a civil magistrate either in the home of the magistrate or a member of the bridal party.[23] Massachusetts ministers were not legally permitted to solemnize marriages until 1686, after the colony had been placed under royal control, but by 1726 it had become the accepted tradition.[24]

text: According to scholars Gerald Moran and Maris Vinovskis, some historians argue that Puritan child-rearing was repressive. Central to this argument are the views of John Robinson, the Pilgrims' first pastor, who wrote in a 1625 treatise "Of Children and Their Education", "And surely there is in all children, though not alike, a stubborness, and stoutness of mind arising from natural pride, which must, in the first place, be broken and beaten down."[25] Moran and Vinovskis, however, argue that Robinson's views were not representative of 17th-century Puritans. They write that Puritan parents "exercised an authoritative, not an authoritarian, mode of child rearing" that aimed to cultivate godly affections and reason, with corporal punishment used as a last resort.[26]

text: Education[edit]

text: According to historian Bruce C. Daniels, the Puritans were "[o]ne of the most literate groups in the early modern world", with about 60 percent of New England able to read.[27] At a time when the literacy rate in England was less than 30 percent, the Puritan leaders of colonial New England believed children should be educated for both religious and civil reasons, and they worked to achieve universal literacy. In 1642, Massachusetts required heads of households to teach their wives, children and servants basic reading and writing so that they could read the Bible and understand colonial laws. In 1647, the government required all towns with 50 or more households to hire a teacher and towns of 100 or more households to hire a grammar school instructor to prepare promising boys for college. Boys interested in the ministry were often sent to colleges such as Harvard (founded in 1636) or Yale (founded in 1707).[28]

text: The Puritans anticipated the educational theories of John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers. Like Locke's blank slate, Puritans believed that a child's mind was "an empty receptacle, one that had to be infused with the knowledge gained from careful instruction and education."[26]

text: Recreation and leisure[edit]

text: Puritans did not celebrate traditional holidays such as Christmas, Easter or May Day. They also did not observe personal annual holidays, such as birthdays or anniversaries. They did, however, celebrate special occasions such as military victories, harvests, ordinations, weddings and births. These celebrations consisted of food and conversation. Beyond special occasions, the tavern was an important place for people to gather for fellowship on a regular basis.[27]

text: Increase Mather wrote that dancing was "a natural expression of joy; so that there is no more sin in it, than in laughter." Puritans generally discouraged mixed or "promiscuous" dancing between men and women, which according to Mather would lead to "unchaste touches and gesticulations. .. [that] have a palpable tendency to that which is evil." Some ministers, including John Cotton, thought that mixed dancing was appropriate under special circumstances, but all agreed it was a practice not to be encouraged. Dancing was also discouraged at weddings or on holidays (especially dancing around the Maypole) and was illegal in taverns.[29]

text: Puritans had no theological objections to sports and games as long as they did not involve gambling (which eliminated activities such as billiards, shuffleboard, horse racing, bowling and cards). They also opposed blood sports, such as cockfighting, cudgel-fighting and bear-baiting. Team sports, such as football, were problematic because "they encouraged idleness, produced injuries, and created bitter rivalries." Hunting and fishing were approved because they were productive. Other sports were encouraged for promoting civic virtue, such as competitions of marksmanship, running, and wrestling held within militia companies.[30]

text: Only a few activities were completely condemned by Puritans. They were most opposed to the theater. According to historian Bruce Daniels, plays were seen as "false recreations because they exhausted rather than relaxed the audience and actors" and also "wasted labor, led to wantonness and homosexuality, and invariably were represented by Puritans as a foreign—particularly French or Italian—disease of a similar enervating nature as syphilis."[31] All forms of gambling were illegal. Not only were card playing, dice throwing and other forms of gambling seen as contrary to the values of "family, work, and honesty", they were religiously offensive because gamblers implicitly asked God to intervene in trivial matters, violating the Third Commandment against taking the Lord's name in vain.[32]

text: Church and state[edit]

text: For Puritans, the people of a society were bound together by a social covenant (such as Plymouth's Mayflower Compact, Connecticut's Fundamental Orders, New Haven's Fundamental Agreement, and Massachusetts' colonial charter). Having entered into such a covenant, eligible voters were responsible for choosing qualified men to govern and to obey such rulers, who ultimately received their authority from God and were responsible for using it to promote the common good. If the ruler was evil, however, the people were justified in opposing and rebelling against him. Such notions helped New Englanders justify the English Puritan Revolution of the 1640s, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the American Revolution of 1775.[33]

text: The Puritans also believed they were in a national covenant with God. They believed they were chosen by God to help redeem the world by their total obedience to his will. If they were true to the covenant, they would be blessed; if not, they would fail.[33]  Within this worldview, it was the government's responsibility to enforce moral standards and ensure true religious worship was established and maintained.[34] In the Puritan colonies, the Congregational church functioned as a state religion. In Massachusetts, no new church could be established without the permission of the colony's existing Congregational churches and the government.[35] Likewise, Connecticut allowed only one church per town or parish, which had to be Congregational.[36] All residents in Massachusetts and Connecticut were required to pay taxes for the support of the Congregational churches, even if they were religious dissenters.[37] The franchise was limited to Congregational church members in Massachusetts and New Haven, but voting rights were more extensive in Connecticut and Plymouth.[38][39] In Connecticut, church attendance on Sundays was mandatory (for both church members and non-members), and those who failed to attend were fined.[40]

text: There was a greater separation of church and state in the Puritan commonwealths than existed anywhere in Europe at the time. In England, the king was head of both church and state, bishops sat in Parliament and the Privy Council, and church officials exercised many secular functions. In New England, secular matters were handled only by civil authorities, and those who held offices in the church were barred from holding positions in the civil government.[41]

text: When dealing with unorthodox persons, Puritans believed that the church, as a spiritual organization, was limited to "attempting to persuade the individual of his error, to warn him of the dangers he faced if he publicly persisted in it, and—as a last resort—to expel him from the spiritual society by excommunication."[42] Citizens who lost church membership by excommunication retained the right to vote in civil affairs.[43]

text: Religious toleration[edit]

text: The Puritans did not come to America to establish a theocracy, but neither did they institute religious freedom.[44] Puritans believed that the state was obligated to protect society from heresy, and it was empowered to use corporal punishment, banishment and execution. New England magistrates did not investigate private views, but they did take action against public dissent from the religious establishment. Puritan sentiments were expressed by Nathaniel Ward in The Simple Cobbler of Agawam: "all Familists, Antinomians, Anabaptists, and other Enthusiasts shall have free Liberty to keep away from us, and such as will come [shall have liberty] to be gone as fast as they can, the sooner the better."[42]

text: The period 1658–1692 saw the execution of Quakers and the imprisonment of Baptists.[45] Quakers were initially banished by colonial courts, but they often returned in defiance of authorities. Historian Daniel Boorstin stated, "the Puritans had not sought out the Quakers in order to punish them; the Quakers had come in quest of punishment."[46]

text: Controversies[edit]

text: Roger Williams[edit]

text: Roger Williams, a Separating Puritan minister, arrived in Boston in 1631. He was almost immediately invited to become the teacher at the Boston church, but he refused the invitation on the grounds that the congregation had not separated from the Church of England. He then was invited to become the teacher of the church at Salem but was blocked by Boston political leaders, who objected to his separatism. He thus spent two years with his fellow Separatists in the Plymouth Colony but ultimately came into conflict with them and returned to Salem, where he became the unofficial assistant pastor to Samuel Skelton.[47]

text: Williams held many controversial views that irritated the colony's political and religious leaders. He criticized the Puritan clergy's practice of meeting regularly for consultation, seeing in this a drift toward Presbyterianism.[47] William's concern for the purity of the church led him to oppose the mixing of the elect and the unregenerate for worship and prayer, even when the unregenerate were family members of the elect.[48] He also believed that Massachusetts rightfully belonged to the Native Americans and that the king had no authority to give it to the Puritans.[47] Because he feared that government interference in religion would corrupt the church, Williams rejected the government's authority to punish violations of the first four Ten Commandments and believed that magistrates should not tender oaths to unconverted persons, which would have effectively abolished civil oaths.[48]

text: In 1634, Skelton died, and the Salem congregation called Williams to be its pastor.[47] In July 1635, however, he was brought before the General Court to answer for his views on oaths. Williams refused to back down, and the General Court warned Salem not to install him in any official position. In response, Williams decided that he could not maintain communion with the other churches in the colony nor with the Salem church unless they joined him in severing ties with the other churches.[48] Caught between Williams and the General Court, the Salem congregation rejected Williams's extreme views.[49]

text: In October, Williams was once again called before the General Court and refused to change his opinions. Williams was ordered to leave the colony and given until spring to do so, provided he ceased spreading his views. Unwilling to do so, the government issued orders for his immediate return to England in January 1636, but John Winthrop warned Williams, allowing him to escape.[49] In 1636, the exiled Williams founded the colony of Providence Plantation. He was one of the first Puritans to advocate separation of church and state, and Providence Plantation was one of the first places in the Christian world to recognize freedom of religion.[citation needed]

text: Antinomian Controversy[edit]

text: Anne Hutchinson and her family moved from Boston, Lincolnshire, to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1634, following their Puritan minister John Cotton. Cotton became the teacher of the Boston church, working alongside its pastor John Wilson, and Hutchinson joined the congregation.[49] In 1635, Hutchinson began holding meetings in her home to summarize the previous week's sermons for women who had been absent. Such gatherings were not unusual.[50]

text: In October 1635, Wilson returned from a trip to England, and his preaching began to concern Hutchinson. Like most of the clergy in Massachusetts, Wilson taught preparationism, the belief that human actions were "a means of preparation for God’s grant of saving grace and ... evidence of sanctification."[51] Cotton's preaching, however, emphasized the inevitability of God's will rather than human preparatory action. These two positions were a matter of emphases, as neither Cotton nor Wilson believed that good works could save a person. For Hutchinson, however, the difference was significant, and she began to criticize Wilson in her private meetings.[51]

text: In the summer of 1636, Hutchinson's meetings were attracting powerful men such as William Aspinwall, William Coddington, John Coggeshall, and the colony's governor, Henry Vane. The group's credibility was increased due to the perceived support of Cotton and the definite support of Hutchinson's brother-in-law, the minister John Wheelwright.[52]  By this time, Hutchinson was criticizing all the ministers in the colony, with the exception of Cotton and Wheelwright, for teaching legalism and preaching a "covenant of works" rather than a "covenant of grace".[53] While denouncing the Puritan clergy as Arminians, Hutchinson maintained "that assurance of salvation was conveyed not by action but by an essentially mystical experience of grace—an inward conviction of the coming of the Spirit to the individual that bore no relationship to moral conduct."[52] By rejecting adherence to the moral law, Hutchinson was teaching Antinomianism, according to her clerical opponents.[52]

text: Tensions continued to increase in the Boston church between Wilson and Hutchinson's followers, who formed a majority of the members. In January 1637, they were nearly successful in censuring him, and in the months that followed, they left the meeting house whenever Wilson began to preach.[54] The General Court ordered a day of fasting and prayer to help calm tensions, but Wheelwright preached a sermon on that day that further inflamed tensions, for which he was found guilty of sedition. Because Governor Vane was one of Hutchinson's followers, the general election of 1637 became a battlefront in the controversy, and Winthrop was elected to replace Vane.[55]

text: A synod of New England clergy was held in August 1637. The ministers defined 82 errors attributed to Hutchinson and her followers. It also discouraged private religious meetings and criticizing the clergy. In November, Wheelwright was banished from the colony. Hutchinson herself was called before the General Court where she ably defended herself. Nevertheless, she was ultimately convicted and sentenced to banishment from the colony due in part to her claims of receiving direct personal revelations from God. Other supporters were disenfranchised or forbidden from bearing arms unless they admitted their errors.[55] Hutchinson received a church trial in March 1638 in which the Boston congregation switched sides and unanimously voted for Hutchinson's excommunication. This effectively ended the controversy.[56]

text: While often described as a struggle for religious liberty, historian Francis Bremer states that this is a misunderstanding. Bremer writes, "Anne Hutchinson was every bit as intolerant as her enemies. The struggle was over which of two competing views would be crowned and enforced as New England orthodoxy. As a consequence of the crisis she precipitated, the range of views that were tolerated in the Bay actually narrowed."[52]

text: In the aftermath of the crisis, ministers realized the need for greater communication between churches and standardization of preaching. As a consequence, nonbinding ministerial conferences to discuss theological questions and address conflicts became more frequent in the following years.[57] A more substantial innovation was the implementation of the "third way of communion", a method of isolating a dissident or heretical church from neighboring churches. Members of an offending church would be unable to worship or receive the Lord's Supper in other churches.[58]

text: Historiography of Puritan Involvement with Witchcraft in Colonial America[edit]

text: This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (July 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: As time passes and different perspectives arise within the scholarship of witchcraft and its involvement in Puritan New England, many scholars have stepped forth to contribute to what we know in regards to this subject. For instance, diverse perspectives involving the witch trials have been argued involving gender, race, economics, religion, and the social oppression that Puritans lived through that explain in a more in-depth way how Puritanism contributed to the trials and executions. Puritan fears, beliefs and institutions were the perfect storm that fueled the witch craze in towns such as Salem from an interdisciplinary and anthropological approach.[59] From a gendered approach, offered by Carol Karlsen and Elizabeth Reis, the question of why witches were primarily women did not fully surface until after the second wave of feminism in the 1980s. Some believe that women who were gaining economic or social power, specifically in the form of land inheritance, were at a higher risk of being tried as witches.[60] Others maintain that females were more susceptible to being witches as the Puritans believed that the weak body was a pathway to the soul which both God and the Devil fought for. Due to the Puritan belief that female bodies "lacked the strength and vitality" compared to male bodies, females were more susceptible to make a choice to enter a covenant with Satan as their fragile bodies could not protect their souls.[61] From a racial perspective, Puritans believed that African Americans and Native Americans living within the colonies were viewed as "true witches" from an anthropological sense as Blacks were considered "inherently evil creatures, unable to control their connection to Satanic wickedness."[62] Another contribution made to scholarship includes the religious perspective that historians attempt to understand its effect on the witch trials. John Demos, a major scholar in the field of Puritan witchcraft studies, maintains that the intense and oppressive nature of Puritan religion can be viewed as the main culprit in the Colonial witch trials.[63] While many scholars provide different arguments to Puritanism and witchcraft, all of the various camps mentioned rely on each other in numerous ways in order to build on our understanding of the witch craze in early American History. As more perspectives from different scholars add to the knowledge of the Puritan involvement in the witch trials, a more complete picture and history will form.

text: Decline of power and influence[edit]

text: The decline of the Puritans and the Congregational churches was brought about first through practices such as the Half-Way Covenant and second through the rise of dissenting Baptists, Quakers, Anglicans and Presbyterians in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.[64]

text: There is no consensus on when the Puritan era ended, though it is agreed that it was over by 1740. Historian Thomas S. Kidd argues that after 1689 and the success of the Glorious Revolution, "[New Englanders'] religious and political agenda had so fundamentally changed that it doesn't make sense to call them Puritans any longer."[65] Denominations that are directly descended from the Puritan churches of New England include the United Church of Christ, the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches, the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference and the Unitarian Universalist Association.

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ Bremer 2009, pp. 2–3.

Jump up ^ Bremer 2009, pp. 7,10.

Jump up ^ Bremer 2009, p. 12.

Jump up ^ Bremer 2009, p. 15.

Jump up ^ Bremer 2009, pp. 17–18.

Jump up ^ Bremer 2009, p. 18.

Jump up ^ Gardiner, History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, Longmans, Green, 1884 page 167, page 172 (Volume 8).

Jump up ^ Youngs 1998, p. 52.

Jump up ^ Bremer 2009, p. 20.

Jump up ^ Cooper 1999, p. 13.

Jump up ^ Cooper 1999, pp. 24,26.

^ Jump up to: a b Youngs 1998, p. 88.

Jump up ^ Youngs 1998, p. 41.

^ Jump up to: a b Youngs 1998, pp. 40–41.

Jump up ^ Youngs 1998, p. 50.

Jump up ^ Walker 1894, p. 170.

Jump up ^ Dunning 1894, p. 171.

Jump up ^ Dunning 1894, p. 150.

Jump up ^ "The Puritan Tithingman".

Jump up ^ Dunning 1894, p. 151.

Jump up ^ Von Wallmenich.

Jump up ^ Hochstetler 2013, p. 489.

Jump up ^ Hochstetler 2013, p. 490.

Jump up ^ Hochstetler 2013, pp. 494–495.

Jump up ^ Moran & Vinovskis 1985, p. 26.

^ Jump up to: a b Moran & Vinovskis 1985, p. 29.

^ Jump up to: a b Daniels 1993, p. 130.

Jump up ^ Bremer 2009, pp. 81–82.

Jump up ^ Daniels 1993, pp. 128–129.

Jump up ^ Daniels 1993, p. 129.

Jump up ^ Daniels 1993, p. 126.

Jump up ^ Daniels 1993, p. 127.

^ Jump up to: a b Bremer 1995, p. 89.

Jump up ^ Bremer 1995, pp. 91–92.

Jump up ^ Bremer 1995, p. 61.

Jump up ^ Hull & Moran 1999, p. 167.

Jump up ^ Bremer 1995, p. 226.

Jump up ^ Bremer 1995, p. 86.

Jump up ^ Langdon 1963, p. 514.

Jump up ^ Hull & Moran 1999, p. 168.

Jump up ^ Bremer 1995, p. 91–94.

^ Jump up to: a b Bremer 1995, p. 92.

Jump up ^ Bremer 1995, p. 94.

Jump up ^ Bremer 1995, p. 91.

Jump up ^ Bremer 1995, p. 154.

Jump up ^ Bremer 1995, p. 155.

^ Jump up to: a b c d Bremer 1995, p. 63.

^ Jump up to: a b c Bremer 1995, p. 64.

^ Jump up to: a b c Bremer 1995, p. 65.

Jump up ^ Youngs 1998, pp. 42–43.

^ Jump up to: a b Bremer 1995, p. 66.

^ Jump up to: a b c d Bremer 1995, p. 67.

Jump up ^ Cooper 1999, pp. 47–49.

Jump up ^ Bremer 1995, p. 68.

^ Jump up to: a b Bremer 1995, p. 69.

Jump up ^ Cooper 1999, pp. 50–52.

Jump up ^ Cooper 1999, pp. 55–56.

Jump up ^ Cooper 1999, p. 57.

Jump up ^ Reed 2007.

Jump up ^ Karlsen 1998.

Jump up ^ Reis 1995.

Jump up ^ McMillan 1994.

Jump up ^ Demos 2004.

Jump up ^ Lucas 1972, p. 129.

Jump up ^ Kidd 2005.

text: Bibliography[edit]

text:
Bremer, Francis J. (1995). The Puritan Experiment: New England Society from Bradford to Edwards (Revised ed.). University Press of New England. ISBN 9780874517286.
—— (2009). Puritanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199740871.
Cooper, James F., Jr. (1999). Tenacious of Their Liberties: The Congregationalists in Colonial Massachusetts. Religion in America. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195152875.
Daniels, Bruce C. (Spring 1993). "Sober Mirth and Pleasant Poisons: Purltan Ambivalence Toward Leisure and Recreation in Colonial New England". American Studies. Mid-America American Studies Association. 34 (1): 121–137. JSTOR 40642499.
Demos, John (2004). Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199726318.
Dunning, Albert E. (1894). Congregationalists in America: A Popular History of Their Origin, Belief, Polity, Growth and Work. New York: J. A. Hill and Company.
Hochstetler, Laurie (September 2013). "Making Ministerial Marriage: The Social and Religious Legacy of the Dominion of New England". The New England Quarterly. The New England Quarterly, Inc. 86 (3): 488–499. JSTOR 43285011.
Hull, Brooks B.; Moran, Gerald F. (December 1999). "The Churching of Colonial Connecticut: A Case Study". Review of Religious Research. Religious Research Association, Inc. 41 (2): 165–183. JSTOR 3512105.
Karlsen, Carol F. (1998). The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393347197.
Kidd, Thomas S. (September–October 2005). "What Happened to the Puritans?". Historically Speaking. Johns Hopkins University Press. 7 (1): 32–34. doi:10.1353/hsp.2005.0084.CS1 maint: Date format (link)
Lucas, Paul R. (Summer 1972). "Presbyterianism Comes to Connecticut: The Toleration Act of 1669". Journal of Presbyterian History. Presbyterian Historical Society. 50 (2): 129–147. JSTOR 23327366.
McMillan, Timothy J. (September 1994). "Black Magic: Witchcraft, Race, and Resistance in Colonial New England". Journal of Black Studies. SAGE Publications. 25 (1): 99–117. JSTOR 2784416.
Moran, Gerald F.; Vinovskis, Maris A. (1985). "The Great Care of Godly Parents: Early Childhood in Puritan New England". Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Wiley for the Society for Research in Child Development. 50 (4/5): 24–37. doi:10.2307/3333861. JSTOR 3333861.
"The Puritan Tithingman—The Most Powerful Man in New England". New England Historical Society. Archived from the original on October 2, 2017. Retrieved June 10, 2018.
Reed, Isaac (July 2007). "Why Salem Made Sense: Culture, Gender, and the Puritan Persecution of Witchcraft". Cultural Sociology. British Sociological Association and SAGE Publications. 1 (2): 209–234. doi:10.1177/1749975507078188.
Reis, Elizabeth (June 1995). "The Devil, the Body, and the Feminine Soul in Puritan New England". The Journal of American History. Oxford University Press for the Organization of American Historians. 82 (1): 15–36. doi:10.2307/2081913. JSTOR 2081913.
Von Wallmenich, Laura. "Reading the Sermon: Some Thoughts on Critical Strategies" (PDF). www.alma.edu. Alma College. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 3, 2018. Retrieved June 10, 2018.
Walker, Williston (1894). A History of the Congregational Churches in the United States. American Church History. 3. New York: The Christian Literature Company.
Youngs, J. William T. (1998). The Congregationalists. Denominations in America. 4 (Student ed.). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger. ISBN 9780275964412.

tag: ul

text: Puritanism in the United States

text: Articles needing additional references from July 2018All articles needing additional referencesAll articles with unsourced statementsArticles with unsourced statements from July 2018Wikipedia articles with style issues from July 2018All articles with style issuesCS1 maint: Date format


document_title: Golden Age of Piracy

question_text: where did most of the pirates come from

question_tokens: where did most of the pirates come from

text: Golden Age of Piracy

text: History[edit]

text: Origin[edit]

text: The oldest known literary mention of a "Golden Age" of piracy is from 1894, when the Swedish journalist George Powell wrote about "what appears to have been the golden age of piracy up to the last decade of the seventeenth century."[1] Powell uses the phrase while reviewing Charles Leslie's A New and Exact History of Jamaica, then over 150 years old, and refers mostly to such 1660s events as Henry Morgan's attacks on Maracaibo and Portobelo and Bartolomeu Português's famous escape. Powell uses the phrase only once.

text: In 1897, a more systematic use of the phrase "Golden Age of Piracy" was introduced by historian John Fiske, who wrote: "At no other time in the world's history has the business of piracy thriven so greatly as in the seventeenth century and the first part of the eighteenth. Its golden age may be said to have extended from about 1650 to about 1720."[2] Fiske included the activities of the Barbary corsairs and East Asian pirates in this "Golden Age," noting that "as these Mussulman pirates and those of Eastern Asia were as busily at work in the seventeenth century as at any other time, their case does not impair my statement that the age of the buccaneers was the Golden Age of piracy."[3]

text: Pirate historians of the first half of the 20th century occasionally adopted Fiske's term "Golden Age," without necessarily following his beginning and ending dates for it.[4] The most expansive definition of an age of piracy was that of Patrick Pringle, who wrote in 1951 that "the most flourishing era in the history of piracy ... began in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I and ended in the second decade of the eighteenth century."[5] This idea starkly contradicted Fiske, who had hotly denied that such Elizabethan figures as Drake were pirates.[6]

text: Trend toward narrow definitions[edit]

text: Of recent definitions, Pringle appears to have the widest range, an exception to an overall trend among historians from 1909 until the 1990s, toward narrowing the Golden Age. As early as 1924, Philip Gosse described piracy as being at its height "from 1680 until 1730." In his highly popular 1978 book The Pirates for TimeLife's The Seafarers series, Douglas Botting defined the Golden Age as lasting "barely 30 years, starting at the close of the 17th Century and ending in the first quarter of the 18th."[7] Botting's definition was closely followed by Frank Sherry in 1986.[8] In a 1989 academic article, Professor Marcus Rediker defined the Golden Age as lasting only from 1716 to 1726.[9] Angus Konstam in 1998, reckoned the era as lasting from 1700 until 1730.[10]

text: Perhaps the ultimate step in restricting the Golden Age was in Konstam's 2005 The History of Pirates, in which he retreated from his own earlier definition, called a 1690–1730 definition of the Golden Age "generous," and concluded that "The worst of these pirate excesses was limited to an eight-year period, from 1714 until 1722, so the true Golden Age cannot even be called a 'golden decade.'"[11]

text: Recent countertrend toward broader meaning[edit]

text: David Cordingly, in his influential 1994 work Under the Black Flag, defined the "great age of piracy" as lasting from the 1650s to around 1725, very close to Fiske's definition of the Golden Age.[12]

text: Rediker, in 2004, described the most complex definition of the Golden Age to date. He proposes a "golden age of piracy, which spanned the period from roughly 1650 to 1730", which he subdivides into three distinct "generations": the buccaneers of 1650–1680, the Indian Ocean pirates of the 1690s, and the pirates of the years 1716–1726.[13]

text: Origins[edit]

text: Piracy arose out of, and mirrored on a smaller scale, the conflicts over trade and colonization among the rival European powers of the time, including the empires of Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal and France. Most of these pirates were of Welsh, English, Dutch and French origin.

text: The buccaneering period, c. 1650–1680[edit]

text: Historians, such as John Fiske, mark the beginning of the Golden Age of Piracy at around 1650, when the end of the Wars of Religion allowed European countries to resume the development of their colonial empires. This involved considerable seaborne trade, and a general economic improvement: there was money to be made—or stolen—and much of it traveled by ship.

text: French buccaneers had established themselves on northern Hispaniola as early as 1625,[14] but lived at first mostly as hunters rather than robbers; their transition to full-time piracy was gradual and motivated in part by Spanish efforts to wipe out both the buccaneers and the prey animals on which they depended. The buccaneers' migration from Hispaniola's mainland to the more defensible offshore island of Tortuga limited their resources and accelerated their piratical raids. According to Alexandre Exquemelin, a buccaneer and historian who remains a major source on this period, the Tortuga buccaneer Pierre Le Grand pioneered the settlers' attacks on galleons making the return voyage to Spain.

text: The growth of buccaneering on Tortuga was augmented by the English capture of Jamaica from Spain in 1655. The early English governors of Jamaica freely granted letters of marque to Tortuga buccaneers and to their own countrymen, while the growth of Port Royal provided these raiders with a far more profitable and enjoyable place to sell their booty. In the 1660s, the new French governor of Tortuga, Bertrand d'Ogeron, similarly provided privateering commissions both to his own colonists and to English cutthroats from Port Royal. These conditions brought Caribbean buccaneering to its zenith.

text: The Pirate Round, c. 1693–1700[edit]

text: A number of factors caused Anglo-American pirates, some of whom had cut their teeth during the buccaneering period, to look beyond the Caribbean for treasure as the 1690s began. The fall of Britain's Stuart period had restored the traditional enmity between Britain and France, thus ending the profitable collaboration between English Jamaica and French Tortuga. The devastation of Port Royal by an earthquake in 1692 further reduced the Caribbean's attractions by destroying the pirates' chief market for fenced plunder.[15] Caribbean colonial governors began to discard the traditional policy of "no peace beyond the Line", under which it was understood that war would continue (and thus letters of marque would be granted) in the Caribbean regardless of peace treaties signed in Europe; henceforth, commissions would be granted only in wartime, and their limitations would be strictly enforced. Furthermore, much of the Spanish Main had simply been exhausted; Maracaibo alone had been sacked three times between 1667 and 1678,[16] while Río de la Hacha had been raided five times and Tolú eight.[17]

text: At the same time, England's less-favored colonies, including Bermuda, New York, and Rhode Island, had become cash-starved by the Navigation Acts. Merchants and governors eager for coin were willing to overlook and even underwrite pirate voyages; one colonial official defended a pirate because he thought it "very harsh to hang people that brings in gold to these provinces".[18] Although some of these pirates operating out of New England and the Middle Colonies targeted Spain's more remote Pacific coast colonies well into the 1690s and beyond, the Indian Ocean was a richer and more tempting target. India's economic output dwarfed Europe's during this time, especially in high-value luxury goods such as silk and calico, which made ideal pirate booty;[19] at the same time, no powerful navies plied the Indian Ocean, leaving both local shipping and the various East India companies' vessels vulnerable to attack. This set the stage for the famous piracies of Thomas Tew, Henry Every, Robert Culliford, and (although his guilt remains controversial) William Kidd.

text: The post–Spanish Succession period[edit]

text: Between 1713 and 1714, a succession of peace treaties were signed which ended the War of the Spanish Succession (also called "Queen Anne's War"). With the end of this conflict, thousands of seamen, including Britain's paramilitary privateers, were relieved of military duty. The result was a large number of trained, idle sailors at a time when the cross-Atlantic colonial shipping trade was beginning to boom. In addition, Europeans who had been pushed by unemployment to become sailors and soldiers involved in slaving were often enthusiastic to abandon that profession and turn to pirating, giving pirate captains for many years a constant pool of trained European recruits to be found in west African waters and coasts.

text: In 1715, pirates launched a major raid on Spanish divers trying to recover gold from a sunken treasure galleon near Florida. The nucleus of the pirate force was a group of English ex-privateers, all of whom would soon be enshrined in infamy: Henry Jennings, Charles Vane, Samuel Bellamy of Whydah Gally fame, Benjamin Hornigold, and Edward England. The attack was successful, but contrary to their expectations, the governor of Jamaica refused to allow Jennings and their cohorts to spend their loot on his island. With Kingston and the declining Port Royal closed to them, Hornigold, Jennings and their comrades founded a new pirate base at Nassau, on the island of New Providence in the Bahamas, which had been abandoned during the war. Until the arrival of governor Woodes Rogers three years later, Nassau would be home for these pirates and their many recruits.

text: Shipping traffic between Africa, the Caribbean, and Europe began to soar in the 18th century, a model that was known as Triangular Transatlantic Slave Trade, and was a rich target for piracy. Trade ships sailed from Europe to the African coast, trading manufactured goods and weapons for slaves. The traders would then sail to the Caribbean to sell the slaves, and return to Europe with goods such as sugar, tobacco and cocoa. Another triangular trade saw ships carry raw materials, preserved cod, and rum to Europe, where a portion of the cargo would be sold for manufactured goods, which (along with the remainder of the original load) were transported to the Caribbean, where they were exchanged for sugar and molasses, which (with some manufactured articles) were borne to New England. Ships in the triangular trade made money at each stop.[20]

text: As part of the war's settlement, Britain obtained the asiento, a Spanish government contract, to supply slaves to Spain's new world colonies, providing British traders and smugglers more access to the traditionally closed Spanish markets in America. This arrangement also contributed heavily to the spread of piracy across the western Atlantic at this time. Shipping to the colonies boomed simultaneously with the flood of skilled mariners after the war. Merchant shippers used the surplus of sailors' labor to drive wages down, cutting corners to maximize their profits, and creating unsavory conditions aboard their vessels. Merchant sailors suffered from mortality rates as high or higher than the slaves being transported.[21] Living conditions were so poor that many sailors began to prefer a freer existence as a pirate. The increased volume of shipping traffic also could sustain a large body of brigands preying upon it.

text: Pirates of the era[edit]

text: Many of the most well known pirates in historical lore originate from this Golden Age of Piracy.

text:
Henry Morgan, a buccaneer who raided the Spaniards and took the city of Panama. He was to be executed in England but was instead knighted and made governor of Jamaica. He died a natural death in 1688.
Henry Every, who is most famous for being one of the few major pirate captains to retire with his loot without being arrested or killed in battle, and also for capturing the fabulously wealthy Mogul ship Ganj-i-Sawai in 1694.
William "Captain" Kidd, who was executed for piracy at Execution Dock, London in 1701, is famous for the 'buried treasure' he supposedly left behind.
"Black Sam" Bellamy, captain of the Whydah Gally, who was lost in a storm in 1717. Bellamy was popularly known as the "Robin Hood of pirates," and prided himself on his ideological justifications for piracy.
Charles Vane, a particularly violent and unrepentant pirate, who served under Henry Jennings before striking out on his own. Harsh and unpopular with his crew, Vane was marooned before being captured and hanged in 1721.
Stede Bonnet, a rich Barbadian land owner, turned pirate solely in search of adventure. Bonnet captained a 10-gun sloop, named the Revenge, raiding ships off the Virginia coast in 1717. He was caught and hanged in 1718.
Edward Teach (Thatch), more commonly known as Blackbeard, was active from 1716 to 1718 as perhaps the most notorious pirate among English-speaking nations. Blackbeard's most famous ship was the Queen Anne's Revenge, named in response to the end of Queen Anne's War. Blackbeard was killed by one of Lieutenant Robert Maynard's crewmen in 1718.
John "Calico Jack" Rackham, famous for his partnership with female pirates Anne Bonny and Mary Read, was captured, then hanged and gibbeted outside Port Royal, Jamaica in 1720.
Bartholomew Roberts, sometimes called "Black Bart", has been considered by many as the most successful Western pirate of all time with over 400 ship captures.
Edward Low, active 1721–1724, who was notorious for torturing his victims before killing them.
William Fly, whose execution in 1726 is used by historian Marcus Rediker to mark the end of the Golden Age of Pirates.

text: Pirate women[edit]

text: While most pirates were men, there were at least fifty cases of women entering the career of piracy (usually disguised as men). The best known female pirates were Anne Bonny (also sometimes spelled Bonney) and Mary Read.

text: Bonny developed a notorious reputation in Nassau and when she was unable to leave an earlier marriage, eloped with her lover, Calico Jack Rackham. Mary Read had been dressed as a boy all her life by her mother, and had spent time in the British military. She came to the West Indies (Caribbean) after leaving her husband, and joined Calico Jack's crew after he attacked a ship Read had been aboard. She divulged her sex only to Bonny at first, but revealed herself openly when accused by Rackham of having an affair with Bonny.[22]

text: When their ship was assaulted in 1720, the two women and an unknown man were the only ones to defend it, the other crew members being too drunk to fight. In the end they were captured and arrested.

text: After their capture both women were convicted of piracy and sentenced to death, but stalled their executions by claiming to be pregnant. Read died in jail months later, many believe of a fever or complications of childbirth. Bonny disappeared from historical documents, but no record of her execution or childbirth exist.[23]

text: Barbary pirates[edit]

text: The Barbary pirates were pirates and privateers that operated from the North African (the "Barbary coast") ports of Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Salé and ports in Morocco, preying on shipping in the western Mediterranean Sea from the time of the Crusades as well as on ships on their way to Asia around Africa until the early 19th century. The coastal villages and towns of Italy, Spain and Mediterranean islands were frequently attacked by them and long stretches of the Italian and Spanish coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants; since the 17th century, Barbary pirates occasionally entered the Atlantic and struck as far north as Iceland. According to Robert Davis,[24][25] between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves in the Arab world between the 16th and 19th centuries.

text: The early 17th century may be described as the flowering time of the Barbary pirates. This is because the introduction of new sailing rigs by Simon de Danser enabled the North African raiders, for the first time, to brave the Atlantic as well as Mediterranean waters. More than 20,000 captives were said to be imprisoned in Algiers alone. The rich were allowed to redeem themselves, but the poor were condemned to slavery. Their masters would on occasion allow them to secure freedom by professing Islam. A long list might be given of people of good social position, not only Italians or Spaniards, but also German and English travelers in the south, who were captives for a time.[26]

text: Iceland was subject to raids known as the Turkish Abductions in 1627. Murat Reis is said to have taken 400 prisoners; 242 of the captives later were sold into slavery on the Barbary Coast. The pirates took only young people and those in good physical condition. All those offering resistance were killed, and the old people were gathered into a church which was set on fire. Among those captured was Ólafur Egilsson, who was ransomed the next year and, upon returning to Iceland, wrote a slave narrative about his experience. Another famous captive from that raid was Guðríður Símonardóttir. The sack of Vestmannaeyjar is known in the history of Iceland as Tyrkjaránið.

text: One of the stereotypical features of a pirate in popular culture, the eye patch, dates back to the Arab pirate Rahmah ibn Jabir al-Jalahimah, who wore it after losing an eye in battle in the 18th century.[27]

text: Whilst the Golden Age of European and American pirates is generally considered to have ended between 1710 and 1730, the prosperity of the Barbary pirates continued until the early 19th century. Unlike the European powers, the young United States refused to pay tribute to the Barbary states, and responded with the First Barbary War and the Second Barbary War against North Africa when the Barbary pirates captured and enslaved American sailors. Although the U.S. met with only limited success in these wars, France and Great Britain with their more powerful navies soon followed suit and stamped out the Barbary raiders.

text: Decline[edit]

text: By the early 18th century, tolerance for privateers was wearing thin in all nations. After the Treaty of Utrecht was signed, the excess of trained sailors without employment was both a blessing and a curse for all pirates. Initially the surplus of men had caused the number of pirates to multiply significantly. This inevitably led to the pillaging of more ships, which put a greater strain on trade for all European nations. In response European nations bolstered their own navies to offer greater protection for merchants and to hunt down pirates. The excess of skilled sailors meant there was a large pool that could be recruited into national navies as well. Piracy was clearly on a strong decline by 1720. The Golden Age of Piracy did not last the decade.

text: The events of the latter half of 1718 represent a turning point in the history of piracy in the New World. Without a safe base and in the growing pressure from naval forces, the rovers lost their momentum. The lure of the Spanish treasures had faded, and the hunters gradually became the hunted. By early 1719, the remaining pirates were on the run. Most of them headed for West Africa, seizing poorly defended slavers.[28]

text: Effect on popular culture[edit]

text: Although some of the details are often misremembered, the effect upon popular culture of the Golden Age of Piracy can hardly be overstated. A General History of the Pirates (1724) by Captain Charles Johnson is the prime source for the biographies of many well known pirates of the Golden Age, providing an extensive account of the period.[29] In giving an almost mythical status to the more colourful characters such as the notorious English pirates Blackbeard and Calico Jack, it is likely that the author used considerable licence in his accounts of pirate conversations.[29] In 2002, English naval historian David Cordingly wrote an introduction to Johnson's 1724 book, stating: "it has been said, and there seems no reason to question this, that Captain Johnson created the modern conception of pirates."[29] Johnson's book would influence the pirate literature of Robert Louis Stevenson and J. M. Barrie.[29] Such literary works as Stevenson's Treasure Island and Barrie's Peter Pan, while romanticized, drew heavily on pirates and piracy for their plots.[30]

text: Various claims and speculation about their overall image, attire, fashion, dress code, etc. have been made and contributed to their fanciful mystery and lore. For example, men wore earrings as the value of the gold or silver earring was meant to pay for their burial if they were lost at sea and their body washed ashore. They were also worn for superstitious reasons, believing the precious metals had magical healing powers.[31]

text: More recently, even less accurate depictions of historical-era pirates (e.g., Talk Like a Pirate Day) have advanced to the forefront. However, these phenomena have only served to advance the romantic image of piracy and its treasure-burying swashbucklers in popular culture.[32]