Thanks, Lighter. I appreciate your thoughts on this and I find them helpful. What you say makes sense to me and helps me get a better sense of the overall time period. Your statement that "we can be certain about the '60s and virtually certain about the '50s" is encouraging, and it helps to get those earliest witnesses that are recording their own experiences into that time frame. I think your suggestion that "it would point to the period around 1830 as the dawn of the shanty" is also helpful. And I appreciate the comment about the "advances in shipbuilding". I also am drawn to the "functional" perspective that you and Gibb have taken when you say, "Shanty singing was not a musical performance. It was just a way of getting work done." This sounds right to me and I would agree with it.

The question about "basing detailed conclusions on oral tradition, especially when we're so poorly able to evaluate that tradition" is really important. When I read Hugill, I feel like I am dealing with a lot of "oral" tradition that is being "handed on" by and through him. I respect him as an important and integral part of that tradition. That doesn't for a moment mean I won't question his suggestions. But my critical questions always recognize that he "was there" and a whole lot "closer" to the sources than I can even imagine. He is a part of those "direct" and not-so-direct lines of transmission. And then he commits his recollections of the oral traditions to writing. And these writings become "authoritative" and thus open to critical questioning. An important part of what I am thinking about is how to sort out some of the conclusions drawn by everyone from Hugill on back (and on forward), when there is not clear historical (written) evidence. And I know, that just because it was "written down" once upon a time doesn't necessarily mean that it was "accurate".

I've just checked this thread and there is an important post from Gibb that I haven't read yet, so this is not a response to his comments.