Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Flatbows found on the Mary Rose?
Phil Rees:
--- Quote from: Jaro on December 16, 2010, 07:14:52 am ---
I suppose that should end the controversy about MR wood origin. Though there some odd bows on MR which do not seem to be made of the same wood, but they are far and few.
Jaro
--- End quote ---
I'm assuming this work has been written up and submitted to a peer reviewed academic journal ??
Jaro:
I dont think it has been submited yet, since it is exactly one of informations prepared for new book as I imagine, but I have it hot from Mark Stretton and hes got it from the person who did it. I cannot fathom reason why he would lie to me. The information is the actual new research by Mary Rose trust and reason why I say that some informations can be outdated. I remember when Italian yew bows first became availble, there were people stating that they were incorrect, because they dont confirm Kooei´s data and older (Hardy´s) bow weight estimations - and now not only we know that they are correct and the old estimations were wrong, but we know that some of those trees are one valley from the place where offspring of Mary Rose yew trees grow.
Jaro
Jaro:
"It is a FACT that shortly after the publishing of "The Great Warbow" the authors of the book Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy gave a lecture in London, that I attended and that when I questioned them they confirmed that not all the bows were yew, that a few were other woods. This was said in front of a large audience in 2005 presumably because it was true, true then, true now and true of the facts when the Mary Rose went down."
The only FACT is that lecture had happen. It is 5 years since and lots of research has been done. Interestingly master of guild of bowyers which actually has the experience working the very wood in question and have seen and handled the bows doesnt think there was a whitewood bow, neither does Mark and the information was never confirmed by MR trust.
It should be fairly easy to inquire which artifact that are since they are numbered and mere recognition of yew/not yew does not 5 years take. If clear statement cannot be produced then it is hersay at best.
But, since I dont have time for this - again nobody in buissnes has as close ties to MR trust like some prominent members of EWBS - and nothing is easier than to become associate member and go to the specialist forums.
Jaro
Phil Rees:
I have to admit, I find it a little unusual and disappointing that this information hasn't been submitted to a journal for peer review scrutiny. Could you tell me the author of the book into which these results will be published?
And ...its Schrodinger's Cat...
Jaro:
Horace I know its "Schrodinger´s cat" . Obviously that was a pun on similar thought experiment.
"I have to admit, I find it a little unusual and disappointing that this information hasn't been submitted to a journal for peer review scrutiny"
Obviously it will be published when MR trust thinks its proper , since they pay for the testing. Regardless - You can log onto EWBS site and ask directly Mark Stretton (if you find me oh so untrustworthy) directly, who gave him the information.
Let me point out that the information about whitewood bows, even though rebuked from official source floats around since like 1979 or when the first book came out, yet the research proving that, wasnt published in journal for peer review either. Rather longer period of time isnt it? Why wasnt the "whitewood" bow at least photographed - many many others were.
Jaro
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version