Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
Check this out yall
meanewood:
I don't get it.
There is no reason not to test this arrow for age and I'm sure some museum would fund the process in exchange for allowing it to be exhibited.
I hope this is not some 'secret squirrel' episode whereby people in the know don't like to share info because it makes them feel superior!
WillS:
Personally I get the feeling they're holding back because there's a strong indication it's modern. As you said, its not really that big a deal to get it tested and it would answer many questions.
To me it looks all the world like an amateur attempt at making a Medieval arrow. Something you'd see at a reenactment event for instance. A couple of experts have commented on how incredibly well made the head is (and how much it looks like Cole's WA/type 16) and yet the binding looks terrible. Thick linen unevenly bound with the fletchings far too close to the nock smacks of somebody's first try.
If it was genuine, in my opinion there's a huge juxtaposition - with such a badly made fletching and nock end, the head doesn't match. You wouldn't put a beautifully made, time consuming and highly expensive barbed head on such a crappy arrow in times when it mattered. If you're a reenactor however, making crappy arrows and buying the best heads on the internet is very common, as is using linen for the binding.
meanewood:
You may be right Will but if you had something like this, it only becomes valuable if it gets validated.
Unlike you however, I'm open to the possibility that it could be old.
Linen thread, hastily positioned, I have no problem with.
We all know the reference to using silk thread but I think that gets taken out of context when it comes to the mass production of war arrows in medieval times.
For these arrows linen would be used.
Silk would be to expensive to use and would make no sense when linen serves the purpose quite well!
'Best Arrows', ones used by the nobility for hunting etc may have silk bindings and they may have been dyed red and would be applied carefully in a nice uniform way for appearance sake but not the millions produced for warfare!
WillS:
That argument goes out the window when you consider the document asking for silk to bind the arrows for the Agincourt campaign ;)
I think deciding silk is more expensive than linen is a modern outlook. Silk was used for everything during the 14th-16th century, including common garments (peasant women's cotehardie skirts were made of silk very often for instance) and sewing threads were usually silk. I had a discussion just a day or two ago with someone very knowledgeable in dying methods of the period and red it seems was one of the cheaper colours. To dye silk and then it into strong thread was common place and should not be considered excessive or unusual.
Also, there are absolutely no records or surviving historical arrows that utilise linen. Arrows from the 16th century (MR) and much much earlier (WA arrow) both use silk binding, so there's very little reason to imagine it was unusual. It's very usual these days however to use linen...
Tuomo:
This is very interesting topic!
What is the reference using silk thread on war arrows?
And what is "the document asking for silk to bind the arrows for the Agincourt campaign"?
Are there other references using silk and/or linen threads?
It is interesting that the old books (Roi Modus, L'art d'archerie and Toxophilus) mentions using silk (and hemp but no linen, except Toxophilus) as a bowstring material. Later sources refers to mainly hemp.
Why silk was used and was it common? It was import good from the Far East, so it is easy to think that it was rare and expensive.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version