Main Discussion Area > English Warbow
data on the Mary Rose bows/arrows
outcaste:
--- Quote from: bow-toxo on November 26, 2008, 06:59:59 pm ---
--- Quote from: outcaste on November 26, 2008, 05:52:51 pm ---
--- Quote from: bow-toxo on November 25, 2008, 10:34:45 pm ---
--- End quote ---
Hi,
When we are conducting research there are typically two forms of data, primary and secondary. Within the context of this thread we should see the finds on the MR as primary or raw data and contemporary written works as secondary or supporting evidence that feeds into the whole understanding of the subject. Primary data is paramount and without such any findings cannot be be seen as fully resolved or understood. Not every written word is true or accurate no matter when it was published, inanimate objects seldom lie. If we did not have the MR then we would have to to use contemporary accounts, but we do have the MR. I am sure that making archery kit to the above methods work and it only serves to better our overall understanding but primary resources cannot be ignored nor those who have had the opportunity to examine these artifacts in detail and conduct experiments from this data - experimental archaeology.
Cheers,
Alistair
--- End quote ---
Hi Alstair,
Youi too have missed the point that I have at no time ignored the Mary Rose finds and even took the trouble to make what I believe to be the first MR replica bow ever made [see picture above]. MR bows were not the only type of bows produced in mediaeval/Tudor Europe. As I have neither the strength, the location, or the need for warbow shooting, I use the [authentic] hunting/mark bow instead. Above, please find the source explanation for the longer MR bows. If we ignore historical evidence verifiable from several sources and confine ourselves to primary evidence we could concieveably come up with idiocies such as: The MR bows could not have been used because fast flight strings had not been invented and it was impossible to make such thin strings that would not immediately break, or; the tip grooves must have been tillering nocks because side nocks were so impractical that Victorian nocks must have been used.
Thanks for your attempt to correct me, but please do not accuse me of things I am not guilty of.
Erik
--- End quote ---
Hi,
Not really trying to correct or accuse, maybe trying to break out of the loop we all seem to be stuck in.
Cheers,
Alistair
stevesjem:
--- Quote from: bow-toxo on November 26, 2008, 06:59:59 pm ---
--- Quote from: outcaste on November 26, 2008, 05:52:51 pm ---
--- Quote from: bow-toxo on November 25, 2008, 10:34:45 pm ---
--- End quote ---
Hi,
When we are conducting research there are typically two forms of data, primary and secondary. Within the context of this thread we should see the finds on the MR as primary or raw data and contemporary written works as secondary or supporting evidence that feeds into the whole understanding of the subject. Primary data is paramount and without such any findings cannot be be seen as fully resolved or understood. Not every written word is true or accurate no matter when it was published, inanimate objects seldom lie. If we did not have the MR then we would have to to use contemporary accounts, but we do have the MR. I am sure that making archery kit to the above methods work and it only serves to better our overall understanding but primary resources cannot be ignored nor those who have had the opportunity to examine these artifacts in detail and conduct experiments from this data - experimental archaeology.
Cheers,
Alistair
--- End quote ---
Hi Alstair,
Youi too have missed the point that I have at no time ignored the Mary Rose finds and even took the trouble to make what I believe to be the first MR replica bow ever made [see picture above]. MR bows were not the only type of bows produced in mediaeval/Tudor Europe. As I have neither the strength, the location, or the need for warbow shooting, I use the [authentic] hunting/mark bow instead. Above, please find the source explanation for the longer MR bows. If we ignore historical evidence verifiable from several sources and confine ourselves to primary evidence we could concieveably come up with idiocies such as: The MR bows could not have been used because fast flight strings had not been invented and it was impossible to make such thin strings that would not immediately break, or; the tip grooves must have been tillering nocks because side nocks were so impractical that Victorian nocks must have been used.
Thanks for your attempt to correct me, but please do not accuse me of things I am not guilty of.
Erik
--- End quote ---
Hi Erik
Alistair has not missed the point at all, he has hit the nail on the head, This section of the forum is to deal with the "WARBOW" not lighter hunting bows, so all discussions should be to do with the WARBOW, Although you did make an attempt at a MR replica, it can only be seen as a lookalike not a true replica as you have not used High altitude Italian Yew, In fact it doesn't look like any type of yew, so really has no baring on the MR bows. Sorry to be so blunt.
Please don't get into the String theory as you are putting yourself in the firing line to be shot down big time. Please sit back and LISTEN to those who know a lot more than you about the MR bows than you do.
Steve
triton:
As long as those importing to England filled their quota for "taxes" I doubt they really cared where the yew came from. High or low altitude, good or poor soil, good sunlight or little. England was importing from all over europe not just Italy. The king of spain ordered every yew tree be cut down and burnt to prevent his forces being shot with their own wood. Italy is the primary source right now but that wasn't true 500+ years ago.
stevesjem:
--- Quote from: triton on November 27, 2008, 06:57:58 am ---As long as those importing to England filled their quota for "taxes" I doubt they really cared where the yew came from. High or low altitude, good or poor soil, good sunlight or little. England was importing from all over europe not just Italy. The king of spain ordered every yew tree be cut down and burnt to prevent his forces being shot with their own wood. Italy is the primary source right now but that wasn't true 500+ years ago.
--- End quote ---
Sorry Triton,
At the time of the MR Spain and Portugal had already stopped exporting wood to England and so the wood came from Italy and the Baltic region, This wood was checked for quality and had to be of the correct quality for Warbows and this meant High altitude, this can also be seen in the growth ring count of the MR bows, this ring count can only come from High Altitude and at this time the best quality would have come from Italy, Do you really think that Henry VIII would have had inferior quality wood for the bows on his flagship?
Steve
triton:
certainly not, he would have had the best of everything but the warbow did exist long before the MR. It is our only primary source for data but other written accounts exist, which show other woods were used for warbows, yew being by far preferable. If you want to specialise in bows of the MR period, that's fair enough, I aint knocking it but there seems to be an an inference that it's not a warbow if it's not made form yew and/or from high altitude italian wood, there were bows of other woods found too. I wonder if scientific tests have been done to determine the origin of the MR rose bow wood, such as those done on the teeth of those on board. The MR isn't the be all and end all of the warbow, though it can be seen as the peak of design and power. It was an incredible find and an invaulable resource but must be viewed as a small period of development.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version