Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: CraigMBeckett on June 25, 2011, 10:07:07 pm
-
Has anyone read this offering from the Mary Rose Trust?
It is supposed to be about all the forms of ordinance on the ship including a section on the bows and arrows.
If you have read it:
1, is it any good?
2, Is the section om the bows and arrows extensive?
I am considering buying it but would appreciate comments from those that have read it before I commit.
You can get it from this site:
http://www..oxbowbooks.com/ChooseCurrency.cfm/ESA/|trade.cfm|Publisher|Mary%20Rose%20Trust|SeriesID|869|
cost UKP 50.00, USD 80.00 (special offer usually USD 100.00) excluding postage.
Craig.
-
YES! I got my copy the other day. 2 volumes (one on the cannon, one on the hand held weapons) and a DVD (with all the bow measurements and drawings etc). The archery section is very extensive and reading and absorbing all the info will take years! Like the other MR books in the series (eg Before The Mast - kit an clothing etc) it is ful of draings/photos of the MR finds and has other comtemporary source drawings/photos to help the reader's understanding of how the weapons were used. I would definitely recommend investing in this one!
-
Purbeck,
Thank you for an informative comment, have just ordered two other books ( The Bow by Gad Rausing, and The Bow Builders Book), so the purchase of "Weapons of Warre" will have to wait a month :)
It sounds like "Weapons of Warre" is the book those interested in the Bows etc have been waiting for, for the last 20 odd years. Maybe now its been published those people who could not tell us the dimensions of their replicas will now do so.
Craig.
-
That's the one!
-
Purbeck, do the two volumes and the dvd come in one pack, or do you need to order 2 boks and a dvd separately?
-
They all come as one (in a vey smart book box)
-
..Order confirmed. Waiting. Waiting. Waiting.. Why is it taking so long? -It's almost 2 minutes since I made the order! :P
-
Decided to order it even though I had just ordered other books, Ordered it on 1st, appears to have been processed on 8th but like nidrinr I'm still waiting. Doesn't normally take anything like this time for mail to come from the UK.
Craig.
-
Keep us updated on the content--it looked like a really interesting book, but as a college student I probably shouldn't go ordering a copy just yet. If reports indicate it's worth it, I'll probably break down and buy a copy, thought.
-
Keep us updated on the content--it looked like a really interesting book, but as a college student I probably shouldn't go ordering a copy just yet. If reports indicate it's worth it, I'll probably break down and buy a copy, thought.
My copy arrived yesterday and I have had a quick glance through the archery section this morning.
First the book actually comes in two parts (two separate books) in a cardboard sleeve, all together it makes a heavy parcel, no wonder I had to pay 18 UK pounds to have it airmailed to me. Now while the remainder looks to be very interesting I have initially only examined the parts of the Archery section, specifically the section on the bows and I must say I am disappointed.
I was expecting tables giving full measurements of all the intact or near intact bows, similar to those published by Hugh Soar etc. Instead we have a table, of 128 bows (if my quick count is accurate), that shows the length (presumably tip to tip, not nock to nock), and width/depth measurements at the centre, and 500mm and 900mm up each limb, plus whether they have a bowyer's mark, are set back in the handle and if they have double string notches. Not exactly enough data to make accurate replicas.
There are also other tables that give additional data for some bows, 6 bows described as "Slab sided and 15 bows described as D section, where the tables provide width/depth info for points 100mm, 200mm 400mm 600mm, 800mm, 900mm up each limb, plus the length of the horn (nock) stain and the width/depth at the so called tillering nock. Therefore for these bows, if we combine the info these tables with that in the previously mentioned table we get measurements at the centre plus 100mm, 200mm, 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, 800mm & 900mm up the limbs plus the info on the nocks. So we are missing measurements at 300mm, 700mm and information on the length between nocks. Therefore even for these 21 bows we are missing data that would be necessary if one wanted to make replicas. What makes this even more disappointing is that in the text of the book where the authors of the section reporting on the bows begin to talk about then they say " The process of measurement took two distinctive forms: specific linear measurements together with the intensive recording of the width and depths of the upper and lower limbs at 100mm intervals from the perceived centre of the bow through to the tips, and recording of particular features and their inter-relationships in terms of linear measurement, orientation and contextual deposition. So it seems they took all the measurements but just have not presented them.
With regard to the arrows, I have only glanced at that section but it seems to offer far more information that we have had before, will have to look more closely at it.
For those who are interested or were involved in the recent discussion on warbow strings it seems that the Mary Rose Trust has tentatively identified a length of cordage as part of a bow string, have not read the section yet but there is one on it.
Craig.
-
Craig
Thanks for the first glance review.
I haven't recieved my copy yet, but from your quick "once over" , is it telling us anything new.
-
Thanks for the run down Craig, it doesn't surprise me that there is not much about the bows all it would need would be for them to consult a bow maker and they could have said what info was needed. I hope they release a booklets of all the different weapons individually.
-
Thanks for the run down Craig, it doesn't surprise me that there is not much about the bows all it would need would be for them to consult a bow maker and they could have said what info was needed. I hope they release a booklets of all the different weapons individually.
Yes what we need is the raw data that one would include in any report/dissertation. :)
Have now finished reading the archery section, there is information there that I have not come across before and the section on arrows is very good considering the paucity of information we previously had. Various claims are made that are arguable, but what else would one expect. There are also sections that one wonders why they put them in including one that tries to establish the weights (notice the plural) of the bows from the spine of the arrows, the gentleman who does the analysis appears to be a statistician and not an archer, (his statistics later on are excellent), he uses the AMO spine charts but as the published charts does not extend out to the deflections obtained he has produced an rather complicated equation to calculate these deflections/spines, which to me shows he is unaware of the original basis of the AMO charts which is 26/deflection = spine. The results are then adjusted to provide results for hunting or target shafts. He also does not seem to have adjusted for arrow length. Must have another read of the section as I may be doing this gentleman a disservice.
Now don't get me wrong I am not saying don't bother with the book, quite the contrary it is an excellent thing and I am looking forward to beginning at the start of part 1 and reading it through it looks to be very interesting and informative even if not as totally informative as we could wish.
Craig.
-
MMM! have been playing around with the bow data and comparing it with the data I obtained from their artifact database some time ago, (I'm an Engineer, I do things like this to verify data). And have some disturbing results, when comparing the information on the complete bows whose length is both in the artifact data base and published in Weapons of Warre instead of the bows being either the same length or smaller (due to continued drying) over 1/3 are reported to be larger, 35.96% or 32 of the 82 I have two sets of lengths for. Average variation is -5.4m Maximum positive is 71mm max negative is -103mm. These changes in length cannot be explained by changes in the moisture content of the bows, a lot of the changes are far too big for that (40 mm and more), so therefore the accuracy of the results is in question.
I also have had a look to see if amongst the information in "Weapons" I can identify the two bows Hugh Soar published dimensions of. Bow A based on width and depth at the centre could be artifact 81A3958 will have to check extrapolate dimensions at 500 and 800 mm and see if they are close. I can only find one bow whose lenght is close to the 83 inches Soar shows its centre is 39x36, which is not really that close to Soars 41X35mm but it could still be the same bow. This artifact is No 79A0807 will also have to check this one more closely. It is of course possible that neither of the bows are shown in "Weapons".
Craig.
-
That is strange, there are many bows its likely that people for the most part are picking up different bows each time. was it the MR who published the first table of measurements and have you got a link to the artifact data base.
-
It seems I owe the Mary Rose Trust an apology, they appear to have provided all the bow information in the form of scans of their data sheets in pdf format in a dvd that is placed in the back cover sheet of volume 2. Only found the dvd because my son nocked the book off the arm of the settee where I had temporarily placed it and when it fell it opened at the dvd, a quick look through the index shows that it contained longbow data files in pdf format. Have had a quick loo at a couple and see records of the measurement of the bows at the centre and at points 100 mm apart along each limb, they seem to give width depth at the nock but I cannot see a nocg to nock or centre to nock measurement, but as the first two records are completely different to each other maybe later entries have such info. The records do seem to show the length of the nock stain but not sure they give the position of the nock groove.
Will have to study the info further.
Craig.
-
That is strange, there are many bows its likely that people for the most part are picking up different bows each time. was it the MR who published the first table of measurements and have you got a link to the artifact data base.
Hi Ian,
Yes its the trusts own database. Address follows.
http://www.maryrose.org/database/mary_rose_archive.html
just type into the search criteria the word longbow, click on "find first" and it will take you to the first record with longbow in it. Which is record no 2256, for artifact No. 79A0614 which is an incomplete /broken yew bow some 330 mm long.
Doubt if they were picking up different bows as they seem to have painted (?? )/attached an ID number on each and every artifact.
Craig
-
Thanks for that Craig.
-
What I can't understand is why the M.R. trust didn't have the bows 3D laser scanned. It would have taken about 10 seconds per bow and would reveal all cross sectional and linea dimentions in all three (x, y and z) co-ordinate axes down to +/- 15 microns.
-
What I can't understand is why the M.R. trust didn't have the bows 3D laser scanned. It would have taken about 10 seconds per bow and would reveal all cross sectional and linea dimentions in all three (x, y and z) co-ordinate axes down to +/- 15 microns.
Other than cost its probably because they believe they have all the data they require on the bows. The booking sheets I mentioned as being in the DVD appear to be the original sheets of measurement taken back when either the bows were first recovered or after they had stopped moving dimensionally when stored in Hardy's cellar.
Some of the sheets are missing data that was not taken at the time others it appears the data could not be taken because of damage. so overall of the 177 bows and bow bits mentioned in the Archive the DVD contains data on 124 of them. Of this 124 there are only 83 bows that are both complete and for which the DVD contains the full set of dimensions, Over all length, width and depth at the centre, width and depth at points 100mm apart along both limbs, width and depth at the horn stain mark for each limb and the length of the horn stain. Note they do not contain data on the points of change of shape of the bows nor the position of the nock grooves or the circumference /perimeter of each point where the width and depth are take. Of the remaining 41 bows in the DVD the majority are only missing one or 2 sets of data, usually to do with the nock area where due to damage no discernible horn stain can be seen, a few others are broken, most of which the archivists have made an attempt to estimate the length of the break. So by judiciously :) selecting say the measurements of the other nock on the bow as being the same as those at the missing end and by adding the estimated missing length etc on can get a fair approximation of the dimensions of a lot of them, unfortunately 6 of the bows are either missing limbs or complete sets of data.
For those interested the following is the AVERAGE if the 83 complete bows.
Length (measured along the convex side of the bow to get the max length from tip to tip) 1,968mm, 77 1/2"
Length of horn staining 45.9mm 1.803" upper limb 44.4mm 1.754" lower limb
Centre Width 39.5mm 1.417" Depth 33.2mm 1.297"
Lower Limb W mm D mm W in. D in
@ 100mm 35.7 32.4 1.406 1.279
@ 200mm 35.0 31.4 1.367 1.238
@ 300mm 33.8 30.0 1.331 1.182
@ 400mm 32.4 28.7 1.275 1.136
@ 500mm 30.6 27.1 1.206 1.071
@ 600mm 28.3 25.5 1.117 1.005
@ 700mm 25.4 23.4 1.002 0.922
@ 800mm 21.5 20.6 0.836 0.809
@ 900mm 16.0 16.3 0.632 0.643
@ Horn Stain 12.75 13.22 0.503 0.517
Upper Limb W mm D mm W in. D in
@ 100mm 35.3 31.7 1.389 1.250
@ 200mm 34.4 30.6 1.353 1.204
@ 300mm 33.2 29.3 1.308 1.156
@ 400mm 31.6 27.9 1.248 1.103
@ 500mm 29.9 26.6 1.179 1.049
@ 600mm 27.6 24.8 1.092 0.980
@ 700mm 24.9 22.6 0.980 0.894
@ 800mm 21.1 20.0 0.832 0.789
@ 900mm 15.7 15.7 0.614 0.618
@ Horn Stain 12.60 13.19 0.497 0.521
The two sets of readings, metric and imperial were taken by the archivists so they do not necessarily compute the same, however on about 4 bows the imperial readings were absent and so were calculated, there mat also have been the odd reading missing from other bows and if so the other, metric or imperial reading was used to calculate the missing . Please also note that in the 83 bows 3 no were not long enough to have readings at 900 mm in the upper limb and 2 of them were not long enough to have readings at 900 mm in the lower limb , Please also note the choice of upper and lower limb in the 83 bows was made by the archivist, sometimes arbitrarily.
My word its a pain trying to get a table to align on here.
Craig.
-
As my last post was very long thought I would carry on on a separate post.
WRT the difference between lengths shown in the data base with those published in the book. It seems that the data contained in the book is the same as that shown on the booking sheets therefore either the data in the archive is in error or it comes from a separate set of readings.
WRT Hugh Soars dimensions for his bow B, he has taken all his readings at different points, commencing at the top and moving down the bow in 4 inch (not 100mm) steps so his readings are approximately halfway between the Mary rose readings as the Archivist says the top horn stain was 2.185 in length, ( the bottom one is, according to the archivist , 1.764 inches long, Soar says 2 inch for both ). The only points that should coincide are the readings of the centre of the bow, the booking sheets say this is 38.9mm or 1.533 inches wide by 35.6mm or 1.358 inches deep whereas Soar says 41 mm by 35mm or 1 5/8 inches by 1 3/8 inches (1. 625 by 1.375). So Soars readings are larger in addition Soar says the bow is 83 inches long while the archivist says 83 3/16 with the next longest bow being 81 1/2 inches long. Must be the same bow but different people different readings.
Craig.
-
Thanks for posting this Craig, I have saved it in word for future reference.
-
I can second that! Thanks for taking the trouble to post that Craig. Yup, dunno why it's such a pain to get a table to line up.
I've also taken the liberty of saving it.
Del
-
I can second that! Thanks for taking the trouble to post that Craig. Yup, dunno why it's such a pain to get a table to line up.
I've also taken the liberty of saving it.
Del
You've made your fair share of self yews Del are we going to see a MR copy soon.
-
I can second that! Thanks for taking the trouble to post that Craig. Yup, dunno why it's such a pain to get a table to line up.
I've also taken the liberty of saving it.
Del
You've made your fair share of self yews Del are we going to see a MR copy soon.
I have a guy looking for a 120# Yew ELB. I said I'd consider it if I think one of my next batch of staves is suitable. I'll see how the wood shapes up early next year.
I don't really see much of a problem, other than the limitations of my strength, I hit the big six o over Christmas, mind 60 is the new 40 ;)
Del
-
Nice statistics work on above. Yea it seems that historians are not bowyers and thus have not provided some thing that may be desired. "Slab bows" is that to say some were flat in cross section?
Given what we know about English long bows and the above basic measurements It would be easy to project the missing dimensions. My only question is why. We know they were self bows and much will depend on wood characteristics so how specific can a replica get? If it were me making a self yew bow, which it won't be, I'd set the handle/middle of the bow and the tips then project the missing points given the available points and the constraint of the ELB design. You should get a narrow band of probability in which they will fall.
I don't understand the fuss over the tiny details in this case. What interests me is that only one string was possibly recovered. There is no evidence of shooting gloves or tabs. Did they not use them or were they something highly personal and kept close. Did the shoes that came up come from a body? If the bodies decayed then most leather probably wold be gone. What happened to the strings? Flax and linen should have survived to some degree. Were they some other material? Did archers keep their strings on their person? Were bows crated in one box and strings in another? That doesn't make allot of sense.
why the long skinny points on some where the nock tips are?
-
Nice statistics work on above. Yea it seems that historians are not bowyers and thus have not provided some thing that may be desired. "Slab bows" is that to say some were flat in cross section?
Given what we know about English long bows and the above basic measurements It would be easy to project the missing dimensions. My only question is why. We know they were self bows and much will depend on wood characteristics so how specific can a replica get? If it were me making a self yew bow, which it won't be, I'd set the handle/middle of the bow and the tips then project the missing points given the available points and the constraint of the ELB design. You should get a narrow band of probability in which they will fall.
I don't understand the fuss over the tiny details in this case. What interests me is that only one string was possibly recovered. There is no evidence of shooting gloves or tabs. Did they not use them or were they something highly personal and kept close. Did the shoes that came up come from a body? If the bodies decayed then most leather probably wold be gone. What happened to the strings? Flax and linen should have survived to some degree. Were they some other material? Did archers keep their strings on their person? Were bows crated in one box and strings in another? That doesn't make allot of sense.
why the long skinny points on some where the nock tips are?
Working through your post in the order you wrote it.
"Slab bows" is that to say some were flat in cross section?
There are four, (I believe it was 4) bows whose grip area is rectangular in section and which show a sudden transformation from ovoid to rectangular. They are all amongst the heaviest, (by sight) bows recovered and there has been speculation as to their use etc. Bow B in Hugh Soar's book on the warbow is probably one of them as there appears to be only one bow of 83 inches or more in length.
Given what we know about English long bows and the above basic measurements It would be easy to project the missing dimensions. My only question is why. We know they were self bows and much will depend on wood characteristics so how specific can a replica get?
One of the reasons of being as accurate as possible in replication is precisely because no 2 pieces of wood are the same, so the more replicas/approximations that closely follow the original dimensions the more reasonable it is that the information gained from the replicas/approximations can be applied to the original telling us what the likely performance and physical characteristics of it were. Think of the arguments about the weight of the bows and the distances shot.
There is no evidence of shooting gloves or tabs. Did they not use them or were they something highly personal and kept close.
Not sure if you meant to make a statement or mis-typed a question, anyway, it appears that no tabs or shooting gloves were found. Although leather bracers were so they probably did not exist or those that did are still in the Solent. There is iconographic evidence of the use of shooting gloves by the gentry but not much that says they were used by the masses. A child's tab was found in Coventry, for a left handed archer, I cannot remember the date, if any, ascribed to it.
What happened to the strings? Flax and linen should have survived to some degree.
Why do you believe this? As only 2 bits of string have survived. The strings that were, apparently, on some of the bows, whose shape shows that they were strung when the ship sank, have disappeared. Therefore the qualities of the materials used to make the strings cannot have bee such that they were not effected by the immersion and the action of both the mud and wildlife.
Were bows crated in one box and strings in another? That doesn't make allot of sense.
Simple answer yes they were carried separately, the same way guns and ammunition are kept in separate containers today. I can just imagine the holy mess that would ensue from bows and strings being carried in the same box.
why the long skinny points on some where the nock tips are?
I believe this was asked and answered in a different post, the reason is efficiency of design removing mass from where it would most impact on performance.
Craig.
-
I think you should thank Craig for his very detailed reply.
You seem to be very curious about the bows which is very good, the replicas that have been done of these bow are very detailed, dimensions on there own will not let you make a bow.
You need cross sections and profiles, Hunt arounds forums and look at the topics where people have posted pictures and you will understand a little better.
And there is more evident than just the MR to to go on, look at period from the period and read Toxophilas and the Art of Archery which is a similar period to the MR and it explains clearly about the things that the MR finds can not.
-
..I've been reading both the archery part of the book and had a look at the dvd now. I enjoy the reading, but what I really could have wished for was a note on density (or rpi) on each bow.. I know this would only be interesting for us bowyers, but still it is vital information. I guess they had good quality on all of their staves, but just by comparing two 140#'ers I have, I started thinking about the matter.. One is from English yew, the other one from local yew. The difference in dimensions are... quite a lot.
Still they hold the same poundage, and shoot more or less the same distance using a standard arrow. But, if the bow from local yew were made from the same dimensions as the English yew, I guess the poundage would have passed 200# and more.
-Guess I'm just trying to say that guessing the strength of a yew bow from the dimensions are hard unless you have information of the quality of the wood. If I use a really perfect stave and follow the dimensions of the largest bow, I guess it would at least be heavier than the 185# suggested. If I used a stave with less quality I could end up far below 185#.
-
Hi nidrinr,
but what I really could have wished for was a note on density (or rpi) on each bow.
I doubt that density would tell us much as it is likely to have changed due to degredation during the tong immersion but as they provide a weight for each bow it would be relatively easy to calculate a volume (not necessarily correct) for each bow, and then apply the published weight to come up with comparative densities.
Have you noticed that on the DVD they have divided the bows up into those with ring counts of 40 or less (course), 41 to 60 (medium) and over 60 (fine)? However more info would have been better.
Reading this and other archaeology books it is occasionally amusing to see that what you and I think would be important to record from our points of view are not what most archaeologists think of as being important.
Craig.
-
True..
-Anyways, I have plans to pick out one of the bows and try to replicate it as good as I can using different staves of yew, and then compare the results. -Just need to find time for it :)
-
True..
-Anyways, I have plans to pick out one of the bows and try to replicate it as good as I can using different staves of yew, and then compare the results. -Just need to find time for it :)
I wish you all the best and if I could I would wish you sufficient time.
Must add that you are lucky in being able to obtain yew staves, wish I could.
Craig.
-
Yew is quite hard to come by, at least good quality yew. Some of the staves are traded, some bought, and some I have found myself. I have one Italian, 8 Norwegian and 5 pacific yew staves available that hold good quality. I hope to find time for this project, as I really think it would be a fun comparison.