Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => English Warbow => Topic started by: youngbowyer on December 07, 2010, 11:05:35 pm
-
Hi,
I was wondering if any flatbows were found on the Mary Rose and if there were could someone give me some dimensions.
(or any infortmation about the flatbows that the welsh used right before the "english" warbow came along. Because i cut some black locust today about 8 inches in diamter but it doesnt have enough heartwood for an english warbow design and i i like to keep my bows
looking as much as bows found on the Mary Rose and just plain English Warbows.
Thanks,Tom.
-
Tom, if handled properly you could leave a few layers of sapwood on the locust and almost get the look of a war bow. At 8" in diameter I'd think you had a few war bows in that locust log...maybe without the sapwood left on. If you are not certain about the sapwood add a rawhide backing to it.
-
There were some presumably whitewood bows found on the Mary Rose that weren't of yew. The "experts" keep very quiet about these though and I have never seen any information. by the time of the wreck of the Mary Rose tropical woods called "Brazil" wood was also in use. As far as I can tell this is what we now call Pernambuca, used for the making of violin bows.
I attended a lecture on the bows found on the Mary Rose. During the question session I asked about these bows. Reluctantly they two experts admitted that not all the bows were yew but I could not get them to provide any further detail. Interest and research has been concentrated on the yew bows.
A friend of mine has made a square section Ash warbow of about 90lbs, heat treated belly that seemed to work quite well so maybe the whitewood bows weren't exactly flatbows after all.
The talk about the Welsh bows presumed to be Wych Elm predates the Mary Rose in 1545 predates talk of the welsh bows in connection with the Welsh Wars around 1130 so they are seperated by 400 years of archery development and history.
-
That's really interesting Mark. I suspect they (MR Trust) want to keep the data tight so as not to pre-empt a book that will be released, hopefully soonish. As you will know, Ascham mentions bows of this material.
-
I've been to the Mary Rose Museum and spoken with the staff regarding the bows recovered from it, and there is certainly no mention of any bows made from any wood except yew. All those on display are, of course, yew. I'm wondering why it would be kept 'secret' to have recovered bows of other material?
-
I can't see any reason to keep it under wraps, but it did seem it was admitted to at the London lecture with some reluctance. Various books talk about the use of warbows that are not yew, though yew does seem to have been seen as the best. I think it is Ascham who makes reference to bows of Brazil wood, and it's a bit too late to keep him quiet!
The current PA magazine has a good article by Marc St Louis on an elm warbow. Might be worth getting this issues if you're particulalry interested. 100lb at something like 30 inches puts it into warbow territory, and it is a D section D tiller bow as well.
-
I think it is Ascham who makes reference to bows of Brazil wood, and it's a bit too late to keep him quiet!
Oh yeah? Heard anything new from him lately????
I envy those of you that have been able to see the museum, go to the lectures, or get close to those wonderful artifacts. Artifacts such as those in extraordinary condition make history REAL and go a long way to dispelling myths that seem to get passed on as fact.
-
Hi,
I was wondering if any flatbows were found on the Mary Rose and if there were could someone give me some dimensions.
(or any infortmation about the flatbows that the welsh used right before the "english" warbow came along. Because i cut some black locust today about 8 inches in diamter but it doesnt have enough heartwood for an english warbow design and i i like to keep my bows
looking as much as bows found on the Mary Rose and just plain English Warbows.
Thanks,Tom.
Some of the MR bows were of rectangular section, not really flatbows, and have been described as being longer than most of the bows. Where does your comment about Welsh flat bows come from ? It is news to me that there is any non-fiction information about them other than that they were made of “forest elm”. That wouldn’t include black locust.
Erik
-
Mark -I dont know who put up that lecture but none MR bow is reported of other wood than yew. I think that nobody at the moment has better ties to MR trust than EWBS or people like Hugh Soar and nobody respectable in the buissnes thinks anymore than all the bows are something else than yew. The information about one bow being something else is somehow outdated.
Erik - none of published crossesctions can be with clear mind described as "rectangular". Its pretty clear from account of the technology, that the bowyers started with "chipped" - that is squared and tappered stave. The bows differ in how much of the wood has been taken off the square during the shaping process, but even the big ones have round belly. I make this type of bow relativelly often and if you start with tapered squared stave and round the back corners and then take off the facette of belly wood on each side away and then just work very quickly from edge of the facete to another rounding the stave along with scraper, small plane or spokeshave, the small flat areas on sides of the stave emerge by themselves. That off course is not rectangular. There is few odd shapes like prominent "galeon" with ridge running down mid off the belly, but they are far and few and I would be interested in seeing if the bows in question have such a profile for the whole of their lenght, or just where there was not enough wood to work round.
Tom - flat belly does not flatbow make as we all know. Neither does it look like welsh were using "flatbows". Frankly, if you take ash or elm sappling, hatchet or knife, strip the bark and just trim the sides and belly by chopping you will end up with longbow, rather than flatbow. I would think in terms of technology rather than fashion.
Now, if you have black locust, you might or might not be sucessfull in making heavy longbow of it as it does not likes the round belly much. It would be beneficial to make the bow longer (around 80") and from piece of wood with crowned back and then after working teh tapers round the belly somehow less than back. That would give you "lentil" profile, somehow closer to viking bows than MR, but more relaxed in terms of compression.
Jaro
-
The larger 'square' profile yew bows at the MRM where referred to as slab-sided bows, and as Jaro mentioned, they still had a rounded belly. I believe Steve Stratton made a yew warbow of this type, with a 160# draw weight. It's posted on this forum... 'MR Replica but just a little longer'
-
Jaro,
The lecture I mention was given by Matthew Strickland and Robert Hardy, and they did confirm that not all the MT bows were yew (and it was more than one bow!). They both seem failry well informed about the MR finds. I've got no axe to gring one way or the other. If I remember correctly there are written references to the fact that some of the MR bows may not have been yew, and certainly references to none Yew warbows in use.
A bow of 100lbs plus is certainly possible with UK whitewoods now, and would have been then.
;D ;D ;D ;D No fight wanted or intended.
-
Hi,
I was wondering if any flatbows were found on the Mary Rose and if there were could someone give me some dimensions.
(or any infortmation about the flatbows that the welsh used right before the "english" warbow came along. Because i cut some black locust today about 8 inches in diamter but it doesnt have enough heartwood for an english warbow design and i i like to keep my bows
looking as much as bows found on the Mary Rose and just plain English Warbows.
Thanks,Tom.
Some of the MR bows were of rectangular section, not really flatbows, and have been described as being longer than most of the bows. Where does your comment about Welsh flat bows come from ? It is news to me that there is any non-fiction information about them other than that they were made of “forest elm”. That wouldn’t include black locust.
Erik
Black locust is the only material i have availiable at the moment and as it is not good in compression i wwas wondering if any flatbows were found on the mary rose so i could kepp my bow to those dimesnions.
-
The problem is that the pool of information from "The warbow" is already slightly outdated. Hovewer, I can ask either Andy Eckerton, or Mark Stretton with whom I m in one archery group - but if there indeed was confirmed non-yew bow on Mary Rose this information would be "big" and public already while ago.
Mind, you even if it wont be oficially published, "we" would know. The research of wood on the bows has gone so far, that DNA test has been done and the kindred living speciemens of the yew tree, have been located in alpine valley (Not that far from Celestios place I m told). To find out whatever one bow is or is not yew is fairly simple test. The confusion might exist because at least 3 "grades" of yew exists, of which the best italian is the most numerous, then there are bows which seems to be of slightly different worksmanship and supposed to be reclaimed from armoury storage and also probably - a favorite hypothesis of Alan Edwards the "Black bow" is somebodys loved weapon brought fom home, which can be easy true, taking in consideration fact that it is coarse yew with abundant character and varnish which does have nothing to do with that of the rest. (Probably english yew)
Well, there is no point to act as if heavy longbow cannot be made out of whitewood, I m doing it for the last 8 years. I have now made ash longbow for Mark which is 140# - and I actually had problems to get the weight down from over 160# which it had at first brace on tiler. I make 125# white wood bows routinely. But what is worth of considering, that whitewood bow is not something you would want to bring into wet field conditions, much less ship. See, they just dont shoot. They loose as much as 1/3 of their performance once they get wet and there is nothing which prevents them to suck water. (Modern polyurethane plastic finish, but even that is not total)
Now, that doesnt matter, if you only have to shoot once in a week to fullfill the leter of the law and you ll keep the bow to dry hung over your fireplace. That doesnt work in trenches.
Yew on the other hand isnt affected by moisture.
Mark, I m not looking for a fight, but if anybody has to get good info, it is better to become EWBS associate member as nobody has better pool of knowledge now. I mean, we are arguing here pool of knowledge of 2003 or some.
Jaro
-
Erik, you cannot "keep the bow to MR dimensions" and make it flatbow.
Also MR dimensions and tapers wont likely work with anything else but yew - if you lay out width tapers for other wood, youll get flatter bow, all else being equall.
What you can do is make the crossection as I m suggesting and make whole profile flattish, perhaps as much as 2:1 width:depth ratio.
Howewer lots of people makes it completelly square as to think that if the belly is flat, it will resist compression better, but that isnt true on deep profiled bow as the edges are strained more than the mid of the profile. Ergo it pays of to moderatelly round everything. What has by far bigger influence on belly holding up is the distance of belly from neutrall plane and that can be manipulated exactly by making the profile such as I m describing.
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. That it was 5 years ago means nothing!
If we respect the authors of the book, their knowlege and honesty it is not entirely relevant whether a member of the EWBS is aware of this or not. I don't know if any current EWBS members were present at the lecture. I have no reason to make this up myself. You very obviously do not believe me - you feel that if this was true it would be widely known which means I am not well enough qualified to know this, or I must be oddly mistaken and stupid and have got my poor little brain confused, or I am not telling the truth and am making this up.
I'm not an EWBS member, but I was there, this happened and I am reporting it honestly and accurately.
Truth does not depend on how many people know it.
I understand that many if not all the MR bows were in the stewardship of Rober Hardy for quite some years prior to them going to the MR museum, so he had had quite a few years to study them at his leisure in his home by 2005. If he says that some were not yew, then he may just know what he is talking about? I also have been lead to understand that not all the MR bows are in the MR museum.
As I couldn't get Robert or Matthew to say any more about the non-yew bows I can't say for sure whether they were whitewood bows or possibly something more exotic.
I have never before heard of yew bows being immune to moisture and so much time and effort is put into seasoning yew by many bowyers. ;D
-
Erik - none of published crossesctions can be with clear mind described as "rectangular". Its pretty clear from account of the technology, that the bowyers started with "chipped" - that is squared and tappered stave. The bows differ in how much of the wood has been taken off the square during the shaping process, but even the big ones have round belly. I make this type of bow relativelly often and if you start with tapered squared stave and round the back corners and then take off the facette of belly wood on each side away and then just work very quickly from edge of the facete to another rounding the stave along with scraper, small plane or spokeshave, the small flat areas on sides of the stave emerge by themselves. That off course is not rectangular. There is few odd shapes like prominent "galeon" with ridge running down mid off the belly, but they are far and few and I would be interested in seeing if the bows in question have such a profile for the whole of their lenght, or just where there was not enough wood to work round.
Jaro
Those who consider Hugh Soar a reliable authority are invited to check “Secrets of the English Warbow”. He not only refers to the existence of MR bows of rectangular section but says how many were found. I think the number was eight ? These were at first thought to have been for large crossbows because of the flat backs. Two of them are #A807 and #A1159. The 15th/16/th century LARTDARCHERIE tells us, Bows are made of two patterns that is to say, square and round, which are used for three kinds of shooting. The square are best for butt shooting for three reasons- first, because they have more back[what Englishmen call the belly] and therefore last longer; secondly, because the arrow lies better against their side, and thirdly because they shoot straighter and keep their cast longer. ‘Bows are made of two patterns that is to say, square and round, which are used for three kinds of shooting. The square are best for butt shooting for three reasons- first, because they have more back and therefore last longer; secondly, because the arrow lies better against their side, and thirdly because they shoot straighter and keep their cast longer. Ascham says ”If a bow be flat made, gather it round”.
According to information I have seen, bows from Nydam up to MR were either of D section, oval, rectangular, or trapezoidal. Of course sharp corners were usually rounded off without changing the basic section type. BTW I believe the high belly ridge {galleon] was a short lived Victorian idea abandoned when found to be a bad idea. These points have convinced me that rectangular section bows did exist.
Cheers,
Erik
-
Also MR dimensions and tapers wont likely work with anything else but yew
-Tried wytch elm..?
BTW, this is an interesting thread. I have used many whitewoods successfully for MR-dimensioned bows, many of them well over what's considered heavy draw weight. Other than w. elm and laburnum they all "need" heat treating on the belly to manage the design though. -And, as Jaro pointed out, moisture is a bigger problem for white woods than it is for yew. Ash is maybe the most extreme one, acting like a sponge to any moist. W. elm withstand moist better than other white woods though. (Our local juniper respond to moist almost as yew, but cannot be compared to yew for war bows.)
About other woods being found on the MR, I wouldn't know. But considering the mentioning of woods like elm, I do think of it as very possible.
-
Mark -
There are two problems - first is that information level advanced in 5 years enormly, and the second that even Hardy and Strickland made mistakes in things they for example had no experience themselves. That of itself isnt bad, but science isnt sum of knowledge, but rather a method how to obtain it.
Erik - "Those who consider Hugh Soar a reliable authority are invited to check “Secrets of the English Warbow”. He not only refers to the existence of MR bows of rectangular section but says how many were found"
Yeh thank you for reffering to book, which not only I happen to have, but into which two my best friends contributed. Anyway the bows you quote are not "square" - they are maybe "squarish" if you want to call them any name and if there is 8 of them then its whooping 4 percent of all bows found. Madonna mia! What shall I do (panic) :o . Hugh´s pet "crossbow" theory is even over enormous respect I have to his work something of sort his personall fantasy - because if you want crossbow, you have to have stock and mechanics too, of which there is no evidence whatsoever, and off course the fact that there is zero room on MR gundeck for giant crossbows with span of 80". I find the idea ridiculous. There is not a hint of evidence.
"Two of them are #A807 and #A115"
I dont think those are what an engeneer call square. We are still talking about bows with moderatelly rounded belly. I can ask directly, but I fear that those are a) galeon or very uneven profile b) so called "slab sided" bows - which by many people have been refered wrongly as "square" and off course rebutall
(Btw - quick search shows that even in Journal of society of Archery antiquities these are called "squarish" - which can be lots of shapes.)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c39/thimosabv/1A4AAAAcross-1.jpg)
I suppose that you can call upper right profile "squarish" as it has obviously 4 corners, right?
"According to information I have seen, bows from Nydam up to MR were either of D section, oval, rectangular, or trapezoidal."
Please be so kind and make a bell-curve distribution of profiles of found bows and we shall talk. That would be scientific. Mind you living in archeologicall comunity I have the actuall datasheets from various finds starting nydam - and one thing is painfully clear, when single stave european bow is concerned the rectangular section seems to be associated with rather primitive weapons, in extremelly small numbers, and it does not seem to be product of anything else than technology. (meaning either the tools or the wood was not enough to make better weapon)
"BTW I believe the high belly ridge {galleon] was a short lived Victorian idea abandoned when found to be a bad idea."
-Again you have conviction of something of which you aparently have no information. Not only have been such bows found on MR but for example alemanic yew bows from warrior graves in 4-6. century have these prominent pattern. (They are smallish raised handle weapons, incomparable in any aspect to MR beast and they appear to be made to stack for reason.) Yet it is not victorian idea, for they have been around longer than one might think. (And again only one specific pattern ov victorian bow made of unbendable woods is made in this shape. Which is like gothic arch, rather than "galeon" I m speaking about.)
"Ascham says ”If a bow be flat made, gather it round”."
That is something without a context I would tell somebody if I wanted him to retiler his bow into more arc shape. :D
"These points have convinced me that rectangular section bows did exist."
Oh yes, you find squarish sticks among european longbow finds - for example 9. cetury moravia magna bow from Velké Mikulčice, which displays similar pattern like the frankish/alemanic bows, but instead of ridge it has flat choped belly. But it has also well rounded back, as it comes from very small sapling. I assure you if somebody who only knows prominent victorian D pattern looked at that bow he would thought the belly and back being reverse oriented.
These bows did existed, yet for different reasons you think and off course, they cannot be called flatbows.
J.
-
Jaro,
You say "There are two problems - first is that information level advanced in 5 years enormly, and the second that even Hardy and Strickland made mistakes in things they for example had no experience themselves. That of itself isnt bad, but science isnt sum of knowledge, but rather a method how to obtain it."
Information level has advanced in 5 years? 5 years is not relevant to this. Knowledge may have advanced enormously, but this would not effect whether or not all the bows were of yew. Either they are or they are not. How does five years passing have any effect on what was said then? You appear to base your opinion on faith and dogma, religion of bows rather than facts of bows! Keep the faith, ignore the truth! The Mary Rose Inquisition strikes again? I am sure that everyone can make mistakes, but this was not an off-the-cuff comment. This was a carefully worded question, and a considered and even slightly reluctant answer answer. If Hardy was not sure, I think he may have said so. He did not exactly want to discuss it, but did admit this FACT.
He has no experience of this you say? He is fairly experienced in yews bows, and in bow making. For some years he was the only published author championing the yew English longbow! He has had a unique opportunity as caretaker of the Mary Rose bows to examine them. He may have made a mistake, but is it not also possible that you make a mistake in ignoring his well informed opinion? He may be wrong in thinking that some of the Mary Rose bows were not made of yew, but his mistake may be better than what you base your opinion on - unless you know more than Robert Hardy on this issue? He has probably seen and handled more Mary Rose bows than you have handled Longbows! Have you had all the Mary Rose bows in your care in your home for many years? Have you been responsible for preserving them and studying them? Have you have them in your custody in your home for many years? He may be wrong on this, but he may also have a better chance of being right on this!
Ideally, one of these "alledged" non-yew bows would be put up for detailed examination. Unfortunately this does not seem likely to happen so it may never be proven - but it was still said in a public meeting by acknowledged world experts who had access to ALL the Mary Rose bows! It seems too many people have a stubborn faith that all the bows were yew to allow the possibility of the fact saying otherwise.
-
Mark
/quote]
Jaro---Please don’t misquote me. I didn’t use the words “square” or “squarish” although one bow was nearly square.. I said “rectangular” and mentioned rounded corners. No, I don’t consider “upper right profile “squarish”.and I see no need of a bell curve. Make one if you like. I am not entirely ignorant about Alemannic bows. They are a European exception with a stiff handle similar to Victorian bows, not bending in an arc, and used with ca. 25” arrows.. The limbs are nearly flat, but five sided, the two facets on the belly barely forming a corner. This is not even close to being a high ridge. Maybe we have a language problem here.
For those who think this thread is about “whitewood” bows, Soar’s book mentioned above notes that the MR previously did have such bows which tended to break, for which the ship’s captain was criticized. The MR was then re-supplied with the yew bows that went down with the ship.
Erik
-
Does anyone know when this book of more info on the MR bows will be available..?
-
The research of wood on the bows has gone so far, that DNA test has been done and the kindred living speciemens of the yew tree, have been located in alpine valley (Not that far from Celestios place I m told).
Jaro
Jaro
Can we be absolutley clear here .... Your saying that from DNA analysis of bow wood found on the Mary Rose the exact geographical location of the source of that wood has been identified ... is this correct?
-
Mark :
"Information level has advanced in 5 years? 5 years is not relevant to this. Knowledge may have advanced enormously, but this would not effect whether or not all the bows were of yew. Either they are or they are not. How does five years passing have any effect on what was said then?"
Do you have any idea how much research can be done in 5 years? Off course it is pretty well damn relevant. For example at the time when Hardy and Stricklan wrote their book, much less Hardy´s longbow alone, there was no comparable material to those bows availble, thus no comparable bows. Now there is and there are people who have both experience shooting bows of the same wood, but also making them. That is also why dr. Kooei´s computations of strenght of those bows does not match - because he only had the parameters for incorect yew. Informations date out faster than anything else.
"You appear to base your opinion on faith and dogma, religion of bows rather than facts of bows!"
Mark, I have made roughly 1500 bows and I have the closest ties to people who have best availble information NOW. With current level of knowledge. You obviously win shiny mirror award for this.
"He has no experience of this you say? He is fairly experienced in yews bows, and in bow making"
And now, now you are misquoting me. See, you are not any better nor hold any moral high ground. I said, that he makes mistakes in what he does not have personal experience. For example, there is well known manuscript picture published in "The great warbow" on which the archers are holding bows up in the air next to their heads - under which is written by autor´s pen "Everybody knows that you cannot draw heavy bow that way." That is off course rather bold statement given that author has no experience in doing so and when I superposed picture of me in early draw over the manuscrip its exactly the same thing and I pull 140#/30" with body weight of 156#. (And I m not only one person who uses that method producing similar result.)
" He may be wrong in thinking that some of the Mary Rose bows were not made of yew, but his mistake may be better than what you base your opinion on - unless you know more than Robert Hardy on this issue?"
Mark if you want to debate me, educate yourself on what a debating (logical) faul is. How can his mistake be better than eventual truth based on good source. Because its me Im saying that ? Is your mind shape of corkscrew? Do you assume that difference between correct and mistaken observation is based on the identity of observer? Who, seriously crazy. I would call it "Schrodinger´s dog" or something.
I base my opinion in latest info, prominent members of EWBS, participants on published books on the subject and master of guild of bowyers can provide. Which has actually the experience with working the exactly same wood up to the DNA match the Mary rose bows were made. Obviously they can also be misinformed or make a mistake, but their information is of newer date that than of Mr. Hardy and their research goes well deeper.
"Ideally, one of these "alledged" non-yew bows would be put up for detailed examination. Unfortunately this does not seem likely to happen so it may never be proven - but it was still said in a public meeting by acknowledged world experts who had access to ALL the Mary Rose bows! It seems too many people have a stubborn faith that all the bows were yew to allow the possibility of the fact saying otherwise."
-Except that both Hardy and Strickland are writers. That does not makes either of them expert in e.g. dendrochronology or cognitive science, which would make them authority on recognising 450 years old wood. In that I rather trust lab. There is no official statement of Mary Rose trust who actually has the means on doing such testing that there was whitewood bow on MR. Understand that there are also different sources of information, than these two books - for example in pure informationall value Richards Wadge´s book "Arrowstorm" contains more information and is better researched than Great Warbow - particulary information which is worth to archer and bowyer, that is. Diference being that Richard can actually walk the walk.
The whole affair is like "accusing me that I cannot be scientist because I dont worship on altar of Rodenberry". Bizzare.
As I said, there are new informations availble since Great Warbow - for example there have been research on wood and living specimens of yew trees kindred to the wood of MR bows have been located. If there was indeed whitewood bow, it would be confirmed by now.
Just let us summarised
- No flatbows
- No whitewood bows were ever confirmed by scientific authority or bowyer for that matter. The information that some are white woodbows is I believe actually literary reference, which seems to persist contrary to Mary Rose trust info.
- "Rectangularity" of those bows is highly questionable in regards of number of profiles to assume anything but odity. Still not square though.
- No giant crossbows. Not a squat of evidence for them. No stock, no mechanism, no bindings and no space for 80" span crosbow on MR gundeck. Besides those bows have recognisable asymetricity. That is not what you make for crossbow.
J.
Mr. Roth its amusing to see you pedall, but given that you didnt cave-in under Mark Stretton´s and Steve Stratton´s authority on the subject, and babbled your nonsense on and on in older threads I wont loose my time on you, since you cannot do the thing anyway.
" I am not entirely ignorant about Alemannic bows. They are a European exception with a stiff handle similar to Victorian bows, not bending in an arc, and used with ca. 25” arrows"
- They are as unlike as victorian bow as one might imagine. There are no victorian bows with that profile which is exactly the "galeon", unlike the victorian high gothic arch (which is exceptionall by itself) and both the technology and approach to some solutions (handle and tips) are very very different.
Nidrir - it is all very hush hush now, but it seems to being prepared so the time horizont is not that far.
-
"Can we be absolutley clear here .... Your saying that from DNA analysis of bow wood found on the Mary Rose the exact geographical location of the source of that wood has been identified ... is this correct?"
Yes Horace, that is exactly what I m saying - Let me quote : "They did DNA testing of the wood and then compared it to living specimen yew trees in alps and have found kindred (offspring) trees in alpine valley, not far from Cellestios place."
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
-
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. ;D
Mark
I think you may be referring to a lecture at the National Army Museum London on 22nd October 2005 with lectures by Dr Andrew Ayton and Robert Hardy. If we are talking about the same lectures I can confirm, because I was also there, that questions were asked about bow materials and (if my memory is correct) bow profiles. Both the speakers confirmed the existence of bows thought not to be made of Yew.
-
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
I'm assuming this work has been written up and submitted to a peer reviewed academic journal ??
-
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
-
"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
-
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...
-
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
-
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
You forgot to mention who the authors of the research results are
-
Horace,
Yes, that's the lecture I was talking about. Glad to know that I'm not making this up, even if I did get some of the names wrong!
Jaro,
I think this is in danger of becoming personal - I hope it doesn't.
There are a number of references to some or a few of the MR bows not being yew. What they are I don't know as this has never been confirmed. The fact that reference was made at this lecture to non-yew MT bows was reported by me, and now confirmed by Horace. I put this fact forward because I thought it may be of interest . Why the knowledge of this is patchy I do not know - but I would rather not be attacked for putting this information forward. I have no investment in it being correct or incorrect.
I am of course aware that a lot of work has been done on better understanding the MR bows in the past five years. That doesn't necessarily alter the fact that 5 years ago some of the bows were not thought to be yew - and that is presumably still the case. Until such time as more information is available on these particulalr bows that's all that can really be said - some of the MR bows may not be yew. It would be of considerable interest to identify which specific bows were in question and to clarify this.
I'm not sure what you mean by shiny mirrors. I in no way intend to deny or belittle your expertise and knowledge. I do however wish you did not so easily discount the opinions of some others which may also be valid. If Robert Hardy, after living with these bows for so long thought that a few were not yew, I'd like to know why rather than just discount a possibly fascinating bit of knowledge. I am sure that he has made mistakes and have no doubt he has learnt a great deal during his lifelong interest in longbows. Perhaps he's correct, perhaps not - but why attack so hard when someone reports this?
My mind may be an odd shape - but is that relevant? The people who have said that they feel that not all the bows were yew must presumably have had what appeared to them at the time to be a good reason for beleiving this and saying this. I don't agree or disagree with what they say - I would like to know why they said this, what it was based upon and see work to establish whether it is correct or not. Perhaps there is a language barrier at work but I feel you are getting dangerously close to personal insults which I do not appreciate.
You do keep on referring to these bows as being whitewood. They may not be whitewood, they could be on New World wood. What they are is not known. All that is known is that those who had access to the MR bows at that time thought that some of them were not yew.
"The whole affair is like "accusing me that I cannot be scientist because I dont worship on altar of Rodenberry". Bizzare." Jaro, I'm afraid that I just did not understand this, simple corkscrew-brain shiny mirror person that I am ;D I accuse you of nothing. Why shoot the messenger? I don't care if you believe or don't believe this about MR bows I just reported something I felt might be of interest.
Bizarre Mark with corkscrew brain and shiny mirror in England ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
I won't allow it to get personal here on PA!!! >:( ;)
-
Jaro
Would you be kind enough to clarify what is your relationship with and to the Mary Rose Trust?
-
I really hope this doesn't get personal - because like so many others I would genuinely like to know if some of the MR bows were not yew. I've heard this said several times and denied several times. The truth is that so far as I know no comprehensive study cataloguing all the bows has been published. I think it is about time we in the archery community had such a comprehensive study available - and I'm a little surprised that it hasn't been done. It would be very interesting to see statistical analyses of the measurements of the full range of bows cross referenced to the places they were found on the site so that we could see if any groups or categories seem to emerge perhaps suggesting different types of bows for different purposes. I don't know what would be involved in scientifically analysing the wood species of all the bows - but subject to the levels of preservation it must be possible and and surely could have been done by now. There are very clear historical records that whitewood longbows were made in the middle ages. Whether there were any on the MR and whether they were accepted as serviceable for war is a different matter.
-
Backgardenbowyer,
Cross your fingers, ego's and "I'm smarter than you" attitudes fly on this site more than bat's out of a cave. And, about a piece of wood, shaped into a bow that only a handfull of people care about "discharging an arrow" out of. ??? ::) It would be nice to glean some of this knowledge without putting on the boots and wading through so much crap to get to it. JMO
-
Mullet,
I think that discussions about these bows get heated at times because quite a few people are interested in them, but relatively little historical evidence exists.
Odd thing is, I think there is generally a more tolerant open minded atmosphere when the discussion is about old hornbows, or old native american bows - perhaps because more records and examples exist?
Even though there have been a few intense words, I'm not sure there is too much "crap" as you put it.
Mark in England
-
Mark;
The "crap" I'm refering to is when the name calling starts it tends to get worse and worse in the Warbow section untill everybody starts getting their feelings hurt. Then the Moderators start getting all the Emails with everbody tattling on each other.
An educated discussion would be a lot more pleasant then all the bickering. I really enjoy reading some of the information you guys have, but after awhile it gets too bothersome to find the knowledge mixed in with the insults.
-
I do sometimes wonder if the rules should be "no mention of sex, politics, religion and medieval!" ;D
-
;D ;)
-
Have to agree. It should be possible for adults to have different meanings without starting to make names and such. No matter what was or was not on the MR, I have plans to make more bows from wytch elm using MR dimensions. I believe w.elm is the whitewood most mentioned if I remember correct.
-
J
Mr. Roth its amusing to see you pedall, but given that you didnt cave-in under Mark Stretton´s and Steve Stratton´s authority on the subject, and babbled your nonsense on and on in older threads I wont loose my time on you, since you cannot do the thing anyway.
" I am not entirely ignorant about Alemannic bows. They are a European exception with a stiff handle similar to Victorian bows, not bending in an arc, and used with ca. 25” arrows"
- They are as unlike as victorian bow as one might imagine. There are no victorian bows with that profile which is exactly the "galeon", unlike the victorian high gothic arch (which is exceptionall by itself) and both the technology and approach to some solutions (handle and tips) are very very different.
"Mr. Roth its amusing to see you pedall, but given that you didnt cave-in under Mark Stretton´s and Steve Stratton´s authority on the subject, and babbled your nonsense on and on in older threads I wont loose my time on you, since you cannot do the thing anyway."
I think you are referring to the time I avoided making personal attacks against the personal attacks and insults directed against me in BIG RED BLOCK LETTERS. I don’t think personal attacks and insults really belong on here.
Please let me know which is “the thing” that I cannot do and you won’t have to “loose” any more of your valuable time on me.
- "They are as unlike as victorian bow as one might imagine. There are no victorian bows with that profile which is exactly the "galeon", unlike the victorian high gothic arch (which is exceptionall by itself) and both the technology and approach to some solutions (handle and tips) are very very different."
The Alemannic bows, which share the Victorian characteristics of stiff handle and the bend at midlimb, are not “as unlike as victorian bow as one might imagine” My imagination would pick every Nydam and MR bow.as being more unlike Victorian bows.
I agree with you that the idea that the rectangular bows were for crossbows, probably because of the flat bellies, is ridiculous.
Erik
-
"Two of them are #A807 and #A115"
I dont think those are what an engeneer call square. We are still talking about bows with moderatelly rounded belly. I can ask directly, but I fear that those are a) galeon or very uneven profile b) so called "slab sided" bows - which by many people have been refered wrongly as "square" and off course rebutall
(Btw - quick search shows that even in Journal of society of Archery antiquities these are called "squarish" - which can be lots of shapes.)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c39/thimosabv/1A4AAAAcross-1.jpg)
Jaro
The reference numbers you cite (#A807 and #A115) don't correspond to the pictorial examples you give which are #3947 and #3965.
Would you like to clarify the point your trying to make?
-
im curious about this also, yew is not an option for me and white woods is my drug of choice.
one other thing im curious about do you guys get together and build bows ,trade info ,enjoy each others company.....well its a thought anyways !
-
I knew I had read it somewhere:
"Secrets of the English War Bow",
page 13, referring to the Mary Rose bows: "..although current archaeology has revealed the presence on board of at least some bows of other wood."
page 17 says something about the 8 more rectangular shaped bows. -I'm not sure how much text I'm allowed to copy from a book, but in general the text says theese are "..significantly more robust and longer than the others..." "...the draw weight of these formidable things has been assassed as significantly greater than the others..." -It is suggested that theese were not hand held weapons.
-
Hehe, this just goes on and on ;D
When the MR-publication is out, hopefully in this year, we will all be surpriced. ...but those refusing the idea of non-yew bows from the MR, will probably be the most surpriced 8)
-
Mark -I dont know who put up that lecture but none MR bow is reported of other wood than yew. I think that nobody at the moment has better ties to MR trust than EWBS or people like Hugh Soar and nobody respectable in the buissnes thinks anymore than all the bows are something else than yew. The information about one bow being something else is somehow outdated.
Jaro
I knew I had read it somewhere:
"Secrets of the English War Bow",
page 13, referring to the Mary Rose bows: "..although current archaeology has revealed the presence on board of at least some bows of other wood."
page 17 says something about the 8 more rectangular shaped bows. -I'm not sure how much text I'm allowed to copy from a book, but in general the text says theese are "..significantly more robust and longer than the others..." "...the draw weight of these formidable things has been assassed as significantly greater than the others..." -It is suggested that theese were not hand held weapons.
I believe Mr Soar is the author of "Secrets of the English War Bow", is there any reference in his book as to where this information came from?
-
yep, Soar is the author. The references from page 13 quote are "rules of the British Long-Bow society, Organisation-Tackle, 4th ed. (2001).
-
Have not been here for a while so am only joining this discussion now:
With regard to non yew bows on the Mary Rose: the Mary Rose Trust's artifact data base:
http://www.maryrose.org/database/mary_rose_archive.html
lists all bows as being made of yew except for:
Artifact No. 79A0471 which is stated as being a 320 mm piece of a willow bow. See record No. 2425;
Artifact No. 81A0213 which is stated as being a 102 mm piece of a bow of unspecified wood. See record 2426;
Plus two bows that were used in tests and had horn nocks fitted so in the column where on other bows they state yew or indeed in the one case willow, they state "Horn: Wood:" see record No. 2322, artifact No. 81A1607 and record No. 2411 artifact No. 81A3975.
Therefore unless their data base is wrong, it seems there is one piece of wood that is thought to be from a willow bow and one unidentified piece all the remainder are claimed to be of yew. AS this claimed willow bow piece is only 320 mm long one can understand the reluctance of people to speak of it especially as it is not of a recognised "English" bow wood.
Regarding flat bows, I have not seen the bows but from my reading of the various books etc on the subject of the Mary Rose bows I believe that what is meant by references to flat bows are actually squarish sectioned bows.
Craig.
-
320 mm = 32 cm ~13 inches ... must be very interesting piece
102 mm = 10.2 cm ~4 inches ... must be very small bow
-
102 mm = 10.2 cm ~4 inches ... must be very small bow
Why do you need to change mm to cm?
The original post said :
"a 102 mm piece of a bow"
What bit of "piece of bow" do you not understand?
Craig
-
No need to get sarcastic. We've already gone thru name calling on this thread and there is no need to become inflammatory over the subject again.
-
JW_Halverson ,
Have not called any names, have merely responded to a stupid, meaningless post.
I suggest you need to read what is written not assume things. and to correct your mis-comprehension I am not becoming inflammatory over any subject again.
Posts such as the one I responded to do nothing but detract from the discussion ans should be stamped on. One wonders why you feel the need to defend it rather than condemn it.
Craig.
-
I do sometimes wonder if the rules should be "no mention of sex, politics, religion and medieval!" ;D
You hit the nail on the head, Mark. Funny how this particular thread brings out the worst. Even when the moderators post warnings in the middle of the thread! I'm outa here, I've had it with incivility that seems to go hand in hand with this subject. From here out I am staying away from any posts dealing with anything about the middle ages and English bows. I don't think I am going to miss a lot of good information but I am sure going to avoid a lot of bickering and self-aggrandizing behavior. So long.