Weapons of Warre: The Ordnance of the Mary Rose

[CraigMBeckett]

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.

[CraigMBeckett]

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

[Ian.]

Thanks for that Craig.

[Phil Rees]

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.

[CraigMBeckett]

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.
   

[CraigMBeckett]

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.

[Ian.]

Thanks for posting this Craig, I have saved it in word for future reference.

[Del the cat]

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

[Ian.]

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.

[Del the cat]

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

[Prarie Bowyer]

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?

[CraigMBeckett]

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.

[Ian.]

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.

[nidrinr]

..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#.

[CraigMBeckett]

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.