Flatbows found on the Mary Rose?

[bow-toxo]

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

[nidrinr]

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.

[Jaro]

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) . 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.)


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.


"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.

[markinengland]

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.

[bow-toxo]

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

[nidrinr]

Does anyone know when this book of more info on the MR bows will be available..?

[Phil Rees]

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?

[Jaro]

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.

[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?"

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

[Phil Rees]

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.

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.

[Phil Rees]

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 ??

[Jaro]

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

[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

[Phil Rees]

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...

[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