Mary Rose Archers

[steve58]

I am sure I read somewhere that the skeletons of the archers on the Mary Rose showed the effects on the skeleton of a lifetime of pulling heavy bows. Problems is I can't find the page again does anyone know where this info is at? Please? Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

[Raedwald]

Don't know about the Mary Rose, but skeletons found in a burial pit dating from the battle of Towton certainly show thicker bone structure and development in the lower left and upper right arm, as well as other developments that would indicate prolonged use of high-poundage longbows.

As part of the investigation (a Secrets of the Dead programme on Channel 4 a few years ago), a modern-day longbowman who'd been using high-poundage bows from his early years was CAT-scanned. His skeleton showed the same development.

(oh, the joys and delights of a short course on Archeology earlier this year! )

[gwynn]

Originally Posted by steve58

I am sure I read somewhere that the skeletons of the archers on the Mary Rose showed the effects on the skeleton of a lifetime of pulling heavy bows. Problems is I can't find the page again does anyone know where this info is at? Please? Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

they also show evidence of back problems!
i know the bit you mean i'll have a look in my books..................

[gwynn]

i found something in 'the great warbow' by hardy and strickland, (ISBN 0-7509-3167-1) on pages 30/31 about this, not all that conclusive............ but interesting.
there is something somewhere i've seen though that covers it in more detail but i'm dammed if i can remember it - as homer simpson says 'everytime i learn something new it pushes some old stuff out of my brain' d'oh!

[Yew Selfbow]

Having done a small amount of research work in Forensic Osteology, the conventional wisdom that the skeletal structures of medieval archers were modified by the continued use of the bow doesn't stand up to objective scientific investigation. You have to remember that then. there was no neonatal or postnatal care, and many children were born with skeletal abnormalities that today would be resolved with the appropriate orthopaedic intervention. Many of the skeletal abnormalities aquired at birth are seen in the recovered skeletons of adults. Spinal Kyphosis, Scoliosis and Lordosis are still common conditions in underdeveloped countries today, as are deformities of the limb long bones due to poor diet and disease.

Another notion that needs to be challenged is that many archers at the battle of Agincourt, fought while suffering from Dysentery. The notion of someone suffering from Dysentery being able to fight a battle is quite untrue.

[kernowtom]

Try reading "Raising the Dead: The Skeleton Crew of King Henry VIII's Great Ship the Mary Rose" - all notions need to be challenged indeed. I am afraid I don't know of any books on dysentery at Agincourt. I have always assumed that references to "dysentery" probably (if improperly) include diarrhea of a less debilitating form than shigellosis or amoebic dysentery. Another good read, thinking about it, is Rats Lice and History by Zinssner (or is it Zinsser? - my copy is packed away) - lots about disease and battles
happy new year
tom

[Little Bow Pete]

The Summer 2006 issue of The Glade has an article by Jonathan Davies on the physical stature of Medieval archers. It mentions that some skeletons thought to be archers on the Mary Rose had deformities that have been linked to archery, but puts this in the context of a society where heavy manual lifting was common. The references include the book kernowtom recommends, as well as one on the Towton mass grave.

I might have a copy of the Secrets of the Dead programme Raedwald refers to. If you're interested (and if I can find it) drop me a PM.

LBP

[Furface]

Is it possible that the bone deformities were what made the men suited to archery, rather than vice versa?

[Raedwald]

Possibly, possibly.

However, if a group of people have the same skeletal development, then is it not more likely that it came abhout because of what they did, rather than they did what they did because of it?

[gwynn]

Originally Posted by Yew Selfbow

snip.......... The notion of someone suffering from Dysentery being able to fight a battle is quite untrue.

We'll not know wether it was dysentery or the 'runs' brought about by eating whatever they could find as they were being chased across France, as to not being able to fight a battle - how much option would they have had? I've had dysentery, some 30 odd years ago while in an army in Africa and it is [no excuses] an **** kicker, could I have stood in a firing line? Possibly, maybe not, it would depend on the motivation, I was certainly very, very weak but at least I knew I could be casevaced, an option they didn't have.