What does the Archaeological Evidence of the

Mary Rose Reveal about the Archer and

Practice of Archery, and how will the Mary Rose

Trust Interpret this Evidence for its Visitors in

the New Museum.

Amie Lori Friend

HDA-3075-0 - Heritage, Archaeology and

History BA (Hons)

2012

Declaration

‘I certify that this dissertation is my own unaided work, and has personally

been researched and written by me’

Signed

Date

Word Count

List of Figures

Figure 1 - The Mary Rose as depicted in the Anthony Anthony Roll (Knighton & Loades,

2000, 42)

Figure 2 – The site of The Mary Rose shipwreck (Marsden, 2003, 21)

Figure 3 – The erosion and burial of The Mary Rose (Marsden, 2003, 85)

Figure 4 – Excavation plan of The Mary Rose (Marsden, 2003, 49)

Figure 5 – An artist impression of the sunken vessel (Rule, 1982, 41)

Figure 6 – Photo of the mixed skeletal remains found during excavation (Stirland, 2000, 69)

Figure 7- Distribution of The Mary Rose Fairly Complete Skeleton (Marsden, 2003, 124)

Figure 8 – The human scapular demonstrating the acromion (Stirland, 2000, 120)

Figure 9- Example of bilateral os acromiale found among The Mary Rose crew (Stirland, 2000, 121)

Figure 10 – New spurs of bone at degenerated tendon points (Stirland, 2000, 130)

Figure 11 -Paired humeri from a young Mary Rose individual demonstrating the development of major

attachment points (Stirland, 2000, 131)

Figure 12- Archery practice in London fields as shown in the Moorfeilds Map 1559 (Bradbury, 1985, 161)

Figure 13- The Mary Rose facial construction project (www.tudorhistory.org)

Figure 14 – A pair of bowed tibias showing childhood rickets (Stirland, 2000, 90)

Figure 15 – Photo of mixed human remains from The Mary Rose excavation (Stirland, 2000, 71)

Figure 16 – Distribution of excavated archery equipment (Soar, 2011, 646)

Figure 17 – Image of Wristgaurd 81A1460 (Soar, 2011, 655)

Figure 18 - Image of Wristgaurd 81A4241 (Soar, 2011, 655)

Figure 19 - Image of Wristgaurd 82A0943 (Soar, 2011, 653)

Figure 20 - Image of Wristgaurd 81A1158 (Soar, 2011, 658)

Figure 21 - Image of Wristgaurd 81A5826 (Soar, 2011, 660)

Figure 22 - Image of Wristgaurd 81A1173 (Soar, 2011, 660)

Figure 23 - Image of Wristgaurd 81A1185 (Soar, 2011, 660)

Figure 24 – Depiction of a trees composition of heart and sapwood (www.bowyers.com)

Figure 25 – Photo of a selection of Mary Rose longbows (Picture by Sally Friend)

Figure 26 – Archer gestures of defiance (Soar, 2006, 175)

Figure 27 – Computer projected draw weights of the Mary Rose longbow collection as determined by Kooi

and Pratt (Bartlett, Boyton, Jackson, Jackson, McElvogue, Hildred, Watson, 2011, 616)

Figure 28 – Wood species identified from The Mary Rose arrow assemblage (Hildred, Watson, Hopkins,

Jackson & Waller, 2011, 674)

Figure 29 – Arrow profiles (Soar, 2006, 73)

Figure 30 – Proportion of arrow profiles in three storage chests excavated from The Mary Rose (Watson,

2011, 684)

Figure 31 – Proportion of arrow profiles in The Mary Rose collection (Watson, 2011, 688)

Figure 32 – The path of an arrows flight around the bow (Hardy, 2006, 176)

Figure 33 – Depiction of medieval archers providing cover during sea battle (Marsden, 2003, 136)

Figure 34 – A section of the Cowdray Engraving showing the sunken Mary Rose (Knighton & Loades,

2000, 119)

Figure 35 – An artist impression of the sinking Mary Rose (www.guardian.co.uk)

Figure 36 – Photo of the raising of The Mary Rose October 11th 1982 (The Mary Rose Trust)

Figure 37 – The time line of the final conservation phases and the construction of the new museum

(Summery, 2008)

Figure 38 – The planned site of the new Mary Rose museum (The Mary Rose Trust)

Figure 39 – The internal view of the planned Mary Rose museum (The Mary Rose Trust)

Figure 40 – A cross-section view of the new Mary Rose museum (The Mary Rose Trust)

Figure 41 – A panel interpretation of The Mary Rose sinking (The Mary Rose Trust)

Figure 42 – Planned introductory gallery depicting the Cowdray Engraving (The Mary Rose Trust)

Figure 43 – Ratio of male and females surveyed

Figure 44 – Age percentages of the survey

Figure 45 – Results of the human remains survey

Figure 46 – Construction photo of the new Mary Rose museum photo by (Sally Friend)

Figure 47 – The positioning of the Mary Rose commemoration coin (www.bbc.co.uk)

Figure 48 – The medieval archer (Marsden, 2003, 136)

Figure 49 – An artist’s impression of The Mary Rose

Acknowledgements

There are several people to whom I owe a very big thank you, for without them the

writing of this thesis would have been a considerably harder and much less fun

experience.

Firstly, to the Mary Rose Trust and its amazing team; including Chris Dobbs, Alex

Hildred and Andrew Elkerton, as well as Alistair and Nick, who helped me with the

survey, and Claire and Mary of the Education department. Throughout this project they

have been absolutely brilliant, allowing me access to, and helping me to locate, many of

the resources which I needed. I am immeasurably grateful for the support, guidance and

use of the archives.

Secondly I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Ray whose guidance and support

has been brilliant and who just smiled at my many changes of question.

I would also like to say a big thank you to all those who had to listen to me plan out loud,

talk through problems and read through copy after copy of draft paragraphs only

slightly varying with me asking which they thought read better.

I would in particular like to direct this thank you to Sally and Ian who have always

encouraged and listened and who have supported me all the way though. From taking

me to the Mary Rose to ask for a volunteering position to proof reading, you were

always there and I would never have got this far without you.

And lastly, but certainly not least of all, one of my biggest thank you’s goes to the staff

and volunteers of the Mary Rose museum. When I started this project in June of last

year I was interested and enthusiastic to start researching, however I was also excited

by an opportunity to volunteer for the Trust. Yet after those three months I went back to

university not only keen to turn the research into a written thesis but also completely

inspired having spent one of the best summers that I can remember.

Therefore to all of the museum staff and volunteers, but in particular to those with

whom I worked on a Monday and Tuesday, I would like to say a very big thank you. You

made me so welcome and taught me so much; I look forward to hopefully working with

you again.

Contents Page

Declaration Page i

List of Figures ii

Acknowledgements iv

Introductions 1

Chapter One – The Mary Rose Skeletal Remains 5

Importance of the Tudor Archer 6

Tudor Archer Techniques 8

Archer Training 9 The Archer 11

Chapter Two – Artefact Evidence 14

Wristguard’s 15

The Mary Rose Longbows 17

The Archer and the Bow 18

Bow Weight 19

Arrows 21

An Archers Role 23

Chapter Three – The New Museum 26

The New Mary Rose Museum 27

Archery in the New Museum 28

The Human Element 30

Conclusions 33

Appendix 35

Chapter One 36

Stirland Comparison Studies

Chapter Two 37

Wristgaurd Data

Longbow Distribution Map

Longbow Data

Arrow Distribution Map

The Anthony Anthony Role Longbow Statistics

Estimate Graphs of Arrow Ratios

Chapter Three 48

New Museum Plan

Overall Museum Plan

Cross Section Museum Plan

Side View Museum Plan

Survey Data

Survey Comments

Dive logs

Bibliography 65

“The might of England standyth upon her archers”

Sir John Fortescue (d.1478)

Introduction

Today the mighty Tudor warship the

Mary Rose, flower of King Henry

VIII’s navy, is one of the most

celebrated archaeological sites in the

UK. Every year she attracts visitors

from around the world, visitors who

clamour not only to see the remains

of her hull but also for the

opportunity to immerse themselves

in the Tudor age, via the unparalleled

array of artefacts recovered, along

with her, from the floor of the Solent.

Yet as dramatic and far reaching

reputation as the Mary Rose has

undoubtedly cultivated in our time,

she unquestionably held as important

and significant a place in her own.

Following his ascension to the English throne Henry VIII made his name, not only through his

controversial religious reforms and multiple marriages, but through his patronage and

development of England’s naval power. In the first ten years of his reign Henry “constructed

seventeen new Man O’War, with another dozen vessels bought or requisitioned into his Royal

fleet” (Moorhouse, 2006, 12), an impressive achievement, considering only six such vessels had

entered into Royal control during the previous 87 years, (Moorhouse, 2006, 12) and, it was the

Mary Rose, along with her sister ship the Peter Pomegranate, who began this historic

development. Of a Carrack design, the Mary Rose is believed by many to have been named in

honour of the King’s favourite sister Mary Tudor, yet together the Mary Rose and the Peter

Pomegranate display in their names and flags, the houses and emblems of both the Royal house

of Tudor and the personal insignia of Catherine of Aragon, England’s Spanish Queen. It is

possible therefore; that the Mary Rose was not named to favour a Royal sister but rather to

demonstrate the new King’s ambitious power and prestigious family connections. However,

regardless of reasoning behind her name, the Mary Rose embarked, in 1511, on an illustrious

career which was to last 34 years, during which time she functioned mainly in a defensive role

around England’s coastline, yet also took part in the major campaign deployments, against the

French in 1513 and 1522, as well as providing support during the Scottish campaign of 1513-14

(Marsden, 2003, 13). Within the fleet, she held a unique place and status, frequently being

chosen as the Royal flagship the Mary Rose was the embodiment of the superior qualities of the

English navy and maritime craftsmanship, particularly her agility, strength and speed in the

water. Her career and her name, then as now, became redolent with the entire might and power

of the Tudor navy, a might and power which Henry VIII was arguably to develop more than any

other monarch. Indeed in a letter to King Henry dated March 22nd 1513 the Mary Rose’s first

Lord Admiral Sir Edward Howard described her as “your good ship the flower I trow of all ships

that ever sailed ... a ship of 100 ton will not be sooner ... about than she” (Knighton & Loades,

2002, 23). This opinion of the Mary Rose is similarly emphasised by the King himself in 1522

during the entertainment of his wife’s nephew the Emperor Charles V. Of the many ships in King

Figure 1 - The Mary Rose as Seen From the Anthony Roll (Knighton & Loades, 2000, 42)

Henry’s possession, this visiting power was

taken aboard just two, which became

representative of the entire Royal fleet.

Along with the Great Harry, physically the

greatest ship, the Mary Rose was chosen to be

such an ambassador (AARC 26th May 1522,

Knighton & Loades, 2002, 83) and as such it

may reasonably be concluded that she

commanded a domineering reputation beyond

her home waters, a reputation which provided

King Henry with

an invaluable

political asset. However 34 years of successful service came to an

end for the Mary Rose on July 19th 1545. Carrying the Vice Admiral

of the fleet, Sir George Carew, the Mary Rose followed the flagship,

the Great Harry, into the battle of the Solent, were turning to

engage enemy vessels she sank, taking with her all but

approximately 35 of a crew potentially 500 strong. Salvage

attempts were made in the weeks following the disaster, similarly

the 19th Century Deane brothers salvaged guns and a mixed array

of artefacts, but it wasn’t until the rediscovery of the wreck by

Alexander McKee the 1960’s that a full scale excavation and

ultimate salvage of the hull was begun. Excavation was long yet

thorough, beginning in earnest in 1979, with the formation of the

Trust; it relied heavily on a series of volunteer divers aided by

archaeologists, themselves overseen by excavation director Dr

Margaret Rule. Over 19,000 artefacts were recovered, allowing an

unprecedented window into Tudor life, a window which in 2009

inspired Dr David Starkey to describe the Mary Rose as “the English

Pompeii, its Herculaneum our very own tomb of Tutankhamun”

Figure 2- Site of the Mary Rose Shipwreck (Marsden, 2003, 21)

Figure 3 - The Erosion and Burial of the Mary Rose (Marsden,

2003, 85)

Figure 4 - Excavation Plan of the Mary Rose (Marsden, 2003, 49)

(www.historickdockyard-June 2009). As the Staffordshire Hoard has recently done for Anglo-

Saxon archaeology the Mary Rose provided Tudor archaeology with an unparalleled wealth of

new material for analysis and interpretation. The preservation of the site was excellent. Sealed

in the 16th Century the Mary Rose “remained hidden, apart from the occasional severe winter

storm, until it was rediscovered in 1968. The rapid silting and sealing provided a perfect

anaerobic environment” (Stirland, 1991, 43) which allowed the recovery of artefacts as varied

as iron and bronze guns, knives and bows, as well as more everyday items such as clothing,

tools, cutlery and combs, along with the human remains themselves. These artefacts offer a

pure, relatively unbiased view into the Tudor age (Marsden, 2003, xi), a snap shot, not unlike

that of Pompeii, allowing many areas of academic research to develop exponentially. Particular

to this thesis was the recovery of 172 complete and semi-complete longbows, as well as all the

accoutrements of competent archers. I plan, through exploration of such archaeological

evidence, to look specifically at the archers themselves and their use of archery, addressing

questions as to who these archers were, and where they came from in terms of the Tudor social

strata, as well as trying to develop an understanding of the role these men would have had.

However as archaeologically significant as the Mary Rose is, she is also a heritage ideal. The final

raising of the ship’s hull was a well publicised event broadcast around the world on October 11th

1982, a broadcast watched by more than 6 million people. As such from her earliest

introduction into the modern age the Mary Rose has possessed the ability to captivate and

interest the public, an ability that in combination with her impressive time capsule of

information has made her as invaluable a window into the Tudor age, for the public, as she has

been for academia. I plan therefore to conclude this thesis by focusing on how the

archaeological evidence of the Mary Rose will be presented to the public in the new museum

concentrating specifically on the evidence previously discussed of archery and those aboard

who may have worked as an archer.

Figure 5 - An Artist’s Impression of the Sunken Vessel (Rule, 1982, 41)

“The warlike yewgh, by which, more than the lance, the strong armed English bow

men, conquered France”

Sir Thomas Browne (1605 -1682)

Chapter One – The Mary Rose Skeletal Remains

Throughout the Mary Rose project

director of excavations Dr Margaret

Rule, wrote that “the human bones

were unavoidable” (Rule, 1982, 186).

Archaeologically, skeletal remains

derived from context excavation can

provided particularly potent sources of

information, for as Stirland writes,

skeletal remains are the closest that

archaeologists can get to the living

individuals (Stirland, 2000, 117). When

the Mary Rose sank on July 19th 1545

she took with her the vast majority of

her crew. Approximately 35 men

successfully made it back to shore whilst the rest, “trapped by the anti-boarding netting, which

covered all exposed decks” (Stirland, 2005, 516), as well as the decks themselves, sank to

become buried, along with the ship, on the floor of the Solent. Eventually the Mary Rose came to

rest on a 60° from vertical angle on her starboard side, and this, combined with the four tides a

day which caught her hull, resulted in the complete co-mingling of the skeletal remains, a mix

which diving teams met throughout the excavation (Stirland, 1989, 5).These remains came to

the surface in the late 70’s and early 80’s in a remarkably well preserved state, the rapid silting

process which quickly sealed the Mary Rose, ensured that today “many of the bones are

complete and undamaged ... with unusually clear markings in them where tendons and

ligaments were attached in life” (Stirland, 2000, 119). During post-excavation analysis 179

Figure 6 - Mixed Skeletal Remains Found During Excavation (Stirland, 2000, 69)

Figure 7 - Distribution of the Mary Rose Fairly Complete Skeletons (Marsden, 2003, 124)

individuals were identified from a count of both skulls and mandible’s. Of these 179 individuals,

91 were able to be re-assembled into fairly complete skeletons (FCS), becoming an “unparallel

assemblage of Tudor human remains” (Stirland, 2005, 516) and opening many doors for the

further study of Tudor life. These skeletal remains have provided an opportunity for

archaeologists to study “the age, health, lifetime stresses and dental history of a very selective

population” (Stirland, 2005, 516), a study which can develop an understanding of the types of

men who made up the crew of the Mary Rose, where they came from, their importance and

potentially their occupation aboard ship.

Importance of the Tudor Archer

Crucially, for studies of medieval warfare, the

archaeological evidence of the Mary Rose is

demonstrative, not only of active archers among her

crew, but also the continuing importance of archery,

and the archer, in a serious battle capacity well into the

16th Century. Significantly post-excavation analysis of

the skeletal remains, has demonstrated a surprising

frequency of a generally rare anomaly known as os

acromiale, a growth failure were by an epiphysis on the

outside edge of the shoulder blade does not fuse

properly with the rest of the acromion. This fusion will

normally occur at 18 or 19 years of age but in

approximately 3% of a modern population it fails

(Stirland, 2000, 120). From analysis of those such as

Stirland it is clear, that the proportion of such an

anomaly among the Mary Rose crew was significantly

higher than the normal statistical curve. Of the 207

shoulder blades recovered, 26 demonstrated os

acromiale, and of these 207 individual bones, 52 pairs

could be made, of which 10 pairs showed os acromiale,

6 pairs showing the anomaly bilaterally (Stirland,

2000, 121). Statistically, therefore, a proportion of the

Mary Rose crew, possibly as large as 19%, seemed to

have developed this rare condition in adolescence, for

as Stirland records the bones examined all belonged to

mature males, the high frequency therefore not simply

a result of skeletal immaturity (Stirland, 2000, 121).

Based on her findings Stirland has hypothesised that

the increased proportion of os acromiale in the Mary Rose crew was a result of the persistent

use of heavy Tudor warbows, which placed “long term shearing stress on the acromion”

(Stirland, 1991, 44).

However the relation of physical changes in skeletal remains to particular activities is still a

recent idea, and there are still reservations. Many factors may cause changes in bone but in

general human bone has only “two possible responses to an insult: either normal bone is lost or

new bone is added” (Stirland & Waldron, 1997, 329), therefore it can be very difficult to ascribe

a particular development or change to a particular activity or occupation. Regardless the

Figure 8 - The Human Scapula Demonstrating the Acromion (Stirland, 2000, 120)

Figure 9 - Example of Bilateral os acromiale Found among the Mary Rose Crew (Stirland,

2000, 121)

elevated level of os acromiale in the Mary Rose crew is a definite trend, a trend which lends

weight to the argument that archery in the Tudor period was a skill very much alive and in use.

Yet when this trend is compared to recorded statistics of Mary Rose longbows, the ratio raises

issues. The Anthony Roll lists 415 men posted to the Mary Rose for whom 250 bows of yew

were supplied (Knighton and Loades, 2000, 43), a ratio of 60%. However, only 19% seem to

have developed os acromiale, a discrepancy which may indicate bias in the archaeological

record.

Archers would logically have been stationed on the top decks were they were uninhibited,

(Hildred, 2011, 582) and as such these men may have become some of the few survivors, or

alternatively have evaded the archaeological record, drowning through an inability to swim

after successfully clearing the sinking vessel. Yet the discrepancy between the Anthony Roll and

the skeletal evidence of the Mary Rose may equally be an indication of the continued

importance of wartime archery into the Tudor period.

If we stick with Stirland’s theory, os acromiale resulted from regular pressure on the shoulder,

at a crucial time of skeletal development, and as such the crew of the Mary Rose may

demonstrate a group widely versed in archery skills but with individuals of a higher calibre.

Comparison projects completed by Stirland may support this. In a project of paired humeri from

the Mary Rose crew, and a medieval graveyard in Norwich, Stirland has demonstrated that,

when directly compared, the left humeri from the Mary Rose group showed distinct

enlargement. Given the predominant pattern of the Mary Rose group was asymmetry, Stirland

writes that “it is difficult to explain this other than by pattern of activity. Long term use of a

heavy medieval longbow has been demonstrated as affecting the bow or non-drawing shoulder

and arm, usually the left ... and therefore it is a reasonable inference that the skeletal sample

from the ship contains a high frequency of archers” (Stirland, 1993, 110). Indeed in modern

populations Olympic archers demonstrate increased dimensions in the shoulder and bow arm,

usually the left, when compared to a generally non-toxophile community (Stirland, 2005, 537).

However those such as Stirland and Hildred have taken this argument one step further. It is

believed that “the English bow was put in the hand of every English boy at the age of seven”

(Featherstone, 1968, 47) and as such there would almost certainly have been archer conscripts

buried in Norwich (Stirland, 2005, 537). Therefore, as Stirland and Hildred have put forward

the larger dimensions, when compared with a generally archery active community, in the Mary

Rose crew may “imply the presence of a group of professional archers” (Stirland, 1993, 111).

Wage has suggested that during the Middle Ages men were “‘made trial of before finally being

put on the lists of archers” (Wage, 2007, 63) and it seems reasonable that the best were

advanced. Stirland writes that “os acromiale was present among the Norwich men but at a lower

prevalence (6%)” (Stirland, 2005, 537) a frequency still higher than modern populations,

arguing the presence of archers, yet still significantly lower than that of the Mary Rose crew. In

combination with the results from Stirland’s comparison of the humeri it may indeed be

possible that an elite company of archers sailed into battle aboard the Mary Rose. If this idea

bears out it would conclusively demonstrate the continued importance of archery, and the

archer, in a serious military context, for it demonstrates tiers within an occupation, a

phenomenon which generally only occurs when an institution or profession has a legitimate

function.

Tudor Archery Techniques

Equally the Mary Rose skeletal material

may expand our ideas of the Tudor

archer, giving indications as to the

techniques employed by Tudor men in

the mastery of warbow skills. William

Fitzstephen once wrote that the young

men of England endeavoured to spend

“all summer practicing at archery and

excelling in games” (Bradbury, 1985, 7)

and sports competitions, held to

celebrate the best with the bow

(Bradbury, 1985, 160). Archery was not just a weapon of war it was a popular Tudor sport,

which many enthusiastically participated in, and as a sport it has filtered down through the

ages. However one of the greatest divider’s between today’s archers and those of the Tudor age

is arguably the style and technique of shooting employed (Stirland, 2005, 535). Bradford writes

that “rather than keeping his left hand steady and drawing with his right, the English archer

kept his right hand at rest and laid the whole weight of his body into the horns of the bow”

(Bradford, 1982, 133). After reaching the full draw position “there was a brief pause before the

arrow was sent on its deadly way ... the action of shooting was not hurried, the same time was

taken with each arrow” (Featherstone, 1968, 53), and the same power drawn for each, resulting

in the development of a shooting rhythm as well as individual characteristics (Featherstone,

1968, 52). This was the great secret behind the power and efficiency which was the English

archer, the reason why they became the flower of the military, they did not, “like the French,

draw the bow but bent it” (Bradford, 1982, 131).

Regular practice would have been required in order to reach

the level of proficiency the law demanded, by the age of 17 it

was expected that all young men could reliably strike a target

set at 200 yards, (Stirland, 2005, 534) and practice took its

toll. In drawing the bow “the archer uses the major muscles

of his arms and his shoulders” (Stirland, 2000, 126) the

repeated strain of which will eventually manifest in bone

development, and indeed from analysis of the Mary Rose FCS

Stirland has identified unusual development in many of the

tendon attachments. Such attachments generally degenerate

naturally with age, leaving visible ridges of new bone;

however from the FCS, which could comfortably be aged,

Stirland determined that in a group of 23 of the youngest

individuals, around 25% of the sample, such degeneration

was already evident (Stirland, 2000, 130/1). She writes that

within this group of 23 very young individuals the most

effected bone was the humerus, with 15 of the 23 showing

traits of much older men. All of “these changes were on the

upper part of the humerus, affecting the area at which major

muscles attach” (Stirland, 2000, 131) muscles which are

Figure 10 - New Spurs of Bone at Degenerated Tendon Points (Stirland, 2000, 130)

Figure 11 - Paired Humeri from a Young Mary Rose Individual Demonstrating the

Development of Major Attachment Points (Stirland, 2000, 131)

involved in rotation and movement of the arm towards and across the chest, arguing that such

techniques of drawing and releasing the longbow as described were possibly employed. Equally

muscle attachment’s in many of the FCS leg bones demonstrates similar degradation. From

comparison studies carried out by Stirland, with the men of the Norwich graveyard, it seems

that the gluteus medius and minimus muscles, which attach to the greater trochanter were

larger “on both sides in the men from the ship” (Stirland, 2005, 537) than in the Norwich men,

similarly the “gluteus maximus on the gluteal tuberosity was also more developed in the ships

group” (Stirland, 2005, 537), muscles key in the stabilization of the pelvis. While this

development may have been a result of the need to overcompensate for life at sea, literally the

development of sea legs, many of those who served aboard the Mary Rose would not have been

professional mariners, (Childs, 2009, 119). Indeed it is estimated that only 5,000 professional

mariners were employed at the time of the battle of the Solent (Stirland, 2000, 28). For such

developments to be seen in the bones of such young men there is a distinct possibility that the

cause was something more akin to the need “to keep the trunk steady while throwing or while

shooting a longbow” (Stirland, 2005, 537). In 1547 the Bishop Latimer wrote that when trained

to the bow he was taught “to lay my body in my bow and not to draw with strength of arms as

other nations do but with the strength of the body” (Hardy, 2006, 135), a technique which

defiantly seems to be illustrated by the Mary Rose skeletal remains. Therefore etched into the

bones of the crew we may be seeing the pattern’s of ancient archery techniques.

Archer Training

Similarly developments and anomalies present in the crews skeletal remains offer

archaeological backing for many documentary accounts which have formulated modern ideas of

how medieval King’s trained there famed bands of archers. Throughout the medieval period

boys would have begun to learn the bow early. In “1511 Henry VIII ... signed the act concerning

the shooting of longbows” (Sims, 1999, 160) an act which laid out that “every man being the

King subject, not lame decrepit or maimed,

nor having any other legal cause or

impediment, and being within the age of 60

years, was to exercise regularly with the

longbow and every father was to provide his

male children between the ages of 7-17

years with bows” (Rule, 1982, 172). If we

return to the account given by Bishop

Latimer in a 1547, for an example, we find

him writing that “in my time my poor father

was diligent to teach me to shoot as to learn

me any other thing, and so I think other men

did their children ... I had my bows bought

me according to my age and strength; as I

increased in them so my bows were made

bigger and bigger” (Hardy, 2006, 135).

It seems clear that the Mary Rose men would have learned the bow as boys, a conclusion

supported by the development of conditions such as os acromiale, and indeed from drawings

such as the Moorefield map and possibly from the score marks on churches, such as All Saints

Figure 12 - Archers Practice in London Fields, Moorfeilds Map 1559 (Bradbury, 1985, 161)

Church in Chebsey, interpreted as those left by archers sharpening arrows,

(www.imaginingstaffordshire.org.uk) we see the potential practice hours required to learn the

bow. However developments, such as os acromiale, may equally indicate levels or progression

within an individual’s training. As already discussed Stirland has assessed the high levels of os

acromiale aboard the Mary Rose as being the result of the continued use of heavy draw weight

bows during adolescence, which would increasingly stress the acromion to the point where the

final fusion would not have occurred. (Stirland, 1991, 44).This would fit with Latimer's account

that as boys grew in years and in strength higher poundage bows were given for them to

master, yet it would not explain the percentage of the anomaly aboard the Mary Rose. If such a

development of training was the case for all boys then surely a higher rate of os acromiale would

have been present in the crew. The percentage seen may indicate the failure of some to perfect

their skills through lack of practice; however this seems unlikely when we consider that levels

of os acromiale in the men of the Norwich graveyard, which pre-dates the Mary Rose, were

lower.

It is perhaps more likely therefore, that such a rate of os acromiale as seen in the Mary Rose

crew maybe representative of variations in training. If some individuals trained with heavier

bows earlier in adolescence the likelihood of developing conditions such as os acromiale

increased, for ultimately greater stress would have been applied to the acromion and from a

much younger age. It maybe that os acromiale, in the men of the ship, highlights individuals

who showed more promise or talent at the archery butts and who were picked out earlier for

progression to heavier bows. This would support theories such as those of Stirland and Hildred

that some individuals were chosen for units of archers perhaps of a professional or elite class.

However, if, as Wage has put forward, archers were chosen on merit following their 17th year,

and the completion of their archery training (Wage, 2007, 63), the progression of individuals to

higher bows during adolescence would have been at the discretion of their instructor. If we take

Latimer's account as gospel, this would likely have been the individual’s father. It maybe that

some cases of os acromiale were developed due to the progression of adolescents to bows of a

weight to high for them to sensibly master at the time they were given.

If we look to a modern parallel of popular sport, in particular football, it is not uncommon on a

Sunday morning to see dads cheering on their sons, but for every dad who cheers there will be

one who screams. To have a son succeed to a high standard of football or sport, today will often

cause, not only pride in the parents who supported and who often began their training, but also

a sense of increased status. High levels of os acromiale may possibly have a root in a medieval

equivalent. Latimer describes how his father bought his bows as his training progressed and it

maybe, that as today some parents push their sons beyond what is sensible, for the sake of sport

and financial gain, so too did medieval men push their sons to draw heavier and heavier bows,

perhaps for a rise in status, or for their chance of acceptance into a professional or elite unit,

which may have provided a better level of pay or a measure of job security (Bradbury, 1985,

171).

Other skeletal developments, such as those previously discussed, indicate that there was likely,

to have been more archers aboard the Mary Rose than those who had developed os acromiale,

and as such this idea may not be so farfetched. However this theory is only circumstantially

possible. It does not satisfactorily explain why the presence of os acromiale was so high in the

men of the Mary Rose and it is therefore much more likely that the high anomaly presence

within the crew is demonstrative of individuals who excelled at the sport during youth (Stirland,

2005, 536). Such individuals would perhaps have progressed through bow draw weight’s faster

than other individuals, resulting, not only in the prolonged pressure on the acromion, and the

development of os acromiale, but also their true mastery of the bow and skills which may have

gained them places within some of the most elite groups of archers England had to offer. As has

already been established, the Mary Rose was a highly esteemed vessel and it is entirely likely

that she would have been the ship that such a group of archers would have been assigned to

during a conflict such as the battle of the Solent.

The Archer

Training, talent and selection indicate much about the archer individual’s, however the Mary

Rose crew, can demonstrate much more of the look, position and origin of such men within

Tudor society. During the initial skeletal analysis it was noted, that in

general “the bones appeared to be rather large and robust” (Stirland &

Waldron, 1997, 330), comments which later work built upon until an

image began to take shape of the average crew member, a great many of

whom would undoubtedly have been skilled with a bow, some perhaps

to the highest standard. A visitor to England, Dominic Mancini, when

speaking of the English archer said “their bows were thicker and longer

than those used by other nations just as there arms were stronger for

they seem to have hands and arms made of iron” (Bradbury, 1985,

177). Predictably, “for a fighting ship, [Stirland writes] most of the men

of the Mary Rose were young and some of them were very young. There

was a predominance of individuals ranging from 15 to 25 years with a

smaller group in their late twenties to early thirties” (Stirland, 1991,

43), combining a “mean stature of 1.71m” (Stirland, 1989, 5). They were

“generally strong fit and healthy” (Stirland, 2000, 117) individuals,

robust of build, large and physically strong, the legacy of a hard and

perhaps often harsh medieval life (Hardy, Levi, Pratt, Kooi, Stanley,

King, Adams & Crowley, 2011, 63).

It is a common misconception that communities of the past were

significantly shorter, or otherwise physically different from modern

populations, (Manchester & Roberts, 1995, 26) but in reality the men of

Figure 13 - Mary Rose facial reconstruction (www.tudorhistory.org)

Figure 14 - Pair of Bowed Tibias, Healed Childhood Rickets (Stirland,

2000, 90)

the Mary Rose would have been men more or less indistinguishable, in general look, from men

of today. This is an idea reinforced by facial reconstructions commissioned from the skulls of

three of the FCS, including one thought to have been an archer. While such evidence perhaps

demonstrate the descriptive accuracy of accounts such as Manchini’s, more detailed analysis of

Mary Rose skeletal material has shown “a variety of pathological lesions, some associated with

dietary deficiencies which probably occurred during childhood or adolescence” (Stirland, 2000,

117), and it is from markers such as these that origin and social position may be guessed at.

During childhood deprivation of vital nurturance, such as vitamins C and D, can result in serious

developmental issues. In the case of vitamin D deficiencies this manifests in the warping of bone

due to an unhealthy softening, otherwise known as rickets. Such cases can be observed within

the Mary Rose group suggesting a background intermixed with struggles; however the presence

of markers such as hypoplasis can further infer such conclusions. Enamel hypoplasis is a

condition of the teeth, were by “horizontal band or pits” (Stirland, 2000, 95) form as a result of

periods during development when growth is interrupted, prevented or slowed. In general “most

of the events which would cause such marks would have happened between the ages of 18

months and 6 years” (Stirland, 2000, 95) and considering the approximate crew age range at

death, this argues that the famine of 1527 -1528 would have affected many of those aboard

(Stirland, 2000, 33). Such markers demonstrate stress in childhood and maybe interpreted as a

marker of the social class which many of the crew, including many of those working as archers,

would have originated from.

Accounts such as that of Bishop Latimer in 1547, as well as the revival of laws, which

encouraged the practice of archery, conclusively demonstrate that the majority of men within

Tudor society would have become well versed in archery skills, however it has always been a

popular notion that as a weapon it belonged to the lower strata’s of society, to Tudor Robin

Hoods. From skeletal evidence derived from the Mary Rose this seems likely for it would have

been this class of society that famine would most greatly have affected. Bradbury writes that

“the ordinary bow was the weapon of the ordinary man, in civilian and military life ... even when

military archery was at its height the aristocrat despised the bow and never adopted it as his

own ... [therefore] for the typical figure of the medieval archer we should look to the ordinary

country man” (Bradbury, 1985, 160), and indeed from skeletal evidence it seems that the

archers of the Mary Rose are demonstrative of such a social placement and origin.

Figure 15 – Mixed Human Remains from the Mary Rose (Stirland, 2000, 71)

‘What is the cheyfe poynte in shootynge, that euerye manne laboureth to come to?

To hyt the marke.’

- Ascham, R. 1545. Toxophilus. 106

Chapter Two – Artefact Evidence

Archaeologically the Mary Rose is completely unique. Along with her hull divers recovered

artefacts, of an astounding variety, both of a functional significance to the ship and also of a

personal nature to the crew. As Moorhouse writes “we would today know even less than we do

about a whole range of nautical things if the Mary Rose had not been raised from the seabed”

(Moorhouse, 2006, xiii) including Tudor ship construction, navigation and maritime warfare.

Approximately 19,000 artefacts were recovered from the Mary Rose, which, to date, has no

parallel, for, as Hardy writes, “the particular components of Solent silt, and its sulphur reducing

bacteria, while being extremely destructive to metal and certain other materials, favoured

particularly the preservation of timber” (Hardy, 2006, 199) such as the 172 longbow staves

recovered. Such conditions also preserved nearly the full range of archery equipment, including

wristguard’s, spacers and arrow shafts, as well as associated artefacts, such as a ring decorated

with the sign of a London guild of fletchers. It is from such archaeological material, and the

analysis of its working dimensions, that interpretations can begin to be formulated as to, not

only who the Tudor archer was and where he fitted into Tudor military and society, but also

how he may have worked aboard a ship such as the Mary Rose.

Figure 16 - Distribution of Archery Equipment (Soar, 2011, 646)

Wristguard’s

As chapter one has demonstrated the Mary Rose crew can

infer much, when we consider the Tudor archer, but it is

from the examination of recovered material remains, that

much more can be added to this body of information.

During the course of excavation diving teams recovered

twenty-four archers wristguard’s, all but two constructed of

leather, and of which sixteen demonstrate some form of

ornamentation. To date, this collection is the “largest

known ... and the only collection recovered from a

shipwreck” (Soar, 2011, 644).

In general interpretation has revolved around the theme

that such examples, as the decorated leather guards, are

indicative of a group of archers perhaps of a higher status

within the archer community, providing a method to

“denote function, ownership, hierarchical rank” (Soar, 2011,

645) or demonstrate a badge of office among the men.

Significant to such arguments are the wristguard’s bearing

forms of royal decoration. Out of the collection of twenty-

four, seven bracers demonstrate some degree of royal

symbolism; however two are of particular note.

Wristguard’s 81A4241 and 81A1460, as shown in figures

seventeen and eighteen, include depictions of the Tudor

Rose, the pomegranate of Granada (a personal symbol of

Catherine of Aragon) as well as the portcullis of the

Beauford family, all very poignant royal associations. These

are two of the highest quality bracers, and, along with

examples bearing the Tudor Rose, have inspired arguments

that the Mary Rose may held a contingent of archers

connected in some way to a royal or elite force.

Bradbury writes that “the term selected men has generally

been ignored as having no real significance. In practice

however it may mean exactly what it suggests ... review

those available and select the best” (Bradbury, 1985, 174).

Indeed archers of a higher or royal class do seem to have

existed, Henry VII began “the famous yeoman of the guard”

(Bradbury, 1985, 1985), whilst in 1515 “200 archers from

the king’s bodyguard, dressed in green and under the

command of a Robin Hood, feasted with the King”

(Strickland & Hardy, 2011, 391) Henry VIII. Such royal

ornamentation as demonstrated by these two examples is

indeed very tantalising and invokes much speculation as to

the connections of these men. For instance the inclusion of

the Granada pomegranate is very interesting, for it had been

Figure 17 - Wristgaurd 81A1460 (Soar, 2011, 655)

Figure 18- Wristgaurd 81A4241 (Soar, 2011, 655)

Figure 19 - Wristgaurd 82A0943 (Soar, 2011, 653)

many years since the reign of the first Queen Catherine.

It maybe that these men were the legacy of her

household or, considering the age of the majority of the

crew, descended from someone who was. Yet

collectively it may be argued that the material remains

of the Mary Rose wristguard’s, in fact provide more than

a glimpse at the social standing of the archers present,

but perhaps a hint as to who these men were in a more

personal sense. Notably not every Mary Rose bracer was

ornamented. Of those which were, variation can be

perceived in design, introducing the argument that

social ranking may not have been their sole purpose.

However perhaps most significant to this argument is

the method of ornamentation itself. Champion has

determined that when decorating the Mary Rose

bracers “most of the stamps used ... appear to have been

applied haphazardly” (Champion, 2011, 652) arguing

that they may not have been made specifically with

wristguard’s in mind. Such haphazardness is firstly

evident in examples such as 82A0943, figure nineteen,

were in order to avoid the central panel, and path of

the bowstring, the pattern is broken to leave it forever

disjointed. Indeed even 81A4241, figure eighteen, is

demonstrative of this. Alternatively examples such as

81A1158, figure twenty, demonstrating a composite

design of St Peters crossed keys, shows an application

of pattern arguably random or semi-professional, for

several imprints overlap or twist out of any regulation,

an application which can also be seen on bracers

bearing floral patterns such as 81A1173, figure twenty-

two, and 81A5826, figure twenty-one. Similarly as

Champion points out some of the decoration is

damaged by the wristguard’s straps (Champion, 2011,

653) again suggesting ornamentation was not designed

for a bracer.

It seems reasonable that if such wristguard’s were

indicative of a particular rank or position they would

demonstrate both a higher standard of design and

construction. It is therefore perhaps most likely that

wristguard’s, then as now, were “both a personal and

functional object” (Soar, 2011, 647), with the

decoration representative of personal taste, for, as

Ascham writes, “the strynge neede neuer touche a

mannes arme, and so shoulde a man need no bracer as i

knowe manye good archers, whiche occupye

Figure 20 - Wristgaurd 81A1158 (Soar, 2011, 658)

Figure 21- Wristgaurd 81A5826 (Soar, 2011, 660)

Figure 22 - Wristgaurd 81A1173 (Soar, 2011, 660)

none”(Ascham, 1545, 108).

Such an argument maybe supported by distribution

maps. Figure sixteen indicates that not all bracers

were in use at the time of sinking. Five including

81A1158, figure twenty, were found in association

with human remains, but four including 81A5826,

figure twenty-one, were located in storage chests,

with a further nine “associated with material stored

at the stern end of the orlop deck” (Soar, 2006, 161).

It is possible that these stored bracers belonged to

men interested, or connected with the trade of,

archery but not always employed in the skill, men

such as the carpenter, whose storage chest contained

Wristgaurd 81A5826, figure twenty-one, along with

the ring of the Fletcher’s Guild. While, it is therefore

possible that the bracers of the Mary Rose reveal social ranking in the archers aboard, it is also

plausible that they demonstrate a group of men, not of a higher rank but of a particular interest

in archery.

Those such as Soar still argue that “the four [bracers] recovered from, what are believed to be

personal chests ... to have been associated with men of quality and or rank” (Soar, 2006, 161),

yet twenty-four wristguard’s seems low when we take into account the proportion of bows

aboard. Many more horn bracers may have originally existed, their survival impeded by

preservation conditions, and this furthers the suggestion that the leather examples were unique

or personal if not hierarchical. While Henry VIII ensured all practiced some must still have had

an aptitude and appreciation for archery, and desired personalised equipment rather than

settling for a more military issue range, which the horn guards may have been. Indeed when we

look at bracer 81A1158, we may see someone of a strong catholic faith, or who practiced with a

particular group after church, whist bracers such as 81A1185, figure twenty-three, perhaps

identity’s someone who liked the pattern or found it representative of some part of his life.

However when considering both arguments posed above, as to implications of the Mary Rose

wristguard’s we must acknowledge that all interpretation are based on the assumption that the

wristguard’s found were made for, and belonged to, just one individual, which may not

necessarily have been the case.

The Mary Rose Longbows

In the examination of the Mary Rose archers, the recovery, and opportunity to study, there

chosen bows must not be overlooked. Ascham writes clearly in his 1545, Toxophilis that for a

warbow no other material should be considered other than good quality yew (Ascham, 1545,

113). He acknowledges the use of other resources, but states categorically that bows made from

alternative materials would never give as good results, and indeed from experimental tests

performed in 2005, replica Tudor warbows, constructed from a variety of yew woods,

demonstrated the dramatic effect that a construction material may have on the performance of

a longbow (Soar, 2006, 43). As Soar writes “the quality of English-grown yew does not generally

compare well with that grown in the harsh mountain conditions and poor soil of continental

Europe, notably the central European countries, the Spanish Pyrenees and the mountain area

Figure 23 - Wristgaurd 81A1185 (Soar, 2011, 660)

north of Italy” (Soar, 2006, 42/3) for it is in these conditions and areas, that yew wood can be

grown, to best combine a trees outer sapwood tensile quality’s with the inner heartwoods

compression strength (Hardy, Levi, Pratt, Kooi, Stanley, King, Adams & Crowley, 2011, 622).

We can see from accounts that throughout his reign Henry was

importing large quantities of bow staves from such areas, for

instance a 40,000 order brought in through Venice (Hardy,

2006, 201) in 1510, with the result that, between the years

1530 and 1560, around half a million good yew staves made

their way into England (Soar, 2006, 46). Every bow recovered

from the Mary Rose was constructed of yew, and as such we can

begin to gage the continued importance and place archery held

within the Tudor military, for even in this late stage of the

longbows career Henry was equipping his archers with the best

available. It is now unlikely that “dendrological science can

determine the place of origin of those [longbows] recovered

from the seabed” (Soar, 2006, 42) and therefore whether or not

the best materials brought into England were to be found

abound the Mary Rose. However as Strickland and Hardy have

noted the workmanship and quality of “the Mary Roses bow’s

was wonderful” (Strickland & Hardy, 2011, 25) with the density

of staves, and in some cases the “extreme fineness of the grain”

(Hardy, 2011, 591,) suggesting that the construction timber was of a straighter and finer quality

than the British isles could have produced (Hardy, 2011, 591). We may therefore very possibly

be observing, aboard the Mary Rose, a crew equipped with the best weapons the King could

provided both in terms of material and craftsmanship, arguing that, aboard the Mary Rose at

least, skilled archery was expected to have been a major component of the battle force,

particularly when we consider that a shortage of good yew was evident in the mid 16th Century

(Soar, 2006, 12).

The Archer and the Bow

However if we consider the bows of the Mary Rose,

their material, treatment and development it may

equally be argued that they indicate the perception

of archery skills among the men of the ship

themselves. In a letter, dated 8th June 1513, Lord

Thomas Howard, thanking the council for the

prevision of replacement bows, promised “I shall

see them as little wasted as possible” continuing to

comment that “were your lordships write that is it

great marvelled where so great a number of bows

and arrows be brought to so small a number, I have

enquired the causes thereof; and as far as I can see,

the greatest number were witch bows” (Knighton

& Loades, 2002, 55). It seems clear that the

importance of good bow materials were well

Figure 24 - Heartwood and Sapwood components of a bow (www.bowyers.com)

Figure 25 - Selection of Mary Rose Longbows (Picture by Sally Friend)

known, and as such the inclusion of only yew amongst the Mary Rose assemblage is perhaps

further indication of Henry’s patronage and expectation of his archers.

However others such as Soar have interpreted such reports as Thomas Howards as the

manifestation of archers pride in their skills, and intention of only accepting and using

equipment they deemed as suitable. He wonders whether the breakages of sub-standard bows

in 1513 “were entirely due to chance or whether the honest English bowman faced with inferior

equipment, took matters into his own hands” (Soar, 2006, 13), an argument which he considers

supported by the indications that elm bows made during times of yew shortage, such as the mid

16th Century, were ignored, for as he writes the “the English public knew a good bow when it

saw one” (Soar, 2006, 12). From his examination of the Mary Rose bows Hardy wrote that they

“were superbly even daringly crafted, knots were in

cases exercised with a brave disregard of weakness

dangers or rather perhaps with absolute knowledge

and experience of danger and safety margins” (Hardy,

2006, 202). Here is a collection of bow constructed by

bowyers who knew there craft yet in some cases

additional work can be observed, further suggesting

that Soar is correct and the English bowmen took

great pride in his archery skills refining his weapon

either to better suit himself or to increase its natural

ability.

Examination of the Mary Rose collection has

demonstrated examples of whittling the “bow-wood

for a short space below the position of the horn nock”

(Strickland & Hardy, 2011, 10) an alteration often

termed whip-ending. Such working of the bow is

argued by Hardy to be indicative of individuals

adapting there weapons in order to increase the speed of the limb return to the original position

and therefore increase the cast of the bow (Hardy, 2011, 591). Such weapons argue that

interpretations, of those such as Soar, may indeed have merit. The English bowman new a

superior bow, perhaps would accept nothing less, developing their weapons while working with

them in order to increase the power and efficacy, demonstrating not only their skill and

knowledge of the weapon, but also their pride in the

discipline.

Bow Weight

Hardy has written that “more than any other hand-held

weapon there is a direct relationship between the

longbow and the user” (Hardy, 2011, 589). To be of most

effect an archer needs to be matched to a bow suitable to

his size and skill, particularly in terms of draw-weight, a

term which describes “the weight momentarily held by an

archer”(Strickland & Hardy, 2011, 6) at full draw, a weight

which can vary considerably depending on the individual

archer’s needs. Such a combination will influence every

Figure 27 - Computer projected draw weights, Mary Rose Longbow Collection, Kooi & Pratt (Bartlett,

Boyton, Jackson, Jackson, McElvogue, Hildred &Watson, 2011, 616)

Figure 26 - Archers Gestures of Defiance (Soar, 2006, 175)

aspect of the archer’s performance, including the range of shot he can achieve and the weight of

arrow which he may shoot. As such variation in bow size is descriptive of individuals, and many

projects have been undertaken in the years following the conservation of the Mary Rose

longbows to determine the range of draw-weight within this sample. Particular projects include

computer modelling based on dimensions of select bows, physical drawing on a tiller and the

construction and experimentation with replica weapons. Result ranges varied between these

projects and each were inhibited in some way, the physical drawing for instance complicated by

the degradation of the bows cellular structure, whilst comparisons between projects are still

further complicated by the variation in sample size taken for each. However, draw-weight

estimations have been made at around 65-160lb, (Bartlett, Boyton, Jackson, Jackson, McElvogue,

Hildred &Watson, 2011, 617) or alternatively 95-165lb with some much heavier outlying

examples (Hardy, Levy, Pratt, King, Stanley, Kooi, Adams &Crowley, 2011, 629). Such

estimations are particularly high, even more so when we consider that majority of archers today

are unable to draw half such weights. However, Hardy writes that he is aware of “young archers

who can handle bows well over 100lb ... and increasingly there are to be found those who are

teaching themselves to master bows of such great weights” (Hardy, 2006, 218) attesting to the

possibility of such projections. Yet as he continues, due to the consistent high range of weaponry

observed aboard the Mary Rose, the bowmen of the medieval period must be acknowledged as

having “achieved a strength and skill in shooting ... that very few men nowadays can easily

attain” (Hardy, 2006, 54). Such projections supports many of the ideas posed in chapter one,

depicting the archers of the Mary Rose as large, robust men skilled in the bow to an extent that

training from a very young age would have been necessary, while techniques of drawing specific

and perfected. Yet we may equally infer a possible variety in archer roles or functions aboard

ship.

Two particularly high poundage bows were recovered, such as bow 81A1607 estimated at

185lb, which are thought to have been capable of shooting bodkin arrows of around 70g a piece,

“specifically designed to penetrate plate” (Hardy, Levy, Pratt, King, Stanley, Kooi, Adams &

Crowley, 2011, 630) armour. Similarly eight bows recovered were classified as being slab-sided

in profile, as well as generally longer and more robust than the majority of the assemblage

(Soar, 2006, 17). Such variations may indicate a measure of merit for arguments of specific

archery roles, something which is again

furthered by the working of three of the most

substantial bows handgrips in order to achieve

what has been termed a handled section. It has

been argued that such heavy poundage, robust

bows adapted at the handle, perhaps to take a

binding, may have been constructed to allow the

shooting of fire arrows (Clive, Boyton, Jackson,

Jackson, McElvogue, Hildred & Watson, 2011,

603). A precedent for such a practice is

described by Soar who writes that arrows were

adapted early to “propel bags of lime and for

incendiary purposes” (Soar, 2006, 33). As such it

seems that there is a tantalising suggestion, if

not definitive proof, that some form of variation

Figure 28 - Wood Species Identified from the Mary Rose Arrow Assemblage (Hildred, Watson, Hopkins, Jackson &

Waller, 2011, 674)

existed amongst the Mary Rose archers in terms roles and abilities. As Bradbury writes “there

was no military situation in which the bow could not prove useful” (Bradbury, 1985, 3) and this,

by extension, included the archer.

The Arrows

At full compliment the Anthony Roll

records 9,600 arrows (Knighton &

Loades, 2000, 43), requisitioned to

the Mary Rose archers, of which

only 2,303 were recovered and

listed as complete (Hildred, Watson,

Hopkins, Jackson & Waller, 2011,

666). Such a sample, Soar has

argued, is “unsuited to a full

examination (Soar, 2006, 69),

however illuminating analysis

projects have been carried out

considering the material, form, size,

shape and weight of the arrow assemblage, for the performance of an arrow, as a longbow, is

directly impacted by their construction and, as such interferences can be drawn as to the role of

an archer aboard vessels such as the Mary Rose. In his writings Ascham deemed wood species,

including Beech, Oak, Turkey Wood, Popular, Blackthorn and Sugar Chest, (Ascham, 1545, 123),

as adequate for arrow construction, with the innate quality’s of each altering there suitability

for different form of archery, a reference which seems to be born-out by Watsons examination

of the Mary Rose collection, where he identified five profiles, nine wood species and two general

lengths of arrow (Watson, 2011, 617). If we consider Figure twenty-eight a dominance of

popular arrows seems to have prevailed aboard the Mary Rose, along with a smattering of

alternative materials such as willow, alder and birch, arguing hypothesis’s that, as Hardy

comments “particular woods were chosen for their inherent features, taking into account what

was desired of the arrow and the capabilities and preferences of the archer” (Hardy, 2011, 588).

Yet if Ascham is again consulted such materials as those recovered from the Mary Rose are not

those he cites as suitable for warfare. He writes that “concerning sheaf arrows for war (as I

suppose) it were better to make them of

good ash, and not of asp, as they be now-a-

days” (Ascham, 1545, 126). From such a

comment it has to be wondered whether

the arrows of the Mary Rose, rather than

demonstrating the adaption of archery for

military situations, are instead indicative of

a standard issue, based on ease of

production and cost.

However variation in material is not the

only trend observable. The five arrow

profiles, demonstrated in Figure twenty-

nine are each argued to have provided an

Figure 29 - Arrow Profiles (Soar, 2006, 73)

Figure 30 - Proportion of Arrow Profiles in Three Storage Chests (Watson, 2011, 684)

Straight

Bobtail

Breasted

Barrelled

Saddled

archer with arrows of differing aerodynamic

qualities. Amongst the Mary Rose collection

bobtailed, parallel and barrelled profiles

seem to have dominated, as shown in

Figures thirty and thirty-one. From such

profile identification it seems evident that

some form of variation in arrow

construction, and as such archery use, was

occurring during the battle of the Solent.

Parallel examples are thought to have been

of a general use, but profile’s such as the

bobtail, are argued by those such as Soar, to

have been designed to increase the archers attainable distance of shot (Soar, 2006, 71/2) whilst

still being capable of carrying a arrowhead effective at penetrating the armour of the day

(Hildred, Watson, Hopkins, Jackson & Waller, 2011, 683). Furthermore breasted arrows, as

Watson notes, were described by Ascham to have been used at point blank range, a small

proportion of which were found aboard the Mary Rose (Watson, 2011, 688). The battle of the

Solent was, albeit hurriedly, prepared for and as such we would assume that fletchers were

aware of the function which the arrows they made would be put to. This could explain the

predominance of popular wood as shown in figure twenty-eight as well as the dominance of

profiles such as the bobtail, either as a design of choice of one of convenience and speed.

Indeed some form of consideration must have been given, to the use archery would have been

put to, for arrows unsuited to a bow would not have functioned properly. As Watson writes

while the weight of an arrow will effect range and effectiveness “the weight and resistance to

bending of the different woods used for arrow shafts ... dictate the different strengths of the bow

required to optimise the quality’s inherent in any particular arrow” (Watson, 2011, 617) for

arrows which are to “light for a bow will either break on realise, the shaft not being able to

withstand the force imparted by the bow string, or if they survive will be deflected from the true

flight and proper speed”(Hardy, Levy, Pratt, Kooi, Stanley, King, Adams, Crowley, 2011, 631). As

such arrows were most likely constructed with a purpose in mind, arguing that the archers who

received them would have adapted there shot as needed either to take into account the arrows

they were issued or to suit the current military situation they were faced with, demonstrating a

not only a great level of skill and experience, but also perhaps an independence in role. It maybe

Figure 31 – Proportion of Arrow Profile in Collection (Watson, 2011, 688)

Figure 32 - Path of Arrow Flight (Hardy, 2006, 176)

that archers were not employed, as in the past, to provide massed arrow storms, but skilled

marksmanship for particular purposes.

An Archers Role

We can be in little “doubt that the archer played a prominent role in practically all medieval

armies and garrison forces” (Bradbury, 1985, 159), including those of maritime warfare, but

from evidence such as the Mary Rose equipment assemblage, we can begin to speculate as to

how the medieval archer may have functioned and fitted into unique military situations. As has

above been established many arrow forms seem to have been in existence during the medieval

period, tailored perhaps for various purposes, yet from the examination of arrow quantities,

both from records and tangible material remains, interesting discrepancy’s can be recognised.

From a study carried out by Davies in 2005, it has been demonstrated that the Mary Rose was

requisitioned roughly 36-48 arrows per bow, a ratio which, when it is considered archers of the

Tudor era were reportedly capable of shooting 10-12 arrows in a minute, seems relatively low.

Those such as Davies have reasonably wondered whether this ratio is indicative of a weapon

reaching the end of its practical military career (Hildred, 2011, 582), however alternative

arguments, such as the employment of particular tactics, maybe equally plausible and therefore

must be considered.

Hardy writes that “by 1545 ship construction, sails and rigging were so complicated that there

was no room for the sought of massed archery that had been the order at Sluys” (Hardy, 2006,

219), and as such ratios of equipment, as can be observed from the Mary Rose, may reflect not a

diminishing in longbow’s use in maritime warfare, but rather a development of their role. From

work such as Davies it seems clear that the likely use of blanket shot techniques, such as the

arrow storm, during the battle of the Solent was very low, and as such it can reasonably be

argued that the ratios of equipment seen aboard the Mary Rose is in fact indicative of the

employment of high level sniper shots, were every arrow would have had to have counted. Soar

argues the longbow “was an obvious weapon for sea-borne soldiers [with most ships carrying]

them as defence against attack and as an invaluable means of clearing the decks” (Soar, 2006).

Similarly Hardy writes that in his opinion those archers of the Mary Rose “who, or whose

weapons, were found in action positions on the weather deck were there ... as sharp shooters ...

if the enemy came alongside to grapple and board then archers ... would be very useful at

picking off the un-cautious” (Hardy, 2006, 219). For maritime based warfare such methods of

Figure 33 - Archers Providing Cover (Marsden, 2003, 136)

bow use seem logical, yet such ratios further arguments as to who may have operated in these

archery roles.

Using the Anthony Roll, basic comparisons can be made as to the ratios of equipment supplied

to each vessel in Henry VIII’s fleet. From these records, of crew and inventory fairly even

distributions of archery equipment seems to have existed in 1545. Of the 415 men listed aboard

the Mary Rose around 60% would have access to a bow and around 38 arrows, in comparison

the much smaller Mary Thomas, listed as carrying a crew of 80, held the archery capacity of

50% with 36 arrows a piece (Knighton & Loades, 2000). If we look at distributions maps, not

only are the arguments of Soar and Hardy, concerning the techniques employed by the Mary

Rose archers, reinforced, but the presence of a more specialised contingent of archers maybe

reintroduced. Soar cites a ballad of Robin Hood in which “Robin is so useless at sea that the

ships master threatens to throw him overboard. However when a pirate ship appears on the

scene Robin comes into his own. Tied firmly to the mast in order to keep him upright with

customary skill he disposes of the opposition” (Soar, 2006, 34). As Hildred comments it is still

uncertain as to what existent soldiers and mariners would have substituted as gunners or

bowmen (Hildred, 2011, 582) yet from the distribution of archery finds during excavation is

seem plausible that only a small percentage of the Mary Rose equipment was in active use at the

time of the sinking, and as such the ratios as demonstrated above may give a misleading

impression of the proportion of men using archery. Many of the stored bows may be argued to

have been military issue or alternatively aboard as spares or reinforcements for forces

(Featherstone, 1968, 49) on the Isle of Wight. As such arguments that the Mary Rose carried

specialist or designated archers may be strengthened. While the degree to which this term

specialist can be applied is still debatable, it does seem likely that archery, aboard ships such as

the Mary Rose, would have been used by a specific number in a defensive and covering role for

other soldiers and gunners, as depicted in figure 33.

Figure 34 - The Cowdray Engraving Showing the Sinking of the Mary Rose (Knighton & Loades, 2002, 119)

“The Mary Rose is an incomparable collection of stories – starting at Henry and

going all the way down to the carpenter”

(Dr David Starkey, 2007)

Chapter Three – The New Museum

As Starkey has written “the Mary Rose is

one of the most important objects in English

history ... up there with the Doomsday Book,

the Magna Carter and Hampton Court”

(Summery, 2008). Re-discovered in the

1960’s by Alexander McKee, the Mary Rose

was one of the major focuses of the 1970’s

and early 1980’s in terms of British

archaeology. It provided the academic

community with an opportunity to fully

explore and develop the practice of

maritime excavation and research, whilst

giving the world approximately 19,000 of

the most varied and well preserved Tudor

artefacts ever recovered. The final raising of the ship’s took place on October 11th 1982 to a

worldwide audience of 6 million people, a recovery that, as Harrison has observed, resulted in a

rare challenge for “the museum world: the creation of a new museum capable of responding to

the latest thinking in museum philosophy, and which met the highest possible professional

standards” (Harrison, 2003, 60). The current museum opened its doors in July 1984, in order to

compliment the very popular ship-hall exhibition, since then approximately 250,000 people

have passed through every year (The Mary Rose Trust A, ND, 6). From its beginning to present

day, a key concern for the Trust has been the design of exhibitions which best reflect, for the

widest possible demographic, the most current research and learning. The museum caters, not

only for the general public, but also some 30,000 school children who annually visit the

dockyard, whist simultaneously providing one of the most active outreach programs in the UK.

This includes a website of international status, which receives approximately 4 million hits per

day, as well as organised projects which reach “hospitals, special needs organisations and family

learning centres” (The Mary Rose Trust B, ND). As such the general popularity of the Mary Rose

is today very evident, yet in reality the museum, which can only accommodate around 6-10% of

the collection and which is physically

separate from the ship’s hull, has limited,

to some degree, the realisation of the

Mary Roses heritage potential. Currently

entering the final phase of a 34 year

conservation scheme, the Mary Rose

project is therefore set to be developed

into a new museum, housed in a specially

designed building along with the remains

of the ship. This museum, it is hoped, will

present, rather than the 1,000 or so

artefacts that is currently possible,

upwards of 14,000, or 70% of the

collection (Summery, 2008, 15),

Figure 35 - Artist Impression of the Sinking of the Mary Rose

Figure 36 - The Raising of the Mary Rose October 11th 1982. The Mary Rose Trust

providing a museum accessible to all age and interest ranges. In terms of the design and

expansion, along with the final reunion of ship and artefacts, the new Mary Rose museum

heralds a particularly innovative display of museum and heritage work, which will allow the

interested public access to the remarkable treasure trove which the Mary Rose is, in terms of

physical remains, knowledge and interpretations.

The New Mary Rose Museum

It is extremely rare for an archaeological excavation to have a context as well understood as that

of the Mary Rose. Throughout the excavation and, following analysis, project teams worked with

background knowledge of not only which ship was before them, and her place in history, but

also the date she sank and even a rough idea of why she sank. This context is a key reason why

the Mary Rose is so praised by archaeologists, and one reason why the data derived from her

remains is so extensive. However, as a heritage attraction, the Mary Rose has cultivated such

intense public interest, not only on a national but also international scale, due to the fact that

she provides a window into the Tudor age, both academically and emotionally. In 2008 The

Mary Rose Trust wrote, that the ship is “one of the best known and most important symbols of

British history, and endeavour, in existence today” (Summery, 2008, 3). Many visitors who walk

through the current museum take particular notice of artefacts such as the clothing, particularly

the very well preserved collection of

shoes. In such cases the preservation

and conservation has been so good

that, visitors find themselves looking

at objects which are, not shrunken

imitations of what they once were, but

instead something which is

recognisable to the point of being

reality, something which they

themselves are wearing a version of at

that very moment, and which they can

relate to. Similar reactions occur with

a number of other everyday items,

including combs, rings, bowls and

spoons, particularly examples with

personal marks, and it is from such a

range of artefacts, along with the

Figure 37 - Timeline of Final Conservation Phases and Construction of New Museum (Summery, 2008)

Figure 38 - Planned Site of the New Museum. The Mary Rose

inescapable knowledge of the men who

died, that the Mary Rose can truly be

described as a site comprised of many

layers of story. Such stories span from the

Mary Rose herself, an active warship,

through the commanders, such as the Vice

Admiral Sir George Carew, down to the

crew themselves, among whom men of

particular skills such as the barber-

surgeon or carpenter can be identified, as

well as soldiers, gunners, mariners and

archers. Each of these men would have

had a family, friends and a life history,

whilst the ship herself had been in

commission for 34 years and seen active

service as well as diplomatic events. As such the planned vision for the new museum, as

demonstrated in figure thirty-nine and forty, is to “reveal the life and death of the Mary Rose

through a series of context galleries, crew exhibitions, hands-on experiences and audio visual

interpretations” (The Mary Rose Trust C, ND, 8), presenting the material remains within

exhibits, designed to develop public understanding of the stories which make up the Mary Rose

(Summery, 2008, 11). Ultimately it is intended that the museum will describe “a ‘day in the life’

for everyone from an admiral to a deck hand and even the ships dog” (Summery, 2008, 6).

Visitors will progress through the museum experiencing the career of the Mary Rose and the

eventual tragedy of her sinking, as demonstrated in figures forty-one and forty-two, gaining the

same context which archaeologist were able to draw on when interpreting the collection, and

finally viewing the ship and artefacts through the stories of the men themselves. (The Mary Rose

Trust C, ND, 9). Such stories will be brought to life for the public through the ships material

remains, for as Starkey has commented it is the objects of the Mary Rose which “are the

evidence for the stories [which] the public buy’s into” (Summery, 2008, 11), each of which will

correspond in placement to a working vessel. As the museum plans indicate the new Mary Rose

museum will be particularly novel in terms of physical layout, including, as figure forty shows, a

spectacular view of the ship’s hull from the exhibition levels. However, in terms of interior and

exhibit presentation, the true innovation of this project is perhaps most evident, for it will

describe for the public the stories of

the crew, through the artefacts

found, and provide, through the

stories told, a focus and context for

the public to place the artefacts

displayed in. In so doing this

planned museum will develop as

unique an experience, and learning

environment, for its visitors, as the

Mary Rose excavation site provided

for archaeologists.

Archery in the New Museum

Figure 39 - Planned Museum Internal View. The Mary Rose Trust

Figure 40 - Cross-Section View of New Museum Plan. The Mary Rose Trust

The overall museum scheme will

comprise many sub-groups, each

representing new layers of story. As

chapters one and two have

demonstrated, the archaeological

evidence for archery aboard the Mary

Rose has been particularly rich, and

ideas of the social class, general

health, training and techniques of

shot have all been developed, in

regard to these men. The material

remains include some of the best

preserved examples of longbows,

wristguard’s and arrow fragments

from any period of history, and

currently present one of the most

impressive aspects of the Mary Rose

museum. However, were as now, the practice of archery dominates; plans are in motion, for the

new museum, to present the material artefacts recovered, through individuals likely to have

practiced such skills. Three individuals, the Fairly Complete Skeletons (FCS) 70, 75 and 83, have

been selected, from the 91 individuals able to be reassembled, to represent the archer

community aboard the Mary Rose. Images will be constructed for the public, of these men,

through the presentation of their physical traits and appearances. In the case of FCS 70 the

public will be introduced to an individual who was 18-30 years of age, tall at 1.78m, generally

large and strong yet with stress marks on his bones, possibly through the practice of archery

(Hildred, 2011). Through these individuals, the public will learn of the practice of archery

within the Tudor period, its importance, the training and practice required, and the skill which

the men would have achieved. Such an understanding will be emphasised through the material

remains presented alongside the FCS, which with the wristguard’s, bows, spacers and arrow

fragments, will include items chosen to add colour to stories told of the Mary Rose archers.

These artefacts will include

jerkins, shoes, combs, coins

and knives, things which

depict for the public the

regular, day to day life of

the men, and a full

understanding of the

working and social aspects

of the archers lives. A

particular social argument

that will be presented is

that, which chapter’s one

and two highlight, of the

possible social ranking

within the archery

community. The FCS 75 will

Figure 41 - Panel Interpretation Mary Rose Sinking. The Mary Rose Trust

Figure 42 - Introductory Gallery Plan. The Mary Rose Trust

Survey Age Sample

0-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70+

YES 83%

NO 13%

NOT SURE 4%

Survey Results - Should Human Remains be displayed in the new Mary Rose

Museum?

Female 56%

Male 44%

Male/ Female Survey Ratio be presented to the public as the possible

archer captain, a man of perhaps higher

rank in society as well as the military,

through artefacts which were found in

association with him during excavation

(Hildred, 2011). These include the ivory

wristgaurd 81A0815, and the very

detailed signet ring 81A0810 bearing the

initial K (Hildred, 2011). It is from the

stories told of these men, that the public of

the 21st Century will gain an

understanding of the Mary Rose archers,

there importance and placement among

the society, and military of the day, their

skill, craft, knowledge and background.

The Human Element

Therefore, while the archers of the

Mary Rose will unfortunately still

remain nameless, they will not be all

together faceless. Similar exhibits, such

as that of the archer, are planned for

many of the crew sub-groups, through

which the complexity and depth of the

Mary Rose, both as a ship and as an

archaeological site, will be established.

As has above been demonstrated, the

new museum will centre itself on the

concept of stories, giving colour and

context to the material artefacts

recovered, and it is through such a

form of presentation that the possible

inclusion of human remains has been

put forward. The practical

identification of individuals, even in a

nameless sense, is essential to this

project, something which would be

made easier and clearer with the visual

inclusion of the individuals under

discussion. However such proposals

will automatically, and rightly, raise the

sensitive ethical issues which surround

any project including, or with the

potential to include, human remains. In

order to assess the impact such

additions may have, in conjuncture with

Figure 43 - Percentage of Male and Female Surveyed in 2011 survey by Amie Friend in conjunction with The Mary Rose Trust

Figure 44 - Age Percentages of 2011 Survey by Amie Friend in conjunction with The Mary Rose Trust

Figure 45 - Results of Human Remains Survey by Amie Friend in conjunction with The Mary Rose Trust

the Mary Rose Trust, I compiled a survey of 200 visitors, as demonstrated in figures 43, 44 and

45, who visited the current museum in the month of August 2011. As these figures demonstrate

the results indicate that, while the idea was more popular with younger demographics, overall

the vast majority of the general public would not be opposed to the inclusion of human remains

within displays of the new museum, if that was the path chosen by the Trust. However along

with there definitive answer the visitors included in this survey, were asked to comment on the

proposed idea, from which some very interesting opinions and suggestions were raised. Many

visitors had seen skeletal material in other museums, both in the UK and aboard; particularly

the Egyptian mummies and even the Cappuchin Crypt, and they felt that it was acceptable and

interesting as long as such displays were appropriately and respectfully put together. However

the concept of respectful was generally not able to be elaborated upon. For those who did

elaborate some of the key considerations raised included the presentation of whole skeletons

which should only be included in displays in which there was a legitimate reason for there

presence. Indeed survey participant 77, once the curator for the black museum new Scotland

yard, commented that “remains never caused offense as long as it could be justified why they

were put there” (Survey, 77). In general, a very varied range of opinion strength is represented

within the 83% of the survey population who chose the YES option. One of the most extreme,

but perhaps most interesting, comments of this group was that of an individual who argued that

to not include human remains was to separate the men of the Mary Rose from the ship in which

they died, and in which they were buried, ignoring both them and their memory. However in

contrast the 13% of the survey population to register a negative reaction to the survey question

were more consistently emphatic in their choice. While the majority thought such additions

would be of interest or of a particular learning value, some with particular moral ideas their

counterparts were definite, many voicing moral arguments that such displays had no place in

museums and would not aid the interpretation of the site. Others suggested that the inclusion of

replica rather than the true skeletal remains would be more appropriate, whilst the most

extreme believed that the ship as a whole should never have been touched in the first place. As

such the mixed opinions, which surround the inclusion of human remains in museums, are

loudly evident and must be carefully considered; however the strongest oppositions were

drastically few. In general, it was ideas of the learning potential provided by human remains as

well as the notion that a clearer reality and context could be established that prevailed

throughout the survey, and influenced the majority of participants in there positive reaction to

the survey question, concepts that the Mary Rose Trust is keen to develop in their new museum.

Figure 46 -Construction of the New Museum (Picture by Sally Friend)

“It is a tribute to those who died on the Mary Rose they are not forgotten, it has been so long no

relatives remain and I am fine with seeing remain so long as no mushy bit are on them”

(Survey comment # 99)

“As a diver on the Mary Rose project we were told not to treat human remains as artefact”

(Survey comment # 85)

“Because it allows the visitors to connect with stories of real people”

(Survey comment # 161)

“A personal reason, farther died at sea wouldn’t want his remain in a museum”

(Survey comment # 145)

Conclusion

Last year a commemoration two

pound coin was commissioned

and laid over the sport were the

Mary Rose sank in July 1545 and

was raised in October 1982,

marking 500 years since she

launched into King Henry VIII’s

Royal fleet. During those 500

years the Mary Rose has become

synonymous with mighty and

legendary warship, tragedy, a

half remembered story, the find

of the century and an

archaeological treasure trove,

becoming in many ways, and in

many era’s, an icon of the British Isles. However, when we refer to the Mary Rose as a vessel

what is perhaps sometimes forgotten, or only partially acknowledged, is that beneath the wealth

and mix of finds, which the Mary Rose has presented archaeology and the world, in fact lies a

composite site of many people, and groups of people, a theme which this thesis and the new

Mary Rose museum tries to highlight. Sir John Fortescue once wrote that “the might of England

standyth upon her archers”, however until the recovery of the Mary Rose, and her many

artefacts, the truth of this statement was only partially understood, for only a smattering of

archery equipment has survived from any period of history. Therefore, as demonstrated by

chapters one and two of this thesis, the Mary Rose collection has been invaluable in unravelling

the story of the Tudor archer. From this collection, including the assortment of archery

equipment and range of skeletal remains and data, elements of an image can begin to be formed.

Tough, strong individuals, these men were generally used to a physical and perhaps often harsh

life, with the vast majority originating from the lower to middle classes of Tudor society, many

were labourers rather than sailors or true

archers taking work seasonally were they

could find it and learning the bow due to

legal and, most likely, social inducements.

In all they would have looked little different

to modern man, however with a bow in

hand they were by all accounts vastly

superior to their contemporary counter-

parts. There techniques and skill at bending

the bow would have required, in addition

to continual practice, the development of

skill and the instruction to perfect it,

reinforcing ideas already established that

the English archers began training young.

This is the basic image, revealed by the

archaeological evidence of the Mary

Figure 47 – The Commemoration Coin, www.bbc.co.uk

Figure 48 - Medieval Archers (Marsden, 2003, 136)

Rose, regarding the Tudor archer, an image which the museum demonstrates to the public.

However via in depth analysis and research additional definition maybe added to this image.

Ideas of the archer’s prominence, practical significance and role are beginning to be understood

through the material remains recovered from the Solent floor, along with details of the makeup

of there military ranks and positions. Hints seem redolent from extensive surveys and research

projects that variations in terms of the archer’s skill, and function were prevalent aboard the

ship. It seems evident that archers going into battle aboard the Mary Rose were men sure in

their skills, maybe with individuals in command or of a still higher calibre, and with the ability

to adapt there weapons, techniques and tactics to suit the military situation with which they

were faced. While they, in all likelihood, only made up a small proportion of the active fighting

force they were effective and respected, using rather than arrow storm techniques,

marksmanship clearing decks and perhaps picking particular targets such as the opposing

commanders. These were men who took pride in their craft, adapting there weapons to suit

themselves, some perhaps developing the ability to use weapons modified to facilitate the

shooting of fire-shafts or shafts capable of supporting arrow heads designed for specific

purposes. Such a picture is clear from the archaeological evidence of the Mary Rose and

presents the public with a well rounded idea of who these men were, were they came from and

their role and importance within the Tudor fighting forces. However from the archaeological

evidence discussed of these men what is perhaps most tantalising is the hints of individuals

within this group. Through the personal touches that can be identified on items such as the

bows and wristguard’s, the image of the Tudor archer, which may be pieced together, can be

transformed from a two dimensional one to a three, filling in colour and texture which aids the

museum in the construction and presentation of historical storeys for the public to identify with

in the new museum. As such what the Mary Rose collection has been most successful at

revealing, not only to the academic community but the public at large, is the sense of the stories

and people behind the material objects, a constant target for archaeology but one which is not

often reached, and in terms of the Mary Rose archers a very full and detailed picture considering

many aspects of the lives and roles.

Figure 49 - Artist Impression of The Mary Rose