THE CLOTHYARD AND ITS SHAFT

How to make a Bow, a String or a Set of Arrows. Making equipment & tools for use in Traditional Archery and Bowhunting.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
Dennis La Varenne
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 10:56 pm
Location: Tocumwal, NSW. Australia

THE CLOTHYARD AND ITS SHAFT

#1 Post by Dennis La Varenne » Sun Mar 30, 2014 11:44 pm

To all those interested in things historical in archery, here is an interesting article written by Dr Robert Elmer, author of the seminal book on archery and its development in the western hemisphere and particularly in the United States with his 1946 book, 'Target Archery'.

The article was written for American Bowman Review of March 1948 and discusses the origins of the word 'clothyard' and its mistaken use in relation to the length of arrows used in mediaeval English military archery and the carryover into modern use and understanding.

The origin of its misuse in modern times Elmer lays at the feet of Dr Saxton Pope who made an uninformed assumption that the clothyard shaft was the standard 28 inch arrow explaining the derivation of that error. Elmer references his article with many older writers with whom I am not at all familiar, but the history of the development of the term is interesting and something for our warbow brethren to consider, especially the question of whether or not the term was ever really current in the days of English military archery.

A PDF of this article is attached.
THE CLOTHYARD.pdf
(584.02 KiB) Downloaded 120 times
Dennis La Varénne

Have the courage to argue your beliefs with conviction, but the humility to accept that you may be wrong.

QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES (Who polices the police?) - DECIMVS IVNIVS IVVENALIS (Juvenal) - Satire VI, lines 347–8

What is the difference between free enterprise capitalism and organised crime?

HOMO LVPVS HOMINIS - Man is his own predator.

User avatar
Roadie
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:22 pm
Location: Irymple Vic

Re: THE CLOTHYARD AND ITS SHAFT

#2 Post by Roadie » Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:47 am

Interesting Reading, Thanks. Cheers Roadie.

longbowinfected
Posts: 2040
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:42 pm

Re: THE CLOTHYARD AND ITS SHAFT

#3 Post by longbowinfected » Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:00 am

Thanks.
Very interesting.
Whilst only a minor thing which really does not detract from what appears to be a reasonable dissertation I cannot understand why someone would choose an arbitrary three fifths of anything in those times. I found that component to "jangle" my sensibilities.

Kevin
never complain....you did not have to wake up....every day is an extra bonus and costs nothing.

User avatar
greybeard
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2992
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:11 am
Location: Logan City QLD

Re: THE CLOTHYARD AND ITS SHAFT

#4 Post by greybeard » Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:43 pm

longbowinfected wrote:Whilst only a minor thing which really does not detract from what appears to be a reasonable dissertation I cannot understand why someone would choose an arbitrary three fifths of anything in those times. I found that component to "jangle" my sensibilities.
Some more odd measurements to "jangle" your sensibilities.

From Wiki.

“An ell (from Old Germanic *alinâ cognate with Latin "ulna")[1] is a unit of measurement, originally a cubit, i.e., approximating the length of a man's arm from the elbow ("elbow" means the bend or bow of the ell or arm) to the tip of the middle finger, or about 18 inches; in later usage, any of several longer units.[2][3] In English-speaking countries, these included (until the 19th century) the Flemish ell (3⁄4 of a yard), English ell (5⁄4 yard) and French ell (6⁄4 yard), some of which are thought to derive from a "double ell".[4][5]

Several national forms existed, with different lengths, including the Scottish ell (≈37 inches or 94 centimetres), the Flemish ell [el] (≈27 in or 68.6 cm), the French ell [aune] (≈54 in or 137.2 cm)[6] the Polish ell (≈31 in or 78.7 cm), the Danish ell (≈25 in or 63.5 cm), the Swedish aln (2 Swedish fot ≈59 cm) and the German ell [elle] (Hamburg, Frankfurt, Cologne, Leipzig: 57,9 cm)

Select customs were observed by English importers of Dutch textiles: although all cloths were bought by the Flemish ell, linen was sold by the English ell, but tapestry was sold by the Flemish ell.[6]

In England, the ell was usually 45 in (1.143 m), or a yard and a quarter. It was mainly used in the tailoring business but is now obsolete. Although the exact length was never defined in English law, standards were kept; the brass ell examined at the Exchequer by Graham in the 1740s had been in use "since the time of Queen Elizabeth".[7]

The Viking ell was the measure from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, about 18 inches. The Viking ell or primitive ell was used in Iceland up to the 1200s. By the 1200s a law set the "stika" as equal to 2 ells which was the English ell of the time.[8][verification needed]

An ell-wand or ellwand was a rod of length one ell used for official measurement. Edward I of England required that every town have one. In Scotland, the Belt of Orion was called "the King's Ellwand".[9][10]”
"And you must not stick for a groat or twelvepence more than another man would give, if it be a good bow.
For a good bow twice paid for, is better than an ill bow once broken.
[Ascham]

“If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, of what, then, is an empty desk a sign?” [Einstein]

I am old enough to make my own decisions....Just not young enough to remember what I decided!....

Dennis La Varenne
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 10:56 pm
Location: Tocumwal, NSW. Australia

Re: THE CLOTHYARD AND ITS SHAFT

#5 Post by Dennis La Varenne » Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:32 pm

Kevin,

From a mathematical perspective, 3/5ths of anything may seem arbitrary, but from a sociological or cultural perspective, the dividing objects lengths into fifths may have been common or even usual in some areas of everyday usage. We don't really know. The everyday logic of those times and our are very different.

I remember reading a quote somewhere (perhaps Mencken) which went something like - The past is a different country. They do things differently there.
Dennis La Varénne

Have the courage to argue your beliefs with conviction, but the humility to accept that you may be wrong.

QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES (Who polices the police?) - DECIMVS IVNIVS IVVENALIS (Juvenal) - Satire VI, lines 347–8

What is the difference between free enterprise capitalism and organised crime?

HOMO LVPVS HOMINIS - Man is his own predator.

User avatar
GrahameA
Posts: 4692
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Welcome to Brisneyland, Oz

Re: THE CLOTHYARD AND ITS SHAFT

#6 Post by GrahameA » Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:43 am

Morning Kevin.
longbowinfected wrote:Whilst only a minor thing which really does not detract from what appears to be a reasonable dissertation I cannot understand why someone would choose an arbitrary three fifths of anything in those times. I found that component to "jangle" my sensibilities.
Consider this. If you count using fingers or use the decimal system then working in tens is good and two tenths is a fifth. If however if you want a system that is easier to divide things into smaller things then quarters, halves, eights are easier. And if you have a very basic grasp of Geometry then 12 or 1/12 is very easy to divide things. People a long time ago understood what prime numbers were and the properties of prime - yet it seems a difficult concept amongst some to day. A Fibonacci sequence is seen as something that was invented for the DaVinci code yet its understanding goes back to at least the 6C. The issue is not the choice of 3/5 but rather the lack of understanding of current people - not paying attention in their Math's classes.

The Masonic symbol is a square and a pair of dividers, Once one understands what you can do with them you can design a Cathedral... you should play with a 13 knot rope. :D
Grahame.
Shoot a Selfbow, embrace Wood Arrows, discover Vintage, be a Trendsetter.

"Unfortunately, the equating of simplicity with truth doesn't often work in real life. It doesn't often work in science, either." Dr Len Fisher.

morganp

Re: THE CLOTHYARD AND ITS SHAFT

#7 Post by morganp » Tue Apr 01, 2014 7:14 am

Fifths is all well and good but I do not remember any magick tricks from topology, geometry or advanced mathematrics to measure them on cloth. Nothing from Freemasonry either that I recall and I did the inner secrets and esoteric stuff not just the hopping around on black and white squares, long ago. Maybe with a thirteen knot rope I could angle my triangles back and forth and divide into fifths but I wouldn't do that in the market place especially in front of mysterious arabic traders that may be spies for the hashasheen and shaitan by any other name. And a thirteen-knot rope tied round my robes would get me burnt as a witch whatever my Rite, it is how they drew circles and pentacles before bending to Beelzebub. Templars, maybe did such stuff, no-one admits it.

Whereas folding into two and again gives quarters, rooly simp mate for pommie headscratchers and fick merchants. They may have had deep intuitive understanding of folding into four, taking that as five fingers, taking three (fifths) fingers of that then doubling twice to get a foot. If they ever wanted to turn cubits into feet which I doubt very much. Trading and merchanting doesn't work like that. Especially at street level.

it is all spurious guesswork and we can hardly ever get into the frame of mind and consciousness of our forebears even if we think in the same language which we do not. Twist it to suit purpose is what most academic arguments do, even when started with the glorious and honourable intent of seeking enlightenment and truth. The ensuing arguments often end in bloodshed by papercut and the bleeding off of grants, the life's blood of academia. And it is all corrupt anyway, Nobel 'peace' prizes to those in UN who oversaw the slaughter of 8 million in Africa.

But I digress. A clotheyarde is 37 inches? Cool, that makes sense to me. I wish we were allowed to shoot people with the things still. Might not be 'pc' or something we should even talk about publically but I am sure the reality of a 'clotheyarde' rather than the conjectured type would quickly solve the problems of many of our Perses and Mongos today. I wonder if shooting 3/5 of our pollies and international policy makers would move our worlde from 'ell to 'eaven? Just random discussion of course, absolutely no intent to ioncite revolution or digress from clotheyardes except to remind what they really still are, not in academia, but reality.

Dennis La Varenne
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 10:56 pm
Location: Tocumwal, NSW. Australia

Re: THE CLOTHYARD AND ITS SHAFT

#8 Post by Dennis La Varenne » Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:54 pm

And, your point morganp, is . . . . . ?
Dennis La Varénne

Have the courage to argue your beliefs with conviction, but the humility to accept that you may be wrong.

QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES (Who polices the police?) - DECIMVS IVNIVS IVVENALIS (Juvenal) - Satire VI, lines 347–8

What is the difference between free enterprise capitalism and organised crime?

HOMO LVPVS HOMINIS - Man is his own predator.

Post Reply