For anybody interested, I have been in contact with Stuart Prior who wrote the Digital Diggings paper about some actual dimensions of the MH bow artifact. He has replied once already and I have asked him to check a full-size drawing I did based some of the measurements given in his article. It turns out that my scaled up reproduction of the drawings in Stuart's article are maybe not too far off the mark. My drawing has a maximum width of 71mm and he told me that the artifact measures 68.5mm at its widest with a handle width of just over 25mm where my drawing shows 24mm.
Anyway, here is my full sized drawing based on a 10 cm long handle with the overall length being 190.5 as his article suggested. I built the picture by simply duplicating each of the drawings of the artifact (which I presumed were to scale) and laid them end-to-end in Photoshop and interpolated the image upwards to 190.cm long. I then took the width and thickness dimensions from the drawing using the ruler and guides functions in Photoshop laying the guides in the centre of the drawn black lines at each of the 75mm measurement intervals. There were some shorter measurement intervals at the handle and at the nock end.
I don't know if it is downloadable from PP, but do email me if you would like a copy as a JPEG picture or PDF file.
One thing which amazes me is the picture above of Andrew Hall's repro. It seems to have a width approaching 90mm.
I did raise the issue of the swamped handle section of the artifact. I wondered why he did not reproduce this feature in his repro as it is a significant (if worrisome) feature of the original to those of us with bowyery experience. His picture of the original artifact at Fig 10 in his paper clearly shows that it was cut deeply through the original back growth rings to a depth which I estimate in my drawing to be around 14mm.
At first I wondered if this bow originally had some kind of short mid-bow reflexed section extending over some 60cm, but the picture in his paper clearly shows that this was NOT the case. The shape was clearly cut down through the original surface layer.
Anyway, I have a Yew stave here at home of T. brevifola
which is juuuuuust big enough to make a repro, but I am a bit worried about the swamped handle section. Stuart is interested to see if my repro has the same performance figures as his (which is why I am waiting on confirmation of the dimensions in my repro drawing above or his amendments. Like Rod above, I believe that it was intended to be drawn veeeery long on account of its sheer length and overall bulk. A 30 inch draw would not be straining such a bow at all - except for that dodgy handle section.
Dennis La Varénne