MikeW
>I think like other arenas, "tecnhology" comes and goes from a given scene. The Roman saws might have been an utter failure, an idea ahead of their time. They certainly are not widespread enough to have dozens of examples, much less leading up through the middle ages.

So I have no problem conjecturing that a "something" might have been lost due to whatever reason: didn't work, didn't sell, or simply was different enough that it wasn't widely adopted.

I think the overwhelming evidence we have on hand does support framed saws. Whether it be tomb carvings, engravings and even found examples, frame tensioned saws are in abundance.

The Moxon reference is still unresolved for me. Most likely will always be unless someone finds examples (perhaps continiental examples) or a dig uncovers one or two. Or, it'll be other printed matter. Who knows.

Certainly the Plumley inventory Adam refers to (it is available on the PopWood site as a download) is one seemingly coroborating source for an early backed saw. I doubt it was the first one in existence. So the when of it becoming available for Plumley to have bought one is a good question. Back only a couple decades and we are to Moxon's date of printing his book. It isn't a big stretch to support the notion he really was talking of a backed "tenant" saw. But...it is still conjecture.

All fascinating to this newbie of looking back that far.

Take care, Mike