Asian Arrow Points

Hi Jack,

I've been wondering about these chisel points myself as well, I got quite a number in my collection of many different shapes and sizes.

Judging from what I know at this point, I am assuming they belonged to hunting arrowheads. I know for sure that at least for the Manchus they served this purpose. Knowing that they kept in mind the underground of the game they were hunting and the durability of their arrows, a chisel point is sharp but more durable than a pointy arrowhead on hard terrain, something that may have been a consideration.

My 1759 regulations (am waiting to receive books on regulations for 1792 and 1808 as well) mention three arrows with chisel-shaped arrowheads. These are slightly different than those normally encountered in that the edge is either completely level, or concave instead of convex. These were used, among others, to shoot stag, deer, fox, roe deer and dogs. The one with the concave edge is also used for hunting animals.

The text also states 左右莫御 meaning something like "left right not for Imperial (use?)" But I can't figure out the exact meaning. The other two arrows have similarly obscure parts in their descriptions.

I am not aware of Yi Degang's book but it sounds interesting.

-Peter

How wide was thid concave head? I am thinking it would be useful when hunting fowl?

The concave "chisel" arrowhead was 1.5 cun long and I believe 1.3 cun wide. Assuming the common conversion of 1 cun = 32 mm in the 18th cent. system, it would be 4.8 cm long and 4.16 cm wide. This one is specified to be able to shoot "animals" but no specifics are given.

There is another "Swallow tail broadhead arrow" in the regulatiions with a V-shaped arrowhead that is often thought to be a fowl hunting arrow as well. Again, the regulations specify something different than what is commonly assumed: The swallowtail arrowhead is meant to shoot ground dwelling animals by the regulations formulated under the Qianlong emperor. (Who was a very diligent hunter and upholder of Manchu culture himself.)

I think we can fairly safely assume that these arrow purposes are about as close as we can get to what they were designed for. I don't expect any more credible text turning up than the 1759 Huangchao Liqi Tushi I got these from. It was devised under close supervision of one of the most legendary Manchu emperors, the Qianlong emperor, one who still practised the traditional hunting methods he learned from his grandfather the Kangxi emperor.

I recall a painting of the Yongzheng emperor (Qianlong's father & Kangxi's son) hunting fowl. When I stumble upon it again, or get to translate regulations concerning specific fowling arrows, I will let you know.

-Peter

Peter; I have three collections in which these chisel points occur. One is from the Penjayuan market and appear Yuan(13th century) Another is Liao (10-12th centuries) from inner Mongolia and the other is from Russia. The Russian collection is from a local museum at the site of a huge Tartar battle site. In all three groups, chisel to spatulate points make up about one quarter of the points. So I can only assume that these are meant for warfare.

If I had to guess I would say that they were used at close range, so called "sailing", being caught on the wind, must have been a problem if they were used at distance, at least for the really big ones.

The advantage over pointed arrows would be that the point would tend to fall out of a wound more easily with a great gush of blood. This would disable the opponent more quickly. Some are no wider than a slotted screwdriver blade.

How is it that the emperor specified arrow points? For royal hunts? To whom did the rules apply?

The text also states 左右莫御 meaning something like "left right not for Imperial (use?)" But I can't figure out the exact meaning. The other two arrows have similarly obscure parts in their descriptions.

It would help to see more context; but the meaning of this comment may be '(Lesser officials) of the left and right may not accompany the Court (in using this type of equipment.)"

S

jack farrell wrote:

So I can only assume that these are meant for warfare.

The main challenge of an army in these days was not to face the enemy but to sustain itself while on the move.* In this context, it is imaginable that hunting arrows were carried on military campaigns in considerable quantities.

Assuming they were in fact military, your point is a good one. A friend of mine, Philip Tom, who is an expert on edged weapons once told me "A narrow chisel point is surprisingly effective. It provides more shock than a simple awl- or needle tip. The bayonets used by the Russians from the latter 19th cent. thru WW II had no edges, they were basically thick, fluted spikes but they had chisel tips."

It seems the effectiveness of the chisel had not been forgotten in this region, then!

In any case, the Manchus and their Chinese armies did not use the chisel for warfare or at least seized this practice by the 18th cent. as the regulations are clear about which arrow is military and which not, and the chisels are not among the military ones by 1759. Arrowhead designs usually differed depending on the armor of the target, so perhaps changes in armor made them obsolete for this use in Asia at some point.

jack farrell wrote:

How is it that the emperor specified arrow points? For royal hunts?

The early Manchu emperors were involved in military affairs and the hunt on a remarkable level, most notably the Kangxi and Qianlong emperors. The Qianlong emperor even (re)designed a number of special weapons for certain campaigns, but as you say many of the hunting arrows were for the Royal Hunts and were probably derived from older Jurchen designs.

jack farrell wrote:

To whom did the rules apply?

The regulations mention everything from simple brass mounted soldier's sabers to the emperors own "Heaven series Nr. 1" saber, to tents and musical instruments, flags, uniforms, practically anything used by the royal court and its armies. The regulations apparently applied to whoever served the court: from civil officials to princes, down to the lowest soldiers. Actual antiques do show that they did not always adhered to the regulations very closely, perhaps the court's power was not as strong when one got further away from the capital.

I am waiting to receive another (slightly later) text that covers regulations for all 16 provinces. I wonder whether there are any significant differences in weapons and protection. There probably are due to different threats and climate conditions. For example, rattan armor was favored in the south probably because regular armor was too hot there. In the West they needed mail-piercing arrows, and rattan piercing arrows for use against the rebellious Southwestern tribes.

Stephen,
Thanks for the translation! The four characters are separate from the rest of the description. They appear after a sentence dealing with the wrapping around the nock of the arrow. It then names its purpose: 射兽 (for shooting animals) and then the four characters 左右莫御.

*See sources such as Peter C. Perdue's "China Marches West" and Dzengseo's diary, the translation of the diary of a 17th cent. Manchu soldier.

Narrow chisel pointed arrows were recommend by Taybugha for shooting against armour (a type of brigandine is mentioned). However, they do not look much like the east Asian ones. There are early Persian miniature paintings showing the wider tips used in hunting.

There is a late Byzantine painting quoted in my article on closed quivers which shows wide chisel-shaped arrow heads as well as broad heads. The saints depicted were in armour.

In the Secret History, Chinggis Khan's regulations on the army marching prohibit hunting in the ranks, but that probably meant only that hunting was restricted unless it was part of a military command and officially sanctioned.

The chisel points on some bayonets were used as screw drivers.

Mc Leod, Tut's self bows, plate IV, shows an arrow with a triangular glass point with a convex cutting edge. This was one of a set of 20 fletched cane forshafted arrows.

P 59" this is a characteristically Egyptian shape of arrowhead...and is well represented in agate, flint, or quartz, in all three comparative collections (18 from the tomb of Hemaka), 84 from Nag el Deir; 19 from the tomb of Maiherperi"...

The king Tut group is 1300 BC and he had bronze pointed arrows so he preferred these spatulate points in glass.

The second collection of 18 is from app. 2800 BC, tomb of a pharoe and would predate the bronze age. Since the arrows were a set it may be concluded that this type was not a prototype and so was already established as a point type in the early third millennium BC.

The last 19 were in the tomb of a royal fan carrier. This last group would also be bronze age so therefore it appears that the Egyptians preferred stone or glass for this type point, and like all their other arrows, tended to come in sets.

Egyptian kings both bow hunted and practiced archery for warfare.

These spatulate (wide chisel) points are also called tranchet, I think. -j-

Interesting, I had never heard of glass arrowheads before!

A disadvantage of glass would be its brittleness, but with that comes the major advantage of it being able to take and hold a much sharper edge than the bronze arrowheads of the time.

The few Qing arrowheads I've had polished show a lamellar structure like the other edged weapons of the Qing: A hardened high carbon edge in cheecks of softer folded iron / steel layers. This would produce an edge many times sharper than any bronze object, nearly as sharp as glass could be, while overcoming the problems of brittleness.

There are references to the sharpness of these chisel like Manchu arrows, such as: "Nothing can protect from it" and "So sharp it will stand out in the ground" found in the texts describing them.

It seems to me then, that a high degree of sharpness was required for these to work. I think we would need to do some proper field testing with such points to find out what exactly they could penetrate and what not.

-Peter

Jack,
You are right. these small heads were called petit-tranchet in the archaeological literature. They were more often made of flint or agate, but the Egyptians had an early glass industry. American Indians made excellent arrow heads from glass and Australian Aboriginals made beautiful spear heads from it.

The petit-tranchet heads were more like equilateral triangles rather than chisel shaped. They were obviously intended to cause large wounds.

Peter, I have often thought about testing the chisel shaped heads but did not know any metal smiths to make them for me. Accurate cross sections and metal quality would be essential for testing.

Bede wrote:

Peter, I have often thought about testing the chisel shaped heads but did not know any metal smiths to make them for me. Accurate cross sections and metal quality would be essential for testing.

From the sword business I know a few who can do it but it is probably going to be rather costly. We would first need to test the hardness of one and replicate this. If the hardness is around 55 HRC we can get away using modern monosteel, but if it is harder (around 60 or above) an inserted edge would be the way to go. These are a lot of work.

Once my 80# Manchu bow is done I do want to make accurate replicas of such arrows for field testing. By that time, I will probably also have some heads forged for testing. But it is going to take almost three years before that bow is finished.

-Peter

WEll, Peter brings up something more interesting than glass points and that is the composition of metal points. Sandwiching tool steel between two layers of mild steel is a superior technique for tool making. In an attempt to conserve on high quality steel by supporting it in a body of inferior material, the ancients discovered a technique whereby the main object would bend without breaking and straighten again to the original position, but the cutting edge, sharp and brittle, would be supported by softer steel.

The trade off is labor. This is recognized as premium technique. Swedish tools used to be made this way, maybe still are. One can buy some Japanese tools made like this, called San Mai, three layers.

Only a good blacksmith can forge weld steel. In the days of the Mongols one can assume that forging was a serious trade with apprenticeship. The sheer quantity of invasion era points suggests organized production methods, trade and technique.

Any other information or testing of old points would be welcome. -j-

The delightful subject of old steel and their constructions!

jack farrell wrote:

Sandwiching tool steel between two layers of mild steel is a superior technique for tool making.

Indeed, and it seems that at some point any steel object that was to hold an edge made in China was made in this way. Not only swords and chisels, I even have a pair of Chinese scissors with an inserted hardened edge. The construction is usually associated with Japan because of their famous swords. What few realise is that these techniques were developed in China hundreds of years before the Japanese started to copy it. Steel swords with a sanmei (sanmai in Japanese) construction appear in the tomb of Qin Shihuangdi (214 B.C.) already. Sanmei is one of a number of constructions used, where a hard layer is sandwiched between two softer layers. Single edged weapons are also often made with a qiangang construction where the edge only comes out the milder body steel on one side. Old chisel blades from China and Japan usually have the hard steel exposed on a large part of the flat side, both sides, and the edge. For arrowheads, sanmei would be the way to go.

The Japanese copied the Chinese method of steel construction in the 6th or 7th century, and kept quite close to the design and aesthetics of this era up to today. The Chinese edged weapons evolved much more than that over time, and were influenced strongly by Islamic arms brought to China by the Mongols while maintaining a very own character as well. The techniques of heat-treating also changed, where the Japanese held on to the clay-technique developed by the Chinese in the Tang dynasty while the Chinese themselves started to use complete hardening and local annealing after the late Tang dynasty. The elevated status of the Japanese sword now is largely a result of the Japanese constant preserving and nurturing of their old crafts, combined with the wealth of information available on the subject, and partly fueled by popular culture. The details of the Chinese sword-makers art are not served to us on a platter but largely lie hidden beneath old rusty surfaces, with only few publications about them available.*

jack farrell wrote:

Only a good blacksmith can forge weld steel. In the days of the Mongols one can assume that forging was a serious trade with apprenticeship. The sheer quantity of invasion era points suggests organized production methods, trade and technique.

It is indeed tempting to assume that the techniques used in China were also known in its immediate surrounding areas, or may have very well gotten there by trade. I do know that the Mongols had huge iron smelting facilities in their homelands during their golden age. I do not know how exactly the iron was processed into arms and arrowheads, but "the Chinese way" is certainly plausible for these heads as well.

A Chinese officer's saber (peidao) of the 18th century. Qiangang construction.
[external image]

A Chinese / Manchu hunting arrowhead of the "pi" type. 19th century. Laminated construction of alternating layers of hard and soft steel.
[external image]
[external image]
[external image]

*See Philip M.W. Tom - Some notable sabers of the Qing dynasty in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Arts in New York. Metropolitan Museum of Arts Journal 36, 2001. More publications from him are in the pipeline.

See also: http://www.grtc.org/articles/art_of_chinese_sword.html

-Peter

Actually there are still many antique arrow heads date back to more then 1,000 years to the 1800's you can find in many China antique shops. Yet, these are not the items that draw much attenation to the general antique collectors. It works like this, in the area of inner Mongolia where the battlefield of generation after generations, a special and expensive vegetable precious by Chinese grow there, under the thin layer of surface soil. Many locals will go and harvist the vegetable (called "hair vegetable"), and found antique arrow heads from time to time. Some antique dealers will trad with those people, one pack of cigarette per arrow head, for speciall kind (such as whisling ) maybe 3 or 4 packs of cigarette for one... Amazing Ha!

These are the forge tools from the State Archaeological Reserve museum in Shoulder, Kazakhstan. I realise that these are not for making points. The upper next to left is a miniature anvil for jewelery making. Nevertheless they are the first Nomad type forge tools I have seen. We are looking for tongs and a small anvil. The hammer head would be useful. It has a cross peen head for thinning metal.

I can imagine the tang of an arrowhead being made first and then used as a place to grip with special tongs. Mark Stretton, Brit archer and point smith makes his socket first and then the point.

Any smiths out there wanting to make a comment?

The forge and bellows from the same display. One might like to see an air intake on the side toward the bottom and a kind of ceramic grating in the bottom inside. None of this could be seen. One would hope this to be a kind of ceramic forge rather than stone.

The overall apparatus is compact and transportable. -j-

Vikings have used small anvils. There is one viking tool chest: M?stermyr chest. Lot of woodworking tools and few wedge like small anvils.

Rapsod; here is the link to those tools. Thankyou for bringing it to our attention.

Most are woodworking tools but many blacksmith tools are present. This is a great treasure, a craftsman's box with more than 100 tools from 1000 years ago. Was found in 2002.

It is like a vocational school in a box!

http://www.netlabs.net/~osan/Mastermyr/ImageLib.html

What will be the rarest of the rare , if it is ever found, will be a swage block for making those three bladed heads- that is an iron support for hammering them. -j-

The most interesting things are hacksaw and files. I have hacksaw that look like that one on picture but my is only 10 years old?!!!

I am bit disappointed. There is no hand plane.

That thing under no. 96 is tool for saw tooth setting.

[external image]
mediaval blacksmith from northern India and his workshop.

Rapsod; Many people think that everything important was invented in the last 100 years. Romans used a claw hammer equal to those today and also a metal sole plane among others.

Mysa; This looks like an interesting picture. Can you increase the size?

Jack , If I were forging arrow points or spear heads and I have done both , I would forge the socket first.
I will try and post a few pics of a boar spear head and an arrow point that I forged .
Alan

The boar spear was forged from a 1" round bar. The arrow head was forged from a 1/4" x 1' flat bar. The arrow head is not finished yet.
Alan

Sorry Jack. I?m an embryo in the computer working. The photo is from Manfred Sachsś book about Damascus steel. Blacksmithing is my job and hobby -especially damast steel making and ancient weapons. I would like to try send more pictures in normal size

biger size of indian blacksmith
[external image]
[/img]http://img1.rajce.idnes.cz/d1/1/1036/10 ... _kovar.JPG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blBzKTly4Yc :wink:

jack farrell wrote;

I can imagine the tang of an arrowhead being made first and then used as a place to grip with special tongs. Mark Stretton, Brit archer and point smith makes his socket first and then the point.

While it?s common when forging socketed arrowheads to forge the socket first ( I haven?t heard of anyone forging the opposite way actually.) I suspect that when you forge a tanged arrowhead it would be easier to forge the point first, I?m not sure though maybe there are several methods.
Accomplished arrow smith Hector Cole emphasize that when forging Japanese arrowheads he forge the tang last;

http://www.hectorcoleironwork.com/Articles.html

What will be the rarest of the rare , if it is ever found, will be a swage block for making those three bladed heads

Jack, do you have any reference for using such swage blocks by Asian smiths, do you think of any particular heads here? I?ve been wondering myself how a three (and four) bladed head could be forged.
There were of course cast bronze heads.

I wonder why it?s the case that majority of Asian metal arrowheads are tanged rather then socketed (By tanged head I mean here a three-dimensional head with a square or round tang, not a flat one.)

It?s obvious that you will rather use head with a tang for a cane or bamboo shaft but why they were used so extensively with solid wooden shafts, was it then some kind of strong customary tradition or some matter of preference?

It seems to me then that mounting arrowheads on shafts by means of a tang combined perhaps with sinew lashing and/or washers would produce shaft/head joint comparable in strength to that when using a socket, otherwise it would make no sense to use tang instead of socket where and when this was known, I suppose.
Anyone with experience in that field??

In general some authors write that it was easier to forge heads tanged than socketed, I wonder if it?s really the case, I haven?t forged any tanged heads but I?ve forged a few socketed and I didn?t found it particularly tricky task, so is it take less time to produce a tanged one than a one of the same form but with a socket?

It probably takes less metal to make tanged head though.

Ashbow wrote:

It probably takes less metal to make tanged head though.

That exactly why I think so. Less metal, or in other way you can use less valuable metal.

Why use steel or iron for whole head if you could just weld on a copper tang to the point?
It would cost less to make such head.
This is not so easy with socket, more easily done with tang though.

Other than that, tang heads just make more sense for bamboo/cane shafts.
Not so sure for wood, perhaps again it has to do with first reason.

The relative cost of iron and copper or bronze were such that it was the iron that was cheaper. In the Warring States period in China, they started making bronze heads with iron tangs rather than the other way round.

Guys; A short history of techniques for Asian metal points. Stone neolithic points had the end of the shaft notched with a v groove to accept the point which was lashed on with sinew. The first copper and then bronze points, c. 2000 BC had narrow tangs. Thereafter socketing became most common, though a few Sakian points of the first century BC were also V tanged as in the neolithic. I suppose socketing had to do with casting techniques and the weakness of bronze tangs.

I have seen probably thousands of iron points of Asia and socketed points do not stand out, if indeed I have ever seen them. Weight is probably not the reason because even in the early centuries AD, heavy points were made. Bronze has always been more precious than iron, as Bede states, and I suppose that Chinese points with bronze points and iron tangs had the point cast to the tang. These are very heavy construction, and of a limited distribution; not otherwise found.

By the middle ages, Asian iron points were all tanged. In the same period in Europe, socketed points were the norm.

Maybe someone should experiment to find the reasons why.

One annoyance of tanged points is the severe wear to the sinew lashing above the point. Only in India were SOME of the arrows given metal ferrule tubes above the point to virtually eliminate chaffing. I have only seen this ONCE on a central Asian point out of maybe a thousend examples.

Any socketed tool can be removed quickly from its wood part by rapping sharply against a solid object.

We could have a similar discussion about nocks -j-

Sinew reinforcement was often covered by tough cherry bark or some other protective coating in China. The Turks sometimes reinforced the foot of the arrow with horn and metal washers. Sometimes the horn is completely eaten away and the arrow head is sitting directly on the shaft. There is a catalogue from Bologna with some clear pictures of the heads and their washers. L'armeria del Museo Civico Medievale di Bologna
G. L. Boccia, 1991

Bede; Very interesting, have not seen this info.

There are also leather washers worked into the arrowhead attachment mix on Indian arrows which I can only assume take the function of shock absorbers. -j-

The leather washer sound like maybe bad idea.
You dont want shock absorbers on arrow, this cause less penetration, unless this is their intent?

I did not think about the bindings, this indeed would get nasty relatively quick. Japanese (Chinese too?) use urushi on their bindings and this has to be most durable finish I believe. I not sure how maybe other material work though.

Leather washers are unusual. I have not seen them myself. I suppose they could be emergency replacements, but I cannot see them having much use on light shafts.

If they were used on arrows for something equivalent to the Turkish zarb shooting, then Jack's theory of shock absorption would be a good one. The arrows would be intended for reuse and anything that stopped shaft destruction under those extreme conditions would be an advantage. The heads would have made up a significant proportion of the weight of the shaft. War arrows were probably made durable, but the next user after you was likely to be your enemy so I don't think you would care if the sinew soaked off. Hunting arrows would be different.

The Japanese definitely used lacquer on some arrows. However, I have seen war arrows with a metal ferrule with a square hole for the tang. The Chinese in early dynasties used lacquer too. I think there are surviving arrows from the Chu state during the Chan Guo (Warring States) Period. Stephen might know the details.

In Java, Indonesia, I have been told that the old arrows with pamur blades had thin, conical iron ferrules instead of sinew wrapping.