ATARNarchive

Polished Chinese arrowheads

22 posts2010live thread
Peter Dekker
Hi guys,

In a previous thread I showed a polished Chinese pi arrowhead, that showed a clear lamellar structure which pointed to the fact it was forge folded, just like Chinese edged weapons. (See: http://198.170.107.188/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1075)


Since I've been collecting Chinese antique arms and related items I haven't come across a single edge that wasn't either:
A. Forge folded with inserted, hardened edge
B. Differentially heat-treated

And more often than not the edges of spear, sword, scissor, adze, chisel and other items display signs of both forge folded construction with hard inserted edge plate plus differential heat treatment. Some with clear demarcations done with clay-tempering such as on Japanese swords, others with cloudy effects and less sharp demarcations, and some have nice artistic patterns in the steel from wood grain, hairpin, to twist-core and horse-tooth patterning near the edge.

With all these fancy pieces of steel one wonders whether Chinese arrowheads were an exception. After I had one of my hunting arrowheads polished, some were quick to assume that it was an expensive hunting arrowhead, made to last, and thus much better made than the standard head.

In order to find out whether this is the case I also sent a standard Qing military head to my polisher, Philip Tom. It is of the meizhen (plum needle) type and they were literally produced in the millions over a timespan of at least 300 years. And although it doesn't exhibit a fancy artistic pattern, it nevertheless is forge folded, and shows a demarcation of separate plate near the edge. The forging is also of considerable quality, with excellently welded together layers and no forging flaws. According to my polisher the steel was noticeably softer than the average Chinese sword edge, but they probably had a reason for that. Good sword edges chipped on impact with a similar edge, leaving a rounded nick that doesn't compromise the overall integrity of the weapon much. An arrow may loose too much kinetic energy when chipping and perhaps was allowed to deform a little more in impact, which is exemplified by some bent examples that look as if they hit something really hard.

[external image]

[external image]


To see whether this was incidental I took out another, quite battered one and polished a window in it. Again, forge-folded with separate edge plate.


I recently obtained a set of arrows with remarkably clean tips so I did a light polish and etch to see what they were made of. The result was beautiful:

[external image]
The lines following the overall contours of the blade suggest that it was hammered into this shape, instead of formed out of a sheet of steel. (Thanks to Hector Cole for this observation.)

[external image]

[external image]

In the foreground an arrow of the same set before polish & etch, the end result in the background.
[external image]


I then polished and etched another, very similar arrowhead but from a different set of arrows that had somewhat bigger shafts but smaller heads. The steel clearly shows it is not of uniform composition but this time we see few clear lines. I have yet to figure out what this is about, perhaps this finally is unrefined, simple iron. The arrow is rather late, and could be made of Western steel. They were known to use railroad tracks to produce military dadao ("big knives") as well.

[external image]

A word to the wise
The results posted may inspire some to go through their own arrowhead collection and see what hides under the rust. But for those without any prior experience in polishing antique steel objects, please don't attempt to polish any of the heads you might have at home. I sent mine to a professional polisher with over three decades of experience in polishing (among others) Chinese, Persian, Indian and Japanese arms. It also takes a keen eye to determine which piece of steel is suitable to be polished, and which not. Some would require the removal of too much material, and the cost of losing the original shape of the artifact would weigh too heavy against the benefit of seeing its construction. The only ones I did myself had very little rust and scratches to remove, and I did it all by hand with proper equipment and relying on some experience polishing simple short swords and sabers over the years.

If someone is interested, they can always contact a professional polisher. Prices for such small objects are very reasonable, compared to the cost of polishing a sword.

Philip Tom, friend and fellow-researcher of Chinese arms who does all my polishes, can be contacted here: http://www.mandarinmansion.com/philtom/phil.htm

-Peter
jack farrell
Peter; Well done, most informative. In the case of the leaf shaped point with grain in the outline of the point; this would be done by removing material, for instance by grinding or filing through the layers. To forge to shape is to loose the pattern as forge thinning would also thin all the constituent layers..

In tool making the tang might be a different material., might be welded on.

You can highlight the grain pattern with gun bluing, banana plant juice, or liver of sulfur. Light highlighting with 0000 steel wool finishes.

Muratic acid gives a different etch than nitric acid.
Peter Dekker
Hi Jack,

Thanks for the compliment and observations on thinning vs. removal of material.

You're right on the spot with the tools, often most of the tool was made of standard iron and only the edge was a plate of high-carbon steel. Same goes for some village-made pole-arms where they tended to keep the good steel for blades / edges only.

There are some exceptions, like a gigantic Chinese adze I bought for a friend. Is construction showed a pocket of hardened steel with a softer core, that was differentially heat-treated with clay to form a "hamon" or temper line. But of course this is a tool with quality throughout.

Thanks for the etching suggestions, I haven't used any of the ones you listed before. Do the processes differ?

I got the above result by polishing to 1000 grit, carefully keeping the original contours and hammer-marks intact with the coarser grits. Then a few etches with ferrum(III)chloride, stabilized with ammonia, and then polished with a special kind of mineral toothpaste that has polishing properties similar to polishing powders and pastes, but is a lot cheaper.

(The paste is called "Paradontax" in the Netherlands, it may be sold by another name abroad.)

-Peter
jack farrell
Peter; I would only "polish" to remove heavy rust scale. What you are trying to do is to make the different metals in the mix erode in different manners to create a topographic sort of contrast. The entire process is one of corrosion rather than polish. So if there is no thick rust to remove, then skip the abrasion.

Otherwise, when done by hand (no machine) #120 sandpaper marks will disappear in the etching. So just get down to smooth metal. Does not need to be clean.

After etching, go to staining which is also a corrosive technique. Clean well and then highlight with steel wool to polish just the highlights but not the entire piece or you risk loosing what you have created.

I have used this technique sucessfully on pattern forged metal.

When clean and dry, cover with a few drops of boiled linseed oil and wipe fairly clean to seal the process.

I wonder how far back in time the use of laminated steel in arrow points goes? I think you are really on to something. -j-
Peter Dekker
Hi Jack,

I would have to disagree, based on my own experience and that of Philip Tom on polishing antique swords and sabers.

With high contrasting steels, the coarser grains will indeed look as if they disappear in the etch. With low-contrasting steels such as those most often found in antique steels of China, Japan, Korea and surrounding areas, we really need to work down to a very smooth surface so the light reflects uniformly in order to accurately bring out the different layers.

Else a pattern-welded body could turn to look like a uniform grey mass. Even more delicate details such as cloudy traces of heat treatments won't be seen until getting to very high grits. Even though my arrowheads looked clean, there were small pits of corrosion that were black spots and "crow feet" under a magnifying glass, as well as many scratches. These all obscure the effects to be seen on the final result and one will need to use stones or flexible abrasives to get to the bottom of those to get to a uniform surface.

Philip Tom, in response to a similar suggestion on another forum:

Philip Tom wrote:

Rust (oxydation) tends to form pits, or at least roughen, the surfaces of ferrous objects. Iron is converted to iron oxide, and detaches from the surface in the form of a powdery substance or actual flakes, depending on the severity of the condition. The pits may not be deep enough to feel with fingertips, but under magnification, they can be seen.

The use of chemicals to remove active rust (and thus halt the advance of corrosion) does have its hazards, as Nik has pointed out. Neutralization after use is essential.

Aesthetically, the result can leave much to be desired, since if all the oxydation is removed, you get craters in naked steel, or a rough frosty look which can be unsightly. Also, you can't rely on acids acting on a rough, rusted surface to bring out much in the way of metallurgical details, unless the layering is of an extremely coarse and crude nature. This is because the residual roughness interferes with the reflection and refraction of light from the surface, which is what enables us to see the details with naked eyes, or through lenses. Only a proper polish can prepare the surface, to the requisite smoothness, so that the metal structure can be revealed.

In some Oriental cultures, the degree of polish on things such as swords and bronze mirrors goes beyond functional parameters, it also symbolizes the purity and clarity of the superior man's soul. This being said, it's no wonder why the three sacred National Treasures (Kokuho) of Japan consist of polished objects : mirror, sword, and jewel.

Jack Farrell wrote:

I have used this technique sucessfully on pattern forged metal.

I am venturing an educated guess here that these were either modern pattern welded steels, or those made with high-contrasting steels such as Indonesian blades forged with nickel-rich materials from meteorites.

I have also tried such shortcuts before on Chinese blades, but to no effect. We must keep in mind that on these arms, the patterns were often not meant to show as contrasting layers but were merely functional. Any modern smith that pattern welds his steel wants to make sure that the effect is visible by using steels that highly contrast from one another.

On earlier arrowheads, I'm expecting a lot of Jurchen arrowheads soon. We will polish a few to see their construction. Chinese swords have been made like this for well over two millennia, I'm expecting something similar on arrowheads.

-Peter
Peter Dekker
Here two examples of different steels. The saber below was made combining Tibetan stacked forging combined with Chinese machi or "horse-tooth" patterning. The layers were meant to contrast and naturally came out with neglect and age because they corrode differently:

Before polish & etch, lines already visible.
[external image]

After polish & etch, all details come out:
[external image]
Had we went forth with an etch without polish, it wouldn't have been so obvious though.

Here a late, practical fighting whose layers were not artistic but of practical use: alternating layers of harder and softer steels for impact resistance and resilience combined with a hard high-carbon core plate that forms the edges.

You can see that in unpolished condition the rust is remarkably uniform. The contrast between the layers in its current state of polish is obscured, the layers did corrode in exactly the same way from one another and only a high polish can set them apart.
[external image]

Same blade, after polish and etch:
[external image]
Merely cleaning off the patina and etching wouldn't have set them apart like this. It often also takes several etching sessions with stabilizing and micron-level polishing in-between to get them to contrast this much.

-Peter
jack farrell
Peter; No disagreement whatever. I am much more in the Indonesian, meteorite damascus category than the Japanese wakazashi one. Of course the original intent must be considered. I was merely offering advice on creating contrast for documenting the layering of the metal but a reconstructed finish would be preferable.

The other question would be technique. Surely by now you understand the tools of the trade for Chinese weapons polishing and these should probably be used to conserve those items.

How this relates to other cultures depends on what you discover. There is a Mongol arrowhead with gold amalgam (?) in GK and the Mongol Empire, so they probably were familiar with fine metal finishing.

The question is also how were the original arrow points finished, or at all. -j-
Peter Dekker

jack farrell wrote:

I am much more in the Indonesian, meteorite damascus category than the Japanese wakazashi one.

That explains, those are really made to stand out. The combination of regular steel and nickel-steel is still a favorite among modern knifemakers because of the high contrast they provide.

jack farrell wrote:

Of course the original intent must be considered. I was merely offering advice on creating contrast for documenting the layering of the metal but a reconstructed finish would be preferable..

Sure, your input is always highly appreciated! But in case of it not being necessary to polish, I sometimes wish it was the case for Chinese arms! So I went through some length to explain the differences I have encountered. (My girlfriend Suki would normally warn people not to get me started on swords, her sincere apologies that she didn't when you met her in Korea!)

jack farrell wrote:

The other question would be technique. Surely by now you understand the tools of the trade for Chinese weapons polishing and these should probably be used to conserve those items.

How this relates to other cultures depends on what you discover. There is a Mongol arrowhead with gold amalgam (?) in GK and the Mongol Empire, so they probably were familiar with fine metal finishing.

The question is also how were the original arrow points finished, or at all. -j-

This remains a point of discussion, and for many items we probably never be sure. Surely the military arrowhead in this post was not originally finished to this level, although the facets and bevels were very precise to begin with there was no point for them to polish them up so good as to reveal their metal construction.

For the others, we're not sure but I also tend to think their finish didn't show the layers, we marvel on them today but the construction was considered normal at the day. The sword with the interesting pattern with the dots surely was finished to this level to show off its special construction, but others clearly were not.

There are also two clear camps in restoration, we have on one side researchers who want to know what's under that rust. On the other side are people whose sole purpose is preservation, and who rather leave all pieces in "as found" condition. My personal view floats somewhere in the middle, I leave most arms alone but for some I like to see their construction or find they ought to be brought back to the way they were originally intended. In this process I do bring some arms to a higher level of finish than they were originally intended, because it provides important information on how they were made. It is something a museum curator would never do, except for Japan where edges weapons are traditionally brought to high finish, even if they were never intended in this way.

-Peter
jack farrell
I once bought an inexpensive Japanese long knife (tonto) which someone had sharpened on a grinder and used for gardening.

Without council it took about 20 hours with diamond paste of various grits to remove the tool marks and gently bring the blade to a mirror finish. When presented to the sword collector types, it came up short. The correct look is frosty with hints of the various materials making up the steel mix.

Even a perfectly restored blade might not be improved by the expensive process. Japanese come to my town every February to buy old war mementos. They will pay any amount for the ideal specimen.

The lesson is that here all polish is custom and may not be worth anything to the next owner. The blade can also be ruined by one too many polishings.

Though one sees large weapons with special surfaces, the arrowheads are only "bright work" as I recall.

Mughal "watered" or "wootz" pattern welded swords are specially finished but arrow points are also just bright work.

In fact I cannot recall seeing a damascus type point with etched finishing.

If anyone has pictures please chime in. -j-
Peter Dekker

jack farrell wrote:

I once bought an inexpensive Japanese long knife (tonto) which someone had sharpened on a grinder and used for gardening.

Without council it took about 20 hours with diamond paste of various grits to remove the tool marks and gently bring the blade to a mirror finish..

Stones are a good way to go here, pastes and abrasive paper further round bevels and edges, while ideally you would want them come out well-defined.

jack farrell wrote:

When presented to the sword collector types, it came up short. The correct look is frosty with hints of the various materials making up the steel mix.

I can well imagine. Of all, the Japanese sword enthusiasts are the hardest to please. An interesting detail is that Japanese polishing wasn't taken this far until the relative peace of the Edo period. From then on, blades are polished over and over just to remove all pits and scratches, and are getting further and further removed from their original intended geometry and handling chracteristics. Which is no problem to them, as they are now considered art instead of practical weapons. It is said that some old masters may not even recognize their own work anymore had they be able to see these blades today. In the old days, samurai probably did their own polishes and ironically, the way you got yours may have been much closer to how they originally looked than the pristine ones we see today.

jack farrell wrote:

The lesson is that here all polish is custom and may not be worth anything to the next owner. The blade can also be ruined by one too many polishings.

Indeed. Although every tradition does seem to have a few preferred methods of finish, but even those were and are subject to change and a single blade may have had different finishes throughout its life. I agree, polishes can do as much harm than good, more often than not I find swords in over-polished condition. Some did in the old days, others ruined in recent times by people with coarse stones and belt grinders.

jack farrell wrote:

Though one sees large weapons with special surfaces, the arrowheads are only "bright work" as I recall.

I tend to think the same. Although a century or so of neglect would be well enough to obscure a fine finish, so some may have had better finishes than we generally find them in.

jack farrell wrote:

Mughal "watered" or "wootz" pattern welded swords are specially finished but arrow points are also just bright work.

I had wondered about that. How cool would it be to find wootz arrowheads!
There may not have been any, but who knows someone might just never got it to a finish to reveal it again. Some antique knives and swords can turn out to be wootz on occasion, obscured sometims under just a thin layer of patina. Come to think of it, I have a broad-headed Indian arrow. Probably not wootz, but I might give it a go and see if the steel at least shows signs of a folded construction.

jack farrell wrote:

In fact I cannot recall seeing a damascus type point with etched finishing.

Me neither.

-Peter
Bede
I have several groups of Indonesian pamur arrowheads from Java which are as delicately designed and etched as the best keris. I have several arrows form India which were bright finished when I bought them but shows clear evidence of wootz with a light etching.

Perhaps we should clear up the terminology again. Wootz is crucible steel with the pattern initially present from the process of melting the ore. Later forging and hammering added special features like ladder patterns. Damascus or pattern welded steel is a process of layering different types of steel and forge welding them together. This product can then be repeated folded and forge welded to produce larger patterns on the surface. Both methods were used in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent. The Japanese specialised in folded steel construction. The Malays and Indonesians were expert in combining iron, steel, and nickel-rich alloys in folded structures.
Peter Dekker
Wow, wootz arrowheads afterall!

Pics?

-Peter
jack farrell
Was wondering of those who went to the Silk Road Museum, if you saw the Scythian swords of bi-metal construction? These were basically bronze swords with steel tips. the provenience card stated 17-1 C BCE.
jack farrell
Is that not an amazing sword? The blades may all be missing from the Silk Road swords because much of Xinjiang is old sea beds with salt deposits below the surface, for instance, in graves.

Peter and all; I assume you know of bi-metal arrow points from China, presumably cross bow points. What would be the purpose of putting a bronze point on a steel shaft?
Peter Dekker

jack farrell wrote:

Is that not an amazing sword? The blades may all be missing from the Silk Road swords because much of Xinjiang is old sea beds with salt deposits below the surface, for instance, in graves.

I didn't know about it being salty there, but it makes sense. A sweaty fingerprint on one of my old swords will become a nasty stain within days if untreated. (Modern, pattern welded steel tends to be more corrosion resistant even when it is high carbon steel because of lower impurities of stuff like sulphur and manganese.) Centuries of that may be well enough to eat up a blade entirely! What a shame, I bet there were some beauties among those as well. I wonder in what condition the Met's example has been kept, it looks much better than many early Qing / late Ming swords I've seen. Conditions must have been near-perfect.

jack farrell wrote:

Peter and all; I assume you know of bi-metal arrow points from China, presumably cross bow points. What would be the purpose of putting a bronze point on a steel shaft?

I was unaware of these. In what regions were they found, and to what period are they dated? Do you have pics?
jack farrell
From the curio market in Bejing. The shorter one was to be seen in museums in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
Peter Dekker
Hi Jack,

Now I see the pics I realize I've seen them before. I must admit that I'm still very under-educated when it comes to these very old Chinese artifacts.

But some random thoughts that come up:
I would assume they date from the first few centuries B.C. around the bronze / iron age transition. At this period their armor mainly consisted of cured leather or turtle shell laced together. These bronze heads were probably sufficient to pierce them, so for that part there was no need for hardened iron / steel tips as of yet.

But why an iron tang, then... Perhaps iron was already known to be tougher than bronze, and so perhaps the most vulnerable part of the arrow, right behind the head, was done with this material in order to assure a maximum transfer of kinetic energy to the target. I've seen some bent bronze tangs. But also steel ones, for that matter, mainly on chisel-shaped heads from Jin period Jurchen sites. But I wonder whether that was something ceremonial instead, because the tangs are bent all the way back and I can't see how that could happen just from impact. With a tang bent in a loop, I can imagine them dangling from a necklace or something similar. And we all know how much shamans love dangling stuff of all sorts.. Anyway, I'm drifting away to the Manchu / Jurchen again.

Another theory is that perhaps iron-making was not yet so well-developed yet as to make the complex geometries of the heads in large quantities in an economical manner. What we see may not be an optimal solution from a functional standpoint, but the easiest one to do with the technological and economical resources at hand at the time. Casting these heads around a metal rod may have been an easier / cheaper way to make such tips, considering the high melting-point of iron.

Hardening may also have been an issue. The amount of heat necessary to heat the head for this, may have been too much for the thinner bronze tang behind it and it may have become too soft or to the contrary, tend to become too brittle after quenching as it was inevitably hotter than the head. (Unless one works with clay, but that would add to the labor intensiveness and thus cost.) Given the same heat-treatment throughout, this bimetal construction may have come up with a pretty hard bronze tip, and a really tough iron tang. But this really is more the area of a metallurgist, I may be overlooking things here.

I wonder what our living period source database and theory-generator, Bede Dwyer, comes up with when running these points through his system.

-Peter
Bede
Peter,
I have some of those iron tanged bronze arrowheads too. The conventional wisdom is that the complex shapes were easy to cast, but iron was much cheaper than bronze so the heads were cast over iron rods. I have some all bronze arrowheads where the tang made up more than half the weight of the arrowhead. Aside from being cheaper, iron was also lighter than bronze.

In the late Warring States Period, some areas had perfected casting complete iron arrowheads and then de-carbonising the cast iron into low carbon steel. Then the outer surface had carbon added to case harden it. These eventually replaced the bronze arrowheads because the steel, unlike the iron, was harder than bronze. Steel armour (of the hardness of modern spring steel) came into use in the mid-Western Han Period. There have been some lamellar and scale breast plates excavated. This was probably a response to the improved arrowheads.

As you know, the casting and removal and re-adding of carbon was also used for sword making in the Han, especially for long, straight swords.
Stephen Selby

jack farrell wrote:

Was wondering of those who went to the Silk Road Museum, if you saw the Scythian swords of bi-metal construction? These were basically bronze swords with steel tips. the provenience card stated 17-1 C BCE.

Dear Jack,

There's something wrong with the attribution of these swords if they are described as 'Scythian'. The period is correct; but they originate in to the North of the Dian culture among people referred to in Chinese writing as 'Qiang'. The consensus is that the came from a proto-Tibetan culture. They did however, migrate through trade to Siberia.
jack farrell
Stephen; The provenience card is written in Korean which is the same as Greek to me. However, the Met sword does open the door to the possibility.

But what about the bi-metal arrow points? Date? Purpose?
Bede
Jack,
Bronze arrowheads with iron tangs are recorded from Burial Ground No. 44 in Yangxiadu, the secondary capital of the state on Yan in the Warring States period. This site is in the south east of Yixian County in Hebei province. There were many pure iron weapons, swords, spearheads and ji halberds.

The arrowheads were all prismatic bronze heads with iron tangs. As I wrote before, the most likely reason for still using bronze for the heads is ease of making complex shapes by casting. A secondary reason is that bronze is as hard as wrought iron. Until the widespread use of steel, bronze arrowheads were still effective if expensive.

See Yang Hong,Weapons in Ancient China,1992. Apparently, bronze arrowheads (zu) with iron tangs (ting) were used into the Han dynasty.