Hedeby arrowheads
Hi,
Can someone explain a huge disproportion in ratio between the length of the head and the tang in those hedeby arrowheads?
Can someone explain a huge disproportion in ratio between the length of the head and the tang in those hedeby arrowheads?
I'm not quite sure what you mean? Are you thinking of the rather long "neck" between the blade and the tang? - which probably is most evident in the arrowhead "B"?
Perhaps it has got something to do with the inherent weakness of the tang? Usually when a point breaks off, it breaks off close to the point itself, and by lengthening the arrowhead it might gain some toughness?
It seems quite normal that tanged arrow heads are longer than the ones with sockets.
If there are other explanations I would be very interested in hearing them. There should be a good technical reason for it.
Perhaps it has got something to do with the inherent weakness of the tang? Usually when a point breaks off, it breaks off close to the point itself, and by lengthening the arrowhead it might gain some toughness?
It seems quite normal that tanged arrow heads are longer than the ones with sockets.
If there are other explanations I would be very interested in hearing them. There should be a good technical reason for it.
Could you post some further information? Who was Hedeby and where art the points from? These are typical point types.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedeby
Hedeby is the Viking fortification the points are found in. It is now located in northern Germany, but was danish untill 1864. The site and the points are dated between 800 and 1000 AD. There was also found seven longbows, one which is complete and estimated to a draw weight of around 100#.
Hedeby is the Viking fortification the points are found in. It is now located in northern Germany, but was danish untill 1864. The site and the points are dated between 800 and 1000 AD. There was also found seven longbows, one which is complete and estimated to a draw weight of around 100#.
I'm talking about very short tang itself in case of Hedeby heads. The usual ratio (lengthwise) between blade and tang seems to be close to 1:1 (Chinese war/hunting arrowheads) quite often tang is longer (Turkish & Tartar warheads) sometimes many times longer (like Japanese ones) hence my curiosity.
Hard to tell, really. This is a very normal length of the tang from the Nordic countries. I guess it was considered long enough. From 400 to 1200 AD there was a development in the tangs, from flat to square pointed to square pointed with a raised edge to lay against the shaft, but during all that time they all had about the same length. Even the few bone points from the roman period has got the same length for the flat tangs.
Perhaps it is a result of different types of augers? In general it is a result of tradition, but there is of course an underlying reason for it, which probably is technically justified. Perhaps the asiatic arrowheads with long tangs were mostly used with bamboo shafts, which made it very easy to insert the long tangs?
Perhaps it is a result of different types of augers? In general it is a result of tradition, but there is of course an underlying reason for it, which probably is technically justified. Perhaps the asiatic arrowheads with long tangs were mostly used with bamboo shafts, which made it very easy to insert the long tangs?
Asiatic points with equal length tangs are not associated with bamboo shafts, by and large.
I agree with Jack. Long tangs in comparison with the head are usually associated with bamboo shafts. Arrows with wooden shafts usually have much shorter tangs.
It is also important to remember that iron tangs rust away more quickly than the main part of the arrowhead. The surviving tang is not always a good guide to the original length. the arrowhead may have gone into the grave with a bit of grease to keep it from rusting but the tang was covered in animal glue and surrounded by hygroscopic wood. Both these conditions my help explain the differential rusting.
It is also important to remember that iron tangs rust away more quickly than the main part of the arrowhead. The surviving tang is not always a good guide to the original length. the arrowhead may have gone into the grave with a bit of grease to keep it from rusting but the tang was covered in animal glue and surrounded by hygroscopic wood. Both these conditions my help explain the differential rusting.
related with differential rusting Bede mentioned ... I saw once , in a abandoned moistened basement some steel rods (80 mm long , 10 mmm thick) sticking out from the concrete greasy floor . because of the differential rusting , the base of the rod was intact , but the free end was sharp like a needle . the rod was conical , needle sharp . like a natural , medieval trap . and of course that somebody step on it . the boot and the leg was impaled .
that basement was ... let's say ... builded about 30-35 years ago . i wonder what changes can do differential rusting in hundreds years on an arrowhead .
that basement was ... let's say ... builded about 30-35 years ago . i wonder what changes can do differential rusting in hundreds years on an arrowhead .
That has not been too apparant in the arrowheads that I have seen from Norway.
I think perhaps that if the arrowheads are preserved during 1000 years, it has stayed in such a good environment that the difference between the tang and head has really not mattered that much. In those arrowheads where the tang has corroded away, it is near impossible to say wether or not the iron object is an arrowhead or not.
It might be a different matter for some asiatic points, however.
I think perhaps that if the arrowheads are preserved during 1000 years, it has stayed in such a good environment that the difference between the tang and head has really not mattered that much. In those arrowheads where the tang has corroded away, it is near impossible to say wether or not the iron object is an arrowhead or not.
It might be a different matter for some asiatic points, however.
One should not expect most all the arrowhead tangs to shorten in length. I would say that, taken an good number of points in museum collections, what we have is what there was.
One needs to compare bronze arrowheads to iron ones to see what differential oxidation can do. Many bronze arrowheads from China have almost cylindrical tangs. This is almost unknown in iron ones. You can actually see arrowheads of the same vintage with bronze heads and either bronze or iron tangs. The iron tangs invariably have suffered more.
May I suggest that there arrowheads were intended to stay in the wound and that any attempt to pull them out would result in in shaft becoming detached. They will do more harm (especially if they are poisoned or covered in filth) left in the wound than withdrawn from it.
The same arrowheads with shafts, sinew and birch bark wrapping are melting out of the snow-patches in some Norwegian mouintains. Those arrowheads were ment for hunting reindeer, and some of the points are still attatched to the shafts.
Glued with hide glue or birch pitch, wrapped with sinew, and covered with birch bark, it is not a problem to keep the arrowheads from coming loose from the shaft.
Glued with hide glue or birch pitch, wrapped with sinew, and covered with birch bark, it is not a problem to keep the arrowheads from coming loose from the shaft.
our ancestors used specific arrowheads equipped with a barb to prevent to be pulled out of the wound . and "painted" in viper venom , of course . friendly people .Stephen Selby wrote:
May I suggest that there arrowheads were intended to stay in the wound and that any attempt to pull them out would result in in shaft becoming detached. They will do more harm (especially if they are poisoned or covered in filth) left in the wound than withdrawn from it.
Osmiu's comment is relevant. Barbed arrows, especially those with pointy barbs, fulfil Stephen's purpose better than loosely attached ones. An added advantage in military situations is that trying to remove barbed arrows would make things worse.
Not all barbed arrowheads have functional barbs though. I would argue the barbed shape of the large English "bearded" arrowheads is designed to save weight on an already overweight head. In this case the barbs served to increase the cutting surface with less overall mass.
Getting back to another part of the argument, what about loosely fitted arrowheads? Khoi hunters use loosely fitted foreshafts to deliver poisoned arrowheads to large game in southern Africa. They also use weak bows to shoot the arrows because their poison is effective enough not to need deep penetration. War bows shooting heavy arrows require a firmly attached head otherwise the slightest deviation to a perpendicular impact will cause the shaft to hinge at the tang and either shatter or waste most of the arrow's energy before penetration.
The standard weight ratio in the Middle East for war arrows was for the head to weigh 1/7th of the head plus the shaft. Therefore the shaft was six times heavier than the arrowhead and there was a strong tendency for breakage unless the arrowhead was firmly attached. In extreme cases where the arrowhead was meant to penetrate hard objects, the tang length was increased.
Not all barbed arrowheads have functional barbs though. I would argue the barbed shape of the large English "bearded" arrowheads is designed to save weight on an already overweight head. In this case the barbs served to increase the cutting surface with less overall mass.
Getting back to another part of the argument, what about loosely fitted arrowheads? Khoi hunters use loosely fitted foreshafts to deliver poisoned arrowheads to large game in southern Africa. They also use weak bows to shoot the arrows because their poison is effective enough not to need deep penetration. War bows shooting heavy arrows require a firmly attached head otherwise the slightest deviation to a perpendicular impact will cause the shaft to hinge at the tang and either shatter or waste most of the arrow's energy before penetration.
The standard weight ratio in the Middle East for war arrows was for the head to weigh 1/7th of the head plus the shaft. Therefore the shaft was six times heavier than the arrowhead and there was a strong tendency for breakage unless the arrowhead was firmly attached. In extreme cases where the arrowhead was meant to penetrate hard objects, the tang length was increased.