Original bronze arrowpoints?

Only a small chance that one of these may be real. The others were all made by the same person.

Huh, such a bold statement needs an explanation, I think :shock:

What are the clues to look for?

Kviljo; To authenticate something you must build proof. To start by assuming they are real is to want them to be so.

The red light is blinking brightly. First of all there are two pairs of identical points. How likely is this?

If you get a jeweler's loupe you will see that 5 of the 6 have similar tool marks. This can be seen from your photos.

Real points are found on battle sites and such. Sometimes the battles were fought over centuries so the points do not match.

The two leaf points, I believe, are not even point types. The one with the broken tang looks like one I fell for a decade ago.

There are even more subtleties which I do not want to post here.

These are fine for reproduction arrows and dealers in these usually do not charge enough for them to be originals. The trap is set.

Look closely and you will be able to name the tool which did the finishing. HA!

Hehe, agreed. It is fairly suspicious that there are two twins which are so similar in both shape and tool marks. The cutting edges on the 3-bladed ones look like they never have been sharpened too, although I guess that could be due to wear.

I think it is too bad that we don't see points like these sold as replicas. They would be easy to sell.

Is the counterfeiting still going on, or is it something that mainly were done some time ago? - if they might have been faked in the 1930's, I would hesitate to fit them to shafts, as the counterfeit would have some historical value in itself. But I guess it is a result of growing tourism...

I'll see if I can take some macro photos of the tool marks.

Alright, I think these speak for themselves.

Don't think anyone who went through the effort of making such points would leave the cutting edges blunt (first pic) if it were made to be shot. The file marks on the two barbed ones probably also tell the story of how an iron file was used to get rid of the casting brim/seam.

Feel free to comment.


[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

[external image]

Just relying on the photos, they look alright to me. Warring states (Eastern Zhou) to Han. Around 500BCE - 100BCE. These sorts of arrowheads are not rare. While there are also plenty of fakes, they are usually made with less effort at authenticity than these. My only criticism is that they seems to have been cleaned aggressively.

Since these are almost certainly marks made by a modern power grinder and they are under the patina, I would not include these in a collection of authentic points.

What specifically distinguishes the marks of a modern power grinder from a treadle-powered grinder?

To me it is not yet clear that these must be falsificates. A simple grinding disk turned by manpower with a coarse grain would leave these marks as well.

What I don?t understand is that it would make a sense to make modern points like these, which is technically quite elaborate work, and consider the fact that thousands and thousands of originals are on the market for a relatively cheap price. I?ve got some Scythian arrowheads that I paid maybe 2 Euro/ piece. I?m not familiar with Kiljo?s points types but for me they look like Scythian/classical Greek epoque artefacts. Antique arrowheads don?t come only from battle grounds but also from (illegaly) excavated military depots. I?ve been told that really great numbers of them are found in Turkey each year. You can buy original arrowheads on the flea market for some Euros, so faking them would not make much sense.

JJ

Let me take up Stephen's point.

From what I have seen the tool used to clean up and sharpen the blades is a piece of sandstone. To accept Kviljo's points as original, we would need to demonstrate (from professionally dug sites and not the market place) that Scythians had rotary grinders of any type.

I believe I can produce a reference to sandstone.

Kviljo, is that hide glue on that one point?

Looks like the same grinder made tool marks INSIDE the barb. Kviljo; can you confirm?

Maybe we are looking for a treadle disc grinder?

Good stuff! Keep it flowing :wink:

I'm not sure what the substance on the one barbed point is. It is a layer of some sort, that has partly lifted from the surface of the point.

There are similar grinding marks on the inside of the barb on the point that you are referring to, Jack. Seen directly from the side, the grinding-tool must have been about as narrow as the barb itself. It is smooth on the inside radius, but the inside of the barb has some rough grinding marks.

The inside radius/shape of the barb as seen from the side is fairly similar on both points, although not identical.

The cutting edges and other surfaces of them have finer grinding marks, but none of them are long enough to tell wether they were made by a circular motion.

I think it would be very helpful to have some comparative material that was known to be original. I'm buying most of your arguments, so there are good ground for confusion... :) Let me know if other macros are needed.

Perhaps some misunderstanding has crept in here. The points are all standard forms from China's Warring States period to the Han dynasty. They were all from industrial manufacturing bases. The tri-lobe socketed points were favoured in the northern cultural sphere; but trade in manufactured bronze items between Central China, the Xiongnu and other tribes was intense, reflecting the insecure position that the Han had in the whole strategic balance at the time.

The points with the hooks were for tethered arrows. They were used in the Han period in Central China to bring down geese and other waterfowl. The objective was to gather birds for sacrifice, which required to damage or bleeding on the sacrificial animal.

By the late Warring States, (around 300BCE), manufacture took place in centralized manufacturing workshops which were highly mechanized by the standards of the time.

Nearly all finds of such arrowheads are from grave burials. At a period when money was still quite a novelty (and not recognized for cross-border trade), arrowheads and small knives were widely used as barter goods. As such they were recognized as a symbol of wealth and therefore suitable for inclusion as grave goods.

There are fake Chinese arrowheads on the market; but I don't think they look like these ones.

Stephen; Are there books in China which describe these points, their manufacture processes and tool marks etc. ?

Is it possible that a thin rotary grinding disc was used in antiquity to finish these points?

The only way to determine if these points are ancient or modern is to investigate their method of manufacture. That these look old does not answer the question, how were they made?

jack farrell wrote:

Stephen; Are there books in China which describe these points, their manufacture processes and tool marks etc. ?

Is it possible that a thin rotary grinding disc was used in antiquity to finish these points?

The only way to determine if these points are ancient or modern is to investigate their method of manufacture. That these look old does not answer the question, how were they made?

First question: some fragmentary reports in archaeological jounals.

Second question: the rotary grinding disc has definitely been in use in China since prehistoric times. Evidence of its use in the jade industry is widespread.

Point 3: if they are modern real bronze copies, the elements in the bronze mix will almost certainly be wrong. If they are crass modern copies, they may be done in cold-cast bronze using an epoxy base.

If the remaining patina is a modern artifact, there will be evidence of a modern chemical base or evidence of contamination with chemical compounds used in modern industrial patinating agents. Whether modern or old, they will be bronze cast in a bivalve mold with varying degrees of finish using hand or rotary tools. Blades and points from the northern cultural regions are commonly finished by holding the bronze object and rubbing it longitudinally against a stone, while those finished in central Chinese workshops are mostly finished with rotary grinders (other than very fine sword blades.) Bronze arrowheads and knives used solely as a trading commodity or designs to be used as grave goods may only be partially finished.

Stephen Selby wrote:

Bronze arrowheads and knives used solely as a trading commodity or designs to be used as grave goods may only be partially finished.

Which may account for the lack of sharp edges?

Truly, I am surprised by Stephen's information that grinding discs were used in the iron age to finish bronze. The first time I saw grinder marks on an "ancient" point, I was so disappointed because I had a machine that made marks like this. But neither am I going to assume that this is any point of authenticity, will just have to learn the difference between modern machine marks and a slower speed antique one. I am going to assume for now that these grinder marks are also visible on museum items.

If you ATARNites are not too tired of the issue, I would like to continue. Kviljo, if you care to you may want to flake off a piece of the flaking off material and put it on a damp paper towel and see if it will dissolve. If not try solvent.

Here is the next bothersome feeling; because of grinding on a thick base surface on five of these points, there is the appearance that the same person made all five socketed items. Can we confirm similar grind marks on all sockets?

Next, there is a similarity in color with rust type splotches visible on all these items. Kviljo; could you investigate these? Do you have a 10X magnifier or etc?

Jack: you are right to remain cautious. The 'killer test' is a destructive one: if you point a blowtorch at a fake and bring it up to dark red, it will show up cold-cast bronze (it will usually catch fire!) Unfortunately, it will also turn a genuine item black. In either case, the blade will cause the flame to fluoresce in blue/green and yellow/orange.

These points have been aggressively cleaned and abraded to reduce or remove corrosion. If you have corroded points that have not been cleaned, it is worth using a high-power magnifying glass on them. The green verdigris on bronze is composed of botryoidal malachite (green) and sometimes azurite (dark blue) over a base of copper oxide (brown/black). The presence of lead also adds a white leachate on the surface.

Concentrating on the green malachite, its natural crystal formation consists of tiny spheres like grapes. Generally, fake patina cannot create this effect. However, it may be present if the patina was faked by prolonged burial. But such fakery is usually only done at the high end of the market.

Actually we did not finish the discussion. Generally speaking it would not be acceptable to do a destructive test to determine authenticity. But thankyou Stephen anyway as I did not know of the microscopic test for malachite crystals. How much magnification is required to observe this?

Kviljo, did you test the flakes?

For an arrowhead type (Except for Chinese, as Stephen pointed out) there should be typology documentation. Arrowheads were not made in random types but styles came and went and have been noted. Petrie, Tools and Weapons,1917, is available online. There are thousands of illustrations of bronze and iron tools from Egypt to Siberia. This is an excellent catalogue. The arrowhead grouping is very large but at the time of publication, the dating and typology was in its infancy, however proveniences are excellent.

Davis Kimball, Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes, has an interesting typology of Scythian points; while the definitive work on the oldest Scythian points has been done by Hellmuth, 2006, (in German) Thankyou Andrew Hall for the last two references.

An initial concern was that the barbed points do not fit any typology.

Kviljo, I await your response to defend my analysis.

jack farrell wrote:

I did not know of the microscopic test for malachite crystals. How much magnification is required to observe this?

Very little. Often they can be seen with the naked eye. Of course, if an item is cleaned, the crystal structure is the first thing to go. I have come across faked malachite spherules; but they were completely spherical and could be detached from the adhesive with light abrasion. Absence of them proves little, but the presence of natural ones argues against faking.

I have seen excess cleaning on Chinese points. This was done with a wire brush and left an overall pattern on the softer bronze. This cleaning also highlights the edges and point. Sometimes the seller will even sharpen the blades to bring some sparkle! Such a naive technique and, of course, degrades the point for the collector.

I recently saw some authentic points from Inner Mongolia which had been used recently as tools and had edge wear from that process! Then they were sold as artifacts.

Sorry for the delay, guys.

I haven't dared to flake of some of the material yet. What will it tell us if it dissolves in water, and what if it needs alcohol/acetone/etc. to dissolve?

I don't have a magnifying glass, but the grinding marks on the two barbed and the two trilobe has the same overall look, while the soceted two-barbed one has finer grinding marks.

I took these macros from the inside of the socket of one of the trilobe points. There seems to be some "grape"-shaped green dots there. Might these be malachite crystals? They seem to be well attatched to the surface, although I have not touched them yet.

Here's one:

http://kviljo.no/bue/bronze/13.jpg

And one where I have framed two of the suspect green dots:
[external image]


I just downloaded the "tools and weapons"-book. It looks like a brilliant book, with lots of good drawings and photos. Thanks for the reference, Jack!
http://openlibrary.org/books/OL23348845 ... r_sources.

Here is where we are going to;

1. If these are old there should be nothing on them which can dissolve. This would have happened long ago. i never saw a point with some translucent layer flaking off. This looks like glue to me.

2. One should not expect the dissimilar points to have the same tool marks unless they were made by the same person. I believe these types should be separated by centuries.

3. See how difficult it is to dislodge the green spheres as Stephen mentioned. Just a little.

My last comment is that an original point of the Scythian type had a two piece, three piece or more mold and the duct for the liquid bronze was through the point to the socket. The socketed ones do not appear to have been made in this manner.

So, barring some contrary information, I remain unconvinced that authenticity has been established.

Alternatively, Kviljo, do what you like. There is no need to take the word either of me or of Jack. It's not like there's some overwhelming pressure to resolve the issue, like placing them in a museum display.

Don't feel you're getting pulled into some sort of competition here. Neither Jack nor I would mind what view you choose to take.

Absolutely. And neither am I in the business. This is just some good natured wrangling among friends. But as for me I am always wanting to learn something new, and to identify a good deal and avoid buying things for my collection that are not right., which I have done.

I had not previously heard of points for currency so there is much to learn.

This is all good. I think you have both generated a little heat and much light to the issue. Wether they are original or not is really not important to me, but knowing what they are would be good. If they are original, the constructional information they can give is sligthly more interesting than if they were faked... :) Some friends of mine at an archaeological experimental group are casting bronze items, from small cire perdue-made buckles to soapstone-mould cast swords. Perhaps these points will persuade them into trying to make a few bronse arrow points.

Stephen, what do you think of the green dots on the inside of the socket? Are these the malachite crystals that you mentioned? From how they look on the picture, do they look natural?

I poked them lightly with a needle, but they seem to be fairly well attached to the surface.

Kviljo wrote:

Stephen, what do you think of the green dots on the inside of the socket? Are these the malachite crystals that you mentioned? From how they look on the picture, do they look natural?

Yes, those are the ones. 8)

Carrying on what Jack said: three bladed socketed arrowheads of bronze are usually made from moulds sprued at the arrowhead tip. There are Chinese bronze tanged two bladed arrowheads which were sprued from the tang. I have seen archaeological reports with the full casting tree of arrowheads attached to the master sprue by their tangs.

The three bladed heads were often made with a reusable mould that cast two three-bladed heads and one two-bladed head at a time. There was a base with three prongs to form the insides of the sockets. Two side pieces which enclosed a central two-bladed form and a single blade from the each of the three-bladed arrowheads fitted on top of the first piece. There were two end pieces which formed each of the remaining two-bladed sections. The plan view of the layout was something like >- -- -<, each line represents a blade.

Here's one of my trilobe socketed arrowheads. They are very common. Mine has a casting fault.

Here is part of a point collection from a friend along with ideas on collecting/authenticating. These points were brought to my city by a man of Afghanistan and these originated from the area of Mazer e sharif. So there is excellent provenience. I would not suggest buying without knowing the provenience. This is not an area of making fake arrowpoints.

From the upper left is a tanged point of the bronze age, a thousand years older than some of the others. Look for hammer work about the tang. (Petrie) Next, three leaf points common till 600BCE, one tan with some green, one shiny black and one light green with the point missing. Battle field points often have battle damage. Patina should vary greatly. A group of similarly patinated items should sound a caution. The different soil conditions and moisture content help dictate the patina. The light one has metal concretions which would be hard to copy. Black, and brown patinas are found in arid environments.

Next to the light green one is a spurred point with a bent tip. It has been sharpened on a sandstone so many times that the fins have all but disappeared. It one time was similar to the one at the lower left.

Second from the upper right is a square point with long barbs, a kind of octopus noted in Davis-Kimbol. Below and to the right is a triangular three barb version. These are 4-2 C. BCE. Both have mineral concretions.

Last on right has a screw-driver tang common in Central Asia from the 5th C BCE.

This is what I like to see in a collection. Different patinas, hand tool marks, provenience, major and minor works, found in literature.

Look guys; Here is another on ebay like the first one we discussed.

http://cgi.ebay.com/collectable-Chinese ... 500wt_1156

Search old arrow, on page 6 there is another and the seller offers to sell "hundreds" of the point you like. (Look at upper right)

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-old-bronze- ... #ht_520wt_

Great prices! Really excellent!

Hehehe, now that's an interesting turn of the story :wink: I was just starting to believe they were original... :lol:

I see another one too that is very similar to mine - the two-barbed one. The patinas are very similar too.

Thanks for the links! Good one 8)

Haha, I just found the other exact copy of my original* bronze point :wink:


[external image]


Brilliant find, Jack! Perhaps a good source for replica points for some really cool reproduction arrows.

Used for modern reproduction arrows would be the ideal use of these points. One would need to determine the exact provenience of the originals. Many look like fantasy points so one would end up with Lord of the Ring arrows, if you could stand that.

On the second link, next to the right, lower level is an authentic repro of a 1000 BCE point. it would be hard to find the appropriate equipment to use with it.

These would be the best guys to make repro Scythian points. But how to make a deal work?

I have sent a message to the e-bay user. A report is coming up :)

From the Penn; two Israeli points with good provenience. The iron one is earlier than most Scythian bronze ones.

Brilliant!

Today I recieved a few points from the source discussed earlier. They are fairly nice. However, I did a destructional test on one of the three-bladed ones, hehe... I put it in a glass of acetone for a few hours, with the result of the point dissolving from the inside out. A similar hole like the one shown on Stephens point appeared, and a glue/bronze powder mixture came out. I would not be surpriced if all were made by the same method.

Perhaps someone is familiar with the manufacturing-process? I don't understand how it could be done, as they seem very solid and looks like any other bronce item on the surface, even when grinded.

This old thread seemed like a good place for this post.

This summer I was on the road, out of state and went to a revived famous old flea market looking for ancient archery items and found an antiquities dealer from Afghanistan!!! of all places. His hobby since childhood was looking for artifacts and some years ago he got a metal detector. This is not against the law there. Now from his home base across the border he searches friends and families property. He found an entire city in a cave.

So he sells arrowheads, glass, bronze items, coins and etc. I got to see hundreds of kushan items such as hair ornaments and buckles, small spear points which could be confused with large arrowheads, arrowpoints proper and etc. and some neolithic arrowheads.

Now the downside is that even after buddying up and discussing history for several hours, the prices were prohibitive. He is well versed in all the phases of Afghan history and it was way better than a visit to any museum.

These are the few items I could get; Two bronze points of about 500BC of Luristan culture (Greater Iran) and one tri-lobed iron point of Kushan culture, maybe first centuries AD. The Kushan point is identical to those I saw at Sogdian sites in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Archery gear crosses cultures effortlessly in its time.

Excellent provenience.