Polished Chinese arrowheads

[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.






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:


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.)





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



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.



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:

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.

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.


After polish & etch, all details come out:

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.


Same blade, after polish and etch:

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]

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.

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!)

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Peter Dekker]

Yes I remember those!

Here is a stunning example in the Metropolitan Museum that is both of exceptional quality and in a remarkable state of preservation:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/05/nc/ho_1998.418.htm



-Peter

[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?