Original bronze arrowpoints?

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:35 pm

I came across these bronze arrowpoints some time ago. There was no information attatched to them.

What would separate an original point from a faked one?

Any other information about the types would also be appreciated.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:07 am

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

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:37 am

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

What are the clues to look for?

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:52 pm

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.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:05 pm

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

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:37 pm

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.

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:57 pm

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.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:30 am

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.

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:33 pm

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.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:52 am

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

JJ · Post by JJ » Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:56 am

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

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:46 pm

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?

jack farrell · Post by **jack farrell** » Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:58 pm

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

Maybe we are looking for a treadle disc grinder?

Kviljo · Post by **Kviljo** » Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:53 pm

Good stuff! Keep it flowing

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.

Stephen Selby · Post by **Stephen Selby** » Wed Dec 22, 2010 1:17 am

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.