Original bronze arrowpoints?

[jack farrell]

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?

[Stephen Selby]

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.

[jsachers]

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?

[jack farrell]

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?

[Stephen Selby]

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.

[jack farrell]

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.

[Stephen Selby]

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.

[jack farrell]

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.

[Kviljo]

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:



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.

[jack farrell]

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.

[jack farrell]

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.

[Stephen Selby]

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.

[jack farrell]

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.

[Kviljo]

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.

[Stephen Selby]

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.