Asian Arrow Points

[Ashbow]

I wonder why it?s the case that majority of Asian metal arrowheads are tanged rather then socketed (By tanged head I mean here a three-dimensional head with a square or round tang, not a flat one.)

It?s obvious that you will rather use head with a tang for a cane or bamboo shaft but why they were used so extensively with solid wooden shafts, was it then some kind of strong customary tradition or some matter of preference?

It seems to me then that mounting arrowheads on shafts by means of a tang combined perhaps with sinew lashing and/or washers would produce shaft/head joint comparable in strength to that when using a socket, otherwise it would make no sense to use tang instead of socket where and when this was known, I suppose.
Anyone with experience in that field??

In general some authors write that it was easier to forge heads tanged than socketed, I wonder if it?s really the case, I haven?t forged any tanged heads but I?ve forged a few socketed and I didn?t found it particularly tricky task, so is it take less time to produce a tanged one than a one of the same form but with a socket?

It probably takes less metal to make tanged head though.

[Alex S.]

It probably takes less metal to make tanged head though.

That exactly why I think so. Less metal, or in other way you can use less valuable metal.

Why use steel or iron for whole head if you could just weld on a copper tang to the point?
It would cost less to make such head.
This is not so easy with socket, more easily done with tang though.

Other than that, tang heads just make more sense for bamboo/cane shafts.
Not so sure for wood, perhaps again it has to do with first reason.

[Bede]

The relative cost of iron and copper or bronze were such that it was the iron that was cheaper. In the Warring States period in China, they started making bronze heads with iron tangs rather than the other way round.

[jack farrell]

Guys; A short history of techniques for Asian metal points. Stone neolithic points had the end of the shaft notched with a v groove to accept the point which was lashed on with sinew. The first copper and then bronze points, c. 2000 BC had narrow tangs. Thereafter socketing became most common, though a few Sakian points of the first century BC were also V tanged as in the neolithic. I suppose socketing had to do with casting techniques and the weakness of bronze tangs.

I have seen probably thousands of iron points of Asia and socketed points do not stand out, if indeed I have ever seen them. Weight is probably not the reason because even in the early centuries AD, heavy points were made. Bronze has always been more precious than iron, as Bede states, and I suppose that Chinese points with bronze points and iron tangs had the point cast to the tang. These are very heavy construction, and of a limited distribution; not otherwise found.

By the middle ages, Asian iron points were all tanged. In the same period in Europe, socketed points were the norm.

Maybe someone should experiment to find the reasons why.

One annoyance of tanged points is the severe wear to the sinew lashing above the point. Only in India were SOME of the arrows given metal ferrule tubes above the point to virtually eliminate chaffing. I have only seen this ONCE on a central Asian point out of maybe a thousend examples.

Any socketed tool can be removed quickly from its wood part by rapping sharply against a solid object.

We could have a similar discussion about nocks -j-

[Bede]

Sinew reinforcement was often covered by tough cherry bark or some other protective coating in China. The Turks sometimes reinforced the foot of the arrow with horn and metal washers. Sometimes the horn is completely eaten away and the arrow head is sitting directly on the shaft. There is a catalogue from Bologna with some clear pictures of the heads and their washers. L'armeria del Museo Civico Medievale di Bologna
G. L. Boccia, 1991

[jack farrell]

Bede; Very interesting, have not seen this info.

There are also leather washers worked into the arrowhead attachment mix on Indian arrows which I can only assume take the function of shock absorbers. -j-

[Alex S.]

The leather washer sound like maybe bad idea.
You dont want shock absorbers on arrow, this cause less penetration, unless this is their intent?

I did not think about the bindings, this indeed would get nasty relatively quick. Japanese (Chinese too?) use urushi on their bindings and this has to be most durable finish I believe. I not sure how maybe other material work though.

[Bede]

Leather washers are unusual. I have not seen them myself. I suppose they could be emergency replacements, but I cannot see them having much use on light shafts.

If they were used on arrows for something equivalent to the Turkish zarb shooting, then Jack's theory of shock absorption would be a good one. The arrows would be intended for reuse and anything that stopped shaft destruction under those extreme conditions would be an advantage. The heads would have made up a significant proportion of the weight of the shaft. War arrows were probably made durable, but the next user after you was likely to be your enemy so I don't think you would care if the sinew soaked off. Hunting arrows would be different.

The Japanese definitely used lacquer on some arrows. However, I have seen war arrows with a metal ferrule with a square hole for the tang. The Chinese in early dynasties used lacquer too. I think there are surviving arrows from the Chu state during the Chan Guo (Warring States) Period. Stephen might know the details.

In Java, Indonesia, I have been told that the old arrows with pamur blades had thin, conical iron ferrules instead of sinew wrapping.