Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Arrows => Topic started by: half eye on August 18, 2010, 09:01:19 pm
-
Fellas,
The latest "crazy" project is an early Viking type armor piersing arrow head. Got a new friend in Mr. Wolfsongforge.....sent him a photo of some viking arrow heads from the Danish National Museum and asked if he could replicate one of them.....as you can see from the photos the head is nearly indesturctable. Hafted it up on a Ken 75 shaft which proved way tough also. Well that left me with a need for a heavier weight bow......confiscated a mollegabet I'm building for a fellow PA member....draws 70# @ 28" so figured he wouldn't mind....sort of test the bow same as the head.
It's my understanding that Viking shields were made from 1" thick oak, so I grabbed a piece of white oak that was 1-1/8" thick, 6" wide, and 4 feet long....and had at it, well at least one time. The arrow went away cause the early heads were "tanged" and not "socketed" but this thing is very potent......anyway here's the pics, hope ya find 'em worth lookin at.
Oh ya, that forged head come out like it had never been shot at all, this thing is a true "warhead".
rich
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
That is a tough point, Rich. Here is one my friend, Claude VanOrder reproduced after going to that museum a couple of years ago. This is a replica of the one that was found in a skull of a viking.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
wow, that head means business! that sheild would be really damaged. even with another in it, might damage it enough to make it useless in defense..
-
Cool head and some pretty impressive results. 8) :)
-
Very cool Rich. Bet that was fun. If that head has socketed, think the shaft would have survived?
-
i sure envy your play time , although i guess you paid your dues already. purty wicked head and impressive board splitting action there. try that again with that wimpy recurve i sent you if it splits the board i send you a half dozen more cherry shafts !
-
Awesome, just awesome! Thanks for posting this! Great pics!
-
Ahh! now that be a kettlingur klora!(inside joke!) when you get the other 5 and the 6 bodkins, i would like to see what kinda damage they would do to a board or any hard target.
if anyone is interested they are made of iron. plain ole iron, just like they were way back when. they have been carburized in the same way(well kinda i used propane for heat source) they were packed in a can of charcoal, leather trimming and bone powder. as the heat started to smoke and smolder those in ingredients, the carbon migrated into the iron, making steel. or as it was called steeled iron.
way to go Rich, I love experiments!
God Bless
Kenneth
oh BTW Rich the word for the bow is Orm Koss
-
Too cool! I may have to tackle some rebar next time I head home to the farm.
-
Cool, The head looks great. Alot like the Mongolian heads.
-
It did make it all the way through, which is very impressive, but the holder of the shield would be perfectly alright.
-
Eyh, Mullet, the vikings didn't use flint points ;D
The best Viking shields were made from linden, and were far form 1" thick. :) A properly made shield with two layers of linden glued at 90 degrees with an outside layer of rawhide would probably stop any historical arrow. Perhaps except the largest Mary Rose arrows.
-
From what i have read, they were 1/2" planks of linden, but also birch, and oak was commonly used. and correct they were layered 90 degree's from each other.
BUT only the richest of the warriors could afford a rawhide cover and backing for their shield.I have seen that head(well i made it lol) an d i have a few of Rich's heavy weight bows. and i have no doubt it could go through 2-3 layers of thinner panels with no problem. I guess there is only one way to find out. need to layer 2 thinner layers of wood and give er heck!
God Bless
Kenneth
-
Great looking head and excellent performance.May not have hurt whoever was behind with that shot but if ya got another arrow or two in there that shield is shot!!LOL great job guys!
-
Kenneth,
Why would only the richest warriors be able to afford a raw hide backed shield? Back then surely wood and hide were not in short supply. Metal was valuable so they may not all have had central metal bosses. But surely, if your shield was your protection and if it was made from failry available resources you would have a good one?
The sagas talk of warriors having many sheilds and replacing them as they were broken by war axes etc!
War at the time often relied on the sheild wall. You wouldn't have many friends or live very long if your sheild was rubbish?
It would be good to see how this arrowhead performs against a laminated linden shield with rawhide front/back. Test I have seen say that a war axe might split such a sheild, but would an arrow?
-
the reason i said this is as you said, metal was scarce. well steel was anyways. but even plain iron was expensive. and from pictures i have seen in books and in museums showed that the hide was attached with the boss and a row of tacks.
so i would think that the average young lad they got from a village to go raiding, he would have the cheapest of materials.so no tacks or boss. i may be wrong, been wrong before, will be again.
so i may make a targe of raw hide covered beech and shoot the hell out of it and see.and before i get jumped on,yes a targe is scottish but i aint makeing a full sized shield to shoot at!
-
Wolf,
To go raiding was a chance to get rich. If I was leading a raid I would pick a crew from those who had earnt a reputation and had the gear. At the least this would include a sword or spear ans sheild, basic armour of some sort and this would already mark the warrior as a warrior and as relatively rich. I wouldn't waste valuable ship space on taking a lad who didn't have the basic gear and would be dead in a second in real close quarter combat with sharp weapons!
If there is no money for nails the rawhide could still be lashed on with rawhide couldn't it? If all the sheilds found had iron nails doewsn't this suggest that it is likley that all the sheilds had iron nails to hold the rawhide on?
Just thinking, not fighting.
-
kviljo;
Well they have a skull in the same museum that this style point was stuck in. Everybodies house that Claude visited had their yards and driveways paved damn near with stone artifacts made from Danish Flint.
-
Eyh, Mullet, the vikings didn't use flint points ;D
The best Viking shields were made from linden, and were far form 1" thick. :) A properly made shield with two layers of linden glued at 90 degrees with an outside layer of rawhide would probably stop any historical arrow. Perhaps except the largest Mary Rose arrows.
Maybe not. Njal's Saga tells of Gunnar of Hlidarendi shooting an arrow at a man who, seeing the arrow coming, raised a thin round shield in defense, The arrow pierced the shield and the man's skull, pritruding behind his head. Shields were not expected to give unlimited protection. They were large enough to be too heavy for a man on foot to lug around if they were thicker or if they had more metal than the boss.
-
Hey fellas,
didn't want to get nothin started, just wanted to post a pretty cool head and what I did to test it. I dont know how to post a link but found an Danish Archeologists' report on early viking shields that is pretty definate on how they were made because they found some that were nearly 90% complete. They also said that the majority of the ones found to date were either spruce or fir, and all were single layer of wood and that was covered with compacted grass and leather
I'll get the charts etc downloaded and maybe can post them as documents.......sorry didn't mean to start a big discussion. I'll post the shield specifications, and am going to build one, and shoot it with several of the period heads, and different weight bows and maybe we can find out what's what, eh? I really was just trying to find out how tough the forged heads were and figured that 1-1/8" of hard white oak was a pretty tough target.
Anyway....let me get the info together so I can post it for everybody to read.
rich
-
Fellas,
here's some of the data (compiled by Peter Beatson-NVG Miklagaard). There will be the charts and diagrams added like pictures at the bottom.
Generally the shields were between 80-90 cm dia. The "board" (shield) was flat and made of a single layer of planks, butted together. (there is a possibility that somw may have been glued but most show no evidence of this) Next thing is that when they examined battle damage to shields the indicatators are that the primary purpose was protection from missles. There is a very limited amount of indicators that some damage was from swords or lite axes. The heavy iron boss in the center of the shields indicte that they changed their fighting style to allow the shield as a device to parry during hand to hand combat.
The shield from the Gokstad burial was made of white pine and not considered an example of a combat shield. The battle damage reports were taken from war shields like one found at the Trelleborg Ring Fortress...Slagelse, Denmark and another from a bog inTira, Latvia.....these shields were made of either spruce or fir planks. (Yartan 1961)
Last thing: "there is no archeological evidence for laminated or cross-ply construction....." (Haarke 1981)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
HA! thanks Rich, I have always wondered about the rim. some folks say they had no rim because in a fight you want the edge of his weapon to get caught in it. then some folks say there was one. glad to know what is what now.and i see they have the same kind of center grip as some targes. i know for a fact the center grip shields are used for parrying and the arm through were basically for hiding behind( i know cause i have used them both in reenactments) and i can see the purpose of the rim being the binder that held the planks together so no glue would be needed.
But i will be the first to say i am no shield expert. but I do know the edged weapons so ..lol if we have an argument bout that i can be certain!
God Bless
Kenneth
-
Wolf,
One of the things the guy also said is that they "surmise" that the rivets/screws around the boss and the holes around the rim were what actually held the shield planks together.....and on the rims they found evidence for both riveted metal and laced on leather banding, guess it depended on what the guy could aford, eh?
rich
-
rich shoot that sob at some white pine and lets see the destruction, long as i aint holdin it im short of fresh draws !!
-
I'll be puttin a shield (part of one anyway) together and plan to shoot the snot out of it......and I aint gonna be nowhere but in front of it neither.
rich
-
That is some cool stuff, Rich.
-
i keep seeing Danish, is that just were the items were found? or were vikings from there? i know its off topic, but ive family history from there, and have just started looking into it..
-
is "linden" in europe a different tree than in the US? to me linden is another name for basswood, which we use for carving because it is relatively soft and easy to carve. i know nothing about shields, bodkins etc. but if i had a choice between hiding behind a basswood shield or an oak shield i'm taking the oak everytime.
-
Gopher,
Yes, the american basswood is in fact linden, the carving wood. I figure there was a reason they used the "soft" woods, just aint figured that out quite yet.....but I'm sure there was a reason.
aero,
I dont know why there seems to be so much Danish in the finds, but for the shields they been dug up in Denmark, Norway, Latvia, the British Isles and some in Germany and Russia (Russ). Maybe some of the other fellas that do the diggin just didn't post their findings or something. If your just starting in on the whole Viking thing try to remember they were not divided up like today, i.e. Sammi, Norway, Denmark, Sweeden and the like. They divided them selves by warlord aligience, and with groups that were interested in exploring either Eastward or Westward. Some of the groups went to Iceland, Greenland, and the North America's and a bunch went into what is now Russia, Balkins and damned near to India and China. And both groups went down to harrass the British Isles, France and the Mediteranmian areas. Just to make a point, pure metals (like copper) can be traced to point of origin by their impurities makeup. Well, they found great lakes copper metal in what's now Iraq (find dated to 900), and I'm pretty sure the NA guys didn't paddle their 30 man canoes over there, so that kinda leaves them Viking dudes.
hopethat helps some.
rich
-
thanks half eye. i knew the NA copper got around a bit here, but didnt realize it made it that far!
-
Skraelings!
-
..... ;D....leave it to a Viking
-
crap ! i just had a G2 overload ! ;)
-
It would take a mighty strong man to wield a shield of one inch oak. Here is link that says close to what I've read while reading "dry scholarly" works.
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_shields.htm
I wonder about the shield splitting capability of an arrow driven by an English warbow...
-
good info. looks like an arrow would have gone through a bit..
-
From what i have read, they were 1/2" planks of linden, but also birch, and oak was commonly used. and correct they were layered 90 degree's from each other.
BUT only the richest of the warriors could afford a rawhide cover and backing for their shield.I have seen that head(well i made it lol) an d i have a few of Rich's heavy weight bows. and i have no doubt it could go through 2-3 layers of thinner panels with no problem. I guess there is only one way to find out. need to layer 2 thinner layers of wood and give er heck!
God Bless
Kenneth
COULD'NT AGREE MORE. I've got one of those rocket launchers that Rich made. Love that point. In a molle...Well...you got the power that is for sure...
BTW Rich, I'm gonna try and start scrapin next week on that 150#er you sent me LOL...
God Bless
Ron
-
Ron, ya know it aint exactly a 150# now.......sides ya got a real good scraper, right?
-
just kiddin Rich.. ;D
Yep, got a good scraper.
Can't wait to see your new project you spoke of!!! :o
Ron
-
I had a Danish ham....... ;D ::)
Wayne
-
Like it was said, oak is heavy, so the softer woods might have been used for light weight, and ease of working, with minimal tools.
Boiled leather, might have been used as a cover also, as it is quite dense. ;)
As for the Vikings not using flint heads, who knows if the person who shot the guy in the head, was a viking. Like it was said, metal, was not a common item. High quality flint was. ;) When it came to defense, they used what they had at hand. It is a very effective point, especially if the person who had it lodged in his head was wearing a helmet! :o But none of us were there, so it is all pretty much scientific conjecture.
Wayne
-
Conjecture?!?
I think that particular post was a direct slam at a hell-of-a bow maker.......
Sorry...had to comment on the bow detectives. ;D ;D Did I type that out loud? ;D ::) ::) ;D ;D
Just wantin to bring a little fun to this?....?.....?....Did I mean to say that.......................................................
God Bless
Ron
The Okie
-
The English used Lime wood for their shields.
Traditionally shields were made of linden (Lime) wood although other timbers may also have been used such as Alder and Poplar. These timbers are not very dense and are light in the hand. They also have a characteristic in that they are not inclined to split unlike Oak. Also, the fibres of the timber bind around blades preventing the blade from cutting any deeper unless a lot more pressure is applied. Round shields seem to have varied in size from around 45 - 120cm (18" - 48") in diameter but the smaller and more manageable 75 - 90cm (30" - 36") is by far the most common.
http://www.regia.org/shields.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilia
-
Like it was said, oak is heavy, so the softer woods might have been used for light weight, and ease of working, with minimal tools.
Boiled leather, might have been used as a cover also, as it is quite dense. ;)
As for the Vikings not using flint heads, who knows if the person who shot the guy in the head, was a viking. Like it was said, metal, was not a common item. High quality flint was. ;) When it came to defense, they used what they had at hand. It is a very effective point, especially if the person who had it lodged in his head was wearing a helmet! :o But none of us were there, so it is all pretty much scientific conjecture.
Wayne
There are plenty of known Viking steel and iron arrowheads, spearheads, swords, axes, mail shirts and shield bosses around. We don't have to have "been there" to know that. Even the Danish bog find arrowheads hundreds of years earlier were iron with a few being bone. None were stone. The stone ones belong to the stone age. It isn't scientific conjecture, it is known fact.
Erik
-
Is it a known fact that every archer had iron, or steel points? If they couldn't get iron, or steel, they just sat around till the some iron came their way? Explain the " Fact" that a Viking had a triangular Flint arrow head in his Head. Those that could get iron, I am sure that was all they used, and yes, they are in archaeological abundance, flint use has no definitive date as to the end of it's use. Look at the ice man. He had a metal (Copper) axe, but flint arrowheads. The British, in the 1600's had cannons, and matchlocks on their ships, AND archers in the crows nest. "With steel points" ::) ;D.But like I said, who knows if the person using the flint head was a viking, or someone defending his life and home. Just because iron was in use, doesn't mean that it was the only form of weapon points used. There were peasants, even in viking times. I am not in any way, trying to ridicule, or mock a "Superb Boyer", just that you simply cannot say that stone points were only used in stone age. Tell that to the dead Viking with the stone point in his head, when you meet up with him in Valhalla. Did a Cromagnon man shoot him? There are archaeological finds that dispute earlier set in "stone"findings, and facts. There were high quality stone knives, spear, and arrow heads found on the shores of North America, where there are Non Stoneage Viking settlements. They ran out of metal, with no known sources of replacement, and they resorted to what they had at hand. Why not for someone who did not have metal, or enough to use for arrow heads, use stone? To definitively say that there were no stone points used in Viking times, in my opinion is a little hard to go for. When the first cars were available, some people still perferred the horse. Some could not afford a car. I just don't believe that because iron was in wide use, that automatically, someone can say that there fore no stone was used there after. Iron was indeed the preferred choice. My preferred choice is a Lexus, but I cannot afford one. :( Simply stating that since iron, chain mail, spear points, arrowheads, and "A"bone point was found that no stone was used, is kinda self defeating logic, since the fact the bone point was found. Which is better bone or stone? Automatically seeing a stone point and relegating it to the stone age, is not exactly correct science. Point in short, iron artifacts are in abundance. Stone points in Viking timelines are rare. Iron was preferred. Does not mean that stone was absolutely rejected. What would you do if you were a peasant, and not a warrior, and had no ability to acquire iron? Use a sharpened stick for defense? I'd be out there doing my best to make some stone points, till I could kill a Viking and take his! Archaeological "Facts" are constantly being rewritten, as more items are uncovered. Like the time line when the first humans supposedly set foot on the N.A. Continent. That has changed, and will be not doubt be changed again. Just because there were no Pandas seen till the late 1890's or early 1900's in the Western world meant to them that it was just a silly Chinese myth. Till they were brought to the West. Then Scientific Fact was dissolved, and a new fact was made.
I just can't accept that since more of one item was found, that therefore it is absolute, and irrefutable fact that a lessor object was never used in that time point. I am not saying that Vikings used stone points in their raiding forrays. But that stone was still used by some people who could not acquire metal. When they could acquire metal, I have no doubt that they used the metal. Look at the Osage wagon seat springs that were used, because they didn't have access to, or couldn't afford the metal, and used something else that was effective, till they could get metal springs. There never was or will be any intent to knock anyone on here irregardless of how much, or how little knowledge they have. I just don't like the "Absolutes" that are too often used. There will always be room for exceptions. ;)
One good thing about this site, it do tend to elicit lively discussions, don't it?! ;D
Wayne
-
Is it a known fact that every archer had iron, or steel points? If they couldn't get iron, or steel, they just sat around till the some iron came their way? Explain the " Fact" that a Viking had a triangular Flint arrow head in his Head. Those that could get iron, I am sure that was all they used, and yes, they are in archaeological abundance, flint use has no definitive date as to the end of it's use. Look at the ice man. He had a metal (Copper) axe, but flint arrowheads. The British, in the 1600's had cannons, and matchlocks on their ships, AND archers in the crows nest. "With steel points" ::) ;D.But like I said, who knows if the person using the flint head was a viking, or someone defending his life and home. Just because iron was in use, doesn't mean that it was the only form of weapon points used. There were peasants, even in viking times. I am not in any way, trying to ridicule, or mock a "Superb Boyer", just that you simply cannot say that stone points were only used in stone age. Tell that to the dead Viking with the stone point in his head, when you meet up with him in Valhalla. Did a Cromagnon man shoot him? There are archaeological finds that dispute earlier set in "stone"findings, and facts. There were high quality stone knives, spear, and arrow heads found on the shores of North America, where there are Non Stoneage Viking settlements. They ran out of metal, with no known sources of replacement, and they resorted to what they had at hand. Why not for someone who did not have metal, or enough to use for arrow heads, use stone? To definitively say that there were no stone points used in Viking times, in my opinion is a little hard to go for. When the first cars were available, some people still perferred the horse. Some could not afford a car. I just don't believe that because iron was in wide use, that automatically, someone can say that there fore no stone was used there after. Iron was indeed the preferred choice. My preferred choice is a Lexus, but I cannot afford one. :( Simply stating that since iron, chain mail, spear points, arrowheads, and "A"bone point was found that no stone was used, is kinda self defeating logic, since the fact the bone point was found. Which is better bone or stone? Automatically seeing a stone point and relegating it to the stone age, is not exactly correct science. Point in short, iron artifacts are in abundance. Stone points in Viking timelines are rare. Iron was preferred. Does not mean that stone was absolutely rejected. What would you do if you were a peasant, and not a warrior, and had no ability to acquire iron? Use a sharpened stick for defense? I'd be out there doing my best to make some stone points, till I could kill a Viking and take his! Archaeological "Facts" are constantly being rewritten, as more items are uncovered. Like the time line when the first humans supposedly set foot on the N.A. Continent. That has changed, and will be not doubt be changed again. Just because there were no Pandas seen till the late 1890's or early 1900's in the Western world meant to them that it was just a silly Chinese myth. Till they were brought to the West. Then Scientific Fact was dissolved, and a new fact was made.
I just can't accept that since more of one item was found, that therefore it is absolute, and irrefutable fact that a lessor object was never used in that time point. I am not saying that Vikings used stone points in their raiding forrays. But that stone was still used by some people who could not acquire metal. When they could acquire metal, I have no doubt that they used the metal. Look at the Osage wagon seat springs that were used, because they didn't have access to, or couldn't afford the metal, and used something else that was effective, till they could get metal springs. There never was or will be any intent to knock anyone on here irregardless of how much, or how little knowledge they have. I just don't like the "Absolutes" that are too often used. There will always be room for exceptions. ;)
One good thing about this site, it do tend to elicit lively discussions, don't it?! ;D
Wayne
As you say, “Archaeological "Facts" are constantly being rewritten,” I guess you feel qualified to re write them. You are not demonstrating qualifications by claims like “There were high quality stone knives, spear, and arrow heads found on the shores of North America, where there are Non Stoneage Viking settlements.” There is only one proven Viking settlement in North America. That is in Newfoundland and there were NO stone tools found on the site.
It is true that the “Iceman” “ had a metal (Copper) axe, but flint arrowheads”. Of course. He dates from the transition of the Stone Age to the Bronze Age more than three thousand years ago. You ask “Explain the " Fact" that a Viking had a triangular Flint arrow head in his Head.” First you have to explain how you know that it was a Viking skull.
Erik
-
somebody get these guys a tape measure !
-
Erik, I beg to differ on the No stone artifacts were found in Newfoundland. I Can't remember where I saw it, but it could have been the history channel, science channel, national geographic, etc. but one of them showed a couple of spear blades, and a knife blade made out of Nephrite, a type of jade, which is extremely hard, and durable. The blades were in the Viking styles, and were ground and highly polished. No, I am not an expert. I don't believe I have stated so. Are you? I didn't mean to step on your tail. :o
I have seen this article a few years back. And they were found in the Viking ruins in Newfoundland. Whether these blades were used as weapons, or not, I don't know. But to go to all that trouble to grind a chunk of nephrite, and shape it, and polish it, I would think it would be used. Nephrite is extremely hard stuff. It is found in Newfoundland, and Canada. How the blades were ground and shaped I have no idea. But they were found among other artifacts. As to how I know it was a Viking skull, I am taking the word of Claude Van Order, who was at the museum in Denmark, and it was listed as a viking skull. So I wasn't in on the archaeological dig, and have no idea of how the museum, knows it was a viking. I will take their word till it is disproved by some other archaeologist down the road, with newer techniques, and scientific information. ;) I am sure the museum can explain how they know it was a viking skull. If I ever hit the power ball, I will personally go there and ask them. Hell, I will even take you along also. They can answer a lot of questions. Do you speak Danish? That would be a big plus. ;D
Wayne
-
wayne, if you win the power ball, please take me! thats the motherland for me! and we'd have to stop in the netherlands too, thats the other motherland! lol
-
Good, you can be the interperter! ;D If I win, you're in! ;)
Wayne
-
not sure of the timeline of the viking skull with the stone point in it but is it possible he sailed to N.A got shot by a native but lived to sail back to his homeland with the point in his head?
-
crwilson12, that hurts just thinking about it! lol
alright, did you win yet? i still have vacation left haha
-
The trip is on hold at the moment. Just got back from Publix, and both the Lottery, and Powerball tickets, were not a winner! :( :'( Well, I don't know of any N.A. triangular points, not that there couldn't be, but there are people who have had bigger objects lodged in their heads. Like the guy, in the early 1900's who had a connecting pin from a sky scrapper that was being built, fall, and hit him in the head, and it was stuck out the top, and bottom of his head, and he lived! :o Actually his picture is on the Ripley's posters, and books. On ER in Texas, or somewhere, it had a guy, who had a bowie knife stuck in his head. He lived also! :o
Well I will try my luck again, next week. 8) The triangular point works well for head shots. Especially on pigs. Just ask Mullet! ;D
Wayne
-
Someone shot Mullet in the head with a triangular stone point?
Waste of a good piece of knapping, if you ask me.
-
I don't think even a triangular point would penetrate that head! ;D :o I would imagine Kathy, has smacked him in the head so many times he has built up a protective layer of callouses on it! Sort of like a boar's fighting sheild. ;D ;D
Wayne