MYCENAEAN FAIENCE / CLAY ARROWHEADS - Part 1

MYCENAEAN  FAIENCE / CLAY ARROWHEADS

Part 1

 

Very recently I visited Mycenae and apart from the wonderful citadel I spent some time looking at exhibits in the museum.

Amongst all of the exhibits, exhibit number 49 caught my eye. 

A small tray of clay pieces, some broken, mostly of the same size, crudely made and the description of exhibit 49 read “Faience arrowheads- (1300-1250 BC). House of Shields “.(Photo A & B )

Photo A

                                                                                 Photo B - 2 joint images

I stood there for some time, none of the other visitors paid too much attention to them, all very rightly drawn to other marvels of the Mycenaean civilisation. 

The first thing that came to my mind is that the description talked about “arrowheads” and not the usual description of “offerings or amulets in the shape of arrowheads”. Secondly they were described as “Faience arrowheads” but of course didn’t look to be anything of value. 

The archaeologist that gave them the name more or less presented them as something functional and not decorative or religious but,  I personally, never heard about arrowheads made from faience or clay. 

There is a distinction between those two materials. 

Faience objects have been found in Mycenae - small jewellery items,  beads etc - and only in high status graves. Ancient faience has many materials in its mixture and comes in many colours, the Egyptian blue being most dominant. It is a technique known from thousands of years BCE and has a kind of glass quality and is very prestigious.

Clay is a silicon material that our earth is made of, and solidifies at 570ºC and above. Faience (modern mix) needs 1000ºC.

So if faience had been applied to those  clay arrowheads, at around 1000 ºC both would have been  cured to form a solid hard body and this was not difficult to be achieved in Mycenaean kilns.

Now questions and uncertainty arise from the fact that I had no access to them, nor any further information  as to their uses and the only thing that was known to me, is that these objects had been found at the “House of Shields”  - a ceramics and ivory workshop that had burned down. 

Now the heat in a building fire can very easily rise above 1000 ºC which means that faience would crumble (possibly melt) and disappear but the clay base would remain. On the other hand many small ivory pieces have survived and one would  have expected them to show signs of  charcoal or to have burned completely.

So, did the fire only burn part of the building or, if not,  were some items  protected  by some kind of casing and they survived? Or, are the “Faience arrowheads” just clay and nothing valuable?  Importantly to know is how many have survived apart from those on display in the exhibition?

I would like  to make it very clear that many of these questions could  possibly be answered if access to the material was available and more information was around but the fact is that, I cannot find anything about these small clay arrowheads on the net, not even a photograph apart from the one I have taken. I would be very thankful for any knowledge on the matter and please do not hesitate to contact me.

So, I made the decision to see if they have a function  and my experience and results are surprisingly positive. The basic questions that I had in mind were:

-   Are they effective, i.e. can they actually effectively cause injury or even death?

Can they be successfully supported on an arrow shaft?

Can they be produced easily and in high numbers?

Are they cheap to make?

…and the answers are “Yes” to all the questions and here is my adventure to discovery.

First of all the design of the clay Mycenaean arrowheads is a  common design from the neolithic period and is close to the Cazin type flint arrowhead ( 2150 - 1700 BCE)  from Brittany (France) as the exceptional study of  C. Nicolas & C. Gueret (1) shows, and later arrowheads made from copper alloy imitate the flint designs. (Photo C)

Photo C

A clay imitation of the same design has no chance of being successful because it would be very thin and the only solution would be to make it thicker and with my calculations I estimate that the thickness should be 10mm,  very close to that of the  one exhibited in the museum as I remember it.

The second fortunate thing is that I have access to a ceramics workshop and good advice about clays, modern or old, and strength of materials, but I am not a potter as such. So firstly I made  a series of arrowheads with red clay, differing weights and sizes and as close to those in the museum. I have tried to imitate the lines and dots that were engraved on them and I am not sure if their purpose was just decorative or had specific meanings or some functionality. (Photo 1)

Red clay (Argilos) is very common in the area of modern Greece where Mycenae is located. 

The arrowheads had a bisque firing at 970 ºC.

                                                                                                    Photo 1

The Photo 2 shows how the arrowhead is fitted on to the shaft.

                                                                                                        Photo 2

Drawing 1

This drawing  shows a light clay arrowhead of 179 grains and the attachment method that was used later in my tests to shoot at the brass disc.

                                                                                                    Drawing 1

For my tests I have chosen wooden shafts of differing woods since evidence shows that they were available at that time. Otzi the iceman with a Yew longbow, later on in the classical world (Scythian’s) and later still the Ottomans used them in Greek territories. To my knowledge no cane or bamboo plants have survived in modern Greece that are good enough for strong archery but hardwoods such as elm were available and even softwood pine, spruce were available, and as we all know  pine can make acceptable arrow shafts. Saying all this I am not excluding cane since it could have been imported or at that time was indigenous and basically I don’t want to create an argument here because the same technique of attaching the clay arrowhead could apply to any shaft.

As a first step I applied pitch as a form of glue on the arrowhead and the shaft and I left it for 24 hours to dry (Photo 3 & 4) and at the same time I had tied some hemp string around the shaft to stop it splitting. The arrowhead was strong enough to be used as it was.

Pitch was known at the time and the proof comes from the 5,200 years old man with the name “Tyrolean Iceman” or “Otzi”. His flint arrowheads and copper hatchet have evidence of organic glue used to connect the stone or metal parts to the wooden shafts (also the arrow feathers). The glue was analysed as pitch, which requires the heating of tar during its production, a process known as pyrolysis (2). 

                                                                                                 Photo 3

                                                                                               Photo 4

I made some trial runs with Ed Harris  and finally  came to the final tests of Part 1.

I used a steel sheet of 1.2 mm for which  I normally test medieval war arrows penetration with #100 @ 32 long bow, and the surface provides strong resistance for the clay arrows to break and see the pattern of fragmentation and the possible damage to the steel plate. 

In the centre I placed three coconuts -small and strong 15 cm L x 8 cm diameter of unknown wall thickness at the time. I shot the arrows from a 50 foot (16 m) distance.

Before I shot the arrow I also decided to bind the arrowhead with hemp string for extra support  thinking that these arrowheads may have to be transported or be moved around as you do with any arrows. (Photo 5)

                                                                                                 Photo 5

The heaviest arrow head of 293 grains, and arrow weight of 763 grains, FOC 12%, 12mm tapered to 10mm shaft shot with self bow / long bow #70 @ 28,  hit the steel plate and to my surprise did create a small crater of 4mm deep. (Photo 6) 

                                                                                        Photo 6 - 2 joint images

After a few tries another arrowhead of 191 grains and arrow weight of 700 grains, FOC 10%, 12mm tapered to 10mm shaft shot with the same bow, hit one of the coconuts. 

The hit was very loud and it had a lot of movement and bounce, but despite that the hole on the 4.5mm deep shell was uniform as if it had been hit by a war hammer (more or less). The arrow head dislocated from the arrow with one of the barbs broken but not completely destroyed like the ones that hit the steel plate. (Photo 7, 8, 9 )

                                                                                                Photo 7

                                                                                                    Photo 8

                                                                                        Photo 9 - 2 joint images

For these tests I used a self bow because it was the most common at the time. Recurve composite bows were available as well but we don’t have any physical evidence of their strength.  With the presence of elm (Ftelia) and other hardwoods like yew possibly being imported from central Europe,  there is no reason not to have what we call today war bows of #70 and above. Trading connections with far European countries were well established. 

If we consider the size of some bronze arrowheads of that time - some had an 11 cm length with half of the length barbed or leaf shape arrowheads  - consequently for the use  with heavy  bows.

Finally for this Part 1 of my tests I shot a lighter arrow with 179 grains arrowhead and arrow weight of 500 grains, FOC 15%, 9mm shaft tapered to 8mm with a Scythian bow #60 @ 28 bit heavy for the lighter arrow but close enough. (Photo 10 & Drawing 1) 

                                                                                               Photo 10

                                                                         

The impact was powerful, the clay arrowhead broke in three major pieces, but the arrow shaft survived  intact. There was a deep dent on the 1.2 mm brass plate. (Photo 11 &12)

                                                                                                Photo 11

                                                                                Photo 12 - Close up of photo 11

The dent on the other side was quite sharp and there was a strong concentration  of force at the centre. It resembled the force that pierced the coconut. (Photo 13 & 14)

                                                                                    Photo 13 - 2 joint images

                                                                                    Photo 14- 2 joint images

Apart from one shaft of a soft hard wood that broke on its length (Photo 15 ), all the rest were intact and with no damage to the socket which meant that was able to reuse the shafts (Photo 16).

                                                                                              Photo 15

                                                                            

                                                                                                Photo 16

The broken shaft of Photo 15 shows to me that the kinetic energy was far more powerful than the relatively soft wood (12mm taper to 10mm and 763 grains weight with large clay arrow head) to take  the instant impact.  Ash shafts with heavy clay-arrowheads survived, as also Spruce and Pine shafts with lighter clay-arrowheads.

In most of the clay-arrowheads the socket that connects to the shaft has survived (Photo 17), the same way as some original fragments from the museum (Detail from Photo A)

                                                                                                 Photo 17

                                                          Detail from Photo A

The clay-arrowheads after the impact on the hard surface (steel plate) always broke in small sharp pieces.  It takes very little thinking to imagine one of the smallest pieces scratching or piercing the   cornea of an eye and that would mean being out of action for some time, if not losing your sight. (Photo 18)

There are references that later in Roman times sling shots were covered with clay for that reason and some have been discovered in Jericho.

                                                                                           Photo 18

So why clay-arrowheads and what purpose they may had.

--They can be produced in large numbers while firing takes place for other items. If you look carefully at the photograph from the museum, some of them show half circle impressions on the bottom which I can only assume are resting marks in the firing.

--The design of the clay-arrowhead is easy to attach to the shaft and very robust. The weight of the clay-arrowhead will result in effective impact shot from the right weight bow. The design of the clay-arrowhead is a copy from existing flint  and copper alloy arrowheads.

--They are cheap or even I could say no cost in materials  since one can use the trimmings from clay workshops etc. Now faience - if used - is expensive and of high status but to my knowledge , no  arrowheads of this kind have been found in high status graves and if they have why they have they not been exhibited or recorded.  That leaves this question unanswered for the time being.

--Clay-arrowheads can be used where our Mycenaeans in question  didn’t want to waste the precious and expensive Bronze or Obsidian arrowheads.  Examples: hunting, practising, distance ranging, and in a skirmish or a battle could be deadly for head shots and inflict serious injuries on bones and flesh. A “shower” of arrows would stop any band of lightly armed warriors and even the Mycenaean “heavies” with the Dendra type of armour or similar  wearing open helmets leaving their faces unprotected. A delight to any archer with clay or not arrowheads.

--The evidence shows that all the clay-arrowheads were broken or dislocated after they were shot. In the case of conflict they could not be used by the enemy on the spot. Shafts could be reused later on.

--The close cousin of the clay-arrowhead, the flint from Northern Europe or Obsidian from the Aegean islands  takes time and effort to be made. Obsidian was a rare resource imported from the island of Melos.

With this part 1, I / we, have established that the clay - arrowhead can be successfully fitted on a shaft and shot with very satisfactory results. The results can be effective as a sling shot but the tactics of fighting differ. Bows and arrows co existed with the use of sling shots up to the time of the firearm.

                                                                                                   

                                                                        Part  2

Part 2 of these experiments will take place after I / we have established the true nature of the clay-arrowheads. For example the ancient clay constitution, unlike the modern red clay I have used,  has other elements mixed in with the clay in order to stopped cracking in firing and if that is the case the question is how that would effect the fragmentation and impact of the weapon. 

In addition, if there is a coating of faience on them, is it for other reasons and not for functionality? Finally, just a thought, that the glass quality of faience would produce very sharp fragments that would cause injuries, but it was an expensive and valuable material to be used in such a way.

To be continued ………………………… 

References:

1.  Armorican arrowhead biographies: Production and function of Early Bronze Age prestige good from Brittany (France). By Clement Nicolas and Colas Gueret.

2.  Adhesive / History :   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhesive

©  GREX LUPORUM.

Please do not reproduce without permission.