arrow head ? id please if possible

[Kent]

Hi found this a few months ago and was wondering if anyone can give me a id and a ruff age if it is anything it has a hole in the bottom but no thread so i guess its got some age to it thanks all

[jcb (THE THIMBLE) jones]

hi kent have a look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrowhead
have a look at the ancient greek ones good luck and well found 

[trojan]

edited post, as after doing a bit of research it is closer to a roman 2 winged arrow head , if so it should be about 24 - 39 mm in length
used from 1st -3rd c AD

http://www.he-artefakte.de/Weitere%20Angebote/Weitere%20AngeboteE.html

[Chef Geoff]

Not in copper alloy it's not it would be as effective as a chocolate teapot also bodkin points are generally much much earlier than Tudor.
I got all excited and thought it was a trilobal point but then put my glasses on I would say it's a late Bronze Age example but it does have a striking resemblance to early Roman ones (not from this country though)

[jayhay69]

nice one Ken

[trojan]

bodkins come in many different shapes and styles, the tudor style bodkin is a short to medium point bodkin
Bodkins can be short, fat, narrow ,long, spear point bodkin, diamond shaped bodkin

Bodking arrows were designed for the projectile to fly further with less drop off, and to deliver "Mild" penetration but causing heavy flesh damage on impact

the one below is a re make of a tudor style bodkin which was used during tudor times

http://www.longbowandarrow.co.uk/hector-cole-arrowhead-tudor-bodkin-11991-p.asp

[Chef Geoff]

And it's?.........Steel I did say generally as plate armour itself begins to die out in the Tudor period and those on that site aren't technically bodkins as they have sharpened bladed sides

[hotmill]

Nice find!

[trojan]

the image shown is steel as the guy makes them for reproduction, and steel is cheaper to use, and almost all bodkins had an edge weather sharped or not, there is no technical issue about a bodkin if it is sharp edged or dull edged, a bodkin was  designed to fly further , with less drop off, and to cause mild penetration.

the common Bodkins were mainly used against lightly armored targets, as in leather and chain mail. Bodkins didnt have any great effect against plate mail, due to deflection so a smaller stumpy head was more commonly used which had less deflection attributes, and would pierce the plate.

[Chef Geoff]

  Are you joking
The very nature of a bodkin point is to pierce armour or the earliest for mail so you can forget the "mild penetration" idea if it hit an non armoured body it would in all likelihood go right through. Yes they will fly further but this is an accident of design as they are designed for use against armour. As for "the image shown is steel as the guy makes them for reproduction, and steel is cheaper to use" have you any idea what happens if you fire a copper alloy arrow at steel? I'll tell you it will end up looking like penny on a stick ie squashed.
Generally they are round or square this gives them the "punch" required, shapen the sides and you have a bladed arrowhead thus no a bodkin.

[trojan]

Geoff sorry but you are wrong

here are results done by the royal armories on bodkins

Armour penetration
It has been suggested that the bodkin came into its own as a means of penetrating armour, but research by the Royal Armouries[1] has found no hardened bodkin points, though only two bodkin points were actually tested, not a statistically relevant number. Bodkins did, however, have greater ability to pierce mail armour than broadheads, and historical accounts do speak of bodkin arrows shot from close range piercing plate armour. Broadheads were made from steel, sometimes with hardened edges, but were more often used against lightly armoured men or horses than against an armoured adversary.

In a modern test, a direct hit from a steel bodkin point penetrated Damascus chain armour, although at point blank range.[2] However, the test was conducted without a padded jack or gambeson, which was layered cloth armour worn over heavier armour for protection against projectiles, as it was known to stop even heavy arrows. [3]

Armour of the medieval era was not completely proof against arrows until the specialised armour of the Italian city-state mercenary companies.[4] Archery was thought not to be effective against plate armour in the Battle of Neville's Cross (1346), the siege of Bergerac (1345), and the Battle of Poitiers (1356); such armour became available to European knights of fairly modest means by the late 14th century, though never to all soldiers in any army.[5]

Some recent tests have demonstrated that needle bodkins could penetrate all but heavy steel plate armour; one test used padded "jack" armour, coat of plates, iron and steel mail and steel plate. A needle bodkin penetrated every type, but may not have been able to inflict a lethal injury behind plate.[6]

[Chef Geoff]

And that shows what? they tested two arrowheads and as it says in the last paragraph
"Some recent tests have demonstrated that needle bodkins could penetrate all but heavy steel plate armour; one test used padded "jack" armour, coat of plates, iron and steel mail and steel plate. A needle bodkin penetrated every type, but may not have been able to inflict a lethal injury behind plate"
It doesn't say anywhere that they weren't used to pierce armour only that some armour could withstand them ie the later type and that's why they weren't very common in the Tudor age and it still doesn't address your statement that bodkins have bladed sides or that they were made of a copper alloy both of which are wrong. Ahhhhh!

[trojan]

never said they were made of copper alloy,
and bodkins did have bladed sides as well as dull sides, depends who made them and what purpose they were made for

[Chef Geoff]

Well the one Kent found is so how can it be a Bodkin I think we'll stop there

[trojan]

yer you should stop there, as you haven't read the posts properly it seems