Chapter XVI: Javelin and Arrow Heads (1)

I now come to a series of flint weapons, small but varying in size, which though presenting a general resemblance in character to each other, are still susceptible of being classified under several types. The similarity is probably due to their having been all intended for the same purpose—that of piercing the skin, whether of enemies in war, or of animals in the chase; the differences may result from some of the weapons having served for warlike and others for hunting purposes. The variation in size probably arises from some of them having tipped spears to be held in the hand for close encounters, while others may have been attached to lighter shafts, and formed javelins to be thrown at objects at some distance; and the majority of the smaller kind were, beyond doubt, the heads of arrows discharged from bows.

The possibly successive ideas of pointing a stake as a weapon of offence, of hardening the point by means of fire, and of substituting a still harder point made of horn, bone, or stone, must have occurred to mankind at the earliest period of its history, and weapons of one or all of these kinds are to be found among savage tribes in all parts of the world. The discovery of the bow, as a means of propelling javelins on a small scale to a distance, seems to belong to a rather higher grade of culture, and its use is not universal among modern savages. The use of the bow and arrow was totally unknown to the aborigines of Australia,[1629] and even the Maories[1630] of New Zealand—who were by no means in the lowest stage of civilization—had, when first discovered, no bows and arrows, nor even slings; in fact, no missile weapon except the lance, which was thrown by hand.

In Europe, however, the use of the bow seems to date back to a |361| very remote period, as in some of the cave-deposits of the Reindeer Period of the South of France, what appear to be undoubtedly arrow-heads are found. In other caves, possibly, though not certainly, inhabited at a somewhat later period, such arrow-heads are absent, though what may be regarded as harpoon-heads of bone occur; and in the River Gravel deposits, nothing that can positively be said to be an arrow-head has as yet been found, though it is barely possible that some of the pointed flakes may have served to tip arrows.

The Greek myth[1631] that bows and arrows were invented by Scythes, the son of Jove, or by Perses, the son of Perseus, though pointing to an extreme antiquity for the invention, not improbably embodies a tradition of the skill in archery of the ancient Scythians and Persians.[1632]

The simplest form of stone-pointed spear or lance at present in use among savages, consists of a long sharp flake of obsidian, or some silicious stone, attached to a shaft, like that shown in Fig. 195; and arrows, tipped with smaller flakes, having but little secondary working at the sides, beyond what was necessary to complete the point, and to form a small tang for insertion into the shaft, may also be seen in Ethnological collections. Between these almost simple flakes and skilfully and symmetrically-chipped lance and arrow heads, all the intermediate stages may be traced among weapons still, or until quite recently, in use among savages; as well as among those which once served to point the weapons of the early occupants of this country.

It is indeed probable that besides these stone-tipped weapons, other seemingly less effective, but actually more deadly missiles, were in use among them in the form of poisoned arrows; but as these at the present day are usually tipped with hard wood or bone, as better adapted than stone for retaining the poison, the same was probably the case in ancient times; and while those of wood have perished, those of bone, if found, have not as yet been recognized. Such arrow-heads of bone were also in use without being poisoned, as, for instance, among the Finns, or Fenni, as Tacitus calls them, whose principal weapons were, for want of iron, bone-pointed arrows.[1633] The use of poisoned arrows had, among the Greeks and Romans, long ceased in classical times,[1634] and is always represented |362| by authors, from the time of Homer downwards, as a characteristic of barbarous nations; and yet, in our own language, a word in common use survives as a memorial of this barbarous custom having been practised by the Greeks probably long before the days of Homer. For from τόξον a bow (or occasionally an arrow[1635]), was derived τοξικὸν—_toxicum_—the poison for arrows; a term which gradually included all poisons, even those of the milder form, such as alcohol, the too free use of which results in that form of poisoning still known among us as _intoxication_.

One of the first to mention the discovery of flint arrow-heads in Britain was Dr. Plot, who, in his “Natural History of Staffordshire”[1636] (1686), speaking of the use of iron by “the Britains” in Cæsar’s time, observes: “we have reason to believe that, for the most part at lest, they sharpen’d their warlike instruments rather with stones than metall, especiall in the more northerly and inland countries, where they sometimes meet with flints in shape of arrow-heads, whereof I had one sent me by the learned and ingenious Charles Cotton, Esq., found not far from his pleasant mansion at Beresford, exactly in the form of a bearded arrow, jagg’d at each side, with a larger stemm in the middle, whereby I suppose it was fixt to the wood.” “These they find in Scotland in much greater plenty, especially in the prefectury of Aberdeen, which, as the learned S^r Robert Sibbald[1637] informs us, they there call Elf-arrows—_Lamiarum Sagittas_—imagining they drop from the clouds, not being to be found upon a diligent search, but now and then by chance in the high beaten roads.” “Nor did the Britans only head their arrows with flint, but also their _mataræ_ or British darts, which were thrown by those that fought _in essedis_, whereof I guess this is one I had given me, found near Leek, by my worthy friend Mr. Thomas Gent, curiously jagg’d at the edges with such-like teeth as a sickle, and otherwise wrought upon the flat, by which we may conclude, not only that these arrow and spear-heads are all artificial, whatever is pretended, but also that they had anciently some way of working of flints by the toole, which may be seen by the marks, as well as they had of the Egyptian porphyry; which, as the aforesaid worthy Gent. Sir Robert Sibbald, thinks, they learned of the Romans, who, as Aldrovandus[1638] assures us, anciently used such weapons made of stones. However, still, |363| it not being hence deducible, but they may be British, they are not ill-placed here, whatever original they have had from either nation.”

Plot gives engravings both of a stemmed and barbed arrow-head, and of a leaf-shaped lance-head or knife.

Sir Robert Sibbald, in his[1639] “Scotia Illustrata,” 1684, expresses his belief that the flint arrow-heads are artificial. He possessed two, one like the head of a lance and the other like the end of an anchor, or tanged and barbed. He also relates the account given him by the Laird of Straloch, in Aberdeenshire, which he had passed on to the historian of Staffordshire.

It will be observed that Plot alludes to different opinions regarding these instruments, it being a matter in dispute whether they were artificial, natural, or partly natural; in the same manner as at the time when the flint implements were first discovered in the River Gravels doubts were expressed by some as to their artificial origin, while others regarded them as fossils of natural formation; and others again carried their unconscious Manichæism so far as to ascribe all fossils, and we may presume these included, to diabolical agency. The old Danish collector, Olaf Worm, speaks of a flint of a dark colour[1640] exhibiting the form of a spear-head with such accuracy that it may be doubted whether it is a work of art or of nature, and of others like daggers, which, as being found in ancient grave-hills, are regarded by some as the arms of an early people; while others doubt whether they are the work of art or nature; and others consider them to be thunderbolts. One reason in former times for doubting the artificial origin of the most highly finished instruments was ignorance of how such objects could have been chipped out. After describing one of the beautiful Danish daggers, with the delicately “ripple-marked” blade and the square ornamented handle, Worm remarks—“si silex ullo modo arte foret tractabilis, potius Arte quam Naturâ elaboratum esse hoc corpus jurares.”[1641]

Aldrovandus[1642] engraves a flint arrow-head as a Glossopetra—a stone which, according to Pliny,[1643] “resembleth a man’s tongue, and groweth not upon the ground, but in the eclipse of the moone falleth from heaven,” and which “is thought by the magicians to be verie necessarie for those that court faire women.”

But perhaps one of the most curious of these early notices of flint |364| arrow-heads is that given in the “Catalogue and Description of the Natural and Artificial Rarities belonging to the Royal Society and preserved at Gresham College,”[1644] made by Nehemiah Grew, M.D., F.R.S. In Part III., Chap. V., Of Regular Stones, Dr. Grew speaks of “The flat Bolthead—_Anchorites_. Of affinity with that well described by Wormius[1645] with the title of _Silex venabuli ferreum cuspidem exacte referens_. By Moscardo[1646] with that of _Pietre Ceraunie_; who also figures it with three or four varieties. This like those of a perfect Flint and semiperspicuous. ’Tis likewise, in the same manner, pointed, like a _Speer_, having at the other end, like those of Moscardo, a short handle. But, moreover, hath this peculiar, that ’tis pointed or spiked also backward on both sides of the Handle, with some resemblance to an Anchor or the head of a Bearded Dart, from whence I have named it. ’Tis likewise tooth’d on the edges, and the sides as it were wrought with a kind of undulated sculpture, as those before mentioned. Another different from the former, in that it is longer, hath a deeper indenture, but no handle. Both of them strike fire like other _flints_.” There is a representation given of this Anchorites, which shows it to have been a common barbed arrow-head with a central stem.

Moscardo’s[1647] figures which are here cited represent for the most part tanged arrow-heads. He says that Bonardo relates that they fall from the clouds, and that those who carry them cannot be drowned or struck by lightning. They produce, moreover, pleasant dreams.

Mention has already been made of the superstition attaching to flint arrow-heads in Scotland, where they were popularly regarded as the missiles of Elves. In speaking of them Dr. Stuart[1648] quotes Robert Gordon of Straloch, the well-known Scottish geographer, who wrote about 1661. After giving some details concerning elf-darts, this writer says that these wonderful stones are sometimes found in the fields and in public and beaten roads, but never by searching for them; to-day, perhaps one will be found where yesterday nothing could be seen, and in the afternoon in places where before noon there was none, and this most frequently under |365| clear skies and on summer days. He then gives instances related to him by a man and a woman of credit, each of whom while riding found an arrow-head in their clothes in this unexpected way. Mr. F. C. Lukis, F.S.A.,[1649] draws a distinction between the elf-shot or elf-arrow and the elf-dart, the latter being of larger dimensions and leaf-shaped. He gives an engraving of one which has been mounted in a silver frame and worn as a charm. The cut is here reproduced, as Fig. 271. The initials at the back are probably those of the owner, who mounted the amulet in silver, and of his wife. It was worn by an old Scottish lady for half a century. Others thus mounted were exhibited in the Museum of the Archæological Institute at Edinburgh in 1856.[1650]

Another arrow-head, also thus mounted, is engraved by Douglas,[1651] but in this instance it was found in Ireland, where “the peasants call them elf-arrows, and frequently set them in silver, and wear them on their necks as amulets against the AITHADH or elf-shot.” Others are engraved in the _Philosophical Transactions_[1652] and in Gough’s “Camden’s Britannia.”[1653] Sir W. Wilde[1654] informs us that in the North of Ireland, when cattle are sick and the cattle doctor or fairy doctor is sent for, he often says that the beast has been elf-shot, or stricken by fairy or elfin darts, and by some legerdemain contrives to find in its skin one or more poisoned weapons, which, with some coins, are then placed in the water which is given the animal to drink, and a cure is said to be effected. The Rev. Dr. Buick,[1655] in an article on Irish flint arrow-heads, has given some particulars as to their use in curing cattle that are bewitched, and the Folklore Society[1656] has published some details as to the beliefs still existing with regard to fairy darts. The same view of disease being caused by weapons shot by fairies at cattle, and |366| much the same method of cure, prevailed, and indeed in places even now prevails, in Scotland.[1657]

The late Dr. J. Hill Burton informed me that it is still an article of faith that elf-bolts after finding should not be exposed to the sun, or they are liable to be recovered by the fairies, who then work mischief with them.

Mr. Llewellynn Jewitt has recorded a similar elf-arrow superstition[1658] as obtaining in Derbyshire, where flint arrow and spear heads are by some regarded as fairy darts, and supposed to have been used by the fairies in injuring and wounding cattle. It was with reference to discoveries near Buxton, in that county, that Stukeley wrote—“Little flint arrow-heads of the ancient Britons, called elfs’-arrows, are frequently ploughed up here.”[1659]

The late Sir Daniel Wilson[1660] gives many interesting particulars regarding the elf-bolt, elf-shot, or elfin-arrow, which bears the synonymous Gaelic name of _Sciat-hee_, and cites from Pitcairn’s “Criminal Trials,” the description of a cavern where the archfiend carries on the manufacture of elf-arrows with the help of his attendant imps, who rough-hewed them for him to finish. He also mentions the passage in a letter from Dr. Hickes[1661] to Pepys, recording that my Lord Tarbut, or some other lord, did produce one of those elf-arrows which one of his tenants or neighbours took out of the heart of one of his cattle that died of an usual death (_sic_). Dr. Hickes had another strange story, but very well attested, of an elf-arrow that was shot at a venerable Irish bishop by an evil spirit, in a terrible noise louder than thunder, which shaked the house where the bishop was.

Similar superstitions prevailed among the Scandinavian[1662] nations, by whom a peculiar virtue was supposed to be inherent in flint arrow-heads, which was not to be found in those of metal.

The fact, already mentioned, of arrow-heads of flint being appended to Etruscan[1663] necklaces of gold, apparently as a sort of charm, seems to show that a belief in the supernatural origin of these weapons, and their consequent miraculous powers, was of |367| very ancient date. It has still survived in Italy,[1664] where the peasants keep flint arrow-heads to preserve their houses from lightning, believing that the lightning comes down to strike with a similar stone—a superstition which Professor Gastaldi also found prevalent in Piedmont. In some instances they are carried on the person as preservatives against lightning, and in parts of the Abruzzo[1665] they are known as _lingue di S. Paolo_, and the countryman who finds one devoutly kneels down, picks it up with his own tongue, and jealously preserves it as a most potent amulet. In the Foresi Collection[1666] at the Paris Exhibition were some arrow-heads mounted in silver as amulets, like those in Scotland, but brought from the Isle of Elba. Another has been engraved by Dr. C. Rosa.[1667]

M. Cartailhac[1668] has published an interesting pamphlet on such superstitions, and Professor Bellucci has also dilated upon them. They are abundant in the neighbourhood of Perugia.[1669]

It is a curious circumstance, that necklaces formed of cornelian beads, much of the shape of stemmed arrow-heads, with the perforation through the central tang, are worn by the Arabs of Northern Africa at the present day, being regarded, as I was informed by the Rev. J. Greville Chester, as good for the blood. Similar charms are also worn in Turkey. I have a necklace of fifteen such arrow-head-like beads, with a central amulet, which was purchased by my son in a shop at Kostainicza,[1670] in Turkish Croatia. Among the Zuñis[1671] of New Mexico, stone arrow-heads are frequently attached to figures of animals so as to form charms or fetishes.

Enough, however, has been said with regard to the superstitions attaching to these arrow-heads of stone; the existence of such a belief in their supernatural origin, dating, as it seems to do, to a comparatively remote period, goes to prove that even in the days when the belief originated, the use of stone arrow-heads was not known, nor was there any tradition extant of a people whose weapons they had been. And yet it is probable that of all the |368| instruments made of stone, arrow-heads would be among the last to drop out of use, being both well adapted for the purpose they served, and at the same time formed of a material so abundant, that with weapons so liable to be lost as arrows, it would be preferred to metal, at a time when this was scarce and costly. In this country, at all events, the extreme scarcity of bronze arrow-heads is remarkable, while we know from interments that flint arrow-heads were in common use by those who employed bronze for other weapons or implements. There appears to be some doubt as to whether the arrow-heads, or rather the flakes of black flint or obsidian which have been found in considerable numbers associated with bronze arrow-heads on the field of Marathon, were made in Greece, or whether they were not rather in use among some of the barbarian allies of the Persian King. M. Lenormant[1672] is clearly of the opinion that they are not of Greek origin,[1673] but this is contested by others, and probably with reason. Whatever their origin, there is a strong argument against stone arrow-heads having been in use among the Greeks at so late a period as the battle of Marathon, B.C. 490, in the fact that Herodotus,[1674] writing but shortly afterwards, records, as an exceptional case, that in the army of Xerxes, _circa_ B.C. 480, the arrows of some of the Æthiopian contingent were tipped with stone, while those of some Indian nations were even pointed with iron. So early as the days of Homer the arrow-heads of the Greeks were of bronze, and had the three longitudinal ribs upon them, like those in that metal found at Marathon, for he speaks of the χαλκήρἐ ὀϊστόν[1675] and applies to it the epithet τριγλώχιν.[1676]

Even among such rude tribes as the Massagetæ and Scythians, the arrow-heads, in the days of Herodotus, were of bronze; as he records an ingenious method adopted by one Ariantas,[1677] a king of the Scythians, to take a census of his people by levying an arrow-head from each, all of which were afterwards cast into an enormous bronze vessel.

Besides the Æthiopians there was another nation which made use of stone-pointed arrows in Africa, as is proved by the arrows from Egyptian tombs, of which specimens are preserved in several of our museums. The head, which is of flint, differs however from |369| all the ordinary forms, inasmuch as it is chisel-shaped rather than pointed, and in form much resembles a small gun-flint. The tip of one of these, secured to the shaft by bitumen, is shown in Fig. 272. The original is in the British Museum. In my own collection are some specimens of such arrows. Their total length is about 35 inches and the shafts for about two-thirds of their length are made of reed, the remainder towards the point being of wood. Near the notch for the string are distinct traces of there having been a feather on either side, in the same plane as the notch. It is probable that arrow-heads of similar character may have been in use in Britain, though they have hitherto almost escaped observation, owing to the extreme simplicity of their form. To these I shall subsequently recur.

Some of the Egyptian arrows[1678] have supplemental flakes at the sides, so as practically to make the edge of the arrow-head wider.

In October, 1894, the Ghizeh Museum acquired from a Sixth Dynasty tomb at Assiut, two squadrons of soldiers, each of forty figures carved in wood. The figures of one set, presumed to be Egyptians, have a brown complexion and are armed with bronze-tipped spears and with shields. The figures are about 13 inches high. The other group is shorter, and the soldiers are black-skinned and armed with bow and arrows only; each has a bow in his left hand, and in his right four arrows with chisel-shaped heads of flint.[1679]

The better-known forms of arrow-heads which occur in Britain may be classed as the leaf-shaped, the lozenge-shaped, the tanged or stemmed, and the triangular, each presenting several varieties. The arrow-heads of the third class are in this country usually barbed; those of the fourth but rarely.

* * * * *

Whether the forms were successively developed in this order is a question difficult of solution; but in an ingenious paper by Mr. W. C. Little, of Liberton, published early in this century, being “An Inquiry into the Expedients used by the Scotts before the Discovery of Metals,”[1680] the lozenge-shaped are regarded as the earliest; next, those |370| barbed with two witters,[1681] but no middle tang; and last, the tanged. The same author argues from analogy that the ancients could extend this flint manufacture to other purposes, “as the same ingenuity which formed the head of an arrow could also produce a knife, a saw, and a piercer.”

Colonel A. Lane-Fox, now General Pitt Rivers, in his second lecture on “Primitive Warfare,”[1682] arranges the forms of arrow-heads in the same manner as I have here adopted, and shows that the transition from one form to the other is easy and natural. There are, indeed, some arrow-heads of which it would be impossible to say whether they were leaf-shaped or lozenge-shaped, or whether they were lozenge-shaped or tanged.

Sir William Wilde regards the triangular as the primary form, and the leaf-shaped and lozenge-shaped as the last.

Mr. W. J. Knowles[1683] has suggested a somewhat different classification, but it seems unnecessary to alter the arrangement here adopted. He does not enter into the question of the development of the forms. An exhaustive paper on Irish flint arrow-heads, by the Rev. Dr. Buick,[1684] may be usefully consulted.

Whatever may have been the order of the development of the forms, it would, in my opinion, be unwarrantable to attempt any chronological arrangement founded upon mere form, as there is little doubt of the whole of these varieties having been in use in one and the same district at the same time, the shape being to some extent adapted to the flake of flint from which the arrow-heads were made, and to some extent to the purposes which the arrows were to serve. The arrow-heads in use among the North American Indians,[1685] when intended for hunting, were so contrived that they could be drawn out of the wound, but those destined for war were formed and attached to the shaft in such a manner, that when it was attempted to pull out the arrow, its head became detached, and remained in the wound. The poisoned arrows of the Bushmen of South Africa[1686] are in like manner made with triangular heads of iron, which become detached in the body if an attempt is made to withdraw the arrow from the wound that it has caused.

I have already remarked on the difficulty of distinguishing between javelin and arrow heads; but, from their size, I think that the late Dr. Thurnam was justified in regarding those engraved as Figs. 273, 274, 275, as heads of javelins; and they may therefore be taken first in order. Two of them have already been engraved.[1687] Their beautifully worked surfaces had, however, hardly had justice done them, and, by |371| the kindness of Dr. Thurnam, I was able to have them engraved afresh full size. They were found in 1864, in company with another almost identical in form with the middle figure, in an oval barrow on Winterbourn Stoke Down, about a mile and a half north-west of Stonehenge, close to the head of a contracted skeleton. They are most skilfully chipped on both faces, which are equally convex, and they are not more than a quarter of an inch in thickness. Three are leaf-shaped, and one lozenge-shaped, and this latter, though larger, is thinner and more delicate. They have acquired a milky, porcellanous surface while lying in the earth. They are all four now in the British Museum. As has been remarked by Dr. Thurnam, objects of this description have rarely been found in barrows.

Fig. 273. Fig. 274. Fig. 275.

Winterbourn Stoke.]

The two javelin-heads, if such they be, found by Mr. J. R. Mortimer in the Calais Wold barrow, near Pocklington, Yorkshire,[1688] are lozenge-shaped and much more acutely pointed, and were accompanied by two lozenge-shaped arrow-heads. By the kindness of the late Mr. Llewellynn Jewitt they are all four here reproduced as Figs. 276 to 279. A similar javelin-head to Fig. 277, 2 3∕4 inches long, now in the British Museum, was found by the late Lord Londesborough in a barrow on Seamer |372| Moor, near Scarborough.[1689] A fine lozenge-shaped javelin-head (5 inches) was found with arrow-heads, scrapers, and knives, near Longcliffe,[1690] Derbyshire, and some delicate arrow-heads, broken, at Harborough Rocks,[1691] in the same county. Javelin-heads of much the same form as those from Winterbourn Stoke and Calais Wold occur not unfrequently in Ireland, but are rarely quite so delicately chipped. Lozenge-shaped arrow-heads are recorded from a cairn at Unstan,[1692] Orkney, and from the Culbin Sands.[1693] The class having both faces polished, though still only chipped at the edges, like Wilde’s[1694] Fig. 27, has not, except in Portugal, as yet occurred out of Ireland. A few of these may have served as knives or daggers, as they are intentionally rounded by grinding at the more tapered end, which at first sight appears to have been intended for the point and not for the handle. The long lozenge-shaped form is found in the Government of Vladimir, Russia.[1695]

Fig. 276. Fig. 277. Fig. 278. Fig. 279.

Calais Wold Barrow.]

Large lozenge-shaped lance-heads were occasionally in use among the North American Indians;[1696] but the more usual form is a long blade, notched at the base to receive the ligature which binds it to the shaft. |373|

* * * * *

Of leaf-shaped arrow-heads, which form the first class now to be described, there are several minor varieties, both in outline and section, some being longer in proportion to their breadth than others, rounder or more pointed at the base, thicker or thinner, or more carefully chipped on one face than the other. A few typical examples are given full size in the annexed woodcuts. The originals are all in my own collection, unless otherwise specified.

* * * * *

Fig. 280 is from the neighbourhood of Icklingham, Suffolk, of flint become nearly white by weathering, and carefully chipped on both faces, one of which is, however, more convex than the other. I have a larger but imperfect specimen of the same form from Oundle. A nearly similar arrow-head, of yellow flint, from Hoxne, Suffolk, has been figured.[1697] It was supposed to have occurred in the same deposit as that containing large palæolithic implements and elephant remains; but nothing certain is known on this point, and from the form there can be no hesitation in assigning it to the Neolithic Period. A rather smaller arrow-head, but of much the same character, was found at Bradford Abbas, Dorset.[1698] Professor Buckman had several leaf-shaped arrows from the same neighbourhood. Some of them were long and slender, more like Fig. 286.

In Fig. 281 is shown an arrow-head of rather broader proportions, from Gunthorpe, Lincolnshire, which has been engraved in the _Reliquary_,[1699] whence the block is borrowed. I have specimens of the same form, delicately chipped on both faces, and found near Icklingham and Lakenheath, Suffolk. Occasionally, one face of the arrow-heads of this form is left nearly flat.

Fig. 282 shows a smaller specimen in the extensive Greenwell Collection. In this instance, the flake from which the arrow-head was made has been but little retouched on the flat face. It is slightly curved |374| longitudinally, but probably not to a sufficient extent to affect the flight of the arrow. This form is of common occurrence on the Yorkshire Wolds, though very variable in its proportions, and also in point of symmetry, both as regards outline and similarity of the two faces.

In Fig. 283 is shown another and broader form, from Butterwick, on the Yorkshire Wolds. It is in the same collection, and is worked on both faces. The sides are slightly ogival, so as to produce a sharper point.

Occasionally, instead of being sharply pointed, arrow-heads are more oval in form. An instance of this kind is given in Fig. 284, the original of which was found by Mr. Francis Galton, F.R.S., on the occasion of a visit with me to the camp of Little Solsbury Hill, near Bath. It is of flint that has become white with exposure, equally convex on the two faces, and rather thick in proportion to its size. I have a somewhat similar but broader specimen from the camp of Maiden Bower, near Dunstable, and others even more rounded at the point, and larger and thinner, from Willerby Wold, Yorkshire, and from Icklingham. I have one Yorkshire specimen, which is almost circular in form, and bears traces of grinding on one of its faces. In the Greenwell Collection are specimens of almost all intermediate proportions between an oval like Fig. 284 and a perfect circle. |375|

More lanceolate forms are shown in Figs. 285 and 286, both from Yorkshire. Fig. 285, though worked on both faces, still exhibits portions of the original surface of the flake from which it was made; but Fig. 286, from Grindale, near Bridlington, is of transparent chalcedonic flint, beautifully and symmetrically worked over both faces. This elongated form is not of common occurrence. I have a beautiful example, of the same general character, but pointed at either end, found near Icklingham, Suffolk. A large example of this form, from Derbyshire, in the Bateman Collection, may have been a javelin-head.

Other and shorter forms are shown in Figs. 287 and 288, the former of which has been made from a flat flake, the original surface of which remains intact on a large portion of each face. Fig. 288, on the contrary, is carefully chipped over the whole of both faces, which are equally convex. It has a slightly heart-shaped form.

* * * * *

It will have been observed that in all these specimens the base of the arrow-head is much more rounded that the point. This, however, is by no means universally the case with the leaf-shaped arrow-heads, the bases of which are in some instances almost, if not quite, as acute as the points. It is, in fact, sometimes difficult to say which of the ends was intended for the point.

* * * * *

Fig. 289 shows a large arrow-head from Lakenheath, Suffolk, from the collection of the late Mr. J. W. Flower, F.G.S. It is equally convex on both faces, and almost equally sharp at both ends. In the Greenwell Collection are similar specimens from Burnt Fen, Cambs. |376| Others, of the same character, but of smaller size, are engraved in Figs. 290 and 291. Both the originals are from the Yorkshire Wolds.

That shown in Fig. 290 is in the Greenwell Collection. It is thin, slightly curved longitudinally, and very neatly worked into shape at the edges. It is a form of not unfrequent occurrence in the Yorkshire Wolds, sometimes of larger dimensions, and more roughly chipped, but more commonly of smaller size. I have a beautifully-made arrow-head of nearly the same size and shape, found at Lakenheath, Suffolk. It is not more than one-eighth of an inch in thickness. One of wider proportions from Burnt Fen is in the Greenwell Collection. Fig. 291 is thicker in proportion to its width, more convex on one face than the other, and less acutely pointed at the base.

In Figs. 292 and 293 are shown some more or less unsymmetrical varieties of form. Fig. 292 is, towards the point, equally convex on each face; but at the base the flat inner face of the original flake has been left untouched, so that the edge is like that of a “scraper,” or of a round-nosed chisel. Though the point is, in all respects, identical with that of undoubted arrow-heads, and though I have placed it here among them, it is possible that that end may, after all, have been intended for insertion in a handle, and that it was a small cutting tool, and not an arrow-head.

There can be no doubt of the purpose of Fig. 293, which is of white flint delicately chipped, and is equally convex on the two faces. On one side the outline is almost angular, instead of forming a regular sweep, so that it shows how easy is the passage from the leaf-shape to the lozenge form.

There are often instances like that afforded by the arrow-head engraved in Fig. 294, where it is hard to say under which form a specimen should be placed. The original of this figure forms part of the Greenwell Collection, and is neatly worked on both faces. I have a somewhat broader arrow-head of the same character, which I found in the camp of Maiden Bower, near Dunstable. General Pitt Rivers found one of the same form, and one like Fig. 311, within an earthwork at Callow Hill,[1700] Oxfordshire. Another was found with a perforated hammer, a flint flake ground at the edge, some scrapers, and other objects, in a cairn in Caithness.[1701] One like Fig. 294, but smaller, was found in the Horned Cairn[1702] of Get, at Garrywhin, Caithness. A large specimen from Glenluce[1703] has been figured. Another, very thin, found at Urquhart, Elgin, is in the Edinburgh Museum.

* * * * *

It is to arrow-heads of this leaf-shaped form, but approximating |377| closely to the lozenge-shaped, that Dr. Thurnam[1704] is inclined to assign a connection with the class of tumuli known as long barrows; and in support of this view he has cited several cases of their discovery in this form of barrow, in which no barbed arrow-heads have hitherto been found. Some leaf-shaped arrow-heads were found in a long barrow at Walker’s Hill, Wilts.[1705]

* * * * *

The annexed cut, kindly furnished by the Society of Antiquaries, shows an arrow-head from a long barrow near Fyfield, Wilts. It is delicately chipped, and weighs only forty-three grains. Another, 1 1∕2 inches in length, from a long barrow on Alton Down, is of surprising thinness, and weighs only thirty grains. Others, it would seem purposely injured at the point, were found in the long chambered barrow at Rodmarton, Gloucestershire.[1706] Others, again, were found by Mr. Bateman in long barrows in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. One of these, from Ringham Low, is 2 1∕4 inches long and 1 inch broad, yet weighs less than forty-eight grains. In Long Low, Wetton,[1707] were three such arrow-heads, and many flakes of flint. Dr. Thurnam, in speaking of the leaf-shaped as the long-barrow type of arrow-head, does not restrict it to that form of tumulus, but merely indicates it as that which is alone found there. The form indeed occurred elsewhere, thus, one was found in a bowl-shaped barrow at Ogbourne,[1708] Wilts.

The Calais Wold barrow,[1709] already mentioned as having produced four lozenge-shaped javelin and arrow heads, is circular, while that on Pistle Down, Dorsetshire,[1710] which contained four beautifully-chipped arrow-heads of this type, is oblong.

Leaf-shaped arrow-heads are mentioned as having been found with burnt bones in Grub Low, Staffordshire.[1711] The same forms, more or less carefully chipped, and occasionally almost flat on the face, are frequently found on the surface in various parts of Scotland,[1712] especially in the counties of Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, and Moray. One not of flint, but apparently of quartzite, was found near Glenluce,[1713] Wigtownshire. Numbers have been found on the Culbin Sands,[1714] and at Urquhart.[1715] They are comparatively abundant in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Suffolk, but rarer in the southern counties of England. They |378| have been found at Grovehurst,[1716] near Milton, Kent, and I have picked up a specimen near Kit’s Coty House. I have seen specimens found at Redhill, near Reigate;[1717] near Bournemouth; at Prince Town, Dartmoor; and near Oundle; besides the localities already mentioned.

Typical lozenge-shaped arrow-heads are, in Britain, and, indeed, in other countries, rarer than the leaf-shaped. That shown in Fig. 296 has been made from a flat flake, and is nicely chipped on both faces, though not quite straight longitudinally. It was found at Northdale Farm, Grindale, Bridlington. A Scottish specimen, from Urquhart,[1718] Elginshire, slightly smaller, has been figured. The original of Fig. 297 forms part of the Greenwell Collection, and has been made from a very thin, transparent flake. It is rather less worked on the face opposite to that here shown. It was found at Newton Ketton, Durham. One like Fig. 297 was found on Bull Hill,[1719] Lancashire. A regularly-chipped arrow-head of lozenge shape is said to have been found at Cutterly Clump, Wilts;[1720] and I have seen a few specimens from Derbyshire. Those from the Calais Wold Barrow have already been mentioned.

A diamond-shaped arrow-head was found at Cregneesh,[1721] Isle of Man; and another, as well as one of leaf shape, within a stone circle near Port Erin.[1722] Lozenge-shaped arrow-heads are frequently found in Scotland.

A more elongated form is shown in Figs. 298 and 299, taken from specimens found on the Yorkshire Wolds. Both of them are neatly chipped on either face, and have but little left of the original surface of the flakes from which they were formed. One of the shorter sides of Fig. 299 is somewhat hollowed, _possibly_ to give a slight shoulder, and thus prevent its being driven into the shaft.

This is more evidently the case with the arrow-head represented in |379| Fig. 300, which, like so many others, comes from the Wolds of Yorkshire. It is made from a slightly curved flake, and is more convex on one face than the other, especially at the stem or tang.

In the collection of Messrs. Mortimer, of Driffield, is another Yorkshire arrow-head, which is leaf-shaped, but provided with a slight tang.

Leaf-shaped arrow-heads, with a decided stem like that of the leaf, found in Arabia and Japan, will be mentioned at a subsequent page.

Another of these stemmed but barbless arrow-heads, from the same district, is shown in Fig. 301. It was found at Amotherby, near Malton, and was given to me by the late Mr. Charles Monkman, of that place. It has been made from a flat flake, and has been worked into shape by a slight amount of chipping along the edges, which does not extend over the face. There are numerous arrow-heads of the same class, though not of the same form, which have been made from flakes of the proper thickness, by a little secondary working to give them a point, and by slightly trimming the butt-end of the flake. They usually approximate to the leaf-shape in form, but, as might be expected, vary considerably in size, proportions, and the amount of symmetry displayed. It seems needless to engrave specimens.

The weapon point shown in Fig. 302 is so large that possibly it may be regarded as that of a javelin, and not of an arrow. In was in the collection of Mr. H. Durden, of Blandford, and is now in the British Museum. It was found on Iwerne Minster Down, Dorsetshire. It is boldly and symmetrically chipped, thick in proportion to its breadth, and equally convex on both faces; though distinctly stemmed, it can hardly be said to be barbed. It much resembles an Italian specimen in the Arsenal of Turin.[1723]

A somewhat more distinctly-barbed arrow-head from the Yorkshire Wolds is represented in Fig. 303. Its thickness, 5∕16 inch, is great in proportion to its size; the two faces are equally convex, and the stem widens out slightly at the base. The same is the case with a smaller and thinner arrow-head in my collection, of somewhat similar form, found near the camp of Maiden Bower, Dunstable. A third, from the Yorkshire Wolds, presents the same peculiarity, which is still more apparent in an arrow-head from a barrow on Seamer Moor, near Scarborough,[1724] if indeed it has been correctly figured. |380|

A magnificent specimen of much the same type as Fig. 303, but nearly twice as long, has been kindly lent me for engraving by Messrs. Mortimer, of Driffield, Yorkshire. It was found in the neighbourhood of Fimber, and is shown in Fig. 304. It is neatly chipped over both faces, which are equally convex, and the stem is carefully shaped and of considerable thickness. The edges, as is not unfrequently the case, are serrated.

The fine arrow-head engraved as Fig. 305 shows the barbs or “witters” still more strongly developed. One of them is, however, less pointed than the other. From its size, this and others may have formed the heads of javelins rather than of arrows, though arrow-heads as large are still in use among some savage tribes. It was found at Pick Rudge Farm,[1725] Overton, Wilts, in company with the oblong implement engraved as Fig. 255. It is now in the Blackmore Museum, the Trustees of which kindly allowed me to figure it.

I have a very fine specimen with even longer barbs, from Ashwell, Herts, which is shown in Fig. 305A.

Fig. 306 represents another unusually large specimen, found on Sherburn Wold, Yorkshire. It is nicely worked on both faces, and the end of the stem or tang has been carefully chipped to a sharp semicircular edge, well adapted for fixing into the split shaft. One similar to it was found on Bull Hill,[1726] Lancashire. Mr. A. C. Savin, of Cromer, |381| has a rather smaller arrow-head of this type, but with the sides more curved outwards, like Fig. 313, found near Aylsham. Barbed arrow-heads of various forms and sizes are of frequent occurrence in some parts of the Yorkshire Wolds and Moors, and in parts of Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, Suffolk and Derbyshire.

Fig. 307. Fig. 308. Fig. 309.

Fig. 310. Fig. 311. Fig. 312.

Yorkshire Wolds.]

It would be tedious to attempt to exhibit all the different varieties, but specimens of the more ordinary forms are given in Figs. 307 to 312, from originals principally in the Greenwell Collection. As a rule, there is but little difference in the convexity of the two faces, though very |382| frequently one face is decidedly flatter than the other; and occasionally the flat face of the original flake has been left almost untouched. Fig. 311 affords an example of this kind, being nearly flat on the face not shown, while the other face still retains part of the crust of the flint nodule from which the flake was struck. The central stem or tang varies much in its proportions to the size of the arrow-head, and occasionally forms but an inconsiderable projection, as in Fig. 309, making the form approximate to the triangular. Sometimes, as in Fig. 312, the ends of the barbs are carefully chipped straight, as is the case with many arrow-heads from the more southern parts of England, some of which will shortly be noticed. An arrow-head like Fig. 312 was found near Ashwell,[1727] Herts.

Before quitting the arrow-heads of the Yorkshire Wolds, I must insert figures of two other specimens illustrative of another form. Of these, that shown in Fig. 313 was found at Northdale Farm, Grindale, Bridlington. It is thick in proportion to its size, and skilfully chipped on both faces. The tang is thin and slight. The other arrow-head Fig. 314 is not so thick in proportion. In both, if the sweep of the outline were continued past the barbs, it would about meet the extremity of the tang, and give a leaf-shaped form; so that it seems probable that this class was made by first chipping out the simple leaf-shaped form, and then working in a notch on either side to produce the tangs and barbs. The same type occurs in Suffolk. An exaggerated example, rather like Fig. 320 but broader, found near Icklingham, is shown in Fig. 314A.

The next specimen that I have selected for engraving, Fig. 315, is from another part of the country, having been found by myself in 1866 on the surface of a field, at the foot of the Chalk escarpment between Eddlesborough and Tring, Herts. It can hardly be regarded as unfinished, though one of the surfaces is very rough and the outline far from symmetrical. It rather shows how rude were some of the appliances of our savage predecessors in Britain. Curiously enough, some barbed flint arrow-heads of nearly similar form, and but little more |383| symmetrical (to judge from the engravings), were found in 1763 at Tring Grove, Herts,[1728] with an extended skeleton. They lay between the legs, and at the feet were some of the perforated plates of greenish stone of the character of Fig. 354. An arrow-head of much the same form was found in a barrow near Tenby,[1729] with human bones and a part of a curious ring-shaped ornament, supposed to be of ivory. The long tapering arrow-head shown in Fig. 316 affords a contrast to this broad form. Its barbs are unfortunately not quite perfect, but the form being uncommon I have engraved it. It was found in Reach Fen, Cambridgeshire. A ruder example of the same form as Fig. 316, from Bourn Fen, has been figured in Miller and Skertchly’s “Fen-land.”[1730] A longer specimen, almost as acutely pointed, and with square-ended barbs, found on Lanchester Common,[1731] Durham, is in the Museum of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle. I have several others of the same type from Suffolk, some with the sides curved slightly inwards.

The next Figure (317) is illustrative of the extraordinary amount of care and skill that was sometimes bestowed on the manufacture of objects so liable to be broken or lost in use as arrow-heads. This specimen was found at Isleham, Cambridgeshire, and has unfortunately lost its central stem, the outline of which I have restored from a nearly similar arrow-head found at Icklingham, Suffolk, which has lost both its barbs. It is very thin, so much so that its weight is only thirty-eight grains, but it is neatly chipped over the whole of both faces. Nothing, however, can exceed the beautiful regularity of the minute chipping by which the final outline was given to the edges, extremely small flakes having been removed at regular intervals so close to each other that there are twenty of them in an inch. The inner sides and ends of the barbs are worked perfectly straight, the ends forming right angles to the sides of the arrow-head, and the inner sides being nearly parallel with each other, so that the barbs are somewhat dovetailed in form.

The broader, but almost equally beautiful arrow-head shown in Fig. |384| 318 was found in front of the face of an unburnt body, in a barrow at Rudstone, near Bridlington, by Canon Greenwell. I have a beautiful specimen of the same type from Dorchester Dykes, Oxon, given to me by the late Mr. Davey, of Wantage. It is shown in Fig 318A. A less highly finished example from Chatteris Fen[1732] has been figured.

The ends of the barbs thus chipped straight sometimes, as in Fig. 312, form a straight line. Occasionally, as in the arrow-heads found by Sir R. Colt Hoare[1733] in one of the Everley barrows, the base of the barbs forms an obtuse angle with the sides of the arrow-head, so that there is a sharp point at the inner side of the barbs. In others the end forms an acute angle with the sides of the arrow-head, so that the point of each barb is at the outer side. A beautiful specimen of this kind is shown in Fig. 319. It is one of six, varying in size and somewhat in shape, but all beautifully worked, found in barrows on Lambourn Down, Berks, and now in the British Museum. In some few instances the sides of the arrow-head are rather ogival in form (like the Scotch |385| specimen, Fig. 326), which adds to the acuteness of the point. In one of this character from a barrow on the Ridgeway Hill,[1734] Dorsetshire, and others from one of the Woodyates barrows,[1735] the barbs are also acutely pointed at the outer side. I have a rather smaller specimen than that figured, from Lakenheath, Suffolk, and others from Thetford and Reach Fen, with the sides even more ogival than in Fig. 326. Others of the same character, found in Derbyshire, are in the Bateman Collection. In some of the arrow-heads[1736] from the Wiltshire barrows the barbs are inordinately prolonged beyond the central tang, which is very small. Fig. 320, copied from Hoare,[1737] gives one of those from a barrow near Fovant, found with a contracted interment, in company with a bronze dagger and pin, and some jet ornaments. One of similar character was found in a barrow on Windmill Hill,[1738] Avebury, but its barbs are not so long. An arrow-head with equally long barbs, but with the central tang of the same length as the barbs, was found in a dolmen in the Morbihan, and is in the Musée de St. Germain.

Before proceeding to notice one or two Scottish specimens, I must devote a short space to an exceptional form of arrow-head shown in Fig. 321. Like so many others, it is from the Yorkshire Moors, and was probably either barbed on both sides or intended to have been so. But one of the barbs having been broken off, possibly in the course of manufacture, the design has been modified, and the stump, so to speak, of the barb, has been rounded off in a neat manner by surface-flaking on both faces. The one-barbed arrow-head thus resulting presents some analogies with several of the triangular form, such as Figs. 336 to 338, about to be described.

Arrow-heads either accidentally lost before they were finished, or thrown away as “wasters,” in consequence of having been spoilt in the making, are occasionally found. Examples, apparently of both classes, are shown in Figs. 322 and 323. The originals form part of the Greenwell Collection. Fig. 322, from Sherburn Wold, appears to have been completely finished, with the exception of the notch on one side of the central tang. The face not shown in the figure exhibits on the left side a considerable portion of the surface of the original flake, the edge of which has been neatly trimmed along the right side of the face here shown. The base has been chipped on both faces to a sharp hollow edge, in which one notch has been neatly worked to form the barb and one side of the stem. There is no apparent reason why |386| the other notch should not have been formed, so that the probability is that the arrow-head was lost just before completion. In the other case the arrow-head, after being skilfully chipped on both faces into a triangular form, has had one of the notches worked in its base; but in effecting this the tool has been brought so near the centre of the head as to leave insufficient material for the tang, and the barb has also been broken off. In this condition it appears to have been thrown away as a waster.

Whether these views be correct or not, one deduction seems allowable, viz., that the barbed flint arrow-heads were, as a rule, finished at their points, and approximately brought into shape at their base, before the notches were worked to form the central tang and develop the barbs.

A curious double-pointed arrow-head from Brompton,[1739] Yorkshire, is, by the kindness of the Society of Antiquaries, shown in Fig. 323A. It had probably at first only a single point, and having been broken was trimmed into its present shape. Some of the “exceptional” forms from Brionio, in the Veronese, approximate to this, but with all respect to the Italian archæologists, I agree with Mr. Thomas Wilson,[1740] and cannot accept these forms as genuine.