Talk:Arrowhead

Prehistoric Arrowheads

The passage stating that arrowheads commonly found were not used by historic period American Indians is codswallop. True, many arowheads found in soil do date back as far as 15000 years B.P. which predates the North American invention of the bow, however a great number of artifacts found date from much more recent times, and were certainly hafted to modern arrowshafts and used by historid Indians with modern bows. P.S. the greengrocer's apostrophe in "bow's" is an embarassment. Please remove it promptly.

Small article

This article does not give much information about arrowheads at all. The article does not discuss the usefulness of an arrowhead (i.e., so the arrow stays in the animal), popular excavation sites, different types of arrowheads or modern arrowhead styles. I realize that it speaks about arrowheads as if they are artifacts, but there is so much more that could be said. As mentioned by Bat King, arrowheads are alive and well.

Why did we first make arrowheads? What function do they serve? Where are they most commonly found? What would a stereotypical arrowhead look like (picture) if I found one in my backyard? What are the proven advantages to an arrowhead? What are arrowheads made of nowadays? Why are they important to bow hunting? What types arrowheads do modern hunters prefer? How about modern sports archers? What are the different styles of arrowheads? What about the "glass bottle" arrowheads fashioned by the aborigines in an attempt to use resources from the modern world? There are endless possibilities.

For the most commonly found artifact in the world, this entry on arrowheads is quite lacking.

Current edit much improved

The current edit is much better.

misleading

I've edited the bow's issue that is mentioned above.

I find this article very misleading as arrowheads are spoken of as though they are only arcaelogical finds. Arrowheads are alive and well, you find them on arrows in use throughout the world. The article is also a little misleading as though it mentions the rest of the world it then concentrates only on North America.

Needs amending to mention arrowheads from different continents, including the fact that they have been commonly made from metal in many countries for several centuries.Bat King

I've also now broken up the paragraphs a little to make editing and expanding easier. I have also added some detail about arrowheads from different countries and periods of history. The article is still however in need of some more work I think.Bat King 29/07/07

Historic Period American Indians?

Is this a correct term? Never heard of it if it is - I'll look elsewhere for confirmation unless someone finds it first. - Bat king

• I think the whole passage needs revision:

- In North America, Arrowheads are sometimes mistakenly attributed to the Historic Period American Indians, but are actually from North America's prehistoric ancestors; some arrowheads date back to over 15,000+ years old (Paleo-Clovis Culture). -

• Perhaps more like:
  

- In North America, Arrowheads that are found by hobbyists are sometimes mistakenly attributed to the early Native Americans, but are actually from their prehistoric ancestors; some arrowheads date back to over 15,000+ years old (Paleo-Clovis Culture). -

• Though perhaps this still needs checking for accuracy and referencing. Bat king

Arrowhead myth

Its worth a mention that the ancient Chinese did cast arrowheads (and for crossbow) in bronze, and archery remained in use well into the middle ages ( see Chinese armies (pre-1911)). Also, having never heard this myth, this section should explain origins of the myth -- never heard of it in europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.98.142 (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Bodkins. May I suggest that the text relating to these arrowheads is entirely wrong. It is well recorded that at Agincourt the Welsh archers grabbed dobs of clay from the soil about them and put them on their arrowheads, thus enhancing what was essentially a squash head missile. To kill a horse you need to penetrate the frontal armour by at least about 12 inches. This was achieved by the dynamics of the arrow, where the arrow compressed upon impact and then, as the arrow expanded, drove the arrow in deeper during the brief moment the soft-ish arrowhead was in contact with the armour. Plate armour may have protected the men from arrows but in any event the horses head would make trying to target the man difficult. Indeed the English/Welsh Army wanted the men alive for hostages. While hundreds of arrows launched into the sky may look good on film, as at Crecy the real damage was done by a well trained man standing behind a sharpened stake with a bodkin tipped arrow taking deliberate aim at the horse's frontal armour. Drg40 (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sibudu Cave

The paper (Marlize Lombard and Laurel Phillipson. (2010). Antiquity Vol 84:325, 2010 pp 635-648Indications of bow and stone-tipped arrow use 64 000 years ago in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa) seems to provide good evidence for the use of projectile points, but the "contextual evidence" that these things were launched from bows strikes me as over-reported, amounting to "they probably had strong cord and knots". I have rewritten this section using quotations to make the cautious nature of the actual conclusions a bit clearer. I'd love this to be definite evidence of archery 60+ millennia ago, but it seems to be suggestive only. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arrowhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925203752/http://www.huntingblades.com:80/mevsfiblbr.html to http://www.huntingblades.com/mevsfiblbr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"Broadheaded" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Broadheaded and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 14#Broadheaded until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)