Just bought this on ebay. Now I'm going to see, if I can figure out how to cast them myself  

Mauro Fiorentini wrote on Dec 25^th, 2011 at 3:07pm:


That is exactly what I intend to do. I just need to figure out how the old ones did it. As I see it, it will need to be a four-part mold. I'm 'desperately' googling for arrowhead molds 

Masiakasaurus wrote on Dec 25^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:


I can see what you mean, and it's a very good idea, especially the little vanes on the upper part.

Problem is, that if I want it to be authentic, the body is actually conical, not cylindrical, so I'd be unable to get the upper part off the arrowhead. M
ost of the arrowheads I have looked at so far have a conical body.

I've found drawings of ONE mold - it's in six parts for three arrowheads with a quadratic, armor-piercing profile.

I wonder if you could make it as a "one piece" ie. extend the fins on the pattern so that it can be merely inserted full depth into the casting sand. Then, once the casting is made, machine back the fins to the desired shape and drill a hole in the base to accomodate the arrow shaft. A bit more machining required but greatly simplifies the casting process. What do you think?

Looking at some other arrowheads, I have to conclude that they were cast in five part molds. Several of the arrowheads that I've seen pictures of, have ridges from the casting in continuation of the vanes. Three 120° pieces with seams along the vanes, a bottom plate with a spike and, a top ring to keep the three 120° parts pressed tightly together.

In the one mold I've seen so far, casting was done from the point.

BTW: I wouldn't be the least surprised if the "ancient arrowhead" I've just bought, turned out to be cast last year - the seller is from China

Mauro Fiorentini wrote on Dec 26^th, 2011 at 11:59am:

There is nothing rational about wanting to cast my own arrowheads. It would most likely be cheaper (and much easier) to buy modern broadheads. But, I'd simply like to be able to do it. There is something immensely satisfying about having made things yourself.

I have more or less promised my younger son that we build a couple of bows this spring or summer. The older one will be building his own at school this spring. Following that up with casting our own arrowheads would be a certain hit

jlasud wrote on Dec 26^th, 2011 at 3:47am:

Yes, cire perdue is most definitely the way to go for small volumes. Making a proper multi-part mold is a somewhat more ambitious undertaking - even if made from clay.

I don't think I'd be able/allowed by my wife to do any casting/smithing at my current address, as I have too much junk already I'm thinking that I need to contact some of the hobby smiths in my area and pick their braaaaaaains (drool)

Incidently; the alleged ancient arrowhead was cheaper than a modern broadhead. Certainly more inspiring

Here's a British alternative http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/aegean_swords.htm. The Chinese are still cheaper.

Hallo Ping!
I don't have any information right now, but I'll meet my friend tomorrow (he's the bronze melter  ) and I'll ask him!
Generally, lesser lead gives a stronger alloy, altough harder to melt. Alloys during Italian Medium and Recent Bronze Age (1500 - 1100 b.C) did not contain more than 10% of tin, and hardly 1, 2% of lead.
This was different from tool to tool (a fibula had more lead than an axe, for example), plus they used to melt destroyed or ancient objects, so that the alloy percentages were often uncertain.
A working tool or a weapon had to be stronger than a decoration; I believe that they obtained this also by heathing and hammering its edge.

By the way, the arrowheads we melted have never been used, so I can't tell if the percentages were correct. Anyway, these were 94% copper - 6% tin, and no lead at all. Arrowheads were flat, with a central rib, and were melted in series of 4. I could post pictures, shall I found them!

Greetings,
Mauro.