Let me just quote Korfmann.  

Quote:


And to further back this data up, here's a quote from Hondero's wonderful book at Project Goliath http://slinging.org/wiki2/index.php/Main/PROJECTILES

Quote:


The entire page where this quote comes from is well worth reading for anyone interested in this subject.

If anyone likes slinging heavy, that's great.  Many ancients did, and heavy projectiles from long slings deliver the most energy to their targets, as a rule.  Obviously the Balearic Islanders, the Persians and others which have been mentioned, slung large projectiles.  

Yet just the same, the majority of stone, clay or lead sling missiles found and described in Korfmann's landmark work and in Project Goliath, were under 50 grams.

Please note also that the stones found at these sights do stand out as being used for slings because they have been shaped.  They aren't your average river rocks, but rather carved football shaped stone projectiles which clearly distinguish themselves from the natural surroundings.

If that's like slinging a pack of cigarettes and wouldn't even kill a bird, then I guess the ancients must have been hunting mice or something?  Or else the alternative was that they had far more velocity and accuracy behind their shots then we are presently imagining, making every shot worth the great efforts they put into crafting and shaping the projectiles they used, be they stone, clay or lead.

Out of 22 votes so far, we only have one vote for the weight range described by both Korfmann and Hondero.  

Interesting reply, Whipartist. A few points:

Zangemeister's publication is one of the basic, and early sling bullet publications-- so his figures apply to lead bullets (Asculum, Perugia). The Sicilian ones (this is before the big Monte Iato excavations) are probably clay. So: lead bullets weight usually btw 25 and 50 g. You are right that some stone projectiles, and clay biconals, are also in the light range.

But this does not mean that we should sling light stones if we want to imitate the ancients, nor that the ancients 'usually slung light". The stone "acorns" and the clay biconals are in fact rare, and to be considered huting ammo. or short-lived solutions or special ammo (as in heated clay bullets); most ancient sling stones were big and heavy, as shown by visual evidence, from the Makron cup (480 BC) to Trajan's column (AD 117), and by archaeological finds where documented. Most sling stones, of course, will not show up as such in the evidence.

[Edited for spelling of Makron]

Quote:


Quite rare?  The trusted sources I quoted from express them as being the dominant stuff found.  How can anyone know that they are hunting ammo?  Please cite your source for this opinion.

Quote:


The Makron cup offers absolutely nothing in the form of proportion.  The stone in the sling cradle is about two to three times the size of the stones bouncing out of the bag carried oddly on his arm, which should be free for battle and balance.  I wonder if size 15 4E feet were common among ancient slingers as well?  

Trajan's Column is the same thing as above.  Does anybody on slinging.org sling grapefruit sized stones with a sling shorter than the length of their forearm?  Once again the stone in the sling is more than twice the size of the ones in his tunic.  In fact that stone is as big as his size 5 6E foot.  His toes are long enough to be used for fingers.   The handle on his sword doubles as a toothpick once you unscrew the pommel.

Can anyone figure out how the slinger on Trajan's Column reloads his sling, once he lets go of his first shot?  His left arm and hand are completely pre-occupied both with a heavy shield in his hand, and in holding those big stones in his tunic from falling out.  Have you ever tried to reload your sling without your other hand?  

Also, judging by the way his tunic is slung over his arm, balancing the weight out of all those stones, that tunic is either made of lead lined fabric or else those stones are actually really light in weight, and exaggerated in size only for artistic reasons.  Because if those are big rocks, the weight of that tunic isn't going to hold them up for a second.  

These artistic representations of slingers show little more than that slingers were around at the time of the artist's work, that they slung things they carried in quantity, and that they were in battles.  The pictures seem to me to indicate a stylized unfamiliarity with some of the realities of actually using the weapon.    

Crude disproportionate artistic pictures are poor evidence of proportion, size, and weight of real world items.

Quote:


Which documented finds? 

Quote:


That's an argument from silence.  Actually even natural river stones really stand out when they are found, away from rivers.

I don't doubt that many ancient slingers slung big.  But the sources I quoted show stone and clay projectiles in the lower weight ranges as being the dominant finds.  Until I am made aware of other finds which show that the above sources are out of date, I have to conclude they aren't.  

Quote:


The shaped sling projectiles were definitely not shot, which is logically round or else just crude small river stones.  There is zero point to taking minutes if not hours and hours to carve a perfectly shaped ovoid out of solid rock, just in order to sling it in the form of shot.  Shot achieves its effect through dispersal and quantity, not specially carved shape.  

Also, if this were the case then I'm assuming that you'd also expect glandes to be a form of shot, given that they are in the same shape and weight class as the stones?

It's fine if many people on slinging.org like to sling heavy.  It is a valid way to sling both historically and for physical reasons.  But no modern slinger's preference changes history.  I think lighter weight sling projectiles have not been an adequately explored subject among us modern slingers and merely want to point that out.  

@Whipartist:

I write about the period I know best, classical Graeco-Roman antiquity. Clay biconals are a rarity. Stone 'acorns" are nearly unknown. Case: the "small material" from Kameiros on Rhodes, published by the Italians, in monographs ans as aprt of the Annuario della Scuola Archeologica di Atene. I've read the excavation reports One shaped stone bullet (Italian exavation), as opposed to 20-30 sling bullets out of lead. This does not include the countless lead bullets from the countryside (Kalavarda).  Case: excavation of the Pythion at Athens, or of the shrine of Athena at Stympahos: lots of lead sling bullets, no clay or "stone acorns"

It is true that clay is found e.g in N. Africa or Syria (Bronze age). Also in Sicily (Monte Iato).

Hunting ammo: this is my speculation, based on two things-- 1. it takes surprisingly little shock to kill a bird. 2. It is a good idea not to mash the bird.

Makron cup: the point is that this slinger is throwing big round things, the "hand-filling stones" known from the literary sources. Another C5th cup shows a big chunky stone.

Trajan's column: perhaps the sling size is problematic, and the coat fold has been a puzzle. But the artist assumes that sling stones are big.

Liv. 38.20-21 shows Acilius Glabrio, in his campaign against the Galatians, gathering lots of projectiles for the forthcoming battle, including "mid-sized stones that can be thrown with the sling".

Archaeological finds: those quoted above, and of course Maiden Castle.

It's not quite an argument from silence, it's an argument from absence, and from pattern of finds corresponding to visual and literary sources.

Therefore: I submit that slinging very light stones does not reflect widespread ancient practice; perhaps hunting practice. Whipartist is right to draw attention to the lightness of clay bullets. But by the "golden age of slinging" (400-50 BC), the choices are "smashers", heavy stones, or "hi-velocity", light lead sling bullets.

(Edited: spelling of Pythion corrected. Monte Iato added.)

In other words: clay projectiles and stone 'acorns" are light. But they are not the predominant projectiles for slings.

Yes, it's a good piece. Maybe people with sling bullets in bags being chased indoors and killed there ?

Hmmm... If your balls are lighter than your friends guessed, it might be a surprise. It does not, however, necessarily allow conclusions about other people on this forum estimating their weights inaccurately.