![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,120
|
![]()
These differences are why I posted it here. I am not pushing for it to be something it is not, I am wanting input as to what it might be.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: In the wee woods north of Napanee Ontario
Posts: 395
|
![]()
The closest lance head yours resembles is the British 1846 with the long langets removed and a tang added. Ref: The Cavalry Lance, Alan Larsen & Henry Yallop
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,120
|
![]()
Well it's not one of them! I am still looking for what it might be.... The problem is that the sharp end sends one message, and the tang end a different one.
The closest I have found is an Indonesian spear, with the head made out of Wootz. Last edited by David R; 7th March 2020 at 07:11 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,280
|
![]()
Hmmmm............wootz............could it be a Persian or Indian traded spearhead then?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,120
|
![]()
I just don't know! That will have to wait on me doing a quick scrub and etch.
It's a frustrating piece. The blade shape has been a "go too" for a rigid stabbing spear since the bronze age, so is really more about function than ethnicity. I see example from bronze age Luristan, Migration period Norway, and even 19th century Europe, and damn near everywhere and when in between. I thought the tang would be more indicative of origin, as that is more about local traditions in smithing than function. It's well made, quite heavy and functional, and so I am confident that it is not some dealers sport. I will have to see what an etch brings out. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 492
|
![]()
David R, I just posted a spear that shows some similitudes with yours, at the very least the shape of the tang
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...168#post278168 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|