(click to expand thumbnail pictures)
I unexpectedly came into the possession of 2 Eastern Zhou bronze short swords recently, as they were gifted.
This set shows the form of swords at the end of the bronze age and the beginning of the iron age in China, a period of transition which lasted for centuries.
The picture includes a late Spring & Autumn/early Warring States period jian I have shown on the swordforum previously (at top). It is of a hollow hilt type which in Jessica Rawson's 'Art & Archaeology in Ancient China' is a style dated to the 4-5th centuries BC.
The typical chronology in texts such as Yang Hong Weapons in Ancient China' and others tend to agree with this and have the 'ring hilted' or 'circle hilted' style as slightly later, a classic Warring States period sword, from perhaps the 3-4th century BC (middle example).
These classifications are credible but not entirely precise given regional variation and even different archaic forms persisting in the south of China.
Chinese museums which list such swords as these as 'Han' in some displays seem to be based on the finding of these swords in tombs. It seems most likely these were by that time antique weapons since weapons styles and technology of the Han dynasty (2nd century BC to 2nd century AD) is of a different character. The burial of antiques from earlier periods in Han dynasty tombs, and even Shang era tombs, shows that interest in past periods already existed in ancient times. These swords of the Warring States period may have had a meaning to the Han people as a symbol of a formative period in Chinese history & empire and therefore been buried at a later date.

The sizes are quite similar between the two typical jian at top & centre despite a gap of perhaps 100-200 years. The uppermost is 44cm in total length (an ancient bronze sword over 60cm is the exception to the rule). The hilt area of 'grip' is typically about 8cm and I have commented on the small hilt size before but this is not uncommon in ancient bronze swords even in Europe.
This sword has the typical waisted point where the last portion of the blade is narrow before the thrusting point.
The middle sword is quite comparable to the first, the handle is about 8cm long, blade length is 36cm, blade thickness tapers towards the point.
The sword, or dagger, at bottom is less typical. It is very heavy for its size and broad. The blade is still very sharp. It has more of an edge than most other bronze weapons I have inspected and this lethal appearance was enough for customs to delay its delivery to me for 6 weeks while I applied to the police commissioner in Wellington for the importation of a prohibited weapon to proceed!. I was surprised at this given the other swords I have bought through customs but after inspecting it I can understand it being classified as an offensive weapon initially. After handling I found after a time that I could feel the sensation of the edge under the skin of the fingertips even after I had put it down, such was its weight and sharpness. Not bad considering it will pre-date the period of Imperial Rome.

This knife would inflict some terrible wounds when inside a grappling range and the typical shortswords would be very versatile in a pressed melee. Typically scenes of warriors killing enemies with shortswords in this period often show one warrior holding the other while preparing the sword for the coup-de-grace. 3 such scenes can be seen taken from a bronze vessel in the lower band.


This close-up of the points shows some of the different cross-sections that swords of the period can have. There is quite a variety but even in these three we have angular & concave versions on the typical jian and a broader blade with a separate rim for the bevelled edge on the short dagger-like sword.
Swords of this time were primarily a thrusting weapon but could still be used as cutting blade also. In this way for many people this is the beginning of true swords in Chinese history, a weapon which can cut & thrust, with earlier versions either being one or the other in application.
The middle sword has a break through the blade, and damage to bronzes in burial are not uncommon. There are several other tiny but minor cracks on the blade, it appears that the weight of soil above may cause this effect since the blade would not lay flat due to the pommel size and so weight above would put stress on the blade.
A slight bend like this on a sword which lays on a flat plane is shown in Tony Allen's Allen's Authentication of Ancient Chinese Bronzes' which he calls a wavering blade and suggests it is a feature to look for in authentication. This is different to damage caused deliberately to weapons, which is an occasional feature of burials in ancient China, and is much more severe. Excavated weapons bent in a letter U shape do occur in ancient China.

note; the story of the Qin buried army longsword of bronze which bounced back into shape when lifted from the dirt in a bent position seems like a fable and not structurally possible. It may be the fault of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon on sword history but I have also seen this mentioned in a text on the buried army.
The high % tin on these swords (20% is consistently quoted) makes this very unlikely since this is links to hardness but also brittleness. The fact some of the Qin longswords displayed at Xian are broken into pieces along the blade suggests the elastic qualities of these bronzes were just like other blades of the time and breakage occurred in burial.
Some pictures of Dian weapons found in tombs in Y. Hong's text show blades broken into several pieces during burial even as they lay orientated in the correct form.
Repairs to ancient weapon when offered in antique markets are made with different degrees of skill as a way to conceal these natural breakages. (see below).

This is a comparison with a dagger I have shown elsewhere before which I considered (and was told) was a tomb item only, due to its flimsy/thin construction.
Since the line between a household or mundane knife and a weapon is sometime blurred a distinction on what is effective as a weapon needs making. This did not seem to be a weapon but given it was double edged unlike many of the more ordinary small knives I considered this possibly a scaled down shortsword & just an object for the deceased hence made with rather less care. Having seen this short broad 'dagger' as I had discussed above I am under no doubt it is copying a type of short weapon in this form. The separate rim to hold the edge and the basic characteristics suggest this tomb dagger is a burial version of the combat weapon.
Such weapons could be used for metropolitan wear or carried as secondary weapons for pole arm carrying infantry (as shown in east Zhou art).
As with other burial weapons, such as the light fragmented Han dao blade I have shown on CHF earlier, the thin burial dagger here has none of the signs of purposeful sharpening as the true weapons do.
(It is worth noting the tomb dagger has a modern & fake hilt attached to an ancient blade. It was a piece of steel which was covered with an artificial green patina and then attached to the bronze. I have stripped away the point of the join by the bronze crossgaurd to confirm this. The blade is certainly ancient, and has a small trace of wood which suggests either being placed on a wooden object or perhaps buried in a sheath.)


The hollow hilt style can be seen clearly here as well as the plainer type of circle/ring hilt sword. The hollow was not an adaptation for ease of casting bronze but would have saved on material. Presumably the circle hilts made cord binding of the handle easier. This British Museum example shows the binding on a circle hilted style sword. (Note; compare the fabric here with the mineralised imprint on the dagger and the type of cord pattern can be clearly seen *)

The dagger is also a hollow hilt style, with the last 1/3 being plugged by people who made a repair of the pommel and attempted to conceal it.
Some of the plaster/cement like material used to hold the fragmented hollow portion can just be seen as white in the base of the largest pommel where a pin confirms this material is concealing a hollow hilt.
Customs must have broken this hilt during inspection (for the same reason that laying on a plane surface puts stress along these weak points due to large pommel shape) but this was a blessing in disguise. It allows the dagger to tentatively be dated to the same period as a true hollow hilt sword, the early Warring States.
This hollow portion is only 1/3 of the hilt but the casting wall where it terminates is uneven in thickness and some ancient cracks here mean the lower portion is made from perhaps 3 fragments that broke at this weak point.


Earlier cracks had been repaired in modern times when the lower hilt was repaired.
Patina in the latest break on the dagger shows some of these cracks must be ancient features, perhaps existing even at time of burial. The development of mineral patina means this area must have been exposed to the same elements as the outer surface and allow malachite to form and well as some glittering crystallisation of what I presume to be tin oxide. It is likely the early fragments were repaired after the item was first discovered although I suspect it was less than perfect or some was missing so this is why the plaster was used to hold the form and the hollow was plugged with a plaster filler.


As an example of one crack which is visible to the naked eye on the middle circle hilted sword above, here is one that has been roughly concealed with a small patch of resin.
In some cases these sorts of repairs are also sprinkled with a ground up mixture of malachite or other material to help blend it into the surface patina(as I have seen on one dagger axe). The other cracks are so minor that they can be seen best at 30x magnification but it all suggests some stress to the shape of the sword....perhaps simply the weight of the dirt atop it if a simple shaft burial or even a collapse to a constructed burial chamber from above.

I heard seawater is one reason why the green patina forms faster, What would be other reasons besides organic material + oxygen?

Amazing article so far Kenneth.

Ancient hilt binding/cord grip. (click to expland thumbnail)
The features left by ancient people can be seen alongside the alterations of modern people. Here is one of 3 patches of original ancient fabric and this one being the largest is also the clearest. Fabric imprints and even surviving fibres have been shown on earlier threads on other pieces like coins & belt hooks and record contact over a long period of time.
This fabric is entirely mineralised and only with some difficulty can traces of the original fibre making the cord be spotted at about 70x magnification. One odd feature of this patch is the fabric is clearer to the naked eye than it is under a loupe. On other fabrics on different items the individual strands of silk or hemp can be seen in the fabric but for the most part this patch is entirely converted to a mineral patina and looks more random under magnification.
(*Note;compare with earlier example of cord binding on East Zhou sword)


A more complex and less visible feature in this instance on the broad dagger, invisible to the naked eye but clear under a 70x loupe. There are many traces of wood imprinted onto the blade of the dagger suggesting burial in a scabbard and contact along the length of the blade. Under strong magnification the individual grain of the wood can be seen showing this is an organic imprint. The patina at this point is largely an azurite blue, which the ancient Chinese studying antique bronze called a a 'kingfisher' blue since the colours can be very vivid.
In the photo at this point some of the orientation of the wood can barely be seen running parallel to the blade edge. This is one of many points the wood imprint has been preserved.


As a comparison the wood from the original scabbard is much more visible on the blade of the top hollow hilted 44cm sword. The traces occur all along the blade and in some portions nearer the crossgaurd the wood itself exists in patches.
The patina of this sword includes crystallisations and a cuprite dominant (red) corrosion. Small patches that have escaped patina/corrosion are fairly common on bronzes and the original lustre of the bronze can still be seen at one edge here. The marks from abrasion during ancient sharpening can also been seen all along the length of the blade. The point of this sword is still as sharp and much like WW1 & WW2 bayonets I have handled. This blade is quite sound and without any cracks or warping to the blade.

Salt definitely seems to draw out a patina of sorts, some I have seen that form rapidly also flake off easily too. I have an experimental piece that shows the difference that exposure to salt can make.
It is said that on some fakes in China the forgers bury an item in a salt marsh in an attempt to fake a patina. There are many methods, and it has been noted by Tony Allen that salt like crystals on some pieces are an indication of a fake.
It may not make a very convincing fake to grow it so rapidly however since it seems that most forgers actually add their own fake patina to a surface and then can choose colours to add. There are other supposed methods to rush a patina with chemicals.
That is why it is best to look for the most complex patina possible IMO, for instance the mineralised wood that can only be seen at 70x magnification and proper geometrically formed crystals of cuprite and needlelike cerussite are not likely to copied with ease. It would take a lot more than a burial in a salt marsh to copy that, to put it mildly.
My collection includes some very heavily patinated pieces but I am much happier with them that way as it makes judgements easier to make.

This is awesome, thanks Kenneth! I really want a sword now. Lol.

Eric

Here are some pictures of East Zhou swords (amongst other objects) which were photographed at market Zhengzhou, China. Some of the weapons date to the Shang period but the Warring States period ring handled and hollow hilted swords are the great majority.
These are an even more impressive number of bronze weapons than I saw in the Xian artefact markets in China.
The internal open market for these antiquities even in these few photographs alone seems to be on a scale which exceeds the amount of weapons I saw at the markets in Hong Kong after reviewing the famed Hollywood rd area.
Ironically the PRC is pressuring US congress to ban the importation of Chinese artefacts, i.e legally via Hong Kong, by saying it is the Western market which drives looting.
In terms of items quality and supply/numbers of weapons I am very dubious over this claim.

Politics aside, there are some very beautiful swords amongst the selection here (considering there are all sorts of other weapons & artefacts in the series which I haven't added).

These blades still look in very sound condition.

Robust blades

A mix of items, as well as a few Shang weapons (including the corroded archiac bronze dagger at the centre)

A short blade very similar to the 'dagger' I discussed can be seen here. (below) Note Dian style swords too.

Swords with simple tangs like this had wood or sometimes ivory handles. Some shortswords like this still existed in West Han.










The person who sent these pictures remarked that the pics I saw are only about half of the total jian he photographed, and he didn't even photograph half of the market place swords to begin with!
It suggests the huge numbers of swords turning up.......both remarkable for the amount of unprovenanced and illegally excavated weapons but also the sheer scale of the # swords produced to arm warriors in the ancient East Zhou period.

Kenneth, have you ever done a thread on how one could get into collecting bronze weapons?

Collecting bronzes has a few problems to face. First would be the ethics of such collecting, second would be finding sources and third would be having the financial means.

To show that there are various opinions on collecting, and issues that I am well aware of, I had just written this on the swordforum after this last comment posted; http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=74587
Originally Posted by Jakob Elbæk E. Pedersen
.......Being a student of archaeology I can only say that what Jeroen is saying is sadly the truth; countries are having their cultural heritage stolen or copied and sold on on-line auctions like never before.
The many cheap copies are also pressing the prices on the originals down - causing the looters to dig more and more in order to make the same amount of money.
The real criminals are BTW not the looters, they are often left with very few other choices in order to make a decent living - the real criminals are the middlemen and the buyers.
/Jakob .....



So, ethical issues. They need to be considered. There is destruction of sites by looting, but there is always destruction of sites.

Second;
95% of Chinese antiques for sale are fakes and forgeries. If you consider e-bay then make it 99%.
Westerners & other Eastern collectors only have access to those items that come out of the Hong Kong SAR.
You need to be very careful when trying to find ancient items. Start off small, buy coins from the main dynasties. These exist in hundreds upon hundreds of millions, are cheap, and allow surface studies with little risk of getting fakes (common coins like Han Wu Shu). Don't go for mint coins, go for corroded and patinated study pieces.
Tony Allen's book; Allen's Authentication of Ancient Chinese Bronzes, would be very important for a beginner collector and explains various concepts. Ask for opinions from other collectors about items. Only buy from reputable sellers (the 5%) unless you can pick the wheat from the chaff. This is all the basic stuff.
Get a loupe of at least 20x magnification and get used to the appearances of ancient surfaces. Look at fakes too. Read all the discussions on fakes and forgeries.
My own links have pictures of various features that I look for to authenticate, i.e crystallisation and imprinted (mineralised) fabrics & wood. etc etc
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Bronze_Age_Cent...hp?showtopic=16
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=7769

Thirdly;
Small common items, or damaged items, are cheap enough. Larger or ornate or rare items can be worth small fortunes and out of reach of most people (decorated weapons or ritual vessel, etc). If you delight over small details or simply the age of the piece then some mass made or small everyday bronzes are not out of reach but if somebody wanted to find ancient weapons the prices & availability can vary.
Even in China weapons are for collectors amongst the 'new rich' with cash to spare. I was told at Xian that if in China a collector paid less than $US600 for a bronze sword you will likely be getting a fake, this is the internal Chinese-only market too, where a monthly wage for the working class might be under $100 a month. Of the items that come out from Hong Kong dealers can pretty much charge what they like according to supply, so again knowing the dealer and a bit of time spent looking at past prices will be a guide as to how people mark items up. i.e I have seen items sold or offered for $US200 & $600 then be onsold for $US600 & $1400 respectively. That's not any different to any regular businessman however. Hence, if you want to get an ancient weapon from a dealer in the West you would likely need to have a bit of free cash and spend a little bit of time either waiting or learning about the market and a few reputable dealers who won't try and sell a fake.

It's not for everyone really. Some people would prefer to collect cake tins or star wars figures. Its easier.
I just love ancient history...and have enjoyed military antiques and other artefacts for some time now.
To see the polish marks on the bronze from a person who once held it, or occasionally the little flaws and imperfections, the details and planning and intent that went into weapons, or other such objects, makes me respect the ingenuity and artistry of people who lived life long long before this time. Such objects are a tangible link of what has passed, art & war. While the flesh that once lived is long decayed their bronze transmits & preserves, at least intellectually, a remnant of those people uniquely well. Quite a mysterious thing to perceive just how much has passed since these objects were made. When the edge is still sharp or an object still aesthetically pleasing then I get an impression of what we do still have in common with the creative people who lived long ago.

I have been discussing a feature of the shorter broad sword here with Richard Nable & Gary Todd.
I noticed the tip has a tiny missing point, about 1mm (missing since I got it), and the silvery looking bronze ouside contrasts with a golden 'copper-bronze' inside.
This got me wondering how a bi-metallic casting could be identified and I was quite surprised by some pictures Richard and Gary sent.
I was meaning to post some pictures of the tip & the golden bronze inside but a discussion on the sword forum has meant I have already posted the true bi-metallic pics.
My own sword is perhaps tin plated, or gilt, for cosmetic reasons, but true bi-metallics can be seen quite clearly without a cross section. While it is possible the raised blade ridges on the broad & short blade are cast bi-metallic (see earlier pics) and the spine is a different bronze the layer on the tip of mine is so thin I am no longer convinced.
These sword pics below are true bi-metallics and worth showing here.


On SFI Richard Furrer, Moderator, wrote on the Goujian sword thread;
"Kenneth,
Nice report and thoughts.
I have a passing interest in this form of blade technology, but have found little in the way of reproduction experiments. Do you have copies or references for these experiments?

Has anyone analyzed these blades? Surely a poor example has been found from which samples can be taken.

I saw several at the British Museum in London and looked at them as close as I could through the glass. I saw little which I could judge as manufacturing techniques. If seen in cross-section and under a microscope and with chem. analysis much could be learned.

Ric"

My reply;

"About the technology of these swords, i.e the Goujian sword, most experiments focused on producing the diamond pattern surface. There have been various explanations of how this was done but one successful reproduction (of the surface) shown on Chinese CCTV was a metal solution painted on like an artists work and then heat bonded in a furnace. Timing would be important. I have heard contradictory methods proposed through and even different compounds for the design/metal solution however. It seems a lot of journalistic style of reporting has muddied the waters about the actual facts. This is similar to the contradictory nature of accounts of the Qin 'buried army' swords also. Cutting through the hype is sometime difficult in my experience.

I assume your question is meaning in particular the functional bi-metallic technology of the swords however. There was one Taiwanese who apparently 'made' a sword of Goujian but I never heard any fast details about it.

Bi-metallic swords are rare even in the period they were used. Examples in the British museum need not be bi-metallic by default as it was far from standard casting technology. Most swords are single casts. Cross sections I have seen are homogenous. I do have a sword that I believe may have been 'gilt' with a layer of tin bronze over the copper-bronze but this is more cosmetic perhaps, just a silvering of the surface in my speculation.
Some bi-metallics were studied in the NPM at Taipei IIRC but only in Chinese publications I saw long ago, and other examples are presently shown in the Shanghai museum. One of these was broken so the cross-section could be seen and the different castings & % were clear to the naked eye (as per Prof. Gary Todd's observations in person). The picture is not great but he talked me through it, and confirmed it is not a 'skin' but 2 edgs cast on, the section then is Edge-centre-Edge.

The suggested method is a seperate casting of 2 edges with an extra 10% tin comparitively, maybe 20% tin total and a 'spine' which has a higher % of lead and much less tin.
This means a hard sharp edge but a degree of 'flex' or reduced brittleness of the whole as a result o the spine . The drawbacks of high tin bronze were managed this way.
Of 2 examples of such swords sent as pictures from Richard Nable the preciseness of the casting of the relatively plain examples was stunning...like a strip of tape in contrast.
This would not be typical weapons technology nor easily done since armies of tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands in later Eastern Zhou required arming the issue of time and effort kept this a rare technology.
The extra effort, perhaps even 3 castings for one sword, was not justifiable in an era of total war. "

Here are some pics;
cross section in Shanghai, 3 bands visible.


large sword.
http://www.youngmuseum.com/the_richard_nable_collection.htm



detail


well preserved sword.


Richard said this;

detail.




Note;

For many more pics of Warring States Period swords and close studies and discussion see;

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=16791

Amazing! Thanks for all this incredible information Kenneth