True Combat Value of Wootz

ariel · 24th October 2006, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

From S. AL-Anizi: Not necessarily Ann, in pre-islamic arabian poetry, swords and their 'firind' are always being described and emphasized upon. Wootz is a very older thing than many people think it is. The more I read, the more it seems that wootz blades were quite common since pre-islam in the near east. Either being imported from india, or even locally produced in Yemen or even Damascus, although its very hard to prove that.

You are quite right. The earliest known crucible steel blade is from the 1st century AD (Taxila) and the 2nd and 3rd known earliest blades are from the Russian Caucausus, indicating that they were well in use before the coming of Islam. In my discussion, I was referring to the influx of swords during the 16th-17th centuries.

From Rivkin: any islamic country subscribing to the pact of Umar or its variations must ban non-muslims from pocessions of any weapons. It is a rather important part of fikh and dhimmi/muslim relationship.

Thank you I did not know what the correct term was. Yes, I am well aware of the ban of non-muslims having weapons during some periods of time (and place). However, sometimes (depending on the time and place) non-muslims were in the military (as mercinarys, slaves etc). I have forgotten the reference.

On another related note, apparently some blades were not used for battle so its performance was not a factor...such as one of the Prophets blades al-Qadib. It was made for companionship and defense only, but not for battle.

Ann,
I am intrigued:
In the recent book by Mr. Khorasani "Arms and Armor from Iran", you are cited on pp. 103-104 (your Ph.D. dissertation) as stating that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan (Western Iran) and the next published object is a Sassanian sword of the 6-7th century.
Now, you are saying that the earliest came from Taxila ( Western India) and later ones from the Russian Caucasus ( what exact area?).
Am I missing something?
Have you changed your opinion based on recent info?
Were you misquoted in the book?
And, just for your info, here is the reference to the Pact of Umar that was mentioned by Rivkin:
http://www.domini.org/openbook/umar.htm

Ann Feuerbach · 24th October 2006, 03:30 PM

Well spotted. It is all correct, but needs clarification. The blade from Luristan has spheroidal cementite suggesting it is crucible steel, but the date is uncertain as they were looted and therefore lost all context and dating. The earliest excavated and well dated blade is from Taxila (1st century AD). The second and third earliest excavated are from the Russian Caucasus (3rd-4th century AD), the fourth earliest blade is from Sasanian period. The blades from Luristan and Sasanian Perisa are the two earliest known from IRAN, not the earliest in the world.

Ann Feuerbach · 24th October 2006, 03:41 PM

Oh, that you as well for the link to Umar. It is now properly placed in my database. Russian Caucausus...near Kislovodsk, I analyzed 35 blades, 4 were crucible steel, those two early ones are associated with the Alani culture, a 7th century one was found in association with a horse burial, and an 11th century one associated witht the Saultovo Mauaskaya culture (related to the Khazar Turks before the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols. There has also been crucible steel objects found in Kazakstan.

Rivkin · 24th October 2006, 05:17 PM

Interesting !
I thought Taxila findings are from a collection of burial places of some central asian tribes related to alans - is there a possible connection between them ?
If you are interested in Umar's pact, as far as I remember (and I hope there are people here who actually know fiqh, not pretend they do, like me), it is supposed to stem from a message of Mohammed to non-muslims of Yemen, non-muslims were not supposed to be left in Arabia, so it was the first place where the coexistance started. Understanding of Pact of Umar changed to some extent over time, especially nn the boundaries of umma, places like India or Spain (where Moghuls held rather unusual views and Spain is the place where Umayads and Almohads had diametrically opposite view on the issue). Shias have traditionally somewhat different view on the Pact since they are very careful concerning "impurity" laws.

ariel · 25th October 2006, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

Well spotted. It is all correct, but needs clarification. The blade from Luristan has spheroidal cementite suggesting it is crucible steel, but the date is uncertain as they were looted and therefore lost all context and dating. The earliest excavated and well dated blade is from Taxila (1st century AD). The second and third earliest excavated are from the Russian Caucasus (3rd-4th century AD), the fourth earliest blade is from Sasanian period. The blades from Luristan and Sasanian Perisa are the two earliest known from IRAN, not the earliest in the world.

That is not how it was reported in the book. I have an uneasy feeling about the misrepresentation of facts and mis-quoting of your data in the book: it was made to sound as if Iran was the cradle of crucible steel technology. Whoever has this book, please read the section I referred to and compare it to Ann's post here: am I the only one viewing it to be an intentional misquoting?

Rick · 25th October 2006, 03:59 AM

I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ?

ariel · 25th October 2006, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ?

Yes, I do. That's where I got the information. I just want to have opinions of other readers.

Jeff D · 25th October 2006, 05:39 AM

"Feuerbach (2002b:229) believes that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan. She cites Rehder and France-Lanord, saying that there are six blades attributed to Luristan that contain spheroidal cementite. She further (2002b:230) claims that the earliest crucible steel blade of a double-edged sword is dated to the first century A.D. The sword is composed of high carbon steel with spheroidial cementite. Additionally (2002b:230), the next published object made from crucible steel is a Sassanian sword, attributed to 6th or 7th century A.D. Iran, now exhibited in the British Museum. Feuerbach (2002b:230) explains is a double-edged blade with a pistol grip, an indentation in the hilt for an index finger, no guard, and a scabbard with a two-point suspension. She further states that under low magnification (x100), the sample demonstrates a mottled structure after etching in nital (the microstructure consists of globular cementite in a fine pearlite matrix). Feurerbach (2002b:231) is of the opinion that the fine pearlite matrix is an indication of semi-rapid final cooling. Another key aspect is that since the cementite is not alligned, the sword would not have had a damascus pattern."

This is the entire quote from Pg 103-104, the readers can judge for themselves.

All the Best
Jeff

Ann Feuerbach · 25th October 2006, 01:05 PM

It may have been more accurate if the phrase "in Iran" was placed in the text. However, as this was a book on the Arms and Armour from Iran, this may have been construced by a publisher as redundant, rather than misleading.

24th October 2006, 03:30 PM	#2
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Well spotted. It is all correct, but needs clarification. The blade from Luristan has spheroidal cementite suggesting it is crucible steel, but the date is uncertain as they were looted and therefore lost all context and dating. The earliest excavated and well dated blade is from Taxila (1st century AD). The second and third earliest excavated are from the Russian Caucasus (3rd-4th century AD), the fourth earliest blade is from Sasanian period. The blades from Luristan and Sasanian Perisa are the two earliest known from IRAN, not the earliest in the world.

24th October 2006, 03:41 PM	#3
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Oh, that you as well for the link to Umar. It is now properly placed in my database. Russian Caucausus...near Kislovodsk, I analyzed 35 blades, 4 were crucible steel, those two early ones are associated with the Alani culture, a 7th century one was found in association with a horse burial, and an 11th century one associated witht the Saultovo Mauaskaya culture (related to the Khazar Turks before the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols. There has also been crucible steel objects found in Kazakstan.

24th October 2006, 05:17 PM	#4
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Interesting ! I thought Taxila findings are from a collection of burial places of some central asian tribes related to alans - is there a possible connection between them ? If you are interested in Umar's pact, as far as I remember (and I hope there are people here who actually know fiqh, not pretend they do, like me), it is supposed to stem from a message of Mohammed to non-muslims of Yemen, non-muslims were not supposed to be left in Arabia, so it was the first place where the coexistance started. Understanding of Pact of Umar changed to some extent over time, especially nn the boundaries of umma, places like India or Spain (where Moghuls held rather unusual views and Spain is the place where Umayads and Almohads had diametrically opposite view on the issue). Shias have traditionally somewhat different view on the Pact since they are very careful concerning "impurity" laws.

25th October 2006, 03:59 AM	#6
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,378	I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ?

25th October 2006, 05:39 AM	#8
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	"Feuerbach (2002b:229) believes that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan. She cites Rehder and France-Lanord, saying that there are six blades attributed to Luristan that contain spheroidal cementite. She further (2002b:230) claims that the earliest crucible steel blade of a double-edged sword is dated to the first century A.D. The sword is composed of high carbon steel with spheroidial cementite. Additionally (2002b:230), the next published object made from crucible steel is a Sassanian sword, attributed to 6th or 7th century A.D. Iran, now exhibited in the British Museum. Feuerbach (2002b:230) explains is a double-edged blade with a pistol grip, an indentation in the hilt for an index finger, no guard, and a scabbard with a two-point suspension. She further states that under low magnification (x100), the sample demonstrates a mottled structure after etching in nital (the microstructure consists of globular cementite in a fine pearlite matrix). Feurerbach (2002b:231) is of the opinion that the fine pearlite matrix is an indication of semi-rapid final cooling. Another key aspect is that since the cementite is not alligned, the sword would not have had a damascus pattern." This is the entire quote from Pg 103-104, the readers can judge for themselves. All the Best Jeff

25th October 2006, 01:05 PM	#9
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	It may have been more accurate if the phrase "in Iran" was placed in the text. However, as this was a book on the Arms and Armour from Iran, this may have been construced by a publisher as redundant, rather than misleading.