True Combat Value of Wootz

[ariel]

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]

I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ?

[ariel]

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]

"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]

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.

[Chris Evans]

I always suspected that cutting a silk scarf had little to do with the quality of the steel and was a mere stunt of swordsmanship, one that could be done with almost any decent sabre-sword that was kept unusually sharp.

Well, J.M.Waite, an English professor of fencing, late 2nd Life Guards, and author of Sabre, Singlestick, and Sword Feats, in the late 19th century wrote:

Fold a veil neatly lengthwise and lay it on the edge of the sword, almost close to the hilt.

Place your feet together, with your sword hand resting on the bend of the left arm, the edge of your sword turned up. Take two quick steps to your front , beginning with your left foot and as you make the second, deliver an upward cut with a good edge, throwing the point of the sword high in the air, so that when the veil separates the two parts will have some distance to fall. A good effect will thus be produced.

At the finish of this cut......the arms should be brought straight.......

For this feat.... you require a special sword called a handkerchief cutter. It should have the edge of and be kept as sharp as a razor.

The edge should be ground and set towards the hand, and when sharpening or stropping it, you should rub from point to hilt.

If you look through a very powerful magnifying glass you will find the edge of a sword is serrated like a saw, but not so regularly; Therefor by having the teeth pointed towards the hilt, the edge more readily lays hold of the veil.

Haven't tried it, but someone here should


Cheers
Chris

[Gt Obach]

Hi Chris

that is basically what i said at the beginning.... that cutting fabric only tells you about the type of edge.... there are many different types of edges... and all have their strong and weak points.. ... it would make sense that the arms were tailored to the targets they were meant to cut...... hollow grind for razors, flat for bowies, convex for choppers....just for example...

-- ofcourse this is not a static rule..... you can have a wide hollow grind and it will make a stong blade..... or really sharpen a convex edge and it will shave paper..

-- what about the sharpening technology...... it says something about that aswell..... you have to have decent abrasives..... or you simply cannot get a fine edge otherwise...

-- look at the top notch polish on Japanese blades..... if they didn't have access to such fine silicate stones.... it would be very hard to replicate this..... because you simply can't pop over to the local hardware and buy graded abrasive papers... it has to be quarried and graded...


sharp topic

Greg

[Rivkin]

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

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.

Well, my verbal IQ is rather close to zero, but here is the problem as I see it:
"Feuerbach (2002b:229) believes that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan.... She further (2002b:230) claims that the earliest crucible steel blade of a double-edged sword is dated to the first century A.D."

Either in both cases "Iran" is assumed and than the earliest blade comes from first century A.D. Iran, or in both cases it should be understand as "the earliest" in principle, and then the birthplace of crucible steel is Luristan.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

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.

Dear Ann,
You must be a remarkably nice person and I admire your forebearance.
However:
1. Was the information on Taxila and Caucasian swords available in your dissertation cited in the book?
If the answer is no, I can understand that Mr. Khorasani honestly cited your source. If yes, I would have major problem defining his rendition of your material (under your name!) as anything but gross and willful misrepresentation.
2. I have problems to believe that the editors viewed a 2 word sequence "in Iran" to be crucial in editing a 780 page-long book full of redundant and repetitious information.
The origin of crucible steel is a major point of our discussion here and, certainly, of the Mr. Khorasani's book. It is important that we get to the bottom of his statement. As Rivkin cleverly noticed, no matter how you read his paragraph, the intended meaning does not change: he wants us to believe that crucible steel originated in Iran and uses you as a source of the information.
I am very disturbed.