Damascus Steel

B.I · 7th March 2007, 08:34 AM

Hi Ariel,
The paper I was refering to in that post was not on wootz, but on Persian metalwork as a whole. But, the main criteria of the author was to challenge assumptions, and so this should also be the case with Persian wootz.
What the author did, was to challence the origin of a series of artworks in known museums, all assumed and accepted to be Persian (Safavid from memory) as the form is well known to be of this period and region. His stance, was that they were not Persian at all, but Indian. His case was well written, and backed with decorative iconography found in Bijapur and Golkonda, which was almost identical to that used on these particular pieces. He claims the main cetres of manafacture were Lahore and the Deccan, and they widely exported pieces made in Persian taste for a huge Persian market. He claims that Indian craftsman were widely respected and the Persians accepted that their own craftsman were 'inferior'. He re-translated insriptions, written on well known 'Persian' pieces and found the word 'Lahore' written next to the name of the craftsman.
I know this may sound extreme, and his theory can easily be argued against, but nothing he claims can be called extreme, as his arguement is well thought out and researched. The strangest thing, and something I really respect, is that the authour is patriotically Persian by birth! So, no matter whether his claim is accepted or not, his opinion is based on pure study without the bias of nationalism.
I am a big fan of marching against assumption, and so I found the article extremely interesting. I am not saying I agreed with it all, but it definately made me re-assess things that even I was guilty of assuming. Of course, this can be taken too far, and sometimes you have to assume a little, otherwise you never get to the second stage of an investigation.

FenrisWolf · 9th March 2007, 11:30 AM

I remember an article I read online some years ago, written by two metallurgists who had been studying the crystalline patterns formed in wootz steel with an eye to duplicating it in modern weapons. I don't remember all the details, and unfortunately didn't save the link to the articles, but as I recall one of the theories put forth was that in addition to the crucible method, the major contributing factors to the true wootz steel of the peak Indian years were impurities that were naturally occuring in Indian iron ore. According to the theory put forward, even if you set up an identical foundry in the middle east using all the methods used in India, and made weapons in the same manner as Indian ones, the trademark 'wootz' pattern would not be present because the ore from two different mines lack the same blend of impurities.

7th March 2007, 08:34 AM	#1
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	Hi Ariel, The paper I was refering to in that post was not on wootz, but on Persian metalwork as a whole. But, the main criteria of the author was to challenge assumptions, and so this should also be the case with Persian wootz. What the author did, was to challence the origin of a series of artworks in known museums, all assumed and accepted to be Persian (Safavid from memory) as the form is well known to be of this period and region. His stance, was that they were not Persian at all, but Indian. His case was well written, and backed with decorative iconography found in Bijapur and Golkonda, which was almost identical to that used on these particular pieces. He claims the main cetres of manafacture were Lahore and the Deccan, and they widely exported pieces made in Persian taste for a huge Persian market. He claims that Indian craftsman were widely respected and the Persians accepted that their own craftsman were 'inferior'. He re-translated insriptions, written on well known 'Persian' pieces and found the word 'Lahore' written next to the name of the craftsman. I know this may sound extreme, and his theory can easily be argued against, but nothing he claims can be called extreme, as his arguement is well thought out and researched. The strangest thing, and something I really respect, is that the authour is patriotically Persian by birth! So, no matter whether his claim is accepted or not, his opinion is based on pure study without the bias of nationalism. I am a big fan of marching against assumption, and so I found the article extremely interesting. I am not saying I agreed with it all, but it definately made me re-assess things that even I was guilty of assuming. Of course, this can be taken too far, and sometimes you have to assume a little, otherwise you never get to the second stage of an investigation.

9th March 2007, 11:30 AM	#2
FenrisWolf Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 181	I remember an article I read online some years ago, written by two metallurgists who had been studying the crystalline patterns formed in wootz steel with an eye to duplicating it in modern weapons. I don't remember all the details, and unfortunately didn't save the link to the articles, but as I recall one of the theories put forth was that in addition to the crucible method, the major contributing factors to the true wootz steel of the peak Indian years were impurities that were naturally occuring in Indian iron ore. According to the theory put forward, even if you set up an identical foundry in the middle east using all the methods used in India, and made weapons in the same manner as Indian ones, the trademark 'wootz' pattern would not be present because the ore from two different mines lack the same blend of impurities.