Swords and "urbanization"

[ariel]

Had nothing better to do, so was leafing through the "Arms and Armor from Iran".
One chapter discusses the origin of sabers, ie curved swords. It asserts that:
1. Sabers came to the Islamic world sometimes after the 10th century (14th?) from the nomads of Central Asia
2. They were unlikely to be of "nomadic" origin, but rather hailed from China, because bladesmithing requires high degree of urbanization.
Questions:
1. The first contact of the Islamic (Arab) armies with the "nomads" occured during the Arab attempts to invade Khazaria sometimes in the 8th century and there are many examples of Khazar curved swords from that era ( see" The Arts of the Muslim Knight" by Mohamed, as well as "Weapons of the Ancient Orient" by Gorelik, "Khazars" by Pletneva etc). Khazars had very well developed urban culture by that time.
2. Was urbanization truly required? We can just look at Dyak swords or Moro swords. Both cultures produced magnificient blades without any urbanization.
Any insights?

[G. McCormack]

Good question, good topic for discussion.

I think the basic idea is that in hunter-gatherer/nomadic pastoralist societies, everyone is working every day doing the normal chores required to maintain the group. While most info points to hunter/gatherer bands having on average more free time than urban folk, the lifestyle generally doesn't create a surplus of food.
Once you get settled, agricultural groups, you start to get food surpluses that allow specialized non-food gathering people to exist, such as a distinct warrior class, a distinct priest class, and dedicated artists.

So by that idea, yes you'd need urbanization to allow for specialized craftsman such as bladesmiths.

So does it always play out like this?

Generally, I think so. Tibetan herders in the past handful of centuries rode on elaborately decorated saddles and carried knives made by "Sino-Tibetan" craftsman from the cities, who often enough were Chinese.
Are Dyak and Moro groups exceptions? I'd expect wide variation between the groups and sub-groups, but did they generally stick around to one place or as tribes move around a lot?

Anyway, my two cents

[Tim Simmons]

Very interesting topic. It might depend on what one thinks constitutes a sword. Then what is a good sword? Is the sword good because it is fancy? Is the sword good because it is what the market desires? Like art urbanisation does not always mean sophisticated design. Specialisation can occur in isolation?

[Mark]

I think it would be more appropriate to distinguish nomadic from sedentary, rather than nomadic or pastoral and urban. As you noted noted, very non-urban cultures do produce excellent blades. Just imagine the hardware that goes along with that - hammer, anvil, pincers, etc. - as well as the need for large amounts of hot-burning fuel, and you can see why blacksmithing could be rare among nomads. Too much stuff to carry around, if nothing else.

I have never examined the question, though, so I am curious if anyone has any references for prevalence of blacksmithing among nomadic peoples.

[fearn]

Hi All,

Interesting topic, but I think there are two issues with the Central Asian nomads. First, they did occasionally build cities (see various references), and second, because they often used carts to move things around (link, near bottom). While mobile, they could also move a forge around as needed.

Following what Mark said, I think that the important thing is population size and material needs, not mobility. The Hordes were large and highly organized, so they found ways to move both metalwork and smiths. A small, isolated tribe might not have the surplus to support a smith, nor ways to get the specialized materials he needed. That said, I think the critical tests are the African tribes, because they were pretty small, and did metalwork. Hopefully one of our Africa experts will chime in with how that was organized, and how small and isolated a group of people can be, and still support a smith.

As an aside, I'd point out Wallace's Malay Archipelago, wherein he describes what the smiths of Lombok used to make two meter long muzzle-loaders (link). Yes, these aren't swords, but it provides an idea of how little a skilled smith needs to make a long weapon:

"At Mataram we called at the house of Gusti Gadioca, one of the princes of Lombock, who was a friend of Mr. Carter’s, and who had promised to show me the guns made by native workmen. Two guns were exhibited, one six, the other seven feet long, and of a proportionably large bore. The barrels were twisted and well finished, though not so finely worked as ours. The stock was well made, and extended to the end of the barrel. Silver and gold ornament was inlaid over most of the surface, but the locks were taken from English muskets. The Gusti assured me, however, that the Rajah had a man who made locks and also rifled barrels. The workshop where these guns are made and the tools used were next shown us, and were very remarkable. An open shed with a couple of small mud forges were the chief objects visible. The bellows consisted of two bamboo cylinders, with pistons worked by hand. They move very easily, having a loose stuffing of feathers thickly set round the piston so as to act as a valve, and produce a regular blast. Both cylinders communicate with the same nozzle, one piston rising while the other falls. An oblong piece of iron on the ground was the anvil, and a small vice was fixed on the projecting root of a tree outside. These, with a few files and hammers, were literally the only tools with which an old man makes these fine guns, finishing then himself from the rough iron and wood."

(There's more detail in the original quote. Follow the link if you're interested)
F

[Nonoy Tan]

Hi Ariel,

You may find the book/film entitled "Guns, Germs and Steel" (by Jared Diamond) interesting as well. It discusses the issue you had raised, and pretty much consistent with G. McCormack's comments. I am also of the same opinion. Beware though that Diamond's conclusions (in the book/film) as to the fate of peoples or societies are rather over simplistic.

By the way, the "moro" peoples are far from being "uncivilized/unsophisticated/undeveloped". Their societies and art were pretty much developed. Indeed, they "blacksmiths" produced metal weapons that are works of art.

There are some nomadic peoples that are able to produce artful blades. They normally do not mine or "blacksmith" metal. Instead, they acquire metal from "more developed" neighbors (in the form of copper pots, vehicle metal parts, etc.), and then work the metal (e.g. by chiseling) into the desired blade shape/ornamentation.

[ausjulius]

Originally Posted by ariel

Had nothing better to do, so was leafing through the "Arms and Armor from Iran".
One chapter discusses the origin of sabers, ie curved swords. It asserts that:
1. Sabers came to the Islamic world sometimes after the 10th century (14th?) from the nomads of Central Asia
2. They were unlikely to be of "nomadic" origin, but rather hailed from China, because bladesmithing requires high degree of urbanization.
Questions:
1. The first contact of the Islamic (Arab) armies with the "nomads" occured during the Arab attempts to invade Khazaria sometimes in the 8th century and there are many examples of Khazar curved swords from that era ( see" The Arts of the Muslim Knight" by Mohamed, as well as "Weapons of the Ancient Orient" by Gorelik, "Khazars" by Pletneva etc). Khazars had very well developed urban culture by that time.
2. Was urbanization truly required? We can just look at Dyak swords or Moro swords. Both cultures produced magnificient blades without any urbanization.
Any insights?

the curved swords originate in siberia and central asia and the west of siberia,,..

they have nothing to do with china and were as new to china as they were to the west.. in europe they arrived in in the 6th centuary or before..

they did not take well to the celtic and germanic people who prefered to fight on foot.....


the arabs obtained these swords in the 8 centuary ,, proably before, but they didnt reach popularity later, they were introduced by mercinaries from central asia.. mongol and kipchak mostly,

hence the kipchak rulers of egypt for so long..


the curved horse mans sword originated proably in the region between tuva,, western mongolia and the altai republic.. this area was the region where the oldest exsampels are found, and proably spread out from..

the long thin stright swords originate from this area also although it is presumed more into the region of east turkmenistan and east kazakhstan


chinese prefered short swords of bronze, and later iron well after the nomads had developed steel swords, mostly this was proably use of production and technique..

there is one point , the nomads could not make many weapons .. and so many times they woudl purchase weapons from their soon to be victims ..

this dosnt mean they didnt know how to make them , or actualy .. were the developers of them,, as they were.

generaly becasue of the short supply of iron and trouble needed to mine it they used little iron and all their knives, armor and arrows.. ect ect were hardened steel,, while in europe and asia normaly cheap plate was iron or case hardened and only the rich had steel,, and arrows were mostly case hardened or of iron ...... i would presume these value of iron was high enough there was enough smiths willing to work it that there was little left to be used in the untreated state

this actualy was a point refered to in chinese and european texts.. and the nomads arrows were generaly far superion in quality to thier own.. and the same is commented on their swords.. on the old blades found in graves they are native in design and high in quality..