Islamic Arms and Armor in The Metropolitan Museum of Art

[ariel]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Is the term "crucible steel" used in place of "wootz" as mentioned?

In a couple of places I had time to look at, - yes. I have no problem with it. Wootz is a Europeanized variant of the indian ukku ( or whatever the correct phonetization might have been). Technologically, it is crucible steel, which is undoubtedly correct.

I guess there is a valid reason to use a local name for a thing when we need either to specify a unique pattern or to pinpoint its origin: Turkish saber is kilij , not saif, and Uzbeki knife is P'chak, not Kard.

And, BTW, shouldn't we use Wootz only with reference to Indian blades, while referring to Persian ones as Fulad or to the Arabian as Jouhar?:-)))

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

And, BTW, shouldn't we use Wootz only with reference to Indian blades, while referring to Persian ones as Fulad or to the Arabian as Jouhar?:-)))

According to Ann Feuerbach there were two main production areas, Indian and Central Asia, with wootz being used to describe the steel originating in India and bulat for steel originating in Central Asia....I suppose if you do not know the origin "damascus or watered" steel would suffice. While the term "crucible steel" is used instead of "wootz, bulat, damascus steel, watered steel' it probably should not be as it really describes the method and not the specific end product.

Ann Feuerbach

It must therefore be concluded that the materials and techniques associated with the crucible steel process in Central Asia (pulad) and those used in India and Sri Lanka (wootz) are significantly different.

[ariel]

Estcrh:
Have you noted a whole bunch of "smileys" in my message?:-)))))

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by ariel

Estcrh:
Have you noted a whole bunch of "smileys" in my message?:-)))))

Ariel, I know you are aware of Anns work, I really wrote that for anyone who was reading this that might not be aware of the different terms.

Can anyone scan one image and its accompanying text so that we can discuss whether the item is in fact properly identified and described, now that would be helpful.

I do not have the book (I already have a huge stack of unread books!!) but I am well acquanted with the all of the Mets Indo-Persian arms and armour items and their current descriptions. It would be interesting to see if the authors added anything to the Mets descriptions or if they in fact just went with what was already written without changing anything (this would be quite weak).