Wootz: Persian or Indian?

ShayanMirza · 6th January 2007, 05:49 AM

As far as pulad steel production goes, how much does region have to do with quality? In an age before the instant dissemination of information, would a region have collectively better swords than another region at a similar stage of material/scientific sophistication due to a superior tradition of swordmaking? Did swordmakers of a region share techniques or jealously guard their higher arts? I always conceptualized swordmaking as a very localized affair, with the quality of blades varying between swordmakers on a far smaller scale. Obviously the quality of ore would make a difference, but one may have good ore and poor workmanship and vice versa. All of this sweeping generalization about whose country makes better swords confuses me, since that kind of argument seems to me to be like saying one country has better art than another, which is a patently absurd comparison. What criteria go into determining which country has better swords in an era where the idea of a nation had not even been formulated? Do we attempt to measure the average quality of blade? Someone please clarify, I have a ton of confusion on what seem to me to be massive generalizations.

6th January 2007, 05:49 AM	#11
ShayanMirza Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Charlottesville Posts: 25	Relevance of Region As far as pulad steel production goes, how much does region have to do with quality? In an age before the instant dissemination of information, would a region have collectively better swords than another region at a similar stage of material/scientific sophistication due to a superior tradition of swordmaking? Did swordmakers of a region share techniques or jealously guard their higher arts? I always conceptualized swordmaking as a very localized affair, with the quality of blades varying between swordmakers on a far smaller scale. Obviously the quality of ore would make a difference, but one may have good ore and poor workmanship and vice versa. All of this sweeping generalization about whose country makes better swords confuses me, since that kind of argument seems to me to be like saying one country has better art than another, which is a patently absurd comparison. What criteria go into determining which country has better swords in an era where the idea of a nation had not even been formulated? Do we attempt to measure the average quality of blade? Someone please clarify, I have a ton of confusion on what seem to me to be massive generalizations.