Damascus Steel

ham · 7th February 2007, 05:48 AM

Remember that Wikipedia accepts contributions from anyone who has access to the internet-- while there is much excellent data contained in its database, errors do slip in-- and apparently most of them are in this first entry. It is not only general but contains serious inaccuracies.

The second article is far better, though both argue that wootz technology/ production simply disappeared c. 1700-- perhaps with a small popping sound. This is arbitrary and foolishly Eurocentric-- it is also wrong. Numerous dated examples of wootz blades, or shall we say crucible steel, exist which far outstrip the magical advent of the 18th century-- Elgood shows a very fine blade in his work on Arabian arms and armor which is dated in the first quarter of the 20th century, if memory serves.

You ask, Is the pattern welding that we call Damascus "wootz" steel different from or the same as the Damascus steel that received the reputation for slicing through stones and etc.?

The question itself implies some misunderstandings about what distinguishes wootz from pattern welding. I hope some forum member with better access to online data on these topics than myself will find a moment to attach a link or two below.

Ham

Jens Nordlunde · 7th February 2007, 12:22 PM

You should try to have a look at the Sticky Classic threads at the top, and while you are at it try also a search for Damascus steel. This should give you hours of happy reading

.

B.I · 8th February 2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ham

Elgood shows a very fine blade in his work on Arabian arms and armor which is dated in the first quarter of the 20th century, if memory serves.

Ham

I agree that good wootz was being made well into the 19thC and very early 20thC.
Ham is correct in his memory, but I dont feel this was a good example to use. The sword listed by Elgood was wrongly dated, I feel. The blade was 19thC and the style of patterning, and inlaid cartouche was of a much earlier period. The sword was owned by a friend of mine, and the inscription compared to others of a very similar nature.

ham · 8th February 2007, 04:30 PM

Curiouser and curiouser... are there any good photos of that sword, BI?
The one in Elgood is hardly conclusive.

Ham

B.I · 8th February 2007, 04:53 PM

Ham,
I dont think so, as it was sold on some time ago. But will find out. Its quite an important point because if Robert was right (I am fairly sure he wasnt) then we can date this style of wootz to well into the 20thC.
But, have to assume he was wrong until proven otherwise (and not the other way round)

ham · 8th February 2007, 05:36 PM

Right. I have hunted up my copy of the book and studied the photo with a magnifier. Where do you feel Elgood is off in his attribution? Also, since you have seen the sword how was it mounted please?

The point is, there are a great many wootz blades which bear dates in the latter 1800s. In Iran a large number was produced in the reign of NasredDin Shah (1848-1896.)

Ham

B.I · 16th February 2007, 10:54 PM

I am not sure if I should push this much further, as it was based on opinion. But, saying that, I think if I cant tell the difference between an 18thC sword and a 20thC sword, then I ought to collect something else.
It was sometime ago, and the sword wasnt Indian and so the form of the hilt is lost in vague memory. I just clearly remember disputing the age without the remotest of doubts.
I feel that you will need proof to be convinced, and so we would have to agree to disagree. I dont feel there is anything that anyone can glean from a photo that would make me change my mind.
I do, however, agree that wootz blades were made into the late 19thC.
I will try to maybe provide something that could make you reconsider.

B.I · 21st February 2007, 02:16 PM

My potential dating was purely opinion based, on the feel and look of the blade. My knowledge is not in cartouches or inscriptions.
However, I have an interesting take on the cartouches, which offers a different opinion on the dating.
I have attached the sword in Elgoods book, and also an almost identical sword in patterning and form, with an almost identical inscription. I have no doubt they were made in the same region, of not the same workshop or even by the same hand.
The second sword reads
'Banda-i-Shah-i-Wilayat Abbas' on the top, and below 'amal Assadullah Isfahani 181'
The sword in Elgood has the same inscription, except a change in the numbering. His sword reads 192.
Roberts dating is based on a fourth numeral which, if compared to the second sword, could potentially not be a number, but part of the word 'amal'
I dont know which calender they use, but this date does not read 1926, as stated in the book, if you consider this as a letter and not a number.

I personally feel this is the case, as the letter is more towards the word than the numerals, but maybe I am just using this to buffer up my stance on this sword, which is confirmed already.

For a good discussion of Banda-i-Shah-i-Wilayat (servant of the king of trusteeship ie. servant of the Iman Ali) - see James Allen, pg 108/109 in 'Persian Steel Tanavoli Collection'.

Allen concludes that the phrase always followed by an important Safavid ruler, was a Qajar useage, designed to enchance the prestige of the object.
This research was done by a friend of mine, and can be taken literally, or as pure specualtion. It is enough for me, I feel.

I think this is an important point to discuss, as if we have a dated sword from the second quarter of the 20thC, with all the asthetics of an 18thC sword, then it would change how we date everything, as we would not be able to offer a dated opinion within at least 200 years.

I hope anyone with experience in translating cartouches will offer their opinion.

7th February 2007, 05:48 AM	#1
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Remember that Wikipedia accepts contributions from anyone who has access to the internet-- while there is much excellent data contained in its database, errors do slip in-- and apparently most of them are in this first entry. It is not only general but contains serious inaccuracies. The second article is far better, though both argue that wootz technology/ production simply disappeared c. 1700-- perhaps with a small popping sound. This is arbitrary and foolishly Eurocentric-- it is also wrong. Numerous dated examples of wootz blades, or shall we say crucible steel, exist which far outstrip the magical advent of the 18th century-- Elgood shows a very fine blade in his work on Arabian arms and armor which is dated in the first quarter of the 20th century, if memory serves. You ask, Is the pattern welding that we call Damascus "wootz" steel different from or the same as the Damascus steel that received the reputation for slicing through stones and etc.? The question itself implies some misunderstandings about what distinguishes wootz from pattern welding. I hope some forum member with better access to online data on these topics than myself will find a moment to attach a link or two below. Ham Last edited by ham; 7th February 2007 at 06:24 AM.

7th February 2007, 12:22 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	You should try to have a look at the Sticky Classic threads at the top, and while you are at it try also a search for Damascus steel. This should give you hours of happy reading.

8th February 2007, 05:36 PM	#6
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Right. I have hunted up my copy of the book and studied the photo with a magnifier. Where do you feel Elgood is off in his attribution? Also, since you have seen the sword how was it mounted please? The point is, there are a great many wootz blades which bear dates in the latter 1800s. In Iran a large number was produced in the reign of NasredDin Shah (1848-1896.) Ham Last edited by ham; 8th February 2007 at 05:46 PM.

21st February 2007, 02:16 PM	#8
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	My potential dating was purely opinion based, on the feel and look of the blade. My knowledge is not in cartouches or inscriptions. However, I have an interesting take on the cartouches, which offers a different opinion on the dating. I have attached the sword in Elgoods book, and also an almost identical sword in patterning and form, with an almost identical inscription. I have no doubt they were made in the same region, of not the same workshop or even by the same hand. The second sword reads 'Banda-i-Shah-i-Wilayat Abbas' on the top, and below 'amal Assadullah Isfahani 181' The sword in Elgood has the same inscription, except a change in the numbering. His sword reads 192. Roberts dating is based on a fourth numeral which, if compared to the second sword, could potentially not be a number, but part of the word 'amal' I dont know which calender they use, but this date does not read 1926, as stated in the book, if you consider this as a letter and not a number. I personally feel this is the case, as the letter is more towards the word than the numerals, but maybe I am just using this to buffer up my stance on this sword, which is confirmed already. For a good discussion of Banda-i-Shah-i-Wilayat (servant of the king of trusteeship ie. servant of the Iman Ali) - see James Allen, pg 108/109 in 'Persian Steel Tanavoli Collection'. Allen concludes that the phrase always followed by an important Safavid ruler, was a Qajar useage, designed to enchance the prestige of the object. This research was done by a friend of mine, and can be taken literally, or as pure specualtion. It is enough for me, I feel. I think this is an important point to discuss, as if we have a dated sword from the second quarter of the 20thC, with all the asthetics of an 18thC sword, then it would change how we date everything, as we would not be able to offer a dated opinion within at least 200 years. I hope anyone with experience in translating cartouches will offer their opinion. Attached Images

8th February 2007, 04:30 PM	#4
ham Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 190	Curiouser and curiouser... are there any good photos of that sword, BI? The one in Elgood is hardly conclusive. Ham

8th February 2007, 04:53 PM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	Ham, I dont think so, as it was sold on some time ago. But will find out. Its quite an important point because if Robert was right (I am fairly sure he wasnt) then we can date this style of wootz to well into the 20thC. But, have to assume he was wrong until proven otherwise (and not the other way round)

16th February 2007, 10:54 PM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	I am not sure if I should push this much further, as it was based on opinion. But, saying that, I think if I cant tell the difference between an 18thC sword and a 20thC sword, then I ought to collect something else. It was sometime ago, and the sword wasnt Indian and so the form of the hilt is lost in vague memory. I just clearly remember disputing the age without the remotest of doubts. I feel that you will need proof to be convinced, and so we would have to agree to disagree. I dont feel there is anything that anyone can glean from a photo that would make me change my mind. I do, however, agree that wootz blades were made into the late 19thC. I will try to maybe provide something that could make you reconsider.