The travels of a very important dagger

Jens Nordlunde · 17th March 2005, 02:28 PM

Andrew, thank you for your kind words about my collection. Although I started to collect many years ago, I have not added much to my collection lately. Instead I have added considerably to my library on the subject during the last years, as the knowledge is as important as the weapons themselves.

B.I., I would suggest, if I may, that you dine out with friends at least three times a week, and give us a full report, not later than two days after the dinner. This would, if nothing else, add a lot to our knowledge.
The thread you have started is very interesting and also very important. I do realise that some collect weapon out of curiosity and to hang them on a wall, while others collect them to study and to get as much knowledge out of them as possible. Personally I have read books covering six to eight different areas, and in a way it is as if, the more you read, the less you know – I do however hope that that will change

.
The different ways wootz looks when the item is finished, can be due to different things Different ores, different ways to make the ingots, different ways of heating and cooling the item, different metals forged with the ingot, and quite a few other things I guess – but I hope Ann will be kind enough to tell us more about this, as this is an important part of this discussion.
It must be remembered that when it is said that the Indian wootz blades were more greyish and had a more floating pattern than the Persian blades, this is a truce with modifications.
The Indian smiths were masters, and could, to my opinion, make whatever pattern or colour the customer wanted. I don’t intend to start a discussion on who were the biggest artists, the Indian or the Persian smiths, only to mention that the Indian smiths were no lesser artists than the Persian.
Another thing is, that during the Mogul rule many artists were brought to India to work for the court, and everyone learned from each other, so although a blade looks as if it is Persian, an Indian smith might have made it. I doubt however, that the more greyish floating pattern was made by the Persians smiths working in India – but I don’t know.
Have a look at the two different types of pattern and tell me, that the one to the right, without any doubt was made by a Persian smith.

Ann Feuerbach · 17th March 2005, 02:54 PM

I wrote a bit about reasons for different patterns in the A worthy Kattar thread.

You do know that the blade on the left is pattern welded Damascus, not wootz.

The influence of ingot cooling and forging is, however, something I am/would like to work on further. As a side point, from what I have studied, the Persians etc (at least at Merv), had a very advanced level of craftsmenship and technical, science skills. More "advanced" than the Indians. However, I have some great meals over a campfire, compared to 4 star restarants. That is to say, sofistication does not equal "better" craftsmen.

ingelred · 17th March 2005, 03:00 PM

Don't get me wrong but You write about Wootz steel but as far as I see it the left blade is made of pattern welded Damaskus steel with the pattern resembling some kind of small roses or rain drops!?!

Greetings, Helge

Jens Nordlunde · 17th March 2005, 03:07 PM

Thank you Ann and Helge, I had chosen a wrong blade - sorry. Here is another blade.

ariel · 17th March 2005, 04:06 PM

I guess I am the ideal judge: not metallurgist, not well educated in the fine points of Damascus steelmaking and not into rich and sophisticated weapons. In short, a rank amateur.
Personally, I like the first example on the right : the wootz lines are not as tightly controlled as in the last example but are free-floating and very "poetic" (Sorry, can't find a better word!). The last example seems to me to have a rigid and "squeezed" appearance.
Well, this is my 5 cents worth.
And it is worth exactly that: 5 cents. Because at the end of the day all esthetic judgemens are purely subjective and are a matter of personal taste. Both patterns in this thread are high class objects of art and each will have it's admirers.
" De gustibus non est disputandum", no arguing about taste.
Or, as one guy said about his horrifically ugly and grossly deformed girlfiend " Well, either you do like Picasso or you don't"

Ann Feuerbach · 17th March 2005, 06:49 PM

Yes, the eye of the beholder...on a similar note, the Islamic Historian Al-Beruni said that sometime in Khorasan (region of Central Asia), they do not etch a crucible steel blade to reveal the pattern.

B.I · 17th March 2005, 06:59 PM

i had not intended this post to be a statement of the difference of indian vs persian but it seems as though it lends itself to this. i am not complaining as maybe it needs to be discussed.
jens, you say -
and in a way it is as if, the more you read, the less you know – I do however hope that that will change

this was my point exactly. the more you read, the more dominated you are with the general concensus. if you wanted to seperate yourself from this, where do you start? do you forget everything you've read and start afresh? i think this may be the only way to move forward. jens, you show one blade that is distinctly indian and one is without a doubt persian. and yet, the fittings of this 'persian' dagger is indian. now, do we assume that it is persian because fiegel and his peers say so?
it is hard to detach yourself away from the current thought, and i am as guilty as any for doing the same. if a dagger is indian in form, and yet the blade seems persian, we should assume it is indian and take the journey to convince ourselves otherwise, instead of the other way around. otherwise, we are all guilty of assumption.
the patterns are deceptive, and the more i look into mughal influence, the more the world opens up. we have our definate sources in egerton and hendley (and a small handfull of others). but, we know for a fact that mistakes were made, and yet we still jump on a well known bandwagon and scream persian, when we should be assuming indian, and asking persian. once again, i state i am guilty as well. we are all afraid to doubt our peers and yet surely by questioning, we are furthering what they initiated. they never claimed to be experts, but just took what was known at the time a little further.
ann, i dont doubt your studies and yet you state the persians were -
'More "advanced" than the Indians'
is this from your own studies are are you as guilty as the rest of us in assuming the general opinion. the records clearly show the persian influence of the mughal courts. their presence in india did more than influence the local style, and it developed into a hybrid, as well as a simulation of a fashionalble style of the age. in my studies, i have drawn a distinct line between the two cultures and for the first time, i doubt my own findings. these doubts are not sudden (over dinner??) but instilled over a confusion of conflicting data.
rick (rsword) showed a sword recently that we all enjoyed pushing our opinions on, and yet we were all reluctant to claim anything against our known sources. his sword showed a distinct persian influence over a definate indian style. so, what about taking it further. if the fashion of the time was persian, and not the underlying hindu culture, why do we not assume the 'persian' blades were not created locally to suit the current trend. why do we all claim that the ingots were exported to persia and not complete blades. why do we assume that the indians exported ingots and then imported complete blades made by the persian artisans. i'm not saying this didnt happen, but i know for a fact that the indian artisans were not as secondarly to their persian superiors (???) as some like to assume. where is this information coming from?
if the mughal courts imported their 'home' culture to india, why would this stop at bladesmithing.
for the first time in ove rone hundred years, the academic world is beginning to branch away from the assumed knowledge of their contemporaries. this division happened some time ago in the higher-end collective world and its about time that india has had the acclaim it deserved. yes, it was over-run with a dominant culture, but it did so admirably and also kept its own tradition to run alongside its 'conqueror'.
can anyone claim the persian artisan was more advanced than the intricate work of tamil nadu, which fought to keep its native style throughout an islamic dominance and a moghul annoyance (sorry to any aurangzeb fans, but he never truly conquered the deccan as he liked to have claimed)
ariel, your claim of rank amateurism is admirable (but not believed by anyone

). this stance just shows an open mind. your personal opinion should overshadow your views, as this shows a reluctance to listen to others.

not quite sure where the above rant has led, but i'm still deeply entrenched in the indian camp. the truth may be obvious, or shockingly opposing general thought, but i know the answers are not quite apparant as yet but we can only hope they become known during our collective lifetimes.

Jens Nordlunde · 17th March 2005, 09:50 PM

Like I said earlier B.I., I think that many of the ‘Persian’ blades were made in India – not that I can prove it, it is only a feeling.
I do see how blades could easily be imported into India, even blades made of Indian wootz. If the wootz ingots were exported by sea to Persia or other places, the blades made, and then exported by caravan via the Silk Road to north India – no one would tell from where the ingots came, the only thing the buyer would know was, that the blade came from Persia – so the steel must have been Persian

.

Jens

Ann Feuerbach · 17th March 2005, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.I

ann, i dont doubt your studies and yet you state the persians were -
'More "advanced" than the Indians'
is this from your own studies are are you as guilty as the rest of us in assuming the general opinion. .

I base this on the comparison of the crucibles and furnaces used to create the crucible steel. In central Asia high quality refractory clay and very well thought out/ complex furnace design, vs India that used ordinary clay and furnaces not much different that a hearth.

Ann Feuerbach · 17th March 2005, 09:59 PM

Don't forget, Uzbekistan was a HUGE producer of crucible steel in antiquity and northern India (which technically is Central Asia) is not that far away.

17th March 2005, 02:28 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Andrew, thank you for your kind words about my collection. Although I started to collect many years ago, I have not added much to my collection lately. Instead I have added considerably to my library on the subject during the last years, as the knowledge is as important as the weapons themselves. B.I., I would suggest, if I may, that you dine out with friends at least three times a week, and give us a full report, not later than two days after the dinner. This would, if nothing else, add a lot to our knowledge. The thread you have started is very interesting and also very important. I do realise that some collect weapon out of curiosity and to hang them on a wall, while others collect them to study and to get as much knowledge out of them as possible. Personally I have read books covering six to eight different areas, and in a way it is as if, the more you read, the less you know – I do however hope that that will change . The different ways wootz looks when the item is finished, can be due to different things Different ores, different ways to make the ingots, different ways of heating and cooling the item, different metals forged with the ingot, and quite a few other things I guess – but I hope Ann will be kind enough to tell us more about this, as this is an important part of this discussion. It must be remembered that when it is said that the Indian wootz blades were more greyish and had a more floating pattern than the Persian blades, this is a truce with modifications. The Indian smiths were masters, and could, to my opinion, make whatever pattern or colour the customer wanted. I don’t intend to start a discussion on who were the biggest artists, the Indian or the Persian smiths, only to mention that the Indian smiths were no lesser artists than the Persian. Another thing is, that during the Mogul rule many artists were brought to India to work for the court, and everyone learned from each other, so although a blade looks as if it is Persian, an Indian smith might have made it. I doubt however, that the more greyish floating pattern was made by the Persians smiths working in India – but I don’t know. Have a look at the two different types of pattern and tell me, that the one to the right, without any doubt was made by a Persian smith. Attached Images

17th March 2005, 03:07 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Thank you Ann and Helge, I had chosen a wrong blade - sorry. Here is another blade. Attached Images

17th March 2005, 09:50 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Like I said earlier B.I., I think that many of the ‘Persian’ blades were made in India – not that I can prove it, it is only a feeling. I do see how blades could easily be imported into India, even blades made of Indian wootz. If the wootz ingots were exported by sea to Persia or other places, the blades made, and then exported by caravan via the Silk Road to north India – no one would tell from where the ingots came, the only thing the buyer would know was, that the blade came from Persia – so the steel must have been Persian. Jens

17th March 2005, 02:54 PM	#2
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	I wrote a bit about reasons for different patterns in the A worthy Kattar thread. You do know that the blade on the left is pattern welded Damascus, not wootz. The influence of ingot cooling and forging is, however, something I am/would like to work on further. As a side point, from what I have studied, the Persians etc (at least at Merv), had a very advanced level of craftsmenship and technical, science skills. More "advanced" than the Indians. However, I have some great meals over a campfire, compared to 4 star restarants. That is to say, sofistication does not equal "better" craftsmen.

17th March 2005, 03:00 PM	#3
ingelred Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Moenchengladbach, Germany Posts: 62	Don't get me wrong but You write about Wootz steel but as far as I see it the left blade is made of pattern welded Damaskus steel with the pattern resembling some kind of small roses or rain drops!?! Greetings, Helge

17th March 2005, 04:06 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I guess I am the ideal judge: not metallurgist, not well educated in the fine points of Damascus steelmaking and not into rich and sophisticated weapons. In short, a rank amateur. Personally, I like the first example on the right : the wootz lines are not as tightly controlled as in the last example but are free-floating and very "poetic" (Sorry, can't find a better word!). The last example seems to me to have a rigid and "squeezed" appearance. Well, this is my 5 cents worth. And it is worth exactly that: 5 cents. Because at the end of the day all esthetic judgemens are purely subjective and are a matter of personal taste. Both patterns in this thread are high class objects of art and each will have it's admirers. " De gustibus non est disputandum", no arguing about taste. Or, as one guy said about his horrifically ugly and grossly deformed girlfiend " Well, either you do like Picasso or you don't"

17th March 2005, 06:49 PM	#6
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Yes, the eye of the beholder...on a similar note, the Islamic Historian Al-Beruni said that sometime in Khorasan (region of Central Asia), they do not etch a crucible steel blade to reveal the pattern.

17th March 2005, 06:59 PM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	i had not intended this post to be a statement of the difference of indian vs persian but it seems as though it lends itself to this. i am not complaining as maybe it needs to be discussed. jens, you say - and in a way it is as if, the more you read, the less you know – I do however hope that that will change this was my point exactly. the more you read, the more dominated you are with the general concensus. if you wanted to seperate yourself from this, where do you start? do you forget everything you've read and start afresh? i think this may be the only way to move forward. jens, you show one blade that is distinctly indian and one is without a doubt persian. and yet, the fittings of this 'persian' dagger is indian. now, do we assume that it is persian because fiegel and his peers say so? it is hard to detach yourself away from the current thought, and i am as guilty as any for doing the same. if a dagger is indian in form, and yet the blade seems persian, we should assume it is indian and take the journey to convince ourselves otherwise, instead of the other way around. otherwise, we are all guilty of assumption. the patterns are deceptive, and the more i look into mughal influence, the more the world opens up. we have our definate sources in egerton and hendley (and a small handfull of others). but, we know for a fact that mistakes were made, and yet we still jump on a well known bandwagon and scream persian, when we should be assuming indian, and asking persian. once again, i state i am guilty as well. we are all afraid to doubt our peers and yet surely by questioning, we are furthering what they initiated. they never claimed to be experts, but just took what was known at the time a little further. ann, i dont doubt your studies and yet you state the persians were - 'More "advanced" than the Indians' is this from your own studies are are you as guilty as the rest of us in assuming the general opinion. the records clearly show the persian influence of the mughal courts. their presence in india did more than influence the local style, and it developed into a hybrid, as well as a simulation of a fashionalble style of the age. in my studies, i have drawn a distinct line between the two cultures and for the first time, i doubt my own findings. these doubts are not sudden (over dinner??) but instilled over a confusion of conflicting data. rick (rsword) showed a sword recently that we all enjoyed pushing our opinions on, and yet we were all reluctant to claim anything against our known sources. his sword showed a distinct persian influence over a definate indian style. so, what about taking it further. if the fashion of the time was persian, and not the underlying hindu culture, why do we not assume the 'persian' blades were not created locally to suit the current trend. why do we all claim that the ingots were exported to persia and not complete blades. why do we assume that the indians exported ingots and then imported complete blades made by the persian artisans. i'm not saying this didnt happen, but i know for a fact that the indian artisans were not as secondarly to their persian superiors (???) as some like to assume. where is this information coming from? if the mughal courts imported their 'home' culture to india, why would this stop at bladesmithing. for the first time in ove rone hundred years, the academic world is beginning to branch away from the assumed knowledge of their contemporaries. this division happened some time ago in the higher-end collective world and its about time that india has had the acclaim it deserved. yes, it was over-run with a dominant culture, but it did so admirably and also kept its own tradition to run alongside its 'conqueror'. can anyone claim the persian artisan was more advanced than the intricate work of tamil nadu, which fought to keep its native style throughout an islamic dominance and a moghul annoyance (sorry to any aurangzeb fans, but he never truly conquered the deccan as he liked to have claimed) ariel, your claim of rank amateurism is admirable (but not believed by anyone ). this stance just shows an open mind. your personal opinion should overshadow your views, as this shows a reluctance to listen to others. not quite sure where the above rant has led, but i'm still deeply entrenched in the indian camp. the truth may be obvious, or shockingly opposing general thought, but i know the answers are not quite apparant as yet but we can only hope they become known during our collective lifetimes.

17th March 2005, 09:59 PM	#10
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Don't forget, Uzbekistan was a HUGE producer of crucible steel in antiquity and northern India (which technically is Central Asia) is not that far away.