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.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by 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.

On the contrary, I do not in any way, shape of form would call Moro " uncivilized" or " un-anything". Their production of highly sophisticated arms despite pretty basic conditions is the exact point of my argument! If they could do it, I see no reason why we deny the same ability to the Central Asian nomads. Do we really believe that all those Dzhungarians, Kashgars, Kumans, Polovtsi, Turcoman Mongols etc, etc imported their swords from China? How did they managed to demolish the super-urbanized China and super-duper-civilized Iranian Empire if they could not maintain a steady-state military-industrial complex?

[fearn]

Hi Ariel,

Ummm.... steady state industrial complex? The Mongols? They had the largest contiguous empire in world history. Steady state? I'd say expansionist.

Otherwise, I agree with you. Somewhere along the line, I'd gotten the idea that the "scimitar" shape was something the Steppe nomads worked out and passed to surrounding peoples, not the other way around. Ditto with the compound bow and stirrup. They seem pretty advanced to me.

F

[ariel]

Perhaps, steady-state was an imprecise choice: I meant established, functioning, well-oiled or suchlike.
Going to a different topic I raised earler: the origin of the curved saber.

The Mohamed's book shows Khazar sabers, some with pretty obvious false edge ( vestigal yelmans) and suggests that these were the swords later called Kalachuri by the Persians/Indians.
This being the case, one would have to re-think the origins of the Shamshir.
According to Zakey, the introduction of the curved sabers into Muslim culture occured with the Turkic Mongols invading Persia in the 13th century.
However, Umayyad Arabs fought Khazars as early as in the 7th-8th centuries and Northern Iran was a part of the battlefield. This is when the straight Arab swords met the curved Khazar ones for the first time. Thus, it is likely that the replacement of the sword pattern in the Islamic armies occured much earlier than we think. Persians, who were under full Arab control, just adopted the new and superior pattern and continued to curve it more and more until the Safavid era. Another possibility is that the Seljuk ruler Israil ( a native Khazar or adopted Khazar) introduced curved Khazar sabers during his wars with Mahmud Ghaznavi in the 11th century.
Either explanations ( likely, the former one, ie Khazar-Arab Wars) would represent the starting point of the introduction of curved sabers into Islamic military culture. This would explain the North's and Nicolle's claims that curved sabers were present in the Islamic world as early as 8th-9th centuries.
If the Persian cavalry under Shah Mohammed fought the invading Mongols with straight swords, I must be wrong. If, however, they already had curved sabers, the idea of the " Chingiz Khan- inspired " origin of shamshir must be incorrect.

[Nonoy Tan]

Hi Ariel,

I am in agreement with your point.

What I have learned from studying various peoples is that it is difficult to generalize (as Jared Diamond did). Often, we need to study a group/people in detail and focus because one group may have had a different set of circumstances, politics, external influences, etc. that make shape their "destiny". While there are parallels, there could also be differentiation even among "similar" groups of peoples. My 2 cents.

By the way, do the peoples you mentioned undertake "blacksmithing"?

[TVV]

The Arabs had contacts with the Eatsern Roman Empire as well, and the Romans had contact with the Bulgarians, the Avars and the Magyars, all of whom used the sabre. There is a sabre found in a grave in North-Eastern Bulgaria, dated to the 8th century based on artefacts surrounding it (the reference is in Bulgarian). The dating may be questionable, but one has to keep in mind that it might have been a heirloom, which could potentially make it older. I believe pictorial evidence suggests that the sabre was popular enough in Constantinople in the 10th century, as Emperors are depicted with it. It would be interested to see if there are any frescoes in Eastern Anatolia. Anyway, this has little to do with the main question in this topic, but it supports the idea that the Arabs knew of the sword earlier.
I believe that the technological skills and development of Central Asian peoples tend to be underestimated. There are far more sabres than straight sword found in nowadays Bulgaria, dating to the 8th-10th centuries. Some of them undoubtedly were brought by the Magyars, but the fact stands that sabres were prevalent and straight swords wre not, even though the production centers in the Rhein were closer than any centers in Persia, and let alone China. There wither was huge trade in blades, or the Bulgarians somehow managed to produce them themselves. I think the answer might be somewhere in the middle - perhaps instead of swords, the trade was mainly of ingots. In the European Armoury it was discussed that there is a high probability that some of the Northern European swords may have been forged in Scandinavia with wootz, imported all the way from India. If true, this could potentially explain a lot.
Finally, I do not find it surprising that peoples, who relied on weapons for their survival, had skilled bladesmiths. Apart from horses and bows, what was really more important to Central Asian nomads than their blades?

[kronckew]

just a few general comments

1. 'uncivilized' is a roman concept, the word originally derived from civitas, a roman administrative unit for citizens of rome, a.k.a. 'city' - uncivilised people thus were those who did not live in cities, such as rome. they were thus not 'urban'

in english,

Civil:
Pertaining to a city or state, or to a citizen in his relations to his fellow citizens or to the state; within the city or state.
Subject to government; reduced to order; civilized; not barbarous; -- said of the community.
Performing the duties of a citizen; obedient to government; -- said of an individual.
Having the manners of one dwelling in a city, as opposed to those of savages or rustics; polite; courteous; complaisant; affable.


2. they were frequently barbarians, meaning they did not speak a 'civilised' (see no. 1) language like latin or greek, and thus their language was just meaningless sounds, or bar-bar-bar-bar ( we say blah-blah-blah).

these words had no relation to either their scientific, engineering, moral, technical or social skills, just that they were different, and thus people outside roma's control. the romans had no trouble buying fine crafted items from them, trading with them, or stealing ideas from them; or conquering them, 'civilising' them and making good little tax paying citizens of them.

the celts, gauls, etc. who did not live in what rome would call cities, did however have manufacturing communities and an extensive pre-roman trade setup and produced many fine items, including weapons that even rome bought. raw materials not available locally were available by trade. civilization was not a requirement. rome of course conquered them eventually and as they wrote the histories, shuffled most of them off into the 'uncivilised barbarian' category and ignored their contributions.

thus, some of the concepts of urban life in the modern 'civitas' most of us grew up with would have been totally unknown to some of the ethnic groups mentioned here. they still managed. trying to neatly package their cultures in terms of ours is an exercise that will likely result in frustration and disagreement.

[Nonoy Tan]

Aside from Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" I recall another thougth-provoking work by Stephen Oppenheimer, "Eden in the East - The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia."

I highly recommend it as well.

Such works challenge many of our assumptions on the origins of "civilization" and organized societies.

Nonoy

[Richard Furrer]

Originally Posted by TVV

I think the answer might be somewhere in the middle - perhaps instead of swords, the trade was mainly of ingots. In the European Armoury it was discussed that there is a high probability that some of the Northern European swords may have been forged in Scandinavia with wootz, imported all the way from India. If true, this could potentially explain a lot.
Finally, I do not find it surprising that peoples, who relied on weapons for their survival, had skilled bladesmiths. Apart from horses and bows, what was really more important to Central Asian nomads than their blades?

Hello TVV and all,
I do not know the origins of the curved sword, but as to the above I am only aware of Alan Williams research into Ingelrii blades of crucible steel....do you know of others?

Ric

[TVV]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Hello TVV and all,
I do not know the origins of the curved sword, but as to the above I am only aware of Alan Williams research into Ingelrii blades of crucible steel....do you know of others?

Ric

I am afraid not, Richard. At least as far as Bulgaria is concerned, nobody there has either the knowledge or the funds to undertake an examination of found blades to determine whether they were made of crucible steel.
Regards,
Teodor

[katana]

In Africa, the pattern of agricultural/pastural 'civilisation' leading to an industrial society doesn't really apply.
A number of wandering 'nomadic' blacksmiths / bladesmiths would travel to various tribes and in exchange for goods etc. would make weapons and tools. A number of tribes did have their own blacksmiths whom produced 'equipment' for their 'own'.
Blacksmiths were held in high regard and were/are associated with many cultural/religious/spiritual beliefs (both good and bad) Similar to the 'magical' esteem held for swordsmiths in early civilisations.

At the other end of the 'scale' ...In west and central Africa, iron working developed in the Mandara Mountains, on the borders of Nigeria and the Cameroon, and in the area around Yaoundé in the south of Cameroon around 2,600 BC. The iron was sourced and smelted there....this attracted blacksmiths from a variety of tribes whom took residence and produced weapons and tools that were traded.

I agree that our 'Western' concept of agricultural society developing into an industrial society will not apply to many 'Ethnic' groups. AFAIK the Mongols, although 'nomadic' had blacksmiths that travelled with the 'group' and did not rely on 'trade' blades.

Regards David

[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..