Damascus Steel

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.

ariel · 22nd February 2007, 05:18 AM

A question that always puzzled me: how did the Iranians "forget" how to to make wootz?
Why did not Javanese masters forget how to make pamor? The ban on carrying weapons came in Japan at about the same time the last Persian wootz blades were produced; nevertheless, the art of making Nihonto blades was fully preserved.
Why did it take Russian, German and American metallurgists to re-invent the technology of wootz manufacture?
Why weren't wootz blades manufactured in Turkey or Egypt? After all, it should have taken just a couple of Iranian masters brought to Istanbul to start up a mass production of wootz blades. I have a wootz yataghan of Balkan(?) provenance, but that's it.

Is it possible that there was no well-developed wootz-making industry in Persia, ie, the great majority of ingots ( or, in the extreme case, all of them) being made in India and exported to Iran for the final stage of blade forming? Is it possible that there was tight import control on the ingots consumed by Iran and not reaching the Ottomans? The withering of Iranian wootz swords ( mid-19th century) co-incides with the British ban on the manufacture of wootz ingots in India (allegedly to prevent deforestation). After that, all Iranian swords were of plain steel or mechanical damascus construction. That should not have happened had there been an established, independent wootz production in Iran. Russian Captain Massalski personally observed making wootz ingots in Bukhara in the first half of the 19th century. Are there any eyewitness accounts of wootz manufacture in Iran? This is a direct extension of Brian's earlier inquiry http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4047
Back to my original question: perhaps, Persians never "forgot" how to make wootz; they just never knew. Perhaps, the reason why the Europeans could not find the secret of Persian steel was that they looked in the wrong place: they should have asked the Indians and the Uzbeks

B.I · 7th March 2007, 08:34 AM

Hi Ariel,
The paper I was refering to in that post was not on wootz, but on Persian metalwork as a whole. But, the main criteria of the author was to challenge assumptions, and so this should also be the case with Persian wootz.
What the author did, was to challence the origin of a series of artworks in known museums, all assumed and accepted to be Persian (Safavid from memory) as the form is well known to be of this period and region. His stance, was that they were not Persian at all, but Indian. His case was well written, and backed with decorative iconography found in Bijapur and Golkonda, which was almost identical to that used on these particular pieces. He claims the main cetres of manafacture were Lahore and the Deccan, and they widely exported pieces made in Persian taste for a huge Persian market. He claims that Indian craftsman were widely respected and the Persians accepted that their own craftsman were 'inferior'. He re-translated insriptions, written on well known 'Persian' pieces and found the word 'Lahore' written next to the name of the craftsman.
I know this may sound extreme, and his theory can easily be argued against, but nothing he claims can be called extreme, as his arguement is well thought out and researched. The strangest thing, and something I really respect, is that the authour is patriotically Persian by birth! So, no matter whether his claim is accepted or not, his opinion is based on pure study without the bias of nationalism.
I am a big fan of marching against assumption, and so I found the article extremely interesting. I am not saying I agreed with it all, but it definately made me re-assess things that even I was guilty of assuming. Of course, this can be taken too far, and sometimes you have to assume a little, otherwise you never get to the second stage of an investigation.

tsubame1 · 15th May 2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

Is it possible that there was no well-developed wootz-making industry in Persia, ie, the great majority of ingots ( or, in the extreme case, all of them) being made in India and exported to Iran for the final stage of blade forming? Is it possible that there was tight import control on the ingots consumed by Iran and not reaching the Ottomans? The withering of Iranian wootz swords ( mid-19th century) co-incides with the British ban on the manufacture of wootz ingots in India (allegedly to prevent deforestation). After that, all Iranian swords were of plain steel or mechanical damascus construction. That should not have happened had there been an established, independent wootz production in Iran. Russian Captain Massalski personally observed making wootz ingots in Bukhara in the first half of the 19th century. Are there any eyewitness accounts of wootz manufacture in Iran? This is a direct extension of Brian's earlier inquiry http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4047
Back to my original question: perhaps, Persians never "forgot" how to make wootz; they just never knew. Perhaps, the reason why the Europeans could not find the secret of Persian steel was that they looked in the wrong place: they should have asked the Indians and the Uzbeks

One thing that every ruler/nation/empire tried to avoid as pneumonia pestis
is to totally depend from foreign supply for very important army related stuffs and supplies. Even today some nations that have a strong need of safety and can't absolutely rely on outer supplies/technologies makes their own weaponry.
Comes to mind the jewish with the Merkava.
Why should the perians have relied on external sources of supply that would
have been easly cut for such an important supply as wootz ?
I know that wootz isn't really considered a good steel for combat in this
board, so maybe this matter has been skipped as "wootz is Kool and useless"
but still I wonder why Bukhara yes and Persia not. Can you explain
this ?

ALEX · 22nd March 2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.I

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

B.I.
The stamps read: "Abbas Shah. Work of Assad Allah". (Abbas Shah ruled at 1600's). Fantastic (and real) stamps. Nice!

ariel · 22nd March 2007, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALEX

B.I.
The stamps read: "Abbas Shah. Work of Assad Allah". (Abbas Shah ruled at 1600's). Fantastic (and real) stamps. Nice!

The stamps are real, no doubt.
But what about the names? Assadullah's signature was used by a multitude of swordmakers trying to sell their wares for mucho dinero.

8th February 2007, 05:36 PM	#3
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	#5
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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

8th February 2007, 04:30 PM	#1
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	#2
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	#4
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.

22nd February 2007, 05:18 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	A question that always puzzled me: how did the Iranians "forget" how to to make wootz? Why did not Javanese masters forget how to make pamor? The ban on carrying weapons came in Japan at about the same time the last Persian wootz blades were produced; nevertheless, the art of making Nihonto blades was fully preserved. Why did it take Russian, German and American metallurgists to re-invent the technology of wootz manufacture? Why weren't wootz blades manufactured in Turkey or Egypt? After all, it should have taken just a couple of Iranian masters brought to Istanbul to start up a mass production of wootz blades. I have a wootz yataghan of Balkan(?) provenance, but that's it. Is it possible that there was no well-developed wootz-making industry in Persia, ie, the great majority of ingots ( or, in the extreme case, all of them) being made in India and exported to Iran for the final stage of blade forming? Is it possible that there was tight import control on the ingots consumed by Iran and not reaching the Ottomans? The withering of Iranian wootz swords ( mid-19th century) co-incides with the British ban on the manufacture of wootz ingots in India (allegedly to prevent deforestation). After that, all Iranian swords were of plain steel or mechanical damascus construction. That should not have happened had there been an established, independent wootz production in Iran. Russian Captain Massalski personally observed making wootz ingots in Bukhara in the first half of the 19th century. Are there any eyewitness accounts of wootz manufacture in Iran? This is a direct extension of Brian's earlier inquiry http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4047 Back to my original question: perhaps, Persians never "forgot" how to make wootz; they just never knew. Perhaps, the reason why the Europeans could not find the secret of Persian steel was that they looked in the wrong place: they should have asked the Indians and the Uzbeks

7th March 2007, 08:34 AM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	Hi Ariel, The paper I was refering to in that post was not on wootz, but on Persian metalwork as a whole. But, the main criteria of the author was to challenge assumptions, and so this should also be the case with Persian wootz. What the author did, was to challence the origin of a series of artworks in known museums, all assumed and accepted to be Persian (Safavid from memory) as the form is well known to be of this period and region. His stance, was that they were not Persian at all, but Indian. His case was well written, and backed with decorative iconography found in Bijapur and Golkonda, which was almost identical to that used on these particular pieces. He claims the main cetres of manafacture were Lahore and the Deccan, and they widely exported pieces made in Persian taste for a huge Persian market. He claims that Indian craftsman were widely respected and the Persians accepted that their own craftsman were 'inferior'. He re-translated insriptions, written on well known 'Persian' pieces and found the word 'Lahore' written next to the name of the craftsman. I know this may sound extreme, and his theory can easily be argued against, but nothing he claims can be called extreme, as his arguement is well thought out and researched. The strangest thing, and something I really respect, is that the authour is patriotically Persian by birth! So, no matter whether his claim is accepted or not, his opinion is based on pure study without the bias of nationalism. I am a big fan of marching against assumption, and so I found the article extremely interesting. I am not saying I agreed with it all, but it definately made me re-assess things that even I was guilty of assuming. Of course, this can be taken too far, and sometimes you have to assume a little, otherwise you never get to the second stage of an investigation.