[This message has been edited by tom hyle (edited 06-04-2003).]

The key to understanding whether wootz is "Indian" or "Persian" is realizing that both designations are more or less meaningless the further back into history that you go.

What is now Iran and what is now Northwest India were historically one shifting and related cultural sphere. The language of the Gathas and the language of the Vedas is very closely related.

It is safer to say that early steel manufacture is characteristic of the Indo-Aryan peoples once of what is now Northwest India and Iran. The combination of the use of steel weapons and techniques of mounted warfare is classically Indo-Aryan.

The Indo-Europeans sprang from this group, and with sacred iron and steel, combined with chariots and mounts, they carried their herds and culture westward.

Nice blade. Should etch well.

Cheers,

Oliver

Best,

Is he serious in his outlook? Clearly, his approach is amiably light-hearted. If serious, his line of reasoning arrogates to itself a dangerous sort of intellectual authority. It asks, "Why don't the Khyberis know the proper name of their dagger is choora?" and "Why don't the Moros know the proper name of their sword is kris?" Spun in a political context, such simple questions have had exceptionally far-reaching consequences for several of the cultures commonly under discussion on this forum: "Why were the Plains Indians/Circassians/Tibetans/Palestinians unaware they were on our land?"
It is the responsibility of the serious student of arms and armor to respect the methods of use, the forms and the names of the weapons under discussion. Ask the far more compelling question, "Why have we come to know the weapons of a given culture by names which they themselves did not use?"
One need not delve into etymological or linguistic research in order to learn about weapons and the cultures from which they came, however I believe forum members will agree that among current threads the most interesting and best written (notably those regarding Indonesian weapons) stress these very issues.
The observation,
"Or, perhaps, we are well behind the curve, still learning from the Stone's book whereas the natural course of history simplified the terminology?"
takes a rueful and inactive perspective, denying the duty of a serious arms student to research, by arguing that history has simplified terminology like water smoothing stones in a riverbed. As collectors and students, we constantly observe that body of water. It is our responsibility to remove and study such stones as interest us from it before they are lost.
The question "Would the Japanese preserve their intricate sword terminology had they been actively using them?" is best left to a Japanese sword forum to dissect, though I hope ethnic sword forum members with even a passing knowledge of Japanese arms and traditions will recall that the Japanese evolved and applied an extensive terminology to their weapons as they valued them highly--a natural consequence of living and perishing by them as recently as the mid-20th century.
The purpose of the foregoing has been to point out a traditional yet historically-skewed perspective most generally shared by empires and the empire-minded, with fellow forum members as it has impacted (and continues to impact) many of the cultures of interest to them. Whether Ariel has composed what he believes to be valid reasoning or a clever joke, he has effectively conveyed an important and enduring perspective for which I thank him.
Finally, he is quite correct in observing, "I have a sneaking suspicion that we live in a kind of cultural shell, a frozen state of artificial history... Don't take me wrong, I love it here! Nevertheless, the idea that we can explain to the native Sudanese that his national sword should properly be called "kaskara" while he would look at us incomprehensibly and call it "saif" (which is a generic Arabic name for a sword), is fairly comical to me."
Bravo, Ariel. Recognizing the shell, and breaking out of it on occasion is pretty comical too. Not to mention informative and exhilirtating.
Sincerely,

Ham

WE USUALLY STUDY THE TIMES WHEN WEAPONS WERE MOST IMPORTANT AND OF THE BEST QUALITY. THE CULTURE PLACED MUCH MORE IMPORTANCE AND PRESTIEGE IN EDGED WEAPONS AND GAVE THEM HONORABLE NAMES. TODAYS WARRIOR MIGHT STILL CARRY A EDGED WEAPON BUT WOULD VALUE HIS AK47 AND ROCKET LAUNCHER MUCH MORE SO THE EDGED WEAPON WOULD NOT BE IMPORTANT ENOUGH FOR A HONORABLE NAME.

MANY OF THE NAMES WE USE FOR THINGS ARE A DEAD LANGUAGE TO THE DESENDENTS OF THE CULTURES WE STUDY. THERE MAY ALSO HAVE BEEN MISTAKES MADE BY EARLIER RESEARCHERS OF THE TRIBAL NAMES OF WEAPONS WHICH HAVE BEEN PASSED DOWN THRU BOOKS.