True Combat Value of Wootz

Ann Feuerbach · 24th October 2006, 02:30 PM

Well spotted. It is all correct, but needs clarification. The blade from Luristan has spheroidal cementite suggesting it is crucible steel, but the date is uncertain as they were looted and therefore lost all context and dating. The earliest excavated and well dated blade is from Taxila (1st century AD). The second and third earliest excavated are from the Russian Caucasus (3rd-4th century AD), the fourth earliest blade is from Sasanian period. The blades from Luristan and Sasanian Perisa are the two earliest known from IRAN, not the earliest in the world.

Ann Feuerbach · 24th October 2006, 02:41 PM

Oh, that you as well for the link to Umar. It is now properly placed in my database. Russian Caucausus...near Kislovodsk, I analyzed 35 blades, 4 were crucible steel, those two early ones are associated with the Alani culture, a 7th century one was found in association with a horse burial, and an 11th century one associated witht the Saultovo Mauaskaya culture (related to the Khazar Turks before the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols. There has also been crucible steel objects found in Kazakstan.

Rivkin · 24th October 2006, 04:17 PM

Interesting !
I thought Taxila findings are from a collection of burial places of some central asian tribes related to alans - is there a possible connection between them ?
If you are interested in Umar's pact, as far as I remember (and I hope there are people here who actually know fiqh, not pretend they do, like me), it is supposed to stem from a message of Mohammed to non-muslims of Yemen, non-muslims were not supposed to be left in Arabia, so it was the first place where the coexistance started. Understanding of Pact of Umar changed to some extent over time, especially nn the boundaries of umma, places like India or Spain (where Moghuls held rather unusual views and Spain is the place where Umayads and Almohads had diametrically opposite view on the issue). Shias have traditionally somewhat different view on the Pact since they are very careful concerning "impurity" laws.

ariel · 25th October 2006, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

Well spotted. It is all correct, but needs clarification. The blade from Luristan has spheroidal cementite suggesting it is crucible steel, but the date is uncertain as they were looted and therefore lost all context and dating. The earliest excavated and well dated blade is from Taxila (1st century AD). The second and third earliest excavated are from the Russian Caucasus (3rd-4th century AD), the fourth earliest blade is from Sasanian period. The blades from Luristan and Sasanian Perisa are the two earliest known from IRAN, not the earliest in the world.

That is not how it was reported in the book. I have an uneasy feeling about the misrepresentation of facts and mis-quoting of your data in the book: it was made to sound as if Iran was the cradle of crucible steel technology. Whoever has this book, please read the section I referred to and compare it to Ann's post here: am I the only one viewing it to be an intentional misquoting?

Rick · 25th October 2006, 02:59 AM

I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ?

ariel · 25th October 2006, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ?

Yes, I do. That's where I got the information. I just want to have opinions of other readers.

Jeff D · 25th October 2006, 04:39 AM

"Feuerbach (2002b:229) believes that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan. She cites Rehder and France-Lanord, saying that there are six blades attributed to Luristan that contain spheroidal cementite. She further (2002b:230) claims that the earliest crucible steel blade of a double-edged sword is dated to the first century A.D. The sword is composed of high carbon steel with spheroidial cementite. Additionally (2002b:230), the next published object made from crucible steel is a Sassanian sword, attributed to 6th or 7th century A.D. Iran, now exhibited in the British Museum. Feuerbach (2002b:230) explains is a double-edged blade with a pistol grip, an indentation in the hilt for an index finger, no guard, and a scabbard with a two-point suspension. She further states that under low magnification (x100), the sample demonstrates a mottled structure after etching in nital (the microstructure consists of globular cementite in a fine pearlite matrix). Feurerbach (2002b:231) is of the opinion that the fine pearlite matrix is an indication of semi-rapid final cooling. Another key aspect is that since the cementite is not alligned, the sword would not have had a damascus pattern."

This is the entire quote from Pg 103-104, the readers can judge for themselves.

All the Best
Jeff

Ann Feuerbach · 25th October 2006, 12:05 PM

It may have been more accurate if the phrase "in Iran" was placed in the text. However, as this was a book on the Arms and Armour from Iran, this may have been construced by a publisher as redundant, rather than misleading.

Chris Evans · 25th October 2006, 12:19 PM

I always suspected that cutting a silk scarf had little to do with the quality of the steel and was a mere stunt of swordsmanship, one that could be done with almost any decent sabre-sword that was kept unusually sharp.

Well, J.M.Waite, an English professor of fencing, late 2nd Life Guards, and author of Sabre, Singlestick, and Sword Feats, in the late 19th century wrote:

Fold a veil neatly lengthwise and lay it on the edge of the sword, almost close to the hilt.

Place your feet together, with your sword hand resting on the bend of the left arm, the edge of your sword turned up. Take two quick steps to your front , beginning with your left foot and as you make the second, deliver an upward cut with a good edge, throwing the point of the sword high in the air, so that when the veil separates the two parts will have some distance to fall. A good effect will thus be produced.

At the finish of this cut......the arms should be brought straight.......

For this feat.... you require a special sword called a handkerchief cutter. It should have the edge of and be kept as sharp as a razor.

The edge should be ground and set towards the hand, and when sharpening or stropping it, you should rub from point to hilt.

If you look through a very powerful magnifying glass you will find the edge of a sword is serrated like a saw, but not so regularly; Therefor by having the teeth pointed towards the hilt, the edge more readily lays hold of the veil.

Haven't tried it, but someone here should

Cheers
Chris

Rivkin · 25th October 2006, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

It may have been more accurate if the phrase "in Iran" was placed in the text. However, as this was a book on the Arms and Armour from Iran, this may have been construced by a publisher as redundant, rather than misleading.

Well, my verbal IQ is rather close to zero, but here is the problem as I see it:
"Feuerbach (2002b:229) believes that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan.... She further (2002b:230) claims that the earliest crucible steel blade of a double-edged sword is dated to the first century A.D."

Either in both cases "Iran" is assumed and than the earliest blade comes from first century A.D. Iran, or in both cases it should be understand as "the earliest" in principle, and then the birthplace of crucible steel is Luristan.

ariel · 25th October 2006, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach

It may have been more accurate if the phrase "in Iran" was placed in the text. However, as this was a book on the Arms and Armour from Iran, this may have been construced by a publisher as redundant, rather than misleading.

Dear Ann,
You must be a remarkably nice person and I admire your forebearance.
However:
1. Was the information on Taxila and Caucasian swords available in your dissertation cited in the book?
If the answer is no, I can understand that Mr. Khorasani honestly cited your source. If yes, I would have major problem defining his rendition of your material (under your name!) as anything but gross and willful misrepresentation.
2. I have problems to believe that the editors viewed a 2 word sequence "in Iran" to be crucial in editing a 780 page-long book full of redundant and repetitious information.
The origin of crucible steel is a major point of our discussion here and, certainly, of the Mr. Khorasani's book. It is important that we get to the bottom of his statement. As Rivkin cleverly noticed, no matter how you read his paragraph, the intended meaning does not change: he wants us to believe that crucible steel originated in Iran and uses you as a source of the information.
I am very disturbed.

24th October 2006, 02:30 PM	#1
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Well spotted. It is all correct, but needs clarification. The blade from Luristan has spheroidal cementite suggesting it is crucible steel, but the date is uncertain as they were looted and therefore lost all context and dating. The earliest excavated and well dated blade is from Taxila (1st century AD). The second and third earliest excavated are from the Russian Caucasus (3rd-4th century AD), the fourth earliest blade is from Sasanian period. The blades from Luristan and Sasanian Perisa are the two earliest known from IRAN, not the earliest in the world.

24th October 2006, 02:41 PM	#2
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Oh, that you as well for the link to Umar. It is now properly placed in my database. Russian Caucausus...near Kislovodsk, I analyzed 35 blades, 4 were crucible steel, those two early ones are associated with the Alani culture, a 7th century one was found in association with a horse burial, and an 11th century one associated witht the Saultovo Mauaskaya culture (related to the Khazar Turks before the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols. There has also been crucible steel objects found in Kazakstan.

24th October 2006, 04:17 PM	#3
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Interesting ! I thought Taxila findings are from a collection of burial places of some central asian tribes related to alans - is there a possible connection between them ? If you are interested in Umar's pact, as far as I remember (and I hope there are people here who actually know fiqh, not pretend they do, like me), it is supposed to stem from a message of Mohammed to non-muslims of Yemen, non-muslims were not supposed to be left in Arabia, so it was the first place where the coexistance started. Understanding of Pact of Umar changed to some extent over time, especially nn the boundaries of umma, places like India or Spain (where Moghuls held rather unusual views and Spain is the place where Umayads and Almohads had diametrically opposite view on the issue). Shias have traditionally somewhat different view on the Pact since they are very careful concerning "impurity" laws.

25th October 2006, 02:59 AM	#5
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	I thought you had a copy of this book Ariel ?

25th October 2006, 04:39 AM	#7
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	"Feuerbach (2002b:229) believes that the earliest crucible steel blade possibly comes from Luristan. She cites Rehder and France-Lanord, saying that there are six blades attributed to Luristan that contain spheroidal cementite. She further (2002b:230) claims that the earliest crucible steel blade of a double-edged sword is dated to the first century A.D. The sword is composed of high carbon steel with spheroidial cementite. Additionally (2002b:230), the next published object made from crucible steel is a Sassanian sword, attributed to 6th or 7th century A.D. Iran, now exhibited in the British Museum. Feuerbach (2002b:230) explains is a double-edged blade with a pistol grip, an indentation in the hilt for an index finger, no guard, and a scabbard with a two-point suspension. She further states that under low magnification (x100), the sample demonstrates a mottled structure after etching in nital (the microstructure consists of globular cementite in a fine pearlite matrix). Feurerbach (2002b:231) is of the opinion that the fine pearlite matrix is an indication of semi-rapid final cooling. Another key aspect is that since the cementite is not alligned, the sword would not have had a damascus pattern." This is the entire quote from Pg 103-104, the readers can judge for themselves. All the Best Jeff

25th October 2006, 12:05 PM	#8
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	It may have been more accurate if the phrase "in Iran" was placed in the text. However, as this was a book on the Arms and Armour from Iran, this may have been construced by a publisher as redundant, rather than misleading.

25th October 2006, 12:19 PM	#9
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	I always suspected that cutting a silk scarf had little to do with the quality of the steel and was a mere stunt of swordsmanship, one that could be done with almost any decent sabre-sword that was kept unusually sharp. Well, J.M.Waite, an English professor of fencing, late 2nd Life Guards, and author of Sabre, Singlestick, and Sword Feats, in the late 19th century wrote: Fold a veil neatly lengthwise and lay it on the edge of the sword, almost close to the hilt. Place your feet together, with your sword hand resting on the bend of the left arm, the edge of your sword turned up. Take two quick steps to your front , beginning with your left foot and as you make the second, deliver an upward cut with a good edge, throwing the point of the sword high in the air, so that when the veil separates the two parts will have some distance to fall. A good effect will thus be produced. At the finish of this cut......the arms should be brought straight....... For this feat.... you require a special sword called a handkerchief cutter. It should have the edge of and be kept as sharp as a razor. The edge should be ground and set towards the hand, and when sharpening or stropping it, you should rub from point to hilt. If you look through a very powerful magnifying glass you will find the edge of a sword is serrated like a saw, but not so regularly; Therefor by having the teeth pointed towards the hilt, the edge more readily lays hold of the veil. Haven't tried it, but someone here should Cheers Chris