Wootz: Persian or Indian?

ShayanMirza · 3rd January 2007, 09:11 PM

The way I've always heard it, including from respectable Persian historians (and I'm Persian myself) is that it was most likely developed first in India, then soon spread north to the Iranian plateau, and then spread to the rest of the Middle East from there.

As an aside, how is Mr. Kirpichev spouting "nationalist BS?" He's Russian, not Persian. Though I do agree, as a budding historian (still in college

) I do hate it when history is hijacked for nationalism. Einstein said "Nationalism is the greatest disease of our age." I couldn't agree more. Pride in one's country and heritage should not (and does not) necessitate xenophobia and jingoism.

Andrew · 3rd January 2007, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShayanMirza

The way I've always heard it, including from respectable Persian historians (and I'm Persian myself) is that it was most likely developed first in India, then soon spread north to the Iranian plateau, and then spread to the rest of the Middle East from there.

As an aside, how is Mr. Kirpichev spouting "nationalist BS?" He's Russian, not Persian. Though I do agree, as a budding historian (still in college

) I do hate it when history is hijacked for nationalism. Einstein said "Nationalism is the greatest disease of our age." I couldn't agree more. Pride in one's country and heritage should not (and does not) necessitate xenophobia and jingoism.

Welcome to the forum, Shayan. Excellent post.

Do you read Farsi?

S.Al-Anizi · 3rd January 2007, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShayanMirza

The way I've always heard it, including from respectable Persian historians (and I'm Persian myself) is that it was most likely developed first in India, then soon spread north to the Iranian plateau, and then spread to the rest of the Middle East from there.

As an aside, how is Mr. Kirpichev spouting "nationalist BS?" He's Russian, not Persian. Though I do agree, as a budding historian (still in college

) I do hate it when history is hijacked for nationalism. Einstein said "Nationalism is the greatest disease of our age." I couldn't agree more. Pride in one's country and heritage should not (and does not) necessitate xenophobia and jingoism.

Welcome to the forums Shayan. I do realize that Mr.Kirpichev is Russian, however, I guess you're still not too familiar with the online sword community, and how nationalism stirs up many, 'newly discovered evidence', which are taken up as facts, which then spreads misconceptions and ignorance, especially when it comes to mid-eastern weaponry, as they're so similar and related.

Cheers!

ariel · 3rd January 2007, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShayanMirza

The way I've always heard it, including from respectable Persian historians (and I'm Persian myself) is that it was most likely developed first in India, then soon spread north to the Iranian plateau, and then spread to the rest of the Middle East from there.

As an aside, how is Mr. Kirpichev spouting "nationalist BS?" He's Russian, not Persian. Though I do agree, as a budding historian (still in college

) I do hate it when history is hijacked for nationalism. Einstein said "Nationalism is the greatest disease of our age." I couldn't agree more. Pride in one's country and heritage should not (and does not) necessitate xenophobia and jingoism.

Welcome to the Forum, Shayan!
I could not agree more. How do you like UVA? Gorgeous campus, first-rate education and a good football team ( coming from a UofM Wolverine..... We lost badly...).
Well, I guess even football patriotism is quite poisonous: look what happens with the Ohio State!

( Not to be confused with the Ohio University from Athens who are the Good Guys).
The most popular tee shirt in Ann Arbor says" Oh How I Hate Ohio State"

ShayanMirza · 3rd January 2007, 11:54 PM

Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone!

Andrew, I do indeed, though not as a heritage learner, ironically. I'm learning it the hard way.

Mr. Anizi, thank you for the warning, I'll keep my eyes open in the future when I'm reading articles on weapons that appear to have priorities other than the exploration of the art or function of the tools of war.

And Ariel, I LOVE UVA!!! It is a wonderful town, Charlottesville. Though to be honest, I haven't been to a single football game yet, which in this town makes me half a man! Football rivalry gets almost absurdly intense here...that said, TECH SUX!!!

Just kidding. Kinda.

Thanks again for the welcome, everyone!

ShayanMirza · 4th January 2007, 04:03 AM

"It is important to recall Bronson’s observation that no first hand ethnographic reports from South India mention that the steel produces a Damascus pattern (Bronson, 1986, 39-40). In addition, the experiments performed by Wilkinson (1839, 389) on crucible steel ingots from Cutch, in Northern India on the India-Pakistan border, and from Salem, southern India, concluded that only the ingot from Cutch produced a good pattern, whereas the Salem sample had only a slight indication of a pattern. Therefore, the evidence from all archaeological, ethnographic, and replication experiments, indicates that crucible steel from South India/Sri Lanka, i.e. the areas associated with the terms wootz, produced crucible steel blades with either no pattern or a faint pattern only. Arguably, it is the coarse pattern, such as the Kara Khorasan pattern, that is most often associated with or characterizes “Damascus steel” (refer to Figures 97-100). As mentioned above, the archaeological evidence from Merv and Termez indicated that the microstructure of the ingots could have resulted in a coarse patterned blade. In addition, textual evidence (e.g. al-Beruni in Said, 1989, 219-220), and ethnographic reports (e.g. Abbott, 1884; Wilkinson, 1839, 38) all state that crucible steel blades with a good pattern were produced in Central Asia and Northern India, places where the term pulad (or related term) was used. Therefore, all the afore mentioned evidence indicates that crucible steel from Central Asia, which includes Northern India, could produced crucible steel blades with a coarse pattern, while the South Indian/Sri Lankan wootz ingots probably did not. This is contrary to the generally accepted opinion that Indian wootz steel was primarily used to produce “Damascus blades” (e.g. Verhoeven, 2001; Figiel, 1991, 7; Rostoker and Bronson, 1990, 130; Sachse, 1994, 67). "

That's from (soon to be) Dr. Feuerbach's thesis, available in the thread regarding the practicality of wootz.

3rd January 2007, 09:11 PM	#1
ShayanMirza Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Charlottesville Posts: 25	The way I've always heard it, including from respectable Persian historians (and I'm Persian myself) is that it was most likely developed first in India, then soon spread north to the Iranian plateau, and then spread to the rest of the Middle East from there. As an aside, how is Mr. Kirpichev spouting "nationalist BS?" He's Russian, not Persian. Though I do agree, as a budding historian (still in college ) I do hate it when history is hijacked for nationalism. Einstein said "Nationalism is the greatest disease of our age." I couldn't agree more. Pride in one's country and heritage should not (and does not) necessitate xenophobia and jingoism.

3rd January 2007, 11:54 PM	#5
ShayanMirza Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Charlottesville Posts: 25	Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone! Andrew, I do indeed, though not as a heritage learner, ironically. I'm learning it the hard way. Mr. Anizi, thank you for the warning, I'll keep my eyes open in the future when I'm reading articles on weapons that appear to have priorities other than the exploration of the art or function of the tools of war. And Ariel, I LOVE UVA!!! It is a wonderful town, Charlottesville. Though to be honest, I haven't been to a single football game yet, which in this town makes me half a man! Football rivalry gets almost absurdly intense here...that said, TECH SUX!!! Just kidding. Kinda. Thanks again for the welcome, everyone!

4th January 2007, 04:03 AM	#6
ShayanMirza Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Charlottesville Posts: 25	"It is important to recall Bronson’s observation that no first hand ethnographic reports from South India mention that the steel produces a Damascus pattern (Bronson, 1986, 39-40). In addition, the experiments performed by Wilkinson (1839, 389) on crucible steel ingots from Cutch, in Northern India on the India-Pakistan border, and from Salem, southern India, concluded that only the ingot from Cutch produced a good pattern, whereas the Salem sample had only a slight indication of a pattern. Therefore, the evidence from all archaeological, ethnographic, and replication experiments, indicates that crucible steel from South India/Sri Lanka, i.e. the areas associated with the terms wootz, produced crucible steel blades with either no pattern or a faint pattern only. Arguably, it is the coarse pattern, such as the Kara Khorasan pattern, that is most often associated with or characterizes “Damascus steel” (refer to Figures 97-100). As mentioned above, the archaeological evidence from Merv and Termez indicated that the microstructure of the ingots could have resulted in a coarse patterned blade. In addition, textual evidence (e.g. al-Beruni in Said, 1989, 219-220), and ethnographic reports (e.g. Abbott, 1884; Wilkinson, 1839, 38) all state that crucible steel blades with a good pattern were produced in Central Asia and Northern India, places where the term pulad (or related term) was used. Therefore, all the afore mentioned evidence indicates that crucible steel from Central Asia, which includes Northern India, could produced crucible steel blades with a coarse pattern, while the South Indian/Sri Lankan wootz ingots probably did not. This is contrary to the generally accepted opinion that Indian wootz steel was primarily used to produce “Damascus blades” (e.g. Verhoeven, 2001; Figiel, 1991, 7; Rostoker and Bronson, 1990, 130; Sachse, 1994, 67). " That's from (soon to be) Dr. Feuerbach's thesis, available in the thread regarding the practicality of wootz.