Wootz: Persian or Indian?

ShayanMirza · 6th January 2007, 05:49 AM

As far as pulad steel production goes, how much does region have to do with quality? In an age before the instant dissemination of information, would a region have collectively better swords than another region at a similar stage of material/scientific sophistication due to a superior tradition of swordmaking? Did swordmakers of a region share techniques or jealously guard their higher arts? I always conceptualized swordmaking as a very localized affair, with the quality of blades varying between swordmakers on a far smaller scale. Obviously the quality of ore would make a difference, but one may have good ore and poor workmanship and vice versa. All of this sweeping generalization about whose country makes better swords confuses me, since that kind of argument seems to me to be like saying one country has better art than another, which is a patently absurd comparison. What criteria go into determining which country has better swords in an era where the idea of a nation had not even been formulated? Do we attempt to measure the average quality of blade? Someone please clarify, I have a ton of confusion on what seem to me to be massive generalizations.

Rivkin · 6th January 2007, 06:03 AM

I do not want to make comments on Dr. Feuerbach's thesis since I have not read it in its entirety. It is accepted among some, not without a reason, that "persian" bulat has more contrast than an indian one, something I agree with, even though I am not a bulat-collector. Is it good or bad, I think the answer is we don't know.

Concerning the quality of weapons, the issue should be taken not with us, but with Shah Abbas and probably a hundred or so of other authors that used such generalizations. I would however be cautious here since Abbas speaks about bulat, not nesseseraly swords, may be they used indian bulat, which they thought to be superior (since time immemoria, even in Shahname they swing "indian" swords) to make swords locally.

In any case there was big difference in quality and style among sword producing regions, level of smiths and personal preferences of customers. Persian weapons were in general considered to be good ones, indian weapons often were considered the best, then there is a question of solignen and western weapons vs. eastern weapons. Caucasus surprisingly was always known as an excellent armour production center, but there is very little mentioning with an exception of a few time periods (chalibs, as and then - XVIth and XIXth century respectively) of a quality swords produced there.

It is like with rugs - New-York is not exactly the place known for good ones.

6th January 2007, 05:49 AM	#1
ShayanMirza Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Charlottesville Posts: 25	Relevance of Region As far as pulad steel production goes, how much does region have to do with quality? In an age before the instant dissemination of information, would a region have collectively better swords than another region at a similar stage of material/scientific sophistication due to a superior tradition of swordmaking? Did swordmakers of a region share techniques or jealously guard their higher arts? I always conceptualized swordmaking as a very localized affair, with the quality of blades varying between swordmakers on a far smaller scale. Obviously the quality of ore would make a difference, but one may have good ore and poor workmanship and vice versa. All of this sweeping generalization about whose country makes better swords confuses me, since that kind of argument seems to me to be like saying one country has better art than another, which is a patently absurd comparison. What criteria go into determining which country has better swords in an era where the idea of a nation had not even been formulated? Do we attempt to measure the average quality of blade? Someone please clarify, I have a ton of confusion on what seem to me to be massive generalizations.

6th January 2007, 06:03 AM	#2
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	I do not want to make comments on Dr. Feuerbach's thesis since I have not read it in its entirety. It is accepted among some, not without a reason, that "persian" bulat has more contrast than an indian one, something I agree with, even though I am not a bulat-collector. Is it good or bad, I think the answer is we don't know. Concerning the quality of weapons, the issue should be taken not with us, but with Shah Abbas and probably a hundred or so of other authors that used such generalizations. I would however be cautious here since Abbas speaks about bulat, not nesseseraly swords, may be they used indian bulat, which they thought to be superior (since time immemoria, even in Shahname they swing "indian" swords) to make swords locally. In any case there was big difference in quality and style among sword producing regions, level of smiths and personal preferences of customers. Persian weapons were in general considered to be good ones, indian weapons often were considered the best, then there is a question of solignen and western weapons vs. eastern weapons. Caucasus surprisingly was always known as an excellent armour production center, but there is very little mentioning with an exception of a few time periods (chalibs, as and then - XVIth and XIXth century respectively) of a quality swords produced there. It is like with rugs - New-York is not exactly the place known for good ones.