Swords and "urbanization"

[Nonoy Tan]

Hi Ariel,

I am in agreement with your point.

What I have learned from studying various peoples is that it is difficult to generalize (as Jared Diamond did). Often, we need to study a group/people in detail and focus because one group may have had a different set of circumstances, politics, external influences, etc. that make shape their "destiny". While there are parallels, there could also be differentiation even among "similar" groups of peoples. My 2 cents.

By the way, do the peoples you mentioned undertake "blacksmithing"?

[TVV]

The Arabs had contacts with the Eatsern Roman Empire as well, and the Romans had contact with the Bulgarians, the Avars and the Magyars, all of whom used the sabre. There is a sabre found in a grave in North-Eastern Bulgaria, dated to the 8th century based on artefacts surrounding it (the reference is in Bulgarian). The dating may be questionable, but one has to keep in mind that it might have been a heirloom, which could potentially make it older. I believe pictorial evidence suggests that the sabre was popular enough in Constantinople in the 10th century, as Emperors are depicted with it. It would be interested to see if there are any frescoes in Eastern Anatolia. Anyway, this has little to do with the main question in this topic, but it supports the idea that the Arabs knew of the sword earlier.
I believe that the technological skills and development of Central Asian peoples tend to be underestimated. There are far more sabres than straight sword found in nowadays Bulgaria, dating to the 8th-10th centuries. Some of them undoubtedly were brought by the Magyars, but the fact stands that sabres were prevalent and straight swords wre not, even though the production centers in the Rhein were closer than any centers in Persia, and let alone China. There wither was huge trade in blades, or the Bulgarians somehow managed to produce them themselves. I think the answer might be somewhere in the middle - perhaps instead of swords, the trade was mainly of ingots. In the European Armoury it was discussed that there is a high probability that some of the Northern European swords may have been forged in Scandinavia with wootz, imported all the way from India. If true, this could potentially explain a lot.
Finally, I do not find it surprising that peoples, who relied on weapons for their survival, had skilled bladesmiths. Apart from horses and bows, what was really more important to Central Asian nomads than their blades?

[Richard Furrer]

Originally Posted by TVV

I think the answer might be somewhere in the middle - perhaps instead of swords, the trade was mainly of ingots. In the European Armoury it was discussed that there is a high probability that some of the Northern European swords may have been forged in Scandinavia with wootz, imported all the way from India. If true, this could potentially explain a lot.
Finally, I do not find it surprising that peoples, who relied on weapons for their survival, had skilled bladesmiths. Apart from horses and bows, what was really more important to Central Asian nomads than their blades?

Hello TVV and all,
I do not know the origins of the curved sword, but as to the above I am only aware of Alan Williams research into Ingelrii blades of crucible steel....do you know of others?

Ric

[TVV]

Originally Posted by Richard Furrer

Hello TVV and all,
I do not know the origins of the curved sword, but as to the above I am only aware of Alan Williams research into Ingelrii blades of crucible steel....do you know of others?

Ric

I am afraid not, Richard. At least as far as Bulgaria is concerned, nobody there has either the knowledge or the funds to undertake an examination of found blades to determine whether they were made of crucible steel.
Regards,
Teodor

[katana]

In Africa, the pattern of agricultural/pastural 'civilisation' leading to an industrial society doesn't really apply.
A number of wandering 'nomadic' blacksmiths / bladesmiths would travel to various tribes and in exchange for goods etc. would make weapons and tools. A number of tribes did have their own blacksmiths whom produced 'equipment' for their 'own'.
Blacksmiths were held in high regard and were/are associated with many cultural/religious/spiritual beliefs (both good and bad) Similar to the 'magical' esteem held for swordsmiths in early civilisations.

At the other end of the 'scale' ...In west and central Africa, iron working developed in the Mandara Mountains, on the borders of Nigeria and the Cameroon, and in the area around Yaoundé in the south of Cameroon around 2,600 BC. The iron was sourced and smelted there....this attracted blacksmiths from a variety of tribes whom took residence and produced weapons and tools that were traded.

I agree that our 'Western' concept of agricultural society developing into an industrial society will not apply to many 'Ethnic' groups. AFAIK the Mongols, although 'nomadic' had blacksmiths that travelled with the 'group' and did not rely on 'trade' blades.

Regards David

[kronckew]

just a few general comments

1. 'uncivilized' is a roman concept, the word originally derived from civitas, a roman administrative unit for citizens of rome, a.k.a. 'city' - uncivilised people thus were those who did not live in cities, such as rome. they were thus not 'urban'

in english,

Civil:
Pertaining to a city or state, or to a citizen in his relations to his fellow citizens or to the state; within the city or state.
Subject to government; reduced to order; civilized; not barbarous; -- said of the community.
Performing the duties of a citizen; obedient to government; -- said of an individual.
Having the manners of one dwelling in a city, as opposed to those of savages or rustics; polite; courteous; complaisant; affable.


2. they were frequently barbarians, meaning they did not speak a 'civilised' (see no. 1) language like latin or greek, and thus their language was just meaningless sounds, or bar-bar-bar-bar ( we say blah-blah-blah).

these words had no relation to either their scientific, engineering, moral, technical or social skills, just that they were different, and thus people outside roma's control. the romans had no trouble buying fine crafted items from them, trading with them, or stealing ideas from them; or conquering them, 'civilising' them and making good little tax paying citizens of them.

the celts, gauls, etc. who did not live in what rome would call cities, did however have manufacturing communities and an extensive pre-roman trade setup and produced many fine items, including weapons that even rome bought. raw materials not available locally were available by trade. civilization was not a requirement. rome of course conquered them eventually and as they wrote the histories, shuffled most of them off into the 'uncivilised barbarian' category and ignored their contributions.

thus, some of the concepts of urban life in the modern 'civitas' most of us grew up with would have been totally unknown to some of the ethnic groups mentioned here. they still managed. trying to neatly package their cultures in terms of ours is an exercise that will likely result in frustration and disagreement.

[Nonoy Tan]

Aside from Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" I recall another thougth-provoking work by Stephen Oppenheimer, "Eden in the East - The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia."

I highly recommend it as well.

Such works challenge many of our assumptions on the origins of "civilization" and organized societies.

Nonoy