Kindi on swords and iron

Jens Nordlunde · 21st November 2008, 04:50 PM

Somewhere I read that the ingots could have different forms and sizes - up to two kg, but most seem to be roundish, although some of these are not ingots, but 'balls' use to smash the ore.

Gonzalo G · 21st November 2008, 10:39 PM

Even a little heavier, and egg shaped, from the for of the crucible. Enough to make a sword.

ariel · 22nd November 2008, 04:54 AM

As per that article
http://materials.iisc.ernet.in/~woot...tage/WOOTZ.htm
the average weight of an ingot was 2.3 kg. The ones I saw advertised for sale ( Artzi's site and other) were 300-800g.
Khorasani wrote that less than 300 g of iron was put into the crucibles and did not mention any variability. Anosov made ingots as heavy as 5 kg, but recommended not to exceed 3-4 kg limit, as it compromised the quality.
So, if the blade of a shamshir weighed ~600-800 g, and assuming even a 50% loss, a 3 kg ingot was sufficient for 2 blades. Of course, smaller ingots were used for kards, khanjars etc.
The article I cited above indicates that tens of thousands of ingots were shipped annually from the Coromandel coast ( only one source of origin !) to Persia.
It should have been enough to produce all the blades manufactured in Iran and still leave plenty for re-sale. Thus, there was no impetus for the Iranians to develop their own metallurgy. This also explains the sudden cessation of wootz blade manufacture in Iran as soon as the British killed the wootz industry in India.

Jens Nordlunde · 22nd November 2008, 04:30 PM

Yes Ariel, it is fascinating reading, and the amount of ingots exported to other places in India, Persia, Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Rome and other places – not to speak about the places whey sold some of them to, must have been very, very big. Like you say, enough to make swords for hole armies, and the export went on for centuries. However, we must not forget, that when an army had lost a battle, the winner took all the arms and emptied the armouries, if possible, and brought it all home, either to enter their own armoury or to be changed into weapon types, which suited them better, so the looser would have a very big need for ‘new’ ingots to arm their soldiers.

Another thing, which I also find fascinating, is, that to keep up en export of spices, fine cotton textiles, metal ware and a lot of other things, they would have needed very big ships, and the knowledge of navigating. It is known that the first compasses used by them, was a hollow fish made of magnetic iron swimming on oil, but it takes a lot more than that to sail for days when you cant see land. No doubt the first sailors sailed close to the coast, but it must have taken a long time, and not seventy days as someone describes it at one point, when he was on a boat with a lot of horses for export to India.

Gonzalo G · 23rd November 2008, 11:23 PM

On the other side, wootz was not used only to produce weapons. And also, the archaeological discoveries in Central Asia had shown that there were other wootz centers of production, not mentioned by the old known written sources (at least, the sources known by occidentals), which makes me wonder about the limits of the antique sources taken individually. It must be pointed Gilmour references the strange fact that, being Al-Biruni a native of the southeast Central Asia Area, he did not mention Khorasan area as a center of production of wootz. I think the only ultimate source of knowledge grounded in solid facts about this point, is archaeology.

Also to be noted, is that modern scholars who have access to muslim sources in several languajes, rarely traslate them, so they remain as a de facto monopoly of the scarce reesearchers interested on this subjects. We need more occidental arabian-iranian-indian speakers interested in the traslation, publication and study of this texts.

ariel · 24th November 2008, 01:31 AM

"Also to be noted, is that modern scholars who have access to muslim sources in several languajes, rarely traslate them, so they remain as a de facto monopoly of the scarce reesearchers interested on this subjects. We need more occidental arabian-iranian-indian speakers interested in the traslation, publication and study of this texts."
I agree, but there is such an appalling scarcity of academic endeavours there! Perhaps, there are some local texts for the "internal market", but even Pant's mammoth 3-volume set relies heavily on ... Rawson! At least in the weapon volume~50% of all illustrations are from the Rawson's book. Iran is even worse: the first attempt to properly catalogue swords in Teheran was made by the Russian Romanovski; he died soon thereafter and no attempt was made by the local museum keepers, university staff or anyone else to continue the work. They had to wait until Manouchehr Khorasani came from Germany to teach them and to publish a book. Arab countries.... The Saudi exhibition ( the "Islamic Weapons" catalogue) is acoffee table book and is the only one before the Furussiyya Foundation book.
What would we do without Elgood, Gorelik, Astvatsaturyan, Nicolle etc?
The only true research in the area is going in Europe ( including Russia).

Gonzalo G · 24th November 2008, 09:07 AM

There is so much talent wasted. To be a good researcher on this area, you need passion, talent, money, time and knowledge. Beign a collector helps a lot. I believe there is such passion, talent and knowledge in some of the forumites, but not enough of the other factors. Things are more complicated when you need to access difficult sources, written in oriental medieval languajes.

Accessing primary sources has it´s own problem. Sometimes you need special academic credentials to get permissions, or to have some nationality. In Mexico some archivists in the national historic documentation centers, monopolize certain documents, because they want to be the only researchers on certain areas of their interest, but the worst thing is the fact that they do not have any formal education in history, they only are chroniclers who stack facts and anecdotes. It is just a way of making money with an "academic" aura, tough we have also some good historian. And researching on the military archives to make a study about the history of the mexican sabers, for example, is just impossible, as NOBODY can access military archives in Mexico, historical or not, but the members of the military caste, who will never do that kind of work, nor have the education to. Those archives are always "reserved" or "confidential".

Historical research has many prosaic problems, apart from those derived of the inner nature of this work, depending of the type of research, country, etc. I can imagine what facilities would be given to an USA scholar in Iran or Syria, for example, trying to make a research on a subject in which those countries ultimately have some national image interests, even if the subject is related to arms, armour or archaeometallurgy. Making a cientifically neutral rsearch on history matters has some problems, as history traditionally has been manipulated and biased.

23rd November 2008, 11:23 PM	#5
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	On the other side, wootz was not used only to produce weapons. And also, the archaeological discoveries in Central Asia had shown that there were other wootz centers of production, not mentioned by the old known written sources (at least, the sources known by occidentals), which makes me wonder about the limits of the antique sources taken individually. It must be pointed Gilmour references the strange fact that, being Al-Biruni a native of the southeast Central Asia Area, he did not mention Khorasan area as a center of production of wootz. I think the only ultimate source of knowledge grounded in solid facts about this point, is archaeology. Also to be noted, is that modern scholars who have access to muslim sources in several languajes, rarely traslate them, so they remain as a de facto monopoly of the scarce reesearchers interested on this subjects. We need more occidental arabian-iranian-indian speakers interested in the traslation, publication and study of this texts. Last edited by Gonzalo G; 24th November 2008 at 02:56 AM.

21st November 2008, 04:50 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Somewhere I read that the ingots could have different forms and sizes - up to two kg, but most seem to be roundish, although some of these are not ingots, but 'balls' use to smash the ore.

21st November 2008, 10:39 PM	#2
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Even a little heavier, and egg shaped, from the for of the crucible. Enough to make a sword.

22nd November 2008, 04:54 AM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	As per that article http://materials.iisc.ernet.in/~woot...tage/WOOTZ.htm the average weight of an ingot was 2.3 kg. The ones I saw advertised for sale ( Artzi's site and other) were 300-800g. Khorasani wrote that less than 300 g of iron was put into the crucibles and did not mention any variability. Anosov made ingots as heavy as 5 kg, but recommended not to exceed 3-4 kg limit, as it compromised the quality. So, if the blade of a shamshir weighed ~600-800 g, and assuming even a 50% loss, a 3 kg ingot was sufficient for 2 blades. Of course, smaller ingots were used for kards, khanjars etc. The article I cited above indicates that tens of thousands of ingots were shipped annually from the Coromandel coast ( only one source of origin !) to Persia. It should have been enough to produce all the blades manufactured in Iran and still leave plenty for re-sale. Thus, there was no impetus for the Iranians to develop their own metallurgy. This also explains the sudden cessation of wootz blade manufacture in Iran as soon as the British killed the wootz industry in India.

22nd November 2008, 04:30 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Yes Ariel, it is fascinating reading, and the amount of ingots exported to other places in India, Persia, Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Rome and other places – not to speak about the places whey sold some of them to, must have been very, very big. Like you say, enough to make swords for hole armies, and the export went on for centuries. However, we must not forget, that when an army had lost a battle, the winner took all the arms and emptied the armouries, if possible, and brought it all home, either to enter their own armoury or to be changed into weapon types, which suited them better, so the looser would have a very big need for ‘new’ ingots to arm their soldiers. Another thing, which I also find fascinating, is, that to keep up en export of spices, fine cotton textiles, metal ware and a lot of other things, they would have needed very big ships, and the knowledge of navigating. It is known that the first compasses used by them, was a hollow fish made of magnetic iron swimming on oil, but it takes a lot more than that to sail for days when you cant see land. No doubt the first sailors sailed close to the coast, but it must have taken a long time, and not seventy days as someone describes it at one point, when he was on a boat with a lot of horses for export to India.

24th November 2008, 01:31 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	"Also to be noted, is that modern scholars who have access to muslim sources in several languajes, rarely traslate them, so they remain as a de facto monopoly of the scarce reesearchers interested on this subjects. We need more occidental arabian-iranian-indian speakers interested in the traslation, publication and study of this texts." I agree, but there is such an appalling scarcity of academic endeavours there! Perhaps, there are some local texts for the "internal market", but even Pant's mammoth 3-volume set relies heavily on ... Rawson! At least in the weapon volume~50% of all illustrations are from the Rawson's book. Iran is even worse: the first attempt to properly catalogue swords in Teheran was made by the Russian Romanovski; he died soon thereafter and no attempt was made by the local museum keepers, university staff or anyone else to continue the work. They had to wait until Manouchehr Khorasani came from Germany to teach them and to publish a book. Arab countries.... The Saudi exhibition ( the "Islamic Weapons" catalogue) is acoffee table book and is the only one before the Furussiyya Foundation book. What would we do without Elgood, Gorelik, Astvatsaturyan, Nicolle etc? The only true research in the area is going in Europe ( including Russia).

24th November 2008, 09:07 AM	#7
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	There is so much talent wasted. To be a good researcher on this area, you need passion, talent, money, time and knowledge. Beign a collector helps a lot. I believe there is such passion, talent and knowledge in some of the forumites, but not enough of the other factors. Things are more complicated when you need to access difficult sources, written in oriental medieval languajes. Accessing primary sources has it´s own problem. Sometimes you need special academic credentials to get permissions, or to have some nationality. In Mexico some archivists in the national historic documentation centers, monopolize certain documents, because they want to be the only researchers on certain areas of their interest, but the worst thing is the fact that they do not have any formal education in history, they only are chroniclers who stack facts and anecdotes. It is just a way of making money with an "academic" aura, tough we have also some good historian. And researching on the military archives to make a study about the history of the mexican sabers, for example, is just impossible, as NOBODY can access military archives in Mexico, historical or not, but the members of the military caste, who will never do that kind of work, nor have the education to. Those archives are always "reserved" or "confidential". Historical research has many prosaic problems, apart from those derived of the inner nature of this work, depending of the type of research, country, etc. I can imagine what facilities would be given to an USA scholar in Iran or Syria, for example, trying to make a research on a subject in which those countries ultimately have some national image interests, even if the subject is related to arms, armour or archaeometallurgy. Making a cientifically neutral rsearch on history matters has some problems, as history traditionally has been manipulated and biased.