al-Kindi (801–873 AD) was an Arab Muslim polymath active as a philosopher, mathematician, physician, and music theorist. Al-Kindi was the first of the Islamic peripatetic philosophers, and is hailed as the “father of Arab philosophy”. The most recent translation with commentaries of al-Kindi’s Treatise “On Swords and Their Kinds” was published by Oxford in 2006. According to the authors of the book, R. G. Hoyland and B. Gilmore, the treatise on swords was the result of an interested patron, the Abbasid caliph Muôta−âim (833–42), one of a line of caliphal patrons of scholarship and translation. The treatise is very specific and discusses the difference between iron and steel, distinguishes different qualities of sword blades, and different centers of swordsmithing. It refers to the Indian Ocean trade in steel ingots and to the distinctive character of European swords of the period. It includes technical terms used by the makers and distinguishes swords by their physical features – form, measurements, weight, watered pattern, sculptured details, or inlaid ornaments. “… Reading through his exposition one gets the impression that Kindi, as a true scientist, gained his understanding of swords mostly from empirical observation, that is, from watching and talking to swordsmiths. And this is confirmed by his statement, preserved in the Istanbul manuscript, that he fulfilled the caliph’s request for information about swords by “examination of the knowledgeable people I have found who are versed in sword manufacture”.
“Sulaymani is used here rather than Salmani because it is clear that Kindi is referring to swords made of welded composite blades made of ‘directly’ produced iron alloys rather than ‘indirectly’ produced crucible steel. Since he does not make it clear, it is uncertain whether Kindi is referring here to swords from different areas to the crucible steel and related swords made in the Transoxianian region, but the assumption seems to be that they were made in the same region.
They [Sulaymani swords] were straight double-edged swords and, like ‘Frankish’, they were pattern-welded. They were ‘more lustrous’, probably meaning more highly polished, and also ‘stranger of manufacture’, and they looked different in style, with proportions that looked awkward, misshapen or unbalanced by comparison.
Both ends of these swords were evidently even and not tapered, therefore not at all pointed, which seems to mean that the end of the blade (and perhaps the hilt) was blunt, but curved. The tangs were similar to those of Frankish swords. Iron pommels of a ‘cocked-hat’ or a lobed style were typical for contemporary northern European swords, so Kindi may well be comparing them to something like this.
The yellowness of the composite pattern-welded construction is unlikely to refer to the color of the metal but may refer either to the color of the etching preparations or to the color taken on during its application.
Kindi found the ends of these blades too narrow and/or too thin compared to the proportions of the hilt. Little pattern-welding was incorporated into the end part of the blade. No non-ferrous decoration was used nor was there an iron cross guard. The tangs were similar to those of Yemeni and Frankish blades, but thinner or more spindly than the Frankish tangs. Despite their appearance, these swords were regarded as being of quite good quality.”
We will try to find a possible answer why the Rus chose to use the swords from the Near East. Meanwhile, the reader is welcome to read the “Gardariki, Ukraine” ebook that may bring us closer to the true origin of the Rus.
The Rus used Sulaymani swords, – ibn Rusta >
