| |
11.1.4 Swords of Major Near
East Powers in the 1st Millennium BC
|
| |
What's It
About |
 |
You know that I'm not an expert for
swords. I do know a thing or two about semiconductors, and I also know
something about the Materials Science and Engineering of metals. I know a sword
if I see one and I have some idea about how it is made and what - mechanically
- it can do. But I did not know about akinakai (singular is akinaka or akinaces), for
example, until I had finished the preceding module and found out about these
things more or less by accident. I also just recently run across the Moroccan
Nimcha sabre. I'm
sure I don't know a lot of other sword-related specifics and I can thus not go
into the swords of the early Afghanistanis, Albanians, Algerians, ... (add 190
more member states of the UN), nor do I feel a necessity to do so - except if I come across something of interest with
regard to iron and steel technology in this context.
This applies to akinakes but not to Nimcha sabres. What I found out about
akinakes is: an akinakes is a kind of double-edged straight dagger or short
sword, made from bronze or iron. It was
mainly used in the first millennium BC in
the eastern Mediterranean region or Near
East They are also connected to the Scythians and possibly to the
Luristani stuff in some not-so-clear
way. Now I'm interested. |
|
 |
But not all that much. Most
akinakes, it seems, are "found" in the antiquities trade and that
means four things:
- They may be fakes.
- Even if they are genuine, the data (if given at all) about where and when
they have been found may be wrong. Illegal finders lie. Dealers lie. Even
innocent mistakes do happen.
- A lot of the scientific literature is hard to get and often in Russian or
in other lmnaguages not open to me.
- Not counting one exceptions: They have never been metallurgically examined.
Many akinakes, I'm sure, rest in some museums, particularly in the former
Soviet Union, Iran, etc. - and I'm not aware of them. The ones I am aware of,
while supposedly genuine, are usually not all that well described either. And
the number of museums that give a minimum of correct metallurgical information
appears to be presenty zero. |
|
The point I'm trying to make is: This
Hyperscipt is about Materials Science (you must have noted that by now). It
places special emphasize on iron and steel, including the history of these
metals. Swords are the paradigmatic embodiments of iron and steel, and that's
what makes them interesting to me. I'm also interested in many of the
other aspects of
swords but my priority is with Materials Science.
It follows that some arbitrary iron sword from the first millennium BC is of
some interest to me - but not of much interest if I learn nothing about its
metallurgy and how it was made. |
| |
|
Iron making in bulk did start in the East
Mediterranean or Near East, and it is thus straight forward to assume that
sword making also started in this region. The
Luristani iron swords bear witness to
this. That's why in this module I look a bit into the swords of the
major powers that were
present in this region in the first Millennium BC. However, when I looked more
closely into the matter, it came to me as a surprise that
only a few swords
seem to be known from before 700 BC, say. Let's look at waht we have. |
| |
|
| |
Akinakai |
|
Here are some
akinakai
according to the description given by their sources. As you see, the come in
bronze only, iron only, iron with bronze or gold hilts, and solid gold. You can
classify them as short swords, dirks, or daggers. Take whatever pleases you; I
don't care. |
|
|
|
Akinakes
Some
more of Scytthian type |
| Source: Left two: auction catalogue.
Middle: Museum of Russian art. Right: Khorasani |
|
|
|
The gold betrays Scythian influence
and dates the objects to 600 BC - 650 BC, as stated by the Russian museum and
fitting to the Scythian conquest of "the
West" including what's now Iran. The Medes were able to kick them out to
some extent, while the Scythians were able to fend off an invasion by Darius
the Great of Persia's Achaemenid Empire in 513 BC. The Scythians are still
rather mysterious, but we do know that they were nomadic living people with
horses, and that they had achieved an amazing mastery of gold metallurgy if not
metallurgy at large - just
like the Luristanis. "Scythian gold" is a well-known entity but
they might also have mastered iron as shown be their very specail
akenakai. That's why I
decided to add a "Scythian Special" in 2020.
|
|
|
| |
|
The golden akinake is
dated to the
Achaemenid Empire,
the first Persian empire founded by Cyrus the Great, ca. 550 BC – 330 BC. There
was a cultural interchange in other words (like plundering the cities, killing
the men, raping the women,..., as well as taking over the metallurgy knowledge)
and that's probably how Scythians skills made it to the Achaemenids.
All these objects (except possibly the Russian one) come from illegal digging:
Their historical value is thus limited. |
| |
|
 |
Full iron akinakes. Shown in segments because
it's too long
|
| Source Khorasani's book |
|
|
|
The rusty thing above
looks far less fetching than the pieces one can buy. It is far superior,
however: it was dug up by archaeologists in Persepolis, the capital of the Achaemenid Empire.
That allows us to conclude that around 500 BC somebody in the large Achaemenid
Empire knew how to forge a 65 cm long sword in one piece. That's almost
impossible without fire welding.
Unfortunately nothing else seems to be known about the iron /steel used for
akinakes. We will have to wait. |
|
The Scythians might have
"invented " the akinake and used them as weapons and as ceremonial objects. The other cultures,
especially the Persians (and that includes Luristan) adopted the design and
akinakes became popular in the Mediterranean region and Near East. One might
even see akinakes as the forerunner of the Chinese "jinglu sword",
the Greek xiphos, and the Roman
Gladius.
Akinkakes were primarily a thrusting / stabbing weapon. I would tend to believe
that they could not have been the main weapon for people living and fighting
mostly on horse backs like the Scythians and Parthians. |
| |
|
| |
Assyrian,
Babylonian, Elamite, Achaemenid, and Parthian Swords |
|
In the larger Eastern Mediterranean
around 1200 BC iron gradually bcame a less precious item (in some places) and
appeared in larger quantities. However, what we have found so far, tends to be
small and relatively simple stuff.
The
"first" full iron swords might be from from Luristan, a
hard-to-get-to highland area of apparently no historic consequence then or
ever. Areas of consequence were empires or became parts of empires, like it or
not. The important empires between 1200 BC and roughly 250 BC are the ones
relating to the names in the head line. In addition, we have the (usually
not-so-innocent) bystanders like the Scythians, Greeks, Egyptians, Cimmerians,
Lydians, Phrygians, Luwians, Urarturians...., and, not to forget, the Jews,
Philistines, and so on. King David, one of the more unsavory characters of the
Old Testament / Tanakh lived around 1000 BC - if he lived at all.
It is a complex and possibly close to impossible undertaking to unravel exactly
who made big progress in iron technology where and when. However, we may state
with some reliability that major iron use, including the
forging of complex
objects did not take place before, roughly, the 8th century BC |
| |
|
All these names relate to the
Eastern part of the Mediterranean or Near East. On the West we had the
Etruscians, Phoenicians, Romans, and so on. To the North we had the Celts (and
some proto-Germanic people). All of them (except the North, maybe) had some
iron industry in the first millenium BC and, at the latest after 500 BC or so,
made iron swords.
I have already looked at the iron production in the "West" (Etruscans, Romans)
and the North-West (Celts) after 500 BC.
The question is what we know about the Assyrians, Babylonians, and so on. The
answer is: Next to nothing. At least I couldn't easily find much that is
worthwhile to be mentioned here. And I did spend some time in looking around.
Just so you know what I'm talking about, I give you a quick list of the
relevant empires with maps and a few facts in the link. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Swords of
the Assyrian Empire
|
|
The Assyrians ruled with the
proverbial "iron fist", meaning that they wielded iron weapons that
were superior to the weapons of their opponents and that they were rather
brutal in using their iron. That they did have a large iron industry (or took
over a large industry of vassal states) is proven by the huge hoard of iron
(160.000 kg!) found in the remains of the
palace
in Khorsabad.
Here is all I initially could find about Assyrian iron / steel weapons: |
|
|
 |
Assyrian weapons and an actual iron armor
plate
|
| Source: Internet at large; Metropolitan
Museum NYC. |
|
| |
|
All I found besides the
iron piece from the
Khorsabad hoard is an old drawing depicting Assyrian weapons that somebody
I don't know made some time ago, and an actual iron plate from some Assyrian
armor. The Metropolitan Museum in NYC has many of these sorry things but
nothing else the ancient Assyrians made from iron. |
|
|
Well, several years
later (it is now March 2020) I have to correct that statement to some extent. I
found
1. John
Curtis' book: "An Examination of Late Assyrian Metal Work
with Special Reference to Nimrud" (Oxford press, 2013). In this book many
iron objects are shown and discussed. But it's typically iron spearheads,
arrowheads, armor scales and other small stuff. There is a kind of large saw
blade but there are still no (good) swords!
All we have is the sorry lot
shown here.
One of the objects shows some similarity to what I have called the
Luristan type
2 sword.
2. The article "IF I HAD KNOWN THAT MY LORD WANTED IRON. The
beginning of the common use of iron in Assyria" from Caroline
van der Brugge.
Here is the
link. The article is most illuminating and makes for good reading. Caroline
argues that no iron ore is found in the Mesopotamian plane and that the
Assyrians thus depended on others to supply iron or iron ore. She make a
convincing case that large scale iron use in the Assyrian empire did not start
before the end of the 8th century BC. |
|
How do we know that Assyrian swords
looked like the ones shown in the drawing? From numerous large stone reliefs
these guys left all over the place, in particular in
Khorsabad.
Here is Sargon II, fingering his sword (not necessarilly made
from iron!) |
|
|
|
Sargon II fondling his sword
Large pictures of more
Assyrian sword carriers |
| Source: North palace Ninivah; 645 BC;
Internet |
|
|
|
However, these guys
weren't just fondling their swords. They defeated about any other power around
by then, the list is
quite impressive. The following picture shows parts of the taking of a Mannean
fortress in 715 BC, as depicted on a now lost relief from room 14 (slab 2) of
Sargon II's palace at Khorsabad. Nobody has ever heard from the Manneam kingdom
ever since. |
|
|
 |
Sword fight! Note also the wheeled siege
engine on the right.
Link to full relief
|
Source: Internet articel: Mannea, a
forgotten kingdom of Iran. Karen Radner, 'Mannea, a forgotten kingdom of Iran',
Assyrian empire builders, University College London, 2013
Drawing from P.-É. Botta and E. Flandin, Monument de Ninive, vol.
2, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1850, pl. 145. |
|
| |
|
However! There is some evidence that
the Assyrians did not really use swords in battle. Maybe the cavalry (if they
has that) but not the infantry. The guys up their doing a sword fight actually
use rather short swords (akinakai?), if you look closely.
Whenever the Assyrian (fighting) nobility became bored of
killing people, they went out to kill some lions. With
their sword! |
|
|
|
| |
|
There are many more picture like
that, especially on seals.
Those pictures makes me almost a liar. I wrote: "Even hunting animals with just a sword
doesn't make much sense." Well. I do believe that even the most dedicated
hunters out there today would be reluctant to hunt lions Assyrian style.
Except, of course, the
Romans. Sometimes they lost. But seriously now: You can't stop a charging
lion like that. A grown lion weighs up to 820 pounds or 375 kg, the equivalent
of 4 big people. Even if you manage to stab him as shown, he would throw you
down quite forcefully and live long enough to take your head or damage you
substantially in other ways. It is impossible for mere mortals - and thus only
the king could do it as shown. |
|
What did we learn about Assyrian
swords? Not much. Essentially we can only state:
- They had swords, very likely iron swords but we can't be sure.
And that applies possibly only to the upper crust and not to commoners
including soldiers.
- They (the nobility) carried their swords, embellished them, and showed them
off.
- They (the nobility) trusted their swords - or the liked to take very high
risks in hunting lions.
But, maybe, the trusted more in the naivete of their underlings
- Given the quality of the iron hoard in Khorsabad, their iron swords
couldn't have been too good. They are probably no better than Celtic swords
- There is no way of telling if Assyrian smiths knew anything about the iron
/ steel issue and about hardening by quenching.
- They may not have used long swords in (infantry) warfare. Too expensive and
not good in close-up fighting.
However, if they had a cavalry (I don't know) these elite guys might have had
long swords.
- We never found long Assyrian swords so far.
|
|
A bit more about Assyrians and their
contemporaries can be found here |
| |
|
| |
Swords of
the Elamite Empire |
|
We know the Elamites from way before
as the makers of amazing silver and gold objects
already around 3000 BC.
Here is
another example. One might assume that they must have been pretty good at
bronze and iron, too. Bronze - yes. Iron - we don't know. Here is just one
example for excellence with the three metals mentioned: |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Bronze God, gold and silver Kings /
Worshippers |
| Source: Internet. The two on the right are
probably in the Louvre. |
|
|
The Elamite area is East of the
Sumerians and Babylonians, containing mountainous regions of what today is
Iran.
This map gives a
rough idea. The so-called proto Elamites who made the good stuff were around in
2700 BC. Even then they were having constant fights with the powers down in the
valley like the Sumerians; many of which they lost, leading to occupation and
so on. Just a few highlights.
- Shulgi of the 3rd dynasty of Ur (around
2050 BC) conquers Elam.
- Babylonian Hammurabi (around 1770 BC) crushes Elam in 1764 BC.
- Elam King Kutir-Nahhunte I attacks Samsuiluna, Hammurabi's son, around 1730
BC and deals so serious a defeat to the Babylonians that the event was still
remembered more than 1000 years later.
- Tukulti-Ninurta I of Assyria (around 1230 BC) campaigns in the mountains
north of Elam. The Elamites under Kidin-Khutran, second king after Untash-Gal,
countered with a successful and devastating raid on Babylonia.
- Shutruk-Nahhunte (ca. 1160 BC) makes Elam powerful again. Two equally
powerful and two rather less impressive kings followed, together they made Elam
one of the great military powers of the Middle East. One Shutruk-Nahhunte
captures Babylon and carries off to Susa the stela on which was inscribed the
famous law code of Hammurabi.
- Nebuchadrezzar I of Babylon (1124 - 1103 BC) attacks Elam and is just
barely beaten off. A second Babylonian attack succeeds, Elam is overrun, and
that's the end for a while.
- The Elamite King Shutruk-Nakhkhunte II (716–699 BC), was routed by
Sargon's troops during an expedition in 710, and another Elamite defeat by
Sargon's troops is recorded for 708.
- Assyrian King Ashurbanipal takes Elam and destroys Susa in 627 BC. THE END,
it seems
|
|
|
There is not much we have from the
"iron age" Elamites. They appear rather in not-so-nice reliefs of the
Assyrians: |
|
|
 |
| Destruction of Susa in 627 BC by Assyrian
King Ashurbanipal |
| Source: Internet / Wikipedia |
|
Assyrian scribes doing a head count.
The heads are probably from Elamites. |
| Source: Internet. |
|
| |
|
I gave you all this because
everything I have to say about Elamite
swords you can find in this link!
|
| |
|
|
| |
Swords of
the Parthian Empire
|
|
The Parthian Empire (247 BC –
224 AD) came about because one Arsaces I of Parthia, original a tribe chief,
took the region of Parthia from the Seleucid Empire, the sequel to Alexander
the Great's masterpiece. That's why it is also known as the Arsacid empire.
King Mithridates I of Parthia (ca. 171 BC – 138 BC) greatly expanded the
empire to what is
shown
here. The Parthians were essentially Persians and a clash with the Romans
who were running a huge empire of their own by then, was unavoidable. |
|
|
Why do I mention Parthian swords
here and not, for example, the "xiphos", the regular sword of the
Greeks, swords from the empire of
Alexander the
Great, and so on. Because there is absolutely nothing to learn about
iron swords from these guys. We simply do
not have many, if any. In contrast to the Parthians!
Here are Parthian iron swords: |
|
|
|
|
Nothing to get very excited about.
But at least those things were swords. The left one was 67 cm long, the right
one 87 cm. There is no big difference to the blades of the Celts or to any
"Spatha" between 500 BC and 1500 AD. It is hard to say but the blades
appear to have neither a ridge nor a fuller, possibly just the basic lenticular
cross-section.
No seams due to insufficient welding are visible, but also no indication of
conscientious piling of different iron / steel grades. And of course there is
no way of telling of these swords were hardened by quenching. There is also no
way of telling if those sword are perhaps of Celtic origin. After all, my
forebears were
roaming the area already in 279 BC and even hung around for a few 100 years in
Anatolia. |
| |
|
So, sorry, but the Mediterranean and
the Near East is a bit disappointing, sword-lore wise. It is time to move to
the more exciting West and North - but not before a closing paragraph. |
| |
|
|
| |
Weird Swords |
|
Museums own a lot of weird stuff. You
just will not see it because it is usually stored in the basement and locked
up. Somebody sometime had dug up something weird, and it wasn't clear what it
was or it looked very unassuming. You can't throw it away, and you can't admit
defeat either, so it goes into a box and into the basement. And that's where it
belongs because most of the time it is just random debris, indeed. But not
always. Look up the "machine of Antikythera", for example.
It goes without saying that there many weird metal artifacts, including weird
swords, had been dug up and confined to the basement |
|
|
Khorasani, in his
magnificent book, shows one weird
sword. It is actually displayed in the Teheran Museum but nobody seems to have
taken notice. Others turned up in auction catalogues. Here are a few: |
|
 |
Weird swords
Left: Auction catalogue;
identified as Luristani, 1000 BC.
Middle: Teheran Museum, dated to probably 1000 BC.
Right: Auction Catalogue "Hermann Historica" 2015, supposedly
Celtic |
|
|
|
The sword on the left, believed to
come from Luristan, is 91 cm long. It looks like it has a cast-on bronze hilt
of a quite unusual shape since it has no pommel or lobes or other enlargements
ensuring that the hand doesn't slip.
The Teheran sword was confiscated; its length is 104 cm; the blade alone
measures 75 cm. What at a first glance looks like a long rusty tang is actually
a cast-on slender bronze hilt that tapers to a point instead of of having a
pommel of some kind. Its design and the way it is fixed to the blade seems to
be unique. It is definitely very unusual.
Both swords are of the "bi-metal" type
with an iron blade and a bronze hilt. M;ore to those sword
here.
The "Hermann Historica" sword is described as: "Eisernes
Griffzungenschwert" (Naue II), South-East Europe, 8th century BC. It is an
exact copy of a bronze sword, a rather unusual thing.
Here is a rather similar
one. |
|
Both swords have not been excavated
so it is possible that they are fakes. It is not likely however, because nobody
in his right mind fakes unknown objects. What makes these two swords so special
is the fact that they seem to be the only long iron swords on (easily
accessible) record for the first millennium BC in the East Mediterranean /
Middle East! That is quite remarkable, if you think about it.
Could these swords be younger than 1000 BC? Well, yes - but they also could be
older. There is just no way of knowing, short of doing a
C14 analysis.
|
|
|
Could these swords be Celtic in
origin? The Celts, after all, did make it to
Anatolia in 278 BC - as hired mercenaries. Even before that they were employed
as fearsome warriors by Mediterranean potentates. They did have their long
swords then and earlier. Maybe a few made it to the East as booty from some
battle or as trade object.
I do not think that this is a good explanation of the swords above but so far
it seems to be the only one. |
|
Constant warfare was a fact of life
in the East Mediterranean / Middle East, just as about everywhere else. Why did
we not find long swords in all the stuff
dug up from about 1000 BC to 0 AD? The simplest explanation would be that there
weren't many around. Depending on the fighting style, a long sword is not
necessarily a good weapon. The Roman army, after all, did rather well for many
centuries with the short gladius and the pilum (spear). Long swords or spathas
were weapons for mounted warriors or crazy single-fighter egomaniacs like the
Celts. |
|
|
Long swords also make
sense for
executioners. From
there it is a short way to long swords becoming symbols for power over life and
death, a symbol for the King. As a side benefit a normal King, not to mention a
King of the universe,
looks so much better with a long heavily embellished sword (in addition to his
gold dagger or akinake) than with a short
one.
The hilts of the swords above make them not particularly fit for fighting. The
balance without a pommel must be rather awful, and your grip could not have
been very secure either. It is conceivable that they were only for
representation, sort of highlights in the collection of strange war trophies.
The hilt must have been added locally, and it is conceivable that is was made
deliberately in a strange shape to emphasize the exotic nature of the sword.
This is all wild guessing, of course. But more than that I cannot do. |
|
There is a whole
literature out there about long swords vs. short swords, and thrusting vs.
slashing in fighting. Add fighting modes like single combat style to phalanx
(closed ranks) style, fighting on horseback other mounted warriors or foot
soldiers, and you can come up with endless lists of who should have had what
and when. Add on top a certain amount of human stupidity, like fighting tanks
on horseback because we are a cavalry unit after all, and everything is
possible. The introduction of the metal shields, for example, might have
changed fighting style from thrusting (short swords) to slashing (long sword or
axe). Or maybe not. |
|
|
Then it also matters to
whom size matters. No to women but to men; excuse me: not so
much to the disciplined Roman soldier who just did his job but to the Celtic
egomaniac who never ceased to believe that bigger is better, no matter how
often he was rejected. |
| |
|
|
© H. Föll (Iron, Steel and Swords script)
