Oh... Did I forget to put the maker's name in there? It was Ou Yezi and his pupil Ganjiang. They are credited with being the greatest swordmakers in Chinese history. He is said to have made a set of three swords for King Zhao of Chu State, and a set of five for King Goujian of Yue.

The set for King Zhao apparently came about because the King sent his foremost expert on swords, who was named Feng Huzi to place an order, upon hearing of the "magical" properties of Ou's weapons. At this time, Ou lived and had his forge in Longyuan, a mountainous part of Yue State. The reason the forge was here (and this will interest you Peter...) is because he thought the seven natural springs nearby resembled the seven stars (!) of the Big Dipper constellation, and because it was quiet and difficult to find. In typical Chinese fashion, it appears he did not share his secrets with anyone but Ganjiang, and wanted to keep it that way.

The three swords were apparently made with the following resources:
*Iron ore from Ci Shan (Mount Ci).
*Sharpening stone from Liang Shi Keng.
*Water from Jian Chi, a spring next to a 1000 year old Pine Tree.

The individual swords themselves were named like so:
*Longyuan (Dragon Well) - Described as having a shape that reaches for the highest mountain, and arriving in the deepest abyss.
*Gong Bu (Work Deployer) - Said to have had a distinct coarse pattern, resembling endless flowing water.
*Taia (Peaceful Relation or Tai Mountaintop) - The most famous of these three swords. I'll tell you what I know about it soon... It was said to have a pattern that "towered" and "thrived" like waves of flowing water.

Taia was said to be magical, and when King Zhao first received it, he was busy fighting the combined forces of Jin and Zheng States, who were besieiging a large Chu city, and had been doing so for a couple of years. It is said that he waved the sword immediately in the air to signal a counterattack, and his troop were so roused by this sight that they managed to break the seige and defeat the invading armies.

After this, King Zhao is said to have asked Feng Huzi how a metal sword could have the power to give his army such morale and courage, and Feng is said to have answered that the spirit of the metal combined with that of a great king could cause miracles. And that brings me to the next thing I know about Taia.

Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Quan, a famous Chinese historical text, says that Ying Zheng, or Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China, founder of the Qin Dynasty, owned the Taia sword. Once again, it is said to have bestowed him and his armies with invinciblity. Archaeologists say it was buried with him, and expect to find it in the main burial chamber of his tomb in Xi'an, which was eletromagnetically located in 2003, but is still unopened.

Also... The Taia sword is the inspiration for Taia-Ki, a 15th century letter written to Tadaaki Ono, the leader of the Itto School of Swordsmanship. It was written by his spiritual teacher Soho Takuan, the Zen monk, who also taught spirituality to Miyamoto Musashi and Yagyu Munenori. The Taia sword is used as a metaphor for the perfect mindset for being a warrior.

Later on, I will talk about the other swords that Ou Yezi made for King Gou Jian, because I studied them too.

Very interesting and thank you for entering it.

Do you know from where and when this detailed information comes?

The celestial seven stars are part of taoist foundation so a link with swords/swordmaking, other 'magic', from the earliest beginnings seems logical.

I hope the located burial chamber will be left intact untill there is a NEED to excavate and thereby destroy this 'archieve'.

peter

I learnt the majority of this stuff from 5 years of studying Chinese language (Mandarin originally...) and culture at University, and of course from my obsessive compulsion to be an expert on the subject, and in the practise, of Chinese swordsmanship and history despite being of European and South Asian descent (along with Lebanese and Maori). I have a BA in it, as well as a DipLC in the Japanese equivalent. I have attended Tong Ji Daxue(Shanghai), Beijing Daxue (Beijing) and Waseda Daigaku (Tokyo) for study by exchange.

All my other studies have involved Asian women... Japanese Military Prostitutes, Burakumin, the 55 other kinds of Chinese people, Korean historical treatments of women... Blah, blah, blah... My two favourite things, swords and women...

I would also like to point out that I study, and attempt to adhere to,Taoist/Daoist principles, and have made "pilgrimages" to Wu Dang Shan, Hua Shan and Tai Shan, as well as visiting and training at Song Shan (Shaolin) temple five times. I learnt my slightly incorrect Bagua Jian by watching Master Liu at Wu Dang Golden Roof himself.

I think I can safely say that this information in even greater detail will be available from the Hubei Museum, located in Wuchang, Wuhan, Hubei Province, People's Republic of China. An excellent tourist destination for a lover of swords, as Gou Jian's sword and Fuchai's spearhead reside there.

Anyway... what I know about The Five Ou Yezi Swords of King Gou Jian of Yue...

Ok... The 5 swords made for Gou Jian by Ou Yezi were:
* Yu Chang (Fish Guts)
*Sheng Ye (Defeats Evil)
*Ju Que (Giant)
*Chun Jun (Total Harmony)
*Zhan Lu (Wholesome Land of Bright and Clear (please don't exactly quote this...)) - Named after the area in which it was forged, and the most famous of the 5.

In 494 B.C., Gou Jian sent 3 of the 5, Zhan Lu, Sheng Ye and Yu Chang, to King Helu of Wu as an appeasement for losing his first war to Helu. Helu was well known as a collector of weapons, and this is why archaeologists assume Gou Jian sent the swords to him, as Helu was otherwise Gou Jian's greatest foe. This is where I point out that Sun Tzu (Sunzi) , the author of the all-famous Art of War, was Military Advisor to the Kings of Wu during this time.

It is said that the Zhan Lu sword itself decided King Helu was not a moral man, as one morning King Zhao of Chu (the original owner of the Taia sword...) apparently awoke to find it in his bed. Feng Huzi, who pops up all through this legend, was the one to explain to the King that it was one of Gou Jian's 5 Ou Yezi swords.

Now it is said that this sword was made by perfect control of nature. For example, the Ore (Tin and Copper are mentioned...) had appeared right when needed, the rain quenched the blade at exactly the right time, the gods sent wind to bellow the flame, a wise dragon manufactured the forge... In other words. this sword has been elevated a near godlike state in Chinese legend. Ou Yezi supposedly tempered the metal one thousand times to make the set of 5...

The Zhan Lu sword has belonged to the following Chinese historical figures:
*King Gou Jian of Yue - Spring and Autumn Period (722-481B.C.)
*King Helu of Wu - Spring and Autumn Period (722-481B.C.)
*General Zhou Chu of Jin Dynasty (One of the first couple of FOUR Jin Dynasties... 265-420A.D. roughly)
*Yue Fei of Southern Song Dynasty (1127-1279A.D.)

Powers the Zhan Lu sword is said to have:
*The essence of all metal :wtf: .
*Glows in the dark :lol: .
*Shines in the daylight, brighter than the Sun or Moon.
*Can roll into a coil or extend by itself. (Hmmm... :p )
*Gives the viewer a feeling of life when unsheathed.
*Gives the viewer a sense of awe when sheathed. (The most believable one...)
*So sharp, it can be stabbed into a deep pool of water and emerge dry :lol: .

When King Helu died by King Gou Jian's hand, Fuchai had his extensive sword collection, which included Sheng Ye and Yu Chang, buried with his father and the people who built the tomb were killed to keep the secret. This kind of mass murder would have meant nothing to Fuchai, who apparently may have forced Gou Jian to eat his faeces during the King of Yue's slave labour. The slaves who built the tomb would have been killed to stop looters finding out the whereabouts. This is apparently quite common to all cultures throughout history.

Ying Zheng, or Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor, sent a special force to find the tomb, as he wanted as many other Ou Yezi swords to supplement his Taia sword as possible. They found the right spot, but not the entrance. The hole they apparently dug became known as the Sword Pond, as it filled with rainwater over the thousands of years. It was drained in 1955, but the entrance, found not long after, was left unopened for fear of losing a famous (leaning) religious pagoda (Yun Yan) situated on top of the tomb.

Ganjiang, either student or classmate of Ou Yezi, also made 2 swords during this time...

Regarding Ganjiang's two famous swords, Yin and Yang, Muyie and Ganjiang.

I've heard 2 versions of this story, but both have these common factors:

(Ganjiang's wife was named Muyie. Some say Ganjiang was Ou Yezi's classmate, and some say Ganjiang was Ou Yezi's student, Muyie being Ou Yezi's daughter.)

When Gou Jian gave 3 of his 5 Ou Yezi swords to Helu of Wu, Helu was so impressed that he ordered Ganjiang to create a special sword for him. Ganjiang called upon various Daoist principles and Deities to assist him, including a near-perfect blending of Yin and Yang and the Qi of Heaven. But his carefully acquired metals would not melt nor bind together.

Ganjiang had learnt from Ou Yezi that this was because of an imbalance of Yin to Yang, and that he needed more Yin in this case. And so his devoted wife, Muyie, sacrificed her hair and fingernails to the mix, as well as recruiting 300 young women to assist with the bellowing and stoking of the fire. This supplied the much needed Yin essence, and worked immediately, the metals bonding perfectly. From the ore he produced two swords, the Yang sword named Ganjiang, and the Yin sword named Muyie.

Muyie, the sword, is said to have had an "eel skin" texture, whilst Ganjiang the sword is said to have had a "tortoise shell" pattern on the blade. I have heard that the "tortoise shell" pattern may have been like the pattern on the blade of the sword of King Gou Jian of Yue, or the sword that got me started in this explanation of what I know of Spring and Autumn Period swords in the first place.

And this is where the story splits into two versions.

Version 1 - Ganjiang gives the Yin sword, known as Muyie, to the King of Wu, keeps the Yang sword for himself, and they all live happily ever after. Well, actually, the King of Wu dies because he is killed by Gou Jian of Yue, but Ganjiang and Muyie live happily ever after.

Version 2 - The King of Wu discovers that there was two swords made, and one kept by Ganjiang, and in his anger orders the assassination of the second greatest swordsmith in Chinese history. Muyie, the ever faithful Chinese wife, who was pregnant at the time of the killing, raises Ganjiang's son to hate his father's killers. When of age, he is to take the Yang sword from it's hiding place in a 1000 year old tree (that's what my notes say... that's the second 1000 year old tree...) and go to avenge his father. Very suitable for a Hong Kong action movie...

A very interesting story about legendary jian, some of which have been uncovered, and others which still lay hidden, in hope that they still exist. A great many scholars assume they know where these ancient and magical blades reside, and it will be interesting to see if they are eventually uncovered as well. I myself am particularly interested in the contents of the Sword Pond... and the Taia and Zhan Lu swords.

Wow :eek:

I have read and reread your wealth of information. I will need to digest this, get some context and the re-reread :)

peter

I'm just glad I have somewhere to share it with someone, because that has served to rekindle my interest in it, and helped me to remember things I had almost forgotten. I was starting to concentrate too much on the practical for a while there...

I asked one of my old classmates, who researched with me at University, if she knew any more stories, and she was able to give me one more. She also helped me to get some further facts, and corrected me a little.

She has told me that Helu died later from an infection to the wound he recieved from Gou Jian, and wasn't struck down on the battlefield as I had thought. He apparently didn't die until after Gou Jian surrendered to Fuchai.

The home of the Sword Pond is Hu Qui (Tiger Hill), near Suzhou City in Jiansu Province. Suzhou is famous throughout China for having very beautiful women as well as very beautiful weapons buried in hills. The hill is called Tiger Hill due to a White Tiger, which started appearing on the hill after the completion of the tomb of Helu. There is apparently very close to 3000 swords buried inside.

Ok... The story she told me regards the sword Yu Chang, which was discovered in the 1990s, and resides at Suzhou Museum. Yu Chang, which I have always called "Fish Guts", actually means "Inside Fish". The reason is as follows:

There was once a very ambitious Prince of Wu, known as Guang. He was general of all the armies of Wu, but was not content with this, especially after defeating his country's most hated enemy, Gou Jian of Yue. So he had his cousin King Liao assassinated.

The assassin apparently drew the killing sword from inside of a roasted fish. This explains the strange name of the sword, which is 50.7cm long, making it a big fish.

Prince Guang became King, and changed his name to Helu.

And I have managed to find a website in English that basically says what I have listed here. The gentleman whose website it is also tells of a place to buy quality bronze replicas of Gou Jian's sword.

http://www.universalswordsman.com/Swords-Smit...s2006.html

If you love Sun Tzu, you'll love Sun Bin. He is a descendant of Sun Tzu, some say he helped edit The Art of War, and was known as "Sun the Mutilated".

His book, Sun Bin Bing Fa, was rediscovered in 1972 near Linyi in Shandong Province, after last being seen during the Han Dynasty, and is now known as The Lost Art of War. It differs from Sun Tzu in that where Sun Tzu recommends keeping well away from siege warfare, Sun Bin offers tactics to do it well, showing what some scholars call a shift, or evolution, in strategic thinking over quite a short time. Other than that, it is easy to see how much Sun Bin's ancestor inspired him.

I know one story about this guy, but I better keep it brief, as we might get moved to "Off Topic"...

He was called "Sun the Mutilated" because he was the top student of famous strategist Gui Guzi, and his bitter rival, Pang Juan attempted to make him an outcast by removing his kneecaps (Bin). Pang was hired by the state of Wei, and invited Sun Bin there on a pretence, the actual intent being to remove his kneecaps, which should have made him a cripple and an outcast.

In the end it only made him a cripple, as he had a very successful career as a strategist for King Wei of Qi, his home state. Sun Bin, and his partner General Tian Ji were amazing tactical directors, Tian Ji and King Wei eventually asking Sun Bin to become the Head of the Armies of Qi. Sun had to decline as he couldn't ride a horse with his legs, something every Warring States Period General was required to do.

They served Chu state for a while, Tian Ji having been banished from Qi, and Sun Bin following him. They were invited back to Qi when Sun Bin convinced the King.

Sun Bin got his revenge on Pang Juan in a very stylish fashion, if we believe the legends. (After defeating Pang's Wei forces at the Battles of Gui Ling and Ma Ling, which he and Tian Ji did decisively...) Pang was trekking through a forest with his army, and came across a blockage on the path. Closer inspection showed that there was actually writing on it. Pang Juan went to read what was said, and found it to read "Pang Juan will die on this spot today" (slightly paraphrased...), and was shot to death by an archer lying in wait. Sun Bin died a hermit of old age.

I really recommend his book if you like The Art of War.

Anyway, back to Jian...

Another famous Chinese Jian is the Qing Gang Jian (青釭劍), originally owned by Cao Cao, the Three Kingdoms Period unifier of the North. It is made most famous by Zhao Yun of the South, however. I have seen replicas available from Zheng Wu and Masterforge, although I'm not sure how accurate they are, as I have yet to see two drawings of this sword that look the same... ;)

This period of Chinese history is most interesting for people interested in finding out about historical heroes and swordsmen, some of the major players even becoming Daoist deities. Guan Yu became Guan Gong (red face, long black beard, Guan Dao halberd it takes 40 men to carry...), for instance.

Anyway, the Qing Gang sword, at this time still in the possession of Cao Cao, was carried around for him by Xiaohou En. This will have relevance later.

Zhao Yun, a cavalry general who served Liu Bei (founder of the Shu Han State, and one of China's greatest historical heroes...), fought extremely bravely and skillfully at the Battle of Changban, which was between Liu Bei and Cao Cao, or at least between their armies. Zhao Yun managed to break the enemy line, by himself, and rescue Liu Bei's captured wife Gan and son, Liu Shan. He fought all the way back to his line with Liu's son in his arms (some versions say tucked into his breastplate) but Lady Gan didn't make it. She chose instead to jump into a well in order to stop being a burden to her husband. Zhao Yun pushed a wall over onto the well to bury her, and fought on.

It was on his way back that he came across Xiaohou En, with the Qing Gang Jian. Xiaohou En was no match for the intense skills of Zhao Yun, and Zhao took the sword.

This man-sword combination really is the stuff of legends. All the rest of the way back to Liu Bei, Cao Cao ordered his generals to intercept Zhao, but when Zhao killed 50 enemy commanders, and even managed to escape being completely surrounded by generals, it was only Cao Cao's general Zhang He who stood in the way. They fought, apparently for 10 exchanges, and Zhao, fearing for Liu Shan, tried to make a break for it on his horse. Unfortunately, his horse stumbled in a ditch, and he was thrown. As Zhang He stepped up for the kill-stroke, a "great red light" came from all around Zhao Yun. This startled and frightened Zhang He (understandable...), and Zhao Yun and his horse took off at full gallop.

Liu Bei was furious at Liu Shan for endangering Zhao Yun, and threw him to the ground. Some scholars say this caused Liu Shan brain damage, and explains why he was a terribly useless ruler, ruining all his father's hard work upon coming to the throne.

And this is how Zhao Yun gained the Qing Gang Jian, and defeated a sizeable chunk of Cao Cao's army with it.

Here is a link, showing how you can basically say any sword you want is a Qing Gang Sword:

http://www.chinesearms.com/chinesearms/001/jian/qgb/qgb.htm

Nice quality, the swords on this site. They look like they would be very suitable for most Chinese sword activities.

I would like to point out, however, that the Three Kingdoms Period was roughly 184-280 A.D., and the Qing Dynasty was 1644-1911 A.D.

Thank you too Kenneth for your in depth analysis and explanations.

Personally I take the stories for what they are; ' stories' and stick to the facts known. Same thing grave finds in say Gaul and myths about celts, germanic peoples up to as late as the Franks and roman written records can easily confuse things as they had their own agenda.
Every now and then a special grave is found which can be 'matched' to a myth or record. There is nothing wrong with providing BOTH as long as they are not mixed :)
After all, myths, legends and contemporary records are history too :idea:

In NW Europe it is possible to 'link' the Beowulf saga to period grave finds p.e. This is in fact valuable as it does provide information actually usefull to archeologists but it would be incorrect to consider the stories true or factual.
Every now and again a myths or legends does hold seeds of thruth over surprisingly long time. The thing is that one does not know in advance which one and which seed :\ and it is hugely satisfying if and when acheological evidence backs up a piece of myth. It should not be the other way around.

Fact remains that the 'spring& autumn' and 'warring states' periods were incredibly fruitfull in all sorts of area. Not only produced Confucianism as continuity of the ancient beliefs and Taoism as modernisation but also the most stunning REAL swords that surpass imagination, whatever their names ;)
Wether Lao Tse ever lived or if the Tao te Ching had one author is not the crux :idea:

Concerning some ' fairy tales' about the bronze swords there are interesting phenomena that could provide some logic.
- Static discharge between a bronze blade and an organic sheeth or other might produce an eery spark in poor light.
- A well polished bronze blade might remain dry when dipped in and retracted from water.
- The story about ' springing back' is likely to be an exageration or poor translation. In a hoard of torques p.e. one torque was wedged firmly in the dugout hide. When retreived it ' sprang back' to it's original form. It did, but only a few tenth of an inch.... The thing is that a carefull wording by the archeologist was interpreted in 'normal' english and thus translated into something that gives a differing impression. In this case it is 'only' a torque thus nothing to expand a myth upon but if it would have been a sword like the one found with the chieftain of Oss that was bent in a spiral it would have been a good candidate :lol:
The fact is that old metal can very well still retain a bit of tension and that is it.

About sharpness there is nothing different in the myth building than in modern confusion about practical sharp and silly sharp ;)
The true amazing craftsmanship is not in the sharpnes but in the stunning exactness of the manufacture and the metallurgic knowledge.

To put this all in a more understandeable perspective it is good to realise that 'modern' man NEVER was primitive: the first Homo Sapiens had the same brain we have. Man needing to use his brain power to survive probably was at least as complicated and complex in his thoughts as we are today and in fact more so concerning the high tech of those days.

Technical evolution saw a migration of knowledge and what is then easier to attach supernatural explanations to the past concerning lost knowledge :lol:

peter

One observation about Chinese archaeology in a paper on the Dian culture I read recently was that Chinese study aims to fit artefacts to histiography, rather than a processual aproach which would yield new insights (or even overturn some concepts). This is why archaeology (as has been noted for some time) in China is essentially about digging up tombs and bigger events around 'little people' and settlement patterns are comparitively neglected. In this way the rich resources of ancient historians is a mixed blessing. Sima Qian for instance should not be taken as a final word on the origin of the Xiongnu when Russian archaeologists have more comphrehensive models over the origins of Scyth-Siberian society. Sima Qian is an amazing figure, and especially useful for West Han history and the large scope of his work but he is not someone to be considered above standards applied to modern historians. Let's be clear, I love the ancient histories and I see them like flesh on the bones of material studies but it really is important to look at each in a way that is not pushing a square block through a round hole.

There is a sword of king Fuchai in Shanghai museum, there is a sword supposedly buried with King Helu in nearby Suzhou museum. 2 other Yue kings swords are in Shanghai. There are others as I listed above. There seems to be a real eagerness to identify swords with just a handful of legendary kings and I do not take the museum displays at face value when there is a dearth of contextual evidence. One interesting note is that a 3rd Goujian sword may have appeared on the PRC artefact market since an original expert from the 1965 discovery was convinced he found an authentic example (he then had a heart attack but survived) While he is certain after inspecting it of its authenticity the Hubei museum, understandly, denies it is a third.
A friend of mine, a Prof of History in China was at the artefact markets at Zhengzhou with an archaeologist friend and also saw a sword they were sure was authentic and in the same style (not inscribed, but the same looking sword). These were not the regular Goujian fakes that are on e-bay, and the people were not artefact novices.
If one of these was real it suggests the swords of that style may be more representative of the period than we think. A similar patterned 'Yue' style sword (as one person called it) was also on display at the Taipei museum in 2007. I know another collector with a sword with a rather similar diamond surface pattern on the blade, although the hilt is different.
While the inscription of allegedly 'Goujian' on these 2 swords in Hubei has linked them to the myths there is also reason to doubt the attribution, let alone geographic reasons, that they must be quite what they are said to be.
Even today on the market a seller of an artefact appreciates the value a piece of calligraphy or an inscription lends to a sword. New inscriptions are added to ancient objects for this reason. I don't doubt the sword of Goujian might have been an object of curiousity in the state of Chu a couple of centuries after his lifetime also. It is a masterpiece, but the question is on the history attributed to it (I do not mean the Ou Yezi stuff which can be thrown away essentially).

My point is not at all to downplay the technical expertise of manufacturing these weapons, or the productivity of the period itself but that the legends are mainly 700 or more years older than the swords lifetime and so saying these were 'made' by Ou Yezi or that they are even from the period of Gouian is something that needs to be clarified or questioned.
Trying to rationalise the myths, like 'flashes' is trying a little too hard when in my experience there are plain inventions about such weapons. They need not have a basis in fact. All scabbards found with these types of jian (waisted and double edged) are made of the same materials, typically cedar and bound in silk. An even more remarkable lacquered and decorated scabbard from the same century was found in China last year and there is no suggestion any of the examples I have seen of bronze swords with intact scabbards, being waterlogged burials for example, have any 'flash' apart from this one. Such a flash fits with a mythical sword that makes the sky glow however.....The speculative static discharge between a bronze and an organic sheath is one I would like someone like Jeroen to reproduce with his authentically made swords, otherwise, Occams razor, like the chroming and hard-as-steel and spliting-a-hair stories....just hearsay. No need to assume a high tin (allegedly 20%) tin bronze sword of 90cm lengths are going to spring back like a {gold?} torque either. I have examined many in-situ pictures of bronzes and bronze swords, and apart from those I have handled, a spring is not something I would have any faith in. I need not build a hypothesis when there are more obvious explanations based on my experience with the way these pop-star swords as spoken about. Tests of bronzes I am aware of suggests that deformation will either result in bending or breaking depending on the type of bronze and the type of stress (or degree of corrosion). Since I have assurances from a person who personally held the various Qin swords at Shaanxi, and we were standing in front of them at the time (and I saw some in fragments) I really don't consider the physical properties of these swords any different to other bronze swords of the period....but they are exceptionally long and had a partially sucessful surface treatment for sure. Admiration for human achievement is certainly something I relate to, and there are in fact other aspects of bronze sword making in ancient China that I would consider more revolutionary and remarkable than those which are most often discussed by sword enthusiasts. True bi-metallic bronze for example...examples of which I show on the CHF link.

When you say 'fact remains..the period was fruitful' let's be clear that my passion for many a year now is the very period you are discussing and I work hard to fathom the reality behind the grand histories. This is not to downplay the period. Hardly. There is no belittling here, but just seeking to understand events truthfully and make real factual conclusions about construction methods and techniques availible at this time. (i.e the "iron hilt" part, there were serious factual issues over the real artefact.)
I also stick to 'Facts known'. Your point about the mixing of myth and reality...exactly. They were all blended a little too seamlessly here.
When it comes to discussing this sword like it was a celebrity or a political figure...it is not really the point. We need to look beyond Wiki and histories on the Universalswordsman website and firstly figure what century the sword actually belongs to or if there is any contextual basis to associate the sword to the Kings of Yue & Wu, let alone all the layers of myth that were created after the fact.
This is my reason for posting and I hope it is not lost on reader.

I apologise if my posts failed to mention that they were conjecture and/or mythology, but I had supposed that the glow-in-the-dark bronze sword, and the glowing red light aroung Zhao Yun gave that away somewhat. There is a lot of "fact" (A Historian word for "assumption"...) about the swords and characters I mentioned, and it adds more to the legends.

I thought it would be fun to share a bit of Chinese sword legend with the other people on this forum, who seem all to be pre-dominantly interested in European history. Chinese history is longer,with every bit as much war and innovation.

Without a 2500 year old eye witness, or a Time Machine, we will never, ever really know, will we?

Thanks for the interesting discussion! Both for the stories, and the comments. For me the swords of the Warring States period are some of the finest examples of bronze sword making of mankind, so they are highly fascinating. Unfortunately hard facts are difficult to come by, so aside from studying the swords superficially, it's difficult to learn more about them. But for me as bronze caster, I can only appreciate the artifacts by true facts, not the myths.

As I've been studying the bronze swords of cultures across the world, the features I've seen at the swords like the sword ascribed to Gou Jian are not particularly unique. Inlayed, and patinated swords occure also in Egypt and the Canaan (khopeshes), daggers from Greece. Also multi alloys have been applied to the khopeshes, but as inlays of copper spines on both sides. Casting hard edges around a softer core is something I've not seen in any other culture.

The sword of Gou Jian is definately not unique in terms of fabrication. As Kenneth mentioned there are more like it. There's two examples in the British Museum (see http://1501bc.com/page/british_museum_2006/index.html), in less well preserved condition. The Gou Jian one is incredibly well preserved though, which gives a unique look into how these swords looked 2500 years ago. I'm slightly suspicious though that the sword may have been polished after it was found. Any bronze, no matter how well preserved will get some patina, making it dull in color.

Regarding flexibility of bronze, it has little to no springiness. If the sword is very long and thin, it will allow some bending and spring back, but only in terms of centimeters over the whole length. Regarding properties at different alloys: 10% tin bronze is relatively soft, but easily to workharden, and shape by hammering. 12% tin bronze has much more resistance to bending, but is a lot less predictable when cold working, which can often result in cracks when hammering out edges. It gives a better sword, but takes a lot more expertise from the metalworker to finish the edges. 14% and higher tin bronze snaps when you hit it, and is therefore pretty much useless for swords. I've heard some of qin swords containing 20% tin. In my experience that would make them as brittle as glass. So the Qin swords are still a mystery to me, until I get some more hard facts to their metallurgy.

According to Kenneth, the Chinese didn't workharden the bronze, which is also puzzling me. The great thing about bronze is that you can triple the hardness by workhardening. Obviously this greatly enhances the usefulness of edged tools and weapons. It's also something you find out automatically pretty soon when you make bronze cutting tools, so either it's something they didn't do on purpose for some reason (inclusions in the alloy making cold working impossible f.e.) or they did workharden the edges, but we don't have that information yet. So any metallurgical information regarding Chinese bronze swords is very very welcome.

Finally, regarding the myth of bronze swords glowing in darkness: Well polished bronze is highly reflective. They did use it to make mirrors f.e. I find it a lot easier to get a surface shiney enough to see your face in it on bronze then on steel. So even the faintest light it will reflect, making the sword seem as if it "glows" in darkness. But they definately won't spark when drawn from the scabbard :)

Jeroen, experimental archeology typically starts out with a set of assumptions, extrapolates while performing practical experiments and leads to a most likely scenario. Typically ignoring cultural, spiritual and religous aspects.

Experimental archeology is hugely informative as it provides an added dimension of practical insight and understanding. It cannot be called historical fact.

In dealing with swords we have a rather special situation as other than a physical form we have nothing. We do not even know what it represents. When we do have ' myths' we choose to ignore them because they are nor ' factual'....
We know it can be used as a weapon and we know it will have had symbolic value but do not know the cultural implications, we do not know what p.e. a bronze age sword represent thus WAS. The thing itself is only a very small part of the ' fact' it was ;)

Very tricky stuff Jeroen, ' facts'.

peter