after rereading some of Al-Kindi's words on arabic swords.... i still feel that we are getting too strict with our definitions of wootz/poulad steel. I'm still leaning towards all the crucible steels made in the middle ages, wootz tradition as being wootz steel.... this includes even the lower carbon hypo eutectic's with good pattern..
it is a good matter for discussion..... i'm personally open minded to all of it..
ask yourself these questions.?
-- do you think that if the Indian steel makers made a hypo eutectic ingot, and forged it into a sword.... that they wouldn't call it wootz ? specially if it had a watered pattern?
-- would it be more likely that they'd have a catagory of quality for such wootz.... noting it's difference from the high carbon wootz.... specially in terms of observable pattern.. !!
-- remember......they had no way to tell the carbon level of this wootz..... (no mass spectrometer etc )
maybe i'm getting too excited over nothing..... but i feel that our modern definition is getting away from the middle ages tradition..... as i have mentioned before
if sham isn't wootz......... then what about the dendritc pattern.... i've seen this on indian swords..... where there is very little roast time and the watering is very grid like....... are these to be excluded too!
i hope there is to be more open dialog on this topic... it's important to discuss this
Greg
|