Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

ariel · 3rd January 2009, 06:08 PM

Citation from Figiel's book ( pp.20-21):
"...as a result of repeated forging, there was realignment of the crystalline structure. If the cake was forged longitudinally, parallel rows of crystals would result. If the cake was forged in different directions the crystals would form wavy lines of complex motley patterns including circular and ladderlike distortions."
Sure, Figiel was not a bladesmith, but he consulted with Pendray who knew a thing or two about wootz :-)

If that's the case, the difference between Persian, Indian and even Turkish wootz blades might have been mostly, if not exclusively, due to technical aspects of handling ingots. Temperature, duration of forging, force of pounding, orientation of the ingot, altered directions of forging, speed of cooling etc. were responsible for different patterns.
With tens of thousands of wootz ingots coming from India on an yearly basis, the smith needed just to verify that a particular ingot was indeed " wootzy", did not have a lot of slag trapped inside and ... that's it. From there on, the ultimate result depended strictly on the master's skills.
This, likely, explains why the contemporary masters have such hard time to reproduce the beauty of old Indian and Persian blades. Contemporary metallurgy knows precisely the nature of wootz, the percentage of carbon and the microelements facilitating formation of dendrites, the temperature/time optimization of the process etc. This is purely science, and we are very good at it.
What is missing, is the hands-on collection of idiosyncratic manipulations peculiar to old artists: how hard to pound, at what metal color, when to turn, when to grind and how much , how to cool etc, etc, etc.

Here is an example of a bulat (wootz) dagger by Anosov
http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/fo...81/1681918.jpg
http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/fo...81/1681922.jpg
http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/fo...81/1681920.jpg
He got the secret.

3rd January 2009, 06:08 PM	#11
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Citation from Figiel's book ( pp.20-21): "...as a result of repeated forging, there was realignment of the crystalline structure. If the cake was forged longitudinally, parallel rows of crystals would result. If the cake was forged in different directions the crystals would form wavy lines of complex motley patterns including circular and ladderlike distortions." Sure, Figiel was not a bladesmith, but he consulted with Pendray who knew a thing or two about wootz :-) If that's the case, the difference between Persian, Indian and even Turkish wootz blades might have been mostly, if not exclusively, due to technical aspects of handling ingots. Temperature, duration of forging, force of pounding, orientation of the ingot, altered directions of forging, speed of cooling etc. were responsible for different patterns. With tens of thousands of wootz ingots coming from India on an yearly basis, the smith needed just to verify that a particular ingot was indeed " wootzy", did not have a lot of slag trapped inside and ... that's it. From there on, the ultimate result depended strictly on the master's skills. This, likely, explains why the contemporary masters have such hard time to reproduce the beauty of old Indian and Persian blades. Contemporary metallurgy knows precisely the nature of wootz, the percentage of carbon and the microelements facilitating formation of dendrites, the temperature/time optimization of the process etc. This is purely science, and we are very good at it. What is missing, is the hands-on collection of idiosyncratic manipulations peculiar to old artists: how hard to pound, at what metal color, when to turn, when to grind and how much , how to cool etc, etc, etc. Here is an example of a bulat (wootz) dagger by Anosov http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/fo...81/1681918.jpg http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/fo...81/1681922.jpg http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/fo...81/1681920.jpg He got the secret. Last edited by ariel; 3rd January 2009 at 06:20 PM.