Indian Crucible Steel vs. Pattern Welding

Emanuel · 23rd October 2015, 04:57 PM

Hello,

A thought about iron/steel in the Indian context.

We use the terms "wootz" and "pulad/bulat" to refer to crystalline crucible steel produced in India and Central Asia. Ann Feuerbach has outlined the difference between the South Indian crucible steel tradition, and the Central Asian one.

Then we know the Hindi words for iron is
लौह "lauha" or लोहा "loha", the root for the word "lohar" - blacksmith.

We know the Sanskrit word for steel
फौलाद "phaulada/faulada"
and the Hindi adjective
फ़ौलादी "steely".

What do we know about blades showing pattern welding? Are there documented terms for it? In the older pieces we basically have bladesmithing done through forge-welding of different bars of iron with different carbon content in a carburizing or reducing fire. The carbon migrates throughout and forms a more homogeneous whole with relatively higher carbon content.

In the literature/primary sources, are pattern welded blades still referred to as fauladi, or are other terms with qualifiers for "loha"?

Emanuel

Jens Nordlunde · 23rd October 2015, 10:36 PM

Emanuel,
I think it is an interesting question, although I must say that my researches so far, has not made me tuch the subject.
I will see what I can find out, and I do hope that it this time will be a serious discussion.
Jens

Emanuel · 23rd October 2015, 11:58 PM

I hope so too Jens.

Egerton mentions "jauhar" when discussing the production of gun barrels:

Quote:

"The barrel is then fixed horizontally through a hole in an upright post and bored, after which its surface is filed, polished, and prepared for bringing out the damasked lines. " Jauhar " is brought out through biting the whole surface with " kasis," a sulphate of iron."

.

In this case the term "jauhar/johar" refers to the pattern in the steel. The same term is often used to refer to wootz pattern.

The word "jauhar" seems to mean "precious" and often refers to "jewel". Indeed in Hindi, जौहरी "jauhari" means "jeweller".

Years ago Dom traced "jauhar" to the Arabic "ga'howara" meaning precious.

So we have a possible term for the patterning, but not for the welding aspect.

ariel · 24th October 2015, 03:54 AM

Interesting that Rawson, in his book on Indian Swords did not distinguish ( was ignorant of ???) crucible and mechanical Damascus.

Was he unaware of metallurgical difference or were the same terms applied to both in the archives of Victoria & Albert Museum?

AJ1356 · 24th October 2015, 04:14 AM

So historically in the Persian and Arabic world, what I think might have been early forms of wootz swords were called shamshir e Hindi or saif e Hindi, meaning Indian sword or sword from India. This term is used in Shahnamah about 1000 ago and in early Islamic books earlier than that. The word for steel in both Arabic and Farsi is FolAd, also spelled as PolAd in Farsi since Arabic lacks a (P) in the their alphabet. It is likely that the term had gone to the Arab world from Farsi (also called Parsi, again the lack of P in Arabic); and quite possibly it originated in India, or maybe not, besides the point. Now I am not sure where the word (wootz) comes from and frankly don't care, since I take it at the face value for it being the word describing crucible steel. Now the word Jawhar,(not jAw) or the different variants of its spelling, means gem, JawAher is the plural form. Jawhar also means essence, and the Farsi the word (dAr) means with, the owners of, containing and so on, combined creating the word jawhardAr, which could mean with essence. So What I am saying is folAd e jawhardAr should mean steel with essence, the essence being the crystalline formations in the steel.

Also Damascus steel swords were and know known as Shamshir e Damishqi (Damascus)

ariel · 24th October 2015, 01:47 PM

Nice summary.
But the question that Emanuel asked was about any special term for mechanical damaskus. Indians made a lot of it, and some examples were highly sophisticated. Were such blades distinguished from wootz and plain steel?

Emanuel · 24th October 2015, 02:55 PM

Actually Ariel you bring me to one reason for my questions

Was there any such thing as plain steel? Besides crucible and pattern welding what other methods were there?
We do know that some crucible came out without pattern but it was still crucible.

This is excluding the European trade blades that were "plain" steel.

Emanuel · 24th October 2015, 04:39 PM

Earlier in "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour" Egerton uses "jauhar" specifically referring to the pattern in crucible steel.

Quote:

"It is then allowed to subside, and the crucible is placed on the ground to cool gradually, so that the particles form crystals, from which the "jauhar", or beautiful combinations so much prized in the sword blades, are obtained."

So in 19th century English writing, we have the term "jauhar" being used to refer to the pattern in both crucible steel and pattern-welding.

You seem to confirm this AJ, that in the Persian context, "Jawhar" refers to the patterning or "watering" effect.

The question remains, was there any distinction between the two methods, or were they both "folAd e jawhardAr " or "pulad/fulad" + "jauhar/jawhar/johar" -steel with more or less good pattern?

ariel · 24th October 2015, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Actually Ariel you bring me to one reason for my questions

Was there any such thing as plain steel? Besides crucible and pattern welding what other methods were there?
We do know that some crucible came out without pattern but it was still crucible.

This is excluding the European trade blades that were "plain" steel.

Surely, forging crucible steel at high temperatures would eliminate the pattern and the final product would become "plain"

However, Indians also used furnaces that produced bloomery iron, i.e. plain steel. Infinitely more economical, quicker and simpler than wootz.

I do not see much mechanical difference between plain steel and wootz. Indeed, plain European blades were highly valued in India since the Contact, and modern steels leave wootz in the dust. My guess is that wootz was highly prized primarily for its esthetic ( johar) appeal mixed with highly developed Eastern sacral imagery and the effort that went into its production. Not for nothing do we read about Japanese and Indonesian smiths forging a single blade in several weeks and artificially delaying the final product. Caucasian smiths were making a plain shashka blade in a couple of days, but refused orders for a damascus one: far too much coal and far too much effort.

estcrh · 25th October 2015, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ1356

So historically in the Persian and Arabic world, what I think might have been early forms of wootz swords were called shamshir e Hindi or saif e Hindi, meaning Indian sword or sword from India.

While I have not seen "saif e hindi", I have seen "saif-al-hind" mentioned as the Arabic term for Indian swords.

Cultural Forum, Volume 8, Special Number On Mussology, India, Ministry Of Education. (left quote)

Sind Quarterly, Volume 10, Mazhar Yusuf, 1982.(right quote)

Jens Nordlunde · 25th October 2015, 05:00 PM

estcrh,
When you quote someone, I think it would only be fair to the author and the reader, if you give the source.

Emanuel,
I think I have found something of interest, although it does not have anything to do with the names.
James Allan and Brian Gilmour: Persian Steel. The Tanavoli Collection. Oxford University Press, 2000. The quotes are written by Brian Gilmour.
A spearhead from the 5th century BC was excavated at Deva Huyuk, Syria, and the blade was made from different layers of iron of different quality.
Page 43. "When part of this spearhead was mounted, polished and etched, it revealed the relief-map effect of a layered structure which has been both distorted by forging and partially ground away at a slight angle.
Structures like this have the potential to produce a decorative, patterned effect, given suitable grinding, polishing and etching of the surface, and it seems not unreasonable to suggest that this might be a very early example of a pattern-welded structure."

Page 77. The patterns on the blades of such weapons, at least of those from the 5th-11th centuries, derive from combinations of different iron alloys welded together, whereas the pattern of watered blades made from Eastern crusible steel, in particular wootz, derive from a dispersion of cementite particles in a ultra high-carbon steel. The two types of pattern are sufficiently different to suggest that the technologies that made them developed and were practised quite seperately for the most part (pattern-welded sword construction is known in the area of Malaysia which was also the probable source of the fulad swords of Qal'ah mentioned by al-Kindi), although the appearance and supposed qualities of Western pattern-welded swords may have had some influence on the types of pattern produced by Eastern steelsmiths."

I just thought of something. It is fantastichen reading the text above to realise, that when we have a pattern welded sword in out hands, from maybe the 15th century this technique had been used for about a thousand years - improved all the time no doubt. Somewhere I read, that when making pattern welded blades all sort of iron was used, like old horse shooes, nails and whatever iron they could lay their hands on. This would of course give a blade with a very different carbon content.

estcrh · 25th October 2015, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jens Nordlunde

estcrh,
When you quote someone, I think it would only be fair to the author and the reader, if you give the source.

Jens, for you.

Sind Quarterly, Volume 10, Mazhar Yusuf, 1982.

Cultural Forum, Volume 8, Special Number On Mussology, India, Ministry Of Education.

AJ1356 · 26th October 2015, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Was there any such thing as plain steel? Besides crucible and pattern welding what other methods were there?
We do know that some crucible came out without pattern but it was still crucible.

This is excluding the European trade blades that were "plain" steel.

From my understanding there were regular plain steel besides crucible steel, that would be used for cheaper made swords, knives, regular everyday tool and such. I have quite a few (I don't know the exact count) arrow tips from various eras, that are made of either regular steel, iron and some that I think are high carbide since they have not rusted, even after being buried or in the same bag as iron ones.

AJ1356 · 26th October 2015, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

While I have not seen "saif e hindi", I have seen "saif-al-hind" mentioned as the Arabic term for Indian swords.

C.(right quote)

I may have Persianized it, but it all means the same. From my limited knowledge of Arabic either way should be fine, our Arab speakers can correct me on that.

Jens Nordlunde · 27th October 2015, 11:42 PM

Surely, forging crucible steel at high temperatures would eliminate the pattern and the final product would become "plain"

Yes Ariel, that was what hapened when they took ingots to England, and let thesmiths try to make wootz - it did not work.
Jens

Emanuel · 28th October 2015, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

However, Indians also used furnaces that produced bloomery iron, i.e. plain steel. Infinitely more economical, quicker and simpler than wootz.

Yes they did. Was the result known as fulad/faulad as well? Or lauha/loha? Or something else?

ariel · 28th October 2015, 01:27 PM

My understanding that any steel blade was defined as made of "loha": steel in West India .
This comes from consultations with my Indian colleagues. One of them consulted with her parents, retired language professors in India. They specifically stated that they were uninformed about terminology used in East India; thus my rather awkward first paragraph.

They also stated that the word pulad was an adopted term from Farsi, and also referred to just steel in general.

I could not elucidate from them whether there was a special term for mechanical damaskus, but that might have been a result of their rather commonplace ignorance of metallurgical terminology. I am sure 99% of American language professors also wouldn't know the correct answer in English:-)

23rd October 2015, 04:57 PM	#1
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Indian Crucible Steel vs. Pattern Welding Hello, A thought about iron/steel in the Indian context. We use the terms "wootz" and "pulad/bulat" to refer to crystalline crucible steel produced in India and Central Asia. Ann Feuerbach has outlined the difference between the South Indian crucible steel tradition, and the Central Asian one. Then we know the Hindi words for iron is लौह "lauha" or लोहा "loha", the root for the word "lohar" - blacksmith. We know the Sanskrit word for steel फौलाद "phaulada/faulada" and the Hindi adjective फ़ौलादी "steely". What do we know about blades showing pattern welding? Are there documented terms for it? In the older pieces we basically have bladesmithing done through forge-welding of different bars of iron with different carbon content in a carburizing or reducing fire. The carbon migrates throughout and forms a more homogeneous whole with relatively higher carbon content. In the literature/primary sources, are pattern welded blades still referred to as fauladi, or are other terms with qualifiers for "loha"? Emanuel

24th October 2015, 02:55 PM	#7
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	Actually Ariel you bring me to one reason for my questions Was there any such thing as plain steel? Besides crucible and pattern welding what other methods were there? We do know that some crucible came out without pattern but it was still crucible. This is excluding the European trade blades that were "plain" steel. Last edited by Emanuel; 24th October 2015 at 03:06 PM.

25th October 2015, 05:00 PM	#11
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	estcrh, When you quote someone, I think it would only be fair to the author and the reader, if you give the source. Emanuel, I think I have found something of interest, although it does not have anything to do with the names. James Allan and Brian Gilmour: Persian Steel. The Tanavoli Collection. Oxford University Press, 2000. The quotes are written by Brian Gilmour. A spearhead from the 5th century BC was excavated at Deva Huyuk, Syria, and the blade was made from different layers of iron of different quality. Page 43. "When part of this spearhead was mounted, polished and etched, it revealed the relief-map effect of a layered structure which has been both distorted by forging and partially ground away at a slight angle. Structures like this have the potential to produce a decorative, patterned effect, given suitable grinding, polishing and etching of the surface, and it seems not unreasonable to suggest that this might be a very early example of a pattern-welded structure." Page 77. The patterns on the blades of such weapons, at least of those from the 5th-11th centuries, derive from combinations of different iron alloys welded together, whereas the pattern of watered blades made from Eastern crusible steel, in particular wootz, derive from a dispersion of cementite particles in a ultra high-carbon steel. The two types of pattern are sufficiently different to suggest that the technologies that made them developed and were practised quite seperately for the most part (pattern-welded sword construction is known in the area of Malaysia which was also the probable source of the fulad swords of Qal'ah mentioned by al-Kindi), although the appearance and supposed qualities of Western pattern-welded swords may have had some influence on the types of pattern produced by Eastern steelsmiths." I just thought of something. It is fantastichen reading the text above to realise, that when we have a pattern welded sword in out hands, from maybe the 15th century this technique had been used for about a thousand years - improved all the time no doubt. Somewhere I read, that when making pattern welded blades all sort of iron was used, like old horse shooes, nails and whatever iron they could lay their hands on. This would of course give a blade with a very different carbon content. Last edited by Jens Nordlunde; 25th October 2015 at 10:55 PM.

23rd October 2015, 10:36 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Emanuel, I think it is an interesting question, although I must say that my researches so far, has not made me tuch the subject. I will see what I can find out, and I do hope that it this time will be a serious discussion. Jens

24th October 2015, 03:54 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Interesting that Rawson, in his book on Indian Swords did not distinguish ( was ignorant of ???) crucible and mechanical Damascus. Was he unaware of metallurgical difference or were the same terms applied to both in the archives of Victoria & Albert Museum?

24th October 2015, 04:14 AM	#5
AJ1356 Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Nashville Posts: 314	So historically in the Persian and Arabic world, what I think might have been early forms of wootz swords were called shamshir e Hindi or saif e Hindi, meaning Indian sword or sword from India. This term is used in Shahnamah about 1000 ago and in early Islamic books earlier than that. The word for steel in both Arabic and Farsi is FolAd, also spelled as PolAd in Farsi since Arabic lacks a (P) in the their alphabet. It is likely that the term had gone to the Arab world from Farsi (also called Parsi, again the lack of P in Arabic); and quite possibly it originated in India, or maybe not, besides the point. Now I am not sure where the word (wootz) comes from and frankly don't care, since I take it at the face value for it being the word describing crucible steel. Now the word Jawhar,(not jAw) or the different variants of its spelling, means gem, JawAher is the plural form. Jawhar also means essence, and the Farsi the word (dAr) means with, the owners of, containing and so on, combined creating the word jawhardAr, which could mean with essence. So What I am saying is folAd e jawhardAr should mean steel with essence, the essence being the crystalline formations in the steel. Also Damascus steel swords were and know known as Shamshir e Damishqi (Damascus)

24th October 2015, 01:47 PM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Nice summary. But the question that Emanuel asked was about any special term for mechanical damaskus. Indians made a lot of it, and some examples were highly sophisticated. Were such blades distinguished from wootz and plain steel?

27th October 2015, 11:42 PM	#15
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Surely, forging crucible steel at high temperatures would eliminate the pattern and the final product would become "plain" Yes Ariel, that was what hapened when they took ingots to England, and let thesmiths try to make wootz - it did not work. Jens

28th October 2015, 01:27 PM	#17
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	My understanding that any steel blade was defined as made of "loha": steel in West India . This comes from consultations with my Indian colleagues. One of them consulted with her parents, retired language professors in India. They specifically stated that they were uninformed about terminology used in East India; thus my rather awkward first paragraph. They also stated that the word pulad was an adopted term from Farsi, and also referred to just steel in general. I could not elucidate from them whether there was a special term for mechanical damaskus, but that might have been a result of their rather commonplace ignorance of metallurgical terminology. I am sure 99% of American language professors also wouldn't know the correct answer in English:-)