WOOTZ or SHAM?

[Rick]

Now I'm getting a little confused .

First off I'm not a smith ; so pardon the dumb questions here .

The idea behind forging and folding two or more steels of lesser quality together is to produce a better end product ; correct ?

The reason most early Japanese swords were fold forged was to remove impurities and create an overall better steel ; no ? They worked from iron bearing sand as a source ; correct ?

Now I have two spearheads that are finely forged with many many layers ; the only real pattern that can be observed on them is on the edges ; there is no overall pattern to be seen .

Many older swords were forged under varying conditions depending on the cultures' skill at metal working and with varying rough finish qualities , differing material amounts , and layers ; some were probably fairly lumpy when fresh from the smith's hammer and had to be filed or smoothed and shaped in some way . This was not a choice but a necessity to produce a usable end product .

I'm having trouble with applying the term pattern welding here because to me that term implies *intent* to create a pattern , not something that is incidental to the manufacturing process .

I'll shut up now and listen to anyone who cares to comment .

[Jeff Pringle]

I'd expect that a "wootzy" blade with lower carbon content than high-carbon wootz which properties don't stand above regular steel blades would be considered inferior by people who actually used these weapons (and whose survival might have depended on any little advantage). Is there anything along these lines hinted at in the historical sources?

From “Persian Steel, the Tanavoli Collection” by Allan & Gilmour, quoting a French traveler to Iran in the 19th Century:
“…A watered steel sword of the finest quality is priced at 2,400 Francs, of good quality at 240, and of ordinary quality at 36, whilst the figures for an ordinary steel sword are 60, 18 and 6 Francs…”

That does not really help, we don’t know if he was referring to wootz or PW, or what the quality designations were. But I would expect the HC wootz would fetch the most, with LC wootz and/or extra-nice PW next in line and $ heading downhill from there – I’ll look for better references. But it does show that they recognized one type of watered steel as being ten to forty times better than everything else, which is tantalizing.

Perhaps the term “mechanical damascus” does not bear the same implication of intent (as pattern welding), but it is not in as widespread use, so to avoid confusion I can live with PW.
EDIT - The term comes from (as far as I know): the steel has a pattern, the pattern is from welding. It was created to differentiate PW from crucible-origin steels. There's something about this in "Persian Steel" too - it's a book with a lot of info!
Historically the process of folding a steel repeatedly was used to refine non-homogenous material, and pattern welding grew out of that – combine different materials with the same technique to create effects which also prove quality and show off skill. The blade does not necessarily gain from the process, but usually one combines steels that are tough and steels that are hard to get both properties in the blade. How much of that is real, and how much superstition, is currently a subject of debate in bladesmithing circles.

I’d lump the Japanese blade tradition into pattern welding too, because when you weld steel to itself you get a pattern due to the weld zone being slightly decarburized in the process. And the smiths control the pattern very specifically, to achieve different grain (itame, mokume, masame hada) in the finished sword. In the Edo period, when flashier stuff was in fashion, they even filed/hammered the material in the same manner as Persian and Indian smiths to get more obvious grain (ayasuga hada). We don’t think of them as pattern welded because the material is not treated in a way to make the patterning stand out.
The starting material for the Japanese steel was iron oxide sand, but once it went through the smelter it became a lump of steel, slag and charcoal fire residue, much like a bloom from European smelters but they were shooting for higher overall carbon in the Eastern method. So the folding was to squeeze out impurities and level out the carbon content.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Colonel Yuel in his notes on Marco Polo (1254-1324 AD) mentions that Hindwani (Indian) steel was of such surpassing value and excellence that a man who possessed and Indian sword or mirror regarded it as he would some precious jewel.

The next is from memory, but I think I saw it in “Persian Steel, the Tanavoli Collection” by Allan & Gilmour. The Persian merchants had people stationed on the west coast of India to test the ingots before they were shipped to Persia, as not all the ingots had the same – good - quality.

This seems to indicate that some Indian wootz was of an extraordinary quality – but not all of it. Some of the ingot makers probably had great difficulties in adding the correct amount of wood and leaves to the ingot, as well as keeping the right temperature, whereas others could do it.

In Arms and Armour by E. Jaiwant Paul, the author, on page 80, refers to Egerton’s classification.
Kirk narduban literally means forty steps or rungs of the ladder. …… This is the most highly esteemed pattern of watering.
In qara khorasan, the wavy pattern runs from the hilt to the tip of the blade, and the blade is almost black in colour. This is the next in order of merit.
Qara taban is a long watering design and is a brilliant black against the grey steel.
Sham, simple Damascus or Syrian, includes all other varieties and is valued less by cognoscenti.

It seems as if Manfred Sachse in his book Damaszener Stahl is a bit more generous, as he, out of five shown patterns only call one for sham – but he also calls it wootz. His guess is, that the evolution of the wootz patterns we know to day may have started with sham.

[Gt Obach]

I agree with Jeff

pattern welding or forge folding or mechanical damascus... still produces a design that can be revealed..... if you are using dis-similar materials, it is easy to see the pattern........ but if you use the same material welded on it's self, it is the weld boundaries that reveal pattern.... ( why.. ? possibly weld boundaries have abit decarb or even carburization, or flux included, or oxide, ???)
-- i've noticed brighter weld boundaries if you use borax rather than silica flux
-- anyhow...it is harder to see the weld boundaries but they are there... .. for example.... if you have a bar of Cable damascus... it may take a day in vinegar etch before the pattern comes out.. but it is there

the japanese bloom steel was folded to squeeze out some slag... and evenly distribute the rest of the silicious slag in the steel... with a high polish...it is easy to see the weld boundaries..... and like Jeff mentioned.... this forms the "hada" pattern...
-- definitely pattern welded

remember....all these folds have a record of how the blade was forged in the observable pattern


on wootz...... i believe the top notched blades were perfect in all aspects..... such as being heat treated well/combat worthy.... high finish.... excellent etch ...
-- remember back then....if you boasted that your blades were the best... i bet someone would eventually put you and your blade to the test.. ..... not a test i'd like to fail .....
-- also... i believe that the anient steel makers had a good idea of how much carbon to add to their charge... i'm sure they weighed all the ingredients...... otherwise there'd be piles of useless ingots .... trust me !!
-- it's easy to go over the 2% carb level...... and produce a beautiful ingot with impressive dendrites..... that can never be forged out

Greg

[Jens Nordlunde]

When discussing wootz and sham, the discussion has been on the percentage of carbon, but wootz/sham is not clean steel with carbon. Will more or less of the other components in the steel have any influence?

[Gt Obach]

i'm not sure i understand.. .. from my point of view, sham can be made with both high and low carbon wootz.... just the high carbon wootz has additional carbon to form carbides (large)
-it maybe the carbides help with cutting.... but one thing is forsure....they help alot with having a nice etch
- cutting properties are so very hard to quantify

in my opinion.... wootz is a very clean steel... there are no silicious slags.. . (the slags do not add to blade strength)
personally, I believe a fully melted steel has much better properties

obviously both ways make a fine blade


Greg

[Jens Nordlunde]

Sorry Greg, I was not very clear. What I meant was that wootz has a lot of other metals in it, does the amount of these make any influence?

Here it another one – it is in 3-D – as you can feel the pattern.

[Jeff Pringle]

The carbon level determines whether you will get carbides or not, and how many you get, so that's the element that gets all the attention. Some additional elements are needed to get the carbides to segregate and build up into bands, but I believe their influence is not changed very much in the amount of variation you see in the historic blades. And they are usually a tiny percentage of the total alloy.
So far, it seems (to me!) the determining factors in pattern are: speed of solidification; pre-forging heat treatment; the manner in which the metal is forged; alloy content - in that order, more or less...and I could be very wrong about that order - the history of wootz is littered with bad theories, so I'm in good company!
Since there are some (relatively) non-destructive ways of getting spectrographic analysis done these days, it would help to get a couple blades tested, to see if there really is a carbon or other difference between the sham and not-sham wootz. But visually, the sham looks more like alloy banding and not carbide clusters to me (that is not really different, carbide clustering is just alloy banding with a lot of extra carbon in the alloy)

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you for your explanation Jeff, I think it makes it easier for a lot to get an idea of what it is all about, and yes you are in good company – here.
The problem to many is, that when they see analyses, showing a lot of different metals plus carbon, many does not know what to look for and what not, so they get confused and stop watching for anything – thinking they don’t understand it anyway. I think you have given a fine explanation, without tying yourself into something you can’t get out of. But you have given an understandable explanation – thank you very much.