Wootz or not?

[Jens Nordlunde]

Thank you for your answers. I hope others will join in, so we can have a broader view on the subject.

[ariel]

It is an interesting question . The bottom line of it is what technologies were used in India to manufacture steel?

Obviously, the most ancient and the simplest one was bloomery steel. It produced a lump of metal mixed with slug, and the percent of carbon varied dramatically in different parts of the bloom. Then the smith separated the pieces into high-carbon and low-carbon piles , forged separate ingots and,- Voila!, - one had a perfect material for producing mechanical damascus. As a matter of fact, all old European swords and all Japanese swords were made this way.

Another technology was crucible steel, i.e. wootz. Only in India, potentially in neighboring countries, but later on. India was exporting tens of thousands ( or even significantly more) wootz ingots all over the Orient.

Both of these techniques could have been done in rather primitive village smithies and were based on manufacturing small quantities of steel or more precisely, small ingots.

The manufacture of monosteel AFAIK is a later European invention, requiring large industrial facilities.

Again AFAIK, the Brits built advanced metallurgical factories in India only in the 19th century.


If this is true, until that time all Indian blades should have been damascus: either mechanical or wootz. Of course, manufacturing and forging conditions might have obscured the innate structure: erratic melting or cooling of the crucibles and/or overheating of wootz ingots during the process of forging blades would transform them into ( in fact) monosteel. But that would be an error of manufacture.


Is my logic correct? Am I missing something?

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

Is my logic correct? Am I missing something?

Hello Ariel!

I think your logic is correct... up to a point.

You seem to miss the part that not all crucible steel is wootz. So not all the steel produced in India through crucible process has necessarily resulted in wootz.

So yes, wootz is crucible but crucible is not wootz. In other words, woots is not any crucible, and it is exactly this tiny difference between crucible and wootz that remains mostly a mistery even today.

Even today, there are Indian bladesmiths making crucible and presumably following precisely the same old crucible process like their forerunners, yet the result is at best sham, but in most cases monosteel.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Hello Ariel!

I think your logic is correct... up to a point.

You seem to miss the part that not all crucible steel is wootz. So not all the steel produced in India through crucible process has necessarily resulted in wootz.

So yes, wootz is crucible but crucible is not wootz..

I have mentioned it in the penultimate paragraph. You must have missed it.

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by ariel

I have mentioned it in the penultimate paragraph. You must have missed it.

Nope, I didn't miss it, but you are inferring that the rule is that anything that is crucible is wootz, and if it is not wootz, then it must be an accident of some sort ("error of manufacture" as you name it). When in fact wootz is the result of a more elaborate process than ordinary crucible.

So the rule is that crucible is simply a method of obtaining monosteel.

If you want to get wootz, you need to do more than just follow the crucible process.

[ariel]

I know it. I simplified the argument to avoid going on a tangent.

How about that: wootz can be obtained only by using a crucible, and that was the methodology routinely used in India.

Any deviation from the optimal process, whether accidental, intentional or a shortcut would result in monosteel as a final product.

Now let's go back to the original question.

[Richard G]

Has anyone else noticed how many of the common and cheap horn handled Kurdish daggers have a watered\wootz blade? Anyone know why this should be?
Regards
Richard