Damascus Steel

[PBishop]

I'd like to see some discussion on this Wikipedia article about Damascus steel. Is the pattern welding that we call Damascus "wootz" steel different from or the same as the Damascus steel that received the reputation for slicing through stones and etc.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel

and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wootz

If pattern welding doesn't produce steel with the same characteristics as possessed by Medieval Arab weapons, how can we tell the difference in a particular piece, and assuming we know the difference how would it affect the piece's value?

[ham]

Remember that Wikipedia accepts contributions from anyone who has access to the internet-- while there is much excellent data contained in its database, errors do slip in-- and apparently most of them are in this first entry. It is not only general but contains serious inaccuracies.

The second article is far better, though both argue that wootz technology/ production simply disappeared c. 1700-- perhaps with a small popping sound. This is arbitrary and foolishly Eurocentric-- it is also wrong. Numerous dated examples of wootz blades, or shall we say crucible steel, exist which far outstrip the magical advent of the 18th century-- Elgood shows a very fine blade in his work on Arabian arms and armor which is dated in the first quarter of the 20th century, if memory serves.

You ask, Is the pattern welding that we call Damascus "wootz" steel different from or the same as the Damascus steel that received the reputation for slicing through stones and etc.?

The question itself implies some misunderstandings about what distinguishes wootz from pattern welding. I hope some forum member with better access to online data on these topics than myself will find a moment to attach a link or two below.


Ham

[Jens Nordlunde]

You should try to have a look at the Sticky Classic threads at the top, and while you are at it try also a search for Damascus steel. This should give you hours of happy reading.

[RhysMichael]

Originally Posted by PBishop

If pattern welding doesn't produce steel with the same characteristics as possessed by Medieval Arab weapons, how can we tell the difference in a particular piece, and assuming we know the difference how would it affect the piece's value?

You can find both pattern welding and palud/wootz/crucible steel in antique middle eastern ( and other ) weapons. Some good articles on it right here on EEWRS. A search would get you many threads but a good place to start to learn the differences is here
http://www.vikingsword.com/ethsword/patterns.html

Dr Freubach posts here and is one of the true experts on crucible steel she spoke in Timonium last year and I have a couple of articles she gave out there if it would help

There are some very fine pattern welded blades, many that I look at and covet ~lol~ . So I would not rule out either type as a good sword to have

Oh and guess what there are some people making crucible steel today

[B.I]

Originally Posted by ham

Elgood shows a very fine blade in his work on Arabian arms and armor which is dated in the first quarter of the 20th century, if memory serves.

Ham

I agree that good wootz was being made well into the 19thC and very early 20thC.
Ham is correct in his memory, but I dont feel this was a good example to use. The sword listed by Elgood was wrongly dated, I feel. The blade was 19thC and the style of patterning, and inlaid cartouche was of a much earlier period. The sword was owned by a friend of mine, and the inscription compared to others of a very similar nature.

[ham]

Curiouser and curiouser... are there any good photos of that sword, BI?
The one in Elgood is hardly conclusive.

Ham

[B.I]

Ham,
I dont think so, as it was sold on some time ago. But will find out. Its quite an important point because if Robert was right (I am fairly sure he wasnt) then we can date this style of wootz to well into the 20thC.
But, have to assume he was wrong until proven otherwise (and not the other way round)

[ham]

Right. I have hunted up my copy of the book and studied the photo with a magnifier. Where do you feel Elgood is off in his attribution? Also, since you have seen the sword how was it mounted please?

The point is, there are a great many wootz blades which bear dates in the latter 1800s. In Iran a large number was produced in the reign of NasredDin Shah (1848-1896.)


Ham

[B.I]

I am not sure if I should push this much further, as it was based on opinion. But, saying that, I think if I cant tell the difference between an 18thC sword and a 20thC sword, then I ought to collect something else.
It was sometime ago, and the sword wasnt Indian and so the form of the hilt is lost in vague memory. I just clearly remember disputing the age without the remotest of doubts.
I feel that you will need proof to be convinced, and so we would have to agree to disagree. I dont feel there is anything that anyone can glean from a photo that would make me change my mind.
I do, however, agree that wootz blades were made into the late 19thC.
I will try to maybe provide something that could make you reconsider.

[B.I]

My potential dating was purely opinion based, on the feel and look of the blade. My knowledge is not in cartouches or inscriptions.
However, I have an interesting take on the cartouches, which offers a different opinion on the dating.
I have attached the sword in Elgoods book, and also an almost identical sword in patterning and form, with an almost identical inscription. I have no doubt they were made in the same region, of not the same workshop or even by the same hand.
The second sword reads
'Banda-i-Shah-i-Wilayat Abbas' on the top, and below 'amal Assadullah Isfahani 181'
The sword in Elgood has the same inscription, except a change in the numbering. His sword reads 192.
Roberts dating is based on a fourth numeral which, if compared to the second sword, could potentially not be a number, but part of the word 'amal'
I dont know which calender they use, but this date does not read 1926, as stated in the book, if you consider this as a letter and not a number.

I personally feel this is the case, as the letter is more towards the word than the numerals, but maybe I am just using this to buffer up my stance on this sword, which is confirmed already.

For a good discussion of Banda-i-Shah-i-Wilayat (servant of the king of trusteeship ie. servant of the Iman Ali) - see James Allen, pg 108/109 in 'Persian Steel Tanavoli Collection'.

Allen concludes that the phrase always followed by an important Safavid ruler, was a Qajar useage, designed to enchance the prestige of the object.
This research was done by a friend of mine, and can be taken literally, or as pure specualtion. It is enough for me, I feel.

I think this is an important point to discuss, as if we have a dated sword from the second quarter of the 20thC, with all the asthetics of an 18thC sword, then it would change how we date everything, as we would not be able to offer a dated opinion within at least 200 years.

I hope anyone with experience in translating cartouches will offer their opinion.

[ariel]

A question that always puzzled me: how did the Iranians "forget" how to to make wootz?
Why did not Javanese masters forget how to make pamor? The ban on carrying weapons came in Japan at about the same time the last Persian wootz blades were produced; nevertheless, the art of making Nihonto blades was fully preserved.
Why did it take Russian, German and American metallurgists to re-invent the technology of wootz manufacture?
Why weren't wootz blades manufactured in Turkey or Egypt? After all, it should have taken just a couple of Iranian masters brought to Istanbul to start up a mass production of wootz blades. I have a wootz yataghan of Balkan(?) provenance, but that's it.

Is it possible that there was no well-developed wootz-making industry in Persia, ie, the great majority of ingots ( or, in the extreme case, all of them) being made in India and exported to Iran for the final stage of blade forming? Is it possible that there was tight import control on the ingots consumed by Iran and not reaching the Ottomans? The withering of Iranian wootz swords ( mid-19th century) co-incides with the British ban on the manufacture of wootz ingots in India (allegedly to prevent deforestation). After that, all Iranian swords were of plain steel or mechanical damascus construction. That should not have happened had there been an established, independent wootz production in Iran. Russian Captain Massalski personally observed making wootz ingots in Bukhara in the first half of the 19th century. Are there any eyewitness accounts of wootz manufacture in Iran? This is a direct extension of Brian's earlier inquiry http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4047
Back to my original question: perhaps, Persians never "forgot" how to make wootz; they just never knew. Perhaps, the reason why the Europeans could not find the secret of Persian steel was that they looked in the wrong place: they should have asked the Indians and the Uzbeks

[B.I]

Hi Ariel,
The paper I was refering to in that post was not on wootz, but on Persian metalwork as a whole. But, the main criteria of the author was to challenge assumptions, and so this should also be the case with Persian wootz.
What the author did, was to challence the origin of a series of artworks in known museums, all assumed and accepted to be Persian (Safavid from memory) as the form is well known to be of this period and region. His stance, was that they were not Persian at all, but Indian. His case was well written, and backed with decorative iconography found in Bijapur and Golkonda, which was almost identical to that used on these particular pieces. He claims the main cetres of manafacture were Lahore and the Deccan, and they widely exported pieces made in Persian taste for a huge Persian market. He claims that Indian craftsman were widely respected and the Persians accepted that their own craftsman were 'inferior'. He re-translated insriptions, written on well known 'Persian' pieces and found the word 'Lahore' written next to the name of the craftsman.
I know this may sound extreme, and his theory can easily be argued against, but nothing he claims can be called extreme, as his arguement is well thought out and researched. The strangest thing, and something I really respect, is that the authour is patriotically Persian by birth! So, no matter whether his claim is accepted or not, his opinion is based on pure study without the bias of nationalism.
I am a big fan of marching against assumption, and so I found the article extremely interesting. I am not saying I agreed with it all, but it definately made me re-assess things that even I was guilty of assuming. Of course, this can be taken too far, and sometimes you have to assume a little, otherwise you never get to the second stage of an investigation.

[FenrisWolf]

I remember an article I read online some years ago, written by two metallurgists who had been studying the crystalline patterns formed in wootz steel with an eye to duplicating it in modern weapons. I don't remember all the details, and unfortunately didn't save the link to the articles, but as I recall one of the theories put forth was that in addition to the crucible method, the major contributing factors to the true wootz steel of the peak Indian years were impurities that were naturally occuring in Indian iron ore. According to the theory put forward, even if you set up an identical foundry in the middle east using all the methods used in India, and made weapons in the same manner as Indian ones, the trademark 'wootz' pattern would not be present because the ore from two different mines lack the same blend of impurities.

[ALEX]

Originally Posted by B.I

I hope anyone with experience in translating cartouches will offer their opinion.

B.I.
The stamps read: "Abbas Shah. Work of Assad Allah". (Abbas Shah ruled at 1600's). Fantastic (and real) stamps. Nice!

[ariel]

Originally Posted by ALEX

B.I.
The stamps read: "Abbas Shah. Work of Assad Allah". (Abbas Shah ruled at 1600's). Fantastic (and real) stamps. Nice!

The stamps are real, no doubt.
But what about the names? Assadullah's signature was used by a multitude of swordmakers trying to sell their wares for mucho dinero.

[ALEX]

Ariel,
I like what Jens had to say at this post:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1841

[ariel]

The manufacture of wootz blades largely ceased in India and in Iran by the middle of the 19th century.
However, Y. Miller in his book " Caucasian arms in the State Hermitage Museum" shows many examples of splendid wootz swords and kindjals dated all through the 19th century.
Any information on the occurence of earlier wootz blades of local Caucasian manufacture? Was Caucasian wootz different from Persian? Were they making wootz from scratch or used Indian ingots? If, per Dr. Feuerbach, North Caucasus was one of the earliest known places of wootz manufacture, was the technique preserved uninterruptibly?
Caucasians were sent to Zlatoust to teach Russian masters their wootz techniques; what was their influence (if any) on Anosov's revival of wootz manufacture?
These are just some questions that come to mind.

[ariel]

Well, my wild guess of the Indian origin of wootz blades of Persian manufacture just got a boost:
http://acier.damas.free.fr/f_damas/f...eel/indiaw.htm
WOOTZ STEEL: AN ADVANCED MATERIAL OF THE ANCIENT WORLD
by Srinivasan ( archeologist) and Ranganathan ( metallurgist).
A quote:

"Several European travellers including Francis Buchanan [8] and Voysey [9] from the 17th century onwards observed the manufacture of steel in south India by a crucible process at several locales including Mysore, Malabar and Golconda. By the late 1600's shipments running into tens of thousands of wootz ingots were traded from the Coromandel coast to Persia."
Why would Persians buy wootz ingots if they could make their own?
Perhaps, Assadollah should have put another stamp on his blades : "Made in India"

[tsubame1]

Originally Posted by ariel

Is it possible that there was no well-developed wootz-making industry in Persia, ie, the great majority of ingots ( or, in the extreme case, all of them) being made in India and exported to Iran for the final stage of blade forming? Is it possible that there was tight import control on the ingots consumed by Iran and not reaching the Ottomans? The withering of Iranian wootz swords ( mid-19th century) co-incides with the British ban on the manufacture of wootz ingots in India (allegedly to prevent deforestation). After that, all Iranian swords were of plain steel or mechanical damascus construction. That should not have happened had there been an established, independent wootz production in Iran. Russian Captain Massalski personally observed making wootz ingots in Bukhara in the first half of the 19th century. Are there any eyewitness accounts of wootz manufacture in Iran? This is a direct extension of Brian's earlier inquiry http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4047
Back to my original question: perhaps, Persians never "forgot" how to make wootz; they just never knew. Perhaps, the reason why the Europeans could not find the secret of Persian steel was that they looked in the wrong place: they should have asked the Indians and the Uzbeks

One thing that every ruler/nation/empire tried to avoid as pneumonia pestis
is to totally depend from foreign supply for very important army related stuffs and supplies. Even today some nations that have a strong need of safety and can't absolutely rely on outer supplies/technologies makes their own weaponry.
Comes to mind the jewish with the Merkava.
Why should the perians have relied on external sources of supply that would
have been easly cut for such an important supply as wootz ?
I know that wootz isn't really considered a good steel for combat in this
board, so maybe this matter has been skipped as "wootz is Kool and useless"
but still I wonder why Bukhara yes and Persia not. Can you explain
this ?

[ariel]

An interesting post on SFI:
This time around it is a Spanish book , mid-19th century, describing what they knew about wootz.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=80073
Again, they mention Bombay and Golkonda, but no Persia.

[Gt Obach]

yes but it doesn't say they didn't make it in Persia...

if you look at the structure of the crucible steels ... specially the waterings... they tell you there are some big differences in the process... .. Large waterings take much slower cooling times from liquid to solid... and need a long roast afterwards... .. small waterings require a much much shorter cool time and roast...

in my experience..... you can't take a short cool ingot and turn it into a large watering slow cool ingot...

i'd like to take my saturn and turn it into a Mercedes benz ... but it doesn't work that way...

Greg

[Richard Furrer]

Originally Posted by tsubame1

I know that wootz isn't really considered a good steel for combat in this
board, so maybe this matter has been skipped as "wootz is Kool and useless"
but still I wonder why Bukhara yes and Persia not. Can you explain
this ?

Hello All,
I can not say with certainty all the places where wootz was made and where it was not, but we should be careful in stating that just because a steel was made in a crucible it is wootz....all wootz is crucible steel, but not all crucible steel is wootz.

As to wootz functionality:
My opinion on this has changed several times over the years. Most recently I had the opportunity to travel through some museums in Rajisthan, India with some talented museum folk and related persons with an interest in arms and armor. One of the most interesting and useful tools we had along were a few folk from the Wallace Collection (Drs Alan Williams, David Edge and Toby Capwell) with a Vickers micro hardness tester. During a conference hardness tests were conducted on many blades and the results, though not to "laboratory" standards given the situation, were educational. Certain generalities can be drawn from the data.
Robert Elgood will be publishing the results of the conference so I am not sure what I should reveal as far as vickers numbers, but allow me to say that given the sample body of swords we tested I would not feel at all opposed to using a wootz blade in the time periods where that form of material was in production against other blades made by other methods of the same time period.

Should anyone have any hard data one way or another I would be interested in seeing it. To my knowledge I have been the only one looking at flexibility, hardness and comparable study data with other blade technologies of the time. Does anyone else have hardness data they care to share or anything other than anecdotal information on the effectiveness of wootz in use?

Ric