Emanuel, I have never seen an old wootz cake so I could not respond to this but what happens once you start forging this old wootz cake, you can not make a blade from a polished and etched unforged wootz cake/ingot, it needs to be forged. Are you suggesting that anyone can forge a watered steel blade from it or did it take specialized knowledge in order to do this?

Yes, it is. And, too, there is about this in the articles of the 1840s.

Microstructure of Steels and Cast Irons, Madeleine Durand-Charre, 2013

Excellent, and thank you guys again for responses to my questions. This discussion has truly developed dimensionally by the various and most salient angles you have all brought up.
While the original query tendered in this thread by Mahratt seemed to be rather straightforward and answerable in a similar response, it seemed to defy such an answer.

While it became almost frustratingly clear that a direct answer to the exact or defined disappearance of old wootz making skills was not exactly placeable to such a defined time, especially universal to all wootz locations, it has been fascinating to see all these angles and facets to the problem.

Mahratt, I must thank you for bringing up this most interesting topic, and for me, for prompting me to finally approach a subject I have admittedly long avoided. I also appreciate that you continue to reiterate the interactions between you and others posting as to the salient points you are discussing. Most helpful to keep the thread topic on course.

Ariel, I really liked the factor you brought up as plausibly being associated in this situation, that of life span and generation diminishing of skills in accord with that of demand. While the pro and con of this theory were of course addressed , it is fascinating to see critical thinking and well presented responses placed........this is true historical detection, and all of you guys carry it through perfectly!

Emanuel and Estrcrh, again thank you guys for your patient and most intriguing explanations and descriptions on the actual wootz making processes.......I think I really am starting to understand this stuff! :)

Estcrh, you continue to amaze me at your incredible abilities at locating all these articles and material and posting the segments here, thank you!

Outstanding work everyone!

The issue of inherent ingot patterns and the final blade patterns was discussed extensively on a Russian forum with professional bladesmiths, including the "dean" of Rusiian blademakers, Mr. Leonid Arkhangelsky. According to them, there is no doubt that the inherent structure is important, but only a true master is capable of creating complicated patterns seen on Persian and later Indian blades.

Only Persians with their secret tricks of forging were able to create rich and complicated patterns like Taban or Khorasan.. Indian masters were using a different technique: their hallmark was the "salt-and-pepper" pattern in which dendrites were crushed into small spheroidal segments. After ~17th century there was an inflow of Persian masters into India, and the patterns of Indian blades switched to the complicated Persian examples. Syrian pattern is well-known as Shams: low-contrast, short, almost straight lines.

They all used the same Indian ingots, but the final results were different.


Why?

As bladesmiths told me it all likely depended on the technique of forging: turning the billet in a predetermined way to create twisted patterns of dendrites, keeping the pounding in the same position/direction for the Shams, or beating the hell out of it to obtain the Indian "crystalline" wootz. And on top of it, heating the billet to a certain color between forgings was also crucial.

Even on the same blade one can see different patterns: even the best Taban blades always have almost "shams-y" pattern close to the edge, the result of more vigorous pounding in one direction.

And that is what happens now: metallurgists can make beautiful wootz ingots with a pattern indistinguishable from the old Indian ones, but the bladesmiths do not have secret "protocols of forging" that were worked out over multiple generations by Persian masters.

Anosov figured out how to make wootz ingots, but his blades had coarse and simple pattern: he did not know how to forge his material.

And that is the real secret of wootz.

No Eric, of course I am not suggesting that.

My apologies as I am no smith and all I write is based on what I've learned from others. What I have been saying again and again is that the fine watery pattern seen on wootz metal is a result of the initial smelting process. Yes the pattern can be modified mechanically through forging of the cake/ingot/billet into a bar or blade, or whatever at a later stage. The point is that if the smelting process was successful, the basic pattern will be there in the cake as soon as you remove it from the crucible. Temperature control and correct charging of the crucible seem to be the critical factors to getting a good quality steel with a pattern.

The forging process is a separate thing altogether. Temperature control is again key to maintain small grain in the material. Large grain will make it brittle. The process for forging a wootz vs. non-wootz billet will be similar but the range of temperature a wootz billet will take is smaller since the pattern breaks down at higher temperatures. A bladesmith that does not know these temperature constraints will ruin the fine wootz pattern no matter what he does.

Here is a nice summary of the process from Greg Obach, who is also on this forum.
http://users.unitz.ca/gthomas/myweb4...n_of_wootz.htm

It is a common misconception. There is information that the blades of wootz steel Anosov, very appreciated in the Orient (at local residents).

It sounds to me like Pavel Anosov (1796-1851) was primarily involved in research on the technology of crucible steel creating bulat/wootz while he was working at Zlatoust. The apparently highly regarded swords that were created using his findings in creating bulat were not only regarded as examples of 'fine art' but superior in their combat performance vs. those with steel from Solingen, Toledo and London .

From what I read he found four ways of producing the bulat steel, including direct reduction from ore; decarburization of cast iron with iron oxide; melting cast steel into mold and reacting iron and carbon in crucible.
As, again, I am not a metallurgist I would note only that these do not seem to include 'forging'.

Yet the bulat steel blades used with his processes seem profoundly highly regarded, and as 'art', so I miss the point on any deficiency regarding his not knowing how to forge the steel. Apparantly he made some blades himself for some of the more prominent researchers also engaged in wootz studies, and those were also highly regarded.

Also it seems that the noted detractions in his research material were apparently deliberate as he was guarding the secrets of his discoveries, which were indeed 'lost' again for a time after his death.

It certainly sounds like his blades, and research were highly regarded, and again most interesting to learn more about the bulat history. I had heard of it before but was not sure of connections in the wootz matters.

Jim,
Anosov shoud be honored for his re-discovery of the process of obtaining raw wootz material and his insight that it should be forged at low temperatures. However, he simply did not have access to the old "recipe" of forging complex patterns ( akin to Taban/Khorasan). In his defence, only one of the contemporary wootz smiths is capable of doing it, and doing it with long blades.

There is a lot of information on Anosov's blades in the new book by Kirill Rivkin. He also characterizes them as pretty simple .


AFAIK, his blades were never produced for mass use or export; he made only a few examples. I am unaware of his blades being used as fighting implements anywhere in the world.

He published his report in 1841, but was transferred as a governor to Tomsk in 1847, where he could not continue his work.

After his departure production of bulat in Zlatoust has stopped: his instructions about the process were deliberately brief and incomplete. A couple of workers in Zlatoust who actually did the job, produced a small number of blades, and then it was just like in India and Iran: skill transfer stopped and the secret was lost again.

As an example of Anosov's bulat ( wootz) work, here is his famous hunting knife that he presented to British geologist Murchison who visited Zlatoust.
It was sold at Sothebys (?) for something like 50,000 GBP ( I might be wrong here, but the sum was obscenely high)

Another one is his shashka: look at the pattern, pretty coarse and simple.

It is bulat, no doubt, but in the best possible case it is Sham.

Anosov received high quality wootz in a factory scale. Bulat (wootz) producted, blades - forged. Here is their description: "The tracery wootz are small, dark background - Taban"; "Large tracery wootz - Kara-Khorasan"; "Explicit patterns and large - Kara-Taban". Wootz steel production at the Zlatoust arms factory was massive. No wonder that Paul Petrovich Anosov in 1841 in preparation for printing his essay "On the Bulat" abandoned old Asian names, and introduced a new - "Russian Bulat (wootz)".

In Zlatoust weapon factory owned wootz steel forging technology, were able to properly temper the metal. Finished blades has a surprisingly high resistance and elasticity.

In 1839, its wootz weapons exhibited in St. Petersburg. Russian Bulat (wootz) gets great reviews at the third Moscow manufactory exhibition in 1843. Blades of Anosov Bulat (wootz) we tried to buy in collection of rich collectors of weapons of the 19th century.

Excellent reviews can be heard on all sides. For example, in 1851 at an exhibition in London exhibited Anosov wootz blades.

It is known that personally Anosov was made more than two dozen blades sabre and a plurality of blades knife of the Russian damask steel with excellent designs and Khorasan Kara-Taban. The fate of most of them is still unknown. Previously, a fairly complete collection was kept in the Hermitage, but now there is only one sword (Kara-taban) - Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich.

Once in 1847, Pavel Petrovich Anosov leaves the production plant in Zlatoust damask steel is sharply reduced. An indispensable assistant in smelting wootz Anosov was a master, Nikolai Shvetsov. After retiring Anosov he continued to producted wootz, but he was secretive man, and passed the secret of its manufacture only the eldest of his four sons (also, incidentally, worked as a blacksmith in Zlatoust), Pavel Shvetsov.
In the 1850s, damask steel Zlatoust has made only by special order. This is attributed to the fact that at that time started a broad campaign for casting artillery barrels, to which all industrial reserves of the country were thrown.

I would love to see a documented Anosov's blade with Taban or Khorasan pattern. In the absence of such, quotations from popular magazines carry very little value.

Not for nothing he presented his creations as "Russian bulat" instead of specific names. All of them that I know were of a simple Sham structure.

Verhoeven always merits a re-read :)

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...even-9809.html

Ariel, I must thank you for the detailed and well explained perspective on the obviously very complex circumstances of wootz and the many variations of its product blades.
Mahratt, I also thank you for the interesting perspective that you present on Anasov as well.
As someone who has studied weapons as long as I have, it is really a great pleasure to finally have a grasp of this complicated subject matter in at least much better degree.

What I truly appreciate is the inherent knowledge of the history and scientifically oriented substance on these subjects displayed by you guys as well as Estcrh, Emanuel and Kronckew.......I admire that very much.

While most of this data seems historically stable, there do seem to be some differences in the perceived nature of the blades in the type of patterns produced etc especially as concerns the profoundly important work of Mr. Anasov.

While these differences seem to be inconclusively determined, especially as these are mostly no longer available, or as it seems, several had been with further examination pending, these factors of course would be subject to varying views depending on the reviewer.

What is most beneficial to myself and other readers as these things are discussed, is the well thought out and presented views as seen here, which give us excellent perspective and supportive evidence for all sides.

It does seem almost metaphoric as these discussions are in essence being forged much as the blades, and being crafted in sort of the same way.
Fascinating! :)

I do not support reading popular magazines and books published today. I prefer to read historical sources. So I read Anosov and what he wrote about his work. I think there is no doubt in the words Anosova?

I understand that many in the forum do not speak Russian, so I give the translation, the selected phrase:

1) etching on the plate (wootz) were large curls (tracery), "Kara-Khorasan". Another experiment was repeated with a simple iron. The same result was obtained. Resulting in a small plate wootz was also a "Kara-Khorasan".

2) Get the "Taban" (think about it, "Kara-Taban") with medium curls (tracery) and a dark background.

mahratt,
I am wondering why you use space on Vikingsword with Russian texts, whom only a handful of the members can read - maybe. If you want to quote thise texts, you should translate them to English - which is the language on this forum - or leave them out.

Jens, forgive me. I do not blame that Anosov wrote in Russian and not English. I posted here page Anosova authentic work, that there was no doubt that I give precise citations (rather than data from popular magazines).

At the same time, I specifically gave at the beginning of the translation. Once again, I apologize

I have shown pictures of 2 Anosov's blades: both are Sham.
Any PICTURES of documented Anosov's blades with Taban or Khorasan?
Nothing less than that will suffice.

I showed pages of authentic books Anosov of wootz (1841). I hope no one will argue that Anosov - written with no errors? (He understood the wootz) At the same time, I did not say that did not Anosov damask blades of Wootz steel such as "Sham". There were more than other blades. But did Anosov and "Kara-Khorasan" and "Taban".

On one blade of the "Kara-Khorasan" had 10-20 blades from "Sham". Can someone show 10 blades Anosova? I think the analogy is clear? Blades Anosov save too little. But Hermitage has blade Anosov of wootz steel "Kara Khorasan". Anyone can go to St. Petersburg and look at this blade.

The excellent entries continue, and Mahratt thank you for adding the translated captions to the Russian sources you provide.
However, you and Ariel are digressing from the theme of the thread.

As I have stated I am enjoying learning more about wootz, but while I think we have properly saluted Pavel Anosov for his outstanding contributions to bulat, I believe we can leave behind the business about which type of blades were produced by him.

Perhaps you and Ariel might find a way to return to the wootz topic beyond the Anosov fixation ?

Thanks again for the great entries outside this digression, and I think the conflicting views as I noted, give good perspective which might be pursued outside this discussion.

The REAL modern wootz!

I give you examples of bulat blades by a Georgian master Zaqro Nonikashvili.

Very well said Emanuel!!! Thank you!!!:)

Thank you, Emanuel!!!

Here is a link to an excellent article which explains Zaqro Nonikashvili's "Georgian crucible steel technique".

http://ceroart.revues.org/2557?lang=en

Mind you, my comment is specifically about the kirk narduban, not the kara khorasan.

Thank you Ariel and Eric! Magnificent stuff!

Indeed, magnificent!

Just to think that the guy managed to reproduce the most difficult wootz patterns without having any theoretical ( written) or practical ( apprenticeship) help.

This is a work of a true genius. He is a Mozart of wootz.

Salaams All, There is compelling evidence from all quarters in this very excellent thread for reasoned thoughts on the decline of Wootz including the invasion of central Asia thus the drop in demand..and the demographic detail illustrated graphically on the suspected demise of participants...I believe all of them. I suggest one was the trigger (drop in demand) and the other caused the specialty to vanish.(see paragraph 3 below)

On the demise of Wootz in particular I would point to the traditional aspect in craftsmanship of taking the children into a apprenticeship routine from a very young age and passing them out at about 16 years old as fully trained artesans. This means that the graph illustrated above is not so much floored but enhanced since the apprentice age factor or the point in the graph between perhaps 5 and 10 years old (at the point the Wootz making stops) breaks the traditional passing down of the technique... and destroys the apprenticeship concept. Thus as Ariel points out ..."It Withers".

How quickly can a passed down tradition vanish?... Take the Omani Weaving specialization which all but vanished and except for the intervention my one single individual it would have sunk without trace. The same could be said about silver-making in Oman when the leader of the country had to intervene by having at least one son of the silver-maker learn the apprenticeship... It is therefor very easy to lose these traditional methods very quickly since the apprentice window is very narrow and in particular when they are not written down. It would appear that Wootz blade manufacture fell under similar constraints. Without the demand and then without the apprenticeships the art was lost.

In support of the very quickly lost art of Wootz manufacturing please see http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...even-9809.html
( also noted at #132 by Emanuel)
Quote."The smiths that produced the high-quality blades would most likely have kept the process for making these blades a closely guarded secret to be passed on only to their apprentices".Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Ariel,
I do not believe the top 2 images shown in above Post#140 are modern production. The lower image is more like it. I think the 2 above are closeups of genuine antique blades added for marketing purposes, as to show what wootz/bulat looks like, casually adding Zaqro Nonikashvili name into association.

... just to be clear on who's who.

here's closeup of a modern Indian-made Kard that can be picked up for under $200, and not the best by far. There are wootz(?) ingots with better "structure" readily available for less than $100. I do not understand what is the big deal with Russian geniuses creating unimaginable bulat masterpieces? Are they any different or am I missing something?

Dagger with wootz steel blade by Zaqro Nonikashvili.

Wootz is refferred as Bulat in Russian. I am not sure of definition of Bulat related to wootz, but in terms of clasical wootz - i'd not call this blade as such. I know some people would call wootz anything crucible. I am not going by process or components, but by visual pattern, and this is not wootz pattern to me.
Granted, some modern masters produce wootz blades, and of relatively decent pattern, but still lacking complexity and effect of old "twootz of legend".

Alex,
King Erekle saber is a modern product with blade by Nonikashvili.
The "shams-y" bulat is, of course, on par with Anosov's. Nothing to write home about.

Ariel,
Is that closeup really of that "new" sword? I do not think so. I believe it is of old Persian blade on original saber or else. Also, how do we know the "new" blade is actually modern? Did he make several like this, or this is only one he made, or did he use old wootz blade, applied gold inscriptions and fittings and called: "I made it".

Here is the new replica sword by Studio Gotscha, 2009 and the original, the question is whether the second close up image is of the reproduction or the original, to me it appears to be a detailed image of the original.

Have a read through what the fiery beards are saying on crucible steel :) :
http://www.bladesmithsforum.com/inde...howtopic=18364

And what I meant about the pattern visible in the cake, pre-forging out.

Ibrahiim, thank you for that outstanding synopsis bringing the essential theme topic back into the discussion. It has been an amazing discussion bringing together the many facets of this industry and the mysterious watered steel so sought after. It is amazing that even into our times there is research continuing.

I think that the focus on the Russian scientific and craftsmanship factors is most interesting and most likely the case because of the notable instances which pertain to the rediscovery of much of the wootz mystery. While obviously there are a good number of other areas involved, the work by Anosov in the research angles is of course key.

As with most industry and craftsmanship, there are likely to be many levels and degrees of quality and production. It is extremely interesting to see these pointed out in the observations and illustrations that continue being presented here.
Thank you!

I contacted Kirill Rivkin and asked him about Anosov's bulat. Kirill inspected Hermitage collection and many other collections of Anosov's blades and has first-hand knowledge.
Here is his e-mail:
__________________________________________________ ________
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 3:38 PM
To: Barkan, Ariel
Attachments:



Anosov claimed that he reproduced 11 different types of Bulat patterns;
the problem is that his definition of what each pattern means is very
different from what we tend to use today. For example, there is a sword in
Tsarskoe Selo collection which is signed "Amal Taban" which was held by
many as the definition of Taban pattern. However, this blade is not even
wootz; in fact most likely its a Georgian imitation of Assad Allah. During
Anosov's time the definition of wootz was very wide; he personally
included Japanese swords in this class, as well as many swords that were
classified in old Russian records as "red bulat" - but which today most
would not consider to be wootz. But even today people there are still
arguments, at the core of which is how separate are the terms "crucible
steel" and wootz. If we are to include some very basic crucible steel
patterns as wootz, then practically all Sheffield cutlery is wootz, it
just needs lots of acid, etc. If we are to concentrate of first class
Persian+ patterns from XVIIIth century as the "standard" of wootz, then it
is a much more narrow field.
Regarding the production of Zlatoust bulat, including those specifically
signed as Anosov's bulat, almost all was done in 1841-1845, i.e. a
relatively short time period. It is very low contrast (actually mechanical
damascus ones from the same period are much more showy), with relatively
short, straight lines (typically longer on higher quality swords, but
approaching "salt and pepper" on lower end stuff). Sometimes the lines are
curving a little. It is not that similar to what we would consider to be a
true Persian Taban today.

__________________________________________________ ______-

In view of this information obtained from a knowledgeable professional, quotations from Anosov's works as well as re-tellings of Anosov's testimonials by other people become highly questionable and cannot be relied upon.

Thus, actual documented examples of his "bulat" need to be seen by our own eyes.

Emanual, there does seem to be a pattern there, heres what appears to be the whole process from crucible to ingot to yatagan blade with a detail view of the pattern created.

"Indian methode" by Dr. Zaqro Nonikashvili.

Good example. His wootz patterns are unsurpassable.
Once again, it shows the importance of the forging process: minute and pretty "mechanical" dendrites of the ingot are transformed into a complex pattern easily comparable to the best Persian examples.

Obviously, Anosov lacked this ability.