Ariel, thank you very much for the message from Kirill Rivkin. It is very interesting. Kirill has sent you a photo of the sword from the Hermitage? Or is he simply expressed his opinion?

Ariel, what this opinion is based on?
As shown earlier in this post, some images of antique wootz were allegedly mixed in the context of modern production and associated with Dr. Zaqro Nonikashvili. I think some are too quick to attribute them as produced by the person whose name appears next to the images. To me it is unclear what these close-ups refer to: a restored original blade, a sample of true wootz from another antique blade, or indeed a newly-made blade by Dr. Zaqro Nonikashvili.
The patterns Dr. Zaqro Nonikashvili produced, at least what I saw thus far, are of Anosov-like, non-wootz type. Are there any viably convincing sample(s) of his work, besides random snaps of "some wootz", that show real modern wootz pattern produced by him?
How sure are you that the 2 yataghan blades and close-up of Kirk-narduban/ zig-zag pattern were forged by Dr. Zaqro Nonikashvili?

Alex,

The only info I have is how they are presented on his site.
If the best he could do was "Anosov-like" bulat, I will be disappointed. But there are some examples that are clearly a part of the overall story, from ingot to final product. If true, they are astonishing. I have no direct knowledge to doubt the veracity of his examples that are openly published and discussed by other individuals working with him.

BTW, how do you like Kirill's story of Anosov's bulat?

Ariel,
I can tell you with certainty, that Kirk-Narduban/Zig-Zag pattern is not newly made. The image is of genuine antique wootz blade.
I also saw these images on Internet bearing Zaqro Nonikashvili name, for whatever reasons: comparison, showing objects of restoration, etc. The same goes for another wootz pattern shown on the same panel, "mistakenly" attributing it to Mr. Nonikashvili. He's very good and talented restorer, and some images of wootz blades he restored got mixed with the notion that he forged them.

As for King Erekle shamshir, I am not convinced that the blade is newly made. I believe the old wootz blade was used, polished and inlaid, and the rest was skillfully recreated. Perhaps someone can prove me wrong.

I liked Kirill's write-up about Anosov's bulat (and also his new book - an outstanding work!). Seeing some of Anosov's works personally, Kirill's thesis makes a great deal of sense and credibility, especially the differences of perceptions of wootz and its qualities of ours and Anosov's times, as well as realistic assessment of Anosov's patterns. Totally agree with everything Kirill said.

Salaams Jim. Thank you ...this has become one of the leading information sites with fine input from all and from my viewpoint purely as an observer I have learned volumes from its content. ...I discovered a great website with superb references at;

http://www.geostudio.pl/wordpress/?p=830

And a brilliant paper at file:///C:/Users/LENOVO/Downloads/102-103-1-PB%20(1).pdf

May I add...and this is not a complaint !! The thread comes in at master class level and leaves a lot of potential students somewhat in its wake...I therefor add a brief note on the background so that members can quickly get up to flying speed on this subject. Here is the rendition from Wikepedia which sets down some basic principles and groundwork viz;

Quote"Bulat is a type of steel alloy known in Russia from medieval times; regularly being mentioned in Russian legends as the material of choice for cold steel. The name булат is a Russian transliteration of the Persian word fulad, meaning steel. This type of steel was used by the armies of the nomadic people who were struggling to develop their smithing techniques. Bulat steel was the main type of steel used for swords in the armies of Genghis Khan, the great emperor of the Mongolian Empire. The technique used in making wootz steel has been lost for centuries and the bulat steel used today makes use of a more recently developed technique.

Contents
1 History
2 Structure
3 Bibliography
4 See also
History
The secret of bulat manufacturing was lost by the beginning of the 19th century. Pavel Anosov eventually managed to duplicate the qualities of that metal in 1838, when he completed ten years of study into the nature of Damascus steel swords. Bulat became popular in cannon manufacturing, until the Bessemer process was able to make the same quality steels for far less money.

Anosov had entered the Saint Petersburg Mine Cadet School in 1810, where a Damascus steel sword was stored in a display case. He became enchanted with the sword, and was filled with stories of them slashing through their European counterparts. In November 1817 he was sent to the factories of Zlatoust mining region in the southern Urals, where he was soon promoted to the inspector of the "weapon decoration department".

Here he again came into contact with Damascus steel of European origin (which was in fact pattern welded steel, and not at all similar), but quickly found that this steel was quite inferior to the original from the Middle East.

Anosov had been working with various quenching techniques, and decided to attempt to duplicate Damascus steel with quenching. He eventually developed a methodology that greatly increased the hardness of his steels.

Structure
Carbon steel consists of two components: pure iron, in the form of ferrite, and cementite or iron carbide, a compound of iron and carbon. Cementite is very hard and brittle; its hardness is about 640 by the Brinell hardness test, whereas ferrite is only 200. The amount of the carbon and the cooling regimen determine the crystalline and chemical composition of the final steel. In bulat, the slow cooling process allowed the cementite to precipitate as micro particles in between ferrite crystals and arrange in random patterns. The color of the carbide is dark while steel is grey. This mixture is what leads to the famous patterning of Damascus steel.

Cementite is essentially a ceramic, which accounts for the sharpness of the Damascus (and bulat) steel. Cementite is unstable and breaks down between 600–1100 °C into ferrite and carbon, so working the hot metal must be done very carefully.

Bibliography;
The Mystery of Damascus Blades, by John D. Verhoeven in Scientific American, No 1, pages 74–79, 2001.
History of Metallography: The Development of Ideas on the Structure of Metals before 1890. Cyril S. Smith. MIT Press, 1988.
On Damascus Steel. Leo S. Figiel. Atlantis Arts Press, 1991.
Archaeotechnology: The Key Role of Impurities in Ancient Damascus Steel Blades. J. D. Verhoeven, A. H. Pendray and W. E. Dauksch in
JOM: A Publication of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, Vol. 50, No. 9, pages 58–64; September 1998. Available at http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...even-9809.html "Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Other way around Ariel. The dendritic pattern is the chemical structure of the ingot right out of smelting. The Persian pattern is the result of mechanical stretching and deformation of the basis dendritic pattern.

Re-reading Jeff Pringle and other smiths, a lot of crucible steel-like material will exhibit the dendritic structure. it can be deformed and made to look like what we would call wootz. Recall the "mill ball" discussions.

Here is an excerpt from Jeff Pringle's explanation in that thread.

Salaams Ariel I think that is a fair comment and supported by According to Vibha Tripathi on;

http://www.ghadar.in/gjh_html/?q=con...eel-metallurgy

Quote“With industrialization and imperial designs of foreign rule a decline set in…….. The iron industry could not withstand the onslaught of the colonial forces working against its interests in a planned way. Once the blast furnaces came into existence in Britain, production started at a much cheaper rate…It could hardly compete with the cheap British pig iron being imported. ….

The laws enforcing non-felling of trees in the forest deprived the charcoal based indigenous iron industry of its very basic raw material. It made production of iron impossible.

The powerful lobby in Britain succeeded.” The colonizers succeeded in enslaving the Indian sub-continent in every sense of the word by systematically destroying the manufacturing capacity of India.

Both the authors also ascribe the decline to the reluctance of master craftsmen to document the technological secrets and to share the knowledge with others except with their favored apprentices. Hence some of the technologies could not be developed further and declined with the decline of the fortunes of the select group of families who knew the process secrets".Unquote.

see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_furnace

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

This shows that an ingot of crucible made in the proper manner had the necessary ingredients to forge a watered steel blade but Ann Feuerbach in "Crucible Damascus Steel: A Fascination for Almost 2,000 Years" says that not all ingots would necessarily produce a pattern.




Pattern formation in wootz damascus steel swords and blades - John Verhoeven

Kirill Rivkin is right!

Cool thanks Eric.

Greg Obach followed this same process, producing a low-carbon rim around the high-carbon centre.

Metallurgy rocks!!!

I have read several theories about how physical manipulation of the steel during the forging process such as cutting grooves in a crucible steel blade blank was the method used to create certain damascus patterns.

Pattern formation in wootz damascus steel swords and blades - John Verhoeven

Please forgive me. You might quote fragments of works Anosov, which confirm the words of Kirill Rivkin. Thank you in advance.

It is unfortunate that images of the blades that Anosov made are not available to see. Ann Feuerbach did get to see one of his blades.

Salaams All,

This ladder decoration is the highest decorative form of any blade in this sphere...It is called Kirk Narduban. I have seen some interesting descriptions of such fine work several of which are signed Assad Allah e.g. from http://armsandantiques.com Quote"The blade is forged from deep and rich kirk narduban forged wootz with a hardened dark edge and overlaid with koftgari decoration signed Assaddulah, likely apocryphal, though the quality of the wootz and the forging is an indication of a highly skilled smith".Unquote.



https://www.google.com/search?q=Kirk...sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

That's exactly what I meant. Sorry if it sounded confusing :-(((((

Ibrahiim,
This blurb from Wiki contains so many silly errors that I am sorely tempted not to use Wiki again even for a question whether tigers are vegetarians :-))))

Mongols of 13th century had no wootz ( bulat)

Nobody, EVER made barrels of firearms from wootz.

Anosov's bulat process did not depend on quenching. He did not increase hardness of bulat: all "bulats" ( wootz) have Rockwell C hardness in the range between 20 and 35.

Yet another example of Sham-like pattern.
Any Tabans or Khorasans? :-)))

Another reference about creating a specific pattern by manipulating the crucible steel blade blank during forging.

Estcrh:
Kirk and rose are not inherent wootz patterns. They are artificially- created distortions in the underlying wootz pattern. If the blade is not wootz ( or, at the very least, mechanical damaskus) no cuttings, grindings etc will help.
I am sure you know it, but I am always surprised and annoyed when some sources list different kinds of wootz as " Sham, Khorasan, Taban, and the most prized of all, - Kirk Narduban" :-)

Very early in the 19th century, the term Foulad was also used for Wootz.

Gavin

Yes, just another variation.
What I meant is that Russians used (and still do) the term Bulat for wootz and non-wootz patterns alike, like Anosov's examples and some modern blades similar to Kindjal shown here earlier. They seemingly combined broader specter of Damascus under this term. Kirill Rivkin stated the differences of wootz definitions between Anosov's time and our's. My statement is that it still continues under the term "Bulat".

This topic was duplicated on the Russian forum guns.ru

One of the participants there handled one of the Anosov's bulat blade. As per his testimony, it was Sham, and quite unattractive.
The database is growing, and still in the same direction. Kirill's assessment gets support from different sources. Meanwhile, Sham 4, Taban/Khorasan 0. Any more examples?

In Russian forum guns.ru, I duplicated the subject of Anosov Bulat (wootz), and one of the participants says that in the city of Rostov-on-Don was an exhibition of artifacts from the Hermitage. According to him, among other things, It was blade Anosova from interesing patterned wootz steel (not a "sham").

Russian colleagues have unique opportunities to see Anosov's blades and here I am just reporting their comments for the interest of all Forumites.

The story of Rostov-on-Don blade never even mentioned that it had a "not Sham" pattern, however. In fact, the person who is cited above described it as "... resembling patterned bulat"


Another participant categorically denied that Anosov was even capable of producing Taban, and asserted that his diaries are still kept under lock and key and any information about his bulat is still viewed as military secret.


Yet another explained away the absence of Anosov's Taban/Khorasan blades by three revolutions and two World Wars. Obviously, Sham blades must have been uniquely resistant to societal upheavals.


Apparently, in Zlatoust there is a big collection of Anosov's blades, but the access to it is not permitted and the actual examples were never published. I wonder why.

One of the participants in Russian forum wrote that Anosov Bulat (wootz) was very different structures, including the most complex. He has experimented with wootz, not engaged in mass production.

By the way, all the diaries Anosova completely open and available. They were published in 1841. It is because of his diaries, I gave a citations.

Anosov's Memoir "On Bulat"
 

Here are multiple links to Anosov's "On Bulat" published in French in the "Annuaire du Journal des Mines de Russie" 1841, St. Petersbourg.

https://archive.org/details/annuairedujourn01unkngoog
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?i...iew=1up;seq=11

Haven't read it yet but will do shortly.

The original "On the Bulat", was published in the Russian Gorny Journal in 1841 and is easily available online as Mahratt suggested. I'm sure the later German version can also be found.

Maybe that will put to rest what Anosov did and didn't do. Don't expect pictures though. These are poor scans of an 1841 journal.

Emanuel

Emanuel,


That's the problem: Anosov described his "bulats" as being Taban and Khorasan.


But please re-read Kirill's e-mail to me: the definitions at that time were different and imprecise. Thus, personal definitions of bulat patterns mentioned by Anosov are unreliable. Indeed, we have not a single known example of his "bulat" with anything but the simplest Sham. The only proof of his definitions would consist of actual examples.


And, by the way, I could not find any message on the Russian forum about Anosov's bulats having "...very different structures, including the most complex"

Quite the impasse then Ariel.

Fascinating either way though. This has been a most enjoyable thread :)

I wouldn't be so pessimistic.
Perhaps, some of our colleagues from Russia can get into Anosov's collections and post here pics of documented and clearly labeled blades with truly complex patterns.
I, for one, would be delighted to see them.

Me too!!! Then I could sleep again :)
I feel sad that the Russian forum has been deprived of you guys great debate.....but lucky us. On the bright side, I personally have learned a great deal on wootz, and perhaps a few things about human nature.

+1.
Fulad in Persian, Wootz in Kannada ( I think), bulat in Russian.
And Alex is correct: in Russian any patterned steel was called "bulat". And this confusion was not limited to Russia only: Rawson had no idea that wootz and mechanical damaskus are different entities.

Even worse, in Russian fiction ( even classical literature) and poetry " bulat" was and still is used for descriptions of particularly strong , historically famous and deadly blades, irrespective of their metal structure.

If read the research Anosov, it is clear that in Russia in 19 century is well distinguished damask from wootz steel (again strongly recommend everyone to read primary sources, not that someone thought of the Internet and popular journal).

Subject poluchlas really interesting. It is a pity that no one was able to show the historical sources (19th century), in which the English traveler, military or ethnographers wrote directly about when Indiii ceased to produce and forge wootz.... But circumstantial evidence is also interesting.

Salaams Ariel, I am late in answering since it has taken me a while to try to discover the Barrel Making techniques particularly in Persian gun making...but in fact these are virtually unrecorded. I note the following which is interesting as it supports the almost unknown nature of this technique ... from ...

http://www.iranicaonline.org/article...on-and-muskets

Quote" Despite the availability of a technical text such as this, the chancellor of Shah Solṭān Ḥosayn (1105-35 /1694-1722) sent a letter to Louis XIV of France requesting several makers of cannons and other firearms (Qāʾem-maqāmī, p. 114). During the reign of Nāder Shah (1148-60/1736-47), material and craftsman for gun-making were also summoned to Marv in preparation for a campaign in Central Asia (Marvī, pp. 911-12), but no technical information about this is available.

In the Qajar period new techniques of cannon making were introduced from Europe by Prince ʿAbbās Mīrzā. The core mold was no longer employed, and the cannon barrel was bored with a boring mill constructed according to European models. The improvement in technical performance was remarkable. If a cannon during Nāder Shah’s campaign against the Afghans needed 20 to 30 persons to be loaded and fired and 100 to be carried, the new ones needed only 4 to 5 persons and 4 horses (Donbolī, pp. 133-34). In this period some books on artillery were translated from European languages into Persian (Afšār, pp. 90-91), but they contained little or no information about cannon making (e.g., Māzandarānī).

Musket making. The best description of musket-making is found in the travel account of Jean Chardin (q.v.), who visited Persia in the second half of the 17th century. Persian muskets, according to him, were all match-locks (Chardin III, p. 558), as at the end of the 16th century when 300 musketeers from Isfahan ignited their matches before attacking the Uzbeks (Eskandar Beg, p. 466). According to Chardin, the barrels of these muskets were heavy, thick, and damascened." Unquote.

Perhaps, therefor, it is not a matter of these barrels never existing but more associated with the fact that no record was ever allowed / made recording the secretive method... It does seem however that in some cases where damascening took place on hand held guns that this was as a decorative technique rather than actual gun barrel manufacture.

The following is noted from

http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/...welded-or.html

Quote"... wootz steel (the steel used in the so-called "damascus blades") was NOT used to make damascus barrels very much.

William Greener in his Gunnery in 1858: Being a Treatise on Rifles, Cannon and Sporting Arms writes that these barrels are rare and on examination of the available barrels made by wootz steel workers, most were actually were made of commonest iron with a very thin plate of wootz steel around them, indicating that the wootz steel ore was becoming very valuable, since the mine in India where the ore came from was running out. Instead of using wootz steel, the more common option was to use pattern welded steel and the reason that they were called damascus barrels is because the patterns on the pattern welded steel resembled that made from wootz steel. So the name "damascus" is a misnomer and when we say "damascus barrels", we really mean "pattern welded barrels". In pattern welding, two or more metals are used to make the barrel (usually iron and steel bars, or steel bars of varying carbon content)."Unquote.

I therefor suggest that before this period of dwindling supplies of Wootz ore...that Cannon Barrels may have been attempted and that the technique was lost but that the secondary reason ...that of the time problem...when the raw ingredients ran out may be masking the fact that wootz may have been used in Barrel Making previously...but we just cannot see it. :)

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

I have yet to see a single barrel made out of wootz. Plenty of acid-etched damascening, plenty of pattern-welded ones, but not wootz.

Barrels were either cast whole, or made out of spiral billets welded together.


The former is obviously impractical taking into account small size of crucibles and the requirement for slow cooling to allow formation of the dendrites.


As to the latter, perhaps the strongest argument against it is the purely ceremonial nature of the so-called " chevron" blades, with segments of wootz welded to segments of plain or pattern-welded steel. There are always cracks in the welds, making the blade unusable for fighting. But if the same technique is used for a barrel, the gases will tear the whole structure apart. This, BTW, is the main reason why modern barrels are not using spiral welds any more, and just drill a hole in a long steel cylinder.

I wonder if it is just me, or does it not seem the majority of the issues at hand have to do with trying to agree of terms used for certain types or forms of crucible steel. The semantics and transliterations as well as obvious misperceptions in accounts, records and many sources seem to have the characteristic disparities resultant from varying perspectives of the observers and their own vocabularies.

Salaams Jim, Yes indeed it appears so. Rather like trying to make cannon barrels from Wootz...the entire thing shatters...!! when what we need is basic agreement on the foundations of the discussion...support, teamwork and the ability to see the other point of view. I find some people in this area of Forum business on far too short a fuse... causing detonation, disagreement and the worst case scenario of a breach explosion, or the round stuck in the breach!! A little less gunpowder and maybe some oil in the barrel? :)

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Excellent analogy Ibrahiim!!! :)
Basically as I struggled through sources and data in my accelerated crash course regarding the age old mysteries of wootz to try to get at least somewhere near the knowledge of these guys on the subject...it does seem that I did find some references to there being variations in the process which were tendered toward gun barrel making.

I cannot yet be sure, but it may have been Verhoeven or one of the other noted treatises on the making of 'wootz'. I have not yet looked at the Elgood book on Muslim firearms, but that would seem likely to have some references.

From what I have understood, and learned thus far in this foray into the formidable world of metallurgy and steel 'exotica', there are so many misconceptions swirling about with the terminology used that it is easy to see how there is so much disparity in discussing it.
In the general world, there is often virtually no understanding of what wootz really is, and so often the word Damascus describing 'watered steel' is so broadly applied it is beyond rational attempts to resolve into correct terms.

I do admire those who do have a true understanding of these complicated matters, particularly those who have the patience to attempt explanation to novices at it like myself, and for others who are rather caught up in the apparent semantics and misnomers often perpetuated in some of the literature, yet are willing to work at realigning such details.

I suppose 'patience' is the key word :)

Glad this discussion was of at least some use and benefit:-)))

I have not tested any old chevron welded blades, but have made a few Ariel (web search my name "furrer" and chevron for photo of one blade from 1999) and they bend 90 degrees without breaking (have photos somewhere of that above blade doing so). I made a few to see if they were actually practical...I would say they were...flaws and all.

I too have not seen wootz barrels, but I did see and Dr. Figiel has in his book chevron welded gun barrels... one may call that pattern "multiple chevron" as it zig-zags more than one slow chevron.
As per Dr. Alan Williams' research there are armor pieces which have wootz welded to common bloomery iron as a laminated material. One could suggest that such was done with barrels, but again I have not seen one.


Ric

According to old sources in most cases wootz was either hard and brittle or soft and easily to bend (Egerton, Oriental arms and armour).

I know that just a few wootz blades from Persia and maybe the Ottoman empire, were able reach the european toughness and they were extremely valuable.

I would say, this is the main reason, european steel was much cheaper and had better characteristics from technical point of view.
I am also convinced, that a top quality wootz sword (Assad Allah for example) is more difficult to forge, than a top class japanese katana (Hizen Kuni Mutsu no kami Tadayoshi quality).

The industrial production of european crucible steel begun in the middle of the 19th century.

In my opinion Indian wootz is a good steel for daggers but unsuitable for swords and sabers.

In all times, a good blacksmith was always very expensive, whether in India, Japan or Europe, everywhere.


Roland