When in India "died" wootz?

[Ian]

Mahratt and Ariel:

You have a PM from me.

Ian.

[ariel]

Mahratt,
Please, I am trying to end this discussion.
You are free to continue and discuss it with whomever you choose, but I said everything I wanted.
Do me a favor and do not involve me in this discussion anymore. I will not respond.
Thanks.

[mahratt]

I do not understand, why write in the subject line, if there are no facts. And nothing to say, in addition to known cliches ....

[Emanuel]

Sorry to butt in, I have not read the accounts and first-person sources mentioned here, but I second the question expressed by Mahratt in his first post:

Originally Posted by mahratt

Termination production of wootz steel means the cessation of the production of wootz steel blades?

So do the old accounts refer to the production of the wootz/bulat metal ingots or to the bladesmithing of the sword. Same for museums, does the stated/published provenance refer to the date of accession of the sword to the museum's collection, or the date of the sword's production in the cartouche/stamp?

Consider that by mid 19th century, the British Raj was rolling out railway throughout India. Producing rail stock required modern European industrial methods, not the local artisanal ones. Once a modern steel making industrial process was setup for the rail, it made sense to continue its application to everything else. Therefore the artisanal bloomery steel and phulad/bulat/wootz/crucible steel was rendered fully obsolete. By early 1900s Tata Iron and Steel Company was already setup and producing modern steels for the British.

Possibly wootz ingot production continued sporadically into the late-19th century and beyond where patronage by some Raja families continued and where the craft was able to live on.

I see no reason why wootz sword production would not have continued sporadically until later, whenever wootz ingots were available. There must have been some demand from Raja families, elites, and Sikhs in Rajasthan and elsewhere in spite of the influx of European blades and modern steeles on the markets.

Emanuel

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Sorry to butt in, I have not read the accounts and first-person sources mentioned here, but I second the question expressed by Mahratt in his first post:

So do the old accounts refer to the production of the wootz/bulat metal ingots or to the bladesmithing of the sword. Same for museums, does the stated/published provenance refer to the date of accession of the sword to the museum's collection, or the date of the sword's production in the cartouche/stamp?

Consider that by mid 19th century, the British Raj was rolling out railway throughout India. Producing rail stock required modern European industrial methods, not the local artisanal ones. Once a modern steel making industrial process was setup for the rail, it made sense to continue its application to everything else. Therefore the artisanal bloomery steel and phulad/bulat/wootz/crucible steel was rendered fully obsolete. By early 1900s Tata Iron and Steel Company was already setup and producing modern steels for the British.

Possibly wootz ingot production continued sporadically into the late-19th century and beyond where patronage by some Raja families continued and where the craft was able to live on.

I see no reason why wootz sword production would not have continued sporadically until later, whenever wootz ingots were available. There must have been some demand from Raja families, elites, and Sikhs in Rajasthan and elsewhere in spite of the influx of European blades and modern steeles on the markets.

Emanuel

Hello, Emanuel!
You asked good questions.

1) In 1840, the captain of the Russian army Masalsky in Persia watched wootz steel smelting process. And publishes an article about it in 1842 in "Mining Journal".
2) In 1850-ies Russian travelers noted that in Persia in Tehran do many wootz blades for sale.
3) there Bukhara saber in Russian museum (wootz blade), on which is written, that the master did it in 1860.
4) In the Russian museums have some Bukharian swords and sabers from wootz steel, which were donated from the Emir of Bukhara in 1880-1890 years.

On the situation in India, I totally agree with you. And you're right that the local production of wootz steel in India would continue (small amounts) until the end of the 19th century (Maybe).

[Jim McDougall]

Now that's what I'm talking about!!! Thank you Emanuel for such perfectly posed questions and comments! As one who is seriously (and desperately) trying to learn about this seemingly elusive topic on wootz, these are exactly the things I would wish to learn more on.

I do know that in India, the actual production of wootz ingots was heavily impeded in the mid 19th c. by British authorities, and as noted, the railways and infrastructure being implemented there was bringing in not only their steel product but production methods in degree.

I have always been under the impression that the wootz used in Persia for their blade production had been supplied from India. If that was the case, then where did they acquire material for continued production ? Did they have their own sources outside India?

Good question on the dated provenance of museum exhibits, and in my view, the date of the blade (if known) would be included in the description. The date of accession of the piece would be factored into the catalogued notes. I am also curious though, whether the wootz ingot (as essentially a 'raw and unworked component) would have had dates, places of manufacture or other data as found on bars of precious metals.

Thank you guys!

[ariel]

Jim,
As to your interest in Iranian manufacture of wootz ( fulad), the best source is of course Khorasani's book "Arms and Armor from Iran". He meticulously cites publeshed literature on each and every subject.

On the subject of interest to you, he reviews a book by Willem Floor "Traditional crafts in Qajar Iran (1800-1925)", Costa Mesa, Mazda Publishers, 2003.

In it , he cites information obtained by de Rochechuart, a secretary of the French Embassy in Iran around 1860 and also by somebody called Olmer ( exact credentials not mentioned).

Olmer reported that only few " damasceners" were left in Isfaghan at his time. The only workshop he was able to find were 4 or 5 people working in a small room in caravanserai., and they seldom crafted swords.
He also reported that in India damask ( wootz) was still manufactured.
This was the so-called " Shah Aqbar" wootz.


Khorasan wootz: both report that all kilns were destoyed by Nader Shah

Neiriz, Shiraz and Arsanjan wootz: both report that the manufacture of it ceased during Safavid dynasty.

Isfaghan wootz: local workers said that all ingots came from Khorasan ( see above. Likely, also Indian). Earlier, Khorasani reviews Biswas, who discussed the issue in 1823 with a trader named Haj Hossein from Isfaghan, who said that wootz was imported there from India, and that Iranians tried to imitate it without success.

Khorasani further reviews accounts of multiple travelers and natives between 12 and 19 centuries. All report withessing making of blades in Iran, but nobody ever mentioned witnessing or getting any information on actual manufacture of wootz ingots.

This does not mean that there were no solitary foci of wootz-making in Iran, but likely most of them also went the way of Dodo by the mid-19 century.

We already know what happened in India.

As to the inscriptions, Khorasani not unreasonably states that by the mid-19 century Iranians rarely manufactured shamshirs and the quality of work went down precipitously. Instead, they put inlaid seals and cartouches on old high quality shamshir blades, and that explains the profusion of Qajar-inscribed blades of the highest quality.

In the same vein, as we have discussed earlier, demise of any trade is accompanied by the disappearance of its work force. Nobody wants to learn a difficult and time-consuming process of wootz forging in the absence of demand for the final product. Thus, while it might be possible to find an occasional low-quality newly made wootz blade in , say, 1870-1880, even 10-20 years later it would be virtually unrealistic. The beautiful wootz daggers from Central Asian Khanates ( the last source of wootz weapons in European museums) given to the Tsars were just reworked and garishly decorated old Persian pesh-kabzes and kards.

I specifically wish to address Emanuel's suggestion that small pockets of bladesmiths capable of forging wootz blades might have been preserved by the Rajas. It would be strange, IMHO, for a Raja to collect newly made swords without history and of a purportedly low quality ( vs. truly old samples).

But I went over Elgoods book describing swords and daggers of Jaipur court.

There are plenty of very complex wootz daggers and long bladed weapons dated first half of 19 century or earlier. I could not find a single wootz khanjar or saber from the second half of the 19th century: all plain steel. There were a couple of katars with small insertions of wootz segments, but that was all. Correct me if I am wrong. I guess, Indian Rajas might have supported local masters, but there were no longer any worthy wootz specialists at that time.

Yes, I know, it was long :-)))

[mahratt]

About the book mr. Khorasani "Arms and Armor from Iran". I think that mr. Khorasani do not know the Russian language and do not read books by Russian authors published in the 19th century (By the way, this does not make the book mr. Khorasani less good. This is an interesting book. Although, it is like any book have controversial moments). This is normal. You can not know everything. Very few Russian books in the 19th century was translated into English and French. Although the Russian travelers, merchants, officers and diplomats were in the 19th century in Persia more often and longer the British and especially the French (it's easy to explain - Russian a little closer to Persian than the UK and France).

I did not write "everywhere in Persia in the 1850s did a lot of years of wootz blades." I'm talking about the fact that the manufacture of blades from wootz seen Russian in Tehran. And what they said casually, not seeing it as something wonderful. That is, it was for their not strange and startling.

Until the 1880s, demand for the wootz blades in Central Asia - very high. And apparently, the main demand was for the blades of swords. Why until 1880s? Because only in the 1880s Russian troops seized the fortress Turkmen Gkok Tepe. It was only in the 1880s Turkmen tribes (Tekins) were disarmed. Turkomans were not able to do wootz blades themselves and bought them in Persia (in mid-late 19 centry).
It makes sense to write in the blade, which is made in the 19th century: "Made in 1750, the year." This makes the blade more valuable. It makes no sense to write in the blade, made in the 18th century or early 19th century: "made in 1870".

Regarding damask in India in the 19th century. R. Elgood book - an excellent book. But I think in India is not only the arsenal in Jaipur .... Also, as modern collectors, any Raja had to appreciate more older blades (IMHO)

[Jim McDougall]

Ariel, thank you for taking the time to assemble the very detailed synopsis on the material which has come from the book by Manoucher. I have not seen the book, but it seems to have remarkably cited references which provide interesting perspective on the manufacturing of wootz blades in Iran.
Good point on the demise of the quality and nature of a certain trade such as production of wootz and it would seem of the blades as well. It does seem we see evidence of that disappointing phenomenon around us constantly, despite advances in technology.

As I have noted, this subject is admittedly outside my usual scope of study, but I find it very interesting, and I am learning considerably thanks to the core discussion here and those who have entered relevant observations and notes.

Returning to the original topic of wootz production in India, it seems curious to me that a considerable number* of the works of European scientists and writers who were studying and trying to duplicate the significant character of Indian wootz were writing in the beginning to near mid 19th century. With the profound British presence in India throughout the regions noted for their wootz production , why would they not have simply visited and observed and analyzed these processes?
Is it possible that the known locations in Hyderabad, Deccani areas, Mysore, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and others had indeed exhausted sources of ore, in addition to depletion of work forces and had indeed ceased?
This is I think one of the things that seems to evade specific mention in the references.

* I observed this in a lengthy bibliography in an article on Indian wootz online

In the often cited article on wootz (Damascus) steels by Verhoefen, he suggests that the last blades of 'high quality' damascene patterns is uncertain, but probably would range to about c. 1750.

While perhaps the notation of 'high' quality might suggest that the continued blade production may have been lesser quality, but it does not specify, nor note that it had ceased.

It seems the problem of identifying the more defined range of the end of the production of wootz in India in the conventional manner in which it had been produced since ancient times in extremely problematic .

Again, I think that perhaps a more direct answer to this question may reside within the text of the apparently considerable references that are listed in volume in many of these articles and books.

I really do appreciate the efforts placed here in discussing this, and must say it has encouraged me personally to try to look further into those.
As Mahratt has well noted, one cannot know everything......I guess that's why we keep looking

[mahratt]

I found another interesting article in 1842. It's called: "Notes on forged wootz steel in Bukhara". The author - Colonel of the Russian army - Butenev. The author writes that according to his information wootz in Bukhara Khanate unknown how to smelt. But of imported wootz - made blades. Wootz brought to Bukhara (according to him) from Persia.

[ariel]

Jim,
India is currently #4 producer of steel in the world. Iron ore is plentiful there.
Thus, I do not think that wootz production 200 years ago ceased because of the exhaustion of raw materials. Rather , the need in wootz and the skills in making it must have vanished. Of course, British industrial policies did not help either:-)

[mahratt]

Jim,
I always thought that not every iron ore is suitable for the production of wootz steel ... Maybe I'm wrong. Correct me please.

[Jim McDougall]

Good points Ariel, the exhaustion or depletion of iron ore in one location would not preclude further deposits in other regions. So then we return to the abandonment of the skills required in processing the wootz..
If the demand for the regular forms of steel in accord with the development of British industry in India became the primary demand, then of course the skilled workers in wootz would have diminished.

Mahratt, that is an interesting thought, and again, I am very much a novice at metallurgy so bear with me. While it does seem possible that ore may have differences in its content, I had thought that the processing of wootz had more to do with the manner of smelting. The methods of placement in crucibles with the ore and other components, temperatures and cooling as well as the carburizing components...wood, leaves etc. seem to have varied in the different locations producing wootz.

I know there are some very knowledgeable metallurgists and skilled metal workers in our ranks here in addition to you guys and those who have already entered here, so maybe they might add some perspective as well.

[Emanuel]

I am in general agreement with you Ariel. I just pointed out that crucible steel production and the production of blades with this material might have continued in very small quantities and on a non-industrial basis. Not just Rajput Rajas used and collected these objects, as I mentioned, and not finding any published ones from the Rajput royal collections does not mean they didn't exist . Again, just looking at Sikh craftsmen and their ability to maintain their craft into the 21st century suggests that somewhere on some scale however small, the production of wootz and wootz blades continued until relatively late.

Regarding the skill vanishing, my understanding is that the skill and knowledge required to produce this metal in both India and Central Asia was concentrated in key production hubs, under the patronage of powerful groups. Once that hub was destroyed, or the patronage was removed for whatever reason, be it military, economical, political or fashionable, the concentrated skill was rendered obsolete and the skill dispersed.

So I agree that the need and desire for wootz/bulat/pulad changed, and the concentrated skill just had to move on.

Ann Feuerbach, and Anosov before her documented numerous ways of making crucible steel with more or less pronounced patterns. The type of ore did not seem to matter too much, but cleaner iron ore certainly made the process easier. Dr. Ann found documented evidence of relatively poor material used in crucible furnaces in both India and Central Asia (Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan). Running out of cleaner ore did not mean the ore with more impurities could not be refined further before the crucible process.

[ariel]

Emanuel and Jim,

Agree. I only doubt we can use modern Pakistani creations as an argument: the metallurgy of crucible steel is far too well known now and there were no wootz blades from that area until the sudden emergence of commercial interest in them :-) Finding occasional wootz blades on obviously new-ish sabers and chooras proves nothing: they were most likely remounted. Wootz forging is a complex craft; even now modern wootz examples from the best bladesmiths cannot compare in their pattern with the old ones. Maintaining proficiency while forging one blade every couple of years is unlikely.


We shall wait for Elgood's Jodhpur collection book to widen the net. Would be nice to have similarly well-researched accounts from other royal arsenals, but that's what we have.

As to South Indian examples, they (surprisingly, taken into account Sri Lanka, Golconda etc. sources of wootz ingots) forged their blades primarily from plain steel. Wootz was rarely if ever used. Why it was so, I do not know.

Perhaps, they knew something about comparative worth of wootz vs. steel blades :-)))

[mahratt]

Emanuel, Jim,
I understand so - again have our general arguments and no facts about the "disappearance" wootz (from historical sources the mid-late 19th century). But in the 1840s prinyts Saltykov sees in India a lot wootz items for sale .... (What he wrote in his letters). Probably all wootz bought Europeans for their collections

This version is also a good explanation of the "disappearance" of wootz steel in India

[Jim McDougall]

Still remaining intrigued by this topic, I thought it time to revisit Egerton (Illustrated Handbook of Indian Arms", 1880), and found some interesting contemporary observations:

pp.56-59,

"Wootz or Indian steel exported from Cutch to ports on Persian Gulf".
p.57,
"the Indian steel, however, has never equaled the European in toughness and flexibility. It is either too brittle , like the best tempered blades, or soft and easily bent like some of the blades used in Southern India".
(this cited from Walhouse, in the 'Indian Antiquary' 1878)

He notes Wilkinson describing the manufacture of steel,
"...the iron of Hyderabad is said to furnish the best steel exported to Persia"
Further he notes the Persian merchants who frequent the furnaces say that in Persia they have in vain endeavored to imitate the steel formed from it. It is found at Konasanundrum and Dimdurti, twenty miles east of Nirmsal and is made from a magnetic iron ore diffused in a sandstone looking gneiss or schist, passing by insensible degrees into hornblende slate.

It is noted that 3/5 of this iron is mixed with 2/5 from the Indore District where ore appears to be a peroxide and that mixing of the two must have some effect on the crystallization producing the beautiful 'water'.
p.58
The name of Arnachellam of Salem as an armourer has been known over the past 50 years in India (remember Egerton wrote in 1880).

The excellent steel of Coimbatore and North Arcot is much used. At Elgundel there is a manufacture of swords, daggers and spearheads of the steel obtained there.

p.59
In Mysore the iron is made from the black sand found in the channels of all the rivers. Near Seringpatam there are FIVE FORGES where steel is made, principally FOR EXPORTATION. It is used for stonecutters chisels and sword blades.

The swords of Persia are so generally worn by Indian rajahs that the process converting Indian steel into these finely watered blades must be mentioned,
and he describes Ispahan, Khorassan, Kazveen and Shiraz as THE LAST PLACES SWORD BLADES chiefly made.

In looking through these references, which I add here as talking points regarding elements of our discussion, I am wondering about some of the notes...for example, the forges in Mysore making steel.......it seems unlikely that wootz would be used for chisels! ? so then was this regular type steel (sword blades as noted) ? or indeed wootz as suggested in the earlier notes.

So we seem to have a substantial industry of steel producing in these regions c. 1870s but how much was actual wootz to me seems unclear.
That the Persians would visit the forges and not be able to imitate the steel suggests perhaps some sort of consistency in the ore? as certainly they would have seen the process being performed.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

In looking through these references, which I add here as talking points regarding elements of our discussion, I am wondering about some of the notes...for example, the forges in Mysore making steel.......it seems unlikely that wootz would be used for chisels! ? so then was this regular type steel (sword blades as noted) ? or indeed wootz as suggested in the earlier notes.

Jim, I believe that tools and swords etc were made with crucible steel, but not all items made with crucible steel showed watering as in wootz / damascus steel, that had to do with the method of forging, it was a two part process.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by estcrh

Jim, I believe that tools and swords etc were made with crucible steel, but not all items made with crucible steel showed watering as in wootz / damascus steel, that had to do with the method of forging, it was a two part process.

Thank you Estcrh! That makes perfect sense.......heck of a learning curve here for me but its great to finally get the picture together.

[ariel]

Jim,
I agree with Estcrh.
Industrial production of steel was introduced to India by the Brits.
Prior to that, Indians used exclusively the old tried-and-true kiln method , making relatively small ingots of crucible steel. Thus, paradoxically, all older Indian steel was "crucible" i.e, potentially wootz-y :-)))
In a way, this is similar to the old European way of making steel by employing bloomery process, separating parts of the bloom with high and low carbon content and then combining them by forging ( identically to the Japanese tamahagane). Thus all old European steel implements ( just like the Japanese ones) were in effect mechanical damascus:-)

Only with the European inventions of methodologies allowing final output of large amounts of uniformly homogeneous product, did we become capable of making truly "plain" steel.

And these processes made both " bloomery Damascus" as well as "crucible wootz" totally obsolete literally overnight.

Funny how the so-called "plain" product was in reality the result of a very complex technological evolution.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Thank you Estcrh! That makes perfect sense.......heck of a learning curve here for me but its great to finally get the picture together.

Jim, part of the difficulty in discussing this subject is the terminology, crucible steel is the process used in the middle east, this is what Europeans were after, how to make the high strength crucible steel in mass quantities, while some Europeans did want to learn how to made watered steel the real quest was for the basic crucible steel.

While the Indians made mass quantities of crucible steel it was a very labor intensive process, it also consumed mass quantities of wood. It does not appear that the other crucible steel centers (Buckhara, Persia etc) made crucible steel in the same mass quantities as the Indians. Once the steel was manufactured there was a completely different / complicated process used in the forging method to create watered / wootz / bulat / damascus steel. From mining the ore to having a watered steel blade was a very long and complex affair, yet the Indians and some others were able to carry this out for an extended period of time.

Once the Europeans upset this delicate balance the old system seemed to have collapsed, this appears to have happened very quickly in some areas and a bit slower in others but eventually except in a few isolated areas (from what I have read) the complete process of making crucible steel was lost, with no crucible steel there could be no watered steel as well. There were probably some left over stock and a few small manufactures left but eventually this faded away.

[Emanuel]

Just a quick clarification. As I recall from Ann Feuerbach, Richard Furrer, and other smiths, the watering in wootz, or the dendritic structure, was inherent to the ingot. The structure is primarily due to the cooling rate of the crucible at the time of production. Nothing to do with forging method of the tool or blade.

The annealing at constant low temperature was to make the metal soft enough to work without stressing it. Higher temperature break the dendritic structure and destroy the watery effect.

The salt baths mentioned in that account just etched the blade. Apparently etches work better when the metal is warm, as the heat "opens up the grain" for a better reaction with the etchant . Richard and other smiths on the forum please correct me but there is no way of converting a blade that doesn't have the crystalline dendritic structure to one that does. The process occurs when the metal cools from near-liquid phase to a solid. The Central Asian vs. Indian methods differed in both how the crucible was loaded with material, heated, and cooled.

Jim, the question of how many tools were made from crucible steel bugged me too: http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=20633
Not all crucible steel ended with the crystalline pattern as there was a relatively high failure rate due to poor temperature control.

[ariel]

+1.

As to the transmission of skills:
Average life expectancy in India between 1850 and 1900 was 25 years. In 1950 it rose to 34.

In Afghanistan in 1950 it was 28 years,( and that was already on the upswing, so in the second half of the 19th century it must have been ~ 20.

Iran in 1951: 41 years. Projected life expectancy in the second half of the 19th century ~30 years.

Horrifying numbers, aren't they?


Thus, between 1825 (potential peak of wootz blade forging) and 1900 in these countries there was a turnover of roughly 3 generations. That was on the background of catastrophic decline of wootz manufacture. Thus, there were not enough people living long enough to enter the apprentice pool and acquire skills without economic future; traditions just died out.

[Jim McDougall]

This is totally amazing guys! I really had no idea of these dynamics in this processing of steel, and your explanations really bring new dimensions to matters at hand here with production of steel and wootz.

The focus on dendritic structure and how it was key to the production of the wootz, as well as the basic crucible method pursued by the Europeans and long extant in India where they sought its methods say a lot about the circumstances which brought about the very subtle disappearance of the beautiful wootz.

Ariel brings in a most interesting aspect to be factored in, the basic life span of those key to the apparently very delicate methods of production , which seem very much to apply to temperature controls. It seems logical that these relatively short generations of artisans with diminishing demand for the watered steel might play into lack of perpetuation of the necessary skills needed.

On one hand here it sounds like there was a secondary stage in processing the steel from ingot into wootz, while on the other, it was more to the original process which carried into the wootz stage through the control of the temperatures and cooling.

Obviously still not fully understanding , can you guys clarify further?

Meanwhile, I think that the circumstances involving these processes in the mid to latter 19th century might give us better perspective on how this most subtle and thus 'mysterious' disappearance of such an ancient art might have happened virtually 'during broad daylight' of the steel industry itself in this 19th century period.

[Battara]

Here is some other information and a theory of why wootz disappeared.

Although the article is fascinating, the section near the end and the conclusion is not as technical.

Note: I met the author and talked with him at a show here in Louisville, KY, USA and was able to look at and handle one of his recreated wootz blades.

[mahratt]

Originally Posted by ariel

+1.

As to the transmission of skills:
Average life expectancy in India between 1850 and 1900 was 25 years. In 1950 it rose to 34.

In Afghanistan in 1950 it was 28 years,( and that was already on the upswing, so in the second half of the 19th century it must have been ~ 20.

Iran in 1951: 41 years. Projected life expectancy in the second half of the 19th century ~30 years.

Horrifying numbers, aren't they?

Thus, between 1825 (potential peak of wootz blade forging) and 1900 in these countries there was a turnover of roughly 3 generations. That was on the background of catastrophic decline of wootz manufacture. Thus, there were not enough people living long enough to enter the apprentice pool and acquire skills without economic future; traditions just died out.

1) I have already given a historical source, proving that in Persia in the 1840s wootz produced (smelted)
2) I have given the information from historical sources that in the 1840s-1850s years in the Bukhara Khanate and Persia did wootz blades.

That means that it's not about the year 1825. Next question. In 1750, the year was a different life? People live longer? I doubt it. But I think this time (1750) - the peak of wootzsteel production.

I think the problem lies elsewhere. To craftsmanship preserved (for example, the production of blades from wootz) - needs constant demand. Until the 1880s, people from Central Asia buy many swords (blades) in Persia. After the Russian conquered Central Asia, the market disappeared.

[estcrh]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

On one hand here it sounds like there was a secondary stage in processing the steel from ingot into wootz, while on the other, it was more to the original process which carried into the wootz stage through the control of the temperatures and cooling.

Obviously still not fully understanding , can you guys clarify further?

Originally Posted by Emanuel

Just a quick clarification. As I recall from Ann Feuerbach, Richard Furrer, and other smiths, the watering in wootz, or the dendritic structure, was inherent to the ingot. The structure is primarily due to the cooling rate of the crucible at the time of production. Nothing to do with forging method of the tool or blade. .................................................. .
Not all crucible steel ended with the crystalline pattern as there was a relatively high failure rate due to poor temperature control.

Emanual, my understanding is that crucible steel, if properly forged, could show a watered pattern, and the fact that not all crucible steel showed a watered pattern was due to the forging process not being done properly. You can not seperate the two things, just because the steel had the ability to show a watered pattern did not mean every item made from the crucible steel would show a watered pattern, it had to be forged in the right manner or the pattern would not show. The poor temperature control that kept the crucible steel item being forged from showing a watered pattern came during the forging process.

I other words, if just any blacksmith pounded out a blade from a hunk of crucible steel the blade would not show a watered pattern, it took someone with the exact knowledge to forge a blade that showed a watered pattern.

Here is an example that shows the complexity of reproducing the watered pattern using modern steel meant to replicate crucible steel.



Blades Guide to Making Knives, Joe Kertzman, 2012

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by ariel

...
Average life expectancy in India between 1850 and 1900 was 25 years. In 1950 it rose to 34.

In Afghanistan in 1950 it was 28 years,( and that was already on the upswing, so in the second half of the 19th century it must have been ~ 20.

Iran in 1951: 41 years. Projected life expectancy in the second half of the 19th century ~30 years.

Horrifying numbers, aren't they?
...

cold stats. let us not forget that it is an average. people did not just suddenly die at that top 'average' age. the curve was horribly skewed by the very early deaths of many children. people who survived childhood had a much better chance of reaching their fourscore years plus ten.

...and what were the figure for earlier centuries? may have been similar or even worse...see:

(looks like it wasn't much different in earlier years.)

the kamis who forged steel were not high in the caste system, so their bite of the medical system apple was and still is even less. heck, even the west did not know about germs and antisepsis until the second half of the 19c. even london was a foul cesspit of human waste and decay until the great stink of 1858 forced parliament to start building proper sewers, not completed till the mid 1860's. note the improvement in health was not a factor, as they had no idea about germs, they just couldn't stand the smell any more.

if you just consider stats, the unintended consequence of building sewers in london caused the decline of wootz

[ariel]

Kronckew,
You are correct: child mortality skews the distribution curves to the right. But that's the only way we can get an idea of the life expectancy.

Estcrh,
Great quote! It takes time to learn wootz forging.
Many bladesmiths in Russia ( just an example I know about) have been dealing with wootz issue for more thn 20 years. Despite all the books, all the achievements of modern metallurgy, modern equipment etc, they are still incapable to reproduce Taban or Khorasan patterns that were routinely made by a barefoot Indian or Iranian in a primitive forge. The secrets of wootz ingot were revealed, but the methods of converting it into a blade still remain a mystery.

[Emanuel]

I hope our forum smiths do chime in on this. If you polish and etch an old wootz cake/ingot you see the pattern. No forging required. Wootz steel was indeed very high carbon content. I was not aware however that a crystalline structure could be induced through annealing. Grain size yes, but not the dendritic carbide structure.

Ariel I don't see the converting of wootz into a blade being still a mistery. Lots of smiths i Russia and the US and elsewhere do so now with great results