When in India "died" wootz?

ariel · 19th February 2016, 05:33 PM

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 · 19th February 2016, 06:46 PM

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 · 19th February 2016, 11:28 PM

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 · 20th February 2016, 04:01 AM

Quote:

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 · 20th February 2016, 04:23 AM

Quote:

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.

estcrh · 20th February 2016, 05:57 AM

Quote:

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 · 20th February 2016, 11:30 PM

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 · 20th February 2016, 11:50 PM

+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.

ariel · 20th February 2016, 04:45 AM

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.

20th February 2016, 11:30 PM	#7
Emanuel Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,242	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. Last edited by Emanuel; 21st February 2016 at 12:12 AM.

20th February 2016, 04:45 AM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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. Last edited by ariel; 20th February 2016 at 04:56 AM.

19th February 2016, 05:33 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	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 :-)))

19th February 2016, 06:46 PM	#2
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	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

19th February 2016, 11:28 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,281	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.

20th February 2016, 11:50 PM	#8
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	+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.