How wootz blades were forged?

Ian · 20th September 2019, 09:53 AM

Ariel:

As I read your explanation, it requires only that there be two zones of different composition: one being wootz proper, the other being some mix of other components that are inferior in quality. Then they are folded and forged as you describe.

The "other components of inferior quality" seem to be crucial in the manufacture of proper wootz. The account of Dr Nonikashvili's method describes the use of a glass layer. Presumably some of the inferior material that collects at one end of the wootz ingot contains remnants of the glass and therefore should be high in silica content. Have tests been performed on historical wootz ingots to determine what other components such as glass may have been used in its manufacture? It seems to me that if one simply did surface tests of wootz weapons the "other components" may be missed because they were folded to the interior of the piece, and so some examination of the ingots themselves would be necessary.

Also, do you think the presence of these inferior components may have jeopardized the integrity of wootz blades, making them inherently more likely to fail?

Very interesting observations on that broken blade. It did not break in vain ...

Ian

ariel · 20th September 2019, 11:23 AM

Ian,
You are correct: my diagram does not touch on the composition of wootz, it only shows what the smith did with the already manufactured ingot.
Nonikashvili’s method is unique and I am not smart enough to judge its faithful replication of the ancient process. But all old descriptions mention only iron ore and leaves ( a source of C).

The famous paper by Verhoeven, Pendray and Dauksch “ The key role of impurities in ancient Damascus steel blades” provided the best available analysis of the chemical composition of the older blades studied by Zschokke in 1924 and some newer samples.Interestingly, Si concentration was quite high in all of them, likely contamination with sand (????).

The authors postulate that the iron ore was coming from different sources and that the majority of old wootz blades were actually of rather poor quality to the point that one out of 4 swords donated by Moser for Zschokke study had too low C content to even qualify for being a true wootz.

But again, what I presented is how the old masters dealt with the ingot to maximize the use of real wootz component in the working areas of the blade, not how the ingots were made.

And you are right: the pulwar blade did not brake in vain. Let’s take our collective hats off and give a 21 gun salute to the old warrior.

kai · 20th September 2019, 07:00 PM

booom

20th September 2019, 07:00 PM	#3
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,255	1/21 booom

20th September 2019, 09:53 AM	#1
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	Ariel: As I read your explanation, it requires only that there be two zones of different composition: one being wootz proper, the other being some mix of other components that are inferior in quality. Then they are folded and forged as you describe. The "other components of inferior quality" seem to be crucial in the manufacture of proper wootz. The account of Dr Nonikashvili's method describes the use of a glass layer. Presumably some of the inferior material that collects at one end of the wootz ingot contains remnants of the glass and therefore should be high in silica content. Have tests been performed on historical wootz ingots to determine what other components such as glass may have been used in its manufacture? It seems to me that if one simply did surface tests of wootz weapons the "other components" may be missed because they were folded to the interior of the piece, and so some examination of the ingots themselves would be necessary. Also, do you think the presence of these inferior components may have jeopardized the integrity of wootz blades, making them inherently more likely to fail? Very interesting observations on that broken blade. It did not break in vain ... Ian

20th September 2019, 11:23 AM	#2
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Ian, You are correct: my diagram does not touch on the composition of wootz, it only shows what the smith did with the already manufactured ingot. Nonikashvili’s method is unique and I am not smart enough to judge its faithful replication of the ancient process. But all old descriptions mention only iron ore and leaves ( a source of C). The famous paper by Verhoeven, Pendray and Dauksch “ The key role of impurities in ancient Damascus steel blades” provided the best available analysis of the chemical composition of the older blades studied by Zschokke in 1924 and some newer samples.Interestingly, Si concentration was quite high in all of them, likely contamination with sand (????). The authors postulate that the iron ore was coming from different sources and that the majority of old wootz blades were actually of rather poor quality to the point that one out of 4 swords donated by Moser for Zschokke study had too low C content to even qualify for being a true wootz. But again, what I presented is how the old masters dealt with the ingot to maximize the use of real wootz component in the working areas of the blade, not how the ingots were made. And you are right: the pulwar blade did not brake in vain. Let’s take our collective hats off and give a 21 gun salute to the old warrior.