FYI The production of crucible Damascus steel

Jens Nordlunde · 26th March 2005, 12:57 PM

Gt Obach,

Thank you for your ‘manual’ on making a blade, it is very interesting. I don’t know about others, but I have always wondered how long time it took to make a blade. Th.H.Hendley would have known, as he lived in India at the end of 1800, the time when many of the weapons we collect were made, but he does not mention it for some reason or other.
In the book ‘Persian Steel’ by James Allan and Brian Gilmour. Oxford University Press, 2000, James Allan writes, in the chapter Arms and Armour/Centres of production that the production of arms and armour, under Timur was centralised, and that he had more than one thousand workmen making arms and armour ‘…and to this business they are kept at work throughout the whole of their time in the service to his Highness’. When I read this, I thought that this would have accumulated at a ‘mountain’ of arms and armour, and it did, but over the years; and one must not forget, that they did not only make the weapons, they also had to repair what had been broken. Due to this relatively show production process, and to avoid the enemies use of the weapons again; looting, when a battle had been won, was very important. Weapons from the south are found in armouries to the north and opposite, just like they ‘travelled’ from east to west, and from west to east.

Jens

Ann Feuerbach · 26th March 2005, 02:43 PM

Thanks Greg for the detailed information. Somewhere I have information about annealing to make the ingot easier to forge. I also have information on sword making in Istanbul during the Ottoman empire...I'll try to dig it out. It talks about all the different types of swords for sale and how many workshops.

Gt Obach · 28th March 2005, 07:13 PM

I've also got the "persian steel" book and it's a good read !

Ann: that would be fantastic to see ! I've searched quite abit to find some details on the roasting of ingots and especially the forging.. and only found a small amount

it seems there are tonnes of crucible steel recipes written but it is quite hard to find accounts on forging. Especially the types of hammers, tools, anvils,hammering techniques, etc are almost absent from record ??
- i'm sure it is there but i was only limited to what my univ library could get on loan

Greg

Ann Feuerbach · 29th March 2005, 01:55 PM

I have not found any information on things like hammers, forging techniques etc (apart from the mention of forging at red heat and the time of day). Smiths were not usually literate and no one really cared about their tools. In the archaeological record, craftsmen would have passed down their tools and/or took them with them so we have none. In many parts of Central Asia they did not bury the dead with goods, so we have none from their either. I will keep looking.

Jens Nordlunde · 7th April 2005, 09:37 PM

Hi Ann,

When and how will 'crucible' steel end up as cast steel?
At one point you wrote something about this subject, but I think it should be explained more in detail.

Jens

Ann Feuerbach · 8th April 2005, 09:39 PM

Ah, yes. this is a particular problem in Russian, as I believe bulat means both cast steel and crucible steel. Primarily it is semantics: by definition cast steel is cast, ie: poured into a mold. In cast steel, usually premade steel is remelted in a crucible, rather than made in it.
Crucible steel is steel made in a crucible. Traditionally it is not cast (poured). However, what happens if the craftsmen put too much carbon into his crucible? The product can be cast iron. There is really no reason why a tradtional craftsmen could not have "cast" crucible steel or "cast iron". Just lack of evidence. Casting crucible steel would cause quick solidification, small dendrites and probably no pattern. But it could be done.

tom hyle · 9th April 2005, 03:58 PM

Fascinating and so much thanks to everyone!
Ann, "cast steel" is not steel which has been cast. It is a specific early industrial product (patented in England in 1749, I think) called "acero fino" ie. "fine steel" in Spainish (a freind has a Spainish language degree, and she said "fino" has all the same shadings of meaning in Spainish as does "fine" in English.) I've never made either. From my readings it seems to me that the big distinguishment of cast steel (also cast-steel, etc.) from "Eastern"/Tartaric crucible steel, or at least from blister steel, etc. was that it fully melted in the alloying process, while the European blister steel, sheer steel, etc. were alloyed at welding heat, some types in a crucible, which sort of "pudding"ed together, and had to then be hammered down to further join it and folded for homogeneity; don't know enough about Tartar steel to know how much this crosses over to it, or to what specific type of traditional European steel it most closely relates; shear steel I think.
Modern steel production is a full-melt process often and even usually involving (thankfully for my part, except when someone melts an old blade) recycled steel (different percents of different scrap items are allowed for different classes of industrial product), but its product is not "cast steel". Last I heard cast steel may still be produced in Sweden, but the last I heard was some sort of bad news involving this.....

Wrought iron still comes out of Sweden, I read, too.
What of Japanese "blue steel"; anyone know what that is? High carbon, obviously; at a guess, real high, like cast steel.

9th April 2005, 03:58 PM	#7
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	cast steel Fascinating and so much thanks to everyone! Ann, "cast steel" is not steel which has been cast. It is a specific early industrial product (patented in England in 1749, I think) called "acero fino" ie. "fine steel" in Spainish (a freind has a Spainish language degree, and she said "fino" has all the same shadings of meaning in Spainish as does "fine" in English.) I've never made either. From my readings it seems to me that the big distinguishment of cast steel (also cast-steel, etc.) from "Eastern"/Tartaric crucible steel, or at least from blister steel, etc. was that it fully melted in the alloying process, while the European blister steel, sheer steel, etc. were alloyed at welding heat, some types in a crucible, which sort of "pudding"ed together, and had to then be hammered down to further join it and folded for homogeneity; don't know enough about Tartar steel to know how much this crosses over to it, or to what specific type of traditional European steel it most closely relates; shear steel I think. Modern steel production is a full-melt process often and even usually involving (thankfully for my part, except when someone melts an old blade) recycled steel (different percents of different scrap items are allowed for different classes of industrial product), but its product is not "cast steel". Last I heard cast steel may still be produced in Sweden, but the last I heard was some sort of bad news involving this..... Wrought iron still comes out of Sweden, I read, too. What of Japanese "blue steel"; anyone know what that is? High carbon, obviously; at a guess, real high, like cast steel. Last edited by tom hyle; 9th April 2005 at 04:22 PM. Reason: punctuation

26th March 2005, 12:57 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Gt Obach, Thank you for your ‘manual’ on making a blade, it is very interesting. I don’t know about others, but I have always wondered how long time it took to make a blade. Th.H.Hendley would have known, as he lived in India at the end of 1800, the time when many of the weapons we collect were made, but he does not mention it for some reason or other. In the book ‘Persian Steel’ by James Allan and Brian Gilmour. Oxford University Press, 2000, James Allan writes, in the chapter Arms and Armour/Centres of production that the production of arms and armour, under Timur was centralised, and that he had more than one thousand workmen making arms and armour ‘…and to this business they are kept at work throughout the whole of their time in the service to his Highness’. When I read this, I thought that this would have accumulated at a ‘mountain’ of arms and armour, and it did, but over the years; and one must not forget, that they did not only make the weapons, they also had to repair what had been broken. Due to this relatively show production process, and to avoid the enemies use of the weapons again; looting, when a battle had been won, was very important. Weapons from the south are found in armouries to the north and opposite, just like they ‘travelled’ from east to west, and from west to east. Jens

26th March 2005, 02:43 PM	#2
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Thanks Greg for the detailed information. Somewhere I have information about annealing to make the ingot easier to forge. I also have information on sword making in Istanbul during the Ottoman empire...I'll try to dig it out. It talks about all the different types of swords for sale and how many workshops.

28th March 2005, 07:13 PM	#3
Gt Obach Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 116	I've also got the "persian steel" book and it's a good read ! Ann: that would be fantastic to see ! I've searched quite abit to find some details on the roasting of ingots and especially the forging.. and only found a small amount it seems there are tonnes of crucible steel recipes written but it is quite hard to find accounts on forging. Especially the types of hammers, tools, anvils,hammering techniques, etc are almost absent from record ?? - i'm sure it is there but i was only limited to what my univ library could get on loan Greg

29th March 2005, 01:55 PM	#4
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	I have not found any information on things like hammers, forging techniques etc (apart from the mention of forging at red heat and the time of day). Smiths were not usually literate and no one really cared about their tools. In the archaeological record, craftsmen would have passed down their tools and/or took them with them so we have none. In many parts of Central Asia they did not bury the dead with goods, so we have none from their either. I will keep looking.

7th April 2005, 09:37 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Ann, When and how will 'crucible' steel end up as cast steel? At one point you wrote something about this subject, but I think it should be explained more in detail. Jens

8th April 2005, 09:39 PM	#6
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Ah, yes. this is a particular problem in Russian, as I believe bulat means both cast steel and crucible steel. Primarily it is semantics: by definition cast steel is cast, ie: poured into a mold. In cast steel, usually premade steel is remelted in a crucible, rather than made in it. Crucible steel is steel made in a crucible. Traditionally it is not cast (poured). However, what happens if the craftsmen put too much carbon into his crucible? The product can be cast iron. There is really no reason why a tradtional craftsmen could not have "cast" crucible steel or "cast iron". Just lack of evidence. Casting crucible steel would cause quick solidification, small dendrites and probably no pattern. But it could be done.