When in India "died" wootz?

[mahratt]

Dear participants of the Forum. It is well known that the wootz in India stopped producing the mid-19th century.

It seems to be known and the reasons why this happened:

1) a ban on logging
2) a large number of blades is not expensive good quality from Europe

But, let's see, from what sources we rely when we say that the wootz steel production in India ended in the mid-19th century.
I think it will be interesting if the participants of the forum called literary source and citation from them, which prove that wootz steel production in India stopped by the mid 19th century.

By the way! What do you think? Termination production of wootz steel means the cessation of the production of wootz steel blades?


But please, let's do without Wikipedia :)

[Jim McDougall]

Interesting topic Mahratt!!
As far as I have understood, the British banned production of wootz around the 1860s blaming the effects of deforestation but I have yet to find a citable source for this situation. I know that a number of 'iron works' were established by EIC official Josiah Heath around 1825, but to me it is unclear whether these 'iron' works included wootz.
"On Indian Iron and Steel " J.M. Heath, " Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society" V, 1839, pp. 390-97,
In an entry on wootz in the "Cyclopedia of India and SE Asia" by Edward Balfour in 1885, the industry of producing wootz is described with no mention of any proscription or forbidding of production found .

In previous discussions we have had here ( Sept,17, 2010) various comments note that existing wootz billets which must have been stockpiled were probably available to makers of the 'old school' well through the 19th c. but still need cited references to support. Whatever the case, this long standing industry of world famous steel certainly didn't vanish overnight through some bureaucratic order.

[kronckew]

i gather it just died out for economical reasons, excellent easily worked steel and alloys in europe and being exported slowly killed off the more expensive wootz/bulat, it was just easier and cheaper to mass produce high quality weapons almost as good as if not better than wootz.

the current infatuation with the more artistically beautiful patterns in wootz and pattern welded steel, still more expensive than mono-steel alloys, is mainly due to the lack of need for them as weapons, and the desires of collectors, like us, and of experimental archaeologists obsessed with the desire to resurrect the lost secrets. ;)

[mahratt]

i gather it just died out for economical reasons, excellent easily worked steel and alloys in europe and being exported slowly killed off the more expensive wootz/bulat, it was just easier and cheaper to mass produce high quality weapons almost as good as if not better than wootz.


Of course you're right! I agree with you. But the question is, when exactly was "killed" wootz? :) Why did talk about the middle of the 19th century, rather than the beginning of the 20th century?

And who of the researchers wrote on the subject, proving his words, not just voicing assumptions.

[kronckew]

try this: http://www.wirralmodelengineeringsociety.co.uk/Articles/The_Bessemer_Process.pdf

looks like it started about 1865 when the commercial production of bessimer process steel was commercially available.

[mahratt]

Again, you're right. Thank you for the interesting article. But I am interested to know whether there is a direct mention to the fact that wootz steel production ceased in those years, the 19th century. Stating the reasons :)

We are now argue that damask steel production was a long and expensive process. I agree. From the point of view of Europeans. But, do manual work is now in India dearly valued? I doubt that 150 years ago the situation was different ....

[estcrh]

Dear participants of the Forum. It is well known that the wootz in India stopped producing the mid-19th century.

It seems to be known and the reasons why this happened:

1) a ban on logging
2) a large number of blades is not expensive good quality from Europe

But, let's see, from what sources we rely when we say that the wootz steel production in India ended in the mid-19th century.
I think it will be interesting if the participants of the forum called literary source and citation from them, which prove that wootz steel production in India stopped by the mid 19th century.

By the way! What do you think? Termination production of wootz steel means the cessation of the production of wootz steel blades?


But please, let's do without Wikipedia :)

Why was The Russian metallurgist Pavel Petrovich Anosov (1799-1851) so intent on learning how to make bulat if it was still being widely produced during the time period that he was alive?

[mahratt]

Why was The Russian metallurgist Pavel Petrovich Anosov (1799-1851) so intent on learning how to make bulat if it was still being widely produced during the time period that he was alive?

I'm not saying that the wootz in the middle of the 19th century were able to produce. Although we do not see specific mention of this. And I'm curious to see such references.

It is about that of the old wootz blanks probably could do wootz blades. And anyway, how could disappear for short period many centuries established production?

[Jim McDougall]

Kronckew and Estcrh , you guys are spot on in your assessments and views on the situation, which is essentially what I was finding but honestly could not put into proper words. Metallurgy and these more scientific aspects are admittedly my nemesis in these studies :)

I am along with Mahratt in wondering how this 'art' in fabricating this fantastic steel in India could just vanish, and that its secrets were so intricate they could not be duplicated.

The advance of industrial revolution seems to have furnished more cost efficient methods of producing steel in England, so the call for these materials certainly would play a larger role in volume. However, as Estrch has well pointed out, if wootz blades were still being produced in his lifetime, why would a scientist be trying to discover this secret?

I think this scenario itself is one of the greatest mysteries of wootz, compounded by the fact that Russian presence in Central Asia certainly must have had access to centers which produced blades. Did they not have political access to Iran ? I need my "Great Game" by Peter Hopkirk!!!!

[kronckew]

... But, do manual work is now in India dearly valued? I doubt that 150 years ago the situation was different ....

india and pakistan are still major suppliers of 'damascus' pattern welded steel sword and knife blades. they still command a premium over a monosteel blade of the same shape.

i would however assume it's the distributor that makes the most money, paying relatively little to the poor kami hammering on the anvil. the kamis and sarkis who forged the blades and made the scabbards and fittings were and are of the 'untouchables', the lowest of low caste in that most nasty of social ranking systems. most employers pay them on the piece work system, so the faster the items are made, and the more items they make per day, the more they get paid.

western smiths are better educated, better paid and expect far more than eastern ones. as you say, likely not far different than in the 19c, even under queen victoria, and her extended family, the kings, kaisers and tsars of the other european nations.

...and the rising use of steam and later electric powered machinery rather than hand tools makes a difference too.

there are a variety of ever changing and mutating conditions, economic, historical, social, political, and scientific all playing their part. it will be interesting to see if anyone comes up with any precise reasonings in the maelstrom.

i have also read somewhere that the mines where the ore used for wootz were playing out, so with the source drying up, and other ore sources not having it's peculiar chemical composition (some say it was a trace of vanadium that made all the difference), some people hid away blooms justincase, which occasionally still show up. hence the wootz blades made in more modern times, using the old blobs of material whose mfg. process had been lost. tracking down the source and date of that theory would be rather difficult. (i do seem to recall a billet of wootz (or maybe bulat) of a few kilos going for an outrageous price on a well known internet auction site.)

[mahratt]

You talk absolutely true. I agree with many of your words. But, I'm not talking about our reasoning (even though they are very correct).
I'm curious to know what was written in the 19th - early 20th century, the British researchers. How could they not notice an event such as the cessation of production of wootz steel and its causes?
Or all the conclusions that the wootz in India stopped producing in the middle of the 19th century, is based solely on circumstantial evidence?

[Jim McDougall]

I agree Mahratt, what Kronckew is expressing is exactly right, and I recognize much of the factual data (even though I don't fully understand it :)). I also understand that you are seeking cited references in the literature which expressly note the demise of the Indian wootz industry and if they specify a more finite date or period.

Kronckew, what I have difficulty in grasping is that metal work in India of course involving wootz, were there other metal or steel products produced concurrently in the same areas, or was it only wootz?

While wootz production stopped, or so we are told, were other types of regular steel or iron still produced ?

[ariel]

Jim,
The decline in making wootz ingots was due to a dwindling demand: by the middle of the 19th century both Brits and Germans flooded the market with cheaper and more reliable mono steel blades. The Westernization of Persian military with the introduction of European-pattern sabers did not help either.

But let's not forget a human factor: wootz blade is valuable and desirable not only because of its metallurgical composition, but mainly because of its beauty that depended in large measure on forging skills of the bladesmith. This is why Anosov's bulat blades were pretty primitive visually and why AFAIK only one modern bladesmith can make a shamshir equal in its beauty to the best Persian blades.
Since there was no demand for the wootz blades, the skills began their decline and got lost in a generation or two.
Was there at the end of 19 century some Ahmed Baba somewhere in a village near Shiraz or Haiderabad who knew to what color it is permissible to heat wootz ingot and how to turn the half-made blade on the anvil, and how forcefully to pound it and in which direction? Perhaps. But any skill gets lost if not exercised constantly and by many people. And who would like to become his pupil with no prospect for money and fame?

Estcrh's comment on Anosov was right on the money. Anosov published his bulat study in 1837, but in 1841 captain Massalski published full description of the process he observed in "Persia" ( not known where exactly). Did Anosov have his informants? Unknown. But after his death bulat manufacture in Russia also dwindled to virtual zero ( there are some vague stories of former Anosov's workers making something similar, but their efforts also went nowhere and vanished with them).

[kronckew]

ariel, what you are saying is happening now, the traditional skills of khukuri making in nepal are passed down by word of mouth and experience, the colour to heat a blade for hardening, the use of a tea kettle of boiling water to quench and harden the edge while leaving the spine less hard at just the right moment is not easy to document without doing it consistently time oafter time. as demand goes down, the people with the knowledge get older and the young want to move to the big city and be doctors, ghurkahs or computer techs, not low caste steel pounders.

one anecdote for steel in india early 19c. by the time of the sepoy mutiny in the 1840's, a lot of surplus 1796 LC sabre blades were converted to tulwars for the indian troops of the east india company. the local sword makers just could not compete.

the troops then rebelled. the british troops who fought them with their newer pattern swords complained that the indians had better and sharper swords that were more effective. turned out that the indian troops actually put a decent edge on their old 1796 lc sabre blades, and kept them in leather/wood scabbards which did not dull the edges like the brits steel scabbards. the brits there after put wood liners in the metal scabbards or wood/leather ones.

by the time of the american civil war, it was extremely rare for two sides to get close enough to actually use swords, and when they did most were fairly inexperienced in their use and few were even sharpened, so sword cuts were rare. the brits who fought a lot of native troops armed with swords and spears, as in the mahdis troops at ombdurman did use theirs to effect, but most of the mahdis casualties were due to artillery and the new machine guns. even winston churchill used a mauser pistol when he charged with the lancers and not his sword.

the boer wars kind of put paid to the sword, boers did not play fair, shooting brits in their red or white uniforms at a thousand yards from cover.

tho it was still used occasionally during ww1, and even more limited in ww2 (except for mad jack churchill - no relation to winston - who not only captured a company of germans with just his sword, but was credited with actually using an english longbow to kill a german sergeant in battle. he walked ashore at normandy on d-day sword drawn and followed by a piper.

the US navy eliminated swords for officers at one point in ww2 to save metal to build battleships. the officers ignored the order & got them reinstated. even the humble cutlass is again in ceremonial use now in the USN for enlisted.sadly they tend to use stainless steel blades which are brittle but look good.

the filipino marines still use a sword for jungle combat against the rebels where, on jungle trails and thick brush, suddenly may bring two sides together in surprise, and where even a carbine may be too long to swing around in the vegetation. they use a ginunting in close quarters to good effect, as do the ghurkahs with their khuks.

seems the sword will never completely die out. and there is still a place for wootz, if we can figure it'as secrets.

[estcrh]

Here is an interesting essay, from what I have previously read and am reading now, it seems as though the real center of wootz steel production was in India. While blades may have been made in Persia/Syria it does not look like the raw materials were produced in these countries. The steel was produced in India and traded to sword making centers in other countries.

When Europeans recognized the superiority of Indian steel making technology they went about trying to creat a way to mass produce the same type of steel made in Indian so they could bypass the Indians. Many years of research into making high quality of steel by the Europeans eventually led to the modern steel making process that was directly responsible for the decline of traditional Indian steel manufacture.

Between the British desire to subvert the Indian steel makers and the now abundant supply of much cheaper European steel the Indian steel makers simply could not survive. The decline seems to be in the early mid to late 1800s.

http://www.ghadar.in/gjh_html/?q=content/rise-and-fall-ancient-india%E2%80%99s-iron-and-steel-metallurgy

[ariel]

Kronckew:

ariel, what you are saying is happening now, the traditional skills of khukuri making in nepal are passed down by word of mouth and experience, the colour to heat a blade for hardening, the use of a tea kettle of boiling water to quench and harden the edge while leaving the spine less hard at just the right moment is not easy to document without doing it consistently time oafter time. as demand goes down, the people with the knowledge get older and the young want to move to the big city and be doctors, ghurkahs or computer techs, not low caste steel pounders.
-------------------------------------------------
Glad we agree. Your example of the same process happening right under our watch is very instructive.

[Jim McDougall]

Jim,
The decline in making wootz ingots was due to a dwindling demand: by the middle of the 19th century both Brits and Germans flooded the market with cheaper and more reliable mono steel blades. The Westernization of Persian military with the introduction of European-pattern sabers did not help either.

But let's not forget a human factor: wootz blade is valuable and desirable not only because of its metallurgical composition, but mainly because of its beauty that depended in large measure on forging skills of the bladesmith. This is why Anosov's bulat blades were pretty primitive visually and why AFAIK only one modern bladesmith can make a shamshir equal in its beauty to the best Persian blades.
Since there was no demand for the wootz blades, the skills began their decline and got lost in a generation or two.
Was there at the end of 19 century some Ahmed Baba somewhere in a village near Shiraz or Haiderabad who knew to what color it is permissible to heat wootz ingot and how to turn the half-made blade on the anvil, and how forcefully to pound it and in which direction? Perhaps. But any skill gets lost if not exercised constantly and by many people. And who would like to become his pupil with no prospect for money and fame?

Estcrh's comment on Anosov was right on the money. Anosov published his bulat study in 1837, but in 1841 captain Massalski published full description of the process he observed in "Persia" ( not known where exactly). Did Anosov have his informants? Unknown. But after his death bulat manufacture in Russia also dwindled to virtual zero ( there are some vague stories of former Anosov's workers making something similar, but their efforts also went nowhere and vanished with them).



Ariel, thank you for the well explained detail on this conundrum. I remain bewildered by how in the world such forging techniques could be lost, and in such a relatively short time. It does seem like a microcosm of the kind of subtle but somewhat monumental change that has happened here in the U.S. in many aspects over relatively short time. One day I took my truck (a 1987) in for a tuneup (this was about 20 yrs ago). The young guy opened the hood and exclaimed , 'what is that?' , looking at the engine . Surprised, I said, 'its a carburator' !!!
The kid had never worked on one of these!!! he only knew fuel injection!!

How many young people today cannot imagine when we did not have DVDs and CDs or cell phones etc. and this has been only over 30 years.

I guess in that way, something like such a metallurgical process could vanish, just as we have lost so many aspects of everyday life several decades ago.

[mahratt]

How many young people today cannot imagine when we did not have DVDs and CDs or cell phones etc. and this has been only over 30 years.

I guess in that way, something like such a metallurgical process could vanish, just as we have lost so many aspects of everyday life several decades ago.

Jim, it's not a very appropriate comparison :) You draw an analogy between the modern rapidly developing society of the 21st century and the archaic society of the 19th century.

I will answer you another analogy :)

You say that young people do not know in the US that such a carburetor, but I think in less developed countries, children know what a carburetor. Moreover, it seems to me that in the patriarchal lands in the US (somewhere in backwoods Kentucky) children will also know what a carburetor ;)

[mahratt]

Here is an interesting essay

estcrh, thank you for an interesting essay!


But here again just what think our contemporaries....

Strange situation. Bulat ( wootz) in India disappears. However, none of the Indian researchers (and we know that the British researchers had enough) does not noted this fact. But it does not bother anyone. And we are from the standpoint of modern man argue that wootz disappeared in the middle of the 19th century. But at the same time using only circumstantial evidence :)

Guys do not you think that this is not scientific?

[estcrh]

estcrh, thank you for an interesting essay!


But here again just what think our contemporaries....

Strange situation. Bulat ( wootz) in India disappears. However, none of the Indian researchers (and we know that the British researchers had enough) does not noted this fact. But it does not bother anyone. And we are from the standpoint of modern man argue that wootz disappeared in the middle of the 19th century. But at the same time using only circumstantial evidence :)

Guys do not you think that this is not scientific?The authors from the essay I posted are both Indian, or am I not understanding you?

• Marvels of Indian Iron through the Ages by R. Balasubramanian (2008)
• History of Iron Technology in India – From Beginning to Premodern Times by Vibha Tripathi (2008)

[VANDOO]

OFTEN THOSE WHO FORGED STEEL WERE VERY SECRETIVE AND GUARDED THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNIQUES VERY CLOSELY. ONLY A TRUSTED APPRENTICE WOULD IN TIME BE TAUGHT AND THOUGH FOREIGNERS AND OUTSIDERS OFTEN TRIED THEY FOUND THE SECRETS OFTEN COULD NOT BE BOUGHT. WHEN THE WEALTHY STOPPED BUYING FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR ARMORY'S.
DEMAND AND PROFIT DIMINISHED AND GOOD APPRENTICES COULD NOT BE EASILY FOUND. SO THE MASTERS OFTEN TOOK THEIR SECRETS TO THE GRAVE WITH THEM. IT HAS HAPPENED IN MANY FIELDS NOT JUST SWORD MAKING. THIS IS A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION BECAUSE MAN'S LIFE SPAN IS SHORT AND MANY WOULD RATHER TAKE THEIR SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE TO THE GRAVE THAN TO PASS THEM ON.

[mahratt]

The authors from the essay I posted are both Indian, or am I not understanding you?

• Marvels of Indian Iron through the Ages by R. Balasubramanian (2008)
• History of Iron Technology in India – From Beginning to Premodern Times by Vibha Tripathi (2008)

estcrh, thanks again for article links. Maybe I was not very attentive. But I did not see in these articles to their authors appealed to the documents of the 19th century ... I always thought (although maybe I'm wrong) that the difference between the popular and the scientific article is just that in the scientific article, the author not only express their thoughts (referring to the well-known historical facts and drawing conclusions on the basis of their), but also provides links to documents of the time of which he writes (19th century in our case). If the references to historical documents (studies, books, articles) - no, the article is different from our conversations here in the forum only because it someone has published in some magazine :)

We all know the book by Lord Egerton. He started collecting Arms and Armor in 1855. A book was published in 1896. Maybe I did not read his book carefully ... then please correct me. Is Egerton writes in his book that the wootz in India in 19th century stopped producing?

Or is there someone else from scientists in India in the 19th century, who wrote this?

[mahratt]

OFTEN THOSE WHO FORGED STEEL WERE VERY SECRETIVE AND GUARDED THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND TECHNIQUES VERY CLOSELY. ONLY A TRUSTED APPRENTICE WOULD IN TIME BE TAUGHT AND THOUGH FOREIGNERS AND OUTSIDERS OFTEN TRIED THEY FOUND THE SECRETS OFTEN COULD NOT BE BOUGHT. WHEN THE WEALTHY STOPPED BUYING FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR ARMORY'S.
DEMAND AND PROFIT DIMINISHED AND GOOD APPRENTICES COULD NOT BE EASILY FOUND. SO THE MASTERS OFTEN TOOK THEIR SECRETS TO THE GRAVE WITH THEM. IT HAS HAPPENED IN MANY FIELDS NOT JUST SWORD MAKING. THIS IS A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION BECAUSE MAN'S LIFE SPAN IS SHORT AND MANY WOULD RATHER TAKE THEIR SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE TO THE GRAVE THAN TO PASS THEM ON.

VANDOO, secrets - it is always interesting and exciting. This creates a certain mystical aura. (By the way, that is what I love the movie "X-Files")

But let's look at the facts. And the facts are that even now in the 21st century, we see a large number of wootz items (swords, swords, daggers, knives and spears). If you count all wootz items in our collections,how many items we get? A few thousand? In addition, several thousand in private collections in Russia. More thousands wootz items in museums in the world. Do not you think that is too many items to talk about some secrets? ;)

[estcrh]

Or is there someone else from scientists in India in the 19th century, who wrote this?I believe that the scientists in 19th century Indian were foreign, mainly British, trying to find ways to extract anything of value from Indian products etc.

[estcrh]

But let's look at the facts. And the facts are that even now in the 21st century, we see a large number of wootz items (swords, swords, daggers, knives and spears). If you count all wootz items in our collections,how many items we get? A few thousand? In addition, several thousand in private collections in Russia. More thousands wootz items in museums in the world. Do not you think that is too many items to talk about some secrets? ;)

Steel from Ancient India (Wootz Steel)
WOOTZ STEEL: AN ADVANCED MATERIAL OF THE ANCIENT WORLD
S. Srinivasan and S. Ranganathan
Department of Metallurgy
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore

[mahratt]

Steel from Ancient India (Wootz Steel)
WOOTZ STEEL: AN ADVANCED MATERIAL OF THE ANCIENT WORLD
S. Srinivasan and S. Ranganathan
Department of Metallurgy
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore

Thank you, estcrh. This only confirms my words that wootz steel production was not such a great secret.

I believe that the scientists in 19th century Indian were foreign, mainly British, trying to find ways to extract anything of value from Indian products etc.

You're right, of course. First of all, the British in India were interested in wealth. But as the time from the middle of the 19th century, there are many studies on the ethnography of India.

[estcrh]

Thank you, estcrh. This only confirms my words that wootz steel production was not such a great secret.It is interesting, how could you have so many steel manufacturers making a product for so long and yet people were said to be scurrying everywere to find out how exactly it was made.....and then the method was seemingly lost?????

[mahratt]

It is interesting, how could you have so many steel manufacturers making a product for so long and yet people were said to be scurrying everywere to find out how exactly it was made.....and then the method was seemingly lost?????

My friend, this is an error - assume that Anosov sought "secret of wootz", traveling to India or Persia. Anosov was - researcher. Anosov studied samples of wootz steel samples which were brought from India, Persia and Central Asia for him. And on the basis of the studied samples of wootz, he developed his own method of smelting wootz steel.

Moreover, note that Ariel wrote:

... in 1841 captain Massalski published full description of the process he observed in "Persia" ...

It says that in 1841 continued to produce wootz and it was not kept secret.

[estcrh]

My friend, this is an error - assume that Anosov sought "secret of wootz", traveling to India or Persia. Anosov was - researcher. Anosov studied samples of wootz steel samples which were brought from India, Persia and Central Asia for him. And on the basis of the studied samples of wootz, he developed his own method of smelting wootz steel.

Moreover, note that Ariel wrote:



It says that in 1841 continued to produce wootz and it was not kept secret.There are records of many people besides Anosov that were seeking methods of steel manufacture in Indian and elsewere, as for captain Massalski, what exactly did he see/report and were did he see it, was he talking about wootz steel or another type of steel.



Science and Civilisation in China: Vol. 5, Chemistry and chemical technology ; Pt. 11, Ferrous metallurgy, Volume 5; Volume 11, by Joseph Needham, 2008.

[mahratt]

The captain Masalsky writes about of Bulat (wootz) steel smelting. And the smelting of wootz steel exactly the Persians.

I do not know that someone wrote in 2008 :) Article Masalsky published in 1841:

[mahratt]

Science and Civilisation in China: Vol. 5, Chemistry and chemical technology ; Pt. 11, Ferrous metallurgy, Volume 5; Volume 11, by Joseph Needham, 2008.


Tell me, please, the page number, where there is a piece of text that you have shown.

[estcrh]

Tell me, please, the page number, where there is a piece of text that you have shown.Around p265, so how do we know exactly what captain Massalski wrote, is there a translation of his work?

[mahratt]

Around p265, so how do we know exactly what captain Massalski wrote, is there a translation of his work?

Thank you, I found page 265 and the text you show. The author is not sure what were the borders of Persia in the middle of the 19th century, therefore, it assumes that we are talking about wootz steel smelting in Central Asia. In fact Masalsky not indicate in his article the exact location of their observations. But several times he speaks of "the Persians". I think the Russian officer and ethnographer hardly confuse Uzbek with Persian.

I do not know whether there translation into English of the article Masalsky ... I have his article in Russian. If you want, I can send it to you by e-mail.

[mahratt]

Colleagues, I have found one historical source of the mid-19th century (art Masalsky 1841), where we are talking about wootz. But it turns out that this historical source says that in the middle of the 19th century has been wootz smelted.
Surely no one knows the English historical sources 19th century on this topic ...

[ariel]

It is virtually impossible to place captain Massalsky in the vicinity of Central Asian Khanates. In the 1830s both British and Russians were totally impotent to establish a foothold there. Travelers, spies and diplomats were thrown into dungeons and publicly beheaded: remember Stoddard and Conolly. Russians were treated no better. Massalsky wouldn't stand a chance of ever bringing any information back. Only after Russian conquest of Central Asian Khanates, building a railroad for quick transportation of troops, series of brutal repressions and actual demilitarization of the area ( while keeping local Khans in a semblance of power) could anybody " come and observe". But that was after ~ 1865.

On the other hand, both nations openly competed in Iran, with military instructors hired by the Persians, diplomatic missions legally establishes, bribes given and accepted on a daily basis etc,

Once again: Peter Hopkirk's "The Great Game". Set a weekend aside, find a comfy chair, a bottle of a single malt and enjoy the ride!

[ariel]

It is hopeless to attempt establishing the exact time of "disappearance of Wootz". Skills do not die on a particular date, they just wither.

Nobody would argue with a proposition that wootz was still manufactured in India and forged into blades in the middle of the 19th century. Just it was not as intensive as in the middle of the 18th or even in the first half of the 19th. From there on, wootz went into a free fall, and for a multiplicity of reasons ( see above) by the end of the 19th century its production as well as manufacture of wootz blades came to a screeching halt. Could there have been an occasional example of a newly-made blade? Yea... But that was just a proverbial " one swallow" of no practical or historical significance.

[mahratt]

It is virtually impossible to place captain Massalsky in the vicinity of Central Asian Khanates. In the 1830s both British and Russians were totally impotent to establish a foothold there. Travelers, spies and diplomats were thrown into dungeons and publicly beheaded: remember Stoddard and Conolly. Russians were treated no better. Massalsky wouldn't stand a chance of ever bringing any information back. Only after Russian conquest of Central Asian Khanates, building a railroad for quick transportation of troops, series of brutal repressions and actual demilitarization of the area ( while keeping local Khans in a semblance of power) could anybody " come and observe". But that was after ~ 1865.


Masalsky, judging by his article (and the constant mention of the Persians) was in Persia. But, no need to dramatize the situation in Central Asia (eg in Bukhara).

In 1820 - 1821 years, captain of the Russian army E.K.Meyendorf visited the Emirate of Bukhara . After the expedition, he wrote a book: The Journey from Orenburg to Bukhara.

In 1842, merchant and explorer Khanykov traveled to Bukhara Khanate. His book was published in 1843: "The description of the Bukhara khanate."

You know the Russian language, as I remember? Then you can easily read this book.

If anyone is yet interested, this book was created and in English: "Bokhara, its amir and its people". Translated by the baron Clement A. de Bode. London, 1851.

[mahratt]

It is hopeless to attempt establishing the exact time of "disappearance of Wootz". Skills do not die on a particular date, they just wither.

Nobody would argue with a proposition that wootz was still manufactured in India and forged into blades in the middle of the 19th century. Just it was not as intensive as in the middle of the 18th or even in the first half of the 19th. From there on, wootz went into a free fall, and for a multiplicity of reasons ( see above) by the end of the 19th century its production as well as manufacture of wootz blades came to a screeching halt. Could there have been an occasional example of a newly-made blade? Yea... But that was just a proverbial " one swallow" of no practical or historical significance.

I agree that in your words - a lot of the correct. But it is your personal reasoning. I wonder more. I guess I'm not very well expressed his thought in previous messages. Forgive me for my bad English.

I'm curious to know:
1) Is there any historical sources (messages travelers of the 19th century, for example), who argue that in the mid-19th century, the production of wootz steel in India has stopped.
2) whether there are documents that say that in India in the 19th century, banned the production of wootz steel.

I would be grateful if you answer these my questions.

[estcrh]

Thank you, I found page 265 and the text you show. The author is not sure what were the borders of Persia in the middle of the 19th century, therefore, it assumes that we are talking about wootz steel smelting in Central Asia. In fact Masalsky not indicate in his article the exact location of their observations. But several times he speaks of "the Persians". I think the Russian officer and ethnographer hardly confuse Uzbek with Persian.

I do not know whether there translation into English of the article Masalsky ... I have his article in Russian. If you want, I can send it to you by e-mail.P.M. sent. Is there any evidence that Masalsky was actually in Persia, I find evidence that he was in Bukhara which has a long Persian history. Another problem when discussing this subject, unless you specifically say "watered steel" you do not know exactly what someone is referring to when they say "crucible steel, wootz, bulat, damascus steel" etc, these terms can and do mean different things to different people and the terms have changed over time. We tend to think of "crucible steel" as being "watered steel" but an object can be made from crucible steel and yet not show any sign of watering.

[estcrh]

I agree that in your words - a lot of the correct. But it is your personal reasoning. I wonder more. I guess I'm not very well expressed his thought in previous messages. Forgive me for my bad English.

I'm curious to know:
1) Is there any historical sources (messages travelers of the 19th century, for example), who argue that in the mid-19th century, the production of wootz steel in India has stopped.
2) whether there are documents that say that in India in the 19th century, banned the production of wootz steel.

I would be grateful if you answer these my questions.
Here is an interesting statement, I have no idea how true and or extensive this statement is but I have read suggestions that the British had intentions of destroying the native Indian iron making capability, for financial gain and to make them dependent on imports or imported technology etc.

[mahratt]

Here is an interesting statement, I have no idea how true and or extensive this statement is but I have read suggestions that the British had intentions of destroying the native Indian iron making capability, for financial gain and to make them dependent on imports or imported technology etc.

It is very interesting. Can you tell me what year this edition? And please tell me the output data: author, title, and page (if it is not difficult)

[estcrh]

It is very interesting. Can you tell me what year this edition? And please tell me the output data: author, title, and page (if it is not difficult)

I believe that information is from chapter 5 of "India's Legendary Wootz Steel: An Advanced Material of the Ancient World", by Sharada Srinivasan, Srinivasa Ranganathan. National Institute of advanced studies, 2004

[mahratt]

I believe that information is from chapter 5 of "India's Legendary Wootz Steel: An Advanced Material of the Ancient World", by Sharada Srinivasan, Srinivasa Ranganathan. National Institute of advanced studies, 2004

Thank you!

But there is a question. After this passage:

Here is an interesting statement, I have no idea how true and or extensive this statement is but I have read suggestions that the British had intentions of destroying the native Indian iron making capability, for financial gain and to make them dependent on imports or imported technology etc.

there is a link to the source of the 19th century from which the author took this information?

Or just the author - so think?

[mahratt]

P.M. sent. Is there any evidence that Masalsky was actually in Persia, I find evidence that he was in Bukhara which has a long Persian history. Another problem when discussing this subject, unless you specifically say "watered steel" you do not know exactly what someone is referring to when they say "crucible steel, wootz, bulat, damascus steel" etc, these terms can and do mean different things to different people and the terms have changed over time. We tend to think of "crucible steel" as being "watered steel" but an object can be made from crucible steel and yet not show any sign of watering.

Masalsky wrote in his article is about the melting of wootz steel. Masalsky and Anosov identify wootz or Damascus. So it is about the melting of wootz steel.

I do not know how ideas emerge that Masalskoe watched Damascus steel smelting in Central Asia. It seems to me that it is certain speculations of modern writers (perhaps for the sake of their ideas).
I argue only that what writes Masalskoe. He's in his article never mentions: Central Asia, Bukhara, Bukhara residents or Uzbeks. But he constantly writes about the "Persians". It is logical to assume that Masalsky the observed process wootz steel smelting in Persia.

[mahratt]

Once again, I re-read the Lord Egerton. He writes about how to produce wootz in India. And I have not found any information on the termination of wootz steel smelting. Maybe I just missed something? Correct me please.

[estcrh]

Once again, I re-read the Lord Egerton. He writes about how to produce wootz in India. And I have not found any information on the termination of wootz steel smelting. Maybe I just missed something? Correct me please.
Asking the Earth: Farms, Forestry and Survival in India, Winin Pereira, Jeremy Seabrook Routledge, Nov 5, 2013. P21.

[mahratt]

Asking the Earth: Farms, Forestry and Survival in India, Winin Pereira, Jeremy Seabrook Routledge, Nov 5, 2013. P21.

estcrh, I was very interested in this phrase:

"That is why following the Indian mutiny in 1857; the British ordered the destruction of all the Wootz swords"

The author makes reference to a historical document, mention of this event (The original source of the 19th century)?

Quote: "Finally, it was the dumping of British iron that completed the destruction of the industry. Campbell stated: "Among the most extensive of the exports of England to India, is the trade of bar iron, which to Madras alone amounts to 1000 tons per annum" , as I understand it is a "logical conclusions of the author"? That is, author does not provide any historical documents that speak to cease production of wootz steel in the 19th century? Again, only indirect data?

We all the time we see the work of contemporary writers who bring their thoughts about with what could be related "death" wootz steel in the 19th century. It is interesting. But even more interesting to see the historical documents.

[estcrh]

estcrh, I was very interested in this phrase:

"That is why following the Indian mutiny in 1857; the British ordered the destruction of all the Wootz swords"

The author makes reference to a historical document, mention of this event (The original source of the 19th century)?

Quote: "Finally, it was the dumping of British iron that completed the destruction of the industry. Campbell stated: "Among the most extensive of the exports of England to India, is the trade of bar iron, which to Madras alone amounts to 1000 tons per annum" , as I understand it is a "logical conclusions of the author"? That is, author does not provide any historical documents that speak to cease production of wootz steel in the 19th century? Again, only indirect data?

We all the time we see the work of contemporary writers who bring their thoughts about with what could be related "death" wootz steel in the 19th century. It is interesting. But even more interesting to see the historical documents. I have not seen any mention of historical documents, just just first and second hand accounts and as you say "authors conclusions", the accuracy of these depends on the amount of research undertaken.

[mahratt]

I have not seen any mention of historical documents, just just first and second hand accounts and as you say "authors conclusions", the accuracy of these depends on the amount of research undertaken.

Thank you. I understood you.

We will search further :)

[estcrh]

Thank you. I understood you.

We will search further :)

Links for you.

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?83193-1818-Article-on-Watering-Persian-Swords

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?83193-1818-Article-on-Watering-Persian-Swords

https://ncc.academia.edu/AnnFeuerbach

[mahratt]

Links for you.

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?83193-1818-Article-on-Watering-Persian-Swords

http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?83193-1818-Article-on-Watering-Persian-Swords

https://ncc.academia.edu/AnnFeuerbach

Thank you very much my friend! I have read articles Ann Feuerbach. But I think I need to read them again, to see the article in the context of references to historical documents.

[estcrh]

The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Sir Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen, 1954.

[mahratt]

The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Sir Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen, 1954.

Thank you!

Do I understand correctly that in this passage from an article talking about the fact that in 1840 in Bukhara produced wootz on old technology?

[estcrh]

Thank you!

Do I understand correctly that in this passage from an article talking about the fact that in 1840 in Bukhara produced wootz on old technology?That is how I understand it, which could mean that Bukharan swords with bulat blades could have continued to be made quite late. But no evidence in Syria it seems.

[mahratt]

That is how I understand it, which could mean that Bukharan swords with bulat blades could have continued to be made quite late.

Yes exactly. Because 1840 - it can be considered a mid-19th century.

But no evidence in Syria it seems.

I think wootz produced in mid-late 19 centry (or at least do the blades of old wootz steel billets) in Central Asia and Afghanistan.

[mahratt]

The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Sir Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen, 1954.

Tell me, please, this passage on what page?

[estcrh]

Tell me, please, this passage on what page?Page 973

One question I have....did Persia actually produce wootz steel, I know they produced steel but was it wootz, or did they import their wootz and just forge the blades in Persia.

[mahratt]

Page 973


Many thanks!


One question I have....did Persia actually produce wootz steel, I know they produced steel but was it wootz, or did they import their wootz and just forge the blades in Persia.

This is a difficult question. I do not have data for the 18-19 age. But Al-Biruni wrote that in Herat produced wootz. Herat - is Persia ...

At the same time there is no doubt that the finest blades of wootz steel is made in Persia.

[estcrh]

Many thanks!



This is a difficult question. I do not have data for the 18-19 age. But Al-Biruni wrote that in Herat produced wootz. Herat - is Persia ...

At the same time there is no doubt that the finest blades of wootz steel is made in Persia.

By Manouchehr Moshtagh Khorasani
Saturday, 23 November
I held a public lecture on "Crucible and Welded Steel Weapons on Oriental Weapons: From Persian, Ottoman and Indian Examples". This event was held at the dining room at the President's Palace in Valletta on November 23, 2013 from 10:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The event was held under the distinguished patronage of His Excellency Dr. George Abela, President of Malta. I would like to thank Dr. Abela here again for all his support for the whole event. My table of contents of my presentation included the following: a) Crucible steel, b) Forging process of crucible steel, c) Crucible steel patterns, d) Pattern-welded steel, e) Pattern-welded steel patterns, f) Indian examples, g) Ottoman examples, h) Persian examples and i) Summary.


I started the lecture by introducing how crucible steel was made and showed some picture of the process. I explained that crucible steel was called pulād-e jŏhardār (watered steel) in Persian. Then I showed different crucible steel blade patterns such as a) pulād-e jŏhardār-e mošabak (watered steel with net pattern; a type of crucible steel with woodgrain pattern), b) qaraxorāsāni(black watered steel from Xorāsān / Khorasan), c) pulād-e jŏhardār-e qerq nardebān (watered steel with ladder pattern), d) lolo (pearl pattern; rose pattern), e) pulād-e mavvāj or pulād-e mŏjdār(a type of crucible steel with wavy pattern) and f) pulād-e jŏhardār-e xati (lined watered steel; a type of crucible steel with lined pattern).


In the next step, I moved to the process of how patttern-welded steel was made in Persia. Although pattern-welded steel was used to a limited extent for making blades, it was mostly used for making gun barrels in Persia. The pattern-welded steel is called pulād-e masnu’i (artificial steel; pattern welded steel) that is divided into a) pulād-e motabbaq (layered steel) that is further divided into pulād-e motabbaq-e montazam (layered and ordered steel) and pulād-e motabbaq-e rangi (colored and layered steel) and b) pulād-e piči (twisted steel) that is further divided into pulād-e piči-ye montazam (twisted and ordered steel) and pulād-e piči-ye rangi (twisted and colored steel). Then I showed examples from Indian, Ottoman and Persian edged weapons. The presentation was a huge success and many people really liked it and talked to me after the presentation about these types of steel.

[mahratt]

estcrh, I read a books last days of Russian travelers. Those travelers who were in Persia and Bukhara Khanate in 1820-1900 years. Based on their descriptions - in Persia produced wootz.

[estcrh]

estcrh, I read a books last days of Russian travelers. Those travelers who were in Persia and Bukhara Khanate in 1820-1900 years. Based on their descriptions - in Persia produced wootz.Then the same thing that happened to wootz production in Indian seems to have happened in Persia as well.

[mahratt]

Then the same thing that happened to wootz production in Indian seems to have happened in Persia as well.

I think in Persia this happened to the fact that the army was to move to a European arms. Detachments of irregular cavalry (with ethnic weapon) in Persia were not as significant as for example in Afghanistan or Central Asia. By the way it was from Persia to Central Asia brought blades for swords (including wootz blades) until the 1880s.

[Battara]

I'm thinking that this is the case with many countries/cultures. It seems that Western arms replaced the need for the beautiful wootz in India, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and other sites. Though understandable, it is still a shame. Only recently has it been rediscovered after lots of research and lots and lots of experimentation.

[ariel]

I'm thinking that this is the case with many countries/cultures. It seems that Western arms replaced the need for the beautiful wootz in India, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and other sites. Though understandable, it is still a shame. Only recently has it been rediscovered after lots of research and lots and lots of experimentation.


... and still unable to compare esthetically:-)

But other than the beauty of it, wootz ( old and modern) is still inferior to industially-made steels of today. From the technological point of view we shouldn't be ruing its disappearance. From the esthetical one, the inferior appearance of new wootz blades is also not a bad thing: a blade with a beautiful wootz pattern has a built-in guarantee of being a real antique:-)

[mahratt]

I'm thinking that this is the case with many countries/cultures. It seems that Western arms replaced the need for the beautiful wootz in India, Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and other sites. Though understandable, it is still a shame. Only recently has it been rediscovered after lots of research and lots and lots of experimentation.

You're right, Battara.

The question is when it happened. In the middle of the 19th century or early 20th century. Agree - this is a big difference.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Maharatt,
It seem to me, that when this thread has had 65 posts so far, and none of them has been to your satisfacthion, we may conclude, that no one on this forum can give the right answer - so I suggest that you will give us your final word.

[mahratt]

Maharatt,
It seem to me, that when this thread has had 65 posts so far, and none of them has been to your satisfacthion, we may conclude, that no one on this forum can give the right answer - so I suggest that you will give us your final word.

Jens, it's not that no one on the forum can not give the correct answer. The fact is that there is no literature of the 19th century, which can confirm that by the mid-19th century, the production wootz and manufacture of wootz steel blades in the East ceased. Yes, in India the era of wootz steel is likely to end in the middle of the 19th century. But remained Persia, Afghanistan and Central Asia ...

No responses yet. There are more questions :)

I think this topic is interesting. And requires further searches the literature of the 19th century, which will help us to discover the secrets of the disappearance of wootz steel.
I think. work together to find simpler. I'm looking for an old Russian literature of the 19th century, where they write about the wootz. For example, in Russian book "Journey to the north of Persia" it is written that in Tehran in a in 1852 did many wootz steel recurved dagger. You are looking at the same books in the English language. For example. I found the book: "Travels in the Panjab, Afghanistan , & Turkistan, to Balk, Bokhara, and Herat and a visit to Great Britain and Germany",1846. Mohana Lāla Munshi

Perhaps write about wootz steel in this book. But, I can not read it quickly, because I know English is bad.

[Jens Nordlunde]

mahratt,
Yes you are right, it is up to you to stop the thread. I cant help you any further with your question, as I have never esearched the question very deeply.

[mahratt]

mahratt,
Yes you are right, it is up to you to stop the thread. I cant help you any further with your question, as I have never esearched the question very deeply.

Jens, I'm sorry for seditious words. I hope I did no one not offend these words.

Do not you think that it is much more interesting more global issues related to the ethnographic weapons (especially now since it is possible through of modern technology, when many old books became available) than just discuss something like: "Look, what my lovely saber" or "Guys, what the name of this dagger?"

Of course, it is also necessary. But there are more interesting questions. And we can work together to find answers to them. At least try to do it.

[Jens Nordlunde]

Yes there really are many very interesting subjects besides the weapons. At one time I was reading about the mining, to learn how they got the gems for decorating the weapons.
In the north some of the diamonds were found in river beds, when the rivers dried out, while in other places they mined the diamonds.
Another interesting subject is the geography of India, to better understand the troubles they went through, transporting the very big armies from one place to another, and the amount of water and food they need every day, both for the soldiers but also for the animals.

[estcrh]

(especially now since it is possible through of modern technology, when many old books became available) This is quite true, the amount of information available online now is amazing. You never know what you will find simply by reading older texts. I am sure some more wootz related material will be found this way.

[ariel]

This is quite true, the amount of information available online now is amazing. You never know what you will find simply by reading older texts. I am sure some more wootz related material will be found this way.

I am sure more info might be available. However, the veracity of each snippet will never be proven. The general idea is well known: plenty of wootz dated to 18 century, much fewer examples after ~ 1850, singular examples by the end of 19 century ( all of dubious dating), virtually none even at the beginning of 20 century.

It just petered out.....

[mahratt]

I am sure more info might be available. However, the veracity of each snippet will never be proven. The general idea is well known: plenty of wootz dated to 18 century, much fewer examples after ~ 1850, singular examples by the end of 19 century ( all of dubious dating), virtually none even at the beginning of 20 century.

It just petered out.....

Dating of wootz blades - very controversial issue. Most of the blades has no exact provenance. And any of us to have a more pleasant thing in the collection of the 18th century rather than the 19th century. And so it was up to us)))

Draw conclusions :)

The fact that in the middle of the 19th century in Persia did a lot wootz blades (1850). Wootzs blades for the year 1860 - also known. It is strange to assume that in 1870 (for example) wootz blades suddenly stopped doing;)

[Bob A]

Is it safe, then, to assume that an object made with Wootz steel can be dated as pre-1900, absent any other data?

[estcrh]

I am sure more info might be available. However, the veracity of each snippet will never be proven. There is a lot to be learned from first hand accounts in period texts. Just like modern books you have to decide what to believe and what not to believe but when an 1800s traveler gives you a window into the world at that particular time period I am grateful that someone at Google has taken the time to digitize it and make it available online for free. I for one am not willing to just completely ignore the information contained in books from this time period, and when you find several different accounts that say basically the same thing you find some level of veracity (accuracy / truth etc).

[mahratt]

I for one am not willing to just completely ignore the information contained in books from this time period, and when you find several different accounts that say basically the same thing you find some level of veracity (accuracy / truth etc).

estcrh, Your words - absolutely true.

[ariel]

...... when you find several different accounts that say basically the same thing you find some level of veracity (accuracy / truth etc).

Do you have verifiable accounts of wootz manufacture and forging dating to the very end of the 19th century?

Nobody argues about pre-~1850 period, and we are not splitting hair about 1860, 1870 etc. Even epidemics do not stop overnight.

In contrast, there are plenty of wootz blades verifiably dated to the 18th century ( I have one dated twice to 1782 on the blade) and likely even more provenanced ones to that or earlier era. Having cited many sources describing early mass-production of wootz and disappearance of this industry around mid-19th century, you yourself answered the question. As to the 20th century..... The entire "wootz" areal was filled with the Europeans, and there is no mention of the process till independent re-discoveries by Sherby and Verhoeven.

[mahratt]

Do you have verifiable accounts of wootz manufacture and forging dating to the very end of the 19th century?


What we believe the very end of the 19th century? 1870? 1880? At this time, wootz blades produced. This is confirmed by the exhibits of the museum with documents.


In contrast, there are plenty of wootz blades verifiably dated to the 18th century ( I have one dated twice to 1782 on the blade) and likely even more provenanced ones to that or earlier era.

We need to understand (although any collector would like to think otherwise) that what is written on the blade 1782 does not mean that the blade was made in 1782. For example, everyone knows the cartouches on the wootz blades "Assadula Isfahani." Such cartouches has blades and 18th century, and on the blades of the 19th century. Is it possible for the inscription "Assadula" to say that the blade is required to the 18th century? I think no.


Having cited many sources describing early mass-production of wootz and disappearance of this industry around mid-19th century, you yourself answered the question. As to the 20th century..... The entire "wootz" areal was filled with the Europeans, and there is no mention of the process till independent re-discoveries by Sherby and Verhoeven.

"The disappearance of manufacturing wootz steel" describes only contemporary authors and only indirect facts. Maybe I did not see (accidentally missed some post in the topic) a historical source 19 centry, which suggests that the wootz steel production in the mid-19th century has disappeared? I agree that India could this happen. Although ... India - a vast country. And I doubt that anywhere wootz steel production was forgotten.

But over established production of wootz steel (or at least wootz blades) in Persia in the second half of the 19th century, we have the exact facts.

[ariel]

OK, folks!

Why wouldn't we just say that all wootz blades were manufactured at the end of the 19th century and mislabeled by sneaky dealers as being 300-400 years old, and close this silly topic.
Obviously, Mahratt needs something like that to advance yet another Grand Idea of his. I suspect it will be along the lines that Central Asia was a burgeoning hub of wootz production well into 1990's:-)

Facts do not convince him. Let's just make him happy.

[mahratt]

OK, folks!

Why wouldn't we just say that all wootz blades were manufactured at the end of the 19th century and mislabeled by sneaky dealers as being 300-400 years old, and close this silly topic.
Obviously, Mahratt needs something like that to advance yet another Grand Idea of his. I suspect it will be along the lines that Central Asia was a burgeoning hub of wootz production well into 1990's:-)

Facts do not convince him. Let's just make him happy.

Why reduce everything to absurdity? I understand that the topic may seem silly. For example, when there are no serious arguments confirming that damask stopped producing in the mid-19th century ;)

It is clear that many wootz steel blades were made 400, 300 and 200 years ago. But Kirill Rivkin, once said the right idea. He said that we should look at each blade of the complex, not only paying attention to the cartouche on the blade. For example, the 17th century Persian blades is not similar in form to the blades of the 19th century. And cartouche "Assadula" - is not a guarantee that the blade is made in the 17th century :)

I'm not talking about any ideas, аriel. I demonstrate the facts. And this the facts suggests that the production of wootz blades in Persia did not disappear in the middle of the 19th century (Unlike India). Moreover, it productionis (apparently) not decreased. I understand that the facts are cruel :) And probably, many It's a shame to know that the blades in their collections are not made in the 18th century, and in the middle or the end of the 19th century. But we're all striving to find the truth. Or not?


I would be pleased to see the facts of the sources of the 19th century, which would say that in the middle of the 19th century wootz disappeared. But why no one shows such historical sources ...

[ariel]

There is such thing as elementary evidentiary rules.
Suggest reviewing them.

[kronckew]

Why reduce everything to absurdity? I understand that the topic may seem silly. For example, when there are no serious arguments confirming that damask stopped producing in the mid-19th century ;)
...

other than a large number of 'damascus' steel blades produced for presentation swords in europe and russia from then thru now, which are datable or dated and recipients named on the blades that cam be traced.

i think the subject has become exhausted & should be itself stopped before it gets out of hand by getting too personal. the level of proof other than anecdotal seems insufficient for some. so be it.

[Jim McDougall]

It seems to me that this genuinely interesting topic has been pretty well examined in the posts in this thread, and while there are of course no 'finite' answers, there have been quite a few constructive and thought provoking perspectives added.
I think the only 'silliness' that has permeated the thread is in the seemingly inevitable frustration and personal retorts that have been placed. It is, at least in my view, always disappointing to see persons with remarkable knowledge and intelligence resort to such less than worthy remarks.

It seems obvious to me that just as with the assimilation of various cultural or ethnographic groups into others, i.e. the so called 'disappearance of the Anasazi's in the American Southwest, it is virtually impossible to set any exact date or even period for many such events or circumstances, including the 'disappearance of wootz'.

I think primarily what Mahratt is looking for is documented note regarding the production of wootz in various contemporary sources, and here has been hoping for a more international cross section of such resources.

Even with my admittedly meager understanding of metallurgy itself, the wootz issue notwithstanding, it seems odd to me that this apparently quite mysterious skill could simply vanish, and in a relatively narrow window of time.

It does seem that in some reading I recall (I believe in Pant) it was noted that often in India, there were issues with blades being too brittle, and thus the attraction to more durable European blades. This in addition to the increasing colonial and trade incursions brought large volumes of these blades into the Indian sphere.

The beauty of wootz of course remained an attraction for specialty blades relegated more to high end weapons, but for the volume of arms produced for general use, the trade blades and their native counterparts became the norm.

I think we all know that reliance on dates and similar marks, inscriptions etc on blades cannot be accepted as irrefutable evidence without further corroboration as the commemorative placement of these not to mention entire weapon forms is a constant with anything as traditional as edged weapons.

I think it best for participants to struggle to focus on subject matter without personal barbed comments, and if anyone lacks the forbearance to enact that skill, or if the content of the discussion is simply too much to handle...simply don't continue to read or enter. Its actually quite simple.

Meanwhile, if anyone can locate passages from various works which address wootz production with specification of dates and or locales I think such information would be most helpful.

[mahratt]

other than a large number of 'damascus' steel blades produced for presentation swords in europe and russia from then thru now, which are datable or dated and recipients named on the blades that cam be traced.


I apologize. As I write in bad English, I use "Google translator" that to write faster. A "Google Translator" translates all the time, "bulat" (wootz) as "Damascus". Unfortunately, I was not attentive. And it is not corrected in the text in one place the word "damasak".
We had to write a "wootz". Of course, I am talking only about the "wootz".


i think the subject has become exhausted & should be itself stopped before it gets out of hand by getting too personal. the level of proof other than anecdotal seems insufficient for some. so be it.

May I ask what level of evidence is considered serious?
1) There are several mentions Russian travelers (including Ethnographer) and officers in Persia and Central Asia (Bukhara) in the middle of the 19th century (1850-ies) - produced wootz and make the wootz blades.
2) Wootz sabers in Russian museums, which were made in the years 1860-1880.
3) is no reason to stop the production of Damascus steel in the middle of the 19th century in Persia and Bukhara. This, of course, the weakest argument. But he is at the same level as the arguments alleging that the wootz disappeared by the middle of the 19th century.

Of course, if there is no evidence that the wootz in the middle of the 19th century has disappeared (excluding the circumstantial "evidence", which already sounded), the topic has exhausted itself.

[mahratt]

Meanwhile, if anyone can locate passages from various works which address wootz production with specification of dates and or locales I think such information would be most helpful.

Jim, thanks for a reasonable word.

[estcrh]

It seems to me that this genuinely interesting topic has been pretty well examined in the posts in this thread, ...........................

I think primarily what Mahratt is looking for is documented note regarding the production of wootz in various contemporary sources, and here has been hoping for a more international cross section of such resources.................................


I think it best for participants to struggle to focus on subject matter without personal barbed comments, and if anyone lacks the forbearance to enact that skill, or if the content of the discussion is simply too much to handle...simply don't continue to read or enter. Its actually quite simple...................

Meanwhile, if anyone can locate passages from various works which address wootz production with specification of dates and or locales I think such information would be most helpful.

Jim, I was thinking the same thing and couldnt have said it better myself. Having information and sources from several different people all in one thread will be a great help to anyone with an interest in this subject, there is absolutely no need for sarcasm and degrading remarks, if anyone thinks this thread is to long, or it is silly etc that can simply ignore it, anyone who thinks they have something to add can do that, this is how a forum works.

[ariel]

I agree. This discussion reached an impasse. The question in the form it was asked is unanswerable, because everyone agrees that no precise date or even year of wootz disappearance is ever going to be established. And that's the best we can come up with. Flogging a dead horse is never productive.

I am done. Whoever wants to continue digging further is more than welcome and good luck to him. If actual examples are posted , they may be open to factual critique, but the general discussion is over. At least for me.

[mahratt]

I agree. This discussion reached an impasse. The question in the form it was asked is unanswerable, because everyone agrees that no precise date or even year of wootz disappearance is ever going to be established. And that's the best we can come up with. Flogging a dead horse is never productive.

I am done. Whoever wants to continue digging further is more than welcome and good luck to him. If actual examples are posted , they may be open to factual critique, but the general discussion is over. At least for me.

Thank you, ariel. Your opinion about the "dead horses" clear :)

I understand that you do not have the facts of the historical sources (mid-late 19th century) that in the middle of the 19th century wootz - disappeared.

[ariel]

No sense putting words I never said in my mouth.
But if you wish to think so, I am not going to stand in your way. This is a free country , and you are entitled to keeping and voicing your opinion. Full speed ahead:-)

[mahratt]

No sense putting words I never said in my mouth.
But if you wish to think so, I am not going to stand in your way. This is a free country , and you are entitled to keeping and voicing your opinion. Full speed ahead:-)

Why this verbal swordplay?

I have no doubt that you have read a lot of old sources in English. If you have evidence of your words of wootz - I'll be glad to hear.

[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:


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]

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 :shrug: . 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]

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]

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]

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]

+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]

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?


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]

...
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:
http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/17/le02.gif
(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 :rolleyes:

[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 :shrug:

[estcrh]

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. Emanuel, I have never seen an old wootz cake so I could not respond to this but what happens once you start forging this old wootz cake, you can not make a blade from a polished and etched unforged wootz cake/ingot, it needs to be forged. Are you suggesting that anyone can forge a watered steel blade from it or did it take specialized knowledge in order to do this?

[mahratt]

If you polish and etch an old wootz cake/ingot you see the pattern. No forging required.

Yes, it is. And, too, there is about this in the articles of the 1840s.

[estcrh]

Microstructure of Steels and Cast Irons, Madeleine Durand-Charre, 2013

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent, and thank you guys again for responses to my questions. This discussion has truly developed dimensionally by the various and most salient angles you have all brought up.
While the original query tendered in this thread by Mahratt seemed to be rather straightforward and answerable in a similar response, it seemed to defy such an answer.

While it became almost frustratingly clear that a direct answer to the exact or defined disappearance of old wootz making skills was not exactly placeable to such a defined time, especially universal to all wootz locations, it has been fascinating to see all these angles and facets to the problem.

Mahratt, I must thank you for bringing up this most interesting topic, and for me, for prompting me to finally approach a subject I have admittedly long avoided. I also appreciate that you continue to reiterate the interactions between you and others posting as to the salient points you are discussing. Most helpful to keep the thread topic on course.

Ariel, I really liked the factor you brought up as plausibly being associated in this situation, that of life span and generation diminishing of skills in accord with that of demand. While the pro and con of this theory were of course addressed , it is fascinating to see critical thinking and well presented responses placed........this is true historical detection, and all of you guys carry it through perfectly!

Emanuel and Estrcrh, again thank you guys for your patient and most intriguing explanations and descriptions on the actual wootz making processes.......I think I really am starting to understand this stuff! :)

Estcrh, you continue to amaze me at your incredible abilities at locating all these articles and material and posting the segments here, thank you!

Outstanding work everyone!

[ariel]

The issue of inherent ingot patterns and the final blade patterns was discussed extensively on a Russian forum with professional bladesmiths, including the "dean" of Rusiian blademakers, Mr. Leonid Arkhangelsky. According to them, there is no doubt that the inherent structure is important, but only a true master is capable of creating complicated patterns seen on Persian and later Indian blades.

Only Persians with their secret tricks of forging were able to create rich and complicated patterns like Taban or Khorasan.. Indian masters were using a different technique: their hallmark was the "salt-and-pepper" pattern in which dendrites were crushed into small spheroidal segments. After ~17th century there was an inflow of Persian masters into India, and the patterns of Indian blades switched to the complicated Persian examples. Syrian pattern is well-known as Shams: low-contrast, short, almost straight lines.

They all used the same Indian ingots, but the final results were different.


Why?

As bladesmiths told me it all likely depended on the technique of forging: turning the billet in a predetermined way to create twisted patterns of dendrites, keeping the pounding in the same position/direction for the Shams, or beating the hell out of it to obtain the Indian "crystalline" wootz. And on top of it, heating the billet to a certain color between forgings was also crucial.

Even on the same blade one can see different patterns: even the best Taban blades always have almost "shams-y" pattern close to the edge, the result of more vigorous pounding in one direction.

And that is what happens now: metallurgists can make beautiful wootz ingots with a pattern indistinguishable from the old Indian ones, but the bladesmiths do not have secret "protocols of forging" that were worked out over multiple generations by Persian masters.

Anosov figured out how to make wootz ingots, but his blades had coarse and simple pattern: he did not know how to forge his material.

And that is the real secret of wootz.

[Emanuel]

No Eric, of course I am not suggesting that.

My apologies as I am no smith and all I write is based on what I've learned from others. What I have been saying again and again is that the fine watery pattern seen on wootz metal is a result of the initial smelting process. Yes the pattern can be modified mechanically through forging of the cake/ingot/billet into a bar or blade, or whatever at a later stage. The point is that if the smelting process was successful, the basic pattern will be there in the cake as soon as you remove it from the crucible. Temperature control and correct charging of the crucible seem to be the critical factors to getting a good quality steel with a pattern.

The forging process is a separate thing altogether. Temperature control is again key to maintain small grain in the material. Large grain will make it brittle. The process for forging a wootz vs. non-wootz billet will be similar but the range of temperature a wootz billet will take is smaller since the pattern breaks down at higher temperatures. A bladesmith that does not know these temperature constraints will ruin the fine wootz pattern no matter what he does.

Here is a nice summary of the process from Greg Obach, who is also on this forum.
http://users.unitz.ca/gthomas/myweb4/replication_of_wootz.htm

[mahratt]

Anosov figured out how to make wootz ingots, but his blades had coarse and simple pattern: he did not know how to forge his material.

And that is the real secret of wootz.

It is a common misconception. There is information that the blades of wootz steel Anosov, very appreciated in the Orient (at local residents).

[Jim McDougall]

It sounds to me like Pavel Anosov (1796-1851) was primarily involved in research on the technology of crucible steel creating bulat/wootz while he was working at Zlatoust. The apparently highly regarded swords that were created using his findings in creating bulat were not only regarded as examples of 'fine art' but superior in their combat performance vs. those with steel from Solingen, Toledo and London .

From what I read he found four ways of producing the bulat steel, including direct reduction from ore; decarburization of cast iron with iron oxide; melting cast steel into mold and reacting iron and carbon in crucible.
As, again, I am not a metallurgist I would note only that these do not seem to include 'forging'.

Yet the bulat steel blades used with his processes seem profoundly highly regarded, and as 'art', so I miss the point on any deficiency regarding his not knowing how to forge the steel. Apparantly he made some blades himself for some of the more prominent researchers also engaged in wootz studies, and those were also highly regarded.

Also it seems that the noted detractions in his research material were apparently deliberate as he was guarding the secrets of his discoveries, which were indeed 'lost' again for a time after his death.

It certainly sounds like his blades, and research were highly regarded, and again most interesting to learn more about the bulat history. I had heard of it before but was not sure of connections in the wootz matters.

[ariel]

Jim,
Anosov shoud be honored for his re-discovery of the process of obtaining raw wootz material and his insight that it should be forged at low temperatures. However, he simply did not have access to the old "recipe" of forging complex patterns ( akin to Taban/Khorasan). In his defence, only one of the contemporary wootz smiths is capable of doing it, and doing it with long blades.

There is a lot of information on Anosov's blades in the new book by Kirill Rivkin. He also characterizes them as pretty simple .


AFAIK, his blades were never produced for mass use or export; he made only a few examples. I am unaware of his blades being used as fighting implements anywhere in the world.

He published his report in 1841, but was transferred as a governor to Tomsk in 1847, where he could not continue his work.

After his departure production of bulat in Zlatoust has stopped: his instructions about the process were deliberately brief and incomplete. A couple of workers in Zlatoust who actually did the job, produced a small number of blades, and then it was just like in India and Iran: skill transfer stopped and the secret was lost again.

As an example of Anosov's bulat ( wootz) work, here is his famous hunting knife that he presented to British geologist Murchison who visited Zlatoust.
It was sold at Sothebys (?) for something like 50,000 GBP ( I might be wrong here, but the sum was obscenely high)

Another one is his shashka: look at the pattern, pretty coarse and simple.

It is bulat, no doubt, but in the best possible case it is Sham.

[mahratt]

Anosov received high quality wootz in a factory scale. Bulat (wootz) producted, blades - forged. Here is their description: "The tracery wootz are small, dark background - Taban"; "Large tracery wootz - Kara-Khorasan"; "Explicit patterns and large - Kara-Taban". Wootz steel production at the Zlatoust arms factory was massive. No wonder that Paul Petrovich Anosov in 1841 in preparation for printing his essay "On the Bulat" abandoned old Asian names, and introduced a new - "Russian Bulat (wootz)".

In Zlatoust weapon factory owned wootz steel forging technology, were able to properly temper the metal. Finished blades has a surprisingly high resistance and elasticity.

In 1839, its wootz weapons exhibited in St. Petersburg. Russian Bulat (wootz) gets great reviews at the third Moscow manufactory exhibition in 1843. Blades of Anosov Bulat (wootz) we tried to buy in collection of rich collectors of weapons of the 19th century.

Excellent reviews can be heard on all sides. For example, in 1851 at an exhibition in London exhibited Anosov wootz blades.

It is known that personally Anosov was made more than two dozen blades sabre and a plurality of blades knife of the Russian damask steel with excellent designs and Khorasan Kara-Taban. The fate of most of them is still unknown. Previously, a fairly complete collection was kept in the Hermitage, but now there is only one sword (Kara-taban) - Grand Duke Mikhail Pavlovich.

Once in 1847, Pavel Petrovich Anosov leaves the production plant in Zlatoust damask steel is sharply reduced. An indispensable assistant in smelting wootz Anosov was a master, Nikolai Shvetsov. After retiring Anosov he continued to producted wootz, but he was secretive man, and passed the secret of its manufacture only the eldest of his four sons (also, incidentally, worked as a blacksmith in Zlatoust), Pavel Shvetsov.
In the 1850s, damask steel Zlatoust has made only by special order. This is attributed to the fact that at that time started a broad campaign for casting artillery barrels, to which all industrial reserves of the country were thrown.

[ariel]

I would love to see a documented Anosov's blade with Taban or Khorasan pattern. In the absence of such, quotations from popular magazines carry very little value.

Not for nothing he presented his creations as "Russian bulat" instead of specific names. All of them that I know were of a simple Sham structure.

[Emanuel]

Verhoeven always merits a re-read :)

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html

[Jim McDougall]

Ariel, I must thank you for the detailed and well explained perspective on the obviously very complex circumstances of wootz and the many variations of its product blades.
Mahratt, I also thank you for the interesting perspective that you present on Anasov as well.
As someone who has studied weapons as long as I have, it is really a great pleasure to finally have a grasp of this complicated subject matter in at least much better degree.

What I truly appreciate is the inherent knowledge of the history and scientifically oriented substance on these subjects displayed by you guys as well as Estcrh, Emanuel and Kronckew.......I admire that very much.

While most of this data seems historically stable, there do seem to be some differences in the perceived nature of the blades in the type of patterns produced etc especially as concerns the profoundly important work of Mr. Anasov.

While these differences seem to be inconclusively determined, especially as these are mostly no longer available, or as it seems, several had been with further examination pending, these factors of course would be subject to varying views depending on the reviewer.

What is most beneficial to myself and other readers as these things are discussed, is the well thought out and presented views as seen here, which give us excellent perspective and supportive evidence for all sides.

It does seem almost metaphoric as these discussions are in essence being forged much as the blades, and being crafted in sort of the same way.
Fascinating! :)

[mahratt]

I would love to see a documented Anosov's blade with Taban or Khorasan pattern. In the absence of such, quotations from popular magazines carry very little value.

Not for nothing he presented his creations as "Russian bulat" instead of specific names. All of them that I know were of a simple Sham structure.

I do not support reading popular magazines and books published today. I prefer to read historical sources. So I read Anosov and what he wrote about his work. I think there is no doubt in the words Anosova?

I understand that many in the forum do not speak Russian, so I give the translation, the selected phrase:

1) etching on the plate (wootz) were large curls (tracery), "Kara-Khorasan". Another experiment was repeated with a simple iron. The same result was obtained. Resulting in a small plate wootz was also a "Kara-Khorasan".

2) Get the "Taban" (think about it, "Kara-Taban") with medium curls (tracery) and a dark background.

[Jens Nordlunde]

mahratt,
I am wondering why you use space on Vikingsword with Russian texts, whom only a handful of the members can read - maybe. If you want to quote thise texts, you should translate them to English - which is the language on this forum - or leave them out.

[mahratt]

mahratt,
I am wondering why you use space on Vikingsword with Russian texts, whom only a handful of the members can read - maybe. If you want to quote thise texts, you should translate them to English - which is the language on this forum - or leave them out.

Jens, forgive me. I do not blame that Anosov wrote in Russian and not English. I posted here page Anosova authentic work, that there was no doubt that I give precise citations (rather than data from popular magazines).

At the same time, I specifically gave at the beginning of the translation. Once again, I apologize

[ariel]

I have shown pictures of 2 Anosov's blades: both are Sham.
Any PICTURES of documented Anosov's blades with Taban or Khorasan?
Nothing less than that will suffice.

[mahratt]

I have shown pictures of 2 Anosov's blades: both are Sham.
Any PICTURES of documented Anosov's blades with Taban or Khorasan?
Nothing less than that will suffice.


I showed pages of authentic books Anosov of wootz (1841). I hope no one will argue that Anosov - written with no errors? (He understood the wootz) At the same time, I did not say that did not Anosov damask blades of Wootz steel such as "Sham". There were more than other blades. But did Anosov and "Kara-Khorasan" and "Taban".

On one blade of the "Kara-Khorasan" had 10-20 blades from "Sham". Can someone show 10 blades Anosova? I think the analogy is clear? Blades Anosov save too little. But Hermitage has blade Anosov of wootz steel "Kara Khorasan". Anyone can go to St. Petersburg and look at this blade.

[Jim McDougall]

The excellent entries continue, and Mahratt thank you for adding the translated captions to the Russian sources you provide.
However, you and Ariel are digressing from the theme of the thread.

As I have stated I am enjoying learning more about wootz, but while I think we have properly saluted Pavel Anosov for his outstanding contributions to bulat, I believe we can leave behind the business about which type of blades were produced by him.

Perhaps you and Ariel might find a way to return to the wootz topic beyond the Anosov fixation ?

Thanks again for the great entries outside this digression, and I think the conflicting views as I noted, give good perspective which might be pursued outside this discussion.

[ariel]

The REAL modern wootz!

I give you examples of bulat blades by a Georgian master Zaqro Nonikashvili.

[Emanuel]

Here is an excerpt from Ann Feuerbach's "Damascus Steel and Crucible Steel in Central Asia" American Society of Arms Collectors Bulletin 82.


The microstructure indicated that this was a high-carbon steel which was slowly cooled. Electron probe micro- analysis indicated that it contained small amounts of other elements, including manganese. This is significant because one of the most famous Damascus patterns is called Kara Khorasan (black Khorasan). In order to form this pattern, the original bulat needed to be high-carbon steel with specific impurities that was slowly cooled.
p.38


After many experiments with different plants and other carbon-containing substances, he [Anosov] concluded that the form of the carbon was unimportant but the amount of carbon in the steel was crucial...He concluded that steel should be pure in order to produce a pattern. This we now know to be true up to a certain point, but we also know that trace elements are necessary (Verhoeven et al., 1998, pp. 58-64), but these need to be present in an amount which Anosov was not able to detect. He studied the effect of titanium, manganese, silicon, chromium, silver, gold, aluminum and platinum. While performing these studies of alloys, he independently concluded that silicon effects the formation of graphite, that chromium increases the hardness and improves the finish and discovered the effects of other alloying elements....Anosov also discussed the characteristics of the shrinking phenomenon and the necessity of slow cooling for crystal growth as well as the necessity of repeated forging at low temperatures and the different methods of producing different patterns. Textual, archaeological, ethnographic and modern replication evidence shows that these methods can produce steel with a Damascus pattern. Anosov succeeded in producing Damascus steel swords with the characteristic pattern and properties, including swords that could cut silk in the air and bend to a 90 angle and spring back with no apparent structural damage...Anosov only lived long enough to publish an abridged version of his research. This paper, "On the Bulat", was published in the Russian Gorny Journal in 1841 and was translated into French and German in 1843 p.40

So the ore would have been important to the extent that it included trace amounts of manganese, silicon, phosphorus and other elements. These trace elements facilitated the creation of the dark bands seen in Kara Khorasan pattern. Greg Obach experimented with steels with trace quantities of these elements. See his results and decide if it's Khorasan or not :)

Simplistically then, we're discussing a base dendritic pattern in a high-carbon steel that is the result of the metal smelting process, through more or less slow cooling of a crucible charge heated to mostly liquid phase.

This is followed by a mechanical deformation of this pattern through the forging process, either by fullering, or grinding/cutting grooves into the blade. The grooves are flattened, resulting in the Mohamed's Ladder pattern. The same fullering process would be used on a homogeneous plain steel blade, you just don't get any pattern.

I guess the original Ladder pattern was simply the by-product of the drawing out process of the cake to a bar that could become a blade. A fuller may have been used at first to move the metal, while later grooves might have been cut into the bar on purpose to expose deeper layers and accentuate the patterns.

As far as I'm concerned then, Anosov understood the first step, producing the high-carbon crucible steel with visible pattern. He may not have known which trace elemental amounts were most effective at producing the darker contrast bands due to the technical limitations of his age.

Whether or not Anosov replicated the precise mechanical deformation in the second step is irrelevant to me. Modern smiths now understand both steps pretty well. Does the "secret" of whether you should strike the blade 40 times this way as opposed to 50 times the other way really matter? :shrug:

[Jim McDougall]

Very well said Emanuel!!! Thank you!!!:)

[mahratt]

Thank you, Emanuel!!!

[estcrh]

The REAL modern wootz!

I give you examples of bulat blades by a Georgian master Zaqro Nonikashvili.Here is a link to an excellent article which explains Zaqro Nonikashvili's "Georgian crucible steel technique".

http://ceroart.revues.org/2557?lang=en

[Emanuel]

Mind you, my comment is specifically about the kirk narduban, not the kara khorasan.

Thank you Ariel and Eric! Magnificent stuff!

[ariel]

Indeed, magnificent!

Just to think that the guy managed to reproduce the most difficult wootz patterns without having any theoretical ( written) or practical ( apprenticeship) help.

This is a work of a true genius. He is a Mozart of wootz.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams All, There is compelling evidence from all quarters in this very excellent thread for reasoned thoughts on the decline of Wootz including the invasion of central Asia thus the drop in demand..and the demographic detail illustrated graphically on the suspected demise of participants...I believe all of them. I suggest one was the trigger (drop in demand) and the other caused the specialty to vanish.(see paragraph 3 below)

On the demise of Wootz in particular I would point to the traditional aspect in craftsmanship of taking the children into a apprenticeship routine from a very young age and passing them out at about 16 years old as fully trained artesans. This means that the graph illustrated above is not so much floored but enhanced since the apprentice age factor or the point in the graph between perhaps 5 and 10 years old (at the point the Wootz making stops) breaks the traditional passing down of the technique... and destroys the apprenticeship concept. Thus as Ariel points out ..."It Withers".

How quickly can a passed down tradition vanish?... Take the Omani Weaving specialization which all but vanished and except for the intervention my one single individual it would have sunk without trace. The same could be said about silver-making in Oman when the leader of the country had to intervene by having at least one son of the silver-maker learn the apprenticeship... It is therefor very easy to lose these traditional methods very quickly since the apprentice window is very narrow and in particular when they are not written down. It would appear that Wootz blade manufacture fell under similar constraints. Without the demand and then without the apprenticeships the art was lost.

In support of the very quickly lost art of Wootz manufacturing please see http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/9809/verhoeven-9809.html
( also noted at #132 by Emanuel)
Quote."The smiths that produced the high-quality blades would most likely have kept the process for making these blades a closely guarded secret to be passed on only to their apprentices".Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[ALEX]

The REAL modern wootz!

I give you examples of bulat blades by a Georgian master Zaqro Nonikashvili.

Ariel,
I do not believe the top 2 images shown in above Post#140 are modern production. The lower image is more like it. I think the 2 above are closeups of genuine antique blades added for marketing purposes, as to show what wootz/bulat looks like, casually adding Zaqro Nonikashvili name into association.

[ALEX]

Ariel,
I do not believe the top 2 images shown in above Post#140 are modern production. The lower image is more like it. I think the 2 above are closeups of genuine antique blades added for marketing purposes, as to show what wootz/bulat looks like, casually adding Zaqro Nonikashvili name into association.


... just to be clear on who's who.

[ALEX]

here's closeup of a modern Indian-made Kard that can be picked up for under $200, and not the best by far. There are wootz(?) ingots with better "structure" readily available for less than $100. I do not understand what is the big deal with Russian geniuses creating unimaginable bulat masterpieces? Are they any different or am I missing something?

[estcrh]

Dagger with wootz steel blade by Zaqro Nonikashvili.

[ALEX]

Dagger with wootz steel blade by Zaqro Nonikashvili.

Wootz is refferred as Bulat in Russian. I am not sure of definition of Bulat related to wootz, but in terms of clasical wootz - i'd not call this blade as such. I know some people would call wootz anything crucible. I am not going by process or components, but by visual pattern, and this is not wootz pattern to me.
Granted, some modern masters produce wootz blades, and of relatively decent pattern, but still lacking complexity and effect of old "twootz of legend".

[ariel]

Alex,
King Erekle saber is a modern product with blade by Nonikashvili.
The "shams-y" bulat is, of course, on par with Anosov's. Nothing to write home about.

[ALEX]

Alex,
King Erekle saber is a modern product with blade by Nonikashvili.
The "shams-y" bulat is, of course, on par with Anosov's. Nothing to write home about.

Ariel,
Is that closeup really of that "new" sword? I do not think so. I believe it is of old Persian blade on original saber or else. Also, how do we know the "new" blade is actually modern? Did he make several like this, or this is only one he made, or did he use old wootz blade, applied gold inscriptions and fittings and called: "I made it".

[estcrh]

Alex,
King Erekle saber is a modern product with blade by Nonikashvili.
The "shams-y" bulat is, of course, on par with Anosov's. Nothing to write home about.

Here is the new replica sword by Studio Gotscha, 2009 and the original, the question is whether the second close up image is of the reproduction or the original, to me it appears to be a detailed image of the original.

[Emanuel]

Have a read through what the fiery beards are saying on crucible steel :) :
http://www.bladesmithsforum.com/index.php?showtopic=18364

And what I meant about the pattern visible in the cake, pre-forging out.

[Jim McDougall]

Ibrahiim, thank you for that outstanding synopsis bringing the essential theme topic back into the discussion. It has been an amazing discussion bringing together the many facets of this industry and the mysterious watered steel so sought after. It is amazing that even into our times there is research continuing.

I think that the focus on the Russian scientific and craftsmanship factors is most interesting and most likely the case because of the notable instances which pertain to the rediscovery of much of the wootz mystery. While obviously there are a good number of other areas involved, the work by Anosov in the research angles is of course key.

As with most industry and craftsmanship, there are likely to be many levels and degrees of quality and production. It is extremely interesting to see these pointed out in the observations and illustrations that continue being presented here.
Thank you!

[ariel]

I contacted Kirill Rivkin and asked him about Anosov's bulat. Kirill inspected Hermitage collection and many other collections of Anosov's blades and has first-hand knowledge.
Here is his e-mail:
__________________________________________________ ________
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 3:38 PM
To: Barkan, Ariel
Attachments:



Anosov claimed that he reproduced 11 different types of Bulat patterns;
the problem is that his definition of what each pattern means is very
different from what we tend to use today. For example, there is a sword in
Tsarskoe Selo collection which is signed "Amal Taban" which was held by
many as the definition of Taban pattern. However, this blade is not even
wootz; in fact most likely its a Georgian imitation of Assad Allah. During
Anosov's time the definition of wootz was very wide; he personally
included Japanese swords in this class, as well as many swords that were
classified in old Russian records as "red bulat" - but which today most
would not consider to be wootz. But even today people there are still
arguments, at the core of which is how separate are the terms "crucible
steel" and wootz. If we are to include some very basic crucible steel
patterns as wootz, then practically all Sheffield cutlery is wootz, it
just needs lots of acid, etc. If we are to concentrate of first class
Persian+ patterns from XVIIIth century as the "standard" of wootz, then it
is a much more narrow field.
Regarding the production of Zlatoust bulat, including those specifically
signed as Anosov's bulat, almost all was done in 1841-1845, i.e. a
relatively short time period. It is very low contrast (actually mechanical
damascus ones from the same period are much more showy), with relatively
short, straight lines (typically longer on higher quality swords, but
approaching "salt and pepper" on lower end stuff). Sometimes the lines are
curving a little. It is not that similar to what we would consider to be a
true Persian Taban today.

__________________________________________________ ______-

In view of this information obtained from a knowledgeable professional, quotations from Anosov's works as well as re-tellings of Anosov's testimonials by other people become highly questionable and cannot be relied upon.

Thus, actual documented examples of his "bulat" need to be seen by our own eyes.

[estcrh]

Have a read through what the fiery beards are saying on crucible steel :) :
http://www.bladesmithsforum.com/index.php?showtopic=18364

And what I meant about the pattern visible in the cake, pre-forging out.Emanual, there does seem to be a pattern there, heres what appears to be the whole process from crucible to ingot to yatagan blade with a detail view of the pattern created.

"Indian methode" by Dr. Zaqro Nonikashvili.

[ariel]

Good example. His wootz patterns are unsurpassable.
Once again, it shows the importance of the forging process: minute and pretty "mechanical" dendrites of the ingot are transformed into a complex pattern easily comparable to the best Persian examples.

Obviously, Anosov lacked this ability.

[mahratt]

For example, there is a sword in Tsarskoe Selo collection which is signed "Amal Taban" which was held by many as the definition of Taban pattern. However, this blade is not even wootz; in fact most likely its a Georgian imitation of Assad Allah.

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?

[ALEX]

Good example. His wootz patterns are unsurpassable.

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?

[ariel]

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?

[ALEX]

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.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Ibrahiim, thank you for that outstanding synopsis bringing the essential theme topic back into the discussion. It has been an amazing discussion bringing together the many facets of this industry and the mysterious watered steel so sought after. It is amazing that even into our times there is research continuing.

I think that the focus on the Russian scientific and craftsmanship factors is most interesting and most likely the case because of the notable instances which pertain to the rediscovery of much of the wootz mystery. While obviously there are a good number of other areas involved, the work by Anosov in the research angles is of course key.

As with most industry and craftsmanship, there are likely to be many levels and degrees of quality and production. It is extremely interesting to see these pointed out in the observations and illustrations that continue being presented here.
Thank you!

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/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html "Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Emanuel]

Once again, it shows the importance of the forging process: minute and pretty "mechanical" dendrites of the ingot are transformed into a complex pattern...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 (http://vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1410).

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

My definition of ‘wootz’ is: a simple carbon steel with over ~1.3% carbon, forged in such a way as to have banded carbide structures. (Others have slightly different definitions). This takes into account that we understand how to make wootz now, so the old definition is no longer sufficient. The classic ‘wootz’ pattern (how those old swords look) can be made from almost any dendritic steel, and perhaps in some cases from regular hi-carbon barstock, but with those materials the bands are not always saturated with iron carbides.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

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:-)

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

http://www.ghadar.in/gjh_html/?q=content/rise-and-fall-ancient-india%E2%80%99s-iron-and-steel-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.

[estcrh]

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

[Rashka Vatnik]

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?

Kirill Rivkin is right!

[Emanuel]

Cool thanks Eric.

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

Metallurgy rocks!!!

[estcrh]

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

[mahratt]

Kirill Rivkin is right!

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

[estcrh]

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.

FYI, I have held the blade that Anosov made for Faraday. It had a light sham-like pattern, however, the blade was overcleaned and that may be why the pattern was faint and only visable near the handle.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

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+Narduban&oq=Kirk+Narduban&aqs=chrome..69i57.5767j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[ariel]

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.


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

[ariel]

Here is the rendition from Wikepedia which sets down some basic principles and groundwork viz;

Quote: 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.

Bulat became popular in cannon manufacturing, until the Bessemer process was able to make the same quality steels for far less money.


Anosov.... eventually developed a methodology that greatly increased the hardness of his steels.


Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.


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.

[ariel]

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Feuerbach
FYI, I have held the blade that Anosov made for Faraday. It had a light sham-like pattern, however, the blade was overcleaned and that may be why the pattern was faint and only visable near the handle.

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

[estcrh]

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

[ariel]

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" :-)

[Gavin Nugent]

Wootz is refferred as Bulat in Russian. I am not sure of definition of Bulat related to wootz, but in terms of clasical wootz - i'd not call this blade as such.

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

Gavin

[ALEX]

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".

[ariel]

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?

[mahratt]

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").

[ariel]

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.

[mahratt]

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.

[Emanuel]

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?id=nyp.33433090772777;view=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

[ariel]

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"

[Emanuel]

Quite the impasse then Ariel.

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

[ariel]

Quite the impasse then Ariel.




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.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[ariel]

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".
+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.

[mahratt]

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.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

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.


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/articles/firearms-ii-production-of-cannon-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/2010/06/barrel-making-pattern-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.

[ariel]

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.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

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

[Jim McDougall]

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 :)

[ariel]

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

[Richard Furrer]

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 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

[Roland_M]

Again, you're right. Thank you for the interesting article. But I am interested to know whether there is a direct mention to the fact that wootz steel production ceased in those years, the 19th century. Stating the reasons :)


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

[Richard Furrer]

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

Roland, Then why were so many swords made from that material? Pretty only?

Ric

[ariel]

Richard,

Perhaps, crucible technology was the only one available to them in the pre-industrial age. Any small time village smith could construct an oven in his backyard and put there a dozen or two of crucibles.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Richard for entering in on this, and it is I think a key thing to have an actual blacksmith's view on the matters we have been discussing here. Your entries are absolutely fascinating, and the observations that begun the thread with Mahratt's original question and the quite dynamic discussions have brought this entire topic to what I think is a pretty exciting and comprehensive look into this mysterious steel.

It has been clear that experienced collectors and researchers such as Mahratt and Ariel would have often different perspectives, and these as well as those who have also joined the discussions have really brought much of the 'mystery' into a most viably understandable topic.

As I have noted, I began here with virtually zero comprehension of wootz itself beyond the obvious classifications and terms in descriptions. Others, such as Ibrahiim, who have had varying degrees of knowledge have also continued researching material and literature for ideas and answers.

This includes of course Roland who has just come in and of course with sound observations, and Alex, Gav, and others whose input has been great in facilitating the discussion.
As always, Estcrh adds vibrant visual aid with the amazing illustrations he provides and accompanied by excellent insights.

I did not mean this to sound like movie credits:) but just wanted to note what a magnificent learning opportunity has been created here by the expertise and teamwork of all of you, and to thank you.

Please keep going!!! It is fascinating and fun to learn more.


Very best regards
Jim

[Richard Furrer]

Jim,
I have been smithing for 26? years and making crucible steel for some 15-17 now and it may be that I have closed my mind to ideas and techniques outside what I currently use....I am not the gate keeper of this information so one can only take my word for so much.
That said I am forging some 22 pounds of crucible steel this week into swords. Just killed a $200 carbide saw blade cutting one ingot apart to see its inside structure.

I have read most of what has been written and translated in English and some which has not, but my major push for research ended some years ago and I now have settled on a technique which works for me. What I see from travelers accounts of old may be taken with a grain of salt...some read poorly and some read fancifully and some read like VCR instructions. We all chose to believe the ones with which we agree.
I know quote a bit about Japanese sword making and yet when I get the odd chance to sit down with a Japanese tosho I always come away with more picky questions than answers and such the nature of the minutia. I wish I could have a window into an old fort smithy in Jodhpur or Isfahan when they were in business, but such is not to be. I can say this with some argument :They knew their material better than we ever will. What I do is guess and experiment and guess some more. Having not grown up in an unbroken tradition means that some things will simply never be known.

I think swords were a specialty and not a common blacksmith item to produce. Surely there were production centers and blade makers got the steel from steelmakers. Blade making is not a common blacksmith trade...if you made general smithed goods such as kitchen utensils/horse shoes then you did not also make swords...swords are a speciality.

Ariel....I would think it VERY rare for one man to do it all.
Though I may make a few ingots from time to time and also make bloomery steel with a mud stack and charcoal I think more likely that the blade maker would purchase the steel and not make it themselves. Production centers may have it all in line...what we call "horizontal manufacturing" today where raw material comes in one end and finished goods out the other. I would think some areas had this, but a lone smith was far too isolated to do such and think a sword maker alone would be rather out of luck to do it all himself. Weapons are something a government controls and weapon makers would be under some laws.......certainly if a village smith were making the odd sword the villagers would be asking for whom he is making it and why that person needs a sword. No I rather think swords were done by groups who specialized in it......till war comes and then EVERYONE is conscripted into some form of weapon production or civil service (wagon parts, general metal items of need).
Ariel you are only one state away.....yet you never visit. Then again I do not get many visitor at all...location location location.

Mahratt,
I have no answer for you. Have not seen any document that would give an end date to crucible steel production nor a reason why such occurred. I would think it like many other trades...it waxes and wains with utility and cost and fashion. I think the lack of a raw material (ore source running out) for such a large production area and time period just plane wrong. I think it far more likely that there is a political and economic reason rather than the elimination of a single ore source.

Ric

[ariel]

Richard,
Thanks for the detailed response.
I did not imply that every ( or any) village blacksmith was making blades from crucible ingots he himself produced in his backyard.

Your question was why so many blades were made of wootz, and that is exactly what I tried to address.

While European steel makers were constantly switching from one technology to another, obtaining more and more of better and cheaper steel faster and faster with progressively decreasing human effort, India and other Eastern societies never reached industrial scale of steel manufacture till the second half of 19 century when the Brits introduced modern technologies there. The "natives" relied on the tried and true cheap and universally-available crucible technology that did not require huge investments in equipment. That could have been done in workshops attached to Royal courts or even in smaller establishments.

Thus, the major portion of steel they produced was crucible steel, and a good portion of it was real wootz.

In a way ( just IMHO) mass production of wootz blades was a pure serendipity: crucible steel was abundant and at the same time beautiful, so making blades out of it was like killing two birds with one stone. In a way, that was similar to the story with bloomery steel: the process was indescribably primitive, resulting in inhomogeneous lump of steel with different carbon content in different areas . But sorting out these small lumps, forging them together and manipulating them produced pattern welded blades in Europe and Nihon-to in Japan.

And people say it is impossible to make a silk purse out of pig's ear :-)))

And you have honestly and beautifully elucidated the importance of uninterrupted tradition: you have been making wootz for "only" 15-17 years and learned the process from scratch. The "natives" were doing it for hundreds of years and transmitting the combined knowledge to their apprentices. A loss of only one generation would throw the whole level of expertise back to the beginning. And that, together with other external factors you have mentioned, killed the whole tradition.

[estcrh]

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..............


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

Roland, actually crucible steel was known and made in England much earlier than the mid 19th century. So if England had crucible steel since the 1700s why were they still looking for the secret of Indian crucible steel? Perhaps because they thought of Indian crucible steel as being a superior steel, why else?

A History of Small Business in America, Mansel G. Blackford, 2003

[ariel]

Not every steel obtained by crucible technology is equivalent to wootz.
For example, steel from Sheffild "pots" was poured off immediately after melting; slow cooling was not practiced. Forging of Sheffield steel was done at high temperature.
I was told that old Sheffield blades may show very faint, simple and patchy damaskus pattern if etched severely , but nobody ever managed to elicit real wootz-y pattern.

[mahratt]

The "natives" were doing it for hundreds of years and transmitting the combined knowledge to their apprentices. A loss of only one generation would throw the whole level of expertise back to the beginning. And that, together with other external factors you have mentioned, killed the whole tradition.

One simple question. Where "lost" this generation?

Moreover, the tradition is usually stored for a long time.

[kronckew]

Not every steel obtained by crucible technology is equivalent to wootz.
For example, steel from Sheffild "pots" was poured off immediately after melting; slow cooling was not practiced. Forging of Sheffield steel was done at high temperature.
I was told that old Sheffield blades may show very faint, simple and patchy damaskus pattern if etched severely , but nobody ever managed to elicit real wootz-y pattern.

english crucible steel was good,but it wasn't quite carling. (local uk joke)

i suspect the best true indian wootz may have had a crucial alloying element like vanadium that the UK didn't discover was usefull till much later.

i also suspect that, as i mentioned earlier, the secrets were NOT past down and were lost because a generation went to the city and got easier and better paid jobs in industry, offices, factories etc. where they could hide their low caste and rise above it. we do not realise in the west how limiting the indian caste system was (and is in places) and how attractive breaking out of it into a western meritocracy system that did not force them to pound iron for pennies all their lives would be. in the uneducated and illiterate environment, there was no way to 'store' the knowledge if your son did not want to learn it and ran off.

[ariel]

True enough.

[Battara]

A very good point Kronckew!

[ausjulius]

after reading though this discussion, i will just share my general observation at least based on knife making and knife and its economics.


it is no mystery as to why bulat/wootz disappeared with so little fanfare.

the steels made in europe already in the 18th century were superior to other made in the world.

science being applied in their production and treatment..

if you have worked with "smith made" steel you will know why the world became hooked on european steels..

sith made steel is a different surprise every time..
with working tools its always a surprise .. many times a nasty surprise.. which transfers on to the maker of the tools. failures in blades tools ect.. hurt your reputation.

making the superior steel that you were sure of its quality for a thin edge only was the normal practice most tools outside of europe at this time..
wedging it in iron.

time consuming.. a full blade like a sword in a good steel was a very costly item to make..


suddenly you could buy a superior steel in a formed bar or rod for a fraction of the price and it was a reliable material..
you could forge full blade form it for a fraction of the price.


sout east asian blades are a good example ...lamination of tools and smelting of ones own steel stopped almost instantly when european steel arrived.



bulat/wootz became old hat - uninteresting and the new steel pushed it aside.

a bulat blade can not survive the same harsh treatment as the blade of a regular cavalry blade made in 1800 form some reputable european maker.

in a period when swords were still used this becomes completely apparent.

handguns as well replacing edged weapons as status symbols and for personal weapons.

in places where there was a strong cultural or religious tradition for an exotic blade material like japan or indonesia.. or due to isolation like tibet.. laminated or pattern welded blades still remained common...

in india wootz was popular because it was a superior steel.. its pattern was the secondary reason it was popular.. in central asia.. iran... afghanistan it was all the same as well.

wars and chaos. afghanistan. nations in what is now india... iran.. economic disruption ect..
many things changed in this time..

you can also look at glass production.. european production totally surpassed local production at this same time as well.. previously a expensive product became cheap better quality and available to all.

if you collect playing cards . its the same time that european playing cards replaced middle eastern cards as well. mass production... better quality, cheaper price.

this was a period of economic change in the world.

just look at how all these specialized skills died out in europe after ww1 and ww2
just gone over such a short perior.. many of their markets disappeared form one day to the next..

british raj were not buying fine bespoke products any more.. the worlds aristocracy disappeared, there was no wealthy gentry going in safari.. no exotically dressed bodyguards..
ect ect ect..


this can happen in 1 year.. the craftsmen disperse so do their techniques the client network gone... the item will vanish.. and then 100 years later we will discuss it nostalgically.
but its process is lost to us, and we will view it as some mystery. as many of these things take many many small specialized steps.. if things are not performed constantly they are lost in a decade or less.

[ariel]

Exactly my thoughts.

[mahratt]

I see no one reads closely to each other ... I did not write that after the mid-19th century, preserved the mass production of wootz steel. I fully agrees that economic reasons have led to the disappearance of the mass production of wootz weapons.
But can not talk about the disappearance production of weapons of wootz steelin the middle of the 19th century, as there is evidence proving that the Central Asian weapons of wootz steel produced before the end of the 19th century.

[ariel]

How does "middle of the 19th century" differ from " before the end of the 19th century"?

And what is the relevance of Central Asia to the original question of Indian wootz?

As we speak, dozens of bladesmiths around the world ( India included) produce wootz of variable quality. Is it an argument in favor of " wootz manufacture never died" proposition?

Is it possible to be more precise in posing questions and choosing arguments?


Just curious.

[mahratt]

To make it clearer. The middle of the 19th century - the year 1850. End of 19th century - 1899. The difference in half a century - is essential.
Communication between Central Asia and India is simple. If the Central Asian weapons of wootz steel made before the end of the 19th century (although it was not mass-produced), then in India is the production of locally could be preserved.

[ariel]

I fully agree: wootz production in India "died" sometimes between 1850-1899 .
That was said multiple times before. Shall we go in the middle , agree on June 30, 1874 and leave it like that?

Unless, of course, notarized letters of eye witnesses of actual forging can be presented:-) Could, would and should have no evidentiary value.

Taking into account that most of Central Asian wootz blades were of obvious Persian manufacture, that several informers mention Persian origin of wootz CA blades, and that, AFAIK, there is no well-documented evidence of wootz production there, aside of Ann Feuerbach's finding of ancient crucibles, the continuation of wootz production in the Khanates and in Afghanistan at the above-mentioned period is not proven.

Continuing this discussion is akin to a sandbox argument who would win in a wrestling match : a whale or an elephant?

Count me out:-)))))

[mahratt]

The fact that someone has not yet proved the fact of wootz steel production in the late 19th century in Central Asia and Afghanistan, does not mean that it was not. There is growing evidence to prove that at the end of the 19th century in this region produced of wootz weapons .

But, of course, can believe the old dogmas :) Of course it is easier than most to analyze and carry out research)))))

So I think really, to continue the discussion does not make sense.

[ariel]

Yup, I am into old dogmas of factual evidence.
Please continue your "research" and enlighten us with your "discoveries" when they are ripe enough for informed discussion.
BTW, how is your theory on dating Afghani weapons by the presence or absence of brass elements? Still working on it? I am still intrigued by it.

[mahratt]

Yup, I am into old dogmas of factual evidence.
Please continue your "research" and enlighten us with your "discoveries" when they are ripe enough for informed discussion.
BTW, how is your theory on dating Afghani weapons by the presence or absence of brass elements? Still working on it? I am still intrigued by it.

Do not worry. Once an article is finally ready, I will introduce it in English.

And you continue to hold on to the old "information", although as it turns out that often "It’s still all up in the air"

[Jim McDougall]

This thread is so 'SHAVER KOOL' !!!!! :)
Yawn!

[Rick]

The above posts were deleted because they were beneath the level of discourse expected and accepted here.
Just stop. :mad:

[ariel]

After so many years, just an offer of a pleasant read.

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/1896416/Feuerbach_JOM_Archaeotech.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DCrucible_Damascus _Steel_A_Fascination_fo.pdf&Expires=1606019289&Signature=dVPlyrb35upaL7sqhF5mPpXMokxRPu-42CFY~gzyY6-XKtJvEIXTN5hbvriGKBwwG~CuxBMn-WGNb-kmHXKx7MksXpf1aYRqYXX5OJ2EMPimA-KGhJh~14UA9WKEJC~afsXIPtzPu6DthLFGQs10HOmKKZ5mkg0T K36RFqZt6gz9yy-xmL7XvcSgYLPyPDzO5RBVTWzc3kDFtMEzkfupplnL1FjscVuAn osOP6~F024zSCy-hSSWWpW7S1wXXayo21h2ePIhKR2HVurcXbLjaQ6SABRGN89i6O KVXA~tgiIS1SzmEnMR4TLZCugKKQGT9JlmCEkCnZ2Szm0Z7Xq4 cQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

If anybody knows all that had ever been written about wootz and is capable of understanding the intricacies of the topic,- it is unquestionably Ann Feuerbach.
A very short, understandable article about history of wootz research, the search for its composition ( alloy of iron and carbon) that was known at least 20 years before Anosov who is customarily credited for it, and other piquant and not well-known details, areas of uncertainty etc, - in short: read it!
I enjoyed it enormously, and so will you.

[Ian]

Sorry Ariel. Just reports a string of "Access denied." That link is a total dud for me.

[ariel]

I checked it after posting it here and it worked. Now it is “ access denied”:-(((
Internet is playing nasty games.

Try go directly to
Ann Feuerbach “Crucible Damascus Steel: a fascination for almost 2,000 years”

[mariusgmioc]

I checked it after posting it here and it worked. Now it is “ access denied”:-(((
Internet is playing nasty games.

Try go directly to
Ann Feuerbach “Crucible Damascus Steel: a fascination for almost 2,000 years”

Thank you Ariel!

With a little effort I managed to download this article and a couple more. Very interesting reading indeed and very easy to read.
:)

[ariel]

Great!
Can you download it here for everybody to enjoy?

[mariusgmioc]

Great!
Can you download it here for everybody to enjoy?

I am not sure I am allowed to. :confused:

Better let everybody who is really interested download it directly from Ann Feuerbach website on Accademia.

Ann Feuerbach wrote so many more very interesting articles. I also recommend "Indo-Persian Blades in the Collection of E. Gene Beall" (I am reading now one about damascening and koftgari). ;)

https://ncc.academia.edu/AnnFeuerbach

[Ian]

Thanks mariusgmioc. I have downloaded several of Ann's publications so that, if any links get broken, we can share those articles here directly. Ann's original PhD thesis is also available via marius' link. An excellent thesis BTW, which is richly illustrated.

Ann is a member of this Forum and has written here several times, although not recently.

[Tim Mitchell]

I normally hang out on FB and the Bladesmithsforum but I recently came across this thread which I somehow missed. It has been a pretty good discussion of the topic which is vague at best in historical and academic circles.

For those of you who don’t know me, I have been making wootz for about 18 years now, and I was originally mentored by Al Pendray in making wootz. I have also been researching and mentoring smiths for most of that time.

I think it wonderful that browsing this thread I found references which I hadn’t seen before and information which I hadn’t considered. These sort of discussions help everyone to learn more and I have enjoyed the discussion greatly, even the light verbal sparring.

I would like to share from my knowledge and experience on the topic, with the realisation that there were many things which affected the decline of wootz and even the assumption that it totally died out is likely false. It never totally dies out until the last person who saw an ancestor making ingots and forging out blades, who is making them themselves… dies.

That being said, we have lost specific information about how specific patterns were extracted from ingots, there is no dispute there.

The last mention in print which I am aware of concerning the making of wootz ingots is from C. Ritter Von Schwarz in 1901. He was in charge of iron production in Bengal during the end of the 19th century. He said the industry was mostly dead but that it was still being made in Lalitpur, Narsinghpur, Mahabaleshwar, Shivamogga, Kardur, Chitradura, and other districts of India. If anyone would have known the state of the industry at that time it would have been him. This was from Stahl und Eisen #21 1901.

I have not found any mention after this point. If it was still being produced at these locations in India in 1901 then it would have slowly tapered off for several decades afterwards. Sharada Shrinivasan interviewed a smith in Telangana who worked wootz steel as a youth. His precise age is not known as far as I have heard, but if we assume he is in his 80s, say 85, and he was 15 or older when he was forging wootz.. reasonable assumptions… then he was likely forging wootz as part of his community around 1950. There are also other smiths according to her who remember the time when wootz was worked.

The reasons for the decline of production is far from simple. I can tell you for a certainty that it was not the “ore deposit running out” which was only ever a very casual theory and should have been remembered as such. There is no evidence at all for such a conclusion.

These were the main reasons for the decline:

1) westernisation of warfare required fewer edged weapons
2) systematic efforts of the British to force dependance in technology and industry and goods upon the Indian people. It was total subjugation with bans on exports of goods in the 1800s including wootz export. They did everything to crush traditional industry and knowledge networks.
3) Famines and food scarcities caused by the high taxation of the British and monopolisation of the food as well as pushing farmers to make cash crops not food crops. This happened between 1770 and 1850s. People were trying to survive and the artisans struggled heavily at this time.
4) deforestation by poor management by the British caused an ecological disaster which then required a poorly executed Forest Act in 1865 and bans on free access to wood for making charcoal. This drove the price of charcoal high and affected the bloomery iron industry and the wootz industry.
5) corruption mentioned by Voysey of the land owners causing crucible steel price hikes.
6) the British flooding the market with cheap steel and iron from England caused less of a demand for wootz steel and as export of the steel was banned in the mid 1800s only small amounts could be made and sold in the local Indian market.
7) the westernisation of India promoted a taste for English steel utensils and a lowering of demand for traditional wootz products. Not sure how much this would have affected things but it would have been a factor.
8) Labour being taken for building railroads and being used for portage would have interrupted the ability of the iron working artisans to ply their trade.

There are other reasons which I haven’t mentioned but these are the main ones.

Concerning Mongolian wootz, it is actually true that crucible steel blades were made in Mongolia. It was called Ginte-Bulat and a Russian language paper was written on the subject by Puravzhal Bayasgolan in 2002. She showed sufficient evidence for it’s existence and it was high in Molybdenum and Tungsten from the ores which were used in the local area.


The pattern of wootz steel blades today is every bit as good as the blades in past centuries. Not all surface patterns have been fully replicated but many have.

The dendritic pattern of the ingot is formed during slow solidification of the ingot and then it is the smith who controls what that pattern will become. Forging temperatures are the key to getting the pattern to either stay crystalline, or become watered. If you don’t forge high enough then the pattern will stay crystalline. So I can tell by looking at old blades at what approximate temperature they forged the ingot at initially.

Forging it high enough converts the dendritic pattern to a watered pattern. This was Al’s secret and it is very subtly in the last few papers if you know where to look. The other characteristics of the surface patterns are determined by carbon content in the ingot, specific trace elements such as Phosphorus, Nobium, Vanadium, Manganese, molybdenum, Chromium etc. Different elements create different surface pattern characteristics. Then depending on how you forge and heat treat the steel you will get varied pattern types or looks. This is separate to surface deformation, how close you forge to your final blade shape, whether you grind more on the edge and even possibly the shape of the ingot or if you mainly forge on one side of the ingot.

All these things, and if you roast the ingot or not, affect the final pattern. Wootz ingots were made in India, Persia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Northern India, Turkey and several other places.. The different trace elements in those ingots affected how good the blade could be if forged by a good smith and heat treated properly. The patterns are intimately linked to the quality of the blade and how they will perform, and the only reason that we haven’t duplicated some patterns of old exactly is that we don’t have analysis of the blades and we haven’t replicated ingots with that chemistry. When we take Mn loaded steel and expect to get patterns like some of the old blades we just are dreaming. The Persian steel had more Mn in it because of the sulphur in the ore, the old Persian recipes included pyrolusite (MnO), so we can tell often if a blade was of Persian or Indian steel. There is a pattern difference.

[ariel]

I was re-reading this topic and re-thinking the info.

The issue under discussion is in fact truly analogous to the pharmacokinetic model of half-life. During a period peculiar to each and every drug, its concentration decreases by half: 100% at zero time, 50% at one half life, 25% at two half-lives etc. Thus, after 6 half-lives no matter what, it declines to ~1.5% of its initial concentration, i.e. below any biological effect.

After~1850, when the numbers of bladesmiths progressively declined, the technology gradually also died out. One or two remaining bladesmiths might have produced negligible number of daggers, but could not recruit sufficient numbers of students, who witnessed wootz-making as a career dead end. Thus, after several more years wootz-making truly and permanently went Dodo.

However, it can artificially be restored: renewed interest in wootz resulted in re-appearance of masters, trying to resurrect wootz technology. Sometimes it may even result in the creation of decent wootz daggers, but as we can see virtually nothing of the "Assadulla" caliber appeared on the market. Old masters needed a century or two of experience of several uninterrupted generations of predecessors to figure out crucial tricks, but contemporary masters do not have such luxury. Regretfully, their overall numbers are small and so are the numbers of their students. We shall have to wait another 100-200 years to see if the technology of wootz bladesmithing gets truly revived. But will anyone care?

Anosov had it easy: the composition of steel ( iron+carbon) was figured out by Faraday 20 years before, and Capt. Masalsky went to Persia in 1837 for a short-term specific assignment to record every step of making wootz ingots ( early example of industrial espionage). Interestingly, both Masalsky and Anosov published their papers in the same issue of " Mining Journal" in 1841: Masalsky about making wootz ingots and Anosov about " his" method of obtaining wootz ( re-phrazed Masalsky's report) and forging them into blades. He sent a gift to Faraday (a yataghan with the ugliest handle I have ever seen and a blade with barely sham-like snippets of wootz in some places, likely due to incorrect temperature control) together with the accompanying letter. Anosov desperately tried to ingratiate himself to Faraday, to the point of thanking him for “flattering remarks” in one of Faraday’s lectures, whereas Faraday (AFAIK) never mentioned "his" allegedly “wootz” method. The accompanying message he sent to Faraday through Murchison is also quite the same: “...he begs to send to you as a proof of his admiration of your discoveries & of the value of your researches.”

Faraday apparently never responded to Anosov, at the very least there is no copy of such a letter in the detailed and voluminous archives of Faraday's correspondence.

[mahratt]

I normally hang out on FB and the Bladesmithsforum but I recently came across this thread which I somehow missed. It has been a pretty good discussion of the topic which is vague at best in historical and academic circles.

For those of you who don’t know me, I have been making wootz for about 18 years now, and I was originally mentored by Al Pendray in making wootz. I have also been researching and mentoring smiths for most of that time.

I think it wonderful that browsing this thread I found references which I hadn’t seen before and information which I hadn’t considered. These sort of discussions help everyone to learn more and I have enjoyed the discussion greatly, even the light verbal sparring.

I would like to share from my knowledge and experience on the topic, with the realisation that there were many things which affected the decline of wootz and even the assumption that it totally died out is likely false. It never totally dies out until the last person who saw an ancestor making ingots and forging out blades, who is making them themselves… dies.

That being said, we have lost specific information about how specific patterns were extracted from ingots, there is no dispute there.

The last mention in print which I am aware of concerning the making of wootz ingots is from C. Ritter Von Schwarz in 1901. He was in charge of iron production in Bengal during the end of the 19th century. He said the industry was mostly dead but that it was still being made in Lalitpur, Narsinghpur, Mahabaleshwar, Shivamogga, Kardur, Chitradura, and other districts of India. If anyone would have known the state of the industry at that time it would have been him. This was from Stahl und Eisen #21 1901.

I have not found any mention after this point. If it was still being produced at these locations in India in 1901 then it would have slowly tapered off for several decades afterwards. Sharada Shrinivasan interviewed a smith in Telangana who worked wootz steel as a youth. His precise age is not known as far as I have heard, but if we assume he is in his 80s, say 85, and he was 15 or older when he was forging wootz.. reasonable assumptions… then he was likely forging wootz as part of his community around 1950. There are also other smiths according to her who remember the time when wootz was worked.

The reasons for the decline of production is far from simple. I can tell you for a certainty that it was not the “ore deposit running out” which was only ever a very casual theory and should have been remembered as such. There is no evidence at all for such a conclusion.

These were the main reasons for the decline:

1) westernisation of warfare required fewer edged weapons
2) systematic efforts of the British to force dependance in technology and industry and goods upon the Indian people. It was total subjugation with bans on exports of goods in the 1800s including wootz export. They did everything to crush traditional industry and knowledge networks.
3) Famines and food scarcities caused by the high taxation of the British and monopolisation of the food as well as pushing farmers to make cash crops not food crops. This happened between 1770 and 1850s. People were trying to survive and the artisans struggled heavily at this time.
4) deforestation by poor management by the British caused an ecological disaster which then required a poorly executed Forest Act in 1865 and bans on free access to wood for making charcoal. This drove the price of charcoal high and affected the bloomery iron industry and the wootz industry.
5) corruption mentioned by Voysey of the land owners causing crucible steel price hikes.
6) the British flooding the market with cheap steel and iron from England caused less of a demand for wootz steel and as export of the steel was banned in the mid 1800s only small amounts could be made and sold in the local Indian market.
7) the westernisation of India promoted a taste for English steel utensils and a lowering of demand for traditional wootz products. Not sure how much this would have affected things but it would have been a factor.
8) Labour being taken for building railroads and being used for portage would have interrupted the ability of the iron working artisans to ply their trade.

There are other reasons which I haven’t mentioned but these are the main ones.

Concerning Mongolian wootz, it is actually true that crucible steel blades were made in Mongolia. It was called Ginte-Bulat and a Russian language paper was written on the subject by Puravzhal Bayasgolan in 2002. She showed sufficient evidence for it’s existence and it was high in Molybdenum and Tungsten from the ores which were used in the local area.


The pattern of wootz steel blades today is every bit as good as the blades in past centuries. Not all surface patterns have been fully replicated but many have.

The dendritic pattern of the ingot is formed during slow solidification of the ingot and then it is the smith who controls what that pattern will become. Forging temperatures are the key to getting the pattern to either stay crystalline, or become watered. If you don’t forge high enough then the pattern will stay crystalline. So I can tell by looking at old blades at what approximate temperature they forged the ingot at initially.

Forging it high enough converts the dendritic pattern to a watered pattern. This was Al’s secret and it is very subtly in the last few papers if you know where to look. The other characteristics of the surface patterns are determined by carbon content in the ingot, specific trace elements such as Phosphorus, Nobium, Vanadium, Manganese, molybdenum, Chromium etc. Different elements create different surface pattern characteristics. Then depending on how you forge and heat treat the steel you will get varied pattern types or looks. This is separate to surface deformation, how close you forge to your final blade shape, whether you grind more on the edge and even possibly the shape of the ingot or if you mainly forge on one side of the ingot.

All these things, and if you roast the ingot or not, affect the final pattern. Wootz ingots were made in India, Persia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Northern India, Turkey and several other places.. The different trace elements in those ingots affected how good the blade could be if forged by a good smith and heat treated properly. The patterns are intimately linked to the quality of the blade and how they will perform, and the only reason that we haven’t duplicated some patterns of old exactly is that we don’t have analysis of the blades and we haven’t replicated ingots with that chemistry. When we take Mn loaded steel and expect to get patterns like some of the old blades we just are dreaming. The Persian steel had more Mn in it because of the sulphur in the ore, the old Persian recipes included pyrolusite (MnO), so we can tell often if a blade was of Persian or Indian steel. There is a pattern difference.

Thank you very much, Tim Mitchell

Unfortunately, I missed your excellent answer and only saw it now. So I bring you my thanks very belatedly.
It's nice to read such a detailed and sensible comment, in which all the information is as useful as possible and there are no unnecessary arguments that are not related to my question.
I have already placed an order for a German magazine with the article you wrote about, so I look forward to being able to study the contents of the article.

[Drabant1701]

I was re-reading this topic and re-thinking the info.

The issue under discussion is in fact truly analogous to the pharmacokinetic model of half-life. During a period peculiar to each and every drug, its concentration decreases by half: 100% at zero time, 50% at one half life, 25% at two half-lives etc. Thus, after 6 half-lives no matter what, it declines to ~1.5% of its initial concentration, i.e. below any biological effect.

After~1850, when the numbers of bladesmiths progressively declined, the technology gradually also died out. One or two remaining bladesmiths might have produced negligible number of daggers, but could not recruit sufficient numbers of students, who witnessed wootz-making as a career dead end. Thus, after several more years wootz-making truly and permanently went Dodo.

However, it can artificially be restored: renewed interest in wootz resulted in re-appearance of masters, trying to resurrect wootz technology. Sometimes it may even result in the creation of decent wootz daggers, but as we can see virtually nothing of the "Assadulla" caliber appeared on the market. Old masters needed a century or two of experience of several uninterrupted generations of predecessors to figure out crucial tricks, but contemporary masters do not have such luxury. Regretfully, their overall numbers are small and so are the numbers of their students. We shall have to wait another 100-200 years to see if the technology of wootz bladesmithing gets truly revived. But will anyone care?

Anosov had it easy: the composition of steel ( iron+carbon) was figured out by Faraday 20 years before, and Capt. Masalsky went to Persia in 1837 for a short-term specific assignment to record every step of making wootz ingots ( early example of industrial espionage). Interestingly, both Masalsky and Anosov published their papers in the same issue of " Mining Journal" in 1841: Masalsky about making wootz ingots and Anosov about " his" method of obtaining wootz ( re-phrazed Masalsky's report) and forging them into blades. He sent a gift to Faraday (a yataghan with the ugliest handle I have ever seen and a blade with barely sham-like snippets of wootz in some places, likely due to incorrect temperature control) together with the accompanying letter. Anosov desperately tried to ingratiate himself to Faraday, to the point of thanking him for “flattering remarks” in one of Faraday’s lectures, whereas Faraday (AFAIK) never mentioned "his" allegedly “wootz” method. The accompanying message he sent to Faraday through Murchison is also quite the same: “...he begs to send to you as a proof of his admiration of your discoveries & of the value of your researches.”

Faraday apparently never responded to Anosov, at the very least there is no copy of such a letter in the detailed and voluminous archives of Faraday's correspondence.

Now i am curios. Is there a picture of the yatagan Anosov sent to Faraday?

[ariel]

Now i am curios. Is there a picture of the yatagan Anosov sent to Faraday?
Yes.
I have a detailed series of those pics, but I signed a nondisclosure agreement with the source that is valid till I have a written permission to reproduce them in my slowly written paper:-(

However, there are pics of a dagger gifted by Anosov to a British geologist Roderick Murchison sold by Bonhams in 2008 for $56,017 ( premium included, $73,234 inflation corrected). By far the best example of Anosov's wootz structure.

[Ian]

We have strayed from the original topic of this thread and it seems appropriate to call a halt here. If someone wants to present new data on the topic, then starting a new thread would be appropriate. Discussion in this thread is now closed.