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:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mahratt
Termination production of wootz steel means the cessation of the production of wootz steel blades?
|
So do the old accounts refer to the production of the wootz/bulat metal ingots or to the bladesmithing of the sword. Same for museums, does the stated/published provenance refer to the date of accession of the sword to the museum's collection, or the date of the sword's production in the cartouche/stamp?
Consider that by mid 19th century, the British Raj was rolling out railway throughout India. Producing rail stock required modern European industrial methods, not the local artisanal ones. Once a modern steel making industrial process was setup for the rail, it made sense to continue its application to everything else. Therefore the artisanal bloomery steel and phulad/bulat/wootz/crucible steel was rendered fully obsolete. By early 1900s Tata Iron and Steel Company was already setup and producing modern steels for the British.
Possibly wootz ingot production continued sporadically into the late-19th century and beyond where patronage by some Raja families continued and where the craft was able to live on.
I see no reason why wootz sword production would not have continued sporadically until later, whenever wootz ingots were available. There must have been some demand from Raja families, elites, and Sikhs in Rajasthan and elsewhere in spite of the influx of European blades and modern steeles on the markets.
Emanuel