Hi Folks,
1. I am beginning to think that we are rapidly reaching an impasse because of a lack of what can be considered sufficient studies on enough samples to be representative of Wootz swords - Especially those that were more than just eye candy. Nevertheless, we can state with some confidence the following:
a) In the absence of new knowledge, the quench hardening of hypereutectoid (>0.8%C) Wootz would have presented the ancients with enough problems to render the process quite haphazard - Whilst it is conceivable that some smiths could consistently estimate the lowest Austenitization temperature by the colour of the heated steel, a bit too much heat and some of the carbides re-disolved leading to retained Austenite after quenching (very undesirable);
b) That whilst unquenched hypereutectoid Woots can be work-hardened, the hardness obtainable would have been insufficient to produce swords capable of cutting through armour, or for that matter, knives and tools (say woodworking or stone cutting) with a sufficiently keen/hard edge to be truly functional;
c) Quenching/tempering and the attendant superior qualities thus attainable were sufficiently well known in antiquity, for Indian and Middle Eastern smiths to ignore and be satisfied with the inferior alternatives; And
d) there are too many instances of quenching being mentioned in olden times.
2. Other thoughts on this matter:
Why are we concentrating on hypereutectoid Wootz and exclude hypoeutectoid (<0.8%C) as representative of the kind?
What I am getting at is that there is no real difficulty in obtaining excellent Martensitic steel from hypoeutectoid stock, and tempered Martensite is the preferred microstructure for a sword that cuts by impact.
If the Indians could reliable produce hypoeutectoid crucible steel then the problem of how to obtain truly great hardness&toughness disappears. I imagine that it may have even been possible to arrive at a hypoeutectoid steel by de-carburizing hypereutectoid crucible steel stock. At this point of my deliberations, the only real advantage that I can see for hypereutectoid Wootz, apart from appearance, is a lower melting point which facilitated the crucible reduction process.
Greg could be right, as per his posts elsewhere, that our current day definition of what constitutes Wootz is unreasonably narrow by restricting it to hypereutectoid steel. For example, Vehroheven&Pendray decided that one of the swords they studied was not Woots Damascus because it did not contain the expected carbides. Ands yet, the term Wootz is said to be the Anglicization of the Kannada word for steel (any steel or crucible steel?). Of course they added the appellation `Damascus' to their definition, but then why go looking for mechanical attributes that may have have been the property of swords exclusive to this definition?
I think that it is fairly safe to say that when ancient chroniclers recorded that some swords performed remarkable cutting feats, that they did not class them by their carbon content, rather their origin, and even that very broadly.
Cheers
Chris
|