WOOTZ or SHAM?

Jeff Pringle · 25th January 2006, 05:13 AM

I thought sham meant plain steel that was etched to look like it was wootz/pattern welded?
To photograph patterns in steels, it is often easiest to get a uniform reflection by taking the photo with the blade outside, positioned in such a way as to reflect an overcast sky - you get a very clear shot of the pattern if the blade is lit with uniform, diffuse light.
The parallel lines (to the right) in the middle photo indicate that blade might be pattern welded steel, but the photos are indistinct enough to make any attribution a guess.

Gt Obach · 25th January 2006, 02:31 PM

after rereading some of Al-Kindi's words on arabic swords.... i still feel that we are getting too strict with our definitions of wootz/poulad steel. I'm still leaning towards all the crucible steels made in the middle ages, wootz tradition as being wootz steel.... this includes even the lower carbon hypo eutectic's with good pattern..

it is a good matter for discussion..... i'm personally open minded to all of it..

ask yourself these questions.?
-- do you think that if the Indian steel makers made a hypo eutectic ingot, and forged it into a sword.... that they wouldn't call it wootz ? specially if it had a watered pattern?

-- would it be more likely that they'd have a catagory of quality for such wootz.... noting it's difference from the high carbon wootz.... specially in terms of observable pattern.. !!

-- remember......they had no way to tell the carbon level of this wootz..... (no mass spectrometer etc )

maybe i'm getting too excited over nothing..... but i feel that our modern definition is getting away from the middle ages tradition..... as i have mentioned before

if sham isn't wootz......... then what about the dendritc pattern.... i've seen this on indian swords..... where there is very little roast time and the watering is very grid like....... are these to be excluded too!

i hope there is to be more open dialog on this topic... it's important to discuss this

Greg

Gt Obach · 25th January 2006, 03:23 PM

when reading Verhoeven's study on " the key role of impurities in damascus blades" .... he bases his idea on wootz from the Zschokke blades..... yet he totally discounts the analysis of sword no. 8 because it was hypoeutectic.....

Before this moment in time..... that sword was concidered wootz !!... obviously so because it was a selected sample for testing and characterizing wootz steel.....
-- it must have showed typical wootz pattern with a watered surface !!
--. So ....if the observable features of this sword fooled the scientists in this study.... do you think that the Ancient Indians could be more thorough ?? and discriminatory

.... now after being discluded from the acceptable ranges of wootz steel is this study.... it is here by declared " Not Wootz "

at university, they drummed it into my head to ask the question " Why "..... and to test all theories for repeatability....

the modern definition of wootz is holding less and less water, for me !

Greg

Jeff Pringle · 25th January 2006, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Before this moment in time..... that sword was concidered wootz !!...

I too think this is an important point, and that historically hypo-eutectoid steels were considered wootz - but it also might be that you, me, Ann and Ric are the only ones who care about this subject on such a technical/historical level.

I think we should revisit some of the earlier descriptions of the watering - Didn't al-Kindi desribe several types? One of those is quite possibly a reference to the lower carbon variety. And the sword in the bottom pic looks like it might be of that ilk (just to keep to the initial subject)...

Jens Nordlunde · 25th January 2006, 05:19 PM

Hi Jeff, Greg and Ann,

No you, Greg and Ann are not the only ones interested in this subject – I am too. Only my knowledge about the subject is far too little to join the discussion, other than ask the stupid questions – so that is what I will do.

How about one of you writing a ‘Wootz for Dummies’, that might help many of us.

Is it so, that in theory sham has less carbon than 0.8, and wootz has more than 0.8?

When I write ‘in theory’ it is be course of what Greg wrote. I have understood that the smith, if the difference of carbon is not too big, can make a blade after his own wishes, is that correct? Earlier this was of course impossible, as they could not measure the carbon.

When the crucibles were made ready for melting, this of course would mean that none of them would be exactly the same, as the amount of organic stuff you put into each could/would differ from crucible to crucible, also meaning that the man maintaining the work had to be very accurate. Some were, others were not. This could explain what I have read about the Arabian merchants having people living in India to check the crucibles before they were exported – as some were of a lesser quality.

Gt Obach · 25th January 2006, 06:29 PM

i'll tell you a story..... when i was starting to make crucible steel... i was testing the boundaries of wootz.... so i deliberately made an ingot to have a carb level bellow 1%.... ( a sort of control experiment)
I forged it out.... heat treated and etched in the standard way..... suprised to see a nice watered pattern come out with a very short etch time.... ... confused, i shuffled this blade to the back of the pile thinking that i either -- goofed up the calculation for carb levels or... extra carbon was borrowed from the crucible...
-- anyhow.. i gave it to a friend and didn't look back....

now... Jeff had posted a knife awhile back that had a wootzy look.... but he'd stated that it was too low a carb to be wootz..... yet it looks identical to an Indian blade i've seen..... so what ? well if Jeff didn't have that blade tested, would he have known to catagorize this blade as " not wootz ".....
-- is this another No.8 sword ???

so what it boils down to is...... are we to split the hypoeutectic watered crucible steel (low carbon steel) off of the definition of wootz (basically following verhoeven's lead and discounting sword no 8's existence) or are we to look at the whole sample of watered steels from the middle ages and be inclusive of No 8

i'm not sure i can come up with a definition of wootz at the moment... if anything, I think it is just a crucible steel that is made in the wootz tradition of the middle ages...

I believe Jeff's point is excellent.... we should try to revisit Al-Kindi's classifications of watered steels... and look here for some answers

Greg

kai · 25th January 2006, 10:19 PM

How about the functional aspect? Would a wootzy blade forged from a low carbon ingot live up to expectations under martial use?

Greg, did you ever tested edge holding of your experimental blades?

Regards,
Kai

25th January 2006, 05:13 AM	#1
Jeff Pringle Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 189	I thought sham meant plain steel that was etched to look like it was wootz/pattern welded? To photograph patterns in steels, it is often easiest to get a uniform reflection by taking the photo with the blade outside, positioned in such a way as to reflect an overcast sky - you get a very clear shot of the pattern if the blade is lit with uniform, diffuse light. The parallel lines (to the right) in the middle photo indicate that blade might be pattern welded steel, but the photos are indistinct enough to make any attribution a guess.

25th January 2006, 02:31 PM	#2
Gt Obach Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 116	after rereading some of Al-Kindi's words on arabic swords.... i still feel that we are getting too strict with our definitions of wootz/poulad steel. I'm still leaning towards all the crucible steels made in the middle ages, wootz tradition as being wootz steel.... this includes even the lower carbon hypo eutectic's with good pattern.. it is a good matter for discussion..... i'm personally open minded to all of it.. ask yourself these questions.? -- do you think that if the Indian steel makers made a hypo eutectic ingot, and forged it into a sword.... that they wouldn't call it wootz ? specially if it had a watered pattern? -- would it be more likely that they'd have a catagory of quality for such wootz.... noting it's difference from the high carbon wootz.... specially in terms of observable pattern.. !! -- remember......they had no way to tell the carbon level of this wootz..... (no mass spectrometer etc ) maybe i'm getting too excited over nothing..... but i feel that our modern definition is getting away from the middle ages tradition..... as i have mentioned before if sham isn't wootz......... then what about the dendritc pattern.... i've seen this on indian swords..... where there is very little roast time and the watering is very grid like....... are these to be excluded too! i hope there is to be more open dialog on this topic... it's important to discuss this Greg

25th January 2006, 03:23 PM	#3
Gt Obach Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 116	when reading Verhoeven's study on " the key role of impurities in damascus blades" .... he bases his idea on wootz from the Zschokke blades..... yet he totally discounts the analysis of sword no. 8 because it was hypoeutectic..... Before this moment in time..... that sword was concidered wootz !!... obviously so because it was a selected sample for testing and characterizing wootz steel..... -- it must have showed typical wootz pattern with a watered surface !! --. So ....if the observable features of this sword fooled the scientists in this study.... do you think that the Ancient Indians could be more thorough ?? and discriminatory .... now after being discluded from the acceptable ranges of wootz steel is this study.... it is here by declared " Not Wootz " at university, they drummed it into my head to ask the question " Why "..... and to test all theories for repeatability.... the modern definition of wootz is holding less and less water, for me ! Greg

25th January 2006, 05:19 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Jeff, Greg and Ann, No you, Greg and Ann are not the only ones interested in this subject – I am too. Only my knowledge about the subject is far too little to join the discussion, other than ask the stupid questions – so that is what I will do. How about one of you writing a ‘Wootz for Dummies’, that might help many of us. Is it so, that in theory sham has less carbon than 0.8, and wootz has more than 0.8? When I write ‘in theory’ it is be course of what Greg wrote. I have understood that the smith, if the difference of carbon is not too big, can make a blade after his own wishes, is that correct? Earlier this was of course impossible, as they could not measure the carbon. When the crucibles were made ready for melting, this of course would mean that none of them would be exactly the same, as the amount of organic stuff you put into each could/would differ from crucible to crucible, also meaning that the man maintaining the work had to be very accurate. Some were, others were not. This could explain what I have read about the Arabian merchants having people living in India to check the crucibles before they were exported – as some were of a lesser quality.

25th January 2006, 06:29 PM	#6
Gt Obach Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 116	i'll tell you a story..... when i was starting to make crucible steel... i was testing the boundaries of wootz.... so i deliberately made an ingot to have a carb level bellow 1%.... ( a sort of control experiment) I forged it out.... heat treated and etched in the standard way..... suprised to see a nice watered pattern come out with a very short etch time.... ... confused, i shuffled this blade to the back of the pile thinking that i either -- goofed up the calculation for carb levels or... extra carbon was borrowed from the crucible... -- anyhow.. i gave it to a friend and didn't look back.... now... Jeff had posted a knife awhile back that had a wootzy look.... but he'd stated that it was too low a carb to be wootz..... yet it looks identical to an Indian blade i've seen..... so what ? well if Jeff didn't have that blade tested, would he have known to catagorize this blade as " not wootz "..... -- is this another No.8 sword ??? so what it boils down to is...... are we to split the hypoeutectic watered crucible steel (low carbon steel) off of the definition of wootz (basically following verhoeven's lead and discounting sword no 8's existence) or are we to look at the whole sample of watered steels from the middle ages and be inclusive of No 8 i'm not sure i can come up with a definition of wootz at the moment... if anything, I think it is just a crucible steel that is made in the wootz tradition of the middle ages... I believe Jeff's point is excellent.... we should try to revisit Al-Kindi's classifications of watered steels... and look here for some answers Greg

25th January 2006, 10:19 PM	#7
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,255	How about the functional aspect? Would a wootzy blade forged from a low carbon ingot live up to expectations under martial use? Greg, did you ever tested edge holding of your experimental blades? Regards, Kai