WOOTZ or SHAM?

MABAGANI · 30th January 2006, 02:15 PM

I see, so to quantify the advantages, it would make more sense to make the comparison using technology of the era and the ancients would've had the answers by having their smiths and warriors do several hundreds or thousands of test cuts to check which sword held up better. Any ancient or early text or references as to how the wootz performed in battle and test cuts vs. non wootz swords?

Jens Nordlunde · 30th January 2006, 02:48 PM

Greg, I think you won the $ 50 note, both for your answer, and for mentioning that the steel of to day is not the same as the steel they used hundreds of years ago.
I agree with you that a sword with a wootz blade most likely would be preferable. One thing is the pattern on the blade, but I think when fighting most would tend to forget about the pattern, and be happy to have a sword, which keeps the edge better than the opponents, armed with a sword with a high carbon blade.

It should also be mentioned, that you now and again see blades, where one side is made of wootz, and the other side of high carbon steel. These blades are rare; I have never seen one myself – only read about them.

Mabagani, I don’t think you would need many thousand test cuts – a battle or two would be enough, and no, I have not seen anything about the test cutting you refer to, in any of the old texts I have seen. The only thing I have seen about test cutting, was that the young Rajput nobles practised their cutting power on wet clay, so they would be able to serve the head of an ox in one blow – anything else would be a disgrace to the family.

MABAGANI · 30th January 2006, 03:45 PM

One cut slamming edges of a wootz vs. non-wootz blade could've also given an immediate but costly answer, too, ouch...
Wet clay, interestingly for testing could give feedback and practice for- line, angle, aim, quality, etc on a stationary target without damaging the edge. I'll have to try it some time.
So were wootz blades more difficult for smiths to master and an expensive commodity reserved for the elite warriors and/or wealthy?

Jens Nordlunde · 30th January 2006, 04:33 PM

Mabagani, I think you will need a very big lump of moist clay, as the test they did was on force. I don’t know how much force it takes to serve a bulls head in one blow, but I would think it take quit a lot of strength – besides a very sharp sword.

In some of the older texts that I have prices of blades are mentioned, and it seems as if a perfectly made watered blade would sell for a kings ransom - almost, a good watered blade would sell for the ransom of a minor prince - almost, and a normal blade(?) would sell for far less. It is difficult to say how much the blades would be in to day’s currency, but from the old writing it is clear, that very good blades must have cost a fortune. On the other hand, for the owner it was safety first, as there were a lot of wars going on in India in those days, as well as a lot of robbers were touring the country – and it also gave prestige.

Jeff Pringle · 30th January 2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

the historian was fascinated by it, to the point of attempting to replicated it in england

Not just historians, cutlers like Stodart and scientists like Faraday (the famous one) investigated wootz in the early 1800's because it was viewed as superior to the crucible steels in production then. Attempts to duplicate it were also made in France, Switzerland and Russia. According to C.S. Smith in "A History of Metallography", interest waned when local methods improved and the Bessemer process came along and introduced a method of making homogenous steel more adaptable to large-scale production.
An analogy might be drawn between the manufacture of wootz blades and violin bows - The starting material is graded, and the lesser quality stuff is used by production line workers with little care to exploiting the material or fit and finish. The higher quality stuff is worked by th more skilled artisans, and as they work it they grade it further. The bows that are fully realizing the potential of the high-grade wood get more hours lavished on them in fit and finish, as well as gold fittings, the finest horse hair, a signature. The ones that are not working out optimally are still much better than the lower quality wood could aspire to, so they get some attention to detail and silver fittings, and perhaps a signature.
Violin bows are still largely made in a manner that survives from the pre-industrial era, so I think it could be a window into how the ancient steel was worked. The best material getting the most attention and expensive fit-out could also explain the tenfold increase in prices for the best watered blades.

Jens Nordlunde · 30th January 2006, 05:09 PM

In one of my books I read, that when the Europeans tried to forge an ingot they failed, and one of the reasons was, that they heated the ingot far too much. An ingot should have cherry colour when being forged, and they heated it till it was white – loosing whatever carbon in the ingot from the start.

B.I · 30th January 2006, 06:01 PM

pearson wrote a fabulous article in the late 18thC, after a claim from bombay about the fabulous properties of wootz. he dove into the subject with the academic passion of a victorian institution, and hammered, weighed, smelt and tasted it (no joke!), as well has forging and dipping it in various acids. i cant remember his conclusions, but remember him thoroughly enjoying his experiments :-)

Jeff D · 8th February 2006, 04:26 AM

Hi All and welcome Alex,

I was away and didn't see this thread until today. The term Wootz is the anglicized version of ukku wich just means steel. Wootz has come to mean a high carbon crucible steel with a "watered steel pattern". I have on a couple occasions noted that Zschokke blade 8 was eliminated from Verhoeven's study because of the hypoeutectoid carbon level. Before we condemn Verhoeven for "redefining" wootz we should consider a few things.

Verhoeven makes it clear that Fe3C (cementite) is crucial to forming the watering pattern. He also makes it clear that they can only form in the hypereutectoid state. Zschokke's blade 8 was rightfully dropped from his study because it could not contribute anything to the understanding of the formation of these particles. To my knowledge he doesn't call it sham.

When we look at the pattern on blade 8, it does have a sham appearace, my copy of the paper does not show the pattern clear enough to be conclusive. As Dr. Anne has stated it depends on your definition of sham. This is one blade that has been tested. Statistically this is meaningless. Other studies have been done, on wootz with carbon levels in the 1-2% range. Since sham has been considered to be wootz I assume they are part of this test, and therefore assume that not all sham blades are hypoeutectoid. It is certainly possible that the cementite particles are distributed in the pearlite matrix and still having the ferrite sham pattern ? This of course begs the question do we know the carbon levels of other sham blades.

I would love to hear more on this topic as there definately is a wealth of knowledge hear to clear this up.

Thank
Jeff

30th January 2006, 02:15 PM	#1
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	I see, so to quantify the advantages, it would make more sense to make the comparison using technology of the era and the ancients would've had the answers by having their smiths and warriors do several hundreds or thousands of test cuts to check which sword held up better. Any ancient or early text or references as to how the wootz performed in battle and test cuts vs. non wootz swords?

30th January 2006, 02:48 PM	#2
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Greg, I think you won the $ 50 note, both for your answer, and for mentioning that the steel of to day is not the same as the steel they used hundreds of years ago. I agree with you that a sword with a wootz blade most likely would be preferable. One thing is the pattern on the blade, but I think when fighting most would tend to forget about the pattern, and be happy to have a sword, which keeps the edge better than the opponents, armed with a sword with a high carbon blade. It should also be mentioned, that you now and again see blades, where one side is made of wootz, and the other side of high carbon steel. These blades are rare; I have never seen one myself – only read about them. Mabagani, I don’t think you would need many thousand test cuts – a battle or two would be enough, and no, I have not seen anything about the test cutting you refer to, in any of the old texts I have seen. The only thing I have seen about test cutting, was that the young Rajput nobles practised their cutting power on wet clay, so they would be able to serve the head of an ox in one blow – anything else would be a disgrace to the family.

30th January 2006, 03:45 PM	#3
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	One cut slamming edges of a wootz vs. non-wootz blade could've also given an immediate but costly answer, too, ouch... Wet clay, interestingly for testing could give feedback and practice for- line, angle, aim, quality, etc on a stationary target without damaging the edge. I'll have to try it some time. So were wootz blades more difficult for smiths to master and an expensive commodity reserved for the elite warriors and/or wealthy?

30th January 2006, 04:33 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Mabagani, I think you will need a very big lump of moist clay, as the test they did was on force. I don’t know how much force it takes to serve a bulls head in one blow, but I would think it take quit a lot of strength – besides a very sharp sword. In some of the older texts that I have prices of blades are mentioned, and it seems as if a perfectly made watered blade would sell for a kings ransom - almost, a good watered blade would sell for the ransom of a minor prince - almost, and a normal blade(?) would sell for far less. It is difficult to say how much the blades would be in to day’s currency, but from the old writing it is clear, that very good blades must have cost a fortune. On the other hand, for the owner it was safety first, as there were a lot of wars going on in India in those days, as well as a lot of robbers were touring the country – and it also gave prestige.

30th January 2006, 05:09 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	In one of my books I read, that when the Europeans tried to forge an ingot they failed, and one of the reasons was, that they heated the ingot far too much. An ingot should have cherry colour when being forged, and they heated it till it was white – loosing whatever carbon in the ingot from the start.

30th January 2006, 06:01 PM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	pearson wrote a fabulous article in the late 18thC, after a claim from bombay about the fabulous properties of wootz. he dove into the subject with the academic passion of a victorian institution, and hammered, weighed, smelt and tasted it (no joke!), as well has forging and dipping it in various acids. i cant remember his conclusions, but remember him thoroughly enjoying his experiments :-)

8th February 2006, 04:26 AM	#8
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi All and welcome Alex, I was away and didn't see this thread until today. The term Wootz is the anglicized version of ukku wich just means steel. Wootz has come to mean a high carbon crucible steel with a "watered steel pattern". I have on a couple occasions noted that Zschokke blade 8 was eliminated from Verhoeven's study because of the hypoeutectoid carbon level. Before we condemn Verhoeven for "redefining" wootz we should consider a few things. Verhoeven makes it clear that Fe3C (cementite) is crucial to forming the watering pattern. He also makes it clear that they can only form in the hypereutectoid state. Zschokke's blade 8 was rightfully dropped from his study because it could not contribute anything to the understanding of the formation of these particles. To my knowledge he doesn't call it sham. When we look at the pattern on blade 8, it does have a sham appearace, my copy of the paper does not show the pattern clear enough to be conclusive. As Dr. Anne has stated it depends on your definition of sham. This is one blade that has been tested. Statistically this is meaningless. Other studies have been done, on wootz with carbon levels in the 1-2% range. Since sham has been considered to be wootz I assume they are part of this test, and therefore assume that not all sham blades are hypoeutectoid. It is certainly possible that the cementite particles are distributed in the pearlite matrix and still having the ferrite sham pattern ? This of course begs the question do we know the carbon levels of other sham blades. I would love to hear more on this topic as there definately is a wealth of knowledge hear to clear this up. Thank Jeff