Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 31st December 2008, 10:32 AM   #1
Gonzalo G
Member
 
Gonzalo G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Nothern Mexico
Posts: 458
Default

The article seems incongruent to me, but I have no much knowledge of the subject. Swords made with iron would not shatter like that, unless having many impurities and inclusions, and hardening them in cold water would give only a very small hardness to the iron. On the other side, they don´t mention "wootz", only crucible steel. Swords were made with crucible steel not being wootz, but with this carbon content they would be very brittle. I understand that toughtness of wootz with it´s carbon content is due to the fact that it has a perlite matrix. The "Viking solution", as I recall, consists in making blades with an iron body, and only the edges, mechanically welded to the body, were made of steel. That would not make a fragile blade. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards

Gonzalo
Gonzalo G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd January 2009, 04:29 PM   #2
Jeff Pringle
Member
 
Jeff Pringle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 189
Default

Like most newspaper items on esoteric subjects, there is often a bit (sometimes quite a bit ) of error introduced between the interview and the page, so don’t be surprised the facts seem ‘off’ in the Guardian article.
The Viking period spans a few hundred years, and the era includes some pretty radical improvements both in sword design and in steel making, so it would be a mistake to think there was just one way to make a sword during that era. Plus, swords made locally vs. swords made in an ‘industrial’ center & exported will add a layer of difference.

You can get more info on the fake issue and start forming your own theories on which ones were ‘fake’ from reading “The Vlfberht sword blades reevaluated” by Anne Stalsberg, she did a signature analysis of ~135 Ulfberhts, and there are two variants of the signature (the two most numerous) she concludes are probably authentic.

Below is a Williams quote from 2003, when he was starting to develop this concept - note he is saying higher slag content (not quenching!) can lead to brittleness:

Some early medieval swords in the Wallace Collection and elsewhere
David Edge, Alan Williams
Gladius XXIII, 2003 pp. 191-210
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/inde...rticle/view/50

“….
It should be observed that yet another blade with a similar inscription has been found by one of the authors to consist of a totally different metal. That «Ulfbehrt» sword was made of an air-cooled hypereutectoid steel of around 1.0%C (Williams, 1977). Since that account was published, a great deal more information has become available about the crucible steel industry of Central Asia (e.g. Craddock, 1995 and Feuerbach, 1997) and it seems likely that a cake of such a steel was the raw material for that blade; being virtually slag free and of hardness around 300 VPH, it must have been an exceptionally serviceable sword, and one which would keep its hard edges permanently. The maker of our «Ulfbehrt» sword had made what must have seemed to his customers at the time like a very good copy, with an edge hardness of over 460 VPH. Prolonged use might have altered their opinions; the cutting edge is only 6mm deep, and could have been removed by a few years of regular sharpening on a grindstone. It is also distinctly higher in slag content, and therefore more likely to fracture on impact.
….”
Jeff Pringle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2009, 09:36 AM   #3
Gonzalo G
Member
 
Gonzalo G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Nothern Mexico
Posts: 458
Default

Jeff, thankyou for your information on this subject, and also on the wootz thread. I found very interesting and useful your comments.
Regards

Gonzalo
Gonzalo G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd January 2009, 03:08 PM   #4
Chris Evans
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 685
Default

Hi Jeff,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Pringle
... It is also distinctly higher in slag content, and therefore more likely to fracture on impact.
….”
Informative post.

Without knowing much about Wootz, in wrought iron slag inclusions enhance toughness by acting as a crack arrestor. It is my understanding that the core of Japanese swords is often high in slag content with a similar effect.


Cheers
Chris

Last edited by Lee; 3rd January 2009 at 07:41 PM. Reason: fix quote syntax
Chris Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th January 2009, 07:56 PM   #5
Jeff D
Member
 
Jeff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Evans
Hi Jeff,



Informative post.

Without knowing much about Wootz, in wrought iron slag inclusions enhance toughness by acting as a crack arrestor. It is my understanding that the core of Japanese swords is often high in slag content with a similar effect.


Cheers
Chris
Hi Chris while awaiting the correct answer from the other Jeff, here is what I think. Slag in well worked steel forms long thin strings "stringers" which will give the effect you mention. In wootz working the steel in a similar fashion would eliminate the watered pattern. Therefore large (unworked) inclusions of slag would provide a fracture line.

Hope I am correct
Jeff
Jeff D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th January 2009, 10:56 PM   #6
Chris Evans
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 685
Default

Hi Jeff,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff D
Hi Chris while awaiting the correct answer from the other Jeff, here is what I think. Slag in well worked steel forms long thin strings "stringers" which will give the effect you mention. In wootz working the steel in a similar fashion would eliminate the watered pattern. Therefore large (unworked) inclusions of slag would provide a fracture line.

Hope I am correct
Jeff
What you say is correct. However, If I read it correctly, that quote about slag was referring not to a Wootz blade, but to a local copy. As such it would have been made from sponge iron and hammered extensively giving rise to the elongated stringers of slag, which rather than detracting from toughness probably would have had the opposite effect.

Cheers
Chris
Chris Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th January 2009, 11:24 PM   #7
Jeff D
Member
 
Jeff D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 473
Default

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your reply. You are correct they are taking about crucible steel not wootz. There has been a trend in using the terms interchangeably although they are different. I interpreted your question wrong. Now that I think I know what you are asking. I suspect it is the lack of hammering of the fakes that would be the problem, hammering that would not be required on crucible steel. I know you know this much better than me. Do you mind me asking, doesn't it takes multiple foldings to form the stringers, not just hammering to shape?

All the Best
Jeff
Jeff D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th January 2009, 04:39 AM   #8
Chris Evans
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 685
Default

Hi Jeff,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff D
Hi Chris

Do you mind me asking, doesn't it takes multiple foldings to form the stringers, not just hammering to shape?

All the Best
Jeff
Sponge iron has to be hammered extensively every which way to reduce its slag contents (by squeezing it out) - This is done as a matter of course. And the extent of hammering it receives ensures to a considerable degree its quality, though not entirely.

Without knowing the answer to your question, it is my view that some folding would have been unavoidable. But whether the ancient Viking swordsmiths went as far as others, say the Japanese, in the pursuance of refinement by way of repeated folding, I cannot say. I think that a much hammer refined blade would have represented a superior product, and this simply on the basis of labour input. Just how aware the Viking swordsmiths were of the need for extensive hammer refinement of sponge iron, I am ignorant of and here we need a knowledgeable archeological metallurgist, something that I am not.

However, I'll venture to question the presumed superiority (in the article) of a Wootz blade against one well made from sponge iron and hardened. If the ancients could quench and temper Wootz, then they indeed would have had a superior blade, but that would have required being able to heat just sufficiently to austenitize the pearlite without dissolving the carbides and then quenching, a task requiring very good temperature control, not to mention knowledge. On the other hand, steel made from sponge iron can be quenched and tempered with relative ease - This is how swords, indeed all steel implements, were made before the advent of molten steel making, and we do know that perfectly serviceable and many excellent blades were produced this way.

In a past thread we have discussed whether Wootz was quenched and tempered in the old days, and there is some evidence that some of it was. As to how they went about this and how successful it was I am not sure - Without having done any first hand experiments, or reading of any such attempts, my guess is that if high carbon Wootz is heated to the extent that a substantial amount of the carbides are dissolved, then upon quenching and tempering its microtructure would turn into a proverbial dog's breakfast with very uncertain mechanical properties.

Cheers
Chris
Chris Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.