Another wootz question

[Jeff D]

I am of the belief that sham is quite different than kara khorasan. The edges of a khorsan blade has thin stripes in the same manner that the ladder pattern has thinner stripes. Most likely during the forging the original pearlite and cementite crystals are elongated and thinned. When the blade is 'beveled' for the edge or a ladder you see the thinner cross section of the bands. My understanding that if the blade has a lot of hammering, it breaks up these crystals to give the 'jumble of matches' appearance seen on many fine Indian pieces.
The etching of sham is also quite different than the etch of khorsan. Philip Tom has explained it to me more as a slow controlled rust. This indicates to me that it has a different chemistry.

Here are a couple of my own blades to illustrate. First picture is kara khorsan with its edge, the second is a Turkish sham kilij, and the third is a ladder rung.


All the best Jeff

[ariel]

If that's the case, the ingot must have been the determining factor. Then, how did the smiths know which one will produce a Khorasan and which one a Sham? They would have to finish the blade and etch it to reveal the final result. Lower quality(Sham) would have not been discarded ( too expensive), but just sold for a lower price. The highest quality would have been signed "Assadollah". Then, where is the multitude of Sham blades from Iran? Why would ingots from the same source ( mostly India) produce Khorasan blades in Iran and Sham in Turkey? Did the Ottoman bladesmiths consciously select ingots with Sham pattern?

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by ariel

The highest quality would have been signed "Assadollah".

Only if it was made by the family line

Originally Posted by ariel

Then, where is the multitude of Sham blades from Iran? Why would ingots from the same source ( mostly India) produce Khorasan blades in Iran and Sham in Turkey? Did the Ottoman bladesmiths consciously select ingots with Sham pattern?

Here I don't know the answer, but, I have always assumed that the ingots came from a different source. Even if they came from the same source but a different batch, I believe the ingots had an surface appearance which could be differentiated by an experienced eye.

Jeff

[ariel]

And the Turks were so dumb that they purposefully took only the "bad" ones?

I hate to be a nudnik, but I feel this question can tell us something important.

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by ariel

And the Turks were so dumb that they purposefully took only the "bad" ones?

I hate to be a nudnik, but I feel this question can tell us something important.

Well I suppose that may be one explanation. I think it unlikely. More reasonable explanations are, forging secrets, trade limitations, or a whole host of other reasons.


All the best
Jeff

[kisak]

Originally Posted by ariel

If that's the case, the ingot must have been the determining factor. Then, how did the smiths know which one will produce a Khorasan and which one a Sham?

Manouchehr's book mentions smiths determining the quality of wootz ingots by polishing (and etching?) a small part of the surface.

[ariel]

Citation from Figiel's book ( pp.20-21):
"...as a result of repeated forging, there was realignment of the crystalline structure. If the cake was forged longitudinally, parallel rows of crystals would result. If the cake was forged in different directions the crystals would form wavy lines of complex motley patterns including circular and ladderlike distortions."
Sure, Figiel was not a bladesmith, but he consulted with Pendray who knew a thing or two about wootz :-)

If that's the case, the difference between Persian, Indian and even Turkish wootz blades might have been mostly, if not exclusively, due to technical aspects of handling ingots. Temperature, duration of forging, force of pounding, orientation of the ingot, altered directions of forging, speed of cooling etc. were responsible for different patterns.
With tens of thousands of wootz ingots coming from India on an yearly basis, the smith needed just to verify that a particular ingot was indeed " wootzy", did not have a lot of slag trapped inside and ... that's it. From there on, the ultimate result depended strictly on the master's skills.
This, likely, explains why the contemporary masters have such hard time to reproduce the beauty of old Indian and Persian blades. Contemporary metallurgy knows precisely the nature of wootz, the percentage of carbon and the microelements facilitating formation of dendrites, the temperature/time optimization of the process etc. This is purely science, and we are very good at it.
What is missing, is the hands-on collection of idiosyncratic manipulations peculiar to old artists: how hard to pound, at what metal color, when to turn, when to grind and how much , how to cool etc, etc, etc.

Here is an example of a bulat (wootz) dagger by Anosov
http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/fo...81/1681918.jpg
http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/fo...81/1681922.jpg
http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/fo...81/1681920.jpg
He got the secret.

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by ariel

If that's the case, the difference between Persian, Indian and even Turkish wootz blades might have been mostly, if not exclusively, due to technical aspects of handling ingots. Temperature, duration of forging, force of pounding, orientation of the ingot, altered directions of forging, speed of cooling etc. were responsible for different patterns.
With tens of thousands of wootz ingots coming from India on an yearly basis, the smith needed just to verify that a particular ingot was indeed " wootzy", did not have a lot of slag trapped inside and ... that's it. From there on, the ultimate result depended strictly on the master's skills.
This, likely, explains why the contemporary masters have such hard time to reproduce the beauty of old Indian and Persian blades. Contemporary metallurgy knows precisely the nature of wootz, the percentage of carbon and the microelements facilitating formation of dendrites, the temperature/time optimization of the process etc. This is purely science, and we are very good at it.
What is missing, is the hands-on collection of idiosyncratic manipulations peculiar to old artists: how hard to pound, at what metal color, when to turn, when to grind and how much , how to cool etc, etc, etc.

Here is an example of a bulat (wootz) dagger by Anosov
http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/fo...81/1681918.jpg
http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/fo...81/1681922.jpg
http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/fo...81/1681920.jpg
He got the secret.

I don't think this is true. The Ingot was also critical. Kindi even stated it;
'Swords made in Yemeni workshops from Yemeni crucible steel were regarded as the highest quality swords, whereas those made by Yemeni swordsmiths using imported crucible steel were classified only as medium quality. This classification was absolute; the best Yemeni sword-smith could only achieve a medium quality blade even if the best quality imported Indian crucible steel was used.' Pg 59, Hoyland and Gilmore
Medieval Islamic swords and Swordmaking

Jeff

[ariel]

Are there any surviving examples of Yemeni wootz swords? Tough to judge with only hearsay for evidence...

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by ariel

Tough to judge with only hearsay for evidence...

True, but hearsay is a higher power then speculation.

More hearsay; ' Biruni may have been getting his information from another source as well for he goes on to say (in so many words) that, while he is willing to believe that a sword of one type could not be changed into another, the ingredients of the steel could be changed (in the crucible) so as to produce different watered effects, revealed by final polishing.' Pg 173 of Hoyland and Gilmore.

Jeff