Real wootz or etched iron?

Jeff Pringle · 16th December 2009, 03:35 PM

I think your theory is correct from a modern perspective, the seams on the back are a point of interest and source of much speculation, and I know from personal experience how hard they are to avoid so I can see why one might, if one were a traditional smith in the modern era, try to turn it around into a mark of quality. But traditionally, they were flaws. The contemporary literature on the subject of working wootz often mentions ways of avoiding such flaws along the spine. I recently came across an account of sword quality in the book “Traditional Crafts in Qajar Iran” by W. Floor (a book that in small part is concerned with how European imports killed off wootz), he is quoting from DeRochechouart’s ‘Souvenirs d’un voyage en Perse’ (1867):
“If the making of damask is complicated and demands great skill of the workers, recognizing its quality is not less difficult. Above all, you need to look at the back of the blade, and if there is no defect at all, if it is perfectly smooth and that you cannot find any trace of a crack, that is already proof that the sword is not absolutely bad.”
The book also includes a translation of Massalski’s 1841 article on making wootz swords which is more well-known;
“…One has to avoid [ingots] that have many pores on their exterior surface, otherwise these pores form deep holes on the back of the saber, which the smith knows well how to stop, but which diminish the value of the saber.”
Massalski also describes how old, tired wootz swords were forged out to twice their length and welded onto plain iron to make a new sword.

16th December 2009, 03:35 PM	#13
Jeff Pringle Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 189	I think your theory is correct from a modern perspective, the seams on the back are a point of interest and source of much speculation, and I know from personal experience how hard they are to avoid so I can see why one might, if one were a traditional smith in the modern era, try to turn it around into a mark of quality. But traditionally, they were flaws. The contemporary literature on the subject of working wootz often mentions ways of avoiding such flaws along the spine. I recently came across an account of sword quality in the book “Traditional Crafts in Qajar Iran” by W. Floor (a book that in small part is concerned with how European imports killed off wootz), he is quoting from DeRochechouart’s ‘Souvenirs d’un voyage en Perse’ (1867): “If the making of damask is complicated and demands great skill of the workers, recognizing its quality is not less difficult. Above all, you need to look at the back of the blade, and if there is no defect at all, if it is perfectly smooth and that you cannot find any trace of a crack, that is already proof that the sword is not absolutely bad.” The book also includes a translation of Massalski’s 1841 article on making wootz swords which is more well-known; “…One has to avoid [ingots] that have many pores on their exterior surface, otherwise these pores form deep holes on the back of the saber, which the smith knows well how to stop, but which diminish the value of the saber.” Massalski also describes how old, tired wootz swords were forged out to twice their length and welded onto plain iron to make a new sword.