Real wootz or etched iron?

Jeff Pringle · 15th December 2009, 03:09 PM

The seams sometimes seen on the spine of wootz blades arrive there in three ways; they can be caused by porosity on the top of the ingot that gets stretched into fissures or cracks as the ingot is forged into a bar, they can be the remnants of a slight depression in the top of the ingot that is not removed in the forging, or they can be a sign that two or more pieces of wootz were welded together or welded onto a piece of core steel. The artisans of the time considered these seams flaws, though you do sometimes see them on otherwise nice blades. Although wootz was not ‘folded’ in the sense that pattern-welded material was folded to get layers, they would often join two or more pieces of wootz to get a sword-sized bar of metal or in latter days to ‘dress up’ a bar of plain steel.
Below is a photo of an interesting piece of metal (Thanks Artzi!) that was lost or discarded immediately after the welding process, an ingot of wootz cut in half and welded back on itself with a third piece in the middle, probably to increase mass.
The above blade looks like wootz to me, and not sham – you can see a ladder rung in one photo, did they put the kirk narduban into sham blades?
(I know, one rung does not a ladder make

)

ALEX · 15th December 2009, 03:35 PM

Good info, Jeff. Thanks
That rung, I think, is naturally occurred, and not deliberately cut. It lacks more defined core one would expect on a ladder rung, IMHO.
In terms of welding wootz ingots together - some form of folding must have been involved. The fold lines on many shamshir blades appear on top ridge, and not elsewhere, which is why I think it was done deliberately. But perhaps we should call it "weld" line instead of "fold" line:-)
In the interesting example above, where the line appears on the side of jambiya blade - the blade lacks the top ridge by design, and the smith attempted to keep it close to the cutting edge, to mask it, but missed it by a bit.
BTW, I am not claiming my "theory" is correct, these are only my thoughts based on observations of making wootz blades by a "traditional" smith.

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.

15th December 2009, 03:09 PM	#1
Jeff Pringle Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 189	The seams sometimes seen on the spine of wootz blades arrive there in three ways; they can be caused by porosity on the top of the ingot that gets stretched into fissures or cracks as the ingot is forged into a bar, they can be the remnants of a slight depression in the top of the ingot that is not removed in the forging, or they can be a sign that two or more pieces of wootz were welded together or welded onto a piece of core steel. The artisans of the time considered these seams flaws, though you do sometimes see them on otherwise nice blades. Although wootz was not ‘folded’ in the sense that pattern-welded material was folded to get layers, they would often join two or more pieces of wootz to get a sword-sized bar of metal or in latter days to ‘dress up’ a bar of plain steel. Below is a photo of an interesting piece of metal (Thanks Artzi!) that was lost or discarded immediately after the welding process, an ingot of wootz cut in half and welded back on itself with a third piece in the middle, probably to increase mass. The above blade looks like wootz to me, and not sham – you can see a ladder rung in one photo, did they put the kirk narduban into sham blades? (I know, one rung does not a ladder make ) Attached Images

15th December 2009, 03:35 PM	#2
ALEX Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 936	Good info, Jeff. Thanks That rung, I think, is naturally occurred, and not deliberately cut. It lacks more defined core one would expect on a ladder rung, IMHO. In terms of welding wootz ingots together - some form of folding must have been involved. The fold lines on many shamshir blades appear on top ridge, and not elsewhere, which is why I think it was done deliberately. But perhaps we should call it "weld" line instead of "fold" line:-) In the interesting example above, where the line appears on the side of jambiya blade - the blade lacks the top ridge by design, and the smith attempted to keep it close to the cutting edge, to mask it, but missed it by a bit. BTW, I am not claiming my "theory" is correct, these are only my thoughts based on observations of making wootz blades by a "traditional" smith.

16th December 2009, 03:35 PM	#3
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.