Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - Question marks on a supposedly Russian Yataghan with Shashka grip and “bulat” blade?

Richard R. · 23rd November 2020, 11:03 AM

The term wootz is in fact problematic.

The term "Wootz" in relation to the history of the European perception, naming, imitation and research of the “true oriental pattern crucible steel blades" is relatively new. In was first mentioned from Dr. Scott from Bombay in a letter (1794) to the president of the Royal Society in London. At the beginning this term was not used in connection with “pattern crucible Steel” or Indian “Damascus blades”. It was not a synonym for any crucible steel showing “Damascus pattern”.

Here some remarks of Anne Feuerbach concerning the Term “Wootz”:

2006: “The term wootz first appears in print in 1795 in Pearson’s Lecture to the Royal Academy on Indian steel.4 This was a time when Indian crucible steel was being sent to England for laboratory analyses with the purpose of understanding what made it apparently tougher than steel made in Europe. It is worth noting that early studies make no association between wootz and any pattern. The first reference to an apparent relationship between wootz and the Damascus pattern appears in Stodart and Faraday’s 1820 paper on alloys. It is important to realize that Faraday’s connection between wootz and a Damascus pattern was based on his alloying replication experiments, not the examination of imported wootz ingots.”
“
2008: “The prevalence of the use of the term wootz in professional and popular literature has lead to a number of problems. The first problem is that it is used interchangeably with the term “Damascus steel,” thus implying that the wootz process produces a pattern. Secondly, the term “wootz” implies an Indian or Sri Lankan origin for the steel, and as discussed above this is not necessarily so, thus leading to further misconceptions of the object’s provenance.”

2009: „…Therefore, the evidence from all archaeological, ethnographic, and replication experiments, indicates that crucible steel from South India/Sri Lanka, i.e. the areas associated with the terms wootz, produced crucible steel blades with either no pattern or a faint pattern only.“

The earliest source mentioning wootz in connection with damascus-Steel that I could find during my research is from Jean Henri Hassenfratz (1755-1822), a French chemist, physics professor and mine inspector. But there is no mention of any pattern in his notice.

1812: „Quant au wootz, il paraît, d'après les expériences de MM. More et Pearson, qu'il ne peut être forgé qu'au rouge-pâle; ce qui le rapproche de l'acier de Damas.“

Free Translation: “As for the wootz, it appears from the experiments of More and Pearson, that it can only be forged in pale red; which brings it closer to Damascus steel.”

Regards
Richard R.

23rd November 2020, 11:03 AM	#13
Richard R. Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 26	About the Term “Wootz” The term wootz is in fact problematic. The term "Wootz" in relation to the history of the European perception, naming, imitation and research of the “true oriental pattern crucible steel blades" is relatively new. In was first mentioned from Dr. Scott from Bombay in a letter (1794) to the president of the Royal Society in London. At the beginning this term was not used in connection with “pattern crucible Steel” or Indian “Damascus blades”. It was not a synonym for any crucible steel showing “Damascus pattern”. Here some remarks of Anne Feuerbach concerning the Term “Wootz”: 2006: “The term wootz first appears in print in 1795 in Pearson’s Lecture to the Royal Academy on Indian steel.4 This was a time when Indian crucible steel was being sent to England for laboratory analyses with the purpose of understanding what made it apparently tougher than steel made in Europe. It is worth noting that early studies make no association between wootz and any pattern. The first reference to an apparent relationship between wootz and the Damascus pattern appears in Stodart and Faraday’s 1820 paper on alloys. It is important to realize that Faraday’s connection between wootz and a Damascus pattern was based on his alloying replication experiments, not the examination of imported wootz ingots.” “ 2008: “The prevalence of the use of the term wootz in professional and popular literature has lead to a number of problems. The first problem is that it is used interchangeably with the term “Damascus steel,” thus implying that the wootz process produces a pattern. Secondly, the term “wootz” implies an Indian or Sri Lankan origin for the steel, and as discussed above this is not necessarily so, thus leading to further misconceptions of the object’s provenance.” 2009: „…Therefore, the evidence from all archaeological, ethnographic, and replication experiments, indicates that crucible steel from South India/Sri Lanka, i.e. the areas associated with the terms wootz, produced crucible steel blades with either no pattern or a faint pattern only.“ The earliest source mentioning wootz in connection with damascus-Steel that I could find during my research is from Jean Henri Hassenfratz (1755-1822), a French chemist, physics professor and mine inspector. But there is no mention of any pattern in his notice. 1812: „Quant au wootz, il paraît, d'après les expériences de MM. More et Pearson, qu'il ne peut être forgé qu'au rouge-pâle; ce qui le rapproche de l'acier de Damas.“ Free Translation: “As for the wootz, it appears from the experiments of More and Pearson, that it can only be forged in pale red; which brings it closer to Damascus steel.” Regards Richard R.