Wootz or not?

ariel · 14th December 2016, 05:21 PM

It is an interesting question . The bottom line of it is what technologies were used in India to manufacture steel?

Obviously, the most ancient and the simplest one was bloomery steel. It produced a lump of metal mixed with slug, and the percent of carbon varied dramatically in different parts of the bloom. Then the smith separated the pieces into high-carbon and low-carbon piles , forged separate ingots and,- Voila!, - one had a perfect material for producing mechanical damascus. As a matter of fact, all old European swords and all Japanese swords were made this way.

Another technology was crucible steel, i.e. wootz. Only in India, potentially in neighboring countries, but later on. India was exporting tens of thousands ( or even significantly more) wootz ingots all over the Orient.

Both of these techniques could have been done in rather primitive village smithies and were based on manufacturing small quantities of steel or more precisely, small ingots.

The manufacture of monosteel AFAIK is a later European invention, requiring large industrial facilities.

Again AFAIK, the Brits built advanced metallurgical factories in India only in the 19th century.

If this is true, until that time all Indian blades should have been damascus: either mechanical or wootz. Of course, manufacturing and forging conditions might have obscured the innate structure: erratic melting or cooling of the crucibles and/or overheating of wootz ingots during the process of forging blades would transform them into ( in fact) monosteel. But that would be an error of manufacture.

Is my logic correct? Am I missing something?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

14th December 2016, 05:21 PM	#5
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	It is an interesting question . The bottom line of it is what technologies were used in India to manufacture steel? Obviously, the most ancient and the simplest one was bloomery steel. It produced a lump of metal mixed with slug, and the percent of carbon varied dramatically in different parts of the bloom. Then the smith separated the pieces into high-carbon and low-carbon piles , forged separate ingots and,- Voila!, - one had a perfect material for producing mechanical damascus. As a matter of fact, all old European swords and all Japanese swords were made this way. Another technology was crucible steel, i.e. wootz. Only in India, potentially in neighboring countries, but later on. India was exporting tens of thousands ( or even significantly more) wootz ingots all over the Orient. Both of these techniques could have been done in rather primitive village smithies and were based on manufacturing small quantities of steel or more precisely, small ingots. The manufacture of monosteel AFAIK is a later European invention, requiring large industrial facilities. Again AFAIK, the Brits built advanced metallurgical factories in India only in the 19th century. If this is true, until that time all Indian blades should have been damascus: either mechanical or wootz. Of course, manufacturing and forging conditions might have obscured the innate structure: erratic melting or cooling of the crucibles and/or overheating of wootz ingots during the process of forging blades would transform them into ( in fact) monosteel. But that would be an error of manufacture. Is my logic correct? Am I missing something?