Talk:Damascus steel

Damascus:Wootz

Ihave a few links that show the damascus steel is just wootz steel weiled by arabs

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html
http://home.att.net/~moltenmuse/
http://archaeology.about.com/b/2006/12/01/damascus-steel.htm

if more info is needed go ahead and i will give ialso have a vid once i find it i will post it

The introductory section of the Verhoeven, Pendray and Dauksch paper explicitly states:

"These steels are of two different types, pattern-welded Damascus and wootz Damascus, both of which were apparently first produced prior to around 500."

Perhaps it would be best if you had read the sources that you cite before conflating Damascus steel with wootz. The definition of the former is stretched in the paper to include the latter. It's very rare to see wootz referred to as such outside of this paper - in fact, I do not recall ever encountering such a description of wootz elsewhere. In contemporary blacksmithing terminology, Damascus steel is universally understood to mean fire-welded and patterned steel. Anton Andreich (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with referring to pattern welded steel as Damascus steel is that it infers that pattern welded steel also holds the same mechanical properties which is far from true. Wootz was referred to as the raw material used (being of proper composition only) but is contemporarily being used to define true Damascus by blacksmiths and metallurgists who want to duplicate the metal not just for it's pattern but for the mechanical properties it holds. Joseph Robert Gray (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Commentary on Wootz vs Damascus and their differences i.e. not the same as this wiki page implies: "(Damascus steel) There are different methods of folding that produce different patterns, and many different variables on the general process no two smiths do things exactly the same. That being said the general process is well known even if it is highly variable.

Now Wootz steel that the wikipedia mentions is a entirely different matter, from what is termed Damascus or Pattern welded steel, though in the entry they seem to confuse the two. Wootz steel is termed a crucible steel and was produced for similar reasons as Damascus, but is instead produced by melting a bunch of small pieces of metal into one ingot, and it is much more difficult to do. People still do it and I have seen a few people on youtube do it successfully, but their is a lot more variation and its more a matter of formula than of process. I feel that it would be reasonable to say that "original" formula is probably lost." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1C00:C038:41AA:242F:CCFD:E7CB (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Innaccurate Sentence

Having owned a couple wootz knives, I have to dispute this line --"allowing the swordsmith to make an edge centered on one of the carbide bands and thus very strong, while the sword as a whole remained flexible as in normal steels." The bands are very fine and often flow in many directions, anyone that has actually handled wootz or seen a detailed photo can verify that. While the banding can be controlled and even made very coarse, I have never heard of attempting to make them wide enough that one could center the edge on a single band, nor have I seen such a thing in any of the dozens of pictures of museum quality wootz swords I've seen. The sentence as stated gives the impression that wootz worked something like san-mei, which is incorrect, as the wootz' steel matrix is virtually homogenius in hardness regardless of the carbide density of a particular band. ~Nick 12/1/05

Hi, I just wanted to say hi - nice to see someone with actual knowledge of sword making here. And you don't even make swords, you just pay attention to those who do. Nice work! Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Contradictory Paragraph

I removed a paragraph under Types of Damascus because it contained information that was contrary to the information above it in the article. However I am not knowledable on the subject and it would be best if someone who is would take a look at this. optimistic-x 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed content

I have removed this edit. It was evident that it was made without regard to the rest of the article. -- Egil 23:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Egil will share with us some of his experience as a bladesmith. Rktect 03:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps rktect too. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

The dispute is with regards to this and this edit, or any future edits to the same effect. The editor, User:rktect, edits this excellent article totally without regard to its current structure and content. He also adds his usual irrelevant and/or self-invented connections to ancient Egypt. His description of the process is also different from the process described in the original article, as is the claim that the actual steel came from India. Regretfully, the only immediate means available seems to be adding a dispute tag. (If someone can tell me of a better way, please do) -- Egil 10:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Egil should read the sources cited, maybe look up the word wootz. Since its clear he lacks even the most rudimentary comprehension of the subject matter and is unaware that Damascus steel is a technique rather than a material the disputed tag should be removed.

As to the Egyptian involvement, the earliest known references to iron working come from Egypt. Both the Egyptians and Hitties made small tools of high carbon low temperature iron which they hammered and folded repeatedly to strengthen. Each fold doubles the number of layers. By the time of the battle of Kadesh, c 1285 BC the use of iron had expanded from small tools to the mass produced rims of tens of thousands of chariots.

The difference between iron and steel is the addition of small amounts of other elements, Carbon, Manganese, Silicon, Chromium, Vanadium and Molybdenum to mention just a few of the more common ones. The carbon comes from the charcoal the iron is heated in. Other elements can be added as a twist of wire that gets distributed by repeated hammering and folding.

In the case of wootz what made it special was that iron ore was slow baked in a clay crucible filled with legumes whose ability to fix nitrogen in nodules in their root system made it ideal for nitriding the wootz.

The most important thing about Damascus steel is the alternation between the different forms of steel so that cementite, pearlite, martensite and austenite are distributed to exactly where they need to be so that for example the center of the edge of a blade can be high carbon steel that is hard and sharp and can hold an edge but the outside of the edge can have a lower carbon content making it less brittle and tougher so it is resistent to chipping.

The rolled edge used in Damascus steel blades does away with the cantle or chine of the edge which can weaken the blade. Rolled edges are nearly impossible to acheive in mass production so all of the best blades are hand polished with ten or more successive grits. Rktect 17:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

the center of the edge of a blade can be high carbon steel that is hard and sharp and can hold an edge but the outside of the edge can have a lower carbon content making it less brittle and tougher so it is resistent to chipping.

I was under the impression that the opposite was the goal; the main body of the blade constructed of softer, more malleable steel to resist breakage with the blade edge of a harder, more brittle steel for sharpness and durability. --Bk0 18:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[San Mei] Yes and no. In refering to the center of the edge we are looking at that portion of the hamon outboard of the nioi. The Vikings for example used low carbon cores and high carbon surface layers. The idea was that the cutting edge should be made hard and sharp but the rest of the blade will remain flexible.

The problem with that simplistic model is that if sharpening the edge removes the hard outer layer it leaves the soft core exposed. In many cases that would be true for early not particularly high quality or mass produced blades. Higher quality hand made blades paid more attention to what was going on with the edge in the art of the swordsmith as well as that of the sharpener. In many eastern blades nitrided wootz was used. In Japanese blades an additional sandwich of layers occurs in the hamon.

[hamon]

"The Hamon may be in an infinite variety of patterns, but appears as a milky white colour on a properly polished blade. The upper edge of the Hamon will be formed from tiny martensite crystals called Nie. Sometimes these are too small to see with the naked eye and are then known as Nioi. It is Me and Nioi that border the Hamon and form the pattern of the Hamon and they should be examined very closely, ideally by holding the blade at eye level, ideally pointed towards a spotlight. The Nioi- guchi (line of the Hamon) should form an unbroken and constant line from the Machi area (bottom of the blade) along its entire length. A break in the Hamon, called Nioi-giri is a serious flaw and should be avoided. It is also important that the Boshi (the area of the Hamon within the Kissaki) does not disappear off the edge. This is also a serious flaw in the blade and is only acceptable on great swords of historical and cultural significance! No compromise should be accepted here."

[clive sinclair]

Rktect 23:42, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think much of the argument here has to do with the confusion with the term "Damascus steel" itself. Pattern welded damascus, which as accomplished by folding low and high carbon steel together at "yellow hot" temperatures, has existed for many millenia (since Viking times) in numerous cultures. Wootz damascus is completely different and accomplished by directly hammering the Indian ingots into blades at a relatively cool "red hot" temperature. The pattern formed in the wootz blades is a result of segragated cementite particles unevenly distributed in the blade.

The Indian ingots themselves play an important role through both it composition and its manufacturing process. While I'm not sure about the whole "nitrating" deal you said about the wootz cake, vegetation was added to increase hydrogen content in the crucibles to decrease ingot brittleness. The ore is also important due to high vanadium impurities which serve to promote cementite formation. Smelting crucible are allowed to cool gradually such that dendretic formations form in the ingot, which concentrate the vanadium impurities into bands. These bands are where the cementite particles will form, and is amplified in the "red hot" hammering process. By the way the main difference between steel and iron definitely not due to metallic impurities but rather due to carbon content alone.

As for what I think should be done with this article, I suggest splitting it into Pattern welding and Wootz. "Damascus steel" should become a disambiguation page, as the term clearly seems to be the problem. -- Sjschen 04:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to add, the creation of pattern welded damascus steel resulted ia an effort by people to emulate wootz damascus after the latter's manufacturing technique has been long forgotten. -- Sjschen 04:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Making "Damsascus steel" a disambiguation page between patterns created via pattern welding and patterns inherent in wootz steel seems like the correct outcome. To be clear, wootz steel was manipulated as well but unlike pattern welded steel already inherently contained interesting visible structures. niels (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that for a long time outside of india the effect of the slow low temperature fixing of the alloying elements in wootz to include carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, vanadium, nickle, etc was neglected. On the other hand I don't know of any Damascus that was made of one grade of iron or steel without the process of combination through the arrangement of different grades of iron to include both wootz and in some cases meteoric iron with high nickle content. In addition to the use of wootz its really the ability to determine the placement of the Cementitie, Pearlite, Martinsite and Austenite through the hammerering, quenching, tempering and forging in the charcoal fire that adds the high carbon to make the iron into steel as a combination of the materials and methods that we associate with Damascus that makes Damascus steel what it is. The idea that pattern welded steel is inferior to true Damascus made with wootz would certainly require a lot of disambiguation. Rktect 13:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any direct evidence that the alloying elements of metals such as nickel, vanadium or chromium were known. I've heard apocryphally that each crucible was started with another fragment of wootz, but cannot verify this at present. The prevailing opinion is that these were present as impurities in the iron ore rather than added by design. It has been hypothesized that the loss of a particular iron ore was instrumental in the loss of the technique. Without the right alloying elements, it became impossible to replicate the results and it was not taught to succeeding generations of smiths.

Also, fire-welded steel was known in Europe since at least 800 BCE and even earlier in the Near and Middle East. In contemporary blacksmithing usage "Damascus steel" refers precisely to this technique. Wootz is explicitly described as such, perhaps by a different historic term (e.g. bulat) or simply as crucible steel. As a blacksmith I believe it would be ideal if Wikipedia was consistent with contemporary usage, perhaps while noting that it has been used more broadly in the past to describe any and all patterned blades. Anton Andreich (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Pattern welding was never lost

The term "Demascus steel" comes from the city of Demascus. Wootz is an Old English and a term for crucible steel. According to professional blade smith and author Dr. Jim Hrisoulas Pattern Welding was never lost. I agree that this article should be split into Wootz and Pattern Welded Steel.

But pattern welding != Damascus steel. They produce visually similar results, but they are radically different structurally, and are produced by (as well as can be told) radically different techniques. Pattern welding and folded steel forges dissimilar alloys of steel at supercritical temperatures, while, according to Pendray, the best reproductions of true Damascus made blades from Indian wootz are made by cold working the wootz ingots at just below the critical temperature, which causes the coarse grained annealed wootz to work harden. By notching the surface of the ingot, variations in stretching can be obtained, which if cone correctly can produce distinct patterns in the blade, such as the famed "Mohammed's ladder". What the article really needs is a breakdown into pattern welded steel, the modern "Damascus" that the knifemakers use, and the true ancient "Damascene steel", which was a special super-high carbon, cold forged, low alloy steel. scot 16:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's incorrect to categorically say that pattern welded steel and Damascus steel are not the same. Fire-welding is a skill known to every blacksmith and practiced all over the world since ancient times. Moreover, the porous and heterogenous masses of metal produced by the primitive bloomery process has to be consolidated into a useful material - often by forge-welding. The Japanese swordsmithing tradition is but one example which uses fire-welded steel extensively to produce many types of pattern (see discussion on mokume-gane). It can be argued that precisely fire-welding is the foundation technique upon which Damascus steel was based (see citation below).

Relevant citation describing the early British ironworking site at Kestor (believed to date to around 400 BCE):

"In addition to these semifinished blades, many finished swords also have been found - most of them unfortunately reduced to rust. The few that are still in good condition however, show that British blacksmiths not only knew about carburizing but were also aware of another technique, fagoting, that enabled them to produce laminated iron. In this process pieces of metal were heated and then hammered together. All the while, impurities were being worked out and the quality of the metal gradually improved. Like laminated plywood, laminated iron is extremely tough and resilient; in a more refined form it ultimately produced the fine steels that went into Damascus swords and the 12th Century Kamakura swords of Japan."

Knauth, Percy (1974). "The Metalsmiths". pp. 95 ISBN 978-0705400589 Anton Andreich (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment from user User:Jsmasangkay

"Mokume-gane should be spelled moku-megane. Moku-megane comes from 2 Japanese words, moku meaning wood, lumber, timber etc. and megane meaning eyeglasses. The literal translation would be "wood eyeglasses", however the most popular translation is "wood eye"." I'll look into this and see if there's a consensus. scot 20:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

On google I get 115,000 hits on "mokume-gane" vs. 806 hits for "moku-megane". There's also a mokume-gane article here, but no moku-megane. If you can provide an independent source for the translation argument, then it should probably go in the mokume-gane article, and have a moki-megane redirect created. scot 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I know this is an old comment, but I couldn't help but laugh when I read it. It shows how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. The user recognized two Japanese words there, 'moku'=wood and 'megane'=eyeglasses, but that isn't the meaning here. 'Megane' (eyeglasses) is two kanji, 眼鏡, literally "eyeball mirror". These are DIFFERENT from the kanji used in mokume-gane where 'me'=目 (eye), 'gane'=金 (metal), even IF the two kanji were part of the same word, which they aren't. 'Me' is part of mokume, literally, wood-eye. BUT, it does not mean an eye made of wood, it refers to (for example) the way a knot in a plank of wood resembles an eye. A better translation would be wood-grain. Mokume-gane, wood-grain in metal.Q00u (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The citation below succintly explains the origins of the term. The Japanese word "hada" (肌) literally means "skin".

"Mokume-hada: Similar to the annual growth rings of a tree trunk (although this similarity may not always be immediately evident). The grains of most Japanese swords can be said to be mokume-hada."

Reference: Nagayama, Kokan (1997). "The Connosieur's Book of Japanese Swords". pp. 83 ISBN 4-7700-2071-6 Anton Andreich (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have heard that Damascus steel was quenched in the bodies of live slaves or prisoners by the original metalsmiths, presumably creating a unique molecular effect that gave the blades their astounding capabilities. Presumably the Europeans used cows and later found pigs to be even better for duplicating these alloys. Is there any evidence to support this?

A body would not be a particularly good quenching medium; the blade comes out of the fire at the critical temperature (which, as I recall, is just over 1400F for high carbon low alloy steel) and has to be dropped at a controlled rate to acheive the desired hardening. The preferred mediums for high carbon low alloy steels are water and oil (olive oil is highly recommended due to the high flash point). The goal is to fix the structure of the steel quickly, to form the high hardness martenzite, and then the blade would be heated back up to a sub-critical temperature (600F or higher) to temper the steel and draw the hardness back to the desired balance of hardness and toughness. If the blade is cooled too slowly, the residual heat from the core of the blade will prematurely temper the steel, and can result in soft spots. The most common cause of a bad quench is too little quenching medium; there's a whole lot of heat to transfer, and if there's not enough water or oil to immerse the blade (and some of the quench medium is going to flash boil off) then the blade won't cool evenly. The blade is also moderately soft coming out of the heat treating furnace; it's very easy to bend the blade, and there's no springiness in the steel at that temperature. Trying to plunge a blade into a body would first warp the blade (it's nowhere near sharp until after hardening and grinding, so you'd have to push hard), the high heat of the blade would cauterize the wound and prevent any additional body fluids from leaking in to cool the blade further, so the blade would cool very poorly.

Now one thing I have seen in a reputable source on Japanese swordsmithing, is the use of the bodies of executed criminals to test finished blades. The bodies would be stacked up and the sword would be used to cut through as many bodies as possible. In fact, there is a standardized method for taking a rolled up reed mat, soaked in water, of a certain diameter and using it as a "body substitute", much like ballistic gelatin is used for terminal ballistics testing today. This link[1] describes the process, and corresponds to what I remember from the swordsmithing book. scot 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The alleged quenching of swords (Damascus or otherwise) in human bodies is a myth without any basis in reality. There is no historic evidence to support that it was ever practiced. Anton Andreich (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rediscovery

According to this article [2], it's been rediscovered. -- LGagnon 19:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a rehash of Verhoeven and Pendray's "hot cold forging" work covered in the "Attempts at reproduction" section. No one can definitively say "the process has been rediscovered" because no one knows what the original process was. What can be said is that Verhoeven and Pendray's steel is a very close match to the original Damanscus blades, and so the process is equivalent, and potentially the same. scot 19:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

AD/CE

I don't see the point in switching this article to an AD/BC orientation for dates, since it largely covers material about the non-Christian world (Damascus, Syria, India). Since I was alerady going to make some other edits, I went ahead and reverted it to BCE/CE this time. Thoughts of others? -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

makes sense. Jerdwyer 04:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All Wiki articles should use BCE/CE nomenclature. TheCormac (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"origin of the word damask

I removed the sentence saying that the swirling patterns was "apparently the origin of the word damask." The OED says the etymology of the word damask is "originally coming from Damascus." I.e. damask and damascus steel have the same root, and one is not the root of the other. Jerdwyer 05:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

the wootz steel article

This article and the wootz steel article cover much of the same material but come to different "conclusions," given that this article suggests that nobody knows the mysteries of damascus steel, and the wootz steel article makes substantive claims to the specifics of its manufacture etcetera. 66.41.66.213 05:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, lets make a time table for me blanking this whole article and making it a redirect to Wootz steel. I think it has nothing accurate and cited that the other article doesn't have. If nobody objects, in one week this article is turned into a redirect. Keep in touch friends. 66.41.66.213 05:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. First, no one knows how damascus steel was made; the manufacture ceased centuries ago, and all we have now is guesses based on attempts to reproduce the structure and composition. Second, the term "wootz steel" is virtually unused; "Damascus steel" is FAR more common; while "Damascus steel" also is used for pattern welded steel, an article on "Damascus steel" can point that out and differentiate between the different items, while an article on "wootz steel" cannot. Third, while there is some overlap, there is much that does not overlap; the wootz article doesn't cover proper forging technique discovered by Pendray and Verhoeven (without which you lose the banded carbides and get brittle steel) or the history of attempts to reproduce the Damascus blades in Europe by pattern welding (such as the blade(s) in Verhoeven's study with low carbon and vanadium content, therefore not made from wootz). scot 15:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

On the principle of least astonishment I agree that pattern welding should remain under an article called damascus steel. On the other point, Wootz does cover pendray and verhoeven, and it is better referenced and more concise. Since things like this are prone to misconceptions and urban legends, we must be much more robust against uncited facts. I will put a citation needed tag on the wootz article's statement that damascus steel is wootz, and a few tags on this article as well. Once everything is pared down restructuring might be easier.66.41.66.213 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than redirecting this article to wootz, the contents should be merged and reorganized somewhat, and if there's any redirection wootz should point to here, since Damascus is by far the more familiar term. I'm no expert but my impression is that the Verhoeven/Pendray/Dauksch (VPD) paper "The Key Role of Impurities..." (url in the references) is pretty much the mainstream view now. I'd be fine with this article following that paper, with some mentions of whatever differing views there are. The Verhoeven et al paper basically says (loose and probably garbled paraphrase):

1. European crusaders encountered these fantastically good Middle Eastern swords that had these mysterious light and dark bands and couldn't tell what the heck they were dealing with. These were called Damascus blades because a lot of them came from there. A lot of them were brought back to Europe from the crusades and the best ones are in museums. Unfortunately it is these museum-quality blades that best exhibit the interesting characteristics, and those are rarely available for lab tests. However, in the 1920's, someone donated a few of these blades for study and metallurgists since then have been analyzing piece of those blades (see Zschokke reference in VPD paper).
2. European and other bladesmiths generally believed the bands came from pattern welding (I heard an explanation that the repeated folding and hammering made the steel extra strong due to its being effectively surface hardened all the way through). They tried for centuries to reproduce the original steel using these methods, sometimes thinking they had figured out the secret.
3. Pattern welded blades were therefore often also called Damascus blades, somewhat incorrectly, and lots of very beautiful ones are being made and called that even today. Up through the 1980's or so they were generally (though maybe not by specialists) believed to be about the same as the ancient middle eastern blades.
4. Around 1990, Verhoeven and Pendray figured out the real secret, which was that the ancient blades were not pattern welded at all, but were forged from wootz ingots made from Indian ores that contained trace amounts of vanadium. The vanadium impurity caused the emergence of the characteristic light and dark bands of Damascus steel through ordinary hammering, without the folding of dissimilar alloys as in pattern welding. (It also permitted extra-high carbon content leading to very strong swords compared to the other stuff being made then). The method was lost in the 1700's when those particular Indian mines ran out of ore and the process stopped working (this is an inference by Verhoeven--the processes were closely guarded secrets, so no one knows what really happened). The ancient metallurgists had no way of detecting trace impurities (a few ppm of vanadium) so just had to rely on this special ore from a particular region, and when it dried up, that was that, they stopped teaching the process to their apprentices and the knowledge died out after a few generations.
5. It seems to me that even those legendary Damascus blades were unimpressive by modern metallurgical standards--a disappointment. I semi-remember that the hardest of the Zschokke fragments tested around 38 Rc (there's a table in VPD).

The VPD paper is very readable and has good illustrations and is widely cited, so I think the article should call special attention to it. 64.160.39.153 04:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of a merge too, wootz should redirect here. Gigs (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

is there a way to tell?

is there a way to tell the difference between a pattern welded sword froma damascus sword aside from the internal structure?

Carbon content will probably be higher on the Damascus steel, and there will be significant amounts of the alloying elements, such as vanadium, that produce the Damascene structure. Microscopic examination would probably also show a difference in most cases, though not all, since one of the assumed Damascus steel historic blades Verhoeven and Pendray studied did was not in fact true Damascus, but rather a very good cosmetic fake done with lower carbon steel. scot 13:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the Verhoeven, Pendray and Dauksch paper, alloying elements are present in rather low quantities. For instance, the highest vanadium content in any analysis is 270 ppm (or 0.027%). To put this number into context, the cleanest modern steels might have a little less than 300 ppm of unwanted sulphur or phosphorous. Likewise, a similar carbon content could be present in ordinary high-carbon steel. Looking at the chemical content alone is meaningless. It is the internal structure that defines wootz.

Wootz steel has a complex, fractal-type structure and pattern which is impossible to replicate with fire-welding. The two can be distinguished visually by an educated observer. Another hallmark of wootz blades is that they will produce an unusually long and clear ring when struck. Finally wootz blades are far tougher, if one was to compare the two by destruction-testing. Anton Andreich (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Pattern welded steel looks like a topographical map, with concentric swirls. Real Damascus steel has less concentric, more random swirls. —Darxus (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

How Hard?

There appears to be no evidence stating that this type of steel is actually harder than other types of steel. Whilst the article claims Damascus steel is harder, there is no comparisons made with other types of steel made at the time or indeed with modern techniques.

I agree. There is no evidence in this article, it reads like some urban myth. Either back up the claims or delete the article in its current form.

Could the article not list some numbers we can relate to? Is it twice as hard for example?

I'm sure tests must have been made or is this steel hardness perhaps just a myth or heresay?

--Quatermass 14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Which is longer, modern dacron rope, or hemp? That's sort of the question you're asking here, because hardness is only one factor, and really a rather minor one, in a tool steel. You can make any high carbon steel (.7% or higher) exceedingly hard by heat treating it so that it is mostly martensite, and that will determine the hardness. However, such steel is extremely brittle, and the only tool you'd treat like that would be a file. The trick is to balance the high hardness martensite with the softer but tougher pearlite to get a tough, hard steel that will hold an edge and still withstand the rough handling a sword undergoes. The unique thing about Damascus steel was not the final properties; the Vikings and Oriental swordsmiths could achieve similar results with various combinations of surface hardening, hot forging, pattern welding, lamination, and differential heat treatment to produce the desired mix of properties at any point in the blade structure. Damascus steel was unique for the time in that it could consistently produce the desired compromise of hardness and toughness in a carefully processed, homogenous steel; not only that, but rather than being made from an austenite->martinsite->pearlite process (heat, quench, temper) it was made from a pearlite->carbide matrix process, where the material was cold worked to break down the pearlite crystaline structure. You can make steel with the same mechanical properties, though different internal structire, with the right processes, but until the Bessemer process and later methods, it was not possible to do so on an industrial scale. Even today, there are a myriad of steels used for knife blades, with a huge range of hardness, toughness, corrosion resistance, and cost, so it's impossible to say which is "best". scot 15:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What a cop-out. Of course the hardness and toughness can be measured. And they can be compared to the steels of today. No-one seems to have the data to hand, but it must have been done. 155.198.65.29 (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your quest for precision, but "other types of steel" is too general, and hardness is only one attribute. Hardness and brittleness increase together, so sword makers have always tried to find ways to get both. Laminating flexible layers with harder layers is one. Folding the steel is another. Case hardening is another. Sword utility is too complex to reduce to hardness alone. Damascus Steel seems to have made its reputation on blending the ability to achieve and hold a sharp edge, which is a lot about hardness, with enough flexibility not to shatter. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Damascus hardness is in Table II of the the Verhoeven, Pendray and Dauksch paper: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/9809/Verhoeven-9809.html Separate numbers are given for the two different kinds of metal bands it contains, Pearlite and DET. Pearlite Rockwell hardnesses were 32, 23, and 27. DET hardnesses were 8, 9, and 5. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rockwell_scale#Typical_values —Darxus (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Damascus steel is a heterogeneous material, the hardness of the individual components, though measurable using standard microhardness testing, is not a significant metric. The ability to hold an edge is dependent on the sharpening technique and the application, not on any standard material property test that might be applied to the steel. Knives used to cut different things may have wildly different requirements for edge quality and resistance to corrosion. There is a lot of nonsense in this article betraying a lack of metallurgical training among the many authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:46 (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hardness is measurable on the Rockwell scale. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Carbon nanotubes

The Carbon nanotubes article says: "It is now thought by some that the catalysts or methods involved in forging damascus steel (a forging technique lost to time) may provide vital hints for manufacturing nanotubes cheaply, after they were recently discovered to be a component of that ancient sword metal ."

This should be worked into the article.

Go to the Edit page for this message to get the code for the references. 81.6.242.110 15:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Delisting article

There are various problems, such as a massive introduction, which needs to be wikified and referenced, and also the general lack of referencing in the article does not meet current GA standards. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And now, in 2022, the article is no better! Instead of an article on archaic steel processing, it looks like a mess of sword-and-sorcery fanboy rubbish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:46 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Even beats katana!

The arabic sabre, at least those made by master forger al-Bochachen did cut rifle barrels. 91.83.17.238 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are dozens of these pissing contest claims about various metals and weapons in history and legend. without a Verifiable source, none of them particularly matter. -Verdatum (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And talk of cutting rifle barrels is just plain fanciful. 155.198.65.29 (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Article should be merged into pattern-welded steel

Firstly, the article is utter rubbish, and unabashed Indian aggrandizement with few references. And it is nonsensical a sword can cut a barrel- the velocity required would be above Mach 2. Pattern welding steel was known to the Bablynians, Assurians, Phoenicians, Celts, as described by Roman Julius Caesar and the Romans themselves, predating any and all Indian archeological finds- thus India learnt the technique from well-known Greek-Indic trade routes and intellectual exchange. Viking swords were robbed from Viking graves and smelted by the Arabs, in the mid 800's. My supporting bibliography:

Alexander, D.G., "European Swords in the Collections of Istanbul: Part 1. Swords from the Arsenal of Alexandria," Waffen und Kostümkunde 27 (1985), p. 81 - 118. Anstee, J.W. and Biek, L., "The Forging of a Pattern-welded Sword," in Davidson, H. R. Ellis, The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England (Rochester: The Boydell Press, corrected reprint 1994) p. 217 - 224 [Originally published 1962]. Behmer, Elis, Das Zweuschneidige Schwert der Germanischen Völkerwanderungszeit (Stockholm: Tryckeriaktiebolaget Svea, 1939) (German). Bone, Peter, "The Development of Anglo-Saxon Swords from the Fifth to the Eleventh Century," in Hawkes, Sonia Chadwick, ed., Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1989), p. 63 - 70. Clements, John, Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated Methods and Techniques (Boulder, Colorado: Paladin Press, 1998) Geibig, Alfred, "Zur Formenvielfalt der Schwerter und Schwertfragmente von Haithabu," Offa 46 (1989), p. 223 - 267. Hoffmeyer, Ada Bruhn, Middelalderens Tveæggede Sværd (Copenhagen: Udgivet af Tøjhusmuseet, 1954) (Danish with English summary) Jakobsson, Mikael, Krigarideologi och vikingatida svärdstypologi (Stockholm: Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 11: Stockholms universitet (1992). Jones, Lee A., "The Serpent in the Sword: Pattern-welding in Early Medieval Swords," Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 14 (1997), p. 7 - 11.

Kalus, Ludvik, "Donations pieuses d'épées médiévales à l'Arsenal d'Alexandrie," Revue des Études Islamiques (1982), p. 1 - 174. (French) (Reprinted by Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner S.A.; 12, rue Vavin, 75006 Paris, France in 1990; ISBN 2-7053-0636-6.) this particular text lists the European swords with Arabic Quranic inscriptions in the Egypt arsenal

Lang, Janet and Ager, Barry, "Swords of the Anglo-Saxon and Viking Periods in the British Museum: a Radiographic Study," in Hawkes, Sonia Chadwick, ed., Weapons and Warfare in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1989),

Leppäaho, Jorma, Späteisenzeitliche Waffen aus Finnland: Schwertinschriften und Waffenverzierungen des 9. - 12. Jahrhunderts (Helsinki: Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift, 1961) (German)

Maryon, Herbert, "Pattern-welding and Damascening of Sword-blades: Part I - Pattern-Welding," Studies in Conservation 5 (1960), p. 25 - 37.

Menghin, Wilfried, Das Schwert im Frühen Mittelalter (Stuttgart: Konrad Theiß Verlag, 1983) (German). A chronological and typological study of long swords from Germanic graves of the 5th through 7th Centuries. Melville, Neil, "The Incised Effigial Stone at Foveran, Aberdeenshire," Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 15 (1998), p. 11 - 17. Effigial stones from early 15th Century Scotland which depict swords are illustrated and correlated with the evolution of the two handed sword in Scotland.

Oakeshott, R. Ewart, The Archaeology of Weapons (New York: Barnes & Noble, revised edition, 1994) [Originally published 1960]. Oakeshott, R. Ewart, "Further Notes on a River-Find of 15th Century Swords, " Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 1 (1984), p. 7 - 12. The second of four phases in the evolution of Mr. Oakeshott's interpretation of the origin and significance of a group of eighty swords recovered from the Dordogne River near a battlefield of the Hundred Years War. Oakeshott, R. Ewart, "The Grip of the Medieval Sword and a Battle near Tagliacozzo," Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 11 (1994), p. 6 - 13. N Oakeshott, R. Ewart and Peirce, Ian, "Hiltipreht! Name or Invocation," Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 12 (1995), p. 6 - 11. Oakeshott, R. Ewart, Records of the Medieval Sword (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1991). Oakeshott, R. Ewart, "Reflections upon some Medieval Swords from the Thames," Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 2 (1985), p. 7 - 14. Oakeshott, R. Ewart, "The Sempach Family of Swords," Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 4 (1987), Oakeshott, R. Ewart and Peirce, Ian, Swords of the Viking Age (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, Ltd., 2002). Oakeshott, R. Ewart and Peirce, Ian, "The Sword of Can Grande della Scala," Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 17 (2000), p. 6 - 11. Oakeshott, R. Ewart, "The Sword of the Comté de Dreux: Non-Christian Symbolism and the Medieval European Sword," Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 20 (2003), p. 22 - 28. Oakeshott argues for the provenance in the title and also that this splendidly decorated group was preserved in the Alexandria Arsenal for an interval.

Oakeshott, R. Ewart, "Swords, Warlords and Fish," Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 13 (1996), p. 7 - 11. A discussion of the "Fastolf" sword in the Norwich Castle Museum and swords with similar marks.

Oakeshott, R. Ewart, "The Swords of Castillon, " Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 10 (1993), p. 7 - 16. Mr. Oakeshott presents more information about the large group of swords recovered from the Dordogne River near the Fifteenth Century battlefield and concludes that they were, in fact, most likely battlefield spoils collected by the victorious French.

Oakeshott, R. Ewart, "The Templars and The Church," Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 15 (1998), p. 7 - 10. Medieval swords with marks suggesting an association with Templars, including a previously unpublished example with an Alexandria arsenal dedicatory inscription, are discussed in the historic context of the Templars.

Oakeshott, R. Ewart, "Two Identified Swords," Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 18 (2001), p. 7 - 9. A type XII sword recovered from the filled-in moat of the Chateau de Brion sur Ource commands most of the discussion with brief mention also made of another of type XIV having an early example of down-turned quillons.

Oliver, David, "Some European Knightly Swords from the Arsenal of Alexandria," Park Lane Arms Fair Catalogue 16 (1999), p. 13 - 24. Petersen, Jan, De Norske Vikingesverd (Kristiana: Jacob Dybwad, 1919) (Norwegian).

Tylecote, R.F. and Gilmour, B.J.J., B.A.R.British Series 155: The Metallography of Early Ferrous Edge Tools and Edged Weapons (Oxford: B.A.R., 1986).

Willems, J. H. and Ypey, Jaap, "Ein Angelsächsisches Schwert aus der Maas bei Wessen, Provinz Limburg (Niederlande)," Archäologisches Korrespondenblatt 15 (1985), p. 103 - 113.

Williams, Alan, The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002)

Williams, Alan R., "Methods of Manufacture of Swords in Medieval Europe: Illustrated by the Metallography of Some Examples," Gladius 13 (1977), p. 75 - 1

Ypey, Jaap, "Einige wikingerzeitliche Schwerter aus den Niederlanden," Offa 41 (1984), p. 213 - 225. (German). Ypey, Jaap, "Frühmittelalterliche Waffen mit Damast," in Damaszenerstahl: Vorträge der 1. Fachtagung über "Damaszenerstahl - Stahlgewinnung und Stahlverarbeitung in der vorindustriellen Zeit" (Fachausschussbericht 9.008) (Düsseldorf: Verein Deutscher Eisenhüttenleute, 1983) (German), p. 5 - 31. Extensively illustrated treatise on pattern-welded swords and the nature of the pattern-welding process.

I am flagging this article as it is very poor, replete with unfounded aggrandizement, differs from accepted historical fact to the point of original research and redundant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starstylers (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Many historic and contemporary fire-welded artifacts were made without a deliberate pattern or in some cases without a discernible pattern. It is problematic to describe such steels as "pattern-welded". A relevant citation on Japanese swords made in this way:

"Muji: Plain; unfigured; thus here, "without grain". Difficult to identify. This has a glassy look, and is often seen on Shinshinto blades. The steel is not actually grainless, of course, but until recently it was very difficult to discern the grain, even after careful polishing, because the grain is so small and the steel so tight in texture. However, details of this so-called "grainless" pattern can now be brought out with polishing, because of improved polishing techniques. To be precise, the pattern should be described as appearing to be without grain."

Reference: Nagayama, Kokan (1997). "The Connosieur's Book of Japanese Swords". pp. 85 ISBN 4-7700-2071-6

The Shinshinto period is defined as the period from the late 18th century CE to the 1876 ban on public wear of swords during the Meiji Restoration Anton Andreich (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Damascus Steel Shotgun

'The Shotgun with Damascus Steel barrels' image is surely not geniune Damascus steel, given the period during which Damascus steel was manufactured. It is probably Damascened/Pattern Welded steel. This of course stems from the above confusion about Damascene/Damascus steel that seems to have given this article such grief. I will go ahead and change its description but not remove it from the article. Saktoth (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, all the pictures for this article are of pattern welded items, not just the gun barrel! This is kind of like having an article about Star Wars with pictures only from Star Trek adorning the article, which is misleading and downright frustrating for someone enthusiastic about the subject. Are there any pictures available for use with wiki of true damascus? AceofAzrogoth (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

See discussion above on the definition and nature of Damascus steel. There is good evidence that fire-welded steel with a visible pattern was produced since ancient times to the present day. Those who claim that the secret was "lost" ought to produce evidence to support their claims. Anton Andreich (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that pattern welding was lost. They're saying that original Damascus wasn't made that way, and the way it was made was lost. —Darxus (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Historic usage of "Damascus steel" did not refer to the technique of steel manufacture, only its pattern. It still refers to multiple types of patterned steel. Please re-read the citation from the VPD paper in the very first section of this talk page and stop with this pedantry. Anton Andreich (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What a shame. The term "Damascus Steel" has been used for over 200 years to describe forge welded barrels for sporting arms. Now there is debate over it's usage in regards to firearms and bladed weapons?

The problem seems to be that gun makers and blade makers readily understand that forge welded in not wootz. While others seem to think that they are simply misinformed. In Belgium the town of Nessonvaux was dedicated to the production of gun barrels. A large part of the output was damascus barrels. Damascene does not mean forge welded. It is means "to ornament by etching or by inlaying." Forge welding is neither.

Would it not be simpler to acknowledge in the article the evolution of the term "damascus steel" and it's applications? It has evolved from wootz to forge welding to rapid solidification metallurgy; each has been used to create damascus patterns.

Regarding that image? It is my shotgun that was made by Lefever with Belgian produced damascus barrels and marketed as such in 1899. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintype (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirect Request

For some reason "Damascus Steel" goes to a heavy metal album that nobody cares about. I'm requesting that the phrase "Damascus Steel" brings you to this page instead of 80's hair metal Ftc08 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Request

For some reason "Damascus Steel" goes to a heavy metal album that nobody cares about. I'm requesting that the phrase "Damascus Steel" brings you to this page instead of 80's hair metal Ftc08 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Romans and steel : fictive

A link has been provided under the assertion that it would contain information about steel with so-called "damascus" pattern being made by the Romans circa 300BC : the paper in is GERMAN, and thus should'nt be accepted until translated in ENGLISH. NOnetheless, I removed the part saying "romans" in the article, stating they only had bronze swords. I omitted to say they also had IRON swords. But never have the ancient romans made any steel swords, it is well documented on wikipedia in the articles about ancient Rome, steel etc. They had their steel SPECIALLY produced for them by Celt-Iberic , GErmanic and Slavonic people who mastered what the Romans lacked: mastery of steel making and pattern welding of this same material. edit done by IP: 82.240.163.245 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Flexibility of the original material

How pliant was the original Damascus steel? A man called Peter Stuart Ney once claimed that he had owned a Damascus sword so flexible that it could be folded in two. Swords made from the original material may have appeared fantastic to the people of the time. But did these really have any fantastic property other than being self-sharpening?

2010-07-06 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

"Modern Damascus"

"Damascus steel is a hot-forged steel used in Middle Eastern swordmaking from about 1100 to 1700 AD." The first sentence of this article negates the possibility of "modern Domascus". I propose replacing instances of "modern Domascus" in this article with things like "modern materials intended to look like Domascus". —Darxus (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that proposal, since "modern Damascus" is ultimately fictional at this point, as the Damascus steel of ancient hasn't been able to be reproduced since its time. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 02:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. There are still a number of pieces of this article that imply it's appropriate to call some modern material "Damascus". Most of the History section, the first in the table of contents, is about modern attempts at reproduction, which is not as it should be. —Darxus (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank You. Damascus Steel refers to medieval steel. Modern people who want to market their custom knives should use the phrase "Damascus Style" Steel. Just like Champagne. If you make bubbly in Ontario, call it "bubbly from Ontario". Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Very true, no one knows how to make the old steel. The problem is that the term "Damascus steel" refers to three different things:

• The old steel whose technique for manufacturing is not known
• Wootz crucible steel which is an attempt at producing a material more similar to the old steel
• Pattern welded steel which is a technique that superficially produces a material with some visual and functional performance of the old steel

I've tidied the first part of the article up using this organization, but the article is going to need more work to get it straighted out again. -- Sjschen (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

A photo of Damascus steel

There's one here that's better than any we have: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=269407 I've had no luck contacting the owner. (And I wanted to put the url somewhere so I can close the tab.) —Darxus (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of the images would be a complement to the article, especially that of the close-up of the patterned surface of the Damascus steel. However, it does seem that the owner would ultimately have to give permission for use on here. More images of damascus steel would definitely be welcome on the article. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 00:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

High temperature welding process?

Does anyone know if these ancient metallurgy techniques may be associated with abnormally high temperatures that are assumed to have been impossible to attain in ancient times? Author Colin Wilson, offering his opinion concerning the Libyan desert glass, writes about a fuel torch invented by a Bulgarian inventor named Ilya Velbov— who later called himself Yull Brown. On he states, "Brown made the extraordinary discovery that if the hydrogen and oxygen in water are separated and then re-combined in a kind of oxy-acetylene flame, it will punch an instantaneous hole in a piece of hard wood, burn tungsten (requiring 6,000 degrees), vaporize metals, melt a firebrick and weld glass to copper. Brown called this mixture ‘Brown’s gas,’ and the Chinese used it in their submarines to turn seawater into drinking water. Yet because no one understands the process, science has shown total lack of interest in it. However, Brown had no doubt it was known to the ancients, who used it to extract purified gold from gold ore." Just a hunch- this seemed the best place to address it. Hope I formatted correctly. Thx, Indy Author (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Indy Author

Oxyhydrogen discusses Brown's gas, which really does not belong here. Please also be aware that atlantisrisingmagazine is not an appropriate reliable source for statements in an encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've heard a (non sourced, unquotable in main page) story that had it that one of the reasons Western smiths were unable to properly reproduce Damascus steel was that the smelting and forging processes known to them actually involved the metal being too hot, and unable to gain proper carburisation. --Svartalf (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Where Colin Wilson (and/or Brown) went wrong is stating "Brown had no doubt it was known to the ancients". We just can't make those statements. I built my own blacksmith's forge, and have made a lot of high carbon tools with simple systems, much like the ancients used. I once, in fact, abandoned a project because my setup wasn't big enough to get that large a piece of steel hot enough. I can intuit what early smiths went through, but tossing in some later experimentation about temperatures has no place in Wikipedia. Let's just stick to the facts. The modern experiments by metallurgists are interesting, and do have a place here, but we will never know how Damascus Steel was really made, because we weren't there. cheers Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Sources Needed for this section

Metallurgical experiments based on microscopic studies of preserved Damascus-steel blades have claimed to reproduce a similar steel via possible reconstructions of the historical process.

When forming a batch of steel, impurities are added to control the properties of the resulting alloy. In general, notably during the era of Damascus steel, one could produce an alloy that was hard yet brittle at one extreme by adding up to 2% carbon, or a higher level of toughness yet ductile and malleable at the other, with about 0.5% carbon.

Metalsmiths in India and Sri Lanka developed a technique known as wootz steel that produced a high-carbon steel of, what was at the time, unusually high purity for steel. Glass was added to a mixture of iron and charcoal and then heated. The glass would act as a flux and bind to other impurities in the mixture, allowing them to rise to the surface and leave a purer steel when the mixture cooled. Steel making sites were found in Samanalawewa area in Sri Lanka that made high carbon steel as early as 300 BC (Juleff, 1996). These steel making furnaces were built facing western monsoon winds; wind turbulence and suction were used to create a forced draft in the furnace, increasing the heat available. Steel making sites in Sri Lanka have been dated to 300 BC using carbon dating technology. The technique reached modern-day Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan around 900 AD, and then the Middle East circa 1000 AD.

This process was further refined in the Middle East using locally produced steels. The exact process remains unknown, but allowed carbides to precipitate out as micro particles arranged in sheets or bands within the body of a blade. The carbides are harder than the surrounding low carbon steel, allowing the swordsmith to make an edge which would cut hard materials with the precipitated carbides, while the bands of softer steel allowed the sword as a whole to remain flexible.

The banded carbide precipitates appear in the blade as a swirling pattern. By manipulating the ingot of steel in a certain fashion during forging, various intentional patterns could be induced in the steel. One of these patterns was that of lateral bands, which was called 'Muhammad's Ladder'.

This needs a source--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

References

Feeding the trolls

In a move which may irritate some, I have revamped a substantial chunk of this article. I removed a bunch of redundant verbage and broke out individual sections for the attempts at reproducing the original methods. I have tried not to change the information presented, merely organize it a bit.

Cheers, Riventree (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to this page. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 05:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Good change.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I came along in 2024 and did the same. And read your note and chuckled. Clarity and structure editors like you and me are vital to Wikipedia. I appreciate the people who whack the raw data in to articles. But a writer needs to come along and make it flow. Cheers! Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

BC & AD / BCE & ACE debate

I don't want this page to turn into a debate group for which categorization is better, like it has been the past few days. Can we just settle on something and leave it at that? I personally would prefer BC & AD, although if the other date format is agreed upon, I won't care too much. There should be more focus on improving this former featured article, as opposed to bickering about which date format to use. I'm in a crappy mood for unrelated reasons, but this isn't helping. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 00:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

BC and AD works fine and has worked fine for centuries. No need to change unless the proposer brings forth 25 reliable sources with footnotes. Then I'll take them seriously as a scholar as opposed to some johnny-come-lately rabble rouser with too much free time on his hands.  :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been changed and reverted back and forth many times. Right now (June 2012) it looks consistent (with BC & AD), so let's please just leave it that way. - Special-T (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 19:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Damascus Steel Technology, Ancient Origins, and Disapearance

Exposed by Ivan Van Sertima, the origin and manufacture of Damascus metal was discovered to be in Dar Es Salaam, the most southern tip of the Silk Road. The steel likely disappeared in the chaos of the slave trade. The beginning of this video explains the technology behind the steel's creation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dIwh-nyz1g&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutral Enthusiasm (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusion

Could someone please clear up the confusion I have. From what I understand, wootz steel was the material used to make Damascus swords. Where does the term Damascus steel come from? Is it just an alternate name for Wootz steel or something completely different. Also does anyone know where Damascus steel and/or swords were first used? Is it safe to say they were first used in India, or nearby arab countires? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.230.142 (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that wootz steel, created in India, was used by Middle Eastern swordsmiths to create blades. The metal of these blades is referred to as Damascus steel. The creation of the sword produced some subtle changes in the imported Indian steel. In this way, wootz steel and Damascus steel are not the same thing. Wootz steel is a material used to make Damascus steel, which refers to the metal of the finished swords. If this is true, the article is a bit misleading. It seems to imply that Damascus steel was made entirely in India, when in fact the final part of the process was conducted by Middle Eastern swordsmiths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.71.123 (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Advertising for HOMMAGE?

I'm not usually one to participate in editing of wikipedia, but the section about reproduction in the modern era seems particularly problematic, since the very first part is less a wikipedia article and more an advert for HOMMAGE's Damascene Razor. The sources are definitely suspect, as they're claiming that HOMMAGE is using the exact same ancient techniques used for the old Damascus steel, which every other source on the page says are lost, so there's some serious inconsistency going on. The other sections on reproduction seem ok to me, as most of it is actually about academics and/or enthusiast's work in reproducing the techniques. I don't know, the whole HOMMAGE section seems fishy. 206.77.147.193 (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if I'd call it advertising, but the sourcing was/is kind of shitty.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything in the world was first made in India

Many Wikipedia pages have the 'Indian'word as an infection. Anything found in the modern world was first made in 'India'. What kind of an encyclopedia information is this. Even Zero was manufactured in India! There are pages which even direct the origin of certain information to certain states in India!

There seems to be no information that ancient knowledge has no connection to any modern nations and was a globally linked phenomenon that connected to Mayan, Incan, Ancient Egyptian, Ancient Roman, Ancient African, Vedic (Central Asian) civilisations. None of the information that was there has any link to modern nations that have occupied these places. For instance, it is quite possible that modern Egyptians have no idea as how the Pyramid had been made or about the technology that was used. Modern Mayans do not know anything about the ancient Mayan maths, which did use the concept of Zero in times immemorial.

As to Sanskrit and Vedic information, neither the Aryans (Germans) nor the people of India, who study from their school textbooks that it is in their antiquity (with no actual connection) have any idea as to how the Mantras were made or the machinery that was used for creating them.

And there was no India before 1947. The term was just a geographical term use by outsiders to denote the Subcontinent, and during the British rule time, it received a definite boundary that included modern Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. If the British rule had extended into Central Asia, then that would also have been in this boundary.

It is high time the term 'India' is used only to mean the modern nation India, and all other terms have to be rephrased to the exact area where it has context. There is an iron pillar in Mehruli Delhi. It was not made in India, but in some other nation, and the place currently comes under the current nation of India. This much mention has to go with the term 'India'. For, the word India creates confusion.

Dadded

Don't be mad that I'm your dad Just be glad or you'll make me sad

           - kisses,
                     Daddy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.105.134 (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 

The view of a metallurgist

An amazing lot of interest in this subject and so much wrong information.

Viewing it from a metallurgical point of view I would say that high carbon Iron will typically have the grains of the iron surrounded by carbides like shells around the crystals. This makes the metal quite brittle. The process of deforming the material in a moderately hot condition will break up the carbide shells in small pieces and a material consisting of small pieces in a softer matrix is characteristic of super plasticity. One can actually feel the material go softer when the carbide shells have been broken up. It is also characteristic for very strong materials that there are some small particles that can stop the movement of the crystal defects in the grains (cold condition).They get entangled.

In order to stabilize this process you meed to add vanadium (there are possibly other similar metals that can be added as substitutes).

So there you go.

You need to heat it up (according to ancient accounts) to a temperature that make it glow with the color of the sun as it is rising over the desert. Well, that one could have been deduced from the process, you do not wish to end up with carbide shells again. It also needs to be quenched slowly and the myth says Nubian slaves were good for the process ( the idea being that the strength of the slave go into the steel when you insert the sword in the slave, a very good theory that is possible to prove by experiments) but of course very expensive, goats were much cheaper. An alternative process was to cool it in air by gripping the hot sword with a glove and swing it in the air while shouting words of attack. Well anyway cooling it slowly or the sword become like glass.

The result is an excellent sword, with an incredible high tensile strength which is necessary in order to be able to sharpen it and keeping the sharp edge. It is NOT just about sharpening.

The patterns, I would think, is like the Japanese swords produced by both variation in carbon content and impurities. The process of forging is here important in order to distribute the impurities just like in the Japanese swords (I used to be a member of the Japanese club for appreciation of the art of sword making).

Some of the finer Japanese swords look actually much like the Damascus swords. Not just a process of making an edge of martensit.

It is true that suddenly at some point in time the process failed and for almost a 1000 years they tries in Europe and the middle east to reproduce the process. I believe the problem likely was that the ore was depleted and now came from another location.

In about 1851 (please forgive my memory if a little wrong) a Russian claimed that he was able to perform the process. He was very enthusiastic about this and wrote articles about how he would make plows and swords and take over the world. Then suddenly he was quit. He could not reproduce his success, a clear indication of that he missed the important ingredient (vanadium).

Unlike Japanese swords (that are composite) the Damascus swords are fairy homogeneous. They are produced in Salamanca (near Toledo) today. As the article says there are many fakes.

The Swedish swords (Sandviken) are made in a spray process where liquid steel is blown into small droplets/particles by Nitrogen and deposited on an ingot that is rotating. The carbides has no time to build shells around the grains and are distributed finely in the matrix. (no vanadiun og alloys needed, except for further improvements).

The attraction from a industrial point of view is that there need not be much else in the steel than carbon and a little vanadium. The steel is fantastic and cheap but unfortunately it is difficult to make an industrial process that simulates hand manipulation with a hammer.

So inconclusion: nanotubes? for strength? really? and there are a lot of literature on this subject, please read the right stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningbrand (talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Damascus steel and wootz steel should be merged

Damascus steel / wootz steel are the same, they both refer to a type of crucible steel than when forged properly shows a particular type of pattern. This type of steel is known to have been produced in Persia, India, Bukhara and other areas in the middle East and Asia. I suggest merging the best parts of both articles into one article. Disinterested spectator (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't. Damascus steel is a cultural phenomena. It was produced in the same way, and quite often was made of, wootz steel. But they are different things. Perfectly ok to have a Damascus steel article, because El Cid's sword is referred to in the literature as Damascus steel, but have a link to the wootz/crucible article. My two cents. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Alec Steele Method

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okv20xniROg Is this similar to the methods described on the page ? Genetics4good (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Image inaccuracy

The images provided on the "Damascus" and "Crucible" steel pages are identical, but have captions identifying them differently. I'm searching for an image source and having a hard time finding a definitive one to clarify the origin of the artifact. Any help here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirBedeveretheWise (talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sir BTW. (lol) "Damascus Steel" is an early form of branding. It can refer to the properties of the sword, or the source, or the source of final assembly from imported ingots, or even just have been dashed on for sale like some hot sauce in a restaurant. Good luck adding images. A good thing to do. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring on Damascus steel, Wootz steel / SRI LANKA

There are some people who try to establish that Wootz steel and Damascus steel originated in Sri Lanka by using sources, which confirm only a medieval production in Sri Lanka. Please provide proper sources from archaeologist and historian accounts and avoid synthesis of statements.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Medieval or modern, if it was produced in Sri Lanka, it is worth mentioning that in this article if proper sources exists. It is worth mentioning these facts about lost arts in order to derive enthusiasm for conducting further research on these topics. Please refer to the royal society publication https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.1912.0002 where it clearly provides evidence from Seegiriya and other locations in Sri Lanka that wootz steel was indeed forged. I also refer you to a book "Early Iron and Steel in Sri Lanka: A study of the Samanalawewa Area (Materialien Zur Allgemeinen Und Vergleichenden Archeaologie,)" by Gillian Juleff (Author): "https://www.amazon.com/Early-Iron-Steel-Lanka-Vergleichenden/dp/3805325126" that discusses how Damascus steel was forged in the Samanalawewa area in collaboration with Indian experts. I urge the ignorant to look into proper sources like these. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in the discussion. Sri Lanka is already mentioned as a production site at the Wootz Steel article along with other regions:

In later times, wootz steel was also made in Golconda in Telangana, Karnataka and Sri Lanka.

The Chinese and locals in Sri Lanka adopted the production methods of creating wootz steel from the Chera Tamils by the 5th century BC. In Sri Lanka, this early steel-making method employed a unique wind furnace, driven by the monsoon winds. Production sites from antiquity have emerged, in places such as Anuradhapura, Tissamaharama and Samanalawewa, as well as imported artifacts of ancient iron and steel from Kodumanal. A 200 BC Tamil trade guild in Tissamaharama, in the South East of Sri Lanka, brought with them some of the oldest iron and steel artifacts and production processes to the island from the classical period.

These quotes have still to be crosschecked, as I fear they were also inappropriately edited by some people.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I fear that Damascus steel page lacks any reference to Sri Lanka which is a shame because of its relation to wootz steel prominently. The sources cited by me clearly points out that Sinhala wane was indeed a reference to Damascus steel and many in the world at that time was specifically referring to Sri Lanka for that particular brand of steel produced by wind. I believe an accreditation should be given to sri lanka on the damascus steel page when it is the case that India was given proper standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrantbrian (talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be easy to find such professional references, if your argument is valid. I will search for them and add a reference to Sri Lanka in the Damascus steel article.ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I was able to find a proper reference and added it to the article: [3] ThaThinThaKiThaTha (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Reproduction

"Pattern-welded steel has been referred to as "Damascus steel" since 1973 when Bladesmith William F. Moran unveiled his "Damascus knives" at the Knifemakers' Guild Show."

What a ridiculous sentence. Pattern-welded steel was NOT referred to as "Damascus steel" before 1973? Probably a look at the gun section of an old Sears catalog from 1895 would prove that version of history wrong.

Beowulf

The reference to Beowulf is interesting but a bit questionable. That is one translation of a phrase in the poem, but I don't think it is the standard one.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

For example, in Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary, Tolkien translates it as "stained with a device of branching venom" or "deadly with venom from poisoned shoots" (p 118).--Jack Upland (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Jack Upland, I appreciate your input here. I added that source initially, because I thought that it seemed academically sound enough, because of the paper's affiliation with University of California at Davis. What I hope to do in the next week or so is perhaps find an additional source that would sample Modern English Beowulf text describing the sword as "Damascened". Once I finish an unrelated Wikipedia template I'm working on, then I will attempt to put more attention to this matter.

Bear in mind, swords and other weaponry are not my usual fields. More opinions here would be greatly appreciated. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Peace and Love, brothers and sisters!

Hi, I just did a fairly major restructure to get this article to flow from history to modern times. I moved the reputation up before the metallurgy as that is why most people will come here. Gosh, I hate edit warring.

I'm trying to stay out of the India/Damascus debate. My observation of history is that many important techniques start somewhere and move across the world, but don't always get the credit they deserve, so I think it is fair to say, given the sources supporting it, that what is called Damascus steel in the West, had its roots in India. Medieval Europe would not sell swords called "Sri Lankan Swords", etc. Let's just trace the facts across time.

As a steel maker myself, who learned the techniques of forging both "Damascus Steel" and "Japanese Steel" I definitely support keeping this article called Damascus Steel. That is a huge cultural thing in the West. All these articles are fine. I came here from the El Cid article. Read it before you suggest deletion of Damascus Steel. I would support another article on "History of steel making."

best regards Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)