Historical Analysis and Replication Experiments

The reputation of Damascus swords, as strong, sharp and flexible, led to research into the mechanisms that caused its apparent superior properties. Crucible and Damascus steel have been studied in earnest since the late 18^th century and continue to the present day. The pattern was associated with high quality steel.  A review of the early experiments is used here to ascertain why, where and when certain claims about crucible steel and Damascus steel began, such as the introduction of the term wootz and its association with Damascus steel.  Replication experiments also suggest materials and methods that could have been used in antiquity to produce crucible steel in addition to necessary aspects of the process which cannot be deduced from archaeological evidence alone.

Summary of English and French Research

The earliest recorded inquiry in England into Damascus steel was by Moxon (1677) who reported that Damascus steel was the best type of steel but it was the most difficult to forge and it would red sear (be “hot short”). He also stated that the workmen believed it was cast steel and was enormously valuable for making punches etc. Moxon was also interested in where the steel was originally made and stated that a Mr. Boyl “hath been very careful and industrious in that inquiry; giving it in particular charge to some Travellers to Damascus to bring home an account of it: But when they came thither they heard of none made there, but were sent about fifty miles further into the Country and they were told of about fifty miles further than that: so that no certain account could be gained where it is made” (Moxon, 1677, 56).  The next reported investigations during the 18^th century were in France by Réamuer (Belaiew, 1918, 419) who noted that ingots from the Levant were difficult to forge but easier to forge than those from Egypt.

Interest increased in England during the late 1700s when Dr. Helenus Scott of Bombay gave so-called “cakes” of crucible steel to Sir Joseph Banks, the then President of the Royal Society. Banks sent the specimens to England for examination and put in a request for more information about the production of crucible steel in India. Banks gave the “cakes” to Pearson, Stodart, and Mushet to study.  This set the stage for many assertions that still exist in English language literature today, specifically that India was the primary supplier of wootz crucible steel throughout history and that Indian wootz steel was the material used to produce Damascus swords.

George Pearson studied the “cakes” and in 1795 gave a lecture to the Royal Society where he was the first Britain to state that it was a type of steel, and also to use the term wootz in print. He makes no association between wootz and any pattern.

In 1804 the metallurgist David Mushet received 5 “cakes” from Banks.  Mushet describes the “cakes” external surface appearance in great detail, he remarks on how well they forged, in addition he provides information of his own experiments.  Mushet does use the term wootz in the text but does not mention any pattern or the term Damascus steel, except when he makes a tangential comment that the Damascus pattern is a mixture of soft iron and steel (Mushet, 1840, 663). This comment of mixing soft iron and steel, however, suggests that Mushet was referring to the pattern-welded variety not crucible Damascus steel.

 In 1818 Stodart approached Michael Faraday (1791-1867), with one of Banks “cakes” to “ascertain whether any other elements were present in the wootz than iron and carbon” (Faraday, 1819, 288). Faraday also analysed a piece of English steel to compare the compositions. He then set out to replicate wootz in the laboratory of the Royal Institution but was unsuccessful. In his paper he does not mention any pattern.  The purpose of the research was not to replicate the pattern, but improve the quality of the steel, initiating research into alloy steels that are still widely used today. 

The first reference to an apparent relationship between wootz and the Damascus pattern appears in Stodart and Faraday’s 1820 paper on alloys. “We have ascertained by direct experiment, that wootz, although repeatedly fused, retains the peculiar property of presenting a damask surface, when forged, polished and acted upon by dilute acid” (Williams, 1965, 113).  Apparently this notion that wootz produced a Damascus pattern was already accepted in the scientific community as Bréant also discusses wootz and the pattern in a paper published in 1824. 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. His assumption, therefore, of wootz producing a Damascus pattern has led to much confusion in the subsequent literature.  

Some time before 1837, Henry Wilkinson, the famous sword manufacturer, also took an interest in the cause of the pattern. Rostoker and Bronson (1990, 130) claim that Wilkinson was the first European to make an explicit correlation between the visible crystals on the surface of an unforged steel ingot and the patterning on the finished sword. However, Wilkinson contributed to our understanding in further ways. He published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society a request for materials and information on production of Indian wootz steel (1839, 383-389). Apparently, he obtained samples from Cutch, on the India-Pakistan boarder, and also from Salem, southern India.  After performing some experiments Wilkinson (1839, 389) concluded that only the wootz from Cutch produced “jowhar” or watering.  He compares the steel from Cutch to that from Salem. He says that the Salem sample had only a slight indication of a pattern and the steel was inferior, but the sample from Cutch was of excellent quality and both the “cake” and finished object exhibited a Damascus pattern. Wilkinson, therefore, makes a direct correlation between the use of the word “jowhar” at Cutch, signifying a Central Asian connection. Abbott also made the observation that patterned steel was being produced in northern India and there the producers called that product pulad.

It seems, therefore, that wootz becomes associated with the Damascus pattern before the 1820s but the association is not made from ethnographic observations but via European replication experiments.  It shall also be noted that the only ethnographically produced crucible steel that made a “quality” Damascus pattern was from northern India/Pakistan, which is fundamentally Central Asian, not from southern India, which is associated with the term wootz.  In addition, in northern India, the use of the word pulad indicates Persian connections in the process and further associating Central Asia with the presence of Damascus steel swords. 

Methods of reproducing Damascus steel were known during the 19^th century, although throughout the 20^th century scholars still attempted to “rediscover” it. The assumption is that the technique was “lost” due to a lack of examination of primary research, rather than a true “mystery”.  Rostoker and Bronson had it back-to-front when they wrote in 1990 (p. 132) “Even though we seem to have reasonable explanations for the origin of the damascene pattern, no one has yet replicated the true Damascus sword”.  This is not true, as Anosov had replicated true Damascus swords.  However, recently there have been new discoveries about the mechanisms that cause the appearance of the “Damascus” pattern.

Anosov documented four different crucible charges and processes that he used to produce crucible steel:

According to Anosov all of these methods produced crucible steel with a Damascus pattern. Crucible charges and processes employed in all other ethnographic accounts, translations from ancient texts, or replication experiments of crucible steel, can be placed into one of Anosov’s four categories, although the details of charges and processes vary.

Studies and attempts to replicate Damascus steel are still being performed, such as by the blacksmith Al Pendray and Richard Furrer in America (pers. com.), and Mike Peterson in Australia (pers. com.). Recent attempts have been conducted by the team of J. Wadsworth and O. D. Sherby (e.g. 1992, 165-172), and by the team led by J. D. Verhoeven (e.g. 2001). Both teams claim to have rediscovered the process of making Damascus steel (Verhoeven, 2001; Sherby and Wadsworth, 1985, 112-120). Sherby and Wadsworth (1985, 112-120) heated steel (1.7%C) castings to 1,150^OC for 15 hours and then slowly cooled the steel at a rate of 10^O C per hour.  The steel was then reheated to 800^O C and rolled to simulate forging.  They reported that a Damascus pattern was visible in the finished product and therefore was a rediscovery of the Damascus steel process. Their method is comparable with Anosov’s third method; however, Sherby and Wadsworth used more modern equipment than Anosov had.  The use of steel casting and the rolling of the steel are inconsistent with traditional historical steel production methods. It is more appropriate to state that Sherby and Wadsworth had found a method of producing a Damascus pattern under modern laboratory conditions using modern technology.

Verhoeven, however, used more traditional methods. Verhoeven et al. (e.g. 2001) primarily used ethnographic reports of wootz production as the inspiration for their experiments. Depending upon the experiment, they used leaves, glass, oyster shells, and steel or wrought iron in the crucible charge. Essentially their experiments were based on a carburization process. Their experiments have contributed to our knowledge of possible crucible charges and the factors needed to produce the characteristic Damascus pattern.