|
Post by MOK on Nov 1, 2015 13:58:11 GMT
No, not at all. Different steels, different production processes, different raw materials. Of the quarter (approximately) of Ulfberht swords with the spelling +VLFBERH+T, most are probably made from crucible steel. Probably Central Asian crucible steel, since the Central Asian steelmaking industry was well-connected to the Crimea/Black Sea end of the Viking trade routes by the Central Asian trade routes. I haven't seen any detailed analysis of the alloys, just carbon content (typically 1.2-1.6%), hardness, and mmicrostructure. Mechanically, they'll behave like wootz, if you distinguish between wootz and Central Asian crucible steel. Of course they're similar - steel is steel is steel, to some extent, and indeed they're both crucible steels - but AFAIK the manufacturing processes were somewhat different, the resulting steels are at least cosmetically different and the raw materials certainly came from different sources. (I could be wrong on the first two counts, in which case I'd appreciate being corrected. )
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Nov 1, 2015 21:31:22 GMT
There isn't a single recipe for wootz; there were variations over time and different places. Same for Persian and Central Asian crucible steels. Taking that variation into account, there's more overlap than difference in the Indian and Persian/Central Asian processes. There were real differences in the processes: different types of crucibles, different arrangement in the furnace, removing when hot or cold. But there's a lot of variation in what goes into the crucibles within each group, and that's more important. Feuerbach gives a summary of the differences: www.academia.edu/397355/Crucible_Damascus_Steel_A_Fascination_for_Almost_2_000_YearsThere's a lot of variation in appearance within each group, as well, with patterns varying from very fine to quite coarse. Looking at the pattern alone, I can't tell whether the steel is wootz (Indian) or pulad/bulat (Persian/Central Asian). Maybe some people can. Same thing for modern "wootz". The range of patterns is large, and overlaps those of old wootz and old pulad/bulat. I can't tell whether it's modern or old from the pattern alone. Even features of the larger-scale pattern that come from details of the folding have been replicated. I haven't seen an Ulfberht sword with a good enough surface condition to see what kind of pattern might be visible. At least some of them have the same microstructure that wootz/bulat patterned swords have, so they should be able to have patterns. This isn't just a matter of using the right ultra-high carbon steel, but also of working it for long enough at the right temperature (relatively cool, deep red heat) to break up the cementite (carbides) into very small spheroidal grains.
|
|