Talk:Pattern welding

---

Misc

I am not sure that the technique described is exactly what I remember from a lecture I attended at MIT in the late 1960's, which was given by the British museum expert (I do not remember his name right now) who named the technique. It seems to me that one of the points was the all the layers did not have to be the same metal. I know that this is true for the Jappanese sword, but I seem to remember that the Viking examples used a harder metal in the center for the edge and a tougher metal in outside layers. I also believe that a prominent professor of metalurgy in the audience responded by describing some similar examples from an Asian tradition. Sorry this is all so vague, but I do not think that the definition of pattern welding should exclude using layers of dissimilar metals.

Are you sure you want allowance for different metals, and not just different alloys? As far as I know (although I know much less than I'd like about swordsmithing), pattern welding is exclusively a technique for ferrous materials (iron and some of the various steels). Peter Knutsen 06:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe I also attended that same lecture. I believe the speaker was Herbert Maryon. As I recall he was so frail at the time that someone had to read his talk for him. I also recall that several prominent professors were interested in the talk and contributed comments. I attended because I had read his outstanding book, Metalwork and Enamelling ISBN-13: 978-0486227023, which also discusses many other fascinating topics such as Chinese "magic mirrors" and Etruscan beading, and which he also talked about.

Here is a reference I just found to an article he wrote: Maryon, Herbert, "Pattern-welding and Damascening of Sword-blades: Part I - Pattern-Welding," Studies in Conservation 5 (1960), p. 25 - 37. This brief review article by the originator of the term "pattern-welding" accurately details all the salient points of the construction of pattern-welded blades and of how all the patterns observed result as a function of the depth of grinding into a twisted rod structure. The article also includes a brief description of pattern-welding as encountered in the Malay kris. "...Part 2: The Damascene Process" appeared in the same volume of this journal as pages 52 - 60 and deals with Eastern wootz Damascene steels. --AJim (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@Peter Knutsen and AJim: Little bit late to the party here, but you may find this neat. While building out the Herbert Maryon page I came upon a notice in the MIT newspaper The Tech of the lecture you attended. Bottom left of the front page, from May 2, 1962: http://tech.mit.edu/V82/PDF/V82-N12.pdf Usernameunique (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Upon further reflection I believe the person who read Maryon's talk (and probably arranged the lecture) was Professor Cyril Stanley Smith. AJim (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as swordmaking goes, ONLY ferrous materials are used (different kinds of steel). Steel is the only metal alloy with the right combination of toughness and hardness for this purpose. A few metals are harder (I'm pretty sure molybdenum and tungsten are); I do not know that any metals are tougher.

What you've described above -- a tougher metal for the outside of the sword, harder metal for the inside actually refers to tougher STEEL and harder STEEL, not different metals. This, by the way, is not pattern welded.

Different metals are indeed pattern welded, but this is done for aesthetic reasons (used in jewelry) and this process (and its product) is known by the Japanese term "mokume". Tullie 22:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Viking swords weren't the first to have a "piled-core" construction, either; numerous Roman swords have been found that display a number of variations on the technique, whereby steel bars with differing levels of carbon were hammered together under heat to produce thick steel layers of differing flexibility and hardness within the blade. (It's worth pointing out that the Romans hadn't quite figured out precisely why this made the swords stronger than simply making them from steel with uniform carbon content.)71.161.113.98 (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The thing most people don't realize is, that until Benjamin Huntsman created his crucible steel in the 1740s, there was no such thing as steel with a uniform carbon-content. There is little evidence of intentional pattern-welding in Europe, with the exception of the Merovingian swords (sometimes called Viking swords, although for about 1000 years they were popular across most of Europe). The style of blade was popular, although the name simply is because it's popularity rose and fell almost exactly the same times as the rise and fall of the Merovingian and Carolingian Dynasties, not necessarily because of where they were made.Zaereth (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

"Today the Japanese katana is still considered by many to be the best sword ever produced" Can we please get a cite for this. These are classing weasel words. The Japanese smiths acheived great results with some pretty poor grade steel using only manaul labor (whereas Eurpoeans waited untill the water-wheel powered tilt hammer and bellows before attepting the huge amount of mechanical work that goes into pig iron). I also don't think pattern welding ended as described. The same techniques were still used to homenize pig iron into steel, but the all the layers were of the same alloy, so there is no visible patttern to bring out. 12.10.223.247 03:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think its important to understand that toughness is a mechanical property that is best achieved by combining hardness with ductility through the process of lamination. (ie: Plywood.) The Japanese took this to extremes in sword making. The Viking swords achieved similar benefit totally by accident. The Vikings would make their swords by simply forge welding together whatever small bits of steel they could pillage, (often nails and such from houses they'd burned down). The forged in layers can be of alloys of completely different metal, such as copper, but in Japan this is strictly decorative for ceremonial swords, and are not suitable for combat. The layers in pattern welding is almost always steel alloys of varying carbon content. Having the harder steel on the outside would be the only way suitable for combat. Damascus steel on the other hand was produced by melting cast iron in a crucible, stacking wrought iron plates in the crucible until almost melted, and then forging the resulting layered block into a blade with very little, or no folding. The earliest reference to this type of steel used for the3 edge, and iron for the back comes from Shen Kuo (ca. A.D. 1065) "Ancient people use chi kang, (combined steel), for the edge, and jou thieh (soft iron) for the back, otherwise it would often break. Too strong a weapon will cut and destroy its own edge; that is why it is advisable to use nothing but combined steel." This info can be found in the book, "A History of Metallography", by Cyril Smith. Zaereth (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the author is bashing the Vikings. From "Swords of the Viking Age", 2004, by Ian G. Peirce, Ewart Oakeshott, page 145:

"Termed a 'piled' structure, this manner of construction allowed the swordsmith to localize desire properties by joining together irons with differing properties resulting, in turn, from differing concentrations of trace elements. Requiring hardness, the cutting edges were made of steel, which is an alloy of iron with small amounts of carbon."

"Between the significant and unpredictable variations in successive blooms of source metal..."

"Piled construction allowed such localization of properties to provide a sword with a hard and sharp edge with a tough backing."

"Late pattern-welded blades may have a thin veneer of pattern-welding over a more homogeneous iron core, suggesting that, while pattern-welding may have evolved as a consequence of a piled structure, in the end it was a decorative process."

The Cyril Smith reference dates to 1960, and much has been learned in the past couple of decades about European and Near East arts of swordmaking. As for Smith's comment on only combined steel being advisable, go read the requirements for the Journeyman test of the American Bladesmith Society[1]. The journeyman test requires the test blade to survive a 90 degree bend without significant breakage, and forbids the use of pattern welded "Damascus" steel. All variations in properties across the width of the blade are due to differential heat treatment (see mention of the "temper line of the blade"). scot (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not Viking bashing. The method of piling up scavenged steel and forge welding it into a single sword was not uncommon in the ancient world, and produced very fine weapons. Even the Japanese sometimes used this method. And the quote at the end was not from Mr. Smith, but from Shen Kuo, as translated by Tawara, in the year 1065. True, much has been learned since then, but I find Mr. Shen's opinion to be interesting, and Mr. Smith's book to give a good look at these blades from a metallurgists point of view. Zaereth (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, rechecked the source. The quote from Mr. Shen was translated by Needham in his "Dream Pool Essays". Since the article is Pattern Welding, I think maybe the entire quote would be nice, to continue: "As for the yu-chhang (fish intestines) effect, it is what is now called the 'snake-coiling' steel sword, or alternitively, the 'pine tree design'. If you cook a fish fully and remove its bones, the shape of its guts will be seen to be like the lines on a 'snake-coiling sword'." This is the oldest known reference to patterns in the steel, (at least it was the oldest known reference in 1960), and actually comes from China. Zaereth (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source on Katana manufacture, if it is of interest, to qoute from it: "In ancient times, the resource of the Japanese sword was mainly steel scraps (such as nail, broken pot, plow, etc.) as well as a tamahagane ...". [2] Zaereth (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and to Tullie, there are a few alloys that are very suitable, but most always steel based. Mangalloy, (battleship armor), makes an excellent sword if you can work it. Extremely impact and abrasion resistant. A grinder will barely scratch it.Zaereth (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Innacurate

The article says "Steel made with the bloomery process, used throughout much of the ancient world, was of very poor quality for making knives and swords. The bloom itself consisted of cast iron, a very brittle form of steel containing over 2% carbon by weight". This is wrong. A bloomery furnace produces wrought iron, not steel or cast iron, and the iron bloom has extremely low carbon content. Cast iron is cast, hence the name, and casting is an entirely different process than smelting ore in a bloomery furnace. Wrought iron is so-so for making knives, not very great for making swords, but you can do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.35.203.124 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about the process used to make pig iron and wrought iron, although wrong about the usefullness of wrought iron. Wrought iron is very ductile and can not be hardened. The ancient Egyptians had both wrought and pig iron 5000 years ago, but found them unsuitable for weaponry, and so used bronze instead. Wrought iron, however, resists stress fracture and does not rust, (no more than a thin layer on the surface), and is good for cotter pins and ocean side fences, and the soft inner core of a sword. Zaereth (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I question the following conclusion -"By the 6th and 7th centuries, pattern welding had reached a level where thin layers of patterned steel were being overlayed onto a soft iron core, indicating that the pattern welding was primarily decorative rather than functional. " - doesn't Japanese sword making benifit from layering harder steel onto a soft steel core? How do we know the result was not more functional over what was available at the time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.142.42.77 (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure that it started that early. Adding a soft-iron core helps prevent breakage, but I don't think this really started until the 11th or 12th century (in Japan). By the 1300s, swordsmiths such as Kunimitsu and Masamune were creating swords made from up to seven different components; a soft-iron core, spring steel for the sides, and tool steel for the edge, outer-skin, and back. This method of combining different compositions of metals is still used today, creating an internal structure to compensate for the limitations of the individual metals. I have a couple of cross-sections of jackhammer bits right here that show the layering of hard and softer metal to increase the toughness.

Not much attention was paid to fine polishing or surface patterns in Japan during this time. The blades were constructed for purely functional reasons, and were thoroughly tested both in and out of combat. Not long after the 1600s, though, forging methods began in Japan which were purely decorative. Methods of hammering in just the right spots, so as to produce "eyes" or "waves" in the layers. When combined with decorative differential hardening, swords have been produced with entire landscapes forges into the surface, including particular cities or islands complete with crashing waves on the ocean and flocks of birds in the sky, flowery meadows, mountain ranges, etc... Zaereth (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo

I have added a photo of my sword, showing the mokume-gane patten in the blade. Colorful pictures are always nice. Zaereth (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Earliest example

In the History section we have the statement "The earliest known use of pattern welding in Europe is from an 8th century BCE sword" followed in the same section by "The technique first appeared about 300 BCE". The intervening text meanders from Europe to Asia but the remainder of the second quotation places it back it Europe. Things look a bit disjoint and contradictory, and with no references to support the History section I'm at a loss to sort out the apparent confusion. Can anyone help? -- Timberframe (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I will check my sources to see what I can find, but it may be a week or so. From what I recall, the earliest "steel" swords were actually forged from metorites, and produced very intricate crystaline patterns. After that came Wootz steel, a combination of wrought iron and pig iron, which was not steel in the modern sense, but combined the two irons in a laminated structure to utilize the extreme hardness of one, and the extreme softness of the other. This began to lead to the Damascus swords, which spread across China to Japan, and across Asia. It took a lot longer to come up with a good steel smelting process in Europe. Small quantities of steel were always a happy by product of smelting iron, and were often used to make such things as nails and small tools. These of course were forged together to make swords, which produced the "piled" structure common in the Merovingian blades. However, let me do some research to verify this information. Zaereth (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I feel sure there's a fascinating story trying to get out here, I just can't avoid getting distracted by the inconsistencies :) -- Timberframe (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Heres a place to start Iron and steel in ancient times Vagn Fabritius Buchwald Published by Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 2005 ISBN 8773043087, 9788773043080. I've been looking at google books,this ones got good stuff on northern Europe.J8079s (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That looks like an excellent source. I'll read through that also, and see if together we can come up with a better time line. I think it's worthy to note that the smith was at the forefront of the ancient arms race, and every attempt was made to improve upon previous designs. It's almost impossible to classify any one technique to a particular area, but may be easier to understand where they originated, and how they spread and developed. Zaereth (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have started compiling some information about the history of pattern welding, (and iron in general), under the title User:Zaereth/Pattern Welding History. I'll be adding more over the next week or two. Feel free to help out if anyone has something else to add. Zaereth (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another good source; The microstructure of steels and cast irons Madeleine Durand-Charre Springer, 2004 ISBN 3540209638, 9783540209638. Its got a great history section.J8079s (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC). The problem of forging blades has been developped and updated in Madeleine Durand-Charre "Damascus and Pattern-welded Steels. Forging bladesx since the iron ages", 2014, {(ISBN)978-2-7598-1173-1}

Thanks. I'll check it out. It appears that from what I've been reading so far that the Europeans were creating swords in the Merovingian style long before Wootz steel was invented, but there was not much development afterward, until good steel making processes came about. It seems that in Europe, more attention was paid to getting and using the right kinds of steel. In Asia, more focus was paid to creating an internal structure that would make up the inferiority of the more common forms of iron. I'm still working on it, though, but my spare time is very limited here in the summer. Thanks for your help. Zaereth (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my research so far has lead me to believe that Timberframe's original concern may be valid. I have yet to find a source that backs up the claim of a pattern-welded sword from Germany dating to ~ 800 BC. Does anyone have access to the source listed, "Salter, C and Ehrenreich, R M 1984. Iron Age metallurgy in central southern Britain, in Cunliffe and Miles", to verify this? I have found a couple of sources that say the oldest pattern-welded blade found was a Merovingian (French) blade found at a Roman site in Britain, dated to somewhere around 150 - 200 AD. Most source do agree that iron working arrived in Europe ~ 800 BC, mainly from coins and other artifacts found, and anything made from either a "sponge" of raw metal, or multiple pieces of varying carbon content, will show a pattern when forged flat and then honed, but the Merovingian's seemed to be the first people known to develope intentional forging of patterns into the metal, (ie: the twisted bar method, and such), around the area of the Rhine River. This method spread north to Britain and Scandinavia, but mysteriously disappeared around 1000 - 1200 AD. Zaereth (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have found a couple of sources that list the German sword as being the oldest sword found in Europe, such as this, http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/58447/---/l=2 , but nothing that calls it pattern-welded. I'm wondering if it may be a simple misunderstanding on the part of the author, but I don't have access to the Salter/Ehrenreich paper. Can anybody verify this statement, because it is contrary to other sources that claim the find in third century AD Britain to be the first pattern-welding. Zaereth (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

hrunting

Beowulf is described receiving the sword in lines 1455-1458:

"And another item lent by Unferth

at that moment of need was of no small importance:

the brehon handed him a hilted weapon,

a rare and ancient sword named Hrunting.

The iron blade with its ill-boding patterns

had been tempered in blood. It had never failed

the hand of anyone who hefted it in battle,

anyone who had fought and faced the worst

in the gap of danger. This was not the first time

it had been called to perform heroic feats

This is the oldest ref in english that I can find.J8079s (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is very interesting. I found this, which is a letter from Cassiodorus, (a sixth century AD chronicler), written to express thanks for a gift of Merovingian swords from Thrasamond, King of the Vandals, to Theodoric the Ostrogoth:

Through your brotherly affection swords that will cut even through armor have been forwarded to us, together with pitch-black drums and foreign pageboys of noble birth and fair complexion. These swords are richer for their iron than for the value of the gold [which embellishes them]: for there flashes out from them such a polished brilliance that they reflect with the utmost fidelity the faces of those who look at them. Their sides approach the edges with such uniformity that you would think that they were not fashoned by files, but cast from firey furnaces; their centers, hollowed out with beautiful grooves, seem to undulate with worm-like markings; for shadows of such variety you would think the metal was interwoven rather than shining [superficially] with different colors. The metal your whetstone so carefully shapes, this your spledid dust (granted to your country by the bounty of nature) so thoroughly polishes that it makes the gleam of the iron a very mirror of men. A particular opinion has arisen regarding them: that they are swords made by Vulcan - he who apparently perfected the art of the smith with such elegance that whatever was fashoned by his hand was thought to be, not the work of mortals, but divine. Accordingly, in returning to you our kindest regards through your so-and-so ambassador, we declare that we have recieved your weapons with pleasure, which they have conveyed to us as earnests of a good peace. In consideration of your munificence we are sending you a gift in return; may it be as acceptable to you as yours was pleasing to us. May these auspicious gifts vouchsafe us friendship, so that in making these heartfelt interchanges between us we may unite our nations and in reciprocal concern bind ourselves together for our mutual advantage.

This is found in the book A History of Metallography, page 7, as translated from Latin by University of Chicago professor John Hawthorne. Zaereth (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Reapearance of the pattern

In medieval times, swords and probably knives were expected to have magical properties. The re-appearance of a pattern on the blade after it had been sharpened or worn, and the blade rusted, must have had magical significance. So in modern knives, the re-appearance of the pattern is important for its mythical character, as well as for its durability and its authenticity (showing that the pattern is in the metal not in the finish).