This week, as an addendum to our four(and a half)-part (I, II, III, IVa, IVb) look at pre-modern iron and steel production, we’re going to look at two alternative regional processes, where they fit into the entire iron production process that we detailed already, how they worked and what kind of product they produced. In particular, we are going to look at the early production of cast iron in China, and the production of a form of crucible steel, called wootz, in India (and South Asia more broadly).
First, some necessary caveats. Neither of these methods of iron production were practiced in my core area of research (the greater Mediterranean world during the Hellenistic and Roman periods), although wootz steel was imported in small quantities during that time and a handful of cast iron goods produced in China also made it to the broader Roman or Hellenistic world (though very, very few). Consequently my knowledge here is much thinner and I am much more reliant on reporting the work of other scholars. Moreover, some of the scholarship on these topics is in languages I do not read, so I am also reliant on other scholars for that. As such, this is going to be a much more general discussion of these processes and I am going to be a bit more cautious about what I say about them. At the same time, I simply don’t have the information to talk much about the details of the lives of the iron-workers here themselves, like I could in the previous posts, so this will mostly focus on process and product, rather than people.
That said, I thought this was still worth doing because it seems like there is quite a bit of unhelpful ‘mystique’ surrounding both. On the one hand, a lot of the discussion of the production of cast iron in China fails to really put the innovation both in the correct spot in the iron production process but also in the correct context in terms of the development of iron-working technology. On the other hand, much of the popular discussion about wootz steel in India treats it as this quasi-legendary ‘lost’ and mysterious production process when it is, in fact, a fairly well understood method of producing high-quality steel.
And of course, as always, if you want to support my essay production process, you can do so via Patreon and by sharing to my work to a wider audience (but please do not copy-and-repost these essays; link to them instead). And if you want updates whenever a new post appears, you can click below for email updates or follow me on twitter (@BretDevereaux) for updates as to new posts as well as my occasional ancient history, foreign policy or military history musings (and I promise fewer political musings now that the electoral götterdämmerung has come and – heavens I hope by the time this post goes live – gone).
(Subsequent edit: Due to some election-related trolling coming from off-site, I had to prune back the comments to the original topic. Apologies for those whose comments were pruned (except the troll) but I wanted to keep us on topic and away from the abyss of endless political carping.)
Cast Iron in China
Now I’ve stated several times during this series that generally speaking the bloomeries used to smelt iron in the pre-modern period were not capable of reaching the high temperatures (1538 °C) required to actually melt iron and instead produced pure metallic iron through solid state reduction (that is, the bloomery process) along with, essentially, melting everything that wasn’t iron out of the bloom. And for most of the world in most of the pre-modern period, this is true.
China appears to be the odd exception. I should note that this is an area of scholarship that is still quite active – dates are still in flux (shifting back as new discoveries push back the earliest dates) and the exact nature of the transitions from bronze-working to iron-working in China and the degree to which the bloomery processes we’ve discussed served as an intermediate stage is still debated, as far as I know. A fair bit of the discussion of the question is, unsurprisingly, in Chinese, which I cannot read. So I am doing my best to provide a summary of what I know.
Cast iron in China seems to become widespread during the Warring States period (453-221), though the technology itself probably had its genesis in the earlier Spring and Autumn period (770-454) and it becomes truly ubiquitous during the early Qin-Han Period (221 BC – 220 AD). The general working hypothesis based on the evidence is that the cast iron product emerged not out of bloomery iron production (which seems to have been used in China side-by-side with cast iron production for the first couple of centuries) but instead out of the furnace techniques already in use for casting objects in copper-alloy (read: bronze), until the cast iron process became able to produce a high enough quality iron product that it supplanted bloomery production, probably in the last century BC. Again, those dates are very approximate and seem to me to still be significantly unsettled, going by the range I’ve seen in scholarship (the most recent I could find on this was “Everything Old is new Again? Rethinking the Transition to Cast Iron production in the Central Plains of China” in Journal of Anthropological Research (2014), so those are the dates I have gone with; Craddock and Tylecote both have somewhat later dates).
The basic interaction of producing cast iron centers around one oddity in carbon-iron alloys: as you add more carbon to iron, the melting point of the resulting mixture drops. At 4.3% carbon content, the melting point of iron drops to just 1150 °C, which as you will recall, is very much within reach for pre-modern furnaces worked by bellows (and China seems to have generally had better, hotter furnaces than contemporary pre-modern Europe to boot). Adding small amounts of either sulfur (typically from coal being used to supply the carbon) or phosphorous can lower the melting point further, although these can also make the metal brittle. At that point, large, bellows-fed furnaces can heat the iron-carbon mixture up to the point where it melts and becomes sufficiently fluid to cast (slag and other impurities, being lighter, can be drawn out with a flux and tapped off). The result is cast iron (also called ‘pig iron’).
The problem, as we’ve discussed earlier, is that cast iron (which, to be clear, iron produced this way is still cast iron, even if you aren’t pouring it into a model; it is a type of iron as will become plain) comes out of the process with unfavorable characteristics, particularly in strength, brittleness and malleability – in short, it is too hard, too weak, and too prone to break and crack rather than bend. The carbon content of cast iron is, of course, very high: above 4%, the carbon makes the iron much too hard and inflexible, causing it to become extremely brittle. In particular, if the silicon content (which is likely to come from bits of slag melting and dissolving into the iron at the high temperatures) is low and the iron is cooled fairly quickly, it forms into cementite, which is hard and brittle. Cementite isn’t bad in and of itself – we saw this with heat-treated steel, where just a bit of cementite among the ferrite offered improved strength and hardness. But this is not just a little cementite, it is lots of cementite. In excess of 60% cementite, what is sometimes called ‘white’ cast iron. At these levels, the amount of cementite leaves the cast iron very hard and very brittle, likely to break and actually difficult to cast effectively (because it is likely to crack from thermal stresses as it cools).
More slowly cooled cast iron with high silicon content, can come as ‘grey’ cast iron, which has less cementite, but has instead pockets of graphite – little pockets of cure crystalline carbon which couldn’t be absorbed into the iron – which have very little strength and essentially functions as cracks within the iron, reducing the overall toughness considerably. Craddock notes that early Chinese cast iron tends to be grey cast iron, but – curiously – with somewhat lower silicon contents than we’d expect for grey cast iron. So for almost any tool or weapon use, our cast iron is functionally worthless: too brittle to sustain meaningful stress. But we’re not done.
The key technique that Chinese ironworkers seemed to have developed here is malleablisation. By heating the iron to melting temperatures (or just below) in an oxidizing environment (which is to say, open to the air) the ironworker can cause a few things to happen. First, the oxidation process begins to draw off the carbon from the iron (again, you will remember the tendency of heat and air to decarburize iron from our discussion of making steel). At the same time, the graphite which originally was in long, thin flakes begins to form into more compact round shapes which cause less strain on the metal (there is also just less of that graphite, because it is made of the carbon that the air is drawing off in the decarburization process). If the iron is kept hot and open to the air long enough, it can either be decarburized to steel or even all of the way to wrought iron, making it usable for tools, weapons, armor and the like.
(I should note that somewhat different processes for removing carbon to make cast iron workable as wrought iron, called fining, emerged in late medieval Europe. This was done at a finery forge (we start to see these as early as the 13th century AD in Europe and involving breaking cast iron into smaller chunks and then heating these in an oxidizing environment so that the iron would melt and excess carbon (in the form of graphite) would burn out, leaving a bloom below where the iron had been. That technology had matured enough to produce armor and weapon’s grade steel by the 15th century, which is, to be clear, quite a bit later than the first century BC when the method was mature in China.)
And so by the start of the Qin-Han period (221BC-220 AD), we see a wide variety of objects (tools, weapons, etc.) that are made out of cast iron that has been, to some degree, malleablised. The amount of malleablisation that has taken place in these objects tends to vary wildly though, with microstructure (and thus metal quality) differing quite a bit piece to piece, suggesting, as Craddock puts it that “the complex and time and energy consuming treatments [read:malleablisation] were often not carried out or failed to have the desired result” (Craddock op. cit. 269). Which, given that the process of malleablisation often required keeping the iron hot in the open air for hours if not days, given the fuel demands, it is not surprising that sometimes lower-quality metal was produced by cutting the process short. By the first century BC, Chinese methods of malleablisation clearly improve, with solid state decarburization becoming reliable enough in producing steel and iron from cast iron that bloomery-smelting was abandoned in favor it.
Now it is important to note which parts of the production process that cast iron production replaces and which it doesn’t. For very low grade iron products – things that can actually be directly cast – cast iron production might actually replace both the smelting (that is the bloomery) and some of the forging work of producing an iron object. But for most iron objects – including nearly all tool and weapons – cast iron production essentially replaces only the smelting process, while malleablisation would replace the carburization process with a decarburization process. If the iron is kept liquid during the malleablisation process, it might be possible to cast it into the general shape of the intended object, but you would usually need a blacksmith to do some finishing work. I am not clear on how often malleablised iron would have been cast into its near final shape as compared to being produced in bars to be forged.
Placing Chinese Cast Iron In Context
All of which is striking because the spread of the Chinese method of cast iron production seems to have been fairly limited. The technology clearly seems to have spread into South Asia, where we know that cast iron was sometimes mixed with bloomery iron in the crucible process (below) to produce steel – South Asian ironworkers were thus using cast iron to create crucible feed-stock, but not as a final product. But while the technology was available, South Asian iron-workers stuck with bloomery processes for the production of wrought iron, rather than using the cast iron and malleablisation process developed in China, despite the fact that they clearly knew how to do it. Likewise, while Chinese iron working clearly had a lot of influence on iron production in pre-modern Korea and Japan, they too continued to rely on solid-state (read: bloomery) reduction methods for producing iron and did not adopt the cast iron process.
Why? Well, the key thing to note here seems to be that the malleablisation or fining process was long and fuel intensive. As opposed to the bloomery processes, I don’t know as much experimentation with this, but I have seen fining times quoted in the range of several days to properly turn cast iron into steel or wrought iron – time during which the iron must be kept open to the air (so it is cooling on its own) and also at least nearly molten. Indeed, the one method, to keep the carbon content relatively uniform, was to keep the iron completely molten and to stir it regularly as it decarburized (which might also have shortened the time required). The fuel demands of that method would have been enormous.
Moreover, casting iron and then malleablising it could produce an inferior product – steel produced this way tends to have higher sulfur, phosphorous and silicon contents in it, which are generally elements you want to avoid in an iron-carbon alloy if you can; cast iron Chinese artifacts seem to generally have lower percentages of these elements in them than, say, comparison to early European cast iron would suggest, but lower is not zero. The reason is, unlike in the bloomery process, which uses nearly pure-carbon charcoal and reduces away all of the silicon and many other trace materials, in an a cast iron process, mineral coal is often used which may have trace amounts of sulfur and other trace elements in the ore, instead of being reduced away, can be absorbed by the melted iron. The crucible process (below) avoids this problem by reducing the iron ore first (through a bloomery process) and then melting it second, once it is relatively pure. This may explain why, despite the potential for the malleablisation process – if performed with the iron fully molten – to produce iron with functionally no slag and very uniform carbon content, Chinese malleablised iron never gained the reputation as a superior product that wootz so clearly enjoyed.
As a result, one thing that – to my knowledge – we do not see much of are Chinese iron-working products traded long distance, in stark contrast to South Asian wootz steel (which was, among other things, a valuable trade item, in China, suggesting that it was known to be superior to the local product). I know of only a couple such objects, for instance, in the broader Roman world – all cast iron cauldrons (discussed in Tylecote, op. cit., 325-6), which is striking given that the Romans were importing quite a lot of other things from China (particularly silk) and also were quite avidly importing wootz from India (so it wasn’t as if they weren’t in the market for foreign, good quality steel). There was, of course, much more diffusion of Chinese iron products around China (but most of the examples I see are of Chinese iron working diffusing into the Steppe, where there is essentially no competition, since nomadic peoples don’t generally do much metal production), but Chinese iron goods don’t displace local products in places like Japan, Korea and South-East Asia, suggesting that transport costs outweighed any production advantage offered by the different process.
Consequently, as far as I can tell, the Chinese cast iron process – unlike the much later Bessemer Process – wasn’t radically cheaper, faster or more efficient than bloomery processes (although it does seem to have been somewhat better) and it may have, on the average, produced a slightly inferior end product in many cases. I have to stress that this is a very rough sense of the matter, because I haven’t seen any effort to gauge with any kind of certainty (in contrast to experiments with both bloomeries and crucible steel) the productivity and fuel demands of Chinese cast iron processes, so this is mostly reasoning from the lack of diffusion.
All of which matters for where we understand the Chinese cast iron production system to fit in the development of iron working. Often, Chinese cast iron production is discussed quite breathlessly, with implications that China was massively ahead of the rest of the world in metallurgy. It is important here to be careful with some of the statistics used. To single out just one example, J.L. Abu-Lugbod in Before European Hegemony (1989) repeats Robert Hartwell’s estimation that “the tonnage of coal burned annual in the eleventh century for iron production alone in nothern China was “roughly equivalent to 70 percent of the total amount of coal annually used by all metal workers in Great Britain at the beginning of the eighteenth century” (Hartwell, 1967: 122)” offered as a sign that China was producing “at a scale not equaled anywhere in the world until the Industrial Revolution” (324). It all sounds very exciting.
But there are all sorts of problems with this assessment. First, trying to assess iron production through coal usage is very unwise, since the amount of coal (or charcoal) that might go into a given amount of iron will vary wildly depending on the efficiency of the method used. It can be little doubted, for instance, that the Bessemer process, which completes a decarburization heat of iron typically in less than 30 minutes, uses far less coal per unit of steel created than Chinese malleablisation which, as noted above, had to keep the iron heated – often to melting – in open air conditions, for days (of course, the Bessemer process wasn’t developed until 1856 and so cannot figure into Hartwell’s calculation, this is meant to illustrate the point; going by iron prices, the crucible processes in use in Britain in 1800 were about 6 times more expensive than the Bessemer process, which is a big difference, but not so big as the difference between a few days spent decarburizing or thirty minutes).
It is also, by the by, pretty absurd to directly compare coal utilization of an empire of perhaps more than a hundred million people (in c. 1100) to an island of 10.5 million. I would be extraordinarily surprised if any large pre-industrial, agrarian population was out-producing another by a factor of ten – prior to the industrial revolution (which doesn’t really hit steel production until after 1800), the efficiency gains for that kind of thing simply aren’t there. For comparison, the typical back of the envelope estimate for the increased production of the Roman Empire at its height as compared to the period before or after is typically in the neighborhood of a 25-50% increase; it is surely not anything like the 1,000% necessary to get 10 million people to out-produce 100 million. It is certainly fair to suggest – and I think the evidence does suggest this – that Chinese iron production in the 13th century was more efficient than British iron production in the 13th century; to proceed beyond this to grand conclusions seems profoundly unwise given how limited the evidence is.
Now that hardly means that Chinese cast iron production was not an achievement. This was a technical feat that contemporaries in Europe would not achieve until the 15th century. Cast iron production does have its advantages and it is absolutely fair to point to cast iron production as an example where China had a technological edge. When European firearms like the breach-loading swivel gun arrived in China, the locally made Chinese versions were often superior to the Portuguese originals they were copying because they could be cast in a single piece, rather than built up using hoop-and-stave construction. But it seems better to understand Chinese cast iron production, and iron production more broadly, as one within a family of pre-modern iron production methods, with advantages and disadvantages (perhaps more of the former than the latter, but certainly both), rather than as an early version of modern steelmaking. it is striking, given how rapidly both pre-modern ironworking and modern steelmaking spread that many of China’s neighbors look at the – again, probably somewhat more efficient – cast iron process and said “nope, not for me,” and kept saying that for centuries (even as silk, Buddhism, tea, gunpowder, and all sorts of other things quite cheerfully crossed those same cultural and geographic boundaries).
This becomes, I think, clearer when we compare this to the contemporary method of producing steel in India, which – while perhaps not as efficient as Chinese cast iron – did produce a pretty clearly superior product.
Crucible Steel in India
While Chinese cast iron products do not seem to have been distributed widely over trade networks, beginning at least as early as the Roman period, Indian steel (which the Romans misunderstood as being from China, since it arrived on the same trade roots as their silk) was. This steel, generally now called ‘wootz‘ in the literature (but see below on naming) is a kind of crucible steel.
The method of producing crucible steel (which is developed in Europe only much later, in the 18th century) begins by using fairly high quality wrought iron as feed-stock (that is, iron produced in the bloomery process), so we should keep in mind that the crucible process replaces the cementation or case-hardening process in turning iron into steel, not the smelting process (as compared to cast iron above). Indeed, it seems that in many cases, wootz steel was produced from a mixture of wrought and cast iron, the latter either imported from China or later produced locally. That iron was broken up into smaller chunks and then mixed with organic materials to provide additional carbon. Plant materials (leaves, wood, fruit skins) were the most common; interesting charcoal seems to have been used only rarely. The knowledge of the ratios and mixtures in this process must have been learned through a long period of experimentation, especially since the actual process inside the crucible could never have been observed.
That batch was then sealed up in crucible. The trouble here seems to have been finding a refractory (read: heat resistant) substance which could withstand the intense temperatures used in the process without either melting or cracking from the thermal expansion. What seems to have been used was a clay vessel, mixed with rice husks – during heating, the husks trapped in the thick walls of the crucible would char away, creating little voids that the hot clay vessel could expand into, reducing thermal stresses. Of the whole process, I must say, this use of two common materials to make an uncommon one struck me as one of the most ingenious things I had ever heard of. The crucible was sealed completely to keep out all oxygen – often the lid was sealed with a different sort of clay that melted at lower temperatures so that, when heat was applied, its partial melting would create a perfect, air-tight seal as it melted over the edges of the crucible.
The sealed crucible was then fired in a charcoal fire, worked by bellows which would push the temperature probably in excess of 1400°C (which is to say, a crucible furnace actually burned hotter than a cast iron producing furnace). As the iron absorbed the carbon in the carbon-rich materials trapped with it (as they would rapidly be reduced to charcoal in the heat), it would lower the melting temperature – but not nearly so much as with cast iron, because not so much carbon was absorbed. Consequently, the furnaces heating the crucibles would need to hit higher temperatures than in any of the processes we have looked at so far. Once the iron melted, all of the slag – everything that wasn’t the iron – would float to the surface of the melt (because slag is a lot less dense than iron) and form a crust on the surface, removing nearly all slag inclusions from the resulting mass of solid iron. By varying the amount of organic material, the iron-worker could carefully control the carbon content.
Firing times seem to have generally been long, though there is a lot of variance in the evidence. Some report firing of a single hour, but in most cases, the crucible had to be kept at these high temperatures for many hours, up to a full day. Once this was completed, the crucible was broken open and the steel left to cool – typically very slowly, as the slow cooling would allow the wootz to develop the proper crystalline structure. This slow cooling process was crucial to produce the very high grade steel that was meant with the term wootz and Craddock (op. cit.) notes that Persian merchants trading in the steel would carefully monitor this part of the process to ensure they were buying that superior product for west-bound trade (to the Near East and beyond). The slag, which would solidify at the top of the mass of iron, could be broken off with hammers.
Wootz produced this way would typically come out of the process with 1-2% carbon and very low slag-counts, making it about perfect for sword-blades and the like. So, while Chinese casting processes didn’t generally produce a superior steel, the wootz crucible process really does seem to have done so. It is clear that the crucible process was used to produce other grades of steel as well though: rapid cooling would produce a much harder but less flexible steel (generally an inferior, but not useless product), while products that required low-carbon steel could be intentionally decarburized during forging and annealing. A skilled ironworker could also probably vary carbon content intentionally by tinkering with the ratio of wrought iron to sources of additional carbon in the crucible, be that cast iron or organic materials.
It is not entirely clear when Indian iron-workers began producing true wootz. There are a handful of sources tentatively noting high quality iron coming out of the East as early as the third century BC, but the evidence is thin and disputed (on this note Craddock, op. cit. 278). Instead, the first good evidence for wootz in a literary source seems to be Pliny the Elder’s Natural History (34.145, written in the 70s AD) where he mistakes the point of origin (calling the iron ‘seric’ (= Chinese) rather than Indian). By the third century CE, we have Greek sources (Zosimos) actually describing – with surprising accuracy – the process for the production of wootz and plenty of evidence for this high quality steel moving into the Near East and the Roman world through trade.
This gets us into some of the ‘mystique’ around wootz which I want to work to dispel. Wootz is – along with early medieval pattern-welded steel – often held up as some sort of super-metal, often with the assertion that the production method is lost (clearly not, reading above!) or that it produced a higher quality steel than modern steels. And certainly, at one time, wootz was mysterious to Europeans. As noted above, the Romans didn’t quite know where wootz came from and assumed that – since it arrived on the same trade routes as their precious silk – it must also come from China. Medieval European writers, seeing that wootz arrived to their world from the East sometimes called it ‘Damascus steel’ because, as the steel traveled west on the trade routes, that was where they would have first become aware of it.
All of which have contributed the air of mystery around wootz. But being mysterious to Europeans in the Middle Ages is not the same thing as being mysterious generally or still being a mystery now. Wootz production was not mysterious in South Asia, where there were multiple attested centers of production, including in Hyderabad, Sri Lanka, and Mysore (different areas were production centers at different times). Nor was wootz terribly mysterious in the Islamic world. Middle Eastern traders knew exactly where it came from and by the 12th century, Islamic writers are recording good descriptions of the process, which was beginning to be used in the Middle East by that point (Craddock, op. cit. 279). Nor did wootz production mysteriously vanish either – there is evidence for extensive production of crucible steel in Hyderabad in the 17th century; early 19th century accounts by British and Russian writers also describe the process It was never lost! D. Mushet patented what was, as Craddock notes, “clearly a copy of the Indian process” in 1800 (Craddock, op. cit. 283) in Britain. My impression, though none of my sources quite say this directly, is that the remaining Indian steelmaking industry subsequently withered away due to competition with British steel and (perhaps more decisively) a British desire to keep steel production (with its obvious implications for weapon production) in Britain and not in the (potentially rebellious) colonies.
In terms of the quality of the steel produced by this process, wootz was clearly a high quality steel, with relatively uniform carbon content and extremely low amounts of slag inclusions. A steel blade made of wootz would out-perform locally manufactured blades in Europe or the Middle East. But that doesn’t make wootz some sort of lost super-metal either. The modern high-carbon mono-steel used in high quality replica weapons (‘high quality’ being key here, since many modern replicas are made very poorly) is also generally uniform, low-slag content steel, not dissimilar from the qualities wootz would have had. And a good pattern-welded blade produced in the Middle East or Europe during the Middle Ages would not have been very much inferior to a similar sword made of wootz – although wootz does seem to have been noticably better, if you could get it.
So while wootz was valuable enough to be worth trading over long distances and was probably the best option for a high quality sword, it was neither mysterious, nor some sort of lost super-metal, just a (very) high quality form of steel. And while it was probably often the best option for a very high quality steel weapon, it was not so much better that local steel couldn’t also do the job, such that in many cases having a sword made of wootz had more to do with the prestige of it (the wavy pattern being a clear indicator that the expensive material was used) than its superior characteristics.
And that is that for our series on iron. I know there have been some requests for a run-down of modern methods of steel production (some of the early versions of which I alluded to above), but I think that I am probably not the right person to write those, as my expertise is in pre-modern production. Moreover, there is plenty written and readily accessible about modern steelmaking and I am not sure what I would usefully add.
Next week, something different!
61 thoughts on “Collections: Iron, How Did They Make It, Addendum: Crucible Steel and Cast Iron”
even if you aren’t pouring it into a model; -> even if you aren’t pouring it into a mold;
produce armor and weapon’s grade steel -> produce armor and weapons grade steel
“since it arrived on the same trade roots as their silk”
Routes, no doubt.
Silk, being derived from animal sources, is one of the few textiles where you can’t pretend that was an intentional pun.
“most common; interesting charcoal” -> “most common; interestingly charcoal”
Thank you for the very nice series on iron/steel making. I just recently came across a US Forest Service pamphlet on making charcoal (our tax dollars at work. It was produced in the late 1930’s to early 1940’s and likely sold for about $0.75 ). The process described/documented in the pamphlet which was used in the US as late as the mid 1800’s probably were very similar to the medieval charcoal production processes and gave me good idea of what it must have been like for ancient charcoal workers.
I also appreciated your comments re the US election. I did not know that the Romans and Greeks were aware of the dangers of increasing polarization in a democratic society. I would believe the US Founding Fathers were well aware of the issue as many were classically educated and it’s probably because of this that we have oddities such as the electoral college to mitigate such dangers. I’m often surprised at how little most people (self included: I’ve got a lot of study/reading to do) know about the founding of the US. Most of us have not studied enough history as over the years it has been overshadowed by science and technology studies.
I have recently heard it remarked that the Founders seem to have taken a lot of steps to limit the emergence of the kind of parties they’d be familiar with from contemporary British politics (usually centered around some singular figure like Pitt or Walpole who dispensed patronage).
They did not, when you get right down to it, do much to prevent the rise of factions backed by entirely separate demographic groups with different interests (slavers vs. abolitionists, yeoman farmers vs. aristocratic magnates, and so on).
If so, they may have been worried more about avoiding what they saw as the ‘real’ problems with 18th century British democracy (which may have seemed like a weak form of Caesarism to them) than they were with avoiding the kind of ‘stasis’ the Greeks saw in democratic city-states…
“Parties are bad,” wrote the Federalists, five seconds before they founded the Federalist Party.
Is there any discussion of why Wootz steel production doesn’t seem to have spread further, if it was known enough by even the Romans that they had descriptions of it?
It is a highly skilled trade that requires extensive mentoring from experts to get it right, and the marginal benefit may not have been there, or the proverbial stars might not have aligned, in an analogous way of how the slightly better Chinese cast iron process discussed did not spread to Europe.
What i read is that to make wootz steel (or crucible steel with the same microscopic structure as wootz steel), you need an iron ore with a trace amount of vanadium, titanium or some other elements that could work as carbid particle condensation/precipitation nuclei ‘starters’.
I suspect that, if the process was as well known as the record shows, there were attempts to duplicate it elsewhere. but between the unknown variable with trace elements in the ore, and the usual difficulties of duplicating a complex process without in depth training, the result was probably not as good as the imported and it never took root on a wide scale. this is especially true given that getting the ratio of the different types of steel and the included organics correct would be key, and that sort of knowledge would generally be a mix of close held occupational training and experience for the iron workers doing it. not something that a person just reading a written description of the process would immediately figure out. especially if said process hinges on factors the description might not mention (the unique makeup of the crucible pots for example, which may not have been mentioned in all the descriptions, or the specific properties of the organics included.. which while probably chosen for metaphysical reasons, would have governed the amounts of carbon and other trace organic elements in the mix. substitutions would require careful adjustment)
China suffered from deforestation problems that made Europe’s look wimpy. Much more of it was arable using the scratch plow. Hence Chinese cuisine turning on finely chopped up food — the labor to chop it that fine was cheap next to the cost of the fuel.
Needing to use coal instead may be a factor.
A video that shows ancient iron-making (only available until November 8) and its effect on central Asia (Hittites, Scythians, Xiongnu):
Also some linguistic background (which mentions the video): https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=49002
What about wire production and it’s usage, though? Would it be covered later?
Oh, I knew I missed something.
Yeah, one of these days, we’ll talk about mail armor and production and we can talk about wire production. If you are too desperate to wait, check out Sim and Kaminski, cited at the beginning, for the good details.
I’m fascinated by the labor requirements of mail vs. lamellar armor, and yet the popularity of mail through much of Eurasia.
Any thoughts on the iron pillar of Qutub Minar? My layman’s understanding is that it is made of phophoric iron from a mine long exhausted.
Yes, made of wrought, not cast, iron, welded together in segments. The high phosphorous count is why it is corrosion resistant. So you have the current understanding quite correct.
Thanks for putting this series together. As someone with an engineering background (but only one real undergrad level materials science course), I have a ton of respect for the people who figured out how to make steel and other forms of ancient metallurgy without any real fundamental understanding of the metallurgy at play. They of course had their empirical heuristics where they understand how charcoal/carbon sources and temperature affect the results (as you have discussed) but all this without phase diagrams, dislocation theory, and so on? Really incredible in every sense of the word. Ancient metallurgy alone should dispel the inane idea that ancient folks were somehow dumber than people today.
It’s kinda funny how the countries who most quickly developed the area of gunpowder artillery would be the ones to only later develop the casting process to best utilize it.
> The basic interaction of producing cast iron centers around one oddity in carbon-iron alloys:
That is not an oddity of carbon-iron alloy, most alloys have lower melting point than its constituent metals.
> due to mixed layers of ferrite and cementite that form during the process
Technically they are not layers of cementite (that would be too much cementite, like in cast iron), but ferrite bands with higher concentration of microscopic cementite particles vs. ferrite bands with few or no cementite particles.
Fairly significant error in attribution – you say “Song Dynasty Tiangong Kaiwu (1637),” but the Song dynasty ended several centuries prior to 1637. I believe you’ve mixed up the dynasty name with the author name, Song Yingxing, who wrote the work at the tail end of the Ming dynasty.
Good catch, thanks. Fixed!
It’s amazing how far repeated close observation, long training and persistent experiment will take you. Modern tests have shown that wetting corned gunpowder with ‘the urine of a wine-bibbing man’ does indeed give a cleaner, sharper explosion, aboriginal peoples know hundreds of plant uses, often very specific, meso-Americans bred potatoes from small alkaline tubers and maize from a scrubby plant, Babylonians had star observations down to a minute of arc….
Okay, what’s with the urine?
Just wait until you find out how they made saltpeter.
Thanks for the series. So just to clarify, once the crucible steel is produced, is it then fashioned into tools/blades in the same way (by bashing with hammers after heating)? Would the wootz steel being purchased in the Mediterranean been have in the form of ingots (which are then forged in the Med) or would they have turned up as value-added products (presumably more weapons than tools)
1) Yes, forged traditionally, 2) Probably both, but mostly ingots, rather than finished products.
A few remarks:
1.) The efficiency of cast iron goes up substantially if you’re making a lot of it. Blast furnaces for making cast iron did consume a great deal of fuel, but blast furnaces start to get more fuel-efficient per unit of iron produced (*).
It might have been that due to the large quantities of iron Chinese foundries were making, blast furnaces producing cast iron were the best option, but other areas producing less iron stuck with bloomeries because they required a lower amount of resources to build in the first place.
2.) The Chinese considered cast iron to be an intermediate product, and it was (like elsewhere in the world), decarburized to make wrought iron or steel. Some cast iron was made into malleable/spherical graphite iron, Additionally, the process of making co-fusion steel was remarkably similar to how wootz was manufactured in India (whereupon cast iron and wrought iron were smelted together to make steel). Unlike in India, the wrought iron used in Chinese co-fusion steel was made by decarburization from cast iron.
3.) The Chinese used metallurgical fluxes such as limestone, borax and manganese to removing slag and impurities (such as sulfur and phosphorus) from their ferrous metals. Calcium oxide (as described in one of the your captions above) is excellent for such purposes.
Professor Donald B. Wagner’s site is one of the best English language resources on Chinese metallurgy: http://donwagner.dk/index.html
A paper on early Chinese steelmaking: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343185014_Replication_Experiments_and_Microstructure_Evolution_of_the_Ancient_Co-fusion_Steelmaking_Process
While the above paper hasn’t been peer reviewed, it does cite previous experiments done by Joseph Needham and Donald Wagner.
Here’s another one on steelmaking by Donald Wagner: https://www.academia.edu/2987126/Some_Chinese_steelmaking_techniques
Please, write about ceramic!
I’m enjoying the fact that “the last century BC” means the same thing as “the first century BC”.
Do an entry on gunpowder manufacture, that’s gonna be fun. You already have charcoal covered, so you’d only need to describe production of saltpeter and sulphur when it comes to base materials.
Gunpowder manufacture brings into the discussion the extraction of saltpetre from those noteworthy sources of nitrates: manure and urine. It also brings in all sorts of peripheral concerns, like specifying the source of the carbon (gunpowder is carbon, potassium or sodium nitrate, and sulfur). Of course, making it without bidding farewell to various body parts can be a challenge.
A few more typos/queries. I have included a duplicate of one that herbert herbertson offered above that had not yet been fixed when I read this piece.
pockets of cure crystalline -> pure crystalline
subhead: Placing Chinese Cast Iron In Context -> in Context
while Chinese iron working clearly had -> ironworking [one word]
are of Chinese iron working diffusing -> ironworking [one word]
fit in the development of iron working. -> ironworking [one word]
coal burned annual in the eleventh -> burned annually
steelmaking. it is -> It is
interesting charcoal seems to have been used -> interestingly charcoal…
Yes, you can fake the patterns, just as with pattern welding.
Thanks for making time to keep writing long posts in such a difficult semester.
“as early as the third century BC” -> “fourth century BCE” (Ctesias)
Manouchehr Khorasani and Prof-Em. Dr. Helmut Föll both have good essays on wootz / crucible steel and on the Arab and Persian reception of various kinds of foreign steel (K. is not a metallurgist but he reads Near Eastern languages). There seems to have been a concern that fancy steel from India was prone to breaking, but tough low-carbon steel was prone to bending, so sword-wielders and sword-dealers could argue about the merits over a drink.
This is why a lot of swordsmiths (and armorers for that matter) split the difference by laminating steels with varying properties.
Bret, I’m an Australian. While like everyone else in the world who is president of the USA does have some effect on me, I am extremely uninterested in discussing the election in response to a post about pre-industrial steel production.
I would like to see ALL the election/political comments removed so I don’t have to wade through them. It’s not censorship, there are a zillion other web sites and forums and mailing lists where participants can do so.
I would ask the same if, say, the discussion was about Russian elections, or Brexit, or Australian coal exports.
Yes. I have pruned the comments accordingly. Most of the mess was due to one quite angry fellow, who has been blocked.
thank you. it was getting quite annoying, especially for those of us who get email notices about new comments. having to wade through multiple posts of political dross just to read about steel and its making.
The article kinda glosses over why the wootz steel develops a pattern, and why a modern uniform steel is still superior to wootz. As a layman, a pattern steel with both harder and softer regions seems like it would be able to absorb blows better and still hold an edge better than a uniform modern steel one who has to optimize for one or the other?
Wootz steel develops a pattern due to carbide banding in the steel, on account of its specific alloy composition and heat treatment. Wootz is high quality steel, but not significantly better than other forms of high carbon steel. Laminated blades with both harder and softer regions can have a harder, sharper edge than through hardened monosteel blades, but tend to take a set and stay bent more easily than spring tempered monosteel blades. Of course, there are tradeoffs for everything, so laminated and monosteel weapons aren’t better than one another, just different.
Its complicated because I don’t know if anyone has experience working with both wootz and good quality bloomery steel, but wootz is very hard so its difficult to shape and prone to shattering once finished. Wootz armour tends to be things like simple bracers, shallow skull-caps, and cuirasses with the breast, back, and sides made of four different plates. Today cutlers usually prefer medium-carbon steels with around 0.6-1.0% carbon for swords and big knives, not high-carbon steels like wootz / crucible steel.
I would love to see a similar treatment of Roman glass making.
“typically in the neighborhood of a 25-50% increase; it is surely not anything like the 1,000% necessary to get 10 million people to out-produce 100 million”
You would need an INCREASE of 900% (added to the base value of 100%), not 1,000%.
You mentioned that the steel in modern high quality replica weapons would be the same or higher quality than Wootz. How would either compare to the steel in high quality chef’s knives? Those can get remarkably pricey, and I imagine that the qualities you’d want for that would be pretty similar for weapon steel.
I’m not an expert by any means, but I would imagine that the demands of a chef knife really prioritizes edge retention and sharpness, and not so much resistance to impact (though some kitchens I hear can be almost like a battlefield).
Based off of that, probably a steel with a relatively higher content of carbon, as well as additional rust inhibiting elements? I wouldn’t think most kitchen knives are made of typical tool steel because they tend to rust unless oiled/cared for regularly (at least that’s the case with my gardening tools, and granted high-end kitchen knives are generally cared for VERY well).
AFAIK the chromium carbide you find chef’s knives reduces toughness to an unacceptable degree for something you will be bashing other steel objects with.
Thanks for the series – really hope you can do bronze some time as well!
Ultra-high carbon steels — those with hypereutectoid amounts of carbon — have been (and likely continue to be) actively researched (one fairly recent article is here: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/611842). Unfortunately, a lot of the references from OSTI.GOV for “ultra-high carbon steel” point to LLNL, which is reconfiguring document web servers.
As a second item, I, along with many others, look forward to a series on bronze (and brass), ceramics, and glass.
Interesting discussion. On the use of coal in 13th century Britain, I suspect the writer made a mistake in understanding the records. There was a trade in seacoal, mined from the Durham and related coalfields, via Newcastle down to London for Domestic purposes. By comparison one of the biggest iron smelting areas was the Weald on the Welsh-English border. Here the fuel (Charcoal) was produced from the Weald Forest which grew on and around the iron ore mines. The fuel was therefore not transported and so not recorded. So knowledge of the amount of Iron produced in Britain in that period varies between unknown and not a clue. Which means there is no meaningful way of comparing 13th century Britain with China.
Correcting on my previous comment. I got the dates wrong and misread the paragraph. However it should be noted that ‘Britain produced 10 million tons of coal in !800, but was not seen as important until the invention of the steam engine’ (source: Encyclopedia Brittannica, 1929). Iron production in Britain did not use coal until the invention of coke (not the drink) due to known impurities and charcoal was the main source of energy. Which is where the Forest of Dean comes in. So we are back to false comparisons.
What exactly is the benefit of cast iron over wrought iron? It uses more fuel and produces a more brittle end product. Am I missing something here?
Cheaper and faster. You can get a cast piece of metal in the rough shape of the intended final object with the first cast and thus skip a lot of the fuel-intensive, labor-intensive specialist work of forging (or machining).
Casting can also produce nearly any shape, whereas (as discussed earlier) some shapes are just difficult or impossible to produce reliably by forging.
Very late typo, but: “same trade roots as their silk”, should be routes I assume?