Subject: Re: Ref Swordmaking

From: [email-masked] (J Klessig)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 18:47:22 GMT

[email-masked] (JHrisoulas) wrote:

>As one of the leading researchers in the field of Medieval European
>Metallography I have to disagree with the statements that European smiths
>did not undertsand the processes of metallurgy and metallography as stated
>in a previous thread.

>The finds at Sutton Hoo, Kraghul and many others revealed a level of metal
>working that has surpassed the previous understanding that the European
>smiths were happy just beating out wrought iron.

>There is no way that a man who has less than an advanced understanding of
>metallurgy can make a built composite pattern welded blade. It will not
>happen. There are far too many of these that have been found to say it was
>an accident. Believe me I know as I wrote my thesis on doing this exact
>same thing.
=
=
=stuff deleted
=
>There is but a small handfull  today who can make a full sized, built
>composite pattern welded sword, circa 6th Cent AD...I happen to be one of
>these people and I truly can say that the men living 1500 years ago knew
>metallurgy. They simply had to in order to make these swords.

>So to say that the European smiths did not have an understanding of
>metallurgy and metallography is in my opinion an error.
>Yours,
>Dr. J.P. Hrisoulas

While I would hesitate to disagree, I don't think I can completely
agree. 

 I would say that it is clearly demonstrated that they knew how to get
exactly what they wanted, and what was needed to get there, at a level
equal to the smiths in Japan. 

However I do NOT agree that they knew "metallurgy" as we understand it
today. They knew the "What" and the "How", but I don't think they knew
the "Why".

As analogy, take brewing, or baking. 

The ability to brew good beer, wine or meads, knowing what steps to
take, and (perhaps more importantly) what steps not to take, to
consistently brew a good drink, does not imply a detailed grasp of
micro-biology.

Jim Klessig, ETI

---

From: [email-masked] (Bob DeMers)
Date: 11 Aug 1995 09:04:31 CDT

All the recent posts about wether or not early European smiths really
understood metallurgy or just knew what worked are beside the point.  The
original post in this thread postulated that Japanese smiths had a better
understanding of metals and the changes that occur in metalworking than
the European smiths.  Hrisoulas (and others) makes the point that the
pattern welding evidenced in the Sutton Hoo burial sword shows at least a
comparable level of sophistication within the European tradition. 
Arguments about knowledge of real metallurgy apply equally to both the
European and Japanese smiths.  

Bob DeMers

-- 
Bob DeMers
Honeywell Technology Center
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (JHrisoulas)
Date: 11 Aug 1995 10:53:58 -0400

I regards to me earlier post in refernece to Japanese vs European skills
and metallurgy...I feel I should clarify the issue...

what I was attempting to do was explain that yes, ther skills of European
smiths were just as high, if not higher than the Japanese smiths of the
period...Actually, metallurgyu was probably the wrong word to use as it as
a science really didin't evolve until the end of the 19th Century...

What we know as metallurgy today is far and above what any smith ever
dreamed of 1500 years ago...Smiths had no idea as to carbides going into
solution, critical temperatures, soakings, and most everything else  we
know now...But that didn't make them any less skillful now did it?
Actually if you look at some of the pieces that survived through the
centuries, you may just be amazed at the skills that these mem
possessed...There are just a handful of people today that can do this on a
sword length piece.

But they knew what worked, they may not know why it worked in scientific
terms, but never the less the knew how to do it...That is what I was
trying to convey in my original post. Skill and craftsmanship.  I have
seen fantastic ironwork come out of the most primative areas of this
world, using little more than a large rock for an anvil and a hammer...

In closing, it was this I was trying to debate...

Yours,

Dr. J.P. Hrisoulas

---

From: [email-masked] (Rick Cook)
Date: 11 Aug 1995 23:56:23 GMT

Barry Workman wrote:
>Is it not possible that the European smiths knew how to handle the
>billets, forge weld and all without understanding the underlying
>concepts of what was happening?

That's probably a more accurate description of what was happening. The
Europeans, like theJapanese, had an enormous amount of  practical
knowledge, but for the most part they didn't understand why.

--RC

---

From: [email-masked] (21012d)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 03:36:58 GMT

There were some awesome achievements and wonderful skills
but part of it was also something like "high grading", being
observent and sensitive to materials, when better results
came about, for example by better ores some focused on
it , as often as it became a perfected process, it became
a selection QA process, learn to find the refined bits,
use them for next steps.  
   In terms of control of materials, metallurgy, they could
not do what would happen if the government ordered 10 
million hammer folded, composite iron/steel blades and go
to the steel company and get exactly what they wanted.
  Like the problems Bessamer hand with phosphorous content
which sets the scene for the line between crafts and science.

---

From: [email-masked] (Barry Workman)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 02:02:22 GMT

re European metalurgical skills

Please understand, this is for my own edification but.
Is it not possible that the European smiths knew how to handle the
billets, forge weld and all without understanding the underlying
concepts of what was happening?  The Greeks in classical times thought
about a lot of things.  They gave us Euclidian Geometry among other
things.  The Egyptians on the other hand, built huge structures that
required the use of Geometry but they didn't write about it, they simply
did it.  Forge steel,  bronze, and brass are all metalurgical skills that
could be discovered by accident.  Roman bronze was more brass than bronze
and yet this discovery came far later than the bronze age.  Am I missing
something here?  Am I way off base?
-- 
    - Barry Workman

---

From: [email-masked] (John O. Kopf)
Date: 13 Aug 1995 02:24:59 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>
[email-masked] (Rick Cook) writes:

> The Europeans, like theJapanese, had an enormous amount of  practical

As I understand it, the Japaneese made great use of rituals in their
sword forging; The main *effect* of which was to insure that the
billets "soaked" in the fire for an adequate period.

JK