As an early modern historian of the iron industry in Britain, I am not able
to participate in the metallurgical arguments in this string.   However I
wonder whether this discussion is running into difficulties partly because
we do not have adequate terminology.  Britain and America have tended to
look to the British steelmaking methods,  but none of these go back beyond
the 17th century.

The British steel industry between about 1615 and 1850 was wholly based on
converting bar iron (usually Swedish oregrounds iron) to blister steel.
From about 1750, some of this underwent a further process making it into
crucible steel by the Huntsman process.  'Crucible steel' is an appropriate
term for this because it required the use of a crucible.  I think it might
be better if the discussions of earlier processes used the term 'cast steel'
for steel made in other ways that has been molten.  This may carry the
implication (possibly false) that it has been poured into a mould,  but at
least this does not beg the question of how it was made.

There was another kind of steel that was used in England in small quantities
in the 18th century.  This was imported from Rotterdam under the name 'long
German steel'.  I know of three brands of this 'heart and club' 'Three
flower de lus'
[ i.e 3 fleur de lis] and 'bird and pinchers'.  These are descriptions of
the
marks, probably punched into the bars.  Some of the terminology such as
Flemish steel and Cullen [Cologne] steel is confusing, because these are
places through which it came not the actual places of production.  Some or
all of it came from Styria,  where it was made from cast iron by a finery
process.  This could also reach England via Venice and was hence also
known as 'Venice steel',  or at least I assume that it what Venice steel is.
Perhaps some one can enlighten me on the origins of three brands of
'long German steel' mentioned above.

It is, as contributions to this string have made clear, possible to manage a
bloomery so that it produces steel rather than iron.  According to Ken
Barraclough's work this is known as 'natural steel', though (confusingly)
this term is also used for Styrian steel.

No doubt recent archaeometallurgical research has taken the subject beyond
what Ken Barraclough wrote almost 20 years ago.  However that remains the
latest work at that level of the history of steel and I would suggest that
the participants in this debate should read (or read again) the first two
chapters of his Steel Before Bessemer: I Blister Steel, the birth of an
industry (Metals Society, London, 1984).  The Institute of Materials had
copies for sale a few years ago and may still do so.

Peter King,
49, Stourbridge Road,
Hagley,
Stourbridge
West Midlands
DY9 0QS

telephone 01562-720368
----- Original Message -----
From: Ned Rehder <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 18 July 2002 21:10
Subject: Re: Crucible Damascus Steel - Sri Lanka


> In response to GJuleff:
>
> I agree entirely that the word "bloomery" to define a furnace is now
confusing.
> It was used originally of course because a solid-state bloom of forgeable,
> usually low to moderate carbon , iron was produced. However suitable
change in
> ore to fuel ratio and in rate of air supply will make iron  of higher
carbon
> content either as a bloom or molten, some times both at once.  What was
novel in
> Gill's Sri Lankan furnace was the demonstration that this had been done
long ago
> and with natural draft air supply  helped by wind. Her field work and
paper in
> Nature were very well done, and very interesting to me in that it gave
good
> technical data, which is not done often enough.
>         Speaking of names of things, "Crucible Damascus Steel"  is
confusing
> because it assumes too much.
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > In response to Ned Rehder's comments about the quality of Sri Lankan
steel,
> > during the smelting trials carried out in 1994 in the wind-powered
> > west-facing furnaces of Samanalawewa we achieved average furnace
temperatures
> > in excess of 1440C and produced both low-carbon iron and hypereutectoid
> > steels that were homogeneous and slag-free (they had been molten)
(Nature,
> > vol. 379, no.6560, 1996). A substantial percentage of the metal produced
in
> > our trials was hypereutectoid steels and, given the design and operation
of
> > the furnace, it was apparent that if we were able to produce such steels
then
> > experienced practioners in the past would have done the same but with
greater
> > consistency and efficiency. To not do so would require intentional (and
> > pointless) disabling of the smelting process. This technology was the
basis
> > of a widespread industry supporting many thousands of furnaces at a time
when
> > Serendib steels are specifically referred to in Islamic text literature.
> >
> > The important issue here is not neccessarily whether high-quality
high-carbon
> > steels were made directly during smelting or could only be produced in a
> > crucible process but recognising the potential of differing smelting
> > processes to produce, intentionally and consistently, a range of ferrous
> > products. It is quite possible that high-carbon steels produced in Sri
Lankan
> > furnaces were further 'refined' in a crucible process. If we could move
away
> > from labelling all 'pre-industrial' smelting processes as 'bloomery',
thereby
> > presupposing a 'bloomery' type product, we might begin to appreciate the
> > range of ferrous processes and products possible in early technology,
> > particularly in Asia.
> >
> > Gill Juleff
>