Make

all sure
The conservation
and restoration
of arms and armour
Edited by Robert Douglas Smith

£ > a s ilis c o e f*re s s

Crucible steel: Production and identification
Ann Feuerbach PhD
Introduction
This paper presents a brief description of crucible steel
production in India/Sri Lanka and Central Asia and the
main characteristics o f crucibles found in each region.
Crucible steel is the material most often associated with
the production o f the so-called ‘tru e ’ or 'oriental'
Damascus steel swords, The typical m icrostructure of
crucible steel, w ith or w ith o u t the w atered crucible
Damascus steel pattern, differs from th at of other types
o f steel, Therefore, the known microstructural features
of crucible steels are given so th at correct identification
can be made,
India and Sri Lanka have been considered to be the
primarily centres for crucible steel production but
recent research shows th a t Central Asia w as also a
m ajor producer, perhaps since at least the first few
centuries AD, The majority o f scholarly literature refers
to all crucible steel th a t uses traditional m aterials as
wootz (e.g. Bronson 1986; Figiel 1991; Verhoeven 2001),
This assumption is misleading because current evidence
indicates th a t crucible steel production w as also
occurring in Central Asia; w here it is know as pulad.
Although in each of the regions crucible steel was being
produced, the materials and techniques used in each of
the regions differ,-therefore the words wootz and pulad
should not-be interchanged or used as general term s
because they represent specific traditions.
The antiquity o f crucible steel can be traced back at
least tw o thousand years. The earliest confirmed
crucible steel object is a sword frag m ent from Taxila,
in m odern day Pakistan, attrib u te d to the first-
century AD (Marshall 1951). Recent m etallographic
investigations o f blades from th e Russian Northern
Caucasus revealed tw o crucible steel blades from the
3 rd-4th century AD, one o f which is the earliest known
sword th a t could have had a crucible Damascus steel
pattern if it w ere etched (Feuerbach 2002; Feuerbach
unpublished PhD). Although the m ost w ell known
objects m ade o f crucible steel are blades, there are
num erous other objects th a t w ere also m ade from it
(see Allan and Gilmour 2000),
The metallographic structures typically found in
crucible steel objects are different from those found in
other types o f ancient steel objects, Som e o f these
structures can also be identified as relic structures in
corrosion products.
Crucible ‘D a m a s c u s ’ Steel
The lack of proof of Damascus ever having actually been
a centre of sword production has already been argued by
Elgood (1994: 103-8), Despite this, there are four
varieties o f swords or steel to which the adjective
Damask, Damascene, or Damascus is applied; pattern-
welded, inlayed, preferentially etched, and crucible, The
pattern-welded variety is often called mechanical
Damascus because it is made by forge-welding several
pieces of iron or steel together to form a decorative and
often functional pattern, Patterns and decorations
made by inlaying different types o f m etals or jew els
onto the blade's surface appear on swords from Russia,
This m ethod has a long history a t least from the
14th century. Ibn-al Uhkuwwa (d, 1329) mentions inlay as
one m ethod used for producing im itation crucible
Damascus steel (Al-Hassan, 1978, 39), thus "forging” (so
to say) the crucible Damascus pattern, Preferentially
etching a pattern on the blade was used in nineteenth
century India, perhaps to imitate the crucible Damascus
steel pattern. The inlay and etching methods are often
called artificial Damascus (Figiel 1991; 27). The fourth
variety is made from crucible steel, som etim es called
oriental Damascus, true or crystalline Damascus
(Bronson 1986; 13). The use o f the adjectives crucible,
pattern-welded, inlayed or etched tog eth er w ith
Damascus, Damask or Damascene should be used in
future publications to avoid confusion. Using these
adjectives, the m ethod used to form th e pattern
(if known) is clear and free from ambiguity.
It has often been said th a t the m ethod used to
produce crucible Damascus steel w as lost, but this was
not so, During every century for a t least the past 2000
years som eone, som ew here w as producing it. It is,
however, true th a t only recently are w e beginning to
understand the scientific principles behind the formation
of the characteristic pattern.
Two factors th at influence the final characteristics of
the steel product are the crucible charge and the forging
method. The m aterials and m ethods used to produce
and forge the ingot will directly affect w hether or not a
pattern can be produced. Essentially crucible steel can be
produced from an infinite num ber o f possible crucible
charge ingredients containing iron and carbon. The
presence o f m inor and trace elem ents in the crucible
charge, via the source o f iron, carbon or additional
substances added to the charge, will also affect the
steel ingot.
The carbon content of the crucible steel is significant
for th e creation of different types o f patterns and the
performance of the blade, Hypoeutectoid (less than
0,8%C) and hypereutectoid (greater than 0,8% C) steel
can produce a pattern, but th e m icrostructure and,
therefore, the p a tte rn will be noticeably different.
For examples of different patterns see Sachse (1994).
 Hypoeutectic and hypereutectic ingots could be
produced in all locations, Ingots o f different com ­
positions w ere probably made because it would have
been difficult to control the carbon content w ithin a
fraction o f a percentage using traditional materials,
Hypoeutectoid steel will produce a banded pattern (e.g.
Sham pattern), produced by ferrite-pearlite banding.
Pearlite will form in the interdendritic band, possibly
influenced by the presence of manganese (Samuels
1980: 129). However, the most characteristic Damascus
steel patterns (e.g. Kara Khurasan pattern) are produced
from hypereutectoid steel. The formation of the pattern
in hypereutectoid steels is due to the alignm ent of
globular/spherical cementite in the interdendritic zones
(Verhoeven 2001). The cem entite aligns because of the
presence of impurity elements in the interdendritic zone
(Verhoeven et al 1998: 63),
Production
It is commonly believed th at crucible steel originated in
India, and th a t India and Sri Lanka w ere the primary
producers and exporter of the steel for centuries. Recent
investigations dem onstrate th a t crucible steel was also
being produced in Turkmenistan during the late 9th -
early 10th century AD (Feuerbach et al forthcoming), and
on an industrial scale in Uzbekistan from the 10th - 13th
century AD (Papakhristu and Rehren 2002), Based on
current archaeological and historical information there
appear to be tw o distinct groups o f crucible steel
production remains: those from South India/Sri Lanka
and those from Central Asia. Crucible steel remains from
Hyderabad in Central India show characteristics from
both groups. Crucible fragm ents are by far the m ost
abundant find from all the crucible steel production sites
therefore it is im p ortant for them to be correctly
identified and categorized.
There are m any ethnographic accounts o f Indian
crucible steel production (see Bronson 1986), however,
scientific investigations of crucible steel remains have
only been published from four regions: th ree from
India and one from Sri Lanka (e.g, Rajan 1989-90 and
1990; Craddock 1998; Srinivasan and G riffiths 1997;
Anantharam u et al 1999, Freestone and Tite 1986; Rao
et al 1970; W a ym an and Ju leff 1999; Lowe 1989a & b,
1991), Based on laboratory analyses and ethno-graphic
accounts, the processes performed in south India and
Sri Lanka share sim ilar characteristics w ith local
variations. In all the crucibles studied ordinary
ferruginous clay w ith rice husks as tem per w ere used,
The shapes o f th e crucibles are conical or aubergine
shaped (South Indian) or elongated, pear-shaped or
light bulb shaped (Sri Lanka). The base o f the crucible
was either rounded or pointed, an im portant point to
note as the resulting crucible steel ingot would reflect
the crucibles interior shape. The crucible charge
consisted of w roug ht or bloomery iron w ith different
types o f carbonaceous plant m atter, The crucibles
w ere removed from the furnace while the m etal was
liquid and therefore quickly cooled.
The remains o f crucible steel production from
the locations in Central Asia share m any com m on
characteristics w ith local variations, Based on arch­
aeological evidence, crucibles used in the crucible steel
process in Central Asia were made of refractory clay with
quartz temper, A t Merv, crucible grog was also used, The
crucibles sat on the furnace floor and gravel like material
w as placed in betw een the crucibles, on the furnace
floor. The nature o f the crucible charge is uncertain but
the best hypothesis is bloomery iron and plant m atter
(Rehren and Papakhristu 2000; Feuerbach unpublished
PhD), possibly w ith some manganese added (Allan 1979),
The crucibles w ere fired until the steel w as liquid and
then left to slowly cool inside the furnace.
The crucibles from Hyderabad are more similar to
the Central Asian crucibles than the Indian ones, The
shapes of the crucibles are cylindrical and flat bottomed.
The clay used w as relatively refractory and rice husks
were used as temper. It is the carbon from the rice husks
and the reducing atm osphere inside the furnace which
gives the Hyderabad crucibles their black colour, making
them superficially appear more similar to the South
Indian crucibles than they truly are. Another difference is
the crucible charge. Voysey (1837 247) reported th at the
crucible charge contained tw o different types of iron.
In all the locations, the results w ere steel ingots
virtually free from slag and non-m etallic impurities,
The ingot could be low carbon, high carbon steel, or cast
iron if an excess o f carbon w as added to the crucible
charge, The presence and quantity o f trace elem ents
could also differ between different locations, depending
on the original ore sources used and w h at was added to
the crucible charge, These trace elem ents could be
im p ortant for the developm ent o f the crucible
Damascus steel pattern (see Verhoeven, 2001). The
different cooling and solidifying rates of the steel would
a ffect the size and spacing o f the dendrites, which
would have affected the coarseness or fineness o f any
resulting pattern.
Identification
As discussed above, there are different types of objects,
which exhibit a pattern and come under to broad and
misleading heading of ‘Damascus’ steel. By definition, an
object exhibiting a crucible Damascus steel pattern, had
to be m ade o f crucible steel, However, often objects
were over-cleaned during past conservation treatm ents
and the etched surface has been polished aw ay revealing
the un-etched surface below, Furthermore, some crucible
steel objects do not possess the correct microstructure
needed to produce a pattern if they were etched, Over­
cleaned and plain crucible steel objects appear to the
naked eye the sam e as ordinary steel objects, The
object's style and provenance m ay provide clues to
w hether or not it is likely to be made o f crucible steel,
 r — ~n~~ ■ : srnguish
:- d r a y s te ri and crudble steel is by etching.
~ z =s s z z - a z a- c ^ ect originally exhibited a
;:££ pattern out was over-cleaned in
rt»e past, a small inconspicuous area could be etched
w ith 3% Nital to determine if the characteristic pattern
appears. If it does appear, re-etching may be considered
(see W ills and M etcalf 1999), For more detailed
investigations, if it is allowed a small sample should be
removed from the object and prepared according to
standard m etallographic procedures. If this is not
allowed, a small area o f the object could be polished,
etched and examined under a microscope, The m ost
evident characteristic o f crucible steel is th a t the steel
was fully liquid during the process and evidence of this
can be observed under the microscope.
Four crucible steel blades w ith uncorroded areas
w ere recently examined as part o f this study to
determ ine w h a t features could be used to distinguish
crucible steel from other types of steel. The blades are
from archaeological contexts and had corroded surfaces.
Sam ples o f the blades w ere kindly provided by the
Kislovodsk Local History Museum, Russian Northern
Caucasus, The earliest blades examined w ere tw o 3rd-
4th century AD double-edged straight swords (KIS #2
and KIS #15). The third is a 7th century AD blade
fragment (KIS #10), and the fourth is a late 11th century
sabre (KIS #1).
The examination o f the blades determ ined th a t
there seems to be five characteristics, which can be used
to identify crucible steel.
KIS #1
Figure 1 The mottled pattern can be observed in each of the four crucible steel blades after etching in 3% Nital.
No slag or very little slag present in the metal
Mottled appearance after etching with Nital
Homogeneous carbon content
Spheroidal cementite
Evidence of slow cooling and often a divorced eutectic
transformation (DET) matrix,
Not all the features will necessarily be observed in all
crucible steel objects and each of these features (except
for the m ottled appearance) has been noted in other
types o f steel. It is the appearance o f more than one
feature th at suggests the use of crucible steel.
Polished metallographic sections w ere examined
using a standard metallographic microscope and by
backscattered electron imaging, Objects made from
bloomery iron typically contain slag, However, crucible
steels typically do not contain slag because during the
crucible steel process the steel becomes liquid and any
slag present rises to the surface. None of the samples
examined contained any slag. In only tw o crucible steel
artifacts: Piaskowski blade (Piaskowski, 1978, 6) and in a
Turkish helm et (William s, 1997, 381) has slag been
present. The only inclusions found were in KIS #1. Using
an Electron Probe Micro Analyser these were identified
as manganese sulphide inclusions. Crucible steel objects
examined by Gilmour (Allan and Gilmour 2000: 475-511)
also contained manganese sulphide inclusions.
Examining the polished sections under low m ag­
nification, after etching in 3% Nital, revealed th a t each
exhibited a mottled pattern consisting of elongated light
and dark areas in a preferred orientation parallel to the
blade (figure 1). Lang et al. (1998), Allan and Gilmour (2000),
and France-Lanord (1969) also reported this feature
in th e objects th e y examined. The clarity, size and
concen tration o f the m ottled areas differ betw een
samples. KIS #1 has a clear p attern over th e entire
sam ple w ith m ottled areas around 0,5 m m long and
0,05 m m wide, In KIS #2 the m ottling consists of thin
elongated areas, In KIS #10 and KIS #15 the m ottling
appears to be m ore random than in th e previous
sam ples. The m ottling tends to be m ore spherical
and unevenly distributed throughout the sample. This
m ottling w as also apparent afte r etching w ith
Oberhoffers's reagent signifying th a t the effect is due
to segregation o f m inor and trace elem ents th a t
occurred during solidification, The m ottled pattern
m ay reflect the original dendritic structure th a t has
become flattened and elongated during forging. The
m ottling is n o t observed in blades w ith a crucible
Dam ascus steel pattern, probably because the
dendrites have becom e flatten e d and th e im purity
elem ents have aligned along w ith the spheroidal
cementite,
The microstructure o f ordinary steel objects often
contain intergranular p e arlite/b ainite/m artensite
between grains o f ferrite, Although it is comparatively
rare in non-crucible steel objects, any type o f steel can
contain spheroidal cem entite. Indeed, spheroidal
cem entite has been recorded in a short sword from a
pre-Han (before 206 BC) grave in China (W agn er 1993:
281) and also has been noted in a number of Roman and
post Roman knives from Britain (Tylecote and Gilmour
1986: 33-6),
KIS #1
KIS #10
Figures 2 The break up of cementite into spheroids, some of which are beginning to align, can be observed at higher magnifications.
According to Samuels (1980: 225) spheroidal cementite
can be obtained in three ways:
Low carbon steels cold worked and annealed at
subcritical temperatures (Samuels 1980: 63-64), This
produces spheroidal cementite in a ferrite matrix,
M artensite tem pered a t subcritical tem peratures
(Samuels 1980: 418),
C em entite plates in pearlite and proeutectoid
cem entite heat treated subcritical tem peratures
(Samuels 1980: 225-9).
The key feature for producing spheroidal cementite is
th a t the final stage o f heating is a t a subcritical
tem perature, th a t is, just below the austenite tra n s­
formation temperature (A, is the eutectoid line, around
727°C), and it can be produced in any type of steel or cast
iron th a t contains cem entite. Therefore, spheroidal
cementite is only a feature o f the final heat treatm ent
and not a necessary characteristic o f crucible steel.
However, it is com m only observed in crucible steel
objects and is a feature o f the pattern o f hypereutectic
Damascus steel blades,
Linder higher m agnification the differences in
m icrostructures become more visible. In KIS #1 the
m icrostructure is very fine (figure 2), It consists of
cem entite needles th a t are beginning to break up and
form elongated globular cem entite. There is no
preferred orientation o f the cem entite indicating th a t
the blade did not exhibit a pattern. Som e o f the
cem entite seems to be located a t prior austenite grain
boundaries. The matrix is composed o f irresolvable
pearlite, In KIS #2 the cem entite is beginning to align,
KIS #15 ------0.1mm
16 Make all sure. The conservation and restoration of arms and armour
The microstructure of KIS blades #10 and #15 is similar.
In both blades, elongated cem entite needles and prior
austenite grain boundary cem entite are beginning to
break up and becoming more globular in appearance,
The matrices are composed of very fine pearlite.
All of the blades examined were composed o f high
carbon steel and the carbon content was homogenous
throughout the sample, It is im p ortant to note the
carbon percentage of crucible steel because it is significant
for the creation of different types of patterns and the
performance of the blade (see above).
Blades and similar objects made of other types of steel
were often quenched from high tem peratures, Those
made of crucible steel were most often not, The typical
matrix of crucible steel and Damascus steel objects is fine
pearlite or DET matrix (divorced eutectoid transformation
matrix, of cementite particles in ferrite, see Verhoeven et
at 1998), The DET microstructure indicates that the object
was air-cooled (Verhoeven et at 1998),
The microstructure of KIS #2 is comparable to th at
seen in som e blades w ith a Damascus pattern of
Zschokke's sword #7 (see Verhoeven et at 1998), The
microstructure is composed of globular cem entite in a
DET matrix, The alignment of the cementite, however, is
not very strong indicating that the blade would not have
had a crisp pattern if etched. The alignm ent o f the
cementite in KIS #2 is best observed in the backscattered
electron image of the corroded section (figure 3),
Crucible steel has been identified in other corroded
blades, A blade was examined from the Jety Asar from
the Aral Sea region, kindly provided by L M Levina of the
Russian Academy of Science, and a sword from early
Islamic Nishapur (Allan & Gilmour 2000), both contained
a similar corroded microstructure. In the blade from Jety
Asar (RAS # 2) the extent of corrosion is too advanced to
detect any m ottled structure under low magnification
(figure 4). The sample is composed primarily of corrosion
Figure 3 Uncorroded aligned spheroidal cementite (the light areas)
can be observed in the corroded matrix (the dark areas), This is
significant because it indicates that although the blade is corroded,
the fact that it was made of crucible steel and may have originally
exhibited a faint crucible Damascus steel pattern can still be discerned.
Figure 4 Although RAS # 2 is virtually completely corroded; areas
of preserved spheroidal cementite (light areas) and relic spheroidal
cementite can still be observed in the corrosion (light grey and dark
areas) using a scanning electron microscope with backscattered
electron imaging,
w ith elongated areas o f preserved cem entite, The
cem entite appears to have begun to break up into
globules during forging, The m icrostructure of the
cementite is not unlike th at found in KIS #15, both have
cem entite needles th a t are beginning to break up and
form spheroids. Corroded cem entite can also be
observed as relic structures in the corrosion. The fact
th a t occasionally crucible steel can be identified in
corrosion products, either as uncorroded cem entite
and/or as relic structures, is a particularly im portant
consideration for the study of archaeological objects,
Conclusion
The technology involved in the production o f crucible
steel, with or w ithout a pattern, is very different to the
methods used to produce other types of steel, It reflects
different metallurgical traditions and geographic
provenances, Therefore, it is im portant to correctly
identify the type o f 'Damascus' steel in question, and
add the adjective pattern-welded, inlayed, preferentially
etched, or crucible, Furtherm ore, it should not be
assumed that all crucible steel or crucible Damascus steel
objects were made from wootz. W ootz is a specific term
suggesting a particular geographic origin (India), and
technology, In the same way, “pulad11, must not be used
as a general term , unless one is only referring to the
process as it w as performed in Central Asia. If the
provenance is uncertain, the general term crucible steel
should be used. Correct identification of steel objects will
prevent misunderstanding and is particularly important
for numerous disciplines including archaeometallurgy,
the history of a rt and science, particularly w hen
examining trade patterns, and the transfer of te ch ­
nological knowledge.
References
A l-H assan A Y 1978 ‘Iron and Steel Technology in
Medieval Arabic Sources’. Journal for the History of
Arabic Science 2, 1: 31-43,
Allan J W 1979 'Persian Metal Technology 700-1300 A D ’.
Oxford Oriental Monographs No, 2. London, Ithica
Press.
Allan J W & B G ilm our 2000 Persian Steel: The Tanavoli
Collection. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
A n a n th a ra m u T R, P T Craddock, R K Nagesh, S R N
M urthy, and M L W a y m a n , 1999 'Crucible Steel of
Ghattihosahalli, Chitradurga District, Karnataka,
Southern India'. Journal o f Historical Metallurgy, 33,
1: 13-25.
Bro n so n B 1986 'The Making and Selling o f W ootz, A
Crucible Steel o f India'. Archeomaterials 1: 13-51.
Craddock P 1998 'N ew Light on the Production of
Crucible Steel in Asia', Bulletin o f the Metals Museum
29: 41-66.
Elgood R 1994 The Arms and Arm our o f Arabia in the
18th-19th and 20th Centuries, London, Scholar Press.
Feuerbach A M unpublished PhD Crucible Steel in Central
Asia: Production, Use and Origins, University College
London, Institute of Archaeology,
Feuerbach A 2002 'The G litter o f the Sword: The
Fabrication of the Legendary Damascus Steel Blades'.
Minerva 13 (4): 45-48
Feuerbach A M, D R G riffith s, and J F M erkel 2003
'Early Islamic Crucible Steel Production a t Merv,
Turkmenistan' 258-266 P Craddock and J Lang (eds),
British Museum, London,
Figiel L S 1991 On Damascus Steel, New York, Atlantis
Arts Press,
Fra n ce- La n o rd A 1969 'Le Fer en Iran au Prem ier
Millenaire A vant Jesus-Christ'. Revue d ’Historie des
Mines et de la Metallurgy 1: 75-127. Geneve, Librairie
Droz.
Fre e sto n e I C and M S T ite 1986 ‘Refractories in the
Ancient and Pre-Industrial World'. In W D Kingery (ed)
Ceramics and Civilization III: 35-64. Ohio, Westerville,
Lang J, P Craddock, and S t J Sim p son 1998. ‘New
Evidence for Early Crucible Steel'. Journal o f the
Historical Metallurgy Society 32, 1: 7-14,
L o w e T L, N M ark and G T h o m as 1991 'An historical
mullite fibre-reinforced ceramic composite:
Characterization o f the 'W ootz' crucible refractory',
In P A Vandiver and J Druzik (eds), Materials Issues in
A rt and Archaeology II. 185: 627-635, Washington,
Materials Research Society,
L o w e T L 1989a 'Refractories in High-Carbon Iron
Processing: A Preliminary Study of the Deccani
Wootz-M aking Crucibles', In P E McGovern (ed)
Ceramics and Civilization IV: 237-251. The American
Ceramics Society.
Low e T L 1989b 'Solidification and the Crucible
Processing o f Deccani Ancient Steel', In R Trivedi,
J A Sekhar and J Mazumdar (eds) Proceedings, Indo-
US Conference on the Principles o f Solidification and
Materials Processing. 729-740, Dehli, Oxford and IBH.
M arshall J 1951 Taxila, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
P a p a k h ristu O & T R eh ren 2002 'Techniques and
technology o f ceramic vessels m anufacture -
crucibles for wootz smelting in Central Asia'. Modern
Trends in Scientific Studies on Ancient Ceramics. In V
Kilikoglou, A Hein and Y Maniatis (eds) BAR Inter­
national Series 1011: 69-74,
Piaskow ski J 1978 'Metallographic Examination of Two
Damascene Steel Blades'. Journal for the History of
Arabic Science. 1(1): 3-30.
Rajan K 1989-90 'Iron and Gem stone Industries as
Revealed from Kodumanal Excavations', Puratattiva
20: 111-113.
Rajan K 1990 'N ew Light on the Megalithic Culture of
th e Kongu Region', Man and Environm ent 15(1):
93-102.
Rao K N P, J K M ukherjee and A K Lahiri 1970 ‘Some
Observations on the Structure of Ancient Steel From
South India and its Mode o f Production', Historical
Metallurgy. 4: 12-17,
R eh ren T & O P a p a k h ristu 2000 'Cutting Edge
Technology - The Ferghana Process o f Medieval
Crucible Steel Smelting'. Metalla. Bochum 7(2): 37-51.
Sa m u els L E 1980 Optical Microscopy o f Carbon Steels.
Washington, American Society of Metals,
S rin iv a s a n S 1994 'W o o tz Crucible Steel: A Newly
Discovered Production Site in South India'. Papers
from the Institute o f Archaeology 5: 49-60.
Srinivasan S & D Griffiths 1997 'Crucible Steel in South
India - Preliminary Investigations on Crucibles from
Som e Newly Identified Sites'. Material Issues in A rt
and Archaeology 5: 111 -25.
Tylecote R F & B J Gilmore 1986 The Metallography o f
Early Ferrous Edge Tools and Edged W eapons. BAR
Series 155.
V e rh o e ve n J 2001 ‘The Mystery o f Damascus Blades'.
Scientific American 284: 62-67.
Verhoeven J, A H Pendray, & W E Dauksch 1998 ‘The
Key Role o f Impurities in Ancient Damascus Steel
Blades'. JOM. 50(9): 58-64.
V oysey H W 1832 'Description of the Native
Manufacture of Steel In India'. Journal of the Asiatic
Society o f Bengal 1: 245-247.
W a g n e r D 1993 Iron and Steel in Ancient China. Brill,
Leiden,
W a y m a n M & G Ju le ff 1999 'Crucible Steel Making in Sri
Lanka'. Historical Metallurgy 33: 26-42,
W illia m s A 1997 ‘O ttom an Military Technology: The
Metallurgy o f Turkish Armour'. In Y Lev (ed), W a r and
Society in the Eastern Mediterranean 7th-15th
centuries: 363-398, Leiden, Brill,
W ills S & S M e tca lf. 1999 'Should a Conservation
T reatm ent Reveal the Secret o f Damascus Steel?'
V&A Conservation Journal 31:10-3.