Hi dudes

Alex* had just polished a 2000 year old Han Dynasty jian and here are the results...
The martensite** differential heat-treatment pattern along the edge can be clearly seen....
Alex and I speculate and hazard a guess that this weapon was heat-treated using clay.....
We know that differential heat-treatment existed during the Han Dynasty from historical
records and archaeology reports.... But were unsure whether clay was used or not....
Alex and I think this blade is one possible example...

*Alex is a famous China-based dealer on Chinese antique swords
**martensite is the technical jargon for the hardest structural form of steel after quenching
and its color resembles misty snowy white












I have digitally enhanced the contrast on a portion of the jian... Check it out...

Wow--the blade appears comparatively narrow, and it's so acutely pointed--like a rapier.

What are the stats on this thing (length, width, etc)?

Wow, incredible!

I thought these things usually rust to nothing?

Like the pieces of the Han Dao on your site all seem fully rusted.

Sorry, I don't have the stats on this jian....

Many Han Dynasty jian and dao are found totally rusted but occasionally you may find a piece or two that is quite well preserved and shows its quality after going through a polish to remove the rust and all....

that is gorgeous

its 2000 years old and i can still clearly see the grain patterns from the lamination process

it really shows how far ahead Chinese metallurgy was

It does not indicate "how far ahead Chinese metallurgy was" (since swords from other parts of the world were arguably as good), but it does at least show that the Chinese of that period made top-notch swords.

actually, yes it does indicate how far Chinese metallurgy was.

the supposed process that Henry Bessemer created in 1855 is the same process of oxidating cast iron/melted pig iron to reduce the carbon content that Chinese have been using since around the time that sword was made

100 B.C to 200 AD compared to 1855 AD is quite a large chunk of time. i'd say Chinese were quite ahead by a few centuries

Actually, this process only arrived by nearing/right after the end of the Han. What the Han were supreme at instead was the blast furnace(allowing low carbonated steel) and the ability to raise temperatures to a degree beyond that of anyone else(allowing cast iron).

Thomas,
If possible;
Do you have pictures of it before polishing?
How is it dated to Han? (i.e 2nd century AD or earlier) It seems to have no tang.
Where was it recovered to explain survival with so much steel intact?
How was it polished/how much oxidised metal was actually removed?

I first wonder what it looked like originally, what sort of burial conditions it was in (unless it was never buried) and also how much metal was removed to get it to the intact steel.
It has been said that in museum collections that there are Viking swords that could be polished up and used to effect according to one curator from Europe on Sword Forum. We only see the rotted hilts and corroded blades, so there should be some Chinese examples surviving too.
I would just like to know more about the origin and treatment of the piece.




BTW, Yes. Chinese metallurgy was comparitively advanced at this time. Absolutely no doubt. If we can balance this out instead I would point out that iron working first had to come from the West via Xinjiang & steppes peoples and both the Chinese bronze and iron ages are late on a world scale (bronze weapons used up to the mid 2nd century BC is very very late).
The early Chinese discovery of true steel however and an efficient refining of iron by the 5th century BC along with the remarkable improvements in quality & scale during Han is a unique Chinese technology.
I find that scoring points is always sensitive. It shouldn't be. Best to view each culture in technological isolation as the East & West largely were.
It is possible to score points vis-a-vis East & West technology if we want to pick and choose moments in time but it isn't generally an enjoyable excercise on CHF .




True dat.
True mid carbon steel out of the furnace is just after Han. The Han were remarkable both in output of low carbon steel, and the quality of the blades they fashioned into mid carbon steel and the Chinese had also been casting pig iron from even earlier than this period...a bonus for making tools and farming implements.
In all respects they were very advanced at this stage.

the western origin of iron working is debatable

iron working before 500 B.C might have had a western route in getting to China but by 500 B.C had been replaced by Iron smelting technology that came up from modern day Jiangsu

Are my eyes playing tricts on me ? I am somewhat surprised at the lack of Tang on this sword

It doesn't really make sense that this will cause the sword to be dangerous for the user when thrusting. Maybe it was never a war sword and never meant to see action of any form. This would be consistant with the near-perfect edge.

The owner of the blade is "Longnu", a forumite of www.hfsword.com, who gave it to Alex to polish. They rate it as Han Dynasty, judging from the rust patina...probably recovered from some riverbank or lake in China... The rust on a Chinese jian or dao recovered from a water burial site is less extensive compared to being buried in the ground... Visually, the rust also looks different... Apparently these weapons suffer less damage from rust as the water induces a rust coating on the blade that seems to protect the blade from further corrosion....

As for the missing tang, I think it was originally there but was severely damaged or had broken off...

Pics courtesy of Alex:

If sword manufacture is any indication of a culture's metallurgical skills (and it clearly is), then no--the matter is not so cut-and-dried as you claim.

Celtic and Iberian smiths made swords that were at least as good as Han weapons. Author & researcher Peter Connolly saw a 2,000-year-old Celtic sword dredged from a lake that was flexed in a semi-circle and it "returned to true"--perfectly straight.

Examination of Iberian falcata blades reveal a very sophisitcated tempering process, with varying degrees of carbon in the blades. This merely confirms contemporary accounts of both how Iberian swords were actually made, and how feared their use was in battle.

Later, in the Dark Ages, we have the amazing pattern-welded swords of the Vikings and the Frankish smiths of the Rhineland. I have seen a comparatively late (c. 10 century) example that was preserved in a church--it was bent in a semi-circle and flexed back perfectly straight. About the time this sword was made, those same Frankish smiths developed homogenous steels swords, which then became the norm in Europe.

Nor must we forget the Indians, whose excellent wootz steel has been used to produce so many fine swords over the centuries. Many of the swords made in Damascus were made from imported wootz steel.

Stop comparing Western and Chinese metallurgical technologies, people. If you want to, start a new thread. This one is not for that purpose.

My apologies to Thomas, as it certainly wasn't my intention to highjack this thread. I was not the one who made the first uncritical comment about the supposed superiority of Chinese metallurgy, when compared to that of other cultures.

Thanks Thomas,
The blade did lose a bit of girth in repolishing!
It is not really possible IMO to date that blade to Han with certainty unless it is a distinctive Han style or recovered from a tomb with Han artefacts. A double edged jian would be harder than most to pin point and unless there is some marker in dimensions to identify a Han style blade (i.e tapering or cross sections styles) then it could be anywhere from a little earlier than Han to several centuries later in a common form.
I do note almost any blade recovered is called 'Han' on the market, but I remain a little cautious of this.
I have a small jian (in much poorer condition) that should be arriving any moment, but I have no idea if it is 2,300 years old or 1,500 years old. Since this was almost certainly a tomb find then West Han is probable.
I dont know enough about the later dynasty blades, but I would suspect that a sword of this type may have existed in some basic form till quite late periods.
The consistent narrowing of the balde is quite distinctive on this piece...can that help date it?. Such form of the sword would be more useful for dating (if possible) than patina dating which would be quite subjective without many dated reference samples from similar burial conditions.
...just being picky!
But cool if it is Han. The repolishing worked surprisingly well.

PS There was a really crusty and corroded blade in a similar 'ice pick' form & lacking a tang for sale recently. About 60ish cm long in the remaining fragment. Seems to be broken in that case.
The dealer called it "Han" but it was in very poor condition.
...another reason I prefer the bronze items. Dating is a whole lot easier!



Be nice. I have been exactly where you are now, yet you have a better knowledge of the European blades than many here (certainly me) and can explain yourself well.
The reason the statement seems 'unqualified' is because most aspects of Han production are by now common knowledge here. Quality of steel aside it is worth having a knowledge of Eastern metallurgy also, respectfully, and the comments relevent at this time will make more sense.
It is not just quality (which of course we can argue is matched elsewhere, maybe) but the specific technologies which, no fooliing 100% true, where unique to China at that time.
Heat decarburisation or iron without working at a bloomery and casting of liquid iron did not exist anywhere else. Fact.
Extracts are in the 'Rome versus Han thread', which is awful and ponderous, but even better have a look inside Y. Hongs 'Weapons in Ancient China' for a description outside CHF and R. Wagners 'Iron & Steel in Ancient China". There will be others too. Comments by T. Chen on sword threads also have explained specific manufacture.
You are certainly a very knowledgable member and know more specifics about the West than us, and you can defend the West from some of the worst prejudices here (which do occur) but sometimes let a few things slide, and pick your battles.
I do not consider you to be 'Eurocentric' since you are simply giving another side to the story. It pays to have thicker skin though and then we wont have so much bickering btwn yourself and other members here.
Keep up the good work, chum.

Seriously guys, start a new thread.
There are some good potential in the topic.

i don't understand why he can't come out and just say hes referring to me

i never said Chinese metallurgy was out right superior but simply stated the fact that it was extremely far ahead (read the previous page for my exact words) which it was at this time

i was off by a little regarding the chronology of the oxidation process of cast iron/molten pig iron but i was not off by much. I stated the simple fact that europeans did not have this process until the 1850s

浪淘音, you may continue addressing this issue on the new thread http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...wtopic=9484&hl=