Posts: 13,279
Threads: 102
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
That would confirm the impression I get when looking at different artifacts.
Some look to be of high quality materials, others, less so.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Posts: 2,012
Threads: 52
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
14
Making copper alloys like brass and bronze was well understood, so I presume you are refering to iron objects.
I will try to explain something about iron and steel, along with alloys. Starting with the alloys; to make an iron alloy you will have to melt the iron. There is some discussion on whether or not the Romans could cast iron iow melt iron to a liquid. There are certainly shapes I have seen in tools that would imply iron casting, as forging these would have been highly impractical. Mind you, casting an object in iron does not make the object of castiron, as that has a very high carbon content of over 2 % and is notoriously brittle. But ... the metalurical knowledge was very limited in respect to the effects of additives like nickel and chroom, should these have been available in pure form. What I think happened is that natural alloys from a specific ore-site and their superior performance was noticed by the craftsmen. Iron ore contains a good number of assorted metals in small quantities, but certainly sufficent to create a natural alloy. Medium alloyed iron contains between 1,5 en 5% alloying elementens (excluding carbon). Manganese and silicium (yep, sand!) are the most commom elements for alloys (Si = 0,7 % Mn = 1,6 %) The raw material from a specific mining location could thus be recognised as being of superiour quality and traded as such. A trained craftsman could certainly tell the difference, using things like a scratch test with a tool of known hardness.
Then there is the difference between iron and steel. Steel is basicly iron with a higher carbon content or an iron alloy with other metals. Mind you, the carbon content is not above 2 %! Steel may be hardened and tempered, low carbon, unalloyed iron cannot be hardened at all. There were methodes available to the Romans to add carbon to the iron, like the very slow smouldering in a burning charcoal bed with little oxygen. This would cause a slow diffundation of carbon into the iron (case hardening). Reworking the iron in the forge and then repeating the proces caused more carbon to be absorbed and created a homogenious steel.
Mild or construction steel(max. carbon 0,17 % Mn 1,40% Si 0,045%) as we have available these days is really top range stuff compared to the materials the Romans would have had by and large. Great stuff for making swords and a lot more accurate then EN45 spring steel blades (Carbon 0.55% Mn 0.75% Si 1.75%).
Posts: 4,318
Threads: 127
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
6
well, actually the quoted comment was made on cupric alloys. But I indeed like to include all sort of metals in the discussion.
Posts: 2,012
Threads: 52
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
14
Oeps, sorry. Indeed there is a good range of copper alloys as well. What we tend to call "bronze" objects were indeed also of a wide variaty of different cupric alloys, although I would think tin and lead were the main alloying elements and the colour does tell you a bit about the possible alloy, unlike iron.
Posts: 2,913
Threads: 21
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
1
I have gained great experience from having reproduced much Roman raised relief work however there are many Roman artifacts that do frustrate me from the point of view of the depth that they could achieve.
I think that the reasons are that with much of the brass sheet we have today it is difficult to get any with such a good lead content, this is where I think the ancients were so good at creating their brass and bronzes to the quality they wanted.
Brian Stobbs
Posts: 2,012
Threads: 52
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
14
I was wondering if the metalurgical analysis Jurjen mentioned is available. Would a high lead content (20%) also make the bronze easier to cast in greater detail or thinness? I have often wondered how the casting of 1 mm thin chapes or the really detailed small figurines was achieved by the Romans without a vacume caster.
Posts: 2,913
Threads: 21
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
1
I think that a lot of the very thin casting of bronze may well have been done by sand casting, such as the vine leaf decoration on things like the Vindolanda Chamfron that are even less than 1mm thickness and have three integral pins on the under surface.
Brian Stobbs
Posts: 2,012
Threads: 52
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
14
A chape is hollow, so would have had a clay core. We know clay molds were used on scabbard slides, as one was found still in the clay mold. But for sandcasting also, the metal would have to be very "runny" to flow well enough to be able to fill a thin space. Bronze cools really fast. Which made me wonder whether or not high lead levels could account for this.
Posts: 13,279
Threads: 102
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
I believe the lead content was to allow the bronze to be cast more easily, Robert, yes.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Posts: 2,913
Threads: 21
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
1
Robert.
I think this is where we need some of the casting experts to come into this topic to give us a better understanding about molten bronze.
It might be the lead content or copper or indeed the amount of tin and other metals involved in the mixture.
What I do know is that some of the fine sheet used for Roman decoration work and also for covering of other things such as wood is very thin indeed in the region of 0-5mm.
Then for small statues and more solid pieces they may well have used the centrifical method where the molten metal is thrown into the mold.
Brian Stobbs