JOM • May 2006

48

Archaeotechnology

Overview

Whether you call it Indian wootz,
CentralAsianPulad,Bulat,orOriental
Damascus,cruciblesteelhasfascinated
craftsmen, scientists, and laymen for
almost2,000years.Thispaperwillpres-
ent current research on the origins of
cruciblesteel,itsinfluenceonthehistory
offerrousalloys,andthecurrentinter-
est in this decorative, yet functional,
metal.

INTRODUCTION

Whether you call it Indian wootz,
CentralAsianPulad,Bulat,ororiental
or“true”Damascus,cruciblesteelwith
adecorativepatternhasfascinatedcrafts-
men,scientists,andlaymenforalmost
2,000years.Swordsandsabersmadeof
theso-called“wootz”steelfromIndia
may be the best known crucible steel
products,butthehistoryandinfluence
ofcruciblesteelismuchmoresubtleand
widereaching.Althoughtheinfluence
of specific items made of this special
steel on individuals in past societies
cannotbemeasured,wecanstudythe
influencecruciblesteelhadonthosewho
havemadesignificantcontributionsto
thedevelopmentofferrousmetallurgy.
Fromblacksmithstoengineers,virtually
anyonewhohasaninterestinsteelhas
someinterestincruciblesteel,particu-
larlythecruciblesteelthatexhibitsthe
characteristic Damascus steel pattern.
Evenwithsomanyyearsofresearchand
hundredsofpublications,therearestill
manymisconceptionsandquestionsto
beansweredaboutthehistoryandpro-
ductionofthisspecialsteel.

WhAT’s IN A NAme

Itseemsthatoneofthereasonsthere
aresomanymisconceptionsaboutthe
history of the production of patterned
cruciblesteelisduetoitsvariousnames
andtheirgeographicalassociations.The

Crucible Damascus steel:

A Fascination for Almost 2,000 Years

Ann Feuerbach

originsofthetermsDamascus,Wootz,
andPuladhavebeenarguedelsewhere
byvariousauthorssoheretheconclu-
sionsaresummarized.Thelackofproof
ofDamascuseverhavingactuallybeen
acenterofswordproductionhasbeen
arguedbyElgood.

1

Aswillbediscussedinthispaper,all
currentevidenceindicatesthatcrucible
steelwasproducedinCentralAsiaand

thatwootzisanEnglishcorruptionof
thewordukkoorhookoo.Adiscussion
oftheearlyinterestinwootz,thosewho
studiedit,anditsetymologycanbefound
inHadfield.

4

Thetermwootzfirstappears

inprintin1795inPearson’sLectureto
the Royal Academy on Indian steel.

4

ThiswasatimewhenIndiancrucible
steel was being sent to England for
laboratoryanalyseswiththepurposeof
understandingwhatmadeitapparently
tougherthansteelmadeinEurope.Itis
worthnotingthatearlystudiesmakeno
associationbetweenwootzandanypat-
tern.Thefirstreferencetoanapparent
relationship between wootz and the
DamascuspatternappearsinStodartand
Faraday’s 1820 paper on alloys. It is
importanttorealizethatFaraday’scon-
nectionbetweenwootzandaDamascus
patternwasbasedonhisalloyingrepli-
cationexperiments,nottheexamination
ofimportedwootzingots.
HenryWilkinson,thefamoussword
manufacturer,wasthefirstEuropeanto
makeanexplicitcorrelationbetweenthe
visible crystals on the surface of an
unforgedwootzsteelandthepatterning
onthefinishedsword.

5

However,Wilkin-

sonalsomadeanotableobservationthat
many have overlooked. Wilkinson’s

6

experiments concluded that only the
ingotsfromCutch,ontheIndia-Pakistan
border and where the term pulad was
used, produced “jowhar” or watering.
HesaidingotsfromSalem,insouthern
India,hadonlyaslightindicationofa
patternandthesteelwasinferior,butthe
sample from Cutch was of excellent
qualityandboththe“cake”andfinished
objectexhibitedaDamascuspattern.
It seems, therefore, that wootz
becomesassociatedwiththeDamascus
patternbeforethe1820sbuttheasso-
ciationisnotmadefromethnographic
observationsbutviaEuropeanreplica-

From blacksmiths to
engineers, virtually
anyone who has an
interest in steel has
some interest in
crucible steel,
particularly the
crucible steel
that exhibits the
characteristic
Damascus steel pattern.

India,notSyriaorothercountriesofthe
MiddleEast.However,importedingots
wereprobablyforgedintoobjectsand
soldatmanyofthebazaarsoftheMiddle
East. Damascus and other cities were
likelyplacesofdistribution,notproduc-
tion.Indeed,therearetwootherlikely
sourcesforthetermDamascus.Theword
forwaterinArabicisdamas

2

andDamas-

cusbladesareoftendescribedasexhib-
iting a water pattern on their surface.
Additionally, al-Beruni mentions a
swordsmithcalledDamasquiwhomade
swordsofcruciblesteel.

3

Indian crucible steel is commonly
referredtoaswootz.Itisgenerallyagreed

2006 May • JOM

49

tionexperiments.Itshouldalsobenoted
thattheonlyethnographicallyproduced
cruciblesteelwitha“quality”Damascus
pattern was from northern India/Paki-
stan, which is fundamentally Central
Asian,notfromsouthernIndia,which
isassociatedwiththetermwootz.Also,
in northern India the use of the word
puladindicatesPersianconnectionsin
theprocess,furtherassociatingCentral
Asia with the presence of crucible
Damascussteelswords.
In Central Asia, the term pulad is
alwaysusedtodenotecruciblesteel.The
word pulad can be traced back to the
Avesta,thesacredbookoftheZoroas-
trians.

7

There is textual evidence sug-

gestingthatthewordwasusedatleast
bythe6thcentury

a

.

d

.

8

Ithasbeenargued

thattheetymologyofthewordmaybe
from Sanskrit or Avestan, two very
similarlanguages.Thewordpuladcan
be viewed as the conjunction of two
words:pu(alsotransliteratedasfu,or
phu)andlad(orladh).InSanskritpu
meanscleaningorpurifying.

9

Thereis

no direct translation of lad or ladh;
however,therearemorethan100words
forironinthevariousIndo-Aryanbranch
dialectsthatusevariationsoftheword
loha, including lauha.

10

The similarity

betweenpu-lauha,meaningpurifiediron,
andpulad,meaningrefinedorpurified
steel, should not be overlooked. This
similaritystronglysuggestsapossible
etymologicaloriginforthewordpulad.
Variationsofthewordpuladcannowbe
foundinlanguagesfromtheMiddleEast,
CentralAsia,andneighboringregions
asfarasTibetandincludingtheRussian
term,bulat.

pRODUCTION AND

pATTeRNs

Althoughresearchoverthelastfew
decades, primarily led by Verhoven,

11

hasshedlightonsomeofthemechanisms
thatcausethedecorativepatterns,knowl-
edgeofhowthedifferentpatternswere
madeinthepaststilleludeus.Funda-
mentally,cruciblesteelisahomogeneous
steelingotproducedbycombininglow-
carboniron(wroughtironorbloomery
iron)withahigh-carboncompoundsuch
ascastironorplantmatterinacrucible.
Thecarbondiffusesintothelow-carbon
ironandthedesiredproductisaslag-free
steelingot.
Dependingonthecruciblecharge,the

ingot could be hypoeutectoid (below
0.8%carbon)orhypereutectoid(between
0.8%and2%carbon).Undoubtedly,in
antiquitythequalityandpropertiesof
theingotswouldvarygreatly,particu-
larlyincarboncontentandminorand
traceelements,duetovariationofthe
cruciblecharge.Ideally,thesecrucible
steelingotscouldthenbeforged,pol-
ished,andetchedtorevealthecharac-
teristiccrucibleDamascussteelpattern.
However,notallingotscouldproducea
pattern and not all crucible steel was
destinedforsabers,swords,orknives,
butforutilitarianobjectsaswell,such
asscissors,files,andchisels.
There is no one pattern that can be
considered to be the typical crucible
Damascussteelpattern,noristhereone
factorthatcausesthedifferenttypesof
patterns.Somescholarsarguethatonly
high-carbonsteelisthe“true”Damascus
steelbecauseonlyhigh-carbonsteelcan
producethestrongcontrastpatterns,such
as Kara Khorasan. However, when
viewed from a history-of-technology
pointofview,thisassumptionismislead-
ing. In the past, the materials used to
producethesteelwerenotstandardized
tothedegreetheyaretoday.
Thedifferencebetweenahigh-carbon
steelingotandalow-carbonsteelingot
isonlyafractionofapercent.Although
thecraftsmencoulddistinguishbetween
low-carbonsteelandhigh-carbonsteel
andhowmuchcarbonaceousmatterthey
were putting into the crucible, it is
unlikely that they could control the
carboncontentofthecruciblechargeto
suchasmalldegreeparticularlywhen
oneconsidersthatthecruciblesthem-
selvesoftencontainedcarbon.Inaddi-
tion,unliketodaywhenscientistsmea-
sureoutexactquantitiesofmetal,alloy
components, and carbon content, it is
plausibletoassumethatthecruciblesteel
craftsmanweremeasuringquantitiesby
hand.Roughvolumeestimateshavebeen
developedbasedonthesizeofthecru-
cibles and likely size of the crucible
charge. These estimates assume dried
woodwasusedasthecarboncomponent
andsuggestthatatMerv,Turkmenistan,
fourhandfulsofdriedwoodwerecom-
bined with four handfuls of partially
consolidatedbloomeryiron.Itislikely
thattheingotsvariedincarboncontent.
Theamountoftraceelementswouldalso
varydependingonthesourceoftheiron

andwouldaffectwhetherapatterncould
developatall.
Anothervariablewastheingot’sini-
tialsolidificationrateandthetemperature
and manner in which the ingot was
forged.Thematerialsusedtopolishand
etch the object would also affect its
appearance. Research into how all of
thesefactorsmayaffecttheappearance
of the pattern, and if specific patterns
canconclusivelybeassociatedwithdif-
ferent geographic locations or even
suggestworkshops,iswanting.

ORIgINs

Thetimeandplacefortheoriginof
cruciblesteelremainsunknown;how-
ever,itmustbeatleastafewcenturies
beforethe3rdcentury

a

.

d

.because,by

thistime,itwaswellknownoutsideof
itsproductionarea.Duringthe3rdcen-
tury

a

.

d

., the Alexandrian historian

Zosimoswroteadetaileddescriptionof
cruciblesteelproductionandstatedthat
itwasbeingusedinIndiaandPersia.

12

Thereisalsoarchaeologicalevidence
to support the historical evidence. In
India,thesiteatKodumanal,attributed
tothe3rdcentury

b

.

c

.–3rdcentury

a

.

d

.,

istheearliestsecurelydatedsitecontain-
ingcruciblesthatmayhavebeenused
forcruciblesteelproduction.

13

Swords

made of crucible steel have also been
excavated from 3rd–4th century

a

.

d

.

burialsintheRussianNorthernCauca-
sus.

14

Oneofthesebladeshasaligned

spheroidalcementite,themetallographic
featurethatproducesthevisiblepattern.
This is the earliest known crucible
Damascus blade. The metallographic
structurecanbeseenintheuncorroded
metalbutisalsoclearlyobservedasrelic
structuresinthecorrosionproduct.This
suggests that crucible steel could be
identifiedincorrodedobjectspreviously
thought to no longer contain valuable
technologicalinformation.
Regardless of where and when the
origin took place, research conducted
overthelastdecadehasshownsignificant
regional differences in materials and
techniquesbythe9thcentury

a

.

d

.Gen-

erallyspeaking,presentarchaeological,
historical, and ethnographic evidence
indicatesthatcruciblesteelwasproduced
inSriLanka1

15

andIndiabytheso-called

wootzprocess

16

andinCentralAsiaby

theso-calledpuladprocess.

However,in

mostcasestheCentralAsiancrucibles

JOM • May 2006

50

aremadeofquartz-temperedrefractory
clay,whereasinIndiathecruciblesare
made of rice-husk-tempered ordinary
clay.Theelementalcompositionofthe
claymatrixfromthecruciblefragments
fromMerv,asdeterminedbyelectron-
probemicroanalysis,isSiO

2

(~65%)and

Al

2

O

3

(~24%) with small amounts of

K

2

O(~4%)andCaO(~0.5%).Thesmall

percentage of coloring elements, par-
ticularly iron, accounts for the white
firingcolorofthebase.Thelowpercent-
ageoffluxingagentscomparedtoordi-
nary clay (e.g., FeO, K

2

O, CaO, and

Na

2

O)andthecomparativelyhighper-

centageofalumina(~24%)accountsfor
theclay’srefractorynature.Thesemay
betheearliesttruerefractoryceramics.

17

ThecruciblesfoundinUzbekistanhave
a similar refractory composition. The
influenceofthesemetallurgicalceramics
on decorative ceramics and for the
preparation of chemicals for Islamic
alchemyisunder-studied;however,the
influenceofindustrialceramicsshould
notbeunderestimated.
Otherdifferencesinthecruciblesteel
processincludethefurnacedesignand
coolingoftheingots.InCentralAsia,
thecruciblesareflatbottomed,sitonthe
floor of the furnace, and are removed
after the furnace cools. In India, the
crucibleshavepointedorroundedbot-
toms,sitinthecharcoal,andareremoved
whilestillhot.Howthecompositionof
the crucible, furnace design, crucible
charge,solidification,coolingrates,and
forgingaffectedtheingotsandfinished
productsisnotyetunderstood.Inaddi-
tion,whetherobjectsmadeofcrucible
steel, with or without a pattern, were
alwaysatrulysuperiorproductisdebat-
able.

hIsTORICAl sTUDIes AND

ReCONsTRUCTIONs

InEngland,theearliestrecordedstudy
into Damascus steel was by Moxon,

18

whoreportedthatDamascussteelwas
thebesttypeofsteelbutitwasthemost
difficulttoforgeanditwouldredsear.
InterestincreasedinEnglandduringthe
late 1700s when Helenus Scott of
Bombaygaveso-calledcakesofcrucible
steeltoJosephBanks,thethen-president
of the Royal Society. Banks sent the
specimenstoEnglandforexamination
andputinarequestformoreinformation

abouttheproductionofcruciblesteelin
India.GeorgePearsonstudiedthecakes
andin1795gavealecturetotheRoyal
Societyandalsousedthetermwootzin
print. In 1804, the metallurgist David
MushetreceivedfivecakesfromBanks
anditisMushetwhopatenteda“Wootz”-
typeprocessin1800.

19

Banksalsogave

samplestothecutlerJamesStodart.In
1818, Stodart approached Michael
Faraday with one of Banks’ cakes to
“ascertainwhetheranyotherelements
werepresentinthewootzthanironand
carbon.”

20

Thisisthebeginningofthe

truehistoricalsignificanceandimpact
ofcruciblesteelontheworld’sculture
andsociety.
Faradaysetouttoreplicatewootzin
thelaboratoryoftheRoyalInstitution.
ThepurposeofFaraday’sresearchwas
nottoreplicatethecrucibleDamascus
steelpattern,buttoimprovethequality
of steel. Faraday began to alloy steel
withplatinum,rhodium,silver,nickel,
andtin,thesameelementshealloyed
withcopper.Faraday’sinitialanalyses
ontheimportedwootzcakeinfluenced
bothJ.Bréant(InspectorofAssaysat
theParisMint)inFranceandPavelP.
AnossovinRussia.Itistheirstudiesof
alloysteelthatdirectlyleadtomodern
steelalloys.Today,alloysteelsareused
forthousandsofapplicationsincluding
planes, skyscrapers, and automobiles,
and the discovery of alloy steels was
directlyaresultofthestudyofcrucible
Damascussteel.
Overthelastdecadeorsotherehas
beenanenormousrevivalofinterestin
crucibleDamascussteel.Perhapstoday
crucibleDamascussteelisbeingstudied
andproducedmorethananytimesince
itsproductionin“traditional”societies.
Therearedozensofblacksmithsallover
theworldreplicatingtheprocess;some
usetraditionalmaterialsandmethods,
whileothersusemoremodernmaterials
andtechniques.Discussionsandexper-
iments on various aspects of crucible
Damascussteelproductionarenowoften
apartofconferencesfromsuchdiverse
fieldsfrommaterialscienceandblack-
smithing to arms collecting, history,
archaeology,andanthropology.Itisby
combiningtheinformationfromallthese
diverse disciplines that crucible steel
continuestohelpusunderstandnotonly
thepeopleandtechnologyofthepast,

butalsothebehaviorofmaterialstoday.
ItappearsthatcrucibleDamascussteel
will keep inspiring people in the
future.

References

1. R. Elgood, The Arms and Armour of Arabia in the

18th–19th and 20th Centuries (London: Scholar Press

1994), pp. 103–108.

2. M. Sachse, Damascus Steel: Myth, History,

Technology, Applications (Wirtschaftseverk: N.W. Verl.

Fur Neue Wiss, 1994).

3. H.M. Said, Al-Beruni’s Book on Mineralogy: The

Book Most Comprehensive in Knowledge on Precious

Stones (Islamabad: Pakistan Hijra Council, 1989), pp.

219–220.

4. R. Hadfield, Faraday and His Metallurgical

Researches (London: Chapman and Hall, 1931).

5. W. Rostoker and B. Bronson, Pre-Industrial Iron, Its

Technology and Ethnology, Archaeomaterials

Monograph No. 1 (Philadelphia: Archaeomaterials,

1990).

6. H. Wilkinson, “On Iron,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic

Society (5) (1839), p. 389.

7. J.W. Allan and B. Gilmour, Persian Steel: The

Tanavoli Collection (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2000).

8. A. Feuerbach, D.R. Griffiths, and J.F. Merkel,

“Crucible Steel Manufacturing at Merv,” Mining and

Metal Production through the Ages, ed. P. Craddock

and J. Lang (London: British Museum, 2003), pp. 258–

266.

9. Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon, www.uni-koeln.

de/cgi-bin/Sfgate (2001).

10. G.A. Grierson, Linguistic Survey of India, 1 (2)

(London, 1928), p. 77.

11. J. Verhoeven, A.H. Pendray, and W.E. Dauksch, “The

Key Role of Impurities in Ancient Damascus Steel

Blades,” JOM, 50 (9) (1998), pp. 58–64.

12. P. Craddock, “New Light on the Production of Cru-

cible Steel in Asia,” Bulletin of the Metals Museum, 29

(1998), p. 49.

13. S. Srinivasan and D. Griffiths, “Crucible Steel in South

India–Preliminary Investigations on Crucibles from Some

Newly Identified Sites,” Material Issues in Art and

Archaeology, 5 (1997), pp. 111–125.

14. A. Feuerbach, Crucible Steel in Central Asia:

Production, Use, and Origins, University College

London, Institute of Archaeology, Ph.D. dissertation.

15. M. Wayman and G. Juleff, “Crucible Steel Making in

Sri Lanka,” Historical Metallurgy, 33 (1999), pp. 26–

42.

16. B. Bronson, “The Making and Selling of Wootz, A

Crucible Steel of India,” Archaeomaterials, 1 (1986), pp.

13–51.

17. Th. Rehren and O. Papakhristu, “Cutting Edge

Technology–The Ferghana Process of Medieval

Crucible Steel Smelting,” Metalla (Bochum: 2000), 7

(2) pp. 37–51.

18. J. Moxon, Mechanick Exercises or Doctrine of

Handy Works (London: Ludgate, 1677).

19. W. Rostoker and B. Bronson, Pre-Industrial Iron, Its

Technology and Ethnology, Monograph No.1 (Philadel-

phia: Archaeomaterials, 1990), p. 130.

20. M. Faraday, “An Analysis of Wootz, or Indian Steel,”

Quarterly Journal of Science (7) (1819), pp. 288.

AnnFeuerbachisadjunctassistantprofessorof
AnthropologyandshealsoteachesintheMiddle
East and Central Asia Department at Hofstra
UniversityinHempstead,NewYork.

For more information, contact Ann Feuerbach,

Hofstra University, Anthropology Department, 207

Davidson Hall, Hempstead, New York, 11549; e-mail

[e-mail].