If, and I do mean IF, the blades from Luristan are indeed crucible steel, and IF they are as early as they are thought to be, then yes, they would be the earliest known crucible steel objects known. This does not Prove, Disprove, nor should it suggest any "origin" for the process. There was a great deal of trade going on and movements of people and empires. Only a well dated and well documented, early unquestionable crucible steel production site, might tell us where and when the process originated. Until that is found, be it in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Baluchistan, Uzbekistan, Iran or elsewhere, my mind remains open. India is the most likely place of origin, but I refuse to ASSUME that India is the place of origination of the process just because they were a major producer later on.
If we look at the published facts, apart from the objects found at Taxila (Pakistan, which geographically is Central Asia) all the earliest crucible steel object known (by that I mean published), are from OUTSIDE of India. This is probably just a feature of preservation and discovery, rather than reflecting what really happened in the past. But nevertheless, these are the facts!
Lets look at the textual "evidence":
PhD extract "During the first century AD Pliny (died 79 AD) wrote …“But of all the varieties of iron the palm goes to the Seres with their fabrics and skins. The second prize goes to Parthian iron; and indeed no other kinds of iron are forged from pure metal, as all the rest have a softer alloy welded with them” (Pliny, XXXIV translated by Rackham, 1995, 143-146). Bronson (1986) has argued that there is no evidence that the Seres were producing and exporting “wootz” to Rome. Those who discuss Pliny’s statement seem to only be concerned about who the Seres were, probably the Tamil Cheres of South India (Juleff, 1990). However, the rest of Pliny’s statement is perhaps even more telling. Regardless of who the Seres were, Pliny states that they, and the Parthians, are the only people to produce pure metal. " It is likly that this "pure metal" is crucible steel, as it is referred to as pure metal in later literature.Thus, this suggests that crucible steel was being produced in Iran (Parthia) from an early date.
Lets look at later ethnographic evidence:
PhD extract:
"It is important to recall Bronson’s observation that no first hand ethnographic reports from South India mention that the steel produces a Damascus pattern (Bronson, 1986, 39-40). In addition, the experiments performed by Wilkinson (1839, 389) on crucible steel ingots from Cutch, in Northern India on the India-Pakistan border, and from Salem, southern India, concluded that only the ingot from Cutch produced a good pattern, whereas the Salem sample had only a slight indication of a pattern. Therefore, the evidence from all archaeological, ethnographic, and replication experiments, indicates that crucible steel from South India/Sri Lanka, i.e. the areas associated with the terms wootz, produced crucible steel blades with either no pattern or a faint pattern only. Arguably, it is the coarse pattern, such as the Kara Khorasan pattern, that is most often associated with or characterizes “Damascus steel” (refer to Figures 97-100). As mentioned above, the archaeological evidence from Merv and Termez indicated that the microstructure of the ingots could have resulted in a coarse patterned blade. In addition, textual evidence (e.g. al-Beruni in Said, 1989, 219-220), and ethnographic reports (e.g. Abbott, 1884; Wilkinson, 1839, 38) all state that crucible steel blades with a good pattern were produced in Central Asia and Northern India, places where the term pulad (or related term) was used. Therefore, all the afore mentioned evidence indicates that crucible steel from Central Asia, which includes Northern India, could produced crucible steel blades with a coarse pattern, while the South Indian/Sri Lankan wootz ingots probably did not. This is contrary to the generally accepted opinion that Indian wootz steel was primarily used to produce “Damascus blades” (e.g. Verhoeven, 2001; Figiel, 1991, 7; Rostoker and Bronson, 1990, 130; Sachse, 1994, 67).
If we only go by what people assume they know, rather than the facts, we will not progress. We might as well be looking for the origin of Damascus steel in Syria!
