Why did iron production in India stop?

Ann Feuerbach · 28th April 2005, 03:33 PM

Sorry for dropping in late in the conversation....It is a weird thing that the British were studing and trying to replicate wootz, while killing the traditional industry with their imports. From what I have read, I guess the British iron was cheaper (less labor intensive) and of better quality, which probably means more homogenous than the Indian bloomery iron. Wootz was a very small part of the indian iron working. The British industrial revolution Blast furnaces will make much more steel than the traditional Indian bloomery. It is like things today all over...cheap mass produced imports over traditional local made items.
Ann

Ian · 28th April 2005, 04:06 PM

RhysMichael has touched on an area with which I have some familiarity -- the harmful effects of various metals on people's health -- and correctly reports that various hazardous exposures occur in the mining, refining and working of metals.

These adverse effects have been well understood, if not the exact causes, for at least 400-500 years, and anecdotal accounts of these problems date to Egyptian and Roman times, and possibly earlier.

Galen (c. 150 AD) wrote of the harmful effects of working in sulfur mines. There is a famous treatise by Agricola, De Re Metallica (About Things Metallic), published in 1556 which describes the hazards of mining and metallurgy. Also, an excellent account of metal workers in Bernadino Ramazzini's book, De Morbis Artificum Diatriba (Treatise on the Harmful Effects of Work), published in 1713.

Most heavy metals have considerable toxicity and persist in the body for many years: lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, etc.

Iron, itself, is not generally very harmful and is excreted quite readily from the body. Iron is a necessary element for health, being an essential ingredient in hemoglobin where it participates directly in the transport of oxygen in the blood.

Jens Nordlunde · 30th April 2005, 11:14 AM

Interesting comment Ann, I thought the same. First the European mass production of iron/steel put a great preassure on the local markets, and a bit later the weapon technology did the rest.

RhysMichael and Ian, I don't intend to say that metals like lead and mercury did not play a role, they may have, but the author does not mention it. As Ian writes these dangers were known early, and as the book was written in 1942 I guess the author would have mentioned it when writing about 'Virgin Iron'.
The pits were like on the picture, a whole in the ground, and normally not more than about two to three meters deep. A thing mentioned in the book, which seems to be more of a danger than lead and mercury was the collapse of the pit, burying the one working in the pit.

tom hyle · 30th April 2005, 12:30 PM

That's a classic example of dangerous vs harmful; driving too fast is dangerous to your health but not harmful to it; smoking vice-versa. Let's not get "smart" about exhaust fumes or burning down your house smoking in bed

Exposure to heavy metals is bad for you. Getting in a pit is harmless, unless it collapses; ;then often deadly. Living in Houston, a low-lying swampy area with mushy unstable seeming soil, I am amazed and disturbed when I often see workers in unsupported pits.

28th April 2005, 04:06 PM	#2
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,453	The hazards of mining and metal working RhysMichael has touched on an area with which I have some familiarity -- the harmful effects of various metals on people's health -- and correctly reports that various hazardous exposures occur in the mining, refining and working of metals. These adverse effects have been well understood, if not the exact causes, for at least 400-500 years, and anecdotal accounts of these problems date to Egyptian and Roman times, and possibly earlier. Galen (c. 150 AD) wrote of the harmful effects of working in sulfur mines. There is a famous treatise by Agricola, De Re Metallica (About Things Metallic), published in 1556 which describes the hazards of mining and metallurgy. Also, an excellent account of metal workers in Bernadino Ramazzini's book, De Morbis Artificum Diatriba (Treatise on the Harmful Effects of Work), published in 1713. Most heavy metals have considerable toxicity and persist in the body for many years: lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic, etc. Iron, itself, is not generally very harmful and is excreted quite readily from the body. Iron is a necessary element for health, being an essential ingredient in hemoglobin where it participates directly in the transport of oxygen in the blood.

28th April 2005, 03:33 PM	#1
Ann Feuerbach Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 133	Sorry for dropping in late in the conversation....It is a weird thing that the British were studing and trying to replicate wootz, while killing the traditional industry with their imports. From what I have read, I guess the British iron was cheaper (less labor intensive) and of better quality, which probably means more homogenous than the Indian bloomery iron. Wootz was a very small part of the indian iron working. The British industrial revolution Blast furnaces will make much more steel than the traditional Indian bloomery. It is like things today all over...cheap mass produced imports over traditional local made items. Ann

30th April 2005, 11:14 AM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Interesting comment Ann, I thought the same. First the European mass production of iron/steel put a great preassure on the local markets, and a bit later the weapon technology did the rest. RhysMichael and Ian, I don't intend to say that metals like lead and mercury did not play a role, they may have, but the author does not mention it. As Ian writes these dangers were known early, and as the book was written in 1942 I guess the author would have mentioned it when writing about 'Virgin Iron'. The pits were like on the picture, a whole in the ground, and normally not more than about two to three meters deep. A thing mentioned in the book, which seems to be more of a danger than lead and mercury was the collapse of the pit, burying the one working in the pit.

30th April 2005, 12:30 PM	#4
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	That's a classic example of dangerous vs harmful; driving too fast is dangerous to your health but not harmful to it; smoking vice-versa. Let's not get "smart" about exhaust fumes or burning down your house smoking in bed Exposure to heavy metals is bad for you. Getting in a pit is harmless, unless it collapses; ;then often deadly. Living in Houston, a low-lying swampy area with mushy unstable seeming soil, I am amazed and disturbed when I often see workers in unsupported pits.