Pulad

The majority of scholarly literature refers to all crucible steel made by traditional methods as wootz (e.g. Bronson, 1986; Figiel, 1991; Verhoeven, 2001). When they do acknowledge that it was produced in Central Asia, it is implied that it is a variation of the wootz process (e.g. Bronson, 1986, 42-45). Previously no attempts have been made by scholars to differentiate between the crucible steel processes used in India/Sri Lanka and Central Asia.

There are more differences than similarities between the processes used in Central Asia and South India/Sri Lanka (see below). The primary similarity is that they all produced an iron-carbon alloy ingot in a crucible. To the modern metallurgist, the details of the process as practiced in antiquity might not be as significant as the quality, composition and behavior of the ingot and final product after forging, but to those who are interested in the history of technology and related disciplines, the differences are as important as the similarities.  The materials and techniques used in Central Asia and India/Sri Lanka processes would have affected the quality, composition and behavior of the crucibles and ingot.

It must therefore be concluded that the materials and techniques associated with the crucible steel process in Central Asia (pulad) and those used in India and Sri Lanka (wootz) are significantly different. 

Central Asian Pulad

In Central Asia the term pulad is always used to denote crucible steel. The word pulad can be traced back to the Avesta, the sacred book of the Zoroastrians (Allan and Gilmour, 2000, 7).  Pulad was considered to be the metal of gods, kings and heroes (Allan and Gilmour, 2000, 7).  A variation of the word pulad also appears in an original Manichean Middle Persian (pwl’wd), magical text from Chinese Turkistan (Henning, 1947), suggesting the use of the term for well over 1400 years.  Variations of the word pulad can be found in New Persian (polad or pulad), Mongol (bolat), Russian (bulat), as well as in Tibetan, Armenian (p’otovat’), Ossetic, Grusinian (poladi), Ukranian (bulat), Chechnian (bolat), Turkish, and Modern Arabic (fūlād) (Toussaint, pers. com.; Abaev, 1985, 265). Additionally, “in Urdu the word is farlād for steel. But in Hindi itself the word exists as phaulad meaning steel ” (Toussaint, pers. com.). Detailed research into the etymology of the word pulad is wanting.

The physical characteristics of the crucible steel process used in Central Asia, based on archaeological remains, are made of refractory clay with quartz temper. The crucibles sat on the furnace floor and gravel like material was placed in between the crucibles, on the furnace floor. The nature of the crucible charge is uncertain but the best hypothesis is bloomery iron and plant matter, possibly with some manganese added. The crucibles were fired until the steel was liquid and then left to slowly cool inside the furnace. The result was a high carbon steel ingot virtually free from slag and non-metallic impurities.  These are some of the physical and technological characteristics, which can, therefore, be used to define the characteristics of Central Asian crucible steel production.

Indian/Sri Lankan Crucible Steel Terms and Production

There are many words in the different Indian languages for the word iron including lauha and loha. According to the Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon (2001) there are also scores of words for steel including the following transliterated as piNDA7yasa, abhraka-sattva, cIna-ja, and tIkSNa4-loha. A variation of pulad also appears in Sanskrit as po1la1wade1n, and po1la1wad (Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon, 2001). In addition, words translated to mean Damascus steel include baTTa-lohaka, zaikyAyasa, and loha4-ja  (Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon, 2001). However, it is not readily clear if these words really do refer to crucible Damascus steel or another variety of Damascus steel.

Terms interpreted by scholars such as Bronson (1986) and Craddock (1998) as referring to Indian steel are al-Hind, hinduwani and hunduwany. Al-Hind or al-Hindi is the Arabic term used to denote steel from India. Juleff (1998, 10) points out that wani and waney are the Sinhalese terms for steel and to her knowledge, the words do not appear in any Indian language and do not appear to derive from Sanskrit.  The use of the terms hinduwani and huduwany, in the literature might better be understood as steel from Sri Lanka, rather than implying all of India.

Indian/Sri Lankan crucible steel is commonly referred to as wootz.  It is generally agreed that wootz is an English corruption of the word ukko or hookoo. Ukko is found in Canarese (Chakrabarti, 1992, 1). Hookoo is found in the Telegu language of Hyderabad, Tamin Nadu and Mysore areas  (Prakash, 1989, 96).  Telegu, Kannada, Tamil and Malayalam are Dravidian languages (non Indo-European) used in the southern Indian states of Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka (Lowe in Allan and Gilmour, 2000, 69). The term wootz first appears in print in 1795 in Pearson’s Lecture to the Royal Academy on Indian steel (Hadfield, 1931). This was during a time when Indian crucible steel was being sent to England for laboratory analyses with the purpose of understanding what made it apparently tougher than steel made in Europe. A discussion of the early interest in wootz, those who studied it, and its etymology can be found in Hadfield (1931).

Despite the extensive number of reports that claim the importance of India in producing vast quantities of wootz, few archaeological sites have been investigated. There are many ethnographic accounts of Indian crucible steel production (see Bronson, 1986), however, scientific investigations of crucible steel remains have only been published from four regions: three in India and one in Sri Lanka (e.g. Rajan, 1989-90 and 1990; Craddock, 1998; Srinivasan and Griffiths, 1997; Anantharamu et al., 1999, Freestone and Tite, 1986, Rao et al., 1970; Wayman and Juleff, 1999; Lowe, 1989, 1991).

In India, the site at Kodumanal is attributed to the 3^rd century BC - 3^rd century AD and is the earliest securely dated site containing crucibles which may have been used for crucible steel production (Rajan, 1989-90 and 1990; Craddock, 1998, 49; Srinivasan and Griffiths, 1997). The reports state that iron slag and a large furnace stacked with vitrified crucibles was uncovered. Srinivasan and Griffiths (1997) examined a couple of fragments from Kodumanal (stressing that it is a preliminary investigation). Their analysis of the crucibles clay matrix testified that it was iron rich containing around 50% FeO.  Srinivasan and Griffiths (1997, 117) report that the crucibles resemble the crucibles from Mel-Siruvalur  however no iron or steel prills, nor lids have been found so far, thus, the crucibles are not confirmed as remains from crucible steel production. Therefore, the site cannot yet be identified as the earliest crucible steel production centre until more analyses are performed or more evidence is reported, such as the presence of iron/steel prills.

The following characteristics are typically found in the crucible steel process employed in South India/Sri Lanka, commonly referred to as wootz.  In all the crucibles rice husks were used as temper.  The shapes of the crucibles are conical or aubergine (eggplant) shaped (South Indian) or elongated, pear-shaped or light bulb shaped (Sri Lanka). The base of the crucible was either rounded or pointed. “Earth” or “clay” was put into the top of the crucible to seal it, but occasionally separate preformed lids were used.  The crucible charge used was one type of iron and either wood and/or leaves. At most sites the steel solidified relatively quickly. The crucibles were stacked together in the furnace, often in a cone shape.

Hyderabad Process

Remains from crucible steel production at Hyderabad, central India at Konasamudram, Nizamabad district, formerly called Golconda, Andhra Pradesh, have been studied by Lowe (e.g. 1989a, 1991) and reported by Voysey (1832). The South Indian process used iron and carbonaceous material whereas the Hyderabad process apparently used two types of iron. Research by Lowe (1989a, 1989b, 1991) has provided additional information confirming that the characteristics of the Hyderabad process are distinct from those of the South Indian wootz process.  When compared to the crucible steel remains from Central Asia, the Hyderabad remains have more characteristics in common with those remains than with the South Indian/Sri Lankan remains.