Thanks for the detailed clarification.
I finally got it.
Your confusion stems from a critical language distinction in the passage. Let me clarify:
What the passage actually says:
The contemporary sword maker used iron with trace impurities that "precisely matched those present in" the historic iron
This means the composition was the same, not the physical source
What this means:
- The original iron mine/source was exhausted centuries ago ✓
- The contemporary sword maker found iron from a different source that happened to have the same trace impurities ✓
- No contradiction exists!
Think about the logical chain:- Historic fact: Damascus blade production stopped abruptly when the iron source was exhausted
- Recent development: Someone finally made Damascus blades again, but only after finding iron with matching trace impurities
- Logical conclusion: The specific trace impurities (not just any iron) must be essential
If the trace impurities weren't crucial, why would production have stopped immediately when that particular iron source ran out? Sword makers would have simply used different iron and continued making Damascus blades.