Mail coats existed because we have evidence/quran.
Disbelievers simply don't know. They want to prove quran wrong since it was revealed-and they failed. Absence of evidence(not finding it in the soil) is not evidence of absence.
I found this online u may want to read it:https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Quran-get-the-history-of-iron-wrong/answer/Abd-Ul-Rahman-Lomax
By Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax, Formally accepted Islam in 1971
I'm continue to be amazed at how people read errors into the Qur'an. 34:10-11 does not say what is alleged. That is a possible interpretation, perhaps, but I will show the verses on a site with all translations:
Saba` 34:10 Notice that Muhammad Asad translates Hadid as "sharpness." That could be metaphorical. Hadid is used for iron, but this is the root:
IslamAwakened - Haa-Dal-Dal ; the word used could mean iron, pig iron, unprocessed iron. Then we have 34:10. A straightforward reading is "and then we made iron soft for him." The metaphorical meaning would be "we made what is hard or sharp, easy or soft." If literally iron, it could mean that it was made molten, or it could possibly mean that it was made soft enough to work, which is the controversial meaning here.
"Conventional dating" for the time of King David was about 1000 BCE.
Soft iron, or workable iron, "wrought iron," is commonly thought to be a relatively modern discovery. The origin seems to be unclear. The Wikipedia article Wrought iron mentions reference to a form of wrought iron in 1200 CE. There is a wrought iron monument in India, Iron pillar of Delhi , which has been considered as old as the time of David, though the article claims this is no longer accepted. An earlier version of the article had it being erected about 400 CE.
However, looking around, this academic page, Ancient Metallurgy , has an early date for steel of about 1200 BCE, and claims that Homer mentioned it. This would be roughly contemporaneous with David. It's said there that "steel was too difficult to produce dependably to come into wide use at that point.."
See the academically published article: http://"The heart of steel: a metallurgical interpretation of iron in Homer" The article mentions that iron was an odd rarity initially. This article, in quite a number of ways, directly contradicts the claim here. Wrought iron and steel existed, though rare, at the time of David.
So even if we take the reference as being to "soft iron," it is not an anachronism, it's possibly historical. There is no indication in the verse of wide usage, and it is only wide usage that would be anachronistic.
Then there is the alleged making of coats of mail, armor, from iron. The actual verse:
Saba` 34:11 ... doesn't mention iron. A few translations insert it as a gloss.
The claim of the OP appears to be unsupported by any clear evidence, and even if no example were known to us, an example could have existed, some accident in smelting iron, perhaps, that produced a batch of workable iron. It is not impossible that this was then worked into armor, and that it did not pass into wide usage does not contradict this.
The Qur'an is not a history text, and I was fully prepared, here, to find that it would be necessary to interpret the verse metaphorically. That is not necessary. There is no error, merely an assertion that we can trust or not, as we choose.
If the OP thinks that he will benefit by his denial, created only by ignorant surmise, he is free to toss himself into that furnace and see what happens with his heart. Will it soften?
al-Baqarah 2:74
