[52] "... ex saxis vilibus, quae natura de diversa materia composuit." The Glossary gives grindstein. Granite (?).
[53] Historical Notes on Tin Metallurgy. The first appearance of tin lies in the ancient bronzes. And while much is written upon the "Bronze Age" by archæologists, we seriously doubt whether or not a large part of so-called bronze is not copper. In any event, this period varied with each race, and for instance, in Britain may have been much later than Egyptian historic times. The bronze articles of the IV Dynasty (from 3800 to 4700 B.C. depending on the authority) place us on certain ground of antiquity. Professor Gowland (Presidential Address, Inst. of Metals, London, 1912) maintains that the early bronzes were the result of direct smelting of stanniferous copper ores, and while this may be partially true for Western Europe, the distribution and nature of the copper deposits do not warrant this assumption for the earlier scenes of human activity—Asia Minor, Egypt, and India. Further, the lumps of rough tin and also of copper found by Borlase (Tin Mining in Spain, Past and Present, London, 1897, p. 25) in Cornwall, mixed with bronze celts under conditions certainly indicating the Bronze Age, is in itself of considerable evidence of independent melting. To our mind the vast majority of ancient bronzes must have been made from copper and tin mined and smelted independently. As to the source of supply of ancient tin, we are on clear ground only with the advent of the Phœnicians, 1500-1000 B.C., who, as is well known, distributed to the ancient world a supply from Spain and Britain. What the source may have been prior to this time has been subject to much discussion, and while some [Pg 412]slender threads indicate the East, we believe that a more local supply to Egypt, etc., is not impossible. The discovery of large tin fields in Central Africa and the native-made tin ornaments in circulation among the negroes, made possible the entrance of the metal into Egypt along the trade routes. Further, we see no reason why alluvial tin may not have existed within easy reach and have become exhausted. How quickly such a source of metal supply can be forgotten and no evidence remain, is indicated by the seldom remembered alluvial gold supply from Ireland. However, be these conjectures as they may, the East has long been the scene of tin production and of transportation activity. Among the slender evidences that point in this direction is that the Sanskrit term for tin is kastira, a term also employed by the Chaldeans, and represented in Arabic by kasdir, and it may have been the progenitor of the Greek cassiteros. There can be no doubt that the Phœnicians also traded with Malacca, etc., but beyond these threads there is little to prove the pre-western source. The strained argument of Beckmann (Hist. of Inventions, vol. II., p. 207) that the cassiteros of Homer and the bedil of the Hebrews was possibly not tin, and that tin was unknown at this time, falls to the ground in the face of the vast amount of tin which must have been in circulation to account for the bronze used over a period 2,000 years prior to those peoples. Tin is early mentioned in the Scriptures (Numbers XXXI, 22), being enumerated among the spoil of the Midianites (1200 B.C.?), also Ezekiel (600 B.C., XXVII, 12) speaks of tin from Tarshish (the Phœnician settlement on the coast of Spain). According to Homer tin played considerable part in Vulcan's metallurgical stores. Even approximately at what period the Phœnicians began their distribution from Spain and Britain cannot be determined. They apparently established their settlements at Gades (Cadiz) in Tarshish, beyond Gibraltar, about 1100 B.C. The remains of tin mining in the Spanish peninsula prior to the Christian Era indicate most extensive production by the Phœnicians, but there is little evidence as to either mining or smelting methods. Generally as to the technical methods of mining and smelting tin, we are practically without any satisfactory statement down to Agricola. However, such scraps of information as are available are those in Homer (see note on p. [402]), Diodorus, and Pliny.
Diodorus says (V, 2) regarding tin in Spain: "They dig it up, and melt it down in the same way as they do gold and silver;" and again, speaking of the tin in Britain, he says: "These people make tin, which they dig up with a great deal of care and labour; being rocky, the metal is mixed with earth, out of which they melt the metal, and then refine it." Pliny (XXXIV, 47), in the well-known and much-disputed passage: "Next to be considered are the characteristics of lead, which is of two kinds, black and white. The most valuable is the white; the Greeks called it cassiteros, and there is a fabulous story of its being searched for and carried from the islands of Atlantis in barks covered with hides. Certainly it is obtained in Lusitania and Gallaecia on the surface of the earth from black-coloured sand. It is discovered by its great weight, and it is mixed with small pebbles in [Pg 413]the dried beds of torrents. The miners wash these sands, and that which settles they heat in the furnace. It is also found in gold mines, which are called alutiae. A stream of water passing through detaches small black pebbles variegated with white spots, the weight of which is the same as gold. Hence it is that they remain in the baskets of the gold collectors with the gold; afterward, they are separated in a camillum and when melted become white lead."
There is practically no reference to the methods of Cornish tin-working over the whole period of 2,000 years that mining operations were carried on there prior to the Norman occupation. From then until Agricola's time, a period of some four centuries, there are occasional references in Stannary Court proceedings, Charters, and such-like official documents which give little metallurgical insight. From a letter of William de Wrotham, Lord Warden of the Stannaries, in 1198, setting out the regulations for the impost on tin, it is evident that the black tin was smelted once at the mines and that a second smelting or refining was carried out in specified towns under the observation of the Crown Officials. In many other official documents there are repeated references to the right to dig turfs and cut wood for smelting the tin. Under [note 8, p. 282], we give some further information on tin concentration, and the relation of Cornish and German tin miners. Biringuccio (1540) gives very little information on tin metallurgy, and we are brought to De Re Metallica for the first clear exposition.
As to the description on these pages it must be remembered that the tin-stone has been already roasted, thus removing some volatile impurities and oxidizing others, as described on page [348]. The furnaces and the methods of working the tin, here described, are almost identical with those in use in Saxony to-day. In general, since Agricola's time tin has not seen the mechanical and metallurgical development of the other metals. The comparatively small quantities to be dealt with; the necessity of maintaining a strong reducing atmosphere, and consequently a mild cold blast; and the comparatively low temperature demanded, gave little impetus to other than crude appliances until very modern times.
[Pg 419][54] Aureo nummo. German Translation gives reinschen gülden, which was the equivalent of about $1.66, or 6.9 shillings. The purchasing power of money was, however, several times as great as at present.
[Pg 420][55] In the following descriptions of iron-smelting, we have three processes described; the first being the direct reduction of malleable iron from ore, the second the transition stage then in progress from the direct to indirect method by way of cast-iron; and the third a method of making steel by cementation. The first method is that of primitive iron-workers of all times and all races, and requires little comment. A pasty mass was produced, which was subsequently hammered to make it exude the slag, the hammered mass being the ancient "bloom." The second process is of considerable interest, for it marks one of the earliest descriptions of working iron in "a furnace similar to a blast furnace, but much wider and higher." This original German Stückofen or high bloomery furnace was used for making "masses" of wrought-iron under essentially the same conditions as its progenitor the forge—only upon a larger scale. With high temperatures, however, such a furnace would, if desired, yield molten metal, and thus the step to cast-iron as a preliminary to wrought-iron became very easy and natural, in fact Agricola mentions above that if the iron is left to settle in the furnace it becomes hard. The making of malleable iron by subsequent treatment of the cast-iron—the indirect method—originated in about Agricola's time, and marks the beginning of one of those subtle economic currents destined to have the widest bearing upon civilization. It is to us uncertain whether he really understood the double treatment or not. In the above paragraph he says from ore "once or twice smelted they make iron," etc., and in De Natura Fossilium (p. 339) some reference is made to pouring melted iron, all of which would appear to be cast-iron. He does not, however, describe the 16th Century method of converting cast into wrought iron by way of in effect roasting the pig iron to eliminate carbon by oxidation, with subsequent melting into a "ball" or "mass." It must be borne in mind that puddling for this purpose did not come into use until the end of the 18th Century. A great deal of discussion has arisen as to where and at what time cast-iron was made systematically, but without satisfactory answer; in any event, it seems to have been in about the end of the 14th Century, as cast cannon began to appear about that time. It is our impression that the whole of this discussion on iron in De Re Metallica is an abstract from Biringuccio, who wrote 15 years earlier, as it is in so nearly identical terms. Those interested will find a translation of Biringuccio's statement with regard to steel in Percy's Metallurgy of Iron and Steel, London, 1864, p. 807.
Historical Note on Iron Smelting. The archæologists' division of the history of racial development into the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, based upon objects found in tumuli, burial places, etc., would on the face of it indicate the prior discovery of copper metallurgy over iron, and it is generally so maintained by those scientists. The metallurgists have not hesitated to protest that while this distinction of "Ages" may serve the archæologists, and no doubt represents the sequence in which the metal objects are found, yet it by no means follows that this was the order of their discovery or use, but that iron by its rapidity of oxidation has simply not been preserved. The arguments which may be advanced from our side are in the main these. Iron ore is of more frequent occurrence than copper ores, and the necessary reduction of copper oxides (as most surface ores must have been) to fluid metal requires a temperature very much higher than does the reduction of iron oxides to wrought-iron blooms, which do not necessitate fusion. The comparatively greater simplicity of iron metallurgy under primitive conditions is well exemplified by the hill tribes of Northern Nigeria, where in village forges the negroes reduce iron [Pg 421]sufficient for their needs, from hematite. Copper alone would not be a very serviceable metal to primitive man, and he early made the advance to bronze; this latter metal requires three metallurgical operations, and presents immeasurably greater difficulties than iron. It is, as Professor Gowland has demonstrated (Presidential Address, Inst. of Metals, London, 1912) quite possible to make bronze from melting stanniferous copper ores, yet such combined occurrence at the surface is rare, and, so far as known, the copper sources from which Asia Minor and Egypt obtained their supply do not contain tin. It seems to us, therefore, that in most cases the separate fusions of different ores and their subsequent re-melting were required to make bronze. The arguments advanced by the archæologists bear mostly upon the fact that, had iron been known, its superiority would have caused the primitive races to adopt it, and we should not find such an abundance of bronze tools. As to this, it may be said that bronze weapons and tools are plentiful enough in Egyptian, Mycenæan, and early Greek remains, long after iron was demonstrably well known. There has been a good deal pronounced by etymologists on the history of iron and copper, for instance, by Max Müller, (Lectures on the Science of Language, Vol. II, p. 255, London, 1864), and many others, but the amazing lack of metallurgical knowledge nullifies practically all their conclusions. The oldest Egyptian texts extant, dating 3500 B.C., refer to iron, and there is in the British Museum a piece of iron found in the Pyramid of Kephron (3700 B.C.) under conditions indicating its co-incident origin. There is exhibited also a fragment of oxidized iron lately found by Professor Petrie and placed as of the VI Dynasty (B.C. 3200). Despite this evidence of an early knowledge of iron, there is almost a total absence of Egyptian iron objects for a long period subsequent to that time, which in a measure confirms the view of its disappearance rather than that of ignorance of it. Many writers have assumed that the Ancients must have had some superior art of hardening copper or bronze, because the cutting of the gigantic stonework of the time could not have been done with that alloy as we know it; no such hardening appears among the bronze tools found, and it seems to us that the argument is stronger that the oldest Egyptian stoneworkers employed mostly iron tools, and that these have oxidized out of existence. The reasons for preferring copper alloys to iron for decorative objects were equally strong in ancient times as in the present day, and accounts sufficiently for these articles, and, therefore, iron would be devoted to more humble objects less likely to be preserved. Further, the Egyptians at a later date had some prejudices against iron for sacred purposes, and the media of preservation of most metal objects were not open to iron. We know practically nothing of very early Egyptian metallurgy, but in the time of Thotmes III. (1500 B.C.) bellows were used upon the forge.
Of literary evidences the earliest is in the Shoo King among the Tribute of Yü (2500 B.C.?). Iron is frequently mentioned in the Bible, but it is doubtful if any of the early references apply to steel. There is scarcely a Greek or Latin author who does not mention iron in some connection, and of the earliest, none are so suggestive from a metallurgical point of view as Homer, by whom "laboured" mass (wrought-iron?) is often referred to. As, for instance, in the Odyssey (I., 234) Pallas in the guise of Mentes, says according to Pope:
"Freighted with iron from my native land
I steer my voyage to the Brutian strand,
To gain by commerce for the laboured mass
A just proportion of refulgent brass."