When we compare the state of manners and arts of the Mexicans and Peruvians with that of their Spanish conquerors, we are almost compelled to admit, that the possession of iron was perhaps the only real superiority in civilization which the latter possessed. Gunpowder played but a small part in the contests where handfuls of men routed myriads; the courage of the Indian warrior is not less firm than that of the descendant of the Goths.
The sciences and arts which are now the boast of European civilization, were then but awakening from a slumber of ages; in the latter, the workmanship of Europe was in many instances inferior to that of the new world, and in the former, to take as an instance that which occupies the highest place, astronomy, the civil year of the Mexicans was intercalated and restored to the solar, by a process more perfect than that we even now employ; and the latter was not introduced into Europe until half a century after the throne of Montezuma fell. The bloody human sacrifices which excited to such a degree the abhorrence of the conquerors, were not greater marks of savage cruelty, than were their own auto da fes, and the tortures inflicted on Guatemozin. Yet if not superior in bravery, in the arts, the sciences, and the more distinctive attribute of civilization, humanity, the possession of iron was sufficient to ensure the triumph of the Spaniards.
Of all the metallurgic arts, that by which iron is prepared from its ores, demands the greatest degree of practical skill, and is the most difficult to bring to perfection. Although ages have elapsed since it first became an object of human industry, its manipulation and preparation are yet receiving improvements, while those of the other ancient metals appear hardly susceptible of modification or advancement. Copper and its alloys, tin, lead, and mercury, were as well and as cheaply prepared by the ancients as by the moderns; and the reduction of the precious metals has received no important change, since the process of amalgamation was first applied to them,—while the preparation of iron is daily improving under our eyes, and its cost diminishing. It may even be doubted whether the iron we first find mentioned in history, was an artificial product, and not obtained from the rare masses in which it is found existing in the native state, and which are supposed to be of meteoric origin.
The original use of iron is ascribed in the sacred writings to Tubal Cain, who lived before the flood;—but we have no proof that he did not employ a native iron of this description. Be this as it may, the united testimony of antiquity exhibits to us an alloy of copper used for the purposes to which we apply iron, and the latter metal as comparatively scarce, and of high value. The qualities of iron were known and appreciated, but the art of preparing it was not understood. The reason is obvious; those ores of iron which have an external metallic aspect, are difficult of fusion and reduction, those which are more readily converted, are dull, earthy in their appearance, and unlikely to attract attention,—while gold and silver manifest in their native state their brilliant characters, and the ores of copper and lead exhibit a higher degree of lustre than the metals themselves.
If, then, history does not show us the ancient nations employing iron for their arms and instruments, it is because they were unable to prepare it. Even in the middle ages, we find copper in use for arms, because the nations that employed it, could not conquer the difficulties that attend the preparation of iron.
The books of Moses, however, show that iron was known at that era to the Egyptians, and the distinction he draws between it and brass, seems in favour of our view of the origin of that which was then employed. The stones of the promised land were to be iron, but brass was to be dug from the hills. Twelve hundred years before Christ, if we receive the testimony of Homer, who, if he be rejected as an historian, must still be admitted as a faithful painter of manners. The Greeks used an alloy of copper for their arms, but were unacquainted with iron, which they estimated of much higher value.
Αυταρ Πηλειδης θηχεν σολον αυτοχοωνον, Ον πριν μεν ριεπτασε μεγα σφενος Ηεβιωνος. Αλλα ητοι τον επεφνε ποδαρχος διος Αχιλλευς, Τον δ αγετ εννηεσσι συν αλλοισιν χτεατεσσιν. Στη δ ορθος χαι μυθον εν Αργειοισιν εειπεν. Ορνυσθ, οι χαι τουτου α εθλου πειρησησθε!
&c. Iliad, Book XXIII, 1. 826.
From this passage and the following lines, we learn the two-fold fact: 1. That a mass of iron of no greater weight than could be used as a quoit, by a man of great strength, was esteemed of sufficient value to be cited as an important article in the spoil of a prince: 2. That its use was confined to agricultural purposes, and not applied in war. Hence the more valuable form steel, and its tempering, were unknown.
Five hundred years later, Lycurgus attempted to introduce the use of iron, as money, into Sparta. The reasons usually cited for this act, do not seem to apply; and we ought not to accuse that lawgiver of the want of knowledge in political economy that is usually ascribed to him, in endeavouring to give a base material a conventional value to which it was not entitled. The iron was still, probably, more costly than brass, and the error of Lycurgus did not lie in ascribing to it a value beyond its actual cost, but in depriving it of the property of convertibility to useful purposes, which was necessary to maintain its price.