Note 55 — BOOK IX.[1] (continued 2)

[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:

[Pg 423] (Brass is modern poetic licence for copper or bronze). Also, in the Odyssey (IX, 465) when Homer describes how Ulysses plunged the stake into Cyclop's eye, we have the first positive evidence of steel, although hard iron mentioned in the Tribute of Yü, above referred to, is sometimes given as steel:

No doubt early wrought-iron was made in the same manner as Agricola describes. We are, however, not so clear as to the methods of making steel. Under primitive methods of making wrought-iron it is quite possible to carburize the iron sufficiently to make steel direct from ore. The primitive method of India and Japan was to enclose lumps of wrought-iron in sealed crucibles with charcoal and sawdust, and heat them over a long period. Neither Pliny nor any of the other authors of the period previous to the Christian Era give us much help on steel metallurgy, although certain obscure expressions of Aristotle have been called upon (for instance, St. John V. Day, Prehistoric Use of Iron and Steel, London, 1877, p. 134) to prove its manufacture by immersing wrought-iron in molten cast-iron.