It is generally believed that the metal called at present tin was
known and employed in the arts, not only in the time of Pliny, but as
early as that of Herodotus, Homer, and Moses. This I will not venture
to deny; but I can only admit that it is probable, or that the great
antiquity of this metal cannot be so fully proved as that of gold,
silver, copper, iron, lead, and quicksilver.
Tin is one of those minerals which hitherto have been found in quantity
only in a few countries, none of which ever belonged to the Greeks
or the Romans[503], or were visited, at an early period, by their
merchants. As it never occurs in a native state[504], the discovery
of it supposes some accident more extraordinary than that of those
metals which are commonly, or at any rate, often found native. I
cannot, however, attach much importance to this circumstance, as the
ancients became acquainted with iron at an early period, though not so
early as with copper. I must also admit that tin might have been more
easily discovered, because it is frequently found near the surface of
the earth; does not require a strong heat or artificial apparatus for
fusing it, and therefore can be more easily won than copper.
But if tin was known so early as has hitherto been believed, it must,
on account of the circumstance here first remarked, have been scarce
and therefore exceedingly dear. In this manner the aurichalcum or
Corinthian brass, according to the expression of Plautus, was “auro
contra carum.” The metal of the ancients, however, which is believed to
have been tin, was not so rare and costly. Vessels of it are not often
mentioned, in general; but they never occur among valuable articles.
The circumstance also, that vessels of tin have never or very seldom
been found among Greek or Roman antiquities, and that when discovered
the nature of the metal has been very doubtful, though tin is not apt
to change from the action of the air, water, or earth, and at any rate
far surpasses in durability copper and lead, ancient articles made
of which are frequently found, appears to me worthy of attention. It
possesses also so many excellent properties, that it might be expected
that the people of every age, to whom it was known, would have employed
it in a great variety of ways. It recommends itself by its superior
silvery colour; its ready fusion; the ease with which it can be
hammered and twisted; its lightness, and its durability. It is not soon
tarnished; it is still less liable to rust or to become oxidized; it
retains its splendour a long time, and when it is lost easily recovers
it again. It is not so soon attacked by salts as many other metals;
and this till lately has been considered a proof of its being less
pernicious than it possibly may be. After an accurate investigation,
should everything said by the ancients of their supposed tin be as
applicable to a metallic mixture as to our tin, my assertion, that it
is probable, but by no means certain, that the ancients were acquainted
with our tin, will be fully justified.
The oldest mention of this metal, as generally believed, is to be
found in the sacred scriptures. In the book of Numbers, chap. xxxi.
ver. 22, Moses seems to name all the metals then known; and, besides
gold, silver, brass (properly copper), iron, and lead, he mentions
also _bedil_, which all commentators and dictionaries make to be
tin. When Ezekiel, chap. xxvii. ver. 12, gives an account of the
commerce of Tyre, he names, among the commodities, silver, iron,
copper, and _bedil_. In Zechariah, chap. iv. ver. 10, the plummet of
the builder or architect is said to be made of the _bedil_ stone. In
Isaiah, chap. i. ver. 25, the word occurs in the plural number, and
appears there to denote either scoriæ, or all those inferior metallic
substances which must be separated from the noble metals. In the old
Greek versions of these Hebrew books, _bedil_ is always translated
by _cassiteros_, except in the passage of Isaiah, where no metal is
mentioned. In Zechariah, the translator calls the _bedil_ stone τὸν
λίθον κασσιτέρινον. There can hardly be a doubt, that for the purpose
here mentioned, people would employ, not the lighter metal tin, but
lead, and that the plummet was called the lead-stone, because at first
a stone was used.
It seems, however, probable that in the first-quoted passage _bedil_
is our tin; but must it not appear astonishing that the Midianites,
in the time of Moses, should have possessed this metal? Is it not
possible that the Hebrew word denoted a metallic mixture or artificial
metal, which formerly was an article of commerce, as our brass is at
present[505]?
The Greek translators considered _bedil_ to be what they called
_cassiteros_; and as the moderns translated this by _stannum_, these
words have thus found their way into the Latin, German, and other
versions of the Hebrew scriptures, which therefore can contribute very
little towards the history of this metal. The examination of the word
_cassiteros_ would be of more importance; but before I proceed to it, I
shall make some observations on what the ancients called _stannum_.
This, at present, is the general name of our tin; and from it seem
to be formed the _estain_ of the French, the _tin_ of the Low German
and English, and the _zinn_ of the High German. It can, however, be
fully proved that the _stannum_ of the ancients was no peculiar metal;
at any rate not our tin, but rather a mixture of two other metals,
which, like our brass, was made into various articles and employed
for different purposes, on which account a great trade was carried on
with it. This, at least, may with great certainty be concluded from a
well-known passage of Pliny[506]; though to us, because we are not
fully acquainted with the metallurgic operations of the ancients, it
is not sufficiently intelligible. What I have been able to collect,
however, towards illustrating the passage, with the assistance of my
predecessors, and by comparing myself the account of the Roman with our
works, I shall here lay before the reader; and perhaps it may induce
others to improve and enlarge it.
But I must first observe, that there can be no doubt that the _nigrum
plumbum_ of the ancients was our lead. This metal, according to Pliny’s
account, they obtained in two ways. First, from their own lead mines or
lead ore, which immediately on its fusion gave pure or saleable lead.
To comprehend this, it is necessary to know that most kinds of lead ore
contain also silver, and many of them in such quantity that they might
with more propriety be called silver ores, or rather argentiferous lead
ores or plumbiferous silver ores. Those which contain no silver are so
scarce, that I am ignorant whether any other has yet been found, except
that of Bleyberg, not far from Villach, in Carinthia. As Villach lead,
according to some experiments made on a large scale, is entirely free
from silver, it is well-known, and particularly useful for assaying.
It may therefore appear singular that the ancients had lead of this
kind in such abundance that Pliny was able to make of it a particular
division. But it is to be observed, that in ancient times people paid
little attention to a small admixture of silver; and that they were
accustomed to separate this metal only when it was capable, by the old
imperfect process of smelting, to defray the expenses, which certainly
would not be the case, when a quintal of ore contained only a few
ounces, or even a pound of silver. Strabo says this expressly of some
Spanish ores. Such poor ores were then used merely for lead; and our
silver refiners, without doubt, would separate silver with considerable
advantage from the lead of the ancients. Hence has arisen the common
opinion, that lead and also copper, with which some of the oldest
buildings are covered, had in the course of time become argentiferous.
This is impossible; but it is possible for us to separate from them the
noble metal, which the ancients either could not do, or did not think
it worth the trouble to attempt.
Secondly, the ancients obtained, as we do, a great deal of lead from
argentiferous ores, from which they separated the silver and revived
the lead. The ore was pounded very fine, or, as we say, stamped; it
was then washed and roasted, and formed into a powder or paste. This
was then put into the furnace, and by the first fusion gave a regulus
consisting of silver and lead, which was called _stannum_, and was
the same substance as that known to our metallurgists by the name
of _werk_. If it was required to separate the silver, it was again
fused, not in the first furnace, but in a particular refining furnace
with a hearth of lixiviated ashes. This circumstance Pliny has not
mentioned; perhaps it appeared to him unnecessary; perhaps he did not
fully understand every part of the process; and were one inclined to
say anything in his defence, modern travels and other works might be
quoted, in which metallurgic operations are described in a manner no
less imperfect. The produce obtained by the second fusion, called
in German _treiben_ or _abtreiben_, was silver, and besides that
half-vitrified lead, _glätte_, which in part falls into the hearth.
This substance, called by Pliny _galena_, a word which denotes also
_molybdæna_[507], was once more fused or revived, and then gave lead.
In this manner were obtained three different productions, which were
all used in commerce, namely, _stannum_, _argentum_ and _galena_, or
revived lead, _plumbum nigrum_. These Pliny seems to have considered as
component parts of lead ore; but not indeed according to the present
signification[508].
Though it must be confessed that this passage of Pliny cannot be
fully understood by any explanation, it proves to conviction that the
_stannum_ of the ancients was neither our tin nor a peculiar metal,
but the _werk_ of our smelting-houses. This was long ago remarked by
those writers who were acquainted with metallurgy, of whom I shall
here mention Agricola[509], Encelius[510], Fallopius[511], Savot[512],
Bernia[513], and Jung[514].
The ancients used, as a peculiar metal, a mixture of gold and silver,
because they were not acquainted with the art of separating them, and
afterwards gave it the name of _electrum_. In the like manner they
employed _werk_ or _stannum_, which was obtained almost in the same
manner in the fusion of silver. In all probability it was employed
before people became acquainted with the art of separating these two
metals, and continued in use through habit, even after a method of
separating them was discovered. If the ore subjected to fusion was
abundant in silver, this mixture approached near to the noble metals;
if poor in silver, it consisted chiefly of lead. When it consisted of
silver and lead only, it was soft and ductile; but if other metals,
difficult of fusion, such as copper, iron, or zinc, were intermixed, it
was harder and more brittle, and in that case approached nearer to what
the German silver refiners call _abzug_ and _abstrich_.
That this _stannum_ was employed as an article of commerce, and that
the ancients made of it vessels of various kinds, cannot be doubted.
The _vasa stannea_ however may be considered as vessels which were
covered with tin only in the inside; for that this was customary I
shall prove hereafter. In general, these _vasa stannea_ are named where
mention is made of saline or oily things, or such as would readily
acquire a taste and smell from other metals, were they boiled or
preserved in them for any length of time[515].
It has been long ago remarked that most of the Roman vessels were
made of copper, and that these people were acquainted with the art of
tinning or silvering them; but that tinned vessels have never been
found, and silvered ones very rarely. Hence so many things appear
to have been made of what is called _bronze_, which is less liable
to acquire that dangerous rust or oxide, known under the name of
verdigris, than pure copper. This bronze is sometimes given out as
Corinthian and sometimes Syracusan brass, as the gold-coloured coins of
the first size were considered to be Corinthian brass also. But in my
opinion, a great and perhaps the greater part of all these things were
made of _stannum_, properly so called, which by the admixture of the
noble metals, and some difficult of fusion, was rendered fitter for use
than pure copper. We are told by Suetonius, that the emperor Vitellius
took away all the gold and silver from the temples and substituted in
their stead _aurichalcum_ and _stannum_[516].
Whether the Greeks worked _stannum_, and under what name, I do not
know: perhaps we ought to class here the κασσιτέρινα of the oldest
times, of which I shall speak hereafter.
What I have already said in regard to _werk_ will be rendered more
certain by the circumstance, that even two centuries ago, vessels of
all kinds called _halbwerk_ were made of it in Germany. This we are
told by Encelius[517] as a thing well-known in his time, which however
I should wish to see further examined. I have searched in vain for
this name in a great many works of the sixteenth century; but I have
long entertained an idea, which I shall take this opportunity of
mentioning:--Among the oldest church vessels I have seen some articles
which I considered to be _vasa stannea_, I mean such as when newly
scoured and polished had a silvery brightness, and when they remained
long without being cleaned acquired a dull gray colour, and a greater
weight than bronze. Those who show these things commonly say that the
method of composing the metal is lost; but that it contains silver, and
according to the assertion of many, even gold. Such articles deserve,
undoubtedly, to be examined by our chemists.
I shall further remark, on this subject, that the _abstrich_, as it
is called, which in many respects has a resemblance to _stannum_, and
contains also lead and silver, but at the same time metals difficult
of fusion, is employed in the arts, and collected for the use of the
letter-founders[518]. For this purpose it is well-adapted, on account
of its hardness and durability; and in want of it lead must be mixed
with regulus of antimony. At the Lower Harze the workmen began so early
as 1688 to revive this _abstrich_ in particular; and as the lead thence
obtained, on account of its hardness, could not be disposed of like
common lead, it was sold to the letter-founders at Brunswick, at first
at the rate of a hundred weight for two and a half dollars, and in the
year 1689 for three dollars. But in Schlüter’s time a small quantity of
it only was made annually, because the _abstrich_ could be used with
more advantage for other purposes. This lead, says Schlüter, had the
appearance of bronze, and was so brittle, that a piece of it broke into
fragments when struck[519].
_Speise_ also, which is obtained at the blue colour-works, can be
employed in the same manner. Under this term is understood a metallic
mixture deposited during the preparation of blue glass, and which is
composed of various metals combined with cobalt, but particularly
nickel, iron, copper, arsenic, and perhaps also bismuth. It is hard,
brittle, sonorous, and assumes a good polish, though it is not always
of the same quality in all manufactories. As it contains some colouring
particles, it is in general again added to the glass residuum. But when
I lately paid a visit to the colour-mill at Carlshafen, M. Birnstein
the inspector told me, that the _speise_ was manufactured at Halle
into buttons of every kind. This probably is the case there in those
button-manufactories established by G. H. Schier, in which buttons of
all patterns are made annually to the value of 30,000 dollars[520]. The
ancients, in my opinion, employed in a similar manner the _werk_ of
their silver smelting-houses.
I shall now proceed to examine that metal which the Greeks named
κασσίτερος, or, as Pliny says, _Cassiteron_, and which he expressly
adds was called by the Latins _plumbum candidum_ (white lead). I have
no new hypothesis to recommend; my sole object is truth. I wish for
certainty, and, when that is not to be obtained, probability; at the
same time, however, I cannot rest satisfied with the judgement given
by the compilers of dictionaries, and the translators and commentators
of ancient authors, because I firmly believe that they never made any
researches themselves on the subject.
That the ancients were acquainted with our tin as early as we find
the word _cassiteros_ mentioned by them, I am not able to prove, and
I doubt whether it is possible to do so; the contrary seems to me to
be more probable. In my opinion, it was impossible for the Phœnicians,
at so early a period, to obtain this metal from Portugal, Spain, and
England, in such quantity that it could be spread all over the old
world. The carriage of merchandise was not then so easy. If all the
_cassiteron_ was procured from the north-west parts of Europe, it
appears to me that it must have been much dearer than it seems to have
been in the oldest times, to judge from the information that has been
preserved.
In my opinion, the oldest _cassiteron_ was nothing else than the
_stannum_ of the Romans, the _werk_ of our smelting-houses, that is,
a mixture of lead, silver, and some other accidental metals. That this
has not been expressly remarked by any Greek writer, is to me not
at all surprising. The works of those who might be supposed to have
possessed knowledge of this kind have not been handed down to us. We
should not have known what _stannum_ was, had not the only passage of
Pliny which informs us been preserved. I am as little surprised that
Herodotus should say he did not know where _cassiteron_ was obtained.
How many modern historians are ignorant of the place from which zinc,
bismuth, and tombac are brought! and however easy it might be for our
historians to acquire knowledge of this kind if they chose, it was
in the same degree difficult for Herodotus, in whose time there were
not works on mineralogy, technology, and commerce, to furnish such
information. At the period when he lived, _cassiteron_ perhaps was
no metallurgic production of any neighbouring mines, but a foreign
commodity, a knowledge of which, mercantile people endeavoured in those
early ages, much more than is the case in modern times, to conceal, and
which also could be better concealed than at present.
That real tin was afterwards known to the Greeks, I readily believe;
but I find no proof of it, nor can I determine the time at which they
first became acquainted with this metal. It is not improbable that
they considered it only as a variety of their old _cassiteron_, or the
_stannum_ of the Romans, as the latter declared both to be a variety of
lead. It might be expected that the Greeks would have given a peculiar
name to the new tin, in order to distinguish it from the old, as the
Romans really did; but this appears not to have been the case. I think,
however, to have remarked that, so early as the time of Aristotle, real
foreign tin was called the Tyrian or Celtic, because Tyre undoubtedly
was, at that period, the market for this commodity.
According to the conjectural accounts hitherto given, there is no
necessity for believing the word _cassiteron_ to be Phœnician or
Celtic. The Greeks seem to have used it before they had Phœnician tin;
and because they afterwards considered the Phœnician ware as a kind of
their _cassiteron_, and at the same time heard of islands from which it
was brought, they named these islands the _Cassiterian_, as Herodotus
has done, though he expressly says that he did not know where they
were situated. This ancient historian seems to have entertained nearly
the same opinion in regard to the origin of the name, for he adds, “At
any rate the name Eridanus is not foreign, but originally Greek[521].”
It is, however, very possible that every thing said of these islands,
in the time of Herodotus, was merely a fabrication of the Greek
merchants, none of whom had the least knowledge of the Phœnician trade
to England[522]. In this case the _bedil_ of the Hebrews might be
only _stannum_, and thus would be removed the wonder of Michaelis,
how the Midianites could have obtained tin so early[523]. I will not,
however, deny that the contrary of what has been here stated is equally
possible. The Greeks might have obtained real tin at a very early
period by trade, and along with it the foreign name, from which was
formed _cassiteros_. The art of preparing _stannum_ may not have been
known among them, and therefore under the _cassiteron_ of the Greeks
we must undoubtedly understand tin. In this case one could comprehend
why _stannum_ is not mentioned in the works of the Greeks; and if the
_plumbum album_ of Pliny be our tin, of which there can be scarcely
a doubt, his testimony that the _cassiteron_ of Homer was the same
belongs to this place.
In regard to the question, which opinion seems the most probable, I
will not enter into any dispute; but I must maintain that, in regard to
the periods of Homer and Herodotus, no certainty can be obtained. To
justify this assertion, I shall here point out everything I have found
relating to _cassiteron_, and, as far as possible, in the original
words, quoting the different works in the manner in which all the words
for dictionaries of natural history ought to be arranged.
I. Vocatur Latinis _plumbum candidum_[a] sive _album_[a][b], et Græcis
jam Iliacis temporibus teste Homero _cassiteron_[a].