ancient industry - Page 3 - Historum

HackneyedScribe · May 11th, 2012, 06:55 PM

Guapo, in other words, you still haven't been able to summarize the equation I used, as differing from the equation that the author's used. What's the point of arguing with me if you don't even know my argument? All you know is that I put out a ~30,000 tonne per year estimate, yet so far it appears you have no idea how I got that number. This is simply reading what you want to read. Le Hoang himself already pointed out one calculation error when I showed it to him the first time, which dropped my estimation from 36,000 to 32,000 tonnes per annum. How many times did I show it to you? Yet you didn't catch it. Perhaps you would have if you bothered reading more with an open mind.

Quote:

For the Han period I have suggested elsewhere that iron production might have been on the order of 0.1 kg per capita per year (Wagner 2001a: 73). Since, as Hartwell has shown, the uses of iron had broadened greatly between the Han and the Song one might well be justified in supposing an increase in production by an order of magnitude in the intervening thousand years. Therefore his suggestion, 114,000 metric tonnes, amounting to about 1.2 kg of iron per capita per year, is quite plausible, but there appears to be no direct quantitative evidence for it.

SOURCE: Wagner, Donald B.: "The Administration of the Iron Industry in Eleventh-Century China", ''Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient'', Vol. 44, No. 2 (2001), pp. 175–197 (175f., 191)

That .1 kg per capita came from his "foolish" estimation of 5000 tonnes, as admited by the author himself. It was far from serious. How many times did I mention that. Why do you treat so seriously something that the author himself describe as foolish?

Quote:

Also, the high levels of estimated iron consumption of the Roman Empire are not derived from iron making technology, which was the same in principle for a thousand of years (just as modern steel production technology is the same for the last several decades while global steel production increased by 10 fold since 1950), but from the high number of iron implements used by the Romans.

If that were true in itself many ancient soldiers would have armor at the level of Renaissance Gendarmes or Gothic knights. They did not. For the most part true demand is higher than what the technology could provide, so prices rise until demand reaches equilibrium. Humans always want more. Technology is a reflection of demand.

Quote:

Han china heavily restricted the iron industry by government policies. And the use of blast furnaces doesn't imply in higher levels of metal production. In fact, China developed blast furnaces due to the lack of high quality ores that they could mine and hence they had to use lower quality ores and developed furnaces to use these low quality ores.

The low Han levels of iron production were also estimated from iron findings:

What did I say about making things up on the spot? I told you to stop doing that on other threads. If we are talking about estimating Han levels of iron production by "iron findings", then Eastern Han greatly outpaced the Western Han. The estimation of 5000 you repeatedly use despite evidence to the contrary is from the Western Han. The Eastern Han repealed the iron monopoly. Besides, the iron monopoly mostly affected quality rather than quantity, as seen by the Discourses on Salt and Iron. Plus, where is your source about "low quality ores"? And how does that even apply to the invention of the blast furnace in the first place?

Le Hoang · May 11th, 2012, 06:55 PM

Oh , I saw . But iron production in Roman is much greater than former ages . You can see Populoni can produce 3 tons per annul from 6-100 BC . What is the reason for high levels of iron production in Roman empire? Employee?No. Iron production per capital is much greater than Populonia . Technology? May be but it 's very clearly . I think they used a large of number machine in their industry? Are you agree with me?

HackneyedScribe · May 11th, 2012, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Oh , I saw . But iron production in Roman is much greater than former ages . You can see Populoni can produce 3 tons per annul from 6-100 BC . What is the reason for high levels of iron production in Roman empire? Employee?No. Iron production per capital is much greater than Populonia . Technology? May be but it 's very clearly . I think they used a large of number machine in their industry? Are you agree with me?

You still haven't summarized my point about Han and Roman iron production. Why did I say that 5000 is too low and 80000 is too high? My argument is legitimate, but no one addressed them. I don't know why people are so eager to criticize when they don't even know what I said. It's not that much to ask. Simply know what my argument actually states before disagreeing. What equation did I use? I certainly didn't use any complexed formula, it's just basic multiplication.

I already posted my argument in this thread. No one was able to summarize it. They didn't ask for clarification, so I could only assume they read it. Yet no one addressed the legitimate points. Here is my other thread that gives my argument in its entirety: http://www.historum.com/asian-histor...tml#post686990

It's elementary math, nothing complicated. I don't think the demand is too unreasonable.

Also, I was hoping for the specifics about Tang iron production.

HackneyedScribe · May 11th, 2012, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Interestingly, the copper evidence points out to a 8-10 fold increase in per capita copper production in China from the 2nd to the 12th century. While scholars argue that per capita levels of iron consumption must also have increased by perhaps an order of magnitude.

Considering that we know very well the levels of iron production in Song China and that it was much higher than in previous periods and also that copper production also was much higher than in previous periods it is not reasonable to expect that per capita levels of iron consumption would be 0.5 kg per capita during the Han period.

Considering these facts I think that a level of iron consumption per capita of around 0.1 kg - 0.2 kg is probably the most realistic estimate for the Han period. So:

Han China - 1st century produced 6,000 to 12,000 tons of iron and around 800 tons of copper.
Song China - 1100 AD, produced 120,000 tons of iron and 13,000 tons of copper.

Again, stop making up numbers. That 800 tonnes of copper was attained by Walter Scheidl, who estimated 700-850 tonnes of copper production for the Han dynasty in annual minting of copper coins only. That speaks nothing about copper usage in bronze vessels, weapons, building brackets, musical instruments, or art. The rest of the numbers is just pulled out of air. Basic statistical standards, people. But most importantly, please at least try to know my equation before going off about it. If you don't know what I said, and still try to disagree with me, then that just puts yourself at an disadvantage.

I also criticized Song dynasty iron production values as too high here: http://www.historum.com/asian-histor...tml#post692298

What you're doing is just trying to win an argument by pure force. You keep avoiding my arguments about iron production. Instead you just post the same old thing. Trying to be convincing by sheer force is not the best way to be rhetorical. Again, prove to me you read my main arguments: Show me the equation I used.

Le Hoang · May 11th, 2012, 09:54 PM

Sorry . I said 84750 tons in Roman not 80000. I don't think 84750 is high . People in Roman used very much iron . Iron is very important . Anyone can buy it . If you are a farmer , you only can buy one plow , one scissor , some sandals , some horseshoe with 1.5 kg iron . It isn't enough to life . So , I think Roman produced greater than 84750 ton per annul in fact.

HackneyedScribe · May 11th, 2012, 11:21 PM

So in short, you still can't sum up my point about why Roman iron is high. You still haven't proved to me you read my case. Really guys, simply knowing the counter-claims of the opposing case isn't that much to ask. I already put my reasons in post 7, and provided links throughout my posts. There's simply no excuse for it.

Le Hoang · May 14th, 2012, 03:35 PM

HackneyedScribe . I'm busy for 2 day . Now , we are continuing . We can use document of Guapo . In Roman , they need 15 day for dig the ore , 75 day for time cutting , 75 day for charge preparation stage . I think Han ironworker need time for these works . So , one Han furnace produces 200*610 = 122000kg = 122 tons per annum not 222 ton .

HackneyedScribe · May 14th, 2012, 05:04 PM

Quote:

So , one Han furnace produces 200*610 = 122000kg = 122 tons per annum not 222 ton .

Le Hoang, do you know how Donald Wagner got that number? It was estimated from resource input. In other words, the amount of slag + other materials was calculated from the surrounding furnace remains, which tells him how much total iron the furnace produced. Then he divided by how long the furnace was operational to get 610 kg per day. This means 610kg was the average daily production, not the average production per working day. I already mentioned this before in post 12. Also, Donald says this calculation was not accurate, as it was "probably on the low side". Both Needham and Donald speculate that a furnace could produce "hundreds of tonnes" per year, although not enough is known for a specific number.

Plus, I am still waiting for someone to give me the equation I was asking for continually, for proof that they actually read my arguments in post 7 and understood them. I mentioned this in post 26, 24, 23, 21, 9, and 7. No response yet, nor was there any question about how I could make my post easier to understand. This could only lead me to the conclusion that people read what they want to read.

heavenlykaghan · May 14th, 2012, 11:59 PM

Not this twaddling again.
Donald Wagner(and most historians of Chinese iron, such as Robert Hartwell, for that matter) himself thinks that Han iron production was vastly greater than Roman iron production because of the existence of the blast furnace.

Ferrous metallurgy in Han China

Quote:

While there did exist large state ironworks run by the Roman army, most iron production occurred in thousands of tiny units scattered in villages throughout the Empire. There would have been no way at all of enforcing a monopoly, and it is also difficult to imagine what advantage the Roman state might have derived from such a monopoly.

The difference lay in the technology of iron production. Bloomery smelting, the only iron-smelting process known in Europe until Medieval times, lends itself well to small-scale production. It was used in early China to some (unknown) extent, but by the 3rd century B.C. it appears that most iron was being produced in blast furnaces, which provide very large economies of scale.

As to the actual fabrication of artefacts from the iron produced in one of these ways, the work of the blacksmith, East or West, is an inherently small-scale operation, while iron-casting, used in China very early but not in Europe until Medieval times, is most efficient at a somewhat larger scale of production.

...In the Roman Empire, though iron production was rarely concentrated, there were other industries whose technology did encourage large-scale production. Rostovtzeff (1957, pp. 349352) notices a trend in the Imperial period away from 'house-economy' toward large-scale 'capitalist' industry and then back toward a smaller scale of industrial production. This course of development is loosely analogous to that seen in Han China, with the rise of blast furnace iron production, the establishment of large ironworks under the monopoly, and the later rise of illegal iron production, very likely on a smaller scale than the monopoly ironworks. Any detailed comparison is of course rendered pointless by two important differences in Han China: a technology which provides extremely large economies of scale and a powerful interventionist government.

Rostovtzeff, writing in the 1920's, discusses several possible explanations for the 'failure' of large-scale industry to develop further in Roman Europe. He concludes that a major factor was a failure of demand...The quotations above from the debate in Han China include arguments which are common today. Small-scale production can have important political, social, and ecological advantages; large-scale production can be technically superior, producing a better product, and can be more efficient in its consumption of scarce resources.

All figures for Roman and Han iron production can be taken with a grain of salt as there are no records whatsoever. In another word, they are guesstimates, not estimates, so qualitative analysis are much more reliable than quantitative ones.
Also, even for Song iron production, estimates can range from as low as 30,000 to over 200,000 tons, while the estimate Wagner gave for the Han was merely the lowest end estimate for iron production in the Western Han when records show 48 furnaces, hence Wagner states that ``assume an average annual production of 100 tonnes per Iron Office, then total annual legal production in the Han empire as a whole would have been about 5,000 tonnes, or about 0.1 kg per person. Obviously one cannot lend much credence to this figure, but perhaps it gives a feel for the general scale of Han iron production.``

However, we know from records that Eastern Han furnaces increased by over twofolds and there are over 100 recorded furnaces, and even in the Western Han some furnaces were recorded in the Han Shu to have over 100,000 people, so some of these furnaes clearly produced well over 100 tons, or several times or even dozens of times of that. Furthermore private industries also came into existence in the Eastern Han which is again noted by Donald Wagner if Guaporense even bothered to read. So once again his argument that monopoly led to smaller scales of iron production in the Han collapses. So the Han figure of 5,000 that has being cited was not even the contemporary of the Roman Empire, but of the Roman Republic.

This has been repeatedly pointed out in numerous forums and webpages, but Guaporense´s obsession clearly doesn´t stop here despite all the contrary evidence that the Han probably produced a much larger scale of iron, instead he place all of his trust on a half baked speculation of Roman iron estimate from a projection of British iron production, an exporter in the Roman Empire, onto the rest of the Empire while using a even bigger guesstimate for the Han that isn´t even contemporary to the Roman production that he is comparing it to.
Guaporense is simply mixing guesstimates from two different writers who themselves does not place much trust in their estimates and mixed them together in a rather incoherent comparison grounded in controversial and unreliable figures. This is not academic honesty, it is tampering with speculative data sets. (Speaking of dishonesty, it is also perhaps not irrelevant to point out that Guaporense is the one who posted the figures on wikipedia, pretending that he is different people registered in different names. He is so agenda driven and pathetic that he registered two accounts in Chinahistoryforum, that of Tibet Libre, and later Guaporense to lent support to himself and when the former name has received a bad reputation.)
Guaporense demonstrated no professional competence in this matter yet has the audacity and arrogance to disagree with professional academic views of the matter by Donald Wagner simply because it does not suit his pre determined and preferred conclusion yet he could not back any of his claims up with academic source materials. Lets not continue this comedy any longer and save us all some time.

HackneyedScribe · May 15th, 2012, 09:39 AM

There are 49 iron offices, not furnaces. One iron office could have more than 1 furnace. The number of Han dynasty furnaces excavated in Henan by itself is around that number.