StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Thanas wrote:
I also wouldn't doubt if the Chinese somehow did not want people to look too closely at their history, for it would kinda screw with their "China=most advanced nation and they did it all by themselves". (Even though the Romans had more output in one of their mines than the entire chinese state in a year, but I digress).

Could you clarify that last bit about the mines? I'm just curious, is all.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

fgalkin wrote:

Thanas wrote:
I also wouldn't doubt if the Chinese somehow did not want people to look too closely at their history, for it would kinda screw with their "China=most advanced nation and they did it all by themselves". (Even though the Romans had more output in one of their mines than the entire chinese state in a year, but I digress).

Could you clarify that last bit about the mines? I'm just curious, is all.

Of course. Basically, Walther Scheidel once did a study about the relative economies of Rome and China and concluded that any one off the mining provinces of the Roman Empire produced at least as much silver than the entire Han Empire and (iirc) at least ten times as much gold. I'll try and track down the book and give you more precise figures.


This also relates to the older theory that the Han Empire dried out the west of silver and gold due to the silk road, which can now pretty much be laid to rest, considering that yes, it was a massive source of income for the Han Empire considering its relative paupacity, but Rome could easily shoulder it due to so much gold and silver being produced.

Oh, I thought you were talking about iron ore, which surprised me due to the extent of iron making technology in China during the Han.

Pelranius wrote:Oh, I thought you were talking about iron ore, which surprised me due to the extent of iron making technology in China during the Han.

I am also pretty sure the Roman Empire vastly exceeded the Han empire in Iron ore production, because usually if there is such a vast advantage of just a single mining province in the Roman Empire over the entier Han Empire, then I am pretty sure the same holds true for iron ore as well (Remember, we are talking about a single province of the Roman Empire producing more valuable metal than the entire Han Empire here).

What do your sources say with regards to iron ore extraction under the Han empire?

Thanas wrote:

Pelranius wrote:Oh, I thought you were talking about iron ore, which surprised me due to the extent of iron making technology in China during the Han.

I am also pretty sure the Roman Empire vastly exceeded the Han empire in Iron ore production, because usually if there is such a vast advantage of just a single mining province in the Roman Empire over the entier Han Empire, then I am pretty sure the same holds true for iron ore as well (Remember, we are talking about a single province of the Roman Empire producing more valuable metal than the entire Han Empire here).

What do your sources say with regards to iron ore extraction under the Han empire?

Actually it was the "one Roman mine exceeding the entire Han Empire ore production" comment that puzzled me, since I was thinking of iron and zinc at the time. Thanks for clearing it up.

Thanas wrote:

Pelranius wrote:Oh, I thought you were talking about iron ore, which surprised me due to the extent of iron making technology in China during the Han.

I am also pretty sure the Roman Empire vastly exceeded the Han empire in Iron ore production, because usually if there is such a vast advantage of just a single mining province in the Roman Empire over the entier Han Empire, then I am pretty sure the same holds true for iron ore as well (Remember, we are talking about a single province of the Roman Empire producing more valuable metal than the entire Han Empire here).

What do your sources say with regards to iron ore extraction under the Han empire?

By that reasoning, the Mayans must have had quite an impressive iron ore industry. How do you go from precious metals production to iron ore production? That's just faulty logic.

Anyways, apparently the Chinese were building large blast furnaces by the Han dynasty, so I am not certain you are correct.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

fgalkin wrote:By that reasoning, the Mayans must have had quite an impressive iron ore industry. How do you go from precious metals production to iron ore production? That's just faulty logic.

Because we know the Romans, unlike the Mayans, had large iron ore operations. Heck, in Spain they would use mountaintop removal mining and widespread surface mining to the extent of several hectars. You can still see the damage with regards to how poorly forested these areas of Spain and Portugal are today.

Anyways, apparently the Chinese were building large blast furnaces by the Han dynasty, so I am not certain you are correct.

Cite some figures then.

Anyway, here are the comparative figures of output per annum:
The Baebolo mine in Spain alone produced 35.4 tons of silver per annum and that is a conservative estimate. Gold mines in spain also produced 6,5 tons per annum, Bosnian gold mines at some times produced 5,9 tons per year.

Note that the mines in Dacia, which was reputedly very, very rich, are not taken into account here.

In comparison, the entire Tang empire (at a much higher rate of mining than the preceding Han Dynasty) only produced 0,5-0,6 tons of silver and 0,4-0,6 tons of gold per annum for most of the time, not counting peak production in times of war etc.

That means that a single mine in the Roman Empire produced sixty times as much silver than the entire Han Empire, whereas a single mining province produced about 15 times the gold. The total empire used 400 times as much silver and 20 times as much gold.

I have been able to find figures for Han copper production and they are of the same trend - the Ham Empire used about 700-850 tons of copper per year for its coinage. Which again, means that the roman Empire produced/used 200 times as much per annum.

I have not been able to find figures for Han ore production. However, given their relatively poor mines in general (as seen by the need to go several hundred meters underground in some instances, whereas the Romans mainly used top mining), I very much doubt they even managed to get near the Roman annual output. It would also mean the Han Empire would have a smaller output in all areas, but somehow produced more than 171 times the amount of iron than it did of copper.



In comparison, therefore, the Han Empire appears to be severely less industrialized/wealthy, at least as far as minerals are counted.




Sources:
Scheidel, W., The monetary systems of the Han and Roman Empires, in: Scheidel, W. (ed.) Rome and China. Comparative perspectives on Ancient World Empires, pg. 137-208.
Domergue, C., Les mines de la péninsule ibérique dans l'Antiquité romaine
Craddock, P. T., Mining and Metallurgy, in: Oleson, J. P. (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World
Healy, John F, Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World

Was this because China was mineral poor in general, or was there a drastic difference in the quality of mining techniques?

Aren't there other copper applications besides coinage for Han China? They used a lot of copper for bronze ceremonial vessels, ornamentation and other uses, if I recall correctly.

Thanas has already mentioned that most mines in China required a fair bit of digging before significant ore deposits could be extracted - as opposed to simply picking up stuff near the surface.

Interestingly, the mines Thanas mentioned are located primarily in formerly barbarian areas that were later pacified. I suspect that the lack of minerals for the Chinese empire may be because the Chinese population resided mainly in the plains were rice and other food stuff were grown. And unlike the Romans, even the most powerful Chinese dynasties didn't seek to consistently extend their Empire over the neigboring barbarian regions which may be more mineral rich (Central Asia maybe?).

Thanas wrote:The Baebolo mine in Spain alone produced 35.4 tons of silver per annum and that is a conservative estimate. Gold mines in spain also produced 6,5 tons per annum, Bosnian gold mines at some times produced 5,9 tons per year.

Note that the mines in Dacia, which was reputedly very, very rich, are not taken into account here.

In comparison, the entire Tang empire (at a much higher rate of mining than the preceding Han Dynasty) only produced 0,5-0,6 tons of silver and 0,4-0,6 tons of gold per annum for most of the time, not counting peak production in times of war etc.

That means that a single mine in the Roman Empire produced sixty times as much silver than the entire Han Empire, whereas a single mining province produced about 15 times the gold. The total empire used 400 times as much silver and 20 times as much gold.

I have been able to find figures for Han copper production and they are of the same trend - the Ham Empire used about 700-850 tons of copper per year for its coinage. Which again, means that the roman Empire produced/used 200 times as much per annum.

I think Pelranius may have a point. Was your source comparing the amount of copper used for coinage in the Han Empire to the amount used exclusively for coinage in Rome? Failing that, we'd have to assume that the majority of copper produced in the Han Empire went to making coins. That's possible, I'm sure, but I don't see why it would be a safe assumption.

Similar issues might arise for silver and gold, depending on how those production figures were put together- the Han might be producing a great deal of metal that isn't minted into currency for all I know.

Darmalus wrote:Was this because China was mineral poor in general, or was there a drastic difference in the quality of mining techniques?

Both, I think. The Romans used top mining as well as using mining techniques that were not surpassed until the invention of the steam pump.

Zinegata wrote:Interestingly, the mines Thanas mentioned are located primarily in formerly barbarian areas that were later pacified. I suspect that the lack of minerals for the Chinese empire may be because the Chinese population resided mainly in the plains were rice and other food stuff were grown. And unlike the Romans, even the most powerful Chinese dynasties didn't seek to consistently extend their Empire over the neigboring barbarian regions which may be more mineral rich (Central Asia maybe?).

I am not an expert in Chinese history, it may be possible. However, one would assume that given the general low output of raw minerals they would have looked to other sources.

Pelranius wrote:Aren't there other copper applications besides coinage for Han China? They used a lot of copper for bronze ceremonial vessels, ornamentation and other uses, if I recall correctly.

I would like you to do the work then for the relation of coinage to ceremonial usage (which the Romans also used extensively, btw) - I really doubt they used 200 times as much copper in their ceremonial stuff than they did in coins, especially considering that the Han empire seems to not have been able to have a silver-based currency until the 11th century.

Simon_Jester wrote:Was your source comparing the amount of copper used for coinage in the Han Empire to the amount used exclusively for coinage in Rome?

I have to check that.

Failing that, we'd have to assume that the majority of copper produced in the Han Empire went to making coins. That's possible, I'm sure, but I don't see why it would be a safe assumption.

What else are they going to use for currency? Their silver and gold clearly is pitiful, so they would have to use copper. It was only in the 11th century that they finally managed to go to a silver-based economy after all.

Similar issues might arise for silver and gold, depending on how those production figures were put together- the Han might be producing a great deal of metal that isn't minted into currency for all I know.

Silver and gold was total output, of that I am sure.

Thanas wrote:

Pelranius wrote:Aren't there other copper applications besides coinage for Han China? They used a lot of copper for bronze ceremonial vessels, ornamentation and other uses, if I recall correctly.

I would like you to do the work then for the relation of coinage to ceremonial usage (which the Romans also used extensively, btw) - I really doubt they used 200 times as much copper in their ceremonial stuff than they did in coins, especially considering that the Han empire seems to not have been able to have a silver-based currency until the 11th century.

I agree that the magnitude of the difference between total copper mined and copper used for currency is unlikely to be anything like 200 to 1. But having no idea what it was, I see no reason to assume that Han China's copper industry was as anemic* compared to Rome as its precious-metal industry was.

*"Anemic" would be a better term for the state of the Han iron industry than for the Han copper industry, I suppose, but I have no idea what the equivalent of anemia in copper-based blood would be called...

Simon_Jester wrote:Failing that, we'd have to assume that the majority of copper produced in the Han Empire went to making coins. That's possible, I'm sure, but I don't see why it would be a safe assumption.

What else are they going to use for currency? Their silver and gold clearly is pitiful, so they would have to use copper. It was only in the 11th century that they finally managed to go to a silver-based economy after all.

A good point, but "Han China used copper for most of its currency, lacking enough silver or gold to do otherwise" does not imply "most of the copper mined in Han China was used for currency."

Similar issues might arise for silver and gold, depending on how those production figures were put together- the Han might be producing a great deal of metal that isn't minted into currency for all I know.

Silver and gold was total output, of that I am sure.

Duly noted.

Simon_Jester wrote:I agree that the magnitude of the difference between total copper mined and copper used for currency is unlikely to be anything like 200 to 1. But having no idea what it was, I see no reason to assume that Han China's copper industry was as anemic* compared to Rome as its precious-metal industry was.

Then please produce some figures here, because if not this is just guess work on your part without any speculation. I have already produced the figures for Rome.

A good point, but "Han China used copper for most of its currency, lacking enough silver or gold to do otherwise" does not imply "most of the copper mined in Han China was used for currency."

C'mon here. Han and Rome had populations that were roughly comparable. Yet one used less than 1/200th of the copper output of the other for coinage. That means either trade was not happening or that the empire was in need of raw materials and strapped for cash, especially as we know the Han Empire could not use gold and silver to make up for it.

So either the trade of the Han Empire was not based on money (which indicates a less sophisticated economy), they were strapped for cash or the trade inside the empire was a lot smaller than the Roman Empire (and we are talking orders of magnitude smaller here).

Alright, I have finally managed to find figures for the Annual Iron production in China.

The source is Wagner, D. B, The State and the Iron Industry in Han China, Copenhagen 2001, page 73. He concludes that the iron output of the Han Empire was 5,000 tons per annum. Which again fits rather nicely with the grand picture - that the Roman Empire had an output that was several times higher (16-24 times higher).

With that I think my original assertion has been amply proven - the Roman Empire had an output that was vastly higher compared to the (relatively) poor Han Empire.

Thanas wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:I agree that the magnitude of the difference between total copper mined and copper used for currency is unlikely to be anything like 200 to 1. But having no idea what it was, I see no reason to assume that Han China's copper industry was as anemic* compared to Rome as its precious-metal industry was.

Then please produce some figures here, because if not this is just guess work on your part without any speculation. I have already produced the figures for Rome.

From Schiedel, page 194, minting of 4000 tons of copper currency a year in the Northern Song period was "equivalent to the entire output of the copper mines of the Northern Song empire." Since the Northern Song didn't control vastly more territory than the Han, and since it would be unreasonable to assume that Han copper production was anywhere near that of the Song a thousand years later, production figures on the order of a thousand tons (or even less, down to the 700-850 ton figure given for coin production) do seem quite reasonable, I suppose.

This comes as an enormous surprise to me- not so much that their copper output was so low, but that practically all of it was being used to mint coins, with little left over for anything else. But if the Northern Song were doing so a thousand years later, it seems impossible that the Han weren't doing so, given that output of other metals increased by much more than the (roughly) fivefold growth in the amount of copper used to mint currency between the two periods.

So either the trade of the Han Empire was not based on money (which indicates a less sophisticated economy), they were strapped for cash or the trade inside the empire was a lot smaller than the Roman Empire (and we are talking orders of magnitude smaller here).

I could easily believe any of these. I have no interest in claiming that the Han economy was superior to that of Rome.

Simon_Jester wrote:

Thanas wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:I agree that the magnitude of the difference between total copper mined and copper used for currency is unlikely to be anything like 200 to 1. But having no idea what it was, I see no reason to assume that Han China's copper industry was as anemic* compared to Rome as its precious-metal industry was.

Then please produce some figures here, because if not this is just guess work on your part without any speculation. I have already produced the figures for Rome.

From Schiedel, page 194, minting of 4000 tons of copper currency a year in the Northern Song period was "equivalent to the entire output of the copper mines of the Northern Song empire." Since the Northern Song didn't control vastly more territory than the Han, and since it would be unreasonable to assume that Han copper production was anywhere near that of the Song a thousand years later, production figures on the order of a thousand tons (or even less, down to the 700-850 ton figure given for coin production) do seem quite reasonable, I suppose.

This comes as an enormous surprise to me- not so much that their copper output was so low, but that practically all of it was being used to mint coins, with little left over for anything else. But if the Northern Song were doing so a thousand years later, it seems impossible that the Han weren't doing so, given that output of other metals increased by much more than the (roughly) fivefold growth in the amount of copper used to mint currency between the two periods.

If I am not mistaken (quoting from memory here), Scheidel also says that most of the Song mines were not in use during the Han period, which is another thing to consider - they had a thousand years to find more sources and all they managed was a production that was still vastly inferior to the Roman one (ny 10.000 tons).

Ah, thanks Thanas. Much obliged. (Maybe I should bookmark this thread but my work doesn't really involve Rome or Han China to any appreciable degree).

Thanas wrote:In comparison, therefore, the Han Empire appears to be severely less industrialized/wealthy, at least as far as minerals are counted.

Sources:
Scheidel, W., The monetary systems of the Han and Roman Empires, in: Scheidel, W. (ed.) Rome and China. Comparative perspectives on Ancient World Empires, pg. 137-208.

I think that this article also adds that the total purchasing power of the Roman money stock was probably several times than the Chinese money stock:

page 52 wrote:Due to the deficiencies of the evidence, my estimates for size of both the Han and the Roman money stocks vary by a factor of four or five. However, despite these very considerable margins of uncertainty, even the broadest range of guesses for the money stock in Han China of between 6 and 28 billion liters of grain equivalent barely overlaps with the much higher range from 22 to 90 billion liters proposed for the Roman empire.

With means that the Han was not only less advanced in mining and metallurgy, but in other areas as well.

Iosef Cross wrote:

Thanas wrote:In comparison, therefore, the Han Empire appears to be severely less industrialized/wealthy, at least as far as minerals are counted.

Sources:
Scheidel, W., The monetary systems of the Han and Roman Empires, in: Scheidel, W. (ed.) Rome and China. Comparative perspectives on Ancient World Empires, pg. 137-208.

I think that this article also adds that the total purchasing power of the Roman money stock was probably several times than the Chinese money stock:

page 52 wrote:Due to the deficiencies of the evidence, my estimates for size of both the Han and the Roman money stocks vary by a factor of four or five. However, despite these very considerable margins of uncertainty, even the broadest range of guesses for the money stock in Han China of between 6 and 28 billion liters of grain equivalent barely overlaps with the much higher range from 22 to 90 billion liters proposed for the Roman empire.

With means that the Han was not only less advanced in mining and metallurgy, but in other areas as well.

Would you mind giving a proper source? Page 52 is not really helpful, seeing how his work does not start before 138.

I'd look for sources that dispute this claim, but, alas, I'm going to Lima tomorrow, and I don't really have time now. I'll jump in again in a week and a half, if this thread is still alive then.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

fgalkin wrote:I'd look for sources that dispute this claim, but, alas, I'm going to Lima tomorrow, and I don't really have time now. I'll jump in again in a week and a half, if this thread is still alive then.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Feel free to jump in as soon as you find anything, even if it is later. Thread necromancy does not count here unless the post in question has no new information.

I'll try to find sources for it, but Ming China had a production (I've researched it before) of iron of around 400,000 tons a year. This was however in the 1400s - 1500s CE, and China was much more extensively populated. However it's generally known that much more iron was available in medieval Europe, too; pre-industrial figures for England are still a substantial fraction of the Roman Empire's figures, for instance. This is one of the subtle aspects of history--that the availability of iron tools increased substantially throughout the pre-industrial revolution iron age--which belies the idea of any kind of truly grand collapse in the wake of the "fall" of Rome. I suspect Chinese nationalists and so on ignore this point and tend to assume that China remained fairly constant from the Han to the Ming.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I'll try to find sources for it, but Ming China had a production (I've researched it before) of iron of around 400,000 tons a year. This was however in the 1400s - 1500s CE, and China was much more extensively populated.

I am somewhat skeptical about that claim - how would they achieve that number? The numbers I have seen are all somewhat below 200.000 tons.

However it's generally known that much more iron was available in medieval Europe, too;

What are your sources for medieval Iron production in the whole of Europe?

pre-industrial figures for England are still a substantial fraction of the Roman Empire's figures, for instance. This is one of the subtle aspects of history--that the availability of iron tools increased substantially throughout the pre-industrial revolution iron age--which belies the idea of any kind of truly grand collapse in the wake of the "fall" of Rome.

This statement....I really do not know. First of all, the idea of no grand collapse happening is completely wrong. Just compare living circumstances in the third/fourth century with those in the sixth. And Iron production did take a huge hit - the figures of Rome were only reached in the 17th and 18th century again.