¹ This article follows in general content a paper presented during the annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies at Chicago, March, 1961, under the title, “The Importance of Iron and Coal During the Northern Sung: 960–1126.”

² Needham, Joseph, Science and Civilization in China (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1954, 1956).Google Scholar

³ Feuerwerker, Albert, China's Early Industrialization: Sheng Hsüan-huai (1844–1916) and Mandarin Enterprise (Cambridge, Mass., 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Carlson, Ellsworth C., The Kaiping Mines (1877–1912) (Cambridge, Mass., 1957) are excellent examples.Google Scholar

⁴ Ashton, T. S., Iron and Steel in the Industrial Revolution (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1951), p. 1.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ For information on the early British coal industry see Nef, John U., The Rise of the British Coal Industry (London, 1932)Google Scholar. Professor Nef's latest statement on the relationship between the earlier and later industrial revolutions will be found in Nef, John U., Cultural Foundations of Industrial Civilization (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1958)Google Scholar. In this paper, I follow Professor Nef in speaking of “an early industrial revolution” which took place in England from about 1540–1640, and a later “Industrial Revolution” which began about 1785.

⁷ Collins, W. F., Mineral Enterprise in China (London and New York, 1918), pp. 7, 9Google Scholar; Tegengren, F. R., “The Iron Ores and Iron Industry of China,” Memoirs of the Geological Survey of China, Series A, No. 2, 1921–23, p. 313Google Scholar; Kaisaburō, Hino, “Hokusō jidai ni okeru dōtetsu no sanshutsu-gaku ni tsuite (Productions of Copper and Iron and their Administrations under the Northern Sung Dynasty),” Tōyō Gakuhō, 22/1: 100–159, 1934.Google Scholar

⁸ Sung-shih, 185:13b.

⁹ Wang Ying-lin, Yü Hai (Ch'eng-tu Wang Shih ed.), 180:34a; and Wen-hsien t'ung-k'ao, 18:30a.

¹⁰ Sung hui-yao chi-kao, “Shih Huo,” 33:27a–29b. Hereafter cited as SHY/SH. Yü Hai, 180:34a.

¹¹ SHY/SH, 33:12b–14a; Sung-shih, 185:13b; Wen-hsien t'ung-k'ao, 18:30a.

¹² SHY/SH, 33:27a–29b, 12b–14a has “mountain and marsh tax” and “annual monopoly receipt tax” figures for ca. 1078 broken down by circuits and prefectures. Although the totals for both types of taxes are similar, there are great disparities in the production statistics for circuits. The Yü Hai, 180:34a has the total national figure for the “mountain and marsh tax,” and the Wen-hsien t'ng-k'ao, 18:30a, the national total for the monopoly receipts. Since neither of these works break down their figures by circuits, later writers have assumed that both reflected receipts from the same source. In addition, the Yü Hai has “mountain and marsh receipts” (ju^a) rather than the “mountain and marsh tax” (shui ^b) which appears in the Sung hui-yao; and the Sung-shih, 185:13b, probably basing its information on the Wen-hsien t'ung-k'ao, merely has receipts (shou^c), rather than the “monopoly tax receipts” (sui-k'o^d) which appears in the Sung hui-yao and the Wen-hsien t'ung-k'ao. This has led later investigators to believe that these figures represented complete production rather than a tax percentage of the total output. In addition, statistics for several important iron producing prefectures are missing from the monopoly tax receipt lists and must be interpolated.

My estimate of 1078 iron output at 75,000 tons was calculated in the following manner. A comparison of the circuit (lu ^e) receipts from the sui-k'o ^d tax on iron (SHY/SH, 33:12b–14a) with the circuit receipts from the “mountain and marsh tax” (SHY/SH, 33:27a–29b) reveals a disparity which can only indicate that the two sets of figures are concerned with two different sectors of the iron industry. For example, according to the sui-k'o ^d statistics, the receipts from Ching-hu Nan Lu equaled about one-third ton, while the “mountain and marsh tax” figures for the same Circuit reflect receipts of over 203 tons. A similar situation exists in the case of the other circuits. The sui-k'o ^d receipts are dated 1078. Although the “mountain and marsh tax” figures are not dated, these statistics come from the Kuo-ch'ao hui-yao and use circuit names only established in 1059, indicating that they were collected between 1059 and 1077. (For dating of the various hui-yao see T'ang Chung, Sung hui-yao yen-chiu, Shanghai, 1932). Hino Kaisaburō, in “Hokusō jidai ni okeru dōtetsu no sanshutsu-gaku ni tsuite (Productions of Copper and Iron and their Administrations under the Northern Sung Dynasty),” Tōyō Gakuhō 22 (1934) p. 111, argues for the later date. It may be concluded from the above that the iron tax receipts for about 1078 equal the sum of both the sui-k'o ^d and the “mountain and marsh tax” figures. In North China Circuits the sui-k'o ^d receipts are much greater than the “mountain and marsh tax” receipts, while the reverse is true of South China. According to Hino Kaisaburō (Ibid.), government regulations were primarily concerned with North Chinese iron production. This seems to indicate that the “mountain and marsh tax” was levied on un-regulated output, and the sui-k'o ^d on the yield of officially regulated works, the untaxed portion of the latter being purchased at fixed rates by the government. According to Hino Kaisaburō, Ibid., p. 115 and Katō Shigeru, Tō Sō jidai ni okeru kin gin no kenkyū (Studies on Gold and Silver during the T'ang and Sung Dynasties), 527–528, the tax on private production of the base metals was ten per cent, and on the precious metals, twenty per cent. The total output of private industry would then equal the “mountain and marsh tax” multiplied by ten. The rate of taxation on officially regulated iron production seems to have been the same. In this case, however, the iron producers, after paying the ten per cent tax, sold the remainder to the mining official at a fixed rate. That sui-k'o ^d statistics merely reflect the tax receipts, and not the total output of officially regulated works, becomes clear when one examines other documents concerning the output of iron in specific places. In 1084, for example, officials expected to obtain 2,340 tons of iron from the mines and smelters of Hsü-chou^f for the purpose of casting of iron cash. (Cf. Li Tao^g, Hsü Tzu-chih-t'ung-chien Ch'ang-pien ^h (Chekiang Shu-chü ed., 1881), 97:20a–21b. Hereafter cited as HCP.) The 1078 sui-k'o ^d figures indicate the receipt of only 206 tons, or a little short of ten per cent the amount expected in 1084. Other instances could be cited. In addition, the sui-k'o ^d statistics are incomplete, in some cases giving only the type and number of industrial units without the receipts. During the Northern Sung there were five types of officially designated industrial units producing iron: (1) “place” (ch'u ^l), having an average annual production of about 6.5 tons; (2) “market” (ch'ang ^l) having an average annual production of about 65 tons; (3) “works” (wu ^k) having an annual production of about 650 tons; (4) “smelter” (yeh ^l) having an average annual production of about 1300 tons; and (5) “industrial prefecture” (chien ^m), containing several of the above units, with an average annual production of 6500 tons or more. Interpolating on this basis, one arrives at an additional 2,166 tons of officially regulated iron output.

Thus, total taxed iron output includes 35,638 tons (sui-k'o ^d times ten) + 2166 tons (interpolated figures) = 37,804 tons of officially regulated iron output + 36,787 tons (“mountain and marsh tax” receipts times ten) of privately produced iron = 74,591 tons. Untaxed productions (cf. note 13) might have equaled this taxed output.

¹³ The output of iron smelters specifically attached to mints, shipyards, salt works, and local military units appears to have been untaxed, and consequently is not reflected in our tax figures. Cf. below. In addition, surreptitious mining and smelting to produce counterfeit iron currency, or to avoid the regular taxes, seems to have been widespread.

¹⁴ Yüan-shih, 94:1a–8b. This estimate was calculated on the same basis as discussed in note 12.

¹⁵ Ginsburg, Norton (ed.), The Pattern of Asia (New York, 1958).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Dudley, Dud, Mettalum Mortis (London: 1665)Google Scholar; Nef, John U., “Note on the Progress of Iron Production in England, 1540–1640” Journal of Political Economy, 45, 3 (1936), pp. 398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ Nef, John U., War and Human Progress (Cambridge, Mass., 1950), p. 80.Google Scholar

¹⁸ John U. Nef, “Note on the Progress of Iron Production in England …”

¹⁰ Tegengren, p. 313, re-calculated on the basis of the Sung figures.

²⁰ Yü Hai, 180:36b; SHY/SH, 11:2a–3a, 8a–9a.

²¹ HCP, 97:20a–21b

²² HCP, 134:8b; SHY/SH, 11:6a.

²³ Nef, John U., “The Industrial Revolution Reconsidered” The Journal of Economic History, 3, 1 (1943), p. 20CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ HCP, 344:5a

²⁵ SHY/SH, 33:18b–26a.

²⁶ Shen Kuaⁿ, Meng-ch'i pi-t'an ^o (Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an ed.), 3:7b–8a; SHY/SH, 34:25a–25b 11:2a–3a. For a detailed discussion of this process during the Sung see Nakashima, S., “Shina ni okeru Senshiki Shudō no Enkaku” (“A Study on the Progress of Hydrometallurgy of Copper during the Sung Period”), Tōyō Gakuhō, 27, 3 (1940), p. 88.Google Scholar

²⁷ Sung-shih, 185:16b.

²⁸ In Ssuchüan and Shensi, 4300 tons; In Hopei, 4600 tons; and 1400 tons for the hydrometallurgy of copper. Cf. footnotes 20, 24, and 25.

²⁹ John U. Nef, “Note on the Progress of Iron Production in England, 1540–1640.”

³⁰ HCP, 18:4b; SHY/SH, 11:4a; Li-tai ming-ch'en tsou-i ^p, 263:6b.

³¹ HCP, 13:1a.

³² HCP, 59:10b; Yü Hai, 178:24a.

³³ HCP, 61:10b.

³⁴ HCP, 82:4b.

³⁵ SHY/SH, 17:21a-21b.

³⁶ Wen-hsien t'ung-k'ao, 18:32a–32b.

³⁷ HCP, 59:10b; Yü Hai, 178:24a.

³⁸ HCP, 79:4a–4b.

³⁹ HCP, 343:12b–13a.

⁴⁰ HCP, 47:4a; 126:18b–19a; Tseng Kung-liang^q and others, Wu-ching tsung-yao ^r (Ssu-k'u chu'üan-shu chen-pen ed.) 13:18a–20a. Hereafter cited as WCTY.

⁴¹ WCTY, 12:36a–37a.

⁴² WCTY, 13:36b.

⁴³ Cf. WCTY, 11–13.

⁴⁴ WCTY, 12:63a.

⁴⁵ HCP, 24:15b; SHY/SH, 41:39a; Ch'ien Jo-shui^s and others, T'ai-tsung Huang-ti shih-lu ^t, 26:13b.

⁴⁶ Ibid.

⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁸ Wen-hsien t'ung-k'ao, 18:32a; Sung-shih, 185:17b.

⁴⁹ HCP, 262:33a–33b.

⁵⁰ HCP, 44:11a.

⁵¹ HCP, 135:2b, 165:10b.

⁵² HCP, 191:4a.

⁵³ HCP, 23O:16b–17b; Ch'en Ch'un^v, Ao Po T'u Yung ^w (Chi-shih-an ts'ung-shu ed.)

⁵⁴ HCP, 134:11b; SHY/SH, 70:163a–163b; Su Shih^x, Tung-p'o chih-lin ^y (Hsüeh-ching t'ao-yüan ed.) 4:3b–4a.

⁵⁵ For the importance of shipping see Jung-pang Lo, “The Emergence of China as a Sea Power During the late Sung and Early Yüan Periods,” FEQ, 14, 4 (1955), pp. 489–503.

⁵⁶ SHY/SH, 50:7b.

⁵⁷ SHY/SH, 50:11b–12a.

⁵⁸ WCTY, 11:8a–8b.

⁵⁹ Cf. Kracke, E. A. Jr., “Sung Society: Change Within Tradition,” FEQ, 14, 4 (1955), pp. 479–488.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Li Ming-chung^z, Ying-tsao fa-shih ^aa, for the use of iron in building construction.

⁶¹ HCP, 13:1a, 17:9a. For information on cast iron pagodas see Joseph Needham, The Development of Iron and Steel Technology in China (London, 1958).

⁶² HCP, 79:14a; SHY/SH, 37:6a–6b, 57:5b, 68:34b-35a.

⁶³ Conversions from weight to volume are based upon calculations in John U. Nef, The Rise of the British Coal Industry, Vol. I.

⁶⁴ Ibid.

⁶⁵ HCP, 344:5a; SHY/SH, 11:3a; Yü Hai, 180:36b.

⁶⁶ SHY/SH, 54:11a–11b. In Northern Sung texts, the terms for coal are shih-t'an ^bb or k'uang-t'an ^cc. Charcoal is termed mu-t'an ^dd, hsin-t'an ^ee, or ch'ai-t'an ^ff. T'an ^gg alone is used for either coal or charcoal and, in some cases, as a term including both fuels. In the latter case, the usage of the term is usually made clear by the context. In this article, only those documents have been used where a two character term or the context makes it clear which fuel is being discussed. It is significant that authors of documents before about 1050 find it necessary to use the double character terms to make clear their references to coal, while after 1050 it is charcoal which is written most often with clarifying modifiers.

⁶⁷ A ch'eng ^hh equals about 19.5 pounds. Cf. Wu Ch'eng-lo, Chung-kuo tu-liang-heng shih (A History of Chinese Measures) (Shanghai, Commercial Press, 1936); SHY/SH, 41:28b.

⁶⁸ HCP, 24:4a; SHY/SH, 11:4a, 54:12a; Sung-shih, 180:3a–3b.

⁶⁹ HCP, 79:14a; SHY/SH, 7:6a–6b, 57:5b, 68:34b–35a.

⁷⁰ Ibid.

⁷¹ HCP, 85:21a.

⁷² HCP, 90:19b.

⁷³ HCP, 166:14a.

⁷⁴ HCP, 166:14a, 111:3b, 111:10a.

⁷⁵ HCP, 135:2b, 165:10b.

⁷⁶ SHY/SH, 55:20b–21b.

⁷⁷ Read, Thomas T., “The Earliest Industrial Use of Coal” Transactions of the Newcomen Society, 20 (1939–40), p. 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁸ T. T. Read's discussion of the pre-Sung coal industry leaves this impression, and the fact that the “Food and Money” monograph of the Sung-shih is the first place in the dynastic histories to mention coal seems to confirm this view.

⁷⁹ SHY/SH, 54:11a–11b.

⁸⁰ SHY/SH, 17:15b, 37:10a.

⁸¹ SHY/SH, 54:11a–11b, 17:15b, 37:10a.

⁸² For examples see SHY/SH, 34:39a, 37:7b; HCP, 79:4a, 85:21a, 90:19b.

⁸³ SHY/SH, 54:11a–11b.

⁸⁴ SHY/SH, 37:33b–34a; Sung-shih, 186:14a.

⁸⁵ HCP, 504:4b–5a.

⁸⁶ Wen-hsien t'ung-k'ao, 19:16b; Sung-shih, 179:17a.

⁸⁷ Ch'üan Han-sheng, “Pei Sung Pien-liang ti Shu-ch'u-ju Mao-i” [“The Export-import trade of the Northern Sung Capital”], Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 8.2(1939) pp. 265–8.

⁸⁸ Nef, J. U., Rise of the British Cod Industry, pp. 215–223, 165–170.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ SHY/SH, 55:20b–21a.

⁹⁰ HCP, 279:16b, 157:11a.

⁹¹ HCP, 164:11b–13a.

⁹² HCP, 106:6b.

⁹³ Su Shih, Tung-p'o Hsien-sheng shih [The Poetry of Su Tung-p'o] (Ssu-pu ts'ung-k'an ed.) “Shih-t'an hang”ⁱⁱ

⁹⁴ T. S. Ashton, pp. 24–28.

⁹⁵ Needham, Iron and Steel Technology … p. 14.

⁹⁶ For a discussion of Chinese blast furnaces see Needham, Iron and Steel Technology … p. 15–19.

⁹⁷ K'ang Pien^jj, Chü-t'an lu ^kk (Ching-tai pi-shu ed.) hsia:12b–14a.

⁹⁸ T. S. Ashton, p. 30.

⁹⁹ HCP, 279:16b, 157:11a.

¹⁰⁰ In The Rise of the British Coal Industry, J. U. Nef discovers a similar trend in early modern Britain.

¹⁰¹ I am presently engaged in research which promises to throw light on these problems.