Iron Allentown Wiki - User contributions [en]

Iron production

2020-12-02T18:09:41Z

Sam1125: Edited wording and phrases. Also fixed formatting errors for multiple intext citations

Iron production converts iron ore into pig iron through a process known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting smelting]. Early on in the history of iron production in the United States, most furnaces used charcoal as fuel; so [[charcoal production]] and iron production were often closely linked. In fact Charcoal was the only fuel for iron production until the 1830s when the industry began a slow
transition toward the use coal as fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>. Ironworks were some of the first and most enduring examples of industry in the United States. Remnants of ironworks can still be found, especially in rural parts of the country<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>.

==History==
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, small-scale metalworking operations produced everyday objects, such as kitchenware, toys, building materials, and tools<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. During wartime, cannons and other military weaponry were cast at furnaces<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. Iron plantations were typically in rural communities and often included forges, housing for workers, woodlands for charcoal production, and a sawmill<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries were early centers of limited iron production. In a bloomery, the iron oxides in ore were reduced to metal and were then separated from the gangue in the ore. The fire created liquid slag and burning charcoal produced carbon dioxide, which reduced the oxide to metallic iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Blast furnaces were also used for larger-scale iron production. These furnaces could be twenty to thirty feet in height and had hollow centers into which were placed ore, fuel, and flux<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bellows were powered by a water wheel, and melted iron and liquid slag accumulated in the bottom of the furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. By the nineteenth century, blast furnaces were the most commonly used type of furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>.

Late in the nineteenth century, the Lehigh Valley was second only to Pittsburgh, PA in the yearly value of iron products in the iron districts of the entire country and was ranked first in pig iron districts<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>. The Lehigh Valley had fifty anthracite coal furnaces, of which the Bethlehem Iron Company owned six<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>.

In 1850 all of the ironworks in Eastern Pennsylvania were accounted for. In Lehigh County, there were six anthracite blast furnaces that were in blast and one that was out of blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast and one cold blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast. There were no forges and no rolling mills. In Carbon County there was one anthracite blast furnace in blast and one not in blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace in blast and one out of blast. There were no cold blast charcoal furnaces. There were four bloomeries, two forges, and no rolling mills<ref>Convention of Iron Masters 1850, 135</ref>.

Iron has been used for thousands of years since it was understood that iron ore could be heated to make it into a malleable material<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. While a charcoal kiln site can be identified by brick or stone artifacts, it is harder to identify a charcoal mounds because it was made of wood and dirt<ref>McVarish 2008, 263</ref>.

==Iron Communities==
Self-sufficient communities, known as iron plantations, were built around these furnaces. A large amount of workers, both in terms of profession and number of employees, were needed to run an iron plantation. These jobs including colliers, miners, woodcutters, molders, founders, patternmakers, and their helpers. In Pennsylvania, Hopewell Furnace employed roughly two hundred to two hundred fifty people during the nineteenth century. Workers at iron plantations would often bring their families along with them. Considering this, the community at Hopewell Furnace would have consisted of about six hundred people<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. The lands of iron plantations included housing, gristmill, and sawmills, farming land, and vast amounts of woodland, as well as barns, company stores, spring-houses, blacksmiths, schools, churches, carpenter's shops, forges, casting houses, charcoal storage, and many other buildings<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Iron production required over a hundred acres of woodlands per year<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, there would have been hundreds of iron furnaces, and each town most likely had a blacksmith and forge<ref>McVarish 2008 259</ref>.
Charcoal mounds and kilns were located as close to the wood source as possible, since wood was heavier to move than the charcoal so they were not usually near roads, but were on the sides of hills<ref>McVarish 2008, 263</ref>.
Ironmakers hammer or roll the wrought iron to fit the buyer's preference, which might include bars, rods, or sheets<ref>McVarish 2008, 278</ref>.

==Fuel==
Prior to the 1830s, every furnace in the US burned charcoal as fuel. Charcoal was used because it could be produced in large quantities, it burns hotter than wood, and it is almost pure carbon, so it reduces impurities in iron produced<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. To make charcoal, a variety of methods were used including hearths and kilns. Hearths were generally used in the pre-Civil War period and involved burning wood in earth-covered mounds. These hearths produced weak charcoal that would crumble easily<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. Charcoal kilns were made of brick and were more efficient. They also created more durable charcoal than hearths, which yielded charcoal that was more brittle<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. Kiln remains vary greatly. Smaller remains are usually those of farm kilns, which can be found at the base of hills with roads nearby, while larger remains oriented with a square stone base and occasional steel shells surrounding the base are commercial kilns, and usually placed near railroads. Commercial kiln locations can be found on historical maps from the nineteenth and early twentieth century<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. Early finers had to use about 2 to 3 pounds of charcoal in order to produce a pound of iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>. Around the 1860s, coal and coke began to replace charcoal in some areas<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>; but overall, iron production increased so much that the use of charcoal continued to rise until 1890. At this time charcoal began to decline in use and instead coke furnaces were taking the front stage. By the 1890s there were less than 100 charcoal furnaces in use<ref>McVarish 2008,263 </ref>. Coke furnaces were larger and like their charcoal fueled relatives, would need to have air being blown into the furnace so that it is able to continuously operate for months on end. Around the same time, perpetual kilns were introduced. These kilns can be characterized by three types of operation, mixed feed, separate-feed, and rotary kilns. Mix feed kilns were the most difficult to manage, the limestone and fuel had to be fed in alternative layers. When running favorable these kilns were the most economically favorable. The next type of kiln is the separate feed kiln. These became the first modern lime kiln which uses limestone and fuel not in direct contact. The last type is the rotary kiln. These kilns are horizontal and resemble long pipes that rotate on rollers<ref>McVarish 2008, 264</ref>. They required that the limestone be crushed fairly small and even. One downside for rotary kilns is that they use a lot of fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 264</ref>. The last charcoal-powered furnace in the United States was in blast until 1945<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>.
Charcoal pits produced weak charcoal that would easily crumble when it was put in the blast furnace, while charcoal kilns produced more durable charcoal (McVarish p. 262)

Prior to the advent of puddling furnaces coal was never a viable option for iron production because it would contaminate the metal with sulfur <ref>McVarish, 2008, 269</ref>.

==Operation==
Furnace efficiency varied within the industry; the type of ore, equipment used, region, charcoal quality, and furnace type contributed to this<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>. [[Ironworks]] had to be near water and sources of raw materials such as charcoal,
limestone, and iron ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Colonial ironworks used a variety of techniques to produce iron.

===Bloomery===
A bloomery was a small operation that heated iron ore to refine and shape it, which produced wrought iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries needed simple equipment like a hearth, bellows, and tools for manipulating the iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. After heating, iron ore became wrought iron, and these slabs of wrought iron were called blooms<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. They had to simultaneously accomplish two tasks: reducing the iron oxides in the ore to metal, and also to separate the metal from the gangue in the ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bloomeries were common in colonial America, specifically in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. They operated between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries. Some disadvantages of bloomeries included limited production, wasted heat, and an inability to completely separate the iron from slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Because bloomeries were a small operation, they created limited production. A bloomery could be able to supply a small blacksmith with what they need to satisfy local customers but never enough to satisfy a market.<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref> A bloomery cannot run continuously like blast furnace and because when the bloomer had to remove the loup from the hearth, thermal energy was wasted.<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>.

===Blast Furnace===
The introduction of the blast furnaces addressed many of the disadvantages of bloomeries. Blast furnaces had the ability to run continuously for months at a time, conserve heat, and produce a much greater output. A blast furnace would have been constructed in a dry location that was not prone to flooding<ref>Overman 1854, 153</ref>. After establishing a location that fit this criterion, the ground would be excavated to ensure that it could support the weight of the stack<ref>Overman 1854, 153-154</ref>. The foundation for the furnace would be constructed so that an additional foot of foundation would extend past the base of the furnace in all directions<ref>Overman 1854, 154</ref>. Blast furnaces were vertical, hollow structures, the top of which would be loaded with ore, fuel, and flux. The bottom had air vents and a hole for the molten iron to run out. Blast furnaces tended to be constructed twenty-five to thirty feet high when they first came into use, and eventually grew to be thirty-two to forty feet high during the nineteenth century with a conical shape on top<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>.

The blast furnaces had very thick stone walls with fire-resistant interior lining. A layer between the lining and outer stones — usually made of clay or smaller stones — provided better insulation and allowed the inner walls to expand slightly when heated<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. The outer wall was generally constructed of any stone, often granite, grauwach (a dark coarsegrained sedimentary stone), or slate<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The inner walls of the furnace were essential to build adequately as it had to stand up to high heat over long periods of time. The hearths in the blast furnaces were typically constructed from sandstone<ref>Overman 1854, 183-184</ref>. Bellows, which pumped air into the furnace to feed the flames, were often powered by waterwheels, equal to about twenty horsepower. By adjusting ventilation, the temperature inside blast furnaces could be controlled to a degree. Blast furnaces were loaded from the top and therefore were often located along hillsides. When the molten iron was ready to be collected or tapped, a smaller hole at the top was opened to allow the liquid slag, which sat on top of the iron because it was lighter, to be drawn away. After the slag was collected, the main plug was pulled, and the molten iron ran into sand molds. The iron produced in blast furnaces is called pig iron because the final product resembles piglets suckling on their mother. After the iron ran into the molds and was cooled, the "pigs" were broken off the "sows." These smaller pieces were more valuable than the metal in the runners which would need to be remelted<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. In Pennsylvania, furnaces made roughly ten to twenty-five tons of pig iron or castings per week, with the latter amount rarely being attained<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. By the nineteenth century, the reduction of iron took place almost exclusively in blast furnaces.
A blast furnace was filled with three materials, iron ore, charcoal and limestone. Iron ore could be found in bogs and deposits near the ground<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. By the early 20th century, iron furnaces started using coke and coal instead of charcoal<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>. Charcoal and early coke furnaces were similar in construction, the only differences were that coke furnaces generally were larger and required a higher pressure blast<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.

==The Fining Process==
The Fining Process was brought to the United States in the seventeenth-century. Finer workers would melt pig iron and allow the carbon to oxidize. The iron gathered into a mass called a loup and was then hammered until the slag was removed<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>. These early iron masters had to use charcoal as their main source of fuel as no effective way to use coal as fuel had been developed yet<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>. For each pound of iron produced a finer had to burn about 2 to 3 pounds of charcoal for fuel<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.
===Walloon Process===
The Walloon Process was the original fining technique. The Walloon Process involved pushing a pig of iron into a hearth full of charcoal at a downward angle to melt it, working it into a loup, and hammering it to expel slag. The melted metal was then collected from the bottom of the hearth and brought it into the air blast<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. This air blast came about through the tuyere, a nozzle usually constructed of iron<ref>McVarish, 2008, 285</ref>. From here the finer kept the metal in the air blast until they were convinced that all the silicon and carbon had already oxidized <ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. It was after the oxidation that the metal was worked into a loup and then hammered to remove the slag<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. Occasionally the loup was reheated during the hammering process<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. The Walloon Process required a lot of air to heat the flames and the quality of wrought iron produced was heavily dependent on the skill of the workers making it<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>.

===Lancashire (Charcoal Hearth) Process===
The Lancashire Process, which was developed in Sweden, involved moving the pig iron through the hottest part of a flame to burn off impurities and allowing the melted iron to accumulate at the bottom. Workers would then lift the iron, cut into it, and force slag in to oxidize what impurities remained. The iron was then broken up, remelted, and formed into a loup via hammering. The Lancashire Process reused heat from the flames to preheat air being pumped in by the bellows, making it more heat-efficient than the Walloon Process<ref>McVarish 2008, 268-269</ref>.

In the United States this process was referred to as the "Charcoal Hearth Process"<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. The firing hearth stood at about 4 feet tall and was comprised of water-cooled cast-iron pipes<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. This method of iron production made purer iron than that of the Walloon process as the iron from the Lancashire process contained less carbon and slag <ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>.

===Puddling===
Puddling was a process to produce wrought on iron on a larger scale. This method was able to use mineral coals instead of charcoal. To prevent impurities from the coal from contaminating the iron, puddling placed the coal in an adjacent chamber to the iron, where most of the heat reached the iron by reflecting off the ceiling. This is where the name "puddling" comes from<ref>McVarish 2008, 269</ref>. Puddlers could handle three times as much iron as a finer, up to six hundred pounds at a time. Workers would push any solidifying clumps of iron under the surface of the molten mix so they would not oxidize. After most of the impurities had oxidized, a worker would split the iron into three lumps, which would be pressed by a machine called a squeezer to remove the remaining liquid slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 270</ref>. The bosh of the furnace was typically constructed from soapstone in Pennsylvania<ref> Overman 1854, 273</ref>.

===Forging===
Forging produced wrought iron using blooms and rods by effectively hammering. Large hammers between fifty and four hundred pounds could be used; lighter hammers typically produced smaller things. Forging hammers were later automated by the waterwheel and steam power. If the motive
power was water, a waterwheel was directly fastened to the shaft. If the motive power was steam, a flywheel was attached and the power conveyed by leather straps or belt<ref>McVarish 2008, 270</ref>. With these processes, the automated hammer could strike up to two hundred and fifty times per minute with around 50 pounds of force<ref>McVarish 2008, 271</ref>.

A finer would burn about 2 to 3 pounds of charcoal for every pound of iron made<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.
Artisans found that iron and steel were easier to mold when hot. For more efficient use, English engineers created a looping mill to better mold the iron and steel<ref>McVarish 2008, 280</ref>.

==The Furnace==
The upper portion of the furnace was conical in shape. The walls had an inner and outer layer; the outer was usually made of granite or slate, while the inner was usually made of sandstone or firebrick because of these substances' durability to withstand high temperatures<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. Between the two walls was an eight-inch space filled with stone chips or broken cinder-blocks. This space allowed the inner wall to expand and contract comfortably without bursting the outer wall. The area where workers would empty wheelbarrows full of iron ore was called the "trunnel head" or "throat." The opening above the hearth of the shaft below the trunnel head was called the bosh, which supported the furnace burden while funneling the molten slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The taper of the shaft, bosh, and crucible was entirely dependent on the type of ore smelted, charcoal quality, and what quality of iron was desired as the finished product. In the United States, a straight, uniform forty to fifty-foot stack was needed when hydrates and oxides of iron were smelted. Heat-exchanges, or hot blast stoves, were installed in the nineteenth century to increase efficiency. By the early twentieth century, the iron furnaces were forced to change due to the moving times. They grew to be about eighty feet tall; the shape and proportion of the hearth and bosh and the addition of a bellhopper to the trunnel head allowed for the use of new materials<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>.
As coke-burning furnaces were built, the demand for charcoal declined. The transition to coke fuel caused some modifications to the furnace's structure<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>. Coke powered furnaces were typically taller and had higher blast pressure than their charcoal counterparts<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>. There were approximately 500 in the 1860s, but by 1900 there were less than 50<ref>McVarish 2008, 263</ref>. Americans left the English practice by adopting gas fired furnaces soon as they started making crucible steel.<ref>McVarish 2008, 271</ref>

==Workers==
There were several different positions that could be held within the iron works. The [[Lives of Workers]] varied as working at the furnace required people of numerous skill sets, resulting in different pay levels and hours worked<ref>Walker 1966, 229</ref>. The furnaces needed managers, clerks, molders, teamsters<ref>Walker 1966, 231</ref>, blacksmiths<ref>Walker 1966, 237</ref>, woodcutters<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>, colliers involved in [[charcoal production]], ironmasters<ref>Walker 1966, 248</ref>, and fillers<ref>Walker 1966, 235</ref>. Furnaces also required founders, who supervised the actual operation of the foundry. Founders typically made their way up the ranks to founder by beginning as a laborer, becoming a helper, then a keeper (assistant to the founder), and finally a founder<ref>Walker 1966, 232</ref>.

==Notes==
<references />

==References==
*Convention of Iron Masters. 1850. Documents Relating to the Manufacture of Iron in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: General Committee. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000958393.

*McVarish, Douglas C. 2008. ''American Industrial Archaeology: A Field Guide.'' Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press, Inc.

* Straka, T. J. 2014. ''Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters.'' Advances in Historical Studies, 3, 104-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010

* Swank, J. Moore. 1878. ''Introduction to a History of Ironmaking and Coal Mining in Pennsylvania.'' Philadelphia: Pub. by the author. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t1ng4hm2j&view=2up&seq=40

** Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.

Iron production

2020-12-02T17:49:04Z

Sam1125: Edited wording and phrases. Also fixed formatting errors for multiple intext citations

Iron production converts iron ore into pig iron through a process known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting smelting]. Early on in the history of iron production in the United States, most furnaces used charcoal as fuel; so [[charcoal production]] and iron production were often closely linked. In fact Charcoal was the only fuel for iron production until the 1830s when the industry began a slow
transition toward the use coal as fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>. Ironworks were some of the first and most enduring examples of industry in the United States. Remnants of ironworks can still be found, especially in rural parts of the country<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>.

==History==
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, small-scale metalworking operations produced everyday objects, such as kitchenware, toys, building materials, and tools<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. During wartime, cannons and other military weaponry were cast at furnaces<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. Iron plantations were typically in rural communities and often included forges, housing for workers, woodlands for charcoal production, and a sawmill<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries were early centers of limited iron production. In a bloomery, the iron oxides in ore were reduced to metal and were then separated from the gangue in the ore. The fire created liquid slag and burning charcoal produced carbon dioxide, which reduced the oxide to metallic iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Blast furnaces were also used for larger-scale iron production. These furnaces could be twenty to thirty feet in height and had hollow centers into which were placed ore, fuel, and flux<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bellows were powered by a water wheel, and melted iron and liquid slag accumulated in the bottom of the furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. By the nineteenth century, blast furnaces were the most commonly used type of furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>.

Late in the nineteenth century, the Lehigh Valley was second only to Pittsburgh, PA in the yearly value of iron products in the iron districts of the entire country. The valley was also ranked first in pig iron districts<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>. The Lehigh Valley had fifty anthracite coal furnaces, six of which were owned by Bethlehem Iron Company<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>.

In 1850, all of the ironworks in Eastern Pennsylvania were accounted for. In Lehigh County there were six anthracite blast furnaces that were in blast and one that was out of blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast and one cold blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast. There were no forges and no rolling mills. In Carbon County there was one anthracite blast furnace in blast and one not in blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace in blast and one out of blast. There were no cold blast charcoal furnaces. There were four bloomeries, two forges, and no rolling mills<ref>Convention of Iron Masters 1850, 135</ref>.

Iron has been used for thousands of years since it was discovered that iron ore could be heated to make it a more malleable material<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. While a charcoal kiln site can be identified by brick or stone artifacts, it is harder to identify a charcoal mounds because it was made of wood and dirt<ref>McVarish 2008, 263</ref>.

==Iron Communities==
Self-sufficient communities were known as iron plantations. These were built around these furnaces. Many workers were needed to run an iron plantation, including colliers, miners, woodcutters, molders, founders, patternmakers, and their helpers. In Pennsylvania, Hopewell Furnace employed roughly two hundred to two hundred fifty people during the nineteenth century. Workers at iron plantations would often bring their families along with them. Considering this, the community at Hopewell Furnace would have consisted of about six hundred people<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. The lands of iron plantations included housing, gristmills and sawmills, farming land, and vast amounts of woodland, as well as barns, company stores, spring-houses, blacksmiths, schools, churches, carpenter's shops, forges, casting houses, charcoal storage, and many other buildings<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Iron production required over a hundred acres of woodlands per year<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>.

In the 18th and 19th centuries there were hundreds of iron furnaces, and each town most likely had a blacksmith and forge<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>.
Charcoal mounds and kilns were located as close to the wood source as possible, since wood was heavier to move than the charcoal so they were not usually near roads, but were on the sides of hills <ref>McVarish 2008, 263</ref>.
Ironmakers hammer or roll the wrought iron to fit the buyer's preference, which might include bars, rods or sheets<ref>McVarish 2008,278</ref>.

==Fuel==
Prior to the 1830s, every furnace in the US burned charcoal as fuel. Charcoal was used because it could be produced in large quantities, it burns hotter than wood, and it is almost pure carbon, so it reduces impurities in iron produced<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. To make charcoal, a variety of methods were used including hearths and kilns. Hearths were generally used in the pre-Civil War period and involved burning wood in earth-covered mounds. These hearths produced weak charcoal that would crumble easily<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. Charcoal kilns were made of brick and were more efficient. They also created more durable charcoal than hearths, which yielded charcoal that was more brittle<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. Kiln remains vary greatly. Smaller remains are usually those of farm kilns, which can be found at the base of hills with roads nearby, while larger remains oriented with a square stone base and occasional steel shells surrounding the base are commercial kilns, and usually placed near railroads. Commercial kiln locations can be found on historical maps from the nineteenth and early twentieth century<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. Early finers had to use about to 2 to 3 pounds of charcoal in order to produce a pound of iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.Around the 1860s, coal and coke began to replace charcoal in some areas<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>; but overall, iron production increased so much that the use of charcoal continued to rise until 1890. At this time charcoal began to decline in use and instead coke furnaces were taking the front stage. By the 1890s there were less than 100 charcoal furnaces in use<ref>McVarish 2008,263 </ref>. Coke furnaces were larger and like their charcoal fueled relatives, would need to have air being blown into the furnace so that it is able to continuously operate for months on end. Around the same time perpetual kilns were introduced. These kilns can be characterized by three types of operation, mixed feed, separate-feed, and rotary kilns. Mix feed kilns were the most difficult to manage, the limestone and fuel had to be fed in alternative layers. When running favorable these kilns were the most economically favorable. The next type of kiln is the separate feed kiln. These became the first modern lime kiln which use limestone and fuel not in direct contact. The last type is rotary kilns. These kilns are horizontal and resemble long pipes that rotate on rollers<ref>McVarish 2008, 264</ref>. They required that the limestone be crushed fairly small and even. One downside for rotary kilns is that they use a lot of fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 264</ref>. The last charcoal-powered furnace in the United States was in blast until 1945<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>.
Charcoal pits produced weak charcoal that would easily crumble when it was put in the blast furnace, while charcoal kilns produced more durable charcoal<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>.

Prior to the advent of puddling furnaces coal was never a viable option for iron production because it would contaminate the metal with sulfur <ref>McVarish, 2008, 269</ref>.

==Operation==
Furnace efficiency varied within the industry; the type of ore, equipment used, region, charcoal quality, and furnace type contributed to this<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>. [[Ironworks]] had to be near water and sources of raw materials such as charcoal,
limestone, and iron ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Colonial ironworks used a variety of techniques to produce iron.

===Bloomery===
A bloomery was a small operation that heated iron ore to refine and shape it, which produced wrought iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries needed simple equipment like a hearth, bellows, and tools for manipulating the iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. They had to simultaneously accomplish two tasks: reducing the iron oxides in the ore to metal, and also to separate the metal from the gangue in the ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bloomeries were common in colonial America, specifically in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. They operated between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries. Some disadvantages of bloomeries included limited production, wasted heat, and an inability to completely separate the iron from slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Because bloomeries were a small operation, they created limited production. A bloomery could be able to supply a small blacksmith with what they need to satisfy local customers but never enough to satisfy a market.<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref> A bloomery cannot run continuously like blast furnace and because when the bloomer had to remove the loup from the hearth, thermal energy was wasted.<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>.

Iron ore after it was heated became wrought iron, and the slabs of wrought iron were called blooms <ref>McVarish, 2008, 259</ref>.

===Blast Furnace===
The introduction of the blast furnaces addressed many of the disadvantages of bloomeries. Blast furnaces had the ability to run continuously for months at at time, conserve heat, and produce a much greater output. A blast furnace would have been constructed in a dry location that was not prone to flooding<ref>Overman 1854, 153</ref>. After establishing a location that fit this criteria, the ground would be excavated to ensure that it could support the weight of the stack<ref>Overman 1854, 153-154</ref>. The foundation for the furnace would be constructed so that an additional foot of foundation would extend past the base of the furnace in all directions<ref>Overman 1854, 154</ref>. Blast furnaces were vertical, hollow structures, the top of which would be loaded with ore, fuel, and flux. The bottom had air vents and a hole for the molten iron to run out. Blast furnaces tended to be constructed twenty-five to thirty feet high when they first came into use, and eventually grew to be thirty-two to forty feet high during the nineteenth century with a conical shape on top<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>.

The blast furnaces had very thick stone walls with fire-resistant interior lining. A layer between the lining and outer stones — usually made of clay or smaller stones — provided better insulation and allowed the inner walls to expand slightly when heated<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. The outer wall was generally constructed of any stone, often granite, grauwach (a dark coarsegrained sedimentary stone), or slate<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The inner walls of the furnace were essential to build adequately as it had to stand up to high heat over long periods of time. The hearths in the blast furnaces were typically constructed from sandstone<ref>Overman 1854, 183-184</ref>. Bellows, which pumped air into the furnace to feed the flames, were often powered by waterwheels, equal to about twenty horsepower. By adjusting ventilation, the temperature inside blast furnaces could be controlled to a degree. Blast furnaces were loaded from the top and therefore were often located along hillsides. When the molten iron was ready to be collected, or tapped, a smaller hole at the top was opened to allow the liquid slag, which sat on top of the iron because it was lighter, to be drawn away. After the slag was collected, the main plug was pulled, and the molten iron ran into sand molds. The iron produced in blast furnaces is called pig iron because the final product resembles piglets suckling on their mother. After the iron ran into the molds and was cooled, the "pigs" were broken off the "sows." These smaller pieces were more valuable than the metal in the runners which would need to be remelted<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. In Pennsylvania, furnaces made roughly ten to twenty-five tons of pig iron or castings per week, with the latter amount rarely being attained<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. By the nineteenth century, the reduction of iron took place almost exclusively in blast furnaces.
A blast furnace was filled with three materials, iron ore, charcoal and limestone. Iron ore could be found in bogs and deposits near the ground. (McVarish, p. 260)By the early 20th century, iron furnaces started using coke and coal instead of charcoal. <ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>. Charcoal and early coke furnaces were similar in construction, the only differences were that coke furnaces generally were larger and required a higher pressure blast<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.

==The Fining Process==
The Fining Process was brought to the United States in the seventeenth-century. Finer workers would melt pig iron and allow the carbon to oxidize. The iron gathered into a mass called a loup and was then hammered until the slag was removed<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>. These early iron masters had to use charcoal as their main source of fuel as no effective way to use coal as a fuel had been developed yet<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>. For each pound of iron produced a finer had to burn about 2 to 3 pounds of charcoal for fuel<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.
===Walloon Process===
The Walloon Process was the original fining technique. The Walloon Process involved pushing a pig of iron into a hearth full of charcoal at a downward angle to melt it, working it into a loup, and hammering it to expel slag. The melted metal was then collected from the bottom of the hearth and brought it into the air blast<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. This air blast came about through the tuyere, a nozzle usually constructed of iron<ref>McVarish, 2008, 285</ref>. From here the finer kept the metal in the air blast until they were convinced that all the silicon and carbon had already oxidized <ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. It was after the oxidation that the metal was worked into a loup and then hammered to remove the slag<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. Occasionally the loup was reheated during the hammering process<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. The Walloon Process required a lot of air to heat the flames and the quality of wrought iron produced was heavily dependent on the skill of the workers making it<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>.

===Lancashire (Charcoal Hearth) Process===
The Lancashire Process, which was developed in Sweden, involved moving the pig iron through the hottest part of a flame to burn off impurities and allowing the melted iron to accumulate at the bottom. Workers would then lift the iron, cut into it, and force slag in to oxidize what impurities remained. The iron was then broken up, remelted, and formed into a loup via hammering. The Lancashire Process reused heat from the flames to preheat air being pumped in by the bellows, making it more heat-efficient than the Walloon Process<ref>McVarish 2008, 268-269</ref>.

In the United States this process was referred to as the "Charcoal Hearth Process"<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. The firing hearth stood at about 4 feet tall and was comprised of water-cooled cast-iron pipes<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. This method of iron production made purer iron than that of the Walloon process as the iron from the Lancashire process contained less carbon and slag <ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>.

===Puddling===
Puddling was a way to produce wrought iron on a larger scale. This method was able to use mineral coals instead of charcoal. To prevent impurities from the coal from contaminating the iron, puddling placed the coal in an adjacent chamber to the iron, where most of the heat reached the iron by reflecting off the ceiling. This is where the name "puddling" comes from<ref>McVarish 2008, 269</ref>. Puddlers could handle three times as much iron as a finer, up to six hundred pounds at a time. Workers would push any solidifying clumps of iron under the surface of the molten mix so they would not oxidize. After most of the impurities had oxidized, a worker would split the iron into three lumps, which would be pressed by a machine called a squeezer to remove the remaining liquid slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 270</ref>. The bosh of the furnace was typically constructed from soapstone in Pennsylvania<ref> Overman 1854, 273</ref>.

===Forging===
Forging produced wrought iron using blooms and rods by effectively hammering. Large hammers between fifty and four hundred pounds could be used; lighter hammers typically produced smaller things. Forging hammers were later automated by the waterwheel and steam power. If the motive
power was water, a waterwheel was directly fastened to the shaft. If the motive power was steam, a flywheel was attached and the power conveyed by leather straps or belt<ref>McVarish 2008, 270</ref>. With these processes, the automated hammer could strike up to two hundred and fifty times per minute with around 50 pounds of force<ref>McVarish 2008, 271</ref>.

A finer would burn about 2 to 3 pounds of charcoal for every pound of iron made. (McVarish, p. 268)
Artisans found that iron and steel were easier to mold when hot. For more efficient use, English engineers created a looping mill to better mold the iron and steel. <ref>McVarish 2008, 280</ref>

==The Furnace==
The upper portion of the furnace was conical in shape. The walls had an inner and outer layer; the outer was usually made of granite or slate, while the inner was usually made of sandstone or firebrick because of these substances' durability to withstand high temperatures<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. Between the two walls was an eight-inch space filled with stone chips or broken cinder-blocks. This space allowed the inner wall to expand and contract comfortably without bursting the outer wall. The area where workers would empty wheelbarrows full of iron ore was called the "trunnel head" or "throat." The opening above the hearth of the shaft below the trunnel head was called the bosh, which supported the furnace burden while funneling the molten slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The taper of the shaft, bosh, and crucible was entirely dependent on the type of ore smelted, charcoal quality, and what quality of iron was desired as the finished product. In the United States, a straight, uniform forty to fifty-foot stack was needed when hydrates and oxides of iron were smelted. Heat-exchanges, or hot blast stoves, were installed in the nineteenth century to increase efficiency. By the early twentieth century, the iron furnaces were forced to change due to the moving times. They grew to be about eighty feet tall; the shape and proportion of the hearth and bosh and the addition of a bellhopper to the trunnel head allowed for the use of new materials<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>.
As coke-burning furnaces were built, the demand for charcoal declined. The transition to coke fuel caused some modifications to the furnace's structure<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>. Coke powered furnaces were typically taller and had higher blast pressure than their charcoal counterparts<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>. There were approximately 500 in the 1860s, but by 1900 there were less than 50<ref>McVarish 2008, 263</ref>. Americans left the English practice by adopting gas-fired furnaces soon as they started making crucible steel.<ref>McVarish 2008, 271</ref>

==Workers==
There were several different positions that could be held within the iron works. The [[Lives of Workers]] varied as working at the furnace required people of numerous skill sets, resulting in different pay levels and hours worked<ref>Walker 1966, 229</ref>. The furnaces needed managers, clerks, molders, teamsters<ref>Walker 1966, 231</ref>, blacksmiths<ref>Walker 1966, 237</ref>, woodcutters<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>, colliers involved in [[charcoal production]], ironmasters<ref>Walker 1966, 248</ref>, and fillers<ref>Walker 1966, 235</ref>. Furnaces also required founders, who supervised the actual operation of the foundry. Founders typically made their way up the ranks to founder by beginning as a laborer, becoming a helper, then a keeper (assistant to the founder), and finally a founder<ref>Walker 1966, 232</ref>.

==Notes==
<references />

==References==
*Convention of Iron Masters. 1850. Documents Relating to the Manufacture of Iron in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: General Committee. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000958393.

*McVarish, Douglas C. 2008. ''American Industrial Archaeology: A Field Guide.'' Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press, Inc.

* Straka, T. J. 2014. ''Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters.'' Advances in Historical Studies, 3, 104-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010

* Swank, J. Moore. 1878. ''Introduction to a History of Ironmaking and Coal Mining in Pennsylvania.'' Philadelphia: Pub. by the author. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t1ng4hm2j&view=2up&seq=40

** Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.

John Balliet (1819-1886)

2020-10-13T15:21:01Z

Sam1125: added notes

==Family==

John Balliet was born on November 13, 1819 in Ballietsville, North Whitehall Township, PA to [[Stephen Balliet (1781-1854)]] and Susan Iherie<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 555</ref>. His grandparents were [[Stephen Balliet (1753-1821)]] and [[Magdalena Burgalter (1765-1805)]]<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 555</ref>. John Balliet had fourteen children<ref>Brenckman 1913, 370</ref>. Ten of his children were with Amana Rehrig (1838-1907)<ref>Find a Grave</ref> and are as follows: Isabella Balliet (1854-1888)<ref>Brenckman 1913, 370</ref>; Alice Balliet (1859-1879)<ref>Brenckman 1913, 370</ref>; Lewis Balliet (1862-1930)<ref>Find a Grave</ref>; Emma Balliet Semmel (1864-1934); John William Balliet (1869-1934)<ref>Brenckman 1913, 370</ref>; Amanda Sabina Balliet<ref>Brenckman 1913, 370</ref>; Benjamin Matthis Balliet(1873-1881)<ref>Find a Grave</ref>; Martha Sophia Balliet (1876-1949)<ref>Find a Grave</ref>; Charles David Balliet(1882-1882)<ref>Find a Grave</ref>; and Harry Balliet(1878-1949)<ref>Brenckman 1913, 370</ref>. In the 1860 Census, Amanda Rehrig, under her maiden name, was recorded as residing with William Rehrig and his family in East Penn Township, Carbon County, PA with her children Isabella, age five, and Alice, age one<ref>United States Census, 1860</ref>[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9BSD-C6J?i=21&cc=1473181&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AMXRP-KNQ]. In 1870, she was in the same township, living with John and their children; however, she was the last person on the entry, still identified by her maiden name, and listed as a "House Keeper" under "Profession, Occupation, or Trade of each person, male or female"<ref>United States Census, 1870</ref>[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-D1JQ-1HC?i=2&cc=1438024&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AMZGS-4VF] rather than "Keeping House," the common entry for wives. In 1880, their census entry had John and Amanda, listed as his wife, living in Lower Towamensing, Carbon County with their younger children<ref>United States Census, 1880</ref>[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9YB8-9DMJ?i=8&cc=1417683&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AMWX8-QHX].

https://zenodo.org/api/iiif/v2/b953bd1e-b5b8-47f9-9e0e-2d0452e46cfe:37f7a66d-5495-457c-b110-0053b76a112f:John%20Balliet%20Mathews%20Hungerford%201884.png/full/750,/0/default.png

From 1856-1874, John Balliet lived with Elizabeth Dankel (1839-after 6/22/1880[https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9YBH-GD7?cc=1417683&wc=QZ27-THY%3A1589394781%2C1589413376%2C1589413679%2C1589395442]) as his wife, though they were not married<ref>Reading Times, March 12, 1878</ref>. Elizabeth Dankel was no older than her young teens when her relationship with John Balliet began. During their time together, they had four children<ref>Weekly Notes of Cases 1880, 387-388</ref>, including Susan Balliet (1853<ref>Pennsylvania County Marriages</ref>–1931)<ref>Find a Grave</ref>, Steven John Balliet (1860–1919)<ref>Find a Grave</ref>, Mary J. Balliet (1864–1930)<ref>Find a Grave</ref>, and Minerva Balliet (1870–1951)<ref>Find a Grave</ref>. They resided in East Penn[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Penn_Township,_Carbon_County,_Pennsylvania] until May, 1866, when they moved to Slatington[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slatington,_Pennsylvania], purchased land, and built a house; John Balliet gave Elizabeth Dankel the deed<ref>Reading Times, March 12, 1878</ref>. In 1874, John Balliet left Dankel and brought suit against her to force her out of the Slatington house. Although the local judge agreed with John Balliet, the case went to the Supreme Court, who ruled that Balliet legally possessed the land<ref>Reading Times, March 12, 1878</ref>[http://www.newspapers.com/image/46391696]; <ref>Weekly Notes of Cases 1880, 387-388</ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=ZQkVAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA387&ots=L4w9yQ0RpA&dq=john%20Balliet%20Elizabeth%20Dankel&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q=john%20Balliet%20Elizabeth%20Dankel&f=false]. Census records indicate that Elizabeth resided with John in the 1860 Census of Washington Township as a maid[https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GBSX-9PN3?cc=1473181&wc=7QTM-9KJ%3A1589434177%2C1589435020%2C1589422406] but not in 1870[https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6LWS-YDY?cc=1438024&wc=9227-RMZ%3A518666601%2C520079001%2C520081501]. In the 1880 census [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9YBH-GD7?cc=1417683&wc=QZ27-THY%3A1589394781%2C1589413376%2C1589413679%2C1589395442], Elizabeth was living in the household of her daughter Mary and son-in-law, John Romine, in Slatington.

John Balliet died on January 5, 1886.

==Early Life==
John Balliet was raised with a minimal education<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 556</ref> and took a position working at the [[Lehigh Furnace]], which was owned by his father<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 555</ref>. He later became the co-owner, alongside his brothers [[Paul Balliet (1811-1886)]] and [[Aaron Balliet (1813-1895)]], and superintendent of said property<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 555</ref>. In the 1860 Census of Washington Township, John Balliet was listed as the Superintendent of the furnace, and the value of his real estate was noted as being $52,000<ref>United States Census, 1860</ref>[https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GBSX-9PN3?i=58&cc=1473181&personaUrl=%2Fark%3A%2F61903%2F1%3A1%3AMX5W-ZYK].

==Places of Residence and Work==
After moving away from his hometown, John Balliet moved to East Penn Township to become the superintendent of the [[East Penn Furnace]], which was later partially destroyed by floods<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 556</ref>. John Balliet rebuilt, leased, and successfully ran the furnace for many years. In 1864 Slatington, PA was incorporated as a borough and John Balliet served on the council of the borough in 1882<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 560</ref>. In 1872 he moved to Bowmansville<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 556</ref> and later was listed as a grocer in Lower Towamensing, Carbon County, PA where he resided with Amanda and six of their children according to the 1880 census[https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9YB8-9DMJ?cc=1417683&wc=X46D-2NL%3A1589394781%2C1589412380%2C1589413118%2C1589394913]<ref>United States Census 1880</ref>.

==Business==
While living at home John went into the business of the Lehigh Charcoal Furnace. Worked to be a valuable asset to his father Stephen Balliet who owned the furnace. Meanwhile John also familiarized himself with the furnace and ultimately took over ownership <ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 555-556</ref>. John Balliet was the owner of Balliet's charcoal furnace in Ashfield[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashfield,_Pennsylvania]<ref>Brenckman 1913, 370</ref>, also known as the [[East Penn Furnace]]. John Balliet purchased the [[East Penn Forge]] and Furnace in 1858 and ran it until his death in 1886. He was listed as an ironmaster in the 1870 East Penn, Carbon County, Pennsylvania Census<ref>United States Census, 1870</ref>. The furnace ceased operation following the death of John Balliet, bringing an end to the charcoal furnaces in the Lehigh Valley.

John Balliet was the director of the National Bank of Slatington, which was organized in 1875<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 564</ref>. He was also a shareholder of the Lehigh furnace in Allentown and the Coplay Iron Company<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 556</ref>. John Balliet was also a member of the city council for several years<ref>Portrait and Biographical Record 1894, 268</ref>.

John Balliet owned extensive real estate, a planing mill, and a lumberyard<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 556</ref>. John Balliet also possessed several farms and he built and refurbished buildings<ref>Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 556</ref>. In addition, he owned a store in Bowmanstown<ref> Mathews and Hungerford 1884, 767</ref> and was the owner of the Bowmanstown Hotel<ref>Brenckman 1913, 370</ref>. Much of this land was used for [[charcoal production]], which provided the fuel for the two iron furnaces and the forge. John Balliet's lands, totaling more than eight hundred acres, were sold at an Orphans' Court Sale by Victor Bowman and Lewis F. Balliet on December 20, 1890[http://www.newspapers.com/image/75681105/]"<ref>Carbon Advocate December 13, 1890</ref>.

==Notes==
<references />

== References ==
*Brenckman, Frederick Charles. 1913. ''History of Carbon County, Pennsylvania: Also Containing a Separate Account of the Several Boroughs and Townships in the County, with Biographical Sketches.'' Harrisburg, Pa: J. J. Nungesser.
*The Carbon Advocate. 1890. ''Orphans’ Court Sale of Very Valuable Real Estate!- John Balliet,'' December 13, 1890.
*Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 26 May 2020), memorial page for Amanda Rehrig Balliet (5 May 1838–11 Mar 1907), Find a Grave Memorial no. 131064679, citing Union Cemetery, Slatington, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, USA ; Maintained by Jill (contributor 47510712) .
*Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 26 May 2020), memorial page for Benjamine Balliet (28 Apr 1873–15 Nov 1881), Find a Grave Memorial no. 131064808, citing Union Cemetery, Slatington, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, USA ; Maintained by Jill (contributor 47510712).
*Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 26 May 2020), memorial page for Charles David Balliet (17 Feb 1882–8 Sep 1882), Find a Grave Memorial no. 131064908, citing Union Cemetery, Slatington, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, USA ; Maintained by Jill (contributor 47510712).
*Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 26 May 2020), memorial page for Lewis F. Balliet (4 Nov 1862–30 Jun 1930), Find a Grave Memorial no. 78306618, citing Towamensing Cemetery, Palmerton, Carbon County, Pennsylvania, USA ; Maintained by Tim Gruber (contributor 47185765).
*Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 26 May 2020), memorial page for Martha S Balliet Neyer (1876–1949), Find a Grave Memorial no. 155545043, citing Union Cemetery, Slatington, Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, USA ; Maintained by Lois Revenaugh (contributor 46922006).
*Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 26 May 2020), memorial page for Mary J. Balliet Romine (1864–1930), Find a Grave Memorial no. 114161118, citing Mount Vernon Cemetery, Elizabeth, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, USA ; Maintained by L Evans (contributor 47540766).
*Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 28 May 2020), memorial page for Minerva Balliet Risher (17 Jul 1870–8 Jun 1951), Find a Grave Memorial no. 83253594, citing Homestead Cemetery, Munhall, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, USA ; Maintained by BAM28 (contributor 47071438).
*Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 28 May 2020), memorial page for Stephen John Balliet (18 Jun 1860–4 Dec 1919), Find a Grave Memorial no. 80473979, citing Alliance City Cemetery, Alliance, Stark County, Ohio, USA ; Maintained by Jason Walker (contributor 47292757).
*Find a Grave, database and images (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 27 May 2020), memorial page for Susan Balliet Shortz (29 Nov 1854–24 May 1931), Find a Grave Memorial no. 187048720, citing Forty Fort Cemetery, Forty Fort, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, USA ; Maintained by Jane Cockayne Weaver (contributor 48493052).
* Mathews, Alfred, and Austin N Hungerford. 1884. ''History of the Counties of Lehigh and Carbon, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.'' Philadelphia: Everts & Richards.
*''Pennsylvania, County Marriages, 1885-1950,'' database with images, FamilySearch [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VF98-H66 : 7 January 2020], Amos Shortz and Susan L Rupert, 18 May 1902; citing Marriage, Luzerne, Pennsylvania, United States, multiple County Clerks, Pennsylvania.
*''Portrait and Biographical Record of Lehigh, Northampton, and Carbon Counties, Pennsylvania: Containing Biographical Sketches of Prominent and Representative Citizens of the Counties, Together with Biographies and Portraits of the Presidents of the United States.'' 1894. Chicago: Chapman Publishing Co.
*Reading Times. 1878. ''What Constitutes a Conveyance of Land,'' March 12, 1878.
*''United States Census, 1860,'' database with images, FamilySearch [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9BSD-C6J?cc=1473181&wc=7QL9-Y6C%3A1589434177%2C1589434982%2C1589435676 : 24 March 2017], Pennsylvania > Carbon > East Penn Township > image 22 of 22; from "1860 U.S. Federal Census - Population," database, Fold3.com (http://www.fold3.com : n.d.); citing NARA microfilm publication M653 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).
*''United States Census.'' 1860. Database with images, FamilySearch [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GBSX-9PN3?cc=1473181&wc=7QTM-9KJ%3A1589434177%2C1589435020%2C1589422406 : 24 March 2017], Pennsylvania > Lehigh > Washington Township > image 59 of 61; from "1860 U.S. Federal Census - Population," database, Fold3.com (http://www.fold3.com : n.d.); citing NARA microfilm publication M653 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).
*''United States Census, 1870,'' database with images, FamilySearch [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-D1JQ-1HC?cc=1438024&wc=92KS-N3L%3A518666601%2C518680201%2C519893901 : 15 June 2019], Pennsylvania > Carbon > East Penn > image 3 of 22; citing NARA microfilm publication M593 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).
*''United States Census.'' 1870. Database with images, FamilySearch [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6LWS-YDY?cc=1438024&wc=9227-RMZ%3A518666601%2C520079001%2C520081501 : 22 May 2014], Pennsylvania > Lehigh > Slatington > image 32 of 40; citing NARA microfilm publication M593 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).
*''United States Census.'' 1880. Database with images, FamilySearch [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9YBH-GD7?cc=1417683&wc=QZ27-THY%3A1589394781%2C1589413376%2C1589413679%2C1589395442 : 24 December 2015], Pennsylvania > Lehigh > Slatington > ED 188 > image 31 of 33; citing NARA microfilm publication T9 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).
*''United States Census, 1880,'' database with images, FamilySearch [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9YB8-9DMJ?cc=1417683&wc=X46D-2NL%3A1589394781%2C1589412380%2C1589413118%2C1589394913 : 24 December 2015], Pennsylvania > Carbon > Lower Towamensing > ED 121 > image 9 of 37; citing NARA microfilm publication T9, (National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C., n.d.)
*''Weekly Notes of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, The County Courts of Philadelphia, and the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Members of the Bar''. 1880. Vol. VIII. Philadelphia, Pa.: Kay and Brother. [https://books.google.com/books?id=ZQkVAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA387&ots=L4w9yQ0RpA&dq=john%20Balliet%20Elizabeth%20Dankel&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q=john%20Balliet%20Elizabeth%20Dankel&f=false].

Iron production

2020-10-01T16:00:34Z

Sam1125: added notes

Iron production converts iron ore into pig iron through a process known as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting smelting]. Early on in the history of iron production in the United States, most furnaces used charcoal as fuel; so [[charcoal production]] and iron production were often closely linked. In fact Charcoal was the only fuel for iron production until the 1830s when the industry began a slow
transition toward the use coal as fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>. Ironworks were some of the first and most enduring examples of industry in the United States. Remnants of ironworks can still be found, especially in rural parts of the country<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>.

==History==
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, small-scale metalworking operations produced everyday objects, such as kitchenware, toys, building materials, and tools<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. During wartime, cannons and other military weaponry were cast at furnaces<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. Iron plantations were typically in rural communities and often included forges, housing for workers, woodlands for charcoal production, and a sawmill<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries were early centers of limited iron production. In a bloomery, the iron oxides in ore were reduced to metal and were then separated from the gangue in the ore. The fire created liquid slag and burning charcoal produced carbon dioxide, which reduced the oxide to metallic iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Blast furnaces were also used for larger-scale iron production. These furnaces could be twenty to thirty feet in height and had hollow centers into which were placed ore, fuel, and flux<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bellows were powered by a water wheel, and melted iron and liquid slag accumulated in the bottom of the furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. By the nineteenth century, blast furnaces were the most commonly used type of furnace<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>.

Late in the nineteenth century, the Lehigh Valley was second only to Pittsburgh, PA in the yearly value of iron products in the iron districts of the entire country and was ranked first in pig iron districts<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>. The Lehigh Valley had fifty anthracite coal furnaces, of which the Bethlehem Iron Company owned six<ref>Swank 1884, 34</ref>.

In 1850 all of the ironworks in Eastern Pennsylvania were accounted for. In Lehigh County there were six anthracite blast furnaces that were in blast and one that was out of blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast and one cold blast charcoal furnace that was out of blast. There were no forges and no rolling mills. In Carbon County there was one anthracite blast furnace in blast and one not in blast. There was one hot blast charcoal furnace in blast and one out of blast. There were no cold blast charcoal furnaces. There were four bloomeries, two forges, and no rolling mills<ref>Convention of Iron Masters 1850, 135</ref>.

Iron has been used since primitive times, when it was discovered that iron ore heated would turn into a material that could be reheated and hammered to make useful objects. (McVarish p. 259).While a charcoal kiln site can be identified by brick or stone artifacts, it is harder to identify a charcoal mounds because it was made of wood and dirt. (McVarish 263)

==Iron Communities==
Self-sufficient communities, called iron plantations, were built around these furnaces. Many workers were needed to run an iron plantation, including colliers, miners, woodcutters, molders, founders, patternmakers, and their helpers. In Pennsylvania, Hopewell Furnace employed roughly two hundred to two hundred fifty people during the nineteenth century. Workers at iron plantations would often bring their families along with them. Considering this, the community at Hopewell Furnace would have consisted of about six hundred people<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. The lands of iron plantations included housing, gristmills and sawmills, farming land, and vast amounts of woodland, as well as barns, company stores, spring-houses, blacksmiths, schools, churches, carpenter's shops, forges, casting houses, charcoal storage, and many other buildings<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Iron production required over a hundred acres of woodlands per year<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>.

In the 18th and 19th centuries there would have been hundreds of iron furnaces, and each town most likely had a blacksmith and forge. (McVarish p. 259)
Charcoal mounds and kilns were located as close to the wood source as possible, since wood was heavier to move than the charcoal so they were not usually near roads, but were on the sides of hills. (McVarish, p. 263)
Ironmakers hammer or roll the wrought iron to fit the buyer's preference, which might include bars, rods or sheets. (McVarish, p. 278)

==Fuel==
Prior to the 1830s, every furnace in the US burned charcoal as fuel. Charcoal was used because it could be produced in large quantities, it burns hotter than wood, and it is almost pure carbon, so it reduces impurities in iron produced<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. To make charcoal, a variety of methods were used including hearths and kilns. Hearths were generally used in the pre-Civil War period and involved burning wood in earth-covered mounds. These hearths produced weak charcoal that would crumble easily<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. Charcoal kilns were made of brick and were more efficient. They also created more durable charcoal than hearths, which yielded charcoal that was more brittle<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. Kiln remains vary greatly. Smaller remains are usually those of farm kilns, which can be found at the base of hills with roads nearby, while larger remains oriented with a square stone base and occasional steel shells surrounding the base are commercial kilns, and usually placed near railroads. Commercial kiln locations can be found on historical maps from the nineteenth and early twentieth century<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. Early finers had to use about to 2 to 3 pounds of charcoal in order to produce a pound of iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.Around the 1860s, coal and coke began to replace charcoal in some areas<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>; but overall, iron production increased so much that the use of charcoal continued to rise until 1890. At this time charcoal began to decline in use and instead coke furnaces were taking the front stage. By the 1890s there were less than 100 charcoal furnaces in use<ref>McVarish 2008,263 </ref>. Coke furnaces were larger and like their charcoal fueled relatives, would need to have air being blown into the furnace so that it is able to continuously operate for months on end. Around the same time perpetual kilns were introduced. These kilns can be characterized by three types of operation, mixed feed, separate-feed, and rotary kilns. Mix feed kilns were the most difficult to manage, the limestone and fuel had to be fed in alternative layers. When running favorable these kilns were the most economically favorable. The next type of kiln is the separate feed kiln. These became the first modern lime kiln which use limestone and fuel not in direct contact. The last type is rotary kilns. These kilns are horizontal and resemble long pipes that rotate on rollers<ref>McVarish 2008, 264</ref>. They required that the limestone be crushed fairly small and even. One downside for rotary kilns is that they use a lot of fuel<ref>Straka 2014, 264</ref>. The last charcoal-powered furnace in the United States was in blast until 1945<ref>Straka 2014, 104</ref>.
Charcoal pits produced weak charcoal that would easily crumble when it was put in the blast furnace, while charcoal kilns produced more durable charcoal (McVarish p. 262)

Prior to the advent of puddling furnaces coal was never a viable option for iron production because it would contaminate the metal with sulfur <ref>McVarish, 2008, 269</ref>.

==Operation==
Furnace efficiency varied within the industry; the type of ore, equipment used, region, charcoal quality, and furnace type contributed to this<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>. [[Ironworks]] had to be near water and sources of raw materials such as charcoal,
limestone, and iron ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Colonial ironworks used a variety of techniques to produce iron.

===Bloomery===
A bloomery was a small operation that heated iron ore to refine and shape it, which produced wrought iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 259</ref>. Bloomeries needed simple equipment like a hearth, bellows, and tools for manipulating the iron<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. They had to simultaneously accomplish two tasks: reducing the iron oxides in the ore to metal, and also to separate the metal from the gangue in the ore<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Bloomeries were common in colonial America, specifically in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. They operated between the seventeenth and twentieth centuries. Some disadvantages of bloomeries included limited production, wasted heat, and an inability to completely separate the iron from slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>. Because bloomeries were a small operation, they created limited production. A bloomery could be able to supply a small blacksmith with what they need to satisfy local customers but never enough to satisfy a market.<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref> A bloomery cannot run continuously like blast furnace and because when the bloomer had to remove the loup from the hearth, thermal energy was wasted.<ref>McVarish 2008, 260</ref>.

Iron ore after it was heated became wrought iron, and the slabs of wrought iron were called blooms (McVarish p. 259).

===Blast Furnace===
The introduction of the blast furnaces addressed many of the disadvantages of bloomeries. Blast furnaces had the ability to run continuously for months at at time, conserve heat, and produce a much greater output. A blast furnace would have been constructed in a dry location that was not prone to flooding<ref>Overman 1854, 153</ref>. After establishing a location that fit this criteria, the ground would be excavated to ensure that it could support the weight of the stack<ref>Overman 1854, 153-154</ref>. The foundation for the furnace would be constructed so that an additional foot of foundation would extend past the base of the furnace in all directions<ref>Overman 1854, 154</ref>. Blast furnaces were vertical, hollow structures, the top of which would be loaded with ore, fuel, and flux. The bottom had air vents and a hole for the molten iron to run out. Blast furnaces tended to be constructed twenty-five to thirty feet high when they first came into use, and eventually grew to be thirty-two to forty feet high during the nineteenth century with a conical shape on top<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>.

The blast furnaces had very thick stone walls with fire-resistant interior lining. A layer between the lining and outer stones — usually made of clay or smaller stones — provided better insulation and allowed the inner walls to expand slightly when heated<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>. The outer wall was generally constructed of any stone, often granite, grauwach (a dark coarsegrained sedimentary stone), or slate<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The inner walls of the furnace were essential to build adequately as it had to stand up to high heat over long periods of time. The hearths in the blast furnaces were typically constructed from sandstone<ref>Overman 1854, 183-184</ref>. Bellows, which pumped air into the furnace to feed the flames, were often powered by waterwheels, equal to about twenty horsepower. By adjusting ventilation, the temperature inside blast furnaces could be controlled to a degree. Blast furnaces were loaded from the top and therefore were often located along hillsides. When the molten iron was ready to be collected, or tapped, a smaller hole at the top was opened to allow the liquid slag, which sat on top of the iron because it was lighter, to be drawn away. After the slag was collected, the main plug was pulled, and the molten iron ran into sand molds. The iron produced in blast furnaces is called pig iron because the final product resembles piglets suckling on their mother. After the iron ran into the molds and was cooled, the "pigs" were broken off the "sows." These smaller pieces were more valuable than the metal in the runners which would need to be remelted<ref>McVarish 2008, 265</ref>. In Pennsylvania, furnaces made roughly ten to twenty-five tons of pig iron or castings per week, with the latter amount rarely being attained<ref>Swank 1884, 35</ref>. By the nineteenth century, the reduction of iron took place almost exclusively in blast furnaces.
A blast furnace was filled with three materials, iron ore, charcoal and limestone. Iron ore could be found in bogs and deposits near the ground. (McVarish, p. 260)By the early 20th century, iron furnaces started using coke and coal instead of charcoal. (McVarish, p. 267) Charcoal and early coke furnaces were similar in construction, the only differences were that coke furnaces generally were larger and required a higher pressure blast<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.

==The Fining Process==
The Fining Process was brought to the United States in the seventeenth-century. Finer workers would melt pig iron and allow the carbon to oxidize. The iron gathered into a mass called a loup and was then hammered until the slag was removed<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>. These early iron masters had to use charcoal as their main source of fuel as no effective way to use coal as a fuel had been developed yet<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>. For each pound of iron produced a finer had to burn about 2 to 3 pounds of charcoal for fuel<ref>McVarish 2008, 268</ref>.
===Walloon Process===
The Walloon Process was the original fining technique. The Walloon Process involved pushing a pig of iron into a hearth full of charcoal at a downward angle to melt it, working it into a loup, and hammering it to expel slag. The melted metal was then collected from the bottom of the hearth and brought it into the air blast<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. This air blast came about through the tuyere, a nozzle usually constructed of iron<ref>McVarish, 2008, 285</ref>. From here the finer kept the metal in the air blast until they were convinced that all the silicon and carbon had already oxidized <ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. It was after the oxidation that the metal was worked into a loup and then hammered to remove the slag<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. Occasionally the loup was reheated during the hammering process<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. The Walloon Process required a lot of air to heat the flames and the quality of wrought iron produced was heavily dependent on the skill of the workers making it<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>.

===Lancashire (Charcoal Hearth) Process===
The Lancashire Process, which was developed in Sweden, involved moving the pig iron through the hottest part of a flame to burn off impurities and allowing the melted iron to accumulate at the bottom. Workers would then lift the iron, cut into it, and force slag in to oxidize what impurities remained. The iron was then broken up, remelted, and formed into a loup via hammering. The Lancashire Process reused heat from the flames to preheat air being pumped in by the bellows, making it more heat-efficient than the Walloon Process<ref>McVarish 2008, 268-269</ref>.

In the United States this process was referred to as the "Charcoal Hearth Process"<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. The firing hearth stood at about 4 feet tall and was comprised of water-cooled cast-iron pipes<ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>. This method of iron production made purer iron than that of the Walloon process as the iron from the Lancashire process contained less carbon and slag <ref>McVarish, 2008, 268</ref>.

===Puddling===
Puddling was a larger scale way to produce wrought iron than a finery that was able to use mineral coals instead of charcoal. To prevent impurities from the coal from contaminating the iron, puddling placed the coal in an adjacent chamber to the iron, where most of the heat reached the iron by reflecting off the ceiling. This is where the name "puddling" comes from<ref>McVarish 2008, 269</ref>. Puddlers could handle three times as much iron as a finer, up to six hundred pounds at a time. Workers would push any solidifying clumps of iron under the surface of the molten mix so they would not oxidize. After most of the impurities had oxidized, a worker would split the iron into three lumps, which would be pressed by a machine called a squeezer to remove the remaining liquid slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 270</ref>. The bosh of the furnace was typically constructed from soapstone in Pennsylvania<ref> Overman 1854, 273</ref>.

===Forging===
Forging produced wrought iron using blooms and rods by effectively hammering. Large hammers between fifty and four hundred pounds could be used; lighter hammers typically produced smaller things. Forging hammers were later automated by the waterwheel and steam power. If the motive
power was water, a waterwheel was directly fastened to the shaft. If the motive power was steam, a flywheel was attached and the power conveyed by leather straps or belt<ref>McVarish 2008, 270</ref>. With these processes, the automated hammer could strike up to two hundred and fifty times per minute with around 50 pounds of force<ref>McVarish 2008, 271</ref>.

A finer would burn about 2 to 3 pounds of charcoal for every pound of iron made. (McVarish, p. 268)
Artisans found that iron and steel were easier to mold when hot. For a more efficient use, English engineers created a looping mill to better mold the iron and steel. <ref>McVarish 2008, 280</ref>

==The Furnace==
The upper portion of the furnace was conical in shape. The walls had an inner and outer layer; the outer was usually made of granite or slate, while the inner was usually made of sandstone or firebrick because of these substances' durability to withstand high temperatures<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. Between the two walls was an eight-inch space filled with stone chips or broken cinder-blocks. This space allowed the inner wall to expand and contract comfortably without bursting the outer wall. The area where workers would empty wheelbarrows full of iron ore was called the "trunnel head" or "throat." The opening above the hearth of the shaft below the trunnel head was called the bosh, which supported the furnace burden while funneling the molten slag<ref>McVarish 2008, 266</ref>. The taper of the shaft, bosh, and crucible was entirely dependent on the type of ore smelted, charcoal quality, and what quality of iron was desired as the finished product. In the United States, a straight, uniform forty to fifty foot stack was needed when hydrates and oxides of iron were smelted. Heat-exchanges, or hot blast stoves, were installed in the nineteenth century to increase efficiency. By the early twentieth century, the iron furnaces were forced to change due to the moving times. They grew to be about eighty feet tall; the shape and proportion of the hearth and bosh and the addition of a bellhopper to the trunnel head allowed for the use of new materials<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>.
As coke-burning furnaces were built, the demand for charcoal declined. The transition to coke fuel caused some modifications to the furnaces's structure<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>. Coke powered furnaces were typically taller and had higher blast pressure than their charcoal counterparts<ref>McVarish 2008, 267</ref>.. There were approximately 500 in the 1860s, but by 1900 there were less than 50. (McVarish p. 263) Americans left the English practice by adopting gas fired furnaces soon as they started making crucible steel.<ref>McVarish 2008, 271</ref>

==Workers==
There were several different positions that could be held within the iron works. The [[Lives of Workers]] varied as working at the furnace required people of numerous skill sets, resulting in different pay levels and hours worked<ref>Walker 1966, 229</ref>. The furnaces needed managers, clerks, molders, teamsters<ref>Walker 1966, 231</ref>, blacksmiths<ref>Walker 1966, 237</ref>, woodcutters<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>, colliers involved in [[charcoal production]], ironmasters<ref>Walker 1966, 248</ref>, and fillers<ref>Walker 1966, 235</ref>. Furnaces also required founders, who supervised the actual operation of the foundry. Founders typically made their way up the ranks to founder by beginning as a laborer, becoming a helper, then a keeper (assistant to the founder), and finally a founder<ref>Walker 1966, 232</ref>.

==Notes==
<references />

==References==
*Convention of Iron Masters. 1850. Documents Relating to the Manufacture of Iron in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: General Committee. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000958393.

*McVarish, Douglas C. 2008. ''American Industrial Archaeology: A Field Guide.'' Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press, Inc.

* Straka, T. J. 2014. ''Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters.'' Advances in Historical Studies, 3, 104-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010

* Swank, J. Moore. 1878. ''Introduction to a History of Ironmaking and Coal Mining in Pennsylvania.'' Philadelphia: Pub. by the author. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t1ng4hm2j&view=2up&seq=40

** Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.

Charcoal production

2020-09-29T16:30:12Z

Sam1125: Types of Charcoal Hearths

==Background==
Traditionally charcoal has been used in a variety of metallurgical industries<ref>Whitney 1994, 218</ref>, and in the case of nineteenth century Pennsylvania, charcoal was produced primarily as fuel for the region's [[iron production]].The responsibility of charcoal production was predominately that of [[Colliers| colliers]]. Charcoal is the result of the destructive distillation of wood which yields a fuel source that is mostly carbon<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref><ref>Walker 1966, 242</ref>. The destructive distillation of wood is caused by partially burning (carbonizing) wood to remove water vapor and volatile gases, leaving behind a carbon residue known as charcoal.<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref> When charcoal is produced the volume of the wood is reduced by roughly half of its initial volume and its weight is decreased by 25 percent, thus making charcoal an easily transported source of fuel<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref>. Charcoal retains the texture of wood, is black in color, and is fragile under pressure<ref>Svedelius 1875, 20</ref>. Unlike wood, charcoal is not attacked by insects or fungi and could be stored indefinitely<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref>. It was also easier to burn, produced less smoke, was a hotter more consistent source of heat, and could easily be moved<ref>Straka 2014, 106; Whitney 1994, 218</ref>.
It was these principal properties of charcoal that led iron producers to favor charcoal as a fuel source over unmodified wood as charcoal was ultimately a more profitable source of fuel<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref>. In the nineteenth century, when iron production was at its peak, the demand for charcoal as fuel for furnaces directly impacted forests. As a result, the charcoal industry was one of the first to think about sustainability and forestry<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 58</ref>.

==Types of Wood==
While most types of wood can become charcoal, hard woods generally produced the highest quality charcoal<ref>Kemper 1941, 18</ref>. Trees such as oak, hickory, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chestnut chestnut], and elm were often preferred to softer woods, such as gum and poplar<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref>. Additionally, although resin rich woods, such as pine, are generally less desirable<ref>Overman 1854, 81</ref>, they may be extensively used when it is widely available <ref>see Svedelius</ref>. While hardwoods were typically favored, however they regularly required longer burning periods<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref>, therefore sometimes a mixture of hardwood and softwood proved to be a combination that yielded the greatest quantity of charcoal without compromising the integrity of the material<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. The condition of wood was also important to the quality of the charcoal output, as knots in the wood, decay, and moisture all negatively impacted carbonization<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>.
The wood for charcoal production was cut by woodcutters primarily during the winter months<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 12</ref><ref>Walker 1966, 230</ref>, as the trees would have less moisture inside<ref>Svedelius 1875, 6; Overman 1854, 80</ref>. Furnace operators preferred that woodcutters choose timber that was about 20 to 30 years old to harvest for charcoal production and most of the wood used was sourced from nearby forests<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 60-61</ref>. Two types of wood were cut in this process: lap-wood and billets<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref>. Most billets came from tree trunks and typically measured 4 to 7 inches in diameter, while most lap-wood came from branches and were about 1 and a half to 4 inches in diameter<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>. And while billets and lap-wood came from different parts of the tree, both were cut in a particular fashion that allowed them to slant inward when piled together<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59-61</ref>. See [[Harvesting Wood]].

==Charcoal Production Process==
===Making the Hearth===
Because of high winter and spring winds and other unfavorable weather conditions, charcoal hearths were traditionally in operation only during the months from May until late October<ref>Kemper 1941, 10</ref><ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref><ref>Walker 1966, 242</ref>. When choosing a location to construct a charcoal hearth colliers took a variety of factors into account such as dryness, accessibility and levelness<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>. Charcoal hearths required a large, flat, and dry area that typically measured between thirty and forty feet in diameter<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref><ref>Walker 1966, 242</ref>. Once established, charcoal hearths were reused by colliers due to the fact they were rich with charcoal dust<ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref>. Ensuring the base of the hearth was strong and flat was important so as to afford good raking and shoveling of the coal<ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref>. It was paramount that the base of the charcoal pits stay dry as water and moisture were detrimental to the charcoal production process<ref>Walker 1966, 242</ref>. It was critical that the hearths were not dug into the ground; rather, they were to sit slightly higher than the surface, as to allow water to drain away from the base<ref>Svedelius 1875, 32</ref>. As a result of charcoal production’s relationship with water, low places were typically avoided as water naturally retains itself in these spaces<ref>Svedelius 1875, 30</ref>. Instead the hearths were often constructed on dry hillsides or mountain tops<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>. Colliers also made sure they built their hearths in place that were accessible to wagons so that the charcoal could be hauled off<ref>Svedelius 1875, 30</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 12</ref>.. Before constructing the charcoal pit the colliers would till the ground in order to remove any rocks and organic material that may have been a disturbance to charcoal production<ref>Overman 1854, 104</ref>. Often time colliers managed up to eight or nine<ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref>charcoal hearths at a time and the hearths were normally situated about the distance of a city block from each other<ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref>.

When identifying the remains of charcoal hearths, the aforementioned information can be utilized. The soil at hearth site remains will typically be darker in color than surrounding soil<ref>McVarish 2008, 263</ref> and flecked with charcoal remains.

There were four different styles of hearths that were constructed and each design had a different capacity of wood. The first, and largest was a square or rectangular hearth which held about 60-100 cords of wood. The second was a round shape that held about 50 cords. The next, a conical hearth, held around 15-40 cords. And finally, a beehive shape held between 20-50 cords of woods<ref>Straka 2014, 107</ref>. The beehive kiln is very similar in appearance to the conical but there are still some differentiations such as the beehive not having a dome top.

===Piling the Wood===
Once the hearth was prepared the collier placed the fagan pole in the center of the pit and proceeded to construct the hearth's chimney around this pole with lap wood<ref>Kemper 1941, 14</ref><ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>.The fagan pole was a green pole that measured at about 18 feet tall and three to four inches in diameter; the pole would be also be removed to provide draught just prior to the process of burning the wood<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 14</ref>. Typically the chimneys took on a triangular form and had an opening of about 8 inches<ref>Kemper 1941, 14</ref>. After the base of the chimney and pole were constructed, the collier began to construct the first layer (the "foot"), this was done by leaning thick pieces of hardwood (called billets) inward against the chimney and by filling the gaps with lap-wood<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 14</ref>. The billets were placed in this protruding manner, so that when the ring of charcoal dust finally was reached there would be enough slope to the sides of the pit to enable the final covering of leaves and dust to rest securely without sliding off<ref>Kemper 1941, 14</ref>. It was important that the wood was packed as closely together as possible to ensure uniform burning<ref>Svedelius 1875, 41</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 14</ref>. After the first layer was created, the second layer (the "waist") was built and this layer was also comprised of billets and lap wood<ref>Kemper 1941, 14</ref><ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>. This second layer measured about 4 feet in height <ref>Kemper 1941, 14</ref><ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>. Then, a third layer (the "head") of horizontally placed pieces of lap-wood was added to the chimney, completing the structure<ref>Kemper 1941, 14</ref><ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>. A pit may have held anywhere from twenty-five to fifty cords of wood at a time<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>.

===Covering the Wood===
The last step in the process of constructing the wood pile is known as "Lapping-off"; this was when colliers covered their wood piles with a layer of leftover lap-wood with the intention of filling in any possible air spaces or cracks<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 16</ref>. The lap-wood was then covered by leaves and straw, which were collected on site by the collier or their helpers. This layering of brush typically amounted to a covering of a few inches<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 16</ref>. Then, a layer of charcoal dust and/or dirt was added<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref><ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>. This final covering acted as a barrier between the wood and the dirt, helping to ensure even charring of the wood by restricting air flow<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>. Throughout the entire operation great care was taken to set and fit the pieces substantially together to prevent the whole from reeling or twisting. A pit hastily slapped together was certain to reel<ref>Kemper 1941, 16</ref>.

===The Burning Process===
Ignition of the charcoal pits typically occurred in the later parts of the evening, this was done so that the colliers could sleep one more time before they had to constantly watch the pit. Normally the pit would not require the attention of the collier until the following afternoon<ref>Kemper 1941, 18</ref>. However some historical records contradict the notion that charcoal pits were usually lit late in the evening, and sources such as Svedelius's 1875 ''Handbook for Charcoal Burners'' state that ignition likely occurred in the early morning, so that the colliers could attend to the hearth during the first crucial hours in daylight<ref>Svedelius 1875, 51</ref>. Charcoal hearths were lit at the top and burned downwards<ref>Straka, 2014, 107</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 18</ref>. To ignite the wood, kindling was placed within the the chimney and the fagan pole was removed<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 18</ref>. Then, hot coals were dropped into the chimney<ref>Kemper 1941, 18</ref><ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref> and the opening was covered with a flat wood pieces called the "bridging"<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>. The bridging was then covered with leaves and straw<ref>Wagner, 2008</ref> before the burning began. Small holes or smoke-vents were created at the bottom of the pile to allow airflow for the draught<ref>Svedelius 1875, 52</ref> and would be closely managed by the colliers.

The process typically took between ten to fourteen days; however, if conditions were unfavorable, the burning period could take three weeks<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref><ref>Walker 1966, 242</ref>. The type of wood, its quality, the way the wood was piled, and the number of cords also factored into the length of the burning process<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>. The greater in size and dryness a billet was, the longer the coaling process would take<ref>Svedelius 1875, 81</ref>. Throughout the process, the pit was carefully observed and diligently tended to by colliers to ensure that the wood was burning evenly<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>, especially at the foot of the hearth<ref>Svedelius 1875, 58</ref>. Colliers were trained to be a master in recognizing different surfaces based on their feel of the fagan.<ref>Kemper 1941, 21-22</ref>. A master collier and one or two helpers “coaled” together, working as many as eight or nine pits at a time all of which required attentive handling as any burning flame could jeopardize the final product<ref>Kemper 1941, 20</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 8</ref>. As the charring process continued, pockets developed in the pit as a result of the billets shrinking<ref>Svedelius 1875, 69</ref>; the collier walks the pile, called “jumping the pit” to locate them and any soft spots are filled in with more wood<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 60</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 20</ref>.From time to time the colliers would check the status of the charcoal by poking the fagan pole down the chimney in order to reason how far along they were in the burning process <ref>Kemper 1941, 20</ref>. At five hundred degrees Fahrenheit the wood began to break down; the maximum temperature reached during the process was about seven hundred fifty degrees Fahrenheit<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref>.

Colliers needed to watch the color of the smoke and attend to the smoke-vents accordingly <ref>Svedelius 1875, 80</ref>. Historical documents and modern scholarship have produced contradicting information regarding what different color smoke represented in the charcoal making process. Some experts such as Thomas Straka and Wayne Ramer claim white smoke was one of indicators of a proper burning<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref>. This is in direct contradiction to Jackson Kemper and his charcoal production research, Kemper contends that white smoke was an indication of a poorly charring pit as result of rapid burning<ref>Kemper 1941, 22</ref>. Kemper states that a well burning pit puffed blue smoke from its vents in lazy intervals, however others maintain that blue smoke was a signal to colliers to close up the smoke vents and open new ones further down<ref>Kemper 1941, 22</ref><ref>Svedelius 1875, 80</ref>. Other accounts assert that brown tinted smoke was undesirable and indicative of poorly placed smoke-vents which had been constructed too far down in the pile<ref>Svedelius 1875, 81</ref>. This could cause a fire to break out before the main burning reached the area resulting in a loss of charcoal<ref>Svedelius 1875, 81</ref>.

The process was ended before all the charcoal had finished burning because this helped colliers maximize production<ref>Wagner, 2008</ref>. Colliers would typically layer dust over the pile at the end of the burning process and pack it down tightly, leaving the charcoal to cool<ref>Svedelius 1875, 82</ref>. In Sweden, the cooling process may sometimes have been aided by the use of water, where colliers would begin to water the air-tight mound after allowing it to remain undisturbed for twenty-four hours<ref>Svedelius 1875, 89</ref>. Colliers would use flat, wooden scoops to toss water into the air so that it would fall onto the mound like rain, until the dust is no longer able to absorb the water<ref>Svedelius 1875, 89</ref>. The colliers needed to remain vigilant and continue this process as the dust dried<ref>Svedelius 1875, 89</ref>. The first few days of this process watering was required around two or three times a day; by the seventh day, watering was only necessary if the dust continued to dry<ref>Svedelius 1875, 89</ref>.

===Removing the Charcoal===
To remove the finished charcoal, colliers cleared the area surrounding the hearth where the charcoal would be dragged on to<ref>Svedelius 1875, 85</ref> and used a large rake with long tines to collect the charcoal<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref><ref>Kemper 1941, 24</ref>. The tines ensured that the pieces of charcoal were dragged through the dirt on their way out of the hearth and that the charcoal would not be damaged<ref>McVarish 2008, 262</ref>, as it would have been if, for example, a shovel had been used for removal<ref>Svedelius 1875, 85</ref>. The rake has long spokes that are evenly spaced out to ensure that smaller and larger pieces of charcoal get picked up. Raking out the coal can take as many as two to three days. One man explains that they are “foxing the brands”<ref>Wagner, 2008</ref> which means that any pieces of coal that are still charring need to be kept under the soil to properly char. This made sure that no fires would flare up and destroy the charcoal<ref>Wagner, 2008</ref>. It was helpful if colliers had a source of water nearby, as to extinguish any fires that threatened the consumption of the charcoal<ref>Svedelius 1875, 84</ref>, but certainly not all charcoal production locations allowed for this and dust was often used as a substitute for water<ref>Kemper 1941, 24</ref>. If the use of water became necessary and water was available, the collier needed to be careful to only use what was necessary to extinguish the fire, as to not sour the charcoal and lessen its value<ref>Svedelius 1875, 85</ref>.It is important to note that charcoal makers did not want small pieces but rather, favored larger chunks that had to be loaded by hand.

After the charcoal was removed, it was imperative that it be stored somewhere that it would not be affected by poor weather<ref>Svedelius 1875, 85</ref> before being carted away. In some cases it was necessary that a charcoal shed be built to store the charcoal<ref>Svedelius 1875, 87</ref>. The shed would be constructed from billets and situated on a dry area near the hearth<ref>Svedelius 1875, 87</ref>. Once the charcoal cooled down and the threat of reignition past, the charcoal was removed from the cooling shed and moved to the charcoal house<ref>Straka 2010, 61</ref>.

==Transporting Charcoal==
Initially, most charcoal was moved by cart from the hearths to local furnaces within about 2-5 miles of the charcoal production site. As furnaces became larger in the late 1800s and early 1900s, charcoal was transported increasingly greater distances. This charcoal served the larger, more efficient furnaces, many of which were in the Midwest and South. In particular, the large furnaces of Michigan were highly dependent upon the movement of charcoal by train car.<ref>Williams 1989, 341-342</ref>. Specialized charcoal cars were designed and widely used, especially in New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Alabama and Tennessee<ref>Journal of the United States Association of Charcoal Iron Workers 1885</ref>. Historical records are important in helping us glean new information about chracoal transportation. Records show that in 1882, Bernhard Fernow, the manager of the lands associated with the [[Lehigh Furnace]], loaded 49 box cars with the charcoal of from "860 cords of chestnut, 25 years old, ... and 600 cords of black oak, 38 years old." <ref>Fernow 1882, 21</ref> And while the intended destination of this charcoal is unclear, we can approximate each rail car held roughly 30 cords of wood.

=Sustainability=
The need for charcoal in the iron industry created a significant demand for wood and a great deal timber was cut for charcoal production<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 58</ref>. The average output of furnaces between 1750 and 1800 was one hundred to four hundred tons of pig iron per year. To fulfill these iron production levels two hundred to four hundred bushels of charcoal were required and in order to meet these requirements about 50 acres of timber was needed per furnace<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>. Even though the increased efficiency of furnaces decreased the requisite amount of charcoal, increased production required one hundred fifty acres of wood by 1850 and one thousand four hundred acres by 1900<ref>Straka 2014, 106</ref>.

Iron production left a pronounced impact on our woodlands and since forests regenerated at different rates, this raised important questions about sustainability. In the Western United States, woodlands took decades to regrow to maturity; so, forest sections usually were cut on a twenty-year cycle<ref> Walker 1966, 121</ref>. Occasionally iron furnaces became unprofitable enterprises because they
exhausted all the nearby wood supplies and would have to halt production only the second growth timber was ready<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 60</ref>. Old-growth forests would typically have higher yields and this incentivized the charcoal industry to properly manage forests and allow wood to reach its full potential<ref>Straka 2014, 105</ref>.
Iron furnaces in the eastern United States were some of the first to manage forests to ensure a sustainable yield<ref>Straka 2014, 111</ref>. Several early proponents of sustainable forestry were involved in the making of charcoal, like Bernhard E. Fernow, the manager of the Lehigh Furnace from 1879 to 1883. He advocated for coppicing of wood and protection from fire and cattle grazing to speed up regrowth of forest used for charcoal<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 60</ref>. The transition to coal from charcoal in the iron production industry and the subsequent changes in production sites allowed many forests to begin recovering from the charcoal production process. need a citation*

==Charcoal versus Coal==
The transition to coal as the primary fuel for furnaces began around 1840, however this transition did not occur overnight and in 1859 around three-quarters of furnaces in America (particularly in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York) were still using charcoal as their primary fuel source.<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref>. Charcoal remained a source of fuel in some places until 1945<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 61</ref>. Coal was chosen as a replacement for charcoal in part because it was less expensive to transport<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref>. Coal being less expensive to transport in comparison to charcoal was largely due to the fact that coal was less bulky and was sourced from established mines unlike charcoal which was produced from scattered timber sources in less accessible locations<ref>Straka and Ramer 2010, 59</ref>. And while coal succeeded charcoal as the primary fuel source for iron production, charcoal tended to produce a higher quality of iron with fewer impurities<ref> Straka and Ramer, 2010, 59 </ref>. The use of charcoal also created less smoke using the production process and iron made from charcoal had a "fine grain" and maintained a better cutting edge<ref> Straka and Ramer, 2010, 59 </ref>.

==Notes==
<references />

==References==
*''Agriculture and Rural economy – Charcoal → .'' 2010. The Encyclopedia of Diderot & d'Alembert Collaborative Translation Project. Ann Arbor: Michigan Publishing, University of Michigan Library. [http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.did2222.0001.346] [https://artflsrv03.uchicago.edu/philologic4/encyclopedie1117/navigate/18/25/]. Originally published as "Agriculture et économie rustique – Charbon de bois," Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, vol. 1 (plates) (Paris, 1762).

*Fernow, Bernhard E. 1882. ''The Yield of Wood and When to Cut It.'' Journal of the United States Association of Charcoal Iron Workers 3 (1): 19–26.

*Gemmell, Alfred. 1949. ''The Charcoal Iron Industry in the Perkiomen Valley.'' Norristown, PA.: Hartenstine Printing House.

*Jones, Claude A. 1976. ''Making Charcoal at Jacobsburg.'' In Slate Belt Bicentennial Heritage, edited by Marjorie May, Maryann Repsher, Robert R. Saltern, Gordon E. Wilson, and Albert M. Toth, 32–33. Heritage Committee of the Slate Belt Bicentennial Commission.

* Kemper, Jackson. 1941. ''American Charcoal Making in the Era of the Cold-Blast Furnace.'' History 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; National Park Service.

*MeasuringWorth Foundation. 2020. ''Measuring Worth- Relative Worth Comparators and Data Sets''. [https://www.measuringworth.com/index.php . Accessed April 24, 2020]

*Overman, Frederick. 1854. ''The Manufacture of Iron, in all its Various Branches'' (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Baird. [https://www.google.com/books/edition/the_manufacture_of_iron_in_all_its_vario/Gani2eHvhAkC?hl=en&gbpv=1]

*Straka, Thomas J., and Wayne C. Ramer. 2010. ''History on the Road: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site.'' Forest History Today Spring/Fall: 58–62.[https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2010_History-on-Road.pdf]

*Straka, Thomas J. 2014. ''Historic Charcoal Production in the US and Forest Depletion: Development of Production Parameters.'' Advances in Historical Studies: 104-114.[http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ahs.2014.32010]

*Svedelius, G., Joseph Leonard W. Nicodemus, and Björn R. Anderson. 1875. ''Hand-book for Charcoal Burners.'' New York: Wiley. [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t7dr2qz7d&view=1up&seq=166]

*''Transportation of Charcoal.'' 1885. Journal of the United States Association of Charcoal Iron Workers 6 (2): 117–21.

*''United States Census, 1860,'' database with images, FamilySearch [https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9BSD-C5Y?cc=1473181&wc=7QL9-Y6C%3A1589434177%2C1589434982%2C1589435676] : 24 March 2017, Pennsylvania > Carbon > East Penn Township > image 2 of 22; from "1860 U.S. Federal Census - Population," database, Fold3.com (http://www.fold3.com : n.d.); citing NARA microfilm publication M653 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).

*Wagner, Van. 2008. ''Fire the Pit- Charcoal Production in Pennsylvania.'' 4 vols. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxW7g3IwD1k]; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVE_7hMLMZU]; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88FbebFElaY]; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghj2p9rrUmM]

* Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia,: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.

*Williams, Michael. 1989. ''Americans and Their Forests : A Historical Geography.'' Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; Cambridge University Press.

Field Work 2018

2020-09-24T15:14:22Z

Sam1125: Notes for Fieldwork

=Purpose of the work=
In the fall of 2018, the Muhlenberg Field Archaeology class studied the Blue Mountain land that was used for charcoal and iron production. The class conducted some surveys and a small excavation of a colliers hut, utilizing several different methods including examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detecting.

Possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) (Carter and Backenstoss 2017, Carter 2019a, 2019b). On LiDAR data, the charcoal pits appear as flattened ovals on sloped terrain due to the clearing and leveling of the site in order to make charcoal.

The purpose of this research was to introduce students to survey methods and orient them to the landscape. The second was to investigate the three collier’s huts on the side of the mountain through excavation<ref>Carter 2019, 35</ref>. Through the field work, four new collier’s huts were identified in the field and three more potential ones were noted. The confirmed identification of four more collier’s huts however, increases the total confirmed huts to eleven.

=Plan=
The plan of field work was to utilize several different methods of examination including the use of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detecting<ref>Carter 2019, 31</ref>. Once the collier huts were identified, the area planned to be excavated would be in the “back” of the hut<ref>Carter 2019, 41</ref>. Charcoal pits were first identified by LiDAR, a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit)<ref>Carter 2019, 31</ref>. On LiDAR data, the charcoal pits appear as “eyes” or flattened ovals on sloped terrain due to the clearing and leveling of the site to make charcoal<ref>Carter 2019, 32</ref>. The charcoal pits are easy to locate because they are perfectly level and 10 to 15 meters apart<ref>Carter 2019, 32</ref>. By combining the Digital Elevation Model with the LiDAR data a more complete hill shade and slope analysis that revealed charcoal pits in greater detail and identified more pits than the initial LiDAR data<ref>Carter 2019, 32</ref>. Iron Furnaces were located by utilizing a combination of historic and modern maps<ref>Carter 2019, 33</ref>. Both the Lehigh and East Penn Furnace were located<ref>Carter 2019, 33-35</ref>.

=Fieldwork=

On the first day, an area was identified which served as a good space to conduct a systematic survey. Unfortunately this did not happen because upon arrival it was discovered that the area hadn't been cut for quite some time resulting in impenetrable growth. Due to this, a trip was taken to some hearths in the surrounding area that were identified on the LiDAR but had not yet been looked at in person<ref>Carter 2019, 36</ref>. Investigating the anomalies proved very helpful because it resulted in locating collier huts. Thanks to this they were able to recognize the "LiDAR signatures" for collier huts which makes identifying future huts much easier<ref> Carter 2019, 36</ref>.

Tools used during the excavation process included trowels, brushes, scoops, clippers (for roots) and mattocks( the later being particularly important in the upper soil<ref>Carter 2019, 42</ref>. Soil levels were excavated in c. 10 cm arbitrary levels and all soil was screened with ⅛ and ¼ inch screen. Soil was frequently damp and difficult to pass through the ⅛ inch screen hands (gloved) and trowels were used to push the soil into the screens<ref>Carter 2019, 42</ref>.

On the second day (9/23/2018), we headed for collier huts 6, 13 and 14 and associated charcoal hearths (1292). Dr. Carter had discovered collier’s hut #6 when confirming charcoal hearths in the surrounding area on 6/29/2018. However, on 9/19/2018, Kenney and Dr.Carter spent 1⁄2 day on the mountain. The goal was to set up the high resolution GPS. While doing this, however, it was discovered that not only was there one single collier’s hut (#6), but a total of three (the other two are #13 and #14). To have three collier’s huts in such close proximity to each other is unusual. This is also unusual because all other collier’s huts have been located on the flat top of the mountain, not on the slope, like 6, 13 and 14<ref>Carter 2019, 37</ref>.

Associate Professor of Anthropology at Muhlenberg College Benjamin Carter led a team of students for an archeological investigation in State Game Lands #217 in the Fall of 2018 to investigate the presence of Collier’s huts related to the Charcoal Hearths that operated in the area in the early to mid 1800s, before they were eventually replaced by coal furnaces in the late 1800s. (Source: Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217, Fall 2018 Directed by Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Muhlenberg College, Written collaboratively by Benjamin Carter, Michaela Feinberg, Deborah Greider and Stuart Hanford, Submitted, September 24, 2019, Submitted to: Kevin Clouser, Manager, Pennsylvania State Game Lands #217, Mark Shaffer and Douglas McLearen, Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission)

The team decided to investigate 3 Collier’s huts on the side of a mountain using excavation.

It was unusual for 3 collier’s huts to be so close together and not on flat land.

They initially used mud maps to mark the location.

The team chose the hut location to excavate based on the one with the least vegetation. As they excavated, the team moved the displaced branches, plants, etc. uphill 15m to a location they believed did not contain any cultural remains<ref> Carter 2019, 39</ref>.

They decided to excavate the “berm” area that would have been opposite the door opening. The team thought this might provide evidence of berm wall, post holes or trench. They used trowels, brushes, scoops, clippers for the roots and mattocks and excavated at 10cm levels. They used 1/8” and ¼” screens to sift the soil, but the soil was damp and had many small rocks so it was difficult to screen the soil.

No artifacts were actually found, but the team does believe they identified several other possible collier hut sites. A total of 206 points was collected which allowed the team to put together a Digital Elevation Model (DEM).

The team believes the collier huts were located in this area on a slope because there was originally a road nearby that was used to move charcoal down the mountain.

=Results=
Although excavation was extremely slow and artifacts were not recovered, important results were achieved from the work. Four new collier’s huts were identified in the field (8, 9, 13, and 14) and three more potential (10, 11, 12). Of the later three, 12 was later visited by Carter and determined to not be a collier’s hut<ref>Carter 2019, 43</ref>. In addition to identifying multiple collier's huts, collier’s huts 6, 13 and 14 along with charcoal hearth 1292 and the nearby historic road/path were mapped<ref>Carter 2019, 43</ref>. From this a total of 206 points were collected and a digital elevation model (DEM) was constructed and this allows the contours of both the charcoal hearths and huts to be visible on the DEM<ref>Carter 2019, 43</ref>,.
The archaeological work completed in this project contributes an improved understanding of the distribution of charcoal hearths, colliers huts, and roads. This helps us better understand the place in which the industry thrived as well as how the colliers utilized the landscape<ref>Carter 2019, 48-49</ref>.
==Notes==
<references />
==References==
*Carter, Benjamin. 2019. ''Charcoal Lands: A report on archaeological investigations in State Games Lands #217 Fall 2018.'' Allentown, PA: Muhlenberg College.

FieldWork 2016

2020-09-17T16:24:08Z

Sam1125: /* Plan */ Utilization of Maps

This page should focus only on what students and Dr. Carter did during the 2016 iteration of Field Archaeology. Content about charcoal, etc. should be on other pages.

Possible headers:

=Purpose of the work=
In 2016 during the fall semester, the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Department Chair and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg.
By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, the class intended to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape. By initiating this research, the group wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. Through research in this area, the goal was to illuminate the role of colliers in the Lehigh Valley and provide some insight into their lives.

During the fall semester of 2016 the Muhlenberg College Field Archaeology class conducted fieldwork on Pennsylvania State Game Lands 217 under the direction of Dr. Benjamin Carter, Assistant Professor of Anthropology and an archaeologist at Muhlenberg.The purpose of this research was to identify charcoal pits, the people who worked them, and the interrelationships of people and place with the industrial landscape of the Lehigh Valley’s iron industry. In doing so the aim was to provide insight into the lives of colliers, as charcoal-makers were known, working in the area, as well as, the processes for making charcoal and iron and the impact the industry had on the local community.

By initiating this research, the class wanted to address possible reuse of pits, the area of timberland needed for each charcoal pit, and the possible existence of a temporary living structure for the colliers. By attempting to identify and study charcoal pits in this area, the class hoped to illuminate the role of colliers in Lehigh Valley industry and provide some insight into their lives. By utilizing LiDAR data, pedestrian survey, and shovel test pits, we attempt to demonstrate the presence of the charcoal industry and the colliers and the way colliers used the landscape

=Plan=
To further students understanding of charcoal pits, the Muhlenberg Field Archaeology class studied the Blue Mountain land owned (at least partially) by the Balliets which was used for charcoal and iron production. During field work, different methods were utilized; including examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detecting.

First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). Following a workshop on LiDAR run by NEON and Open Topography, Dr.Carter was able to construct a DEM using the original LiDAR data (also available on PASDA Imagery Navigator) by using the Class 2 points, which are all of the ground (or “last return”) points. This allowed Carter to create a more complete hillshade and slope analysis that showed charcoal pits in greater detail and identified more pits than the initial PASDA LiDAR data. The next step was to confirm that the anomalies identified in the LiDAR data are the remains of charcoal pits. We utilized a GPS-guided pedestrian survey (Burke, Smith, and Zimmerman 2009; 70). The first day in the field, the class used GPS on a combination of iPads and Android devices in order to see how well the LiDAR matched with charcoal pits. Locations identified as charcoal pits in the LiDAR were loaded onto the devices. Using the GPS (Android devices had internal GPS, but external Bluetooth GPS units were needed for the iPads), the class walked to these locations to assess if they were charcoal pits. In two days of work, 12 LiDAR-identified pits (31, 39, 58, 40, 41, 15, 16, 17, 18, 8, 9, 3) were located and assessed. Two to three additional charcoal pits were also identified (1000, 1001, possibly, 1002) that were not present in the LiDAR data. In order to complete the survey, a web-based form through Kobo Toolbox was used.
Using the form, the class recorded: 1. Recorder; 2. Number from the LiDAR identifications; 3. Whether or not it was a likely charcoal pit; 4. Condition of the pit; 5. Location (GPS); 6. Size and orientation of the pits; 7. Presence or absence of a path/ road; 8. Presence or absence of ferns (this was originally thought to be an important signifier- it is not); 9. Any additional notes.

To further the understanding of charcoal pits, the Muhlenberg Field Archaeology class studied the Blue Mountain land owned (at least partially) by the Balliets and was used for charcoal and iron production. During the field work the class utilized several different methods including examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and metal detecting. First, possible charcoal pits were identified using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR is a form of remote sensing that measures the height of the land surface and vegetation across an area using a plane containing a combination of GPS, sensors/lasers, and an IMU (inertial measurement unit). A plane, whose precise location is known- thanks to the GPS (Global Positioning System) and IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit), flies over the terrain. A laser in the airplane projects a beam of light that bounces off objects. The time it takes the light to return to the sensor in the plane is used to calculate the distance the beam travelled (called a “return”). Equipment on the plane also records the location of the plane and the angle at which the beam is being shot. With all of this data, the precise location of laser “returns” can be calculated, constructing a point cloud that represents objects the lasers bounced off (NEON, 2014 “Basics”). For archaeologists, the “last” return, that is the lasers that bounce of the ground (rather than vegetation or buildings), are the most important because they can be used to provide very high resolution topography. Normally, point clouds are converted into digital elevation models (DEM), provides gridded coverage rather than a point cloud. These are normally viewed as hillshade models, which provide a view of the landscape created by applying a light source at a particular angle to the DEM (digital elevation model) (Carter 2016). Each pixel of the DEM, which originally represented height, is converted to a number dependent up the angle of the imaginary sun. This is much easier for the human eye to understand compared to the DEM. Importantly, both the DEM and the hillshade are available openly through the state of Pennsylvania on the PASDA Imagery Navigator (http://maps.psiee.psu.edu/ImageryNavigator/). The DEM was used to produce a slope analysis in QGIS. A slope analysis, looks at each pixel and, based upon the 8 pixels surrounding it, determines the slope of that pixel. The number associated with that pixel, therefore, becomes slope rather than altitude. The key is that flat areas will appear very different from slope.

Because charcoal pits are a round, perfectly level area approximately 10-15 meters across, they are easy to recognize in highly sloped terrains such as the slopes of the Blue Mountain. Charcoal pits are difficult to identify in areas were the slope is low, because one cannot differentiate them from the surrounding terrain. On LiDAR data, the charcoal pits appear as “eyes” or flattened ovals on sloped terrain due to the clearing and levelling of the site to make charcoal. Unfortunately, DEM provided by PASDA (and therefore the hillshade and the slope analysis) is constructed from only a sampling of last returns (“Class 8, Model Key (thinned-out ground points used to generate digital elevation models and contours.” PaDCNR n.d.), thereby reducing resolution. Following a workshop on LiDAR run by NEON and Open Topography, Carter was able to construct a DEM using the original LiDAR data (also available on PASDA Imagery Navigator) by using the Class 2 points, which are all of the ground (or “last return”) points. This allowed him to create a more complete hillshade and slope analysis that showed charcoal pits in greater detail and identified more pits than the initial PASDA LiDAR data (See Figures 9 and 10). Figure 11 shows the difference between the hillshade using Class 8 data and the slope analysis using Class 2 data.

Maps were able to be used to identify the furnaces. Both historic as well as modern maps were used. By looking at old maps the group is able to see that the furnace was called Balliet's Furnace in 1865 although now it is called Lehigh Furnace. Although there is nothing remaining of the furnace or its associated structures, the maps are able to give the group the location of where they used to be and gives a jumping off point in where to look via LiDAR and other technological surveying devices.

=Fieldwork=
During our field work, several different methods, including the examination of LiDAR maps, pedestrian survey, shovel test pits, and even metal detecting were utilized. In order to identify charcoal pits not identified in the LiDAR, an area was chosen that was accessible and lacked LiDAR. In order to locate these pits, a systematic transect survey (a survey done by walking in lines across the area of interest) was performed. Once the locations were chosen, the site was cleared using a combination of rakes, clippers, and a machete. The debris was then placed several meters away from the pit so that it would not interfere with future STPs. The general area of fieldwork consisted of two main parts: an upper portion of the mountain characterized by steep, rocky slopes, and a lower area that was wooded with fairly dense vegetation. During the survey, approximately 100,000 meters of land was covered. Four previously unidentified sites were recorded during this process. Two charcoal pits were identified (1003 and 1004) during the survey. And an additional charcoal pit (1005) was identified when a member of the team encountered it on a bathroom break(pg 19). One unusual site (2001) was also recorded and due to its concave nature it was hypothesized to be a collier's hut(pg 18.)Two of the locations identified in the systematic pedestrian survey, confirmed charcoal pit (1004) and the potential colliers hut (2001), were chosen for further investigation, this included detailed mapping, shovel test pits and a metal detecting survey. On October 30th, 2016 three metal detectorists, Glen Gunther, Tim Reno, and Bob Gunther, from BRAVO (Battlefield Restoration and Archaeology Volunteer Organization), including arrived to assist the team in identifying cultural remains. The metal detectorists swept both 1004 and 2001. When they located a possible artifact, the metal detectorists dug a small hole. As they dug, they utilized a tool called a pinpointer which is a smaller metal detector with a narrower magnetic field than the full-sized metal detector. This ensured that the metal detectorist was able to hone in on the original signal.

=Results=
This research has produced a new understanding of the charcoal & iron industry in Lehigh and Carbon Counties of Pennsylvania. A total of four artifacts were collected at all of the sites as a collective, however the relevance of the objects to the history of charcoal production is inadequate. Three of the artifacts found, a bullet round, and two (likely) shaft fastners, were found at site 1004(pg 21). This field work has highlighted four important components. A forth object was found at site 2001 and this object was a curved piece of iron(pg 21). However these artifacts reveal little about the site and the function of the charcoal pits. First, the background research of charcoal production has revealed the many individuals and families involved in the production of iron. In particular, it has shown the power and influence of the Balliet family. Second, the class highlighted the less visible colliers, who were the backbone of the charcoal industry and, therefore, the iron industry. Thirdly, over 670 charcoal pits were identified on the slopes of the Blue Mountain and have ground-truthed some of these pits. Because of ground-truthing and the LiDAR data, it is likely that a large proportion of the identified charcoal hearths are just that. While it remains possible that there are LiDAR-recognized charcoal pits that are false positives, the vast majority of these pits are remnants of the charcoal industry. Fourth, the class tested and confirmed that the features identified in the LiDAR data are in fact charcoal hearths. However, no collier’s huts were identified.

More generally, this research has opened the avenues for further research; many questions remain. Where are the collier huts? What were the lives of the colliers like? How did roads and path connect the charcoal pits to the furnaces? Were forests managed? And if so, in what way? What additional remnants of this vast industry remain in the wild woods of State Game Lands?

=Notes=

=References=

Harvesting Wood

2020-09-08T15:47:43Z

Sam1125: /* References */

==Wood==
Wood must be dry before it could be used for [[charcoal production]] and [[iron production]]. Wood cut in the late autumn and early winter proved to hold the least amount of water. For example, wood cut in April would typically contain 10 to 20 percent more water than wood that was cut in January. Wood cut in December and January was more solid and would dry faster<ref>Overman 1854, 80</ref>. Dead of decayed wood was of no use for making charcoal<ref>Overman 1854, 83</ref>.

In 1878, 4 cords worth of charcoal proved to provide 1 ton of pig iron <ref>Straka 2010, 60</ref>. Places like Hopewell Furnace would use a 30 year cutting cycle which meant they had to use way more land so that the cut trees had plenty of time to regrow. Around 200 acres would be cut annually at Hopewell and 147,000 acres or 230 square miles of forest were harvested annually nationwide which led to obvious cases of forest depletion. In response to the depletion, furnaces and their employees because very strong supporters of forestry early on because of their need for forests to continue supplying wood <ref>Straka 2010, 60</ref>

==Woodcutters==
A cord of wood is four foot lengths of wood stacked four feet high and eight feet long. Woodcutters could cut anywhere from a few cords to more than one thousand cords. Many woodcutters were farmers who supplemented their income in the offseason<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>. For example, between 1851-1853 Edwin Gault was paid for 1993.5 cords<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>. One must remember, however, that he may have had helpers whom he then paid. Colliers also became woodcutters during the winter months in order to get a full-years wage<ref>Kemper 1941, 10</ref>. Payments for cutting wood varied greatly due to location and time<ref>Overman 1854, 84</ref>.

Wood cutters comprised a large proportion of the workers at any charcoal iron furnace. At Hopewell Furnace between 1851-1853, 225 persons were paid for any type of work and 116 were paid for cutting cord wood<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>. At Hopewell, on average approximately two cords of wood could be chopped down in a single day<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>. Two and a half cords was the average at Hanging Rock District<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>. It was noted, however, that in the Hanging Rock District there worked "...Reuben Beverly, who was reputed to be the champion chopper of this region and who, it is said, could cut, split and rank eight cords per day indefinitely. His name was as familiar throughout the Hanging Rock field as was that of the lad who cut down the cherry tree"<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>. Crandall also indicated that he personally had "known many expert wood choppers who could chop, split and rank from four to five cords a day"<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>.

Woodcutters sometimes delivered the wood to charcoal hearths, called "delivering in the ring". They were paid $1.75 for this wood<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>.

<references />

==References==
* Crandall, Elias. 1906. ''Reminiscences of the Hanging Rock District (Concluded).'' The Iron Trade Review, July, 19.

* Kemper, Jackson. 1941. ''American Charcoal Making in the Era of the Cold-Blast Furnace.'' History 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; National Park Service.

*Overman, Frederick. 1854. ''The Manufacture of Iron, in all its Various Branches'' (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Baird. https://www.google.com/books/edition/the_manufacture_of_iron_in_all_its_vario/Gani2eHvhAkC?hl=en&gbpv=1

*Straka, Thomas J., and Wayne C. Ramer. 2010. “History on the Road: Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site.” Forest History Today Spring/Fall: 58–62. https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/2010_History-on-Road.pdf

* Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.

Harvesting Wood

2020-09-08T15:44:42Z

Sam1125: /* Wood */

==Wood==
Wood must be dry before it could be used for [[charcoal production]] and [[iron production]]. Wood cut in the late autumn and early winter proved to hold the least amount of water. For example, wood cut in April would typically contain 10 to 20 percent more water than wood that was cut in January. Wood cut in December and January was more solid and would dry faster<ref>Overman 1854, 80</ref>. Dead of decayed wood was of no use for making charcoal<ref>Overman 1854, 83</ref>.

In 1878, 4 cords worth of charcoal proved to provide 1 ton of pig iron <ref>Straka 2010, 60</ref>. Places like Hopewell Furnace would use a 30 year cutting cycle which meant they had to use way more land so that the cut trees had plenty of time to regrow. Around 200 acres would be cut annually at Hopewell and 147,000 acres or 230 square miles of forest were harvested annually nationwide which led to obvious cases of forest depletion. In response to the depletion, furnaces and their employees because very strong supporters of forestry early on because of their need for forests to continue supplying wood <ref>Straka 2010, 60</ref>

==Woodcutters==
A cord of wood is four foot lengths of wood stacked four feet high and eight feet long. Woodcutters could cut anywhere from a few cords to more than one thousand cords. Many woodcutters were farmers who supplemented their income in the offseason<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>. For example, between 1851-1853 Edwin Gault was paid for 1993.5 cords<ref>Walker 1966, 238</ref>. One must remember, however, that he may have had helpers whom he then paid. Colliers also became woodcutters during the winter months in order to get a full-years wage<ref>Kemper 1941, 10</ref>. Payments for cutting wood varied greatly due to location and time<ref>Overman 1854, 84</ref>.

Wood cutters comprised a large proportion of the workers at any charcoal iron furnace. At Hopewell Furnace between 1851-1853, 225 persons were paid for any type of work and 116 were paid for cutting cord wood<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>. At Hopewell, on average approximately two cords of wood could be chopped down in a single day<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>. Two and a half cords was the average at Hanging Rock District<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>. It was noted, however, that in the Hanging Rock District there worked "...Reuben Beverly, who was reputed to be the champion chopper of this region and who, it is said, could cut, split and rank eight cords per day indefinitely. His name was as familiar throughout the Hanging Rock field as was that of the lad who cut down the cherry tree"<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>. Crandall also indicated that he personally had "known many expert wood choppers who could chop, split and rank from four to five cords a day"<ref>Crandall 1906, 20</ref>.

Woodcutters sometimes delivered the wood to charcoal hearths, called "delivering in the ring". They were paid $1.75 for this wood<ref>Walker 1966, 239</ref>.

<references />

==References==
* Crandall, Elias. 1906. ''Reminiscences of the Hanging Rock District (Concluded).'' The Iron Trade Review, July, 19.

* Kemper, Jackson. 1941. ''American Charcoal Making in the Era of the Cold-Blast Furnace.'' History 14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior; National Park Service.

*Overman, Frederick. 1854. ''The Manufacture of Iron, in all its Various Branches'' (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Baird. https://www.google.com/books/edition/the_manufacture_of_iron_in_all_its_vario/Gani2eHvhAkC?hl=en&gbpv=1

* Walker, Joseph E. 1966. ''Hopewell Village; a Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community.'' Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.