264
On the Bellows among the Peruvians, [Book III.
may be mentioned tbat wliicb confined the materials of their cutting In-struments to obsidian and other stones; whereas it is now certain thatthey had chisels, &c. of bronze or alloys of copper and tin ; and probablyof a similar composition to those of Egyptian workmen. As for bellowsit was no easy task (supposing it had been undertaken by the old histo-rians of Mexico and Peru ) to determine positively that they were unknmnthroughout those extensive countries. To ascertain what tools were andwere not used, required something more than a superficial knowledge ofthe people. Before a stranger could speak decidedly on the subject ofbellows, it was necessary that he should become familiär with their modesof working the metals, by frequently visiting them in their Workshops anddwellings; and, from an intimate knowledge of their language, making in-quiries respecting the tools and details of the processes adopted by artisansof distant tribes; for bellows might be used to a limited extent in onecountry, and (from variety in the ores, articles manufactured or customsof workmen) not at all in another. But there does not appear to havebeen any efforts made to collect Information of this kind by the con-querors—its value was not appreciated by them or by their hnmediatesuccessors, and hence the opportunity was neglected and could never berecalled; for other historians agree with Clavigero , that the wonderfelarts of the Mexican and Peruvian founders were soon lost, “ by the de-basement of the Indians and the indolent neglect of the Spaniards.” EvenG-arcilasso, although a native Indian, by his mother’s side, does not seemto have possessed any particular knowledge on the subject of working themetals : he derived bis information from Acosta, to whose work he refershis readers.
But what are the proofs that bellows were unknown to the subjects ofManco Capec and Motezuma 1 The principal one is derived from theirfusing metals without them : they kept their furnaces in blast, it is alledged,by the breath of a number of men who blew on the fires through tubes ofbamboo. That this was often practiced there is no doubt, and that it wasthe general custom is admitted; but it does not therefore follow that theyhad no contrivances for producing artificial blasts : this will appear fromthe practice of oriental gold and silver smiths, both of ancient and moderntimes. The fusion of gold and silver with blowing tubes is a device of remoteantiquity, and like all ancient customs relating to the useful arts, it is stillpracticed by the Hindoos, Malays, Ceylonese, Persians and other Asiatics ;and also by Egyptians and numerous African tribes. The goldsmiths ofSumatra , Mr. Marsden observes, “in general use no bellows, but blow thefire with their mouths through a joint of bamboo ; and if the quantity ofmetal to be melted is considerable, three or four persons sit round the fur-nace, which is an old broken Tcwali, or iron pot, and blow together: atPadang alone, where the manufacture is more considerable, they haveadopted the Chinese bellows.” 3 We have already described the singleand also a double acting bellows of tbese people; besides which they havethat of China , and yet it seems that all the working goldsmiths of the coun-try, except those of a single town, still melt their metal as the Mexicansand the Peruvians did : hence the mere fact of the old smiths of these con-tinents using blowpipes to fuse metal, is no more a proof of their igno-rance of bellows, than the like pra.ctice is of modern Asiatics being alsoignorant of them.
Nothing is easier than to err respecting a knowledge of bellows in For-mer times, by inferences drawn from the use of blowpipes. In the oldest