diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-22 18:13:35 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-01-22 18:13:35 -0800 |
| commit | 43572a96e0d3de797083bbc83281481ca6316ec5 (patch) | |
| tree | c639d51b5435485162be87947d6aa355919e514a /old/66160-0.txt | |
| parent | aca7cf5ebafca7feec59c3293a39224fc4b406dc (diff) | |
Diffstat (limited to 'old/66160-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66160-0.txt | 17754 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 17754 deletions
diff --git a/old/66160-0.txt b/old/66160-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 9ddc4be..0000000 --- a/old/66160-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,17754 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Origin of Metallic Currency and Weight -Standards, by William Ridgeway - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Origin of Metallic Currency and Weight Standards - -Author: William Ridgeway - -Release Date: August 28, 2021 [eBook #66160] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: MFR and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at - https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images - generously made available by The Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ORIGIN OF METALLIC CURRENCY -AND WEIGHT STANDARDS *** - - - - - - THE ORIGIN OF - METALLIC CURRENCY AND - WEIGHT STANDARDS. - - London: C. J. CLAY AND SONS, - CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, - AVE MARIA LANE. - - [Illustration] - - Cambridge: DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO. - Leipzig: F. A. BROCKHAUS. - New York: MACMILLAN AND CO. - - - - - THE ORIGIN OF - METALLIC CURRENCY AND - WEIGHT STANDARDS - - BY - WILLIAM RIDGEWAY, M.A., - PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN QUEEN’S COLLEGE, CORK, - LATE FELLOW OF GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. - - ἌΝΘΡΩΠΟϹ Ἢ <ΒΟὟϹ Ἢ> ὟϹ ἊΝ ΕἼΗ ΜΈΤΡΟΝ ἉΠΆΝΤΩΝ. - - CAMBRIDGE: - AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS - 1892 - - [_All Rights reserved._] - - Cambridge: - PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, - AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. - - - - -PREFACE. - - -The following pages are an attempt to arrive at a knowledge of the -origin of Metallic Currency and Weight Standards by the Comparative -Method. As both these institutions played a not inconsiderable part in -the development of civilization, it seemed worth while to approach the -subject from a different point of view from that from which it had been -previously studied. Hitherto Numismatists when studying the Origins of -Coinage had confined themselves to the materials presented to them in -the earliest money of Lydia, Greece and Italy, and on the other hand the -Metrologists had almost completely limited their range of observation -to the systems of Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome. As the Comparative -Method has yielded such excellent results in the study of other human -institutions, I have endeavoured by its aid to get some new principles -which may throw some fresh light on the first beginnings of monetary and -weight systems. - -The leading principle which I have here endeavoured to establish by the -Inductive Method, I had already put forward in a short paper, but there -are various other doctrines now published for the first time, such as the -origin of the earliest Greek coin types, the origin of the earliest Greek -silver coins, of the Greek Obolos, the Sicilian Litra, and Roman As, of -the Mina, and its sixty-fold the Talent. - -In treating of the Distribution of gold and the priority of its discovery -to that of the other metals, I have been led to criticise the principles -of the science of Linguistic Palaeontology, which have gained such -currency in this country from Schrader’s _Prehistoric Antiquities of the -Aryans_, and from Dr Isaac Taylor’s popular little book, _The Origin of -the Aryans_. I have been led to conclude that Comparative Philology taken -alone is a misleading guide in the study of Anthropology. - -From the nature of this work, a certain amount of polemic was inevitable; -but I trust that not a line will be found which contains anything which -could be offensive to the living, or is disrespectful to great scholars -now no more. I owe so much to the works of distinguished men, from whose -principles I am obliged to dissent, that I feel myself almost an ingrate -who assails his benefactors with the very means provided for him by their -labours. - -It now only remains for me to thank many friends, who have aided me and -taken an interest in this work. - -To Mr J. G. Frazer, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, I am under -obligations which I cannot adequately express in words. He has read -through the proofs of the whole of this work, and there is scarcely a -page which has not benefited from his most careful and acute criticism. -Besides this his vast knowledge of the manners and customs of barbarous -peoples has furnished me with many most valuable references, and his -fine Ethnological Library has been ungrudgingly placed at my disposal. -Professor W. Robertson Smith has read the proofs of those pages which -deal with Semitic systems, and Prof. J. H. Middleton those treating of -the Greek. - -By their kind sacrifice of time and labour which have been robbed from -important works of their own, the many shortcomings of this book have -been rendered far less numerous than they otherwise would be, but of -course I alone am responsible for the manifold ones which remain. - -I must also express my gratitude to Mr Head, Mr Wroth and Mr Grueber of -the Coin Department of the British Museum for their kindness and courtesy -in affording me every facility for studying the coins under their charge. - -I have to thank the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press for having -undertaken the publication of this work. - - QUEEN’S COLLEGE, CORK, - _Christmas Eve, 1891_. - - - - -CONTENTS. - - - PAGE - - CHAPTER I. - - The Ox and the Talent in Homer 1 - - CHAPTER II. - - Primitive Systems of Currency 10 - - CHAPTER III. - - The distribution of the Ox and the distribution of Gold 47 - - CHAPTER IV. - - Primaeval Trade Routes 105 - - CHAPTER V. - - The Art of Weighing was first employed for Gold 112 - - CHAPTER VI. - - The Gold Unit everywhere the value of a Cow 124 - - CHAPTER VII. - - The Weight Systems of China and Further Asia 155 - - CHAPTER VIII. - - How were Primitive Weight Units fixed? 169 - - CHAPTER IX. - - Statement and Criticism of the Old Doctrines 195 - - PART II. - - CHAPTER X. - - The Systems of Egypt, Babylon, and Palestine 234 - - CHAPTER XI. - - The Lydian and Persian Systems 293 - - CHAPTER XII. - - The Greek, Sicilian, Italian and Roman Systems. Conclusion 304 - - Appendix A 389 - - Appendix B 391 - - Appendix C 394 - - Index 407 - - - - -LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. - - - FIG. PAGE - - 1. Cowrie Shell 13 - - 2. Wampum 14 - - 3. Al-li-ko-chik 15 - - 4. Burmese silver shell money 22 - - 5. Chinese hoe money 23 - - 6. Fish-hook money 28 - - 7. Siamese silver bullet money 29 - - 8. Silvered brass bars 30 - - 9. Rings found in the tombs of Mycenae 37 - - 10. Gold rings found in Ireland 38 - - 11. West African axe money 40 - - 12. Old Calabar copper-wire formerly used as money 41 - - 13. Irish bronze fibulae and West African manillas 42 - - 14. Ancient British Coins 93 - - 15. Barbarous imitation of Drachm of Massalia 111 - - 16. Gold Stater of Philip of Macedon 125 - - 17. Persian Daric 126 - - 18. Gold Stater of Diodotus of Bactria 126 - - 19. Egyptian wall painting showing the weighing of gold rings 128 - - 20. Regenbogenschüssel 140 - - 21. Chinese knife money 157 - - 22. Egyptian Five-Kat weight 240 - - 23. Lion weight 245 - - 24. Assyrian Duck weight 245 - - 25. Weights in the form of Sheep 271 - - 26. Coin of Salamis in Cyprus 272 - - 27. Bull’s-head Five-shekel Weight 283 - - 28. Lydian Electrum Coin 295 - - 29. Coin of Croesus 298 - - 30. Coin of Eretria 306 - - 31. Coin of Cyrene with Silphium plant 313 - - 32. Coin of Cyzicus with tunny fish 316 - - 33. Coins of Olbia in the form of tunny fish 317 - - 34. Coin of Tenedos with double-headed axe 318 - - 35. Coin of Phanes, earliest known inscribed coin 320 - - 36. Archaic Coin of Samos 321 - - 37. Coin of Cnidus 321 - - 38. Coin of Thurii 322 - - 39. Coin of Rhoda in Spain 322 - - 40. Tetradrachm of Athens 325 - - 41. Vase from Cyrene, showing the weighing of the Silphium 326 - - 42. Coin of Metapontum 327 - - 43. Coin of Croton 328 - - 44. Tortoise of Aegina 328 - - 45. Coin of Boeotia with Shield 331 - - 46. Coin of Lycia 332 - - 47. Coin of Messana 336 - - 48. Aes Rude 355 - - 49. Bronze Decussis, with figure of Cow 356 - - 50. As (_Aes grave_) 361 - - 51. As (semi-uncial) 362 - - 52. As, 3rd Cent. A.D. (_Third Brass_) 362 - - 53. Didrachm of Corinth 362 - - 54. Sesterce of First Roman Silver coinage 363 - - 55. Didrachm of Tarentum 364 - - 56. Romano-Campanian coin 377 - - 57. Victoriatus 377 - - 58. Sextans (_aes grave_) 379 - - 59. Gold Solidus of Julian the Apostate 384 - - 60. Tremissis of Leo I. 385 - - - - -CHAPTER I. - -THE OX AND THE TALENT IN HOMER. - -ἮΜΟϹ Δ’ ΟΎΤ’ ἌΡ ΠΩ ἨῺϹ, ἜΤΙ Δ’ ἈΜΦΙΛΎΚΗ ΝΎΞ. - - -The object of this essay is to enquire into the origin of Metallic -Currency and Weight Standards. Since August Boeckh in his metrological -enquiries[1] put forth the idea that the weight standards of antiquity -had been obtained scientifically, all subsequent writers with scarcely -an exception have followed in the same path. This theory was undoubtedly -suggested by the fact that the French Republic had established a new -scientific metric system. Yet reflection might have shown scholars -that even the French system was not a wholly independent outcome of -science, for beyond doubt the _mètre_ and _litre_ and _hectare_ were only -varieties of older measures of length, capacity and surface, then for -the first time scientifically adjusted. The discovery of certain weights -of bronze and stone in the ruins of Nineveh, Khorsabad and Babylon lent -force to the theory of Boeckh; the imaginations of scholars were excited -by the marvellous remains of Chaldaean and Assyrian civilization which -had just been brought to light by Sir A. H. Layard, and they hastened to -conclude that in the mathematical science of Mesopotamia the source of -all weight-standards was to be found. Egypt however put in her claim to -priority, and standards based on the measurements of the Great Pyramid, -or on the weight of a given quantity of Nile-water, have entered the -lists against the astrologers of Chaldaea. This battle still rages hotly, -Assyriologists and Egyptologists hurling at each other statements drawn -from tablets and papyri, as regards the translation of which no two of -these savants are agreed. In spite of this all modern works on metrology -start with the systems of Babylon and Egypt and from these they derive -the systems of Greece and Italy. It would at least be more scientific -to move backwards from the known to the unknown, but beguiled by the -glamour of a “scientific” metrological system, scholars have turned their -backs upon scientific method. Whilst our knowledge of the Assyrian and -Egyptian weight systems is most imperfect, being derived from literary -monuments, or from inscriptions on weights not half understood, the -systems of Greece and Rome are known to us not simply from the vast -literatures written in languages thoroughly intelligible, but likewise -from the evidence of immense numbers of coins struck in gold and silver, -by the weights of which we are enabled to check off and substantiate the -literary sources. - -As Greece coined money several centuries before Italy, and as its -literature reaches much further back than that of Rome, it is plain that -any sound enquiry into the origin of weight standards must commence with -Greece. We shall therefore without further preface proceed to investigate -the evidence afforded to us by the oldest Greek records. - - -_The Homeric Talent._ - -In the Homeric Poems, which cannot be dated later than the eighth century -B.C., there is as yet no trace of coined money. We find nevertheless in -those Poems two units of value; the one is the cow (or ox), or the value -of a cow, the other is the Talent (τάλαντον). The former is the one which -has prevailed, and does still prevail, in barbaric communities, such as -the Zulus of South Africa, where the sole or principal wealth consists -in herds and flocks. For several reasons we may assign to it priority -in age as compared with the Talent. In the first place it represents -the most primitive form of exchange, the barter of one article of value -for another, before the employment of the precious metals as a medium -of currency; consequently the estimation of values by the cow is older -than that by means of a Talent or “weight” of gold, or silver or copper. -Again, in Homer, all values are expressed in so many oxen, as “golden -arms for brazen, those worth one hundred beeves, for those worth nine -beeves[2]” (_Il._ VI. 236). - -The Talent on the other hand is only mentioned in Homer in relation to -_gold_ (for we never find any mention of a Talent of _silver_) and we -never find the value of any other article expressed in Talents. But the -names of monetary units hold their ground long after they themselves -have ceased to be in actual use as we observe in such common expressions -as “bet a guinea,” or worth a “groat,” although these coins themselves -are no longer in circulation, and so the French _sou_ has survived for -a century in popular parlance, and the _Thaler_ has lived into the new -German monetary system. Accordingly we may infer that the method of -expressing the value of commodities in kine, which we find side by side -with the Talent, is the elder of the twain. - -Was there any immediate connection between the two systems or were they -as Hultsch (_Metrologie_², p. 165) maintains entirely independent? It -is difficult to conceive any people, however primitive, employing two -standards at the same time which are completely independent of each -other. For instance when we find in the _Iliad_[3] that in a list of -three prizes appointed for the foot-race, the second is a cow, the third -is a half-talent of gold, it is impossible to believe that Achilles or -rather the poet had not some clear idea concerning the relative value -of an ox and a talent. Now it is noteworthy that, as already remarked, -nowhere in the Poems is the value of any commodity expressed in Talents; -yet who can doubt that Talents of gold passed freely as media of -exchange? A simple solution of this difficulty would be that the Talent -of gold represented the older ox-unit. This would account for the fact -that all values are expressed in oxen, and not in Talents, the older name -prevailing in a fashion resembling the usage of _pecunia_ in Latin. - -A complete parallel for such a practice can be still found at the present -moment among some of the Samoyede tribes of Siberia. Thus we read in -the account of a recent traveller: “He finally came to the conclusion -that for the consideration of five hundred reindeer, he would undertake -the contract. This I regarded as a very facetious sally on his part. The -reindeer however I found was the recognised unit of value, as amongst -some tribes of the Ostiaks the Siberian squirrel. For this purpose the -reindeer is generally considered to be worth five roubles[4].” Again -forty years ago Haxthausen[5] tells us that the Ossetes, a Caucasian -tribe dwelling not very far from Tiflis, although long accustomed to -stamped money, especially on the border of Georgia, kept their accounts -in cows, five roubles being reckoned to the cow. Here then in Siberia and -in the Caucasus, in spite of a long experience not merely of a metallic -unit, but of actual coined money, we still find values estimated in -reindeer, and in cows, the older units, just as in Homer they are stated -in oxen. - -We shall likewise find that when the ancient Irish borrowed a ready made -silver unit (the _uncia_) from the Romans, they had to equate this unit -to their old barter-unit the cow, just as in modern times the wild tribes -of Annam when borrowing the _bar_ of silver from their more civilized -neighbours have had to equate it to their native standard, the buffalo; -facts in close accord with the well known derivation of Latin _pecunia_, -_money_ from _pecus_, English _fee_ from _feoh_, which still meant -cattle, as does the German _Vieh_, and _rupee_ (according to some) from -Sanskrit _rupa_, also meaning cattle. - -Let us now see if we have any data to support this hypothesis. That most -trustworthy writer, Julius Pollux, says in his _Onomasticon_ (IX. 60): -“Now in old times the Athenians had this (_i.e._ the didrachm) as a coin -and it was called an ox, because it had an ox stamped on it, but they -think that Homer also was acquainted with it when he spoke of (arms) -‘worth an hundred kine for those worth nine[6].’ Moreover in the laws of -Draco there is the expression, to pay back the price of twenty kine: and -at the time when the Delians hold their sacred festival, they say that -the herald makes proclamation whenever a gift is given by any one, that -so many oxen will be given by him, and that for each ox two Attic drachms -are offered: whence some are of opinion that the ox is a coin peculiar to -the Delians, but not to the Athenians; and that from this likewise has -been started the proverb, an ox stands on his tongue, in case any man -holds his tongue for money[7].” - -According to Pollux then the Attic didrachm, or at least a coin employed -by the Athenians (perhaps certain coins of Euboea), was called an ‘ox.’ -Plutarch (_Theseus_, c. 25) goes further and asserts that Theseus struck -money stamped with the figure of an ox (ἔκοψε δὲ νὸμισμα βοῦν ἐγχαράξας), -and the Scholiast on the _Birds_ of Aristophanes (1106) quotes from -Philochorus, an Athenian antiquary of the third century B.C.[8], the same -account of the Attic didrachms being marked with an ox. - -On the other hand the highest authorities on numismatics assert that the -Athenians never struck any such coins. Yet after making due allowance -for the additions made by Plutarch to the more crude statement of Pollux -and Philochorus, it is hard to conceive that such a belief could have -arisen without some foundation, and a probable solution may be found in -the fact that certain uninscribed coins, bearing the type of an ox-head, -which in recent years have been assigned to Euboea, are for the most part -found in Attica. We know that Eretria, and Chalcis, the great cities of -Euboea, were amongst the earliest places in Greece to strike money, and -it is quite possible, nay probable, that these Euboic coins formed (along -with the Aeginetan didrachms) the currency in use at Athens before the -time of Solon (B.C. 596). Why the name _ox_ was especially recollected in -after years as that of the earliest currency, we can readily understand; -the name derived from the old unit of barter would at once attach itself -to the coin which bore the image of the ox, and in the course of time -two traditions, one that the ancient unit was the ox, the other that the -first coins current at Athens bore the symbol of an ox, would merge into -one, and finally patriotic feeling would ascribe the first coinage to -Theseus, who was regarded as the father of so many Athenian institutions. - -That, at all events, the name might be applied to a certain sum, or coin, -is rendered highly probable by the fact that Draco, with true legal -conservatism, retained in his code the primitive method of expressing -values in oxen. Now it is evident that the term, ‘price of twenty -oxen’ (εἰκοσάβοιον), must have been capable of being translated into -the ordinary metallic currency, whether that consisted of bullion in -ingots or coined money. The “cow” therefore must have had a recognized -traditional and conventional value as a monetary unit, and this is -completely demonstrated by the practice at Delos. Religious ritual is -even more conservative than legal formula, so we need not be surprised -to find the ancient unit, the ox, still retained in that great centre -of Hellenic worship. The value likewise is expressed in the more modern -currency. But we are not yet certain whether the two Attic drachms, which -are the equivalent of the ox, are silver or gold. Now Herodotus (VI. 97) -tells us that Datis, the Persian general (B.C. 490), offered at Delos -three hundred _talents_ of frankincense. Hultsch (_Metrol._ p. 129) has -made it clear that the talent here indicated must be the gold Daric, -that is the light Babylonian shekel. For if they were either Babylonian -or Attic talents, the amount would be incredible. Frankincense was of -enormous value in antiquity; wherefore Hultsch is probably right in -assuming that in the opinion of the Persian who made the offering, the -three hundred “weights” of frankincense, each of which weighed a Daric, -were equal in value likewise to 300 Darics. We shall see in a moment that -there was a distinct tradition that the Daric was a _Talent_, and that -the Homeric one. Now the gold Daric = two Attic gold drachms; but as the -cow at Delos also = two Attic drachms, and the offering of frankincense -at Delos is made in _Talent_, each of which is equivalent to two _gold_ -Attic drachms, there is a strong presumption that this Talent is the -equivalent of the ox, and that the Attic drachms mentioned by Pollux are -_gold_. Besides, it is absurd to suppose that at any time two _silver_ -drachms could have represented the value of an ox. Even at Athens, in -a time of extreme scarcity of coin, Solon, when commuting penalties in -cattle for money in reference to certain ancient ordinances, put the -value of the ox at _five_ silver drachms[9]. Moreover it is not at all -likely that the substitution of silver coin for gold of equal weight -would have been permitted by the temple authorities. But we get some more -positive evidence of great interest from the fragment of an anonymous -Alexandrine writer on Metrology, who says[10], “the talent in Homer was -equal in amount to the later Daric. Accordingly the gold talent weighs -two Attic drachms.” Here we can have no doubt that Attic drachms mean -_gold_ drachms. Are we wrong then in supposing that at Delos still -survived the same dual system which we found in Homer, the Ox and the -Talent? But that at Delos both were of equal value we can have little -doubt. For the ox = 2 Attic drachms = 1 Daric = 1 Talent = (130 grains -Troy). Who can doubt that at Delos was preserved an unbroken tradition -from the earliest days of Hellenic settlements in the Aegean? Modern -discovery comes likewise to our support, and we shall find that it is -probable that the gold rings found by Dr Schliemann in the tombs at -Mycenae were made on a standard of about 135 grs. - -This identification of the ox and the Homeric Talent is of importance: -for it gives a simple and natural origin for the earliest Greek metallic -unit of which we read. It likewise incidentally explains the proverb, -βοῦς ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ which dates from a time long before money was yet -coined, or even the precious metals were in any form whatever employed -for currency; it possibly explains why the ox was such a favourite type -on coins, without having to call to our aid recondite mythological -allusions; and it clears up once for all some interesting points in -Homer. In the passage of the _Iliad_ (XXIII. 750 sq.) already referred -to the ox is second prize, whilst an half-talent of gold is the third. -The relation between them is now plain; the ox = 1 talent, and the -half-talent = a half-ox. - -The vexed question of the Trial Scene[11] can now be put beyond doubt. -In the _Journal of Philology_ (Vol. X. p. 30) the present writer -argued that the two talents represented a sum too small to form the -blood-price (ποινή) of a murdered man, and consequently must represent -the _sacramentum_ (or payment made to the Court for its time and trouble, -as in the Roman _Legis actio sacramenti_ described by Gaius, Bk. IV. -16), as proposed by that most distinguished scholar and jurist, the late -Sir H. S. Maine[12]. We know that the two talents are equal to two oxen, -but in the _Iliad_, XXIII. 705, the second prize for the wrestlers was -a slave woman “whom they valued at four oxen[13].” Now if an ordinary -female slave was worth four oxen (= four talents) it is impossible that -two talents (= two oxen) could have formed the bloodgelt or _eric_ of a -freeman. Probably four oxen was not far from the price of an ordinary -female slave. Of course women of superior personal charms would fetch -more, for instance, Euryclea, - - “Whom once on a time Laertes had bought with his possessions, - When she was still in youthful prime, and he gave the price of twenty - kine[14].” - -The poet evidently refers to this as an exceptional piece of extravagance -on the part of Laertes. We can likewise now get a common measure for -the ten talents of gold and the seven slave women who formed part of the -requital gifts proffered by Agamemnon to Achilles[15], and can form some -notion of the comparative value of the prizes for the chariot race and -other contests[16]. - - -_The wider question of Weight-standards in general._ - -But results far more important than merely the determination of the value -of Homeric commodities may be obtained as regards the weight-standards of -Europe and their congeners in Asia. For by taking as our primitive unit -the cow or ox, we may be able to give a much more simple account of the -genesis of those standards than that which hitherto has been the received -one. - -We have found the Homeric ox and talent identical with the didrachm or -stater of the Euboic-Attic standard. All the silver coinage of Greece -proper was struck either on this standard or the Aeginetic, and what is -still more important for us it was on the Euboic-Attic standard alone -that gold was estimated in every part of Greece. Practically the stater -of this system was of the same weight as the famous Persian daric which -in historical times formed the chief coin-unit of all Asia from India to -the Aegean shores. - - - - -CHAPTER II. - -PRIMITIVE SYSTEMS OF CURRENCY. - - ἘΞ ἈΝΆΓΚΗϹ Ἠ ΤΟΫ ΝΟΜΊϹΜΑΤΟϹ ἘΠΟΡΊϹΘΗ ΧΡΗϹΙϹ. - - ARISTOTLE. - - -Let us here propound the doctrine which seeks to obtain an explanation -of the origin for weight-standards more in accordance with the facts of -history and the process of development as exemplified both in ancient and -modern times. - -In early communities[17] all commodities alike are exchanged by bartering -the one against the other. The man who possesses sheep exchanges them -for oxen with the man who possesses oxen, the owner of corn exchanges -his commodity for some implement or ornament of metal with the owner of -the latter. The metals are only regarded as merchandise, not yet being -in any degree set apart to serve as a medium of exchange in the terms -of which all other commodities are valued. This is the practice which -prevails in so civilized a country as China down to our own days. The -only coinage which the Chinese possess is copper _cash_. According to M. -le Comte Rochechouart (_Journal des Économistes_, Vol. XV. p. 103) both -gold and silver are treated simply as merchandise, and there is not even -a recognized stamp or government guarantee of the fineness of the metal. -The traveller must carry these metals with him, as a sufficient quantity -of strings of _cash_ would require a waggon for their conveyance. Yet in -exchanging silver or gold he is sure to suffer loss both from the falsity -of balances and of weights and the uncertain fineness of the metal. - -When in a certain community one particular kind of commodity is of -general use and generally available, this comes to form the unit in terms -of which all values are expressed. The nature of this barter-unit will -depend upon the nature of the climate and geographical position, and -likewise upon the stage of culture to which the people have attained. In -the hunting stage, all the property of each individual consists in his -weapons and implements of war and the chase, and the skins of wild beasts -which form his clothing, and sometimes the cover of his hut or wigwam. -At a later stage, when he has succeeded in taming the ox, the sheep, or -the goat, or the horse, he is the owner of property in domestic animals, -whose flesh and milk sustain him and his family, and whose skins and wool -provide his clothing. - -By this time too he has found out that it is better to make the captive -whom he has taken in war into a hewer of wood and drawer of water than -merely to obtain some transient pleasure from eating him after putting -him to death by torture, or by wearing his skull or scalp as personal -decorations. - -This is now the pastoral or nomad stage. - -Next comes the more settled form of life, when the cultivation of land -and the production of the various kinds of cereals renders a permanent -dwelling-place more or less necessary. - -Property now consists not merely in slaves and domestic animals, but -likewise in houses of improved construction, and large stores of grain. -Man now possesses certain of the metals, gold and copper being the first -to be known. How does he appraise these metals when he exchanges them -with his neighbour? We shall find that he estimates them in terms of -cattle, and that he at first barters them all by measures based on the -parts of the human body, a method which continues to be employed for -copper and iron long after the art of weighing has been invented; next -he estimates his gold by certain natural units of capacity such as a -goosequill, and finally fixes the amount of gold which is equivalent -to a cow, by setting it in a rude balance against a certain number of -natural seeds of plants. Such is the process which history tells us has -taken place in the temperate regions of Asia and Europe, Africa and -America. Just as it is impossible to learn the history of the growth of -the earth’s crust by confining our observations to one locality, and as -the geologist only succeeds in gaining a true insight into the relations -between the various strata by a study of the phenomena of many regions, -so we shall only be able to comprehend properly the various stages in -the growth of metallic currency and the origin of weight-standards by -observing the facts revealed to us in various countries. Whilst in some -places we shall meet with but one or two steps, in others we shall find -traces of many, though often, broken strata. Like advance, however, seems -impossible under the extremes of heat and cold. Hence in the latter -regions the conditions of life remain almost unaltered. In the extreme -north the rigour of an arctic winter forbids the keeping and rearing of -domestic animals, or the cultivation of corn and vegetables. Hence the -hunter form of existence remains almost unaltered. The sole or chief -wealth of the people consists of the skins of the fur-bearing animals -such as the seal, the beaver, the marten, or the fox, or stores of dried -fish, which they exchange with traders for a few scant luxuries, or which -form their own sustenance and protection against the pitiless frosts and -snows. - -In these regions therefore we find the skins of certain animals serving -as units of account, in spite of the difference in value between those -of different quality and rarity. In the Territory of the Hudson’s Bay -Company, even after the use of coined money had been introduced among -the Indians, the skin was still in common use as the money of account. -A gun nominally worth forty shillings brought twenty ‘skins.’ This term -is the old one used by the Company. One skin (beaver) is supposed to be -worth two shillings, and it represents two martens and so on. “You heard -a great deal about skins at Fort Yukon, as the workmen were also charged -for clothing, etc., in this way[18].” Similarly in the extreme north of -Asia we find some Ostiak tribes using the skin of the Siberian squirrel -as their unit of account. - -The name of a small coin equal to a quarter kopeck indicates that -originally the Slavs had a like form of currency. It is called -_polooshka_. _Ooshka_ (properly little ears) means a hare-skin, and -_polooshka_ means _half a hare-skin_[19]. - -[Illustration: FIG. 1. Cowrie Shell (_Cypraea moneta_).] - -When we turn to the torrid zone, where clothes are only an incumbrance -and Nature lavishly supplies plenteous stores of fruits and vegetables, -the chief objects of desire will not be food and clothing but ornaments, -implements and weapons. Hence we find amongst the inhabitants of such -regions in especial strength that passion for personal adornment, which -is one of the most powerful and primitive instincts of the human race. -Shells have from very remote times formed one of the most simple forms of -adornment in all parts of the world. Shells which once perhaps formed the -necklace of some beauty of the neolithic age are found with the remains -of the cave men of Auvergne. Strings of cowries under their various names -of _changos_, _zimbis_, _bonges_ or porcelain shells are both durable, -universally esteemed, and portable, and therefore suited to form a medium -of exchange, and as such they are employed in the East Indies, Siam, -and on the East and West Coasts of Africa; on the tropical coasts they -serve the purposes of small change, being collected on the shores of the -Maldive and Laccadive islands and exported for that object. The relative -value varies slightly according to their abundance or scarcity. In India -the usual ratio was about 5000 to the rupee. Marco Polo found the cowry -in use in the province of Yunnam. He says (II. p. 62, Yule’s Transl.): -“In Carajan gold is so abundant that they give one Saggio of gold for six -of the same weight of silver. And for small change they use the porcelain -shell. These are not found in the country but are brought from India.” -How ancient is their use in Asia is shown by the fact that Layard found -cowries in the ruins of Nineveh. - -[Illustration: FIG. 2. Wampum (made from the _Venus mercenaria_).] - -Beyond all doubt the wampum belts of the North American Indians served -the purpose of currency. They consisted of black and white shells -rubbed down, polished and made into beads, and then strung into belts -or necklaces, which were valued according to their length, colour and -lustre, the black beads being the most valuable. Thus one foot of black -peag was worth two feet of white peag. It was so well established as -a currency among the natives that in 1649 the Court of Massachusetts -ordered that it should be received as legal tender among the settlers in -the payment of debts up to forty shillings[20]. - -[Illustration: FIG. 3. Al-li-ko-chik.] - -Nor has this employment of strings of shells as money even yet -disappeared from North America. Thus Powers writes[21] of the Karoks -and other tribes of California: “For money they make use of the red -scalps of woodpeckers, which rate at $2.50 to $5.0 a piece, and of the -dentalium shell, of which they grind off the tip, and string it on -strings, the shortest pieces are worth 25 cents, and the longest about -two dollars, the value rising rapidly with the length. The strings are -usually about as long as a man’s arm. It is called _al-li-ko-chik_ (in -Yarok this signifies literally Indian money) not only on the Klamath -but from Crescent city to Eel river, though the tribes using it speak -several different languages. When the Americans first arrived in the -country an Indian would give 40 or 50 dollars gold for a string, but -now the abundance of the supply has depreciated its value and it is -principally the old Indians who esteem it.” Again he writes, “Some -of the young bloods array their Dulcineas for the dance with lavish -adornments, hanging on their dress 30, 40 or 50 dollars worth of dimes, -quarter dollars and half dollars arranged in strings.” This shows that -the new currency of silver is treated by them in exactly the same way -as the old shell strings, both of them deriving their value as media of -exchange from the fact that they are the objects most universally prized -as ornaments for the person. - -Elsewhere the same writer observes: “Immense quantities of it (shell -money) were formerly in circulation among the Californian Indians, and -the manufacture of it was large and constant to replace the continual -wastage caused by the sacrifice of so much on the death of wealthy men, -and by the propitiatory sacrifices performed by many tribes, especially -those of the coast range. From my own observations, which have not -been limited, and from the statements of pioneers and of the Indians -themselves, I hesitate little to express the belief that every Indian -in the state in early days possessed an average of at least 100 dollars -worth of shell money. This would represent the value of almost two women -(though the Nishinam never actually bought their wives), or two grizzly -bear skins, or 25 cinnamon bear skins or about three average ponies. -The young English-speaking Indians hardly use it at all except in a few -dealings with their elders or for gambling. One sometimes lays away a few -strings of it for he knows he cannot squander it at the stores. It is -singular how old Indians cling to this currency when they know it will -purchase nothing for them at the stores; but then their wants are few, -and mostly supplied from the sources of nature, and besides that the -money has a certain religious value in their eyes, as being alone worthy -to be offered up on the funeral pile of departed friends or famous chiefs -of their tribes[22].” - -Here we see how amongst the Indian tribes there was a fully developed -system of inter-relations between the various objects which formed their -wealth. - -The horse was but a new comer into America, but he had his place soon -allotted in the scale of values, being little less valuable than a -squaw. We cannot doubt that if the Indian had succeeded in domesticating -the buffalo before the advent of the white man, it would have formed the -most general unit in use, as we shall find its congeners being employed -in all parts of the old world. But before the coming of the Spaniards at -least one race of North America had advanced a stage beyond shell money. -The Aztecs[23] of Mexico were employing a currency of gold and cacao -seeds. The former in the shape of dust was placed in goose quills, which -formed a natural unit of capacity, for weights were as yet unknown to the -Aztecs; whilst the cacao seeds were placed in bags, each containing a -specified number. - -In Queen Charlotte Islands the dentalium shell was recognized as a medium -of exchange by most of the coast tribes, but not so much as a medium of -exchange for themselves as for barter with the Indians of the interior. -With the Haidas it is still sometimes worn as an ornament though it has -disappeared as a medium of exchange. The blanket of the trader has now -however supplanted the _skin_ as the principal unit. Not only among the -Haidas but all along the coast it takes the place of the beaver-skin -currency of the interior of British Columbia and of the North West -Territory. The blankets used in trade are distinguished by the points or -marks on the edge, woven into their texture, the best being four-point, -the smallest and poorest one-point. The acknowledged unit of trade is -a single two and a half-point blanket, now worth a little over $1.50. -Everything is referred to this unit, even a large four-point blanket -is said to be worth so many _blankets_. There is also the “Copper,” -“an article of purely conventional value and serving as money. This is -a piece of native metal beaten out into a flat sheet and made to take -a peculiar shape. These are not made by the Haidas—nor indeed is the -native metal known to exist in the islands, but are imported as articles -of great worth from the Chilcat country north of Sitka. Much attention -is paid to the size and make of the copper, which should be of uniform -but not too great thickness, and should give forth a good sound when -struck with the hand. At the present time spurious coppers have come into -circulation, and although these are easily detected by an expert, the -value of the copper is somewhat reduced and is often more nominal than -real. Formerly ten slaves were paid for a good copper as a usual price, -now they are valued at from forty to eighty blankets”.[24] It is obvious -that such costly imported articles, though now used as occasional higher -units of account—much as we employ fifty-pound notes—must have had some -definite use, owing to which they were so highly prized. The attention -paid to their tone would lead us to conjecture that they were employed as -a kind of gong, and further on we shall find certain peoples of Further -Asia paying a large price in buffaloes for gongs. - -Before we quit finally the northern latitudes, it is worth our while to -observe the method of currency employed by the Icelanders. As metals and -other products of the land were scarce in their bleak home, the stockfish -(dried cod) formed naturally their chief commodity, and hence it appears -on the arms of Denmark as the emblem of Iceland. There is still extant -a proclamation for the regulation of English trade with Iceland issued -sometime between 1413 and 1426. As, _mutatis mutandis_, it affords -admirable insight into the methods by which trade was carried on between -men of different nations in the emporia of the Mediterranean, and in fact -everywhere else, it is worth giving it _in extenso_[25]. - -“I, _N. M._ do proclaim here to-day a general market between the English -and the Icelandic men, who have come here with peace and fair dealing, -and between the Icelandic men and the men of the islands who wish to -carry on their trade here. - -“First I proclaim this market on conditions of peace and lawful security -between one and the other, so that each can entirely dispose of his own -if he buy or if he sell. Price list in stockfish: of fish 2, 2½, or -1¾ lbs., 80 lbs. must be the equivalent of a hundred (of cloth, i.e. -129 _alens_ of _vadme_, a cloth formerly used as a medium of exchange), -provided the persons concerned cannot agree as to the price. - - Price of (foreign) goods. Stockfish. - 48 _alen_ of good and full width trade cloth 120 - 48 _alen_ linen cloth double width 120 - 6 tonder (tuns) malt 120 - 4 do. trade flour 120 - 3 do. wheat 120 - 4 do. beer 120 - 1 tonde clean and clear butter 120 - 1 do. wine 100 - 1 do. pitch 80 - 1 do. raw tar 60 - 1 cask of iron, containing 400 pieces 120 - ⅛ tonde honey 15 - ⅛ do. blubber 15 - ½ lb. of coppers (i.e. copper cauldrons) by weight 2½ - 1 pair black (leather) shoes 4 - 1 pair of women’s shoes 3 - 1 trade rug 30 - 1 “alen” timber, in planks or spars 5 - ⅛ tonde salt 5 - ½ lb. wax 5 - Horse shoes of iron for 5 horses 20 - Caps, knives, and other small mercer’s wares, according - to mutual agreement. - -“I charge all, not only the people from the country, but also the -inhabitants of these islands, that ye do in no way compass any disorder -or disturbance to the strangers, from the moment the guard flag is -hoisted, unless they themselves allow it. - -“They, who here are annoyed by word or deed, have a right to demand -double indemnity therefor. - -“Also I charge, and the merchants in no way the least, that they use -aright the “alen” and other lawful measure for everything, as the law -demands, especially as regards butter, wine and beer, flour or malt, -honey or tar, so that no one deals false or with deceit with another. - -“He who does so intentionally shall have sinned as greatly against the -state as if he had stolen goods of like value, whereas the bargain -becomes void, and damages moreover must be given to him who was deceived. - -“Let us now, Ye good men, eschew all malice and trickery, riot or -disturbance, quarrels and careless words: but let every man be the -other’s friend, without deceit. - - “Prizing unity - And old custom, - And abiding in God’s peace.” - -Some such proclamations were probably often made in the marts of the -Aegean, such as Aegina, when Greek, Phoenician and Etruscan met for -traffic under the control of some local potentate, and the protection of -the god of some neighbouring shrine. - -Passing to the islands of the Pacific we shall find shell money playing -an important part among the primitive peoples, such as those who inhabit -New Ireland, New Britain, the Pelew and the Caroline groups. It will -suffice for our purpose to describe the form in which it is employed in -New Britain. Mr Powell[26] tells us that the native money in New Britain -consists of small cowrie shells strung on strips of cane, in Duke of York -Island it is called Dewarra. It is measured in lengths, the first length -being from hand to hand across the chest with arms extended, second -length from the centre of the breast to the hand of one arm extended, the -third from the shoulder to the tip of the fingers along the arm, fourth -from the elbow to the tip of the fingers, fifth from the wrist to the -tip of the fingers, sixth finger lengths. Fish are generally bought by -the length in Dewarra unless they are too small. A large pig will cost -from 30 to 40 lengths of the first measure (fathom) and a small one ten. -The Dewarra is made up for convenience in coils of 100 fathoms or first -lengths; sometimes as many as 600 fathoms are coiled together, but not -often, as it would be too bulky to remove quickly in case of invasion or -war, when the women carry it away to hide. These coils are very neatly -covered with wickerwork like the bottom of our cane chairs.... At Moko -and Utuan they use another kind of money as well as this, the other being -a little bivalve shell, through which they bore a hole and string it on -pieces of native made twine[27]. It is also chipped all round until it is -a quarter of an inch in diameter and then smoothed down into even discs -with sand and pumice. Here we find strings of shells, which undoubtedly -in the first instance were used for personal adornment, converted into -a true currency. The simple savages whose possessions were exceedingly -few and scanty, equated their fish to strings of shells which formed -their only ornament, and when they got a more valuable possession in the -pig, they quickly learned to appraise that animal in shell worth, just -as the North American Indians learned to estimate the horse in _Wampum_. -Instead of shells the natives of Fiji are said to have employed whales’ -teeth as currency, red teeth (which are still highly prized) standing to -white ones somewhat in the ratio of sovereigns to shillings with us[28]. -Passing on to the mainland of Asia we shall find that the Chinese, who -in the course of ages have developed a bronze coinage of their own apart -from the influences of the Mediterranean people, had in early times an -elaborate system of shell money. Cowries appear in the _Ya-King_, the -oldest Chinese book, 100,000 dead shell fishes being an equivalent for -riches. Tortoise shell currency is also mentioned in the same book. The -tortoise of various kinds and sizes was used for the greater values -which would have required too many cowries. Tortoise shell is still -elegantly used to express coin. Several kinds of _Cypraea_ were used, -including the purple shell, two or three inches long; all the shells -except the small ones were employed in pairs. A writer of the second -century B.C.[29] speaks of the purple shell as ranking next after the -sea tortoise shells, measuring one foot six inches, which could only be -procured in Cochin China and Annam, where they were used to make pots, -basins and other valuable objects. So attached were the Chinese to these -primitive coins that the usurper Wangmang restored a shell currency of -five kinds, tortoise shell being the highest. From this time we hear no -more of cowries in China Proper, but they left traces of themselves in -the small copper coins shaped like a small Cypraea, called Dragon’s eye -or Ant coins[30]. It is doubtless to a similar survival that we owe those -curious silver coins made in the shape of shells which come from the -north of Burmah and of which there are several specimens in the British -Museum. They are about the size of a cowrie, and doubtless served as a -higher unit in a currency, of which the lower units were formed by real -shells. - -[Illustration: FIG. 4. Burmese silver shell money.] - -In 685 B.C. in parts of China pearls and gems, gold, knives and cloth -were the money, and under the Shou dynasty (1100 B.C.) we understand from -ancient Commentaries that the gold circulated in little cubes of a square -inch, and the copper in round, tongue-like plates by the _tchin tchu_, -while the silk cloth 2 feet 2 inches wide in rolls of 40 feet formed a -_piece_. - -In the _Shu King_, when in 947 B.C. commutation for punishment was -enacted, the culprit according to the offence was to pay 100, 200, 500 -or 1000 _hwars_, or rings of copper weighing 6 _ounces_. The Chinese -likewise used hoes as money, just as we shall find the wild people of -Annam doing at the present hour. But in the course of time the hoe became -a true currency and little hoes, such as that here figured, were employed -as coins in some parts of China (_tsin_, agricultural implements). The -copper knives which played so important a part in the development of -Chinese coinage will be dealt with more particularly in a later chapter. -In Marco Polo’s time cowries were in full use, as in the province of -Yunnan[31]. - -[Illustration: FIG. 5. Chinese hoe money.] - -On the borders of China and Tibet we may still find a state of things -not far removed from that existing in the China of 2000 years ago[32]. -The Tibetans, who in recent years employ Indian rupees, for purposes of -small change cut up these coins into little pieces, which are weighed by -the careful Chinese, but the Tibetans do not seem to use the scale, and -roughly judge of the value of a piece of silver. Tea, moreover, and beads -of turquoise are largely used as a means of payment instead of metal. - -Speaking of this same region (called by him Kandu), Polo says[33]: “The -money-matters of the people are conducted in this way: they have gold -in rods which they weigh, and they reckon its value by its weight in -_saggi_, but they have no coined money. Their small change again is made -in this way: they have salt which they boil and set in a mould, and every -piece from the mould weighs half-a-pound. Now eighty moulds of this salt -are worth one _saggio_ of fine gold.” Tea seems to have taken the place -of salt in modern times. - -Turning next to the southern frontier of China, we shall find among the -tribes of Annam a system of currency which strongly reminds us of that -found in the Homeric Poems. - -Among the Bahnars of Annam who border on Laos, “everything,” says that -excellent observer M. Aymonier, “is by barter, hence all objects of -general use have a known relationship: if we know the unit, all the rest -is easy. Here is the key: a _head_, that is to say, a male slave is -worth six or seven buffaloes, or the same number of pots (_marmites_; so -in Homer, _Il._ XXXIII. 885, an ox is estimated at a kettle); the buffalo -and the pot have the same value, which naturally varies with the size and -age of the animal and the size and quality of the pot. - -“A full-grown buffalo or a large pot is worth seven earthenware jars of -a grey glaze, after the Chinese shape, and with a capacity of fifteen -litres. One jar = 4 _muk_. (The _muk_[34] is an unit of account, but -originally meant some special article.) 1 _muk_ = 10 _mats_, that is to -say ten of these _hoes_, which are manufactured by the Cédans, and which -are employed by all the savages of this region as their agricultural -implement. The hoe is the smallest amount used by the Bahnars. It is -worth 10 centimes in European goods, and is made of iron[35].” Thus the -buffalo is worth 280 hoes, or a little more than an English sovereign, -since each hoe is worth a penny (10 centimes). The Bahnars have sheet tin -½ millim. thick cut into pieces 11 centim. square, to be used to ornament -sword-belts or to make earrings (iv. p. 390). A stick of virgin wax the -size of an ordinary candle = 1 hoe, a pretty little cane hat = 2 hoes; -a large bamboo hat = 2 hoes; a Bahnar knife = 2 hoes; a fine sword and -sheath = 1 jar, 1 _muk_, 3 hoes; a crossbow and string = 3 hoes; ordinary -arrows are sold at 30 for 1 hoe; arrows with movable heads, 20 for 1 hoe, -and poisoned arrows 5 for 1 hoe; a lance-head = 3 hoes; a lance with palm -handle = 4 hoes; a horse = 3 or 4 pots or buffaloes; a large elephant = -10 to 15 _heads_ (slaves). - -The same method of using the buffalo as the chief unit is employed by -the Moïs, among whom a slave is reckoned at 10 buffaloes. Again, among -tribes such as the Tjams, with whom the string of copper _cash_ (or -sapecs) borrowed from the Chinese, is employed as their lowest unit, a -full-grown buffalo = 100 strings;[36] the Mexican _piastre_ or dollar -circulates freely as in China, a small pig costs 10 strings, pork by -retail costs two strings per lb. (_livre_), ducks cost 1½ to 2 strings. A -large caldron costs 3 buffaloes; a handsome gong = 2 buffaloes; a small -gong = 1 buffalo; 6 copper platters = 1 buffalo; two swords = 1 buffalo; -2 lances = 1 buffalo; a rhinoceros’ horn = 8 buffaloes; a pair of large -elephants’ tusks = 6 buffaloes; a small pair = 3 buffaloes. When the wild -people have dealings with the more civilized peoples of the plain, who -employ the Chinese cash and silver dollars, a large buffalo = 100 strings -of cash, a small one = 50 strings; a fine horse = 100 strings; a she goat -= a piece of cloth. The Orang Glaï have often to buy elephants’ tusks, -at the rate of 8 buffaloes for a pair, or 8 bars of silver (640 francs). -The Szins of Kharang have often to pay a tax of a buffalo per hut, or -for the whole village 10 buffaloes, the horns of which must be at least -as long as their ears[37]. In Cambodia iron ingots[38] form a special -kind of money. These ingots are not weighed, but they are as long as from -the base of the thumb to the tip of the forefinger; they are in breadth -two fingers, and one finger in thickness in the middle, tapering off to -either end. - -Cowries and other shells seem to have gone out of use altogether among -these tribes, but we may recognize in the practice of reckoning the -_cash_ by the string a distinct survival of the olden time when shells -were so employed. It is of great importance to note that where silver has -come into use, its unit, the bar, is equated to the buffalo, the unit of -barter, just as we find the Homeric gold Talent equal to the ox. - -Next let us turn to India, and to the Aryans of the Rig Veda, who dwelt -in the north-west of the Punjaub at the time when we first meet them. -From their prayers and invocations it is easy to learn in what the wealth -of this simple folk consisted. One or two examples will serve for our -purpose: “The potent ones who bestow on us good fortune by means of cows, -horses, goods, gold, O Indra and Vaya, may they, blessed with fortune, -ever be successful by means of horses and heroes in battle[39].” -Again, “O Indra bring us rice cake, a thousand _soma_ drinks, and an -hundred cows, O hero. Bring us apparel, cows, horses and jewels, along -with a _mana_ of gold.” Yet once more: “Ten horses, ten caskets, ten -garments, ten gold nuggets (_hiranya pindas_) I received from Divodāsa. -Ten chariots equipped with side horses, and an hundred cows gave the -Açvatha to the Atharvans and to the Pāyu.” Even without further evidence -than that which we have already drawn from the wild people of Annam, we -might well assume that there were definitely fixed relations in value -between the cows, horses, gold, rice, and cloth of the Vedic people. But -absolute proof is at hand, for their close kinsmen, the ancient Persians, -have left us in the Zend Avesta ample means of observing their monetary -system. Thus we read in the ordinances which fix the payment of the -physician that “he shall heal the priest for the holy blessing; he shall -heal the master of an house for the value of an ox of low value; he shall -heal the lord of a borough for the value of an ox of average value; he -shall heal the lord of a town for the value of an ox of high value; he -shall heal the lord of a province for the value of a chariot and four; he -shall heal the wife of the master of a house for the value of a she ass; -he shall heal the wife of the master of a borough for the value of a cow; -he shall heal the wife of the lord of a town for the value of a mare; -he shall heal the wife of the lord of a province for the value of a she -camel; he shall heal the son of the lord of a borough for the value of an -ox of high value: he shall heal an ox of high value for the value of an -ox of average value; he shall heal an ox of average value for the value -of an ox of low value; he shall heal an ox of low value for the value of -a sheep; and he shall heal a sheep for the value of a meal of meat[40].” -So too in the fees of the Cleanser we read: “Thou shalt cleanse a priest -for a blessing; the lord of a province for the value of a camel of high -value; the lord of a town for the value of a stallion; the lord of a -borough for the value of a bull; the master of an house for the value of -a cow three years old; the wife of the master of an house for the value -of a ploughing cow; a menial for the value of a draught cow; a young -child for the value of a lamb[41].” Again in the chapter on Contracts: -“The third is the contract to the amount of a sheep, the fourth is the -contract to the amount of an ox, the fifth is the contract to the amount -of a man (human being), the sixth is the contract to the amount of a -field, a field in good land, a fruitful one in good bearing[42].” - -From these extracts it is plain that the ancient Persians had a system -of clearly defined relations in value between all their worldly gear, -whether the object was a slave or an ox, or a lamb or a field, precisely -like that existing at the present moment among the hill tribes of Annam. -But not simply was it between one kind of animal and another, but they -had evidently strict notions as regards the inter-relations in value -of different animals of the same kind; thus the ox of high value, the -ox of low value, the cow of three years old, or the bull all stood to -one another in a fixed relationship. We may without hesitation conclude -that the same system of conventional values prevailed among the ancient -Hindus. Nor can we doubt that articles of every kind, such as arrows, -spears, axes, and articles of personal use and adornment all had their -regularly recognized prices, and that the less valuable of them were used -as small change. Gold, no doubt, occupied an important place in relation -to the other forms of property in portions of fixed size or weight, as -in the days of Marco Polo. In mediaeval times in parts of India money -consisted of pieces of iron worked into the form of large needles, and in -some parts stones which we call cat’s eyes, and in others pieces of gold -worked to a certain weight were used for moneys, as we are told by Nicolo -Conti, who travelled in India in the 15th century[43]. If iron was so -employed at this late date we may well infer that bronze and afterwards -iron were probably so used by the ancient Indo-Iranian people. - -[Illustration: FIG. 6. Fish-hook money (_Larina_).] - -[Illustration: FIG. 7. Siamese silver bullet money: A. B. Early form as -simple piece of wire. C. Last stage of degradation.] - -Among the fishermen who dwelt along the shores of the Indian Ocean, from -the Persian Gulf to the southern shores of Hindustan, Ceylon and the -Maldive islands, it would appear that the fish-hook, to them the most -important of all implements, passed as currency. In the course of time it -became a true money, just as did the hoe in China. It still for a time -retained its ancient form, but gradually became degraded into a simple -piece of double wire, as seen in Nos. 3 and 4 of our illustration. In its -conventional form it is known as a _larin_ or _lari_, a name doubtless -derived from Lari on the Persian Gulf. These _larins_ made both of silver -and bronze were in use until the beginning of the last century, and -bear legends in Arabic character. Had the process of degradation gone -on without check, in course of time the double wire would probably have -shrunk up into a bullet-shaped mass of metal, just as the Siamese silver -coins are the outcome of a process of degradation from a piece of silver -wire twisted into the form of a ring and doubled up, which probably -originally formed some kind of ornament. The bullet-shaped _tical_ is -now struck as a coin of European form. Just as perhaps the silver shells -of Burmah became the multiple unit of a large number of real cowries, so -the fish-hook made of silver came into use as a multiple unit, when the -bronze fish-hook had already become conventionalized into a true coin. -The silver _larins_ of Ceylon weigh about 170 grs. troy, and those of -Southern India are said by Professor Wilson to weigh the same, although -some of them weigh only 76 grs. or less than half. As the rupee weighs -about 180 grs. the silver fish-hook may represent the usual unit employed -for silver, strong national conservatism requiring that the silver -currency should take the same form as the ancient fish-hook currency of -bronze[44]. There are still in circulation in Nejd in Arabia small bars -of silvered brass, which bear on the back Arabic inscriptions. It is -hardly possible to doubt that in these little pieces of metal we have the -last surviving descendants of the old fish-hook. In the Maldive Isles a -silver _larin_ was worth 12,000 cowries. - -[Illustration: FIG. 8. Silvered brass bars used as money in Nejd[45].] - -Advancing westward we find the Ossetes of the Caucasus at the present -moment employ the cow as their unit of value, the prices of all -commodities being stated as one, two, three or four cows, or even at -one-tenth or one-hundredth of the value of a cow. The ox is worth two -cows, and the cow is worth ten sheep. This people regulate compensation -for wounds thus: they measure the length of the wound in barley corns, -and for every barley corn which it measures a cow has to be paid[46]. -We can have little doubt that over all Hither Asia the same method of -employing the cow as the principal unit of value obtained. It is that -which we found among the Greeks of the Homeric Poems, who were in full -contact with Northern Asia Minor, and was almost certainly that of the -Semites who dwelt in the South. Just as we find the buffalo, and the -pots, bronze platters, arrows, lances and hoes standing side by side in -well defined mutual relation among the Bahnars of Cochin China, so we -find in Homer that whilst the cow is the principal unit, the slave is -employed as an occasional higher unit, and the kettle (_lebes_), the -pot (_tripous_), the axe and the half axe, hides, raw copper and pig -iron stand beside the cow as multiples or sub-multiples. When Ajax and -Idomeneus make a bet on the issue of the chariot race, the proposed wager -is a pot or a kettle[47], whilst from another passage we learn that the -usual prizes given at the funeral games of a chieftain were female slaves -and pots (Tripods). - -Passing from Greece into Italy we have no difficulty in proving that the -cow was the regular unit of value in that peninsula and the adjacent -island of Sicily. Down to 451 B.C. all fines at Rome were paid in cows -and sheep. By the Tarpeian Law these were commuted for payments in -copper, each cow being set at 100 asses, each sheep at 10 asses. As I -shall deal with the whole question of the Roman As at considerable length -later on I shall here simply note that the Italian tribes had evidently -the same system of adjusting the relations between their cattle and sheep -and their metals which we found among the Persians and modern Ossetes. In -Sicily it is clear that the cow had played the same part as elsewhere, -for we learn from Aristotle[48] that when the tyrant Dionysius burdened -the Syracusans by excessive taxation, they ceased in a great degree to -keep cattle, inasmuch as the unit of assessment was the cow. If then in -the 4th century B.C. at Syracuse, the most advanced community in Sicily, -the cow still continued to be the unit of assessment, _à fortiori_, at an -earlier period that animal must have been the monetary unit of the whole -island. - -From the Italians we pass on to their close kinsmen the Kelts. We are -told by Polybius[49] that when the Gauls entered Italy, their wealth -consisted of their cattle and gold ornaments, but although an argument -will be offered below to show that the cow was the monetary unit of both -Gauls and Germans, we have no definite evidence respecting the barter -system. But fortunately the Ancient Laws of Wales and Ireland afford -us ample insight into the Keltic system. Irish tradition goes back far -beyond the date at which the Brehon Laws were compiled, and from it we -get a glimpse of a system almost Homeric: thus we read in the _Annals of -the Four Masters_ under the year 106 A.D. that the tribute (_Boroimhe_, -literally cow-tax) paid by the King of Leinster consisted in 150 cows, -150 swine, 150 couples of men and women in servitude, 150 girls and the -king’s daughter in like servitude, 150 caldrons, with two passing large -ones of the breadth and depth of five fists[50]. As this tradition makes -no mention of payment in metals, but only of slaves, cattle and caldrons, -which doubtless stood to one another in well defined relations, we need -have no hesitation in assuming that the cow formed the chief unit of the -earlier, as it did of the later Kelts. - -The Welsh naturally adopted the monetary system which sprang up after the -reign of Constantine the Great in the Later Empire. Accordingly we find -in certain of their Ancient Laws[51] tables giving in _denarii_, _solidi_ -or _librae_ the values of various kinds of property. From these we can -learn with accuracy the relations in value which existed between various -kinds of property. Thus the calf from March (when the cows calved) to -November was worth 6 _denarii_, to the following February 8 _den._, -till May 10 _den._, till August of the second year 12, till November -14 _den._, till February 15 _den._, till February of the third year 28 -_den._ The heifer is then in calf, her milk is worth 16 _den._ Thus the -milch cow is worth 46 _den._, and up to August she is worth 48 _den._, -up to November 50 _den._, and up to May of the fourth year is worth -60 _den._ A month’s milk is worth 4 _den._; a bull calf 6 _den._, the -young ox when put to the plough is worth 28 _den._, when he can plough, -48 _den._, that is the same as the young milch cow of the same age; a -gelding is worth 80 _den._, a farmer’s mare 60 _den._, a trained horse -is worth half a _libra_; a bow with twelve arrows is worth 7 _denarii_ -and an _obolus_; a queen bee (_modred af_) is worth 24 _den._, the first -swarm 16 _den._, the second 12, the third 8; a foal is worth 18 _den._ to -24 _den._, a two year old 48 _den._, a three year old 96 _den._ A young -male slave (_iuvenis captivus_) is worth 1 _libra_, a slave both young -and of large stature (_captivus iuvenis et magnus_) is worth 1½ _libra_. -It would appear that the Welsh, when taking over the Roman system, had -adjusted their own highest barter-unit, the slave (probably female as -well as male), to the _libra_ or pound, the highest unit in the Roman -system. Of course slaves of exceptional strength or beauty would always -command a higher price. But the regulations for the value of cattle are -especially of interest, as shewing the extraordinary minuteness with -which pastoral peoples discriminate the values of animals of different -ages, and estimate the milk of a cow in proportion to her actual value. -The full-grown cow is worth exactly ten times the newborn calf, an -estimate which holds good just as much in 1890 as it did 1000 years ago, -for it is not a mere convention but is based upon a natural law. At the -present moment a calf is worth from 30 to 35 shillings, a cow from £15 to -£17. 10_s._ The yearling calf was worth one-sixth of the full-grown cow, -a relation which still holds good. - -The Irish Kelts borrowed their silver system from Rome at a period -probably before Constantine, as they seem never to have employed the -_libra_ and _solidus_, but simply the _uncia_ (_unga_) and _scripulus_ -(_screapall_), adding thereto a subdivision called the _pinginn_ or -penny, borrowed doubtless from the Saxon invader at a later period. -Thus 1 unga = 24 screapalls; 1 screapall = 3 pinginns. They equated the -principal silver unit, the _uncia_, to the old chief barter-unit, the -cow (_bo_). As elsewhere, however, the slave formed occasionally the -highest unit, and was reckoned nominally at three cows. The slave woman -(_cumhal_, _ancilla_ in Latin writers) was in course of time used as a -mere unit of account. - - Slave woman (_cumhal_, _ancilla_) = 3 ounces (_unga_) - Full-grown cow (_bo mor_) = 1 ounce = 24 screapalls - Heifer now in third year (_samhaisc_) = ½ ounce = 12 screapalls - Heifer of second year (_colpach_) = 6 screapalls - Yearling (_dairt_) = 4 screapalls - A cow’s milk for summer and harvest = 6 screapalls - A sheep = 3 screapalls - A goat’s milk for summer and harvest = 1¾ pinginn - A sheep’s fleece = 1½ pinginn - A sheep’s milk = ½ pinginn - A kid (_meinnan_)[52] = ⅔ pinginn. - -Here again the yearling is worth one-sixth of the cow. Gold was abundant -among the ancient Irish, (almost certainly obtained in large quantities -from the Wicklow mountains,) and passed from hand to hand in the form of -rings, which were weighed on a system different from and probably far -older than that employed for silver (see Appendix A). - -Passing to the Teutonic peoples we find traces of the same ancient -practice. For according to one system a _mancus_ of silver (a mere -unit of account) corresponded with the value of an ox. Similarly the -_pound_ (_libra_) was generally regarded as the silver equivalent of the -worth of a man[53]. But the strongest proof is that Charlemagne in his -dealings with the Saxons found it necessary to define the value of his -_solidus_ of 12 pence (_denarii_) by equating it to the value of an ox -of a year old of either sex in the autumn season, just as it is sent to -the stall. In the same law we find a list of regulation prices for other -commodities, such as oats, honey, rye, similar to those already quoted -from the Welsh laws[54]. The English word _fee_, which originally meant -an ox, as is shown not only by the German _Vieh_, which still retains its -original meaning, and by such expressions in Anglo-Saxon as _gangende -feoh_, is in itself a proof that cattle served as the most generally -recognized form of money. It might be expected that much the same state -of things existed among the Scandinavian peoples. Their chief media of -exchange were cows, and woollen cloths, slaves, and gold ornaments. By -the laws of Hakon the Good penalties could be paid in cows, provided that -they were not too old, in slaves, provided they were not under fifteen -years of age, in cloths, and in weapons[55]. - -Gold and silver were employed by the northern peoples in the form of -rings. - -This has led people to talk much about _ring money_ as if it was a true -currency, circulating like the stamped money of later times. The truer -view seems to be that these rings, whether employed by the ancient -Egyptians or the prehistoric inhabitants of Mycenae, the Kelts or -Teutons, were nothing more than ornaments and passed in the ordinary -way of barter, having a recognized distinct relation to other forms -of property, such as cattle and slaves. It has been the custom in all -countries for the person who desires to have an article of jewellery -made to give to the goldsmith a certain weight of gold or silver, out of -which the latter manufactures the desired ornament. Such is the practice -at the present day in India; you give the goldsmith so many gold mohurs -or sovereigns, or rupees, as the case may be; he squats down in your -verandah, and with a few primitive tools quickly turns out the article -you desire, which of course will weigh as many mohurs or sovereigns as -you have given him (provided that you have stood by all the time, keeping -a sharp look-out to prevent his abstracting any of the metal). That in -like fashion gold ornaments for ordinary wearing purposes were regularly -of known weights in ancient times is shown clearly by the account of the -presents given to Rebekah by Abraham’s servant, ‘a gold earring of half -a shekel weight and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight’ -(Genesis xxiv. 22). The same word appears in Job xlii. 11: ‘Then came -there unto him all his brethren and all his sisters and all that had -been of his acquaintance before ... every man also gave him a piece of -money and every one an _earring_ of gold.’ Consequently Rebekah’s golden -ring (whether it was to adorn her nose or ear) of half a shekel weighed -65 grains, being half the light shekel or ox-unit. We are not told the -weight of the earrings contributed by his sympathetic kinsfolk for the -afflicted patriarch, but it is evident that they were of a uniform -standard. No doubt such rings had from time immemorial passed in the -ordinary course of barter from hand to hand. This is strongly supported -by a piece of evidence produced independently of the previous suggestion -by Dr Hoffmann of Kiel, who has showed[56] that _betzer_ (בצר) the -word used for gold in Job xxii. 24-25 (_bĕtzĕr_) and in Job xxxvi. 19 -(_b’tzar_), from a comparison of its cognates in Hebrew and Arabic -means simply a _ring_, which through the extended meaning _ring-gold_ -came finally to be used as a name for the metal simply. To take another -example from a very different region, the golden ornaments of the ancient -Irish (of which numerous specimens exist in the Museum of the Royal Irish -Academy) were made according to specified weight. Thus queen Medbh is -represented as saying: ‘My spear-brooch of gold, which weighs thirty -ungas, and thirty half ungas, and thirty crosachs and thirty quarter -[crosachs].’ O’Curry, _Manners and Customs of Ancient Irish_, iii. 112. -But we need not go beyond Greek soil itself for such illustrations. The -well-known story of Archimedes and the weight of the golden crown, which -led to the discovery of specific gravity, is sufficient to show that the -practice in Greece was such as I describe. - -[Illustration: FIG. 9. Rings found in the tombs of Mycenae.] - -The rings seen on Egyptian monuments (of which we give a representation -in a later chapter) are of round wire; those found by Schliemann in the -tombs of Mycenae[57] (Fig. 9) consist both of round wire rings like the -Egyptian, and likewise of spirals of quadrangular wire. As _finger_ rings -(δακτύλιοι) are not mentioned in Homer, it has been assumed that the -Homeric Greeks did not employ rings at all. Hence in a famous passage -where the ornaments made by Hephaestus for the goddesses are described, -we find mention of brooches, _bent spirals_ (ἕλικες) ear-drops[58], and -chains. Helbig[59] explains the _helikes_ as a kind of brooch made of -four spirals, such as are worn in parts of Central Europe, but it is -difficult to believe that people who were using brooches with pins and -necklaces would not have known and employed the far simpler ring. Again, -why should we find two distinct words for brooches coming thus together? -Is it not far more likely that in the spirals of Mycenae we have the real -_bent helikes_ of Homer? These spirals would serve not only for finger -rings, but might be used in the hair, or more probably still were used -as a means of fastening on the dress, being passed through eyelet holes -or loops, on the principle of the modern key ring[60]. On comparing them -with the Scandinavian spiral (Fig. 1) the reader will see that this -primitive form of employing gold was widely diffused over Europe. The -Scandinavians used such ornaments of _bent_ wire (O.N. _baugr_, A.S. -_beag_ from root BUG, _to bend_) very commonly, beside oxen and other -property, as media of exchange. Thus both _beag_ in Anglo-Saxon, and -_baugr_ in Old Norse became used as general names for treasure. Thus -_baugbrota_ (cf. _hring brota_), literally _ring-breaker_, was used as -an epithet of princes, meaning _distributor of treasure_[61]. - -[Illustration: FIG. 10. Nos. 1, 2, found in Tipperary; 3, Scandinavian; -4, 5, found in Co. Mayo; 6, 7, 8, ordinary Irish type.] - -The same spirals of quadrangular wire were probably employed by the -Kelts, as that shown in Fig. 10, No. 3 was found in Ireland; Nos. 4 and 5 -are of quadrangular wire but are simple hoops, whilst in Nos. 6, 7, 8, we -get the regular Irish type of a round wire not completely closed[62]. The -latter probably represent a more advanced state of art, as their makers -must have had considerable metallurgic skill, No. 8 being made of gold -plated over a copper core. - -As we shall see further on, the Egyptian rings are made on a standard -almost identical with the Homeric talent, and I have shown elsewhere that -the rings from Mycenae were made on almost the same standard[63]. I shall -endeavour to show in an Appendix that the Irish rings also show evidence -of being made on a definite standard, whilst it has been long well known -that the Scandinavian rings and armlets have likewise a standard of their -own. - -When occasion arose they cut off a piece of this bent wire (for it was -really nothing more), and gave it by weight. Such a piece was called a -_scillinga_, and is the direct ancestor of our own _shilling_[64]. It -is not unlikely also that the ancient inhabitants of Portugal employed -similar pieces of wire, as Strabo tells us that the Lusitanians have -no money, but that they employ silver wire, from which they cut off a -portion when necessary[65]. - -We now pass on to Africa, where we shall find most varied systems of -currency. Thus on the West Coast of Africa the _bar_ is the unit. In fact -all merchandise is reckoned by the bar[66], which now at Sierra Leone -means 2_s._ 3_d._ worth of any kind of commodity, although originally -it meant simply an iron bar of fixed dimensions, which formed the chief -article of exchange between the natives and the earliest European -traders. In other parts of the same region axes serve as currency; these -are too small to be really employed as an implement, but are doubtless -the survival of a period not long past when real axes served as money. -Thus we get a complete analogy to the hoe money of the Chinese and the -fish-hook currency of Ceylon and the Maldive Islands. In Calabar they -formerly employed bunches of quadrangular copper-wire as currency. Each -wire was about 12 inches long, and they were of course meant to be made -into necklets and armlets[67]. - -[Illustration: FIG. 11. Axe Money (West Africa).] - -In other parts of the West Coast, as in the Bonny River territory, iron -rings very closely resembling in shape the bronze fibulae found in -Ireland, which probably were armlets, are employed as money. Those which -I have seen seem too small to be used as bracelets, and are now probably -a true money, retaining the old conventional shape (see Fig. 12)[68]. - -[Illustration: FIG. 12. Old Calabar copper-wire formerly used as money.] - -In the region of the Upper Congo brass rods are employed as currency -for articles of small value. This wire, made at Birmingham, about the -thickness of ordinary stair-rod, is sent out in coils of 60 lbs., and is -then cut into pieces of a foot long[69]. Short brass rods and armlets -are also largely exported from Birmingham for the African trade. - -[Illustration: FIG. 13. - -1. Bronze Irish Fibula found in Co. Cork. - -2. Bronze Irish Fibula found in King’s Co. - -3. Iron Manilla from W. Africa. - -4. Iron Manilla used as money in Bonny River Territory.] - -There is no absolute standard length—and thus while 36 inches is the one -most commonly used, the length varies from 32 to 36 inches. - -They go out in boxes containing 100, in straight lengths, and soft to -admit of their being wound into armlets, &c. - -The diameter of the rod varies from ³⁄₁₆ in. to about ⅜ in.—but a rod -weighing about 24 oz. to 3 ft., and ⅜ in. thick, is the one most often -made. - -Arm rings are made from solid brass rod about ⁷⁄₁₆ in. thick and are -usually 2½ in. to 3½ in. in diameter—they are also made in large -quantities from brass tubes of ½ in. to ⅝ in. diameter, more frequently -from ⁹⁄₁₆ in., the rings being from 2½ in. to 3½ in. in diameter, and -weighing from 2½ to 4 oz. each[70]. - - * * * * * - -Slaves and ivory tusks form the chief units in the same region. The slave -usually is worth a tusk. In other parts pieces of precious wood of a red -colour, each piece being a foot long, were employed as currency[71]. - -When we come to regions where the ox can live we at once find that animal -occupying a foremost place. Thus when the Cape of Good Hope was first -colonized, the Hottentots employed cattle and bars of iron of a given -size as currency[72], and at the present moment the cow is the regular -unit among the Zulus, ten cows being the ordinary price paid for a wife, -although as in Homeric Greece fancy prices are paid by the chiefs for -ladies of uncommon attractions. But our chief interest must centre in -the peoples north of the Equator, who from time immemorial have been in -contact with the ancient civilization of the Mediterranean. - -Thus among the Madis of Central Africa, a pure negro tribe, cattle form -the chief wealth; a rich man may have as many as 200 head, a very poor -one only 3 or 4. The average number possessed by one man is from 30 to -40. They keep the milk in gourds. - -“A regular system of exchange is carried on in arrows, beads, bead -necklaces, teeth necklaces, brass rings for the neck and arms, and -bundles of small pieces of iron in flat, round, or oval discs. All these -different articles are given in exchange for cattle, corn, salt, arrows, -etc. The nearest approach to money is seen in the flat, round pieces of -iron which are of different sizes, from three-quarters to two feet in -diameter and half an inch thick. They are much employed in exchange. -This is the form in which they are kept and used as money, but they -are intended to be divided into two, heated and made into hoes. They -are also fashioned into other implements, such as knives, arrow-heads, -etc. and into little bells hung round the waist for ornament or round -wandering cows’ necks. Ready-made hoes are not often used in barter. -Iron as above-mentioned is preferred and is taken to the blacksmith to -be fashioned according to the owner’s requirements. Any tools may be -obtained ready made from a smith, and can be used in barter when new. - -“Compensation for killing a woman or any serious crime must be paid for -in cattle. No cowries are used as coins in this district, no measure of -weight, quantity or length is used. The payment for a wife must be made -in cows of a year old, or in bulls of two or three years[73].” - -But it is in Darfour and Wadai that we find the primitive system in its -fullest form. Wives are bought with cows, 20 of which with a male and -female slave are the usual price of a wife, hence the Darfouris prefer -daughters to sons. Hence the proverb that girls fill the stable, but boys -empty it, which recalls the _cow-winning maidens_ of Homer (παρθένοι -ἀλφεσίβοιαι). There is absolutely no metal of any kind in Darfour, except -that which is imported. Having no money, they accept certain articles as -having a certain monetary value. - -Facher was the first place in Darfour which had anything like a currency; -it consisted of rings made of tin, which were employed in the purchase -of every-day necessaries of life. These rings are called _tarneih_ in -Darfouris. There are two kinds, the heavy ring and the light ring; -the light serves for buying the most trivial articles. For purchasing -articles of value they have the _toukkiyeh_, a piece of cotton cloth six -cubits long by one broad. There are two kinds of this stuff, _chykeh_ -and _katkât_. Four pieces of the former and 4½ pieces of the latter are -worth a Spanish dollar. Buying and selling is also carried on by means -of slaves: thus one says, “this horse is worth 2 or 3 _sedâcy_ (a name -given to a negro slave, who measures six spans from his ankle to the -lower part of his ear)[74].” A _sedaciyeh_ is a female negro slave of the -same height. A _sedâcy_ is worth 30 _toukkiyeh_, or six blue _chauter_, -or 8 white _chauter_ or six oxen, or 10 Spanish pillar dollars, the only -coined money known in Darfour, where it is called _abou medfa_, i.e. -_cannon_ piece, the pillars being taken for cannons. The inhabitants -of Kobeih employ beads for money, which are called _harich_. They are -green and blue and circulate in strings of 100 each. This bead takes -the place of the tin ring (_tarneih_) used at Facher in the purchase of -cheap commodities. The _harich_ as money is employed in numbers of from -5 to 100 beads (the string), from one string to ten and indefinitely -further[75]. - -The _toukkiyeh_ is worth in the markets mentioned 8 strings of _harich_. -Thus a _sedâcy_ is worth 240 strings. At Guerly and its environments the -_falgo_ or stick of salt almost as big as one’s finger is employed. This -salt is obtained artificially, and when liquid is poured into little -moulds of baked clay. This salt is sold by the _falgo_, not by weight, -and one buys by 1, 2 or 3 _falgo_ according to the value of the article. - -At Conca tobacco is used as money. At Kergo, Ryl, and Chaigriyeh articles -of moderate value are bought with hanks of cotton thread. These threads -are ten _ells_ long, and there are only 20 threads in each hank. For -common articles raw cotton with the pods attached is given; it is not -weighed but simply estimated by guess. At Noumleh onions are employed -as money for common articles, and the _rubat_ or hank of thread, and -_toukkiyeh_ for the more valuable, whilst the _chauter_ and dollar are -unknown. - -At Ras-el-Fyk[76] the hoe (_hachâchah_) serves as currency. It is simply -a plate of iron fitted with a socket. A handle is fitted into this -socket, and one has an implement suited for chopping the weeds in the -corn fields. Purchases of small value are made with the hoe from 1 to 20: -above that amount the _toukkiyeh_ is employed and likewise the _chauter_. - -At Temourkeh they use as moneys cylindrical pieces of copper (called -_damleg_) for articles of some value, whilst a kind of glass bead called -_chaddour_ is used for small articles. Near Ganz, the eastern part of -Darfour, the principal article of exchange is the _doukha_ for articles -of moderate value. They give it by the handful, or by the double handful -up to the amount of half a _moda_; whilst as elsewhere articles of value -are bought by the _toukkiyeh_ or dollar. In a very great number of places -merchandise is exchanged against oxen; thus the horse is worth 10 to 20 -oxen. - -Accordingly while each district of Darfour has some peculiar form of -currency for small change the higher currency is the same everywhere, the -piece of cloth, the ox, the slave[77]. - -In the region of Wadai the same shrewd Arab tells us that cattle are -kept by even the most barbarous tribes[78]. Thus the Fertyt tribe, who -go in a state of almost complete nudity, and thus have no need of cloth, -possess large herds of cattle, which are not branded, but each owner -distinguishes his cattle by giving a peculiar shape to their horns as -soon as they begin to grow. In the less barbarous communities of Wadai -slaves and beads are employed as currency as well as cattle. The bead -used is called the _mansous_. It is of yellow amber and of different -sizes. Number 1 is so called because one string (containing 100 beads) -weighs one _rotl_ (pound) of 12 ounces; Number 2 because two strings -weigh a _rotl_; Number 3 because 3 strings make a _rotl_ and so on. The -first is the most costly of all beads. Often a single bead of this sort -(_soumyt_) is worth two slaves; if it is abundant each bead is worth a -slave. - - - - -CHAPTER III. - -THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE OX AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF GOLD. - - And round about him lay on every side - Great heapes of gold that never could be spent, - Of which some were rude owre not purified - Of Mulciber’s devouring element. - Some others were new driven and distent - Into great Ingowes and to wedges square, - Some in round plates with outen ornament, - But most were stampt and in their metal bare - The antique Shapes of Kings and Kesars straunge and rare. - - SPENSER, _Faerie Queen_, II. vii. - - -Let us now take a general survey of the results of our observations. -First of all it is apparent that the doctrine of a primal convention -with regard to the use of any one particular article as a medium of -exchange is just as false as the old belief in an original convention at -the first beginning of Language or Law. Every medium of exchange either -has an actual marketable value, or represents something which either has -or formerly had such a value, just as a five-pound note represents five -sovereigns, and the piece of stamped walrus skin formerly employed by -Russians in Alaska in paying the native trappers represented roubles or -blankets[79]. - -To employ once more the language of geology, we have found evidence -pointing to certain general laws of stratification. In Further Asia we -have found a section which presents us with an almost complete series of -strata, whilst in other places where we have been only able to observe -two or three layers, we have nevertheless found that certain strata -are invariably found superimposed upon others, just as regularly as the -coal seams are found lying over the carboniferous limestone. As soon as -the primitive savage has conceived the idea of obtaining some article -which he desires but does not possess by giving in exchange to its owner -something which the latter desires, the principle of money has been -conceived. Shells or necklaces of shells are found everywhere to be -employed in the earliest stages. When some men began to make weapons of -superior material, as for instance axes of jade instead of common stone, -such weapons naturally soon became media of exchange; when the ox and the -sheep, the swine and the goat are tamed, large additions are made to the -circulating media of the more advanced communities; then come the metals; -the older ornaments of shells and implements of stone are replaced by -those of gold (and much later by silver) and by weapons of bronze as -in Asia and Europe, and by those of iron in Africa. Copper and iron -circulate either in the form of implements and weapons, such as the axes -of West Africa, the hoes of the early Chinese and modern Bahnars, and the -ancient Chinese knives, all of which remind us of the axes and half-axes -in Homer; or in the form of rings and bracelets, like the manillas of -West Africa and the ancient Irish fibulae; or else in the form of plates -or bars of metal, ready to be employed for the manufacture of such -articles, as we saw in the case of the iron bars of Laos, the iron discs -of the Madis, and the brass rods of the Congo. Again we are reminded of -the mass of pig-iron, which Achilles offered as a prize[80]. - -It is of the highest importance to observe that such pieces of copper and -iron are not weighed, but are appraised by measurement. We shall find -that it is only at a period long subsequent to the weighing of gold that -the inferior metals are estimated by weight. The custom of capturing -wives which prevails among the lowest savages is succeeded by the custom -of purchasing wives. The woman is only a chattel on the same footing as -the cow or the sheep, and she is accordingly appraised in terms of the -ordinary media of exchange employed in her community, whether it be in -cows, horses, beads, skins or blankets. Presently male captives are -found useful both to tend flocks and, as in the East and in the modern -Soudan, to guard the harem. With the discovery of gold, ornaments made at -first out of the rough nuggets supersede other ornaments, and presently -either such ornaments or portions of gold in plates or lumps are added -to the list of media, and the same follows with the discovery of silver. -Such ornaments or pieces of gold and silver are estimated in terms of -cattle, and the standard unit of the bars or ingots naturally is adjusted -to the unit by which it is appraised. Thus we found the Homeric talent, -the silver bar of Annam, the Irish _unga_ all equated to the cow, and the -Welsh _libra_, Anglo-Saxon _libra_, similarly equated to the slave. With -the discovery of the art of weaving, cloths of a definite size everywhere -become a medium, as the silk cloth of ancient China, the woollen cloths -of the old Norsemen, the _toukkiyeh_ of the Soudan, and the blanket of -North America. This fact once more recalls Homer and makes us believe -that the robes and blankets and coverlets which Priam brought along with -the talents of gold to be the ransom of Hector’s body all had a definite -place in the Homeric monetary system[81]. - -We have seen the Siamese piece of twisted silver wire passing into a -coin of European style, and we shall find that the Chinese bronze knife -has finally ended by becoming a _cash_, just as we have already found -the Homeric talent of gold appearing, in weight at least, as the gold -stater of historical times. Thus in every point the analogy between what -we find in the Homeric Poems and in modern barbarous communities seems -complete. We may therefore with some confidence assume that we are at -liberty to fill up the gaps in the strata of Greek monetary history which -lie between Homer and the beginning of coined money on the analogy of -the corresponding strata in other regions. This assumption, resting on a -broad basis of induction and confirmed, as we shall see, by a good deal -of evidence special to Greece and Italy, will be found to explain the -origin, not only of weight standards in those countries, but also of the -Greek _obol_ and Roman _as_, as well as of the types on the oldest coins, -such as the cow’s head of Samos, the tunny fish of Olbia and Cyzicus, the -axe of Tenedos, the tortoise of Aegina, the shield of Boeotia, and the -silphium of Cyrene. - -Let us now turn to the races who both in modern and in ancient times -have dwelt around the basin of the Mediterranean and Black Sea, whether -in Asia Minor, Central Asia, Europe or Africa. In what did their wealth -consist? When we first meet in history the various branches of the Aryan, -Semitic, and Hamitic races, they are all alike possessed of flocks -and herds. To deal first with the Aryans; we have already had ample -evidence that such was the case with the early Greeks. The ox plays a -foremost part, and they likewise possessed sheep, goats and swine, whilst -slaves formed also an important commodity. Further east again, in the -Zend-Avesta the cow is found playing the principal part in every phase -of the primitive life there unfolded, both as the chief article of value -and in reference to their religious ceremonies. Still further to the -east we find from the Rig-Veda that among the ancient Hindus the same -important _rôle_ was assigned to the cow. Turning now to Mesopotamia we -find that in the time of Abraham the keeping of herds and flocks was -the chief pursuit of the Semites. Passing on to Egypt, the hoary mother -of civilization, we find evidence that although “every shepherd was an -abomination to the Egyptians,” yet the worship of their great divinity -Apis (Hapi) under the form of a bull and the worship of the sacred ram -indicate that at a period preceding the invasion of the Hyksos the -Egyptians regarded the ox and the sheep with love and veneration. Whether -the Egyptians came from Asia into the valley of the Nile, or whether they -came from some region of Africa more to the south, one thing at least -is certain, and that is that in either case they came from a country -eminently fitted for the rearing and keeping of cattle. The functions of -the ox became limited under altered conditions, and their ancient esteem -for the cow as one of their chief means of subsistence survived only -in religious observances. So too in modern India the reverence for the -sacred cow amongst a people who regard as an abomination the eating of -beef is a survival from the time when in a more northern clime cattle -formed the principal wealth of their forefathers. - -In the Soudan, as we have seen to this day, slaves and oxen are the chief -kinds of property. Crossing back to Europe we find the Italian tribes -represented in the earliest records as a cattle-keeping people. The -story of their invasion of Italy took the form of their driving before -them a steer and following obediently to whatever new home it might lead -them[82]. - -The same holds of the more northern peoples. When the Gauls entered the -plains of Northern Italy they drove before them vast herds of cattle. -Caesar found the Britons keeping large numbers of cattle, and especially -those in the interior of the island subsisting almost entirely on their -produce[83]. Strabo writing about A.D. 1, mentions hides as among the -articles exported from Britain to the Continent[84]. - -The linguistic argument fully supports the literary evidence. All the -Aryan or Indo-European peoples possess a common name for the cow. The -Sanskrit _gaus_, Greek βοῦς, Lat. _bos_, Irish _bo_, German _kuh_, Eng. -_cow_, taken together indicate that before the dispersion of the various -stocks (whether the original home of the Aryans was in Northern Europe, -as Latham first suggested, or in the Hindu Kush, as Prof. Max Müller -maintains) they all possessed the cow. This is further supported by -the name for the bull which is found amongst various stocks, the Greek -ταῦρος, Lat. _taurus_, Irish _tarb_, and the name of the _ox_, which -corresponds to the Sanskrit _uksha_, and finally the name of _steer_[85]. -Here then we have undoubted evidence of the universal possession of -cattle by the Aryans at a very early period. - -Archaeology lends its support likewise. We have already found in the case -of the Greeks the cow used as a unit of currency side by side with gold. -This leads us to the question of the precious metals, which in course of -time have come to be almost the sole medium of exchange. In the case of -the Greeks we saw reason to believe that the barter-unit was older than -the metallic. Is this the case universally? The evidence, I think, which -I shall adduce will lead us to this belief. - -First of all it is certain that man must have been acquainted with the -ox long before he ever gathered a grain of gold from the brook. When -primaeval man first stood on the plains of Europe and Asia vast herds of -wild cattle met his eye on every side. The process of domestication was -long and slow, but yet in all the ancient refuse heaps of Scandinavia and -Germany, whilst the remains of the ox are found in plenty there is yet no -trace of gold. - -At this point it will be well to remind the reader that the area occupied -by the cattle-keeping races whom we have enumerated was continuous. -There was no insuperable barrier between Indian and Persian, Persian and -Mede, Mede and the dweller in Mesopotamia, or again, between Persian -and Armenian, Armenian and the Scythian who lived in his ox-waggon on -the plains of what is now Southern Russia: the Scythian was in contact -with the tribes of the Balkan Peninsula, who in turn were in contact -with the Greeks and the dwellers along the valley of the Danube, who in -their turn joined hands with the peoples of Italy, Helvetia and Gaul. -Hence the value of cattle would be more or less constant from one end -of this entire region to the other. The purchasing power of the cow -might be greater in some parts than in others, just as with ourselves a -sovereign has the same value from Land’s End to John o’Groats, although -the purchasing power of the sovereign as regards the necessaries of life -may differ widely in different places within the limits of Great Britain. - -It is only when some impassable natural barrier intervenes that there -will be a difference in the value of the unit of barter. Thus, in the -case of Britain we cannot suppose that the value of oxen was necessarily -the same there as it was on the Continent. If it was it would be merely -a coincidence. The difficulty of transporting live cattle in such ships -as the Gauls or Britons possessed would have been too great to permit of -such a free circulation of the unit as would have kept its value exactly -even on both sides of the Straits. In fact it was only with the invention -of steam that facilities for transmarine cattle-trading came in which -could tend to level the value on both sides of an arm of the sea. In the -earlier half of this century cattle were extraordinarily cheap in Ireland -in proportion to the prices which they fetched in England, but yet the -difficulty and expense entailed in sending them across in sailing ships -effectually prevented the export. When the first steamers began to convey -cattle from Ireland to England the profits were enormous, although the -freight of a single cow cost, I believe, several pounds. Steam-power -has done much to equalize prices, but still there is a considerable -difference in the value of cattle on both sides of the Irish Sea. But -where no impassable barrier of sea or forest intervened, we may fairly -assume the ox carried much the same value from Northern India to the -Atlantic Ocean. - -We have already proved in the case of most of the peoples with which we -have to deal that the ox was the unit of value. We have likewise found -that these primitive peoples, whilst employing a cow or ox of a certain -age as their standard of value, had adjusted accurately to this unit -their other possessions: for instance, the heifer of the second year bore -a distinct value relatively to the cow of the third year, so likewise -the calf of the first year and the milk of a cow for a certain period. -These thus acted as submultiples of the standard unit, and as they were -the same in kind and only differed in degree, the various sub-units of -the cow remained in constant proportion to the chief unit and to one -another. On the other hand, when there was a distinction in kind between -animals, as between oxen and sheep, the relative value would probably -differ according to the scarcity or abundance of either kind of animal, -which difference would probably arise from a difference in the nature of -the pastures and climate. Thus we have found in some places ten sheep -regarded as the equivalent of an ox, in others again eight. The same -holds good of goats. In the case of these smaller animals we have seen -the same fixed scale of values according to age, and the same method -of rating the value of the milk of an ewe or the goat as we find in -the case of the cow. Amongst people who possessed horses, camels and -asses, the same principle holds good, horses and camels on account of -their great value being treated as higher units for occasional use, just -as the elephant is regarded at present in parts of Further India. The -slave, as we have before remarked, played an important part as a higher -unit or multiple of the ox, the average slave having a fixed value, -whilst of course in the case of female captives of unusual beauty a -fancy price would be paid. As climate and pasture would not affect the -keeping of slaves, and as human beings were fairly universally spread -over the area of the ox, the probabilities are that it was almost as easy -proportionally to get slaves as oxen, and to keep the one as to keep the -other from being stolen. Thus there would be more or less of a constant -ratio between slaves and oxen. There would be a tendency likewise to -regulate the number of slaves by the amount of work to be done, and as -this work in the pastoral stage is almost entirely that of the neatherd, -the shepherd, the swineherd and the goatherd, the number of _male_ slaves -at least would be to a certain extent conditioned by the extent of the -flocks and herds. Such we may infer from the picture of the household of -Ulysses in the Odyssey was the practice in early Greece. The faithful -swineherd Eumaeus, and his fellow the good neatherd, with the rascally -goatherd Melanthius, and their underlings, seem, with the addition -perhaps of a few house slaves who would assist in tilling the chieftain’s -demesne (_temenos_), to have comprised all the menservants. The master of -the house worked hard himself in his field and at various handicrafts, -as we find Ulysses boasting of his expertness both as a ploughman and -mower; he was also a skilled carpenter, having with his own hands built -the chamber of Penelope and constructed a cunningly wrought bedstead[86]. -Hence the amount of help to be required from _male_ slaves, exclusive -of their duties as herdsmen, would be but insignificant. When we come -to deal with the question of _female_ slaves, the conditions of their -number seem at first sight entirely different. The question of polygamy -here comes in, and we must bear in mind that they were acquired not -merely as servants to perform menial duties, but likewise to be wives -and concubines. It is evident then that the number of such attendants -will depend on the inclination and wealth of the house-master. But here -again the problem is simplified, for inasmuch as his wealth consisted in -cattle, a man’s power to purchase handmaidens depended on the amount of -his kine. Thus at the present day the number of women owned by a Zulu -depends entirely on the number of cattle he possesses. Hence there was -likely to be a fairly universal ratio in value between female slaves and -oxen, over such a region as we have sketched above. The facility too -in transporting human chattels from one place to another would be an -important element in keeping the price almost the same over all parts of -the area. It is a very ancient principle with the slave captor and slave -dealer to sell their captives far away from their original home. Among -our Anglo-Saxon forefathers the slave from beyond the sea was always -worth more than a captive from close at hand[87]. The explanation of -this fact was suggested by Dr Cunningham, and the proof of it was found -by Mr Frazer in Further India; for there the slave brought from a great -distance is always more valuable than one who comes only a short way from -his native land, as the possibility of the former’s running away and -succeeding in escaping is so much less than that of the latter. This too -seems to be the true explanation of the fact that in Homer we regularly -find persons sold into slavery beyond the sea. Achilles sold the son -of Priam to Euneos the son of Jason of Lesbos[88], the nurse Eurycleia -had been brought from the mainland, Eumaeus the swineherd had been sold -to Laertes by the Phoenicians who had captured him with his nurse in -his distant home[89]. This constant tendency to sell in one country the -captives taken from another would do much to equalize prices everywhere, -and the price being paid in oxen the ratio in value between oxen and -_female_ as well as _male_ slaves would tend to be constant. - -We have now reviewed the ordinary kinds of wealth amongst primitive -pastoral people, but we have touched but lightly as yet on the subject of -the metals. - -We saw above that the two earliest kinds of currency consisted either -of some article of absolute necessity, such as the skins of animals -in the colder climates, or of some form of personal ornament, which -being both universally esteemed as well as durable and portable will be -readily accepted by all members of the community. It is of pre-eminent -importance that it be universally esteemed. Travellers who have ignored -this principle have found out its truth to their cost in Central Africa -in modern times. As the chief currency consists of glass and porcelain -beads, which the traveller must carry with him or starve, the European is -too apt to assume that provided the beads are bright and gaudy in colour -all sorts will be taken with like readiness by the natives. Sir Richard -Burton in a valuable appendix to his _Lake Regions of Central Africa_ -warns travellers against this dangerous error. The African has his own -firmly rooted canons of aesthetics, and will take as payment only those -sorts of beads which he considers suitable and becoming. Again, some -explorers brought supplies of cheap Birmingham trinkets, thinking that -they would captivate the negro eye, but they proved a complete commercial -failure, for the natives much prefer trinkets and jewellery of their own -manufacture, and which are more in keeping with their standard of good -taste. Again, the Arabs of the Soudan will not take gold as payment, in -consequence of which our army in the late expedition had to take with -them large and inconvenient supplies of silver dollars, coined for the -purpose. The Maria Theresa dollar is the recognised currency in that -region, not because of any notions as regards currency properly speaking, -but because the Arab’s taste lies in silver ornaments for himself, his -weapons and his horse. He values then the silver because of its utility -as an ornament, whilst gold he cannot employ to the same advantage. - -I have thus digressed in order that it may be clearly seen that mankind -were not seized with the _sacra fames auri_ from the very first moment -when the eye of some wild hunter or nomad first lighted on a gold nugget -as it glistened under the sunlight in the stream. - -A considerable period may have elapsed after mankind became acquainted -with gold or silver before man cast away his necklets or bracelets of -shells such as have been found along with the most ancient remains of the -human race yet discovered in Europe, and put on his person in their stead -similar ornaments beaten out of the gold from the brook. It is perfectly -reasonable to assume that the primitive Aryan or primitive Semite, who -wore ornaments of shells, used these as instruments of barter, or even -currency, in the same way as we have found the peoples of Asia and Africa -using their strings of cowries, the aborigines of North America their -wampum belts, and the Fijians their whales’ teeth. - -In what particular region mankind first employed the precious metals to -adorn his person, it is of course impossible for us to say. But beyond -all doubt already in Egypt at the very dawn of history gold was playing -an important part. The question of the relative dates at which the metals -were first employed by man is one of great interest and importance in -studying the history of human development. Of the four chief metals, -gold, silver, copper and iron, we have no difficulty in deciding that -iron is most certainly the latest to come into use. It is only within -historical time that implements and weapons of iron have superseded -those of copper and bronze, at least within the area occupied by the -great civilized races. The reason for this is obvious: iron is not found -native, but must be obtained by a difficult process of smelting, and even -when obtained requires great skill to make it available for use. The -Greeks of the Homeric Poems were still in the later bronze age, although -iron was known and employed for weapons and implements. But as we have no -immediate need to discuss the date of the introduction of iron, we may -pass on to the three remaining metals. - -It is obvious that if a metal is found naturally in such a condition that -it can be immediately wrought into various forms for ornament or utility, -such a metal is likely to have been employed at a much earlier period -than one which is rarely if ever found in a native condition. Now silver -is a metal which is rarely found pure, and considerable metallurgical -skill is needed to render it fit for use. On the other hand gold and -copper are both found in a pure state. We may then on this ground alone -infer that mankind was acquainted with gold and copper before they as yet -had learned the art of working silver ore. It next comes to be a question -of the priority of gold or copper. The probabilities will undoubtedly be -in favour of that metal which is most universally found native, and which -is the most likely by its hue to attract the eye, and which is the most -easily worked. On all these counts gold can claim priority over copper. -Still copper is found native in various countries, Hungary, Saxony, -Sweden, Norway, Spain and Cornwall. - -It is of course quite possible that in a region where gold is not native -and copper is, the latter may have been the first metal known to the -aboriginal inhabitants. This can be well illustrated from the case -of iron and copper in Central Africa. The negroes never had a copper -or bronze age, but passed directly into the iron age, for the very -sufficient reason that no native copper was found in their country, and -consequently they had no metal suited for implements until they had -learned to smelt iron. Gold of course on the other hand was known to them -from the most remote period. Finally, from a famous modern occurrence -we may come to the general conclusion that wherever gold is a natural -product of the soil there it has been the first metal to come under -the observation of man. The great gold-field of California was first -discovered on a memorable Sunday morning, when the eye of a lounger who -was smoking his pipe by the side of Captain Sutter’s millrace happened to -light on some glittering body in the sandy bottom of the stream. This was -the first scrap of gold found in California, and whilst that fertile land -has produced many natural treasures besides gold within the scarcely more -than forty years which have since elapsed, its gold it will be observed -was the earliest of its metals, both from the nature of its deposit and -from the brilliancy of its colour, to attract the attention of man. In -certain parts of Southern Europe, notably parts of Southern Italy and -Southern Greece, where copper is found but not gold, copper perhaps may -have been known before gold, and certainly before silver. It will be -important to bear this in mind with reference to a stage in our future -arguments. - -That silver came under men’s notice at a later time than either gold -or copper can be put beyond doubt by historical evidence. In the Rig -Veda, where gold (_heranya_) is already well known and likewise copper -(for there can be no doubt that the _ayas_ of the Veda, Lat. _aes_, -means copper), silver is entirely unknown; the word _rayatam_, which in -later Sanskrit means silver, does indeed occur, but only as an adjective -applied to a horse and meaning _bright_. Again, we know as a matter of -fact that it was only at a comparatively late period that the famous -silver mines of Laurium in Attica were developed. At least Plutarch -(_Solon_, ch. 16) tells us that, owing to the scarcity of silver coin, -Solon reduced the amount of the fines levied and also of the rewards -for killing a wolf or wolf-cub, the former to five drachms, the latter -to one drachm, the rewards representing the value of a cow and a sheep -respectively. If they had already learned to work that “well of silver, -the treasure-house of their land,” in the time of Solon (596 B.C.), -there certainly could have been no such dearth of silver. Finally let us -take a comparatively modern case, that of the Aztecs of Mexico. When the -Spanish conquerors reckoned up their great tale of treasures found in the -royal palace, whilst the gold amounted to the large sum of _pesos de oro_ -162000 lbs., the silver and silver vessels only weighed the small sum -of 500 marks[90]. Yet this was in the country that is now known as the -richest silver-producing region that the world has ever seen. - -We thus find a people in a highly advanced state of civilization, who had -invented a calendar, had devised a system of picture-writing, who had -actually a currency in gold-dust, as we have found, and who were skilled -and artistic craftsmen in gold, and yet who were scarcely able to make -the slightest use of the silver, with which almost every crevice in their -native hills was charged. - -We may thus with safety rest in the conclusion that silver only comes -into use at a stage always and probably much later than gold. - -We have been thus led to the conclusion that gold is known to man at a -far earlier stage than silver; furthermore that copper is also prior in -discovery and use to silver owing to its natural form of deposit, and -that, although in a region where gold does not exist, copper may have -been the first of the metals to come under human notice, yet wherever -gold-bearing strata are found, there is a great probability that gold -was the first metal known. Schrader (_op. cit._ p. 174) has discussed -the evidence from the Linguistic Palaeontological point of view, and -whilst much of what he says is interesting, there are some points in -his conclusions which shake one’s faith in the infallibility of the -Linguistic method for determining disputed points in archaeology. Gold -he considers was known to the Egyptians from the remotest times, and so -also to the Semites of Asia. As gold is found in abundance in the tombs -of Mycenae (circ. B.C. 1400) he considers that just about that time the -Greeks had acquired a knowledge of gold from the Phoenicians. The Greek -_Chrysos_ (χρυσος), _gold_, is derived, according to many scholars, from -the Phoenician equivalent for _charutz_, the Hebrew name for the same -metal. - -There is plainly no relationship between the Egyptian name _Nub_ and the -Semitic appellation. The question, however, may arise as to whether, -even granting that _chrysos_ is derived from _chârûz_, it follows that -the Greeks had no knowledge of gold prior to their contact with the -Phoenicians. It is the skilful manufacture of a metal into beautiful and -useful articles which gives it its real value. Hence arises the high -esteem in which the cunning workman is held in early times. In Homer -he is ranked along with the _prophet_, a sufficient proof in itself of -the great importance attached to his functions. Again, in the Homeric -Poems all articles of gold and silver of especially fine workmanship, if -they are not the work of the divine smith Hephaestus himself, are the -productions of the Sidonian craftsmen. The priest Maron gave Odysseus, -amongst other presents, seven talents of well-wrought gold. Whether this -took the form simply of rings we cannot tell, but plainly the value of -the gift is enhanced by the epithet. From these considerations it seems -not unreasonable to suppose that the Greeks, although possessing a name -of their own for gold, may have adopted a Phoenician name, because they -obtained the fine-wrought ornaments of that metal which they prized so -highly from the Semite traders. - -If any one thinks that this is a mere suggestion unsupported by analogy, -my answer is not far to seek. The Albanian word for gold is φλjορι[91], -so called because the first coined gold moneys of the middle ages with -which they became acquainted were those of Florence. Now I think Dr -Schrader will hardly maintain that the Albanians were unacquainted -with gold as a metal until sometime in the mediaeval period they first -obtained it from the Florentines. What took place in the case of the -Albanians may have taken place again and again at earlier periods. A rude -nation already acquainted with a certain metal receives by trade from a -more advanced people the same metal wrought into various shapes and forms -for personal decoration or use, and along with the superior articles -it takes over the name by which the makers of those objects of metal -described them. - -These considerations well serve to show how unsafe is the basis afforded -by Linguistic Palaeontology alone on which to build any theory of -ethnical development. Let us now take another case where Schrader and -his followers dogmatize without the slightest suspicion that the facts -of recorded history may step in and rudely upset their conclusions. -Schrader[92] holds that the Kelts were not acquainted with gold until -their invasion of Italy in the beginning of the 4th cent. B.C. His -argument is that the Celtic word for gold (Irish _or_, Cymric _awr_) is -a loan-word from the Latin _aurum_. As the Sabine form of the latter -is _ausum_, and the change of _s_ to _r_ did not take place in Latin -until the fifth century B.C., and as the change of primitive _s_ into -_r_ does not take place in the Keltic languages, he infers that it -was only after the change in the form of the word had taken place in -Latin that the Gauls became acquainted with the metal. Yet who will, on -reflection, maintain that the Gauls had not already learned the use of -gold from the Etruscans with whom they had been in contact long before -they ever reached the Allia or sacked Rome? The Italian dialects were -still employing the form of the word with _s_. Why should the Gauls -have taken the form of the word with which they must have come least in -contact in their invasion of Italy in preference to that used amongst the -other Italians? Finally comes the irresistible evidence of Polybius that -when the Gauls invaded Italy their only possessions consisted of their -cattle and an abundance of gold ornaments, both of which could be easily -transported from place to place[93]. - -Again, we can argue forcibly that it is contrary to all experience for -primitive peoples to suddenly exhibit so strong a predilection for -metals, or objects of which they have not had previous knowledge, as the -Gauls showed in their rapacious demands that the ransom of Rome should -be in gold. The legend that Brennus threw his sword into the scales, and -ordered them to make up its weight in addition to the stipulated sum, -shows, if it is true, that the Gauls were well acquainted with the art -of weighing, which would be only gained from a long knowledge of the -precious metals. The solution of the difficulty involved in the Keltic -_or_ can be readily found. The Iberians in Spain had long been skilled in -the working and use of the precious metals. Tradition told how Colaeus -of Samos, the first of the Greeks who ever sailed to Spain, brought -back a fabulous amount of precious metal, and that the Phoenicians when -they first traded in that region found silver so plentiful that in -their greed for gain, when the ship could hold no more, they replaced -their anchors by others made of that metal. The Phocaeans had traded -with Iberia and Gaul from the end of the 7th century, Massalia had been -founded by this bold people about 600 B.C. Are we to suppose that in -all those centuries when the Kelts are in constant contact with the -Iberians, and when already all Keltike, Helvetia, Northern Italy and even -perhaps ‘the remote Britanni,’ were in constant touch with the traders -of Massalia, the Kelts waited to learn the use of gold and silver until -B.C. 400? The Basque name for gold is _urrea_. It is quite possible that -the Keltic name was obtained from the Iberians, whom they found already -in possession of Western Europe. But there is another alternative which -is probably to be preferred. As we found the Albanians calling gold by -a name derived from the gold coins of Florence, so the Kelts may have -adopted the Latin names for gold used by their Roman conquerors. This is -made almost certain by the fact that _aura_, in old Norse, derived from -Latin _aurum_, became the regular word for treasure, although no one will -deny that the Teutonic peoples had already _gold_ and its cognates as -terms of their own for the metal. Everyone is familiar with the influence -exercised by the Roman coinage even in the countries of the East, where -Rome met with a civilization hoary in age before Romulus founded Rome, -and from which Rome herself had ultimately derived the art of coining. -Yet by the time of Christ the Roman _denarius_, the _penny_ of our -Authorized Version, had already asserted itself in the Greek-speaking -provinces of the East, and became in later days, when the rule of Rome -and Constantinople fell before the Arab conquerors, under the form of -_dinar_, the standard coin of the great Mahomedan Empires. Did then -in like fashion the Roman form of the name for _gold_, which in all -probability varied but little from the cognate Gaulish word, supplant at -a comparatively early period that native form? - -The same argument may be urged in reference to the silver. The Irish -form is _airgid_, according to some a loan-word, being simply the Latin -_argentum_. We have already seen that it is not possible that the Kelts, -in constant contact with the Iberians who were so rich in silver, could -have remained in ignorance of that metal. The Gaulish form of the name -for silver was plainly in Roman times almost the same as the Latin, as is -shown by _Argentoratum_, the ancient name of Strasburg. It is plain then -that before the Roman Conquest the Gauls had a town called by the name -for _silver_, whilst the Irish form has no nasal, the Gaulish coincides -completely with the Latin. Is it not possible, that in this case too a -native Keltic name, a close cognate of Latin _argentum_, whose lineal -descendant is seen in the Irish form, may have been assimilated to the -Latin form? But there is plenty of evidence from other quarters to show -that the mere existence of a foreign name for a particular object in -any language is no proof that the object in question came into use for -the first time along with the borrowing of the name. When the Franks -conquered that portion of the Roman empire to which they gave their name, -they must have had Teutonic words of their own for _silver_ and _gold_, -closely related to our own forms of the words. Yet whilst many Teutonic -words lingered and became absorbed into what became in process of time -the French language, their names for the metals disappeared and the Latin -derivatives remained in possession. - -Again, we get another instance of such borrowing in the case of our -own _penny_, old English _pendinga_, _penning_, German _Pfennig_. The -philologists seem agreed in recognizing this as a loan-word from the -Latin _pecunia_. Yet money was familiar to the northern peoples long -before they ever came into contact with even the advanced posts of the -Empire. The use of rings and spirals of gold as a form of currency in -Scandinavia is well known; our word _shilling_ seems to mean no more -than portions of such a coil of gold or silver wire cut off, to be used -as small change. But as the first coined money with which they became -familiar was the currency of Rome, they seem to have taken the generic -Roman name for money as their own expression for the Roman silver coins -with which they became familiar, just as the Latin _aurum_ under the form -of _aura_ (_eyrir_) became in old Norse the general term for coined money -or treasure in money. - -We may ask why did the Kelts especially choose the Roman form of the name -for gold, if they were then for the first time getting a name for the -substance then (according to Schrader) first known to them? Before they -ever reached Latium they had been in contact with peoples in Northern -Italy who undoubtedly were well acquainted with gold. The Etruscans were -a wealthy people, who coined gold pieces before Rome had struck coins of -any kind[94]. The Umbrians on the east side, the ancient Italic race who -had in the days before the Etruscan Conquest held all Northern Italy up -to the Alps, which was hence known to the earliest Greek geographers by -the name of Ombriké[95], were, beyond all doubt, acquainted with the use -of gold, and had a name for it probably the same as the Sabine _ausum_. -Why then did the Gauls remain entirely ignorant of gold and of a name for -it when they had been in constant contact with those peoples who had most -undoubtedly abundance of the metal and names of their own for it? Until -some sufficient answer is given to the objections here raised, we must -on every logical and scientific ground refuse our assent to an argument, -the sole basis of which is philological. It may not be inappropriate also -here to remark that it is most desirable in all historical enquiries to -rely as little as possible on Etymology. From the days when the Stoics -laid such importance on arguments based on the _originatio verborum_ -down to the present time reasonings based on such foundations have been -as a rule founded on the sand. Comparative Grammar as yet can hardly be -described as a science. New principles and laws are brought to light each -year, and, although of course the solid _residuum_ of what may now be -regarded as more or less positive knowledge is slowly growing in bulk, -those laws which were the shibboleth of Philologists a decade ago, are -now rudely hurled from their preeminence. The only sound scientific -method in historical research is to employ linguistic science as merely -ancillary to our enquiries. - -We have now seen the importance of the ox over the whole area of Europe, -Asia and Northern Africa, in which those ancient peoples dwelt of whom -history has preserved for us some knowledge. We have likewise found -that over the same area gold was known and played an important part -from a very remote antiquity. This proof has depended of course almost -entirely on the literary remains and archaeological evidence. Political -Economists, when discoursing on the oft-vexed question of monetary -standards, lay down as one of the reasons why gold has been found so -convenient, that it is universally found. Whether that fact is of much -importance in modern times, when the facilities of communication are so -great, may perhaps be doubted (especially when we see some of the largest -stocks of gold existing in countries like England and France, where -there has been no production of gold for many years), but most certainly -in early times it was of great importance, as we shall see, that the -supplies of gold were not all concentrated in one or two places, but that -at many points in all the different countries which came within the area -of the ancient world, nature had had her treasure-houses. - -To begin in the East, we shall first find that in all Central Asia there -are rich auriferous deposits in many places. The stories told of the -gold-digging ants and of the Griffins and Arimaspians are familiar to all -readers of Herodotus. That historian (III. 102-5) gives an explanation of -how the Indians are so rich in gold. To the north of India lies a region -desert and waste by reason of sand. Close to this desert dwells an Indian -tribe, who border on the city of Kaspaturos, and the land of Paktuiké, -dwelling to the north of the other Indians, who live in the same manner -as the Bactrians, and are the most valiant of the Indians. These men go -on expeditions in search of gold. In this desert and in the sand are -ants, which are in size smaller than dogs, but larger than foxes. As -these ants make their habitations under ground they carry up the sand -just as the ants in Greece do, and they are very like the latter in -form. But the sand which is carried up is of gold. The Indians then make -expeditions in quest of this sand, each man having yoked three camels. -He then relates how the Indians time their arrival at the ant region so -as to reach the ant-diggings at the hottest time of the day, which in -that region is the early morning. The ants are then not to be seen for -they have returned into their burrows to avoid the heat of the sun. The -Indians hastily fill the sacks they have brought with the precious sand, -and depart with all speed, as the ants from their keen sense of smell -quickly detect their presence, and at once give chase. Their speed is -such that though the camels are as swift as horses, the Indians would -never manage to return in safety, unless they succeed in getting a good -start whilst the ants are still assembling from their various habitations. - -This story has been very ingeniously explained in modern times by Lassen -(_Alt-Ind. Leben_) and others. Lassen pointed out that a kind of gold -brought from a people of Northern India was called _pipilika_ ‘ant’ -(_Mahābhārata_ 2, 1860) and that it was probable that the story referred -to a kind of marmot which to this very day lives in large communities on -the sandy plateaus of Thibet. On the other hand more recent explorations -in Thibet show us that there are still communities of gold-diggers, who -in the rigour of the Himalayan winter clothe themselves in skins and -furs, which are drawn up right over their ears in such a fashion that -they present at first sight the appearance of large shaggy dogs[96]. -Whichever explanation may be right, it may be inferred that from a very -early time the region north of the Panjab afforded vast supplies of gold. -The remark of Herodotus (III. 105) that it was from this source that the -Indians obtained their wealth, and that there was not much gold mined in -their own land, is probably correct. It is beyond all doubt that the gold -of Thibet at all times found its way largely into what is now the Panjab. -We need have little hesitation in believing that from a very remote -epoch the rude tribes of the Himalaya must have been acquainted with the -gold-dust, which lay in rich deposits in the various mountain streams. - -To come towards the west, the great wealth of the Persian kings seems -to have been derived from the basin of the Oxus, which was famous in -antiquity for its golden sands. Thus in the _Book of Marvels_ (a work -ascribed to Aristotle and largely composed of extracts from his writings) -it is stated that the river Oxus in Bactria carries down nuggets of -gold many in number[97]. But the region from which Herodotus thought -that in his time came the greatest supply of gold was the Oural-Altai -region of Central Asia. The Greek Colonies on the northern coast of the -Black Sea, the most important of which was Olbia at the mouth of the -river Borysthenes, had a large and lucrative trade with the Scythians, -who inhabited the wide plains of that bleak region. The Scythians were -rich in gold which they obtained from the still remoter country of the -Issedones, that people who, though righteous in all other respects, had -the singular fashion of devouring their dead fathers. The Issedones -again obtained by barter the gold from the Arimaspians, a race who had -but one eye, and were hardly human[98]. They in turn, so report went, -obtained the precious article not by traffic, but by theft from the -gold-guarding griffins, who occupied the land where the gold was found. -At least Herodotus says, “How the gold is produced I cannot truly tell, -but the story is that the Arimaspians, people with one eye, carry it -off from the Grypes[99].” He describes elsewhere (IV. 17) this region, -which lay beyond the Scythians, where the cold was so great that the -ground was frozen hard for eight months of the year, and that it was even -cold in the summer season, that the air was so full of feathers that -no one could see, by which, as Herodotus very properly explains, the -thick falling feathery flakes of snow were meant, and that the cattle -could not grow horns. All this seems to point beyond all doubt to the -Ural and Altai ranges. Unquestionably there was a well-established trade -route extending from the Black Sea through the country inhabited by the -Scythians proper, which Herodotus describes as consisting of plains of -rich soil, a true description of the fertile steppes of Southern Russia. -Then beyond this lay a large area of rugged, stony land, inhabited by a -people called Argippaei, who, males and females alike, were born bald. -Their territory formed the lower part of a range of lofty mountains. They -were a peaceful and a harmless race, dwelling in tents of white felt in -the winter. It was easy to learn about them and their country from the -Scythian traders who held intercourse with them, as likewise from the -Greeks from the factories of the Borysthenes, and from the other Greek -trading ports on the Euxine. No man could say of a truth what lay to the -north of the “Baldheads,” as on that side rose the lofty, impassable -range of mountains, but Herodotus had heard (but did not believe) that -according to the “Baldheads” a race of men having the feet of goats dwelt -there[100], a legend which may be plausibly rationalized into a simple -statement that a race of mountain-folk, sure-footed as the wild goat, -inhabited the mountains. But on their east the existence of the Issedones -was an established fact. - -It is plain then that from a date lost in the distance of time the -gold of the Ural-Altaic region had been worked and exported, and -that consequently it was known and prized by all the tribes who came -within the influence of this wide district. The Scythians in the fifth -century before Christ were engaged in regular trade with this region, -and possessed abundant store of the prized substance. This is shown by -Herodotus in a very remarkable passage wherein he describes the burial -of a Scythian king. After recounting the ceremonials he thus proceeds: -“In the open space round the body of the king they bury one of his -concubines, first killing her by strangling, and also his cupbearer, -his cook, his groom, his lacquey, his messenger, some of his horses, -firstlings of all his other possessions and some golden cups; for they -use neither silver nor copper[101].” From this passage we learn the -interesting fact that the Scythians, although possessing great quantities -of gold and being able to work it into articles of use, were yet ignorant -of silver and copper, which nevertheless, as we know now, exist in large -deposits in the Ural region. This is one of several cases which we shall -have to notice which go far to prove that the knowledge and working of -gold preceded not only that of silver, but also that of copper. - -The remoteness of the age at which some branch of the Turko-Tartar -family who dwelt in the Altai region, first discovered the treasures -which Nature had stored up there, is evidenced, as Schrader (following -Klaproth) rightly points out (p. 253), by the fact that among all the -branches of that widespread family of languages, from the Osmanli Turks -on the Dardanelles to the remote Samoyedes on the banks of the Lena, -the same word for gold is found in slightly varying forms, _altun_, -_altyn_, _iltyn_, etc., which can hardly be etymologically separated from -_Altai_, the locality from which it first became known in far-off days. -In the ancient graves of the Tschudi in the Altaic districts, have been -found abundance of gold and silver utensils which according to Sjögren -(Schrader 136), exhibit the representation of the Griffin of Greek fable. - -Before passing further west into Europe we shall complete our survey -of the gold-fields of Western Asia. One of the most beautiful of Greek -stories hangs around the eastern end of the Black Sea, where lay the -land of Colchis, the goal which Jason and his fellow Argonauts sought -in their quest of the Golden Fleece. In the Homeric poems the voyage -of the ship Argo is referred to as an event which had taken place in a -past generation. In the time of the geographer Strabo (B.C. 63-A.D. 21) -gold was still found in Colchis in a district occupied by a tribe called -Soanes, scarcely less famous for their personal uncleanliness than their -neighbours the Phtheirophagoi (Lice-eaters) who bore this appellation -from the filthiness of their habits. “It is said that in their country -the mountain torrents bring down gold, and that the barbarians catch -it in troughs perforated with holes, and in skins with the fleece left -on, from which circumstance they say arose the fable of the Golden -Fleece[102].” - -Strabo’s explanation, which seems from his words to have been the current -one in his day, is extremely plausible, and it appears highly probable -that from the first dawn of history the torrent-swept treasures of the -Colchian land were well known to the dwellers in both Asia Minor and -Europe. But this was not the only place in Asia Minor where gold was -found. We shall have occasion again and again to refer to the Electrum of -Sardis, obtained from the sand of the river Pactolus which flowed down -from Mount Tmolus. Scholars are familiar with the account which Herodotus -gives of these gold deposits, but probably the most convenient thing for -our present purpose will be to quote Strabo’s enumeration of the kings -and potentates of antiquity in Asia and Europe who were famous for their -wealth, as he has added in each case the source from which their wealth -was obtained. The current account as given by Callisthenes and others -was, “that the wealth of Tantalus and the Pelopidae was derived from the -mines of Phrygia and Sipylus, whilst the wealth of Cadmus came from the -mines of Thrace and Mount Pangaeum, but that of Priam from the gold-mines -at Astyra in the vicinity of Abydus, of which even now there are still -scanty remnants. But the quantity of earth cast up is vast, and the -diggings are proofs of the ancient mining operations. But the wealth of -Midas came from the mines round Mount Bermion, whilst that of Gyges and -Alyattes and Croesus came from the mines in Lydia. But in the district -between Atarneus and Pergamus there is a deserted city, with places -containing worked-out mines[103].” This passage gives a good picture of -the gold-fields which in ancient days were worked round the shores of the -Aegean. - -In the time of Strabo some of them were already worked out and gave but a -scanty yield, for he says, “above the territory of the people of Abydus -lies in the Troad Astyra, which now belongs to the people of Abydus, a -ruined city, but aforetime it was independent, possessing gold-mines, -now affording but a scanty yield, as they are exhausted, just like the -mines on Mount Tmolus in the neighbourhood of the Pactolus.” The latter -district was still productive in the days of Herodotus, who declared -that the land of Lydia had few marvels to chronicle except the gold-dust -that is borne down from Tmolus[104]. Strabo too, elsewhere[105], when -describing the river system of this part of Asia Minor says, “the -Pactolus flows from Tmolus, carrying down that ancient gold-dust from -which they say that the famous wealth of Croesus and of his ancestors -became renowned. But now the gold-dust has failed, as has been stated.” - -It is interesting to observe that according to tradition the wealth -of Midas, the king of Phrygia, who is perhaps more famous for his -ass’s ears than his riches, came from the Bermion Mount in that part -of Macedonia, which was occupied in historical times by the powerful -tribe of the Bryges. This in itself is an interesting indication of the -intimate connection and close communication between the countries and -peoples on both sides of the Dardanelles from the earliest epoch. There -were on either side lands gifted by nature with stores of wealth, as -well as possessing the portals of either continent. Hence the Hellespont -and Bosphorus have ever been the seat of rich cities, and have ever been -regarded amongst the greatest of prizes in the struggles of the nations. - -It is possible that the ancient legend connecting the wealth of Priam of -Troy with the mines of Astyra, still worked in Strabo’s days, may serve -to explain the real cause of that invasion of the Achaeans, which in all -probability did occur, although on what form or at what time we know not, -and around which there grew in the mouths of the rhapsodists the tale of -Troy Divine. In all our enumeration of gold-mines we do not find a single -one allotted to Greece Proper. The wealth of Cadmus, the old Phoenician -founder of Thebes, who was said to have introduced the art of writing -into Hellas, came, according to Strabo’s tradition, from Thrace and the -mines of Pangaeum. As Cadmus is the typical wealthy potentate of Northern -Greece, so the line of Pelops are the typical wealthy potentates of -Peloponnesus. Their wealth, like that of Cadmus, is adventitious, for it -is the product of the mines of Phrygia and Mount Sipylus. This is quite -consistent with the statement of Thucydides that “those Peloponnesians -who have received the clearest accounts by tradition from the men of -former time declare that Pelops first by means of the mass of wealth -with which he came from Asia to men who were poor, having acquired for -himself power although he was a new-comer, gave occasion for the land to -be called after him.” - -Of the three cities which are called rich in gold by Homer, two are in -Hellas proper, namely Mycenae in Peloponnesus, and the Minyan Orchomenus -in Boeotia. Gold has been found in abundance in the prehistoric tombs -at Mycenae, thus confirming the ancient tradition. This gold, beyond -doubt, was imported from outside Greece, and we may without hesitation -accept the view of the Greeks themselves that it came from Asia Minor. -The story of the wealth of Cadmus, who came to Boeotia as Pelops did -to Peloponnesus is equally in harmony with the Homeric tradition of -a great wealthy city in Boeotia. Dr Schliemann excavated the remains -of Orchomenus, as he did those of Mycenae, and of the ancient city at -Hissarlik, but his labours unfortunately gave no confirmation of the -accounts of the ancient wealth of Orchomenus. The reason probably was -that he came many centuries too late, as the great prehistoric tomb known -as the Treasure-house of the Minyans had long since been repeatedly -plundered and ransacked; not even one bronze plate of those that once -had probably lined its walls was left. Still less likely was it that any -vestige of gold would have escaped the rapacity of the spoiler. - -The wealth of Northern Greece, then, by the earliest tradition is -connected with the rich gold regions of Thrace, which, if we accept -the same tradition, must have been worked from the remotest age. The -connection of the Cadmus legend with this region points clearly to very -early Phoenician trade in the days when as yet the Phoenicians had -undisputed mastery over the Aegean Sea and the Hellenes had not begun to -develop maritime enterprize. - -As a matter of fact the name of the island of Thasos, which lay off the -Thracian shore, was directly ascribed to a Phoenician settler. In the -time of Herodotus the Thasians had a large revenue both from the mines -on the mainland and from those in their own island. For he tells us that -“from the gold-mines of Scapte Hyle they had a revenue on the average of -eighty talents, and from those in Thasos itself a lesser one, but yet so -good that the Thasians enjoyed exemption from taxation on produce and had -a yearly revenue from the mainland and the mines together of two hundred -talents on the average, but when the revenue was at its maximum, it was -three hundred talents. And I myself likewise saw these mines, and by far -the most wonderful were those which the Phoenicians who had colonized the -island along with Thasos had opened up, it was this Phoenician _leader_ -Thasos who gave his name to the island. These Phoenician mines lie in -the part of Thasos between the district of Aenyra and Coenyra; a great -mountain has been upturned in the search[106].” But the most famous -mines on the mainland of Thrace were those of Mount Pangaeum, Crenides, -and Datum. Strabo gives a succinct account of this wealthy district: -“There are other cities round the gulf of the Strymon, as for instance -Myrcinus, Argilus, Drabescus, Datum. The last-named has very excellent -and fruitful land and shipbuilding-yards, and mines of gold, from which -comes the proverb a _Datum of riches_, just like _loads of wealth_.” And -in another passage he says that, “there are very numerous gold-mines at -Crenides[107]. The city of Philippi is now seated close to the Pangaeum -Mount. And the Pangaeum Mount too has mines of gold and silver, and so -has the region both on the other side of and on this side the Strymon as -far as Paeonia. And they say likewise that those who plough the Paeonian -land find some morsels of gold.” - -It was in a struggle with a Thracian tribe, the Edonians, for the -possession of the mines at Datum that Sophanes, the son of Eutychides -of Decelea, who had distinguished himself above all other Athenians at -the battle of Plataea, was killed[108]. The possession of Thasos and -the coast of Thrace was not the least important means by which Athens -held her supremacy in Greece, and when Philip (360-336 B.C.) finally -got supreme control over all this region, and built his new capital of -Philippi, his path of conquest was henceforward made easy by the golden -Philippi, the _regale nomisma_ of Horace, - - Diffidit urbium - Portas uir Macedo, et subruit aemulos - Reges muneribus. - - (_Carm._ III. 16. 13.) - -Passing on now to Southern Asia we find that there gold was found in -Carmania (the modern Kerman) on the Persian Gulf. Strabo states on the -authority of Onesicritus that in Carmania a river carries down gold-dust, -and that there is likewise a mine of dug gold and of silver and of -copper[109]. - -That there was gold in Arabia is placed beyond doubt by various notices -in antiquity. “He shall live and unto him shall be given of the gold of -Sheba (Saba[110]),” says the Psalmist (Ps. lxxii. 13), showing that the -inhabitants of Palestine regarded that country as a source from which the -gold-supply came. - -Strabo and Diodorus give somewhat similar accounts of the gold found -along the Red Sea littoral. The former, describing the land of the -Nomads who live entirely by their camels, which they employ for warfare -and for travelling, and on whose milk and flesh they subsist, says: “a -river flows through their land which carries down gold-dust, but they -have not skill to work it up. Now they are called Debae[111]; some of -them are nomads, others are tillers of the soil. But I do not mention -the numerous names of the tribes on account of their uncertainty and -outlandish pronunciation. Next to them come more civilized men, who -inhabit a more genial soil. For it is well supplied with both river and -rain water. And dug gold is produced in their land, not from dust but -from nuggets of gold, which do not need much refining. The smallest -nuggets are of the size of olive-stones (?) (πυρὴν), the medium-sized -are as big as medlars, and the largest are of the size of chestnuts (?) -(κάρυον). Having perforated these they pass a thread of flax through -them in alternation with transparent stones and make themselves chains, -and put them round their necks and wrists. And they offer their gold for -sale to their neighbours likewise at a cheap rate, giving thrice as much -gold as they get copper in exchange and twice as much gold as they get -silver in exchange, for they have not the skill to work the gold, and the -metals which they receive in exchange are rare in their country and more -necessary for life[112].” - -This is a most interesting and important passage, as it brings us face -to face with primitive peoples in the very earliest stage of the use of -metals. The Nomads do not possess skill enough to work the gold-dust of -their river, although evidently aware of its existence. Their neighbours -being more favoured by the nature of their gold deposit are able to use -the metal in the way in which we may with safety conclude that mankind -everywhere first employed it. Accustomed to use ornaments of shells -made into rude beads, they had no difficulty in adapting for like use -the small lumps of native gold. They readily pierced the soft metal -and making the nuggets into beads used them to form their necklets and -armlets. But although this people had made some progress in the working -of gold, they were incapable of working copper and silver. We shall -have to return to this passage hereafter. Let us now hear Diodorus in -reference to the same region. - -He speaks of it in two separate places in his Collections, first in his -Second Book, when giving a brief general statement of Arabia and its -natural products, and again in the Third Book, when he is giving a more -detailed account of the tribes who dwelt along the shores of the Red Sea -or, as he called it, the Arabian Gulf. - -The first passage runs thus (he has just been describing certain -quarries): “There are mines in Arabia likewise of the gold that is termed -‘fireless.’ It is not refined down from gold-dust as in other countries, -but it is obtained straightway on being dug up in size like unto -chestnuts, and so fiery in colour that the most precious stones when set -in it by the craftsmen make the most lovely of ornaments. And so great -abundance of all sorts of cattle is found in the country that many tribes -having chosen a pastoral life are able to get a comfortable subsistence, -and being completely furnished with the plenteousness derived from -their herds, they even have no need of corn in addition[113].” In his -second reference, after describing the hill district, where lay the -Mount Chabinus, densely clad with forests of all kinds of trees he says: -“The land which comes next to the mountain region those Arabs called -Debae inhabit. Now these people are camel-keepers and make use of this -animal for all the most important affairs in life. For from them, they -fight against their enemies and conveying their wares on the backs -of these effect successfully all their business, and they subsist by -drinking their milk, and they range over the whole region on their fleet -camels. Now about midway in their land flows a river which brings down -so much shining gold-dust that the alluvial mud deposited at its mouth -positively glitters. Now the natives are completely unskilled in the -working of the gold, but they are hospitable to strangers, not to all -comers, but to those alone who come from Boeotia[114] and Peloponnesus -because of a certain ancient affinity of Heracles with their nation, a -tradition of which in legendary fashion they relate they have received -from their forefathers. The next region is settled by the Alilaean and -Gasandan Arabs, not being torrid, like those near it, inasmuch as it is -often overcast with soft dense clouds, and from these arise snowstorms -and seasonable rains which make the summer season temperate. And the -land is capable of producing everything and surpasses in excellence, yet -it does not meet with proper attention, owing to the ignorance of the -folk. And finding gold in the natural cavities in the earth they collect -it in quantities, not that which is obtained by fusion from gold-dust, -but that which is native and from the circumstance called ‘fireless.’ -And as to size the smallest piece found is similar to an olive-stone, -whilst the largest is not much less than a walnut. And they wear it round -their wrists and necks when it is perforated, the nuggets alternating -with transparent stones. But since this kind of metal is plentiful with -them, but copper and iron are scarce, they barter these wares with the -traders at an equal rate[115].” Strabo probably got his information from -Artemidorus, who is his chief authority for everything connected with the -Red Sea. Diodorus, whose authority is Agatharchides, substantially agrees -with Strabo in all the main facts, such as the name of the tribe who -cannot work up the gold-dust, whilst he adds the names of the Alilaeans -and Gasandans, which are not given by Strabo[116]. - -From Arabia we naturally pass on to Egypt. We have already seen that -the archaeologists assign reasons for supposing that the Egyptians were -acquainted with gold from the remotest ages. The Egyptian word for gold -is _nub_, from which the name Nubia, _i.e._ _El Dorado_, is commonly -derived. Having fresh in our minds the interesting fact noticed above (p. -69) that the universal word for gold in use amongst the Turko-Tartaric -races is probably derived from the Altai, the source from which they -first got the metal, we are tempted to reverse the ordinary doctrine, and -to derive the Egyptian name for gold from that of the region whence they -first obtained it. The principle of naming products after the region or -place from which they have been first brought is too well known to need -illustration. Instances are familiar in all languages: _Cappadocae_, -the Latin name for lettuce; _Persica_ from which has come our _peach_, -through the French; Indian corn, india-rubber, etc. are sufficient -examples. The negroes of Eastern Africa call a certain kind of cloth -_Merikano_, _i.e._ American. Perhaps, then, the name _nub_ is rather a -word of this class, and Nubia is not like Gold Coast, which belongs to -the category of names formed by epithets applied in consequence of some -article already well known having been found there. - -Strabo (p. 821), describing Meroe, that large and fertile island formed -by the Nile, says: “the island has many great mountains, and some of -its inhabitants are shepherds, some hunters, and some husbandmen. And -there are likewise copper-diggings and iron-works, and gold-mines, and -varieties of valuable marbles. It is shut off from Libya by great sands, -from Arabia by unbroken heights, and from the upper region from the south -by the junctions of the rivers, Astaboras, Astapus, and Astasobus. On -the north the Nile flows all the way to Egypt in that tortuous fashion -which I have described.” This island virtually coincides with the modern -province of Atbar. It is probably to this same region that Diodorus -refers in his famous description of the Egyptian gold-mining. Although -the passage is one of considerable length, it is of such interest and -importance that it is perhaps advisable to give it in full: “On the -confines of Egypt, Arabia which marches with it, and Ethiopia is a spot -possessed of many great mines of gold, where the gold is got together -with much suffering and expense. Since the earth is black and has -lodes and veins of quartz of surpassing whiteness, and which excel in -brilliancy all those natural objects which are noted for their lustre, -those who are in charge of the mining works by the numbers of the -labourers prepare the gold. For the kings of Egypt collect together and -consign to the gold-mines those who have been condemned for crime, and -who have been made captive in war, and furthermore those who have been -ruined by false slanders, and who owing to an outburst of anger have been -cast into prison, sometimes only themselves, but sometimes likewise with -all their kindred, at one and the same time both exacting punishment from -those who have been condemned, and obtaining great revenues by means -of those who are engaged in the labour. Those who have been consigned -to the mines, being many in number and all bound with fetters, toil at -their tasks continuously both by day and all night long, getting no -rest, and jealously kept from all escape. For guards composed of foreign -soldiers, and who speak languages which differ from theirs, are set over -them, so that no one is able by association or any kindly intercourse to -corrupt any one of the warders. The hardest of the earth which contains -the gold they burn with a good deal of fire, and make soft, and work it -with their hands, but the soft rock and that which can easily yield to -stone chisels or iron is worked down by thousands of hapless beings. And -the craftsman who distinguishes the stone takes the lead in the whole -process, and he gives instructions to the workmen. And of those who have -been appointed to this misery those who surpass in bodily strength cut -with iron pickaxes the glittering rock, not by bringing skill to bear -upon their tasks, but by mere brute force, and they hew out galleries, -not in a straight line, but according to the vein of the glittering rock. -They then living in darkness owing to the bends and twists in the pits -carry about lamps fitted on their foreheads, and changing in many ways -the posture of their bodies according to the peculiarity of the rock -throw down on the floor the fragments that are being hewn, and this they -do unceasingly under the severity and stripes of an overseer. But the -boys who have not yet reached manhood going in through the shafts into -the excavations in the rock, laboriously cast up the rock that is being -thrown down bit by bit, and convey it to the place outside the mouth of -the shaft into the light. But the men who are more than thirty years old -take a fixed measure of the quarried stone, and pound it in stone mortars -with iron pestles until they reduce it to the size of a vetch. From these -the women and older men receive the stone now reduced to pieces the size -of a vetch, and as there is a considerable number of mills there in a -row, they cast the stone upon them, they stand beside them at the handle -in threes or twos, they grind until they have reduced the measure given -them to the fineness of wheaten flour. And since they are all regardless -of their persons, and have not a garment to cover their nakedness, no -one who saw them could refrain from pitying the hapless creatures owing -to their excessive misery. For there is absolutely no consideration nor -relaxation for sick, or maimed, for aged man, or weak woman, but all are -forced to toil on at their tasks until, worn out by their miseries, they -die amid their toils. Wherefore the unhappy beings regard the future as -more to be dreaded than the present owing to the excess of punishment, -and expect death as more to be longed for than life. - -“But finally the craftsmen get the ground-up stone, and complete the -process. For they rub the ground-up quartz on a broad board placed on a -slight incline, pouring water on it. Then the earthy part of it, melting -away by the action of the liquid, flows down along the sloping board, -but the part that contains the gold adheres to the board owing to its -weight. Repeating this process frequently at first with their hands they -gently rub it, but after this pressing it lightly with delicate sponges -they take up by these means the soft and earthy part until the gold-dust -is left in a state of purity. - -“Finally other craftsmen, taking over the collected gold by measure and -weight, put it into earthenware pots, and in proportion to the amount -they put in a piece of lead and lumps of salt and furthermore a small -quantity of tin, and they add barley bran. Then having made a well-fitted -cover and having laboriously smeared it over with mud, they bake it in -kilns for five days and as many nights continuously. Then after letting -it cool, they find none of the other things in the vessels, but get the -gold in a pure state with but a slight reduction in quantity. With so -many and so great sufferings is the production of gold at the frontiers -of Egypt completed. For Nature herself makes it plain, I think, that -gold is produced with toil, is guarded with difficulty, is most eagerly -sought for, and is enjoyed with mixed pleasure and pain. The discovery of -these mines is of very ancient date, inasmuch as it was made known by the -ancient kings[117].” - -Such then is the vivid picture drawn by the humane Diodorus of the -horrible torments of the unhappy bondsmen who worked these famous mines, -sufferings only to be paralleled by the miseries endured by the miners -in Spain under Roman rule, by the Indians in the mines of Peru under -the yoke of the Spaniard, and by the helpless sufferers under Muscovite -cruelty who at this hour endure a living death in the mines of Siberia. - -For our immediate purpose it is interesting to notice that the Egyptians -from a far back time obtained an abundant supply of gold from the -confines of their own territory, and doubtless drew a further supply from -those rich gold districts along the Red Sea of which we have just spoken. - -Whilst in the latter case we had a most instructive instance of the -first attempts to utilize the metals made by men, so in the case of -Egypt we find an example of the most elaborate and scientific process of -gold-mining known to the ancients. For we shall find that the process -employed in Spain by the Romans for refining the crude gold was not -nearly so elaborate as that employed by the Egyptians. - -It is of course quite possible that supplies of gold either in the form -of dust or of rings may have reached Egypt from the interior of Africa, -but of that we have not as far as I am aware any historical record. For -the negroes who are depicted in Egyptian paintings bringing tribute of -gold rings might have brought them from Nubia or from a region on the -coast of the Mediterranean further west. It is indeed a fact of great -interest that down to the present day gold in the shape of rings or links -is brought to Massowah on the Red Sea from Sennaar (Nubia). This is the -best of the three qualities which reach Massowah; the second quality is -Abyssinian gold, “in grains or beads,” and the third is also Abyssinian -gold “in ingots.” Thus two most ancient ways of using gold are employed -in this region still, for the gold in grains or beads reminds us at once -of the story of its being employed by the Debae to form necklaces[118]. - -Once more let us advance westward, and notice the last gold-field on the -continent of Africa. That gold was obtained by the Carthaginians from a -district in North Africa is put beyond doubt by a passage of Herodotus -(IV. 195), who, after describing a certain people called the Gyzantes, -who coloured themselves red with raddle, and ate apes, says that “the -Carthaginians declare that opposite this people lies an island named -Cyraunis, two hundred stades long (25 miles) but narrow in breadth, with -a crossing from the mainland; the island is full of olives and vines, and -there is a lake in it from which the native maidens by means of birds’ -feathers smeared with pitch take up gold dust out of the silt.” Whatever -may be the exact spot meant on the coast of the Libyan nomads we may at -least conclude that there is a distinct indication that the Carthaginians -were well acquainted with gold deposits in this quarter. Whether or not -the Carthaginians and in later times the Romans may have obtained by -caravans across the desert supplies of gold from the great gold-bearing -regions of West Africa, we have no means of judging, but it is on the -whole probable that they did. The voyage of Hanno, the Carthaginian -admiral, along the western side of Africa can hardly have failed to make -known to them the existence of rich gold fields, even if they had been -previously ignorant of them; but it is still more likely that it was -the knowledge of such an Eldorado far away beyond the great Sahara that -induced them to send out the expedition. - -It has often happened in the history of both ancient and modern commerce -that the products of a certain region are known long before travellers -or merchants from civilized lands have ever reached the country that -produces them. Thus the merchants of Marseilles were probably familiar -with the tin brought from Devon and Cornwall across Gaul before the -famous Pytheas ever coasted round Spain and Gaul and visited our shores. -Again, in modern times, it is only within the last thirty years that -the source of that most familiar of drugs, Turkey rhubarb, has been -discovered. - -By whatever means they may have learned its existence the following -passage of Herodotus (IV. 196) puts it beyond all doubt that the -Carthaginians in the fifth century B.C. traded by sea for gold to the -west coast of Africa, and that consequently the savages of that region -must have been long acquainted with the metal: “The Carthaginians,” he -says, “also relate the following: there is a country in Libya and a -nation beyond the Pillars of Heracles, which they are wont to visit, -where they no sooner arrive than forthwith they unlade their wares, and -having disposed them after an orderly fashion along the beach, leave them -and returning aboard their ships, raise a great smoke. The natives, when -they see the smoke, come down to the shore, and laying out to view so -much gold as they think the worth of the wares, withdraw to a distance. -The Carthaginians upon this come ashore and look; if they think the gold -enough, they take it and go their way, but if it does not seem to them -sufficient, they go aboard once more and wait patiently. Then the others -approach and add to their gold, till the Carthaginians are content. -Neither party deals unfairly with the other, for they themselves never -touch the gold until it comes up to the worth of the goods, nor do the -natives ever carry off the goods till the gold is taken away[119].” - -Let us now retrace our steps to Europe and take up our investigation at -the point from which we diverged into Asia. We found Thrace and Thasos to -have been for many ages an inexhaustible source of gold. We must now pass -on from the Balkan peninsula to the Italian. - -Although according to Helbig (_Die Italiker in der Poebene_, p. 21) no -traces of gold have as yet been found in the lake-dwellings of Northern -Italy, which were erected and occupied by the Umbrians, who occupied -all that region until conquered by the Etruscans[120], we cannot take -this negative evidence as at all conclusive proof that the inhabitants -of these dwellings were utterly ignorant of gold and its use. Helbig -has shown that the inhabitants of the lake-dwellings were in the bronze -age at the time of the Etruscan conquest, which can be hardly placed -later than B.C. 1100. Bronze implements are found in the remains. But -as a matter of fact ornaments of gold are not generally found in the -ruins of the habitations of the living, but rather in the tombs of the -dead. That certainly has been the case at Mycenae, at Spata, on Mount -Hymettus in Attica, in the island of Thera, and at Ialysus in Rhodes. -Contrast the wealth of gold ornaments found in the tombs at Mycenae with -the complete absence of that metal in the palace at Tiryns. Of course -it may be urged on the other side that at Hissarlik amid the ruins of -a burnt city great treasure in gold and silver has been found, and we -must undoubtedly admit that in certain cases such as that of a city -suddenly destroyed by a fire before there was time either for the owners -to remove or the enemy to pillage the valuables therein, there is the -possibility of finding such remains. If we were to apply this negative -method consistently we must conclude that Orchomenus, which Homer called -“rich in gold,” was inhabited by men who were not yet acquainted with -that metal, and we should I believe be constrained to arrive at the same -conclusion in the case of Nineveh and Babylon. At least Sir Henry Layard -discovered scarcely a fragment of any articles of gold in the course of -his excavations on the site of those two cities, which nevertheless we -have the strongest grounds for believing were amongst the wealthiest of -those of ancient days. In dealing with the question of Northern Italy we -cannot separate it from the contiguous region of Switzerland or Helvetia. -Dr Keller, in his well-known work on the Lake-dwellings (p. 459), gives -instances where gold has been found in lake-dwellings amongst remains -that indicated the owners to have been in the bronze period. Of course it -may be said and said with truth that the lake-dwellings of Switzerland -continued to be occupied down to a time posterior to those found in -the Aemilia. But when we find that a gold ornament has been found in a -dwelling of neolithic age, we have a positive proof not simply of the -knowledge, but probably of the skill requisite to manufacture the metal. -If any upholder of the negative method urges that gold has been found -very sparingly in these lacustrine dwellings, let him remember that the -existence of one single object of gold in these remains is sufficient to -demolish all his argument. The objects found in the lakes are chiefly -débris, the offal of the house, bones of animals, which had formed the -food of the former owners, broken and disused implements, and such like. -Ornaments of gold were not likely to have been flung into the bottom of -the lake for the purpose of getting rid of them. Such precious articles -were probably handed down with great care from generation to generation, -and possibly in later days gold that once graced the neck or arms of -prehistoric men and women has reappeared time after time in the form of -coins, first the rude imitations of the staters of Philip of Macedon, -again under the form of Roman _aurei_, and perhaps even bore the impress -of some mediaeval monarch at a later time. There have been issues of -coins both in ancient and modern times of which not a single specimen -is at present known; yet if any one were to argue from this against the -truth of the documentary evidence, the spade of a peasant by turning up a -single coin might on the moment wreck all his logic. The sum of positive -knowledge which we obtain from this discussion is therefore that some -people who inhabited Switzerland in what is called the neolithic age (a -vague and often misleading phrase) were acquainted with the use of gold -ornaments. Could we but fix the inferior limits of this neolithic age, we -should at least obtain an approximate date before which gold was already -known. But it is most probable that stone, bronze and even iron long -continued to be used side by side in the same areas. The man who had no -articles to barter for bronze continued to use stone implements of his -own manufacture, whilst his more fortunate coeval used weapons made of -the superior but more costly material. - -Granting now that bronze implements made their way from the Mediterranean -into the middle and north of Europe, brought most likely by traders from -the more civilized shores of the Aegean, let us ask ourselves how did the -men of the neolithic stage obtain them. Did the kindly Phoenician trader -generously bestow as free gifts these articles on the barbarians of the -West? Does the trader of today among the isles of Melanesia lavish for -mere thanks his wares upon the natives who gather round him on the beach? -In Homer those Phoenician shipmen are described by an epithet, which by -the mildest interpretation means _knaves_. The men who brought bronze got -some valuable objects in exchange for it. Such objects must be portable: -slaves, gold, silver, copper, tin, skins and furs would probably form -the main objects of barter. If we make use of the philological method -of Schrader and his school, there can be no doubt that copper was known -to the Italians before ever a Phoenician keel grated against their -shores, for the Latin _aes_ is as we said a true Aryan word. There is no -suspicion of borrowing here from the Semitic as there is in the case of -the Greek _chalkos_. In such a case as this the philological argument -has some distinct force; for whilst, as I argued, it is easy to realize -a state of things under which a native name for a particular substance -already known may give place to a foreign one, on the other hand it is -difficult to see how a people who are receiving such a substance for -the first time from foreigners, and who would therefore naturally apply -to it a term obtained from the foreigners’ language, could afterwards -replace this name by one which is found applied to the same substance by -a cognate people dwelling thousands of miles away from them. The Italians -therefore probably had copper from a very early age. But we have already -seen good reason for believing that a knowledge of gold precedes that -of copper whenever both are found in the same area. We saw that the -Scythians, who got copious store of gold from the Ural-Altai region, made -no use of copper in the fifth century before our era, although copper -is found abundantly in the same area. From this we may infer with some -probability that the Italian stock were acquainted with gold sooner than -with copper. We may apply the same argument to gold in Italy as we did to -_copper_. _Aurum_ (older _ausum_), the Latin word for gold, is plainly -not borrowed, as is perhaps the Greek _chrysos_, from the Semites. Hence -it cannot be maintained that it was only with the Phoenicians that the -knowledge of gold reached Italy. - -It now only remains for us to see if the Italians had the means within -their reach of discovering gold. No one I suppose will dispute that the -Italian stock entered the peninsula from the north, driving before them -older occupants. They must then have either entered Italy by the head -of the Adriatic, coming round from the valleys of the Balkan peninsula, -or through the Alpine passes. If they came from the first quarter it is -impossible to suppose that a people in close contact with the tribes who -occupied the Balkan peninsula, and who as we have seen above must have -been acquainted with gold from a remote time, could have remained without -a knowledge of the metal. On the other hand it will be seen from the -following evidence that there was every opportunity for the discovery -of gold in the Alpine valleys. Strabo gives various notices of the gold -workings of this region. “Polybius states that in his own day in the -vicinity of Aquileia, in the territory of the Taurisci of Noricum, was -found a gold mine so productive that on clearing away the surface dirt -to a depth of two feet gold which could be dug was straightway found, -and that the pit did not exceed fifteen feet, and that part of the -gold was pure on the spot, being the size of a bean or a lupin, only -one-eighth being lost in refining, whilst some of it required a process -of smelting which, though more elaborate, was still very remunerative. -When the Italians worked them along with the barbarians for a space of -two months, straightway gold coin went down one-third in value throughout -the whole of Italy; but when the Taurisci became aware of this they -expelled their partners and held the monopoly. But now all the gold mines -are in the hands of the Romans. And there too, just as in Iberia, the -rivers in addition to the dug gold produce gold dust, but not in such -quantities[121].” - -In another passage, speaking of the town of Noreia in Noricum, he says -“this district possesses productive gold-washings and iron-works[122].” - -Moving on again westwards, we easily find strong evidence of active -gold-mining in the Alpine regions. All the granite strata on the southern -side of the High Alps from the Simplon to Mont Blanc are auriferous. -Not only have extensive mining operations been carried on at different -points down almost to the present day, but the mines were beyond all -doubt vigorously worked, not merely in Roman but in pre-Roman days. -In the district of La Besse, at the foot of Mont Grand on the right -bank of the Cervo between Biella and Ivrea, are still to be seen very -extensive traces of gold washings and gold diggings[123]. These are no -other than the once famous mines of Victumulae alluded to by Strabo -when, in speaking of this region, he says that “there is not now as -much attention bestowed on the mines as there used to be, because the -mines in the country of the transalpine Kelts and in Spain are more -profitable, but formerly they were well worked, since at Vercelli there -was a gold-digging. Vercelli is a village near Ictumulae which is itself -a village, and both of them are in the vicinity of Placentia[124].” So -important were these mines that Pliny[125] says there existed a Censorian -law relating to them, by which it was provided that the capitalists who -farmed the mines were not to employ more than 5000 workmen. - -There are also traces of ancient gold-washings on the Cervo, on the -Evenson, a small stream which comes down from Monte Rosa, and which falls -into the Doria at Bardo, and likewise on the Doria itself from Bardo -down to its junction with the Po. This latter region was anciently the -territory of the powerful and wealthy tribe of the Salassi. The traces -I speak of are beyond doubt the remains of the gold-workings described -by Strabo. “The territory of the Salassi contains gold mines, which the -Salassi, when aforetime they were strong, kept possession of, just as -they had likewise the control of the passes (_i.e._ the Great and Little -St Bernard). The river Durias (Doria) gave them very great assistance in -their gold washing, and on this account dividing over many places the -water into many side-channels they used to empty completely the main bed -of the river. - -“This was of service to them in their quest of gold, but it did harm to -the cultivators of the plains below, who were being deprived of the means -of irrigation, since the river was not able to water their land from the -others having possession of the stream in its upper course. From this -cause there were incessant wars between the two peoples. But when the -Romans got the mastery the Salassi were expelled from the gold-mines and -from their territory, but still being in possession of the mountain, they -used to sell the water to the farmers who had hired the gold-mines, and -with whom there were constant quarrels because of the grasping conduct -of the contractors[126].” This passage shows plainly that for a very -long period before the Roman Conquest the Salassi had not merely worked -the gold of their mountains, but had attained to very considerable -engineering skill in so doing. Further, in this region have been found -gold coins bearing the inscriptions _Prikou_, etc. in one of the North -Etruscan alphabets. These coins were most probably struck by the Salassi, -who were probably not Kelts, but a remnant of the ancient Rhaetian -stock[127]. - -Passing northwards by the Pennine Alps, the regular road in ancient days -from Italy into Switzerland, into the valley of the Rhone, the so-called -_Vallis Poenina_, the modern Canton of Valais, we come to the Helvetii, -whom Posidonius of Apamea, the famous Stoic philosopher who travelled -in Western Europe about 100-90 B.C., describes as “wealthy in gold.” -This gold was probably derived from the same Alpine region. The Helvetii -struck both silver coins in imitation of the silver coins of Massalia -with the Lion type, and gold ones after the type of Philip’s staters. -We may now pass on to Gaul Proper, many peoples of which were famous -for their wealth, especially the Arverni, who have left their name in -Auvergne, and the Tectosages, whose chief town was Tolosa (Toulouse). -The former, whose original home was on the upper waters of the Loire, -probably had no gold in their native mountains (for if they had, Strabo -would hardly have failed to mention it), but in the second century B.C. -they became the most powerful state of Central and Southern Gaul, for -“they extended their dominion even as far as Narbo (Narbonne) and the -borders of the territory of Massalia (Marseilles), and they likewise -had the control of all the tribes as far as the Pyrenees, and as far -as the Ocean and the Rhine. And it is said that Luerius, the father of -Bituitus, who fought against Maximus and Domitius (121 B.C.), came to -such a pitch of wealth and luxury that on one occasion, making a display -of his riches to his friends, he drove on a waggon through a plain -sowing broadcast gold and silver coin, while his friends followed him -gathering it up[128].” It was the Arverni who first[129] struck gold -coins in imitation of the gold staters of Philip II., a fact explained -by the passage just quoted, which shows that their empire extended up -to the frontiers of the great Greek emporium of Massalia, by which they -would be brought into immediate contact with all kinds of Greek currency; -furthermore their conquests put them in possession of those districts -where we have direct evidence of the existence of gold fields[130]. - -Again Strabo says: “The Tectosages adjoin the Pyrenees, and to a slight -extent they likewise touch upon the northern side of the Cevennes -(Κέμμενα), and they occupy a land rich in gold[131].” It is no doubt -with reference to the same region that Strabo, whilst describing the -Spanish gold-mines, remarks incidentally that “the Gauls advance the -claims of the mines in their country, both those in the Cevenne mountain -and at the foot of the Pyrenees, themselves[132].” Beyond doubt from -those mines came “the gold of Tolosa,” those vast treasures which were -plundered by the Roman General Caepio. They were said to have amounted -to fifteen thousand talents of unwrought gold and silver. There was a -current story that, for laying sacrilegious hands on the consecrated -treasure, misfortune dogged the steps of Caepio and his family, he -himself dying in exile and his daughters, after lives of degradation, -coming to a shameful end. This was the account given by one Timagenes, -who also stated that the treasure of Toulouse was part of the spoil taken -by the Gauls from the temple of Delphi in 279 B.C., the Tectosages as he -alleged having formed part of the invading host. This story doubtless -is due to the circumstance that one of the three tribes of Gauls who -settled in Asia Minor (the “foolish Galatians” of St Paul’s Epistle) was -called by the same name as the Tectosages of Gaul (the other two being -called Trocmi and Tolistobōgii). The treasures were partly stored in -shrines or sacred enclosures, partly deposited in the sacred lakes. There -can be little doubt that Posidonius was right (as Strabo also thought) -in considering them ancient native offerings, not spoils of war. He -put forward the good argument that at the time of the attack on Delphi -the temple there was bare of treasure, as it had been plundered by the -Phocians in the Sacred War some seventy years before, that any treasure -that remained was distributed among many, and that it was not likely that -any of the Gauls returned to their own land, since after their retreat -from Greece they broke up and were scattered into various regions. This -is confirmed by what Diodorus tells us in a remarkable chapter: “The -Kelts of the interior have a singular peculiarity with respect to the -sacred enclosures of the gods. For in the temples and sacred enclosures -consecrated in their country gold is deposited in quantities, and not one -of the natives touches it owing to superstition, although the Kelts are -excessively avaricious[133].” This passage seems to explain thoroughly -the real nature of the treasures of Tolosa; they were doubtless ancient -votive offerings under a taboo, not, as Timagenes imagined, some of -the treasure of Delphi, dedicated to appease the wrath of Apollo, with -additions from the private resources of the Tectosages themselves. In -the same chapter Diodorus says that “there is no silver at all found in -Gaul, but gold in abundance, of which the natives get supplied without -mining or hardship. The currents of the rivers, which are tortuous in -their course, beat against the banks formed by the adjacent mountains, -and bursting away considerable hills, fill them with gold dust. This the -persons who are engaged in the workings collect, and they grind or break -up the lumps which contain the gold dust. Then having washed away the -earthy part with water, they transfer the gold to furnaces for smelting. -In this fashion heaping up quantities of gold, not only the women but -likewise the men employ it for adornment. For they wear bracelets round -their wrists and arms, and thick torques of solid gold round their necks -and rings of remarkable size, and moreover breastplates of gold.” The -statement regarding silver is not accurate, as the more careful and -trustworthy Strabo mentions silver mines in various places in Gaul. -Finally, in the land of the Tarbelli, an Iberian tribe of Aquitania, -who dwelt in the extreme south-west corner of Aquitania on the shore of -the Bay of Biscay, there were extremely productive gold-mines. “For in -spots dug only to a shallow depth are found plates of gold that sometimes -require little refining, and the rest consists of dust and nuggets which -involve but little working[134].” - -I have purposely gone somewhat minutely into the gold-fields of ancient -Gaul, and the story of the sacred treasures. For I think that no one who -considers carefully the statements of Posidonius, Strabo, and Diodorus, -can help regarding as wholly inaccurate the conclusion of Schrader, based -on the Irish word _or_, that the Keltic peoples were not acquainted -with gold until the fourth century B.C. The sacred treasures point to a -ceremonial consecration of gold extending back through untold ages. - -[Illustration: FIG. 14. ANCIENT BRITISH COINS. - -A. Coin of Iceni. - -B. Common type with plain obverse[135].] - -It must also be borne in mind that in the treasure of Tolosa there was -a good proportion of silver which probably came from the silver mines -mentioned by Strabo[136] as existing in the land of the Ruteni and -Gabales (Γαβάλεις), two peoples of Aquitania, whose names are represented -by the modern _Rovergue_ and _Gevaudan_. As the working of silver is -so much later than that of gold, it is impossible to believe that if -the Gauls in Italy only learnt the use of gold in the 4th century B.C. -we should find consecrated treasures of silver, evidently of ancient -date, at Tolosa in the time of Servilius Caepio. It is also important -to observe that it is among the Iberians of Aquitania, not the Kelts, -that we find silver mines being worked. The former people were entirely -free from Roman influence, and we shall see shortly that there is the -strongest evidence for believing that the Iberians south of the Pyrenees -were acquainted not merely with gold but with silver, centuries before -ever Brennus stood in the Roman Forum. But before we cross the Pyrenees, -we shall conclude our survey of the ancient gold fields of Europe in the -north-west by glancing briefly at Britain. When Julius Caesar invaded -the island he found the natives using gold not simply as ornaments, but -in the shape of coins, for he says, “They have great numbers of cattle, -they use for money either bronze, or coins of gold, or rods of iron of -a fixed standard of weight. Tin is produced there in the inland, iron -in the coast districts, but the supply of the latter is scanty; the -copper which they use is imported[137].” Caesar’s statement is fully -confirmed by the existence of ancient British coins, chiefly in gold -and copper; although silver coins are likewise found, they are for the -most part imitations of the types of Roman denarii, whilst the gold are -the descendants of the Philippus, from which the Gauls got their chief -gold type. All the Britains did not employ coins, but only the Belgic -tribes in the south and east, who had crossed over at a comparatively -late period. About a century before our era a king of the Suessiones -(_Soissons_) by name Divitiacus ruled over all Northern France and a -large part of Britain[138]. Coins similar in type and weight are found -on both sides of the Channel, indeed the French numismatists claim them -as struck in Gaul, whilst their English brethren have maintained that -they are of British origin. Those found in Kent are regarded by Dr Evans, -in his _Coins of the Ancient Britons_, as the prototypes of the whole -British series. Hence we may infer that the Belgic invaders brought the -Philippus type of coin into Britain, as it is most probable that the time -when the same coins were in circulation on both sides of the Straits of -Dover corresponds with the period when Divitiacus held sway on both sides -of the sea[139]. Strabo substantiates Caesar’s account; “It (Britain) -produces wheat and cattle, and gold and silver and iron. These are -exported from it, also hides and slaves and good hunting dogs. But the -Kelts employ even for their wars these, and their own native dogs[140].” - -There can therefore be no doubt that gold was found in Britain although -we are not told in what particular part. Gold is still found in Wales -and in several parts of Scotland, although not in sufficient quantity to -be worth working. Two observations remain to be made on the statements -of Caesar and Strabo. Caesar tells us definitely that whilst they used -copper as money, they had to import that metal. He omits all mention of -silver, whilst Strabo, writing half-a-century later, speaks of it as a -British product. I have remarked already that the silver coins of the -Britons are all late, and exhibit as a rule Roman influence. It would -therefore seem as if the working of silver had developed some time after -Caesar’s invasions. Thus once more we have an instance of gold in full -use long before silver. But what is still more important, though the -Britons are in the bronze period and are actually using copper money, -they have to import that metal, although copper is actually found native -in Cornwall. It still remained undiscovered in Strabo’s time to judge by -his silence, but as he is equally silent about tin, which was known long -before, we cannot press the argument _ex silentio_. However, it is of -great importance to find a people who possess gold and copper in a native -state, already working the gold long before they have even discovered -the copper. This is completely in harmony with what we have already seen -in the case of the Scythians and Arabs of the Red Sea coasts. At a later -stage we shall have to notice the rods or bars of iron used as currency -by the Britons in connection with a similar practice elsewhere. - -The writers of the classical age have left us no information respecting -Ireland save that the people practised polyandry, and ate each -other[141]. Nevertheless there is abundant evidence to show that there -were large deposits of gold on the east side of Ireland, in the Wicklow -Mountains, and that the natives from a very early period wrought it into -ornaments of various kinds. The vast quantity of gold ornaments to be -seen in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy is a proof of its abundance. - -We shall now return to Aquitania and the Bay of Biscay, from which we -digressed to Britain, and coming into Northern Spain enter that region -which was to the Greek of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. what the -Spanish Main was to the Europeans of the sixteenth and seventeenth -centuries. It seems beyond doubt that when the Phoenicians first reached -the Spanish coasts the natives were fully acquainted with both gold and -silver. Tradition told how the Phoenicians found the native Iberians -feeding their horses from mangers made of silver, and that after having -filled every available portion of their ship with freight of treasure, -they replaced their anchors by others made of silver. Colaeus of Samos -in the eighth century B.C. had been the first of all Greeks to reach -Tartessus, the Tarshish of Holy writ, having been carried away by a -storm when on a voyage to Egypt, and driven right through the Straits of -Gibraltar, “under some guiding providence,” says Herodotus[142]: “for -this trading town was in those days a virgin port” (_i.e._ unfrequented -by merchants). “The Samians in consequence made a profit by their return -freight, a profit greater than any Greeks had ever made before, except -Sostratus, son of Laodamas, of Egina, with whom no one else can compare.” -From the tenth part of their gains, amounting to six talents, the Samians -made a brazen vessel. At a later period the Phocaeans made great profit -by trade with Iberia, which at that time meant East Spain as opposed to -Tartessus, as well as with the Tartessians. The king of this people, by -name Arganthonius, who reigned over them for eighty years, and attained -to the patriarchal age of one hundred and twenty, became such a friend of -the Phocaeans that he invited them to settle in his land, perhaps through -motives of policy, wishing to have their support against the Phoenicians -of Gadeira, or Gades (_Cadiz_), the most ancient of all the daughter -cities of Tyre. When he did not succeed in persuading the Phocaeans, -afterwards having learned from them of the great growth of the power of -the Medes, he gave them treasure to enable them to fortify their city -with the strong wall by means of which they were to withstand Harpagus, -the general of Cyrus, until they launched their ships, and embarked their -wives and children, with that firm resolution to be free, which has made -their name memorable through the ages[143]. - -The evidence of these passages is sufficient to show that already in -the seventh century B.C., not simply the gold, but likewise the silver, -of the Spanish peninsula was known to and wrought by the Iberians, the -oldest race of whom written history affords any traces in the west of -Europe. - -We shall now deal with the actual localities and mines described for us -by the ancient writers. Strabo once more is our chief helper: he seems -as usual for all statements about the mines of the west to have drawn -his information chiefly from Posidonius, although he likewise makes use -of Polybius and others. “Posidonius averred that in the country of the -Artabri, who are the most remote people in Lusitania towards the north -and west [occupying the present province of Galicia], the earth crops -out in silver, tin and white gold (for the gold is mixed with silver), -and that the rivers carry down this earth, and that the women scrape -it up with hoes and wash it in sieves into a box[144].” Here we have a -description of the method employed by the natives in the remote regions -of the north-west of Spain about 100 B.C., before Roman influences had -time to affect them, and we may not unreasonably infer from it that the -same process was universal amongst the Iberians and Celtiberians of Spain. - -In his general description of Spain Strabo declares that nowhere in the -world down to his day was such plenty of gold, silver, copper and iron -to be found as in Turdetania, the district named after the Turdetani, -one of the two great tribes into which the Turti were divided [from the -name of Turti it is probable that Tartessus, the Greek name for this -region, as also for the Baetis (_Guadalquivir_), and also the Phoenician -_Tarshish_ were formed]. “Not merely is the gold got by mining but it -is swept up. The rivers and torrents carry down the golden sand, which -in many localities is likewise to be found in places where there is no -water, but there it is invisible, but in those that water flows over the -gold dust gleams out. And flushing with water that has to be fetched the -arid spots, they make the gold dust glitter, and by digging wells and by -devising other means they get out the gold by washing the sand, and what -are called gold washings are now more numerous than the gold diggings. -But they say that in the gold dust are found nuggets sometimes even -half a pound in weight (βὼλους ἡμιλιτριαίας) which they term _palae_, -which need but little refining, and they say likewise that when stones -are split little nuggets like teats are discovered, and when the gold -is refined and purified with a kind of earth which contains alum and -vitriol, the residuum is electrum. When this residuum, which consists -of a mixture of gold and silver, is again refined, the silver is burnt -away and the gold remains. But the gold is very fusible, and on this -account it is melted with chaff rather than with coal, because the flame -being gentle acts moderately upon a metal which is yielding and easily -fused, whereas the charcoal causes excessive waste by melting it too -much by its violence, and detracting from it. In the river-beds the -sand is swept up and then washed in troughs beside the river; or else a -well is dug, and the earth that is brought up out of it is washed. They -make the furnaces for the silver high, that the smoke from the ore may -be carried up into the air: for it is noisome and pestilential[145].” -Then he adds that “some of the copper works are called gold mines, from -which people infer that gold was formerly dug from them. Posidonius, when -praising the number and excellence of the mines, refrains from none of -his wonted rhetoric, but warms up with hyperboles, for he says he cannot -doubt the truth of the story that once on a time when the woods caught -fire, the earth having been melted, inasmuch as it was permeated with -silver and gold, boiled out on to the surface over the whole mountain, -and that a whole hill was a mass of money heaped up by the bounteous -hand of fortune. And to speak generally (he says) any one who saw these -regions would say that they were Nature’s perennial store chambers or -Sovereignty’s inexhaustible treasure house. For not merely the surface -but the under-soil is rich (πλουσία—ὑπόπλουτος), and with those people -it is not Hades who dwells in the region beneath the earth, but Pluto -(Πλούτων). So spake he in a fine figure as though he himself too were -drawing from a mine his diction in copious store. There was a saying -of Phalereus in reference to the eagerness of the miners of Laurium in -Attica, that they dug as continuously and earnestly as if they expected -to drag up Pluto himself. This saying Posidonius quotes anent the energy -and vigour of those who worked the Spanish mines, for they cut deep and -winding galleries, and by means of ‘Egyptian pumps’ combated the springs -which burst into the workings[146].” - -So rich were the silver mines of New Carthage (_Cartagena_) that in the -time of Polybius (140 B.C.) 40,000 men were employed in working them for -the Roman State, and the daily out-put was reckoned at 25,000 drachms, or -roughly speaking about 3,000 ounces Troy. - -Diodorus Siculus[147] gives an account of mines and mining in Spain, -which, as it is clearly derived from the same passage of Posidonius -as the account of Strabo, is worth quoting, especially as it gives -probably _in extenso_ what Strabo has summarized. For although it more -particularly refers to the discovery of silver mines, yet it is very -relevant to our subject, since silver invariably is later in point of -discovery than gold; thus if we can fix at an early period an inferior -limit for the knowledge of silver in Spain, we may with confidence fix -the inferior limit for the knowledge of gold at a still earlier epoch. -Diodorus has been describing the range of the Pyrenees, which like all -the early geographers he represents as running north and south, and thus -proceeds: “Since there are on them (the Pyrenees) many forests dense -with trees, they say that in ancient times the whole mountain region -was completely burned by some shepherds having cast away a firebrand. -Then since the fire kept burning on for many days continuously, the -surface of the earth was burned and the mountains from the circumstance -were called Pyrenaean (Πυρηναῖα, _scorched_), and the surface of the -burnt region flowed with much silver, and since the natural ore had -been smelted, there ensued many lava-like streams of pure silver. But -inasmuch as the natives did not understand the use of it, the Phoenicians -trading with them, and having learned about the occurrence, bought the -silver for some small return in other wares; accordingly the Phoenicians -by conveying it to Greece and to Asia and all the rest of the world -acquired great wealth. And so covetous were the merchants that though -their ships were fully freighted, when much silver still remained over -they cut out the lead that was in their anchors and replaced it with -silver. The Phoenicians by means of such trade increased greatly and sent -out many colonies, some to Sicily and the adjacent islands, others to -Libya, others again to Sardinia and Spain. But many years afterwards the -Spaniards, having become acquainted with the peculiarities of silver, -started remarkable mines. Wherefore as they prepared very excellent -silver in very great quantities they used to get great revenues.” -Diodorus then gives a detailed account of the working of the shafts -and winding galleries which followed the course of the veins of gold -and silver, the difficulties caused by the bursting in of springs and -subterranean streams, and the ways in which the miners overcame this -latter obstruction by means of the Egyptian pumps. But Diodorus, as a -patriotic Sicilian, takes care to tell his reader that this pump was -invented by Archimedes, the famous mathematician of Syracuse, when, in -the course of his travels, he paid a visit to Egypt. Finally, he gives a -short but graphic picture of the sufferings of the wretched slaves who -were bought wholesale by the mine owners and endured incredible miseries -until death, the only friend they had to look to, came to end their -sufferings. Strabo, the stoic, is silent on this point, which here, as in -Egypt, so strongly moved the heart of Diodorus. - -The story of the discovery of silver by the burning of the woods at first -savours of the mythical, but there is really good reason for believing -that there is in it a solid nucleus of truth. Tin was unknown in Sumatra -until in 1710[148] it was discovered by the accidental burning down of a -house (an incident which recalls Charles Lamb’s delightful account of the -discovery of Roast Pig). It is highly probable that it was owing to some -such accident that men first became acquainted with silver, as that metal -is rarely if ever found native. It may well be therefore that mankind has -learned the art of smelting metalliferous ore from observing the results -of some such conflagration as that described by Posidonius. - -Finally, we shall turn to Pliny the Elder for a moment. That industrious -collector has given us a minute account of the various methods of -mining carried on in Spain in his time, but as that is beside our -present purpose I shall only quote a short passage, in which we get -some interesting technical expressions relating to gold-mining. After -detailing the method of washing soil containing gold by bringing streams -of water to bear on it, just as we found the Salassi doing in the -valley of the Doria, by which process he says 20,000 lbs. of gold were -annually obtained in Asturia, Gallaecia, and Lusitania, he proceeds: -“Gold obtained by shafting (_arrugia_) does not require refining, but -is straightway pure. Nuggets of it are found in this way; likewise in -pits nuggets are found exceeding ten pounds each. The Spaniards call -them _palacrae_, others _palacranae_. The same people term the gold -dust _balux_[149].” Here then we have an interesting group of technical -terms, _arrugia_, _palacra_ or _palacrana_ and _balux_. The latter forms -at once remind us of Strabo’s _palae_ (πάλαι), and we can have little -doubt that _palacra_ and _pala_ are simply dialectic variants, just -as _palacrana_ evidently was considered by Pliny to be a bye-form of -_palacra_. Corssen has sought to find a Latin etymology for _arrugia_, -connecting it with _runco_, _ruga_, but it is hardly possible to regard -it as otherwise than Spanish, especially as this appears to be the only -place where it is found. _Balux_ (also _baluca_) is undoubtedly a native -Iberian term. On Schrader’s principles we might at once argue that as -the technical words for gold-mining and for the different kinds of gold -are native Spanish words, it is beyond doubt that the Spaniards were -acquainted with gold and knew the art of working it before any foreign -traders brought that metal to them. Without dogmatizing in this fashion -and keeping to our more cautious principles we may say that the evidence -of those words is strongly in favour of such a conclusion, unless a -Semitic origin be sought for those terms, which is highly improbable. For -we know beyond doubt that the Spanish mines were worked for centuries -before ever a Roman soldier passed the Ebro. Unless then the technical -terms were introduced by the Greeks (which they were not, as Strabo -considers _pala_ a native word) or by the Phoenicians, they are ancient -Iberic terms connected with gold from its first discovery. We saw that -in the Red Sea the first form in which gold was utilized by the Arabs -was that of nuggets used as rude beads. The _palae_ of the Iberians may -represent the same period of development as well as the same kind of -gold. From the traditions given us by the ancient writers there can be -little doubt that the art of mining silver was of extremely ancient date -in Spain. The founding of Gadeira (Cadiz) is placed at 1100 B.C. and -the tradition of Posidonius regards the Phoenician colonies in the west -as long posterior to their trading for silver with the rude natives. If -this tradition could be relied on, silver must have been known to the -Spaniards in the twelfth century B.C. And there is no reason to doubt the -story. At Mycenae gold and silver were found along with Baltic amber. The -two former prove that amongst the civilized races around the Aegean the -precious metals were abundantly used, the latter that the trade routes -across Europe from the Baltic and North Sea to the Adriatic were already -in use. Accordingly there is no improbability in the supposition that in -the twelfth century B.C. the shipmen of Tyre traded for silver to North -Eastern Spain as well as to Northern Italy for amber. If the knowledge of -silver came so early in Spain, much earlier must that of gold have been. - -Let us now take a general survey of the region over which we have -travelled. In the far east we had both the literary evidence of the Rig -Veda and the evidence of the traditions and legends handed down by the -historians to show that well back in the second millennium B.C. the gold -deposits of Thibet were known and worked. Silver is as yet unknown to -the people of the Rig Veda. Again in the region of the Altai and Oural -mountains, the tale of the “Arimaspian pursued by a griffin” pointed -to great antiquity for gold-mining in this district; the barbarous -Massagetae[150], who occupied the modern Mongolia and Sangaria, were -rich in gold; and to the west the Scythians, who used neither silver nor -copper, had abundant store of gold. These tribes stretched right across -Russia until they touched on the west the Getae and the other tribes of -the great Thracian stock. Gold must early have been known throughout all -Thrace. Greek tradition and history unite in demonstrating the great -antiquity of the first Phoenician gold-seeking in Thasos and on the -mainland. The evidence in Greece itself puts it beyond doubt that gold -was in use 1500 years B.C. The Balkan Peninsula was occupied on the -north-west by Illyrian tribes, some of whom, like the Dardani, dwelt -interspersed among the Thracian clans. The Illyrians inhabited all the -northern end of the Adriatic, and originally much of the east side of -all Italy, although under the pressure of the Umbrians and Kelts they -had been almost completely crushed out of the Italian Peninsula, only -maintaining themselves in the extreme southeast where the Messapians -remained independent of both Italian and Greek alike. The Keltic tribes -were their neighbours in Noricum, where they had succeeded the ancient -Rhaetian stock, the survivors of which, like the Salassi, had managed -to maintain themselves in the fastnesses of the Alps. We found strong -evidence that these Rhaetians must long have known the art of working -gold, for they had devised elaborate pieces of engineering work for the -purpose of developing their gold fields; added to this was the fact that -gold as an ornament seems to have been used by the inhabitants of the -Swiss lake dwellings in the neolithic age. The Kelts must have been in -contact with this people for a considerable time before they ever invaded -Italy; again in Spain we found every token of great antiquity in the -working of gold and silver. Again, before they invaded Italy, the Kelts -must have been long in contact with the Iberians of what in later days -was Aquitania, for the Keltic conquest of Northern Spain can hardly be -placed later than in the fifth century B.C., and it is most probable that -that conquest only took place after long and stubborn struggles. The -Kelts too in Southern Gaul must have come in contact with the Ligyes (or -Ligurians), whose territory at one time extended from the Iberus (Ebro) -along the coast of the Mediterranean to the frontiers of Etruria. The -Ligurians had been in touch with the Iberians on their western border; -in fact the two races had blended to a considerable degree, and since -they had also had communication with Etruscans, Phoenicians and Greeks -(with the last from at least 600 B.C., when Massilia was founded in -their country), it is impossible to suppose that this people could have -remained ignorant of the use of gold. The Kelts thus at every point along -their southern front, as they advanced, must have been for centuries in -full knowledge of gold before they ever entered Rome. Add to this the -fact that when they entered Italy they appear to have brought nothing -but their gold ornaments and their cattle, and that in Gaul it had been -the habit to dedicate great piles of the precious metal in the sacred -precincts of their divinities. - - - - -CHAPTER IV. - -PRIMAEVAL TRADE ROUTES. - - -There can be little doubt that from the extreme West of Europe to -Northern India, or rather to China and the Pacific shore, there was -complete intercourse in the way of trade, from the most remote epochs. -In the lake dwellings of Switzerland are found implements of Jade, a -stone which is not found at any spot in Europe; in fact the nearest point -from which the material was fetched must have been Eastern Turkestan -on the borders of China[151]. If in neolithic days such communication -existed between Further Asia and Western Europe, it is not unreasonable -to suppose that when gold, an article existing in almost every country -across the two continents, came into use, a like facility of intercourse -must have existed. In one of the passages of Herodotus which I have given -above we had explicit information respecting a trade route extending from -the Greek factories on the northern shores of the Black Sea through the -medium of the Scythians right away to the remote region of the Altai. -On the other hand there is good evidence for the existence of a great -trade route from the Black Sea westward up the valley of the Danube, -and so reaching the head of the Adriatic; and again, there is equally -good reason for believing that from the mouth of the Po there ran a -similar route across Northern Italy through Liguria and Narbonese Gaul -and into Spain. In reference to the first of these routes we may quote -a tradition preserved in the Book of Wonderful Stories before alluded -to. It is there stated that once on a time travellers who had voyaged -up the Danube finally by a branch of that river which flowed into the -Adriatic made their way into that Sea. It is there alleged[152] that -“there is a mountain called Delphium between Mentorice and Istriana, -which has a lofty peak. Whenever the Mentores who dwell on the Adriatic -mount this crest, they see, as it appears, the ships which are sailing -into the Pontus (Black Sea). And there is likewise a certain spot in the -intervening region in which, when a common mart is held, Lesbian, Chian -and Thasian wares are set out for sale by the merchants who come up from -the Black Sea, and Corcyraean wine jars by those who come up from the -Adriatic. They say likewise that the Ister, taking its rise in what are -called the Hercynian forests, divides in twain, and disembogues by one -branch into the Black Sea, and by the other into the Adriatic. And we -have seen a proof of this not only in modern times, but likewise still -more so in antiquity, as to how the regions there are easy of navigation -(reading εὔπλωτα). For the story goes that Jason sailed in by the -Cyanean Rocks, but sailed out from the Black Sea by the Ister.” - -The story of the meeting between the traders from the Black Sea and -Adriatic has every mark of probability, whilst we are possibly justified -in regarding the legend of Jason as evidence that for long ages the -Greeks knew that up the valley of the Danube traders from the Pontus made -their way. Doubtless too it was with a view to tapping the trade of this -very route that the trading factories like Istropolis were founded on the -Danube. - -The branch of the Danube flowing into the Adriatic can only mean that -travellers from the Danube by passing up one of its tributaries would -reach a point from which it was but a short journey to the Adriatic -shore. But a famous story in Herodotus will yield us more efficient -aid. To the Greeks of the fifth century B.C. the extreme north was -represented by the land of those happy beings the Hyperboreans, just -as the furthest south was represented by the sources of the Nile. Thus -Pindar sings: “Countless broad paths of glorious exploits have been cut -out one after another beyond Nile’s fountains and through the land of the -Hyperboreans[153].” - -Some of the oldest legends of the young world’s prime cluster around -this shadowy region. Herakles had wandered there in quest of the hind of -the golden horns, consecrated to Artemis Orthosia by Taygeta[154]; “In -quest of her he likewise beheld that land behind the chilling north wind; -there he stood and marvelled at the trees.” The judge at the Olympic -festival placed round the locks of the victor “the dark green adornment -of the olive, which in days of yore Amphitryon’s son had brought from -the shady sources of the Ister, a most glorious memorial of the contests -at Olympia, when he had won over by word the Hyperborean folk that are -the henchmen of Apollo[155].” The hero Perseus too had reached that land -where no ordinary mortal could find his way. “Neither in ships nor yet -on foot wouldst thou find out the marvellous ways to the assembly of -the Hyperboreans, but once on a time did the chieftain Perseus enter -their houses and feast, having come upon them as they were sacrificing -glorious hecatombs of asses to the god. Now Apollo takes continuous and -especial delight in their banquets and hymns of praise, and he laughs as -he beholds the rampant lewdness of the beasts[156].” - -Herodotus felt puzzled where to place the Hyperboreans; “For concerning -Hyperborean men neither the Scythians say anything to the point nor any -other of those that dwell in this region, save the Issedones. But as I -think, not even do they say anything to the point; for in that case the -Scythians too would have told it, as they tell about the one-eyed people” -(the Arimaspians[157]). “But a certain Aristeas, the son of Caÿstrobius, -a man of Proconnesus, alleged in a poem that under the influence of -divine afflatus he had reached the Issedones, and that beyond them dwelt -the Arimaspians who have but one eye, and that beyond these are the -gold-guarding griffins, and beyond these the Hyperboreans, stretching to -the sea[158].” But where Pindar and Herodotus hesitated, the priest of -Apollo at Delos stepped in with an explicit statement of that “marvellous -road” which Pindar said no one could find by sea or land. Accordingly -Herodotus has to resort to the men of Delos for his information about -the Hyperboreans: “Much the longest account of them is given by men of -Delos, who have alleged that sacred objects bound up in wheaten straw are -brought from the Hyperboreans to the Scythians, and that the Scythians -receive them and pass them on to their neighbours upon the west, who -continue to pass them on until at last they reach the Adriatic, and -from thence they are sent on southwards. First of the Greeks do the men -of Dodona receive them, and from them they travel down to the Melian -Gulf and cross over to Euboea, and city sends them on to city as far as -Carystus. The Carystians take them over to Tenos without stopping at -Andros; and the Tenians convey them to Delos.” Then he adds a further -story that on the first occasion the Hyperboreans sent two maidens, -Hyperoché and Laodicé, with five male protectors, but as they died at -Delos, and returned home no more, they for this reason “bring to their -borders the sacred objects packed up in wheaten straw and lay a solemn -injunction on their neighbours, bidding them send them forward to another -nation, and the men say that being forwarded in this fashion they arrive -at Delos[159].” - -From the various passages quoted we may draw the probable conclusion that -there was a well-defined trade route existing for untold ages between the -heart of Asia, the valley of the Danube and the head of the Adriatic. -The nameless poets who framed the legends of Herakles and his wanderings -would certainly make the hero travel by the routes where both in their -own time and from tradition they knew of the existence of highways from -nation to nation. Thus in his journey to the Hyperboreans Herakles is -represented as having visited the shady forests of the Danube, which -points to the same road as that assigned to the Hyperborean maidens by -the Delian tale. Finally it may not be farfetched to conjecture that -the sacrifice of hecatombs of asses may be taken as evidence that the -Hyperborean legend points to a people of Central Asia, which is the -natural habitat of the wild ass. However, as it seems that there was an -annual sacrifice of asses to Apollo at Delphi[160], we must be careful -not to lay much stress on this argument, although it is quite possible -that a vague knowledge of a far-off region where asses abounded and were -sacrificed may have given the Greeks the idea that the Hyperboreans were -worshippers of their own god Apollo, at whose altar like offerings were -made. - -Having seen some reasons for believing that before the beginning of -history there was a well-defined route from Central and perhaps Further -Asia across Southern Russia to the valley of the Danube, and then by -one of the valleys of its tributaries to within a short distance of the -Adriatic, whence after crossing the watershed it reached the head of -that sea, we are now in a position to enquire whether we have similar -evidence for the further continuance towards the west of this highroad of -nations. We have had occasion already to remark that the legends of the -Voyage of the Argo in quest of the Golden Fleece, and the journeyings of -Herakles and such-like stories, really represent the earliest knowledge -of the regions which lay far away to the east and north-west. There is -no tale of the hero Herakles more famous than that of his travelling -to the very marge of Ocean, where in the Pillars of Hercules he left -an imperishable record of his wayfaring for the men of aftertime. His -object, so goes the story, was the capture of the famous kine of the -giant Geryon who dwelt in the island of Erythia, in after years the site -of Gaddir, or Gadeira as the Greeks called it, the Gades of the Romans, -and the modern Cadiz. Many vague stories relating to the early ethnology -of Western Europe and Northern Africa cycle round this expedition[161]. -But for our present purpose it is only the fabled route by which he went -with which we are concerned. As might naturally be expected that part -of Italy with which the Greeks seem first to have become acquainted -was the district lying in the Adriatic around the mouths of the Po -(Eridanus). The reason why they came thither is not far to seek. They -doubtless simply followed the example of the Phoenicians who probably -had long traded thither to obtain both the highly prized golden amber -from the Baltic, and the red amber of Liguria, called from that region -Lingurium, or _ligurion_, a name for which the Greeks found a strange -etymology which connected it with the lynx[162]. According to Herodotus, -“the Phocaeans were the first of the Greeks who made long voyages and -discovered Adria, Tyrsenia (Etruria), Iberia and Tartessus” (I. 163). -The trade routes to the amber coasts of the north have long been well -known; they passed over the Alps, crossed the Danube at Passau, Linz -or Presburg, and proceeded then either to Samland or to the vicinity -of Jutland[163]. As these northern routes crossed that which came up -the valley of the Danube, we see that by this route there was complete -communication between the Black Sea and the Adriatic. In later times -we know that active trade was carried on with all Northern Italy from -Marseilles along by the Ligurian shore, for the coinage of Massalia, -and the barbarous imitations of it struck by the peoples of what was -afterwards known as Cisalpine Gaul, formed the currency of that region -until the Roman Conquest. But once more the Book of Wonderful Stories -comes to our aid: “They say that from Italy into Keltiké, and the land -of the Keltoligyes and Iberians, there is a certain road called that -of Herakles, by which if any journey, whether Greek or native, he is -protected by those who dwell along it, that he may suffer no wrong. For -those in whose vicinity the wrong is done have to pay the penalty.” Here -we have a clear instance of a well-defined caravan route, connected by -Greek tradition with the name of Herakles, which was placed under a kind -of taboo, so that all travellers could use it with impunity. We may then -conclude that as from Central Asia there was unbroken communication -with Northern Italy, so likewise from Northern Italy there was from -remote ages a definite trade route into Gaul and Spain, and that these -routes were in turns connected with the great routes which lead from the -Mediterranean to the Baltic and North Sea. - -[Illustration: FIG. 15. Barbarous imitation of Drachm of Massalia.] - - - - -CHAPTER V. - -THE ART OF WEIGHING WAS FIRST EMPLOYED FOR GOLD. - - -We have seen in the preceding pages that from the Atlantic seaboard right -across into Further Asia the ox was universally spread, and from a period -long before the daybreak of history already formed the chief element of -property amongst the various races of mankind which occupied that wide -region. We have likewise seen that gold was very equally distributed over -the same area, being ready to hand in the still unexhausted deposits in -the sands of rivers. And lastly we have seen that from the most remote -times there was complete communication for purposes of trade between -the various stocks. For whilst peoples in the pastoral and nomad stage -do not dwell together in large communities they nevertheless are within -touch of one another. No better illustration of this can be found than -the relations between Abraham and Lot as set forth in Genesis (xiii. 5 -_sqq._): “And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, -and tents. And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell -together: for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell -together. And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle -and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle: and the Canaanite and the Perizzite -dwelled then in the land. And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no -strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and -thy herdmen; for we be brethren. Is not the whole land before thee? -separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, -then I will go to the right: or if thou depart to the right hand, then -I will go to the left. And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the -plain of Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the Lord -destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the -land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar. Then Lot chose him all the -plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves -the one from the other. Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot -dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.” -But although, from the necessity of finding sufficient pasturage for -their flocks and herds, they had parted from one another, they remained -within touch. For we find that no sooner had Lot and his possessions been -carried away by Chedorlaomer and his confederates, after the overthrow of -the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, than Abraham at once hears of his mishap -and hastens to his rescue (xiv. 13 _sqq._). - -The picture here given may be taken as holding good for a large part -of Asia and Europe. There is a great intermingling of various races -and untrammeled intercourse between the various communities. Thus we -find that Abraham was able to journey from Haran into Egypt with his -flocks and herds and suffered harm or hindrance of no man. Nay, a still -stronger proof of the safety and freedom of intercourse is that when -Abraham entered Egypt, although afraid that if it were known that Sarah -was his wife the Egyptians might murder him, yet he had no fear that -they would take her away by force if she was supposed to be his sister. -Thus, when his princes told Pharaoh that the Hebrew woman was fair to -look on, though the king commanded her to be taken into his house, he -did not act with high-handed violence against the stranger, but “he -entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he -asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.” -And when Pharaoh discovered that she was really Abraham’s wife, although -on account of Abraham’s mendacity the Lord had “plagued Pharaoh and his -house with great plagues because of Abraham’s wife,” he did not, as he -might very justly have done, take a summary vengeance upon him, “he -commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, -and all that he had.” (Gen. xii. 12-20.) - -Such then being the general distribution of cattle and sheep, and such -again the distribution of gold, we can have little hesitation in -coming to the conclusion that the ox, which we have evidence to show -was the chief unit of value in all those countries, had the same value -throughout, and in like manner that gold would have almost the same value -over all the area in which we have shown that it was so impartially -apportioned out by Nature. From this it follows that if the unit of gold -was fixed upon the older unit, the ox, the same quantity of gold would be -found serving as the metallic unit throughout the same wide area. - -If then it can be proved that throughout the area in which those weight -standards arose from which all the known systems of the ancient, -mediaeval, and modern world were derived, the same gold-unit is found -everywhere, and that wherever evidence is to hand, this unit is regarded -as equal in value to a cow or ox, the truth of our hypothesis will have -been demonstrated. For it would be impossible that such an occurrence -should be a mere coincidence if found repeated in different areas. -Furthermore, if it can be shown that in cases at a comparatively late -historical period peoples who were borrowing a ready-made metallic system -from more civilized neighbours, have found it impossible to do so without -adjusting or equating such metallic standard to their own unit of barter, -we may infer _a fortiori_ that it would have been impossible for any -people to have framed a metallic unit for the first time for themselves -without any reference to the unit of barter. But as we have already -proved that the unit of barter is in every case earlier in existence than -even the very knowledge of the precious metals, it follows irresistibly -that the metallic unit is based on the unit of barter. We have also -given reasons for believing that gold was the first of the metals known -to primitive man, but as yet we have not proved that the metals are the -first objects to be weighed. If this can be proved, and if furthermore -it can be proved that before silver or copper or iron were yet weighed, -gold has been weighed by that standard, which we find universal in later -times, we have still more closely narrowed down our argument and put it -beyond all reasonable doubt that weighing was first invented for traffic -in gold, and since the weight-unit of gold is found regularly to be the -value of a cow or ox, the conclusion must follow that the unit of weight -is ultimately derived from the value in gold of a cow. - -If we begin in modern times and reflect on the articles which are usually -sold by weight, we find at once that the more valuable and less bulky the -commodity, the more regularly is it sold and bought by the medium of the -scales and weights; furthermore, on enquiry we find that many kinds of -goods which are now sold by weight were formerly sold simply by bulk or -measure. At the present moment corn is generally sold by weight (though -sometimes still by measure), although the nomenclature connected with its -buying and selling shows beyond doubt that formerly it was sold entirely -by dry measure. The English coomb, the Irish barrel, the bushel and the -peck are indubitable evidence. The selling of live cattle by weight has -only lately been adopted in some markets in this country; but go back -to a more remote period, and you will find that even dead cattle were -not sold by weight. Thus we see that it is only in a comparatively late -epoch that two of the chief commodities on which human life depends for -subsistence have been trafficked in by weight. Nothing now remains but -man’s clothing, weapons, ornaments, fuel and furniture. - -The more primitive the condition of life, the more scanty and rude is -the household furniture, and as even in modern times timber is not sold -by weight, beyond all doubt the same must hold good in a still stronger -degree of a time when wood could be had for the mere trouble of sallying -forth with an axe and cutting it. The same argument applies cogently -to the question of fuel. For even though coal is now sold by weight, -both coal and coke are still sold in some places at least in name by -the chaldron, a fact that indicates that it was only when facilities -increased for weighing large and bulky commodities that such a practice -came into vogue. Similarly, although firewood is now sold by weight on -the Continent, beyond all doubt at a previous period it was uniformly -sold by bulk, as peat or turf is now sold in Cambridgeshire, in Scotland, -and in Ireland. - -Weapons and ornaments and utensils now only remain. To take the -last-named first, at no period have vessels of earthenware been sold by -weight. On the other hand those of metal, especially when made of copper -and iron, are usually sold in this fashion, although vessels of iron and -tin are commonly sold by bulk, or according to their capacity, thereby -following, as we shall shortly see, a most ancient precedent. The value -of ornaments largely consists in the artistic skill displayed in their -manufacture, hence weight is not employed in estimating their value -except when the material is gold or silver, and therefore possesses a -certain intrinsic value apart from the mere workmanship. We may therefore -infer that in early times no decorative articles save those in metal -were valued by weight. Next comes the question of weapons, one of the -most important sides of ancient life. Of course gold and silver are -unfit for weapons and implements, save in the case of the gods, as for -instance the chariot of Hera, with its wheel-naves of silver and its -tires of gold[164]. The spear-head and sword-blade must be made from -tougher and cheaper metals. Hence copper or bronze (copper alloyed with -tin) in the earlier periods which succeeded the stone age, and iron at -a later time, have mainly provided mankind with weapons of offence and -defence. But precious as copper and bronze and iron were to the primitive -man, we do not find them sold by weight: a simple process was employed; -the crude metal was made into pieces or bars of certain dimensions, so -many finger-breadths or thumb-breadths long, so many broad, so many -thick, just as wooden planks are now sold with us, when the value of a -piece of timber is estimated by its being so many feet of inch board, or -half-inch board, and of a fixed width. Lastly we come to the question -of clothing. Skins of course were sold by bulk, the hide of an ox or a -sheepskin having generally a fixed and constant value. Even when sheep -came to be shorn, the fleece was set at an average value. But beyond all -doubt among the peoples who dwelt around the Mediterranean the practice -of weighing wool was of a most respectable antiquity. Such, too, was the -practice all through the middle ages in England and on the Continent. -We have abundant specimens still left of the weights carried by the wool -merchants, slung over the back of a pack-horse. - -Having said so much by way of preliminary, we can now adduce testimony -in support of our thesis. Once more let us start with the Homeric Poems. -The weighing of gold is already in vogue, but the highest unit known is -the small talent, the value of an ox, weighing 130-5 grs, or 10-15 grs -more than a sovereign. Silver is not yet estimated by weight, although -large and handsome vessels of that metal are described and have their -value appraised. But it is not by their _weight_ that their value is -estimated, but by their _capacity_. Thus as first prize for the footrace -Achilles gave “a wine-mixer of silver, wrought, and it held six measures, -but it surpassed by far in beauty all others upon earth, since cunning -craftsmen, the Sidonians, had carefully worked it, and Phoenician men -brought it over the misty deep.” (_Iliad_, XXIII. 741 _sqq._) Here we -have a vessel wrought in silver evidently of considerable size, but it -is simply by its content that its size and value are expressed. Among -the lists of prizes in the same book we find the size of vessels made -of copper or bronze similarly indicated. Thus the first prize for the -chariot race consisted of a woman skilled in goodly tasks; and a tripod -with ears, which held two and twenty measures; whilst the third prize -was a _lebes_ or kettle which had never yet been blackened by the fire, -still with all the glitter of newness, which held four measures. So, -too, in the case of iron. As the prize for the Hurling of the Quoit, -Achilles set down a mass of pig iron, which he had taken from Eetion. -It is a piece of metal as yet unwrought, so that here if anywhere its -size and value ought to be reckoned by weight, since no account has to -be taken of workmanship. But Achilles, instead of saying that it weighs -so many talents or minae, describes its value in a far more primitive -fashion. “Even if his fat lands be very far remote, it will last him five -revolving seasons. For not through want of iron will his shepherd or -ploughman go to the town, but it (the mass) will supply him[165].” - -Thus of the four chief metals mentioned in the Homeric Poems, gold alone -is subjected to weight. But the scales are used for another purpose -still. In the Twelfth Book of the _Iliad_ there is a curious simile -wherein a fight between the Trojans and Achaeans is likened to the -weighing of wool: “So they held on as an honest, hardworking woman holds -the scales, who holding a weight and wool apart lifts them up, making -them equal, in order that she may win a humble pittance for her children: -thus their fight and war hung evenly until what time Zeus gave masterful -glory to Hector, Priam’s son[166].” - -Without doubt one of the first uses to which the art of weighing -was applied was that of testing the amount of wool given to female -slaves[167], or in this case perhaps to a freed woman, to make sure that -they would return all the wool when spun into yarn, and not purloin any -portion for themselves. Thus in the older Latin writers we constantly -find allusions to the _pensum_ (_pendo_ = to weigh), the portion of wool -_weighed_ out to the slave. It is quite possible that in the sale of -wool the more ancient conventional fashion of estimating the fleece as -worth so much in other familiar commodities long continued for mercantile -purposes, the weighing of the wool in small portions being only used as a -check on the dishonesty of the spinners. At all events we have found wool -estimated by the fleece in mediaeval Ireland, at a time when weights are -in common use for the metals. - -Such then is the condition of things in the Homeric Poems. Gold is -transferred by weight and by weight wool is apportioned out for spinning. - -Let us now turn to the Old Testament and find what are the objects which -are dealt in by weight. All transactions in money are thus carried -on, as for instance the purchase by Abraham of the Cave of Machpelah -from Ephron the Hittite when “Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, -which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred -shekels of silver, current _money_ with the merchant” (Gen. xxiii. 16). -So likewise in Achan’s confession: “I saw among the spoils a goodly -Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of -gold of fifty shekels weight” (Joshua vii. 21). And so too in the Book -of Judges (viii. 26) the weight of the rings taken from the Midianites -and given to Gideon was “a thousand and seven hundred shekels of gold; -beside ornaments, and collars, and purple raiment that was on the kings -of Midian, and beside the chains that were about their camels’ necks.” -And again David bought the threshing-floor of Oman the Jebusite for -six hundred shekels of gold by weight (1 Chron. xxi. 25), although the -same purchase is described in 2 Samuel (xxiv. 24) as being effected for -fifty shekels of silver. In Solomon’s time gold has become exceedingly -abundant, and we find it reckoned by talents and minae (pounds). For -“king Solomon made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, which is beside Eloth, -on the shore of the Red sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram sent in -the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the -servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence -gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon” (1 -Kings ix. 26-8). And after the story of the Queen of Sheba’s visit and -her gift to the king of “an hundred and twenty talents of gold, and of -spices very great store, and precious stones,” we read that “the weight -of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and -six talents of gold, beside that he had of the merchantmen, and of the -traffick of the spice merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of -the governors of the country. And king Solomon made two hundred targets -of beaten gold: six hundred shekels of gold went to one target.” Spices -such as myrrh, cinnamon, calamus and cassia (Exod. xxx. 23) were sold -by weight, being as costly as gold. The familiar description of Goliath -of Gath, the weight of whose coat of mail “was five thousand shekels of -brass,” and whose “spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron,” -will serve to show that articles in the inferior metals were at that time -estimated according to weight by the Hebrews and their neighbours, the -Philistines. Of the weighing of wool we find no instance, but it is quite -possible that it was from the practice of weighing wool that Absalom when -he “polled his head, (for it was at every year’s end that he polled it: -because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he polled it:) he weighed -the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the king’s weight” (2 -Sam, xiv. 26). But it is perhaps more probable that the habit of weighing -a child’s hair against gold or silver to fulfil a vow (which was almost -certainly Absalom’s motive) may have suggested the employment of the -scales for wool[168]. - -Finally, once in the prophet Ezekiel do we find food weighed, but -evidently under special circumstances: “And thy meat which thou shalt -eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt -thou eat it. Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of -an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink” (iv. 10, 11). In any case we -should expect to find traces of later usage in the writers of the age of -the prophets, but from the directions regarding the amount of water, it -is evident that we cannot take this passage as a proof of the ordinary -practice of the time. - -Unfortunately our oldest records of Roman life and habits go back but a -short way before the Christian era, and hence we cannot get much direct -information as regards the first objects which were sold by weight. We -have already seen that in the time of Plautus (_flor._ 200 B.C.) the -habit prevailed of weighing wool out to the women slaves. - -However, from the legal formula used in the solemn process of conveyance -of real property (_res mancipi_) _per aes et libram_, we may perhaps -infer that the scales were used for none but precious articles such as -copper, silver and gold. That they were used for those metals there can -be little doubt. On the other hand, as we find all kinds of corn sold -at a later period by dry measure, such as the _modius_ or bushel, we -may with certainty conclude that such too had been the practice of the -earlier period. - -From the literary remains then of the Greeks, Hebrews and Latins, it is -beyond all doubt that in the early stages of society nothing is weighed -but the metals and wool (for the apportioning of tasks). In this the -records of all three nations agree, whilst from Homer we learn that the -Greeks were using gold by weight, when as yet neither silver, copper nor -iron was sold or appraised by that process. - -To proceed then to a people compared to whom the Greek and Hebrews in -point of antiquity of civilization are but the upstarts of yesterday. The -Egyptians seem to have used weight exclusively for the metals; the _Kat_ -and its tenfold the _Uten_ seem always used in connection with metals, -whilst corn is always connected with measures of capacity. The following -instances taken from the list of prices of commodities given by Brugsch -(_History of Egypt under the Pharaohs_, II. p. 199, English Transl.) will -suffice for our purpose: a slave cost 3 _tens_ 1 _Kat_ of silver; a goat -cost 2 _tens_ of copper; 1 _hotep_ of wheat cost 2 _tens_ of copper; 1 -_tena_ of corn of Upper Egypt cost 5-7 _tens_ of copper; 1 _hotep_ of -spelt cost 2 _tens_ of copper; 1 _hin_ of honey 8 _Kats_ of copper. Even -drugs were not weighed by the Egyptians in the time of Rameses II. The -physicians prescribed by measure, as we learn from the Medical papyrus -Ebers[169]. - -Passing then to the far East, we naturally are curious to learn whether -the oldest literary monument of any branch of the Aryan race, the -Rig-Veda, throws any light on our question. We get there but meagre -help: but yet, scanty as it is, it is of great importance. As we saw -above the Indians of the Vedic age were still ignorant of the use of -silver, although possessing both gold and copper. Now, whilst we have no -evidence bearing upon the latter metal, there are two very remarkable and -important words used in connection with gold which beyond doubt refer to -the weighing of that metal. In the _Mandala_ (VIII. 67, 1-2; 687, 1-2) -a hymn commences: “O India, bring us rice-cake, a thousand Soma-drinks, -and an hundred cows, O hero, bring us apparel, cows, horses, jewels along -with a mana of gold.” Again, “Ten horses, ten caskets, ten garments, ten -_pindas_ of gold I received from Divodāsa. Ten chariots equipped with -side-horses, and an hundred cows gave Açvatha to the Atharvans and the -Pāyu” (_Mandala_, VI. 49, 23-4). As we shall have occasion later on to -deal with the terms _manâ_ and _hiranya-pinda_ at greater length, it -will suffice our present purpose to point out that we have a distinct -mention of a weight of gold in the expression _manâ hiranyayâ_. In only -these two passages have we any allusion to weighing, and in both it is -in direct connection with gold. The Aryans of the Veda are beyond all -doubt in a far less civilized state than the Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks -or Romans of the historical period. Hence we may without danger infer -that they did not use weight for any cereals they may have cultivated. -Therefore we may, with a good deal of probability, conclude that we have -got a people who had already a knowledge of the art of weighing before -they were acquainted with either silver or iron, and that this people -used the scales for gold and nothing else. This, taken in connection with -the fact that in Homer, although silver is known, the weighing of metals -is confined to gold, leads us irresistibly to conclude that gold was the -first of all substances to be weighed, or, to put it in a different way, -the art of weighing was invented for gold. - - - - -CHAPTER VI. - -THE GOLD UNIT EVERYWHERE THE VALUE OF A COW. - - -We have now proved four things: (1) the general distribution of the -ox throughout our area, (2) its universal employment as the unit of -value throughout the same region, (3) the equable distribution of gold -throughout the same countries, and (4) that gold is the first of all -commodities to be weighed. Our next step will be to show that gold was -weighed universally by the same standard, and that this standard unit in -all cases where we can find record was regarded as the equivalent of the -ox or the cow. - -We have already seen that the gold talent of the Homeric Poems, which was -in use among the Greeks before the art of stamping money had yet become -known, weighed about 130 grains troy (8·4 grammes). In historical times -gold was always weighed on what was called the _Euboic_ (or Euboic-Attic) -standard. Thus when Thasos began to strike gold coins in 411 B.C. after -her revolt from Athens they weighed 135 grs. Unless this had been the -time-honoured unit employed for gold in that island so famous for its -mines the Thasians would hardly have employed it. Certainly they would -not adopt it simply because it was the standard of the hated Athenians, -especially as they had a different standard for silver. - -The gold coins of Athens struck a few years later are on the same -standard of 135 grs, and when Rhodes at the beginning of the fourth -century B.C. began to coin gold, she used the same unit, although she -employed for silver the unit of 240 grs. Cyzicus also, although coining -her well-known electrum _Cyzicenes_ on the Phoenician standard, used the -unit of 130 grs for pure gold. - -[Illustration: FIG. 16. GOLD STATER OF PHILIP OF MACEDON.] - -This standard, as we shall presently see, virtually remained unchanged -for gold down to the latest days of Greek independence. It likewise -prevailed in Macedonia and Thrace. For when Philip II. coined the gold -from the mines of Crenides into staters on the so-called Attic standard -of 135 grains, he did nothing else than employ for the first gold coinage -of his country the unit which had there, as in Greece Proper, prevailed -for many ages for the weighing of gold. For since gold was first coined -in that region about 350 B.C., and yet silver coins had been current -in Thrace and Macedon since about 500 B.C., it would be absurd to -suppose that there was no unit by which gold in ingots or rings could be -appraised. - -I have shown elsewhere that the rings found by Dr Schliemann at Mycenae -were probably made on a standard of 135 grains troy. It is natural to -suppose that if within the area of Greece Proper gold rings were fixed -according to a definite standard, and that standard the Homeric talent, -the Macedonians and Thracians would possess a similar unit in the -fifth century B.C. But there is a small piece of literary evidence to -show that the Macedonians were acquainted with the gold unit, which we -already know as the Homeric ox unit. Eustathius tells us that “three gold -staters formed the Macedonian talent[170].” Whether Mommsen is right in -thinking that this name was given to the talent in Egypt in consequence -of its having been introduced by the Lagidae (themselves Macedonians) -or not, it equally indicates that from of old such a talent, confined -in use to gold, and the threefold of the Homeric ox-unit, had existed -in Macedonia. Hence Philip II. did not require to go to Athens to seek -for a standard for his new gold coinage. Passing into Asia we find there -the shekel as the Daric (Δαρεικός), the normal weight of which is 130 -grains troy. This standard prevailed all through the Persian empire, thus -extending into the countries now represented by Afghanistan and Northern -India. Numismatists have pointed out the fact that Philip coined his -staters some five grains heavier than the rival gold currency of the -Persian empire, as if to enhance the estimation of his new coinage. This -explanation is perhaps over subtle; at all events it is interesting to -find the successors of Alexander the Great in the Far East, the kings -of Bactria, coining their staters not on the standard of 135 grains, -but rather on that of 130, in other words following the native standard -which the Daric simply represented as a coin. Thus Dr Gardner[171] in -his Table of Normal Weights makes the Bactrian stater of what he calls -the Attic standard weigh 132 grains and the drachm 66 grains, and it is -also admitted that from the time of Eucratides the Greek kings of Bactria -adopted a native standard. - -[Illustration: FIG. 17. PERSIAN DARIC.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 18. GOLD STATER OF DIODOTUS, KING OF BACTRIA.] - -This new standard seems to be identical with that called by metrologists -the Persian, on which [silver] coins were struck in all parts of -the Persian empire, notably the Sigli stamped with the figure of the -Persian king, which must have freely circulated in the northern parts -of India that paid tribute to the king. Whether the reason given for -the use of this standard is right or not, we may see hereafter, when a -different explanation will be offered to the reader. That great Indian -archaeologist, General Cunningham[172], goes further, and maintains “that -the earliest Greek coins of India, those of Sophytes, are struck, not on -the Attic standard, but on a native standard which is based on the _rati_ -or grain of _abrus precatorius_.” Whatever may be the ultimate decision -of this dispute, it is enough for our purpose that whilst undoubtedly a -native silver standard sooner or later replaced the Attic, so likewise -the Attic standard, if used for gold, did not remain at its full weight -of 135 grains, but rather approximated to that of the native standard of -the Daric (130 grains). It is almost certainly a native standard which -appears as the weight of the _gold piece_ (_suvarṇa_) in the tables of -weights given in the Hindu treatise called _Līlāvati_, written in the -seventh century A.D., before the Muhammadan conquest of India, and which -we shall notice presently at greater length. This _suvarṇa_ is the only -unit for gold mentioned in the tables, and its weight can be demonstrated -to be about 140 grs troy. That the gold unit only varied 10 grains in the -course of 10 centuries is very remarkable. - -Let us now return to the ancient peoples of Further Asia Minor and -Northern Africa. The Phoenicians and their neighbours in historical -times seem to have used the double of the unit of 130 grains. It is -quite possible that this doubling of the unit can be explained by a -simple principle, which will likewise fit in with the threefold of the -same unit, which we have just now had to deal with under its name of -Macedonian Talent. But how far this double unit prevailed in earlier -times among the Semites it is not easy to tell. However, the evidence -to be derived from the Old Testament is in favour of the priority of -the unit of 130 grains. But this is not all our evidence. The Egyptian -hieroglyphic inscriptions give us considerable information regarding -the currency not simply of Egypt itself but likewise of neighbouring -countries. For when Egypt was at the zenith of her glory great conquerors -like Thothmes III. and Rameses II. (the Sesostris of Herodotus) carried -their arms into all the surrounding lands and reduced them to the -position of tributary vassals. Many of the tablets which recount their -exploits contain the tale of the spoil, and describe it as consisting -amongst other things of gold rings. - -[Illustration: FIG. 19. EGYPTIAN WALL PAINTING SHOWING THE WEIGHING OF -GOLD RINGS[173].] - -The wall paintings which still survive the inroads of time, and the still -ruder hands of Arabs or tourist, constantly exhibit representations of -the payment of tribute. Again and again we see the tribute money in the -form of rings being weighed in scales, “on which solid images of animals -in stone or brass in the shape of recumbent oxen took the place of our -weights[174].” Erman gives several representations of such weighing -scenes (pp. 611-12), and infers from the fact that the weigh-master and -his scales are always present at such payments, that the scales were the -ordinary medium of such payments. Mere pictures however do not tell us -anything about the weight of the rings therein pourtrayed. Fortunately -however we have examples of such rings. Brandis[175], who was the first -to seek for the unit on which these rings were fashioned, thought that -they followed the heavy shekel (260 grs.), the double of our common -unit. On the other hand F. Lenormant[176] thinks that they are really -based on the light shekel, or rather on a lighter variety of the light -shekel, of about 127 grains, and he is followed in this by Hultsch[177]. -For our purpose it matters not whether the rings were made on the simple -unit or its double, for there are not really two separate standards but -simply one and the same. It is hardly likely that the Pharaohs would -have done otherwise than the kings of Persia at a later time, who made -their subject countries pay their tribute in the recognized currency of -the kingdom, the gold being reckoned (as Herodotus says) by the Euboic -talent, the silver by the Babylonian talent. There can then be but little -doubt that these gold rings give us either actually the old Egyptian -standard, or a standard so closely related to it that there was to all -intents and purposes no material distinction between them. - -Schliemann noticed a resemblance between some of the rings found -at Mycenae and those represented in Egyptian paintings. It is not -preposterous to suppose that the rings of Mycenae represent a kind of -ring both in form and weight which was employed by the peoples of Asia -Minor and Egypt, as well as in Greece. The contact between Egypt and Asia -Minor is so close, communication so free, that it would be in itself most -unlikely that any wide divergence of currency would exist in earlier -times, whilst on the other hand her relations with the people of Ethiopia -and Libya were likewise so close that they forbid any other conclusion. -This is proved by the statement of Horapollo that the _Monad_ (μονάς), -which the Egyptians held to be the basis of all numeration, was equal to -two drachms, that is, to 135 grs.[178] - -Passing westward let us try and learn something from the early coinage -of Italy. Unfortunately, with the exception of the Greek cities of -Magna Graecia, all Italian mintages are of a comparatively late date. -The Etruscans were probably the first of the non-Hellenic inhabitants -to coin money, but unhappily their gold coins are of rather uncertain -date. However, it is worth noticing that these coins are probably thirds, -sixths and twelfths of the unit 130-5 grains, the weights respectively -being 44 grs., 22 grs., 11 grs. This view borrows considerable additional -probability from the fact that the silver coins with plain reverses, -which very possibly belong to the same age as the earlier gold, are -struck on the standard of 135 grains. Whilst in the latter case the -Etruscans can be said to have struck their coins on the Euboic-Syracusan, -or Attic-Syracusan, or Euboic-Attic standard which was in use at -Syracuse, it cannot be so alleged with respect to their gold. For not -only are the subdivisions of the unit unknown to the Attic or Syracusan -gold, but the coins bear numerals, 𐌣 = 50, 𐌡𐌢𐌢 = 25, 𐌢𐌠𐌠< = 12½, 𐌢 = 10, -which are found respectively on the coins of 44, 22, 11 and 9 grains, -while on others again which weigh 18 grains we find the numeral 𐌡 = 5 -grains[179]. Here then we have clear indications of a native Etruscan -gold currency, existing prior to Greek influence and able to hold its -own when the art of coining, and the very coin types themselves, were -borrowed from the Greeks. - -The Carthaginians were the close allies of the Etruscans in the struggle -for the maritime supremacy of the Western Mediterranean against the -Greeks, especially the bold Phocaeans, who gained over the fleet of both -peoples a “Cadmean victory” at Alalia in Corsica (537 B.C.). - -The first Carthaginian coinage was issued in the Sicilian cities, -especially Panormus, at a comparatively late date, certainly not earlier -than 410 B.C. As this coinage was entirely under Greek influences of -comparatively late date, we cannot of course get any direct evidence from -it as regards the original Phoenician standard. Carthage herself did not -issue coins until about a century later, B.C. 310[180]. Hence we have no -data of an early date. The gold coins struck in Sicily are didrachms -of about 120 grains troy, with various subdivisions. This is usually -described as the Phoenician standard, or rather the Phoenician gold -standard of 260 grains considerably reduced. But the full unit of 240 is -never found in the coins, and although we get coins of 2½ drachms (= 147 -grains), it is more natural to regard the didrachm of about 120 grains as -the real unit, in other words the slightly lowered common unit, which we -already found fixed at about 127 grains in the Egyptian rings. In Sicily -and Magna Graecia we are fairly certain that the unit was in early times -that of 130 grains. But whether this was native or brought in by the -Greek colonists, it is impossible to prove. All that we know for certain -is that there was in Sicily and Magna Graecia, a small talent used only -for gold; which was equivalent to three Attic gold staters, or in other -words the threefold of our Homeric ox-unit. Thus an ancient writer -says “the Sicilian talent had a very small weight; the ancient one, as -Aristotle says, 24 _nummi_, the later 12 _nummi_. But the _nummus_ weighs -three half obols[181].” From this it is plain that the ancient form of -this talent weighed 36 obols, that is, six drachms, or three staters. - -Lastly, let us glance at those peoples who lay between Northern Italy and -the Bay of Biscay. Although we have no direct evidence as to the unit by -which the Gauls reckoned that gold of which, as we saw above, they had -great store, before they came under the influence of either Phoenician, -Greek, or Italian, we can perhaps make a justifiable inference from the -fact that when the Gauls proceeded to strike gold coins in imitation of -the gold stater of Philip of Macedon, they did not, as might have been -expected, follow also the weight unit (135 grs.) of that coin. For as a -matter of fact scarcely any of the Gaulish imitations exceed 120 grains -troy[182]. It would appear then that the Gauls had already at that -time a gold unit in use, somewhat lighter than the usual weight of our -“ox-unit,” although we cannot of course ignore the possibility of its -being the form of the Phoenician gold standard, which we found above was -employed by the Carthaginians both in Sicily and Africa; in other words -it may be maintained that the Gauls followed the standard on which the -Phocaeans of Massalia struck their _silver_ coinage. As, however, the -coins of Massalia were drachms of about 55 grains the probability is not -very high that the Gauls had no gold standard of their own for gold until -they got one from the _silver_ of Marseilles. - -The Teutonic tribes who likewise issued imitations of the Philippus also -followed a standard of 120 grs. for coins, from which it is likely that -they as well as the Gauls employed a unit of 120 grs. for gold before -they ever began to strike money. - -We have now taken a survey of the most ancient gold standards we can find -throughout the wide regions through which the common system of weights of -after years prevailed, extending in our range from the heart of Asia to -the shores of the Atlantic. - -Our results will best be seen in the following table: - - Grains. - Egyptian gold ring standard 127 - Mycenaean 130-5 - Homeric talent (or “Ox-unit”) 130-5 - Attic gold stater (the sole standard for gold) 135 - Thasos 135 - Rhodes 135 - Cyzicus 130 - Hebrew standard 130 - Persian Daric 130 - Macedonian stater 135 - Bactrian stater 130-2 - Indian standard (7th cent. A.D.) 140 - Phoenician gold unit (double) 260 - Carthaginian 120 - Sicily and Lower Italy 130-5 - Etruscan 130-5 - Gaulish unit 120 - German 120 - -A glance at the table will suffice to show the truth of the proposition -which we laid down as the object of this chapter, viz., that over the -whole of the area with which we are dealing, the same unit with but -little variations and fluctuations was employed for the weighing of gold. - -Having proved the universal employment of the ox as a chief unit of -barter, the universal distribution of gold, the priority of that metal -both in discovery and in being weighed, and finally, in the preceding -pages, the remarkable fact that to all intents and purposes the same -unit of weight during many centuries was employed in its appraising, we -advance to our next proposition, that this uniformity of the gold unit -is due to the fact that in all the various countries where we have found -it, it originally represented the value in gold of the cow, the universal -unit of barter in the same regions. - -It will of course be hardly possible for us to find data for a direct -proof that in all the countries given in our table as employing the gold -unit, that unit really represented the value of the ox. In some cases we -shall be able to produce a fair amount of evidence more or less direct, -whilst in others owing to the necessity of the case the evidence will be -almost wholly inferential. Finally we shall be able to bring forward a -very cogent form of proof by demonstrating the absolute necessity felt -by barbarous persons of equating a ready made weight standard, which is -being taken over from their neighbours, to the older unit of barter, -and likewise the necessity felt by semi-civilized peoples under certain -circumstances, even when long accustomed to the use of coined money, of -returning to the animal unit as a means of fixing the standard of their -coinage. - -Starting first with the Greeks, we have already seen at an early stage in -this work that the talent of the Homeric Poems was the equivalent of the -ox, the older barter name being as yet the only term used in expressing -prices of commodities, and the term talent being confined to the small -piece of gold. - -Passing next to the Italian Peninsula and Sicily, although possessed of -certain definite statements as regards the value in _copper_ of an ox -in the fifth century B.C., nevertheless, owing to the uncertainty which -still exists as regards the relative value of gold, silver and copper at -Rome, we shall encounter considerable obstacles in our attempt to find -the value of an ox in _gold_. - -As Dr Theodore Mommsen[183] has laid down certain propositions in -reference to inter-relations in value of the metals at Rome, which were -generally received until a very recent period, when Mr Soutzo[184], in -a clever brochure, put forward views of a widely different character -which have met with the approval of some competent critics, and as the -matter is still _sub judice_, I think it best, after briefly giving the -historical evidence for the value of cattle, to give the views of both -these writers. - -The Law known as Aternia Tarpeia (451 B.C.) dealt with questions of -penalties; certain notices of it fortunately preserve for us some -valuable material. Cicero[185] says, “Likewise popular was the measure -brought forward at the Comitia Centuriata in the fifty-fourth year -after the first consuls (451 B.C.) by the consuls Sp. Tarpeius and A. -Aternius concerning the amount of the penalty.” To the same law Dionysius -of Halicarnassus refers[186]: “They ratified a law in the Centuriate -Assembly in order that all the magistrates might have the power of -inflicting punishment on those who were disorderly or acted illegally -in reference to their own jurisdiction. For till then not all the -magistrates had the power, but only the Consuls. But they did not leave -the penalty in their own hands to fix as much as they pleased, but they -themselves defined the amount, having appointed as a maximum limit of -penalty two oxen and thirty sheep. And this law continued to be kept in -force by the Romans for a long time.” Festus (_s.v._ _Peculatus_ p. 237 -ed. Müller) says: “Peculation (_peculatus_), as a name for public theft, -was derived from _pecus_ ‘cattle,’ because that was the earliest kind of -fraud, and before the coining of copper or silver the heaviest penalty -for crimes was one of two sheep and thirty oxen. That law was enacted by -the Consuls T. Menenius Lanatus and P. Sestius Capitolinus. As regards -which cattle, after the Roman people began to use coined money, it was -provided by the Tarpeian Law that an ox should be reckoned at 100 asses, -a sheep at 10 asses.” - -Again Aulus Gellius[187] has a curious notice, too long to quote in full, -which ends “on that account afterwards by the Aternian Law ten asses were -appointed for each sheep, one hundred for each ox.” - -Cicero and Dionysius are probably right (as Niebuhr thinks) in saying -that Tarpeius and Aternius fixed the number of animals. C. Julius and -P. Papinius, who were Consuls in 429 B.C., to whose reckoning of fines -(_aestimatio multarum_) Livy refers (IV. 30), probably changed the -penalties in cattle into money equivalents. Festus and Gellius have -evidently muddled their authorities, having interchanged the words -_sheep_ (_ovium_) and _cows_ (_bovum_). But the important thing is that -both are agreed in giving the value of the cow at 100 asses. - -Now Dr Hultsch (_Metrologie_², 19. 3), following Mommsen, shows that -gold being to silver as 12½:1, the small talent, called the Sicilian, -of which we have just spoken, confined exclusively to gold, would be -exactly equivalent to a Roman pound of silver (135 × 3 × 12½ = 5062 -grains of silver; whilst the Roman lb. = 5040 grs.). Since at Rome, -previous to the reduction of the As in 268 B.C., a _Scripulum_ of silver -was equivalent to a pound of copper or as _libralis_, and there are 288 -_Scripula_ or _scruples_ in the pound, it follows that the pound of -silver or its equivalent the Sicilian gold talent was worth 288 _asses -librales_. This gold talent = 3 Attic staters (or ox-units), therefore -1 Attic stater = 96 _asses librales_. But we learned from Festus and -Gellius that the value of the cow fixed in 429 B.C. was 100 asses. From -this it appears that the value of the ox on Italian soil at this period -was almost exactly the same as the traditional value which it had in the -Homeric Poems, and which it continued to have in the Delian sacrifices in -later times. The mere difference between 96 and 100 asses calls for no -elaborate comment. It is enough to remark after Hultsch, that the further -we go back the cheaper copper appears to be in relation to silver. This -fact will easily explain any discrepancy. Thus Mommsen’s view that -silver was to copper as 288:1 gives us a most interesting result. - -Let us now turn to Mr Soutzo’s view on the same subject. He maintains -that at no time was the relation between silver and copper greater than -120:1, basing his argument on the assumption (which we shall find to -be against the statements of the ancient writers) that when the first -silver _denarius_ or 10-_as_ piece was coined in 268 B.C., as the _as_ -at that time weighed only two _unciae_, or one-sixth of a pound, silver -was to copper as 120:1. He also argues from the fact that in Egypt, under -the Ptolemies, the same relations existed between silver and bronze. He -likewise maintains that the relation between gold and silver in Italy and -Sicily at this period was as 16:1, from which it follows that gold was to -copper as 1920:1. This of course gives us as the value of a cow about 390 -grains of gold, that is about three gold staters, or ox-units. We would -certainly be able to prove that at no time or place in the ancient world -was a cow of so great a value in gold. - -I shall refrain from any discussion of the merits of either view for -the present. I will only add one observation: Mr Soutzo (p. 17) regards -the Italian weight standards as borrowed from the East, and starts -with bronze as the earliest stage in the history of the weights. The -only clearly defined unit of Roman growth according to him is the -Centupondium, which he says is the same as the Assyrian talent. From -this the Romans obtained their own libra or pound by dividing their -talents into 100 parts instead of 60. We shall find hereafter that this -is an untenable position, but meantime it is interesting to find the -Centupondium, or sum of 100 _asses_ taken by an unprejudiced writer as -the basis of the Roman system in the light of the fact that the ancient -Roman value of the cow is likewise 100 _asses_. If Mr Soutzo was right, -our thesis finds complete support, as it would plainly appear in that -case that, although the Italians received their weight-unit ready made, -they found it nevertheless necessary to equate the new metallic unit so -obtained to the cow, the older unit of barter. - -In Sicily we have an opportunity not merely of finding the approximate -value of a cow in gold without having to deal with the disturbing -question of the relative value of copper and silver, but also of showing -that Soutzo’s relation of 120:1 as that between silver and copper in -early Italy must certainly be wrong, and that Mommsen’s view is in the -main correct. The famous Sicilian poet Epicharmus has left us a line: -“Buy me straightway a nice heifer calf for ten _nomoi_[188].” As regards -the value of the _nomos_, or _nummus_ (νόμος or νοῦμμος), Pollux supplies -us with some definite information. - -In passage (IX. 87) already quoted he says: “Yet the Sicilian talent was -the least in amount, the ancient one, as Aristotle says, weighed four and -twenty _nummi_, but the later one twelve; now the _nummus_ is worth three -half obols.” These three half obols plainly mean the ordinary half obols -of the Attic standard. As the Attic drachm is 67½ grains (normal), 65 -grains in actual coins, the ⅙ or obol = 11 grains roughly speaking; three -half obols therefore weigh 16½ to 17 grains. Accordingly, if we take the -weight of the _nummus_ or _litra_ at 16 to 17 grains of silver, we shall -not be wide of the mark. The price then of a good heifer calf was 10 -_nummi_ or 160 to 170 grains of silver. The term _moschos_ (calf) is used -rather vaguely by various Greek writers, but fortunately by the aid of -the Sicilian poet Theocritus, we are certain that it means a calf of the -first year not yet weaned; for he speaks[189] of putting the _moschos_ to -the cows to suck. From what we have seen (p. 32) of the relative values -of cattle of different ages, it is tolerably certain that no full-grown -cow would be worth less than six or more than ten calves of the first -year. Hence the Sicilian cow, at the end of the sixth century B.C., must -have been worth from 960-1020 to 1600-1700 grains of silver. We cannot -tell exactly what was the ratio between gold and silver in Sicily or -Italy at this time, but as we find it was 14 to 1 in Attica in 440 B.C., -the probability is that it was not very far from that in Sicily. It -certainly must have been at some point between 15:1 and 12:1. Taking it -at 12:1, the value of the cow would range from 80 to 141¾ grains of gold, -whilst in the ratio of 15:1 the range is from 64 to 113 grains of gold. -It is thus absolutely certain that the value of a cow in Sicily in the -sixth century B.C. must lie within the limits of 64 to 141 grains, and -if the calf of Epicharmus is a suckling, the range in the value of the -cow must be from 113 to 140 grains. This is all we require for practical -purposes, and it will be admitted that the value of a cow in Sicily comes -very close to our Homeric ox-unit of 130-5 grains. - -We are now in a position to test the truth of Mr Soutzo’s hypothesis. -It will be conceded that at the beginning of the fifth century B.C., -the cow must have had about the same value both in Italy and Sicily. -The cow in Italy was worth 100 Roman pounds of copper, in Sicily about -1650 grains of silver. If Soutzo is right in saying that silver was to -copper as 120:1 on multiplying 1650 by 120 we ought to get a result in -copper corresponding to 100 Roman pounds: 1650 × 120 = 198000. Taking the -Roman pound before it was raised at about 5000 grs. the Sicilian cow was -worth 39 pounds of copper (198000 ÷ 5000 = 39). It is absurd to suppose -that even at any time the Italian cow could have been worth 2½ times -the Sicilian. Let us now apply the same test to Mommsen’s doctrine, and -multiply 1650 grs. of silver by 300. (I take this as being more likely -than 288 to have been the relation between copper and silver in the fifth -century B.C.). 1650 × 300 = 495000 ÷ 5000 = 99 pounds of copper. The -result is too striking to admit of our coming to any other conclusion -than that Mommsen is right. - -Next let us examine his doctrine that in ancient Italy gold was to -silver as 16:1. Mr Soutzo[190] supports this view by three arguments: -(1) that when Rome in the course of the Second Punic War issued gold -coins for the first time, gold was to silver as 16:1; (2) Mr Head[191] -has shown that at Syracuse under the despot Dionysius (405-345 B.C.) -gold was to silver as 15:1; (3) that certain symbols on the gold coins -of Etruria when interpreted as referring to silver _litrae_ give the -proportion between the metals as 16:1. The same answer can dispose of -the first two arguments. The state of affairs both at Rome in B.C. 207, -and at Syracuse under Dionysius, was quite exceptional. Rome was in -a state of bankruptcy, her subjects largely in revolt, the Lex Oppia -(215 B.C.) prevented women from wearing more than half an ounce of -gold ornaments[192]. It is therefore irrational to treat as normal the -relation found to exist between the metals at such a crisis. - -Similarly at Syracuse the relations between the metals were completely -upset by the wild conduct of Dionysius, who forced his subjects to take -coins of tin at the same rate as though they were silver. Moreover -any evidence to be drawn with reference to the ratio between silver -and gold at Syracuse in the time of Dionysius is completely nullified -by the fact that in the reign of Agathocles (B.C. 307) gold was to -silver as 12:1[193]. It is evident therefore that if in 207 B.C. gold -was to silver all over Italy as 16:1, there must have been a great -appreciation of gold. Are we not then justified in regarding the ratio -of 16:1 as exceptional, and that of 12:1 as the more regular? That great -fluctuations in the relations of the metals did take place in Italy, we -know from a statement of Polybius that in his own time in consequence of -the great output of gold from a mine in Noricum gold went down one-third -in value. Silver was scarce in Central Italy, for it was only after the -conquest of Magna Graecia that Rome found herself in a position to issue -a silver currency. On the other hand there must have been a large and -constant supply of gold coming down from the gold-fields of the Alps in -exchange for the bronze wares of Etruria. Now as at Athens, where silver -was so plenty and gold in earlier days scarce, the ratio was never higher -than 15:1, it is impossible to suppose that in Northern and Central -Italy, where the conditions were contrariwise, the ratio can ever have -been in ordinary times higher than 12:1. - -It is quite possible that after the Gauls got possession of Northern -Italy, the supply of gold which reached Etruria and Latium may have been -considerably reduced, and this would perfectly explain the relation -existing at a certain period between gold and silver coins in Etruria, -supposing that Soutzo’s interpretation of the symbols is correct. But as -we have no literary evidence to check off any deductions drawn from the -coins, it is impossible for us to say whether the symbols on the gold -pieces refer to units of silver or bronze. - -[Illustration: FIG. 20. “REGENBOGENSCHÜSSEL” (ancient German imitation of -the Stater of Philip of Macedon).] - -Returning to the Kelts, the close kinsfolk of the Italians, the reader -will recollect that the Gauls struck their imitations of the stater of -Philip of Macedon on a standard of 120 grs., 15 grains lower than the -weight of the archetype. Now similar but still more barbarous imitations -of Philips gold stater are found in Germany. These Rainbow dishes -(_Regenbogenschüsseln_), as they are popularly termed in allusion to -the picturesque superstition that a treasure of gold lies at the foot -of the rainbow, and also to their scyphate form, are found in especial -abundance in Rhenish Bavaria and Bohemia. Like the Gaulish imitations -of the Philippus from which they are copied, they follow a standard -of 120 grs. (and like the Gauls the Germans struck quarters of this -coin, a division wholly unknown to the Greeks)[194]. In the region just -indicated dwelt the ancient Alamanni, and there can be no doubt that -it was this people who issued the coins found there. Now the Alamanni -were among the barbarians who after having overrun the provinces of the -Roman Empire, committed to barbarous Latin their immemorial laws and -institutions. In the Laws of the Alamanni the best ox is estimated at -five _tremisses_[195], that is 1⅔ _solidi_, or in other words 120 grs. of -gold, the medium ox = 4 _tremisses_ = 96 grs. The coincidence that the -value of the ox in gold is the actual weight of the coins of the Alamanni -is too striking to admit of any other explanation than that the gold -coins of this people were struck on the native standard, the ox-unit. -The Keltic and Teutonic tribes were so intermixed that we may plausibly -infer that the Gauls had reduced the weight of the Philippus to 120 grs. -because owing to gold being less plentiful and cattle more abundant to -the north of the Alps, from a very remote time the ox-unit throughout -Gaul and Germany was slightly lower than along the Mediterranean. - -In the Laws of the Burgundians the value of an ox is set at 2 _solidi_ = -144 grs. of gold[196]. This of course is considerably more than that of -the Alamannic ox, but when we consider the late period at which the laws -of the Barbarians were compiled, and the various recensions which they -underwent, the strange fact is that the ox should have varied so little -in its relation to gold from the Homeric ox-unit of at least 1000 B.C. - -Passing into Scandinavia we once more, even so late as the eighth century -A.D., find the same strange agreement in value. In the ancient Norse -documents (where the cow is the unit of value as we have already seen) it -is reckoned at 2½ öres (ounces) of silver = 1078 grains. But we likewise -know from the same sources that gold stood to silver as 8:1; accordingly -the cow was worth 134 grs. of gold[197]. - -Besides the Hellenes and Italians there was another people who strove -for the mastery of all the Western Mediterranean. The ancient city of -Tyre had sent out many colonies into the far West, when the nascent -power of Hellas had already begun to assert its superiority in the -Aegean. Trade grew and flourished between the colonies and the mother -city in Phoenicia; thus there was unbroken intercourse between remote -Gades and her Eastern mother until after the destruction of the latter -(720 B.C.). Henceforward the headship of the Phoenician cities of the -West falls into the hands of Carthage, the scene of the last great act -and final catastrophe in the drama of Phoenician history. At the very -time, nay some say on the very day, when the Greeks of the East were -destroying the host of Xerxes in the Strait of Salamis, the Hellenes -of the West led by brave Gelon of Syracus were repelling a great army -of Carthaginians before the walls of Himera, and during the third and -fourth centuries B.C. the Greeks of Sicily lived in constant danger from -the Carthaginians, who held the western part of the island with their -factories of Lilybaeum, Drepanum and Motyé, until at last they were -finally expelled from the island by the resistless might of Rome (241 -B.C.). - -Could we but learn the estimate put upon the ox by the Phoenicians -or Carthaginians, we would get a fair index to its value over a wide -extended area. For as in earlier times the Phoenician influence extended -from Tyre to Gades, linking both east and west, so in later days Carthage -extended her power over all North Africa from the Pillars of Herakles to -the confines of Egypt, and over Southern Spain. - -Some forty years ago the longest Phoenician inscription yet known was -found at Marseilles. The inscription seems to have belonged to a temple -of Baal, and contains directions touching sacrifices and certain payments -to be made to the officiating priest. Chemical analysis of the stone -has demonstrated that it is of a kind not found in France, but known -in North Africa. Hence M. Renan thought that it had been brought as -ballast in some ship. The names of two Suffetes stand at the head of -the inscription, which seems along with other evidence to point to its -having been engraved at Carthage. On palaeographical grounds its date -is placed in the fourth century B.C., but why it came to Massalia seems -still inexplicable. It is possible that in the fourth century B.C. there -was a considerable body of Carthaginians resident at Massalia, just as on -the other hand we know that there was a large Greek community residing at -Carthage. If that were so, the Carthaginians would naturally keep up the -worship of Baal at Marseilles, and would regulate the temple worship in -accordance with the practice of the mother city. The stone in that case -may have been imported to serve as an official declaration of the rules -to be observed in sacrifices. Movers and Kenrick regarded the sums of -money named in connection with the victims as composition for the animals -named, whilst the editors of the _Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum_ (Vol. -I. Pt. I. p. 217) regard them as fees to be paid to the priests for -the performance of the sacrifices, saying that it is analogous to the -directions for the burnt offerings, peace offerings and thank offerings -contained in Leviticus i-vii. The few lines of the inscription with which -we are concerned I shall translate from the Latin version given in the -_Corpus_. - -“Concerning an ox, whether it is a whole burnt offering, or deprecatory -offering or a thank offering, there shall be to the priests ten shekels -of silver, and if it is a whole burnt offering, in addition to the fees -this weight of flesh, three hundred; and if it is a peace offering the -first cuts and additions, the appurtenances thereof, and the skin and the -entrails, carcase and the feet, and the rest of the flesh shall belong to -the giver of the sacrifice. - -“Concerning the calf without horns, concerning an animal which is not -castrated, or a ram, whether it is a whole burnt offering, or a peace -offering, or a thank offering, there shall be to the priests five shekels -of silver, and if it be a whole burnt offering in addition to the fee -this weight of flesh, one hundred and fifty. - -“Concerning a he-goat or a she-goat, whether it is a whole burnt -offering, etc. there shall be to the priest one shekel of silver two -_zer_. - -“Concerning a sheep or kid or goat, whether it is etc., there shall be -etc. ¾ shekel one [_zer_] of silver. - -“Concerning a tame bird, or wild bird, ¾ shekel and two _zer_.” - -Let me here remark that in Leviticus there is no mention whatsoever -made of any fees to the priest, also that whilst according to the above -version the giver of the victim gets the skin, in Leviticus (vii. 8) -it is the priest who gets it as his perquisite, as seems also to have -been the practice in Greece. For we know that the Spartan kings, who -in their capacity of priests offered all sacrifices at Sparta, always -got the skins as their payment[198]. That the sums mentioned are really -the prices of the victims is made almost certain by the fact that at -the famous Phoenician temple of Aphrodite at Eryx in Sicily the victims -were kept ready by the priests to be sold to worshippers who wished to -sacrifice, as we know from a curious story told by Aelian[199]. - -Whilst it would be of great importance for my purpose to have been able -to regard the sums mentioned in the inscription as the actual value set -upon the animals, even if we simply regard them as fees they still give -us some aid. For as it is most unlikely that the fee for sacrificing -would exceed the value of the victim to be sacrificed, we thus can obtain -a minimum limit of value. We may then safely assume that the value of the -ox was not less than 10 shekels of silver. On the other hand we shall -find from Exodus what must have been the maximum value among the Hebrews -at a comparatively late date. As the Punic ox cannot have been worth less -than 1350 grs. of silver, and the Hebrew not more than 1760 grs., it is -almost certain that the value of the ox at Carthage lay between these -limits. - -The pieces of silver mentioned in the inscription are probably ordinary -silver didrachms of the Attic standard. The Carthaginians had coined -silver in Sicily on the Attic standard from about 410 B.C., but issued -no silver coins at Carthage itself until after the acquisition of the -Spanish Silver Mines (241 B.C.), although gold, electrum, and bronze -coins were minted. In Greece Proper in the 4th century B.C. gold was to -silver as 10:1; we may therefore not be far wrong if we assume a similar -ratio between the metals to have held at Carthage about the same period. -That silver was scarce is shown by the fact that they did not coin it, -although issuing gold, electrum and bronze. Ten silver didrachms would -therefore = 1 gold didrachm of 135 grs., which is of course our ox-unit. -This is a remarkable result, and of itself would make one believe that -the sum represents the real value of an ox, which the practice at Eryx -puts beyond doubt. We know that at Athens the people who were bound to -provide the public sacrifices supplied very wretched oxen, so we need not -be surprised to find precautions taken by the priests of Baal to ensure -that proper animals should be provided for the altar, especially as they -themselves got a share of the flesh. - -Next let us see if that most ancient of all known civilized lands, -Egypt, can produce from her store of monumental records any evidence -for our purpose. Professor Brugsch[200], in his _History of Egypt under -the Pharaohs_, gives from inscriptions a list of the prices of various -commodities about 1000 B.C.: a slave cost 3 _ten_ 1 _ket_ of silver; -an ox 1 _ket_ of silver (= 8 _ten_ of copper); a goat cost 2 _ten_ of -copper; 1 pair of fowls (geese?) cost ⅓ _ten_ of copper; 1 _hotep_ of -wheat cost 2 _ten_ of copper; 1 _tena_ of corn of Upper Egypt cost 5-7 -_ten_ of copper; 1 _hotep_ of spelt 2 _ten_ of copper; 1 _hin_ of honey -8 _ket_ of copper; 50 acres of arable land 5 _ten_ of silver. Of course -there must be more or less uncertainty about some of these statements -owing to the imperfect knowledge which we as yet possess. At first sight -the reader naturally wonders how it is possible to calculate the value -of the ox as here given, which is only 1 ket of silver, that is, the -Egyptian ox of 1000 _B.C._ was only worth 140 grains of _silver_, whilst -an ox hitherto has been worth about the same amount in _gold_. At first -sight this is enough to stagger us, but a moment’s reflection makes the -matter very intelligible. We have already noticed (p. 59) that at a -certain stage in the history of the metals silver was far scarcer than -gold, and that its rarity combined with its beauty no doubt made it to -be eagerly sought and held in great esteem. We saw that the Arabs of the -Soudan down to the present day prefer silver to gold; whilst in the -earlier part of the present century when Japan was opened to European -commerce the Japanese eagerly exchanged gold for silver at the rate of -one to three, and even less, as they possessed no native silver, and were -charmed with the beauty of the little known metal[201]. Marco Polo also -tells us that “in the province of Carajan (the modern Yunnan) gold is so -plenty that they give a saggio of gold for only six of the same weight -of silver;” and of the province of Zardandan, five days west of Carajan, -he says, “I can tell you they give one weight of gold for only five of -silver[202].” - -It is almost certain that in all countries at one stage silver must have -been of higher value than gold; afterwards as its production became -greater, it became equal in value, and finally, little by little, -much less valuable, until at last the relation between the metals is -1:22. Of course we must add that there must have been always certain -fluctuations, according as a sudden increase of output of one or other -of the metals altered temporarily their relations. We have evidence that -silver in early times in Egypt was held in higher esteem than gold. Thus -Erman[203] says that according to ancient Egyptian notions silver was the -most costly of the precious metals; for they always in an enumeration -mention it before gold, and in the tombs ornaments of silver are of far -rarer occurrence than those of gold. This circumstance is simply and -sufficiently explained (thinks Erman) by the fact that Egypt herself -possesses no deposits of silver, but must have obtained the metal from -Cilicia. Under the 18th dynasty (1400 B.C.), the Phoenicians supplied -Egypt with silver and under the new empire the supply had so increased -that it was now evidently cheaper than gold, for the later texts always -name silver after gold, just as we do. We have previously noticed the -paucity of silver articles in the tombs at Mycenae which are commonly -dated 1400 B.C. - -It is therefore reasonable to suppose that towards the end of the Second -Millennium B.C. gold and silver were almost of equal value, not alone -in Egypt, but in other parts likewise of the ancient world. The great -supply of silver had not yet been obtained which in the 10th century -B.C. made silver at Jerusalem like stones. “As for silver,” says the -sacred writer, “it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon” (900 -B.C.)[204], who had “made silver and gold at Jerusalem as plenteous -as stones[205].” By this time silver had become very cheap in Egypt -likewise. At least if we can at all rely on the author of the books of -Chronicles. For the king’s merchants “fetched up and brought forth out of -Egypt a chariot for six hundred shekels of silver, and an horse for one -hundred and fifty: and so brought they out horses for all the kings of -the Hittites and the kings of Syria[206].” - -The shekel here meant is probably that of 130-135 grains, while the -price of the ox in Brugsch’s list is 1 ket or 140 grains. At a moderate -computation this would make a horse worth 150 oxen, if our documents were -contemporary. But from lists of relative prices in ancient and modern -times it is preposterous to suppose that at any time or in any place -such a remarkable difference in value existed between the horse and the -cow. From this it follows that if Brugsch is right in his translation of -his Egyptian text, the latter must date from several centuries before -1000 B.C., when as yet silver was of the same or almost the same value -as gold. Finally, we have no means of knowing the age of the ox, but as -it is equal in value to only four goats, it is possible that it was not -a full-grown animal. I have dealt with this point at some length, and -have little positive gain to show, but it is necessary to put before the -reader all data which may aid in our search, and still more necessary to -do so in the case of evidence which seems to present serious difficulties. - -Unfortunately for us the Old Testament gives very scanty information on -the question of the cost of various commodities, and in no place do we -get any information regarding the price of cattle. For in the account of -the purchase of the threshing-floor and oxen of Oman the Jebusite by king -David, there is a discrepancy in price between the Second Book of Samuel -(xxiv. 24) and First Chronicles (xxi. 25), the former making the sum 50 -shekels of silver, the latter “six hundred shekels of gold by weight,” -and in any case, as we do not know the number of oxen used in threshing -or the value of the floor and threshing instruments, it is impossible -for us to draw any inference. In the Book of Exodus, however, we obtain -the value of a slave, from which we may at least get an approximate idea -of the value of an ox: “If the (wicked) ox shall push a manservant or -a maidservant; he (the owner of the ox) shall give unto their master -thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned” (xxi. 32). Here, -as in the ancient laws of Wales and elsewhere, the value of the male and -female slave is the same, and thirty shekels or pieces of silver seems to -have been the conventional price of a slave among the Hebrews. To this -Zechariah (xi. 12) seems to allude, “So they weighed for my price thirty -pieces of silver,” in reference to which the Evangelist writes: “Then was -fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they -took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom -they of the children of Israel did value” (Matt. xxvii. 9). The average -slave among the Homeric Greeks (as we saw above) was worth about three -oxen, amongst the Irish three, among the modern Zulus about 10, and among -the wild tribes of Annam seven (pp. 24-5). Allowing three oxen as the -value of a slave among the Hebrews, the ox is worth 10 shekels (ancient) -= 1300 grains of silver = 130 grains of gold, taking gold to silver as -10:1, which at an early period was probably the regular ratio in parts -of Asia Minor. The result thus reached gives us once more the Homeric -ox-unit as the value of the Hebrew ox. It is certain that it cannot have -been higher, although we cannot show that it may not have been less. - -The cow is estimated in the Commentary on Vendîdâd, Fargard, IV. 1-2 at -12 _stirs_ or _istirs_. - -Our task must be now to find out the weight of this _istir_. _Istir_ or -_stir_ is identified with Greek στατήρ (as _dirham_ is with Greek δραχμή). - -The Pahlavi Texts, translated by Dr West, naturally afford us the -readiest means of discovering our object[207]. - - THE VALUE OF A COW - - I II III IV V VI - ----------+----------+---------+----------+------------+--------+------- - Sins or | Shayast | XI. 1 | XVI. 1-3 | XVI. 5 |Spiegel |Spiegel - equivalent| I. 1 | | | |Rivaya |Rivaya - good works| | | | | | - ----------+----------+---------+----------+------------+--------+------- - Srôshô- | |1 dirham | |3 coins and | | - Karanam | | 2 mads | | a half | | - | | | | | | - Farmån |weight of |3 dirhams|3 coins of|a Farmant is|7 stirs |8 stirs - | 4 stirs | of 4 | 5 annas | a Srôshô- | | - | and each | mads |some say, | Karanâm | | - | stir has | | 3 coins | | | - | 4 dirhams| | | | | - | | | | | | - Agerept |1 dirham |33 stirs |53 dirhams|16 stirs |12 stirs| - | | | | | | - Avôirîst |1 dirham |the |73 dirhams|25 stirs |15 stirs| - | | weight | | | | - | | of 33 | | | | - | | dirhams | | | | - | | | | | | - Aredûs |30 stirs |30 stirs |30 stirs |30 stirs | | - | | | | | | - Khôr |60 stirs |60 stirs | |60 stirs | | - | | | | | | - Bâzâî |90 stirs |90 stirs | |90 stirs | | - | | | | | | - Yât |180 stirs |180 stirs| |180 stirs | | - | | | | | | - Tanâpûhar |300 stirs |300 stirs| |300 stirs | | - -There are in the Shayast-la-Shayast various lists of sins and good works. -These sins or good works are put in the golden balance and weighed, in -which case the _stir_ is a weight, whilst in other cases we have a money -evaluation. As much confusion arises from variations in the lists, it -will be best to tabulate the different lists, and thus get a synoptic -view of the whole. - -On looking at the table, we find that all our authorities are in complete -harmony as to the amounts of the last five; Aredûs is 30 _stirs_, Khôr -= 60, Bâzâî = 90, Yât = 180, and Tanâpûhar = 300 _stirs_. Let us first -consider these. We must remember that on the third night after death the -soul is judged by having its sins and good works weighed, and according -as the one or other predominates, is the ultimate destiny of the soul -foul or fair. It is thus essentially a scale of _weights_, not of -_coins_. The arrangement of the numbers at once speaks for itself. 30 -_stirs_ = ½ _mina_ on the Babylonian system, as will be seen on p. 251. -60 _stirs_ (Khôr) = 1 _mina_, 90 _stirs_ (Bâzâî) = 1½ _minae_, 180 (Yât) -= 3 _minae_, and finally we get 300 _stirs_ (Tanâpûhar) = 5 _minae_. -What then is the weight of the _stir_? It is none other than the light -Babylonian shekel (130 grains Troy). - -Now let us approach the bewildering tangle of the first four degrees. -It is evident that there are mistakes of numerals in some cases, e.g. -in Column I., where the Agerept and Avoîrîst are made equal, both being -only ⅟₁₆ of the first degree or Farmân, and also in Col. II. we have the -Agerept greater than the Avoîrîst and Aredûs. But in Columns III. IV. and -V. we get some elements of regularity. Two of them at least introduce -coined money, thus giving us an indication that it is owing to the -constant effort to make the lower weight conform to the monetary units -of the various periods at which the Commentaries were written that the -confusion has in great part arisen. We find the Farmân = 3 _dirhams_ of 4 -_mads_, to 3 coins of 5 annas, and to 3½ coins. Dr West, calculating the -anna on the basis of the old rupee of Guzarat (Pt. III., p. 180), makes -the coin of Col. IV. = 50 grains Troy, the old rupee being less than its -present weight (180 grains). The Farmân in this case is 150 grains. The -3 _dirhams_ of 4 _mads_ each probably are the same in amount. So too -are the three coins and a half of Col. IV. In which case each coin must -weigh 43 grains (150 ÷ 3½ = 42⁶⁄₇), that is the regular weight of the -_dirhams_ struck by the Arab conquerors of Persia. Comparing Cols. III. -and IV., we shall find the Agerept worth respectively 53 _dirhams_ and 16 -_stirs_, the Avoîrîst set at 73 _dirhams_ and 25 _stirs_. We find then a -very close approximation in comparative values. The same proportion for -all practical purposes exists between the coin of 5 annas (50 grains) -and the coin of 43 grains, as between the 53 _dirhams_, and 16 _stirs_ -and 73 _dirhams_ and 25 _stirs_. But it is evident that in Col. III. the -coin of 5 annas is a thing quite distinct from the _dirhams_ mentioned in -the same table, or else why is there a difference in nomenclature? The -_dirham_ is probably the usual _dirham_ of 43-40 grains. But as we find -53 of these _dirhams_ = 16 _stirs_ of Col. IV. accordingly the _stir_ -of Col. IV. = 132 grains Troy, which is plainly the Babylonian shekel, -and 73 _dirhams_ = 25 _stirs_. This gives an average for the _stir_ of -126 grains Troy, which again points directly to the light shekel of 130 -grains Troy, or in other words to the weight of the Daric. Another piece -of evidence in the same direction is the fact that the Sassanide kings -struck their silver coins on the so-called Attic standard, which of -course was identical with that in use from the earliest times in Asia, -as the standard of the Daric. The founder of the Sassanide Dynasty, -Ardeshir, struck his first gold coins on this standard (staters of -135-0), whilst all the silver coins of this dynasty are half-staters (65 -grains) of the same standard. The statement in Col. I. that each _stir_ -has four _dirhams_ probably refers to a later period, when 4 _dirhams_ of -the ordinary Muhammedan standard (43 grains Troy) were equivalent to a -rupee (180-170 grains). - -If it should be objected that the _istir_ of the Avesta is the old Persic -silver standard of 172 grains, my reply is that as it is evident from -what we have seen above that in this _weight_ system there were _sixty_ -staters in the _mina_, this must be the _weight_, not the silver _coin_, -as there were only _fifty_ staters in the _money_ mina. - -The ox of the Zend-Avesta according to tradition is therefore rated at -12 _stirs_ or staters of 130 grains of silver each. From the time of -Alexander right down to the third century after Christ it is probable -that all through the Eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor gold was to -silver as 12:1. If this were so, the ox of the Avesta was worth 130 grs. -of gold, that is the weight of a Daric, and of the Homeric ox-unit. - -Such then are the approximate results that we have been able to obtain -regarding the value in gold of an ox in various parts of the ancient -world. Of course I do not pretend that they have the same force as if -they represented the value of the ox everywhere in one particular epoch, -or as if we had found the ox directly equated to gold in every case. But -on the other hand the persistency of prices in semi-civilized countries -is a fact well known: for example, prices have changed but very slightly -in India[208] during a long course of years, for although the silver -rupee has sunk to about two-thirds of its nominal value in exchanges for -gold, it purchases as much as ever in India. It is likely therefore that -the conventional value of the ox would have remained unchanged for a -long period of time, and the fact that our approximate values taken from -various countries and from various centuries so closely coincide is a -strong indication that such was the case. - -Savages are still more conservative in their ideas of the relative value -of certain articles; and when once a standard price has been fixed for -certain commodities, it is almost impossible to get them to change. - -Thus I am told by Mr W. H. Caldwell that, when he gave half-a-crown to -a Queensland black for the first specimen of a certain kind of animal -brought into camp, henceforth he had to pay the same amount for every -specimen, even when they came in considerable numbers. So with the early -men of Asia and Europe who first possessed cattle, and later on gold. -Once a certain amount of gold was taken as the recognized value of a cow -of certain age, the idea would become strongly rooted that so much gold -was the proper equivalent of a cow. And it would only be in the lapse of -centuries and with the development of cities and general commerce that -the price of cattle would begin to fluctuate. - -But even when such variation in price arose, it made no difference as -regards the weight standard. The unit had already long been fixed and it -remained unaltered, just as the beaver skin of account still means only -two shillings, although a real beaver skin is now worth many times that -amount. - -Another reason why the price of cattle would remain stationary would be -that in early times as all the cows were kept under more or less similar -conditions of food, and there was no attempt at the development of -superior breeds, there would be little difference in the value of animals -of the same age. - -The connection between the cow and the gold unit is rendered all the -more probable not merely by the fact so often noticed that the words -for _money_ in different languages originally meant _cattle_, but by -the remarkable fact that the earliest known weights are in the form of -cattle. The relation between _weight_ and money must always be close, -but it comes still more prominently into view, when as yet there is no -coinage, but gold and silver pass by weight alone. If then the value of a -cow formed the first gold unit, we can at once understand why the first -weights took the form of oxen and sheep. - -It was not for mere artistic reasons, for whilst such animal weights -appear on Egyptian paintings, the numerous known Egyptian weights are of -a very conventional form, as we shall find below. Doubtless the horns and -ears made a cow’s head exceedingly ill-suited for a weight, and in course -of time utility prevailed over the traditional idea that the weight unit -ought to take the shape of the animal, whose value in gold it was meant -to represent. - -The following table sums up briefly the results of this chapter: - - Homeric ox-unit = 130-135 grains of gold. - Roman ox (5th cent. B.C.) = 135 ” ” - Sicilian (5th cent. B.C.) = 135 ” ” - Ancient German = 120 ” ” - Ancient Gaulish = 120 ” ” - Phoenician? (4th cent. B.C.) = 135 ” ” - Egyptian (1500 B.C.?) = 140 grains of silver = 140 grains - of gold(?). - Hebrew = 130 grains of gold. - Zend-Avesta = 130 ” ” - Burgundian = 140 ” ” - Alamannic = 120 ” ” - Scandinavian[209] (8th cent. A.D.) = 128 ” ” - -As has been remarked before, I do not include the values of the ox or cow -in the ancient Laws of Wales or Ireland, since from the insular position -of Britain and Ireland the principle that we must have unbroken touch -between the various peoples in order to have a constant unit does not -apply. There could be no free flow of trade in cattle between Britain and -the continent until the development of steam navigation. - -It is worth noting that the value of a buffalo at the present day among -the Bahnars of Annam is almost the same as that of the ancient ox. The -buffalo is reckoned at 280 hoes[210], that is 28 francs = £1. 2_s._ 4_d._ -Taking gold at the rate of twopence per grain, the value of the buffalo -in gold is 134 grs. Troy. - - - - -CHAPTER VII. - -THE WEIGHT SYSTEMS OF CHINA AND FURTHER ASIA. - - Subiectos Orientis orae - Seras et Indos. - - HOR. _Carm._ I. 12. 56. - - -We have now found that within the area where our weight standards arose -the ox was universally diffused, and regarded as the chief and most -general form of property and medium of exchange; that over the same area -gold was found to be more or less equally distributed in antiquity; -that the metallic unit is found in all cases adapted to the chief unit -of barter, whether that be ox or reindeer, beaver skin, or squirrel, as -soon as peoples have learned the use of metal; and finally that over our -special area from the Atlantic to Central Asia the cow at various times -and places retained a value which fluctuated only from 120 to 140 grains -of gold. When therefore we recall the fact, also pointed out above, -that the gold unit employed from Gaul to Central Asia was one that only -fluctuated from 120 to 140 grains, and when we recollect further that -this unit in the ancient Greek Epic is called not a talent but an _ox_, -when prices, and not merely the actual ingots of gold are mentioned, -the conclusion follows that not merely in Greece but in all the other -countries the gold unit represented originally simply the conventional -value of the cow as the immemorial unit of barter. - -Next follows an important question, How was the primitive weight standard -fixed? In other words, how did mankind arrive at the general opinion that -a weight of gold of about 130 English grains was the equivalent to the -conventional value of the animal? - -If we could but discover a region in which the weight and monetary -systems still in use are essentially independent of our Graeco-Asiatic -standards, and where it could be proved that the monetary system is an -independent native development, and where this development is of such -recent date that the record has been preserved in a written document, not -merely reaching us in the dim form of a tradition, blurred and broken in -the long and misty space of years that lie between us and those who first -shaped our system, we would undoubtedly discern more clearly the stages -of its evolution. - -The Chinese empire with the neighbouring peoples who have participated -in its civilization afford us just the case which we desire. It will be -seen from what follows that not merely the monetary system of China, but -her weight system is of an origin almost wholly unaffected by Western -influences. - -We saw above that the earliest form of money in Greece took the form of -_spits_ or small rods of copper, no doubt of a specified size; we found -in Annam that iron hoes, in mediaeval India iron formed into large-sized -needles, in modern times in Central Africa pieces of iron of given -dimensions, bars of iron among the Hottentots and among the peoples of -the West Coast of Africa, brass rods of fixed length in the region of -the Congo, and pieces of a precious wood likewise of fixed dimensions, -have served or do still serve as media of exchange, and as units by which -the values of other commodities are measured. In all these cases mere -_measure_ not _weight_, is the method of appraisement. As the archaic -Greek “spit” or _obolus_ of bronze eventually became a round bronze -coin, familiar to us as Charon’s fee, and in still later times under the -abbreviation _ob_. as the accountant’s symbol for a half-penny, as _d._ -(_denarius_) denotes the penny, so we shall find that the common Chinese -copper coins pierced with a square hole in the centre have had an almost -identical history. - -At the time when the Chinese made their great invasion into South-eastern -Asia (214 B.C.) they still were employing a bronze currency under the -form of knives, which were 135 millimetres (5⅖ in.) in length, bearing -on the blade the character _minh_, and furnished with a ring at the -end of the handle for stringing them. Under the ninth dynasty (479-501 -A.D.) they used knives of the same form and metal, but 180 millim. (7⅕ -in.) in length, furnished with a large ring at the end of the handle and -inscribed with the characters _Tsy Kú-u Hoa_. Next the form of the knife -was modified, the handle disappeared, and the ring was attached directly -to the blade, but now as weight was regarded of importance, its thickness -was increased to preserve the full amount of metal, and the ring became a -flat round plate pierced with a hole for the string[211]. Later on these -knives became really a conventional currency, and for convenience the -blade was got rid of, and all that was now left of the original knife -was the ring in the shape of a round plate pierced with a square hole. -This is a brief history of the _sapec_ (more commonly known to us as -_cash_) the only native coin of China, and which is found everywhere from -Malaysia to Japan[212]. - -[Illustration: FIG. 21. CHINESE KNIFE MONEY (showing the evolution of the -modern Chinese coins).] - -Except where foreign coins such as American silver dollars are employed, -all payments in silver and gold are made by weight, the only money -being the copper _cash_. The Chinese metric system, like our own, is -based on natural seeds or grains of plants. Thus ten of a kind of seed -called _fên_ (the Candarin) probably placed sideways make 1 _ts’un_ (the -Chinese inch[213]), just as our forefathers based the English inch on 3 -barleycorns placed lengthwise. So with their monetary system, - - 10 _li_[214] (copper cash) = 1 _fên_ (_Candarin_) of silver. - 10 _fên_ = 1 _chi’en_ (_mace_). - 10 _chi’en_ = 1 _liung_ (or _tael_ or Chinese ounce). - -This _liung_ or, as it is more commonly called, _tael_ is the maximum -monetary weight. Hence we hear always of payments in silver as being 1000 -or 2000 ounces and so on, but never in the higher commercial units of the -_catty_ or pound, and _pical_ or hundredweight, to which we shall come -immediately. But though the Chinese never employed any coinage of gold or -silver, beyond all doubt they have possessed and employed both metals for -almost an incalculable time in the form of ingots of rectangular shape, -and of very accurately fixed dimensions. The maximum unit employed in -commercial relations between China, Cochin-China, Annam and Cambodia is -the _nên_ or _bar_. It is of course among her less advanced neighbours -that we can best see how the system developed and worked. For whilst -China herself now reckons exclusively by the _tael_ or ounce, Annam and -Cambodia still employ ingots of fixed weights and dimensions as metal -units almost to the present time. Thus when Msg. Taberdier in 1838 -published his account of the money of Annam, they had no coins except -the ordinary cash or _sapec_ with a square hole in its centre, and which -is there made of zinc and called _dong_[214], they had no coinage in the -proper sense of the term. However they employed ingots of gold and silver -of a parallelopiped shape. Five sizes of ingots were employed for both -gold and silver alike. - - GOLD. - - 1. _Nên-Vang, loaf of gold_ = 10 _lu’ong_ or _taels_ - (ounces). - 2. _Thoi-Vang_ or _Nua Nên-Vang_ = 5 _lu’ong_. - 3. _Lu’ong-Vang, nail of gold_ = 1 _lu’ong_ (39·05 grammes). - 4. _Nua-Vang, half nail of gold_ = ½ _lu’ong_. - 5. The quarter _lu’ong_ = ¼ _tael_ (9·762 gram.). - - SILVER. - - 1. _Nên-bac, loaf of silver_ = 10 _lu’ong_ or _taels_. - 2. _Nua Nên-bac, half loaf of silver_ = 5 _lu’ong_. - 3. _Lu’ong_ or _Dinh-bac, nail of silver_ = 1 _tael_. - 4. Half _Lu’ong, half nail_ = ½ _tael_. - 5. Quarter _Lu’ong_ = ¼ _tael_ (9·762 gram.). - -The lowest unit then was the quarter _nail_ of 152½ grains troy, whilst -the largest was the _nên_ of 6500 grains. These ingots did not circulate -freely but were generally kept in wealthy families as reserve treasure. - -In very similar manner in Greece and Italy gold and silver, fashioned -into talents and bars or wedges, were employed side by side with the -bronze _oboli_ or _spits_ which served as the ordinary currency of -every-day life. - -We have now seen that the highest unit employed for silver and gold is -the _Nên_ or bar of ten _taels_ or ounces. Before going further it will -be convenient to describe briefly what we may term the Chinese system of -_avoirdupois_ weight. Then we shall give the system borrowed from the -Chinese and used in Cambodia and Cochin-China. - - _Chinese._ - - 10 _fên_ = 1 _ch’en_ (mace). - 10 _ch’en_ = 1 _liang_, _tael_ or ounce. - 16 _tael_ = 1 _chin_, commonly known as catty, = 1⅓ lbs. English. - 100 catties = 1 _tan_ or _shih_, commonly known to us as the _picul_ - (= 133⅓ lbs. English). - - _Cambodia._ Money system. - - 60 cash or sapecs of zinc = 1 _tien_. - 10 _tien_ = 1 string. - 10 strings = 1 _nên_ or bar of silver (90 francs). - -The _nên_ is an ingot of silver of parallelopiped form, which is -invariably worth 100 strings of zinc cash[215]. This _nên_ is subdivided -for money of account as follows: - - 1 _nên_ (375 grammes) = 10 _denh_. - 1 _denh_ = 10 _chi_. - 1 _chi_ = 10 _hun_. - 1 _hun_ = 10 _li_. - -They employ a coin of silver called a _prac-bat_ or _preasat_, worth 4 -strings or ⅟₂₅ _nên_[216]. - -The Mexican piastre, which circulates also, is worth on the average about -6 strings of cash. - -1 gold ingot = 16 _nêns_ of silver. - -The half ingot of gold is also used = 8 ingots of silver. - -The unit of commercial or _avoirdupois_ weight is the _catty_ (called by -the Cambodians the _neal_) or pound. - - 1 _neal_ (catty) (600 grammes) = 16 _tomlongs_ or _taels_ (ounces). - 1 _tomlong_ (37·5 grammes) = 10 _chi_ (of 3·75 grammes). - 1 _chi_ = 10 _hun_. - -The preceding weights are plainly borrowed from the Chinese, whilst the -following are regarded as native in origin. - - 1 _pey_ = 0·292 grammes. - 4 _pey_ = 1 _fuong_ (1·174 grammes). - 2 _fuong_ = 1 _slong_ (2·344 grammes). - 4 _slong_ = 1 _bat_ (9·375 grammes). - 4 _bat_ = 1 _tomlong_ (37·5 grammes). - -For heavy merchandise they employ the _hap_ or _picul_. - -There are three varieties of _picul_: (1) that of the weight of 40 -strings of cash (= 100 catties), (2) that of 42 strings, (3) that of 45 -strings. - -It will be noticed that the first-mentioned is simply the standard of the -Chinese _picul_ of 133⅓ lbs. English, whilst the others are native. - -In Annam we found that the ingots of gold and silver, consisting of ten -_luongs_ or _nails_, were called _nên_. The _luong_ was equal in weight -to the Chinese _liung_, and Cambodian _tomlong_, and was also called -_dinh_ (_dinh-bac_, _nail of silver_), thus being identical with the ten -_denh_ into which the Cambodian _nên_ or bar is divided. - -In Laos[217] we again find the Chinese _picul_ as the highest weight -unit. It is divided into 100 catties (here called _Chang_) of 600 grammes -each (1⅓ lb. Eng.). - - 1 _picul_ = 100 _catties_. - 1 _catty_ (_chang_) = 10 _damling_ (60 grammes). - 1 _damling_ = 4 _bat_ (15 grammes). - 1 _bat_ = 4 _chi_ (3·75 grammes). - 1 _chi_ = 10 _hun_. - -All these or their equivalents are used as money of account. “If there is -but little coin in Laos,” says M. Aymonier, “there are monies of account -in abundance.” In the south-west of the country, Bassak and Attopoeu, -Cambodian currency is employed, and they count by the _nên_ or bar of -silver. - - 1 _nên_ = 10 _denhs_ (money of account). - 1 _denh_ = 10 strings of _cash_. - -The _string_ is also money of account and is worth the same as the string -of Annam, which is equal to the _sling_ or Siamese franc (which is worth -75 or 80 centimes). The _nên_ is also divided into 100 _chi_, and as -there are 100 strings in the _nên_, the string of cash is equivalent to -a _chi_ of silver (3·75 gram.). The Siamese coins known also to Cambodia -were the weight and money units of the ancient Cambodians, who probably -weighed their precious metals. In Laos all of them except the _tical_ -are only monies of account. The _tical_ or _bat_ which under the ancient -round form[218] was called _clom_ in Cambodia is actually struck as a -small piastre in Cambodia and Siam in imitation of European money. This -_tical_ is worth 4 Siamese _slings_, but the only monetary division of it -known in Laos is the local _lat_ or small ingot of copper. - - 4 copper _lats_ = 1 silver _tical_ (= 4 _sling_ = 3 francs). - 4 _tical_ = 1 _damling_. - 20 _damling_ = 1 _catty_ (_chang_). - 50 _catties_ = 1 _picul_. - -The _chang_ or _catty_ of silver is a double one, hence 50 _catties_ of -silver are equal to 100 _catties_ of ordinary commercial weight. - -The _catty_ of silver thus weighs 1200 grammes instead of 600 grammes. - -They likewise use the _moeun_ of silver = 10 _changs_ = ⅕ _picul_, -but more generally the _moeun_ is used as a measure of capacity which -contains 20 _catties_ of shelled rice, but as a measure of capacity it -varies and is sometimes equal to 20 _catties_, sometimes to 25 _catties_ -of rice. That it really is a measure of capacity incorporated at a -later date into the weight system like our own _bushels_, _barrels_ -and _quarters_, is made probable by the fact that in the provinces of -Tonlé, Ropon, and Melou Préy they employ a _tramem_ or _bag_ containing -10 Cambodian _catties_, and in the province of Siphoum the _moeun_ is -sometimes the name given to a bag or pannier of a cubit in depth, and a -cubit in width at the mouth. It is usually called _kanchoen_ (_pannier_), -and contains 25 _catties_ of rice, and 36 _kanchoen_ make a _cartload_. - -We learn from another part of Laos an interesting fact which also throws -some light on the development of the larger weight units from measures of -capacity. For since in some parts of that country the cocoanut is used -as the measure of capacity, and as _neal_, the native Cambodian name for -the _catty_, means simply a cocoanut, it looks as though this was the -real origin of the catty universally employed over all Further Asia. -This likewise gives us the reason why the catty of silver is twice the -weight of a catty of rice. If a weight unit is derived from a measure -of capacity, according to the nature of the substance or liquid with -which the measure is filled, the weight unit derived will be heavier or -lighter, just as the Irish barrel of wheat is 6 stones heavier than the -barrel of oats. A cocoa-nut, or bamboo-joint filled with silver will give -a far heavier weight unit than if it is weighed when filled with rice. - -We have now had a survey of the monetary and weight systems of China, -Annam, Cambodia and Laos, and everywhere found that the _nên_ or bar -of 10 _taels_ is the highest known metallic unit, and that except in -Laos the counting of money even by the catty or pound is unknown, the -Chinese themselves only employing the _tael_ as their highest monetary -unit, the catty being kept as in Annam and Cambodia itself for ordinary -goods. This is borne out by the practices in the weighing of gold. In -Attopoeu, the region where gold is found, 8 _chi_ (= 2 _ticals_ or _bats_ -= 4 _slings_ = 30 grammes) are exchanged for a bar of silver (= 100 -_chi_ = 375 grammes). M. Aymonier thinks that the gold _bat_, that is -to say the weight in gold of a _tical_ (15 grammes, 234 grains Troy), -must have been the unit for weighing gold, as formerly it was necessary -to give a gold _bat_ in order to marry a girl of the blood royal. This -gets considerable support from the fact that in Sieng-Khan the gold _bat_ -has only the weight of a _sling_ or _chi_ (58½ grains Troy), that is the -quarter of a _tical_, and the weight of the _tical_ or _bat_ is called a -_damling_. In fact they hardly reckon gold in any other way than by this -small _damling_ which is only the weight of a _tical_ (234 grains Troy). -In reference to my argument that as gold is the first of all things to -be weighed, the primitive weight unit is certain to be small, as no -man has, as a rule, any need to weigh his gold by the hundredweight or -large mercantile talent, this fact that the highest unit for weighing -gold in Attopoeu is so small, not even reaching the weight of the -Graeco-Phoenician heavy gold shekel or double ox-unit of 260 grains, is -of considerable importance. - -This region supplies us with yet another point which can help to clear -up the history of early metallic currency. The iron ingots which come -from the Cambodian provinces of Kompong Soai form a special kind of -money. These ingots are not weighed, but they have the length of the -space between the base of the thumb and the tip of the forefinger, they -are in breadth two fingers, and one finger in thickness in the middle, -thinning off to either end. Three of these ingots = 1 _chi_ = 1 _sling_ = -1 string of cash; thus 12 ingots = 1 _tical_ of silver. These ingots are -also counted by bags of 20; thus 1 _nên_ or bar of silver = 15 bags = 300 -ingots of iron. - -At Bassak the iron ingot is replaced by the _lat_, the copper ingot -of Laos, which varies in value in the different moeungs (provinces) -according to its size. Here is a remarkable confirmation of my contention -that it was only at a period considerably later than the weighing of gold -that the scales were employed for copper and iron, the catty being kept -as in Annam and Cambodia for ordinary goods. - -We can now make a further advance in our quest of the first beginnings of -money and weights in this interesting region. There are many wild tribes -in Annam and Laos, who still employ no method save that of barter, when -dealing one with another, although when they touch on the more civilized -regions they have to conform their native systems in some degree to the -more developed currency of their neighbours, from whom they have to -procure the few luxuries of their simple life. We saw above that among -the wild tribesmen all articles have a well-defined relationship to each -other, some particular article being usually taken as the common measure -of all the rest, or rather two or three so that they may have units for -estimating their more common as well as their more valuable possessions. -So in Annam the buffalo often serves as the general unit of value for the -more valuable articles. Thus a large chaldron is worth three buffalos, -a handsome gong two buffalos, a small gong one buffalo, six copper -dishes one buffalo, two lances one buffalo, a rhinoceros horn eight -buffalos, a large pair of elephant’s tusks six buffalos, a small pair -three buffalos[219]. Thus the buffalo which takes the place of the ox -in China and South-Eastern Asia, is used as the commercial unit in like -fashion as we found the ox employed among the Homeric Greeks, the ancient -Italians, the ancient Irish, and the modern Ossetes. But the Annamites -themselves employ as currency the silver bar and string of cash as we saw -above: accordingly when the hill tribes have dealings with the people of -the plain the full grown buffalo is reckoned at a bar of silver, or, its -equivalent, 100 strings of cash[220], while the small buffalo is set at -fifty strings. - -Thus the Orang Glaï have often to buy a pair of elephant’s tusks at -the cost of eight buffalos or eight bars of silver. Taxes are paid in -buffalos; thus the Tjrons of Karang pay a buffalo for each house, or -compound for the whole village by a payment of ten buffalos whose horns -are at least as long as their ears[221]. Here then we find that exactly -as the ancient Irish when they borrowed the Roman system of _unciae_ -and _scripula_ (_unga_ and _screapall_) equated the ounce of silver to -their own unit, the cow, so we find these wild tribes of Annam forced to -adapt their primitive unit to the metallic unit of their more cultured -neighbours. Again, the Bahnars of Annam, who dwell on the borders of -Laos, have much the same system. With them the highest unit is the -_head_, _i.e._ a male slave, who is estimated, according to his strength, -age and skill, at 5, 6, or 7 buffalos, or the same number of kettles, as -the buffalo and the kettle have the same value, which naturally varies -with the size and age of the animal and the quality of the kettle. A full -grown buffalo, or a large kettle, is worth seven glazed jars of Chinese -shape with a capacity of 10 to 15 litres each. One jar is worth 4 _muks_. -The _muk_ was originally the name of some special article, but now is -simply used as a unit of account. Each _muk_ is worth 10 _mats_, or iron -hoes, which are manufactured by the Cédans, and which form the sole -agricultural implement of the wild tribes of all these regions. This hoe -is the smallest monetary unit used by the Bahnars, and is worth about one -penny in European goods. This _mat_ or hoe serves them as small currency -and all petty transactions are carried on by it. Thus a large bamboo hat -costs 2 hoes, a Bahnar knife 2 hoes, ordinary arrows are sold at 30 for -1 hoe and so on. A large elephant is worth from 10 to 15 “_heads_” or -slaves, whilst a horse costs 3 or 4 kettles or buffalos. When we read of -such a state of human society we seem to be transported back into that -far away Homeric time, and as we hear of slaves, and kine, chaldrons and -kettles we think of the old Epics with their tale of slaves valued in -beeves, and “crumple-horned shambling kine, and tripods” and “shining -chaldrons.” In the light of such analogies we at last can understand the -significance of the 10 axes and 10 “half-axes” which formed the first and -second prizes in the _Iliad_[222] when Achilles “set out for the archers -the dark-hued iron, and put down 10 axes and 10 half-axes.” Who can doubt -that these axes and half-axes played much the same part in the Homeric -system of currency as the hoes do at this present moment in that of the -Bahnars of Annam? Probably such too were the 12 axes which Penelope[223] -brought out from the treasure chamber to serve as a target for the -suitors in their contests with the bow of Ulysses. The hoe is thus the -lowest unit of currency among the Bahnars. From the known interrelations -of all the articles of daily life it is easy to estimate how many hoes -any even of their more costly possessions is worth. Thus the full-grown -buffalo = 7 jars = 28 _muks_ = 280 hoes, or about £1. 3_s._ 4_d._ of our -money. All these transactions require no use of weights, being reckoned -by bulk or tale. But now comes the most interesting feature for us, a -people in the complete stage of barter, but who actually possess, work -and traffic in gold. - -In all the streams on the side next Laos the wild people wash gold, -men, women and children all alike joining in this laborious industry, -and employ as ‘cradles’ little baskets made of bamboo. The gold is sold -in dust at the _rate of the weight in gold of one grain of maize for -one hoe_. Here then we have finally run to ground one of the principal -objects of our quest. We have a primitive people, who carry on all -their trade by means of barter, who have no currency in the precious -metals, but who employ as their most general unit of small value the -iron hoe. They are found to weigh one thing and one only, namely gold, -and for that purpose they do not employ any weight standard borrowed -from China or Annam, but equate a certain amount of gold to the unit of -barter, and then fix as a constant that amount of gold by balancing it -against a grain of the corn that forms one of the chief staples of their -subsistence. Nature herself has supplied man with weights of admirable -exactitude ready to his hand in the natural seeds of plants, and as soon -as he finds out the need of determining with great care the precious -substance which he has to win with toil and hardship from the stream, he -takes the proffered means and fashions for himself a balance and weights. - -We saw that a buffalo was worth 280 hoes; it is therefore an easy task -for a Bahnar to tell its worth in gold. It was equally simple for the -first Aryan or Semite who framed the gold shekel standard to compute -the exact amount of gold which would represent the value of an ox. But -perhaps we have not reached the earliest stage of all in the development -of a standard for the sale of gold. I ventured to put forward in 1887 the -suggestion that the way in which the amount of gold which represented -the value of a cow was first fixed approximately was by _measuring_ -it in some way, as for instance by taking the amount which would fit -in the palm of the hand, somewhat in the fashion that rustics measure -gunpowder or shot for a gun. What was then but a mere guess may be now -regarded as fairly certain. That excellent observer, M. Aymonier, notes -that the Tapak tribe, who live at a distance of six days’ journey from -Attopoeu, wash gold. The women wade into the streams (after having first -carefully placed five flowers or five leaves at the foot of a tree close -by the stream to ensure good luck). Each dips a water-tight bag into the -sand at the bottom of the stream, and after a long series of rewashings -and cleansings at last gets the gold dust in a state of purity[224]. -The savages carry it to Attopoeu, and sell it at the rate of 9 _chi_ -of gold for a _nên_ or bar of silver (= 100 _chi_). The relative value -in Attopoeu is 8 _chi_ or two _bats_ of gold to one bar (= 100 _chi_) -of silver, or as they express it one _tical_ of gold is changed for 12 -_ticals_ of silver. “The _tical_ of gold is,” it is said, “equivalent to -the weight of 32 grains of a peculiar kind of rice of the country, with -large grains and of a red colour, which is called ivory rice.” Here we -have the weighing by natural grains as before, but Aymonier adds (p. 35) -that “the natives relate that gold was formerly so abundant that without -_weighing it people were content to measure_ it. A little stick of gold -an inch broad and a span long _was exchanged against a buffalo_.” - -We found the Bahnars equating a small quantity of gold to their smallest -unit of barter, the hoe; now we find that in the wild parts of Laos the -unit of gold, before weights of natural grains were employed, was based -by measurement upon the buffalo, the chief unit of barter. Thus we have -found among the remote peoples of Further Asia the very method of fixing -a metallic unit, which I have endeavoured to prove was that followed by -the Aryan and Semitic races in arriving at that shekel of gold, which was -the common standard of all the civilized peoples of the ancient world, -and which was the parent of all our mediaeval and modern systems. - - - - -CHAPTER VIII. - -HOW WERE PRIMITIVE WEIGHT UNITS FIXED? - - Ordiar ex minimis. - - _Carm. de ponderibus._ - - -We have seen that the Chinese system of weights is based upon natural -seeds of plants, and we have actually found the wild hillsmen of Annam -and Laos weighing their gold dust by grains of maize and rice. But it may -be urged by the advocates of a Babylonian scientific origin based on the -one-fifth of the cube of the royal ell, which in turn is based upon the -sun’s apparent diameter, that the Chinese names of weights are merely -conventional terms taken from the name of certain seeds, and on the other -hand that the mere fact that a very barbarous people like the Bahnars -of Annam weigh their gold dust by grains of rice is no evidence that -people in a higher stage of culture were content with such rude metric -standards. I propose to show in this chapter that it has been the actual -practice of peoples as far advanced in civilization as the ancient Greeks -or Italians, to employ seeds as weights down to the present day in Asia, -that it was the general practice in the middle ages, that it was likewise -the practice of the Romans of the empire, of the Greeks, and finally that -such too was the practice of the Assyrians themselves at a period long -before the bronze Lion weights were ever cast, or the stone Duck weights -were carved. If I succeed in proving this proposition, the doctrine that -the art of weighing was scientific must give place to the contention that -it was purely empirical. - -As we have found among the barbarians of Asia the first beginnings of the -art of weighing by the employment of grains of rice and maize, it is best -for us to take first in order some other Asiatic countries lying towards -the same region. - -The great islands of the Indian Archipelago, singularly rich in all -endowments of nature, have for ages enjoyed a high degree of culture. -Conveniently placed, they have received all the advantages of contact -with the civilization of China, India, and even that of the Arabs from -the distant west of Asia. Never were people more favourably situated -for obtaining foreign systems of weights and measures, if they felt so -disposed, than the Malays of Java and Sumatra and the other islands of -the Indian Archipelago. That admirable observer, John Crawfurd, writing -in 1820 says[225]: “In the native measures everything is estimated by -bulk and not by weight. Among a rude people corn would necessarily be -the first commodity that would render it a matter of necessity and -convenience to fix some means for its exchange or barter. The manner in -which this is effected among the Javanese will point out the imperfection -of their methods. Rice, the principal grain, is in reaping nipped off -the stalk with a few inches of the straw, tied up in sheaves or parcels -and then housed or sold, or otherwise disposed of. The quantity of rice -in the straw which can be clenched between the thumb and the middle -finger is called a _gagam_ or handful, and forms the lowest denomination. -Three _gagams_ or handfuls make one _pochong_, the quantity which can be -clenched between both hands joined. This is properly a sheaf. Two sheaves -or _pochongs_ joined together, as is always the case, for the convenience -of being thrown across a stick for transportation, make a double sheaf -or _gedeng_. Five _gedengs_ make a _songga_, the highest measure in some -provinces, or twenty-four make an _hamat_, the more general measure. From -their very nature these measures are indefinite and hardly amount to more -accuracy than we employ ourselves when we speak of sheaves of corn. In -the same district they are tolerably regular in the quantity of grain or -straw they contain, but such is the wide difference between different -districts or provinces, that the same nominal measures are often twice, -nay three times as large in one as in another. For the _hamat_ or -larger measure perhaps about eight hundred pounds avoirdupois might be -considered a fair average for the different provinces of Java. This may -convey some loose notion of the quantities intended to be represented. -For dry and liquid measures they may naturally have recourse to the shell -of the cocoanut and the joint of the bamboo which are constantly at hand. -The first called by the Malays _chupa_ is estimated to be two and a half -pounds avoirdupois. The second is called by some tribes _kulch_ and is -equal to a gallon, but the most common bamboo measure is the _gantung_, -which is twice this amount. To those exact and business-like dealers, -the Chinese, and in a less degree to the Arabs and people of the east -coast of the Indian Peninsula, the Indian islanders are chiefly indebted -for any precision we find in their weights. In all the traffic carried -on between the commercial tribes and foreigners, the Chinese weights, -though occasionally under native names, are constantly referred to. The -lowest of these, called sometimes by the native name of Bungkal, but more -frequently by the Chinese name of Tahil [_tael_], varies from twenty-four -pennyweights nine grains to thirty pennyweights and twenty grains. Ten -of these make a _kati_ [_catty_] or about twenty ounces avoirdupois; -one hundred _katis_ make a _pikul_ or 133⅓ lbs. avoirdupois, and thirty -_pikuls_ make one _koyan_. Of these the _kati_ and the _pikul_, because -they are constantly referred to in considerable mercantile dealings, are -the only well-defined weights. The _koyan_ by some is reckoned at twenty -_pikuls_, by others at twenty-seven, twenty-eight and even at forty. The -Dutch are fond of equalizing it with their own standards and consider it -as equal to a _last_ or two tons. - -“The _Bahara_, an Arabic weight, is occasionally used in the weighing of -pepper, but its amount is very indefinite, for in some of the countries -of the Archipelago it amounts to 396 lbs., and in others to 560 lbs.” - -Elsewhere he says[226], “The _picul_ is strictly a Chinese weight as -its amount shews, though the term happens in this case to be native. Its -meaning in the vernacular languages is a natural load or burthen, and -when used in this primitive sense it, without reference to the Chinese -weight, is not found to exceed eighty pounds avoirdupois.” This is a fact -of great importance as we shall see when we come to the development of -the _mina_ and _talent_ of Graeco-Asiatic commerce. - -Finally Crawfurd says, “The nice question of weighing gold, the only -native commodity which could not be estimated by tale or bulk, has given -rise to the use of weights among the natives themselves. Grains of rice -are still occasionally used in the weighing of gold in the neighbourhood -of the gold mines in Sumatra” (p. 274). - -I have quoted at full length these passages in order that the reader -may accept with fuller confidence statements so instructive as regards -the origin of weight, the first object to be weighed, and the origin -of the _picul_, or as we may call it the _talent_ of Eastern Asia. -Nine years before Crawfurd wrote there had appeared William Marsden’s -admirable _History of Sumatra_[227]. He gives us far fuller information -on the subject of gold than Crawfurd has done. Thus he writes: “In -those parts of the country where traffic in this article (gold dust) -is considerable, it is employed as currency instead of coin; every man -carries small scales about him, and purchases are made with it so low -as to the weight of a grain or two of _padi_. Various seeds are used -as gold weights, but more especially these two: the one called _rakat_ -or _saga-tim-bañgan_ (_Glycine abrus_ L or _abrus maculatus_ of the -Batavian trans.), being the well-known scarlet pea with a black spot, -twenty-four of which constitute a _mas_, and sixteen _mas_ (mace) a -_tāil_ (_tael_): the other called _saga puku_ and _kondori batang_ -(_Aden anthera pavonia_ L), a scarlet or rather coral bean much larger -than the former, and without the black spot. It is the candarin weight -of the Chinese, of which one hundred make a tāil and equal, according -to the tables published by Stevens, to 5·7984 gr. Troy, but the average -weight of those in my possession is 10·50 Troy grains. The tāil differs -however in the northern and southern parts of the island, being at Natal, -Padang, Bencoolen and elsewhere twenty-six pennyweights six grains. At -Achin the _bangkal_ of thirty pennyweights twenty-one grains is the -standard. Spanish dollars are everywhere current and accounts are kept -in dollars, _sukus_ (imaginary quarter dollars) and _kepping_ or copper -cash, of which four hundred go to the dollar. Besides these there are -silver _fanams_, single, double and treble (the latter, called _tali_), -coined at Madras, twenty-four _fanams_ or eight _talis_ being equal to -the Spanish dollar, which is always valued in the English settlements at -five shillings.” - -He adds that copper is sold by weight (_picul_), and that tin, which was -accidentally discovered in 1710 by the burning of a house, is exported -for the most part in small pieces or cakes called _tampangs_, sometimes -in slabs (p. 172), and furthermore they purchase bar iron by measurement -instead of by weight (p. 176). - -Several points of great importance are to be noticed in the foregoing -statements. Firstly, that whilst for foreign trade with the Chinese -they employ the Chinese weight, which we know always by its Malay name -of _picul_, a well-defined weight standard of 133⅓ lbs. avoirdupois, -they had evidently a native unit of weight, their own _picul_, which -simply means and actually was as much as a man can carry on his back, -and which, as we saw, rarely exceeds 80 lbs. avoirdupois. This seems to -give us an insight into the manner in which the most primitive highest -weight unit is arrived at. A man’s load is one of those natural standards -which will vary according to race and climate, and the conditions under -which the load has to be borne. Thus, the average weight of the load -borne by a dock porter who has to endure the strain for only some few -yards, will of course be far higher than that carried by the porters -of travellers in Central Africa, where the load has to be borne day -after day on a march of several hundred, or a thousand miles. Thus in -the case of the Madis, a pure negro tribe, the average load seems to -be about 50 pounds, which they can carry “20 miles a day for eight or -ten consecutive days without shewing any signs of distress[228].” The -Chinese, the superiors in science of all Eastern Asia, have carefully -adjusted this “_load_,” and it makes, as we have seen above, their -highest weight unit. Its particular amount is probably due to the -fact that, having carefully fixed the weight of the smaller units, -the candarin, the mace, the _liung_ or _tael_, and the _catty_, their -pound, they simply took the hundredfold of the _chang_ or _catty_ as the -standard for their highest unit, and thus that which at an earlier stage -was just as vague and fluctuating as the _picul_, or back-loads in use -still among the less-advanced peoples of the Indian Archipelago, became -a fixed scientific unit. Secondly, we must notice that the Malays have -not followed the Chinese in the subdivisions of the _catty_. For whilst -in China 16 _taels_ or ounces go to the catty, the Malays follow more -strictly the decimal system, and make their catty simply the tenfold -of the _tael_ or ounce. This same method of division we found already -in Annam, and not only in Annam but also in Cambodia and Laos we found -the silver _nên_ or bar, invariably consisting of ten such parts, -corresponding in weight to the Chinese _tael_, sixteen of which go to the -catty. - -It would appear, then, that here we have a combination of units of weight -and units of capacity. The higher gold and silver unit, the _nên_, is -simply the tenfold of the lower unit, the _tael_ or ounce, while the -_catty_, which is never employed in China in estimating gold or silver, -but is a genuine commercial unit, was probably originally some natural -unit of capacity. We saw strong evidence of this in Cambodia, where the -name for this weight is _neal_ or cocoanut, and we have just found the -cocoanut as the chief unit of dry measure amongst the Malays of the -Indian Seas. It was probably found that 16 times the _tael_ or ounce -came nearer to the weight of the contents of a cocoanut or bamboo joint -(whatever kind of matter they may have weighed in it for this purpose, -whether rice, or water), than the original 10 ounces, which formed the -_bar_, the highest genuine weight unit. Sixteen was likewise a convenient -number, its factors being numerous, and it could be divided in four -portions, each of which contained four other units. It will presently be -a question as to whether similar influences have not produced our pound -avoirdupois, with its 16 sub-multiples. - -M. Moura found a difficulty regarding the Cambodian _neal_ or cocoanut -_catty_; because a _neal_ of rice only weighs half the weight, at which -the _neal_ is rated as a weight. But we saw in Java that the _chapa_ -or cocoanut measure is estimated at 2½ pounds avoirdupois. It is then -not improbable that some liquid or substance far heavier than rice was -used to fill the cocoanut, when the value of its contents was being -ascertained by weighing so as to serve as a general unit. The same -variation in weight, owing to the different nature of its contents, -has, as mentioned before, given rise in Ireland to _barrels_ of various -weights. Thus a _barrel_ of wheat contains 20 stone avoirdupois, a -_barrel_ of potatoes 24 stone, a _barrel_ of barley 16 stone, and a -_barrel_ of oats 14 stone. This diversity simply arose from comparative -lightness or heaviness of the different commodities which were measured -by one and the same unit of capacity: the barrel itself, having been -fixed by a process of measurement, similar to that by which the milk-pan -was regulated among the Welsh, and the pannier among the natives of Laos. -The principle by which higher units of capacity or weight are formed is -likewise well illustrated by the instance given above of the _cartload_ -of rice, which is simply regarded as the multiple of the pannier or bag, -which forms the smaller unit for rice. The size of the _cartload_ would -be conditioned by the size of the cart usually employed, which in turn -would depend on a variety of other things, such as the nature of the -country, or its roads, or the kind of animals employed for draught. The -vagueness in amount of the _koyan_ or multiple of the _picul_ noticed by -Crawfurd, may thus meet with a reasonable explanation. - -We may now return to the mainland of Asia, where we shall find in the -weight system of the Hindus at least one remarkable point of affinity -with that of Sumatra. Marsden has told us that the _rakat_ or scarlet -pea with a black spot is one of the chief weights employed for gold in -Sumatra. This _rakat_ is none other than the _ratti_, which is usually -taken as the basis of the modern Hindu weight system. “This weight,” says -that eminent scholar Colebrooke[229], “is the lowest denomination in -general use, commonly known by the name _ratti_, the same with _rattika_, -which, as well as _ṛaktika_, denotes the red seed as _kṛishnala_ -indicates the black seed of the _gunjá_-creeper.” Mr Thomas has shown the -true weight of the _ratti_ is 1·75 grains[230]. - -Many different standards have been used in India for various purposes, -one for the weighing of gold, another for the weighing of silver, another -used by jewellers, and yet another by the medical tribe, but all alike -start from the _ratti_. - -“The determination of the true weight of the _ratti_ has done much both -to facilitate and give authority to the comparison of the ultimately -divergent standards of the ethnic kingdoms of India. Having discovered -the guiding unit, all other calculations become simple, and present -singularly convincing results, notwithstanding that the bases of all -these estimates rest upon so erratic a test as the growth of the seed of -the _gunjá_-creeper (_Abrius precatorius_) under the varied influences of -soil and climate. Nevertheless the small compact grain, checked in early -times by other products of nature, is seen to have the remarkable faculty -of securing a uniform average throughout the entire continent of India, -which only came to be disturbed when monarchs like Shîr Shâh and Akbar -in their vanity raised the weight of the coinage without any reference -to the numbers of _rattis_, inherited from Hindu sources, and officially -recognized in the old, but entirely disregarded and left undefined in the -reformed Muhammadan mintages[231].” We shall learn shortly that in its -uniformity the _ratti_ does not differ from other seeds such as wheat and -barley. Probably, however, the fact that the _gunjá_-creeper was found -everywhere in India gave it its position of a universal standard. Those -who wish to study the elaborate systems of later times employed in India -can consult the works of Colebrooke and Thomas already referred to. - -The legislators Manu, Yájnavalkya, and Nárada trace all weights from -the least visible quantity which they concur in naming _trasareṇu_ and -describing as the very small mote, “which may be discovered in a sunbeam -passing through a lattice.” Writers on medicine proceed a step further, -and affirm that a _trasareṇu_ contains 30 _paramáṇu_ or atoms. The -legislators above-named proceed from the _trasareṇu_ as follows: - - 8 _trasareṇus_ = 1 _likshá_, or minute poppy-seed. - 3 _likshás_ = 1 _raja-sarshapa_, or black mustard-seed. - 3 _raja-sarshapas_ = 1 _gaura-sarshapa_, or white mustard-seed. - 6 _gaura-sarshapas_ = 1 _yava_, or middle-sized barley-corn. - 3 _yavas_ = 1 _kṛishnala_, or seed of the _gunjá_. - -But as we want to learn what was the actual usage of the Hindus, instead -of dealing with the mere theoretic statements of late authors, I shall at -once quote in full the tables given in the _Līlāvati_ of Brahmegupta, who -wrote his Algebra and Arithmetic about 600 A.D.[232] - -MONEY (_by tale_). Twice ten cowries[233] are a _cácíní_; four of these -are a _pána_, sixteen of which must here be considered as a _dramma_, and -in like manner a _nishká_ as consisting of sixteen of these. - -WEIGHT. A _gunjá_ (or seed of _Abrus_), is reckoned equal to two -barley-corns (_yavas_). A _valla_ is two _gunjás_ and eight of these -are a _dharana_, two of which make a _yadyanaca_. In like manner one -_dhataca_ is composed of fourteen _vallas_. - -Half ten _gunjás_ are called a _másha_ by such as are conversant with -the use of the balance; a _karsha_ contains sixteen of what are called -_máshas_, a _pala_ four _karshas_. A _karsha_ of gold is named _suvarṇa_. - -This is quite in harmony with the _weight_ of _gold_ as given by the -legislators: - - 5 _kṛishnalas_ or _raktikas_ = 1 _másha_. - 16 _máshas_ = 1 _karsha_, _aksha_, _tolaka_, or - _suvarṇa_. - 4 _karshas_ or _suvarṇas_ = 1 _pala_ or _nishká_. - 10 _palas_ = 1 _dharana_ of gold. - -Yájnavalkya adds that according to some 5 _suvarṇas_ = 1 _pala_. - -All the authorities seem agreed in regarding the term _suvarṇa_ as -peculiar to gold, for which metal it is also a name. - -We learn thus that the Hindu standards were fixed by means of natural -seeds, and at no period do they, clever mathematicians as they were, -seem to have made any effort at obtaining a mathematical basis for their -metric systems. - -We also observe that the weight known as the _suvarṇa_ or _gold_ weight -_par excellence_ is the weight of a _karsha_ or 80 _gunjás_, which, if we -take the _gunjá_ = 1·75 grains Troy, gives the weight of the _suvarṇa_ as -140 grains. I have already (p. 127) taken the original Hindu gold unit -as not far from this amount. From the _Līlāvati_ we may now with little -misgiving assume it to have been such. - -Lastly, let us observe that the barley-corn appears as the basis of the -system in the tables of Brahmegupta and Bhascara, although the _ṛaktika_ -evidently overmasters it in the course of time. This is very interesting, -for it indicates that the Hindus had learned the art of weighing in a -comparatively northern region, where barley was the chief cereal under -cultivation. If the system had been invented in the more southern parts -of India, the grain of rice, the staple of life in the southern regions, -would certainly have appeared as the sub-multiple of the _ṛaktika_, -instead of the barley. As a matter of fact, rice-grains seem to have -been occasionally used locally, for Colebrooke remarks that “it is also -said that the _ṛaktika_ is equal in weight to four grains of rice in the -husk.” This supposition is completely in accord with what we found in -Persia, where the modern weight system for gold, silver and medicine -runs thus: - - 3 _gendum dsho_ (barley-corn) = 1 _nashod_. - 4 _nashod_ (a kind of pea, lupin?) = 1 _dung_. - 6 _dung_ = 1 _miscal_[234]. - -Although the _miscal_ and _habba_ denote Arabic influence, we may, -without straining probabilities, conjecture that the use of the -_barley-corn_ here as well as in India, where we found it at a period -anterior to Muhammadan conquest, indicates that in Persia it existed -likewise from the earliest times. The close relationship between the -ancient Hindus and ancient Persians makes it all the more likely. It is -also pointed out that formerly the _nashod_ was divided into _three_ -instead of four grains. As the Arabs divide their _karat_ into four -_habbas_, it is all the more likely that the 3 barley-corns = 1 _nashod_ -belong to the ancient system. - -The Arab weight system is based on the grain of wheat, four of which -make a _karat_ (the seed of the carob or St John’s Bread)[235]. -Occasionally in the Arab writers mention is made of a karat divided into -3 _habbas_[235]. The weight of the karat remains unchanged, but the -grains in this case are barley grains, since, as we shall see presently, -3 grains of barley are equal to 4 grains of wheat (·063 × 3 = ·047 × 4). - -It will now be most convenient for us to begin in the extreme west, and -once more from that work back towards the coast of the Aegean Sea, in -which our chief interest must always be centred. - -Whether the Kelts of Ireland had any indigenous weight system or not, we -have no direct evidence, although we do know as a fact that when Caesar -landed in Kent he found the Britons employing coins of gold and bronze, -and bars (or according to some MSS. _rings_) of iron adjusted to a fixed -weight. However the earliest Irish documents reveal that people using -a system of weights for silver directly borrowed from the older Roman -system (although it is likely that they had a native standard for gold). -As the _solidus_ and _denarius_ became the chief units of Europe from the -time of Constantine the Great (336 A.D.), the Irish probably received -their system at an earlier date. - - 1 _unga_ (_uncia_) = 24 _screapalls_ (_scripula_). - 1 _screapall_ = 3 _pingiuns_. - 1 _pingiun_ = 8 grains of wheat[236]. - -When we pass to England, the very word _grain_ which we employ to express -our lowest weight unit, would of itself suggest that originally some -kind of _grain_ or _seed_ was employed by our forefathers in weighing, -but as the grain in use among us is the _grain Troy_, and as we have not -yet learned its origin, it will not do to argue vaguely from etymology. -But a little enquiry soon brings us to a time when the grain Troy did -not as yet form the basis of English weights, and when a far simpler -method of fixing the weight of the kings coinage was in vogue. It was -ordained by 12 Henry VII. ch. V. “that the bushel is to contain eight -gallons of wheat, and every gallon eight pounds of wheat, and every -pound twelve ounces of Troy weight, and every ounce twenty sterlings, -and every sterling to be of the weight of thirty-two grains of wheat -that grew in the midst of the ear of wheat according to the old laws of -this land[237].” Going backwards we find that in 1280 (8 Edward I.) the -penny was to weigh 24 grains, which by weight then appointed were as much -as the former 32 grains of wheat. By the Statute _De Ponderibus_, of -uncertain date but put by some in 1265, it was ordained that the penny -sterling should weigh 32 grains of wheat, round and dry, and taken from -the midst of the ear. Going back a step still further we find that by the -Laws of Ethelred, every penny weighed 32 grains of wheat[238], and as the -pennies struck by King Alfred weigh 24 grains Troy, we may assume without -hesitation that they were struck on the same standard of 32 grains of -wheat. Thus from Alfred (871-901) down to Henry VII. (1485-1509), we -find the penny fixed by this primitive method, and the actual weight of -the coins, as tested by the balance at the present day, affords proof -positive of the method. - -But all the standards of mediaeval Europe (with the exception of the -Irish) were based on the gold _solidus_ of Constantine the Great[239]. -The _solidus_ (itself weighing 72 grains Troy or ⅟₇₂ of the Roman pound) -was divided into 24 _siliquae_. The _siliqua_, or as the Greeks called it -_keration_ (κεράτιον, from which comes our word _carat_), was the seed -of the _carob_, or as it is often called, _St John’s Bread_ (_Ceratonia -siliqua_ L). Thus the lowest unit in the Roman system, as it is usually -given, is found to be the seed of a plant. The same holds of the Greek -system, for the _drachma_ is described as containing 18 _kerata_ or -_keratia_, whilst according to others “it contains three _grammata_, but -the _gramma_ contains two _obols_ and the _obol_ contains three _kerata_, -and the _keras_ contains four _wheat grains_[240].” From this we see that -the _keration_ or _siliqua_ was further reduced to 4 _sitaria_, or grains -of wheat, whilst from another ancient table of weights[241] we learn that -the _siliqua_ likewise equals 3 barley-corns (_siliqua grana ordei_ iii). -Hence it appears that 3 barley-corns = 4 wheat grains. Thus both Greek -and Roman systems just like the English and Irish take as their smallest -unit a grain of corn. This also throws important light on the origin of -that mysterious thing, the Troy grain. We saw above (8 Edward I.) that -at the time of its introduction into England that 24 grains Troy = 32 -grains of wheat, that is the Troy grain stands to wheat grain as 3:4. -But as we have just seen that the _siliqua_ = 3 barley-corns, and also -= 4 wheat-corns, it follows that 3 barley-corns = 4 wheat-corns. And as -3 Troy grains = 4 wheat-corns, it likewise follows that 3 Troy grains = -3 barley-corns, or in other words, the barley-corn and Troy grain are -the same things. It thus appears that the Troy grain is nothing more -than the barley-corn, which was used as the weight unit in preference -to the grain of wheat in some parts of the Roman empire. Furthermore -this relation between barley-corns and wheat-corns can be proved to be a -fact of Nature. In September, 1887, I placed in the opposite scales of a -balance 32 grains of wheat “dry and taken from the midst of the ear,” and -24 grains of barley taken from ricks of corn grown in the same field at -Fen Ditton, near Cambridge, and I thrice repeated the experiment; each -time they balanced so evenly that a half grain weight turned the scale. -The grain of Scotch wheat weighs ·047 gram, the Troy grain = ·064, ·047 × -4 = 188, ·064 × 3 = 192. Practically 4 wheat grains = 3 Troy grains. - -Before passing from the Greek and Roman standards I may add that even -higher denominations than the _siliqua_ were expressed by the seeds of -plants. The Romans made the lupin (_lupinus_) = 2 _siliquae_ and under -its Greek name of _thermos_ (θερμός), it was assigned a like value -(_Metrol. Script._ I. 81). In the _Carmen de Ponderibus_ (_Metrol. -Script._ II. 16), 6 grains of pulse (_grana lentis_) are made equal to -6 _siliquae_, and a like number of grains of spelt are given a similar -value. - -We next advance towards the East and take up the Semitic systems. We -have already had occasion to touch upon that of the Arabs when dealing -with the modern Persians. “There can be little doubt,” says Queipo (I. -360), “that the Arab system of weight was based on the grain of wheat.” -The _habba_ was their smallest unit. Four _habbas_ are equal to 1 -_karat_, the latter of course representing the _keration_ or _siliqua_, -and the former the 4 _sitaria_ or _wheat-grains_, which we saw were -its equivalent. This is the most ordinary value given to the karat in -Makrizi and the other Arabic writers on Metrology, but occasionally -we find the karat made equal to only 3 grains, which of course are -barley-corns. We saw above that in the Persian system the _nashod_ was -formerly divided into 4 _habbi_ of ·048 gram (which is plainly the weight -of the wheat-grain), whilst now it is divided into 3 grains each of ·063 -which represents the barley-corn, or in other words the Troy grain of -·064 gram. Of course the objection might be raised that as the Arabs -had borrowed their higher denominations such as the _dirhem_ (δραχμή) -and _dinar_ (_denarius_, δηνάριον), from the Greeks and Romans, and as -their standard weight the _mithkal_ is nothing more than the _sextula_ -or ⅙ of the Roman ounce, employed in the eastern Empire under the name -of _exagion_ (ἐξάγιον, whence comes the _saggio_ of Marco Polo), so too -their wheat-corns and barley-corns were not of their own devising, but -likewise adventitious. After what we have seen above (p. 166) to be the -practice of primitive people in the selling of gold, a traffic in which -the Arabs had been engaged for many ages, it would seem hardly necessary -to reply to such an argument, but as a more complete answer can be given -in the course of the last portion of this enquiry, we shall deal with it -in that place. - -We now come to the Assyrians themselves, from the discovery of whose -weights in the shape of lions and ducks, the whole modern theory of a -scientific origin for all the weight standards of the Greeks as well as -Asiatics and Egyptians has had its origin. But even within this sacred -precinct of _à priori_ metrology the irrepressible grain of corn springs -up vigorously, although almost choked by the abundant crop of tares which -have been sown around it. If we find that a Semitic people, who were -the ancients of the earth before Pelops passed from Asia into Greece, -or Romulus had founded his Asylum, employed the wheat grain as their -lowest weight unit, we may then well argue that ages before the birth of -the Prophet and the Arab conquest of Egypt and Syria, the Semitic folks -employed grains of corn to form their lowest weight unit. - -M. Aurès[242], a well-known Assyrian metrologist, has recently set forth -the Assyrian system in its latest and most advanced stage. Following the -veteran Assyriologist, M. Oppert, he finds that the Assyrians used a -denomination lower than the obol. In the Museum of the Louvre there is -a small Assyrian weight of the “duck” kind, which bears on its base the -Assyrian character of 22 _grains_ ½. The ideogram translated _grain_ is -evidently meant to represent some kind of corn with a rounded end. The -weight of this object is ·95 gram (14⁶⁄₇ grains Troy). The weight is a ¾ -obol, and therefore 30 grains went to the obol. This is the obol of the -heavy Assyrian system, of which we shall presently speak. For the sake of -clearness, I take M. Aurès’ table. - - 30 grains = 1 obol. - 6 obols = 1 drachm. - 2 drachms = 1 shekel. - 10 drachms = 1 “stone.” - 60 ” = 1 _light_ mina. - -For our present purpose it is quite sufficient to call attention to the -fact that this grain which forms the lowest unit of the Assyrian scale -weighs ·042 gram (·95 ÷ 22·5) which is a very close approximation to -the weight of the _wheat-grain_ (·047). Making allowance for some loss -which the weight may have sustained, it seems impossible to doubt that -we have here the wheat-grain being used to form the smallest unit as it -is in the modern Arabic system. The double obol of the Assyrians weighs -30 grains; we shall also find that the Hebrew _gêrâh_ or obol (twenty of -which made a shekel), weighed exactly 15 _grains of wheat_, that is the -Hebrew _gêrâh_ is the light obol which stood side by side with the heavy -obol of 30 grains in the Assyrian system. Let us treat the matter from a -slightly different point of view: As the _light_ Assyrian obol contained -15 _Assyrian_ grains, the _light_ shekel contained 180 _Assyrian_ grs. -But as we know that this light Assyrian shekel weighed 8·4 grams, or -131 grains _Troy_, and as we know that the _Troy_ grain is really the -barley-corn and likewise that 3 barley-corns = 4 _wheat_ grains, it is -obvious that 131 grains Troy = 175 _wheat_ grs. nearly, a very close -approximation to the 180 _Assyrian_ grs. Again as 180 _Assyrian_ grs. = -8·4 grams, the _Assyrian_ grain weighed ·046 gram, that is almost exactly -the weight of a _wheat_ grain (·047 gram). - -But let us see for a moment in what fashion M. Aurès accounts for the -presence of corn-grains in a system so elaborately scientific as he and -his school maintain. - -Starting as usual with the old assumption that all weight standards come -from the measures of capacity and all measures of capacity in their turn -are derived from the linear measures, he proceeds thus: The Assyrian -ideogram which represents _tribute_, likewise represents _talent_. -Tribute being paid in corn, no doubt the idea of weight first arose as -the people carried their quota of corn on their backs to the receipt of -custom. They accordingly weighed the measure (_bar_), which contained -the proper amount of corn and took it as their weight unit, and then -proceeded to make subdivisions of it. When their weight system was thus -fixed, for convenience instead of going to the trouble of adjusting -weights they took 30 grains of corn which would be just equivalent to -the weight of an obol. After the many historical instances quoted in the -preceding pages in which the methods of appraising the value of corn and -other dry commodities have been set out, and also the manner in which -corn grains have been employed for fixing the higher standard, as for -instance in the adjustment of the English bushel in the reign of Henry -VII., the reader will feel that M. Aurès has simply inverted the true -order of events, and that as we found the natives of Annam and the Malays -of the Indian Archipelago making their first essay in weighing by means -of a grain of maize, or rice, or _padi_, so the ancient inhabitants of -Mesopotamia made their first beginning, and as we have found everywhere -that gold, the most precious of objects, was the first thing to be -weighed, and as it only existed in small quantities, thus requiring but a -very small unit of weight, so the Assyrians likewise began to weigh gold -first of all, employing the natural seeds of corn, and only in process of -time arrived at higher units by multiplying the smaller. - -To all the evidence collected from Asia and Europe we can likewise add a -fact of great importance from Africa. We saw that it was highly probable -that the Carthaginians traded for gold to the West Coast of Africa, and -beyond all reasonable doubt the natives of the Gold Coast have for ages -been acquainted with that metal. Now it can be proved that these peoples, -whilst employing no weights for any other mercantile transaction, used -the seeds of certain plants for weighing their gold; thus Bosman writing -two centuries ago says, “Having treated of gold at large, I am now -obliged to say something concerning the gold weights, which are either -pounds, marks, ounces or angels.... We use here another kind of weights -which are a sort of beans, the least of which are red spotted with black -and called Dambas; twenty-four of them amount to an angel, and each of -them is reckoned two stiver weights; the white beans with black spots or -those entirely black are heavier and accounted four stiver weights: these -they usually call Tacoes, but there are some which weigh half or a whole -gilder, but are not esteemed certain weights, but used at pleasure and -often become instruments of fraud. Several have believed that the negroes -only used wooden weights, but that is a mistake; all of them have cast -weights either of copper or tin, which though divided or adjusted in a -manner quite different to ours; yet upon reduction agree exactly with -them[243]”. - -I am informed by Mr Quayle Jones, Chief Justice of Sierra Leone, that -at the present day, a seed called the _Taku_, (with a black spot) is -employed by the natives of the Gold Coast for weighing gold. He also -tells me that small quantities of gold are measured by a quill in -ordinary dealings in the market[244]. I learn from another private source -that 6 Takus = 1 ackie (20 ackies = 1 ounce). From Bosnian’s equating the -bean with the red spot to 2 stiver-weights, we can deduce its weight as -2 grs. troy; this result combined with the colour of the bean would make -us a _à priori_ conclude that the Damba was the _Abrus precatorius_, so -familiar to us already under its Hindu name of _ratti_. - -Here we have a primitive people with a weight system of their own based -on the Damba and Taku, just as the Hindu is based on the _ratti_, and -here too we have another proof that the first of all articles to be -weighed is gold. From Bosman we also learn that gold in small quantities -was not always weighed, for he says of the inferior gold which was mixed -with silver or copper, that it is cast into fetiches (small grotesque -figures). “These fetiches are cut into small bits by the negroes of one, -two, or three farthings. The negroes know the exact value of these bits -so well at sight, that they never are mistaken, and accordingly they sell -them to each other without weighing as we do coined money[245].” This -recalls the practice as regards silver among the Tibetans at the present -day. - -Crossing to the eastern side of Africa we find the natives of Madagascar -employing a system, the basis of which is a grain of rice. “The Malagasy -have no circulating medium of their own. Dollars are known more or less -throughout the island: but in many of the provinces trade is carried on -principally by an exchange of commodities. The Spanish dollar, stamped -with the two pillars, bears the highest value. For sums below a dollar -the inconvenient method is resorted to in the interior, of weighing the -money in every case. Dollars are cut up into small pieces, and four iron -weights are used for the half, quarter, eighth, and twelfth of a dollar. -Below that amount, divisions are effected by combinations of the four -weights, and also by means of grains of rice, even down so low as one -single grain—“Vary vray venty,” one plump grain, valued at the seven -hundred and twentieth part of a dollar”[246]. The grain of rice therefore -weighs ⁵⁄₉ gr. troy (·036 gram). As gold is not found in Madagascar[247] -the natives could not weigh it first of all things; but they have carried -out the principle of taking silver, the most precious article they -possessed, as the first object to be weighed. - -In this chapter, therefore, we have sought the method by which weight -standards are fixed among primitive and semi-civilized peoples; we have -studied the system or systems of China, Cochin-China, Cambodia, Laos -and the great Islands of the Indian Ocean. Everywhere we have received -the self-same answer, everywhere the lowest unit is nothing more than -a natural seed or grain. We found in two places in the area studied, -amongst the Tapaks of Annam and the Malays of Sumatra, the art of -weighing in its earliest infancy; only one product, gold, as yet being -weighed, and the weight unit employed for it being a grain of rice or -maize. We found that this smallest natural unit of gold was amongst the -Bahnars equated to the smallest unit of barter in use among them, the -hoe, whilst their highest unit was the buffalo; and that by a simple -process based on the known relation existing in value between the -hoe, the _muk_, the jar, and the buffalo, there was no difficulty in -arriving empirically at the exact value in gold of a buffalo. We found -also that the two higher units of weight the _picul_, and the _catty_, -which in almost every case were found to be confined to the ordinary -merchandise, were beyond reasonable doubt not originally multiples of the -lower the _tael_, but were really natural units obtained by a totally -different process; the _picul_ being the amount which an average man can -conveniently carry on his back, the _catty_, as seen especially in the -case of the _neal_ of Cambodia, being nothing more than the cocoa-nut -shell used as the ordinary measure of capacity, as a gourd of a certain -kind is employed at Zanzibar, as the hen’s egg was employed by the -Hebrews and also by the ancient Irish, as the cochlea or mussel shell -was taken by the Romans as the basis of their measures of capacity, and -as possibly the gourd itself under its name of _Kyathos_ formed the -lowest unit of capacity among the Greeks. We saw clearly that the catty -has never become a weight-unit for precious metals among the Chinese, -Annamites or Cambodians; the first named never having used any higher -unit for such purpose than a bar of ten _taels_, and at the present day -for the most part contenting themselves with the _tael_ or ounce, whilst -the two latter still use the _nên_ or bar with its subdivisions into -10 _denhs_, or in other words, use as their highest monetary unit the -tenfold of the _tael_ or ounce. We likewise found that in Annam among -the less advanced peoples there was considerable evidence to show that -the _bat_ or tical was originally the highest unit used for gold, and -that this name _bat_ was applied to weights of different amount; thus -the _chi_ which in commercial weight is only the quarter of a _bat_, is -itself called the gold _bat_. The _bat_ itself was the third of the -_tael_. We also found the bar of silver, the common monetary unit at the -present moment, equated to the buffalo, the common unit of barter among -the Bahnars, and finally we had a distinct tradition that not so long ago -the wild tribesmen who win the gold dust from the sands of their native -brooks did not as yet even weigh the metal by means of the grains of -maize which are now employed, but that they measured off a small rod of -gold an inch long as the equivalent of a buffalo. - -From all these facts it seems easy to trace the history of the -development of weight standards in Further Asia; the first stage in -trafficking in gold seems to be one purely by measure, then comes that -of weighing by means of grains of corn, the weight in gold of one or -more grains of corn being taken in the ordinary way of barter like other -articles in the common scale of exchange. A multiple of the higher unit -the _bat_ was formed, possibly based on the slave as the multiple of -the buffalo. This multiple is threefold of the _bat_, in that respect -offering a strange analogy to the gold talent of Sicily, Magna Graecia, -and Macedonia, which is the threefold of the Homeric ox-unit, and which, -as I have conjectured, may have represented the value of a slave, as -we certainly know as a fact that the highest unit in the Irish system, -the _cumhal_, which represented the value of three cows or three ounces -of silver, was neither more nor less than an _ancilla_ (or ordinary -_slave-woman_): the tenfold of this _tael_ was the highest unit employed -for either gold or silver by the most advanced peoples in this region, -and is very well known as the _nên_ or bar. All other goods were -long appraised by measurement, the lowest unit of capacity being the -cocoa-nut or the joint of the bamboo, the former known certainly to the -Cambodians, the latter to the Chinese, whilst both are equally familiar -to the Malays. The weight of the contents of the bamboo or cocoa-nut was -presently taken, the standard employed being the _tael_, or highest unit -yet employed for the precious metals. The weight of the contents would -depend on the nature of the substance or liquid employed, for instance -rice or some other kind of grain, or water. Thus the Chinese equate their -catty to 16 taels; no doubt too convention came in at a later stage, and -even though the contents might not actually weigh 16 taels, it was found -convenient for practical purposes to regard some suitable multiple of the -tael, such as 16, as the legal weight of the catty. A similar process was -carried out in the case of the _picul_ in the more advanced communities; -a _load_ was equated to the most convenient multiple of the catty, and as -it was found that 100 catties gave a sufficiently near approximation to -the ordinary load which a man could carry on his back, 100 catties were -made the legal contents of the _picul_ of trade. - -We also learned how currency in baser metals such as copper or iron takes -its origin. The history of the ordinary copper _cash_ of the Chinese, -which can be clearly traced step by step, brings us back to a time when -a bronze knife, one of the most requisite articles of daily life, formed -the ordinary small currency of the Chinese, just as the Greek _obolos_ -originally was an actual _spike_ made of copper or iron, and just as the -Bahnars of Annam still use the hoe as their lowest monetary denomination, -an implement likewise similarly employed by the Chinese at an early -period, as miniature hoes at one time used as true currency put beyond -doubt. We also saw the negroes of Central Africa employing iron made into -pieces ready to be cut into two hoes, and we also found those on the West -Coast of Africa and the Hottentots employing bars of iron in a raw state, -as a kind of currency. We also saw one most important feature possessed -by all those in common, viz. the fact that in the determination of the -value of the bar, the ingot, the piece of iron made in the shape of two -hoes, and the bronze knife, not weight but linear measurement based on -the parts of the human body, was the method invariably employed. - -We then advanced to Western Asia and Europe and found everywhere -alike the weight standards fixed by means of the seeds of plants. The -process likewise was made perfectly plain. We did not find the highest -denomination taken as the unit and the lowest reached by a long process -of subdivisions, and finally for convenience sake described as consisting -of so many grains of corn, as the brilliant French _savant_ assumes in -the case of the Assyrians: on the contrary we found that the bushel of -Henry VII. was reached by first fixing the weight of the penny sterling -by means of 32 grains of wheat, round and dry and “taken from the -midst of the ear of wheat after the old laws of the land.” Again the -Irish Kelts did not say that the _unga_ or ounce must contain so many -_screapalls_, and each _screapall_ so many _pingiuns_, but they proceeded -in quite the reverse way first fixing the weight of the _pingiun_ by -eight grains of wheat. We may then well assume that such too was the -process among Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Hindus. Brahmegupta, and the -legislators quoted above support this view by starting always with the -smallest unit. It is only when we come to the system of Babylon we are -asked to reverse the process, to admit that the idea of weights began -with corn, the very commodity of all others which, according to all -the instances previously quoted, was the last to be valued by weight, -and which even amongst ourselves at this present moment can hardly be -said to be regarded as an article appraised by weight. But furthermore -if the Assyrians regarded the Talent as their unit, and their lesser -denominations as its subdivisions, why did not the maker of the weight -mentioned above inscribe it as ¾ obol, or by some other term to indicate -that it was essentially regarded as a fraction of a higher denomination, -and not as a multiple of a lower? But the ancient Assyrian who made the -weight must plainly have regarded it in the latter light, for otherwise -he would not have engraved on it 22 _grains_ ½, actually resorting to -the fraction of a grain. The only reasonable explanation of his conduct -is that he was as firmly impressed with the idea that the basis of his -system was the grain of corn (wheat) as were Brahmagupta, or Henry VII.’s -parliament with the idea that the barley-corn and wheat-corn were the -bases of their respective systems. If the objection be raised that the -grains of corn were only devised in days long after the scientific fixing -of weight standards, my answer is that if it was necessary to employ -natural seeds as a means of determining the accuracy of scientifically -obtained units, _à fortiori_ it was necessary for mankind to have -employed such seeds as their first step in the establishing of a system -of weights. - -No simpler idea connected with weight could have struck the primitive -mind. The difficulty experienced by savages in counting beyond 3 or 4 -is met by them by the use of counters. We are all familiar with the use -of _pebbles_ or small stones among the Greeks and Romans. Our own word -_calculate_ is simply an adaptation of the Latin _calculare_ to count by -pebbles (_calculi_). Some nations, probably all, have been unable to form -abstract names for their numerals, and the name of the concrete object -which they habitually employed as a counter has become firmly embedded -as a suffix in the names of their numerals. Thus the Aztec numerals end -in _tetl_, a _pebble_, because they employed small stones as counters. -Similarly the Malays whom we found weighing gold by means of grains -of _padi_ employ that word as a numeral suffix, because they employed -grains of rice for their _calculations_ or, to speak more accurately, -_seminations_. In the case of this people we find coincident the most -primitive forms of numeration and of weighing, both processes being -carried on by means of the same simple instrument, which Nature put ready -to hand in the corn which formed their daily sustenance. - -If any one still maintains that the Indian Islander or Tapak of Annam -learned the art of weighing by grains from the Chinese, and would -maintain that the latter either invented for themselves or borrowed -from Babylonia a scientifically devised weight system, I will go a step -further and try to produce some evidence of the process by which weight -standards are arrived at, by seeking instances in a region so isolated as -to be beyond the reach of all suspicion of having borrowed from Babylon. - -From what I have said above, we cannot expect to find any such community -in the Old World. The New World on the other hand supplies us with -what we desire. When the Spaniards under Cortes, conquered the Aztecs -of Mexico, that people, although in a high state of civilization, had -as yet no system of weights. In consequence of this want the Spaniards -experienced some difficulty in the division of the treasure, until they -supplied the deficiency with weights and scales of their own manufacture. -There was a vast treasure of gold, which metal, found on the surface or -gleaned from the beds of rivers, was cast into bars, or in the shape -of dust made part of the regular tribute of the southern provinces of -the empire. The traffic was carried on partly by barter, and partly by -means of a regulated currency of different values. This consisted of -transparent quills of gold dust, bits of tin cut in the form of T, and -bags full of cacao containing a specified number of grains[248]. - -From this we get an insight into the first beginnings of weights. Some -natural unit (and by natural I mean some product of nature of which all -specimens are of uniform dimension) is taken, such as the quill used -by the Aztecs. The average-sized quill of any particular kind of bird -presents a natural receptacle of very uniform capacity. These quills of -gold-dust were estimated at so many bags containing a certain number -of grains. The step is not a long one to the day when some one will -balance in a simple fashion quills of gold dust against seeds of cacao, -and find how much gold is equal to a nut. Nature herself supplies in -the seeds of plants weight-units of marvellous uniformity. If any one -objects to my assumption that the Aztecs were on the very verge of the -invention of a weight system, my answer is that another race of America, -whose political existence ceased under the same cruel conditions as that -of their Northern contemporaries, I mean the Incas of Peru, who were -in a stage of civilization almost the same as that of the Aztecs, had -already found out the art of weighing before the coming of the Spaniards, -although they were inferior to the Mexicans in so far as they had not -a well-defined system of hieroglyphic writing, nor of currency such as -the latter possessed. Scales made of silver have been discovered in Inca -graves[249]. The metal of which they are made shows that they were only -employed for weighing precious commodities of small bulk. - -Unfortunately I can find no record of weights having been found along -with the silver scales in the Inca graves. If the weights were simply -natural seeds, they would easily perish, or even if perfect when the -tombs were opened, would be simply regarded as part of the ordinary -supply of food placed with the dead in the grave. But I forbear from -laying the slightest stress on negative evidence of such a kind. - -But beyond doubt we have on the American continent, far removed from -connection with Asia, a series of facts closely harmonising with what we -have found in Further Asia, and also among the peoples of Hither Asia, -Europe and Africa. The Aztecs are still measuring gold, but the Incas -have invented the balance. The Incas have no alphabet, the _quipus_ as -yet being their greatest advance towards a means of keeping a record of -the past. It follows that it is possible for the human race to invent a -system of weighing before it has made any advance in letters or science. -Hence it is logical to infer that the civilized races of Asia and Europe -could have discovered a means of weighing gold long before the Chaldean -sages made a single step in their astronomical discoveries, or a single -symbol of the cuneiform syllabary had as yet been impressed on brick or -tablet. - - _Weights of various grains._ - - grammes - Troy Grain ·064 - Barley ·064 - Wheat ·048 - Rice ·036 - Carob ·192 = 3 barley = 4 wheat - Lupin ·384 = 2 carobs - Maize (ordinary) ·128 = 2 barley - Ratti ·128 = 2 barley - Rye ·032 = ½ barley - - - - -CHAPTER IX. - -STATEMENT AND CRITICISM OF THE OLD DOCTRINES. - - Nec Babylonios - Tentaris numeros. - - HOR. _Carm._ I. 11. 2. - - -We now proceed to the statement and criticism of the old doctrines of -the origin of metallic currency and weight standards. To enter into an -elaborate account of the various shades of doctrine held by the followers -of Boeckh would be useless and wearisome, for as they all alike are -agreed in starting from an arbitrary scientifically obtained unit, it -matters not as far as my object is concerned. Certain metrologists lay -down that Egypt borrowed her system from Babylon, whilst others[250] -again declare that Egypt is the true mother of weight standards, and -this battle is raging hotly at the present moment. Thus but recently -Professor Brugsch has written a vigorous article (in the _Zeitschrift für -Ethnologie_[251]) to prove that the Chaldeans borrowed their system from -Egypt. But the Assyriologists were not prepared to assent to a doctrine -which placed the Babylonians in an inferior position. Accordingly Dr -C. F. Lehmann (_Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, 1889, p. 245 _seqq._) has -made an elaborate defence of the original doctrine first propounded -by Boeckh and developed and expounded by Dr Brandis and Dr Hultsch. -This Assyrio-Egyptian struggle for pre-eminence has at present no -importance for our enquiry, as it is based almost entirely on _à priori_ -assumptions, although when we come eventually to deal with the question -of efforts at systematization which arose at a later stage in the -evolution of weight and measure standards, it will be necessary for us -to examine the respective claims. At present we are engaged in searching -for an historical basis, and as both the Assyriologists and Egyptologists -alike unite in deriving all weights from a deliberate scientific attempt -on the part of a highly civilized people, they are perfectly agreed in -the principle, the soundness of which it is the object of the present -investigation to test. The ablest exponent in this country of the German -theory is Dr B. V. Head, who has given an admirable summary of the -position of that school in his Introduction to his great work, _Historia -Numorum_ (p. xxviii.). To ensure a fair statement of the doctrine for the -reader, it will be better for me to give here Mr Head’s exposition in -preference to any summary of my own, as any statement by the critic of -the doctrine to be criticized is always liable to the suspicion of being -_ex parte_ and consequently inadequate. Such a suspicion is avoided by -letting as far as possible our opponents state their position in their -own words. - -“For many centuries before the invention of coined money there can be no -doubt whatever that goods were bought and sold by barter pure and simple, -and that values were estimated among pastoral people by the produce of -the land, and more particularly in oxen and sheep. - -“The next step in advance upon this primitive method of exchange was a -rude attempt at simplifying commercial transactions by substituting for -the ox and the sheep some more portable substitute, either possessed of -real or invested with an arbitrary value. - -“This transitional stage in the development of commerce cannot be more -accurately described than in the words of Aristotle, ‘As the benefits -of commerce were more widely extended by importing commodities of which -there was a deficiency, and exporting those of which there was an excess, -the use of a currency was an indispensable device. As the necessaries of -Nature were not all easily portable, people agreed for purposes of barter -mutually to give and receive some article which, while it was itself a -commodity, was practically easy to handle in the business of life; some -such article as iron or silver, which was at first defined simply by -size and weight, although finally they went further and set a stamp upon -every coin to relieve them from the trouble of weighing it, as the stamp -impressed upon the coin was an indication of quantity.’ (_Polit._ I. 6. -14-16, Trans. Welldon.) - -“In Italy and Sicily copper or bronze in very early times took the place -of cattle as a generally recognized measure of value, and in Peloponnesus -the Spartans are said to have retained the use of iron as a standard -of value long after the other Greeks had advanced beyond this point of -commercial civilization. - -“In the East, on the other hand, from the earliest times gold and silver -appear to have been used for the settlement of the transactions of daily -life, either metal having its value more or less accurately defined in -relation to the other. Thus Abraham is said to have been ‘very rich in -cattle, in silver and in gold’ (Gen. xiii. 2, xxiv. 35), and in the -account of his purchase of the cave of Machpelah (Gen. xxiii. 16), it is -stated that ‘Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver which he had named in -the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current -with the merchants.’ - -“As there are no auriferous rocks or streams in Chaldaea, we must infer -that the old Chaldaean traders must have imported their gold from India -by way of the Persian Gulf, in the ships of Ur frequently mentioned in -cuneiform inscriptions. - -“But though gold and silver were from the earliest times used as measures -of value in the East, not a single piece of coined money has come down -to us of these remote ages, nor is there any mention of coined money in -the Old Testament before Persian times. The gold and silver ‘current -with the merchant’ were always weighed in the balance; thus we read that -David gave to Ornan for his threshing-floor [including oxen and threshing -instruments] 600 shekels of gold by weight (1 Chron. xxi. 25). - -“It is nevertheless probable that the balance was not called into -operation for every small transaction, but that little bars of silver -and of gold of fixed weight, but without any official mark (and therefore -not coins) were often counted out by tale, larger amounts being always -weighed. Such small bars or wedges of gold and silver served the purposes -of a currency, and were regulated by the weight of the shekel or the mina. - -“This leads us briefly to examine the standards of weight used for the -precious metals in the East before the invention of money. - - -“_The metric systems of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians._ - -“The evidence afforded by ancient writers on the subject of weights and -coinage is in great part untrustworthy, and would often be unintelligible -were it not for the light which has been shed upon it by the gold and -silver coins, and bronze, leaden and stone weights which have been -fortunately preserved down to our own times. It will be safer, therefore, -to confine ourselves to the direct evidence afforded by the monuments. - -“Egypt, the oldest civilized country of the ancient world, first claims -our attention, but as the weight system which prevailed in the Nile -valley does not appear to have exercised any traceable influence upon the -early coinage of the Greeks, the metrology of Egypt need not detain us -long.... - -“The Chaldaeans and Babylonians, as is well known, excelled especially -in the cognate sciences of arithmetic and astronomy. On the broad and -monotonous plains of Lower Mesopotamia, says Professor Rawlinson, -where the earth has little to suggest thought or please by variety the -‘variegated heaven,’ ever changing with the times and the seasons, would -early attract attention, while the clear sky, dry atmosphere, and level -horizon, would afford facilities for observations so soon as the idea of -them suggested itself to the minds of the inhabitants. The records of -these astronomical observations were inscribed in cuneiform character -on soft clay tablets, afterwards baked hard and preserved in the royal -or public libraries in the chief cities of Babylonia. Large numbers of -these tablets are now in the British Museum. When Alexander the Great -took Babylon, it is recorded that there were found and sent to Aristotle -a series of astronomical observations extending back as far as the -year B.C. 2234. Recent investigations into the nature of these records -render it probable that upon them rests the entire structure of the -metric system of the Babylonians. The day and night were divided by the -Babylonians into 24 hours, each of 60 minutes, and each minute into 60 -seconds—a method of measuring time which has never been superseded, and -which we have inherited from Babylon, together with the first principles -of the science of astronomy. The Babylonian measures of capacity and -their system of weights were based, it is thought, upon one and the same -unit as their measures of time and space, and as they are believed to -have determined the length of an hour of equinoctial time by means of -the dropping of water, so too it is conceivable that they may have fixed -the weight of their _talents_, their _mina_, and their _shekel_, as well -as the size of their measures of capacity, by weighing or measuring the -amounts of water, which had passed from one vessel into another during a -given space of time. Thus, just as an hour consisted of 60 minutes and -the minute of 60 seconds, so the talent contained 60 minae, and the mina -60 shekels. The division by sixties or sexagesimal system, is quite as -characteristic of the Babylonian arithmetic and system of weights and -measures, as the decimal system is of the Egyptian and the modern French. -And indeed it possesses one great advantage over the decimal system, -inasmuch as the number 60, upon which it is based, is more divisible than -10. - -“About 1300 years before our era the Assyrian empire came to surpass -in importance that of the Babylonians, but the learning and science of -Chaldaea were not lost, but rather transmitted through Nineveh by means -of the Assyrian conquests and commerce to the north and west as far -as the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Let us now turn to the actual -monuments. Some thirty years ago Mr Layard discovered and brought home -from the ruins of ancient Nineveh a number of bronze lions of various -sizes which may now be seen in the British Museum. With them were also a -number of stone objects in the form of ducks[252].” - -From this double series of weights Mr Head infers that there were two -distinct minae simultaneously in use during the long period of time which -elapsed between about B.C. 2000, and B.C. 625. “The heavier of these two -minae appears to have been just the double of the lighter. Brandis is -probably not far from the mark in fixing the weight of the heavy mina at -1010 grammes, and that of the light at 505 grammes. - -“It has been suggested that the lighter of these two minae may have been -peculiar to the Babylonian, and the heavier to the Assyrian empire; but -this cannot be proved. But nevertheless it would seem that the use of the -heavy mina was more extended in Syria than that of the lighter, if we may -judge from the fact that most of the weights belonging to the system of -the heavy mina have in addition to the cuneiform inscription an Aramaic -one. - -“The purpose which this Aramaic inscription served must clearly have been -to render the weight acceptable to the Syrian and Phoenician merchants -who traded backwards and forwards between Assyria and Mesopotamia on the -one hand, and the Phoenician emporia on the other. - - -“_The Phoenician traders._ - -“The Phoenician commerce was chiefly a carrying trade. The richly -embroidered stuffs of Babylonia and other products of the East were -brought down to the coasts, and then carefully packed in chests of -cedarwood in the markets of Tyre and Sidon, whence they were shipped by -the enterprising Phoenician mariners to Cyprus, to the coasts of the -Aegean, or even to the extreme West. - -“Hence the Phoenician city of Tyre was called by Ezekiel (xxvii.) ‘a -merchant of the people for many isles.’ - -“But the Phoenicians in common with the Egyptians, the Greeks and the -Hebrews etc. with whom they dealt were at no time without their own -peculiar weights and measures upon which they appear to have grafted the -Assyrio-Babylonian principal unit of account or the weight in which it -was customary to estimate values. This weight was the 60th part of the -_manah_ or mina. - -“The Babylonian sexagesimal system was foreign to Phoenician habits. -While therefore these people had no difficulty in adopting the -Assyrio-Babylonian 60th as their own unit of weight or shekel, they did -not at the same time adopt the sexagesimal system in its entirety but -constituted a new mina for themselves consisting of 50 shekels instead -of 60. In estimating the largest weight of all, the _Talent_, the -multiplication by 60 was nevertheless retained. Thus in the Phoenician -system as in that of the Greeks 50 shekels (Gk. _staters_) = 1 Mina, and -60 Minae or 3000 shekels or staters = 1 Talent. - -“The particular form of shekel which appears to have been received by the -Phoenicians and Hebrews from the East was the 60th part of the heavier -of the two Assyrio-Babylonian minae above referred to. The 60th of the -lighter for some reason which has not been satisfactorily accounted for -seems to have been transmitted westwards by a different route, viz. -across Asia Minor, and so into the kingdom of Lydia. - - -“_The Lydians._ - -“‘The Lydians,’ says E. Curtius (_Hist. Gr._ I. 76), ‘became on land what -the Phoenicians were by sea, the mediators between Hellas and Asia.’ It -is related that about the time of the Trojan Wars and for some centuries -afterwards, the country of the Lydians was in a state of vassalage to the -kings of Assyria. But an Assyrian inscription informs us that Asia Minor, -west of the Halys, was unknown to the Assyrian kings before the time -of Assur-banî-apli, or Assurbanipal (circ. B.C. 666), who it is stated -received an embassy from Gyges, king of Lydia ‘a remote’ country, of -which Assurbanipal’s predecessors had never heard the name. Nevertheless -that there had been some sort of connection between Lydia and Assyria in -ancient times is probable, though it cannot be proved. - -“Professor Sayce is of opinion that the mediators between Lydia in the -west, and Assyria in the east, were the people called Kheta or Hittites. -According to this theory the northern Hittite capital Carchemish -(later Hierapolis) on the Euphrates, was the spot where the arts and -civilization of Assyria took the form which especially characterises the -early monuments of Central Asia Minor. - -“The year B.C. 1400 or thereabouts was the time of greatest power of the -nation of the Hittites, and if they were in reality the chief connecting -link between Lydia and Assyria it may be inferred that it was through -them that the Lydians received the Assyrian weight, which afterwards in -Lydia took the form of a stamped ingot or coin. - -“But why it was that the light mina rather than the heavy one had become -domesticated in Lydia must remain unexplained. We know however that one -of the Assyrian weights is spoken of in cuneiform inscriptions as the -‘_weight of Carchemish_.’ If then the modern hypothesis of a Hittite -dominion in Asia Minor turn out to be well founded, the _weight of -Carchemish_ might by means of the Hittites have found its way to Phrygia -and Lydia, and as the earliest Lydian coins are regulated according to -the divisions of the Light Assyrian mina this would probably be the one -alluded to. - -“From these two points then, _Phoenicia_ on the one hand and _Lydia_ -(through Carchemish), on the other, the two Babylonian units of weight -appear to have started westwards to the shores of the Aegean sea, the -heavy shekel by way of Phoenicia, the lighter shekel by way of Lydia.” - -So far I have thought it but right to give Mr Head’s exposition _in -extenso_, that the enquirer may be enabled to fully grasp the principles -of the orthodox school, before we enter on any criticism of them. I shall -now treat more summarily all that remains to be said. - -Let us briefly state the peculiar doctrines of two leading continental -metrologists. The veteran Dr Hultsch derives all standards of weight -thus: The royal Babylonian cubit was based on the sun’s apparent -diameter; the cube of this measure gave the _maris_, the weight in water -of one-fifth of which was the royal Babylonian talent, which was divided -into 60 _manehs_ (_minae_) and each mina in turn into 60 shekels. For -silver and gold however they formed their standard by taking _fifty_ -shekels to form a mina[253]: thus after elaborating with such care a -scientific system, they abandoned it as soon as they came to deal with -the precious metals. - -M. Soutzo[254] in a clever essay has maintained that all the weight -systems both monetary and commercial of Asia, Egypt, Greece, come from -one primordial weight the Egyptian _uten_ (96 grammes), or from its -tenth, the _kat_ (9·60 grammes). He ascribes the origin of these weights -to an extremely remote epoch not far perhaps from the time of the -discovery of bronze in Asia, and the invention of the first instruments -for weighing: he considers also that bronze _by weight_ was the first -money employed in Asia, Egypt, and Italy, and that everywhere the decimal -system of numeration has preceded the sexagesimal. - -The evidence which we have produced in the earlier part of this work has -I trust convinced the reader that gold, not copper, was the first object -to be weighed; M. Soutzo’s assumption that the _uten_ is the primordial -unit is upset even for the Egyptians themselves by the passage already -cited from Horapollo (p. 129). - - -_The invention of coinage._ - -The evidence of both history and numismatics coincides in making the -Lydians the inventors of the art of coining money. At first sight it -may seem surprising that none of the great peoples of the East, whose -civilization had its first beginning long ages before the periods at -which our very oldest records begin, should have developed coined money, -acquainted as they indubitably were with the precious metals, both for -ornament and exchange. But a little reflection shews us that it has been -quite possible for peoples to attain a high degree of civilization -without feeling any need of what are properly termed coins. Transactions -by means of the scales are comparatively simple, and as a matter of fact -we shall find hereafter that even after a coinage had been for centuries -established, men constantly had recourse to the balance in monetary -transactions, just as down to the present moment the Chinese, who have -enjoyed a high degree of culture for several thousand years, still have -no native currency but their copper cash, foreign silver dollars being -the only medium in the precious metals, whilst all important monetary -transactions are carried on by the scales and weights. I may here -likewise point out incidentally that where the supply of the precious -metals is only sufficient to meet the demand for personal adornment, the -establishment of a coinage in those metals will naturally be slow, whilst -on the other hand where there is so abundant a supply of the metals, that -there is more than sufficient for purposes of personal use, the tendency -to produce a coinage will be much greater. If we enquire what were the -metalliferous regions of Asia Minor, we at once find that Lydia above all -other countries was especially rich in gold, or rather a natural alloy -of gold and silver. The wealth of two Lydian kings, Gyges and Croesus, -which has been through the ages a proverb consisted of vast quantities of -this metal, which the Greeks called _electron_ (ἤλεκτρον) or _white gold_ -(λευκὸς χρυσός, Herodotus, I. 50). The ancients regarded it as almost -a distinct metal, doubtless because from their imperfect methods they -experienced the greatest difficulty in extracting the pure metal. The -pure gold in circulation in Asia Minor must have come from the valley of -the Oxus, or the Ural mountains. Thus Sophocles speaks of “the electron -of Sardis and the gold of Ind[255].” Even in the time of Strabo (A.D. -21), the process was regarded as so difficult that the great geographer -thinks it worth while to quote from Posidonius (flor. 90 B.C.), the -description of how the separation of the metals was effected (III. 146). -It is therefore natural to find in Lydia, the land of gold, the first -attempts at coined money. - -“So far as we have knowledge,” says Herodotus[256], “the Lydians were the -first nation to introduce the use of gold and silver coin.” - -This statement is fully borne out by the evidence of Xenophanes[257], -and also by the coins themselves, although some writers, _e.g._ Th. -Mommsen[258], have held that it was in the great cities of Ionia, Phocaea -and Miletus that money was first coined. “From the little we know of the -character of this people (the Lydians) we gather that their commercial -instinct must have been greatly developed by their geographical position -and surroundings, both conducive to frequent intercourse with the peoples -of Asia Minor, Orientals as well as Greeks.” - -About the time when the mighty Assyrian empire was falling into decay, -Lydia, under a new dynasty called the Mermnadae, was entering upon a new -phase of national life. - -“The policy of these new rulers of the country was to extend the power of -Lydia towards the West, and to obtain possession of towns on the coast. -With this object Gyges (who, according to the story told by Plato, was a -shepherd who owed his good fortune to the finding of a magic ring in an -ancient tomb, and who was the founder of the dynasty of the Mermnadae, -circ. B.C. 700) established a firm footing on the Hellespont, and -endeavoured to extend his dominions along the whole Ionian coast. This -brought the Lydians into direct contact with the Asiatic Greeks. - -“These Ionian Greeks had been from very early times in constant -intercourse, not always friendly, with the Phoenicians, with whom -they had long before come to an understanding about numbers, weights, -measures, the alphabet, and such like matters, and from whom, there -is reason to think, they had received the 60th part of the _heavy_ -Assyrio-Babylonian mina as their unit of weight or _stater_. The Lydians -on the other hand had received, probably from Carchemish, the 60th of the -_light_ mina. - -“Thus then, when the Lydians in the reign of Gyges came into contact -and conflict with the Greeks, the two units of weight, after travelling -by different routes, met again in the coast towns and river valleys of -Western Asia Minor, in the borderland between the East and the West. - -“To the reign of Gyges, the founder of the new Lydian empire as distinct -from the Lydia of more remote antiquity, may perhaps be ascribed the -earliest essays in the art of coining. The wealth of this monarch in the -precious metals may be inferred from the munificence of his gifts to -the Delphic shrine, consisting of golden mixing cups and silver urns, -amounting to a mass of gold and silver such as the Greeks had never -before seen collected together.” This treasure was called the Gygadas, -and is described by Herodotus[259]. - -“It is in conformity with the whole spirit of a monarch such as Gyges, -whose life’s work it was to extend his empire towards the West, and at -the same time to hold in his hands the lines of communication with the -East, that from his capital Sardes, situated on the slopes of Tmolus and -on the banks of the Pactolus, both rich in gold, he should send forth -along the caravan routes of the East and into the heart of Mesopotamia, -and down the river valleys of the West to the sea, his native Lydian ore -gathered from the washings of Pactolus and from the diggings on the sides -of Tmolus and Sipylus. - -“This precious merchandize (if the earliest Lydian coins are indeed -his) he issued in the form of oval-shaped bullets or ingots, officially -sealed or stamped on one side as a guarantee of their weight and value. -For the eastern or land-trade the _light_ mina was the standard by -which this coinage was regulated, while for the western trade with the -Greeks of the coast the _heavy_ mina was made use of, which from its -mode of transmission we may call the _Phoenician_, retaining the name -_Babylonian_ only for the weight which was derived from the banks of the -Euphrates.” - -To prevent misapprehension, it may be advisable to mention that the -standards here termed _Phoenician_ and _Babylonian_ are not to be -confounded with the _heavy_ and _light_ shekels already mentioned, but -are the standards derived from the latter specially for silver, in the -ways shown a little lower down. - -Modern analysis of electrum from Tmolus shows that it consists of 27 -per cent. of silver and 73 per cent. of gold[260]. It consequently -stood to silver in a different relation from that of pure gold. Thus -while gold stood to silver as 13·3:1, electrum would stand at 10:1 or -thereabouts. Mr Head considers that “this natural compound of gold and -silver possessed some advantages for coining over gold. In the first -place it was more durable, harder, and less liable to injury and waste -from wear. In the second place it was more easily obtainable, being -a natural product; and in the third place, standing as it did in the -proportion of about 10:1 to silver, it rendered needless the use of a -different standard of weight for the two metals, enabling the authorities -of the mints to make use of a single set of weights, and a decimal system -easy of comprehension and simple in practice” (p. xxxiv.). The second of -these reasons is probably the true one, the first being a good example -of the tendency of even the most able modern writers to ascribe to early -times ideas which are only the outcome of a far later period. The idea -of getting a metal which will be more durable in circulation is purely -modern, and not even received by Orientals in modern times. Thus the gold -mohurs of India down to their latest issue were of pure gold, free from -alloy (in consequence of which they are still sought after by the native -Hindu goldsmiths in preference to the English sovereign, as the addition -of alloy makes the latter less easy to work up into jewellery). - -I allude to this here because we shall find in the course of our enquiry -that most of the errors into which metrologists have fallen, are the -consequence of their failing to recognize the great gulf which is fixed -between the habits and ideas of a primitive community, slowly evolving -principles which are now part and parcel of the common heritage of -civilization, and an era like our own, when all progress is effected -by the development and application of scientific principles long since -discovered. - -Electrum was thus coined on the same standard as silver, one _talent_, -one _mina_ and one _stater_ of electrum being consequently equal to ten -_talents_, ten _minae_, or ten _staters_ of silver. The weight of the -electrum stater in each district would depend therefore on the standard -which happened to be in use there for silver bullion, or silver in the -shape of bars or oblong bricks, the practice of the new invention of -stamping or sealing metal for circulation being in the first place only -applied to the more precious of the two metals, electrum representing in -a small compass a weight of uncoined silver ten times as bulky and ten -times as difficult of transport. - -The invention was soon extended to pure gold and silver, and there is -good reason to believe that by the time of Croesus (568-554 B.C.) both -these metals were used for purposes of coinage in Lydia. - - -_The Greeks begin to coin money._ - -The clever Greeks of Asia Minor, who formed the portal through which so -many of the arts of the East reached the Western lands, were not slow to -adopt, and by reason of their superior artistic taste to improve, the -great Lydian invention. To the Ionic cities such as Phocaea and Miletus -we must probably ascribe the credit of substituting artistically engraved -dies for the rude Lydian punch-marks, and at a somewhat later period of -inscribing them with the name or rather the initial of the people or -potentate by whom they were issued. - -The official stamps by which the earliest electrum staters were -distinguished from mere ingots consisted at first only of the impress of -rude unengraved punches, between which the lump or oval-shaped bullet of -metal was placed to receive the blow of the hammer. Subsequently the art -of the engraver was called in to adorn the lower of the two dies, which -was always that of the face or _obverse_ of the coin, with the symbol of -the local divinity under whose auspices the currency was issued. - -As our object is to deal with coins from the point of view of metrology, -the short summary here given of the genesis of the art of coining will -suffice for our purposes. - - -_Weight standards._ - -“Silver was very rarely at this early period weighed by the same talent -and mina as gold, but, according to a standard derived from the gold -weight, somewhat as follows:— - -Gold was to silver as 13·3:1. This proportion made it difficult to weigh -both metals on the same standard. That a round number of silver shekels -or staters might equal a gold shekel or stater, the weight of the silver -shekel was either raised above or lowered below that of the gold. The -_heavy_ gold shekel weighed 260 grains Troy, being the double of the -_light_ gold shekel, which weighed 130 grains Troy (8·4 grammes). - - -THE SILVER STANDARDS DERIVED FROM THE GOLD SHEKEL[261]. - -I. From the _heavy_ gold shekel of 260 grains: - - 260 × 13·3 = 3458 grains of silver. - 3458 grains of silver = 15 shekels of 230 grains each. - -On the silver shekel of 230 grains the _Phoenician_ or Graeco-Asiatic -_silver_ standard may be constructed: - - Talent = 690,000 grains = 3000 staters (or shekels). - Mina = 11,500 grains = 50 staters. - Stater = 230 grains. - -II. From the _light_ gold shekel of 130 grains we get the so-called -Babylonian or Persian standard: - - 130 × 13·3 = 1729 grains of silver. - 1729 grains of silver = 10 shekels of 172·9 grains each. - -On the silver shekel or stater of 172·9 grains the _Babylonic_, _Lydian_, -and Persian _silver_ standard may be thus constructed:— - - Talent = 518,700 grains = 3000 staters = 6000 sigli. - Mina = 8645 grains = 50 ” = 100 ” - Stater = 172·9 grains = 1 ” = 2 ” - Siglos = 86·45 grains.” - -It is desirable “to take note of the fact that in Asia Minor and in -the earliest periods of the art of coining, (α) the heavy gold stater -(260 grains) occurs at various places, from Teos northwards as far as -the shores of the Propontis; (β) the light gold stater (130 grains) -in Lydia (Κροίσειος στατήρ) and in Samos (?); (γ) the electrum stater -of the Phoenician _silver_ standard, chiefly at Miletus, but also at -other towns along the west coast of Asia Minor, as well as in Lydia, -but never however in full weight; (δ) the electrum and silver stater of -the Babylonic standard, chiefly if not solely in Lydia; (ε) the silver -stater of the Phoenician standard (230 grains) on the west coast of Asia -Minor[262].” - -Here we may call attention to the fact that whilst Miletus struck her -electrum staters on the Phoenician _silver_ standard (their normal -weight being 217 grains), the Phocaeans always from the infancy of -coining employed for their electrum the _gold_ standard of the _heavy_ -shekel (260 grains). But the proper time for discussing why the Lydians, -Milesians and Phocaeans all struck their electrum coins of various -standards, will come further on in our enquiry. - - -_The coin-standards of Greece Proper._ - -Before we attempt to examine into the connection of the Homeric talent -or ox unit, and the ancient systems of the East, it will be advisable to -get a clear view of the coin-standards found in actual use in historical -times, and to understand the common doctrine of the derivation of the -same. As gold was not coined in Greece Proper until a comparatively late -period, owing doubtless to the fact that there was no great supply of -it to be had, and that all of it was required to meet the demand for -personal adornment, the entire early coinage of Greece (with some few -exceptions to be presently noted) consisted of silver. These silver -issues were all struck on either of two systems; (1) the Aeginean, or -Aeginetic, and (2) the Euboic, the stater of the former weighing about -195 grains, that of the latter about 135-130 grains. But it is a fact of -paramount importance that gold, whenever and wherever coined in Greece, -was always on the Euboic standard, and there is likewise every reason -to believe that gold bullion in the days before gold was coined was -computed according to the same standard. Such at least was undoubtedly -the case at Athens, as we learn from Thucydides[263], where he describes -the resources of Athens both in coined and uncoined metal, and in the -gold plates which overlaid the famous chryselephantine statue of Pallas -Athene, the masterpiece of Pheidias, and the glory of the Acropolis; and -such also, as we shall see, was the case, in the days of Solon. - -All ancient accounts are agreed in the statement that Aegina was the -first place in Hellas Proper which saw the minting of money. That island -was famous from old time as the meeting-place of merchants, and as such -under its ancient name of Oenone was glorified by Pindar[264]. Its -position rendered it a most convenient emporium, where the merchantmen -of Tyre met in traffic the traders from both Peloponnesus and northern -Greece. Tradition makes its population a very mixed one: “It was called -Oenone,” says Strabo, “in ancient times, and it was settled by Argives, -Kretans, Epidaurians, and Dorians[265].” According to a fragment of -Ephorus, to be referred to presently, it was owing to the barren nature -of the soil that the natives turned to trade. - -All Greek tradition is unanimous in representing Pheidon of Argos as the -first to coin money in Hellas Proper, and to have done so at Aegina. -Much obscurity enshrouds the history and the date of Pheidon, owing to -the conflicting accounts of the historians. For our immediate purpose -it would be quite sufficient to state simply that he cannot have lived -later than 600 B.C., but in consequence of some prevailing doctrines -with regard to the history of Greek weights being based on inferences -(probably quite unwarrantable) which have been drawn from the statements -given about this despot, we must take a more elaborate survey of the -sources. - -Pausanias[266], writing about 174 A.D. says that the Pisaeans in the -eight Olympiad (747 B.C.) brought to their aid Pheidon of Argos, who of -all despots in Hellas waxed most insolent, and that along with him they -celebrated the festival. But now comes the testimony of Herodotus[267], -who was writing circ. 440 B.C., and who tells us (VI. 127) that when -Cleisthenes the despot of Sicyon held the _svayamvara_ for his daughter -Agariste; amongst the suitors who came from all parts of Hellas, was -“Leocedes, son of Pheidon, the despot of the Argives, Pheidon, who -had made their measures for the Peloponnesians, and had of all Greeks -waxed to the greatest pitch of violence, he who expelled the Elean -presidents of the games and himself held the festival.” There cannot be -the slightest doubt that both Pausanias and Herodotus refer to the same -tyrant, but the dates are irreconcileable. As Cleisthenes, the Athenian -law-giver, was the son of Agariste, her wooing cannot have been much -earlier than 560 B.C., and consequently Pheidon must have reigned at -Argos shortly before 600 B.C. - -Weissenborn (followed by Ernst Curtius) has sought to cut the Gordian -knot by emending the text of Pausanias, thus reading 28th instead of -8th Olympiad, which would make Pheidon help the Pisaeans in the year -668 B.C. But even this drastic remedy is hardly sufficient to meet the -requirements of the statement of Herodotus. - -Our earliest authority for the tradition that Pheidon coined at Aegina -is a passage of Ephorus preserved by Strabo (VIII. 376)[268]: “Ephorus -says that in Aegina silver was first struck by Pheidon; for it had become -an emporium, inasmuch as its population, owing to the barrenness of -the land, engaged in maritime trade; whence trumpery goods are called -Aeginean ware.” According to another passage of Strabo, which may be -likewise from Ephorus, as it comes at the end of a long statement, -the first part of which Strabo expressly declares is taken from that -writer: (“They say) that Pheidon of Argos, who was tenth in descent from -Temenus, and who surpassed his contemporaries in his power, whence he -recovered the whole of the inheritance of Temenus, which had been rent -into several parts, and that he invented the measures which are called -Pheidonian and weights and stamped currency, both the other kind and that -of silver.” It must be carefully observed that this is the only ancient -passage which says a word about the invention of _weights_ by Pheidon. If -this statement can be taken as trustworthy we might very well conclude -that Pheidon was the person who introduced the decimal principle and -made 10 silver pieces instead of 15 equivalent to the gold stater. If -however this is an addition of Strabo[269], who wrote about A.D. 1-21, -and whose account of Greece Proper is the most defective portion of his -great work, we cannot let this passage weigh against that already given -from Herodotus, who is perfectly silent as regards the invention of -_weights_. Furthermore there is the fact that Strabo does not venture to -describe the _weights_ as called _Pheidonian_, but carefully limits that -appellation to the measures as we find also to be the case with Pollux, -when he is describing various kinds of vessels: “and likewise a Pheidon -would be a kind of vessel for holding oil, deriving its name from the -Pheidonian measures respecting which Aristotle speaks in his Polity of -the Argives[270].” Here again we find a clear mention of the Pheidonian -measures, coupled with the high authority of Aristotle’s treatise on the -Constitution of Argos in his great “Collection of Polities,” formed to -serve as the material from which to build his great philosophic work on -Politics. - -There is again no mention of Pheidonian _weights_ in the newly found -Polity of the Athenians (which seems beyond doubt the same as that -known to the ancients under the name of Aristotle), where it is stated -that “in his (Solon’s) time the measures (at Athens) were made larger -than those of Pheidon” (c. 10)[271]. Although the writer refers to the -Aeginetic coin-weights in the next clause, he does not refer to them as -the Pheidonian. - -Now let us pass on to a remarkable passage in the _Etymologicum Magnum_ -(_s.v._ Ὀβελίσος). - -“First of all men Pheidon of Argos struck money in Aegina; and having -given them (his subjects) coin and abolished the spits, he dedicated -them to Hera in Argos. But since at that time the spits used to fill -the hand, that is the grasp, we, although we do not fill our hand with -the six obols (spits) call it a _grasp full_ (δραχμὴ) owing to the -_grasping_ of them. Whence even still to this day we call the usurer the -spit-_weigher_, since by weights the men of old used to hand (money) -over[272].” The writer of this passage evidently regards Pheidon as the -first inventor of the art of coining but not of _weight_ standards. - -Finally the Parian Marble recounts that, “Pheidon the Argive confiscated -the measures ... and remade them and made silver coin in Aegina[273].” -Such then is the body of evidence which we possess, all pointing to -Aegina as the first place in Greece which saw a mint set up, and to -Pheidon of Argos as the first to establish that mint. As we have pointed -out above we have nothing but a very dubious statement of Strabo (which -is coupled with another most certainly wrong, _i.e._, that Pheidon was -the inventor of every other kind of money as well as silver) as regards -the invention of weights by Pheidon, although from the passage in -Herodotus already quoted, metrologists one after another have assumed -that the measures (μέτρα) meant a _metric system_ in the modern sense, -and have not hesitated to build on this somewhat crazy foundation an -elaborate Aeginetic system of weights and measures intimately related to -each other. - -We are then probably justified in assuming that Pheidon coined silver at -Aegina. The numismatic evidence coincides with the literary authorities. -The coins of Aegina are well known, for from first to last the symbol of -the sea tortoise (χελώνη, from which they are called in vulgar parlance -_tortoises_) is found on them. Why Pheidon set up his mint in Aegina -instead of in his own city of Argos is not very difficult to understand. -Argos was an inland town remote from the highways of commerce, and -little in contact with the merchants of the Levant. On the other hand -Aegina stood at the portal of central Greece, intercepting the trade of -Athens and Corinth; in later days Pericles called it the “eyesore of the -Piraeus.” It would be probably here that the Greeks first saw the new -invention of the East in the hands of the foreign traders, and it would -be here, in a great emporium, that the need of a currency would be most -felt. In an inland city like Argos or Sparta bars of bronze or iron would -serve well for the small commercial transactions of a very primitive -society, as we know that the iron currency actually did at Sparta in -historical times. E. Curtius suggested (_Numism. Chron._, 1870) that the -tortoise on the Aeginetan coins, which is the symbol of Ashtaroth who was -the Phoenician goddess both of the sea and of trade, may be an indication -that the mint was set up in the temple of Aphrodite, which overlooked -the great harbour of Aegina. Whilst his hypothesis as regards the origin -of the tortoise type on the coin is probably wrong, it is quite possible -that the coins were first struck in some temple, as we know that the -great shrines of the ancient world served as banks and treasuries, as for -example the temple of Athena at Athens, that of Apollo at Delphi, and -that of Juno Moneta at Rome. The temple priests of Delphi and other rich -shrines had at their command large stores of the precious metals, which -in the earliest times doubtless were in the shape of small ingots or -bullets, such as the gold talents mentioned in the Homeric Poems. - -The temple shrines of Delphi and Olympia, Delos and Dodona were centres -not merely of religious cult, but likewise of trade and commerce, just -as the great fairs of the Middle Ages grew primarily out of the feast -day of the local saint, merchants and traders taking advantage of the -assembling together of large bodies of worshippers from various quarters -to ply their calling and to tempt them with their wares. The temple -authorities encouraged trade in every way; they constructed sacred roads, -which gave facility for travelling at a time when roads as a general -rule were almost unknown, and what was just as important, they placed -these roads and consequently the persons who travelled on them under -the protection of the god to whose temple they led in each case, thus -affording a safe conduct to the trader as well as the pilgrim; again at -the time of the sacred festivals all strife had to cease, the voice of -war was hushed, and thus even amidst the noise of intestine struggles -and international strife, peace offered a breathing space for trade and -commerce. Hence the probability is considerable that the art of minting -money, that is, of stamping with a symbol the ingots or _talents_ of gold -or silver which had circulated in this simple form for centuries, first -had its birth in the sanctuary of some god. - -On the whole then we may assume that the bullet-shaped coins of Aegina, -which are undoubtedly the earliest coins of Greece Proper, are the -Pheidonian currency mentioned in the ancient authors and on the Parian -Marble. As silver was probably not at all plenty at Argos, but was -brought to Aegina by the traders, Pheidon had every motive for minting -at Aegina instead of at his own capital. The fact that the Romans -struck silver coins in Campania before they issued any at Rome affords -a curious parallel. A local supply of the metal offers the explanation -in each case. “It may be also positively asserted that none of the -Aeginetan coins are older than the earliest Lydian electrum money, and -that consequently the date of the introduction of coined money into -Peloponnesus must be subsequent to circ. 700 B.C. It follows that Pheidon -was not the inventor of money, for already before his time all the coasts -and islands of the Aegean must have been acquainted with the pale yellow -electrum coins of Lydia and Ionia[274].” - -What then was the standard on which these early coins of Aegina were -struck? - -The heaviest specimens of these Aeginetan staters or didrachms weigh over -200 grains Troy, but these seem somewhat exceptional. The best numismatic -authorities are agreed in setting the normal weight at 196 grains Troy; -the drachm consequently weighs 98 grains, and the obol about 16 grains. -The origin of this standard has caused much difficulty to metrologists. -For it is not the standard of the Babylonian gold shekel of 130 grains, -nor of the Babylonian silver shekel of 172 grains, nor again that of -the Phoenician silver shekel of 230 grains. Various solutions have been -proposed. Brandis[275] regards it as a raised Babylonian silver standard, -172·9 to 196 grains. Mr Head regards it as the reduced Phoenician -standard; “The weight standard which the Peloponnesians had received in -old times from the Phoenician traders had suffered in the course of about -two centuries a very considerable degradation[276].” Others, like Mr -Flinders Petrie (Encyclop. Britannica, _Weights and Measures_), regard it -as Egyptian in origin. According to Herodotus (II. 178) the Aeginetans -were on terms of friendly intercourse with Egypt; furthermore weights of -this standard have been found in Egypt. - -Again, Dr Hultsch (_Metrol._² p. 188) regards it as an independent -standard midway between the Babylonian silver standard (172·9 grs.) on -the one hand, and the Phoenician silver standard (230 grs.) on the other, -the old Aeginetan silver mina being equivalent in value to six light -Babylonian shekels of gold (130 × 6 = 780 grs. = 10300 grs. of silver), -assuming that in Greece as in Asia Minor gold was to silver as 13·3:1. - -All these theories labour under serious difficulties. Brandis’ theory was -overthrown easily as soon as attention was called to the well-defined -heavy series of Aeginetic coins, he having been led to his opinion by a -comparison of the heaviest specimen of the Babylonian standard with the -lightest of the Aeginetic. Here incidentally we may call the readers’ -attention to the fact that in numismatics the weight of the heaviest -specimens of any series must be regarded as the true index of the normal -weight, for whatever may have been the inclination to mint coins of a -weight lighter than the proper standard, we may rest assured that the -ancient mint-master was no more inclined than his modern representative -to put into coins of gold or silver a single grain more than the legal -amount. Hence it is a most faulty and fallacious method when dealing with -coin weights to take the average of a certain number of specimens as -the true standard. Out of 30 specimens 29 may have lost more or less in -weight by wear, whilst one may be a _fleur de coin_, perfect as at the -moment when it left the die. No one can doubt that the evidence of that -single coin as regards the standard is worth far more than that of all -the remaining 29 examples. I have thought it well to call attention to -this question of method as the vicious principle of arriving at standards -by taking the average is still found in works of men of great eminence. - -Next let us consider the probability of the derivation of the Aeginetic -standard from Egypt. The fact that weights of like standard have been -found in that country, although superficially plausible, in reality is -of little force as evidence of borrowing. For unless we find that the -Egyptians used those weights for weighing _silver_, even the _prima -facie_ case breaks down at once. As a matter of fact there is no evidence -up to the present that these weights were so employed, although there is -some evidence of their being employed for gold (Flinders Petrie, _op. -cit._). But even granting that the Egyptians used the same standard as -the Aeginetans for silver, it does not at all follow that there has been -borrowing on either side. On the principle laid down below it will be -seen that it is quite possible for two peoples to evolve a like _silver_ -standard perfectly independently of each other. But the real difficulty -which besets the theory of an Egyptian origin is that if the Aeginetans -were to borrow their standard from abroad, the people from whom they -would in all probability have obtained it were not the Egyptians, with -whom they had but slight relations directly, but rather the Phoenicians, -with whom they were in constant intercourse. - -It cannot be proved that at any time the Egyptians were a maritime -people trading round the coasts of Greece. There was undoubtedly -intercourse between Greece and Egypt, but that intercourse was through -the medium of the shipmen of Tyre. Why should then the Aeginetans adopt -a standard from abroad which differed from that of the Phoenicians -with whom they were in constant commercial relations? Again, if there -is any connection between the importation of weight standards and the -commencement of coinage, it may be urged that whilst it was from the -Phoenicians the Aeginetans learned the art which had been originated in -Asia Minor, or at all events from the Greeks of the coast of Asia Minor -who coined electrum money on the Phoenician standard, we ought naturally -to find the Greeks of Aegina using this standard for their earliest -coinage rather than a standard borrowed from Egypt, which most certainly -was very backward in developing the art of coining, seeing that it was -not until after the conquest of that country by Alexander the Great (B.C. -330) that money was there struck for the first time[277]. - -Passing by for the moment Mr Head’s view, let us next deal with that -of Dr Hultsch. This theory has the great merit of granting that the -Greeks were capable of evolving a _silver_ standard for themselves -from a knowledge of the relative value of gold and silver, whilst the -other theories assume that they borrowed blindly ready-made standards, -which they for some unknown reason either raised according to Brandis, -or degraded according to Head. But Dr Hultsch is met by two crucial -difficulties. (1) Why should the Aeginetans have taken six light -Babylonian shekels of gold and arbitrarily made them the basis of -their new silver standard? (2) But the fatal objection is that whereas -Hultsch’s theory depends on gold being to silver in the same relation -(13·3:1) in Greece Proper as it was in Asia Minor, as a matter of fact it -can be proved that the precious metals there stood in a very different -relation to each other. In the _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1887, I -gave some reasons for believing that in early times gold was to silver -in Greece in the relation of 15:1. For whilst gold was plentiful in -Asia, at no place in Greece Proper were there auriferous deposits. -Hence it is probable that gold had to silver a higher relative value -in Greece than it had in Asia. Certain archaeological discoveries -recently made at Athens add great strength to the view which I then put -forward. At a meeting of the Berlin Academy of Science in 1889 Dr Ulrich -Köhler discussed certain fragments of inscriptions which refer to the -famous statue of Athena, wrought in gold and ivory by Pheidias for the -Parthenon. By combining with a fragment published by M. Foucart (_Bullet. -de Corresp. Hell._ 1889, p. 171), another fragment previously copied by -himself, Dr Köhler arrived at the result that the fragments relate to -the purchase of materials for the construction of the statue, that is of -gold and ivory. The gold purchased is described both according to its -weight and according to the price (τιμή) paid for it in Attic silver -currency (whilst the ivory is only described by the value or price). The -sum paid for gold amounted to 526·652 drachms, 5 obols, the weight of the -gold being 37·618 drachms: from this we learn that the relative value of -gold to silver at that time was as 14:1. According to Thucydides (II. -13), forty talents of gold were used in the making of the statue, whilst -according to the more explicit statement of Philochorus the amount was -forty-four. The image was dedicated at the great Panathenaic festival of -the year 438 B.C. As not more than 10 to 11 talents of gold were used in -the three years to which the fragments refer, Köhler draws the inference -that the construction of the statue commenced in the same year as that of -the Parthenon (447 B.C.), and that Pheidias was engaged on his great work -for fully nine years. - -We thus know now the relative value of silver and gold in Attica about -450 B.C. But we must not regard this as the relation which existed -at earlier times. It was only after the Persian wars that Athens had -got possession of the island of Thasos with its rich gold mines, and -the equally rich districts on the Thracian coast. The fact of her -coming into the possession of such wealthy gold-producing regions -must have materially lowered the price of gold in Athens. We know how -the development of the mines of Pangaeum by Philip of Macedon in the -following century lowered the value of gold throughout Greece, for by the -time of Alexander the relative value of the two precious metals was as -10:1. In the sixth century B.C. gold was so scarce in Greece that when -the Spartans wanted to make a dedication in gold they had to send to Asia -to obtain a sufficient supply of the metal[278]. Hence if we conclude -that in earlier times the relative value of gold to silver in Greece -proper was as 15:1, we shall not be far from the truth. At all events it -is put beyond doubt that the relation was higher than that of 13·3:1, -and accordingly Dr Hultsch’s theory of the origin of the Aeginetic -silver standard, which is based on that relation falls at once to the -ground, unless he can shew that such a standard, based on six light gold -Babylonian shekels had been previously fixed in Asia or Egypt, and thence -adopted by the Greeks without any regard to the relative value existing -in Greece itself between the precious metals. But as a matter of fact Dr -Hultsch does not make any such attempt. Thus this essay at a solution -breaks down. - -On the other hand if we make the very slight and very probable assumption -that the early Greeks had formed a definite idea of the relative value -of gold and silver, which they would have determined exactly on the same -principle as they would arrive at a notion of the relative value of any -other two commodities, which they were in the habit of giving and taking -in exchange, that is by the simple principle of supply and demand, we -shall find a ready solution without having to resort to either Egypt or -Babylon. If gold was to silver as 15:1 in Greece, it follows that the -Homeric talent, the earliest Greek standard, being about 135 grains, ten -silver pieces of 202 grains each would be equivalent to _one_ gold unit. - - 135 × 15 = 2025 grs. of silver. - - 2025 ÷ 10 = 202·5 grs. of silver. - -This gives a singularly close approximation to the weight of the existing -coins of the Aeginetic standard of the earliest and heaviest kind. Taking -the Homeric talent at 130 grains of gold, by the same process we obtain -10 silver pieces each of the weight of 195 grains (130 × 15 = 1950; 1950 -÷ 10 = 195 grs.) - -The second standard which we find in Greece at the beginning of the -historical epoch was the Euboic. This standard was used for both _silver_ -and _gold_. The ordinary account of its origin is as follows: “From Ionia -possibly through Samos the Euboeans imported the standard by which they -weighed their silver. This standard was the light Assyrio-Babylonian -gold mina with its shekel or stater of about 130 grains. The Euboeans -having little or no gold transferred the weight used in Asia for gold -to their own silver, raising it slightly at the same time to a maximum -of 135 grains, and from Euboea it soon spread over a large part of the -Greek world by means of the widely extended commercial relations of the -enterprising Euboean cities. This may have taken place towards the close -of the eighth century and before the war which broke out at the end of -that century between Chalcis and Eretria, nominally for the possession of -the fields of Lelantum, which lay between the two rival cities”[279]. - -This Euboic standard of 135-130 grains is seen at once to be identical in -weight with the Homeric talent. - -Several difficulties (irrespective of the fact that there was no need for -the Greeks to borrow from Asia a standard which they themselves already -possessed from very early times) meet this theory. - -(1) If the Euboeans derived their standard from Ionia why did they not -rather adopt the Phoenician standards, on which we have already seen the -great Ionian cities based their coinages of gold, silver, and electrum? -Some very early electrum coins found at Samos (Head, _op. cit._ XLI.), -have suggested that that island formed the link. “The theory,” says Mr -Head, “that Samos was the port whence the Euboeans derived the gold -standard subsequently used by them for silver, rests upon the weight of -some very early electrum coins (about 44 grs.) which have been found in -the island of Samos, and of the earliest Euboean coins, Euboea and Samos -having been two of the greatest colonizing and maritime powers of the -Aegean Sea. Thus I think we may account for the fact that the towns of -Euboea, when they began to strike silver money of their own, naturally -made use of the standard which had become from of old habitual in the -island, precisely in the same way as Pheidon in Peloponnesus struck his -first silver money on the reduced Phoenician standard which was prevalent -at the time in his dominions.” But as a matter of fact the recognized -Samian coins are of the Phoenician standard (220 grs.) in its slightly -reduced state as found at Miletus (Head, _op. cit._ 515). This being so -it would indeed be strange if the Euboeans from occasionally coming in -contact with Lydian coins at Samos would have adopted that standard in -preference to that in use in the great cities of Ionia with which their -commerce directly lay. - -(2) Why did the Euboeans take the Lydian _gold_ standard of 130 grs. for -their own electrum and silver instead of the Lydian _silver_ standard of -172·9 grs.? According to Mr Head’s view, as we have seen above, the early -Lydian electrum was struck on the standard of 172 grs. (the so-called -Babylonian silver) when meant for circulation in the interior of Asia -Minor, but on the Phoenician standard for circulation in trade with the -Greeks of the coast of Ionia. - -(3) We may ask the question, why did the Euboeans if they were taking -over a ready-made standard which had no relation to any standard which -they themselves already possessed, adopt the _gold_ standard of 130 grs. -instead of the electrum and silver standard which was in use among all -the Greek cities with which they traded? - -We can now conveniently revert to the theory that the Aeginetan -_silver_ standard was a reduced Phoenician. Much has been written -about _degradation of coin weights_ and _reduced standards_. It may be -therefore well to clear our notions on the subject by asking ourselves -what do we mean by such terms. Both the terms and the process are equally -familiar to those at all acquainted with the history of mediaeval -coinage. The king then controlled, as for instance in England, the -mintage. If the sovereign thought fit to reduce the amount of silver in -the groat from 80 to 72 grains his subjects had no alternative but to -take the new and lighter pieces as equivalent to four pennies sterling. -The sovereign thus was able to relieve an exhausted treasury, making -a considerable profit off every groat and penny put into circulation. -Again, the impecunious monarch might resort to another method of making a -profit, by debasing the coinage, and might issue one such as the fourth -of Henry VIII., of exceeding base silver, and again his subjects could -simply grumble and take the new money. These groats and pennies passed -as such within the realm, but when the question of foreign exchange -came, the matter assumed an entirely new complexion. Would a shrewd -Flemish merchant from Antwerp accept a base or a reduced English groat -at the same rate for which it passed current in England? Of course he -did no such thing, and the scales were at once called into use, and the -silver changed hands not by tale, but by _weight_. Now the condition -under which such a degradation or debasing of the coinage as we have -described can take place is that a state or country shall be of such -considerable magnitude that it has room within its own borders to employ -a large amount of coin in internal trade without much necessity of -external commerce. Did such conditions exist among the Greek states of -antiquity? There is another condition, namely, sovereign power vested -in the hands of a monarch possessed of unlimited authority, who has a -direct personal interest in the profit to be made from the degradation -of the coinage, and who has power sufficient to enable him to force his -debased coinage on a reluctant people. Did such conditions exist in any -of the Greek states of antiquity? Nowhere in Greece Proper do we find -them fulfilled, but if we turn to Sicily we get a good example of the -practice so often followed in after centuries by the mediaeval monarchs. -The tyrant Dionysius there put an arbitrary value on gold in relation to -silver: for although this relation was probably not more than 12:1, this -despot raised it perforce to 15:1[280]. He also issued a coinage of tin, -according to Aristotle[281], which he perhaps forced his subjects to take -as equivalent to silver coins of like size. In later years again when -Timoleon liberated Syracuse and the democracy was once more restored, the -state issued a coinage of electrum instead of that of pure gold, which -had previously been in currency, by this means making a profit of 20 per -cent.[282] It is hardly necessary to point out that whilst this coinage -of Dionysius might pass for an artificial value within the dominions -of Syracuse, the moment a Syracusan came to make payment to a foreign -merchant, its factitious value vanished and the transaction took place -according to the current value of the metals. So as long as the English -penny remained of good weight and quality it found ready currency on the -continent, and the potentates of Flanders issued numerous imitations of -them known as _esterlings_, but when the English silver penny became -debased all foreign imitations ceased[283]. Now the Greek states of -Greece Proper were very small in extent, and seldom had a very strong -central authority. The area being limited it was absolutely necessary for -them to have constant dealings with their neighbours. It would have been -difficult for any government in republican times to have forced on its -citizens a debased silver currency, and even had this been possible, any -benefit derived therefrom would have been counterbalanced by the great -drawback arising to trade. If Athens had reduced her famous “Owls” or as -they were otherwise called “Maidens” (from the head of Pallas Athena), -by five grains, her credit would have suffered and her merchants have -gained nothing by it, as the balance would have been at once resorted to, -and allowance would have had to be made on each coin of the new debased -standard. We who live in modern times are too apt to forget the readiness -with which men in older days had resort to the scales, although at this -moment large transactions in gold between bankers and financiers are -carried out by weight. Only so late as the beginning of this century, -when the gold coinage of the country was in a wretched state, every -farmer and trader went to fairs in Ireland equipped with a pocket -balance (which was adjusted for the guinea, half-guinea, sovereign, -half-sovereign, and gold seven-shilling-piece). - -It is difficult then to see what it would have availed the Aeginetans to -have reduced the standard which they are supposed to have got from the -Phoenicians. - -Their island state was of diminutive proportions; they devoted themselves -almost entirely to traffick by sea, their island was an emporium where -strangers resorted. In all dealings with the Phoenicians they would have -to pay a drawback on their debased coin; for the cunning Phoenician -or Ionian was not likely to be beguiled into taking staters of 200 -grs. as equivalent to 230 grs. It is plain therefore that when we find -divergencies of standard these are not due to mere _degradation_, but -to some far more practical consideration, and this will be seen all -the more clearly when we shall find that whilst we have divergencies -in _silver_ standards, the gold standard which was in use in Greece -from Homeric times down to the Roman Conquest remains almost absolutely -without variation. But there are other and stronger objections against -the Phoenician origin of the Aeginetic standard. - -Now if we accept the doctrine that the Greeks received their -coin-standards across the sea from Asia, the _Aeginetic_ from the -Phoenician traders whose commerce lay with Aegina and Peloponnesus, -the _Euboic_ on the other hand from Lydia by way of the great Ionian -cities on the coast of Asia Minor, we become involved in a serious -difficulty. At the time represented in the Homeric Poems, there is not -as yet a single Greek colony on the coast of Asia Minor[284]. Miletus, -destined to be in after years the Queen of Ionia, and to be one of the -greatest centres of Hellenic commerce and culture, is as yet known only -as the city of the barbarous-speaking Carians[285]. Yet we find the -Greeks represented in these self-same poems as already in possession of -a standard for gold identical with the light Babylonian or Lydian gold -shekel (130 grs.). But again we find from the same source that the Greeks -were already in full commercial intercourse with one Asiatic people, -but not a people who could serve as a bridge between Lydia and Euboea. -Everywhere in the Homeric Poems we meet the shipmen of Tyre, who are -represented as bringing the products of the skilled artists of Sidon, -beautiful cloths, and cunningly wrought vessels of silver, articles of -jewellery, necklaces[286] set with amber (perhaps brought from the coasts -of the Baltic), and now and then as chance arose, kidnapping women and -children to sell as slaves in the marts of the Mediterranean[287]. - -If the Hellenes had got their standard from an Asiatic source, it must -have been the heavy gold shekel of 260 grains, which the Phoenicians -employed, and consequently the Homeric Talent would have weighed 260 -instead of 130 grains, or on the other hand if it be supposed that the -Greeks might borrow and use for their own _gold_ a standard used only for -_silver_ in Asia, the Homeric Talent ought to have weighed 225 grains, -that is the Phoenician silver standard, which, as we have seen, it -certainly did not. - -A further difficulty arises in reference to the _Euboic_ standard. No -one who reflects for a moment could venture to assert that Phoenician -trade and influence were limited to Southern Greece. Yet that virtually -is the tacit assumption made by those who derive the standard from Asia. -There is evidence to shew that the Phoenicians from a very early period -frequented Euboea, doubtless attracted by its copper mines (from which -perhaps the famous city of Chalcis derived its name)[288]. Round no -spot in Hellas do more legends cluster which connect it with Phoenician -colonists than Boeotia. It was here that Cadmus settled, and introduced -the Phoenician alphabet, it was here according to Greek tradition that -Herakles, who is so strongly identified with the Phoenician Melkarth, -had his birth. Why then should the Euboeans have been behind the rest of -Hellas in receiving the Phoenician standard, which, according to Mr Head, -as we saw above, did influence so powerfully the Ionic cities of the -Asiatic seaboard, with which their commerce was so largely connected? - -From these considerations it follows that before the Greeks came into -contact with either Phoenicians or Lydians they had a weight standard of -their own, the _Talanton_ of the Homeric Poems, based on the _cow_, which -was as yet only employed for the weighing of gold. - -This standard we have found to be identical with one of the two chief -standards employed in historical times for _silver_, and which from first -to last was the _only_ standard employed for gold in all parts of Hellas -Proper. - -As we have seen that gold was to silver in that region as 15:1, there was -not much difficulty in regarding fifteen _weights_ or staters of silver -as equivalent to one of gold of like weight. Hence there was not the same -need in Greece to devise a separate silver standard as there was in Asia, -where the relation of the precious metals stood as 13·3:1, a fact which -made simple exchange very difficult. On the other hand we have seen that -for the Aeginetans and Greeks, who used the so-called Aeginetic standard, -the decimal system, the simplest and most primitive method of reckoning, -had a powerful attraction. - -Primitive peoples perform all their calculations by means of counters, -using for such purposes their fingers and toes or seeds or pebbles. - -Nature herself has supplied man with the simplest and most convenient -of counters in his ten fingers. Hence naturally arises a preference -amongst primitive peoples for counting by tens, and this method, although -it has at times been supplanted partially (seldom altogether) by the -duodecimal and sexagesimal systems, which are superior by possessing a -greater number of submultiples than the decimal (_e.g._ 12 = 6 × 2, 4 × -3, whilst 10 = 5 × 2 only), was adhered to by the Egyptians all through -their history down to the latest Pharaohs. It may then perhaps be argued -that it was through Egyptian influence with Greece that a large part of -Greece adopted for their silver a standard based on the decimal system, -especially as certain traces of Egyptian influence in very early times -have been discovered of late. But as I have already pointed out above -when discussing the theory of an Egyptian origin for the Aeginetan -standard, because standards of like weight are found in two different -regions, it by no means follows that one has borrowed from the other. If -we can point out that in both Egypt and Greece there was a standard for -gold almost identical in weight, it is at once apparent that there was -no need for the Greeks to borrow from the Egyptians the idea of making -ten silver ingots or wedges equal to one gold; especially as the decimal -idea was next to that of five the simplest and most rudimentary form of -calculation known to mankind. It is certainly preposterous to suppose -that the Greeks were too barbarous at the time when they had attained a -knowledge of silver to devise such a simple process as that of taking -the fifteen ingots of silver, which from the natural laws of supply and -demand they regarded as the equivalent of one gold ingot of like weight, -and redividing them into ten new ingots of silver. This surely will -not seem an incredible feat for the early Hellenes to perform when we -recall to mind the extraordinary skill in arithmetic which is found among -some barbarous peoples. “In West Africa a lively and continual habit of -bargaining has developed a great power of arithmetic, and little children -already do feats of computation with their heaps of cowries[289].” To -imagine that the Greeks could not perform so simple a feat as that which -I propose is to assume that they were in a far lower condition of culture -and intelligence than the negroes of West Africa, rather resembling the -lowest known tribes of men, such as the aborigines of Australia and -the savages of the South American forests. To make such an assumption -respecting a race which has shewn such an unrivalled potentiality of -progress and development as the Greeks is absurd. - -At this point it will be convenient to take a general survey of our -results so far. We found in the Homeric Poems a twofold system of -currency, the gold Talanton, and the cow or ox, the latter alone being -employed to express values: we next found that the _Talanton_ was the -equivalent of the cow, the metallic unit being clearly the later in -origin, and being based on or equated to the older unit of barter. -Through the sacerdotal tradition of Delos we were enabled to fix the -value of the Homeric Talanton at 2 gold Attic drachms, or a Daric -(135-130 grains Troy). Next came the standards used in historical Greece. -(1) The Euboic (135 grains Troy) used for _silver_ in the great Euboic -towns, in Corinth, in Athens from the time of Solon, and as a matter of -course in the Chalcidian and Corinthian colonies, and employed as the -_sole_ unit for _gold_ in all parts of Greece Proper at all periods; (2) -the Aeginetic (200-195 grains) employed in Peloponnesus, in Boeotia and -Central Greece. We learned that the Euboic standard coincided with the -Homeric _Talanton_, thus finding the Greeks of historical times using the -same standard universally for _gold_ which they had employed long before -the introduction of the art of coining from Asia, and partly using this -same standard for silver, whilst in other states they employed a standard -for the latter metal, which was based on the gold unit, simply dividing -the amount of silver equivalent to it into ten parts instead of fifteen. - -We then put the question, “Is it rational to suppose that the Greeks -borrowed in the 7th century B.C. along with the art of coining from Asia -a standard which they themselves already long since possessed?” - -At the time when I first put this view forward, I was unable to offer any -concrete proof of the existence of such a standard on Greek soil before -the introduction of coined money, although the literary evidence was of -the strongest kind. Since then I have been enabled to obtain some data -of considerable importance. I have already (Chap. II.) described the -rings and spirals of gold and silver found at Mycenae, and shewn that -they were not improbably made on a standard of 135 grs. We have thus -found some definite evidence of the existence of a gold and possibly a -silver standard, corresponding to the standard used for both metals in -after ages under the name of the Euboic or Attic. It may of course be -argued that though found on Greek soil, they are not really Greek in -origin. For instance there may be certain indications of Egyptian art and -influence in these pre-historic remains, such as the frieze discovered -in the Palace at Tiryns of alabaster inlaid with blue glass which -according to Lepsius and Helbig[290] is the mock _lapis lazuli_ which -the Egyptians were so fond of making in imitation of the rare and costly -real stone which had to be brought from Tartary. Granting then for the -sake of argument that the Homeric _Talent_ was a standard introduced into -Greece from Egypt at a very early period, it by no means follows that -this standard has had a scientific origin. The Greeks it will be noticed -found it necessary in taking over this standard to equate it to their -primitive barter system. If then the process of human development is such -that the Greeks, who above all people shewed the most extraordinary power -of acquiring civilization, found it necessary even when presented with a -ready made standard for metallic currency, to bring it into harmony with -their immemorial system of appraising values by means of the cow, there -is certainly a strong presumption that the people from whom they derived -that metallic standard had not themselves obtained it by any mathematical -process. - -We can hardly doubt that mankind first obtained empirically the art of -weighing, and that it was only at a later period that mathematics were -called in to fix scientifically the standards obtained by the older and -cruder method. Such is the function of mathematics still. Thus Professor -Cayley observed (in his address at Stockport), “I said I would speak to -you not of the utility of mathematics in any of the questions of common -life or of physical science, but rather of the obligations of mathematics -to these different subjects. The consideration which thus presents itself -is in a great measure that of the history of the development of the -different branches of mathematical science in connection with the older -physical sciences, Astronomy and Mechanics. The mathematical theory is -in the first instance suggested by some question of common life or of -physical science, is pursued and studied quite independently thereof, and -perhaps after a long interval comes in contact with it or with quite a -different question[291].” - -If such then is the part played by mathematics in an age when even the -mathematician has come to the aid of the hangman, and the wretch meets -a well-deserved doom in strict accordance with a mathematical formula, -_a fortiori_ must empirical discovery have preceded mathematical theory -in the second millennium before the Christian era. Just as countless -malefactors were successfully executed by empirical Jack Ketches before -ever the mathematician turned executioner, so we may be certain that -untold sums of gold had been weighed by means of natural seeds and -according to a standard empirically obtained before ever the sages of -Thebes or Chaldaea had dreamed of applying to metrology the results of -their first gropings in Geometry or Astronomy. - - - - -PART II. - - - - -CHAPTER X. - -THE SYSTEMS OF EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE. - - -We are now in a position to approach the last stage in our task, that -which deals with the growth and development of various weight-standards, -all of which start from a common unit. Of necessity Egypt, Babylon, -Greece and Italy will claim a chief share of our attention. The question -now is, Shall we deal with these regions according to the priority of -their civilization, that is, in the order in which I have just named -them, or shall we rather adhere to the principle which has hitherto -guided us, of working back from that which is better known to that which -is less known? - -On the whole the former is perhaps the better for our present purpose. -As we believe that we have discovered by the inductive method the common -unit which lies at the base of all these systems, there is no longer the -same necessity for always starting with that which is the less ancient. -Besides, if we were nominally to pursue this course, it by no means -follows that we would be starting from that which is the best known. -_Prima facie_ we ought to start with the Roman system, the tradition of -which has remained unbroken down to our own days. We could work back -through the system of the Middle Ages to the time of Constantine the -Great, from Constantine to the early Empire, and from the Empire to the -Republic. Moreover no weight-unit is more accurately known than the -Roman pound. But the early history of Rome is so obscure that we have -absolutely no records of a time, when Greece had already a literature of -a venerable antiquity. Rome has no literary remains and even not more -than a very few meagre inscriptions dating from before the first Punic -War (263-241 B.C.), the very time when Hellas was already far advanced -in the autumn of her life. Then Italy had borrowed so much from Hellas -that the enquirer must be cautious as to how far he may be dealing -with material of true Italian or merely adventitious origin. As we are -concerned rather with the _origin_ than with the later developments -of weight-systems, it is plain that for dealing with our principal -objects the Italian systems present us with no special aid. The late -period (268 B.C.) at which the Romans struck silver coins places us at a -still further disadvantage if we start with their system. Greece on the -other hand presents us not only with abundant literary records of great -antiquity, some of them descending from an age which knew not the uses of -coined money, but also with thousands of inscriptions cut in marble or -bronze, many of which contain data of great value for dealing with the -history of currency and weight, and finally presents us with vast series -of coins from which we can learn empirically the coin standards employed -in various times and places. But it is the very wealth of material that -is in some degree here our difficulty. The special feature of Greek -national life was its numerous autonomous states. There was no central -authority with a mint which issued coins for a whole empire as was -virtually the case in the great Persian kingdom, and at a later period in -the Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great. In the palmy days of Hellas -each petty state issued its own coinage, following in its silver and -copper mintages whatever standard or module it pleased. - -To commence our constructive part with a country where we are confronted -with such an array of separate coinages and of diverse standards would be -unwise if it were possible to start from some region where there was a -single central authority, and consequently less diversity of standards. -We are thus led to choose either Egypt or Babylonia as our starting -point. The former presents to us a system less developed and more simple -than the latter. In fact we are tolerably well justified, in view of -recent discussion, in regarding all that is more complex in the system -of Egypt as borrowed from Babylonia. Yet it must not be supposed that -we escape all difficulties in thus starting with Egypt. If in Hellas we -found ourselves embarrassed by the wealth of coinages, in Egypt on the -other hand we have no native coinage to guide us, for it was only after -the conquest of Egypt by Alexander that under the Greek dynasty founded -by Ptolemy Lagos the essentially Greek art of coining was introduced -into Egypt. We depend therefore for our knowledge of Egyptian standards -upon the actual weighings of weight-pieces and such information as can -be gleaned from the ancient Egyptian documents. The same holds good -likewise on the whole for the Assyrian system, where however the actual -weight-pieces and statements derived from cuneiform inscriptions can in -some degree be supported by collateral evidence. At the same time we must -be careful not to assign as much importance to the literary evidence -supplied to us by Egyptian hieroglyphic or Assyrian cuneiform as we do -to the records of Greece or Rome. The keys to the former have only been -obtained within the present century, and many of the translations of such -documents given us by that brilliant band of savants who have opened to -us the portals of a Past far exceeding in antiquity the most remote epoch -of which the literatures of Greece and Rome contain even any tradition, -must at the best in many cases be considered only as tentative. - -Furthermore although the knowledge gained from actually existing -weights, which have been gleaned from the ruins of Nineveh, Khorsabad, -or Naucratis, may be regarded as positive and more or less exact, we -are met by the difficulty that in the case of Egypt and Assyria, where -there was no coined money, we have no means of deciding what class of -weight was used for certain kinds of commodities. In Greece and in the -countries which formed the Persian empire we can be sure at all events of -the standards which were employed in the weighing of gold and silver: the -absence of this test is a serious hindrance in the study of Egyptian and -Assyrian metrology. It is easy to illustrate by a supposed example the -element of uncertainty introduced. Let us suppose that in ages to come -the ruins of some English ironmonger’s shop were excavated, and a series -of weights was found therein, a set of Avoirdupois weights ranging from -a one-hundredweight to half an ounce; a set of Troy weights ranging from -one pound to half a grain, and one of Apothecaries’ weights consisting -of ounces, drachms, scruples, and grains. Suppose likewise that some -ardent metrologist of that age, in addition to this splendid find, should -be able to add to his material from elsewhere one or two sovereign and -half-sovereign weights, a guinea, half-guinea, quarter-guinea, and -seven-shilling-piece weight, perhaps even a noble, or a half-noble -weight, and then without consulting literary sources, or previously -studying the standards on which the English coinage had been struck at -different periods, proceeded to reconstruct the metrological system of -England. It is needless to say that his conclusions would be indeed -widely aberrant from the truth. - -Having thus sketched however roughly some of the difficulties which beset -our path, and after warning the reader that in metrology if anywhere the -maxim of the old Sicilian poet is to be observed, - - Sober keep, to doubt inclined be; - Hinges these are of the mind[292], - -I shall now proceed to set forth the method in which I conceive the -various systems gradually rose and expanded. Let us bear in mind the fact -already proved that gold was the first of all commodities to be weighed, -and that consequently the standards employed for weighing that metal are -the most archaic. - - -EGYPT. - -As has been previously remarked, we are not concerned with the long -battle still raging between Assyriologists and Egyptologists as regards -the respective claims of Egypt and Babylonia to the invention of measure -and weight-standards. Boeckh himself seems instinctively to have felt -this difficulty. For whilst he took Babylonia as the birthplace and home -of all the ancient systems, nevertheless he held that contemporaneously -there must have existed a connection between Egypt and Babylonia in -remote antiquity, from which alone certain agreements and relations -between the measures and weights of Egypt and Babylonia were capable -of explanation[293]. The primitive measures of length are undoubtedly -by the consensus of mankind based upon the parts of the body, such as -the finger, the thumb, the foot, the arm, or both arms fully extended, -standards common to Egyptians and Chaldaeans alike. Whilst at a later -stage in the history of all civilized peoples efforts have been made -to obtain more accuracy in these standards, which of necessity have -produced certain local and national divergencies, yet inasmuch as all -alike started from these standards which have been supplied by nature, -it is obvious that many striking similarities and relations will always -be found when any comparative study of different systems is attempted. -The same principle of course holds good for weight-standards. According -to our argument there was a common animal unit existing in Assyria and -Egypt, which was represented by a metal unit, prevailing alike in both -regions possibly with certain modifications. Egypt and Assyria starting -with this common unit, each in their own fashion constructed their -distinctive national systems, and we need not be surprised if at a later -period under certain political conditions certain parts of the system of -one of these regions are found exercising some influence upon that of the -other. - -We shall now briefly state the Egyptian weight-system. In the oldest -Egyptian documents two weights continually occur, the Kat (_Ket_ or -_Kite_) and the Uten (_Ten_ or _Outen_). Already in the third millennium -before Christ the precious metals were in full use in Egypt, and copper -likewise was employed in the purchase of articles of small value. -Although very large amounts are recorded, yet they had devised no larger -unit than those mentioned. - -[Illustration: FIG. 22. Egyptian Five-Kat weight (Harris Collection).] - -To M. Chabas belongs the honour of being the first to clear up the -relations between the uten and kat. The history of this discovery is -an interesting proof of the fruitlessness of the purely empirical form -of metrology which confines itself to the measuring of buildings, and -weighing of ancient weight-pieces and coins, unless its path is made -clear by means of the light derived from ancient records. The names uten -and kat had been long known, as both of them recur frequently on the -walls of the temple of Karnak (_Temp._ Thothmes III. 1700-1600 B.C.), and -Egyptian weights were in the museums of Europe, but nevertheless “the -exact relation of the one to the other remained unknown until it was -fortunately disclosed by a passage in the Harris papyrus, which contains -the annals of Rameses III. (circ. 1300 B.C.). From this it appears that -the Uten contained ten Kats[294].” The uten therefore is the tenfold of -the kat: Nissen[295] thinks that the latter was perhaps originally a -gold weight (_vielleicht ursprünglich ein Goldgewicht_). These two units -served for the weighing of gold, silver and copper, and there seems to -be no difference noted in the documents between the units used for each -purpose. In the lists of booty we read of such sums as 3144 utens of -gold and 36692 utens of electrum. In lists of prices of commodities kats -and utens of silver and copper are frequently mentioned. The weight of -the kat has been fixed by Lepsius at 9·096 grammes (142·1 grains) and -that of the uten at 90·959 grammes (1421·2 grains). But as it often -happens in the case of coins that one well-preserved specimen is a better -index of the normal standard than any that can be attained by taking -the average of 100 bad specimens, so in the case of weights, one good -specimen, made of some hard and imperishable substance, will give us a -truer representation of the standard unit than the average of a large -number of weights made of some less durable material, and carelessly -executed, and meant merely for traffic in goods of little value. If such -a weight as we have supposed is inscribed with its name, and we can also -get some indication that it has all the authority that belongs to a -weight used for official purposes, its value becomes still greater. Such -a piece fortunately exists in the Harris Collection. It is a beautifully -preserved serpentine weight, and weighs 698 grs. Troy. Allowing for its -extremely slight loss we may suppose its original weight to have been -about 700 grs. It bears the inscription, _Five Kats of the Treasury of -On_. This gives 140 grains Troy as the weight of the kat[296]. This -inscription also proves that the kat was the unit. For if as is commonly -stated the uten is the unit, of which the kat is simply the one-tenth, we -must naturally expect to find this weight described as ½ uten rather than -as 5 kats. This is confirmed by a statement of the grammarian Horapollo -(or Horus, who although writing about 400 A.D. nevertheless preserves -much valuable information) that “with the Egyptians the didrachm is the -monad. But the monad is the source of production of all numeration.” As -two drachms were 135 grs., it is evident that it is the kat of 140 grs., -and not the uten of 1400 grs. which the Egyptians themselves regarded as -the basis of their system[297]. Mr Flinders Petrie from the weights of -158 specimens found in the ruins of Naucratis, which range from 136.8 -grains to 153 grains, concludes that there were two distinct kat units, -one weighing 142 grs., the other 152 grs. But until some literary -evidence is forthcoming for the existence of this second and heavier -kat[298], we must suspend our judgment. It is perfectly possible that -such existed, being used for some purpose different from that of the kat -of 140 grains. For instance it might have been used specially for copper -owing to a desire to make certain adjustments between silver and copper, -but this is of course mere conjecture. - -It is worth while here to see the method by which those who believe in a -scientific system of Egyptian origin obtain their unit. - -Signor Bortolotti (_Del primitivo cubito Egizio_) thinks that the uten -of 1400 grains is exactly the ⅟₁₀₀₀ part of the weight of a cubic cubit -of Nile water, the cubit in question being not the ordinary royal cubit -of 20·66 inches, but a measure which he calls the primitive Egyptian -cubit of 19·71 inches in length. Signor Bortolotti also suggests that -the standard uten of Mr Petrie’s heavy system was 1486 grains, being -the ⅟₁₅₀₀ part of the weight of a cubic _royal_ cubit (20·66 inches) in -Nile water. But as I have just pointed out the evidence is in favour of -the kat being the original unit rather than the uten. Besides if the -Egyptians obtained their system for the first time by the scientific -process, we ought naturally to find some of those larger units such as -the talent and mina, which are found in Egypt at a later epoch. But as we -have seen in the case of Greeks, Hebrews, Chinese and Hindus, everywhere -weight systems begin with a weight for gold, and this is naturally a -small unit. - -There is still one element in this matter which we must not overlook. -A certain number of gold rings have been found in Egypt. Their unit is -fixed by Lenormant at 8·1 grammes (128 grains). Brandis regarded them -as Syrian in origin, and thus got rid of all difficulty. Others regard -the rings as evidently of Egyptian manufacture, and from finding as they -think a corresponding mina appearing in Egypt in Ptolemaic times regard -this unit as a genuine ancient Egyptian standard in use long anterior -to the Persian conquest. It may thus be very probable that the standard -employed in early days in Egypt for gold (and also electrum and silver) -was this unit of 128 grains, which is of course almost identical with an -ox-unit. Silver, according to Erman[299], was in the time of the oldest -Egyptian records more valuable than gold, for in enumeration it is always -named before gold, whereas under the later dynasties it is named as -with us always after gold, shewing that a great change had taken place -in the relations between these metals. It is then clearly conceivable -that at the outset one and the same unit of about 128-30 grains, under -the name of kat, served as the unit for both gold and silver (which -explains perfectly the fact that an ox is valued at a kat of silver), -but that in after days when the change in the relative values of the -metals came, there was found a need for a new silver unit, just as the -Greeks in certain places found it necessary to form the Aeginetan and -other standards, and the Babylonians found themselves compelled to form -that standard which alone can with truth be termed _the Babylonian_, the -silver unit of 172 grains. - -We have now before us the data for the early Egyptian weight system[300]. -It is simple; the unit is the kat probably based on the ox as we have -seen already. The fact that weights formed in the shape of cows and cows’ -heads are represented in Egyptian paintings as employed in the weighing -of rings, indicates that in the mind of the first manufacturer of such -weights there was a distinct connection between the shape given to the -weight and the object whose value in gold (or silver) it expressed. -Specimens of such weights are known, and are always of small size, a -sure indication that the commodity for which they were employed was -very precious. The fact that we find weights in the shape of lions can -be readily accounted for by the supposition that in the course of time -when the connection between the ox and the original weight-unit became -forgotten, and different standards had been evolved, some distinctive -animal form was adopted to distinguish the weights of a particular -standard. The original unit being thus obtained, the higher unit, the -uten, was formed by the method most familiar to all races of men. The -fingers of one hand suggested to mankind a simple means of counting; -and the combined fingers of both hands gave them the decimal system. -The Egyptians accordingly simply took the tenfold of the ox-unit as -their highest unit. As weighing in the earliest stage was confined -to the precious metals, this unit was sufficient for all practical -needs[301]. It will be noticed that the process employed in forming this -weight-system is exactly that which we have found in the Chinese and its -related systems. The Chinese _liang_ (_tael_ or ounce) corresponds to the -Egyptian kat (or shekel). Under its name of _tical_ or _bat_ we found -it as the unit of gold in South-Eastern Asia, and for the weighing of -precious metals we found that the highest unit employed was the _nên_, -the tenfold of the original unit, (the _tael_) itself still the only unit -in use in China for the precious metals. In process of time when ordinary -commodities of life began to be reckoned by weight, the Chinese made use -of the _pical_ (which originally simply meant a man’s load) as their -highest commercial unit. Much the same process seems to have taken place -in Egypt, for in later times we find _talents_ of various kinds in use. -Thus the Alexandrine talent which was employed for wood contained 360 -utens. Was this talent originally nothing more than a man’s load, which -in a later and more scientific age was adjusted to the weight standard -time out of mind employed for metals? In this talent of 360 utens we can -see the influence of the _sexagesimal_ systems of Asia Minor, which, as -we shall presently see, was really a commercial standard of comparatively -late development and never at any time was employed for the precious -metals. The Alexandrine talent of 360 utens contained 3600 kats, just as -the _royal_ Babylonian talent contained 3600 shekels. - - -THE ASSYRIO-BABYLONIAN SYSTEM. - -[Illustration: FIG. 23. Lion weight.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 24. Assyrian half-shekel weight of the so-called Duck -type[302]. - -_A._ Side view showing cuneiform symbol = ½. - -_B._ View from above.] - -Much has been written in the last thirty years concerning what is known -as the _Assyrio-Babylonian_ system: in fact so much has been written that -it is difficult to find out the data amidst the masses of theory. What -then are the facts which we have to go upon? Whence do we get the name -_Babylonian_? Herodotus[303] tells us that when Darius imposed on his -subjects a fixed quota of tribute instead of the occasional gifts and -contributions which were brought to the king’s treasury under the reigns -of his predecessors Cyrus and Cambyses, those “who brought silver got -orders to bring a talent of Babylonian weight whilst those who brought -gold one of Euboic weight. But the Babylonian talent amounts to seventy -Euboic minas.” Properly speaking then according to the ancients, the only -specific Babylonian talent was one employed for silver and which was -one-sixth heavier than the Euboic talent. It is to be noted carefully -that the standard employed for the weighing of gold is not regarded by -Herodotus as peculiar to Babylon or Persia, but is treated as identical -with the common Euboic standard which was used for silver in many parts -of Greece, and the stater of which was the only standard employed for -gold in Greece, even in those states where the Aeginetic system was in -use for their silver currency. Thus in the system employed for gold in -the empire of the Great King the mina contained 50 staters, and the -talent 60 minas. But the discovery of the weights known as the Lion and -the Duck weights by Sir A. H. Layard at Nineveh whilst from one point of -view most fortunate, from another may be regarded as the reverse. The -large size of many of the weights caused scholars to fix their attention -entirely on the larger units, and ever since then all the various efforts -to reconstruct the Assyrio-Babylonian weight system have had if nothing -else in common at least this that they have all commenced to build the -pyramid from the top downwards. They all took the highest units, the -talent or mina, as their starting-point, and proceeded to evolve from -thence the small unit or _shekel_. Yet all the evidence of antiquity -pointed in the opposite direction. In the Greek system, which those -scholars held to be borrowed from the East, it was the small unit which -was called the _stater_ or “weigher,” indicating clearly that it was -regarded as the real basis of the standard. - -Again the Phoenicians and Hebrews who from the earliest times were in -constant contact with Mesopotamia ought certainly to exhibit traces in -their earliest extant records of the _mina_ and _talent_, if it was from -these units that the weight-system started. Yet that is not the evidence -afforded by the Old Testament. There is no mention of a _mina_ except -in Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Ezekiel, all books of late date. In the -Book of Genesis where sums of money are mentioned, they are reckoned by -shekels and nothing else. So when Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah -for 600 pieces of silver, what could have been more convenient than to -describe the purchase money as consisting of 12 _manahs_ (_minas_)[304]? -Thus, as we shall see later on, the conclusion to be drawn from the -ancient Hebrew writings is the same as that which we draw from the -Homeric Poems, that it is the shekel (or stater), the small unit, which -was the first to be employed, and that it was only in the course of -time that the higher units, the _mina_ and the _talent_, make their -appearance. If according to the common theory the weight standards were -the actual creations of either Chaldaeans or Egyptians and only borrowed -from them by other peoples, why do we not find the higher units appearing -from the first amongst those supposed borrowers, if the other part of the -theory is true, that they started from a high unit? - -Now for the evidence of the monuments themselves. - -The weights found by Sir A. H. Layard fall into two classes, (_a_) those -in the shape of Lions, which are made of bronze, and (_b_) those in the -shape of Ducks, which are of stone[305]. “The bronze Lions are for the -most part furnished with a handle on the back of the animal, and are -generally inscribed with a double legend, one in cuneiform characters, -the other in Aramaic.” The Ducks which are inscribed have a legend in -cuneiform characters only. These inscriptions contain not only the -name of the king of Babylon or Assyria in whose reign they were made, -but likewise a statement of the number of the minas or fractions of a -mina which each weight originally represented. As these weights were -found in the ancient palace some have thought that they were possibly -official standards of weight deposited from time to time in the royal -palaces[306]. This seems at least to be implied by the inscriptions on -some of them, such as those of the largest and most ancient of the Duck -weights, which run as follows: - - (1) ‘The palace of Irta-Merodach, King of Babylon [circ. B.C. - 1050], 30 Manahs[307].’ - - Wt., 15060·5 grammes, yielding a Mina of 502 gram. - - (2) ‘Thirty Manahs of Nabu-suma-libur, King of Assyria,’ [date - unknown]. - - Wt., 14589 gram. - - A small portion of this weight is broken off; if this is allowed - for it will yield a Mina of about the same weight as No. 1. - - (3) ‘Ten Manahs’ (somewhat injured), bears the name of ‘Dungi,’ - according to George Smith, King of Babylon circ. B.C. 2000. - - Wt., 4986 gram., yielding a Mina of 498·6 gram. - -On three of the Lions we read as follows: - - (1) ‘The Palace of Shalmaneser [circ. B.C. 850] King of the - Country, two manahs of the King,’ in cuneiform characters, and - ‘Two Manahs’ weight of the country’ in Aramaic characters. - - Wt., 1992 gram., yielding a Mina of 996 gram. - - (2) ‘The Palace of Tiglath-Pileser [circ. B.C. 747], King of the - Country, two Manehs’ in cuneiform characters. - - Wt., 946 gram., yielding a Mina of 473 gram. - - (3) ‘Five Manahs of the King’ in cuneiform characters, and ‘Five - Manahs’ weight of the country’ in Aramaic characters. - - Wt., 5042 gram., yielding a Mina of 1008 gram. - -The results which we obtain from these weights are that there were -evidently two standards used side by side in the Assyrio-Babylonian -empire, the Mina of one being about 1010 gram., that of the other about -505 gram. In other words one standard was simply the double of the -other; also the weights on which Aramaic legends appear are those which -belong to the double standard. Again, there is no evidence that the -Talent was as yet conceived, as all the weights are Minae or fractions -(or multiples) of Minae. Might we not equally well expect fractions of -the Talent, as for instance to find the weight of 30 Manahs described as -half a Talent, if the Talent already at this period formed part of the -system[308]? - -But there is one most important point to be noticed. The single mina -of 505 gram, is plainly different from the mina of gold, (the Euboic -mina of Herodotus) which contained 50 shekels, staters (Darics) of 130 -grains (8·4 gram.) each. For it would require 50 shekels of 10·5 gram. -(164 grains) each to make a mina of 505 gram. On the other hand it will -be found that if we take 60 shekels of the Daric or ox-unit weight they -will exactly make up the mina of 505 gram. Neither can this mina be the -Babylonian silver mina of 50 shekels of 172 grains (11·2 gram.) each. For -the Babylonian silver mina consists of 50 shekels of 11·2 gram., whereas -the mina of 505 gram, would give 50 shekels of only 10·1 gram. each. The -obvious conclusion is that this mina of 505 gram. is neither the gold nor -the silver standard. It is a mina composed of 60 shekels of the weight -of the gold unit (Daric or ox-unit). And its talent was composed when -the system was completed, of 60 minae, as was the case with all other -talents. From the weights just described it may reasonably be assumed -that both the heavy and light systems were employed contemporaneously -in the Assyrio-Babylonian empire. Some have suggested that whilst the -light system was employed in Babylon, its double, or the heavy one, was -employed in the northern part of the empire. But the fact that it is -on the weights of the latter standard that we find the double legends, -the second being in Aramaic characters, seems to point irresistibly to -the conclusion that the heavy standard (no matter what it may have been -employed for) was especially used in Syria. - -It is of great significance that it is in this very quarter we find in -use as the gold unit not our usual Daric or ox-unit, but its double, -which is commonly known as the heavy gold shekel of 260 grains. I have -suggested elsewhere that the explanation of this may be due to the fact -that among certain peoples, especially those who dwelt after the fashion -of the Sidonians, quiet and full of riches, and who had passed from the -life pastoral into the settled agricultural stage, the yoke or pair of -oxen would readily be regarded as the unit instead of the single ox of -primitive days. The fact that a _zeugos_ or yoke of oxen was taken as the -unit of assessment by Solon for the third of the Athenian classes lends -some support to this view[309]. We have likewise seen how the ancient -Irish, after borrowing the Roman ounce, and equating an ounce of silver -to the cow, made for their silver a higher unit by taking three ounces, -which represented three cows, the ordinary price of a female slave -(_cumhal_). - -The Phoenicians employed the double shekel as their unit, but there is -evidence to show that the light shekel was the original unit. We have -seen that in Egypt, Palestine and Greece, from the remotest time, gold -circulated in the form of rings made of a fixed amount of gold, and also -that the unit on which they were made was our ox unit, or light shekel -(130-5 grains). From the practice of using gold rings in currency as well -as for ornament, we may safely conclude that the standard of 130 grains -upon which these were probably made was far anterior to the use of the -double shekel in Syria and Phoenicia. - -The standards which we have learned from the weights found at Nineveh -and Khorsabad are now generally known as the light royal talent, and -the heavy royal talent, because on specimens of both standards the -inscriptions describe them as weights “of the king.” - -It is evident that as gold and silver had each a separate standard, the -“royal” standards were not employed for the precious metals. It is then -most probable that they were employed for the weighing of the inferior -metals such as copper, which of course played a most important part in -the daily life of both Babylonians and Assyrians. We may rest assured -that corn was not weighed but continued to be bought and sold by dry -measure, as it was with the Hebrews in the days of the Prophets, when the -_Homer_ and the _Ephah_ were employed to measure it. - -I shall now give a tabular view of the three standards used by the -peoples of Mesopotamia and their neighbours, treating the _heavy royal -talent_ as merely the double of the light one. - - GOLD. - - 1 Stater = 130 grs. Troy (8·4 gram.). - 50 Staters = 1 Mina = 6500 grs. (420·0 gram.). - 60 Minae = 1 Talent = 390000 grs. - - SILVER. - - 1 Shekel = 172 grs. - 50 Shekels = 1 Manah = 8600 grs. - 60 Manahs = 1 Talent = 516000 grs. - - ROYAL STANDARD. - - 1 Shekel = 130 grs. (8·4 gram.). - 60 Shekels = 1 Manah = 7800 grs. - 60 Manahs = 1 Talent = 468000 grs. - -Let us now examine for a moment the current explanation of the origin and -inter-relations of these standards and we shall find that they all start -at the wrong end, assuming as earliest that which can be proved to be -later, and deducing what are really the earliest stages from those which -were in fact the historical outcome of the others. - -“The proficiency of the Chaldaeans in the cognate sciences of Arithmetic -and Astronomy is well known[310],[311]. The broad and monotonous plains -of lower Mesopotamia had nothing to attract the eye, and impelled their -inhabitants to fix their attention upon the overarching skies studded -with stars that shone with exceptional clearness and lustre in the dry -pellucid atmosphere of that region. There were no dark mountains looming -in the distance to hinder the eye from watching down to the very horizon -the heavenly bodies in their periodic movements. Thus as Geometry may -be regarded as the special offspring of the Egyptian mind, so Astronomy -and Astrology were the children of Babylonia. The results of their -astronomical observations were duly recorded on clay tablets in the -cuneiform characters, and these tablets were then baked hard, and stored -up in the great libraries in their chief cities. It is recorded that when -Alexander the Great captured Babylon, he obtained and forwarded to his -tutor Aristotle a series of astronomical records extending back as far as -the year B.C. 2234, according to our reckoning.” - -Certain investigations into these tablets, primarily suggested by a -fragment of Berosus which described the method of dividing time employed -by the Babylonians, have led scholars to conclude that upon these -observations “rests the entire structure of the metric system of the -Babylonians[312].” - -Thus was obtained the famous Babylonian Sexagesimal system. Although the -French metric system of modern days has returned to the decimal system, -which was the first employed by primitive men, being probably suggested -to them by those natural counters, the fingers, the sexagesimal had -a considerable superiority over the older decimal system (which the -Egyptians had clung to) for certain practical purposes, as the number on -which it was based could be resolved into fractions far more conveniently -than the number 10. Dr Hultsch (_Metrologie_², p. 393) arrives at the -Babylonian weight-unit thus: the Babylonian _maris_ is equal to one-fifth -of the cube of the Royal Babylonian Ell, which is itself obtained from -the sun’s apparent diameter. The weight in water corresponding to this -measure of capacity gave the _light_ Royal Babylonian Talent; this Talent -was divided into 60 Minae, and each Mina into sixty parts or _Shekels_. -Their _gold_ Talent was derived from the _sixtieth_ of this Royal Mina, -with the modification that now _fifty_ sixtieths of the Royal Mina made a -_Mina of gold_ and sixty Minae made a Talent[313]. - -It seems strange that the framers of this theory did not consider that -just as undoubtedly the Chaldaeans must have reckoned their time by -the primitive methods of sunrise, noon and sunset, “full market,” or -ox-loosing time for centuries before they arrived at their scientific -division of time, and just as the Chaldaean artificer employed his -fingers or palm, or span or foot, as a measure of length ages before -the Royal Cubit was equated to the sun’s apparent diameter, so in all -probability they employed as measures of capacity, gourds or eggshells -(as did the Hebrews) and for weights the seeds of plants. - -But since, after what we have already seen, it is perfectly clear that -the first of articles to be weighed is gold, and that the unit of weight -is consequently small, we at once join issue with several points in the -theory of Brandis and his school. First they start with the Talent as -the unit, and only arrive at the shekel (the _weight_ par excellence) -by a twofold process of subdivision; secondly, it is assumed that the -Royal Talent which we have had reason to believe was a purely commercial -Talent, seeing that it was employed neither for gold or silver, was the -first to be invented, and that it was only at a later stage that the mina -and talent specially employed for gold were developed, not out of the -primal unit obtained originally from the one-fifth of the cube of the -_maris_, but from the sixtieth of the mina of that Royal Talent; thirdly -one asks in wonder why did the Chaldaeans, who only achieved their -famous Sexagesimal system after gazing at the stars through unnumbered -generations, abandon this precious discovery the very moment they set -about the construction of a weight-unit for gold, for instead of taking -one-sixth of the cube of the _maris_, they are represented as following -their old decimal system with invincible obstinacy by taking one-_fifth_ -of the _maris_ as their point of departure; lastly, it is astonishing -that the Chaldaeans did not employ their new discovery in the weighing -of the precious metals, the thing which above all others ought to have -called for the most scientific accuracy. - -The fact is, that just as children find some difficulty in realising that -their parents were ever children, so when we stand in the presence of -the remains of the great cities of Egypt and Babylonia, those ancients -of the earth, we are too prone to forget that Thebes, Babylon or Nineveh -had ever their day of small things. The familiar tale of Romulus and -Remus with their band of outlaws dwelling in their hovels beside the -Tiber has kept people in mind that “Rome was not built in a day.” If we -can but just approach the question of the first beginnings of Egyptian -or Chaldaean civilization with the same idea, it will be far easier to -project ourselves into the past of those great races, and thus to realize -far better the conditions under which they grew and lived. - -There can be little doubt that the unit of the Babylonian system was the -light shekel (Daric or ox-unit) of 130-5 grs. Troy. But I have shown -that the Chaldaeans were aware of and made use of the method of fixing -weight-units by means of grains of corn such as we have found to be the -universal practice from Ireland to China, and we have at once removed all -need for supposing that it was only when they had discovered a scientific -method of metrology that the Chaldaeans constructed their weight-unit. - -After what we have shown upon p. 115 concerning the methods employed in -the buying and selling of corn, where it has been made clear that of all -commodities corn is one of the very last to be weighed because of its -bulkiness in proportion to its cheapness, I think no one will readily -accept M. Aurè’s ingenious hypothesis[314]. - -Are we not now justified in supposing that, just as the peoples of -Mesopotamia had marked their seasons and time by primitive methods, -and used their fingers and hands and feet as measures long before they -dreamed of scientific methods, so that likewise they had employed for -weighing their gold the natural weight-unit which lay ready to their -hands in the wheat-ears that crowned their plains. - -Let us now start with the light shekel as our unit. According to our -argument it was nothing more than the amount of gold which represented -the value of the cow, the unit of barter throughout all Europe, Asia -and Africa, as it still is over considerable areas of both the latter -continents. There is no reason for not believing that as among other -people, all articles of property, utensils, weapons, clothes, ornaments -and the various kinds of animals stand to one another in well-known -relations of value, so the same principle was in full force among the -Semites of Mesopotamia. We found that the wild tribes of Laos had a -regular scale commencing with a hoe as their lowest unit, leading up -through kettles and porcelain jars to the buffalo, their main unit; we -also found that the weight of a grain of corn in gold was equated to -a hoe, and that thus by a simple process of multiplication it was easy -to ascertain the value of a buffalo in gold. The unit thus attained was -kept from fluctuating, as it was known to every one how many grains of -corn gave the true weight of the unit. The practical accuracy of this -method of fixing monetary units has been demonstrated from the case of -the Early English and Mediaeval English silver penny (p. 180). There is -complete evidence to show that the light shekel system was older than the -heavy system. Firstly the so-called Duck weights with their cuneiform -inscriptions point to the fact that Babylonia was the special home of -this system, whilst the Lion weights with their Aramaic inscriptions -point to a later period, when the Assyrian Empire was in immediate touch -with the merchants of Phoenicia. But, in the next place, a far more -powerful argument can be drawn from the Hebrew system. In later times -the heavy shekel system prevailed in Palestine, in accordance with which -the maneh contained 50 heavy or double shekels of 200 grs. each. But -that this maneh was simply imposed on the older light shekel system is -demonstrated from the fact that when in two parallel passages articles of -a certain weight of gold are mentioned, in the one the weight is given at -three manehs, in the other at 300 shekels, the maneh thus being counted -at 100 shekels. These 100 shekels are equal to the 50 heavy shekels of -the heavy Assyrian or Aramaic maneh. Now it is evident that if the heavy -system had been the original one employed by the Hebrews, the maneh would -simply have been reckoned at 50 (heavy) shekels. As the matter stands -it is evident that on the contrary, the heavy mina was introduced into -a system where the unit was simply the light shekel, and the Hebrews -therefore clinging to their old unit, described the maneh as consisting -of 100 shekels instead of 50. Further evidence to the same effect will -be adduced later on. Finding thus the light shekel in Babylonia, in -Palestine and in Egypt, and current even under the Assyrian Empire side -by side with the heavy system even amongst people who used the Aramaic -system of writing, we may without any hesitation regard it as the older. - -The process by which the gold Talent was arrived at was somewhat thus: - -The ox-unit of 130-135 grs. is the basis. - -Next the fivefold of this was taken, whether from five being the simplest -multiple, since it was suggested from the primitive method of counting by -the fingers of one hand, or far less likely from a slave being estimated -at 5 oxen, somewhat as we find among the Homeric Greeks an ordinary -slave-woman estimated at four cows, and in ancient Ireland at three cows. -This weight is known as the Assyrian five-shekel standard, and from it Mr -Petrie derives the 80-grain standard which he detects as the unit of a -certain number of weights found at Naucratis (_Naukratis_, p. 86). Whilst -the Egyptians contented themselves with the 5 ket and 10 ket, or uten, -as their highest unit, the Chaldaeans advanced to the fifty-fold (5 × -10), and thus obtained that which probably for a long time formed their -highest unit. - -What was this _Maneh_? Is it a Semitic word or is it rather an Aryan, -as the present writer has argued elsewhere[315]? At all events it is -interesting to find the appearance of a similar word in the Rig Veda -and that too in connection with gold: this has been regarded by some -as a loan word from Babylon[316]. But it is equally possible, that it -is a “loan word” from India to Babylon. The maneh evidently belongs to -a period anterior to the development of the sexagesimal system, for if -it had come into use along with or subsequent to that system, we should -certainly find 60 instead of 50 shekels in the mina of gold and the mina -of silver: hence it cannot in any wise be regarded as a distinctive -feature of the Babylonian scientific system, as it plainly existed at -the time when the decimal system was still dominant. As the latter was -the system which prevailed among the Indians of the Vedic period there -was no reason why they should borrow the Chaldaean term. On the contrary -there is rather a reason why the Chaldaeans would have borrowed the -term from India. Gold did not pass into India from Babylonia, for as we -have already seen there are no auriferous strata in Mesopotamia, but -it passed from the rich surface deposit of the valley of the Oxus and -Central Asia into Chaldaea. Now if the same term intimately associated -with the same commodity is found among two different peoples, and it is -known as a matter of certainty that one of these countries supplies the -other with this particular article, there is a considerable probability -that the peculiar term connected with the commodity has passed along with -it from the source of its production into the country which imports it. - -We saw above that there was no native gold in Chaldaea and therefore it -must have been imported by those Chaldaean merchantmen from India by way -of the Persian Gulf. But was there no gold in Chaldaea until the shipmen -of Ur were able to construct vessels capable of a voyage, even albeit -only a coasting voyage, to the mouths of the Indus? Working in metals -must have been far advanced when such ships were built. That gold came -from India we can have little doubt. But it probably came overland for -ages before anything in the form of a ship larger than a ‘dug-out’ had -ever floated on the Indian Seas. - -The first voyage undertaken to the ancient El Dorado may have been to -search for the region from whence came the gold, somewhat in the fashion -that in after-times Pytheas of Massalia sallied forth to investigate -the sources of the tin and amber which reached Marseilles overland from -Britain and the Baltic. After weighing these considerations we shall -be careful to avoid any dogmatic declarations as to the origin of the -word _mana_. One thing however is clear, and that is that the ancient -Hindus were employing certain lumps of gold probably of uniform size in -Vedic times, as we saw[317]. The Indians of the Vedic times had thus a -gold unit of their own (and as we have shown above probably based on -the value of a cow) before they as yet knew the use of silver or had -as yet reached the sea in their downward advance into the peninsula of -Hindustan. Even granting that they borrowed the _Manā_ from Babylonia, -it is plain that they had already their own gold unit, for otherwise -instead of employing _hiranya pinda_, a most primitive term meaning only -_gold-lump_, they would certainly have borrowed the term _shekel_ along -with the _maneh_. But the fact of most importance for us at present is -that, whether _maneh_ be Semitic or Aryan, in either case it seems to -mean not a _weight_ but a _measure_. It will be remembered that we found -the _catty_ or pound of Further Asia was in origin a natural unit of -capacity, as was shown by its Cambodian name _neal_, which simply means a -cocoa-nut, and that we found in China the joints of the bamboo of certain -sizes serving as their measures of capacity, and both cocoa-nuts and -bamboo joints among the Malays of the Indian Isles. This will naturally -suggest the question, Is it possible that the _maneh_ had a somewhat -similar origin? Was some natural object, such as the gourd, which is at -the present moment the ordinary unit of capacity at Zanzibar, taken to -serve as a measure of liquids or of corn? It is probable that the Greek -_cyathus_ (κύαθος) like its Latin congener _cucurbita_ meant originally -some kind of gourd. But there is a certain amount of probability that the -Semitic peoples used gourds in primitive times for vessels, not simply -from _à priori_ considerations, but from the fact that the most archaic -pottery obtained by Mr Petrie from his excavations on the site of the -ancient city of Lachish in 1890 show unmistakable signs of being modelled -after the shape of a gourd. Although the Chinese never have employed -their _ching_ (catty) for the precious metals, yet the Cambodians have -advanced to counting silver not only by the _catty_ but also by the -_picul_. Did then the Babylonians make 50 shekels of gold or silver -roundly equal to their _maneh_ or measure of capacity? This is of course -pure speculation, but it is at least supported by the comparison of what -has actually taken place elsewhere; and even from the empire of the Great -King himself can we get an insight into the method by which the _maneh_ -(and likewise the Talent) may have been brought into the weight system. -Herodotus[318] tells us that when the tribute of gold (largely in gold -dust) and silver was brought to the King he stored it thus: “he melts it -and pours it into earthenware jars, and when he has filled the vessels -he strips off the earthenware, and whenever he wants money, he cuts off -as much as he needs on each occasion.” We saw above that the Cambodian -_catty_ of silver is twice the weight of the catty of rice, the Cambodian -_catty_ being simply the cocoanut, the ordinary unit of capacity, which -after being filled with rice or silver and then weighed has given two -different _catties_. The Great King no doubt poured his gold into jars -of known capacity, and the weight of such a jar when filled with gold -was well known. It seems then not unlikely that in this way from either -a jar, or from the gourd which preceded the jar, the mina was derived. -However the _maneh_ may have been determined, it is fairly certain that -the Babylonians fixed upon 50 as a convenient multiple of the gold unit -when silver first came into use; as we have seen above it was probably -equal if not superior in value to gold and it was naturally weighed by -the same unit. But in the course of time as it became more plentiful, and -at the same time if likewise the art of weighing began to be employed by -merchants in the traffic in the costly spices and balsams of the east, a -necessity would be specially felt among traders for a somewhat heavier -unit than the original shekel. Possibly then the Aramaean merchants -adopted the double shekel (based on the double ox-unit) for the purpose -of weighing silver (when that metal had now become much more plentiful -than gold), and for trade in precious gums and spices. Such a procedure -can be well paralleled by the old English pound of silk, which is simply -two pounds Troy weight. Silk was of course of great value, and was -accordingly weighed after the same system as the precious metals; but -when it became less costly and more abundant the weight unit was simply -doubled. We may therefore regard the doubling of the original shekel as -an early step towards the development of a commercial standard. It is not -difficult to understand how in the course of time a nation of traders -like the Phoenicians preferred this double standard even for their gold, -and made it perhaps, as we shall shortly see, the basis of their silver -standard. - -We saw above that there is every reason to believe that when silver first -became known to mankind, they esteemed it as highly as gold, if not more -so. It would naturally, therefore, be weighed on the same standard as -gold. This would continue until, in the course of years, a time came -when the relation between gold and silver had become fairly fixed over -all Asia Minor. We know that in the beginning of the 5th cent. B.C. gold -was to silver as 13:1 (or rather 13·3:1). Herodotus, in the celebrated -passage in which he describes the organisation of the Persian empire into -satrapies, and details the amount of tribute appointed by Darius for -each, tells us that the gold was reckoned at thirteen times the value -of silver. Now for ordinary purposes of exchange this relation would be -extremely inconvenient, and the more accurate relation of 13·3:1 would -be still more so. It became thus desirable to fix some separate standard -for silver by which a convenient number, such as 10, of silver ingots -would be equal to the gold ingot of the ox-unit standard. Metrologists -are wont to speak of the desirability of being able to exchange a round -number of talents of silver for a talent of gold. But not even in the -palmiest days of the wealthy Orient lands was the ordinary individual so -rich that he felt any inconvenience in the way of exchanging _talents_ -of gold and silver. The Great King might deal out talents as he pleased, -but his subjects were chiefly concerned with the exchange of silver and -gold shekels. I have made this remark because it appears to me that many -of the misconceptions connected with this whole subject have arisen from -scholars concentrating all their attention on the talent, and taking it -as their point of departure. - -The Babylonians arrived at their silver standard as follows: - -1 gold shekel of 130 grs. was worth 1730 grs. of silver (130 × 13·3), -since gold was to silver as 13·3:1. - -130 grs. gold = 1730 grs. silver. - -They divided this amount of silver by 10, and thus: - -1 gold shekel of 130 grs. = 10 silver shekels of 173 grs. - -As we stated already, Herodotus says that the Babylonian talent was equal -to 70 Euboic minas, that is, one-sixth more than the Euboic talent. The -latter contained 390,000 grs. Troy, therefore the Babylonian ought to -give 455,000 grs. If we multiply our silver shekel by 50 and then by 60, -we shall obtain a total amount for the talent of silver of 519,000 grs. -Unfortunately several inaccuracies have crept into the text of Herodotus, -numerals always being especially liable to corruption in MSS. He seems, -however, to have regarded the relation of the Euboic to the Babylonian -talent as about that of 5:6, and also to have estimated the current -weight of the Persian silver piece at about 162 grs. Troy. But there can -be little doubt that the full standard weight of the Babylonian silver -shekel was 169 grs. (or, according to Mr Head, 172·9 grs.). - -From this it is easy to construct the Babylonian _silver_ system, which -was employed in Lydia and in the Persian empire. - - 1 shekel = 169 grs. - 50 shekels = 1 mina = 7450, - 60 minae = 1 talent 447000. - -From the double gold shekel was formed another silver standard known as -the _Phoenician_. - -Gold being to silver as 13:1, - - 1 double shekel of 260 grs. = 3380 grs. silver, - 3380 grs. silver = 15 shekels of 225·3 grs. - -As this silver standard is found in the same area as the double gold -shekel, I have thought it best to follow the usual derivation, but at the -same time it is worth pointing out that it may have been gained directly -from the light shekel. - -The light shekel (which in the form of coined money appears either as the -gold of Croesus, or the Daric), in the case of the Babylonian system was -made equal to ten silver didrachms, or 20 drachms known under the name of -Sigli; it likewise is equal in value to 15 Phoenician didrachms of 112·6 -grs. Thus, whilst in one region they obtained a silver unit, ten of which -would be an equivalent to the gold unit, in another they formed a silver -unit, 15 of which would be equivalent to the same gold unit of 130 grs. -In each case a number convenient for purposes of exchange was substituted -for the extremely unmanageable number 13 (or still more intractable 13·3) -of the older system, according to which silver was made into ingots of -the same size as those of gold. - -These now are the systems on which depended all traffic and currency of -the precious metals throughout Western Asia for many centuries. I have -been compelled in the statement of the two silver systems to anticipate -one step in the growth of the fully developed weight system by speaking -of the _Talent_. We have seen that the mina of silver, like that of gold, -contains only 50 shekels, thus evidently having likewise been developed -before the full elaboration of the Chaldaean system of numeration, or at -least before the application of that system to their metric standards. -But when we come to deal with the talent we find that in every case -alike, whether it be the gold, silver, or royal talent of commerce, -the talent invariably consists of _sixty_ minae. From this we may with -safety infer that it was at a period posterior to the invention of the -sexagesimal method that the _Talent_ was added to the gold and silver -systems. When we turn to the royal system (both light and heavy), we find -that the mina consists of _sixty_ shekels, just as the talent consists -of 60 minae, and consequently we are constrained to believe that this -royal system was fixed at a date long after the growth of the gold and -silver _minae_, and when the sexagesimal system had now complete sway. -We have already seen good reason for considering the _royal_ talent to -be essentially a mercantile unit. It certainly was not used for gold or -silver. Corn was not sold by weight, and so in all probability it was -meant for copper, iron, lead, and merchandise of value. We have learned -from our studies in the metal trade of primitive peoples that copper -and iron are not weighed but are sold by measurement, being wrought -into bars or plates of a well defined size. It is only when communities -are well advanced in culture that they begin to employ the scales for -the buying and selling of the common metals. We argued above that the -double shekel system arose from a desire amongst a nation of traders -like the Phoenicians for a heavier standard, more serviceable for such -goods as were less valuable than gold. It was probably the same desire -which found its complete realization in the royal system. Whilst gold -and silver had only the mina as their highest unit, there was a new -system developed scientifically from the ancient shekel or ox-unit. The -sixty-fold of this unit was taken to form a mina considerably heavier -than the old gold mina, and now a new higher unit, the sixty-fold of the -mina, was introduced. This we know under its Greek name of _talent_, but -it was called _kikkar_ in the Semitic languages. Now are we to suppose -that this _kikkar_ or talent was purely and simply nothing more than a -higher unit formed by taking a convenient multiple of the lower unit, -just as in the French metric system the kilogram is 1000 times the -gramme; or was it rather some ancient natural unit, originally formed -empirically, and at a later epoch, when science had advanced, fitted into -the system of commercial weight by being made exactly the sixty-fold of -the _mina_? Comparison with other systems in various lands will incline -us to the latter alternative. If we enquire for a moment in what manner -the highest unit of weight for merchandise is fixed among barbarous and -semi-civilized nationalities, we shall find that the _load_, that is, -the amount that a man of average size and strength can carry, is the -universal unit. Readers of the various recent books of African travel -frequently meet in their dreary and monotonous pages allusions to so many -_loads_ for which porters have to be supplied. The amount of the _load_ -seems to vary in different parts. Thus amongst the Madi or Moru tribe of -Central Africa, a pure negro race, according to that admirable observer -Mr Felkin, the _load_ is about 50 lbs. in weight, whilst according to -Major Barttelot, the _load_ carried by the Zanzibaris on the Emin Pacha -Relief expedition was 65 lbs. (besides the man’s own rations for several -days). We have already had occasion to refer to the _picul_ of Eastern -Asia, which we found was simply the Malay word for a _load_; and we also -found that the load varied in different places. Finally, we found that -the Chinese had introduced the _picul_ into their system of commercial -weight, fixing it at 100 _chings_ (catties), but at the same time -excluded it from their silver and gold system, where the _tael_ (ounce) -has remained always the highest unit. Yet in Cambodia we find that the -further step has been made, and that the commercial system of the catty -and _picul_ has been called into service for the weighing of silver. In -Java, whilst gold and silver are weighed by units of small size, copper -is sold by the _picul_. - -It seems to me not unreasonable to suppose that the origin of the talent -has been analogous to that of the _picul_. There is certainly nothing -in either the Hebrew _kikkar_ or the Greek _talanton_ to imply in the -slightest degree that they represented a numerical multiple of the mina. -The Greek word means simply a _weight_, whilst the Hebrew seems to mean -nothing more than a _round mass_ or _cake_ of anything, whether applied -to a tract of country, as the region round the Jordan (as in Nehemiah -vii. 28), or a loaf of bread (Exodus xxix. 23; 1 Samuel ii. 36). For as -the talent was only introduced into the Hebrew system at a late period -the term was probably applied to a _cake_ or _pig_ of copper or iron -the weight of the ordinary _load_. That there was a direct connection -between the kikkar and a man’s _load_ seems implied by the fact that -Naaman “bound _two_ talents of silver in _two_ bags, with two changes -of garments, and laid _them_ upon _two_ of his servants; and they bare -_them_ before him” (2 Kings v. 23). As we find Naaman asking Elisha for -“two mules’ burden of earth” (v. 17) it is at least certain that the -Semites regularly estimated bulky weights by some kind of _load_. We -saw above that in Assyrian the same ideogram stands for _tribute_ and -_talent_. If a _load_ of corn was the regular unit for tribute, the use -of a single ideogram may be explained. In the case of _talanton_ we have -no difficulty in directly regarding it as a _load_, whilst with _kikkar_ -it is not difficult to see how easy it was for the meaning of a _load_ of -a certain weight to spring from the earlier meaning of the word. Its use -as a loaf is interesting in connection with the fact noted on p. 159 that -in Annam the largest unit in use for gold and silver is called a _loaf_. - -When under a strong central government a metric system more or less -scientific was introduced at Babylon, it was natural that an accurate -adjustment of the old empirical unit of merchandise, the _load_, to the -mina and shekel should be carefully carried out, just as in China the -Mathematical Board have fixed the _picul_ of commerce as the hundred -fold of the _ching_ (_catty_), giving it a value equal to 133⅓ lbs. -avoirdupois. Such scientific adjustments take place in all countries -with the advance of civilization and commerce, and above all under the -influence of a strong central government. Let us reflect how long it -has taken for the English Statute Acre to conquer the local ancient -acres in use in various parts of the United Kingdom, such as the Irish, -the Scotch or the Winchester acre. In like fashion, although the -standards of weight and capacity were regulated by Act of Parliament -in 1824, local usage still held on, and units of weight unknown to the -Statute still survive in the usage of provincial places. Now it is not -unreasonable to suppose that the name _royal_ or _king’s weight_ was -given to the Babylonian commercial system, which was constructed on -purely sexagesimal lines, because it was enforced by royal proclamation -and power throughout the whole of the empire, and that in like manner -the _royal cubit_ mentioned by Herodotus (I. 178) owes its origin to the -establishment of one uniform standard for the dominions of the Great -King. In fact no better illustration of what took place can be found than -that afforded by our own terms such as _imperial pint_, or _imperial_ -gallon, or in a less degree by the _statute_ acre, as contrasted with -the older customary pints, or gallons, or acres. The mistake made by -metrologists, in regarding the scientifically constructed Babylonian -system as the first beginning of the art of weighing, is just as great -as if a person writing a manual of English Metrology were to start with -the metric legislation of 1824 as the first beginning of our metrology, -and were to try and explain all traces of an earlier system or systems by -forcing the facts into some sort of conformity with our modern standards. -Undoubtedly in such an effort great facility would be found inasmuch -as the present scientific standards are simply the ancient units of -the realm accurately defined. But the reader will best understand the -relations which probably existed between the Babylonian _royal_ standard -(both single and double) by having a short account of the adjustment of -our standards laid before him. Great inconvenience having been felt in -the United Kingdom for a long time from the want of uniformity in the -system of weights and measures, which were in use in different parts -of it, an Act of Parliament was passed in 1824 and came into force on -January the 1st 1826, by which certain measures and weights therein -specified were declared to be the only lawful ones in this realm under -the name of _imperial weights and measures_. It was settled by this Act -(1) that a certain yard-measure, made by an order of Parliament in 1760 -by a comparison of the yards then in common use, should henceforward -be the _imperial yard_ and the standard of _length_ for the kingdom: -and that, in case this standard should be lost or injured, it might be -recovered from a knowledge of the fact that the length of a pendulum, -oscillating in a second _in vacuo_ in the latitude of London and at the -level of the sea (which can always be accurately obtained by certain -scientific processes), was 39·13929 inches of this yard: (2) that the -half of a double pound Troy, made at the same time (1760), should be -the _Imperial Pound Troy_ and the standard of _weight_; and that of the -5760 grains which this pound contains, the pound _Avoirdupois_ should -contain 7000; and that, in case this standard should be lost or injured, -it might be recovered from the knowledge of the fact that a _cubic inch_ -of distilled water at the temperature of 62° Fahrenheit, and when the -barometer is at 30 in., weighs 252·458 grains: (3) that the _imperial -gallon_ and standard of _capacity_ should contain 277·274 _cubic inches_ -(the _inch_ being above defined), which size was selected from its being -nearly that of the gallons already, in use, and from the fact that 10 -lbs. Avoirdupois of distilled water weighed in air at a temperature -of 62° Fahrenheit, and when the barometer stands at 30 in., will just -fill this space. On p. 180 we saw that the standard gallon in the Tudor -period ultimately depended on the pennyweight, which was, as we found, -fixed by being the weight of 32 grains of wheat, dry and taken from the -midst of the ear of wheat after the ancient laws of the realm. It was -from the descendants of this gallon that the _imperial gallon_ of 1824 -was fixed, with a slight modification so as to make it contain 10 lbs. -of distilled water weighed in air at a temperature of 62° and when the -barometer stands at 30 in. The double pound Troy made in 1760 depended -in like fashion for its ultimate origin on the wheat-grains, and it also -affords us an interesting illustration of the doubling of the original -single unit, such as we find in the heavy _royal_ Babylonian system. -We may find further analogies between our own system and that of the -Babylonians. Whilst at the Mint gold and silver are weighed for coinage -by Troy weight, the copper coinage on the other hand is regulated by the -lb. Avoirdupois, the ordinary commercial standard. As already remarked, -it is almost certain from the method of elimination that copper was the -principal article for which the _royal_ Babylonian system was employed, -as gold and silver had separate standards of their own, and corn was sold -by measure and not by weight. - -To sum up then the results of our enquiry into the Assyrio-Babylonian -system, we started with the so-called light shekel or ox-unit as the -basis of the system; and found that gold and silver were weighed by it -and by its fifty-fold, the _maneh_, which may have been itself a natural -measure of capacity, such as the catty used in Eastern Asia, where we -know for certain that this weight was originally a measure of capacity -obtained from the joints of bamboos or the cocoanut; that in a certain -part of the empire a need was felt for a slightly heavier unit for the -weighing of silver and precious commodities such as gums and spices, and -that accordingly the great trading Aramaic peoples used the two-fold -of the ox-unit (260 grains Troy); that at the earliest period copper -would not be sold by weight but would be sold by bars or plates of fixed -dimensions, as is still the practice with iron and copper among the -barbarous peoples of Further Asia and Africa; that with the advance of -culture the art of weighing was extended to copper and other articles -of small value in proportion to their bulk, and that, as the maneh, or -contents of a gourd, and the _load_ or amount that a man could carry -on his back, had been most probably in general use as units for common -merchandise, the time came when under the all-mastering authority of -the Great King a standard based on the ancient ox-unit, but framed on -the new scientific sexagesimal system, was established for copper and -certain other kinds of merchandise; that in this system 60 shekels made -the maneh, and the _load_ (the _kikkar_ or talent) was adjusted to the -new system as the sixty-fold of the maneh; and that in the course of time -this higher unit of the _kikkar_ or talent was added to the gold and -silver systems, sixty manehs in each case making the _kikkar_ as in the -case of the royal or commercial system; that in the case of silver, which -on its first discovery and employment was as valuable as gold, and was -therefore weighed on the same standard, when in course of time it became -about thirteen times less valuable than gold, and there was a difficulty -experienced in exchanging the units of gold and silver; a separate -standard was created by dividing into ten new parts or shekels the -amount of silver which was the equivalent of the gold shekel (ox-unit); -that this was probably developed before the royal commercial mina of -60 shekels had been formed, as in that case the silver mina would have -contained 60 shekels likewise; we were able to give an explanation of the -name _royal_ as applied to the commercial standard by regarding it as of -late origin, created by a supreme central authority for the regulation of -the commerce of a great empire made up of a heterogeneous mass of races, -just as in the present century our own _imperial_ standards have been -fixed for the whole kingdom, being based, as was the Babylonian, on an -ancient unit empirically obtained; and just as the royal arms are stamped -on our imperial standards, so the weights of the Assyrian _royal_ system -were shaped in the form of a lion, the symbol of royalty throughout -the East. Finally we found that at the base of the Assyrio-Babylonian -system lay, as the determinant of the ox-unit or shekel, the grain -of wheat, which we have already traced all across Europe into Asia. -We can therefore now come to a very reasonable conclusion that the -Assyrio-Babylonian weight system was in its origin empirical, and that it -was only at a comparatively late date in its history, just as in the case -of our own standards, that a certain uniformity between the standards of -measures and weights was brought about by the (not complete) application -of the sexagesimal system of numeration, the invention of which is their -eternal glory. - -Having now dealt with Egypt, and the systems which prevailed in the -Assyrio-Babylonian empire, it will be best to treat of the region which -lay between them. In both the former countries we found the light -shekel or ox-unit in use from the earliest times; and it will also -be remembered that at an earlier stage we found that Abraham was able -to traverse all the wide country that lay between Mesopotamia and the -ancient kingdom of the Nile with his flocks and herds, and that he dwelt -in the land of Canaan in close neighbourhood and on friendly terms with -the sons of Heth, or Hittites, who were then the possessors of that land; -and that furthermore monetary transactions were then carried on by means -of certain small ingots of silver, as we see from the purchase of the -Cave of Machpelah. These ingots, translated _shekels_ in the English -version and called _didrachms_ in the Septuagint, are termed in Hebrew -_Keseph_ (כֶּסֶף), simply _pieces of silver_, or _silverlings_. In the -old Hebrew literature values in silver and gold are expressed either in -_shekels_ or by a simple numeral with the words “of silver,” “of gold” -added (where the latter method is followed the English version supplies -_pieces_ or substitutes “a thousand silverlings” for “a thousand of -silver” (Isa. vii. 23). The Septuagint renders the shekel by the Greek -_didrachm_). There are several inferences to be drawn from this. It is -evident that pieces of silver (and no doubt of gold also) of a certain -quality and weight were employed as currency in Palestine, and we may -likewise suppose with some probability that these pieces of silver were -according to the standard in common use in Egypt and Chaldaea. Again, -since we have already shown that gold in the form of rings and other -articles for personal adornment was exchanged according to the ox-unit -of 130-5 grs., as evidenced by the story of the ring given to Rebekah, -it follows that there was but one and the same standard for gold from -the Euphrates to the Nile. This is confirmed by the story of the sale -of Joseph by his brethren to the company of Ishmaelites “who came from -Gilead with their camels bearing spices and balm and myrrh going to carry -it down to Egypt”; to these Ishmaelites or Midianites Joseph was sold -for twenty pieces of silver[319]. Here we have evidence that the same -silver unit was current from Gilead to Egypt. There are various other -large sums of silver mentioned both in Genesis and also in the Book of -Judges and in Joshua. Thus Abimelech, King of Gerar, is said to have -given Abraham a thousand [pieces] of silver[320], whilst the lords of -the Philistines persuaded Delilah to beguile Samson into telling her -wherein lay his great strength by the promise of eleven hundred [pieces] -of silver, which money she afterwards received[321]. Abimelech the son -of Jerubbaal (Gideon) was enabled to form his conspiracy by hiring ‘vain -and light persons’[322] with the three-score and ten [pieces] of silver -taken by his mother’s brother from the house of Baal-berith. Finally, we -have a sum of eleven hundred [pieces] of silver which were stolen by that -“man of Mount Ephraim whose name was Micah” from his mother, of which his -mother took (when he had restored the money) two hundred [shekels] and -gave them to the founder, who “made thereof a graven image and a molten -image[323].” Now although all these are considerable sums, all exceeding -a _mina_, yet there is no mention whatever made of the latter unit of -account in any of these passages. The story of another theft shows that -gold as well as silver was reckoned originally only by the shekel and not -by the mina. Thus Achan “saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment -and two hundred shekels of silver and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels -weight[324].” As fifty shekels were a mina, here if anywhere we ought to -have found the latter term. From this we infer without hesitation that -the shekel was the original unit. - -But there is another word besides _keseph_ which is translated _piece -of money_ or piece of silver. This is the term _qesitah_ (קְשׂׅיטָה) -which occurs in three passages of the Old Testament. Thus Jacob bought -the parcel of ground where he had spread his tent at the hand of the -children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, “for an hundred pieces of money” -(Gen. xxxiii. 19); and the same word is used in the parallel passage in -Joshua (xxiv. 32) where the children of Israel buried Joseph’s bones -in Shechem in the parcel of ground which Jacob bought for an hundred -pieces of money. Lastly, Job’s kinsfolk and acquaintances gave him every -man a _piece of money_, and every one a ring of gold (xlii. 11). It has -been always a matter of doubt what this piece of money really was. The -Septuagint translates _qesitah_ in these three passages by ἑκατὸν ἀμνῶν, -ἑκατὸν ἀμνάδων, and ἀμνάδα μίαν, thus in every case regarding it as a -_lamb_. The most ancient interpreters all agree in this, whilst some of -the later Rabbis regarded it as signifying a coin stamped with the form -of a lamb: one of them says that he found such a coin in Africa[325]. - -[Illustration: FIG. 25. Weights in the form of Sheep[326].] - -Long ago Prof. R. S. Poole, speaking of this word, said: “The sanction -of the LXX, and the use of weights bearing the forms of lions, bulls, -and geese by the Egyptians, Assyrians, and probably Persians, must make -us hesitate before we abandon a rendering [lamb] so singularly confirmed -by the relation of the Latin _pecunia_ and _pecus_[327].” The connection -between weights and units of currency is especially close at a time -when coined money is as yet unknown, and hence when we find weights in -the form of sheep coming from Syria, and also recollect that sheep were -employed as a regular unit in Palestine for the paying of tribute, and -with the light obtained from primitive systems of currency, we may well -conclude that the _qesitah_ was an old unit of barter, like the Homeric -ox, and as the latter was transformed into a gold unit, so the former -was superseded by an equivalent of silver. We read (2 Kings iii. 4) that -Mesha, king of Moab (now so famous from the inscription which bears his -name), was a sheep-master, and he rendered unto the king of Israel one -hundred thousand lambs, and one hundred thousand rams with the wool. -When payment in metal came more and more into use silver served as the -sub-multiple of gold, just as sheep formed that of the ox, and it is not -surprising that in later times when coins were struck by the Phoenicians, -as at Salamis in Cyprus and many other places, bearing a sheep or a -sheep’s head, there arose some doubt as to whether the _qesitah_ was a -_sheep_, a piece of uncoined silver, or a coin stamped with a sheep. The -very fact of the Phoenicians having such a predilection for this type is -in itself an indication that the silver coin in its origin represented -the value of a sheep. At a later stage, when we come to deal with the -early Greek coin types, we shall develop this principle more completely. -The mere fact that the sheep on the Phoenician coins is sometimes found -accompanying a divinity does not militate against our doctrine, as I -shall explain when I deal with the coins of Messana and Thasos. - -[Illustration: FIG. 26. Coin of Salamis in Cyprus.] - -But then comes the question, which was the shekel employed by the -Hebrews? It must have been either (1) the ox-unit of 130 grs., used alike -for gold and silver in early days both in Egypt and Mesopotamia and -Greece, or (2) the double of this, or heavy shekel of 260 grs., used for -gold only in parts of Asia Minor, or (3) the Phoenician shekel of 225 -grs., used only for silver and electrum along the coast of Asia Minor, -and never employed for gold, or (4) the Babylonian or Persic standard -of 172 grs., used only for _silver_. In later times the silver shekel -in use amongst the Jews was most undoubtedly the Phoenician shekel, -obtained, as we saw above, by dividing the amount of silver equivalent to -the double gold shekel into 15 parts. But it may be reasonably doubted -whether the silver piece or shekel (called always a _didrachmon_ in the -Septuagint) mentioned in Genesis and Judges is the Phoenician shekel. It -is used without any distinctive epithet, as if it were the weight _par -excellence_, and is employed for _gold_ as well as silver. But when we -turn to certain other passages we find mention made of a shekel called -the _Shekel of the Sanctuary_[328]. This shekel is frequently mentioned, -generally in connection with silver, and in reference to such things as -the contribution of the half-shekel to the Tabernacle, the redemption of -the firstborn, the sacrifice of animals, and the payment of the seer. Yet -we find this shekel likewise employed in the estimation of _gold_, a fact -which at once shews that it is neither the Phoenician shekel of 220 grs. -nor the Persic of 172 grs., both of which were confined to _silver_. It -must then have been either the ox-unit of 130 grs. or the heavy shekel of -260 grs. As the latter was confined in use to _gold_ it follows that the -ox-unit of 130 grs. alone fits the conditions required. If then we can -discover what in the case of either silver or gold was the weight of this -shekel, we shall have determined it for both metals, for it will hardly -be maintained that there was one shekel of the Sanctuary for gold and one -of different weight for silver. - -Now we read in Exodus (xxxviii. 24 _seqq._) that “all the gold that was -occupied for the work in all the work of the holy [place], even the gold -of the offering, was twenty and nine talents and seven hundred and thirty -shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary. And the silver of them that -were numbered of the congregation was an hundred talents and a thousand -seven hundred and three-score and fifteen shekels, after the shekel of -the Sanctuary; a bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel after the -shekel of the Sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered from -twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand -and five hundred and fifty men. And the brass of the offering was -seventy talents and two thousand and four hundred shekels.” From this -passage we learn that, whilst the gold and silver were estimated on the -shekel of the Sanctuary (or Holy Shekel), the brass was probably reckoned -by some other standard. - -It is also of importance to note that it is the shekel which is regarded -as the _unit_ of the system, for we never hear of a talent or mina of the -Sanctuary. From this passage likewise we readily discover that the talent -of silver contained 3000 shekels (603,550 ÷ 2 = 301,775 shekels - 1775 = -300,000 ÷ 100 = 3000 shekels). - -Now when king Solomon made three hundred shields of beaten gold, three -minas (translated _pounds_ in the Authorized Version) went to one shield -(1 Kings x. 17). But in the parallel passage (1 Chron. ix. 1) we read -that “three hundred shields made he of beaten gold, three hundred shekels -went to one shield,” from which it is evident that a maneh of gold -contained 100 shekels[329]. A very important conclusion follows from -these facts, for it is plain that when the Hebrews adopted the heavy -or double maneh from the Phoenicians they did not adopt for _gold_ and -silver at the same time the double shekel, of which that maneh was the -fifty-fold, but on the contrary they retained their own old unit of the -light shekel, and made one hundred of them equivalent to the Phoenician -or heavy Assyrian mina. Since this light shekel was employed in the -estimation of the gold and silver dedicated by King Solomon for the -adornment of the Temple, this shekel can hardly be any other than the -Holy Shekel of the Sanctuary. - -We are thus led to conclude that the shekel was the same both for gold -and silver, and was simply the time-honoured immemorial unit of 130-5 grs. - -It is natural on other grounds that this should be the unit employed by -the Israelites for the precious metals, since it was the unit employed -both for silver and gold in Egypt, the land of their bondage. - -The question next suggests itself, Why was the shekel called by a -distinctive name? It is only when there are two or more examples or -individuals of the same kind that any need arises for a distinctive -appellation: again, as we have already observed, in such cases the older -institution continues to prevail in all matters religious or legal. It -is important to note that in Exodus xxi. 32, a passage which the best -critics consider of great antiquity, the penalties are expressed in -shekels simply without any distinctive appellation. At that period there -was probably only one shekel (the ox-unit of 130-5 grs.) as yet in use, -and so there was no need to distinguish the shekel in which fines were -paid. This shekel was then described in the later part of Exodus, where -there was a second standard in use, as the holy shekel. As a matter -of fact we have another weight mentioned in 2 Samuel (xiv. 26), where -it is related of Absalom that “when he polled his head (for it was at -every year’s end that he polled it: because the hair was heavy on him, -therefore he polled it) he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred -shekels after the king’s weight[330].” - -Now it will be observed that in the passage from Exodus quoted above, -whilst the shekel of the Sanctuary is carefully mentioned when amounts -of gold and silver are enumerated, no such addition is made in reference -to the “seventy talents and two thousand and four hundred shekels of -brass.” If then the heavy or double shekel and its corresponding mina -and talent, known to us hitherto as the royal Assyrio-Babylonian heavy -standard, had already been introduced among the Hebrews (and we have just -seen that according to the First Book of Kings it was in use, at least -a mina of 50 double shekels (100 light) was employed for gold), nothing -is more likely than that this standard would bear a title similar to -that which it enjoyed in Babylonia and Syria, and be known as the king’s -weight or _stone_. As I have observed in the case of the royal Assyrian -standards that they were employed for copper, lead, and commodities -sufficiently costly to be sold by weight, so we may with considerable -probability conjecture that this king’s weight was employed regularly -among the Semites for the weighing of the less precious metals, and other -merchandise. Hence it is that there was no need to add any explanation of -the nature of the standard by which the 70 talents of brass were weighed, -and it was only because in the case of Absalom’s hair we have an article -not commonly weighed, that it was thought necessary by the writer to make -clear to us by which of the two standards usually employed the estimate -of the weight of the year’s growth of hair was made. We may therefore -conclude with probability that “the king’s shekel” was no other than the -double shekel (260 grains). It will have been noted that in Genesis and -Judges, admittedly two of the oldest books, there is mention made of only -one kind of shekel, and that it is only in Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus, -all of late date, that we find the shekel distinguished as that of the -Sanctuary, and that it is only in Samuel that we find reference made to -the _royal shekel_. It is also worthy of notice that neither in Genesis -nor Judges is there any mention made of a maneh or talent, although there -was full opportunity for the appearance of the former if it had been then -in use, as we find such sums as 400 shekels (4 manehs), 1100 shekels -(11 manehs) and 1700 shekels (17 manehs), whilst in the other series of -books named we find both the maneh and the talent. It is not unreasonable -therefore to suppose, that with the advent of the _maneh_ and _kikkar_ or -talent from their powerful kinsfolk and neighbours came also the practice -of employing the double shekel, the fiftieth part of the mina of gold and -mina of silver, which was employed in that part of the Assyrio-Babylonian -empire, where the use of the heavy Assyrian shekel was in vogue. Besides -gold and silver, spices were likewise weighed according to the shekel -of the Sanctuary. “Take thee also unto thee principal spices, of pure -myrrh five hundred [shekels], and of sweet cinnamon half as much [even] -two hundred and fifty [shekels], and of sweet calamus two hundred and -fifty [shekels], and of cassia five hundred [shekels], after the shekel -of the Sanctuary[331].” If we had any doubt as to whether it was not -possible that there were two separate shekels of the Sanctuary, one for -gold, and one of different standard for silver, our misgivings are at -once dispelled by finding spices weighed after the holy shekel. It is -certainly incredible that there could have been a separate standard of -the Sanctuary for the weighing of spices. There seems then no reasonable -doubt that there was only one shekel of the Sanctuary, and that the -unit of 130 grains. In support of this we may adduce Josephus[332], -who made the Jewish gold shekel a Daric (which as we have already seen -is our unit of 130 grains). This in turn derives support from the fact -that the Septuagint, which regularly renders the Hebrew _sheqel_ (which -like the Greek _Talanton_ means simply _weight_) by both _siklos_ and -_didrachmon_, not unfrequently renders _shekel of gold_ by chrysûs[333], -which means of course nothing more than gold _stater_, that is a didrachm -of gold, such as those struck by the Athenians, by Philip of Macedon, -Alexander and the successors of the latter, including the Ptolemies of -Egypt, under whom was made the Septuagint Version. We have thus found -the earliest Hebrew weight unit to be that standard which we have found -universally diffused, and which we have called the ox-unit. - -Next let us see how from this unit grew their system. In several passages -the shekel of the Sanctuary is said to consist of 20 _gerahs_[334], a -word rendered simply by _obolos_ in the Septuagint. As before observed, -the Hebrew metric system was essentially decimal, like that of Egypt; -in fact had Tacitus been a metrologist he might have quoted this as -an additional proof that the Jews were Egyptian outcasts, expelled by -their countrymen because they were afflicted with a plague, perhaps -the _scabies_[335], which so frequently affects swine. The measures of -capacity, both dry and liquid, are decimal, and so accordingly we find -a decimal division applied to the shekel. The latter is divided into -two _bekahs_ (בֶּקַע, “a division,” “a half”), and each _bekah_ is -divided into 10 _gerahs_ (גֵּרָה). The latter signifies “a grain” -or “bean.” The Hebrew literature does not state what kind of seed or -grain it was, although it is defined by Rabbinical writers as equal to -16 barleycorns. But the fact is that, as we see from the Septuagint -rendering, the name in the course of time came to be considered simply as -that of one-twentieth of the shekel, whether that shekel was the shekel -of the Sanctuary, the Phoenician silver shekel of 220 grains, or the -kings shekel of 260 grains used for copper and lead. The _gerah_ of the -gold shekel or shekel of the Sanctuary was probably the most ancient and -came closest to the natural seed from which it derived its name; this -_gerah_ would be about 6½ grains (130 ÷ 20 = 6·5). On an earlier page -(p. 194) we gave the weights of a number of grains and seeds of plants, -and amongst them that of the lupin, called by the Greeks _thermos_. -According to the ancient tables the _thermos_ is equal to two _keratia_, -or _siliquae_ (the seeds of the carob tree); but since each _siliqua_ = 4 -wheat grains, the _thermos_ = 8 wheat grains, or 6 barleycorns, or 6 Troy -grains. If the wheat grain in Palestine was as heavy as that of Egypt or -Africa (·051 gram, instead of ·047 gram.), the 8 wheat grains, would = -6·4 grains troy. Again, the Roman metrologists estimated the _lupin_ as -the third part of the _scripulum_, which weighed 24 grains of wheat[336]; -thus the Roman _lupin_ also = 8 wheat grains. We may therefore have -little doubt that the _gerah_ was simply the _lupin_[337]. But what -about the Rabbinical _gerah_ of 16 barleycorns? In the first place let -us recall the confusion which exists in the Arab metrologists respecting -the _habba_, some making three habbas, some four equal to the _karat_. -This arose, as we saw, from confounding the wheat and barley grain. If -the 16 grains assigned to the _gerah_ by the Rabbis are really wheat -grains, all is at once clear. The _gerah_ to which they refer is that of -the royal or double shekel (260 grs.), or in other words it is a double -_gerah_. We have just found the _gerah_ of the Sanctuary shekel to be the -lupin, and equal to 8 wheat grains, accordingly its double will contain -16 wheat grains. Nothing is more common than a change in the value of a -natural weight unit, when in the course of time its real origin has been -forgotten, and it has been adjusted to meet the requirements of newer -systems. Thus the value of the Greek _thermos_ and its Roman equivalent -the _lupin_ both suffered in later days, and were regarded as only equal -to 6 wheat grains instead of the original 8 owing to a like confusion -between wheat grains and barleycorns. Finally there is a further reason -why the authors of the Septuagint Version would translate _gerah_ by -_obolos_. Writing at Alexandria under Ptolemaic rule, at a time when the -Ptolemaic silver stater of 220 grains contained exactly 20 obols of the -Attic or ordinary Greek standard of 11 grains, they would all the more -readily adopt a rendering, which harmonized so well with the monetary -system of their own day; at the same time the Greek habit of dividing -all staters into 12 _obols_, no matter on what standard the stater was -struck, naturally would incline them all the more to regard the _gerah_ -not as an actual weight, but simply as the twentieth of the shekel, be -the shekel what it might. - -The Hebrew gold standard accordingly consisted of a shekel of 130 grains, -subdivided into 2 _bekahs_ or _halves_; each of which in turn contained -10 _gerahs_ or lupins: 100 such shekels made a maneh, and according to -Josephus[338] 100 manehs made a _kikkar_ or talent. It would thus appear -that, just as in the time of Solomon the heavy mina had been introduced -which was equal to 100 shekels of the Sanctuary, so the Hebrews carried -out consistently this principle by making 100 minae go to the talent. -It is however most probable that before that time they had employed a -maneh of their own of 50 light shekels, for we have seen above that the -talent of silver mentioned in Exodus consisted of only 3000 shekels, just -as in all the other gold and silver systems of Asia Minor and Greece: -and since we have proved that the silver shekel of the Sanctuary was -the ordinary light shekel of 130 grains, it is evident that the silver -talent is not made up of 3000 double shekels, but is really nothing more -than the sixty-fold of a mina which contained 50 shekels of the ox-unit -standard. If gold was weighed at all by any higher standard than the -shekel, it is almost certain that it must have been weighed by this mina -and talent[339]. However, by the time of the monarchy it is most probable -that the double or heavy mina had been introduced for silver as well -as for gold. In fact the probabilities are that it was applied for the -weighing of silver before that of gold. Thus when Naaman the leper set -out to go to the Hebrew prophet, “he took with him ten talents of silver, -and six thousand [pieces] of gold, and ten changes of raiment[340].” -Here the 6000 gold pieces are perhaps the 6000 light shekels which -would make a talent of the heavy Assyrian standard after the ordinary -Phoenician system of 50 shekels = 1 mina, and 60 minae = 1 talent: and -doubtless Naaman counted these 6000 gold pieces as a talent of gold; but -inasmuch as the Hebrews had a peculiar system of their own, by which -100 minae, and 10,000 light shekels went to the _kikkar_, these 6000 -are not described as a talent by the Hebrew writer. We may thus regard -the silver talent as consisting of 3000 light shekels, at the earliest -period, and later on as of 3000 heavy shekels: finally, when coinage was -introduced and money was struck under the Maccabees on the Phoenician -silver standard, it consisted of 3000 shekels of 220 grs. each. But there -is one period about which we find great difficulty in coming to any -conclusion. After the return from the Babylonian captivity what standards -were employed for gold and silver? As Judaea formed part of the dominions -of the Great King, we would naturally expect to find in Nehemiah and -Ezra traces of the standard then employed throughout the Persian Empire -for the precious metals. As we have found that the light shekel formed -the unit for gold from first to last, and as it was also the gold unit -of the Babylonians and Assyrians, we may unhesitatingly assume that -it formed the basis of the Jewish system in the days of Nehemiah (446 -B.C.). As regards the silver standard we have fortunately one piece of -evidence, which may give us the right solution. We found that in Exodus -each male Israelite contributed a _bekah_, or half a shekel (of the -Sanctuary) to defray the cost of the tabernacle: this half-shekel was a -drachm of about 65 grs. Troy. Now after the Return from Captivity, we -find Nehemiah (x. 32) writing: “We made ordinances for us, to charge -ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel[341] for the service of -the house of our God.” Why the third of a shekel instead of the half of -earlier days? When we read of the generous and self-sacrificing efforts -made by the Jews to restore the ancient glories of the Temple worship, -we can hardly believe that it was through any desire to reduce the -annual contribution. The solution is not far to seek when we recollect -that the Babylonian silver stater of that age weighed about 172·8 grs. -This formed the standard of the empire, and doubtless the Jews of the -Captivity employed it like the rest of the subjects of the Great King. -The third part of this stater or shekel weighed about 58 grains; so that -practically the third part of the Babylonian silver shekel was the same -as the half of the ancient light shekel, or shekel of the Sanctuary. -From this we may not unreasonably infer that after the Return the Jews -employed the Babylonian silver shekel as their silver unit, and this -probably continued in use until Alexander by the victories of Issus and -Arbela overthrew the Persian Empire, and erected his own on its ruins. -But although the Babylonian shekel was the official standard of the -empire there can be no doubt that the old local standards lingered on, -or rather held their ground stubbornly in not a few cases. We saw above -that the Aramaean peoples had especially preferred the double shekel, -and from it they developed the so-called Phoenician or Graeco-Asiatic -silver standard. Gold being to silver as 13·3:1, one double shekel of 260 -grains of gold was equal to fifteen reduced double shekels of silver of -225 grains each. Now it is important to note that the Phoenician shekel -or stater was always considered not as a didrachm but as a tetradrachm; a -fact which is explained by its development from the old double shekel, -which of course was regarded as containing four drachms, and which at the -same time explains why it is that in the New Testament the Temple-tax of -the half shekel is called a _didrachm_, the term applied to the shekel -itself in the Septuagint. When the Jews coined money under the Maccabees, -they struck their silver coins on this Phoenician standard, and their -shekel was always regarded as a tetradrachm. For the ancient half shekel -of the Sanctuary they soon substituted the half of their shekel coins, -that is about 110 instead of 65 grains of silver. This change probably -took place under the Maccabees; silver had then probably become much more -plentiful in Judaea as shown by the fact that they were able to issue a -silver coinage. When those who collected the Temple-tax asked Christ for -his didrachm, he bade Simon Peter go to the sea and catch a fish, in the -mouth of which he would find a _stater_, “that give him, said he, for -both me and thee.” As the stater evidently sufficed to pay a didrachm for -each, there can be no doubt that the shekel or stater was considered by -the Jews to be a tetradrachm. - -It is very uncertain whether the Hebrews at any time employed a _maneh_ -of 60 shekels. They most certainly did not do so for gold and silver, -and probably not even for copper and other cheap commodities. Very -unfortunately the famous passage in Ezekiel (xlv. 12), which deals with -weights and measures, is so confused in the description of the maneh that -we cannot employ it as evidence. The one element of certainty is that -the gold shekel never varied from first to last. It is likewise probable -that, whilst the heavy maneh was introduced for gold silver and copper -alike, the shekel always remained the same, 100 shekels being counted to -the mina of gold and silver in the royal system, whilst 50 shekels always -continued to be regarded as composing the maneh of the Sanctuary, such -as we found it in the Book of Exodus. To confirm this view of the shekel -we can cite the Bull’s-head weight (fig. 27), which came from Jerusalem, -and weighs 36·800 grammes, which represents the amount of 5 light shekels -(making allowance for a small fracture), the light shekel being 8·4 -grams. (130 grs.). It is plain that this is a multiple of the light and -not of the heavy shekel, for it is not likely that such a multiple as 2½ -would be employed. On the other hand, we found the five-fold multiple of -the light shekel appearing in the Assyrian system, and also the Egyptian. - -[Illustration: FIG. 27. Bull’s-head Five-shekel Weight.] - -The Hebrew systems, as we have tentatively set them forth, may be seen in -the following tables. - -I. Earliest period. Shekel of 130-5 grs. alone employed for gold and -probably silver. - -II. Mosaic period. _Gold and Silver._ (The old light shekel or ox-unit is -now called shekel of the Sanctuary to distinguish it from its double.) - - 50 light Shekels = 1 Maneh - 3000 light Shekels = 60 Manehs = 1 Kikkar (_talent_). - -III. Regal period. _Gold._ - - 100 light (= 50 double) shekels = 1 heavy Maneh - 5000 heavy (= 10,000 light) ” = 100 heavy Manehs = 1 talent. - -The same system was probably employed for _silver and copper_, but -instead of counting 100 light shekels to the Maneh as in the case of -gold, they reckoned silver and copper by the double shekel, probably -called the king’s shekel in contradistinction to that of the Sanctuary. - -IV. After the Return. The light shekel still retained for _gold_, and the -Babylonian, or Phoenician silver standard, employed for _silver_. - -V. Maccabean Period. _Gold_ on the old standard, and _silver_ (now first -coined) struck on the Phoenician silver standard of 220 grains. - -_Copper_ was estimated most probably on the old double shekel system; and -most likely the royal Assyrian heavy system of 60 shekels to the maneh -and 60 manehs to the talent was adopted in its entirety for copper and -other articles of no great value in proportion to their bulk[342]. - - -PHOENICIAN STANDARD. - -The total loss of the literature and records of the Phoenicians, and -the fact that neither in their own country nor in the greatest of their -colonies, Carthage, did they employ coined money until a comparatively -late period, make the task of restoring their weight system very -difficult if not hopeless. The _silver_ standard called Phoenician or -Graeco-Asiatic is the sole evidence to show that they employed as their -unit for gold the heavy Babylonian shekel of 260 grs. On the other hand -we have just seen that their close neighbours, the Hebrews, from first to -last, and the ancient people of the Nile with whom the Phoenicians were -in the closest trade relations (having large trading communities settled -in the Delta, and from whom they had borrowed the hieroglyphic syllabic -symbols, which with them became the Alphabet), had employed the light -shekel, the only _gold_ unit that likewise from first to last prevailed -throughout the vast regions of Central Asia Minor, and as we have seen, -was the unit of Greece even in the early days when the great cities of -Mycenae and Tiryns were in direct contact with, and deriving their arts -and civilization from Asia or from Egypt. - -The derivation of the Phoenician _silver_ standard of about 225 grs. -(14·58 gram.) according to the hitherto received doctrine is as follows. -As the Babylonians formed their silver standard by making into _ten_ -pieces the amount of silver equivalent to the “light gold shekel,” so -the Phoenicians and Syrians are supposed to have divided the amount of -silver equivalent to “the heavy shekel” into _fifteen_ pieces, gold being -to silver in each case as 13·3:1. But we ask why did the Phoenicians -adopt so awkward a scale as the quindecimal when it was possible for them -to employ the decimal or duodecimal? In the next place by the supposed -system 7½ silver shekels were equal to one light shekel, that is the -gold unit which was universally employed amongst all the peoples with -whom they traded: and what number could be more awkward for purposes of -exchange than 7½? If therefore we can show that it is probable that at -one period silver was exceedingly abundant in Phoenicia compared with -gold, and that consequently gold was worth considerably more than 13 -times its weight in silver, the sole support for the heavy shekel being -the Phoenician unit is removed, and the theory of the _fifteen stater_ -system falls to the ground. It is well known that the Phoenicians had -much of the trade of Cilicia and the other coast regions of Asia Minor in -their hands. It was Cilicia that produced the chief supplies of silver -for Western Asia[343]. From this land therefore the Phoenicians obtained -vast quantities of silver, and it was from them almost certainly the -Egyptians, who had no native silver, obtained a supply of that metal. But -this was not all. About 1000 B.C. the Phoenicians, in their quest after -new and unexhausted regions, made their way westward and reached Spain. -I have already related the ancient stories which embody the account of -the marvellous amount of silver which the first bold explorers brought -back. We need not wonder then if in the days of king Solomon, “silver -was nothing accounted of” in Syria and Palestine. We also saw that the -relative value of gold and silver was just as liable to fluctuate in -ancient, as in modern times, according to the supply of either metal, and -when we come to deal with the Greek system we shall find many instances -of this. If we then suppose that gold was to silver as 17:1 in Phoenicia, -the gold shekel of 130 grs. would be worth ten silver pieces of 220 grs. -each. (130 × 17 = 2210; 2210 ÷ 10 = 221). This is in reality far closer -to the actual weight of the coins than the result obtained by the old -hypothesis: 260 × 13·3 = 3466 ÷ 15 = 231 grs. Troy, which is about 10 -grs. higher than the actual coin weights. - -The approximation gained by our conjectural relation of 17:1, is far -closer than that obtained by that of 13·3:1. The conclusion is probable -that silver was far cheaper in Phoenicia and the contiguous coasts than -elsewhere in Asia Minor, and that it was natural that the weight of the -silver unit was increased in order to preserve the relation in value -between one gold unit, and ten silver units. Lastly we may point out -that at no place on the coast of Phoenicia or Asia Minor, the region -especially in contact with the Phoenicians, do we find _gold_ pieces -struck on the heavy shekel. _Electrum_ certainly was coined on this foot; -but of this we shall be able to give a satisfactory explanation. We have -(with the exception of some Lydian pieces) to go as far north as Thasos -or Thrace before we find a gold coin of such a nature, which is of course -nothing more than a double stater. - -The Phoenician gold mina was probably like the Hebrew, which was most -likely borrowed from it, the fifty-fold of the heavy shekel, 100 -gold shekels and 100 silver shekels constituting a maneh, as amongst -the Hebrews in the time of Solomon. But we can conjecture with some -probability that at an earlier stage they weighed their gold and silver -according to the old common ox-unit, which we found in use among the -Hebrews under the name of the Holy Shekel or shekel of the Sanctuary. No -doubt the mina for gold always contained 100 light or 50 heavy shekels, -and when their own peculiar shekel of 220 grs. came into vogue for -silver, 50 such shekels made a mina. Finally, there can be little doubt -that 60 minas invariably went to the talent. - -In the case of commercial weights, it is most probable that 60 heavy -shekels made a mina: this is rendered almost perfectly certain by the -Lion weights with Phoenician as well as cuneiform inscriptions found at -Nineveh, 60 heavy minas forming a heavy talent. - - -THE PHOENICIAN COLONIES. - -It is worth while before going further to enquire whether we can gain any -light from the systems of weight employed by the famous daughter-cities -of Phoenicia, such as Gades and Carthage. A weight bearing in Punic -characters the name of the Agoranomos and the numeral 100 has been -found at Jol (Julia Caesarea) in North Africa, but unfortunately it has -suffered so much by corrosion from water and the loss of its handle that -it is impossible to make any tolerable approximation to its original -weight. Hultsch[344] conjectures with some probability that, making -allowance for its loss, it represents 100 _drachms_, and deduces from -this that the Carthaginians treated the drachm as their _shekel_, but -for this latter hypothesis there seems no sufficient evidence. If this -supposition were true, the weight would represent a half-mina of the -Phoenician _silver_ standard. But there is one thing which this weight -does prove, and that is that, whether it be a mina or half-mina, it is -the drachm or shekel, which was evidently regarded as the unit of the -system, not the mina. Thus once more we get a confirmation of our general -thesis that the mina and talent are the multiples, and that it is the -shekel or stater which is the basis. Nor does the coinage of Carthage -furnish us with all the information that could be desired, for it was -only after 410 B.C. that that great “mart of merchants” began to strike -coins, and even then it was only in her Sicilian possessions that she -did so, no doubt induced to adopt the practice by constant contact with -her Greek enemies: for not only the type (of Persephone) was borrowed -from Syracusan coins, but the very dies were engraved by the hands of -Greek artists. The gold coins are struck on a standard of about 120 grs. -Troy, whilst the silver issue consists of tetradrachms of the so-called -Attic (or more simply light shekel or ox-unit) standard of 130-135 grs. -Since during the same period (405-347 B.C.) Syracuse[345] was issuing -gold pieces on the Attic standard, it is most probable that it is only -through the want of heavier specimens that we are compelled to set the -Siculo-Punic coins issued at Panormus (Palermo) and other places in Italy -so low as 120 grs. It was not until about the time of Timoleon (340 -B.C.) that money was coined at Carthage itself. This coinage consists -wholly of gold, electrum and bronze, down to the time of the acquisition -of the rich silver mines of Spain, and the foundation of New Carthage -in that country by Hasdrubal, the son-in-law of Hamilkar Barca and -brother-in-law of Hannibal, in the interval between the First and Second -Punic wars (241-218 B.C.), when large silver coins both Carthaginian and -Hispano-Carthaginian seem to have been first struck[346]. - -The gold and electrum coins of the first period are of the following -weights: _gold_ 145 and 73 grs.; _electrum_ 118, 58 and 27 grains. The -gold unit is thus some 10 grains higher than the normal value of the -ox-unit. If these coins belonged to an earlier period we might with -some confidence affirm that the variation was due to the plentiful -supply of gold derived by the Carthaginians from the still unexhausted -gold deposits of Western Africa. This is perhaps the true explanation -even at the late period when the coins were issued, but there may have -been a desire to adjust the three metals, gold, electrum and silver, so -that they might be conveniently exchanged. It will be observed that the -electrum coins are struck on a unit of 118 grs., and it is not at all -improbable that silver was reckoned by the same unit, even though not yet -coined; for when the silver coins appear they are struck on a standard -of 118 or 236 grs. It will be at once noticed that this standard is -considerably higher than the Phoenician silver standard found along the -coasts of Asia Minor. It may thus have been found convenient to raise by -a few grains the weight of the gold unit so as to harmonize the relations -between the three metals. Further speculation is vain, as we do not know -the proportion of gold contained in the electrum coins[347]. From what we -shall shortly learn about the electrum of Cyzicus, it is not impossible -that the gold piece of 73 grs. was worth an electrum stater of 118 grs. - -Coming to the Phoenicians of Spain we find that Gades, which did not -begin her coinage until about 250 B.C., employed a standard for her -silver of 78 grains, and that the island of Ebusus (_Iviza_) struck -didrachms of 154 grs., a half-drachm of 39 grs. and a quarter-drachm. -This coincides closely with the 78 grain drachm of Gades. It is palpable -that there is no connection between this standard and the Phoenician -standard of 220 grs. As the same system is found in the cities of -Emporiae and Rhoda (_Ampurias_ and _Rosas_) in the north-east of Spain, -and in the earliest drachms of Massilia (_Marseilles_)[348], it is far -more reasonable to suppose that the relations between gold and silver -throughout Spain were such that, in order to make a certain fixed number -of silver pieces equivalent to the gold ox-unit, it was found necessary -to make the silver didrachm of about 156 grs. and the drachm of 78 grs. - -It would thus seem that the principle which we shall seek to establish -for the Greek silver standards held true of the Phoenician likewise,—that -whilst the gold unit, the basis of all weight, remains unchanged or was -but very slightly modified even at a late period (when the idea of the -original ox-unit must have become dimmed by time), in order to effect a -more complete harmonizing of a threefold system of gold, electrum and -silver, the silver units shew every kind of variety, which can only be -accounted for by supposing that owing to the different relations between -gold and silver in various regions and at various periods in the same -regions, it was found necessary from time to time to increase or diminish -the weight of the silver unit. Thus if gold was to silver as 12:1 in -the 3rd century B.C., we find a ready explanation for the standard of -Gades and Emporiae. The gold unit of 130 grs. would be worth ten silver -units of 156 grs. each (130 × 12 = 1560 ÷ 10 = 156). So too the 118 -gr. standard of Carthage may be explained by supposing that gold was -to silver as 11:1; for then 1 gold unit of 130 grs. = 12 silver of 118 -grs. each (130 × 11 = 1430 ÷ 12 = 119 grs.), duodecimal division perhaps -being preferred to the decimal owing to the relations between electrum -and silver, the former perhaps being as in Lydia[349] counted at 10 times -the value of the latter. If gold was to silver as 12:1, and electrum to -silver as 8:1, electrum being thus nearly two-thirds gold, one gold piece -of 75 grs. = 1 piece of electrum of 118 grains, and 8 pieces of silver -of 116 grs. each (75 × 12 = 900; 116 × 8 = 928), and 1 piece of electrum -of 118 was worth 8 pieces of silver of 116 grs. each. All this is, be -it remembered, purely conjectural, as we know nothing of the actual -relations existing between any pair of the metals. - -However, when we come to deal with the electrum of Cyzicus we shall be -able to produce some data, which will at least show that our suggested -explanation of the relations existing between gold, electrum and silver -at Carthage is not purely chimerical. - -Lastly comes the question of the commercial weight-system. We have -already spoken of the badly preserved weight from Jol, but we could -not say whether it was used for the precious metals, or more ordinary -merchandize. However, the great Phoenician inscription of Marseilles, -already referred to, makes it plain that even in the weighing of meat -they reckoned by the shekel and not by the mina; for we find in it -mention of 300 [shekels] and 150 [shekels] of flesh from the victims. -This completely accords with the 20 shekels of food mentioned by Ezekiel -(iv. 10), and clearly indicates that even in what we may well believe -to be the heavy commercial shekel, the ancient decimal system had not -been superseded by the sexagesimal; and, further, that the mina had -not succeeded in supplanting the more ancient fashion of counting by -shekels; for had such been the case, the weight of the meat would have -been expressed in 6 manehs, or 3 manehs. This piece of evidence confirms -the results which we arrived at in the case of the Hebrews—that it was -only at a later period that reckoning by manehs came into use. The -Phoenician colonies of the West, including Carthage herself, had probably -been planted before the influences of the Chaldaean system had obtained -a solid footing in Palestine. We may however not unreasonably believe -that the Carthaginians employed some such form of talent as we find in -the Book of Exodus, 3000 shekels (50 × 60 = 3000) going to the talent, -though as yet no record has revealed to us the actual existence of either -_talent_ or _mina_. - - - - -CHAPTER XI. - -THE LYDIAN AND PERSIAN SYSTEMS. - - -“The Lydians,” says Herodotus, “were the first of all nations we know -who struck gold and silver coin[350],” a tradition also attested -by Xenophanes of Colophon, according to Julius Pollux[351]. These -statements of the ancient writers are confirmed by an examination of the -earliest essays made in Asia in the art of coining; from which the best -numismatists have been led to ascribe it to the seventh century B.C. -and probably to the reign of Gyges, who from being a shepherd, by means -of the “virtuous ring” became the founder of the great dynasty of the -Mermnadae, and of the new Lydian empire as distinguished from the Lydia -of a more remote antiquity. The first issues of the Lydian mint were -rudely executed coins of electrum, being staters and smaller coins of the -standards usually known as the Babylonian and Phoenician, of which the -earliest staters weigh about 167 and 220 grs. respectively[352]. It is -most likely that the Babylonian standard was intended for commerce with -the interior of Asia Minor, and the Phoenician for transactions with the -cities of the western seaboard, to coincide with the silver standards -in use in these respective regions. The proportion of gold and silver -in electrum is exceedingly variable: according to Pliny[353] any gold -alloyed with one-fifth of silver (and by implication any containing any -higher proportion of silver) was called electrum. We shall soon find that -the electrum staters of Cyzicus contained about an equal amount of either -metal; but the analysis of Lydian electrum gives a proportion of 73 per -cent. of gold to 27 per cent. of silver, or practically 3 to 1. As gold -in the central parts of Asia Minor stood to silver as 13·3:1 in the reign -of Darius and probably long before, we may not unreasonably assume that -such also was the relation between them in the reign of Gyges, at least -in the interior. In this case electrum would stand to silver as 10:1, -a proportion exceedingly convenient for exchange, as a single standard -served for both metals, one electrum ingot of 168 grs. being equal to 10 -silver ingots of like weight. We have already seen that one gold unit -of 130 grs. was equivalent to 10 silver units of 168 grs., therefore -the gold ox-unit was exactly represented in value by the electrum ingot -of 168 grs., for, according to our statement of the composition of the -Lydian electrum, 168 grs. of that alloy would contain 126 grs. of pure -gold. If we were certain that on the coast of Asia Minor the relation -between gold and silver was 13·3:1, we should be compelled to follow -Brandis and the rest in making the double gold shekel of 260 grs. equal -to 15 silver shekels of 220 grs. each; again, if we accept as universal -the relation of gold to electrum as 4:3, and accordingly make one piece -of electrum of 220 grs. equal to 10 silver pieces of the same standard, -we shall find it impossible to obtain any convenient relation between the -gold stater of 130 grs. and the electrum stater of 220 grs. But from this -difficulty it is not hard to find an escape: 224 grs. of electrum = 168 -grs. of gold; that is exactly 1⅓ gold shekels (129 ÷ 3 = 43 × 4 = 172). -The division into thirds and sixths is of course a well-known feature in -the coinage of the Asiatic coast-towns. Thus there would be no practical -difficulty in the ordinary monetary transactions, for three Phoenician -drachms of electrum (= 168 grs.) would = 1 gold shekel; and 4 gold Thirds -(_Tritae_), or 8 gold Sixths (_Hectae_), would equal one electrum stater -of 224-220 grs. - -If on the other hand silver held a lower value in relation to gold on -the coasts of the Aegean, and the electrum employed in that quarter was -alloyed to a greater extent with silver, two disturbing elements are -introduced. The probabilities are in favour of silver being cheaper in -Cilicia and the contiguous region, and most certainly at Cyzicus the -electrum was half silver, whilst the Phocaic electrum had a bad name -in antiquity, since according to Hesychius Phocaic gold was synonymous -with bad gold. Is it then possible that 220 grains of electrum were -equivalent to 130 grs. of pure gold? This gives about 60 per cent. of -gold. If gold was to silver as 13·3:1, the gold unit of 130 grs. is equal -to 8 silver pieces of 220 grs. (130 × 13·3 = 1765 ÷ 8 = 220·6). In our -present state of knowledge it is impossible to decide in favour of either -view, but it is at least evident that some such relation and adjustment -must have existed between the three metals. In fact the problem which -the Lydians tried to solve was not merely that of _Bimetallism_, but of -_Trimetallism_. - -[Illustration: FIG. 28. Lydian electrum coin.] - -These early electrum coins are simply bullet-shaped lumps of metal, like -the so-called _bean_ money formerly employed by the Japanese, having -what is termed the obverse plain or rather striated, as a series of -lines in relief run across the coin, whilst the reverse has three incuse -depressions, that in the centre oblong, the others square. The coin here -figured (from the British Museum specimen) is on the Babylonian silver -standard (166·8 grs.), but it is on the staters of Phoenician standard -that we first find any attempt at types or symbols. The idea of engraving -some symbol on the punches used for stamping the incuse depressions was -in truth the grand step towards the creation of a real coin. Thus a -stater of 219 grs. which bears in the central incuse a running fox, in -the upper square a stag’s head, and the lower an X-like device, may be -regarded as the first complete coin as yet known. It would seem from -this, therefore, that it was on the coast-region, where the Lydians came -into contact with the artistic genius of the Greeks, that the real start -in the art of striking money took place. Electrum was employed because -it was found native in great quantities in the whole district which lay -around Sardis, in the valleys of Tmolus, and the sands of Pactolus. The -ancients found considerable difficulty in freeing the gold from the -associated silver (p. 97). - -Once known, Miletus and other important Ionian cities were not long in -improving on the Lydian invention. The advantages of a metallic currency -were so obvious that an intelligent and progressive race hastened to -avail themselves of it. “Only those,” says Captain Gill (speaking of the -borders of Thibet and China), “who have gone through the weary process of -cutting up and weighing out lumps of silver, disputing over the scale, -and asserting the quality of the metal, can appreciate our feelings of -satisfaction at being once more able to make payments in coin[354].” No -sooner had the Ionians commenced coining than they appear to have adorned -the face of the ingot with a symbol, probably both as a guarantee of -weight and purity, and perhaps as a preventive of fraudulent abrasion. -During this period it is not improbable that the arts of Ionia had made -their influence felt in Lydia, and hence “it is impossible to distinguish -with absolute certainty the Lydian issues from those of the Greek towns, -but there is one type which seems to be especially characteristic of -Lydia as it occurs in a modified form on the coinage attributed to the -Sardian mint and to the reign of Croesus; this is the Lion and the Bull. -These coins have on the obverse the forefronts of a lion and a bull -turned away from one another and joined by their necks[355],” whilst the -reverse shows three incuse depressions. This is Phoenician in weight -(215·4 grs.). There are other coins, often attributed to Miletus, which -may be assigned to Lydia; some with a recumbent lion on the obverse, and -a reverse exhibiting the fox, stag’s head, and X of the coin already -described. To these may be added a series of coins bearing a lion’s head -with open mouth, and with what is commonly regarded as a star above it, -but which is more probably part of the lion’s hair, and on the reverse -incuse sinkings, in some cases containing an ornamental star[356]. These -coins have now with great probability been assigned by the eminent -numismatist, Mr J. P. Six, to the Lydian king, Alyattes, the father of -Croesus. - -When Croesus ascended the throne in 568 B.C., one of his earliest acts -seems to have been an attempt to propitiate the Greeks both of Asia -and Hellas proper by sending offerings of equal value to the two most -famous shrines of Apollo, Delphi and Branchidae. In the course of some -fourteen years he reduced under the sway of Lydia all the regions that -lay between the river Halys and the sea. “It seems probable (says Mr -Head) that the introduction of a double currency of pure gold and silver, -in place of the primitive electrum, may have been due to the commercial -genius of Croesus.” If this be so, the monarch seems to have acted with -thrift in his offerings, for according to Herodotus his dedications at -Delphi were all of _white gold_, _i.e._ electrum. Perhaps then he got no -more than he deserved when, induced by the declaration of the Delphic -prophetess that he would destroy a mighty kingdom, he made war upon Cyrus -with disastrous issue. There however can be no doubt that Croesus made -some important monetary change, for in after years there still remained -a clear tradition of Croesus’ stater (Κροίσειος στατήρ), just as the -famous gold stater of Philip of Macedon was known as the _Philippean_ or -_Philippus_[357]. In his monetary reform Croesus seems to have had regard -to the weights of the two old electrum staters, each of which was now -represented by an equal value, though not of course by an equal weight, -of pure gold. - -[Illustration: FIG. 29. Coin of Croesus.] - -Thus the old Phoenician electrum stater of 220 grs. was replaced by a -pure gold coin of 168 grs., equivalent like its predecessor in electrum -to 10 silver staters of 220 grs. each, and the old Babylonian electrum -stater of 168 grs. was replaced by a new pure gold stater of 126 grs., -equal in value like it to 10 silver staters of 168 grs. each, “as now for -the first time coined.” These gold coins bear as obverse the foreparts of -a lion and a bull facing each other, and on the reverse an oblong incuse -divided into two parts (Fig. 29). Of the Babylonian standard we find: - - Stater 168 grs. - Trite 56 ” - Hecte 28 ” - Hemihecton 14 ” - -And of the light shekel: - - Stater 126 grs. - Trite 42 ” - Hecte 21 ” - Hemihecton 11 ” - -Of Babylonian standard _silver_: - - Stater 168 grs. - ½ stater 84 ” - ⅓ stater 56 ” - ⅟₁₂ stater 14 ” - -This double standard for gold is at first sight somewhat strange until -we observe that the two systems are in complete harmony. For the gold -piece of 168 grs. is nothing more than 1⅓ of the light shekel (168 ÷ ⁴⁄₃ -= 126 grs.). The third of the light shekel (42 grs.) is the fourth of the -Babylonian of 168 grs. There can be no doubt that the coins of 168 grs. -were simply an experiment suggested by the coincidence that the number of -grains (168) in the Babylonian silver shekel was exactly one-quarter more -than those in the _light_ gold shekel, in the hope doubtless of obtaining -a single standard for gold electrum and silver. The division of the -silver stater into thirds would facilitate the process of exchange, as 13 -silver staters and one-third would be equivalent to the gold piece of the -same Babylonian standard, whilst 10 silver staters would be equivalent to -one of the old electrum pieces of 168 grs. It is at all events certain -that the standard of 168 grs. was not a regular gold unit, for it simply -makes its appearance for a brief space, there being no trace of it at any -earlier period, nor does it afterwards appear save in its own legitimate -province of silver. A perfectly analogous case is that of the gold pieces -struck by the Ptolemaic kings, who, starting with the gold stater of -Philip and Alexander and the Phoenician standard for silver (after the -founder of the dynasty had for a short time used the so-called Rhodian -standard), presently struck gold pieces on the same standard as their -silver. But the experiment of Croesus, if such it was, did not succeed. -For the eastern mind was still too much impressed with the necessity of -cleaving fast to the original weight unit obtained from the ancient unit -of barter. For whether the attempt had failed before the reign of Croesus -was brought to a sudden end by the conquests of the great Cyrus, or -whether he continued up to the very hour of the Persian conquest to coin, -at least for one part of his dominions, the gold pieces of the Babylonian -silver standard, it matters little. As we have no evidence on the point, -we cannot say whether there were two gold minae and two gold talents in -use, one being of course the ordinary gold talent (called Euboic) of 3000 -light shekels of 130 grs., the other containing 3000 shekels of 168 grs. -each. The probability I think is that only the former existed. As 50 -of the latter shekels made 1⅓ minae, there was no practical difficulty -in making any calculations; on the other hand, if there had been two -separate minae, and two separate talents, it would have led to great -complications. The fact that we hear nothing about any such second gold -system existing in Asia, and that when Darius fixed the tribute from -each region he did not make it the basis of his payment, which he would -probably have done as he would thus have made a considerable gain, by -causing the payments in gold as well as those in silver to be made on the -Babylonian standard, seems to put beyond all doubt that the 168 grain -gold piece was not a real unit, but was simply regarded as 1⅓ shekels, -and was nothing more than a temporary effort to simplify the trimetallic -monetary system of Lydia. - -What system the Lydians employed for commercial purposes we have no means -of knowing, but we may conjecture plausibly that the light royal mina of -60 shekels was the standard employed. - - -THE PERSIAN STANDARD. - -We may adopt the generally received belief that the Persians, like the -Medes and Babylonians, did not coin money (although they were probably -acquainted with the Lydian stater) until after the conquest of Asia Minor -and Egypt by Cyrus and Cambyses, and the reorganization of the empire -by Darius the son of Hystaspes (522-485 B.C.). For although the learned -_savants_ MM. Oppert and Révillout[358] hold that Daric (Δαρεικός) is -unconnected with the name Darius (Δαρεῖος), an opinion supported by Dr -Hoffmann[359], and rather regard it as derived from the Assyrian _darag -mana_, “degree (i.e. ⅟₆₀) of a mina,” and although Mr G. Bertin has read -the word _dariku_ on a Babylonian contract, dated in the twelfth year -of Nabonidas, five years before the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus[360], -it does not at all follow that either _darag_ or _dariku_ refers to a -_coin_. That the unit was employed for gold ages before the Persians -ever descended from the mountains there can be little doubt. But whether -we adopt or reject the Greek tradition that the Daric (Δαρεικός) was -named from Darius, as the Philippean and Croesean staters were called -after the sovereigns who first struck them, it is perfectly certain -that Darius organized the whole numbering system of the great empire -to which he had succeeded, and that he coined gold pieces of the first -quality: for Herodotus tells us that Darius, having refined gold to -the greatest extent possible, had coin struck[361]. This would be very -analogous to the course pursued by Croesus and Philip; gold in some form -was current in the dominions of both these princes before their reigns, -but it was owing to certain reforms introduced and to the issue of a -gold coin of a certain pattern, that the names of both became associated -with particular kinds of gold coins. By the time of Xerxes the son of -Darius vast quantities of these Darics were circulating through Asia -Minor, for Herodotus relates that the Lydian Pythius had in his own -possession as many as 3,993,000 of them, a sum afterwards increased by -Xerxes to 4,000,000. They became the gold currency of all the Greek -towns not only of Asia Minor, but also of the islands, and made their -way in considerable quantities into the great cities of the mainland of -Hellas, and wrought as much harm in disuniting the various states of -Greece as did the gold staters of Philip at a period a little later. -Darics formed a regular part of the wealth of a well-to-do Athenian at -the time of the Peloponnesian war. Thus Lysias[362] relates that when his -house was entered and plundered by the minions of the Thirty, his money -chest contained 100 Darics, 400 Cyzicenes, and 3 talents of silver. It is -only necessary to enumerate some of the passages in the Greek authors, -where mention is made of their coins, to show how wide an influence they -exercised in the eastern Mediterranean. Besides Herodotus and Lysias -already mentioned, Thucydides, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Demosthenes, -Arrian, Diodorus and many others all make mention of these famous -coins[363]. No classification of them according to the reigns of the -monarchs by whom they were issued is possible, for this is precluded by -the absence of all inscriptions, and the great uniformity of style. They -bear on the obverse the king of Persia bearded crowned and clad in a long -robe; he kneels towards the right on one knee; on his back is a quiver, -in his right hand is a long spear, and in his outstretched left a bow -(from which came the familiar Greek name of Archers for these pieces). -The reverse is simply marked by an oblong incuse. - -Their weight may be set at 130 grs., which of course is the light shekel -or ox-unit. We have no difficulty in fixing the gold mina or talent. In -fact we have already seen on p. 260 that the Persian talent of gold was -the same as the Euboic-Attic talent. Hence - - 1 Daric = 130 grs. - 50 Darics = 1 mina = 6,500 grs. - 3000 Darics = 60 minas = 1 talent = 390,000 grs. - -For silver currency the Persians employed half of the Babylonian silver -stater of 168 grs., its usual weight being about 84 grs. This coin was -in every way similar to the Daric and in fact is sometimes called by the -same name by writers of a later age[364], but the more usual appellation -in the classical writers was the _Median_ siglos (Μηδικός σίγλος) or -simply _siglos_. Twenty of these sigli were equivalent to one gold -Daric, for Xenophon appears to count 3000 Darics as equal to 10 talents -of silver, or in other words to 60,000 sigli (6000 × 10 = 60,000). The -siglos may therefore be regarded as the Persian drachm or half-stater. As -130 grains of gold are thus made equal to 1680 grs. of silver (84 × 20), -gold held to silver the old ratio of 13:1. - -The Persian silver standard was formed thus: - - 1 siglos = 84 grs. - 100 sigli = 50 staters = 1 mina = 8400 grs. - 6000 sigli = 3000 staters = 60 minae = 1 talent = 504,000 grs. - -As regards commercial weight we may fairly assume that the old light and -heavy _royal_ systems continued in use in the respective regions where -they had been employed in early days. - - - - -CHAPTER XII. - -THE GREEK SYSTEM. - - -We are now come to the most important portion of our task, the -development of the Greek and Italic systems. In the Homeric Poems we -found the Talanton (or value of a cow in gold) the sole unit of weight, -and that only employed for gold. This Talanton has been shown to be the -same in weight as the light gold shekel of Asia Minor, which, under the -form of coin, we have just been discussing as the Croesean stater and -Persian Daric. It was therefore nothing else than the Euboic or Attic -stater of historical times, which at all periods and at all places that -fall within our knowledge formed the sole unit for the weighing of gold. - -Besides the Talanton based on the ox, there was in all probability -another higher unit in occasional use in Greece Proper. This was the -threefold of the ox-unit. We have already had occasion to notice the -small gold talent, called by some writers the Macedonian, which was equal -to three Attic staters. The same weight under the name of the Sicilian -talent was employed likewise for gold only in the Greek colonies of -Sicily and Southern Italy. The conservatism of colonists is too well -known to need illustration, and we may with high probability infer that -the Greek settlers in Magna Graecia brought the small talent from their -original homes. What was the origin of this weight? We have seen that -everywhere all over our area the slave is the occasional higher unit. -Thus the Irish slave (_cumhal_) was a unit of account equal to three -cows. The slave in the Welsh Laws is equal to 4 cows, whilst in Homer we -found a slave woman valued at 4 cows also. From the way in which this -notice of her price occurs, it is probable that Achilles did not give a -woman of the most ordinary kind as a prize, for had she been the ordinary -slave-woman of account, there would have been no need to mention the -price, as any one would have known how many cows exactly she was worth. -It is then not improbable that three cows were commonly reckoned as the -value of a slave, and accordingly the small gold talent, which is the -multiple of the ox-unit, is simply the metallic representative of the -slave, just as the Homeric Talanton itself is that of the cow. - -What the exact weight of this unit was on Greek soil we are now enabled -to ascertain by the aid of the treatise on the Constitution of the -Athenians known to the ancients as the work of Aristotle, and the -brilliant discovery and identification of which by the officials of the -British Museum reflects much credit on British scholarship. - -We had previously known from Plutarch (who ascribed the first coinage -of Athens to Theseus[365]) that amongst his other reforms Solon caused -drachms to be coined of lighter weight than those previously in currency, -so that 100 of the new ones would be equal in value to 73 old ones. Some -scholars have inferred that this was an expedient for relieving debtors, -who would be allowed to pay in the new coin debts contracted in the older -currency. The newly discovered Constitution dispels this assumption, and -also affords us some most valuable additional matter[366]: “In his Laws -then he appears to have made these enactments in favour of the people, -but before his legislation he appears to have wrought the cancelling of -debts, and afterwards the augmentation of the measures and weights, and -the augmentation of the currency. For in his day the measures likewise -were made larger than those of Pheidon, and the mina, which previously -had almost seventy drachms, was filled up by a hundred drachms[367]. -But the ancient type was the didrachm[368], and he also made as a -standard[369] for his coinage 63 minas weighing the talent, and the minae -were apportioned out by the stater, and the other weights.” - -[Illustration: FIG. 30. Coin of Eretria.] - -The first point to engage our attention is the formation of a new -standard for the _silver_ coin (for no gold was coined for nearly two -centuries): sixty-three old minas were taken to form a new talent, which -of course was divided henceforward into 60 new minas. As the weight of -the Attic talent in post-Solonian times is most accurately known, we can -at once discover the weight of the ancient mina by dividing the ordinary -weight of the talent (405,000 grs.) by 63: 405,000 ÷ 63 = 6428 grs., that -is 322 grs. less than the post-Solonian mina of 6750 grs. As there are 50 -staters in the mina, the ancient stater weighed 128·56 grs., or just a -grain lighter than the Daric (129·6 grs.). The old mina of 6428 grs. had -been equal to 70 drachms; each of these then must have weighed 92 grs. -nearly, that is, the ordinary weight of an Aeginetic drachm. There can be -no doubt that the coins of Aegina were used as currency at Athens before -Solon’s time, where they circulated side by side in all probability -with the coins of Euboea which bore the bull’s head, whence arose the -tradition of the earliest coinage of Athens consisting of didrachms -stamped with an ox. The old mina (63 of which went to the new _silver_ -talent) was of course the ancient standard used for weighing _gold_ and -_silver_ before coined money was employed. It was that known as the -Euboic, based on the ox-unit. The Aeginetic standard was only used for -_silver_, _gold_ at all times being weighed by the Euboic standard even -where the Aeginetic was in use for silver. This standard was of course -in full use for gold and evidently likewise for silver in prae-Solonian -times, even though the Aeginetic drachms passed as currency at Athens. -For if they had adopted the Aeginetic _standard_, 100 Aeginetic drachms -would have been reckoned to the mina, but as only 70 drachms went to -the mina it is evident that the old ox-unit (so-called Euboic) standard -of unit 130 grs. with its corresponding mina was always the national -Athenian standard. - -We showed at an earlier stage that in the age when the art of coining was -first introduced into Greece by Pheidon of Argos, it was probable that -gold stood to silver in the proportion of 15:1. For convenience, then, -in Peloponnesus and in Central Greece a system was adopted by which 10 -pieces of silver were equivalent to one piece or ingot of gold. This -system, known as the Aeginetic, was thus obtained. - -Gold being to silver as 15:1, - - 1 gold ingot (Talanton) of 130 grs. × 15 = 1950 grs. of silver, - 1950 grs. ÷ 10 = 195 grs. - - Therefore 1 gold Talanton of 130 grs. = 10 pieces of silver of - 195 grs. each. - -It is possible that this method of making 10 silver pieces equal to one -gold unit was developed at the time of the introduction of coined money, -but it is more likely that it may have been in use even before that time. - -Now it is worth observing that all through the classical period of Greek -history the term stater is generally confined in use to gold pieces. Thus -silver coins, unless they weighed 135 grs., are not described as silver -_staters_, but are regularly termed didrachms. So general evidently was -this practice that the adjective _chrysous_ (χρυσοῦς) was regularly -employed to express the gold unit, the masculine gender showing that -the noun understood is _stater_ (στατήρ). Thus Pollux says: “Some were -termed staters of Darius, some Philippeans, other Alexandrians, all -being of gold, and if you say _gold piece_, _stater_ is understood: but if -you should say _stater_, _gold_ is not absolutely to be understood[370].” -From the fact that Pollux draws attention to the exceptional use of -_stater_ to express a silver coin, on the principle that _exceptio -probat regulam_, it is evident that stater regularly represents a gold -piece of two Attic drachms. The familiar practice in Attic Greek, when -speaking of a considerable sum of silver without employing either the -term mina or talent, is to say 1000 drachms, 2000 drachms and the -like, but not 1000 staters or 2000 staters, etc., whilst on the other -hand, under like conditions, the practice is to enumerate gold not by -drachms, but by _staters_. Thus in a fragment from the _Demi_ of Eupolis -quoted by Pollux[371] a man is described as possessing 3000 _staters_ -of gold. We certainly hear of an Aeginean stater and a Corinthian[372] -stater (both of silver), but both are found in writers of comparatively -late date, when usage was getting less exact, and besides, as the -Aeginetic system had a separate individuality of its own, its unit being -perfectly different from the Euboic Attic, might with justice be termed -a stater. We are thus justified in considering the gold stater the -legitimate descendant of the Homeric Talanton, the stater or _weigher_ -representing the Talanton or _weight_ of the older time. As long as no -other unit than the ox-unit or Talanton was employed, the Talanton or -weight _par excellence_ was sufficient to describe it, but when under -Asiatic influences the higher unit of the _mina_ (μνᾶ) and _talent_ were -introduced, a term was substituted which indicates clearly that the gold -unit of 130 grs. was _the weigher_ or basis of the whole system. Starting -then with our ox-unit, we find already in Homer definite traces of a -decimal, but nothing to indicate the existence of a sexagesimal system. -_Ten_ talents of gold are mentioned in several passages. - -Starting then with the ox-unit of 130 grs. we can thus arrive at the -fully elaborated Greek systems. The term mina (μνᾶ) is beyond doubt -a borrowing from the East. How far it was ever much employed in the -reckoning of gold it is hard to say, but it is at least remarkable that, -when we hear so frequently of _minae_ of silver in the Attic writers, -no instance of a mina of gold is quoted in our books of reference. From -this one is led to infer that it was for the purpose of measuring the -less precious metal, silver, that the term _mina_ was brought into use -in Greece. In fact, as stater is essentially a term which clings to -gold, so _mina_ is especially a term used of silver. With the mina the -Greeks borrowed likewise the highest Asiatic unit (the _kikkar_ of the -Hebrews), which became the Talanton or talent of historical Greece. -But it is remarkable that the Greeks did not borrow its Asiatic name -along with the unit itself. They simply gave it their own name _weight_ -(literally, ‘_that which can be lifted_,’ cp. τλάω, _tollo_, etc.). This -fact can be explained readily if we suppose that the Greeks, like all -those other primitive peoples whom we have mentioned, had a rough and -ready unit for estimating bulky wares, the standard of _the load_, or -as much as a man could conveniently carry on his back. Having already -such a unit they would have no difficulty in adopting the _load_ or -talent, which had been fixed according to the Sexagesimal system, and -which had permeated all Western Asia. In fact their position towards -the Asiatic _load_, which had been accurately fixed by the mathematical -skill of the Babylonians, would be exactly analagous to that of the -Malays of Java and Sumatra towards the accurately adjusted Chinese -_picul_. Because the Malays themselves were accustomed to use _loads_ of -various weights as their rough highest unit of bulk, they have with all -the more readiness received the form of the same unit, which the clever -Chinese have incorporated into their commercial weight system by making -it equal to 100 _chings_ (catties, or pounds). But it is doubtful if at -any time in Greece Proper the talent of gold was ever considered as a -monetary unit. We have found Eupolis speaking of “3000 staters of gold” -instead of simply saying a talent of gold, and when we do find mention -made of talents of gold, as in a famous passage of Thucydides, where -he describes the amount of gold employed by Pheidias in the making of -the world-renowned chryselephantine statue of Athena for the Parthenon, -whilst the computations in silver are expressed simply by talents, the -gold is enumerated as talents _in weight_. We may assume that gold was -weighed throughout Greece in historical times on the following system: - - 1 stater = 130 grs. - 50 staters = 1 mina = 6500 grs. - 3000 ” = 60 minae = 1 talent = 390,000 grs. - -When silver came into use it was probably weighed all through Hellas, as -in Asia and Egypt, on the same standard as gold. This continued always -to be the practice amongst the great trading communities of Euboea, -Chalcis and Eretria, and their colonies, and also with Corinth and her -daughter states. Hence the system was commonly known as the Euboic, -sometimes as the Corinthian, and in later times, for a reason to be -presently given, the _Attic_. But in this silver system it is no longer -the stater which represents the smaller unit, but rather the _drachm_ -(δραχμή). Furthermore we find in most constant use a subdivision of the -_drachm_ called the _obol_ (ὀβολός _nail_ or _spike_), six of which made -a drachm. There can be no doubt that this silver obolos represented the -value in silver of the ancient copper unit from which it took its name, -which itself was not estimated by weight but probably, as we saw above, -was simply appraised by measure, as is done by all primitive peoples in -the estimation of copper and iron, nay even in the very earliest stage of -gold itself (p. 43). As six of these _nails_ or _obols_ made a handful -(δραχμή) in the ancient copper system, so when each of them was equated -to a certain amount of silver, the equivalence in silver was called an -_obol_, and the six silver _obols_ obtained the old name of _handful_ -or _drachm_. In the ordinary Greek system of reckoning silver it is 100 -drachms, not 50 staters, of silver which form the mina. But of course at -the earlier stages of the use of silver we may with some boldness assume -that silver was simply weighed by the stater (or Homeric Talanton). - -It is important then to note that among the smaller weight denominations -silver has virtually no term peculiarly its own: for we have seen that -_stater_ belongs essentially to gold, whilst _drachm_ and _obol_ have -originated in the use of copper. This is in complete harmony with what we -know of the history of the metals themselves, gold and copper being known -and employed long before men had learned to utilize silver; and so too, -we find the late-introduced term _mina_ in especially close connection -with the latest employed of the three metals. This Euboic-Attic _silver_ -system may be stated as follows: - - 6 obols = 1 drachm - 100 drachms = 1 mina - 60 minae = 1 talent. - -The Corinthians, whilst making the _obol_ of the same weight as the -Euboic, made a different division of the silver stater; for as Corinth -occupied the very portals of Peloponnesus where the Aeginetic system was -universal, she found it convenient for purposes of exchange to divide -her silver stater of 135 grs. into _three_ drachms of 45 grs. each, one -of which was for practical purposes identical with the Aeginetan _half -drachm_. Thus two Corinthian drachms of 45 grs. each were equal to one -Aeginetan drachm of 90 grs. - - -_The Aeginetan Standard._ - -The desire to obtain 10 silver pieces equivalent in value to the gold -ox-unit induced the Aeginetans, who were famous merchantmen, to make a -silver system distinct from that of gold. Gold being to silver as 15:1, - - 130 × 15 = 1950 grs. of silver. - 1950 ÷ 10 = 195 grs. - -With the Aeginetans as with the Euboeans in their silver system, the -ancient copper units of the _nail_ and _handful_ played an important -part. The story of Pheidon[373] having hung up in the temple of Hera at -Argos the ancient currency of nails of copper and iron as soon as he -struck his first issue of silver coins, if not absolutely true in all -details, at least contains a most probable statement of what did actually -take place when a real silver currency was first introduced. We have seen -how the Chinese, starting with a barter currency of real hoes and knives, -the objects of most general demand, gradually replaced those larger and -more cumbrous articles by hoes and knives of a more diminutive size, -until finally they became a real currency when they had been so reduced -in size as to be utterly unfit for practical use. We saw likewise how -that at the present moment the real hoe is the lowest unit of barter -among the wild tribes of Annam, and that small bars of iron of given -size are used in Laos, and that plates of metal ready to be made into -hoes, and hoes themselves, are employed by the negroes of Central Africa, -whilst on the west coast axes of a size too diminutive for actual use are -employed as a real currency. As the day came when the Chinese finally -replaced the archaic knife by the full developed copper coin called the -cash, so the Aeginetans and Argives of the days of Pheidon superseded by -a real coin ancient monetary-units consisting either of real implements -of iron and copper, or bars of those metals of certain definite -dimensions, or possibly mere Lilliputian representatives of such, which -had previously served them as a true currency. On the whole however -it is safest to assume from the names _nail_ (_Obol_) and _Handful_ -(drachme) that the form in which copper or iron served as currency in -Peloponnesus and the mainland of Hellas in general was that of rods of -a certain length and thickness. We have cited already many analogous -forms from modern Asia and Africa, and from the ancient Kelts, to which -we shall presently add the ancient Italians. But just as we found that -in the Soudan, whilst the slave and ox were universally the higher units -of value, each particular district had its own distinctive lower unit -according to the nature of its products and requirements, so it is most -likely that there were many different units of value (but all alike -sub-multiples of the cow) in use among the various Greek communities. It -is also probable that they must have exercised a certain effect in the -formation of the units of silver currency. Nor is evidence wanting for -this. I have already maintained (p. 5) that the fact of the occurrence -of the type of the cow, or cow’s head, on early Greek coins is evidence -that the original monetary unit was the ox. Thus we find the forepart of -an ox on the early electrum staters of Samos of the Phoenician standard -(217 grs.), which was probably equivalent to a pure gold ox-unit of -130 grs. The bull’s head also appears on the electrum coins of Eretria -and of other places in Euboea. But it is with the silver currency that -we are now especially concerned. Whilst it was extremely likely that -silver coins might in process of time bear the impress of an ox, the -general unit of currency, it was still more natural that, as pieces of -silver supplanted as units not the ox but its sub-multiples, that is -the particular series of articles of barter in use in any particular -district, so these silver coins should bear some traces in their types -of the ancient units thus supplanted. That eminent scholar Colonel -Leake many years ago remarked that the types of Greek coins generally -related “to the local mythology and fortunes of the place, with _symbols -referring to the principal productions_ or to the protecting numina.” - -[Illustration: FIG. 31. Coin of Cyrene with Silphium plant.] - -Modern scholars have more and more lost sight of the doctrine contained -in the words which I have italicized, and directed all their efforts to -giving a religious signification to everything[374]. The forepart of the -Lion and the Bull on the coins of Lydia become symbols of the Sun and -Moon, the Tortoise on the didrachm of Aegina is regarded as a symbol of -Aphrodite, the Ashtaroth of the Phoenicians, in her capacity of patron -divinity of traders; even the silphium plant of Cyrene, which yielded a -salubrious but somewhat unpleasant medicine, is regarded not as holding -its place on the coins of Cyrene and its sister towns because it formed -the chief staple of trade, but because forsooth it may have been the -symbol of Aristaeus, “the protector of the corn-field and the vine and -all growing crops, and bees and flocks and shepherds, and the averter -of the scorching blasts of the Sahara.” There is probably just as much -evidence for this as there is for believing that the beaver on some -Canadian coins and stamps is symbolical of St Lawrence, after whom the -great Canadian river is named, the warm skin of the beaver indicating -that the saint of the red-hot gridiron is the averter of the cruel and -biting blasts that sweep down from the icy North. I do not for a moment -mean that mythological and religious subjects do not play their proper -part in Greek coin types. But it is just as wrong to reduce all coin -types to this category as it would be to regard them all as merely -symbolic of the natural and manufactured products of the various states. -If however we can show that certain coins, even in historical times, -were regarded as the representations of the objects of barter of more -primitive times, we shall have established a firm basis from which to -make further advances. - -In those now famous Cretan inscriptions found at Gortyn[375] certain -sums are counted by kettles (_lebetes_, λέβητες) and pots (_tripods_, -τρίποδες). Some have thought that these are the same objects which are -called staters in later forms of the same documents. But recently M. -Svoronos[376] has advanced a very plausible hypothesis that the _lebetes_ -and _tripods_ of the inscriptions really refer not to an actual currency -in the kettles and pots of the old Homeric times, but to certain Cretan -coins which are countermarked with a stamp, which he recognizes in many -examples as a _lebes_, and in at least one case as a _tripod_. Whether -the first hypothesis, that actual kettles and pots were indicated in -the earlier inscriptions and that they had been replaced afterwards by -coins, or the hypothesis of M. Svoronos, be true, is immaterial for us. -In either case there is evidence of a direct and unbroken succession -which connects the silver currency of Crete with an earlier currency of -manufactured articles. The very fact that a lebes or a tripod stamped -upon a coin gave it currency, not merely in the town of issue but among -neighbouring states, indicates that in a previous age the common unit of -currency corresponding in value to the coin so marked was an actual lebes -or tripod. Such is the evidence preserved for us in this remote corner of -Hellas where life moved slowly, and where the archaic style of writing -known as _boustrophedon_ (the lines going from right to left and left -to right alternately, as the plough turns up and down the field) still -lingered on long after it had disappeared from every spot on the mainland -of Greece. If then amongst the symbols which appear on the earliest -coins of Greek communities, which began very early to strike money, we -can find some which have not been identified as religious, and which we -can show represent objects which actually did or may well have formed a -monetary unit in such places, we shall have advanced a step further; and -if we succeed in making good this fresh position, we may in turn find a -nonreligious explanation for certain types, which at present are regarded -as mythological symbols. - -The types with which we shall deal must be those found on the most -archaic coins, and which therefore date from a time when barter was just -being replaced by a monetary currency. Thus in the case of cities like -Athens and Corinth, which began to coin at a comparatively late period -and which had been long accustomed to use the issues of other states -before they struck money of their own, we should hardly expect to find -any trace of the old local barter-unit in their coin types, as such a -unit had long since been replaced by the foreign coins. - -[Illustration: FIG. 32. Coin of Cyzicus with tunny fish.] - -Let us first turn to the well-known type of the tunny fish (πηλαμύς, -θύννος), vast shoals of which were continually passing through the sea -of Marmora (Propontis) from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean[377]. -This type appears invariably upon the electrum coins of Cyzicus, and -a tunny’s head is found upon some very archaic silver coins from the -Santorin ‘find’ which Mr Head places at the top of the whole Cyzicene -series, but no one has, as far as I am aware, yet hitherto attempted to -mythologize it[378], although the fecundity of this fish would make it -just as suitable an emblem for Aphrodite as the “lascivious turtle,” and -the traders of Cyzicus might quite as well wear the badge of the goddess -of the sea as the merchants of Aegina, for there is just as much or just -as little evidence for Phoenician influences at Cyzicus as there is at -Aegina. From what we have learned in an earlier chapter we know that the -articles which form the staple commodities of a community in the age of -barter virtually form its money. In a city like Cyzicus whose citizens -depended for their wealth on their fisheries and trade, rather than on -flocks or herds and agriculture, the tunny fish singly or in certain -defined numbers, as by the score or hundred and the like, would naturally -form a chief monetary unit, just as we found the stock fish employed in -mediaeval Iceland. Are we not then justified in considering the tunny -fish, which forms the invariable adjunct of the coins of Cyzicus, as an -indication that these coins superseded a primitive system in which the -tunny formed a monetary unit, just as the Kettle and Pot counter-marks -on the coins of Crete point back to the days when real kettles formed -the chief medium of exchange? But far stronger evidence is at hand to -show that the tunny fish was used as a monetary unit in some parts of -Hellas. We have had occasion to refer to the city of Olbia which lay on -the north shore of the Black Sea. It was a Milesian colony, and was the -chief Greek emporium in this region. There are bronze coins of this city -made in the shape of fishes, and inscribed ΘΥ, which has been identified -as the abbreviation θύννος, _tunny_. Others are inscribed ΑΡΙΧΟ, which -Koehler read as τάριχος, salt fish, but which the distinguished German -numismatist Von Sallet[379] regards as meaning a basket (ἄρριχος). He -holds those marked ΘΥ as the legal price of a tunny fish, those marked -ΑΡΙΧΟ as that of a basket of fish[380]. When we recall the Chinese -bronze cowries, the Burmese silver shells, the silver fish-hooks of the -Indian Ocean, the little hoes and knives of China, and the miniature -axes from Africa, we are constrained to believe that in those coins of -Olbia, shaped like a fish, we have a distinct proof of the influence on -the Greek mind of the same principle which has impelled other peoples -to imitate in metal the older object of barter which a metal currency -is replacing. The inhabitants of Olbia were largely intermixed with the -surrounding barbarians, and may therefore have felt some difficulty in -replacing their barter unit by a round piece of metal bearing merely -the imprint of a fish, while the pure-blooded Greek of Cyzicus had no -hesitation in mentally bridging the gulf between a real fish and a piece -of metal merely stamped with a fish, and did not require the intermediate -step of first shaping his metal unit into the form of a tunny. We shall -find that this tendency to shape metal into the form of the object which -it supplants may perhaps be traced in the coins of Aegina and Boeotia. - -[Illustration: FIG. 33. Coins of Olbia in the form of tunny fish.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 34. Coin of Tenedos with double-headed axe.] - -In the same quarter of Hellas we find another instance of a coin type -which may be regarded as evidence that the silver coin which bears it -was the representative of an older barter unit. The island of Tenedos, -lying off the Troad, struck at a very early date silver coins bearing for -device a double-headed axe (the Latin _bipennis_). This “Axe of Tenedos” -(Τενέδιος πέλεκυς) was explained by Aristotle[381] as a reference to a -decree of a king of Tenedos which enacted that all who were convicted -of adultery should be put to death. This explanation is probably a -bit of mere aetiology to explain the existence of an emblem, the true -origin of which had been forgotten. However, it yields one important -result, for it shows that the emblem was not religious. Had that been -its nature, priestly conservatism would have kept an unbroken tradition -of its origin. But from another source some light may be obtained: -Pausanias[382] in the 2nd century A.D. saw at Delphi axes dedicated -according to tradition by Periclytus of Tenedos, and then proceeds to -relate the following tale: Tennes, an old King of Tenedos about the time -of the Trojan War, cut with an axe the ropes with which his father Cycnus -had moored his ship to the shore, when he came to ask pardon of Tennes -for having cast him and his sister in a chest into the sea, in a fit -of anger caused by the false accusation of a stepmother. We may gather -that according to this form of the legend the Janiform head, male and -female, on the obverse of the coins of Tenedos alludes to the brother and -sister. But Pausanias makes no attempt to connect Periclytus in any way -with Tennes except as being a native of Tenedos. This is hardly enough -to account for the dedication of the axes at Delphi. Two explanations -suggest themselves. It was the custom of kings or communities to send -offerings to Delphi of the best products of their land. Thus Croesus sent -vast quantities of his Lydian electrum, and, still more to the point, -the people of Metapontum in South Italy, whose land was famous for its -wheat, after an especially favourable harvest sent to Delphi a wheat-ear -(υέρος) of gold. Were the double axes in like fashion an especial product -of Tenedos? Or was this dedication analogous to that of Pheidon when he -hung up in the temple of the Argive Here the ancient nails and bars? The -first explanation is the more probable, for there was no reason why the -Tenedians should not have dedicated their cast off currency of axes in -some temple at home. I have already mentioned the hoe currency of ancient -China, and the axes used as such in Africa. I shall now show that such -double-axes as those stamped on the coins of Tenedos formed part of the -earliest Greek system of currency. I have already enumerated the various -articles used in barter in the Homeric poems. The prizes offered in the -Funeral games of Patroclus are of course merely the usual objects of -barter and currency, slavewomen, oxen, lebetes, tripods, talents of gold -and the like. “But he (Achilles) set for the archers dark iron, and he -set down ten axes (πελέκεας), and ten half-axes (ἡμιπέλεκκα)[383].” The -axe is undoubtedly of the same kind as that on the coins of Tenedos, -the name (_pelekys_) being the same in each case, and the Homeric one -beyond doubt is double-headed like the Tenedian, since the half-axe -(_hemi-pelekkon_) must obviously mean a single-headed axe[384]. The -double-axes formed the first prize, the ten half-axes the second, for -“Meriones took up all the ten axes, and Teucer bore the ten half-axes -to the hollow ships[385].” These axes and half-axes then seem to go in -groups of ten as units of value, the half-axes representing half the -value of the double-headed. If then the kettle and tripod of Homeric -times are found as symbols on the coins of Crete, why may not the axe on -those of Tenedos represent the local unit of an earlier epoch? and that -such axes were evidently an important article in Tenedos is proved by the -dedication at Delphi. - -[Illustration: FIG. 35. Coin of Phanes (earliest known inscribed coin).] - -[Illustration: FIG. 36. Archaic coin of Samos.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 37. Coin of Cnidus.] - -But could we only find a contemporary description of the type on one of -the earliest coins of Asia Minor, the cradle of the art of coining, we -might get our ideas on the nature of the coin types greatly cleared. -Fortunately such an opportunity is afforded to us by an unique coin in -the British Museum, the oldest as yet known which bears an inscription. -It is an oblong electrum coin (Fig. 35), the reverse having the usual -incuse, but on its obverse it bears a stag feeding, and over it runs -(retrograde) in archaic letters I AM THE MARK OF PHANES (Φανος εμι σεμα -= Φάνους εἰμὶ σῆμα). There can be no doubt that the _mark_ of Phanes -is the stag. If there was no inscription it would have been at once -asserted that the stag was the symbol of the goddess Artemis, and who -could deny it? But as it stands it is plain that the stag is nothing -more than the particular badge adopted by the potentate Phanes, when and -where he may have reigned, as a guarantee of the weight of the coin and -perhaps the purity of the metal. The Daric itself needs no inscription -to tell us that its type is not religious. The figure of the Great -King with his spear and bow and quiver can hardly be allegorized even -by an Origen[386]. Emboldened by these instances we may even hold up -our hands against the host of Heaven, and raise doubts as to whether -the foreparts of the lion and bull upon the coins of Lydia represent -the Sun-god and the Moon-goddess. May not the lion simply be the royal -emblem? I have already suggested this explanation for the lion weights of -Assyria. Undoubtedly from the earliest times the king of beasts (as in -_Aesop’s Fables_) was regarded in the East as the true badge of royalty. -“The Lion of the tribe of Judah” is familiar to us all, and it is more -rational to regard the lions which guarded the steps of Solomon’s throne -as emblems of kingship rather than as symbols of the Sun. Is then the -Lion on the coins of Lydia nothing more than the kings badge, just as -the stag is the badge of Phanes? But what about the bull or cow? Shall -I go too far if I regard it as indicating that the coin is the ox-unit? -When the Greeks borrowed the art of coining from Lydia it is easy to -understand that they would likewise borrow the type either in a complete -or modified form, and hence it is that we find the lion or lion’s head -on the coins of Miletus[387], the lion’s scalp on those of Samos (on -which the cow’s head also is found), the lion’s head on the coins of -Cnidus, of Gortyn in Crete, at Rhodes, at Miletus, and at the Phocaean -towns of Velia in Lucania, and Massalia in Gaul, and put by the Samian -exiles on their coins at Zancle. If the Greeks had been barbarians they -would have slavishly copied the lion coins of Lydia, just as the Gauls -copied the lion of Massalia, and at a later time the stater of Philip, -and as the Himyarites of South Arabia, the “owls” of Athens[388], and -as in mediaeval times the Danes of Dublin copied the coins of the Saxon -kings[389]. But the artistic genius of the Greeks could submit to no such -trammels, and the lion type was varied and diversified according to the -fancy of each community. The same holds good of the type of the cow and -cow’s head. The Greek genius gave us these beautiful types such as the -cow suckling her calf (Dyrrachium), the cow with the bird on her back -(Eretria), the cow scratching herself (Eretria), the two calves’ heads -seen on the coins of Mytilene, and the magnificent charging bull on the -coins of Thurii. The cow or bull’s head on the early gold and electrum -coins was the indication of the value. In later times when the connection -between ox and coin was only traditional, the ox was put on coins simply -as symbolical of money. - -[Illustration: FIG. 38. Coin of Thurii.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 39. Coin of Rhoda in Spain.] - -Again Phocaea, one of the very earliest Greek towns to issue coins, -employed a symbol which cannot be termed religious. Her coins bear a -seal (_phoca_) a _type parlant_ referring to the name of the town. Many -examples of the same kind can be quoted, the rose (ῥόδον) on the coins of -Rhodes (Ῥόδος) and also on those of Rhoda in Spain, the bee (_melitta_) -on those of Melitaea, perhaps even the owl (χαλκίς) on coins ascribed to -Chalcis in Euboea. These considerations will serve to show that we may -expect many things on coins besides religious symbols. Thasos was famous -for its wine, and accordingly the wine-cup is a regular adjunct of its -coins, either standing alone, or held in the hands of old Silenus, who -quaffs therefrom a “draught of vintage that hath been cooled a long age -in the deep-delved earth.” All who have read Horace remember the fame of -the wines of Chios, and accordingly the wine-jar is a regular adjunct of -the mintage of that island. Now there is proof that the trade in wine -was of extreme antiquity, if not in the islands just mentioned, at least -in Lemnos, and that that trade was carried on by barter, for we read in -Homer how “many ships stood in from Lemnos bringing wine, which Euneos -the son of Jason had sent forward, whom Hypsipyle had borne to Jason -shepherd of the folk, but separately for the sons of Atreus, Agamemnon -and Menelaus, the son of Jason gave wine to be fetched, a thousand -measures. From thence used the flowing-haired Achaeans to buy their wine, -some with copper, some with glittering iron, some with hides, others with -the kine themselves, others again with slaves[390].” From what we have -seen in an earlier chapter it is clear that a measure of wine would have -a known value in relation to the various articles here enumerated. Thus -in North America where the beaver skin was the unit, a gallon of brandy = -6 skins, a brass kettle = 1 skin, an ounce of vermilion = 1 skin and so -on[391]. In other words, the ordinary currency with which the Lemnians -would purchase wares from other people who had no wine of their own would -be wine, the unit of which was the _measure_ (which elsewhere I have -tried to show was the cup δέπας, Smith’s _Dict. Antiq._ _s.v._ Mensura). -This measure would be the size of the vessel ordinarily employed for -wine, probably much the same as the two-handled vase out of which Silenus -is seen drinking on coins of Thasos. - -With the introduction of silver currency nothing is more likely than that -an effort would be made to equate the new silver unit to that which -had formed the principal unit of barter. That the earliest types should -indicate the object (or its value) which the coin replaced is in complete -accord with the statement of Aristotle (quoted on an earlier page) that -“the stamp was put on the coin as an indication of value[392].” As no -numerals appear on the early Greek coins, it is evident that Aristotle -regarded the symbol, whether ox-head, or tunny, or shield, as the index -of the value. If it be said that the putting of a cow, or axe, or tunny -on a coin was simply a picturesque way of indicating a single unit, -we may reply that it is far easier to understand why a certain people -chose a particular symbol, if in their minds the object symbolized was -identified with the value of the silver or gold coin. It is at all -events certain that Aristotle did not regard the type as religious in -origin. But we are not without actual evidence that such an equating of -the silver unit to the barter-unit really took place in Greece. It is -held by the best numismatists that Solon was the first to coin money at -Athens. It is also well known that the highest class in his constitution, -called Pentacosiomedimni (_Five-hundred-measure-men_), were rated at 500 -drachms. Thus the Olympic victor received 500 drachms to qualify him to -be a Five-hundred-measure-man[393]. Furthermore Plutarch distinctly tells -us that Solon reckoned a drachm as equivalent to a measure[394] or a -sheep. It is hardly possible to doubt that the first Attic coined silver -drachm was equated to the old barter unit of a measure (either of corn or -oil). The same may be said in reference to the olive sprig which from the -earliest issue is found on the coins of Athens. The sacred olive-trees -(μορίαι) which belonged to the state, and for the care of which special -officials were appointed, and even the very stumps of which, and the -spot on which they had grown, were under a taboo[395], were a source -of considerable revenue to the state in the 6th century B.C. The fact -that they were all supposed to be scions of the sacred olive-tree on the -Acropolis, which was itself supposed to be the gift of Athena, and the -religious care bestowed on them, puts it beyond doubt that the olive -at an early date formed one of the most important products of Attica. -The instances given already of the employment of various kinds of food -as money are sufficient to show that there is nothing far-fetched in -supposing that olives and olive-oil may have been so employed at Athens. - -[Illustration: FIG. 40. Tetradrachm of Athens.] - -We have already spoken of the silphium or laserpitium plant on the -coins of Cyrene, Barca, Euesperides and Teuchira, and mentioned the -interpretation which makes it the symbol of the hero Aristaeus. It seems -however far more reasonable to treat it on the same principle as the -others just discussed. The silphium formed the most important article -produced in that region, and it is perfectly in accordance with all -analogy that certain quantities of this plant and of the juice extracted -from it should be employed as money. We saw above that at the present -moment tea is so employed on the borders of Tibet and China, and raw -cotton in Darfur. But there is also some positive evidence in favour of -this assumption, for Strabo[396] tells us that a traffic was carried -on at the port of Charax between the Carthaginians and Cyrenaeans, the -former bringing wine wherewith to purchase the silphium of the latter. -There must have been a wine-unit, and also an unit for the silphium, -or otherwise the barter could not have been carried on; and just as in -Gaul[397] a jar of wine purchased a boy fit to serve as a cupbearer, -a certain measure of wine being equated to a slave-boy, so we may -conclude that some such wine-unit was equated to a packet or bale of -silphium, the latter in turn having a certain amount of silver equated -to it, which when coinage was introduced was stamped with the silphium -device. That the silphium was packed in bales of a fixed weight is -proved by a now famous vase-painting which represents the weighing (on -ship board?) of the bales of silphium in the presence of Arcesilas the -king of Cyrene[398]. The figure who points to the scales is marked -_silphiomachos_ (σλιφιομαχος) which is taken to mean _silphium-weigher_ -(σλιφιο- being either a mis-spelling of the artist, or the local form of -the word, whilst the latter part is connected with the Egyptian _mach_ = -to _weigh_). Close to the silphium packets is the word ΜΑΕΝ, which has -not been explained, but which may be simply a form of the word _mina_ -(_manah_, _meneh_) and denotes that each packet weighed that amount. - -[Illustration: FIG. 41. Vase from Cyrene, shewing the weighing of the -Silphium.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 42. Coin of Metapontum.] - -The ear of corn (wheat) on the coins of Metapontum[399], an old Achaean -colony in Magna Graecia, is explained by modern writers as a symbol of -Demeter: but the story told by Strabo of how the early settlers dedicated -a golden ear at Delphi because they had amassed such great wealth from -agriculture, indicates a far simpler solution, that the chief product and -chief article of barter of Metapontum was naturally placed on her coins. -As the tunny adorns the coins of Cyzicus, so we find the cuttle-fish -on the coins of Croton and Eretria. As this creature was devoured with -great gusto by the ancients, as it is at the present day at Naples and in -Palestine, there is no necessity to regard it as a symbol of Poseidon, -or of treating it in any way different from the tunny. - -[Illustration: FIG. 43. Coin of Croton with cuttle fish.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 44. ‘Tortoise’ of Aegina.] - -I now come to two most important types, the Tortoise of Aegina, and the -Shield of Boeotia. I have already mentioned the symbolic interpretation -given by E. Curtius to the former. That various natural productions, -such as gourds, cocoa-nuts, joints of bamboo, served and still serve -as vessels and measures of capacity in various countries we have seen -already, and we likewise found that in the ancient Chinese monetary -system of shells the shell of the tortoise stood at the top as the unit -of highest value, and that down to a comparatively late epoch it was -still highly prized in Cochin China for making bowls of great beauty. -In both Greek and Latin there is abundant evidence to show that the -functions which in a later time were performed by pottery were discharged -by natural shells at an earlier period. Thus, if we do not find any -actual vessel called a _chelône_ (tortoise) in use amongst the Greeks, -we at least find one called a Sea-urchin (Echinus, ἐχῖνος): for not only -was the shell of this creature used as a vessel for containing medicines -and the like, but vessels of artificial construction of the same shape -and name were actually employed; thus the casket in which were deposited -and sealed up the documents produced at the preliminary hearing of an -Athenian lawsuit was called an _Echinus_. There was likewise a small -vessel called _conché_ (κόγχη), after the shell-fish of that name, the -Latin _concha_, whilst a cognate name, _conchylion_, was applied to the -case placed over the seals of wills. - -Nay, _ostrakon_, the common word for a potsherd, familiar to us from its -famous derivative Ostracism, or _Voting by Potsherds_, so called because -the people inscribed their votes on pieces of pottery, meant originally -nothing more than an oyster shell. In Latin _testa_, the ordinary -name for an earthenware vessel, means nothing more than the covering -of a shell-fish, and from this word _testudo_, the Latin name for the -tortoise, is simply a derivative. Such instances could be multiplied if -it were necessary, but those mentioned are sufficient to show the high -probability of so valuable a shell as that of the tortoise having been -employed. Owing to its beauty it would probably hold its place in Greece -as the choicest kind of vessel for centuries after the art of pottery -was known, just as it did in Cochin China. It would be only when the art -of glazing and embellishing pottery had made some progress that vessels -of baked clay could compete with the lustrous, many-hued shell. Nor are -we without some direct evidence for the use of tortoise shell among the -Greeks. The famous story of the invention of the lyre by the god Hermes -is not without significance. According to the Hymn to Hermes, “the -precocious divinity on the very day of his birth sallied forth and found -a tortoise feeding on the luxuriant grass in front of the palace, as it -moved with straddling gait.” His eye was caught by the dappled shell -(αἰόλον ὄστρακον), and carrying home his spoil, he made of it a lyre. -The legend which thus explains why the sounding-board of the lyre is so -called points back to a time when the best form of bowl or hollow vessel -for making a sounding board for a musical instrument was that afforded by -the shell which was probably one of the common articles of everyday life. - -But, in addition to all this indirect evidence, we are able to point to -actual Greek vessels made of earthenware, fashioned in the shape of a -tortoise. In the second Vase Room of the British Museum (case 48 and 49) -there are two terra cotta vases from the island of Melos, wrought in the -shape of this creature, and with these before us it is hardly possible -to regard as other than wooden bowls carved in the shape of the same -animal _the wooden tortoises_ with which the Thessalian women pounded to -death Lais the famous courtezan, in the temple of Aphrodite, after she -had taken up her residence in their country[400]. We can parallel this -development of artificial vessels of wood and earthenware from the use -of the actual shell in modern times. Lady Brassey saw in the Museum at -Honolulu, amongst the ancient native weapons and swords, “tortoise-shell -cups and spoons, calabashes and bowls[401].” Now in the Cambridge -Ethnological Museum there is a very fine wooden bowl from the South -Seas, carved in the shape of a tortoise, and also earthenware vessels in -the shape of tortoises from Fiji, which shows that the islanders of the -Pacific not only used the real shells for vessels, but likewise imitated -them in wood[402]. - -On an earlier page I quoted the statement of Ephorus that the Aeginetans -took to commerce on account of the barrenness of their island. But they -must have had something to give in exchange to other people before they -could have developed a carrying trade, and as the island had been the -resort of merchants from very early days, it must have had something to -attract strangers as well as its position. Let us take the case of an -island with barren soil in modern days, and see what it has to export. -Thus Dhalac Island in the Red Sea is frequented by the Banyan merchants -for the sake of its pearls, and at Massowah tortoise-shell forms an -important article of commerce. Just as the Banyans come to Dhalac[403], -so the Phoenicians probably came to Aegina, searching for the murex -(purple fish) and tortoise. No doubt tortoise-shell must have been the -chief article of export from Tortoise Island, described by Strabo (773), -as situated in the Arabian Gulf (Red Sea). - -The foregoing considerations make it not at all improbable that the -tortoise on the coins of Aegina simply indicates that the old monetary -unit of that island was the shell of the sea-tortoise (ἡ θαλαττία -χελώνη), which was considerably larger, and therefore more valuable for -making bowls, than that of the land or “mountain” tortoise (ἡ ὀρεινὴ -χελώνη). There was a well-known headland on the Coast of Peloponnesus -called “Tortoise Head” (Chelonates), and this creature must have been -a peculiar feature of the shores of Aegina, or it would not have been -chosen as the type for her coins, whether it be a religious symbol or -not. At all events we know from the story of Sciron the robber, slain -by Theseus, that the sea-tortoise was a familiar feature on the shores -of the Saronic Gulf, as the hapless travellers who were kicked over -the rocks by the caitiff were devoured by a large sea-tortoise which -frequented the strand below. This creature’s picture is handed down on -a well-known vase-painting which commemorates the exploits of Theseus. -Finally, it may well be supposed that had not its connection with the -invention of the lyre attracted to that instrument the name of “Tortoise” -both in Greek and Latin, we should have found the name employed for some -sort of vessel, as is the case with the Echinus. - -[Illustration: FIG. 45. Coin of Boeotia with shield.] - -Coming now to Central Greece, we find on the coins of all the Boeotian -towns (with the exception of Orchomenus in her earliest issues) the -well-known device of the Boeotian shield. This has been confidently -pronounced to be a sacred emblem, symbolic of a common worship, -conjectured to be that of Athena Itonia, whose temple near Coronea was -the meeting-place of the Boeotians[404], whilst at Coronea golden -shields were preserved in the Acropolis[405]. This may be so, but it is -equally possible that the shield represented a common monetary unit in -ancient times. The shield of early Hellas was a simple ox-hide buckler, -described in Homeric language simply as an _ox-hide_[406]. Amongst -barbarous peoples, as we saw above, weapons form one of the regular -commodities commonly employed as currency; the Achaeans bought wine with -hides as well as with oxen from the ships that came from Lemnos, and -as there can be no doubt that the hide was a regular sub-multiple of -the cow, it is very probable that the ox-hide shield stood in a similar -relation to the cow, the chief or most universal unit; and as we find -axes and half-axes among the prizes offered by Achilles as well as -kettles and caldrons, so we learn from a famous passage[407] that shields -were amongst the most usual articles offered as prizes and therefore -were regular units of currency: “For they strove neither for an ox to be -sacrificed nor yet for an ox-hide shield which are wont to be the prizes -for the feet of men, but they strove for the life of the horse-taming -Hector.” - -[Illustration: FIG. 46. Coin of Lycia.] - -When silver money was struck, it was natural that the barter-unit which -came nearest in value to the silver didrachm would be equated to it, and -the piece of silver would accordingly be termed _Shield_ or _Tortoise_, -just as the silver equivalent for the old copper rod was called the Obol, -and in due course the corresponding device would be impressed on the -silver coinage. The same explanation may probably be applied in other -cases, such as that of the boar on the coins of Lycia. On the coins of -the Gaulish tribe Sequani who made the best bacon and hams which came -into the Roman market, the swine is found[408]. Doubtless this animal was -their chief source of wealth, and formed a unit of barter, but we have -not space for any more examples. - -It is worth noting that it is quite possible that the men who issued -the earliest coins of Boeotia and Aegina were influenced in the shape -they gave these coins by the actual objects which they were replacing. -The coins of Aegina with their high round upper side and flat under -side suggest the general outline of a tortoise. As the people of -Olbia, like the Chinese, Burmese and Ceylonese, had to make coins in -the shape of a fish, so the Aeginetans acting under a like instinct -may have wished to give a conventional representation of the tortoise. -The earliest coins have the incuse on the reverse divided into _eight_ -triangular compartments. Are these the _eight_ plates which form -invariably the _plastron_ or under surface of all the tortoise family? -Later on the Aeginetan incuse is always in five compartments, but in -the two well-known triangular depressions we perhaps find an echo of -the tortoise-_plastron_[409]. The earliest coins seem to represent a -sea-tortoise, for the feet are real _flippers_ quite distinct in shape -from the legs shown on the later coins. As the plates of the _carapace_ -(upper surface) are not fully represented in the archaic coins, this -omission may not be merely due to rudeness of work, but rather because in -the case of the sea-tortoise the _thirteen_ plates of the _carapace_ are -not so prominent as in the land-tortoise. On the later coins where the -feet are those of the land-tortoise the coins accurately represent the -_thirteen_ plates. - -It has to be borne in mind that the shape of the incuse depressions on -the reverse of coins is very constant. Thus on the Aeginetan coins we -never find what is known as the mill-sail incuse which is the peculiar -feature of the reverse of the early Boeotian coins, nor on the other -hand do we even find the eight-fold incuse on the coins of Boeotia. Some -influences must have determined the choice of form, such as I have just -suggested in the case of Aegina. Did the first Boeotian Mintmaster shape -his coins with the real buckler in his mind’s eye? On the reverse of -these coins we find the incuse forming a rude X, which is bounded by a -circle of dots, whilst in the centre of the incuse is the initial letter -of the name of the issuing town, such as 𐌈 for Thebes, 𐌇 for Haliartus. -Does the X-shaped incuse represent conventionally the cross-bars of the -frame of the shield seen at the back, the circle dots indicating the -outline? The letters on these coins are the earliest inscriptions on the -coins of Greece Proper. We can easily see how they came to be placed on -the coins, as soon as we remember that there was a Λ on the Lacedaemonian -shields, a Σ on the Sicyonian, a Μ on the Messenian[410]. Why do not -we find the initial in the coins placed on the front of the shield, -where it must have stood on the real buckler? If as is held by the best -authorities the coins of Boeotia formed a federal currency, we see a -reason for the practice. As the silver shield replaced the real buckler, -the old unit which had been universally employed through Boeotia, no -town would have been permitted to put its initial on the shield engraved -on the obverse. No doubt the old actual shield of currency was plain, -and each purchaser painted the initial of his own country upon it. The -Mintmasters accordingly of each town regarding the whole coin as a shield -placed the letter of these several states on the reverse. Baumeister -(_Denkmäler_, _s.v._ Wappen) gives pictures of the back of two shields. -The frame of the shield consists of a circular rod, with two cross bars. -The idea of making the incuse represent the other side of the object -given in relief on the obverse seems to be just the stage between a -complete representation of the object as in the tunny of Olbia, and that -evinced by the early coins of Magna Graecia, on which the reverse gives -in the incuse exactly the same form as that in relief on the obverse. - -At first sight the result of this great variety of local units apparently -places impassable barriers to trade, but a knowledge of the actual facts -of barbarous communities and their monetary systems as they exist in our -time easily dispels this impression. I quoted above (p. 46) the words of -Mohammed Ibn-Omar, wherein he points out that every separate district -in the Soudan has its own lower unit or units, whilst everywhere alike -the ox and the slave are the higher units; these local units are equated -one to the other, so that there is no difficulty in trading. The same -holds true of ancient Greece; the tortoise-shell of Aegina may have been -reckoned equal to a certain amount of Attic olive oil or to a jar of -wine of certain size, which formed the unit of commerce at Thasos and -Chios, whilst in its turn a jar of wine was reckoned as equivalent to -a package of silphion from Cyrene, a kettle from Crete, or an axe, or -certain number of axes, or half-axes from Tenedos, or an ox-hide shield -from Boeotia. All were sub-multiples of the ox, and had a fixed value -in gold, and later in silver, as weighed against grains of corn. This -supposition is in complete accord with the system revealed to us in the -Homeric Poems, and is confirmed by the evidence drawn from barbarous -races in modern times. It is likewise to be borne in mind that the -tendency to place religious and mythological types on Greek coins was -one especially developed in the later but not in the earliest period of -coinage. No doubt aesthetic considerations played a large part in the -adoption of such types, which came especially into prominence when Greek -art was at its height. On the early coins one simple type is the rule, -whilst at a later stage, besides the old national type, many adjuncts and -symbols are added. Contrast the early coins of Athens with the later. -The archaic issues have an olive spray and an owl, the later have not -merely the owl, but an amphora, and a symbol in the field alluding to the -legend of Triptolemus. Again, at Argos the early coins have simply the -wolf or half-wolf or wolf’s head, with a large A on the reverse, but in -the later times the A is accompanied by symbols, such as a crescent and -letters. The hare appears on the coins of Rhegium and Messana, having -been chosen as a type, according to Aristotle, by the tyrant Anaxilas in -commemoration of the introduction of that animal by him into Sicily; but -it also appears on a rare coin of Messana, not as a main type, but as -caressed by Pan. This does not prove that the hare was a symbol of Pan, -but that for artistic purposes the rustic god in the act of caressing -the hare is chosen instead of the more commonplace type of the hare all -alone. So at Thasos the coins with old Silenus quaffing from a wine-cup -do not signify that Silenus was a principal object of worship, but he -is simply added for picturesque effect. We can at all events draw one -conclusion from the historical origin assigned to both this type and -that of the axe of Tenedos, that in the middle of the 4th cent. B.C. the -Greeks did not see any religious significance in them, any more than -they did in the representation of the mule-car which had won at Olympia, -placed on his coins by Anaxilas. If, as has been so emphatically laid -down by the leading modern Greek numismatists, the types on Greek coins -are so essentially religious in origin, it is extremely difficult to -explain the extraordinary rapidity with which all such notions as regards -their origin must have vanished from the minds of the most learned of -the Greeks, at so early a date as the 4th cent. B.C. (hardly more than -two centuries after the introduction of the art of coining). The Greeks -regarded those types from much the same point of view as we regard St -George and the Dragon on sovereigns and crowns, or the Lady Godiva -riding _in puris naturalibus_ on the Coventry tokens. The effort to -turn agonistic into religious types by contending that, as the Olympic -festival was of religious origin, so the successful chariot which had -won at Olympia was a sacred symbol, can only be regarded as an ingenious -effort to attach by even the most slender thread a simple commemorative -type to a religious origin. - -[Illustration: FIG. 47. Coin of Messana.] - -There is not the slightest reason for treating with incredulity the -statement that Anaxilas introduced the hare into Sicily. Pollux[411] -tells us that there were no hares in Ithaca, and from the same source -we learn that the islanders of Carpathus, wishing to add the animal to -the products of their isle, introduced a single pair, the descendants of -which became in a short time so numerous that they ruined the crops, a -story which finds a singular parallel in the history of the introduction -of the rabbit into Australia in our own days. The hare was to the old -Greek sportsman (as we know from the Tracts on Hunting of Xenophon and -Arrian) what the stag was to the mediaeval baron, and the fox to the -modern English squire. If William the Conqueror, as says the chronicler, -“loved the tall deer as though he were their father,” the tyrant -Anaxilas may well have prided himself upon the introduction of the hare -into Sicily in much the same manner as modern sportsmen have brought -the French partridge into England. When once the type was started, the -dislike of any change in coin types is so strong that we need not be -surprised at the hare appearing for a long period on the coins of Messana -and Rhegium. Besides, the hare was considered by the Greek gourmet as the -choicest of viands: all readers of Aristophanes are familiar with “jugged -hare” as a proverbial expression for “the best of cheer.” - - -_Variation of Silver Standards._ - -The connection between the types on early silver coins of Greece and the -earlier local units of value being probably such as I have indicated, -we next approach the question of changes in the weight of the silver -coins at various places and at various times. Besides the ordinary -Euboic and Aeginetic standards we find others such as the Rhodian, and -the Ptolemaic, the former so named because the island of Rhodes from the -beginning of the 4th century B.C. ceased to strike tetradrachms of the -full Attic weight of 270 grs. and coined instead pieces which range in -weight from 240 to 230 grs., the latter getting its name from the dynasty -of the Lagidae, who quickly dropped the full weight of the tetradrachm -(270 grs.) as struck by Alexander, and reverted to the Phoenician silver -of 220 grs., which they used not only for silver, but also for gold; it -is to this last fact that the name Ptolemaic as given to the standard -is really due, for as a standard for gold it was certainly new. But -not merely shall we find coins standing so far apart from the usual -standards that we are obliged to give them distinctive appellations, -but we likewise find various modifications of the Aeginetic in various -places, whilst in some parts of northern Greece and Thrace we shall find -the so-called Phoenician and Babylonian standards in occupation. It is -hardly possible that mere degradation of weight will account for all the -phenomena; accordingly the object of this section will be to show that -from first to last _the Greek communities were engaged in an endless -quest after bimetallism_: we shall find, as we have already indicated, -that whilst the gold unit never varies in any part of Hellas until a -late epoch, the silver coins exhibit differences not merely between one -district and another, but even between one period and another in the -self-same city or state. There is incontrovertible evidence to prove -that the same trouble was caused by the fluctuation in the relative -value of gold and silver as arises in modern times. Xenophon[412] in his -treatise _De Vectigalibus_ (speaking of the benefit likely to accrue -to the state if the silver mines of Laurium were better worked) makes -the most interesting remark that “if any one were to allege that gold -too is not less useful than silver, that I do not deny, yet this I know -that gold, whenever it turns up in quantity, becomes on the one hand -cheaper itself, and on the other makes silver dearer.” This passage -alone is sufficient to show how sensitive was the old Greek money market -in the beginning of the 4th century B.C., and this statement is amply -substantiated on Italian soil by a passage quoted by Strabo[413] from -Polybius, from which we learn that after the discovery of a rich gold -mine in the land of the Taurisci of Noricum, within the space of two -months “gold went down one third in value throughout all Italy.” Such -being the effect of a discovery of gold, it is evident that either the -silver currency must undergo certain modifications in order that a -definite round number of silver units may be equal to the gold unit, or -on the other hand the gold unit must undergo modification. But as we have -shown that the gold unit remained unaltered throughout all Hellas, Asia -and Egypt down to the time of the Ptolemies, it follows that whatever -changes were necessary must have taken place in the _silver_ standards. -Of this we have proof in the case of Rhodes itself. Down to 408 B.C. -the three ancient cities of Ialysus, Camirus and Lindus issued each a -separate series of coins, Camirus on the Aeginetic standard, the other -two on the Phoenician. In 408 B.C. all these united in founding the new -city of Rhodes, and henceforward there is a single coinage. At first -the Attic standard seems to have been employed for silver, as rare -tetradrachms of 260 grs. are found, but it must have very soon given -place to the so-called Rhodian, the tetradrachm of which ranges from 240 -to 230 grs. About the same time (400 B.C.) the Rhodians began to issue -gold staters of the so-called Euboic standard, and for a century this -double issue of gold and silver continued unbroken. It is plain, from the -case of this famous island, that it is only the silver standards which -changed. There can be no doubt that the unit by which gold in bullion -was reckoned before that metal was coined was the so-called Euboic -or ox-unit, but during the archaic period we find both the so-called -Phoenician (220 grs.) and Aeginetic (drachms of 92 grs.) being employed -for silver in the island, whilst after 408 B.C. gold is issued on the -ox-unit, but silver, although at first on this standard, immediately -changes to the Rhodian of 240 grs. Evidently then the fixed element is -the gold, the fluctuating the silver. The coinage of Rhodes likewise -exemplifies the doctrine already indicated, that the employment of -religious and mythological symbols seems to mark not the earlier but -rather the later stages of Greek coining. Thus Camirus employed the -fig-leaf, Ialysus half a winged boar, and Lindus the lions head with -open jaws, but after 408 Helios the Sun-god, from whom all Rhodians -alike claimed descent, and to whom the island was sacred[414], becomes -the regular type, with the _type parlant_ of the Rose (_Rhodon_) on the -reverse. - -Next let us take the money of Macedonia, where there was an abundant -coinage of both gold and silver. The Pelasgian tribe of Bisaltae, and -the Thracian Edonians and Odomanti, had during the half century which -preceded the Persian wars all struck silver on the so-called Phoenician -standard. It is commonly supposed that they obtained this standard from -the important town of Abdera, which at the same period employed a like -standard, and it is suggested that Abdera had borrowed it from her mother -Teos, who had borrowed it from Miletus and the other great towns of the -Ionian seaboard, among which it was especially employed for electrum. -But unfortunately, whilst the types of Teos and Abdera are the same -(a seated Griffin), the staters of Teos weigh only 186 grs., which is -the Aeginetic, not the Phoenician (220 grs.) standard. Shortly after -the overthrow of the Persian host Alexander I. of Macedon acquired the -land of the Bisaltae along with the rich silver mines, which were said -to produce for him a talent daily, and he adopted both the types and -standard of the Bisaltian silver coinage, only substituting his own -name for that of the Bisaltae. During the century which elapsed between -Alexander I. and the accession of the famous Philip II. the coinage of -Macedon and that of Abdera followed the same course in each case; the -Phoenician standard of 230 grs. gave way to the so-called Babylonian -or Persian of about 170 grs. Again, it has been suggested that Abdera -influenced the neighbouring communities in this change. But when Philip -came to the throne he returned to the Phoenician standard for silver, -and when for the first time in Macedon he issued a bountiful coinage of -gold staters, they were struck on the ancient gold unit, the so-called -Euboic standard of 130 grs. But hardly had Philip slept with his fathers, -and Alexander reigned in his stead, when a need was felt for a change in -the silver standard. Accordingly the latter in the early years of his -reign began, and continued to his death, to strike his silver on the -same standard as his gold. Let us now study the lessons to be learned -from this history of currency. There can be no reasonable doubt that -the ox-unit or _stater_ was the unit by which gold was estimated from -first to last in that region. Unless it already existed Philip would -not have employed it for his gold coinage at a time when he was making -changes in his silver, but would have assimilated his gold to his silver -standard. But, as before remarked, just because gold was not coined -anywhere in Greece until the closing years of the 5th century, and in -all transactions it passed as bullion, so much the stronger was the -reason for keeping its weight-unit unchanged. But was the standard of -220 grs. really an imported Phoenician, or was it not rather one arrived -at in that region by the natives themselves owing to the relations then -existing between silver and gold? It is evident from the account given -of the Bisaltian silver mines that in the time preceding and immediately -posterior to the Persian invasion silver was exceedingly abundant in -all that region. It is then by no means unlikely that it required ten -silver pieces of 220 grs. each to make the equivalent of one gold unit -of 130 grs. With the exhaustion of the silver mines, and perhaps a -greater output of gold, silver became dearer, and consequently 10 silver -pieces of 170 grs. each were now equal to a gold stater. Abdera on the -coast would come perfectly within the sphere of such changed conditions, -and her standard would consequently likewise undergo modification. -With Philip’s accession, fresh conquests and a general development of -resources may have temporarily thrown more silver on the market, thus -inducing him to revert to the 220 grs. standard, but the exploiting of -the famous mines of Crenides increased the supply of gold to such an -extent that by the time Alexander mounted his fathers throne gold stood -to silver in the relation of 10:1, and it was found extremely convenient -to coin this on the same footing as gold, 10 silver pieces of 135 grs. -being exactly equal to the gold stater of like weight. A like explanation -applies to the coinage of Thrace. Amongst the Thracian tribes who dwelt -near Mount Pangaeum and worked the gold and silver mines of that region -the art of coining had been known from the 6th century B.C. and they -issued silver coins of about 160 grs. This is regarded by some as debased -Babylonian or Persic standard. But it is far more rational to suppose -that in that region gold was more plentiful in proportion to silver than -it was at that time further west in Macedonia, and accordingly a certain -number of silver didrachms of 160 grs. were found to represent the gold -stater or ox-unit. It seems most unlikely that a people long acquainted -with both gold and silver could not devise for themselves a simple -method of making some convenient number of silver pieces be equivalent -to one gold, and that, on the contrary, having once obtained a certain -standard fixed for silver in Asia Minor, at a time when gold was to -silver as 13:1, they would blindly cleave to this standard, no matter -how great a change took place in the relation of the metals. In face -of the statements of Xenophon and Polybius already quoted and the fact -that Solon deliberately constructed a new silver standard, it is simply -impossible to believe such a doctrine. - -On the opposite shore from Thrace lay the flourishing city of Cyzicus. -This wealthy community commenced to issue electrum staters and _hectae_ -in the 5th century B.C., if not earlier, the former being about 252 -grs., the latter 41 grs. These electrum staters have been shown by -Professor Gardner to have contained gold and silver in about equal -proportions[415]. This most important fact, taken in connection with -the literary evidence derived from Xenophon and Demosthenes, makes it -probable that the Cyzicene stater of 252 grs. was counted equal to a -Daric of 130 grs. of pure gold[416]. “These coins of Cyzicus,” says Mr -Head, “together with the Persian Darics formed the staple of the gold -currency of the whole ancient world, until such time as they were both -superseded by the gold staters of Philip and Alexander the Great[417].” - -Not only did they circulate side by side with the Darics, but it is -worthy of notice that when the Cyzicenes struck coins of pure gold -(_circa_ 413 B.C.) they were of Daric type and standard. The earliest -silver coins (430-412 B.C.) were small pieces of 32 and 18 grs., whilst -the larger coins which come later are on the Phoenician silver standard -of 212 grs. (412 B.C.), whilst from 400 B.C. to 330 B.C. the Rhodian -standard of 235 grs. prevailed. From the story of her coinage we learn -clearly that at Cyzicus the inferior metals bowed to the sway of gold. -The electrum stater of 252 grs. is made equal to the pure gold unit, -and whilst the silver standard changes from 212 grs. to 235 grs. the -gold and pale gold pieces in currency remain inviolate. Once more, it -is almost certain that some displacement in the relative values of the -metals had caused the raising of the standard from 212 grs. to 235 grs. -One thing certainly is beyond doubt, and that is the utter improbability -of the introduction of the 235 grs. standard being in any way due to the -influence of Rhodes. This remark likewise applies to Chios, where from a -very early period (600-490 B.C.) side by side with electrum staters of -217 grs. we find didrachms of silver of 123-120 grs., “a weight peculiar -to Chios,” says Mr Head, “which was probably the Phoenician somewhat -raised.” But why was it raised? The real solution is that the relations -between gold, electrum and silver at Chios necessitated the striking of -silver on a standard a few grains lighter than the gold unit in use -(the Persian Daric), and the electrum stater of 217 grs. Space forbids -our going through all the cities of the Ionian coast in detail, but the -principle which we have laid down and illustrated from the currency -systems of several leading states is sufficient to indicate the method by -which we would explain the fluctuations in the silver standards employed -at different times in various states. The Daric is the universal gold -unit of all this region; by its side is the electrum stater usually of -217 grs. and most probably the equivalent in value of the pure gold coin -of 130 grs.: along with them we find singular fluctuations in the silver -currency; towns that are close neighbours employing different systems -contemporaneously. - -There is, however, one state which cannot be passed over without more -particular reference. At an earlier page I spoke of the gold mines -of Thasos, which had attracted the attention of the Phoenicians at a -very early time. But, in addition to the mineral wealth of their own -island, the Thasians drew a huge annual revenue from their mines on the -mainland. Although the first influence in the island was Phoenician, -and the Thasians themselves were Ionians from Paros, instead of finding -the Phoenician standard employed for its silver coins, we see them -striking their archaic coins on the so-called Babylonian system. Under -the supremacy of Athens this standard fell so much that it eventually -coincided with the Attic (138 grs.) or even was lower. The Thasians, -after revolting from Athens in 411 B.C., struck gold coins for the -first time; these were on the Euboic or ox-unit standard (consisting of -half-staters and thirds). But about the same period they began to coin -silver on the so-called Phoenician of 220 grs. It is indeed strange that -in the early age, when the Phoenician tradition was still strong, they -did not employ the 220 grs. standard, but only resorted to it after -employing for a long period the Babylonian and Attic standards. It is -evident that in Thasos, as elsewhere, there had existed the same gold -unit for untold generations, else at the very time when they revolted -from Athens and adopted a new standard for their silver, they would -not have struck gold on what is commonly called the Attic or Euboic -standard. It is evident that the changes in the silver standards were due -to changes in the relation of silver to gold, the fall in standard from -168 grs. to 135 grs. indicating perhaps that silver, which at first was -to gold as 1:13, had gradually grown dearer. - - -_Commercial Weight System._ - -We must now turn to the commercial weight system. As elsewhere, one of -the chief commodities to come under such a system was copper, and the -history of the weighing of this metal, as far as it can be learned, will -be of great importance to us. Now we should naturally expect that at -Athens, which had in later days but one standard for gold and silver, -copper likewise would have been estimated on this unit. But, as a matter -of fact, there were two distinct standards in use at Athens, as is proved -by two weights preserved in the British Museum, the inscription on one of -which is _Mina of the Market_ (ΜΝΑ ΑΓΟΡ), that on the other is _Mina of -the State_ (ΜΝΑ ΔΗΜΟ). This mina of the market is the same as that called -the _Commercial Mina_ on an Attic inscription[418], where its weight is -given as that of 138 silver drachms, that is, the weight of an Aeginetic -mina of silver. Athens had not coined any money of her own up to Solon’s -time, but seems to have employed the coins of Aegina. But this standard, -although no longer employed for silver, did not fall into desuetude. -As already pointed out, all peoples have felt the need of a heavier -standard for cheap articles than that which serves for gold. Probably -the Aeginetic mina had been used at Athens for copper: accordingly, -when Solon made his new silver standard for the weighing of silver, the -Aeginetic standard was found convenient for less costly and more bulky -wares, and was therefore retained in use as the mercantile or market -standard, the name STATE being given to the silver standard. - -We have learned already that in the early stages of society copper and -iron are not sold or appraised by weight, but rather by measurement. -We have also seen that there is every reason to believe that the Greek -obol originally was a spike or rod of copper of a definite length and -thickness. If we can believe the statement of Ephorus given by Strabo -that Phidon of Argos established a weight as well as a measure system for -the Peloponnesians (although Herodotus is silent as regards weights), -it is not at all improbable that, taking this story in conjunction with -the dedication of the old bar money by Phidon in the temple of Hera, we -have here a genuine tradition of the superseding of the bars of metal, -the value of which simply depended on their dimensions, by a system based -essentially on weight. It is plain that, as copper was weighed both at -Aegina and Athens by the Aeginetic silver standard, copper most probably -was never estimated by weight until after the forming of the separate -silver standard in the way already described. - -We have previously noticed the fact that the two principal terms applied -to silver coins, _drachm_ and _obol_, give clear indications that they -have been borrowed from an ancient system of copper (just as we shall -presently find that the _denarius_, the special term employed for their -silver currency by the Romans, owes its origin to the ancient copper -_as_). If further proof were required, it is afforded by the name -employed for the subdivisions of the obol. The latter at Athens was -divided into 8 _chalci_ or _coppers_ (χαλκοῖ). The smallest silver coin -at Athens was the half-obol, but in some places names, _Trichalcum_, -_Tetrachalcum_, etc. were given to copper coins. Now, as the Aeginetan -obol weighed about 16½ grs. and the Attic 11¼, the former is one-third -greater than the latter. But we shall see shortly that as the Attic -obol has 8 _chalci_, the Aeginetan must have had 12, from which it -follows that the ancient copper obol or bar used in Aegina, throughout -Peloponnesus, and at Athens, and probably throughout Boeotia, was -everywhere the same. - - -_The Sicilian System._ - -In dealing with the Sicilian and Italian systems we must reverse the -order of treatment of the metals, and as it is in the copper that we -shall find the closest link between the Greek and those other systems, we -shall therefore commence with that metal. - -On the Italian Peninsula and in Sicily we find a series of weight and -monetary terms totally distinct from any found in Greece Proper. From -this alone we may infer that, even before the settlement of any Greek -Colonies in Magna Graecia and Sicily, there existed a well defined -system, if not of weight, at least for the exchange of copper by fixed -standards of measurement. In various Sicilian cities we find small -silver coins called _litrae_; these beyond all question are simply the -representatives in silver of an ancient copper unit employed by the -Sicels, and which they had brought with them into the island. These -Sicels were a tribe of the great Italian stock (itself a branch of the -Aryan family) closely related to the Umbrians, Latins, and Oscans, had -probably formed the van of the Aryan advance into the Peninsula, and had -finally crossed the straits and overcome the Sicanians, an Iberic race, -who were the earliest inhabitants of the island of whom any historical -record exists. The word _litra_ is merely a dialectic form of the same -original _lidhra_[419], from which the Latin _libra_ itself is sprung. -But whilst we shall have little difficulty in finding out the weight at -which the Latin _libra_ was fixed, we have just as great difficulty in -discovering that of the Sicilian _litra_, as we have lately found in the -case of the ancient Greek copper obol. As copper was only coined at a -late period, and the copper coins are merely tokens, or money of account, -we are unable to arrive at any conclusion as to the original full weight -of the litra from any data afforded by the copper coins of the various -Sicilian states, although, from the circumstance that many of these coins -bear marks of value, at first sight it might seem far otherwise. Thus -at Agrigentum in the period preceding 415 B.C. the copper litra weighed -about 750 grs., between 415 B.C. and 406 B.C. 613 grs., and from 340 B.C. -to 287 B.C. it was about 536 grs. only. At Himera between 472 B.C. and -415 B.C. it was about 990 grs., but within the same period it fell to -200 grs., whilst at Camarina between 415 B.C. and 405 B.C. it was about -221 grs. Not only therefore is it futile to attempt any statement of the -reduction of the litra in Sicily in general, but also to arrive at any -sound approximation to its full original weight, as far as the weight of -the copper coins is concerned. On the other hand, any calculation based -on the relative values of copper and silver has been up to the present -unsatisfactory, owing to the great uncertainty which still prevails, -Mommsen making the relation in the earlier period stand as 288:1, whilst -Mr Soutzo thinks it never can have been higher than 120:1. - -The latter view I have already proved to be untenable when we apply the -test of the value of cattle, and it was made probable that in the 5th -century B.C. silver was to copper as 300:1. From this it will be possible -to show that the full weight of the copper litra was originally about -4900 grs. - -Any effort to determine the original weight of the copper litra by a -new method calls for a merciful consideration, even though it too may -fail. Whilst the original weight of the litra is still a matter of -doubt, we are fortunately completely acquainted with the method of its -subdivisions. The litra was divided into 12 parts called Ungiae, Unciae -or Onciae, a name which is no other than the Latin _Uncia_. This at once -brings us face to face with the Roman copper system, where the _as_ was -the higher unit, and was divided into 12 unciae (ounces). But there are -other striking coincidences of nomenclature. Thus ⅙ of the _as_ was -called _sextans_; one-sixth of the litra is called _Hexâs_ (ἑξᾶς), and -the _Triens_ and _Quadrans_ are paralleled by the _trias_ (τριᾶς) and -_tetras_ (τετρᾶς) although there is a difference in the application -of these terms. Then the five-twelfths of the _as_ is _Quincunx_; the -same fraction of the litra is _Pentonkion_ (πετόγκιον). We have plainly -therefore a common Italo-Sicilian copper system, the terms of which were -adopted and Graecised by the settlers in Italy and Sicily. - -Now we have already adverted to the fact that the earliest Sicilian -towns which coined money, Naxos, Zancle and Himera, although Chalcidian -colonies, yet employed the Aeginetic standard, whereas we might naturally -expect them to follow the Euboic. This would give the maximum of 16½ -grs. for the silver obol. Now according to Pollux, Aristotle in his lost -treatise on the constitution of Agrigentum says that the litra is worth -an Aeginetan obol, and Pollux goes on to say that “one would find in him -(Aristotle) in his Constitution of the Himeraeans likewise other names of -Sicilian coins, such as _ungia_, which is equivalent to one _chalcus_, -and _hexas_, which is equivalent to two _chalci_, and _trias_, which -is equivalent to three _chalci_, and _hemilitron_ (half litra), which -is equivalent to six, and litra which is equivalent to an obol[420].” -It is plain from this that Aristotle knew that the Aeginetic obol was -divided into _twelve chalci_. Thus the proposition laid down above, that -the ancient Greek copper obol was a rod or spike divided into 12 parts, -is thoroughly proved. The reason why the Attic obol had only 8 _chalci_ -is now plain; it was, as we saw, only two-thirds of the Aeginetan and -consequently only contained two-thirds of the whole number of pieces -of copper into which the ancient copper unit was divided. Now, as we -find the Chalcidian settlers of Himera and other places not using their -native Euboic standard for coining, but employing the Aeginetic, and as -the Aeginetic obol was equal to the Sicilian litra, we are justified in -the conclusion, that when the Greek settlers reached Italy and Sicily -they found their Italic kinsfolk using a copper unit exactly the same as -that employed in Greece; and that finally, when they began to coin, they -found it more convenient to strike silver on a standard which was both -convenient in reference to exchange with gold, as I have shown above, -and had the further advantage of corresponding accurately in value to -the ancient copper unit in use among the Sicels. If, as I indicated, -silver was to copper as 300:1, the Aeginetic silver obol of 16⅔ grs. -would be worth 5000 grs. of copper (practically the same as the early -Roman _libra_). It follows then that if we could only discover the weight -of the Sicilian litra we should know that of the old Greek _copper_ -obol. Is this possible? We have no reason to doubt that the obol was a -rod of copper of a certain size, which in the course of time after the -introduction of coined money shrank up until the original rod was only -represented by what had been its equivalent in silver, or a small copper -coin, whose name still survives in the _ob_ used in old account books -as the symbol for _half-penny_[421]. The Greek coinage has preserved -for us but faint traces of the various steps in the degradation of the -copper obol, but, as we have already seen, we find the Sicilian copper -litra in various stages of its decadence from 990 grs. down to 200 grs. -Again, whilst no trace has as yet been found of obols at all in the -archaic shape of rods, or anything approaching it, we find in Sicily at -Agrigentum _litrae_ which are in form distinct survivals of an earlier -stage when the litra, like the obol, was a rod or bar of copper. These -are very strange looking lumps of bronze made in the shape of a tooth -with a flat base, having on one side an eagle or eagle’s head and on the -other a crab, while on the base are marks of value ⸬, ⸪, : (_tetras_, -_trias_, _hexas_). The _uncia_ is almond-shaped with an eagle’s head on -one side, and a crab’s claw on the other[422]. As we found the Chinese -knife shrinking up into a shorter and thicker mass until at last it only -survives in the round _cash_, so in all probability we here find the -Sicilian litra in its mid course from its original full size and shape -to that of the ordinary round copper coin of a later age. That the shape -of the original copper unit of the Italians was that of a rod or bar we -shall now proceed to demonstrate in the case of the Roman _as_. - - -_The Italian System. Bronze._ - -As the cow formed the highest unit in the monetary system of ancient -Italy, so the lowest unit employed was a certain amount of copper called -an _as_. We have already found the cow serving the same purpose in Sicily -(as late as the time of Dionysius forming the rateable unit at Syracuse). -The systems of Further Asia, where the buffalo stands at the head of -the scale and the hoe or a piece of raw metal of a certain size stands -at the bottom, form a perfect analogy in modern times. As far as its -value and divisional system go, we have identified the Sicilian litra -with the ancient Hellenic obol or rod, and we have in turn discovered -a very close resemblance between the divisions of the litra and that -of the _as_. I now propose to examine into the original nature of this -denomination, and the form of the object to which it was applied. This -will have been effectually accomplished, if I can succeed in establishing -the proposition _that the as was primarily a rod or bar of copper, -one foot in length, divided into 12 parts, called inches (unciae), -thus coinciding with the Greek obol in form, as also in its duodecimal -division_. - -We must, as a preliminary, note carefully several most essential facts -connected with the _as_: (1) The term _as_ (as used in respect of metals) -is never employed for either gold or silver, but is appropriated to -_bronze_ exclusively; (2) it is not the Roman unit of weight, for that is -expressed by the general term _libra_, a word exactly corresponding to -the Greek _Talanton_, since it means both the _weight_ and the _scales_; -(3) the _as_ is not confined to weight, but is also employed as the unit -of linear measure equal to the foot, and also as the unit of land measure -equal to the _jugerum_ or acre. - -The following table exhibits the subdivisions of the _as_: - - As (Pes, Jugerum) - Deunx = ¹¹⁄₁₂ - Dextans ¹⁰⁄₁₂ - Dodrans ¾ - Bes ⅔ - Septunx ⁷⁄₁₂ - Semis ½ - Quincunx ⁵⁄₁₂ - Triens ⅓ - Quadrans ¼ - Sextans ⅙ - Uncia ⅟₁₂ - Semuncia ⅟₂₄ - Sicilicus ⅟₄₈ - Sextula ⅟₇₂ - Scriptulum ⅟₂₈₈ - -Now it has been hitherto assumed by all writers that the system of -division employed in the _as_ as a unit of _weight_ has been transferred -to _measure_. This however is contrary to all experience, for, as we have -had occasion constantly before to notice, weight units are derived from -measures, e.g. the bushel from the measure of that name, and so on. In -the next place as the _as_ is not the unit of Roman weight, if even the -measure unit was borrowed from the weight, we ought to expect the foot -to be called a _libra_ rather than an _as_. It is far more likely that -a unit originally employed for measure would in time give its name to a -weight-unit corresponding in mass to the original measure-unit. There -are besides certain pieces of evidence afforded by the nomenclature of -the submultiples which point directly to the original as being a measure -rather than a weight-unit. The 24th part of the uncia is called the -_scriptulum_, _little scratch_, or _line_ (_scribo_), which is exactly -translated by the Greeks as _gramme_ (γραμμή, scratch or line)[423]. Now -whilst 24 strokes make an excellent method of dividing the uncia in its -capacity of _inch_, they of course have no significance as submultiples -of uncia, meaning _ounce_. Moreover, the forms of several of the best -known divisions of the _as_, such as triens, quadrans, sextans, which are -not easy to explain on the hypothesis that the terminology was primarily -applied to weight, on the other hand admit of a ready solution when we -take the _as_ as originally a unit of measure. For sextans means not a -sixth, but that which makes a sixth, triens not a third, but that which -divides in three parts, and quadrans not a fourth, but that which makes -fourfold, i.e. divides into four, for _quadra_ means not a fourth part, -but that which has four parts (hence usually a square). If we regard -these words as referring to certain lines drawn across a bar of metal, -their meaning is obvious. Whilst _sextans uncia_, the ounce which makes a -sixth, is nonsense, _sextans linea_, the line which makes a sixth, gives -excellent sense, so likewise _triens linea_ fits in admirably with the -required meaning, whilst _quadrans linea_ seems to mean _the line which -divides the whole into four parts_. - -The etymology of the word _as_ has long been a puzzle. Scholars starting -with the assumption that _as_ was the Roman abstract term for unity have -accordingly searched for an appropriate derivation. Some have identified -it with the Greek _heis_ one (εἶς through a Tarentine ἇς), whilst the -most recent attempt connects it with the first syllable of _el_ementum. -The same principle has been carried out with regard to _uncia_, which -has been treated simply as meaning _unit_ and connected with _unus_ and -_unicus_. - -Now it is notorious that the Roman mind was essentially concrete, and -found great difficulty in arriving at abstract ideas, and consequently at -abstract terms. This alone would make us hesitate to believe that _as_ -had originally begun as an abstract term meaning unit, and rather incline -us to believe that it started in life as a name for some common concrete -object. But we have seen above that the numerals in all languages seem -originally to have meant certain actual physical objects which served -as counters, such as the fingers and toes (_decem_ δέκα, _digitus_ -δάκτυλος), seeds or pebbles. If such has been the origin of the various -names for _unit_, we can hardly believe that any term for _unity_ can -have originated independently of some concrete object. To add to the -mists which hang round the origin of the _as_, its division into 12 parts -is taken to indicate a Babylonian source. Now the Roman foot was divided, -not merely into 16 fingers like the Greek, but also into 12 unciae or -inches like our own. The latter is most probably the true Italian system, -as it is that found among their cousins and neighbours the Kelts, as well -as amongst the Teutonic peoples. With ourselves still the rustic measures -inches by his thumb, just as he measures feet by means of his own natural -foot. The ancient Irish foot was divided into 12 thumbs or inches -(_ordlach_, Lat. _pollex_, the initial _p_ being lost in Irish)[424]. -The Romans too (as did likewise the Teutonic peoples, _e.g._ Icelandic -_tomme_, an inch) used the thumb (_pollex_) as the ordinary measure in -practical life[425]. The division then into 12 unciae is simply the -result of the fact that a certain natural relation exists between the -breadth of the thumb and the length of the foot, and as the relation held -true just as much for the Kelt as the Chaldaean, there was no need for -the ancient Italians to borrow their duodecimal system from the East. Now -what are we to say as to the origin of the word _uncia_? Does it mean -anything more or less than the breadth of the (thumb) _nail_? The use -of _unguis_, a nail, as a measure was common in Latin, as we know from -the phrases _transversum unguem_ (the thickness of a nail) and _latum -unguem_ (a nail’s breadth) side by side with _transversum digitum_ (a -fingers thickness) in Plautus. _Uncia_ may be simply a derivative from -_unguis_; there is no phonetic impossibility, and even if there were any -linguistic irregularity, false analogy with _unicus_ would amply account -for it. The use of a word meaning _nail_ to express the divisions of the -foot is completely paralleled by the ancient Hindu system, where the -_finger-breadth_ is termed _angala_, _i.e._ nail (cognate of _unguis_ and -ὄνυξ). - -Next we come to the word _as_ itself, which appears in old Latin as -_assis_. It is masculine in gender, which of itself is sufficient to -throw doubts on its being a really abstract word. Can it be that we have -a close relative of it in _asser_ a rod, bar, pole, which is likewise -masculine in gender? Whilst one form of the name was specially confined -to a small rod or bar of copper, the other was employed in a wide and -general way. These two forms _assis_ and _asser_,-_is_ are completely -analogous to _vomis_ and _vomer_,-_is_, a ploughshare. The meaning _rod_ -is in complete harmony with what we have said about the Greek obol. All -that is now wanting to make our proof complete is some evidence that the -primitive Italian _as_ was really in the form of a rod or bar. The most -archaic specimens of ancient Italian bronze money as yet described are -those found at the Ponte di Badia near Vulci in 1828. These consisted (1) -of quadrilaterals broken in pieces, weighing from 2 to 3 pounds each, -stamped with an ox and trident, (2) cube-shaped pieces of copper without -any mark, weighing from an ounce to a pound, and (3) some ellipse-shaped -pieces for the most part weighing two ounces[426]. But in the British -Museum are preserved a number of pieces of bronze which are roughly -quadrilateral. A cursory examination showed me that, whilst two parallel -sides exhibit the marks of a mould, the two remaining sides displayed -unmistakable signs of fracture. Several of them are end pieces, showing -the voluting of the mould on two sides and at one end, whilst the other -end shows marks of having been broken (Fig. 48). Several of them bear -stamps, or letters. There can be no doubt that these are pieces of short -bars of bronze, which were afterwards cut up, as occasion demanded. -The imprints on them prove them to be of comparatively recent date. If -therefore the _asses_ still retained their bar shape after the art of -stamping metal to serve as currency had come into use, _à fortiori_ the -primitive _as_ of Italy must certainly have been nothing more than a -plain rod or bar of copper, which passed from hand to hand as the obols -in Greece, and the bars of iron and copper pass at the present among -savages of Africa and Asia[427]. This was what was called by the ancient -writers _the raw copper_ (_aes rude_), as distinguished from _the stamped -copper_ (_aes signatum_) of a later date. The fact that early specimens -of _aes signatum_, such as the _decussis_, bearing a cow on both obverse -and reverse (Fig. 49), were still made in the shape of a bar, is a -further proof that such was the original form. - -[Illustration: FIG. 48. Aes Rude.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 49. Bronze Decussis.] - -It will be observed that I can give no positive evidence for the length -or breadth of the _as_. The pieces in the Museum are all fragments, -and, even if there were any of them whole, they would not by any means -decide the original _length_, although they would of course represent the -_weight_. For as they are late, they would probably have been made at a -time when the original rod was shrinking up into a more compact form, -just as the Chinese bronze knives get shorter and thicker. But the fact -remains that the _as_ was identified completely with the Roman _foot_ -measure, the divisions being the same in each. We therefore may with -great probability infer that the _as_ was originally a piece of copper a -foot in length, and of a known thickness. We have seen that copper and -iron are not weighed in the early stages of society, but are appraised -by measurement. Why should not the same hold true for Rome? It may be -asked, how came it that the _as_ was taken as the typical unit for weight -and superficial measure, and to express even an inheritance? The answer -is not far to seek. To express fractional parts has ever been a great -difficulty with primitive people. As the Malays cannot conceive abstract -numerals, but must append the concrete _padi_ to each of their numbers, -so the old Italian found it necessary to employ some concrete object, -the subdivisions of which were familiar, to express the fractional parts -whether it be of an estate or anything else. The most common unit in -use was the rod of copper divided into 12 thumbs. Accordingly, if a -Roman wished to say that Balbus was heir to one-twelfth of an estate he -expressed this by the homely formula that Balbus had come in for _one -inch_, the denominator 12 being mentally supplied, as everyone knew that -there were 12 inches in the copper bar. The same principle of taking some -familiar object, the ordinary method of dividing which was known to all -men, is seen in the method of expressing one-tenth. The Roman _denarius_ -was divided into 10 _libellae_; accordingly, when Cicero wishes to say -that a certain person had come in for a tenth part of an estate he says -that he has come in for a _libella_ (_heres ex libella_). From this the -reader will at once see that we might just as well declare that the word -_denarius_ is an abstract word meaning _unity_ as make the same assertion -about the _as_. Again, when the Roman land surveyors elaborated their -system of mensuration, they found that the simplest method of expressing -the fractional parts of the _jugerum_ was to employ the old duodecimal -method of the _as_. Nor is this without a parallel elsewhere. As the yard -was the common English unit of linear measure, it was applied to the -most common unit of land, the quarter of the hide, which was accordingly -termed a yard of land, or a virgate (_virga terrae_). The English analogy -is even still more complete, for as the _as_ or foot-rod became the unit -of weight, so in Cambridge the yard of butter is identical with the pound -of butter[428]. - -Our next step will be to trace the process by which the _as_ or rod -became the general weight-unit, the pound (_libra_). The term _libra_ is -not the oldest Latin name for _weight_, for _pondus_ or its cognate verb -_pendeo_, which literally means to _hang_, is the true claimant for that -position. _Libra_ seems properly to mean the _balance_, as is seen from -the legal formula (employed in Mancipatio) _per aes et libram_, by means -of copper and the balance. From the fact that its chief use was to weigh -_asses_ of copper, the mass of an _as_ came to be termed the _weight -par excellence_, just as the most usual amount weighed in the Greek -_talanta_ (scales) became the _talanton par excellence_. This process -can be illustrated by modern examples. Thus in the south of Ireland -potatoes are sold by the unit of 21 lbs., which consequently is termed a -_weight_, and instead of speaking of so many stones or hundredweights, -everyone speaks of a weight of potatoes. But, as already remarked, it was -only at a comparatively late epoch that the bars of copper were weighed. -It would be only with the growth of greater exactitude in commercial -dealings that the art of weighing, which was employed for all dealings -in gold and silver, would be applied to copper. Just as the Malays and -Tibetans have been gradually taught by the careful Chinese to employ -weights commercially, so the Italian tribes may have been led to do so -under the influence of the astute Greek traders from Magna Graecia and -Sicily. The system in vogue for gold was that of our old friend the -ox-unit. This is proved from the fact that not only is the oldest gold -coinage of the Etruscans, the close neighbours of Latium, based upon this -standard, but that also in Sicily and Southern Italy there was the small -gold talent, the three-fold of the ox-unit. This three-fold of the stater -was also used at Neapolis. Although the earliest Greek colonies in Sicily -employed at first the Aeginetic standard for silver, we soon find them -reverting to the gold or Euboic standard for that metal, whilst the early -silver coinage of the Etruscans (before 350 B.C.) is also of the Euboic -standard. We may with high probability assume that when the Sicilians -and Italians first essayed to weigh their copper rods, they naturally -employed the standard already in use for gold and silver. The highest -unit of this was the small talent of 3 staters which weighed about 405 -grs. The bar was divided into 12 inches, and it was found that an inch of -copper rod closely approximated in weight to the small gold talent. The -weight of the bar, which was the ancient unit for copper before weight -had been employed, now became the standard weight-unit for that metal. It -is to be observed that this ounce of 405 grs., though some 27 grs. less -than the full Roman _uncia_ of later times, is only 15 grs. lighter than -the Roman ounce prior to 268 B.C., for it is an ascertained fact that the -old Roman _uncia_ did not exceed 420 grs.[429] It must be remembered that -the weight of the ounce would depend on the standard foot by which the -bar was measured. Now, whilst the Roman foot measures 296 millim., there -was likewise in use in Campania, and probably in many parts of Southern -Italy, a foot of 276 millim. The relation of bars of these lengths and of -a given thickness to the Roman libra is not without interest. If we take -an ordinary engineer’s table of materials we shall find that a copper -rod a Roman foot long, and half a Roman inch in diameter, weighs 5040 -grs. Now, as the Roman pound weighs 5184 grs. this approximation seems -almost too close to be a mere coincidence. If on the other hand we take -a rod of a foot of 276 millim. and with a diameter of the corresponding -half-inch, we shall get a pound of 4680 grs. and an ounce of 390 grs, -which is certainly not far from the weight of the small gold talent. -It follows from this that we may expect pounds of different weights in -Italy, according as the foot-unit varies in different districts. - -In later times, besides the pound of 12 unciae, there were several -commercial pounds on Italian soil, the pound of 16 ounces (from which our -own avoirdupois is probably descended), that of 18 unciae, and that of -24. The last two are easy of explanation, since one is simply the double, -the other one and a half times the Roman pound. But perhaps a different -explanation must be sought for the 16 ounce pound. The foot was divided -by Greeks and also by Italians into 16 fingers as well as into 12 thumbs. -Was therefore the pound of 16 ounces simply derived from the division -of the foot bar into 16 fingers, the weight of the finger being however -equated to that of the Roman thumb or inch of copper? - -The _as_, having been once subjected to weight, its hundredfold, -the _centumpondium_ or “hundred weight,” became the highest Roman -weight-unit. Thus the _as_ and the _centumpondium_ of the Italians -correspond to the mina and talent of the Greeks. But it will be observed -that the Italians obtained their higher unit by the old decimal system, -whereas the Greeks had borrowed the mina and its sixtyfold from Asia. The -_centumpondium_ must be regarded as a true-born Italian unit, not one -borrowed from Greece or Asia, and of this there is further proof. We saw -by the ancient Roman law that the cow was estimated at 100 _asses_, the -sheep at 10 _asses_. No doubt from time out of mind 100 of the bars of -copper, which formed the chief lower unit of barter, made one cow, just -as in Annam 280 little hoes make one buffalo (p. 167). When copper came -to be weighed, the amount of copper which formed the equivalent of the -highest unit of barter, the cow, was taken as the highest weight-unit. -From what I have said above it is not improbable that the Roman libra -and the Sicilian litra of copper were almost equal in weight. The fact -that the Greek writers always employed the Sicilian word litra (λίτρα), -to translate the Latin _libra_, likewise indicates that in the Greek -mind there was a tradition of their identity. And if the doctrine here -put forward of the original nature of the _as_ be right, nothing can -be more likely than that the Italians who had crossed into Sicily and -their kinsfolk who had remained behind employed rods of similar size, -and that when they began to weigh the latter, the “weight” (libra or -litra), derived from the standard copper rod, should be the same in -each region, until certain modifications occasioned by new monetary -conditions according to the needs of different communities had caused -some divergency in _coin_ weights, although as a _commercial_ weight the -litra remained unchanged. As Aristotle identified the Aeginetic obol -and _chalcus_ with the Sicilian litra and _onkia_, we may with some -plausibility suggest that the ancient Greek copper obol or spike and the -Italian _as_ or rod were identical in dimensions and in origin. - -In Greece the copper obol rapidly fell in weight, for, when once silver -currency had been introduced, copper was thrust aside, and it was not -till the fourth century B.C. that copper coins came into use. When the -copper obol appears as a coin it is but a small piece, being in fact a -mere token. - -[Illustration: FIG. 50. As (_Aes grave_). (Before 2nd Punic War.)] - -The history of the degradation of copper was seen better in Sicily, where -we found the litra still weighing 990 grs., but it rapidly sank to only -200 grs., evidently in this case also being mere money of account. For as -the silver litra was about 13½ grs., unless the 200 grain copper litra -was a mere token, silver would have been to copper as 17:1, which is -obviously absurd. In the case of the Italian _as_ the process is still -clearer, for we have every stage of the _as_, from the bars which I have -described through the _libral as_ (_aes grave_), the _sextantal as_, the -uncial and half-uncial, down to the small coin of the empire commonly -called “a third brass.” - -[Illustration: FIG. 51. As (half uncial standard).] - -[Illustration: FIG. 52. As, 3rd Cent. A.D. (“Third Brass”).] - -[Illustration: FIG. 53. Didrachm of Corinth.] - - -_Gold and Silver._ - -Whilst in the infancy of coining the Sicilian silver litra was probably -the same as the Aeginetic obol, that is about 16⅔ grs., the Aeginetic -didrachm being probably treated as a _decalitron_ (ten-litra piece), -nevertheless after no long time the common Euboic standard of 135 grs. -was employed at Syracuse and elsewhere, and we have the authority of -Aristotle for the statement that the _Corinthian stater_ was called a -_decalitron_. Corinth, as we saw above, used the 135 grain unit for her -famous Pegasi, commonly known as “Colts” (πῶλοι), and therefore the litra -was by this time 13½ grs. Now, in Etruria we find about 400-350 B.C. a -silver currency struck on this same 135 grs. standard. These coins bear -marks of value, 𐌢 on coins of 131 grs., 𐌡 on those of 65 grs., 𐌠𐌠' on -those of 32 grs., and 𐌠 on those of 14 and 13 grs. It is plain therefore -that the stater of 135 grs. was considered to consist of 10 units of 13½ -grs. each. In other words, whatever the Etruscans may have called their -stater, it was exactly the same in weight and method of subdivision as -the _decalitron_ of Syracuse. At a later period (350-268 B.C.) we find -on coins of like weight the symbols 𐌢𐌢 instead of 𐌢, 𐌢 instead of 𐌡, 𐌡 -instead of 𐌠𐌠'. The unit now is exactly half of what it was at an earlier -stage, 6¾ grs. instead of 13½ grs. - -Not till 268 B.C., just on the eve of the First Punic War, did Rome -first coin silver. This coin, called _denarius_, as its name implies, -represented 10 _asses_. It was divided into four parts, each of which -was called a _sestertius_ or 2½, and was marked with the symbol 𐆘 -representing that number. - -[Illustration: FIG. 54. Sesterce of first Roman silver coinage.] - -It is very remarkable that the Etruscan coin of the second series, marked -2½, is only very slightly heavier than the Roman sesterce (_sestertius_) -which bears a similar mark. Hence it has been very reasonably inferred -that when the Romans set about the coinage of silver, they simply adopted -with slight modification the silver system employed by their neighbours -across the Tiber. This is all the more probable, as it is almost certain -that, though Rome did not strike silver she like Athens before the time -of Solon, and like Syracuse, used freely the coins of other communities -for a long time previously. The Etruscan coins would therefore serve as -silver currency at Rome. We may then assume that the monetary system must -have been much the same on both sides of the river. Accordingly, since -in 268 B.C. we find the Romans striking a coin in silver representing -10 copper _asses_, which is almost the same in weight as the Etruscan -coin marked 𐌢, we may reasonably infer that, if the Romans had commenced -coining silver a century earlier, their _denarius_ or 10-_as_ piece would -have been the same weight as the Etruscan. - -[Illustration: FIG. 55. Didrachm of Tarentum.] - -Now besides the _litra_, which we found to be both a copper-unit and -a silver coin in Sicily, there is another term of great interest, -especially as it plays an important part in the history of Roman money. -The general Latin name for a coin is _numus_, which in the later days of -the Republic usually meant a _denarius_ when used in the more restricted -sense, but in the earlier period it was the term specially applied to the -silver sesterce (_sestertius_). This is almost certainly a loan-word, -for Pollux is most explicit in warning us that, although the word seems -Roman, it is in reality Greek and belongs to the Dorians of Sicily and -Italy[430]. It is always a name of a coin of silver in Sicily, being so -used by Epicharmus. The coin meant by this poet cannot have been one of -great value, for he says: “Buy me a fine heifer calf for ten _nomi_.” -It was in all probability the Aeginetan obol, for Apollodorus in his -comments on Sophron set it down at three half (Attic) obols, that is, -almost 17 grs. This is confirmed by the fact that an Homeric scholiast -makes the small talent weigh 24 _nomi_, which gives nearly 17 grs. as -the weight of that unit. Crossing into Italy, we find that according -to Aristotle[431] there was a coin called a _noummos_ at Tarentum, on -which was the device of Taras riding on a dolphin. This is the familiar -type of the Tarentine didrachms which, from their first issue down to -the invasion of Pyrrhus (450-280 B.C.), weigh normally 123-120 grs., -although one specimen weighs 128 grs. This coin Mommsen recognized as -the _noummos_ of Aristotle. Professor Gardner afterwards suggested -that the diobol, on which occasionally the same type is found, was -rather the coin meant. Recently Mr A. J. Evans has almost proved this -hypothesis impossible by showing that all the diobols yet known are -probably later than the time of Aristotle[432]. As, however, this rests -on negative evidence, and is liable to be overthrown at any moment by -the discovery of an archaic diobol, it is advisable to cast about for -some more positive criterion. Heraclea of Lucania, the daughter-city and -close neighbor of Tarentum, as we know from the famous Heraclean Tables -(which scholars are agreed in regarding as written about the end of the -4th cent. B.C.), employed as a unit of account a silver _nomos_. It is -so probable that the _nomos_ employed at Heraclea (_circ._ 325 B.C.) -would be the same in value as that employed at Tarentum in the time of -Aristotle (_ob._ 322 B.C.), that if we can prove the _nomos_ of Heraclea -to be a _didrachm_ and not a _diobol_, we may henceforth hold with -certainty that the _nomos_ of Tarentum was the larger coin. - -On the Heraclean Tables it is enacted that those who held certain public -land should pay certain fines in case they had failed to plant their -holdings properly; four olive trees were to be planted on each _schoenus_ -of land, and for each olive tree not so planted a penalty of 10 _nomi_ -of silver was to be exacted, and for each _schoenus_ of land not planted -with vines the penalty was two _minae_ of silver[433]. The _schoenus_ is -identical with the Roman _actus_ (half a _jugerum_), being the square of -120 feet. Four olive trees were the allowance for each _schoenus_. Now if -we can determine the number of vines which were planted on a _schoenus_, -we shall be able to get a test of the value of a _nomos_. Two minae of -silver contained in round numbers 110 Tarentine didrachms of 123 grs. -each, or 675 diobols of about 20 grs. each. Olives were many times more -valuable than the vine, so that any result which will make the vine about -the same value as the obol will be absurd. - -Now Mr A. J. Evans, when in Southern Italy, at my request kindly -ascertained that vines, when trained on poles on vineyard slopes, are -usually about 3 yards apart, whilst when trained on pollard poplars (as -is much more usual in Campagna), they stand about 6 yards apart. In the -case of the former about 150 vines would go to a _schoenus_ (1600 sq. -yards), whilst in the latter case barely 50. We cannot doubt that the -distance between the vines must have been much the same in ancient as in -modern times. - -If now we take the _nomos_ to be a _diobol_, each vine is worth 4⅔ -_nomi_, or 14 _nomi_, according as there are 50 or 150 vines to the -_schoenus_. Now, as the valuable and slow growing olive is only worth 10 -_nomi_, and it is impossible to believe that the relative values of olive -and vine could have ever been such as those arrived at on the assumption -that the _nomos_ is a diobol, we must turn to the alternative course and -take the _nomos_ as a didrachm. The penalty for a _schoenus_ of vines is -two minae or 110 didrachms. If 150 vines go to a _schoenus_, each will -be worth about ⅔ didrachm, 15 vines being equal to one olive, or taking -50 vines to the _schoenus_, each vine will be worth about two didrachms, -5 vines being worth one olive. This result is so rational that we need -hesitate no longer to regard the well-known Tarentine didrachm as the -_nomos_ (_noummos_) of Aristotle. - -There is such a difference between the _nomos_ of Sicily, identical with -the Aeginetan obol, and that of Tarentum that we are forced to conclude -that the term _nomos_ is not specially applied to any particular coin -unit. In Sicily we found the native unit, the litra, identified in -certain cases, at least in earlier times, with the Aeginetan obol as well -as with the _nomos_. Why two names _nomos_ and _litra_ for the same unit? -Is one Sicilian and the other Greek? This at least gives a reasonable -explanation. The Dorians then in Sicily gave the name to their earliest -coins, _nomos_, with them indicating the unit of currency established by -law just as did _nomisma_ among other Greeks. As in Sicily the Aeginetic -obol was the _legal coin_ (_nomos_) _par excellence_, so at Tarentum, -where didrachms were the first coins to be struck, the term (_nomos_) was -applied to that unit. We may therefore expect to find the term _nomos_ -applied to various kinds of coins among the Italiotes and Italians, -according to the particular coin chosen by each state as its own unit of -account. - -Accordingly we find the term _nomos_ applied to certain bronze coins -struck on the sextantal (two ounce) and uncial standards, at Arpi -and other towns, which are inscribed N II (the double _nummus_), N I -(_nummus_), ..... (_quincunx_), .... (_triens_), ... (_quadrans_), .. -(_sextans_), . S (_sescuncia_), . (_uncia_), and Σ (_semuncia_). The -divisions being those of the _as_, it is clear that the _nomos_, or -current coin in those places, was the reduced _as_. Finally, when the -Romans first use the term _nummus_, it means the silver _sestertius_ (2½ -asses), the one-fourth of the _denarius_ or ten-_as_ piece, which weighed -a scruple (_i.e._ 18½ grs.) at the time of the first Roman coinage of -silver. Here we have all our positive evidence for the _nomos_. As -diobols of 18 to 17 grs. are found in the coinages of various towns in -Magna Graecia, such as Arpi, Caelia, Canusium, Rubi, and Teate, it has -been plausibly held that such a diobol was the _nomos par excellence_ -of these states, and that it was from contact with them that the Romans -learned both the use and the name of such a monetary unit. But Rome may -have been influenced by her Etruscan neighbours, for, as we have seen, -the smallest denomination in the second silver series of Etruscan coins -(of which the coins weigh 129 grs., 32 grs. and 17 grs. respectively) is -just the weight of the Roman sestertius, and bears the symbol 𐌡𐌠𐌠 (2½), -just as the latter bears 𐆘 (2½). Taking into consideration these facts, -it looks as if the Romans and Etruscans grafted on to a native system -the diobol, or current silver coin of Southern Italy, the Romans (and -for all we can tell the Etruscans likewise) adopting at the same time -the name _nummus_. Finally, we observe that this _nummus_ is identical -with the Sicilian _nomos_, which in turn was found to be none other than -the Aeginetic obol. The Roman _sestertius_ being a _scriptulum_ (17⁷⁄₁₂ -grs.) in weight, we thus find a direct connection between the latter -and the Aeginetic obol (16⅔ grs.). This need not surprise us, for it is -most natural that in the welding of a weight system (partly foreign, and -on the native side only employed for gold and silver) and of a system -of measurement employed for bronze, certain features derived from the -special silver units in use would be introduced into the new system, -which afterwards became universal for weighing all commodities. The term -_Sicilicus_[434] employed for the quarter-ounce is good evidence for -this hypothesis. Its name seems to mean simply _Sicilian_. In weight it -was about 108 grs. Now, didrachms struck on such a foot are found in the -Greek cities of south-western Italy, at Velia, Neapolis and at Tarentum, -after the time of Pyrrhus. Did the Romans, who must have carried on -by weight all dealings in silver up to 268 B.C., treat such coins as -quarter-ounces, and ultimately take the name of the coin (wrongly -connecting it with Sicily) to designate the quarter-ounce? In like -fashion it was probably discovered that the Aeginetic obol of the Greek -colonists was about equal in weight to the line (_scriptulum_) which is -one-twenty-fourth of the inch (_uncia_) of copper. Thus as there are 24 -_nomi_ in the Sicilian talent, so there are 24 _scriptula_ in the Roman -_uncia_. These considerations help to explain the relations which existed -between the _nomos_ (Aeginetic obol), _sestertius_, and _scruple_. - -Mr Soutzo[435] gives a very different account of the _nomos_. Starting -with the Egyptian hypothesis he makes all the Italian weight systems -of foreign origin. He thus makes the Roman libra the ⅟₁₀₀ of a Roman -_talent_, which he seems to identify with a light Asiatic talent[436]. -Starting with the talent he supposes that on Italian soil it was divided -into 100 _librae_ instead of 60 heavy or 120 light minae, as in the -East. Each of these _librae_ or _pounds_ was divided into 12 _ounces_, -and each _ounce_ into 24 fractions. He holds likewise that the Italians -adopted from the East the use of bronze “comme matière première de -leurs échanges,” at the same time as they obtained the first germs of -civilization and their first weight standards. The _centumpondium_ -or 100 weight therefore he takes as his prime unit. But besides the -talent and the mina and the _centumpondium_ and _libra_ or _as_, -according to Mr Soutzo, “all the Italian peoples availed themselves of -an intermediate weight unit: this was the _nomos_ or _decussis_[437]. -This unit was the _libral nomos_, the twelfth of the heavy talent, -being worth ten _minae_ or _librae_, and the _libral decussis_, the -_tenth_ of the _centumpondium_, weighing 10 _librae_.” The monetary -_nomos_ and _decussis_, he thinks, played an important part in the -history of Italian coinage. He admits however that no specimen of either -_nomos_ or _decussis_ of libral standard is known, the heaviest being -a _decussis_ of the Roman triental (one-third) standard, whilst the -pieces from Venusia and Teanum Apulum marked N I and N II (_nomos_ and -double _nomos_), representing 10 and 20 minas respectively, belong to -a still much more reduced standard. The simple multiples of the _as_ -(libra) and litra, such as the _tripondius_ and _dupondius_, were just -as rarely cast in the libral epoch. The _mina_ or the _as_ with their -fractions, on the contrary, were the kinds most employed: originally -the series was ordinarily composed of the _as_ (marked I or sometimes -............), the _semis_ (S), the _triens_ (....), the _quadrans_ -(...), the _sextans_ (..), the _uncia_ (.) and _semuncia_ (Σ). In some -series the _as_ is rare and the _semis_ is wanting, but in addition to -the other denominations here given the _quincunx_ (:·:) and the _dextans_ -(S...., 1 _semis_ + 4 _unciae_) are found. The presence or absence -of these pieces characterizes certain Italian and Sicilian monetary -systems[438]. All the evidence virtually which can be produced by Soutzo -for this hypothetical _nomos_ is that at Syracuse the Corinthian stater -of 135 grs. was called a _decalitron_, that the Tarentine didrachm of -128 grs. (max.) was similarly divided into 10 _litras_, that the Romans -employed the tenfold of the _as_ (_decussis_) and when they coined silver -called their silver unit a _denarius_ as representing 10 copper _asses_, -and the fact that certain copper coins such as those of Arpi, called -_nomi_, were evidently regarded as containing 10 units, the half being -the _quincunx_. But, as we have already seen, the real explanation of -these coins seems to be that they represent reduced _asses_. We must -remember that the heaviest Roman _as_ yet known is only 11 ounces, whilst -the great proportion of the earliest specimens are only 10 _unciae_ -or (_dextantals_). When the idea of a real copper currency for local -purposes gained ground, and it was found that it was not necessary to -have the _as_ of account of full weight, and at the same time to enable -the state to make a profit of this copper currency which was solely for -home use (just as our Mint makes a large profit of our silver coins), -the first stage in reduction was to take off an ounce, or much more -frequently two full ounces. I have already pointed out the vitality and -universality of the _uncia_ as an unit, and have given the reasons for -this. Hence arose _asses_ or _bars_ of 10 ounces. The number 10 had of -course great advantages, and presently, when further reductions in the -copper currency took place, certain communities clave fast to the decimal -system and, instead of taking off some more whole ounces, simply reduced -the ounce itself, and retained the denomination, continuing to place -the marks of value as before. In those Hellenized states of Apulia just -referred to this reduced copper _as_ or _litra_ was the _legal_ unit, and -therefore denominated a _nomos_, especially as it probably corresponded -in value (at least as money of account) to the silver unit or _nomos_ in -circulation in each district. But whilst Mr Soutzo seems wrong in his -view of the _nomos_, there can be no doubt that there was a consensus -among the Sicilians and Italians in favour of making an intermediate -unit between 1 and 100, the tenfold of the _litra_ and _as_, into a -higher unit. The Syracusan _decalitron_ and the Roman _decussis_ and -_denarius_ are incontrovertible facts. For the latter at least a most -interesting connection with a unit of barter can be proved. We saw that -by the Lex Tarpeia (451 B.C.) a cow was counted at one hundred _asses_ -(_centussis_, _centumpondium_) whilst a sheep was estimated at 10 _asses_ -(_decussis_). The reader will observe that, even if the theory were -true that the Roman _centumpondium_ is the starting-point of the Roman -weight system, and that it was borrowed from the East, the cow all the -same plays a most important part in the founding of the system. It would -be another instance to prove the impossibility of framing a weight -standard independent of the unit of barter, just as we have already seen -that the Irish, when borrowing a ready-made weight system from Rome, -found it absolutely necessary to equate the cow to the ounce of silver, -and as Charlemagne had to adjust the _solidus_ by the value of the same -animal. If again the _centumpondium_ and _as_ grew up independently as -_weight_ units on Italian soil, and copper was weighed there before -gold, the cow is evidently the basis of the system; whilst again, on -my hypothesis that _copper_ went by bulk in bars of given dimensions, -and was not weighed until long after the scales had been employed for -gold, the cow is directly connected with that unit of weight (the gold -ox-unit of 135 grs.) which ultimately forms the basis of the uncia (as -_weight_) and libra. On every hypothesis alike the cow must be retained -as the chief factor in the origin of the Roman weight system. It will be -observed that Mr Soutzo offers no explanation why the Romans, instead of -retaining the sexagesimal division of the talent which they are supposed -to have imported, subdivided it according to the decimal scale. It cannot -be alleged that they had any deep-rooted antipathy to the duodecimal -system, seeing that the _as_ was divided into 12 _unciae_, and the ounce -into 24 scruples. The fact that the Romans resisted in this respect the -Greek influences, which were so potent a factor in their civilization, -is strong evidence that the employment of the tenfold and hundredfold of -the _as_ was of immemorial native origin, and most intimately connected -with the animal units, which must certainly be held to be autochthonous. -As we found in Further Asia and Africa hoes or bars of metal as the -lowest unit of currency, so many hoes being worth a kettle, so many -kettles a buffalo, so in ancient Italy 10 bars (_asses_) of copper made -a sheep, and 10 sheep made a cow. It is exceedingly probable that the -same system prevailed among the Sicels and Sicilian Greeks, 10 litras -going to the sheep, 10 sheep to the cow. For we saw on an earlier page -that at Syracuse down to the time of Dionysius the cow remained the unit -of assessment, just as at the present moment the buffalo is the unit of -assessment among the villages of Annam; and, just as with the latter -the buffalo is the unit of value, so we may well infer that with the -Sicilians the cow played the same rôle. It may therefore be assumed with -considerable probability that the employment of the _decalitron_ and -_decussis_ as monetary units was originally due to their connection with -the value of the sheep. - -As Soutzo has observed, the degradation of the local copper series moved -on most unequal lines, and no doubt in some places the _decussis_ did -not represent perhaps one half the value of its archetype, the sheep, -whilst at the same moment the copper unit in another community stood -at almost its original weight and value. Where silver was coined the -degradation of copper went on all the quicker; there was a tendency more -and more to get rid of the old cumbrous copper coins, and to employ -those of a lighter and more portable size. Moreover the inter-relations -between copper and silver made the coinages in these metals act and react -upon each other. Thus the state after reducing the copper would reduce -likewise the silver, so as to make the two series correspond. This was -probably facilitated in some cases at least by the change in the relative -value of these metals. Italy was not a silver-producing region, whilst -it was rich in copper. Naturally with the increase of commerce and the -development of silver mines in neighbouring countries such as Spain, -silver became more abundant and the price of copper rose accordingly. We -have had occasion already to remark that the abundance or scarcity of -gold or silver is indicated by its being employed or not for coinage. -In the case of gold we know that it is only when the supply of that -metal is in excess of its demand for purposes of ornament that it is or -can be employed in the form of coined money. The history of the coinage -of Persia, Lydia, Macedonia, Rhodes and elsewhere in ancient times, as -well as the history of mediaeval gold coining, make this evident, whilst -modern Hindustan teaches us the same lesson. Of course in times of great -financial straits under the pressure of war a gold coinage was sometimes -issued, as perhaps at Athens[439] in 407 B.C. and as at Rome during the -second Punic war in 206 B.C. Backwardness in the coinage of silver among -certain peoples is probably to be accounted for in the same way. The -employment of iron money at Sparta (and Byzantium) was probably due to -the dearth of precious metals rather than to any ordinance of Lycurgus -against the employment of the latter. If accordingly we find that Rome -did not coin silver until 268 B.C. we are justified in concluding that it -was from want of silver she had been so long in following the example of -the Etruscans and the Greeks. - -It is certainly most significant that within four years after the capture -of Tarentum (272 B.C.) and the subjugation of all Southern Italy we find -her issuing a well-matured silver currency. Doubtless by her conquests -she obtained a vast supply of the precious metal, for we know from the -records of Livy and Pliny that great masses of foreign coins and bullion -flowed into the treasury after every fresh conquest. We may therefore -reasonably assume that previous to 272 B.C. silver had been much dearer -in relation to copper. - -But to return. We have seen that with the imprinting of some device on -the primitive bars of copper, the tendency to reduce their weight would -quickly evince itself. Accordingly it was possible that in certain places -when the coinage of silver began, and there was still a desire to make -the silver unit equal to the copper, the latter having been already -reduced, the silver would be proportioned thereto. Thus when silver -was first coined in some towns in Sicily, the silver Aeginetic obol of -16½ grs. was regarded as the equivalent of the copper litra, but when -Syracuse started a coinage of Corinthian staters, a piece of silver of -13½ grs. was accounted as the litra. - -But in other parts of Italy the process was somewhat different. For -we find the silver unit when once fixed remaining the same in weight, -but simply having its denomination altered to meet the requirements of -certain changes in the bronze series. Thus the Etruscan silver staters -of the period prior to 350 B.C., which weigh 130 grs., are marked 𐌢, -whilst the coins of the same weight at a later epoch are marked 𐌢𐌢, -showing that the copper unit had undergone a change. This Soutzo thinks -was simply a reduction from the triental to the sextantal foot, and in no -wise due to any change in the relative value of silver and copper. That -however both influences may have aided in the change will be made clear -from the history of the reduction of the Roman _denarius_ and _as_ in the -second Punic war. Finally when the Romans coined their first _denarii_ -in 268 B.C., the _libella_ or tenth of the _denarius_, which represented -in silver the copper _libra_, was only 7 grs., an indubitable proof that -the _as_ was but then a mere fraction of its former self. Yet all the -same it is clear that this silver _denarius_, which represented a reduced -_decussis_ of bronze, had its ultimate source in nothing else than the 10 -libral _asses_ which represented the value of a sheep. Are we not then -justified in suggesting that the Etruscan stater of 135 grs. marked 𐌢 -had a like origin, that the 10 litra piece or _noummos_ of Tarentum of -almost the same weight, and the Syracusan 10 litra piece of 135 grs., had -also a similar origin, whilst at an earlier period 10 Aeginetic obols -(the _nomi_ of the poems of Epicharmus and Sophron) were the equivalent -of the same animal? Ten _nomi_ were the price of a calf in the time of -Epicharmus, and as we have seen already the value of a sheep and a young -calf is always about the same, even down to the present day. - - -_Roman System._ - -Although it is not our concern to go into the history of Roman money, -it is nevertheless necessary to give the reader a short sketch of its -principal features in order to make the history of the Roman weight -standards intelligible. - -First came oxen and sheep, which according to their age and sex bore -definite relations to each other, and by which all other values were -measured. From an early period (at least 1000 B.C.) copper was in use, -not yet however weighed, but estimated by the bulk, as I have already -described. Side by side with it ingots of gold and silver passed from -hand to hand. Such ingots are mentioned by Varro under the name of -_bricks_ (_lateres_)[440]. Though this mention refers to a later period, -we can yet infer from it with certainty that the practice of trafficking -in small ingots of gold and silver prevailed in Italy as elsewhere. With -gold came the art of weighing, which was also applied to silver. We have -given reasons for believing that the weight-unit employed was the same as -that which I have termed the ox-unit. We found the Etruscans, the close -neighbours of the Romans, and who had access to the gold fields of Upper -Italy, employing this unit as their standard from the commencement of -their coinage in the 5th century for both gold and silver. Any of the -towns of Southern Italy which struck gold, such as Metapontum, coined -on the same standard, which was likewise employed for silver, sometimes -a little reduced, by many communities, such as Tarentum. The standard -ingot of gold would bear a known relation to that of silver, to the bar -of bronze, the cow, and the sheep. We have given absolute proof of the -relation between cattle and bronze in the 5th cent. B.C., and we may well -infer similar constant relations between cattle and bronze, and the other -metals. With greater exactness in commercial dealings the bronze rod was -next weighed by the standard already in use for gold, and it was found -that each of the 12 parts or unciae into which it was divided weighed -just three times the ox-unit, that is, the weight of the small talent -which we have found likewise in Macedon, Sicily, and Lower Italy, and -which may have itself represented originally the conventional value of a -slave, which was three cows among the Celts, the close kinsfolk of the -Italians, and probably about the same among the early Greeks. As soon as -the rods or _asses_ were exchanged by weighing, they would quickly lose -their original form, which was only required so long as it was necessary -that they should be of certain fixed dimensions. Under the new system it -mattered not whether an _as_ was ·8 inches long, and three inches thick, -provided only it was of full weight when placed in the scale. These are -the pieces which are known as _aes rude_; as yet they are mere lumps of -metal, without any stamp or device. Gaius well describes this stage: -“For this reason bronze and the balance are employed (in _mancipatio_) -because formerly they only employed bronze coins, and there were bars -(_asses_), double bars (_dupondii_), half-bars (_semisses_) and quarters -(_quadrantes_), nor was there any gold or silver coin in use, as we can -learn from a law of the Twelve Tables, and the force and power of these -coins depended not on their number but on weight. For as there were bars -(_asses_) of a pound weight, there were also two pound bars (_dupondii_), -whence even still the term _dupondius_ is used, as if two in weight[441]. -And the name is still retained in use.” The half-bars likewise and -quarters were no doubt proportionately adjusted to weight. It will be -observed that the omission of all mention of the _decussis_ as a standard -seems to throw additional doubt on Mr Soutzo’s hypothesis. The plain fact -is that a mass of bronze ten pounds in weight would have been extremely -cumbrous and unhandy for purposes of manufacture into the implements of -everyday life. - -[Illustration: FIG. 56. Romano-Campanian Coin.] - -[Illustration: FIG. 57. Victoriatus] - -When and by whom a stamp was first placed on the bars, it is of course -impossible to say. Tradition however seems unanimous in assigning -it to the Regal period. Pliny’s account of the Roman coinage is as -follows[442]: “King Servius first stamped bronze. Timaeus hands down -the tradition that aforetime they employed it in a rough state at -Rome. It was stamped with the impressions of animals (_nota pecudum_), -whence it was termed _pecunia_. The highest rating in the reign of that -king (Servius) was 120,000 asses, and accordingly this was the first -class. Silver was struck A.U.C. 485 (B.C. 268) in the Consulship of Q. -Ogulnius and C. Fabius, five years before the first Punic war, and it -was enacted that the _denarius_ should pass for ten pounds of bronze, -the _quinarius_ for five, and the _sestertius_ for two and a half. Now -the libral weight was reduced in the First Punic war, as the state -could not stand the expenditure, and it was appointed that _asses_ of -the weight of a _sextans_ (2 _unciae_) should be struck. Thus there -was a gain of five-sixths, and the debt was cleared off. The type of -that bronze coin was on the one side a double Janus, on the other a -ship’s beak, whilst on the _triens_ and _quadrans_ there was a ship. The -_quadrans_ was previously termed a _teruncius_ from _tres unciae_ (three -ounces). Afterwards under the pressure of the Hannibalic wars in the -dictatorship of Q. Fabius Maximus, _asses_ the weight of an ounce were -coined, and it was enacted that the _denarius_ should be exchanged for -sixteen _asses_, the _quinarius_ for eight, the _sestertius_ for four; -thus the state gained one half. Nevertheless in the soldiers’ pay the -_denarius_ was always given for ten _asses_. The types of the silver -were _bigae_ and _quadrigae_ (two-horse and four-horse chariots), hence -they were termed _bigati_ and _quadrigati_[443]. By and by in accordance -with the Papirian law half-ounce _asses_ were struck. Livius Drusus when -tribune of the Plebs alloyed the silver with an eighth part of bronze. -The _Victoriatus_ was struck in accordance with a law of Clodius, for -previously this coin brought from Illyria was treated as merchandize. It -was stamped with a Victory and hence its name. The gold piece was struck -sixty-two years after the silver on such a standard that a scruple was -worth twenty sesterces, and this on the scale of the then value of the -sesterce made 900 go to the pound. Afterwards it was enacted that 1040 -should be coined from gold pounds, and gradually the emperors reduced the -weight, most recently Nero reduced it to 45.” - -This statement of Pliny is supported in various details by several -disjointed passages of Varro and Festus. Thus the former says that “the -most ancient bronze which was cast was marked with an animal (_pecore -notatum_)[444], and elsewhere he says that the ancient money has as its -device either an ox, or a sheep, or a swine[445],” a statement repeated -by Plutarch and other later writers. Festus (_s.v._ _grave aes_) says -“_aes grave_ was so called from its weight because ten _asses_, each a -pound in weight, made a _denarius_, which was so named from the very -number (i.e. _deni_). But in the Punic war, the Roman people being -burdened with debt, made out of every _as_ which weighed a pound (_ex -singulis assibus librariis_) six _asses_, which were to have the same -value as the former.” We have also a statement in the fragment of Festus -(4, p. 347, Müller) that afterwards the _asses_ in the _sestertius_ were -increased (_i.e._ to 4 from 2½), and that with the ancients the _denarii_ -were of ten _asses_, and were worth a _decussis_, and that the amount -of bronze (in the _denarius_) was reckoned at XVI _asses_ by the Lex -Flaminia when the Roman people were put to straits by Hannibal[446]. -Again, Festus says: “_Asses_ of the weight of a _sextans_ (two ounces) -began to be in use from that time, when on account of the Second Punic -war which was waged with Hannibal, the Senate decreed that out of the -_asses_ which were then libral (a pound in weight) should be made -those of a _sextans_ in weight, by means of which when payments began -to be made, both the Roman people would be freed from debt, and private -persons, to whom a debt had to be paid by the state, would not suffer -much loss[447].” Varro likewise is worth hearing: “In the case of silver -the term _nummi_ is used: that is borrowed from the Sicilians. _Denarii_ -(were so named) because they were worth ten (coins) of bronze each, -_quinarii_ because they were worth five each, _sestertius_, because a -half was added to two (for the ancient _sestertius_ was a _dupondius_ and -a _semis_). The tenth part of a _denarius nummus_ is a _libella_, because -it was worth a _libra_ of bronze in weight, and being made of silver was -small. The _sembella_ is half the _libella_, just as the _semis_ is of -the _as_. _Teruncius_ is from _tres unciae_; as this is the fourth part -of the _libella_ so the _quadrans_ is the fourth part of the _as_.” - -[Illustration: FIG. 58. Sextans (Aes Grave). (The two globules mark the -value.)] - -As so much difficulty and controversy surround the various questions -connected with the beginnings of Roman currency, I have thought it -best to give at full length the scanty data afforded by the ancient -authorities. Let us now state the principal facts revealed by those -extracts. (1) The Romans in the Regal epoch employed _aes rude_, but -according to the testimony of Timaeus (an Italian Greek historian who -wrote about B.C. 300), they had already before the days of the Republic -stamped bronze with figures of cattle. (2) Silver was first coined five -years before the beginning of the First Punic war: (3) Some time during -that war the _as_ was reduced from a pound to two ounces; (4) In the -Second Punic war under like circumstances the _as_ was reduced from two -ounces to one ounce; (5) The _denarius_ when first struck represented -ten libral _asses_, or a _decussis_; (6) In the Second Punic war when -the _as_ was reduced, the _denarius_ was ordered to pass for 16 instead -of 10 _asses_; (7) In spite of this reduction, the _denarius_ continued -to be regarded as containing only 10 _asses_ when employed in paying the -soldiers. - -Considerable numbers of _asses_ and the parts of _asses_ have come -down to us, many of them bearing marks of value as before described. -There is undoubted evidence of a constant reduction of the _as_. The -question arises, did the reduction take place _per saltum_ or by a -gradual process? Mommsen thinks that the _as_ continued to be of libral -weight until shortly before 264 B.C. and that it was then without any -intermediate steps reduced to the triens (4 ounces). Mr Soutzo on -the other hand maintains with vigour that from 338 B.C., the date at -which he fixes the first coinage of _asses_ at Rome, to 264 B.C., the -degradation was a gradual process, and he arraigns Mommsen on a charge -of disregarding the ancient authorities, who state, as we have seen, -that the change was from libral to sextantal _asses_. Mr Soutzo is thus -compelled to state that all the _asses_ within that period (338-264 -B.C.) although they have a range from almost full libral weight to only -3 ounces were treated as libral _asses_. Now this of course is a very -reasonable hypothesis on the principle which I have adopted that bronze -money was in fact merely token currency, used only for local circulation -and not for extraneous trade. But Mr Soutzo is precluded from adopting -such a position unless he gives up the basis of his whole work. He has -laid down that the bronze money was not a mere conventional currency, -but always was actual value for the amount which it represented. On this -assumption he obtains his relation of 1:120 between copper and silver. -Assuming that the sextantal reduction was contemporaneous with the issue -of the first _denarius_ (which is in direct defiance of the historians), -he found that the _denarius_ of 70 grs. = 2 ounces (840 grs.) of bronze; -therefore silver was to bronze as 120:1. Again, when the financial crisis -took place during the Second Punic war and the _denarius_ was reduced -(as we learn from the actual coin weights) to 62 grs., and it was made -to pass for 16 _asses_ instead of 10 _asses_, he finds that since 62 -grs. of silver = 16 _asses_ of 432 grs. (_unciae_) silver was to bronze -as 112:1. But in the latter case he omits to explain why it was that -the _denarius_ in paying the troops only counted for _ten asses_. It is -evident that if the relation between copper and silver was really as -1:112, there could have been no need for making this difference. But as -the soldiers were serving outside Rome, and Roman local token currency -would not be taken in payment, it was necessary to pay them according -to the market value of bronze. At Rome the _denarius_ was made to pass -for 16 _asses_, or three-fifths more than its actual value. It appears -therefore that the data given us by Pliny are not sufficient to allow -us to come to any definite conclusion as regards the relative value of -silver and bronze at that time. Moreover there is no evidence to show -that the _denarius_ was reduced from 70 grs. to 62 grs. by the Lex -Flaminia. It is on the whole more likely that this reduction took place -when the first gold coinage was issued (62 years after the first silver) -in 206 B.C., since there was every inducement to make such a change in -the silver as would admit of a convenient relation between the gold -_scruple_ and 20 _sestertii_. This again raises just doubts as regards -the accuracy of Mr Soutzo’s calculation. With reference to the reduction -of the _as_ to the sextantal standard we have seen that the truth of his -deductions rests entirely on the assumption that the degradation took -place _before_ the First Punic war at the same time as the issue of the -first silver coinage. This of course is directly contradicted by the -historians. But even granting that it was correct, it is difficult to see -why we should assume that the Roman _as_, which according to Soutzo’s -own principles had been nothing more than a token, should suddenly -have been treated as though it really was of the actual value which it -represented. There was no reason why, even though the unit of account -was the sextantal _as_, the _as_ should have been anything else than a -token in its relation to the silver currency: certainly it is strange -that, if the Romans after treating the _as_ as a token down to 268 B.C. -then suddenly gave it its full monetary value, they did not continue to -carry out their new principle. For as a matter of fact there are very -great differences in the weight of the sextantal _asses_, and after the -reduction to the uncial standard, the same process of degradation went on -without ceasing, as Soutzo himself has shown[448]. All these facts point -to the conclusion that the bronze coinage at Rome was only a local token -currency, such as is our own silver and bronze series at the present day. - -Let us now see if we can give a consistent explanation of the statements -of the ancient writers which I have quoted above. _Aes rude_ or bronze -in an unstamped or unmanufactured state was originally in use at Rome, -according to Timaeus. This period corresponds to that time when, as I -have endeavoured to show, _asses_ or _bars_ of given dimensions intended -to be made into articles for use or ornament passed from hand to hand, -as do the brass rods mentioned above at the present moment in the Congo -region of Africa. Then came the stamping of the _asses_ towards the close -of the regal period (according to Timaeus), when figures of animals -were placed thereon. We have seen above (p. 354) that such figures are -actually found on certain rough quadrilateral pieces of bronze found in -some parts of central Italy. With the use of weight instead of measure -for appraising their value, the shape of the _asses_ would become -modified, getting shorter and thicker. Finally, they assume the round -shape of ordinary coins, and bear certain well-defined symbols on both -sides, such as the Janus head and Rostrum on the _as_, that of Mercury -on the _sextans_. But as few of these round _asses_ are found to weigh -more than 10 _unciae_, it would seem that the process of degradation had -already set in before their issue. Gold and silver at the same epoch -passed by weight either after the ancient fashion in ingots, or as the -coined money of the Greek cities of the South or of the Etruscans. The -unit of account continues to be the _as_ of _full weight_. Thus all -penalties due to the state would be paid not in reduced _asses_ of only -5 or 4 ounces, but in full libral _asses_ as weighed in the balance. On -the other hand although reduced _asses_ were used by the state in paying -debts to private individuals, they were only received as tokens, and no -doubt the state was bound if called upon to pay a full pound of bronze -for every stamped reduced _as_ presented to it, but in ordinary times -this made no practical difference, for the bronze currency was purely -local all over Italy and Sicily, as we have seen above. It was far too -cumbrous to be used as a medium of international trade. - -When the Romans after defeating Pyrrhus and taking Tarentum had reduced -all Southern Italy and hence obtained great quantities of silver, -they proceeded five years before the beginning of the First Punic war -to issue silver _denarii_ or ten _as_ pieces. Are these pieces real -representatives of the as of account, or do they rather simply represent -the value of the then normal _as_ of currency, which was probably not -more than a _triens_ or four ounces or perhaps not more than a _quadrans_ -or three ounces? The latter is the more likely hypothesis. They had been -long accustomed to a bronze token currency, and it was most likely that -the new silver currency would be adapted to it. It is then likely that -the _denarius_ equalled ten _asses_ of at least 3 ounces each, in which -case silver was to bronze as 180:1. In transactions inside the state the -balance would be commonly, and in dealing with strangers invariably, -employed in all monetary transactions, ancient states being very jealous -of alien mintages. This is exemplified by Pliny’s statement that the -Victoriates brought from Illyria were treated simply as merchandize. Then -came the First Punic war, which lasted for two-and-twenty weary years, -during which the resources of the Republic were almost drained dry. The -state became virtually a bankrupt and simply paid in modern phraseology -3_s._ 4_d._ in the pound. It was effected thus: up to the present the -_as_ of full weight was the unit of account, although the coined _asses_ -had by this time come to be simply tokens of about 2 ounces each. The -state accordingly enacted that the _as_ of currency should become the -unit of account, and paid the state debt by these coins, and at the same -time made it legal for private individuals, who were bound under the old -order of things to pay their debts in libral _asses_ to discharge their -obligations by sextantal _asses_. Thus Pliny is perfectly right in saying -that the state made a profit of five-sixths. The influx of silver after -the conquest of Southern Italy and the requirements of large quantities -of bronze for the building of fleet after fleet, and for military -equipment, may have very well tended to appreciate the value of bronze at -this period. As the reduction in the size of the _as_ continued, though -the unit of account was two ounces, under the pressure of the Second -Punic war they repeated the same process. The _as_ was now not more than -an ounce, so they decreed that the _as_ of currency should again be the -_as_ of account, and the state thus gained a half, this time paying ten -shillings in the pound. - -The _ounce_ and _libra_ had been long well defined at Rome before the -silver coinage first appeared, and whilst we saw that the _sextula_ or -one-sixth of the _uncia_ was the lowest weight employed for bronze, the -fourth part of this weight, the _scriptulum_, had been regularly employed -in weighing silver and gold; as we have seen it owed its origin to the -fact that the Aeginetan silver obol was found to be about the weight -of the 24th part of an _uncia_ or inch of bronze. The first _denarii_ -were the weight of a _sextula_ or 4 _scriptula_ (70 grs.) of the older -weight. The _scriptulum_ and _sestertius_ were thus identical, and hence -in later days the unit of account was the _sestertius_ and not the _as_. -Accordingly when the gold coinage of 206 B.C. was issued, it was based on -the _scruple_, and consisted of pieces of 1, 2, and 3 scruples. - -[Illustration: FIG. 59. Gold Solidus of Julian II. (the Apostate).] - -We have now traced the origin of Roman currency sufficiently for the -purposes of this work. After various fluctuations in the weight of the -gold pieces under Sulla, Pompey, Julius Caesar and others, Constantine -the Great finally fixed the weight of the _aureus_ or _solidus_ at 4 -scruples in 312 A.D., and so it remained until the final downfall of the -Empire of the East in 1453. From this famous coin the various mintages -of mediaeval and consequently of modern Europe may be said to trace -their pedigrees. The _solidus_ was divided into _thirds_ or _tremisses_, -for the scrupular system had been abandoned, the _solidus_ being regarded -simply as a _sextula_ or one-sixth of the _uncia_, and not as a multiple -of the _scruple_. The _tremissis_ therefore weighed 24 grs. Troy, or -32 wheat grains. When the barbarian conquerors of the Roman Empire -began to coin silver they took as their model the gold _tremissis_. In -the earliest stage of the Anglo-Saxon mintage we find so-called gold -pennies of 24 grs. occasionally appearing. These are nothing else than -_tremisses_. But silver henceforward was to form for centuries the staple -currency of Western Europe, and the silver penny of 24 grs. (whence comes -our own penny-weight) became virtually the unit of account. As its weight -shows, the penny was based on the gold _tremissis_. - -[Illustration: FIG. 60. Gold Tremissis of Leo I.] - -The first regular coinage of gold in Western Europe began with the famous -gold pieces of Florence in the beginning of the 14th century. These -weighed 48 grs. or 2 _tremisses_. From their place of mintage the name -_florin_ (fiorino) became a generic term for gold coins. Accordingly -when Edward III. issued his first gold coins of 108 grs. each, although -differing so completely in weight from their prototype, they too were -called _florins_. In reality however Edward’s coin was 1½ solidus (72 + -36). The first attempt did not prove satisfactory, and with the issue of -the famous noble, first of 136½ grs., and afterwards of 129 grs., the -series of English gold coins may be said to begin, of which the latest -stage is the sovereign of 120¼ grs. Troy. - -I have already explained at an earlier stage the origin of the Troy -grain; before we end let me add a word on the origin of the Troy ounce. -The Troy pound like the Roman has 12 ounces, but whereas the Roman ounce -had 432 grs. Troy or 576 grs. wheat, the Troy ounce has 480 grs. Troy or -640 grs. wheat. How came this augmentation of the ounce? - -It is in Apothecaries’ weight that we find the key. This standard runs -thus - - 20 grs. = 1 scruple, - 3 scruples = 1 drachm, - 8 drachms = 1 ounce, - 12 ounces = 1 pound. - -Now note that there are 24 scruples in the ounce, and 288 scruples in the -pound, exactly as in the Roman system. But there is an element foreign -to the old Roman system as seen in the drachm of 60 grs. Now Galen and -the medical writers of the Empire used the post-Neronian _denarius_ of -60 grs. as a medicine weight. What more convenient weight unit could be -employed than the most common coin in circulation? The _drachma_ and -_denarius_ had long since been used synonymously in common parlance. But -as there were 18 grs. (Troy, 24 wheat grs.) in the old scruple, and there -were 60 grs. in the drachm or _denarius_, they were not commensurable, -and accordingly to obviate this difficulty the physicians for practical -purposes raised the scruple to 20 grs., in order that it might be -one-third of the drachm. The number of scruples in the ounce remaining 24 -as before, the ounce became augmented by 48 grs. (24 × 2) and accordingly -rose to 480 grs. We saw above that the Troy grain is the barley-corn. Why -is the latter so closely connected with ‘Troy weight’? When the scruple -was raised from 18 grs. Troy, 24 grs. of wheat, to 20 grs. Troy, it no -longer contained an even number of wheat grains, for the new _scruple_ -contained 26⅔ grs. wheat. As this was inconvenient, and on the other hand -the new scruple weighed exactly 20 barley-corns, the latter henceforth -became the lowest unit of this system. - - -_Conclusion._ - -It now simply remains to sum up the results of our enquiry. Starting -with the Homeric Poems we found that although certain pieces of gold -called _talents_ were in circulation among the early Greeks, yet all -values were still expressed in terms of cows. We then found that the -gold _talent_ was nothing else than the equivalent of the cow, the older -unit of barter, and we found that the _talent_ was the same unit as that -known in historical times under the names of Euboic stater or Attic -stater, and commonly described by metrologists as the light Babylonian -shekel. Our next stage was to enquire into the systems of currency used -by primitive peoples in both ancient and modern times, and everywhere -alike we found systems closely analogous to that depicted in the Homeric -Poems, and we found that in the regions of Asia, Europe and Africa, where -the system of weight standards which has given birth to all the systems -of modern Europe had its origin, the cow was universally the chief unit -of barter. Furthermore gold was distributed with great impartiality over -the same area, and known and employed for purposes of decoration from an -early period by the various races which inhabited it. We then found that -practically all over that area there was but one unit for gold, and that -unit was the same weight as the Homeric Talanton. Next we proved that -gold was the first object for which mankind employed the art of weighing, -and we then found that over the area in question there was strong -evidence to show that everywhere from India to the shores of the Atlantic -the cow originally had the same value as the universally distributed gold -unit. - -From this we drew the conclusion that the gold unit, which was certainly -later in date than the employment of the cow as a unit of value, was -based on the latter; and finally we showed that man everywhere made his -earliest essays in weighing by means of the seeds of plants, which nature -had placed ready to his hand as counters and as weights. Then we surveyed -the theories which derive all weight standards from the scientific -investigations of the Chaldeans or Egyptians, and having found that they -were directly in contradiction to the facts of both ancient history and -modern researches into the systems of primitive peoples, we concluded -that the theories of Boeckh and his school must be abandoned. - -Next we proceeded to explain the development of the various systems -of antiquity from our ox-unit, taking in turn the Egyptian, -Assyrio-Babylonian, Hebrew, Lydian, Greek and Italian. New explanations -of the origin of the Talent and Mina and also of the earlier types on -Greek coins and of the varieties of standard employed for silver by -the Greeks were offered, and finally in dealing with the systems of -Sicily and Italy arguments were advanced to show that the Roman _as_ -was originally nothing more than a rod or bar of copper of definite -measurements, and was in weight and method of division the same as the -Sicilian Litra and the Greek Obol. - -In how far the propositions here put forward have been proved, it must -remain for others to decide. - -Laus Deo, Pax Vibis, Requies Mortuis. - - - - -APPENDIX A - -THE HOMERIC TRIAL SCENE. - - Κεῖτο δ’ ἄρ’ ἐν μέσσοισι δύω χρυσοῖο τάλαντα, - Τῷ δόμεν, ὃς μετὰ τοῖσι δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴποι. - - _Il._ XVIII. 507-8. - - -I would not return to so well-worn a theme, were it not that editors like -Dr Leaf (_ad loc._) still state that there is nothing in the _language_ -of the last line to hinder us from taking it either of the litigant or of -the judge. - -Scholars have fixed their attention so closely on the words δίκην εἴποι -that they have completely overlooked the qualifying ἰθύντατα. In modern -courts of law we do not expect to hear the _straightest_ statement of a -case from advocates, but rather from the judge. The ancient Greek would -never dream of expecting a litigant to give a _straight_ statement of -his case. The following passages will show that ἰθύς, ἰθύνειν, εὐθύνειν, -ὀρθός are always applied to a judge (the converse σκολιός being used -of unjust judges). The metaphor is from the carpenter’s rule (cf. ἐπὶ -στάθμην ἰθύνειν _Od._ V. 245). - -Pind. _Pyth._ IV. 152 καὶ θρόνος, ᾦ ποτε ἐγκαθίζων Κρηθεΐδας ἱππόταις -_εὔθυνε_ λαοῖς δίκας. - -Solon 3. 36 _εὐθύνων_ σκολιὰς δίκας. - -_Il._ XVI. 387 οἳ βίῃ εἰν ἀγορῇ _σκολιὰς_ κρίνωσι θέμιστας. - -Hesiod _Opp._ 221 σκολιῇς δε δίκῃς κρίνωσι θέμιστας. - -Hes. _Opp._ 222 - - (Δίκη) κακὸν ἀνθρώποισι φέρουσα - οἵ τέ μιν ἐξελάσωσι καὶ οὐκ _ἰθεῖαν_ ἔνειμαν. - -Arist. _Rhet._ I. 1 οὐ γὰρ δεῖ τὸν δικαστὴν διαστρέφειν εἰς ὀργὴν -προάγοντας ἢ φθόνον ἢ ἔλεον· ὅμοιον γάρ κἂν εἴ τις, ᾧ μέλλει χρῆσθαι -_κανόνι_, τοῦτον ποιήσειε _στρεβλόν_. - -Pind. _Pyth._ XI. 15 ὀρθοδίκαν γᾶς ὀμφαλόν. - -Aesch. _Persae_ 764 _εὐθυντήριον_ σκῆπτρον. - -No one can then doubt that the words δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴποι can only refer -to the judge. - -The following account of a trial on the Gold Coast so well illustrates -the principle of payment having to be made to the judges that I think it -worth quoting. (_Eighteen years on the Gold Coast of Africa_, by Brodie -Crookshank, Vol. I. p. 279, London, 1853.) - -“When the day arrived for the hearing of Quansah’s charge, a large space -was cleanly swept in the market-place for the accommodation of the -assembly; for this a charge of ten shillings was made and paid. When the -Pynins (elders) had taken their seats, surrounded by their followers, -who squatted upon the ground, a consultation took place as to the amount -which they ought to charge for the occupation of their valuable time, and -after duly considering the plaintiff’s means, with the view of extracting -from him as much as they could, they valued their intended services at -£6. 15_s._, which he was in like manner called upon to pay. Another -charge of £2. 5_s._ was made in the name of tribute to the chief, and as -an acknowledgment of gratitude for his presence upon the occasion. £1. -10_s._ was then ordered to be paid to purchase rum for the judges, £1 for -the gratification of the followers, ten shillings to the men who took the -trouble to weigh out the different sums, and five shillings for the court -criers. Thus Quansah had to pay £12. 15_s._ to bring his case before this -august court, the members of which during the trial carried on a pleasant -course of rum and palm wine.” - - - - -APPENDIX B. - -WHAT WAS THE UNIT OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CONSTITUTION OF SERVIUS TULLIUS? - - -Th. Mommsen in his Roman History (I. 95-96 English Trans.) has laid down -that land was the basis of assessment, on the analogy of the Teutonic -_hide_. He makes the members of the First Class those who held a whole -hide; and the remaining four classes were made up of those who held -proportionally smaller freeholds. When Mommsen has once spoken, it -is presumptuous to raise doubts. If however it can be shown that the -Italians rather based their assessments on cattle, and that furthermore -the statements of the later historians point to an original rating which -harmonizes well with such an original condition, it may have been worth -while to start enquiry once again in a case where the data are so scanty -and obscure. - -Pliny _H. N._ XXXIII. 3. 13. Maximus census CXX. assium fuit illo rege, -ideo haec prima classis. This is confirmed by Festus (_s.v._ _infra -censum_, p. 113 Müller) infra classem significantur qui minore summa quam -centum et viginti millia aeris censi sunt. - -Livy I. 42 says the rating of the _prima classis_ was Centum millia -aeris, of the _secunda classis_ was infra centum assium ad quinque -et septuaginta millia. _Tertia classis_ quinquaginta millia, _Quarta -classis_, quinque et viginti millia. _Quinta classis_, undecim millia. - -Dionysius of Halicarnassus (IV. 16-17) puts the rating of the 1st class -at 100 minae (of silver) or 10,000 drachms; of the 2nd at 75 minae, of -the 3rd at 50 minae, of the 4th at 25 minae, and that of the 5th at 12 -minae. - -All are agreed that it is absolutely incredible that the original rating -of the first class was 120,000 _libral_ asses of bronze. The cow was -worth 100 _libral_ asses at Rome in 451 B.C. Therefore the rating of -120,000 asses would have been equivalent to 1200 cows. It is impossible -to believe that there could have been a numerous body of men in early -Rome possessed of such vast capital. Boeckh’s explanation is that with -the reduction of the _as_ from its original weight of a _libra_ to two -ounces, and one ounce, there was a corresponding raising of the amount of -the rating of the several classes. - -Mommsen on the other hand thinks that the rating was originally on -_land_, and that the change in the method of rating from land to bronze -took place at a time when land had greatly risen in value, and that -accordingly 120,000 _asses_ of the First Class are libral _asses_. Such -a change as Mommsen supposes must have taken place before 260-241 B.C., -for the _as_ was reduced to two ounces during the first Punic War. Yet -we cannot easily suggest any period before that date when there was -likely to have been so great a rise in the value of land, as is necessary -to account for the large rating of 120,000 _asses_, which according to -Mommsen’s reckoning would be worth about 400 lbs. of silver (or according -to Soutzo 1000 lbs. of silver). - -Boeckh’s hypothesis seems to fit better the conditions of the problem. -Much of the importance of the rating of the various classes passed away -when Marius (104 B.C.) changed the whole military system and chose the -troops from the _Capite censi_, as well as from the five property classes. - -The _as_ had been reduced to a single _uncia_ in the 2nd Punic War (cf. -p. 377). Thus 12 _asses_ of the _uncial_ standard were required to make -up the weight of the old _libral as_. Accordingly 120,000 _asses_ of -the 2nd century B.C. would be equal to 10,000 _libral asses_ of the -earlier days. But as by the Lex Tarpeia 100 _asses_ is the value of a -cow, 10,000 _libral asses_ = 100 cows. This would be by no means an -unlikely number of cows, to form the minimum of the wealthiest class of -a pastoral community. There is another curious piece of evidence which -seems to confirm my hypothesis. One of the provisions of the Licinian -Rogations (367 B.C.) was that no one should hold more than 500 _jugera_ -of the Public Land, or should be allowed to feed more than _one hundred_ -large cattle or 500 small cattle on public pastures. μηδένα ἔχειν τῆσδε -τῆς γῆς πλέθρα πεντακοσίων πλείονα, μηδὲ προβατεύειν ἑκατὸν πλείω τὰ -μείζονα καὶ πεντακοσίων τὰ ἐλάσσονα. Appian, _Bell. Civ._ I. 8. If 100 -large cattle were the number which qualified a Roman for the first class, -there was every reason why Licinius and Sextus should have taken 100 as -the _maximum_ number of cows which a citizen could keep on the public -pastures. - -Next I shall show that the method of rating by cattle and not by land -was that actually practised in Sicily. That island stood in such close -relations to the Italian Peninsula both geographically and ethnologically -that we may reasonably infer that the method of rating in use there was -also in use in Italy. - -Now we learn from Aristotle’s _Oeconomica_ (II. 21) that when the tyrant -Dionysius oppressed the Syracusans with excessive exactions, they ceased -to keep cattle: - -Τὼν δὲ πολιτῶν διὰ τὰς εἰσφορὰς οὐ τρεφόντων βοσκήματα, εἶπεν ὅτι ἱκανὰ -ἦν αὐτῷ πρὸς τοσοῦτον· τοὺς οὖν νῦν κτησαμένους ἀτελεῖς ἔσεσθαι, πολλῶν -δὲ ταχὺ κτησαμένων πολλὰ βοσκήματα, ὡς ἀτελῆ ἑξόντων, ἐπεὶ ᾤετο καιρὸν -εἶναι, τιμήσασθαι κελεύσας ἐπέβαλε τέλος, κ.τ.λ. - -If the citizens of Syracuse, a great Greek trading city, were still -rated in cattle in the time of Dionysius (405-367 B.C.), _à fortiori_ we -may expect the same primitive method of assessment to prevail among the -pastoral peoples of Central Italy in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. - -Among the Kelts, the close kinsfolk of the Italians, the same system -probably prevailed. Thus in the ancient Irish laws, where the various -classes of freemen are described, there are a number of them called -_Bo-aires_[449], cow-freemen. - -As modern research has shown that everywhere among the Aryans land was -originally held in common, and that separate property in land sprung up -only at a comparatively late period, we may with some confidence infer -that in Italy likewise in early days a man’s wealth was reckoned in his -cattle, and not in lands, such as I have shown to have been the practice -among the Greeks of the ‘Homeric times’ (‘The Homeric Land System,’ -_Journal of Hellenic Studies_, 1885). - - - - -APPENDIX C. - -KELTIC AND SCANDINAVIAN WEIGHT SYSTEMS. - - -It is always dangerous to deal with things Keltic. So much difficulty is -there in getting at any facts amidst masses of wild assertions and loose -conclusions, that a prudent man may well shrink back. However, as it is -worth while to give some _facts_ respecting the actual weights of gold -rings and other ornaments, I have thought it best to print the following -pages. - -Attempts have long ago been made to find the standard of the so-called -ring money. Sir William Betham, followed by John Lindsay[450], after -weighing many examples, arrived at the conclusion that they are based -on the ounce Troy. Now as the ounce Troy is entirely unknown to the -Brehon Laws, and was only brought into Ireland by the English settlers, -it is needless to argue further against that doctrine. Dr Petrie’s[451] -discussions about Irish coins are similarly vitiated by his treating as -Troy grains the grains of wheat mentioned by the authorities. - -1. _Irish._ Let us work back from the known to the unknown. - -The system in the Brehon Laws is as follows: - - 1 Cumhal (ancilla) = 3 Cows. - 1 Cow = 1 Unga (uncia of silver). - 1 Unga = 24 Screapalls. - 1 Screapall = 3 Pinginns. - 1 Pinginn = 8 grs. of wheat. - -Unga = 576 grs. of wheat. - -The ounce seems to be the highest unit of weight, and just as in the -Brehon Laws an _unga_ of silver is equated to a cow, so in early times -an _unga_ of gold seems to have been the regular value of a slave, the -most valuable of living chattels. At least we may so infer from a curious -story of St Finnian of Clonard: - - LIFE OF ST FINNIAN (OF CLONARD, CO. MEATH). - - (BOOK OF LISMORE, fol. 24 b, c.) - - Tainic iar sin Finnen cu Cilldara co Brighit, cu m-bui ic - tiachtuin leiginn ocus proicepta fri re. Ceilebrais iar sin do - Brigit ocus dobreth Brighit fainne oir dho. Nir ’bho santach som - imon saegul: ni roghabh in fainne. “Ce no optha,” ar Brigit, - “roricfea a leas.” Tainic Finnen iar sin cu Fotharta Airbrech. - Dorala uisce do. Roinnail a lamha asin usci[452]: tuc lais for a - bhais asan uisci in fáinne targaidh Brighit dó. - - Táinic iar sin Caisin, mac Naemain, co faelti moir fri Finden. - Ocus coneadhbair fein dó ocus roacain fris ró Fotharta ic - cuinghidh oir fair ar a shaeire. “Cia mét,” ar Finnen, - “conaidheas?” “Noghebhudh uingi n-oir,” ar Caisin. Rothomthuis sé - iar sin in fainne [ocus frith uingi oir[453]] ann. Dorat Caisin - hi ar a shaeriri. - - TRANSLATION. - - “After that came Finnian to Kildare to Brigit and he was engaged - in teaching and preaching for a time. He takes leave afterwards - of Brigit and Brigit gave a ring of gold to him. He was not - covetous regarding the world: he accepted not the ring. “Though - thou refusest,” said Brigit, “thou wilt require it.” Finnian came - after that to Fotharta Airbrech[454]. [On his way] he met water. - He washed his hands with the water [and] brought on his palm from - out the water the ring that Brigit offered to him. - - “After that came Caisin, son of Naeman, with great joy to [visit] - Finnian. And he offered himself to him and complained to him - that the king of Fotharta was demanding gold from him for his - liberation. “How much,” said Finnian, “asketh he?” “He would - accept an ounce of gold,” said Caisin. He [Finnian] weighed after - that the ring (and there was found an ounce of gold[455]) in it. - Caisin gave it for his liberation.” - -I am indebted for this valuable reference, which also enables us to form -an idea of the relative value of gold and silver in early Ireland, to the -Rev. B. Mac Carthy, D.D., of Youghal. - -But there is another weight called crosoch (crosóg or crosach), found -in the most ancient poems. For instance in Cuchulaind the brooch of -Queen Medbh, “My spear brooch of gold which weighs thirty ungas, and -thirty half ungas, and thirty crossachs and thirty quarter [crossachs].” -(O’Curry, _Manners and Customs_, Vol. III. p. 102.) The weight of -a crosoch we learn from a gloss quoted by O’Donovan (Supplement to -O’Reilly’s Dictionary) from _MS. R. I. A._, No. 35, 5. 49. - - da pinginn agas cetrime pinginne isin lacht caerach i, - crosóg[456]. - -“Two pinginns and a fourth of a pinginn are a milk of a sheep, i.e. a -crosóg.” Since 1 pinginn = 8 grs. wheat therefore a crosóg = 18 grs. -wheat or 13·5 grs. Troy. - -There are accordingly 32 crosochs in the unga of the Brehon Laws. - -Inspection at once shows that the crosoch must have belonged to a -different system, on which either the system of ungas and screapalls was -grafted or _vice versa_. The expulsion of the crosoch from the later -Irish shows that the first alternative is the true one. - -Again, it is certain that the unga and screapall were borrowed from the -Roman system, probably before the time of Constantine, as after his time -the solidus became universal throughout the Empire, and has left its -impress everywhere. - -The crosoch therefore must be non-Roman, _i.e._ belong to the native -population. - -Above we saw that it was used along with ungas and half ungas in -describing Medbh’s Fibula. Here is historical evidence of its use in the -weighing of gold ornaments. - -There were certainly 32 crosochs in the ounce of the Brehon Laws, but if -we can show in another system of north-western Europe a weight exactly -the same as the crosoch, with an ounce which is its thirty-fold, we may -hesitate to lay down that the full Roman ounce with its 432 grs. Troy -(576 grs. wheat) was the earliest form of Irish _unga_. - -There is no mention of screapalls in the weight of Medbh’s brooch. It -is quite possible that under ecclesiastical influences the full Roman -ounce and its division into screapalls may have been introduced at a -comparatively late period. The contact between Kelts and Scandinavians in -early times has of late excited much interest. - -2. Let us now turn to the old Norse system. It is as follows: - - 1 pening = 13·5 grs. Troy - 10 penings = 1 örtug = 136·7 grs. - 3 örtugs = 1 öre = 410 grs. - 8 öres = 1 mark = 3280 grs. - -Let us deal first with the mark. As its name signifies, it in all -probability was originally not a _weight_, but a _measure_. The use of -_mark_ as a land measure is well known in the Teutonic languages. It is -also used as a measure of length. Thus a mark of cloth consists of 448 -_alen_ or _ells_. After what we have learned about the history of the -Roman _as_ (p. 354) we need not be surprised if a term originally used -as a measure of some article which was not as yet sold by weight, came -in similar fashion to be incorporated at a later period into the weight -system as a higher unit. If the mark was originally a given measure -of bronze or iron, we can readily see how it came later on to be used -as a weight, and ultimately to be the chief unit of account among our -Anglo-Saxon forefathers, until it was at last driven out by the _pound_. - -That silver was cast into bars which weighed a mark is rendered highly -probable by the fact that three of the silver bars found at Cuerdale -weigh respectively 3960, 3954, and 3950 grs. Troy; that is, just the -weight of 160 pennies of the reign of Alfred. 160 pennies are two-thirds -of a pound of 240 pennies, or in other words a _mark_. - -The practice of running silver into ingots of such a weight may well have -arisen from an earlier practice of employing bronze or iron bars of such -a weight. It is at all events certain that the mark is native Teutonic -and is not borrowed from Rome. That the Kelts at least used bars of iron -as money is made not unlikely by a famous passage of Caesar which I shall -quote later on. A various reading states that the Britons used iron -rods as money (_ferreis taleis_). Even without this we may reasonably -infer from what we have learned of the practice of primitive peoples in -dealing with iron or copper, that the Teutons and Kelts must have used -these by measure. It is well known that the Swedes used ingots of copper -as currency down to comparatively recent times. It is then most likely -that the _öre_ or ounce of 410 grs. was the highest original weight unit, -just as the _unga_ is in the ancient Irish system. The weight of this -_öre_ is of great interest. If we found the Roman pound of 12 ounces in -Scandinavia, we should at once say that the _öre_ of 410 grs. was the -reduced Roman ounce (432 grs.). But as the native mark evidently got -its position before the influence of Rome was felt in the North, we may -well consider the _öre_ to be pre-Roman. The reader will remember that -I identified the ancient Roman _uncia_ with the small talent of Sicily -and Macedonia. The latter weighed 3 ox-units or about 405 grs. I also -suggested that it originally represented the value of a _slave_, and -was thus the original highest unit used for gold or silver. I showed -on an earlier page (141) that the Norse _örtug_, the one-third of the -_öre_, was the price of a cow. If three cows were the price of a slave in -Scandinavia as they were in Ireland, and probably in Homeric Greece, an -_öre_ of gold was the price of a slave. The passage from the life of St -Finnian given at once shows that an ounce of gold was the regular price -of a slave in early Ireland, and probably a good Scandinavian scholar -could soon find similar evidence for the value of the old Norse slave. - -The meaning and derivation of the term _örtug_ have been much discussed. -It occurs in the forms _örtog_, _örtug_, _ertog_, _œrtug_. Cleasby’s -Lexicon makes nothing out of the first part of the word, but takes the -second part (-tog -tug = tugr = 20), because _örtug_ had the value of 20 -_penningar_, though _tugr_ means 10. But as a matter of fact there were, -as we saw above, 240 _penningar_ in the mark, and therefore there were 10 -_penningar_ in the _örtug_. Holmboe[457] goes more deeply into the origin -of _örtug_. He says, “As _á_, pl. _œr_, signifies a _ewe_, and _tug-r_ as -a derivative of _ten_ both by itself and in compounds signifies _ten_, -_ertug_ seems originally to have signified 10 _ewes_, just as the weight -_ertug_ betokens the weight of 10 _peningar_, and _peningr_ itself also -means a _sheep_. It may be regarded as questionable to assume the plural -_œr_ to form the first part of the compound, yet _œr_ must at an early -period have been used in the formation of compounds, since both the -folkspeech of Norway has the form _œr-saud-ewe_, sheep, technically a -_ewe-with-lamb_, and the folkspeech of Denmark has _œr lam_ in the sense -of _ewe-lamb_[458].” Another suggestion is that _örtug_ comes from _arta_ -= a pea-_formed knob_, so that örtug = örtu-vog, the weight of a pea. - -The objection to this would be that the pea would weigh 13·5 grs. Troy, -which seems far too much. - -In spite of the philological difficulty in making _örtug_ = 10 ewes, -it is very remarkable that this value corresponds so accurately with -the value of a cow, which I independently found for it. I have already -pointed out that 10 sheep were the usual value of a cow. So it was at -Rome in 451 B.C. and so it is with the Modern Ossetes. The ox fit for -the yoke was probably worth 20 lambs or 5 sheep in Lusitania[459], and -as we saw that in the Welsh Laws the ox when fit for the yoke was worth -half a full-grown cow, the Lusitanian cow was worth 10 sheep. So also -at Athens, when Plutarch[460] says an ox was worth 5 sheep, he probably -means an ox fit for the yoke, the cow being worth 10 sheep. In the -Brehon Laws 8 sheep go to the cow, but as I have already pointed out the -insulated position of Ireland would tend to cause a variation in prices -from those on the mainland of Europe. Thus we see from the story of St -Finnian that gold must have been worth only three times its weight in -silver in Ireland in the early centuries of our era. For the price of a -slave was an ounce of gold, whilst in the Brehon Laws it is 3 ounces of -silver. It might be said that we cannot prove that this was the value of -a slave in gold and silver at any one time, and that silver may have been -much cheaper at an earlier date. When we recollect that silver has never -existed in any quantity in Ireland, and that where it does exist it can -only be obtained by systematic mining, a thing impossible in the eternal -turmoil of Ireland, and also bear in mind that when Japan was opened to -Europeans in this century gold was exchanged for three times its weight -in silver, we need not think such a relation at all unlikely in ancient -Ireland. The paucity of silver ornaments in the Royal Irish Academy -Museum confirms this opinion. But the evidence from the Penitentials -shows that silver was scarce at a comparatively still early date in -Ireland[461]. Thus XII altilia vel XIII sicli praetium unius cuiusque -ancillae. - -I have already shown the universality of making gold ornaments after -a fixed weight. The passages given above show that a similar practice -existed among the ancient Irish. - -Let us turn to the numerous gold rings, commonly called Ring Money, of -which there are some 50 in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy of -various weights and sizes. I give these weights. Let us examine them, -and see if we can find any indications gained inductively of a weight -standard. - -As by inspection we see that the smallest rings weigh 13 and 14 grs. -Troy, and the next three 29, 31, 32 respectively, which look like -the double of the smaller, I shall group the rings according as they -approximate to the multiples of 15. - - ---------+---------------------+----------+---------+-------+-------- - Multiples| Actual Ring Weights | Multiples| Actual | Rings | Weights - of 15 | (Royal Irish Acad.) | of 15 | | | - ---------+---------------------+----------+---------+-------+-------- - 15 | 13, 14 | 180 | 179 | 345 | - 30 | 29, 31, 32, 36 | 195 | 199, 203| 360 | - 45 | 40, 46 | 210 | 206, 209| 375 | 372 - 60 | 54, 56, 58, 59, | 225 | 220 | 370 | - | 61, 65, 65 | | | | - 75 | 69, 73 | 240 | 247 | | - 90 | 84, 84, 88, 96 | 255 | 259 | | - 105 | 98, 104, 111 | 270 | | | - 120 | 121, 124 | 285 | 283, 283| | - 135 | | 300 | | | - 150 | 144, 144, 147, | 315 | 322 | | - | 147, 150, 151 | | | | - 165 | 171, 172 | 330 | 332 | | - -A glance at the foregoing table shows that the most numerous group of -rings occurs at the fourfold (60), no less than seven specimens ranging -themselves at that point, next we find six specimens at the tenfold -(150), whilst next in order comes the sixfold with four examples. There -are three cases of the double (30). On the other hand it is worth -noticing the absence of the ninefold, whilst there are three instances -of the sevenfold, and the absence of the eighteenfold (2 × 9) likewise, -whilst we have the elevenfold, twelvefold, thirteenfold, fourteenfold. -However from the absence of the twentyfold (2 × 10) we cannot lay great -stress on this. The heaviest specimen (372) closely approximates to the -twenty-five fold (375). - -I add the weights of the ancient Irish gold rings preserved in the -British Museum. - - _Irish small plain ring money. Some are without localities but - may be assumed to be Irish. Marked thus *._ - - *103, 563, *389, *121, *29½, 218, 224, 323, 295 injured, 218, - 122, 90, 28, 56, 215 copper plated with gold (injured), 299, 148, - 98, 366, 89 piece cut from a larger bracelet?, 48½ hollow and - open? plating of bronze ring? (banded), 422, 410 (ounces), 288 - (injured). - - _Irish fluted ring money. * No precise locality, but presumably - Irish._ - - *106, *123 (worn), 30, 59, 90, 66, 59½. - - With disks, 249, 806 (2 oz.), 595, 283, 169, 665, 139, 119. - - Dots, no lines, 32. - -The weights of these rings show many points of agreement with those in -the Irish Museum. Thus we get 28, 29½, 30, and 32 grs. corresponding to -29, 31, and 32 grs. of the second group in the Irish Table. Again, 56 and -59½ where we get 54, 56, 58, 59, 61 in the Irish, and 66 corresponding -to 65, 65; 98 to 96 and 98; and 89 corresponding to 88 and 90; 119, -121, 122 and 123 to 121 and 124; 139 to 144, and 144 and 148 to 147 and -147; then 169 to 171 and 172. Then comes a break, and we get 215, 218, -218, 224 corresponding to 220, and 249 to 247, and 283 to 283 and 283; -and 323 to 322, and 360 to 366. But the British Museum gives us in the -higher weights three very important specimens: for 410 grs. is the ounce -corresponding exactly to the old Norse _öre_ of 410 grs., and the ring -of 422 grs. looks like the later ounce rising towards the full weight of -432. The ring of 806 grs. is plainly 2 ounces of the standard of 410 (806 -÷ 2 = 403). - -The occurrence of several specimens so constantly all of the same -weight, as for instance those about 220 grs., points beyond doubt to the -conclusion that when the rings were being made a given quantity of gold -was weighed out for the purpose. The story of St Finnian proves that for -any transaction in which rings were employed as money, the scales were -employed. - -There is a set of leaden weights in the Royal Irish Academy Collection, -found at Island Bridge, Dublin, in 1869, when Ancient Irish and -Scandinavian remains were found together. As they are more or less -corroded, it is not advisable to lay much stress on their present weights. - - grs. - 1. Semicircular weight 1852 - 2. Animal’s head 1550 - 3. Circular 1221 - 4. 958 - 5. 634 - 6. Oblong 539 - 7. 459 - 8. Quadrangular 414 (oz.) - 9. 395 (oz.) - 10. 220 - -There are certainly some interesting points of agreement between the -weights and the gold ornaments, _e.g._ the weights of 220, 390, 414, 630, -have corresponding weights in gold. The largest weight may be 4½ oz. of -410 grs. - - * * * * * - -Let us now return to the Irish monetary system, and see if we can -determine more accurately its relation to that of Rome. - - 8 grains of wheat = 1 pinginn. - 24 ” ” = 3 pinginns = 1 screapall. - 576 ” ” = 72 ” = 24 screapalls = 1 unga. - -As regards _unga_ and _screapall_ we have spoken already. Of their origin -there is no doubt. The pinginn on the other hand is not so easy. The -name is certainly Teutonic, said to be ultimately a loan word formed -from _pecunia_. It seems to have been employed as a general term for the -smallest form of currency. Hence we find the Saxon form (_pendinga_) -applied to the 240th part of the lb., and of about 32 grs. wheat, and the -Norse _peningr_ used for the 240th part of the _mark_, whilst in Ireland -the cognate form is applied to the 72nd part of the ounce, and is of the -weight of 8 grains _wheat_. - -The Irish employed the system of Uncia and Scripula. Shall we say then -that this system was in vogue in Britain likewise before the time of -Constantine and yielded slowly before the later one? - -Since then it was common to the Kelts on both sides of the Irish Sea, -and we find that in Ireland it was grafted upon an earlier system, of -which the _crosoch_ is a survival, we may reasonably infer that the Kelts -of Britain had likewise a native system analogous to the _crosoch_. But -further, of this we have strong evidence of two kinds. Caesar _B. G._ v. -12, when describing the British Kelts and their manners, says; pecorum -magnus numerus. Utuntur aut aere aut nummo aureo aut annulis ferreis ad -certum pondus examinatis pro nummo[462]. The passage has been mutilated -by Editors, but this is the reading of the best MSS. Caesar thus tells us -that they had a system of weights of their own. Secondly the evidence of -the actual British Coins (cf. Evans, _Coins of Ancient Britons_) which -are of a standard not Roman. - -Now we have seen above that the Irish gold rings were weighed on a -standard of almost 13·5 grs. Troy. Let us now see if the larger gold -ornaments preserved in our Museums confirm or disprove the evidence of -the rings. I shall first give the weights of those in the Royal Irish -Academy[463]: - - _Crescent shaped ornaments_: 1539, 434 (ounce of Brehon Laws?), - 733, 1008, 255, 2013, 489, 552, 660, 1081, 98, 432 (ounce of - Brehon Laws), 339, 400 (early ounce = Norse _öre_?), 187, 390 - (old ounce?), 797 (2 ounces, 2 × 398½). - - The following are not in Wilde’s Catalogue: 472, 505, 542, 540, - 630, 647, 667, 687, 720, 722, 737, 1092, 4331. - - _Torques_: 476, 1013, 1527, 3126, 3168, 4722, 5941, 6007, 10268. - - Not in Wilde: 154, 342, 1946, 2715, 4172, 5207, 5275, 6012, 6881. - - _Armlets_: 144, 158, 182, 329, 401 (small pre-Roman ounce), 421 - (ounce), 487, 510, 684, 757, 894, 989, 1037, 1369, 1630 (4 ounces - of 407 grs.?), 1716 (4 ounces of 426 grs.?), 2089 (5 oz. of 418 - grs.?), 5635 (14 oz. of 402 grs.?), 6265 (15 oz. of 417 grs.). - - Not in Wilde: 130, 145 (⅓ of oz. of 432 grs.?), 178, 184, 187, - 199, 208, 215 (half oz. of 432 grs.?), 241, 289, 301, 303 (¾ oz. - of 405 grs.?), 345, 396 (oz.?), 487, 509 (1¼ oz.?), 547 (1⅓ of - oz.), 606 (1½ oz. of 405 grs.?), 630 (1⅓ oz. of 420 grs.?), 740, - 753 (1¾ oz.), 1093 (2½ oz.?), 1190, 1210 (3 oz. of 405 grs.), - 1267 (3 oz. of 422 grs.?), 1322, 1641 (4 oz. of 410 grs.), 1730 - (4 oz. of 432 grs.?), 1836, 1836 (4½ oz. of 410 grs.?), 1940 (5 - oz. of 388 grs.? or 4¾ oz. of 410 grs.?), 1980 (5 oz. of 396 grs. - or 4¾ oz. of 410 grs.?), 2201, 6144 (15 oz. of 410 grs.?), 13557 - (33 oz. of 410 grs.?). - - _Fibulae_: 56 (4 crosachs), 179, 180 (⅖ oz. of 400 grs.?), 415 - (oz.), 600 (1½ oz. of 400 grs.?), 1231 (3 oz. of 410 grs.), 1345 - (3½ oz. of 432 grs.), 1596 (4 oz. of 399 grs.?), 2301 (5¼ oz. of - 400 grs.), 2536 (6 oz. of 422 grs.), 17200 (43 oz. of 400 grs.?), - 8092 (20 oz. of 404 grs.), 19440 (48 oz. of 405 grs.). - - Not in Wilde: 61, 106 (¼ oz.), 170, 170 (⅖ oz. of 425 gr.), 191, - 196 (½ oz.?), 207, 209 (½ oz.), 248, 275 (⅔ oz. of 411 grs.), 315 - (¾ oz.?), 379 (oz.), 542 (1⅓ oz.?), 557 (1⅓ oz.?), 586 (1½ oz.?), - 649 (1½ oz. of 432 grs.?), 1187 (3 oz. of 396 grs.?). - - _Gorgets_: 1160 (3 oz. of 387 grs.?), 2020 (5 oz. of 404 grs.?), - 3091 (8 oz. of 386 grs.?), 3444 (8 oz. of 430 grs.?). - -The result of an examination of the foregoing weights is to show that -in all probability the vast majority of them were made on a standard -much lighter than the Roman ounce of 432 grs., which was in full use in -mediaeval Ireland. We saw that the Roman ounce had been only 420 grs. -down to the Second Punic war, and I suggested that originally it was of -the same weight as the Sicilian talent 390-405 grs. Can we observe a -similar increase in the Irish ounce? The ounce of 400-410 seems to point -to a time when Kelt and Scandinavian had a common higher unit of similar -weight corresponding to the value of a slave[464], just as the Sicilian -and Macedonian talent of three ox units represented the same slave unit. - -I shall now give the weights of the various ornaments of gold found in -England, Wales and Scotland which are preserved in the British Museum. -For these I am indebted to the great kindness of Mr F. L. Griffith of the -Anthropological department. - - _Torques with rings._ - - Boxton, Suffolk, torque band twisted. 1·038 (2½ oz. of 415 grs.) - with double ring. Weight 24·8 grs. - - (A ring of 8 parallel sections, bronze plated with gold, - injured, weighs 111 grs.; the locality is not known, but it - seems connected with this class. Probably Irish, one in Wilde’s - catalogue of 7 sections.) - - Another double ring, Devonshire, weighs 563 grs. (1⅓ oz. of 420 - grs.). - - Lincolnshire torques; 1454 grs. (3½ oz. of 415 grs.), coiled band - 119½. Quadruple ring, 93½ (¼ oz.?), another similar 93. - - Cambridgeshire torques (not in B. M.) 1944 (5 oz. of 387? or 4¾ - oz. of 410), rest in B. M. viz.:—bracelet 613 (1½ oz. of 412 - grs.), two treble rings linked together, combined weight 358, - double ring, weight 132 (⅓ oz.), another 131½, two others similar - but smaller are each 68 (⅙ oz.). - - Wales. Two plain bracelets, near Beaumaris, Anglesea, 1028 - (2½ oz. of 410 grs.); 420 (1 oz.), crescent-shaped gorget, - Caernarvon, 2861 (7 oz. of 410 grs.). - - Scotland. Noard, near Elgin, torques formed of a plain twisted - band, 207 (½ oz.): 215 (½ oz.): 192 (½ oz.): 119 grains. - -The evidence points to an ounce of 420 grs. It is worth noting that this -is just 5 times the weight of the latest British coins, 84-82 grs. - -Whence then did the Britons obtain this pre-Roman standard? Was it of -native development or borrowed from some other people? By Britons we must -be careful to express not all the natives of Britain. They fall most -certainly into at least two groups. I. The Kelts in the East and South -East. II. The barbarous inhabitants of the interior, who subsisted by -hunting and fishing, and who were probably of that Iberic race, which -spread over all Western Europe before the advance of the Aryans. It is -only with the first group that we are immediately concerned. They almost -exclusively possessed the art of coining, as is shown by the area over -which British coins are found. Furthermore Caesar tells us of the close -relationship of the first group to the Gauls, as is shown by their tribal -names, language and customs. In addition their coinage is similar. Now -there can be no doubt as regards the source from whence the Gauls derived -their coinage. As they got the art of writing from the Phocaeans of -Massilia (founded circ. 600 B.C.), so likewise did they gain the art -of money-stamping from the same famous town, as has been completely -demonstrated long since. People are inclined at once to assume that the -Gauls and Britons got their weight standards also from Marseilles. There -is certainly some evidence to support this belief. Thus the gold torque -lately found in Jersey weighs 11500 grs., which is exactly the mina of -the Phocaic system at a time when 57½ grs. went to the drachm. Again -we have seen that there were a considerable number of gold ornaments -in Ireland and Britain which weigh 224-216 grs. This is the Phocaic -(or Phoenician) stater. But the question is not so simple as it might -appear at first sight in relation to the weight system, as will appear -most readily by a short survey of the history of the monetary system of -Massilia. - -I. The earliest coinage consists of silver, small divisions of the -Phocaic drachm (58-54 grains Troy). These have various symbols on the -obverse, but have uniformly the incuse square on the reverse. These may -be placed after 500 B.C. “Notwithstanding their archaic appearance, it -does not seem that these little coins are much earlier than the middle of -the 5th century.” - -II. Next comes a series, chiefly obols for the most part with head -of Apollo on obverse, and a wheel on reverse, the latter probably a -development of the earlier incuse square. They are mostly obols of 13-8 -grains. - -III. About the middle of the 4th century the drachm first appears with -the head of Artemis on obverse and a lion on the reverse, weighing 58-55 -grains. - -Now over all Gaul, and far into Northern Italy, and the valleys of the -Alps, as far as the Tyrol, the coinage of Massilia made its way and was -abundantly imitated. In fact these imitations formed the entire medium -of those regions until the Roman conquest. The imitations of the little -coins with Apollo and the wheel as reverse are found right into the north -of France, and in England. - -Did the Kelts borrow their 13½ grain unit from the 13 grain obol of -Massilia, or is it of far earlier growth? The Etruscans used a unit of -13½ grs. in the 4th century B.C., and we find the Massaliotes having -almost the same. Is the true answer this? All over Western Europe the -ox unit of 135 grs. of gold was subdivided into 10 parts each of 13½ -grs. These 10 parts corresponded to 10 sheep, the regular value of -a cow. There was also a higher unit from Greece to Gaul and Britain -corresponding to the slave. There were fluctuations in their worth in -various times and places, but on the whole there was a tendency to raise -the weight of the higher unit (ounce). But it is natural that the Kelts -may have taken over into their system certain units from the Phocaic -system which they used as multiples of their own smaller units, just as -the Teutonic peoples took the Roman pound into their own system, and the -natives of West Africa made the Spanish dollar the multiple of their own -native weights, based on seeds. Some idea of the relative ages of Keltic -gold ornaments may perhaps be got from applying the criterion of weight -standard to them. - - - - -FOOTNOTES - - -[1] _Metrologische Untersuchungen über Gewichte, Münzfüsse und Masse des -Alterthums in ihrem Zusammenhange._ Berlin, 1838. - -[2] χρύσεα χαλκείων, ἑκατόμβοι’ ἐννεαβοίων. - -[3] _Iliad_, XXIII. 750. - -[4] Victor A. L. Morier, _Murray’s Magazine_, August, 1889, p. 181. - -[5] _Trans-Caucasia_, p. 410 (Engl. trans. 1854). - -[6] Pollux, IX. 73, τὸ παλαιὸν δὲ τοῦτ’ ἦν Ἀθηναίοις νόμισμα καὶ ἐκαλεῖτο -βοῦς, ὅτι βοῦν εἶχεν ἐντετυπωμένον. εἰδέναι δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ Ὅμηρον νομίζουσιν -εἰπόντα ἑκατόμβοι’ ὲννεαβοίων. - -[7] Cf. Aesch. _Agam._ 36; Theognis 815. Cp. τὰν ἀρετὰν καὶ τὰν σοφίαν -νικᾶντι χελῶναι, a proverb (given by Pollux IX. 74) alluding to the -_Tortoise_ coins of Aegina; and Menander (_Al._ 1), παχὺς γὰρ ὗς ἔκειτ’ -ἐπὶ στόμα. - -[8] ἡ γλαῦξ ἐπὶ χαράγματος ἢ τετραδράχμου, ὡς Φιλόχορος· ἐκλήθη δὲ τὸ -νόμισμα τὸ τετράδραχμον τότε [ἡ] γλαῦξ· ἦν γὰρ ἡ γλαῦξ ἐπίσημον καὶ -πρόσωπον Ἀθηνᾶς, τῶν προτέρων διδράχμων ὄντων, ἐπίσημον δὲ βοῦν ἐχόντων. - -[9] Plutarch, _Solon_, c. 15. - -[10] Hultsch, _Reliquiae Scriptorum Metrologicorum_, I. 301, τὸ δὲ γαρ’ -Ὁμήρῳ τάλαντον ἴσον ἐδύνατο τῷ μετὰ ταῦτα Δαρεικῷ. ἄγει δ’ οὖν τὸ χρυσοῦν -τάλαντον Ἀττικὰς δραχμὰς β’, γράμματα ζ’, τετάρτας δηλαδὴ τεσσάρας. - -[11] _Iliad_, XVIII. 507, 8, - - κεῖτο δ’ ἄρ’ ἐν μέσσοισι δύω χρυσοῖο τάλαντα, - τῷ δόμεν, ὃς μετὰ τοῖσι δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴπῃ. - -See Appendix A for a linguistic proof that the two talents were for the -Judge. - -[12] _Ancient Law_, p. 375. - -[13] - - ἀνδρὶ δὲ νικηθέντι γυναῖκ’ ἐς μέσσον ἔθηκεν, - πολλὰ δ’ ἐπίστατο ἔργα, τίον δέ ἑ τεσσαράβοιον. - -[14] _Od._ I. 430. - -[15] _Iliad_, IX. 12 _seqq._ - -[16] _Il._ XXIII. 262 _seqq._ - -[17] Of course amongst the lowest races of savages such as the aborigines -of Australia, even barter is almost unknown. Each man makes his own stone -implements from the greenstone which is everywhere in abundance, his own -clubs and boomerangs, whilst Nature supplies all his other wants. - -[18] Whymper’s _Alaska_, p. 225. - -[19] Morier, _Murray’s Magazine_, August, 1889, p. 181. - -[20] Jevons, _Money_, p. 24. - -[21] _Tribes of California_, p. 21. - -[22] _Op. cit._, p. 335. - -[23] Clavigero, _Hist. of Mexico_, Vol. I. 386. - -They counted the Cacao nuts by 8000 and to save the trouble of counting -them they reckoned them by sacks, every sack being reckoned to contain -24,000. Cf. Prescott, _Conquest of Mexico_, Vol. I. p. 44. - -[24] G. M. Dawson, ‘Report on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 1878,’ p. 135 -B (_Geological Survey of Canada_), Montreal, 1880. - -[25] F. Magnússon, _Nordiske Tidskrift for Oldkyndighed_, II. 112. - -[26] _Wanderings in a Wild Country, or Three Years among the Cannibals of -New Britain_ (London, 1883), p. 55. - -[27] For shell money in the Caroline Islands cf. Kubary’s -_Ethnographische Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Karolinen Archipels_ (Leipzig, -1889); in the Pelew Islands cf. Karl Semper, _Die Pelau Inseln_ -(Leipzig, 1873), p. 60; and for shell money in general cf. R. Stearn’s -_Ethno-conchology_ (Washington, 1889). - -[28] Jevons, _Money_, 25. - -[29] Terrien de la Couperie, _Coins and Medals_, p. 193. - -[30] Terrien de la Couperie, _Coins and Medals_, p. 199. - -[31] Yule’s Translation, Vol. II. p. 70. - -[32] Gill, _River of Golden Sand_, II. p. 77. - -[33] Yule’s Translation, Vol. II. p. 45. - -[34] So the Irish _sed_, the most general name for _chattel_, originally -meant simply an _ox_. - -[35] _Cochin-Chine Française. Excursions et Reconnaissances_, XIII. -(1877), p. 296-8. - -[36] _Excursions et Reconnaissances_, XIII. No. 30 (1887), p. 296-304. - -[37] M. Aymonier, _Cochin-Chine. Excursions et Reconnaissances_, Vol. X. -No. 24 (1885), pp. 233 _seqq._ - -[38] _Ibid._ p. 317. - -[39] _Rig-Veda_, _Mandala_, VII. 90. 6, VIII. 67. 1-2, VI. 47, 23-4. - -[40] _Vendidâd_, _Fasgard_, VII. 41 (Darmesteter’s translation in Sacred -Books of the East). - -[41] _Vendidâd_, _Fasgard_, IX. 37. - -[42] _Ibid._ IV. 2. - -[43] Hakluyt Society, 1857, p. 35. - -[44] For _larins_ cf. Prof. Rhys Davids, “On the Ancient Coins and -Measures of Ceylon” (_Numismata Orientalia_, Vol. I. 68-73). Mr Rhys -Davids makes no mention of the bronze fish-hooks, but there are a number -of them in the British Museum. - -[45] I am indebted to the kindness of Mr A. Galetly of the Edinburgh -Museum of Science and Art for the drawing from which the figure here -shown is reproduced, as also for the drawing of the Calabar wire money -and West African axe money figured lower down. My friend Mr J. G. Frazer -(one out of countless kindnesses) called my attention to all three -objects. - -[46] Haxthausen, _Transkaukasia_ II. p. 30 (Engl. Trans. p. 409). - -[47] _Il._ XXIII. 485. - -[48] _Oecon._ II. 21. - -[49] II. 18. - -[50] _Annals of the Four Masters_, Anno 106 A.D. (O’Donovan’s ed.). - -[51] _Ancient Laws of Wales_, p. 795. - -[52] O’Donovan’s Supplement to O’Reilly, s.v. _Lacht_: _Senchus Mor_, I. -287. - -[53] Thorpe, _Laws of the Anglo-Saxons_, I. 357. Cunningham, _History of -English Commerce_, I. 117. - -[54] Illud notandum est quales debent solidi esse Saxonum: id est, bovem -annoticum utriusque sexus, autumnali tempore, sicut in stabulum mittitur, -pro uno solido: similiter et vernum tempus, quando de stabulo exiit; et -deinceps, quantum aetatem auxerit, tantum in pretio crescat. De annona -vero bortrinis pro solido uno scapilos quadraginta donant et de sigule -viginti. Septemtrionales autem pro solidum scapilos triginta de avena -et sigule quindecim. Mel vero pro solido bortrensi, sigla una et medio -donant. Septemtrionales autem duos siclos de melle pro uno solido donent. -Item ordeum mundum sicut et sigule pro uno solido donent. In argento -duodecim denarios solidum faciant. Et in aliis speciebus ad istum pretium -omnem aestimationem compositionis sunt. _Capitulare Saxonicum_, II. -Migne, XCVII. 202. - -[55] Schive and Holmboe, _Norges Mynter_ (Christiania, 1865), pp. I.-III. - -[56] G. Hoffmann, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, Vol. II. (1887) p. 48. - -[57] Schliemann, _Mycenae_, and _Tiryns_, p. 354. - -[58] _Il._ XVIII. 401 πόρπας τε, γναμπτάς θ’ ἕλικας, κάλυκάς τε, καὶ -ὅρμους. - -[59] _Homer. Epos_, 279-281 (2nd ed.). - -[60] Hesychius s.v. ἕλικες explains them as _earrings_ (ἐνώτια), or -_armlets_, _anklets_ (ψέλλια), or _rings_ (δακτύλιοι). Eustathius on -_Iliad_ XVIII. 400 explains them as ἐνώτια ἢ ψέλλια παρὰ τὸ εἰς κύκλον -ἑλίσσεσθαι, “earrings or armlets (anklets), so called from being rolled -up” (_helissesthai_). Cp. Ebeling, _Lexicon Homericum_, s.v. ἕλιξ. - -[61] Keary, _Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Coins_, I. p. vii. From _beag_ Mr -Max Müller derives _buy_ in spite of a phonetic difficulty. - -[62] Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are in the collection of my friend Mr R. Day, -F.S.A., of Cork. The others are in my own possession. - -[63] _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, Vol. X. Here is the description and -weight of the rings (which I have been enabled to figure by the kindness -of Mr John Murray): - - +--------+-------------+-----------------------+ - | | | WEIGHT | - | METAL | DESCRIPTION +---------+-------------+ - | | GRAMMES | GRAINS TROY | - +--------+-------------+---------+-------------+ - | Silver | Plain ring | 8·8 | 137 | - | Gold | Spiral | 8·5 | 132 | - | ” | ” | 9·9 | 153 | - | ” | ” | 10·8 | 167 | - | ” | Plain ring | 15·9 | 248 | - | ” | ” | 16·5 | 257 | - | ” | ” | 19·0 | 297 | - | ” | ” | 19·4 | 303 | - | ” | Spiral | 20·5 | 320 | - | ” | ” | 21·5 | 335 | - | ” | Plain ring | 22·0 | 340 | - | ” | Spiral | 29·3 | 452 | - | ” | ” | 39·0 | 612 | - | ” | ” | 39·5 | 617 | - | ” | ” | 41·5 | 643 | - | ” | ” | 42·2 | 654 | - | ” | ” | 42·3 | 655 | - | ” | ” | 42·8 | 662 | - +--------+-------------+---------+-------------+ - -[64] Cf. Keary’s _Catalogue of English Coins in the British Museum_, p. 6. - -[65] Strabo iii. p. 155. ἀντὶ δὲ νομίσματος οἱ λίαν ἐν βάθει φορτίων -ἀμοιβῇ χρώνται ἢ τοῦ ἀργύρου ἐλάγματος ἀποτέμνοντες διδόασιν. - -[66] Gordon Lang, _Travels in Western Africa_ (1825), Prefatory Note. - -[67] The specimen figured was brought home about 30 years ago and is now -in the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art. - -[68] The specimens here figured are in the splendid collection of my -friend Mr R. Day, of Cork. - -[69] This information I owe to Lieut. Troup. - -[70] I am indebted to Messrs James Booth and Co. for this information. - -[71] Dapper _Description de l’Afrique_ (Amsterdam, 1686) p. 367. “Le bois -rouge de Majumba et la _pao_ de Hiengo de Benguela tiennent aussi le lieu -de monnaie: on en coupe des morceaux d’un pied de long; on leur met une -certaine taxe selon laquelle le prix des vivres se règle.” - -[72] Peter Kolben, _Present state of the Cape of Good Hope_, p. 262. - -[73] R. W. Felkin, “Notes on the Madi or Moru Tribe of Central Africa,” -_Transactions of Royal Society of Edinburgh_, Vol. XII. p. 303 _seqq._ - -[74] _Voyage au Darfour_, Mohammed Ibn Omar el Tounsy (translated by -Perron), Paris, 1845, pp. 218, 315. - -[75] _Voyage au Darfour_, p. 316. - -[76] _Ibid._ p. 319. - -[77] _Voyage au Darfour_, p. 321. - -[78] _Voyage au Ouadai_, Mohammed Ibn Omar el Tounsy (French translation -by Perron), p. 559. - -[79] Elliot’s _Alaska_, p. 8. This is an interesting parallel to the -ancient tradition that the Carthaginians employed leather money. (_Vide_ -Smith’s _Dict. of Geogr._ I. 545.) - -[80] _Il._ XXIII. 826. - -[81] _Il._ XXIV. 230-2. - -[82] Timaeus 12. - -[83] _B. G._ v. 12. - -[84] 199. - -[85] Schrader. _Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples_, p. 260. - -[86] _Odyssey_, XXIII. 198. - -[87] Cunningham, _Hist. of English Commerce_, I. p. 117. - -[88] _Il._ XXI. 41. - -[89] _Od._ XV. 460. - -[90] Prescott, _Mexico_, p. 234. - -[91] Schrader, p. 255. - -[92] Schrader, _op. cit._ p. 255. - -[93] Polybius II. 19. - -[94] W. Deecke, _Etrusk. Forschungen_, p. 5. - -[95] Herod. IV. 49. - -[96] _Ausland_, 1873, No. 39. - -[97] Arist. Θαυμ. 833 b. 14, φασὶ δὲ ἐν τοῖς Βάκτροις τὸν Ὦξον ποταμὸν -καταφέρειν βωλία χρυσίου πλήθει πολλά. - -[98] Herod. IV. 18. - -[99] Herod. III. 116, λέγεται δὲ ὑπὲκ τῶν γρυπῶν ἁρπάζειν Ἀριμάστους -ἄνδρας μουνοφθάλμους. - -For the gold-fields of India, cf. Dr Valentine Ball’s excellent chapter -(IV.) in his _Geology of India_. - -[100] Herod. IV. 25. - -[101] Herod. IV. 71, ἀργύρῳ δὲ οὐδὲν οὐδὲ χαλκῷ χρέωνται. - -[102] Strabo, XI. p. 499, παρὰ τούτοις δὲ λέγεται καὶ χρυσὸν καταφέρειν -τοὺς χειμάρρους, ὑποδέχεσθαι δ’ αὐτὸν τοὺς βαρβάρους φάνταις -κατατετρημέναις καὶ μαλλωταῖς δοραῖς· ἀφ’ οὖ δὴ μεμυθεῦσθαι καὶ τὸ -χρυσόμαλλον δέρος. - -[103] Strabo, XIV. p. 680. - -[104] Herod. I. 93, πάρεξ τοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Τμώλου καταφερομένου ψήγματος. - -[105] XIII. 625 _sq._ - -[106] Herod. VI. 46 _sq._ - -[107] Strabo, 331. - -[108] Herod. IX. 75. - -[109] Strabo, 618. 29. Didot. - -[110] Cf. Isaiah xlv. 14. - -[111] The Debae of Agatharchides and Artemidorus are held by almost all -scholars to be the people of Ptolemy’s Θῆβαι πόλις, i.e. Dhahabân, from -_Dhahab_, gold, with term.-ân. - -[112] Strabo, 661. 45. Didot. - -[113] Diodorus Sic. II. 50. 1 _sq._ - -[114] This story about their connection with Boeotia doubtless arose from -the confusion between Δέβαι and Θῆβαι. - -[115] Diod. Sic. III. 45. 4. - -[116] His description of the size of the largest nuggets of gold varies -slightly; in his second reference he compares them to “royal nuts” (κάρυα -βασιλικά), which are generally admitted to be walnuts, though walnuts are -sometimes also called “Persian nuts” (κάρυα Περσικά), the latter name -reminding us of the derivation of _walnut_ itself; in the first passage -he likens them in size to chestnuts (κάρυα κασταναικά) or κασταναῖα, the -name being said to be derived from Castanaea, a city of Pontus. It would -seem from this then that Diodorus got his accounts from two slightly -different sources. Strabo has been so cautious as not to give us any -specific epithet for the large nut, which we may accordingly regard as we -please either as a chestnut or a walnut. There can be no doubt about the -fruit to which Strabo compares the medium-sized nuggets. The _mespilon_, -Latin _merpilum_ (from which comes the French _nèfle_), is undoubtedly -the medlar, whilst perhaps the most likely meaning for the smallest of -the three fruits is _olive-stone_. - -[117] Diodorus, III. 12-14. - -[118] Mansfield Parkyns, _Life in Abyssinia_, Vol. I. p. 405 (London, -1853). - -[119] For similar ways of trading in Africa in modern times see -Rawlinson’s note _ad locum_. - -[120] Herod. IV. 49. - -[121] Strabo, 173. 34-49, Didot. - -[122] Ibid. 178 Didot. - -[123] Th. Mommsen (_Nordetruskische Alfabete_, p. 250, _seqq._) gives an -admirable summary of the metallurgical history of this region. - -[124] Strabo, 218. - -[125] Pliny, XXXIII. 4. § 78, extat lex censoria Victumularum -aurifodinae, qua in Vercellenai agro cavebatur, ne plus quinque M hominum -in opere publicani haberent. - -[126] Strabo, 205. - -[127] Th. Mommsen, _Die nordetruskischen Alfabete_, p. 223; Pauli, -_Altitalische Forschungen_, p. 6. - -[128] Strabo, 191. - -[129] Hucher, _L’Art Gaulois_, 19. - -[130] We must then in all probability place the first striking of the -Gaulish imitations of the Philippas about 150 B.C., rather than as is -usually stated about 250 B.C. - -[131] Strabo, 187. - -[132] Strabo, 146. - -[133] Diodorus, v. 27. - -[134] Strabo, 190. - -[135] Both are from coins in my own possession; A found near Mildenhall -(Suffolk) in 1884, cf. Dr Evans, _Ancient British Coins_, Pl. XXIII. 4; B -at Potton in Bedfordshire, 1888; cf. _op. cit._ Pl. B. 8. - -[136] Strabo, 191. - -[137] Caesar, _B. G._ V. 12, pecorum magnus numerus. Utuntur aut aere aut -nummis aureis aut taleis ferreis ad certum pondus examinatis pro nummo. -Nascitur ibi plumbum album in mediterraneis regionibus, maritimis ferrum, -sed eius exigua est copia, aere utuntur importato. - -[138] Caesar, _B. G._ II. 4. - -[139] W. Ridgeway, “The Greek Trade Routes to Britain” (_Folklore_, March -1880, p. 23). - -[140] Strabo, 199, leaves out tin here although he mentions it when -quoting from Posidonius. The reason is that after the tin-mines -of Northern Spain had been developed by Publius Crassus, Caesar’s -lieutenant, the British tin trade ceased. - -[141] Strabo, page 201. - -[142] IV. 151. - -[143] Herodotus, I. 163-4. - -[144] Strabo, 147. - -[145] Strabo, 146. - -[146] Strabo, 146 _sq._ - -[147] Diodorus, v. 35. - -[148] Marsden’s _History of Sumatra_, p. 172. - -[149] Pliny, _H. N._ XXXIII. 4, 21 aurum arrugia quaesitum non coquitur -sed statim suum est; inueniuntur ita massae; necnon in puteis denas -excedentes libras; palacras Hispani, alii palacranas, iidem quod minutum -est balucem uocant. - -May the French _paille_ (in the phrase _pailles d’or_), Ital. _paluola_, -Span. _palazuola_, all used technically of gold, be derived from _pala_, -the old technical term, rather than from _palea_, chaff? - -[150] Herod. IV. 11. - -[151] How trade was carried on in early days may be well illustrated from -Torres Straits of to-day. (Haddon, “The Western Tribe of Torres Straits,” -_Journal of Anthrop. Inst._ XIX. p. 347.) - -Dance masks made of turtle shell (340) occasionally used as money. - -If a Muralug man wanted a canoe he would communicate with a friend at -Moa, who would speak to a friend of his at Badu; possibly the Muralug -man might himself go to Badu, or treat with a friend there. The Badu man -would cross to Mabuiag to make arrangements, and a Mabuiag man would -proceed to Saibai. - -If there was no canoe available at the latter place word would be sent -on, along the coast, that a canoe was to be cut out and sent down. - -The canoe would then retrace the course of the verbal order and -ultimately find its way to Muralug. The annual payment for a canoe was -say three _dibi dibi_ or goods of about equal value. There were three -annual instalments. - -There is no money in the Straits; but certain articles have acquired a -generally recognized exchange value, a value which is intrinsic, and -not irrespective of the rarity of the material or the workmanship put -into it. These objects cannot be regarded as money; they are the round -shell ornaments (_dibi dibi_, shell armlet, _wai wai_, dugong, harpoon, -_wap_, and canoe). A good _wai wai_ is the most valuable possession; the -exchange of a _wai wai_ was a canoe, or harpoon. Ten or twelve _dibi -dibi_ was considered of equal value to any of the above. A wife was the -highest unit of exchange, being valued at a canoe, or a _wap_ or _wai -wai_. “The intermediaries (in the purchase of a canoe) are paid for their -services ‘by charging on,’ the amount depending on individual cupidity, -or they may be recompensed for their trouble by presents from the -purchaser” (p. 841). - -[152] [Aristotle,] _De Miris Auscult._ 104-5 (839ᵃ 34 _seqq._). - -[153] Pind. _Isth._ V. 22 _sq._ μυρίαι δ’ ἔργων καλῶν τέτμηνθ’ -ἑκατόμπεδοι ἐν σχερῷ κέλευθοι | καὶ πέραν Νείλοιο παγᾶν καὶ δι’ -Ὑπερβορέους. - -[154] _Ol._ III. 31 _sq._ - -[155] _Ol._ III. 13 _sqq._ - -[156] Pind. _Pyth._ X. 29 _sqq._ - -[157] Herod. IV. 32. - -[158] Herod. IV. 13. - -[159] Herod. IV. 33. - -[160] Boeckh, _Corp. Inscr. Graec._ Vol. I. p. 807. - -[161] Cf. Sallust, _Jug._ 18. - -[162] They derived it from λύγξ and οὖρον. The difference in colour -between the Baltic and Ligurian amber found an easy explanation, the -latter was regarded as the solidified urine of the female lynx, the -former of the male animal. Pliny, _H. N._ XXXVII. 2, § 34. - -[163] Cf. Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, 466. Von Sadowski, _Die -Handelstrassen der Griechen und Römer_, p. 15. - -[164] _Il._ V. 720 _seqq._ - -[165] _Il._ XXIII. 826 _seqq._ - -[166] _Il._ XII. 433-7, - - ἀλλ’ ἔχον, ὤς τε τάλαντα γυνὴ χερνῆτις ἀληθής, - ἤ τε σταθμὸν ἔχουσα καὶ εἴριον ἀμφὶς ἀνέλκει - ἰσάζουσ’ ἴνα παισὶν ἀεικέα μισθὸν ἄρηται. - ὦς μὲν τῶν ἐπὶ ἶσα μάχη τέταται πτόλεμός τε κ.τ.λ. - -Dr Leaf, in his introduction to Book XII., when calling attention to -various marks of lateness in this book, says: “It has further been -remarked with some truth that the numerous similes, though beautiful -in themselves, are often disproportionately elaborated and lead up to -points which are almost in the nature of an anti-climax.” But the use of -the word ἀληθής in an entirely un-Homeric sense seems to make it almost -certain that these lines are of late date. - -[167] Cf. Plautus, _Merc._ II. 3. 63. Virg. _Georg._ I. 390, carpentes -pensa puellae. - -[168] Mr J. G. Frazer gives me the following interesting note: - -As to the cutting off a child’s hair and weighing it against gold or -silver, the facts are these. - -(1) Among the Harari in Eastern Africa when a child is a few months old, -its hair is cut off and weighed against silver or gold money; the money -is then divided among the female relations of the mother. - - Paulitschke, _Beiträge zur Ethnographie und Anthropologie der - Somâl, Galla und Hararî_ (Leipzig, 1886), p. 70. - -(2) Mohammed’s daughter Fâtima gave in alms the weight of her child’s -hair in silver. - - W. Robertson Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in early Arabia_, p. - 153. - -(3) Among the Mohammedans of the Punjaub a boy’s hair is shaved off on -the 7th or 3rd day after birth, or sometimes immediately after birth. -Rich people give alms of silver coins equal in weight to the hair. - - _Punjab Notes and Queries_, I., No. 66. - -(4) When the Hindus of Bombay dedicate a child to any god or purpose, -they shave its head and weigh the hair against gold or silver. - - _Id._ II. No. 11. - -(5) In the inland districts of Padang (Sumatra) three days after birth -the child’s hair is cut off and weighed. Double the weight of hair in -money is given to the priest. - - Pistorios. _Studien over de inlandsche Huisponding in de - Padangsche Bovenlanden_, p. 56; Van Hasselt, _Volksbeschrijving - van Midden-Sumatra_, p. 268. - -(6) There is the Egyptian custom, for which we have the evidence of -Herodotus, II. 65, and Diodorus, I. 8. - -[169] F. L. Griffith, “Metrology of the Medical Papyrus Ebers,” _Proceed. -of Soc. Bibl. Arch._ June 1891. - -[170] Hultsch, _Metrol. Scrip._ 299, τὸ Μακεδονικὸν τάλαντον τρεῖς ἦσαν -χρύσινοι. - -[171] _Catalogue of Greek Kings of Bactria_, p. lxix. - -[172] _Catalogue of Greek Kings of Bactria_, p. lxvii. - -[173] Lepsius, _Denkmäler_, 331. - -[174] Brugsch, _Op. cit._ I. 386. - -[175] _Münz- Mass- und Gewichtswesen in Vorderasien_, p. 80 seqq. - -[176] Lenormant, _La Monnaie dans l’Antiquité_, I. 103 seqq. - -[177] _Metrol._², p. 375. - -[178] Horapollo, I. 11, Πάρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις μονάς ἐστιν αἱ δύο δραχμαί. - -[179] Deecke, _Etrusk. Forsch._ II. p. 1. Head, _Op. cit._ p. 12. - -[180] Head, _Op. cit._ p. 747. - -[181] Τὸ μέντοι Σικελικὸν τάλαντον ἐλάχιστον ἴσχυεν, τὸ μὲν ἀρχαῖον, -ὡς Ἀριστοτέλης λέγει τέτταρας καὶ εἴσκοσι τοὺς νούμμους τὸ δὲ ὕστερον -δυοκαίδεκα, δύνασθαι δὲ τὸν νοῦμμον τρία ἡμιωβόλια. (Hultsch, _Reliq. -Metrol. Scrip._ 300.) - -[182] Cf. Hucher, _L’Art Gaulois_, p. 19 and Pl. I. - -[183] _Histoire de la Monnaie Romaine_, I. 236. - -[184] _Étude des Monnaies de l’Italie antique._ - -[185] _De Rep._ II. 35, 60. - -[186] X. 50. - -[187] Aulus Gellius, XI. 1. 2. 3; Plutarch, _Poplic._ 11, says a cow = -100 ὀβολοί, a sheep 10 ὀβολοί. - -[188] Pollux, IX. 80, εὐθὺς πρίω μοι δέκα νόμων μόσχον καλάν. - -[189] Theocr. IX. 3, μόσχως βουσὶν ὑφέντες. - -[190] Mr Head (_Coinage of Syracuse_), _Numismat. Chronicle_, New Series, -Vol. XIV., thinks that under Dionysius the Elder (406-367 B.C.) and his -successors gold was to silver as 15:1 at Syracuse, whilst in the time -of Agathocles (317-289 B.C.) it was as 12:1. We can however hardly take -the evidence of the coin weights as sufficient, when we consider the -extraordinary devices to which Dionysius resorted to raise money, causing -coins of tin to pass as silver, making the silver coins bear a double -value etc. as is related by Aristotle, _Oeconomica_, II. 21. - -[191] _Op. cit._ 26. - -[192] Livy XXXIV. 1. Valer. Max. 9. 1. 3. - -[193] Head, _Op. cit._ 160. - -[194] Mommsen (Blacas), _Histoire de la Monnaie romaine_, III. 275. - -[195] Pertz, _Monumenta Historica Germaniae_, Vol. III. Lex Alamannorum, -_lib. sec._ LXXX. _summus bovis 5 tremisses valet cett_. - -[196] Pertz, _Op. cit._ _Leges Burgundiorum_, p. 534: pro bove solidos 2 -cett. - -[197] Schive and Holmboe, _Norges Mynter_ (Christiania, 1865), pp. i-iv. - -[198] Herod. VI. 57. See evidence of this collected by Stengel, Die -griechische Sakralaltertümer, pp. 29 _sq._ 81 _sq._ (Iwan Müller’s -Handbach, Vol. V. pt. iii.) - -[199] _Hist. Animal._ X. 50, τά γε μὴν ἱερεῖα ἑκάστης ἀγέλης αὐτόματα -φοιτᾷ καὶ τῷ βωμῷ παρέστηκεν, ἄγει δὲ ἄρα αὐτὰ πρώτη μὲν ἡ θεός, εἶτα ἡ -δύναμίς τε καὶ ἡ τοῦ θύοντος βούλησις. εἰ γοῦν ἐθέλοις θῦσαι οἶν, ἰδού -σοι τῷ βωμῷ παρέστηκεν οἶς, καὶ δεῖ χέρνιβα κατάρξασθαι· εἰ δὲ εἴης τῶν -ἁδροτέρων καὶ ἐθέλοις θῦσαι βοῦν θήλειαν ἢ καὶ ἔτι πλείους, εἶτα ὑπὲρ τῆς -τιμῆς οὔτε σὲ ὁ νομεὺς ἐπιτιμῶν ζημιώσει οὔτε σὺ λυπήσεις ἐκεῖνον· τὸ -γὰρ δίκαιον τῆς πράσεως ἡ θεὸς ἐφορᾷ. καὶ εὖ καταθεὶς ἵλεων ἕξεις αὐτήν· -εἰ δὲ ἐθέλοις τοῦ δέοντος πρίασθαι εὐτελέστερον, σὺ μὲν κατέθηκας τὸ -ἀργύριον ἄλλως, τὸ δὲ ζῷον ἀπέρχεται, καὶ θῦσαι οὐκ ἔχεις. - -[200] _Egypt under the Pharaohs_ (2nd edit. Engl, transl.), Vol. II. p. -199. - -[201] Sir Rutherford Alcock, _The Capital of the Tycoon_, I. 281. - -[202] Marco Polo, Yule’s Transl. II. pp. 62 and 70. - -[203] _Aegypten und ägyptisches Leben in Alterthum_, p. 611. - -[204] 1 Kings x. 21. - -[205] 2 Chron. i. 15. - -[206] 2 Chron. i. 17. - -[207] _Sacred Books of the East_, Vols. V., XVIII., and XXIV. - -[208] _Report of the Royal Commission appointed to enquire into the -recent changes in the relative values of the precious metals._ 1st -Report, p. 60 (1866). - -[209] This is almost exactly the weight of the _örtug_, into 3 of which -the _ora_ (ounce) of 410 grs. was divided. The _örtug_ of gold being -136·7 grs., and the value of a cow being 128 grs. of gold, it is hard not -to believe that there was a connection between them. (See App. C.) - -[210] See above, p. 24. - -[211] J. Silvestre, “Notes pour servir à la recherche et au classement -des monnaies et des médailles de Annam et de la Cochin-Chine Française.” -_Excursions et Reconnaissances_, No. 15 (1883), p. 395. - -[212] H. C. Millies, _Recherches sur les monnaies des Indigènes de -l’Archipel Indien et de la péninsule Malaie_ (La Haye, 1871). - -[213] Sir Thomas Wade’s _Colloquial Chinese Course_, I. p. 213 (2nd ed.). - -[214] J. Silvestre, _Op. cit._ p. 308 seqq. - -[215] J. Mours, _Le Royaume du Cambodge_, I. p. 323 (Paris, 1883). - -[216] This coin bears on one side the sacred bird Hangsa, on the other a -picture of an ancient palace of the kings. - -[217] E. Aymonier, _Notes sur le Laos_. Saigon, 1885. - -[218] For an account of the various kinds of Siamese coins of the bullet -shape cf. Msg. Pallegoix, _Description du royaume Thai ou Siam_, I. 256 -(Paris, 1854). - -[219] E. Aymonier, _Cochin-Chine Française. Excursions et -Reconnaissances_, Vol. X. No. 24 (1885), p. 317. - -[220] Aymonier, _ibid._ - -[221] This mode of estimating the age of the buffalo by the length of its -horns may throw some light on the young ox _suis cornibus intructus_ of -the Marseilles inscription (p. 143). - -[222] XXIII. 850 _sq._ - -[223] OD. XXI. 76. - -[224] E. Aymonier, _Notes sur le Laos_, p. 33. - -[225] _History of the Indian Archipelago_ by John Crawfurd, F.R.S. Vol. -I., p. 271. - -[226] P. 275. - -[227] _History of Sumatra_ by William Marsden, F.R.S. (London, 1811), p. -171. - -[228] R. W. Felkin, ‘Notes on the Madi or Moon tribe of Central Africa.’ -_Proceedings of Royal Society of Edinburgh_, Vol. XII. pp. 303, _seqq._ - -[229] H. T. Colebrooke, _On Indian Weights and Measures_ (Miscellaneous -Essays edited by Prof. E. B. Cowell, 1873), Vol. I. 528-543. - -[230] _Numismatic Chronicle_, IV. 131 (N. S.). - -[231] Thomas, _Initial Coinage of Bengal_, II. p. 6 (_Royal Asiatic -Journal_, Vol. VI.). - -[232] Algebra with Arithmetic and Mensuration translated from the -Sanskrit of Brahmegupta and Bhascara by H. T. Colebrooke (London, 1817). - -[233] Down almost to the present day a system of currency, similar -to that shown in the _Līlāvati_ prevailed in Assam. “Gold continues -to pass current in small uncoined round balls, usually weighing one -_Tola_,” there was a silver coinage also, and cowries passed as money. W. -Robinson, _Descriptive Account of Assam_, pp. 249 and 267 (London, 1841). - -[234] Martini, _Metrologia_, p. 770. Formerly the _nashod_ = 3 _habbi_ of -·063 gram which is just the weight of the barley grain, whereas ·047 the -weight assigned to the _gendum_ is that of a grain of wheat. - -[235] Queipo, _Essai sur les Systèmes Métriques et Monétaires des anciens -peuples_ I. 360 (Paris, 1859). - -[236] _Ancient Laws of Ireland_, Vol. IV. 335, (Book of Aicill), -O’Donovan’s Supplement, s.v. _pingiun_. - -[237] Ruding, _Annals of the Coinage of Great Britain_, II. 58. - -[238] Ruding, _op. cit._ I. 369. - -[239] Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsverwaltung_, II. p. 30. - -[240] _Fragm._ ap. Hultsch, _Metrol. Script._ I. 248, ἡ δὲ δραχμὴ κέρατα -ιη͵. ἄλλοι δὲ λέγουσιν· ἔχει γραμμὰς τρεῖς ... τὸ γράμμα ὀβολοὺς β͵. ὁ δὲ -ὀβολὸς κέρατα γ͵. τὸ δὲ κερὰτιον ἔχει σιτάρια δ͵. - -[241] Hultsch, _Op. cit._ II. 128. - -[242] _Recueil de travaux relatifs à la Philologie et l’Archéologie -Egyptienne et Assyrienne_, Vol. X. fasc. 4, p. 157. - -[243] Bosman, _Guinea, Letter VI._ (_Pinkerton’s Voyages_, Vol. XVI. p. -374). - -[244] Although I have made many enquiries and Dr Thiselton Dyer of Kew -has taken much trouble in the matter, I am unable to give the reader the -botanical names of the Taku and Damba. Dr Dyer thinks the Damba is our -old friend the _Abrus precatorius_, the Indian _ratti_, confirming the -opinion I had previously formed from its weight. These seeds are commonly -known as crabs’ eyes. - -[245] _Op. cit._ 373. “The fetiches they cast in moulds made of a black -and heavy earth into what form they please.” (p. 367.) - -[246] Ellis, _History of Madagascar_, I. p. 335. - -[247] _Op. cit._ I. p. 6. - -[248] Prescott, _Conquest of Mexico_, p. 44. - -[249] Prescott, _Peru_, p. 56. - -[250] Nissen, “Griechische und römische Metrologie” (Iwan Müller’s -_Handbuch der classischen Alterthumswissenschaft_ I. 663 _seq._ or -separately, Nordlingen, 1886). - -[251] “_Das älteste Gewicht_,” 1889, pp. 1-9, 34-43. - -[252] The whole series of these ancient weights was some years ago -subject to a careful process of weighing in a balance of precision by an -officer of the Standard Department and the result was published by Mr W. -H. Chisholme in the _Ninth Annual Report of the Warden of the Standards_ -1874-5, where a complete list of all of them may be found. - -All the more important pieces had however been weighed many years before, -and it need only be stated that the results of the process of re-weighing -under more favourable conditions are in the main identical with those -formerly arrived at by Queipo and the late Dr Brandis. - -[253] _Metrologie_², p. 393. - -[254] _Étalons pondéraux primitifs et lingots monétaires_ (Bucharest, -1884), p. 49. - -[255] Soph. _Antig._ 1038 _seqq._ - - κερδαίνετ’, ἐμπολᾶτε τόν πρὸς Σάρδεων - ἤλεκτρον, εἰ βούλεσθε, καὶ τὸν Ἰνδικὸν - χρυσόν. - -[256] I. 94. - -[257] Pollux, IX. 83. - -[258] _Histoire de la Monnaie Romaine_, I. 15. - -[259] Herod. I. 14. - -[260] Hultsch, _Metrol._² 579. - -[261] Head, _op. cit._ XXXVI. - -[262] Head, _op. cit._ XXXVI. - -[263] Thuc. II. 13. - -[264] _Ol._ I. 75: _Nem._ IV. 46. - -[265] VIII. 375, ὠνομάζετο δ’ Οἰνώνη πάλαι, ἐπῴκησαν δὲ αὐτὴν Ἀργεῖοι καὶ -Κρῆτες καὶ Ἐπιδαύριοι καὶ Δωριεῖς. - -[266] VI. 22. 2, Ὀλυμπιάδι μὲν τῇ ὀγδοῃ τὸν Ἀργεῖον ἐπήγαγον Φείδωνα -τυράννων τῶν ἐν Ἔλλησι μάλιστα ὑβρίσαντα κ.τ.λ. - -[267] Φείδωνος δὲ τοῦ τὰ μέτρα ποιήσαντος τοῖς Πελοποννησίοισι καὶ -ὑβρίσαντος κ.τ.λ. - -[268] Ἔφορος δ’ ἐν Αἰγίνῃ ἄργυρον πρῶτον κοπῆναί φησι ὑπὸ Φείδωνος, -ἐμπόριον γὰρ γενέσθαι, διὰ τὴν λυπρότητα τῆς χώρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων -θαλαττουργούντων ἐμπορικῶς, ἀφ’ οὖ τὸν ῥῶπον Αἰγιναίαν ἐμπολὴν λέγεσθαι. - -[269] Strabo VIII. 358, Φείδωνα δὲ τὸν Ἀργεῖον, δέκατον μὲν ὄντα ἀπὸ -Τημένου, δυνάμει δὲ ὑπερβεβλημένον τοὺς κατ’ αὐτόν, ἀφ’ ἧς τήν τε λῆξιν -ὅλην ἀνέλαβε τὴν Τημένου διεσπασμένην εἰς πλείω μέρη, καὶ μέτρα ἐξεῦρε τὰ -Φειδώνια καλούμενα καὶ σταθμοὺς κὰι νόμισμα κεχαραγμένον τό τε ἄλλο καὶ -τὸ ἀργυρον. - -[270] Pollux _Onom._ X. 179, εἴη δ’ ἂν καὶ Φείδων τι ἀγγεῖον ἐλαιηρόν, -ἀπὸ τῶν Φειδωνίων μέτρων ὠνομασμέον, ὑπὲρ ὧν ἐν Ἀργείων πολιτείᾳ -Ἀριστοτέλης λέγει. - -[271] This enables us to understand why it was that in the truce at Pylus -it was stipulated (probably by the Spartans) that they should be allowed -to send in 2 _Attic_ (not Peloponnesian) _choenikes_ of barley meal for -each of their men daily. By this arrangement the beleaguered men got a -larger ration. - -[272] πάντων δὲ πρῶτος Φείδων Ἀργεῖος νόμισμα ἕκοψεν ἐν Αἰγίνῃ· καὶ δοὺς -τὸ νόμισμα καὶ ἀναλαβὼν τοὺς ὀβελίσκους, ἀνέθηκε τῇ ἐν Ἄργει Ἥρα, ἐπειδὴ -δὲ τότε οἰ ὀβελίσκοι τὴν χεῖρα ἐπλήρουν, τουτέστι, τὴν δράκα, ἡμεῖς, -καίπερ μὴ πληροῦντες τὴν δράκα τοῖς ἓξ ὀβόλους δραχμὴν αὐτὴν λέγομεν παρὰ -τὸ δράξασθαι. - -[273] Φείδων ὁ Ἀργεῖος ἐδήμευσε τὰ μέτρα ... καὶ ἀνεσκεύασε καὶ νόμισμα -ἀργυροῦν ἐν Αἰγίνῃ ἐποίησεν (l. 30). - -[274] Head _op. cit._ XXXVIII. - -[275] _Op. cit._ 153. - -[276] _Op. cit._ XXXVIII. - -[277] Of course it is quite possible that the Persians issued coins in -Egypt after their conquest, but these coins cannot be regarded as really -Egyptian. - -[278] Herod. I. 62. - -[279] Head, _op. cit._ p. XL. Professor Percy Gardner (_Types of Greek -Coins_, p. 2), regards the Euboic standard as 130, which he thinks was -raised to 135 grs. by Solon when the latter introduced (as he supposes) -the Euboic system at Athens. - -[280] Head, _Coinage of Syracuse_, p. 71. - -[281] Arist. _Oeconomica_, II. 21. - -[282] Head, _op. cit._ p. 26. - -[283] Chautard, _Imitations des monnaies au type esterling_ (Nancy, 1871). - -[284] Mr D. B. Monro, _Historical Review_, January, 1886. - -[285] _Il._ II. 867. - -[286] _Od._ XV. 460. - -[287] _Od._ XV. 470. - -[288] It is more probable however that _Chalkos_ copper got its name from -the place (Chalcis) where it was first found in Greece. The name Chalcis -may itself be connected with χαλκίς, an _owl_. - -[289] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, Vol. I. p. 219. - -[290] Schliemann, _Tiryns_, pl. II. Helbig, _Das homerisches Epos_², p. -79. - -[291] _Report of the British Association_, 1883, p. 21. - -[292] Νάφε καὶ μέμνασ’ ἀπιστεῖν, ἄρθρα ταῦτα τῶν φρενῶν, Epicharmus. - -[293] Boeckh, _Metrol. Untersuch._ p. 32. - -[294] Head, _op. cit._ XXVIII. - -[295] “Griech. und röm. Metrologie” (in Iwan Müller’s _Handbuch der -klass. Altertumswissenschaft_, Vol. I. p. 684). - -[296] Head, _op. cit._ XXIX. Madden’s _Jewish Coinage_, p. 277. - -[297] Horapollo I. 11, παρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις μονάς ἐστιν αἱ δύο δραχμαί. μονὰς -δὲ παντὸς ἀριθμοῦ γένεσις. εὐλογῶς οὖν τὰς δύο δραχμὰς βουλόμενοι δηλῶσαι -γύπα γράφουσι, ἐπεὶ μήτηρ δοκεῖ καὶ γένεσις εἶναι, καθάπερ καὶ ἡ μονὰς. - -[298] W. M. Flinders Petrie, _Naukratis_, p. 75. It is with extreme -reluctance that I must refuse to follow Mr Petrie, who for careful -accuracy and scientific method stands at the head not only of -metrologists but of archaeologists in general. But it seems to me that -in his method of arriving at his weight-units from the weighing of -weight-pieces he has overlooked one very important factor. False weights -and balances have prevailed in all ages and countries, and we can hardly -wrong the ancient Egyptians if we suppose that a certain number of their -nation were not as honest as they might have been in their dealings. -The variations in the weights of his specimens given by Mr Petrie may -very well be due to false weights. And it must be carefully noted that -frauds were not only perpetrated by means of light but also by means of -too heavy weights. Whether the Jews learned to cheat when they sojourned -in the land of Goshen or not, we cannot say, but that they used too -heavy as well as too light weights is plain from the denunciations of -the prophets: thus Amos (viii. 5), “When will the new moon be gone that -we may sell corn? and the sabbath that we may set forth wheat, making -the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by -deceit?” See also Ezekiel xlv. 10. But the practice of cheating with too -heavy as well as with too light weights is best seen in Deuteronomy xxv. -13; “Thou shalt not have in thy bag divers weights, a great and a small; -thou shalt not have in thine house divers measures, a great and a small. -Thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure -shalt thou have.” It seems hardly likely that of the 516 weights found by -Mr Petrie at Naukratis all were “perfect and just” weights. It is thus -quite possible that the variations from what there is evidence to suppose -is the normal standard, whether they be those of excess or deficiency, -may be accounted for, at least in part, by this consideration. Mr -Petrie’s method, if applied to natural products such as certain kinds -of seeds, will of course give the truest possible result, but when the -factor of human knavery enters, his method is at once open to serious -drawbacks. - -[299] Erman, _Aegypten und Aegypt. Leben_, p. 611. - -[300] We also find mention of a weight called the _pek_, which weighed -·71 grammes (11 grains), and was the ⅟₁₂₈ part of the uten. Hultsch, -_Metrol._² p. 37, regards it as a provincial Ethiopian weight. Its -awkward relation to the kat and uten seem to show that it did not form -part of the genuine Egyptian system. - -[301] The large copper coins of the Ptolemies of 1450-1350 grs. Troy (the -_flans_ of which were turned in a lathe) were almost certainly struck on -the native uten. - -[302] This weight (in my own possession) said to have come from India, -and almost perfect, weighed 4·29 grammes. - -[303] III. 89, τοῖσι μὲν αὐτῶν ἀργύριον ἀπαγινέουσι εἴρητο Βαβυλώνιον -σταθμὸν τάλαντον ἀπαγινέειν, τοῖσι δὲ χρυσίον ἀπαγινέουσι Εὐβοϊκόν· τὸ δὲ -Βαβυλώνιον τάλαντον δύναται Εὐβοΐδας ἑβδομήκοντα μνέας. - -[304] If, as is held by some of the best critics, this is a late passage, -there is an _a fortiori_ argument against the early use of the _mina_. - -[305] Is it possible that the so-called _Ducks_ are only degraded -forms of bull-head weights? The ears and horns were dropped as being -inconvenient (see bull-head weight, p. 283), and at a later time when the -tradition of their origin had been lost, the shapeless lump was adorned -with a bird’s head to serve as a handle. All the large weights from -Nineveh are without any head; and it is but very rarely even on the small -haematite weights that the duck’s head is found fully formed. - -[306] As no better selection of these weights could be made than that of -Mr Head, I have followed his description. Cf. R. S. Poole, in Madden’s -_Jewish Coinage_, p. 261 seqq., and the Report of the Warden of the -Standards, 1874-5, for a full account of these weights. - -[307] The _Manah_ is of course the _Meneh_ so familiar from Belshazzar’s -vision, _mene, mene tekel upharsin_ (Daniel v. 25), which the best -scholars follow M. Clermont-Ganneau (_Journal Asiatique_, 1886) in -interpreting as _a mina, a mina, a shekel, and the parts of a shekel_. - -[308] Prof. Sayce (_Academy_, Dec. 19th, 1891) publishes a weight -from Babylonia inscribed “One maneh standard weight, the property of -Merodach-sar-ilani, a duplicate of the weight which Nebuchadrezzar, king -of Babylon, the son of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, made in exact -accordance with the weight [prescribed] by the deified Dungi, a former -king.” This confirms my contention that the _mina_ is prior in _date_ to -the talent. - -[309] Cf. Plautus, _Persa_. - -[310] Brandis, 20-38. - -[311] Head, XXIX. - -[312] Berosus. Synkellos 30, 6 (Eusebii chronic, ed. Alfr. Schoene -vol. I. col. 8): ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν Βηρωσσὸς διὰ σάρων καὶ νήρων καὶ σώσσων -ἀνεγράψατο· ὦν ὁ μὲν σάρος τρισχιλίων καὶ ἑξακοσίων ἐτῶν χρόνον σημαίνει, -ὁ δὲ νῆρος ἐτῶν ἑξακοσίων, ὁ δὲ σῶσσος ἑξήκοντα. _Fragm. Script. Hist. -Graec._ - -[313] Hultsch, _op. cit._ p. 407. - -[314] _Recueil des travaux relatifs à la Philologie et l’Archéologie -Egyptiennes et Assyriennes_, Vol. x. fasc. 4, p. 157. - -[315] Kaeji in Fleckeisen’s _Jahrbücher_, 1880, first calls attention to -this word. - -[316] Hultsch, _Metrol._², p. 131. - -[317] Rig Veda, _Mandala_, VI. 47, 23-4. - -[318] Herod. III. 96. - -[319] For 20 pieces of _gold_ (εἴκοσι χρυσῶν) LXX. - -[320] Gen. xx. 16. - -[321] Judges xvi. 5. - -[322] Judges ix. 4. - -[323] Judges xvii. 2-4. - -[324] Joshua vii. 21. - -[325] Cf. Buxtorf and Gesenius _sub voce_. - -[326] _A_ is from Beirut, in the Greville Chester Collection in the -Ashmolean Museum, of white and yellow crystalline stone; wt. 32·160 gram. -(a very slight chip from the base); on the base is engraved a rude ibex -and another figure. _B_ is from Persia, slightly chipped on side of head, -yellowish white stone, veined with red, like jasper; wt. 22·450 gram.; on -the base are two ibexes. I am indebted for this information to Mr A. J. -Evans, Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, by whose kindness I am likewise -enabled to give representations of the weights. - -[327] Madden’s _Jewish Coinage_, p. 7. - -[328] Exod. xxx. 13. Levit. v. 15, etc. - -[329] The question of the date at which certain documents were written -or took their final shape is of course important. But it does not at -all follow that a document written at a later period cannot contain -traditions of real historical value. Thus here we find Chronicles, placed -quite late by the critics, gives the weight in _shekels_, whilst Kings, -supposed to be far earlier, gives it in _minas_. - -[330] The mere question as to whether the 200 shekels is far more than -the average crop of hair can weigh, does not concern us. If the writer -wished to exaggerate the amount of Absalom’s hair he would naturally -make the shekel as heavy as possible, and say that the weight was in the -_heavy_ or _royal_ shekels, employed for merchandize. - -[331] Exod. XXX. 23-4. - -[332] _Antiq._ III. 8, 10. - -[333] Pollux, IX. 59, observes that when χρυσοῦς stands alone, στατήρ is -always to be understood. - -[334] Exod. XXX. 13. - -[335] _Hist._ V. 3. - -[336] Hultsch, _Metr. Scrip._ _s.v._ Lupinus. - -[337] In Gesenius’ _Lexicon_, II. 88; II. 144, it is suggested that the -_gerah_ is the lupin. - -[338] _Antiq._ III. 6, § 7, λυχνία ἐκ χρυσοῦ ... σταθμὸν ἔχουσα -μνᾶς ἑκατὸν, ἂς Ἑβραῖοι μὲν καλοῦσι κίγχαρες, εἰς δὲ τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν -μεταβαλλόμενον γλῶσσαν σημναίνει τάλαντον. - -[339] Even granting that the parts of Exodus (the priestly Code) took -their present form in post-Exile times it is perfectly possible that the -metrological data contained therein are based on a genuine old tradition, -just as Homer, although in its present shape differing much in linguistic -forms from what must have been its original, gives us an archaic talent -quite different from those in use when it took its final shape. - -[340] 2 Kings v. 5. - -[341] LXX. τρίτον τοῦ διδράχμου. - -[342] We are unfortunately unable to gain any definite knowledge from -Ezekiel xlv., as _v._ 12, which gives the weight system, is confused, -and there is a great discrepancy between the Hebrew and Greek texts. -Though it is a prophetic passage, there is no reason for supposing that -the prophet did not clearly understand the standard weight system of -his time (600 B.C.), for his account of the metric system is singularly -clear. It is best to give the whole passage as it appears in the Revised -Version: “Thus saith the Lord God: Let it suffice you, O princes of -Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice; take -away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord God. Ye shall have -just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath. The ephah and the bath -shall be of one measure, that the bath may contain the tenth part of an -homer, and the ephah the tenth part of an homer: the measure thereof -shall be after the homer. And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs; twenty -shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels shall be your maneh.” -(vv. 9-12.) One thing is clear at least, and that is that the passage is -a protest against over-exaction, and we may infer that the weight system -here mentioned is for precious metals, seeing that there is no mention -made of the talent. The shekel is to be 20 gerahs, that is, the shekel -of the Sanctuary. If the princes had sought to exact payment in _royal_ -shekels instead of the old shekel, and also to make the maneh of silver -contain 60 shekels instead of 50, we can see every reason for the cry of -the oppressed being loud. - -The confusion in the Hebrew text may be due to the fact that there were -two manehs in use, that of 50 shekels for gold and silver, and that of -60 shekels for other commodities. The Septuagint version is perfectly -capable of explanation on the principles which I have indicated. The LXX. -runs thus: καὶ τὰ στάθμια εἴκοσι ὀβολοί, πέντε σίκλοι, πέντε καὶ σίκλοι, -δέκα καὶ πεντήκοντα σίκλοι ἡ μνᾶ ἔσται ὑμῖν. So Tischendorf. - -There is a MS. (Cod. Al.) reading οἱ πέντε σίκλοι, καὶ πέντε καὶ οἱ -δέκα σίκλοι. Tischendorf’s text can hardly be right, πέντε καὶ σίκλοι, -δέκα καὶ πεντήκοντα contain two most unnatural collocations. δέκα καὶ -πεντήκοντα is absolutely absurd as a way of expressing 60. εἶς καὶ -πεντήκοντα up to ἐννεα καὶ πεντήκοντα to express 51 to 59 are reasonable -and found universally, but to add on 10 to one of the main multiples of -10 in the decimal system is a method unknown, and is just as absurd in -Greek as it would be if in English we were to say 10 and 50, meaning -thereby 60. Again in the previous clause, the words πέντε καὶ point to -some other numeral such as 10, or 20, as necessarily following. This is -obtained by taking the MS. reading πέντε καὶ δέκα σίκλοι, καὶ πεντήκοντα, -κ.τ.λ. Now the LXX. gives the plural στάθμια for “_shekel_”: στάθμια -means the actual weights employed in weighing the amounts of gold or -silver so weighed. Ezekiel is describing the various weight-units to be -employed: “And the weights are 20 gerahs (lupins), _the_ five shekel -weight, _the_ fifteen shekel weight, and fifty shekels shall be your -maneh.” The article οἱ is very rightly used before πέντε, for it refers -to the well known multiple of the shekel, of which we spoke above when -dealing with the Bull’s-head weight. The same explanation may probably -be given of _the_ fifteen shekel weight. The maneh of 50 shekels of 20 -gerahs each is the old maneh of the Sanctuary (Period II.), not the royal -maneh which contained 100 light shekels. - -Now turning to the Hebrew version we find “twenty shekels, five and -twenty shekels and fifteen shekels,”the sum of which makes a maneh of -60 shekels, or the royal Assyrian and Hebrew _commercial_ maneh. It is -also to be observed that the position of _fifteen_ is unnatural; it -ought to come in the series before “twenty” and “five and twenty.” Fifty -stands in the corresponding place in LXX. Has the Hebrew text altered 50 -into 15 so as to obtain a total of 60? But there is another question; -Why do we find “five” and “fifteen” stand first in LXX., and “twenty” -and “twenty five” in Hebrew? On the theory, that of the Septuagint -translators, that the prophet is describing a series of weight-pieces, -it is quite simple. Combine the numbers of both versions, and place them -in order thus: 1 shekel, 5 shekels, 15 shekels, 20 shekels, 25 shekels -(½ maneh), 50 shekels (maneh). This gives a rational explanation of how -the discrepancy arose. The LXX. translated from a text which probably ran -thus, 5 shekels, 10 shekels, 15 shekels, and went no further with the -series. For it is not at all improbable that the reading οἱ δέκα is due -to the fact that after οἱ πέντε σίκλοι stood οἱ δέκα, which was followed -by οἱ πεντεκάιδεκα σίκλοι. The Jews of a later date, knowing only of the -commercial mina of 60 shekels, left out some of the numerals, and altered -50 into 15 to make up 60 shekels. - -[343] Herod. III. 89, _seqq._ - -[344] _Metrol._², p. 420. - -[345] _Metrol._², p. 153. - -[346] Head, _op. cit._ p. 789. - -[347] The amount of gold in electrum varies greatly. Pliny, _H. N._ -XXXIII. 4. 23, ubicumque quinta argenti portio est, et electrum uocatur. -The Carthaginian electrum probably came from Spain (cp. p. 94). - -[348] Head, _op. cit._ p. 2. - -[349] Pliny, _H. N._ XXXIV. - -[350] Herod. I. 94, πρῶτοι δὲ ἀνθρώπων, τῶν ἡμεῖς ἴδμεν, νόμισμα χρυσοῦ -καὶ ἀργύρου κοψάμενοι ἐχρήσαντο. - -[351] Julius Pollux, IX. 83. - -[352] Head, _op. cit._ p. 544. - -[353] _H. N._ XXXIII. 4. 23, ubicumque quinta argenti portio est, et -electrum uocatur. - -[354] _River of Golden Sand_, II. p. 78. - -[355] Head, _op. cit._ p. 545. - -[356] _Ibid._ p. 503. - -[357] Pollux, III. 87, εὐδόκιμος δὲ καὶ ὁ Γυγάδας χρυσὸς καὶ οἱ -Κροίσειοι στατήρες: ix. 84 _sq._, ἴσως δὲ ὀνομάτων καταλόγῳ προσήκουσιν -οἱ Κροίσειοι στατῆρες καὶ Φιλίππειοι, καὶ Δαρεικοὶ, καὶ τὸ Βερενικεῖον -νόμισμα καὶ Ἀλεξανδρεῖον, καὶ Πτολεμαικὸν καὶ Δημαρετεῖον, κ.τ.λ. - -[358] _Annuaire de Numismatique_, 1884, p. 119. - -[359] _Zeitschr. für Assyriologie._ Vol. II. 48 (1887). - -[360] _Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology_, 1883-4, p. 87. - -[361] IV. 166, Δαρεῖος μὲν γὰρ χρυσίον καθαρώτατον ἀπεψήσας ἐς τὸ -δυνατώτατον νόμισμα ἐκόψατο. - -[362] _Or._ XII. 70 τρία τάλαντα ἀργυρίου καὶ τετρακοσίους κυζικηνοὺς καὶ -ἑκατὸν δαρεικοὺς καὶ φιάλας ἀργυρίου τέσσαρας. - -[363] Thuc. VIII. 28; Xen. _An._ I. 1. 9; I. 3. 21; I. 7. 18; V. 6. 18; -VII. 6. 1; _Cyrop._ V. 27; Dem. XXIV. 129; Aristoph. _Eccl._ 602; Arrian -_Anab._ IV. 18. 7; Diod. XVII. 66, etc. - -[364] Plutarch, _Cimon_, X. 11, φιάλας δύο, τὴν μὲν ἀργυρείων -ἐμπλησάμενον Δαρεικῶν, τὴν δὲ χρυσῶν. - -[365] _Thes._ XXV., ἔκοψε δε νόμισμα βοῦν ἐγχαράξας. - -[366] p. 27 (ch. 10) (Kenyon’s ed.), ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς νόμοις ταῦτα δοκεῖ -θεῖναι δημοτικά, πρὸ δὲ τῆς νομοθεσίας ποιησάσθαι τὴν χριῶν ἀποκοπήν, -καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τήν τε τῶν μέτρων καὶ τῶν σταθμῶν καὶ τὴν τοῦ νομίσματος -αὔξησιν. ἐπ’ ἐκείνου γὰρ ἐγένετο καὶ τὰ μέτρα μείζω τῶν Φειδωνείων, -καὶ ἡ μνᾶ πρότερον ἔχουσα παραπλήσιον ἐβδομήκοντα δραχμὰς ἀνεπληρώθη -ταῖς ἑκατόν. ἦν δ’ ὁ ἀρχαῖος χαρακτὴρ δίδραχμον. ἐποίησε δὲ καὶ σταθμὸν -πρὸς τὸ νόμισμα τρεῖς καὶ ἑξήκοντα μνᾶς τὸ τάλαντον ἀγούσας, καὶ -ἐπιδιενεμήθησαν αἱ μναῖ τῷ στατῆρι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις σταθμοῖς. - -[367] I have translated the παρὰ [μικρὸν] of Kaibel and Wilamowitz -instead of Kenyon’s παραπλήσιον. According to Plutarch (Solon. 15) the -old (silver) mina contained 73 drachms. The apparent discrepancy is -easily explained. In the prae-Solonian mina there were 70 drachms of 92 -grs. each. Plutarch writing at a later time took the number of drachms -of 92 grs. in the post-Solonian mina of 6750, which is just 73. The -information supplied by the _Polity_ is evidently older and better. - -[368] The. Reinsch needlessly regards ἦν δὲ ὁ ἀρχαῖος κ.τ.λ. as an -interpolation. - -[369] Kaibel and Wilamowitz read σταθμὰ instead of σταθμὸν. - -[370] Pollux IX. 59. - -[371] Pollux IX. 58 ἔχων στατῆρας χρυσίου τρισχιλίους. - -[372] Thuc. (I. 27) speaks of Corinthian drachms not _staters_; and (V. -47) of Aeginetic _drachms_. - -[373] Cp. p. 214. - -[374] P. Gardner, _Types of Greek Coins_, _passim_. - -[375] Comparetti, _Leggi antiche della città di Gortyna in Creta_, 1885; -_Museo Italiano_ II. 195, no. 39: _ibid_, II. 222. Roberts, _Greek -Epigraphy_, p. 53. - -[376] _Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique_, 1888, p. 405 seqq. (where -he gives an engraving of a stater so countermarked). Mr B. V. Head -(_Numism. Chron._ 3rd ser. IX. 242) in a notice of this paper lends his -great authority to the support of Svoronos’ view. - -[377] Head, _op. cit._ 450, who quotes Marquardt’s _Cyzicus_, p. 45. - -[378] Fishermen offered to Poseidon the first tunny they caught (Athen. -p. 346), but this was simply an offering of first fruits and not because -the tunny was sacred. - -[379] _Zeitschrift f. Numismatik_, X. 144 _seqq._ - -[380] The tunny is a very large fish, usually four feet long, and is -hardly likely to have been sold by the basketful. - -[381] _Apud Stephanum Byzant._ s.v. Τένεδος. - -[382] X. 14. 1. - -[383] _Iliad_, XXIII. 850-1, - - Αὐτὰρ ὁ τοχευτῇσι τίθει ἰόεντα σίδηρον, - κὰδ δ’ ἐτίθει δέκα μὲν πελέκεας, δέκα δ’ ἡμιπέλεκκα. - -[384] No doubt the axe was often used as a religious emblem; -double-headed axes borne in procession are seen on Hittite sculptures -(Perrot et Chipiez, _Histoire de l’Art dans l’antiquité_, IV. p. 637). It -was also the symbol of Dionysus at Pagasae. So amongst the Polynesians we -find processional axes as well as real ones like our sword of state as -contrasted with real swords. - -[385] _Ib._ 882-3, - - ἀν δ’ ἄρα Μηριόνης πελέκεας δέκα πάντας ἄειρεν, - Τεῦκρος δ’ ἡμιπέλεκκα φέρεν κοίλας ἐπὶ νῆας. - -[386] Although Mr Frazer (_Golden Bough_, I. 8) has given abundant -evidence to show that kings were in some places worshipped as gods, no -one can maintain that the Persians, who were Zoroastrians, would have -treated their king as a god. - -[387] The electrum coins with the lion’s head with open jaws formerly -ascribed to Miletus are now assigned to the Lydian king Alyattes by M. J. -P. Six, _Num. Chron._ N. S. Vol. x. 185 _seqq._ (1890). - -[388] Head, _Op. cit._ 6. 88. - -[389] Lindsay, _Survey of the Coinage of Ireland_, p. 6 _seqq._ - -[390] _Il._ VII. 468 _seqq._ - -[391] A. Dobbs, _Account of Hudson’s Bay_ (1744). - -[392] _Politics_ II. 1257 B ὁ γὰρ χαρακτὴρ ἐτέθη τοῦ πὸσου σημεῖον. - -[393] Plutarch, _Solon_ 18. - -[394] _Ibid._ 23 Εἰς μὲν γε τὰ τιμήματα τῶν θυσιῶν λογίζεται πρόβατον -καὶ δραχμὴν ἀντὶ μεδίμνου· τῷ δ’ Ἴσθμια νικήσαντι δραχμὰς ἔταξεν ἑκατὸν -δίδοσθαι, τῷ δ’ Ὀλύμπια πεντακοσίας· λύκον δὲ τῷ κομίσαντι πέντε δραχμὰς -ἔδωκε, λυκιδέα δὲ μίαν, ὧν φησιν ὁ Φαληρεὺς Δημήτριος τὸ μὲν βοὸς εἶναι, -τὸ δὲ προβάτου τιμήν. - -[395] Lysias, _de Sacra oliva_, 6. - -[396] Strabo, XVII. 836. - -[397] Diodorus Siculus V. 26. 2 διδόντες γὰρ τοῦ οἴνου κεράμιον -ἀντιλαμβάνουσι παῖδα κτλ. - -[398] Baumeister, _Denkmäler_, s.v. Silphium. Studicyna, _Kyrene_, p. -22. Birch, _Ancient Pottery_ (frontispiece). The vase is in the Paris -Bibliothèque. - -[399] The only evidence to show that Demeter was worshipped at Metapontum -is that a female head on certain of her coins is accompanied by the -legend Σωτηρία. It has been inferred that this is an epithet of Demeter, -but this is most unlikely, for in that case we should expect Σὼτειρα, as -on the coins of Hipponium, Syracuse, Agrigentum, Corcyra, Cyzicus, and -Apamea, not Σωτηρία, as the adjective. Thus we always find Ζεὺς Σωτήρ, -not Σωτήριος: cf. Σώτειρα Εὐνομία, Pind. _Ol._ IX. 16, Σώτειρα Τύχα, -_Ol._ XII. 2, Σώτειρα Θέμις, _Ol._ VIII. 21. Σωτηρία is rather _Safety_ -(Lat. _Salus_), who, as my friend Mr J. G. Frazer points out to me, -was worshipped at Patrae and Aegeum, two of the chief towns of Achaea -(Pausan. VII. 21. 7; VII. 24. 3). We also find such names of divinities -as Ὑγιεία, Ὁμόνοια and Νίκα on the coins of Metapontum. As Metapontum was -an Achaean colony, it is likely that _Salus_ was worshipped there also. -Besides it was to Apollo, and not to Demeter, that they dedicated their -golden ear as a harvest thank-offering. Θέρος is the ear cut from the -stalk after the ancient way of reaping, cf. θέρη σταχύων, Plut. - -[400] Athenaeus XIII. p. 589 ab; Schol. on Aristophanes, _Plutus_, 179; -Suidas, _s.v._ χελώνη. - -[401] _Voyage of the Sunbeam_, p. 276 (London, 1880). [L.M.R.] - -[402] We learn from Strabo, 773, that the Greeks were familiar with the -employment of tortoise shells, for a tribe called Tortoise-eaters on the -north coast of Africa used the shells of these animals, which were of -large size, for roofing purposes. Pausanias (VIII. 23. 9) tells us that -there were large tortoises well suited for making lyres in Arcadia, but -the people would not touch them as they were under the protection of Pan. -As Pan was lord of the forest and mountain, the tortoise being especially -large would naturally be regarded as his special property. - -[403] Mansfield Parkyn, _Abyssinia_, Vol. I. p. 407. - -[404] Pausan. IX. 34. - -[405] Pausan. I. 25. - -[406] _Iliad_ XVII. 381. - -[407] _Iliad_ XXII. 158. - -[408] Strabo 192, ὅθεν οἱ ἄρισται ταριχεῖαι τῶν ὑείων κρεῶν εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην -κατακομίζονται. Hucher, _Art Gaulois_, Pl. 78. The swine is also found on -coins of Bellovaci, Pictones and Armorican Gauls. - -[409] On the plastron of the sea-tortoise eight triangular patches are -made very conspicuous by pigmentation. - -[410] Photius _Lex._ _s.v._ Λάμβδα. Eustathius on Homer p. 293. 39 seqq. -Xenophon _Hell._ IV. 4. 10 (which shows that the letter was on the front, -cf. Pausan. IV. 28. 5). - -[411] Pollux, V. 66. - -[412] Xenoph. _De Vectigalibus_, iv. 10, εἰ δὲ τις φήσειε καὶ χρυσίον -μηδὲν ἧττον χρήσιμον εἶναι ἢ ἀργύριον, τοῦτο μὲν οὐκ ἀντιλέγω, ἐκεῖνο -μέντοι οἶδα ὅτι καὶ χρυσίον ὅταν πολὺ παραφανῇ, αὐτὸ μὲν ἀτιμότερον -γίγνεται, τὸ δὲ ἀργύριον τιμιώτερον ποιεῖ. - -[413] Strabo, IV. 208, συνεργασαμένων δὲ σὺν βαρβάροις τῶν Ἱταλιωτῶν ἐν -διμήνῳ, παραχρῆμα τὸ χρυσίον εὐωνότερον γενέσθαι τῷ τρίτῳ μέρει καθ’ ὅλην -τὴν Ἰταλίαν. - -[414] Pindar, _Olymp._ VII. 58 _sq._ - -[415] _Numismatic Chron._ VII. 185. That the Cyzicene staters were at -some time and at some places (Cyzicus itself?) less in value than a -Daric is made possible from the new-found Mimiambi of Herondas (VII. 96 -_seqq._); where 4 Darics seem worth more than 5 staters: - - ταύτηι δὲ δώσεισ κε[ῖ]νο τὸ ἕτερον ζεῦγοσ - κόσου; πάλιν πρήμηνον ἀξίαν φωνὴν - σεω<υ>τοῦ. - - Κ. στατήρασ πέντε ναὶ μὰ θεοὺσ φο[ι]τᾶι - ἡ ψάλτρι’ <Εὐ>έτηρισ ἡμέρην πᾶσαν - λαβεῖν ἀνώγουσ’· ἀλλ’ ἐγώ μιν [ἐχθα]ίρω - κἢν τέσσαράσ μοι δαρεικοὺσ ὑπόσχηται - ὁτεύνεκέν μευ τὴν γυναῖκα τωθάζει - κακοῖσι δέ[ν]νοισ. ει ... χρείη. - -[416] Xen. _Anab._ V. 6. 23; VII. 3. 10. Dem. _Phorm._ p. 914. - -[417] _Op. cit._ p. 449. - -[418] _Corp. Inscr. Graec._ 125, ἀγέτω ἡ μνᾶ ἡ ἐμπορικὴ Στεφανηφόρου -δραχμὰς ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα καὶ ὀκτὼ πρὸς τὰ σταθμία τὰ ἐν τῷ ἀργυροκοπείῳ. - -[419] Cf. Wharton, _Etyma Latina_, s.v. _litra_. - -[420] Pollux, IX. 80. - -[421] Cf. Shakespeare, _I. Henry IV._ II. 4, 590, in Falstaff’s tavern -bill: “Item, Anchovies and sack, 6_d._ Item, bread, Ob. O monstrous! But -one halfpenny worth of bread to such an intolerable deal of sack!” - -[422] Head, _op. cit._ p. 105. - -[423] The forms _scripulum_, _scrupulum_, _scrupulus_ are all due to its -simply being regarded in later times as a _weight_, and thus falsely -identified with _scrupulus_, a small pebble. - -[424] Book of Aicill, p. 335. - -[425] Caesar, _B. G._ III. 13. - -[426] _Blacas_, Mommsen, I. p. 177. - -[427] It is worth noticing that Plutarch (_Poplicola_ 11) translates the -_libral asses_ of early Rome by the Greek _obolos_; ἦν δὲ τιμὴ προβάτου -μὲν ὀβολοὶ δέκα, βοὸς δὲ ἑκατόν· οὔπω νομίσματι χρωμένων πολλῷ τότε τῶν -Ῥωμαίων, ἀλλὰ προβατείαις καὶ κτηνοτροφίαις εὐθηνούντων. It is quite -possible that Plutarch embodies a genuine tradition that the original -_as_ and _obol_ were the same. Otherwise like Dionysius of Halicarnassus -he would have represented the asses by the value in Greek money of his -own time. For he can hardly have supposed that at any time an ox was -worth only 100 of the obols of his own time. - -[428] So the word _mark_ means not only a weight but is also used as a -linear measure = 48 _alen_, and also as a measure of _area_, as in the -term _arable mark_ etc. See Appendix. - -[429] Many of the Roman unciae in the British Museum are under 410 grs. - -[430] ὁ δὲ νοῦμμος δοκεῖ μὲν εἶναι Ῥωμαίων τοὔνομα τοῦ νομίσματος, ἔστι -δὲ Ἑλληνικὸν καὶ τῶν ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ καὶ ἐν Σικελίᾳ Δωριέων. - -[431] Pollux IX. 84. - -[432] Evans, _Horsemen of Tarentum_, pp. 9-11. - -[433] _Tabulae Heracleenses_ (Boeckh _Corp. Inscrip. Graec._ 5774-5; -Cauer, _Delectus_ 40, 41) I, 122. αἱ δέ κα μὴ πεφυτεύκωντι κατὰ -γεγραμμένα, κατεδικέσθεν πὰρ μὲν τὰν ἐλαίαν δέκα νόμως ἀργυρίω πὰρ τὸ -φυτὸν ἕκαστον, πὰρ δὲ τὰς ἀμπέλως δύο μνᾶς ἀργυρίω πὰρ τὰν σχοῖνον -ἑκάσταν. - -[434] Boeckh, _Metrol. Unters._ 160, takes the _Sicilicus_ as originally -the Silician _quadrans_ in the Roman silver reckoning. Cf. Mommsen, -_Blacas_, I, 243. Hultsch, _Metrol._ p. 145. - -[435] _Étude des monnaies de l’Italie antique._ Première partie, pp. 8 -and 16. - -[436] _Ibid._ p. 29. - -[437] _Ibid._ p. 30. - -[438] Soutzo, _ibid._ p. 31. - -[439] If we take the καινὸν κόμμα of Aristophanes (_Ranae_ 720) to refer, -as the scholiast _ad loc._ asserts on the authority of Hellanicus and -Philochorus, to a gold issue in B.C. 407, which was much alloyed. As -Mr Head says it is quite possible that Aristophanes alludes to the new -bronze coinage issued the year before the Frogs was acted (_Hist. Num._ -314). No such base gold coins of Athens are known, and as her gold coins -are of excellent quality, it is better to refer them with Head to 394 -B.C., the period of her restored prosperity, when Conon and Pharnabazus -brought aid from the great king. - -[440] Varro ap. Non. p. 356 nam lateres argentei atque aurei primum -conflati atque in aerarium conditi. _Lateres_ is used in this sense by -Tacitus, _Annals_, XVI. 1. - -[441] Gaius I. 122. This passage is unhappily corrupt. The Verona -MS. runs asses librales erant et dupondii——unde etiam dupondius. As -_dupondius_ is really a masculine adjective used as a noun, a masculine -noun must be understood, this can only be _as_. Dupondius then is simply -a two-pound bar. - -[442] XXXIII. 3. 13. - -[443] Before striking silver at Rome the Romans had struck silver coins -with type of quadriga and ROMA in Campania. Hence it is that Pliny -regarded these the _quadrigati_ and _bigati_ as the oldest issue instead -of the coins with the Dioscuri (Fig. 54). The _biga_ came next, after it -the genuine Roman _quadriga_. - -[444] Varro, _R. R._ II. 1, 9. - -[445] Varro ap. Non. p. 189 _aut bovem aut ovem aut vervecem habet -signum_. Probably _uerrem_, not _ueruecem_, is the true reading, since -Plutarch says that the coins were marked with an ox, a sheep or a _swine_ -(βοῦν ἐπεχάραττον ἢ πρόβατον ἢ ὗν). _Popl._ 11. - -[446] Festus fragm. p. 347 Müller _s.v._ _Sextantari asses_. - -[447] V. 173 Müller. - -[448] Deux. Partie p. 41. “Le poids normal de l’as oncial est de 27 gr. -25, mais il alla en s’affaiblissant progressivement du commencement à la -fin de la periode.” - -[449] _Ancient Laws of Ireland_, Vol. I. p. 61. O’Curry, _Manners and -Customs of the Ancient Irish_, Vol. I. pp. 100 seq. - -[450] _Survey of the Coinage of Ireland_, p. 3. - -[451] _Ecclesiastical Architecture of Ireland_, p. 213 seqq. - -[452] Folio 24 c. - -[453] The bracketed words are interlined in a recent hand; but the final -word shows that they were a portion of the text. - -[454] Near Croghan Hill, in the north of King’s Co. - -[455] See note on Irish text. - -[456] O’Donovan has omitted _caerach_ of the MS. - -[457] _Norges Mynter_, IV-V. - -[458] I am indebted to Mr E. Magnússon for the translation of Holmboe. - -[459] Polybius XXXIV. 8. - -[460] _Solon_ 23, see p. 324 _supra_. - -[461] Wasserschleben, _Die Bussordnungen d. Abendländisch. Kirchen_ (De -disputatione Hibernensis Sinodi et Gregori Nasaseni sermo), p. 137. - -[462] Beside the difficulty about _numo aureo_ there is a further variant -between _anulis ferreis_ and _taleis ferreis_ (bars of iron). Can Caesar -have in reality written both? May the original reading have been: utuntur -aut aere aut numo aureo, aut aureis anulis, aut taleis ferreis etc.? -Caesar speaks of the Britons having iron of their own, and it is highly -probable that they employed ingots or bars of it as money, as the wild -tribes of Annam and Africa do at present. They probably used their gold -or bronze rings and armlets as money also. - -[463] These are taken from Sir W. Wilde’s Catalogue, but for the weights -of articles acquired since 1862 I am indebted to the kindness of the -Curator, Major Macenery. - -[464] My friend Mr F. Seebohm has shown me that as a _weight_ the Swedish -_Jungfrau_ is equal to the Irish _Cumhal_. - - - - -INDEX. - - - Abdera, 340 - - Abraham, 112, 113, 197 - - Abrus, 172 - - Absalom’s hair, 120, 275 - - Abyssinian gold in beads, 82 - - Actus, 365 - - Aegina, 211, 328 - - Aeginetan measures, 306 - - ⸺ obol, 366 - - ⸺ standard, 9, 21, 311 - - ⸺ ⸺ its origin, 217 - - ⸺ ⸺ used for copper, 345 - - ⸺ system, 307 - - Aelian, 144 - - Aes, 86 - - Aes grave, 378 - - Aes rude, 355, 376 - - Agariste, 212 - - Agathocles, 138 - - Agerept, 150 - - Agonistic types, 337 - - Agrigentum, 347, 350 - - Aicill, Book of, 353 - - Airgid, 63 - - Alalia, 130 - - Alamanni, 140 - - Alaska, 47 - - Alexander, 29, 198, 342 - - Alexandrine talent, 244 - - Alfred’s penny, 180 - - Al-li-ko-chik, 15 - - Alphabet, the, 227 - - Alps, gold of, 88 - - Altun (= gold), 70 - - Alyattes, 71 - - Amber, 227 - - ⸺ beads, 46 - - ⸺ golden, 110; red, 110 - - Anaxilas, 336 - - Angala, 354 - - Annals of Four Masters, 31 - - Annam, 23 - - ⸺ barter system of, 164 - - Ant coins, 22 - - Ants, gold-digging, 66 - - Apis, worship of, 50 - - Apollo, 107 - - Apulia, 370 - - Aquileia, 87 - - Arab weights, 179, 182 - - Arabia, gold of, 75 - - Archimedes, 36, 100 - - Argippaei, 68 - - Argos, 215, 335 - - Arimaspians, 66, 68 - - Aristaeus, 314 - - Aristeas, 108 - - Aristotle, 96, 106, 131, 138, 213, 318, 323, 336 - - ⸺ Polity of Athenians, 305 - - Armlets, 42 - - Arpi, 367 - - Arrows, 24, 43 - - Arrugia, 101 - - Artabri, 97 - - Arverni, 90 - - As, 350 - - ⸺ derivation of, 353 - - ⸺ divisions, 351 - - ⸺ land measure, 351 - - ⸺ linear measure, 351 - - ⸺ of empire, 362 - - ⸺ reduction of, 380 - - ⸺ sextantal, 362 - - ⸺ symbol of, 369 - - ⸺ used only of bronze, 351 - - As libralis, 135 - - Assam coinage, 177 - - Asser, 354 - - Asses, sacrifice of, 107 - - Assis, 354 - - Assurbanipal, 201 - - Assyrian weights, 183, 199, 249 - - Astronomy, 199 - - Asturia, 101 - - Astyra, 71 - - Aternian law, 134 - - Athene, statue of, 211, 220 - - Athenian coinage, 124, 306, 372 - - Athens, Polity of, 214, 305 - - Attic choenix, 214 - - ⸺ didrachm, 5 - - Aulus Gellius, 135 - - Aura (old Norse), 63 - - Aurès, 183, 254 - - Aurum, 87 - - Ausum (aurum), 61 - - Axe, 318 - - Axes, Tenedos, 50 - - ⸺ West African, 40 - - Aymonier, 23, 161 - - Aztec money, 192 - - ⸺ numerals, 192 - - Aztecs, 17, 59 - - - Babylonian metric system, 251 - - ⸺ standard, 78, 163, 206, 261, 387 - - ⸺ system, 197 - - Bactria, coins of, 126 - - Baetis, 97 - - Bag of rice, 162 - - Bahnars, 23 - - Ball, V., 68 - - Balux, 101 - - Bamboo-joint, 163, 171 - - Bar, 39, 158 - - ⸺ (Assyrian), 185, 285 - - ⸺ of silver, 25 - - Barley, 178 - - Barleycorn, 177, 179 - - ⸺ = Troy grain, 181 - - Barrel, 115, 175 - - Bars, 371 - - Barter, age of, 11, 114, 196 - - Bassak, 161 - - Baug-brotha, 37 - - Baugr, 37 - - Beaver, 314 - - ⸺ skin, 12, 153, 323 - - Beag, 37 - - Bear skins, 16 - - Bee, 320 - - Bekah, 277 - - Belgic tribes, 94 - - Bells, 43 - - Bereniceum, 297 - - Bermion, 71 - - Bes, 351 - - Betzer, 36 - - Bhascara, 177 - - Bigae, 377 - - Bigati, 377 - - Bimetallism, 338 - - Bisaltae, 340 - - Blanket currency, 17 - - Bo, 33 - - Boar, 332 - - Boeckh, 1, 238, 365 - - Boeotia, 77 - - Boeotian shield, 331 - - Bonny River, 40 - - Boroimhe, 32 - - Bortolotti, 241 - - Bosman, 185 - - βοῦς ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ, 8 - - Boyd Dawkins, 110 - - Bracelets, 35 - - Brahmegupta, 177 - - Brandis, 129, 195, 294 - - Brandy, 323 - - Brass rods, 41 - - Brassey, Lady, 330 - - Britain, gold coins, 93 - - ‘Britons’’ money-system, 179 - - Bronze in Italy, 368 - - ⸺ in Northern Europe, 86 - - Brugsch, 122, 195, 196 - - Buffalo, 24, 164 - - ⸺ value of, 154 - - ⸺ worth a stick of gold, 168 - - Buffaloes, 25 - - Bull, 322 - - ⸺ on coins, 321 - - Bull’s-head weight, 282 - - Burgundians, 141 - - Bushel, 115 - - ⸺ how fixed, 191 - - - Cacao seeds, 17, 193 - - Cadmus, 71, 227 - - Caesar, 179 - - Calculus, 192 - - Caldron, 25 - - Caldrons, Irish, 32 - - Caldwell, W. H., 152 - - Calf, 374 - - Calves’ heads, 322 - - Camarina, 347 - - Cambodia, 25, 160 - - Cambridge, 182 - - Camirus, 339 - - Campania, 216 - - Candarin, 158 - - Cappadocae, 78 - - Carchemish, 202 - - Carmania, gold in, 74 - - Carob, 181 - - Carthage, 288 - - Carthaginian coinage, 131, 289 - - ⸺ gold unit, 130 - - ⸺ trade in gold with West Coast of Africa, 83 - - Cartload, 175 - - Cash, 157 - - Cat’s eyes, 21, 27 - - Cattle at Rome, 31 - - ⸺ chief wealth of Britons, Gauls, Italians, etc., 51 - - ⸺ in Avesta, 27 - - Catty, origin of, 162, 174 - - Cauer, 365 - - Cayley, Prof., 231 - - Centupondium, 136, 360 - - Centussis, 370 - - Ceramus, 82 - - Chabas, M., 239 - - Chabinus, 76 - - Chalci, 346 - - Chalcis, 227, 361 - - Χαλκός, 86 - - Chariot of Hera, 116 - - Chariots in Veda, 26 - - Charlemagne, 34 - - Charutz, 60 - - Chautard, 225 - - Chauter, 45 - - Chinese coinage, 10 - - ⸺ shell-money, 21 - - ⸺ weight-system, 156 - - Chios, 322, 343 - - Chisholme, 199 - - Χρυσός, 60 - - Chrysûs, 277 - - Cicero, 134 - - Cilicia, silver of, 286 - - Cloth, 35 - - ⸺ silken, 22 - - Cnidus, 321, 322 - - Cocoanut, 162, 171 - - Coinage, invention of, 203 - - ⸺ of gold, 125 - - ⸺ of silver at Rome, 136 - - Coins, early Lydian, 293 - - ⸺ normal weight of, 218 - - Coin-standards, 210 - - Colaeus, 62, 96 - - Colchis, 70 - - Colebrooke, 176 - - Colpach, 33 - - Commercial weights, 344 - - Comparetti, 314 - - Compensation for wounds, 30 - - Concha, 328 - - Conchylion, 329 - - Constantine, 384 - - Constantine’s solidus, 181 - - Conti, Nicolo, 27 - - Convention, 47 - - Coomb, 115 - - Copper coins in Greece, 361 - - ⸺ ⸺ in Britain, 94 - - ⸺ in Greece, 312 - - ⸺ in Meroe, 78 - - ⸺ in relation to gold, 77 - - ⸺ native, 58 - - ⸺ of Haidas, 17 - - ⸺ rings, 22 - - ⸺ standards, 348 - - ⸺ wire, Calabar, 40 - - Corcyraean wine jars, 106 - - Corinthian standard, 362 - - ⸺ system, 311 - - Corn sold by measure, 115 - - Cotton as money, 45 - - Counters, 192, 228 - - Coventry tokens, 336 - - Cow, 2 seqq., 370 - - ⸺ among Ossetes, 30 - - ⸺ at Delos, 5 - - ⸺ at Syracuse, 31 - - ⸺ equal centumpondium, 360 - - ⸺ Hebrew, value of, 148 - - ⸺ in Avesta, 26 - - ⸺ in Rig Veda, 25 - - ⸺ in Scandinavia, 35 - - ⸺ in Welsh Laws, 32 - - ⸺ names for, Sanskrit, Zend, etc., 51 - - ⸺ on coins of Eretria, 5 - - ⸺ suckling calf, 321 - - ⸺ unit of assessment at Rome and Syracuse, 393 - - ⸺ value of, in Gaul and Germany, 140 - - ⸺ ⸺ in Greece, Italy, 133 - - ⸺ ⸺ at Rome, 135 - - ⸺ ⸺ in Scandinavia, 141 - - ⸺ ⸺ in Sicily, 137 - - ⸺ ⸺ Persian, 151 - - ⸺ ⸺ Phoenician, 143 - - ⸺ ⸺ (Table), 153 - - ⸺ ⸺ the same over wide area, 52 - - Cowell, Prof., 176 - - Cowries, 13, 177 - - ⸺ as counters, 229 - - Cows among Madis, 43 - - ⸺ in Darfour, 44 - - Crab’s claw, 350 - - Crab’s eyes, 186 - - Crawfurd, John, 170 - - Crenides, 74, 341 - - Croesus, 204, 297 - - Crosoch, 36; crosóg, 396 - - Croton, 328 - - Cubit, royal, 265 - - Cucurbita, 258 - - Cumhal, 33 - - Cunningham, 55, 117, 127 - - Curtius, E., 201, 212 - - Cuttle-fish, 327 - - Cyathus, 258 - - Cyrene, 326 - - Cyzicene staters, 342 - - Cyzicenes, 301 - - Cyzicus, 316, 342 - - - Damba, 186 - - Damleg, 45 - - Danes, 321 - - Danube, 106 - - ⸺ flows into Adriatic, 107 - - ⸺ source of, 107 - - Dapper, 43 - - Darfour, 44 - - Daric, 126, 277, 297 - - ⸺ as talent, 6 - - ⸺ derivation of, 300 - - ⸺ = Homeric talent, 7 - - Datum, gold mines, 74 - - Debae, 75 - - Decalitron, 362 - - Decimal system, 203, 228, 371 - - ⸺ ⸺ in Homer, 308 - - Decussis, 356, 369, 370 - - Deecke, 130 - - Degradation, 226 - - ⸺ of coin weights, 223 - - ⸺ of weight, 338 - - Delian priests, 108 - - Delphium, 106 - - Delos, 215 - - Demareteion, 297 - - Demeter, 327 - - Denarius, 357, 363 - - Deunx, 351 - - Dewarra, 20 - - Dextans, symbol of, 369 - - Dhalac, 330 - - Digitus, 353 - - Dinar, 63 - - Diodorus, 81 - - Dionysius, 31, 225 - - ⸺ of Halicarnassus, 134 - - ⸺ of Syracuse, 224 - - Dioscuri, 377 - - Dirham, 148, 182 - - Dodona, 215 - - Dodrans, 351 - - Dogs, 94 - - Dollar, Maria Theresa, in Soudan, 56 - - ⸺ Mexican, 24; Spanish, 44 - - Double Unit, 267 - - Doukha, 45 - - Drachm at Athens, 324 - - ⸺ Corinthian, 311 - - ⸺ origin of, 214, 310 - - Draco, 5 - - Dragon’s eye, 22 - - Dublin, 321 - - Duck weight, 83 - - ⸺ ⸺ suggested origin, 247 - - Duck weights, 199, 245 - - Dungi, 248 - - Duodecimal system, 371 - - Dupondius, 376 - - Dyer, Dr Thiselton, 186 - - Dyrrachium, 322 - - - Earring, 35 - - Ebusus, coinage of, 290 - - Echinus, 328 - - Egypt, coinage of, 219 - - ⸺ gold in, 78 - - Egyptian gold-mines, described by Diodorus, 79 - - ⸺ measures, 122 - - ⸺ Monad, 129 - - ⸺ records, 236 - - ⸺ weights, 122 - - Egyptian weight system, 237 - - Electrum, 98, 204, 290 - - ⸺ at Carthage, 289 - - ⸺ Lydian, 70, 294 - - ⸺ why coined, 207 - - Elephant, price of, 24 - - Elephant’s tusk, 25 - - Ellis, 187 - - Emporiae, 290 - - English coinage, 224 - - ⸺ Imperial weights and measures, 266 - - ⸺ penny, 225 - - ⸺ weights, 186 - - Ephorus, 211 - - Epicharmus, 137, 364 - - Eretria, 322 - - Erman, 146, 242 - - Erythia, 110 - - Eryx, 144 - - Esterlings, 225 - - Etruria, 374 - - Etruscan gold coins, 130 - - ⸺ gold unit, 359 - - ⸺ silver, 363 - - ⸺ standard, 130 - - Etruscans, 64 - - Etymology, danger of, 65 - - Euboic-Attic system, 311 - - Euboic standard, 9, 210 - - ⸺ ⸺ origin of, 222 - - Eustathius, 125 - - Evans, A. J., 271, 365, 366 - - ⸺ Dr J., 94 - - Exagion, 183 - - Ezekiel, 121, 282 - - - Falgo, 45 - - Fanam, 173 - - Fee, 4, 34 - - Felkin, 43, 263 - - Fen Ditton, 182 - - Fertyt tribe, 46 - - Festus, 134 - - Fetiches, 187 - - Fibulae, 41 - - Fifteen-stater standard, 286 - - Fiji, 21 - - Fines, 135 - - Fiorino, 385 - - Fish-hooks, 28 - - Florin, 385 - - Foot, Roman, 359 - - Foucart, 219 - - Fractions, 357 - - Frankincense, 6 - - Frazer, J. G., 30, 320 - - French metric system, 1 - - Fuel sold by bulk, 115 - - - Gades, coinage of, 290 - - Gaius, 8, 376 - - Galetly, A., 30 - - Gallaecia, 101 - - Gardner, Dr, 126, 342 - - ⸺ P., 222, 313, 364 - - Gaul, 325 - - Gaulish gold unit, 131 - - Gauls, 332 - - ⸺ in Italy, 61 - - ⸺ value of cow with, 140 - - Gaus, 51 - - Gelon, 142 - - Gerah, 277 - - Germans, 131 - - Geryon, 110 - - Gill, 23, 296 - - Gold, 57 seqq. - - ⸺ alone weighed in Homer, 117 - - ⸺ among Salassi, 89 - - ⸺ at Vercellae, 88 - - ⸺ bat, 163 - - ⸺ Coast, 105 - - ⸺ coinage, 372 - - ⸺ coinage, Athens, 124; Macedon, 125; Thasos, 125; Cyzicus, 125 - - ⸺ coinage, Roman, 362 - - ⸺ coins, Athens, 372 - - ⸺ distribution of, 65 - - ⸺ equal distribution of, 114 - - ⸺ first coinage at Rome, 378 - - ⸺ first of all articles weighed, 114 - - ⸺ from India, 257 - - ⸺ in Bactria, 67 - - ⸺ in California, 58 - - ⸺ in China, 22 - - ⸺ in Gaul, 90 - - ⸺ in Meroe, 78 - - ⸺ in Noricum, 87 - - ⸺ in quills, 17, 186, 192 - - ⸺ in Rig Veda, 25 - - ⸺ in rings from Sennaar, 82 - - ⸺ in Swiss lake-dwellings, 85 - - ⸺ in Thibet, 66 - - ⸺ in Wales, 94 - - ⸺ measured, 168 - - ⸺ measured by quills, 186 - - ⸺ mining, methods of, 101 - - ⸺ not weighed, 187 - - ⸺ nuggets of, 75 - - ⸺ of Tolosa, 92 - - ⸺ ornaments of Gauls, 92 - - ⸺ Irish, 402 - - ⸺ placer, 98 - - ⸺ poured into jars, 259 - - ⸺ relation of, to silver in Etruria, 140 - - ⸺ relation of, to silver and copper in Italy, 139 - - ⸺ relative value, and silver, 75 - - ⸺ scarce in Greece, 221 - - ⸺ standard, 211 - - ⸺ Talent of, 3 - - ⸺ unit, the same everywhere, 133 - - ⸺ unit of Attopoeu, 163 - - ⸺ units, table of, 132 - - ⸺ Ural-Altai, 67 - - ⸺ wedge of, 270 - - ⸺ weighed in Veda, 122 - - ⸺ weighing, 167, 172 - - ⸺ white, 97 - - Golden Bough, 320 - - ⸺Fleece, legend of, 70 - - Goliath, 120 - - Gortyn, 314 - - Gourds, 43, 258 - - Greek (old) standard, 306 - - ⸺ standard (table), 310 - - ⸺ system, 304 - - ⸺ weights, 181 - - Griffins, 68, 70 - - Guadalquivir, 97 - - Gunjá, 176, 178 - - Gygadas, 206 - - Gyges, 71, 201, 204, 293 - - - Hachâchah, 45 - - Haddon, 105 - - Hair weighed, 275 - - Hakon the Good, 34 - - Haliartus, 334 - - Hamilcar, 289 - - Handfuls of rice, 170 - - Hanno, voyage of, 83 - - Hare, 336 - - ⸺ hunting of, 337 - - Hares at Carpathus, 337 - - Hare-skin, 13 - - Harich, 45 - - Harpoon, 105 - - Harris papyrus, 239 - - Hasdrubal, 289 - - Haxthausen, 4 - - Head, 130, 138, 196, 314, 316 - - Hebrew system, 269 - - ⸺ system, tables, 283 - - Hectae, 342 - - Hectare, 1 - - Helbig, 36, 84 - - Helix, 36 - - Helvetii, 90 - - Heraclea, 365 - - Herakles, 107, 227 - - ⸺ road of, 111 - - Hercynian forests, 106 - - Herodotus, 107, 258, 260 - - Herondas, 342 - - Hexâs, 348 - - Hide (of land), 391 - - Hides, 51 - - ⸺ as money, 332 - - Hierapolis, 202 - - Himera, 142, 347 - - Hindu weights, 177 - - Hiranya-pindas, 26, 258 - - Hissarlik, 73 - - Hittites, 202 - - Hoe money, China, Annam, 22 - - Hoes, 45, 165, 312, 371 - - Hoffmann, 36 - - Homeric Greeks, analogy of, to modern barbarians, 50 - - ⸺ Poems, 2 - - ⸺ Trial Scene, 8, 389 - - Honey, 34, 122 - - Horapollo, 129 - - Horse, value of, 147 - - Hottentots, 42 - - Hucher, 131 - - Hultsch, 95, 129, 202 - - Hyksos, 50 - - Hyperborean maidens, 109 - - Hyperboreans, 107 - - Hyperoché, 109 - - - Ialysus, 339 - - Iceland, 18 - - Icelandic proclamation, 18 - - Illyria, 378 - - Incas, weight, 193 - - Incuse on coins of Magna Graecia, 334 - - ⸺ square, 333 - - India, mediaeval, 27 - - Indian weight standards, 176 - - Ireland, gold in, 95 - - Irish currency, early, 31 - - ⸺ weights, 180, 401 - - Iron in Homer, 117 - - ⸺ ingots, 25, 163 - - ⸺ money, 373 - - ⸺ needles of, 27 - - ⸺ plates, 43 - - ⸺ rings, 40 - - Issedones, 68 - - Istir, 148 - - Istropolis, 107 - - Italian system, 350 - - Ivory tusks, 42 - - - Jade, 48, 105 - - Janiform head, 318 - - Japanese Bean money, 295 - - Jars in Annam, 24 - - Jersey torque, 405 - - Job, 35 - - Jol, 288 - - Jones, Quayle, 186 - - Jordan, 112 - - Josephus, 277 - - Jugerum, 358 - - Juno Moneta, 215 - - - Kaibel, 306 - - Karnak, 239 - - Kat, 238 - - Keller, Dr, 85 - - Kelts, 31 - - ⸺ their early knowledge of gold, 104 - - Kenrick, 143 - - Kenyon, 306 - - Keseph, 270 - - Kesitah, 270 - - Kettle, 31 - - Kettles, 24 - - Kid, 33 - - Kikkar, 264, 279, 309 - - King’s weight, 275 - - Klaproth, 69 - - Knife money, 156 - - Knives, 312 - - Koehler, 219, 317 - - Kolben, 43 - - - Lacedaemonian shield, 334 - - Lachish, 258 - - Lady Godiva, 336 - - Lais, 330 - - Lake dwellings, 84 - - Lamb, 271 - - Laodicé, 109 - - Laos, weight system of, 161 - - Larins, 28 - - Lassen, 66 - - Lateres, 375 - - Latham, R. G., 57 - - Laurium, 99 - - ⸺ mines of, 59 - - Layard, Sir A. H., 85 - - Leake, Col., 313 - - Lebetes, 314 - - Lehmann, 195 - - Leinster, king of, 32 - - Lelantum, 222 - - Lemnos, 323 - - Lenormant, 129, 242 - - Leocedes, 212 - - Lex Flaminia, 378 - - ⸺ Tarpeia, 31 - - Libella, 357, 374 - - Libra, 347, 358 - - Lindus, 339 - - Linguistic Palaeontology, 60 - - Lingurium, Greek derivation of, 110 - - Lion and Bull, 296 - - ⸺ on coins, 321 - - ⸺ weights, 199, 245 - - Litra, 347 - - ⸺ its subdivisions, 348 - - ⸺ silver, 361 - - ⸺ translation of libra, 360 - - Litre, 1 - - L. M. R., 330 - - Load, 173, 263 - - ⸺ as unit, 172 - - ⸺ Greek, 309 - - Lupinus, 278 - - Lusitania, 97 - - Lycia, 332 - - Lydia, 201 - - Lydian coinage, 299 - - ⸺ coins, 321 - - ⸺ electrum, 296 - - ⸺ system, 293 - - Lynx, 110 - - Lyre, 329 - - Lysias, 301, 324 - - - Macedonian standard, 346 - - ⸺ talent, 125, 304 - - Machpelah, 246 - - Madagascar, 187 - - Madden, 240 - - Madi tribe, 43, 263 - - Maine, Sir H. S., 8 - - Maize, grain of, 166 - - Makrizi, 182 - - Malay weights, 171 - - Malays, 309 - - Manā of gold, 26, 122 - - Mancipatio, 121, 358, 376 - - Mancus (of silver), 34 - - Maneh, its origin, 256 - - Mansous, 46 - - Manu, 177 - - Maris, 203 - - Mark, 358, 397 - - Marquardt, 181 - - Marsden, W., 172 - - Marseilles, inscription at, 142 - - Massilia, 62 - - ⸺ court of, 111 - - Mathematical hangmen, 231 - - Measure of corn or oil, 324 - - Medbh, 36 - - Medimnus, 324 - - Melitaea, 323 - - Melkarth, 227 - - Men, 327 - - Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin, 247 - - Meinnan, 33 - - Mentores, 106 - - Mermnadae, 205 - - Meroe, gold, copper, iron in, 78 - - Mesha, 272 - - Mesopotamia, cattle in, 50 - - Messana, 336 - - Metals, first objects to be weighed, 114 - - ⸺ relations of, in Greece, 219 - - ⸺ their discovery, 57 - - Metapontum, 319, 327 - - Metre, 1 - - Metric systems, 198 - - Midas, 71 - - Miletus, 205, 210, 226, 296 - - Milk of cow, 33 - - ⸺ of goat, 33 - - ⸺ of sheep, 33 - - Millies, 157 - - Mill-sail incuse, 334 - - Mina, Greek, 309 - - ⸺ Hebrew, 274 - - ⸺ in Ezekiel, 284 - - ⸺ origin of, 258 - - ⸺ use of, 309 - - Mines of Spain, 97 - - Mithkal, 183 - - Moda, 46 - - Modius, 121 - - Moeun, 162 - - Mohurs, 35 - - Moïs, 24 - - Mommsen, 88, 134, 205, 348, 364, 380 - - Money, development of, 48 - - Monro, D. B., 226 - - Moriae, 324 - - Moschos, 137 - - Moura, 160, 175 - - Movers, 143 - - Muk, in Annam, 24 - - Murex, 330 - - Mycenae, 72 - - ⸺ rings at, 77 - - Mytilene, 322 - - - Naaman, 280 - - Nails, 159, 312 - - Naucratis, 241 - - Naxos, 348 - - Nehemiah, 280 - - Nejd, 29 - - Nero, 378 - - New Britain, 20 - - New Carthage, 289 - - ⸺ ⸺ mines of, 99 - - Niebuhr, 135 - - Nile, source of, 107 - - ⸺ water, 242 - - Nineveh, 85 - - Nissen, 195, 239 - - Nomads, 75 - - Nomisma, 366 - - Nomos, 369 - - ⸺ bronze, 367 - - ⸺ of Heraclea, 364 - - ⸺ Sicilian, 364 - - Noummos of Tarentum, 364 - - Nub (gold), 60 - - ⸺ its derivation, 78 - - Nubia, 78 - - Numerals on coins, 130, 363 - - Nummus, 131, 137 - - Numus, 364 - - - Oats, 34 - - Ob, 349 - - Obol, 346 - - ⸺ Attic, Aeginetic, 346 - - ⸺ copper coin, 361 - - ⸺ its subdivisions, 349 - - ⸺ origin of, 310 - - Oenone, 211 - - Olbia, 67, 316 - - Olive trees, 365 - - Olives, 324 - - Olympic victor, 324 - - Oncia, 348 - - Onesicritus, 74 - - Onions, 45 - - Oppert, 183 - - Oppian Law, 139 - - Or (gold in Irish), 61 - - Orang Glaï, 25 - - Orchomenus, 72 - - Ordlach, 353 - - Öre, 397 - - Ornan’s threshing-floor, 148 - - Örtug, 397 - - Ossetes, 4, 30 - - Ostiaks, 4 - - Ostracism, 329 - - Ostrakon, 329 - - Owls, 225 - - Ox, fore part of, on coins of Samos, 313 - - ⸺ in _Capitulare Saxonicum_, 34 - - ⸺ name of coin, 4 - - ⸺ on coins of Eretria, 313 - - ⸺ value of, in Egypt, 146 - - Oxus, 204 - - - Pactolus, 70, 206 - - Padi, 192 - - Paeonia, gold mines of, 74 - - Pahlavi texts, 148 - - Paille, 101 - - Palacrae, 101 - - Palae, 98, 101 - - Palestine, 269 - - Pallegoix, 161 - - Pangaeum, 71, 220 - - Panormus, 130, 289 - - Parkyns, Mansfield, 82 - - Parthenon, 310 - - Pauli, 89 - - Pausanias, 212 - - Pea, scarlet, 172 - - Peach, 78 - - Pecunia, 4, 376 - - Pegasus, 362 - - Pendeo, 358 - - Pening, 397 - - Penny, its cognates, derivation, 64; weight, 385 - - Pentacosiomedimni, 324 - - Pentonkion, 348 - - Pericles, 215 - - Perseus, 107 - - Persian Gulf, 27 - - ⸺ silver standard, 261 - - ⸺ standard, 300, 303 - - ⸺ tribute, 129 - - ⸺ wars, 220 - - ⸺ weights, 179 - - Persians coin money in Egypt, 219 - - Pertz, 141 - - Peru, 193 - - Petrie, W. M. F., 216, 240, 241, 258 - - Phanes, 320 - - Pharaoh, 113 - - Pheidias, 211, 310 - - Pheidon, 211, 311 - - Pheidonian weights, 213 - - Philip II., 74, 341 - - Philippi, 74 - - Philippus stater, 140 - - φλjορι, 61 - - Phocaea, 205, 322 - - Phocaean standard, 210 - - Phocaeans, 62, 96, 110, 130, 132 - - Phoenicia, 86, 200 - - Phoenician inscription of Marseilles, 142 - - ⸺ standard, 206, 261 - - ⸺ ⸺ origin of, 286 - - ⸺ system, 285 - - ⸺ weights, 201 - - ⸺ ⸺ from Jol, 288 - - Phoenicians, 117 - - Phtheirophagoi, 70 - - Picul, 263, 309 - - ⸺ origin of, 174, 190 - - Pig, 25 - - Pindar, 170, 211 - - Pinginn, 33 - - Pipilika, 67 - - Plutarch, 135, 378 - - Po, 110 - - Pollex, 353 - - Polo, Marco, 14, 146 - - Polybius, 62, 139 - - Polygamy, 54 - - Pondus, 358 - - Poole, R. S., 271 - - Posidonius, 91, 97 - - Pottery, in shape of gourds, 258 - - Pound, English, 266 - - ⸺ of 16 ounces, 18 ounces, 24 ounces, 360 - - ⸺ of silk, 259 - - Powell, 20 - - Priam, 71 - - Propontis, 210 - - Ptolemaic coinage, 299 - - ⸺ standard, 338 - - ⸺ stater, 279 - - Pump, Egyptian, 99 - - Pylus, 214 - - Pyrenees, 99 - - Pytheas, 257 - - ⸺ his voyage, 83 - - - Qesitah, 270 - - Quadrans, 348, 352 - - Quadrigae, 377 - - Queen Charlotte Islands, 17 - - Queensland blacks, 152 - - Queipo, 179, 200 - - Quills of gold, 17 - - Quincunx, symbol of, 369 - - - Rakat, 172 - - Rameses II., 128 - - Ratti, 127, 176, 186 - - Red Sea, 76 - - Regenbogenschüsseln, 140 - - Reindeer, 4 - - Relation of gold to silver, to copper, 135 - - Rhegium, 336 - - Rhinoceros, horn of, 25 - - Rhoda, 290, 322 - - Rhodes, 132, 322, 339 - - Rhodian standard, 338, 339 - - Rhys Davids, 29 - - Rice, 178 - - ⸺ bag of, 162, 172 - - ⸺ grains, 187 - - Rig Veda, 25, 59, 122, 257 - - Ring money, 35, 394 - - Rings, Egyptian, 242 - - ⸺ gold, 34, 128 - - ⸺ ⸺ of Egypt, 129 - - ⸺ in Homer, 36 - - ⸺ Mycenaean, 36 - - ⸺ of tin, 44 - - Road, sacred, 111, 216 - - Robes, in Homer, 49 - - Roman coins of Campania, 216 - - ⸺ foot, 359 - - ⸺ (later) weights, 181 - - ⸺ pound, 234 - - ⸺ system, 374 - - Romans, use of weights by, 121 - - Rose, 320 - - Rotl, 46 - - Royal standards, 250 - - Rubat, 45 - - Ruding, 180 - - Rupee, 4 - - ⸺ purchasing power of, 152 - - Rye, 34 - - - Saggio, 23, 146 - - Salamis, 142, 272 - - Salassi, 89 - - Sallet (von), 317 - - Sallust, 110 - - Salt, 45 - - Samhaisc, 33 - - Samos, 222 - - Samoyedes, 3 - - Sapec, 24, 157 - - Sarah, 113 - - Sardes, 206 - - Sassanide kings, 151 - - Saxon coins, 321 - - Sayce, 202 - - Scales of silver, 193 - - ⸺ used, 226 - - Scandinavian currency, 34 - - Scapte Hyle, 73 - - Schliemann, 129, 231 - - Schoenus, 365 - - Schrader, 60, 69, 70, 92 - - Scillinga, 39 - - Sciron, 331 - - Screapall, 33 - - Scriptulum, 351 - - Scripulum, 135 - - Scrupulus, 352 - - Scythians, 67 - - ⸺ use gold, but not copper, 69 - - Seal, 322 - - Sedâcy, 44 - - Seebohm, F., 404 - - Sembella, 379 - - Semis, 369 - - Sequani, 332 - - Servius, 376 - - Sestertius, 363, 379 - - Sexagesimal system, 198 - - Sextantal as, 362 - - Sextans, 348 - - Sextula, 351, 384 - - Shakespeare, 349 - - Shayast, 150 - - Sheep, 33, 324, 370, 374 - - ⸺ as coin type, 272 - - ⸺ as unit, 272 - - ⸺ weights, 271 - - Shekel, 35 - - ⸺ as unit of Hebrew system, 273 - - ⸺ earlier than mina, 246 - - ⸺ heavy, 259 - - ⸺ light, heavy, 201 - - ⸺ of Sanctuary, 273 - - Shekels, 269 - - Shell money, 14 - - Shells of silver, 22 - - Shield, 331, 334 - - ⸺ in Homer, 331 - - Shilling, 37 - - Siamese bullet-money, 28 - - ⸺ coins, 161 - - Sicanians, 347 - - Sicels, 347 - - Sicilian gold unit, 131 - - ⸺ silver coinage, 359 - - ⸺ system, 346 - - ⸺ talent, 131, 137, 304, 359 - - Sicilicus, 368 - - Sicily, 31 - - Siculo-Punic coins, 289 - - Sicyonian shield, 334 - - Sidonians, 117 - - Sierra Leone, 39 - - Siglos, 261 - - Silenus, 323 - - Siliqua, 182 - - Silphiomachos, 326 - - Silphium, 314, 325 - - ⸺ on coins of Cyrene, 50 - - Silver, 57 - - ⸺ at Rome, 139, 373 - - ⸺ coinage, Roman, 362 - - ⸺ coins, origin of Greek, 315 - - ⸺ discovery of, 98, 100 - - ⸺ found in Cilicia, 146 - - ⸺ furnaces for, 98 - - ⸺ in Cilicia, 286 - - ⸺ in Gaul, 93 - - ⸺ in Greece, 310 - - ⸺ in Palestine, 147 - - ⸺ not weighed in Homer, 117 - - ⸺ relation to bronze, 380 - - ⸺ scarce in Egypt, 146 - - ⸺ standard, 260 - - ⸺ standards, table, 209 - - ⸺ ⸺ variation of, 337 - - ⸺ value of, 146 - - Silverlings, 269 - - Silvestre, 157 - - Sipylus, 71 - - Six, M., 321 - - Sjögren, 70 - - Slave-boy, 326 - - Slave, foreign, more valuable, 55 - - ⸺ Hebrew, value of, 148 - - ⸺ in Homer, 30 - - Slaves, 11, 323 - - ⸺ constancy of price, 54 - - ⸺ in Congo, 42 - - ⸺ in Darfour, 46 - - ⸺ in Wales, 32 - - ⸺ male, female, 54 - - Soanes, 70 - - Solidus, 33, 181, 384 - - Solomon, 147 - - Solon’s coinage, 306, 324 - - ⸺ standard, 306 - - Sophocles, 204 - - Sophron, 364 - - Sophytes, 127 - - Soteria, 327 - - Soudan, 312 - - Soul, weighing of, 150 - - Soumyt, 46 - - Soutzo, M., 134, 203, 347, 368, 380 - - ⸺ view of relation between the metals, 136 - - Spain, mines of, 96, 97 - - Spata, 84 - - Spear-brooch, 36 - - Spices weighed, 276 - - Spirals, 36 - - ⸺ Keltic, 38 - - ⸺ Scandinavian, 37 - - Squirrel skin as unit, 4 - - Stater, use of, 308 - - Sterlings, 225 - - Stiver, 186 - - Stockfish, 18, 316 - - Strabo, 71, 97 - - String of cash, 24 - - Sumatra, 172 - - Sun’s diameter, 203 - - Suvarṇa, 127, 178 - - Svoronos, 314 - - Swine, 378 - - ⸺ with Gauls, 333 - - Symbol as mark of worth, 324 - - Syracusan standard, 362 - - Syracuse, coinage of, 225 - - Szins, 25 - - - Taberdier, 158 - - Tacoe, 186 - - Tael, 158 - - Taku, 186 - - Talanton, 228, 304 - - Talent, 244 - - ⸺ Homeric, 2 seqq. - - ⸺ Macedonian, 125, 304 - - ⸺ origin of, 262 - - ⸺ Sicilian, 304 - - Tantalus, 71 - - Tapaks, 167 - - Taras, 364 - - Tarbelli, 92 - - Tarentum, 364 - - Tarneih, 44 - - Tarshish, 97 - - Tartessus, 96, 97 - - Taurisci, 87, 339 - - Tax, hut, 25 - - Tea as money, 23 - - Teanum, 369 - - Tectosages, 90 - - Temples as banks, 215 - - Tenedos, 318 - - Teos, 210, 340 - - Testudo, 329 - - Tetl, 192 - - Tetras, 348 - - Teutonic peoples, 34 - - Thasos, 220, 323, 344 - - ⸺ mines of, 73 - - Thebes, 334 - - Theocritus, 137 - - Theseus, 331 - - Thomas, 176 - - Thothmes III., 128 - - Thracian coinage, 342 - - Thracians, 340 - - Thucydides, 72, 211 - - Thumb, 353 - - Thurii, 322 - - Tibetan currency, 23 - - Tical, 29 - - Timaeus, 51, 379 - - Time, measurement of, 198 - - Timoleon, 225, 289 - - Tin, 97, 173 - - ⸺ Cornish, 83 - - ⸺ discovery of, in Sumatra, 100 - - ⸺ coins, 225 - - ⸺ rings of, 44 - - Tiryns, 84, 231 - - Tjams, 24 - - Tmolus, 70 - - Tobacco, 45 - - Tola, 177 - - Tolosa, 90 - - Tomme, 353 - - Torres Straits, 105 - - Tortoise, 313, 333 - - ⸺ Island, 331 - - ⸺ (sea), 215 - - ⸺ shell, 328 - - ⸺ ⸺ currency, 21 - - ⸺ ⸺ masks, 105 - - Tortoises of terra cotta, 329 - - ⸺ of wood, 330 - - ⸺ ⸺ and earthenware, 330 - - Toukkiyeh, 44 - - Trade routes, 105 - - Tremissis, 385 - - Trias, 348 - - Trichalcum, 346 - - Triens, 348 - - Tripods, 314 - - Troy grain, origin of, 181; of ounce, 386 - - Tschudi, 70 - - Tunny coins of Olbia, 317 - - ⸺ fish, 315 - - ⸺ ⸺ Cyzicus, 50 - - ⸺ ⸺ Olbia, 50 - - Turdetani, 97 - - Turkey rhubarb, 83 - - Turti, 97 - - Types parlants, 322 - - Tyre, 200 - - ⸺ fall of, 141 - - Tylor, 229 - - - Umbrians, 64 - - Uncia, derivation of, 353 - - ⸺ Roman, 359 - - Unga, 33 - - Unguis, 354 - - Ur, 197 - - Ural-Altaic range, 204 - - ⸺ region, 68 - - Uten, 203, 238 - - - Varro, 375, 378 - - Venusia, 369 - - Victoriatus, 377 - - Victumulae, mines of, 88 - - Vieh, 4 - - Vines, distance apart, 366 - - Vomis, 354 - - Vulci, 354 - - - Wadai, 44 - - Wade, Sir T., 158 - - Wai wai, 105 - - Wales, 31 - - Wall paintings, 128 - - Walrus hide, 47 - - Wampum, 14 - - Weapons, 35 - - Weighing of the soul, 150 - - Weight, its origin, 12 - - ⸺ of potatoes, 358 - - ⸺ unit, how fixed, 168 - - Weights, false, 241 - - ⸺ in connection with currency, 271 - - ⸺ in form of animals, 153, 401 - - ⸺ ⸺ oxen, 128 - - ⸺ in shape of cows, 243 - - Weissenborn, 212 - - Welsh currency, 32 - - West, E. W., 148 - - Whale’s teeth, 21 - - Wheat, 122 - - ⸺ corn, 179 - - ⸺ corn in Assyria, 183 - - ⸺ corns, 180 - - ⸺ ear, 327 - - ⸺ grain, 182 - - Wheaten straw, 109 - - Wicklow, gold in, 334 - - Wife, payment for, 44 - - ⸺ price of, 44, 105 - - Wilamowitz, 306 - - Wine, 323 - - ⸺ cup, 323 - - ⸺ jar, 323 - - ⸺ trade, of Carthage, of Gauls, 326 - - Wolf, 335 - - Wood as currency, 42 - - Woodpeckers’ scalps, 15 - - Wool merchants, 117 - - ⸺ weighed in Homer, 118 - - ⸺ weighing of, 116 - - - Xenophanes, 205, 293 - - Xenophon, 337 - - ⸺ _De Vectigalibus_, 338 - - - Yard, English imperial, 266 - - ⸺ of butter, 358 - - ⸺ of land, 358 - - - Zancle, 348 - - Zechariah, 148 - - Zend Avesta, 149 - - ⸺ physicians’ fees, 26 - - Zulus, 2, 42 - - - Cambridge: - PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, - AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. - - - - -SOME PUBLICATIONS OF - -The Cambridge University Press. - - -=The Types of Greek Coins.= By PERCY GARDNER, Litt. D., F.S.A. With 16 -Autotype plates, containing photographs of Coins of all parts of the -Greek World. Impl. 4to. Cloth extra, £1. 11_s._ 6_d._; Roxburgh (Morocco -back), £2. 2_s._ - -=The Engraved Gems of Classical Times=, with a Catalogue of the Gems in -the Fitzwilliam Museum, by J. HENRY MIDDLETON, M.A., Slade Professor of -Fine Art. Royal 8vo. Buckram, 12_s._ 6_d._ - -=Illuminated Manuscripts in Classical and Mediaeval= TIMES, their Art and -their Technique. By J. H. MIDDLETON, M.A. With Illustrations. Royal 8vo. - [_Nearly ready._ - -=An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy.= - -Part I. The Archaic Inscriptions and the Greek Alphabet. - -By E. S. ROBERTS, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Gonville and Caius College. -Demy 8vo. With Illustrations. 18_s._ - -=A Catalogue of Ancient Marbles in Great Britain=, by Prof. ADOLF -MICHAELIS. Translated by C. A. M. FENNELL, Litt. D., late Fellow of Jesus -College. Royal 8vo. Roxburgh (Morocco back), £2. 2_s._ - -=Essays on the Art of Pheidias.= By C. WALDSTEIN, Litt. D., Ph.D., Reader -in Classical Archaeology in the University of Cambridge. Royal 8vo. 16 -Plates. Buckram, 30_s._ - -=The Literary Remains of Albrecht Dürer=, by W. M. CONWAY. With -Transcripts from the British Museum MSS., and Notes by LINA ECKENSTEIN. -Royal 8vo. 21_s._ (_The Edition is limited to 500 copies._) - -=The Growth of English Industry and Commerce during= THE EARLY AND MIDDLE -AGES. By W. CUNNINGHAM, D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Demy -8vo. 16_s._ - -=The Growth of English Industry and Commerce in= MODERN TIMES. By the -same Author. Demy 8vo. [_Nearly ready._ - - London: C. J. CLAY AND SONS, - CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, - AVE MARIA LANE. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE ORIGIN OF METALLIC CURRENCY AND -WEIGHT STANDARDS *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |