| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: The Origin of Metallic Currency and Weight Standards
Author: Ridgeway, William
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Origin of Metallic Currency and Weight Standards" ***
This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.
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 this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Origin of Metallic Currency and Weight Standards" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.