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.