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.