CHAPTER VI._The Origin of Metallic Currency and Weight Standards

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

----------+----------+---------+----------+------------+--------+-------

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | of 33 | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

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.