Chapter X (2)

We saw above that there is every reason to believe that when silver first became known to mankind, they esteemed it as highly as gold, if not more so. It would naturally, therefore, be weighed on the same standard as gold. This would continue until, in the course of years, a time came when the relation between gold and silver had become fairly fixed over all Asia Minor. We know that in the beginning of the 5th cent. B.C. gold was to silver as 13:1 (or rather 13·3:1). Herodotus, in the celebrated passage in which he describes the organisation of the Persian empire into satrapies, and details the amount of tribute appointed by Darius for each, tells us that the gold was reckoned at thirteen times the value of silver. Now for ordinary purposes of exchange this relation would be extremely inconvenient, and the more accurate relation of 13·3:1 would be still more so. It became thus desirable to fix some separate standard for silver by which a convenient number, such as 10, of silver ingots would be equal to the gold ingot of the ox-unit standard. Metrologists are wont to speak of the desirability of being able to exchange a round number of talents of silver for a talent of gold. But not even in the palmiest days of the wealthy Orient lands was the ordinary individual so rich that he felt any inconvenience in the way of exchanging _talents_ of gold and silver. The Great King might deal out talents as he pleased, but his subjects were chiefly concerned with the exchange of silver and gold shekels. I have made this remark because it appears to me that many of the misconceptions connected with this whole subject have arisen from scholars concentrating all their attention on the talent, and taking it as their point of departure.

The Babylonians arrived at their silver standard as follows:

1 gold shekel of 130 grs. was worth 1730 grs. of silver (130 × 13·3), since gold was to silver as 13·3:1.

130 grs. gold = 1730 grs. silver.

They divided this amount of silver by 10, and thus:

1 gold shekel of 130 grs. = 10 silver shekels of 173 grs.

As we stated already, Herodotus says that the Babylonian talent was equal to 70 Euboic minas, that is, one-sixth more than the Euboic talent. The latter contained 390,000 grs. Troy, therefore the Babylonian ought to give 455,000 grs. If we multiply our silver shekel by 50 and then by 60, we shall obtain a total amount for the talent of silver of 519,000 grs. Unfortunately several inaccuracies have crept into the text of Herodotus, numerals always being especially liable to corruption in MSS. He seems, however, to have regarded the relation of the Euboic to the Babylonian talent as about that of 5:6, and also to have estimated the current weight of the Persian silver piece at about 162 grs. Troy. But there can be little doubt that the full standard weight of the Babylonian silver shekel was 169 grs. (or, according to Mr Head, 172·9 grs.).

From this it is easy to construct the Babylonian _silver_ system, which was employed in Lydia and in the Persian empire.

1 shekel = 169 grs.
50 shekels = 1 mina = 7450,
60 minae = 1 talent 447000.

From the double gold shekel was formed another silver standard known as the _Phoenician_.

Gold being to silver as 13:1,

1 double shekel of 260 grs. = 3380 grs. silver,
3380 grs. silver = 15 shekels of 225·3 grs.

As this silver standard is found in the same area as the double gold shekel, I have thought it best to follow the usual derivation, but at the same time it is worth pointing out that it may have been gained directly from the light shekel.

The light shekel (which in the form of coined money appears either as the gold of Croesus, or the Daric), in the case of the Babylonian system was made equal to ten silver didrachms, or 20 drachms known under the name of Sigli; it likewise is equal in value to 15 Phoenician didrachms of 112·6 grs. Thus, whilst in one region they obtained a silver unit, ten of which would be an equivalent to the gold unit, in another they formed a silver unit, 15 of which would be equivalent to the same gold unit of 130 grs. In each case a number convenient for purposes of exchange was substituted for the extremely unmanageable number 13 (or still more intractable 13·3) of the older system, according to which silver was made into ingots of the same size as those of gold.

These now are the systems on which depended all traffic and currency of the precious metals throughout Western Asia for many centuries. I have been compelled in the statement of the two silver systems to anticipate one step in the growth of the fully developed weight system by speaking of the _Talent_. We have seen that the mina of silver, like that of gold, contains only 50 shekels, thus evidently having likewise been developed before the full elaboration of the Chaldaean system of numeration, or at least before the application of that system to their metric standards. But when we come to deal with the talent we find that in every case alike, whether it be the gold, silver, or royal talent of commerce, the talent invariably consists of _sixty_ minae. From this we may with safety infer that it was at a period posterior to the invention of the sexagesimal method that the _Talent_ was added to the gold and silver systems. When we turn to the royal system (both light and heavy), we find that the mina consists of _sixty_ shekels, just as the talent consists of 60 minae, and consequently we are constrained to believe that this royal system was fixed at a date long after the growth of the gold and silver _minae_, and when the sexagesimal system had now complete sway. We have already seen good reason for considering the _royal_ talent to be essentially a mercantile unit. It certainly was not used for gold or silver. Corn was not sold by weight, and so in all probability it was meant for copper, iron, lead, and merchandise of value. We have learned from our studies in the metal trade of primitive peoples that copper and iron are not weighed but are sold by measurement, being wrought into bars or plates of a well defined size. It is only when communities are well advanced in culture that they begin to employ the scales for the buying and selling of the common metals. We argued above that the double shekel system arose from a desire amongst a nation of traders like the Phoenicians for a heavier standard, more serviceable for such goods as were less valuable than gold. It was probably the same desire which found its complete realization in the royal system. Whilst gold and silver had only the mina as their highest unit, there was a new system developed scientifically from the ancient shekel or ox-unit. The sixty-fold of this unit was taken to form a mina considerably heavier than the old gold mina, and now a new higher unit, the sixty-fold of the mina, was introduced. This we know under its Greek name of _talent_, but it was called _kikkar_ in the Semitic languages. Now are we to suppose that this _kikkar_ or talent was purely and simply nothing more than a higher unit formed by taking a convenient multiple of the lower unit, just as in the French metric system the kilogram is 1000 times the gramme; or was it rather some ancient natural unit, originally formed empirically, and at a later epoch, when science had advanced, fitted into the system of commercial weight by being made exactly the sixty-fold of the _mina_? Comparison with other systems in various lands will incline us to the latter alternative. If we enquire for a moment in what manner the highest unit of weight for merchandise is fixed among barbarous and semi-civilized nationalities, we shall find that the _load_, that is, the amount that a man of average size and strength can carry, is the universal unit. Readers of the various recent books of African travel frequently meet in their dreary and monotonous pages allusions to so many _loads_ for which porters have to be supplied. The amount of the _load_ seems to vary in different parts. Thus amongst the Madi or Moru tribe of Central Africa, a pure negro race, according to that admirable observer Mr Felkin, the _load_ is about 50 lbs. in weight, whilst according to Major Barttelot, the _load_ carried by the Zanzibaris on the Emin Pacha Relief expedition was 65 lbs. (besides the man’s own rations for several days). We have already had occasion to refer to the _picul_ of Eastern Asia, which we found was simply the Malay word for a _load_; and we also found that the load varied in different places. Finally, we found that the Chinese had introduced the _picul_ into their system of commercial weight, fixing it at 100 _chings_ (catties), but at the same time excluded it from their silver and gold system, where the _tael_ (ounce) has remained always the highest unit. Yet in Cambodia we find that the further step has been made, and that the commercial system of the catty and _picul_ has been called into service for the weighing of silver. In Java, whilst gold and silver are weighed by units of small size, copper is sold by the _picul_.

It seems to me not unreasonable to suppose that the origin of the talent has been analogous to that of the _picul_. There is certainly nothing in either the Hebrew _kikkar_ or the Greek _talanton_ to imply in the slightest degree that they represented a numerical multiple of the mina. The Greek word means simply a _weight_, whilst the Hebrew seems to mean nothing more than a _round mass_ or _cake_ of anything, whether applied to a tract of country, as the region round the Jordan (as in Nehemiah vii. 28), or a loaf of bread (Exodus xxix. 23; 1 Samuel ii. 36). For as the talent was only introduced into the Hebrew system at a late period the term was probably applied to a _cake_ or _pig_ of copper or iron the weight of the ordinary _load_. That there was a direct connection between the kikkar and a man’s _load_ seems implied by the fact that Naaman “bound _two_ talents of silver in _two_ bags, with two changes of garments, and laid _them_ upon _two_ of his servants; and they bare _them_ before him” (2 Kings v. 23). As we find Naaman asking Elisha for “two mules’ burden of earth” (v. 17) it is at least certain that the Semites regularly estimated bulky weights by some kind of _load_. We saw above that in Assyrian the same ideogram stands for _tribute_ and _talent_. If a _load_ of corn was the regular unit for tribute, the use of a single ideogram may be explained. In the case of _talanton_ we have no difficulty in directly regarding it as a _load_, whilst with _kikkar_ it is not difficult to see how easy it was for the meaning of a _load_ of a certain weight to spring from the earlier meaning of the word. Its use as a loaf is interesting in connection with the fact noted on p. 159 that in Annam the largest unit in use for gold and silver is called a _loaf_.

When under a strong central government a metric system more or less scientific was introduced at Babylon, it was natural that an accurate adjustment of the old empirical unit of merchandise, the _load_, to the mina and shekel should be carefully carried out, just as in China the Mathematical Board have fixed the _picul_ of commerce as the hundred fold of the _ching_ (_catty_), giving it a value equal to 133⅓ lbs. avoirdupois. Such scientific adjustments take place in all countries with the advance of civilization and commerce, and above all under the influence of a strong central government. Let us reflect how long it has taken for the English Statute Acre to conquer the local ancient acres in use in various parts of the United Kingdom, such as the Irish, the Scotch or the Winchester acre. In like fashion, although the standards of weight and capacity were regulated by Act of Parliament in 1824, local usage still held on, and units of weight unknown to the Statute still survive in the usage of provincial places. Now it is not unreasonable to suppose that the name _royal_ or _king’s weight_ was given to the Babylonian commercial system, which was constructed on purely sexagesimal lines, because it was enforced by royal proclamation and power throughout the whole of the empire, and that in like manner the _royal cubit_ mentioned by Herodotus (I. 178) owes its origin to the establishment of one uniform standard for the dominions of the Great King. In fact no better illustration of what took place can be found than that afforded by our own terms such as _imperial pint_, or _imperial_ gallon, or in a less degree by the _statute_ acre, as contrasted with the older customary pints, or gallons, or acres. The mistake made by metrologists, in regarding the scientifically constructed Babylonian system as the first beginning of the art of weighing, is just as great as if a person writing a manual of English Metrology were to start with the metric legislation of 1824 as the first beginning of our metrology, and were to try and explain all traces of an earlier system or systems by forcing the facts into some sort of conformity with our modern standards. Undoubtedly in such an effort great facility would be found inasmuch as the present scientific standards are simply the ancient units of the realm accurately defined. But the reader will best understand the relations which probably existed between the Babylonian _royal_ standard (both single and double) by having a short account of the adjustment of our standards laid before him. Great inconvenience having been felt in the United Kingdom for a long time from the want of uniformity in the system of weights and measures, which were in use in different parts of it, an Act of Parliament was passed in 1824 and came into force on January the 1st 1826, by which certain measures and weights therein specified were declared to be the only lawful ones in this realm under the name of _imperial weights and measures_. It was settled by this Act (1) that a certain yard-measure, made by an order of Parliament in 1760 by a comparison of the yards then in common use, should henceforward be the _imperial yard_ and the standard of _length_ for the kingdom: and that, in case this standard should be lost or injured, it might be recovered from a knowledge of the fact that the length of a pendulum, oscillating in a second _in vacuo_ in the latitude of London and at the level of the sea (which can always be accurately obtained by certain scientific processes), was 39·13929 inches of this yard: (2) that the half of a double pound Troy, made at the same time (1760), should be the _Imperial Pound Troy_ and the standard of _weight_; and that of the 5760 grains which this pound contains, the pound _Avoirdupois_ should contain 7000; and that, in case this standard should be lost or injured, it might be recovered from the knowledge of the fact that a _cubic inch_ of distilled water at the temperature of 62° Fahrenheit, and when the barometer is at 30 in., weighs 252·458 grains: (3) that the _imperial gallon_ and standard of _capacity_ should contain 277·274 _cubic inches_ (the _inch_ being above defined), which size was selected from its being nearly that of the gallons already, in use, and from the fact that 10 lbs. Avoirdupois of distilled water weighed in air at a temperature of 62° Fahrenheit, and when the barometer stands at 30 in., will just fill this space. On p. 180 we saw that the standard gallon in the Tudor period ultimately depended on the pennyweight, which was, as we found, fixed by being the weight of 32 grains of wheat, dry and taken from the midst of the ear of wheat after the ancient laws of the realm. It was from the descendants of this gallon that the _imperial gallon_ of 1824 was fixed, with a slight modification so as to make it contain 10 lbs. of distilled water weighed in air at a temperature of 62° and when the barometer stands at 30 in. The double pound Troy made in 1760 depended in like fashion for its ultimate origin on the wheat-grains, and it also affords us an interesting illustration of the doubling of the original single unit, such as we find in the heavy _royal_ Babylonian system. We may find further analogies between our own system and that of the Babylonians. Whilst at the Mint gold and silver are weighed for coinage by Troy weight, the copper coinage on the other hand is regulated by the lb. Avoirdupois, the ordinary commercial standard. As already remarked, it is almost certain from the method of elimination that copper was the principal article for which the _royal_ Babylonian system was employed, as gold and silver had separate standards of their own, and corn was sold by measure and not by weight.

To sum up then the results of our enquiry into the Assyrio-Babylonian system, we started with the so-called light shekel or ox-unit as the basis of the system; and found that gold and silver were weighed by it and by its fifty-fold, the _maneh_, which may have been itself a natural measure of capacity, such as the catty used in Eastern Asia, where we know for certain that this weight was originally a measure of capacity obtained from the joints of bamboos or the cocoanut; that in a certain part of the empire a need was felt for a slightly heavier unit for the weighing of silver and precious commodities such as gums and spices, and that accordingly the great trading Aramaic peoples used the two-fold of the ox-unit (260 grains Troy); that at the earliest period copper would not be sold by weight but would be sold by bars or plates of fixed dimensions, as is still the practice with iron and copper among the barbarous peoples of Further Asia and Africa; that with the advance of culture the art of weighing was extended to copper and other articles of small value in proportion to their bulk, and that, as the maneh, or contents of a gourd, and the _load_ or amount that a man could carry on his back, had been most probably in general use as units for common merchandise, the time came when under the all-mastering authority of the Great King a standard based on the ancient ox-unit, but framed on the new scientific sexagesimal system, was established for copper and certain other kinds of merchandise; that in this system 60 shekels made the maneh, and the _load_ (the _kikkar_ or talent) was adjusted to the new system as the sixty-fold of the maneh; and that in the course of time this higher unit of the _kikkar_ or talent was added to the gold and silver systems, sixty manehs in each case making the _kikkar_ as in the case of the royal or commercial system; that in the case of silver, which on its first discovery and employment was as valuable as gold, and was therefore weighed on the same standard, when in course of time it became about thirteen times less valuable than gold, and there was a difficulty experienced in exchanging the units of gold and silver; a separate standard was created by dividing into ten new parts or shekels the amount of silver which was the equivalent of the gold shekel (ox-unit); that this was probably developed before the royal commercial mina of 60 shekels had been formed, as in that case the silver mina would have contained 60 shekels likewise; we were able to give an explanation of the name _royal_ as applied to the commercial standard by regarding it as of late origin, created by a supreme central authority for the regulation of the commerce of a great empire made up of a heterogeneous mass of races, just as in the present century our own _imperial_ standards have been fixed for the whole kingdom, being based, as was the Babylonian, on an ancient unit empirically obtained; and just as the royal arms are stamped on our imperial standards, so the weights of the Assyrian _royal_ system were shaped in the form of a lion, the symbol of royalty throughout the East. Finally we found that at the base of the Assyrio-Babylonian system lay, as the determinant of the ox-unit or shekel, the grain of wheat, which we have already traced all across Europe into Asia. We can therefore now come to a very reasonable conclusion that the Assyrio-Babylonian weight system was in its origin empirical, and that it was only at a comparatively late date in its history, just as in the case of our own standards, that a certain uniformity between the standards of measures and weights was brought about by the (not complete) application of the sexagesimal system of numeration, the invention of which is their eternal glory.

Having now dealt with Egypt, and the systems which prevailed in the Assyrio-Babylonian empire, it will be best to treat of the region which lay between them. In both the former countries we found the light shekel or ox-unit in use from the earliest times; and it will also be remembered that at an earlier stage we found that Abraham was able to traverse all the wide country that lay between Mesopotamia and the ancient kingdom of the Nile with his flocks and herds, and that he dwelt in the land of Canaan in close neighbourhood and on friendly terms with the sons of Heth, or Hittites, who were then the possessors of that land; and that furthermore monetary transactions were then carried on by means of certain small ingots of silver, as we see from the purchase of the Cave of Machpelah. These ingots, translated _shekels_ in the English version and called _didrachms_ in the Septuagint, are termed in Hebrew _Keseph_ (כֶּסֶף), simply _pieces of silver_, or _silverlings_. In the old Hebrew literature values in silver and gold are expressed either in _shekels_ or by a simple numeral with the words “of silver,” “of gold” added (where the latter method is followed the English version supplies _pieces_ or substitutes “a thousand silverlings” for “a thousand of silver” (Isa. vii. 23). The Septuagint renders the shekel by the Greek _didrachm_). There are several inferences to be drawn from this. It is evident that pieces of silver (and no doubt of gold also) of a certain quality and weight were employed as currency in Palestine, and we may likewise suppose with some probability that these pieces of silver were according to the standard in common use in Egypt and Chaldaea. Again, since we have already shown that gold in the form of rings and other articles for personal adornment was exchanged according to the ox-unit of 130-5 grs., as evidenced by the story of the ring given to Rebekah, it follows that there was but one and the same standard for gold from the Euphrates to the Nile. This is confirmed by the story of the sale of Joseph by his brethren to the company of Ishmaelites “who came from Gilead with their camels bearing spices and balm and myrrh going to carry it down to Egypt”; to these Ishmaelites or Midianites Joseph was sold for twenty pieces of silver[319]. Here we have evidence that the same silver unit was current from Gilead to Egypt. There are various other large sums of silver mentioned both in Genesis and also in the Book of Judges and in Joshua. Thus Abimelech, King of Gerar, is said to have given Abraham a thousand [pieces] of silver[320], whilst the lords of the Philistines persuaded Delilah to beguile Samson into telling her wherein lay his great strength by the promise of eleven hundred [pieces] of silver, which money she afterwards received[321]. Abimelech the son of Jerubbaal (Gideon) was enabled to form his conspiracy by hiring ‘vain and light persons’[322] with the three-score and ten [pieces] of silver taken by his mother’s brother from the house of Baal-berith. Finally, we have a sum of eleven hundred [pieces] of silver which were stolen by that “man of Mount Ephraim whose name was Micah” from his mother, of which his mother took (when he had restored the money) two hundred [shekels] and gave them to the founder, who “made thereof a graven image and a molten image[323].” Now although all these are considerable sums, all exceeding a _mina_, yet there is no mention whatever made of the latter unit of account in any of these passages. The story of another theft shows that gold as well as silver was reckoned originally only by the shekel and not by the mina. Thus Achan “saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment and two hundred shekels of silver and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight[324].” As fifty shekels were a mina, here if anywhere we ought to have found the latter term. From this we infer without hesitation that the shekel was the original unit.

But there is another word besides _keseph_ which is translated _piece of money_ or piece of silver. This is the term _qesitah_ (קְשׂׅיטָה) which occurs in three passages of the Old Testament. Thus Jacob bought the parcel of ground where he had spread his tent at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, “for an hundred pieces of money” (Gen. xxxiii. 19); and the same word is used in the parallel passage in Joshua (xxiv. 32) where the children of Israel buried Joseph’s bones in Shechem in the parcel of ground which Jacob bought for an hundred pieces of money. Lastly, Job’s kinsfolk and acquaintances gave him every man a _piece of money_, and every one a ring of gold (xlii. 11). It has been always a matter of doubt what this piece of money really was. The Septuagint translates _qesitah_ in these three passages by ἑκατὸν ἀμνῶν, ἑκατὸν ἀμνάδων, and ἀμνάδα μίαν, thus in every case regarding it as a _lamb_. The most ancient interpreters all agree in this, whilst some of the later Rabbis regarded it as signifying a coin stamped with the form of a lamb: one of them says that he found such a coin in Africa[325].

.]

Long ago Prof. R. S. Poole, speaking of this word, said: “The sanction of the LXX, and the use of weights bearing the forms of lions, bulls, and geese by the Egyptians, Assyrians, and probably Persians, must make us hesitate before we abandon a rendering [lamb] so singularly confirmed by the relation of the Latin _pecunia_ and _pecus_[327].” The connection between weights and units of currency is especially close at a time when coined money is as yet unknown, and hence when we find weights in the form of sheep coming from Syria, and also recollect that sheep were employed as a regular unit in Palestine for the paying of tribute, and with the light obtained from primitive systems of currency, we may well conclude that the _qesitah_ was an old unit of barter, like the Homeric ox, and as the latter was transformed into a gold unit, so the former was superseded by an equivalent of silver. We read (2 Kings iii. 4) that Mesha, king of Moab (now so famous from the inscription which bears his name), was a sheep-master, and he rendered unto the king of Israel one hundred thousand lambs, and one hundred thousand rams with the wool. When payment in metal came more and more into use silver served as the sub-multiple of gold, just as sheep formed that of the ox, and it is not surprising that in later times when coins were struck by the Phoenicians, as at Salamis in Cyprus and many other places, bearing a sheep or a sheep’s head, there arose some doubt as to whether the _qesitah_ was a _sheep_, a piece of uncoined silver, or a coin stamped with a sheep. The very fact of the Phoenicians having such a predilection for this type is in itself an indication that the silver coin in its origin represented the value of a sheep. At a later stage, when we come to deal with the early Greek coin types, we shall develop this principle more completely. The mere fact that the sheep on the Phoenician coins is sometimes found accompanying a divinity does not militate against our doctrine, as I shall explain when I deal with the coins of Messana and Thasos.

But then comes the question, which was the shekel employed by the Hebrews? It must have been either (1) the ox-unit of 130 grs., used alike for gold and silver in early days both in Egypt and Mesopotamia and Greece, or (2) the double of this, or heavy shekel of 260 grs., used for gold only in parts of Asia Minor, or (3) the Phoenician shekel of 225 grs., used only for silver and electrum along the coast of Asia Minor, and never employed for gold, or (4) the Babylonian or Persic standard of 172 grs., used only for _silver_. In later times the silver shekel in use amongst the Jews was most undoubtedly the Phoenician shekel, obtained, as we saw above, by dividing the amount of silver equivalent to the double gold shekel into 15 parts. But it may be reasonably doubted whether the silver piece or shekel (called always a _didrachmon_ in the Septuagint) mentioned in Genesis and Judges is the Phoenician shekel. It is used without any distinctive epithet, as if it were the weight _par excellence_, and is employed for _gold_ as well as silver. But when we turn to certain other passages we find mention made of a shekel called the _Shekel of the Sanctuary_[328]. This shekel is frequently mentioned, generally in connection with silver, and in reference to such things as the contribution of the half-shekel to the Tabernacle, the redemption of the firstborn, the sacrifice of animals, and the payment of the seer. Yet we find this shekel likewise employed in the estimation of _gold_, a fact which at once shews that it is neither the Phoenician shekel of 220 grs. nor the Persic of 172 grs., both of which were confined to _silver_. It must then have been either the ox-unit of 130 grs. or the heavy shekel of 260 grs. As the latter was confined in use to _gold_ it follows that the ox-unit of 130 grs. alone fits the conditions required. If then we can discover what in the case of either silver or gold was the weight of this shekel, we shall have determined it for both metals, for it will hardly be maintained that there was one shekel of the Sanctuary for gold and one of different weight for silver.

Now we read in Exodus (xxxviii. 24 _seqq._) that “all the gold that was occupied for the work in all the work of the holy [place], even the gold of the offering, was twenty and nine talents and seven hundred and thirty shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary. And the silver of them that were numbered of the congregation was an hundred talents and a thousand seven hundred and three-score and fifteen shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary; a bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel after the shekel of the Sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men. And the brass of the offering was seventy talents and two thousand and four hundred shekels.” From this passage we learn that, whilst the gold and silver were estimated on the shekel of the Sanctuary (or Holy Shekel), the brass was probably reckoned by some other standard.

It is also of importance to note that it is the shekel which is regarded as the _unit_ of the system, for we never hear of a talent or mina of the Sanctuary. From this passage likewise we readily discover that the talent of silver contained 3000 shekels (603,550 ÷ 2 = 301,775 shekels - 1775 = 300,000 ÷ 100 = 3000 shekels).

Now when king Solomon made three hundred shields of beaten gold, three minas (translated _pounds_ in the Authorized Version) went to one shield (1 Kings x. 17). But in the parallel passage (1 Chron. ix. 1) we read that “three hundred shields made he of beaten gold, three hundred shekels went to one shield,” from which it is evident that a maneh of gold contained 100 shekels[329]. A very important conclusion follows from these facts, for it is plain that when the Hebrews adopted the heavy or double maneh from the Phoenicians they did not adopt for _gold_ and silver at the same time the double shekel, of which that maneh was the fifty-fold, but on the contrary they retained their own old unit of the light shekel, and made one hundred of them equivalent to the Phoenician or heavy Assyrian mina. Since this light shekel was employed in the estimation of the gold and silver dedicated by King Solomon for the adornment of the Temple, this shekel can hardly be any other than the Holy Shekel of the Sanctuary.

We are thus led to conclude that the shekel was the same both for gold and silver, and was simply the time-honoured immemorial unit of 130-5 grs.

It is natural on other grounds that this should be the unit employed by the Israelites for the precious metals, since it was the unit employed both for silver and gold in Egypt, the land of their bondage.

The question next suggests itself, Why was the shekel called by a distinctive name? It is only when there are two or more examples or individuals of the same kind that any need arises for a distinctive appellation: again, as we have already observed, in such cases the older institution continues to prevail in all matters religious or legal. It is important to note that in Exodus xxi. 32, a passage which the best critics consider of great antiquity, the penalties are expressed in shekels simply without any distinctive appellation. At that period there was probably only one shekel (the ox-unit of 130-5 grs.) as yet in use, and so there was no need to distinguish the shekel in which fines were paid. This shekel was then described in the later part of Exodus, where there was a second standard in use, as the holy shekel. As a matter of fact we have another weight mentioned in 2 Samuel (xiv. 26), where it is related of Absalom that “when he polled his head (for it was at every year’s end that he polled it: because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he polled it) he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the king’s weight[330].”

Now it will be observed that in the passage from Exodus quoted above, whilst the shekel of the Sanctuary is carefully mentioned when amounts of gold and silver are enumerated, no such addition is made in reference to the “seventy talents and two thousand and four hundred shekels of brass.” If then the heavy or double shekel and its corresponding mina and talent, known to us hitherto as the royal Assyrio-Babylonian heavy standard, had already been introduced among the Hebrews (and we have just seen that according to the First Book of Kings it was in use, at least a mina of 50 double shekels (100 light) was employed for gold), nothing is more likely than that this standard would bear a title similar to that which it enjoyed in Babylonia and Syria, and be known as the king’s weight or _stone_. As I have observed in the case of the royal Assyrian standards that they were employed for copper, lead, and commodities sufficiently costly to be sold by weight, so we may with considerable probability conjecture that this king’s weight was employed regularly among the Semites for the weighing of the less precious metals, and other merchandise. Hence it is that there was no need to add any explanation of the nature of the standard by which the 70 talents of brass were weighed, and it was only because in the case of Absalom’s hair we have an article not commonly weighed, that it was thought necessary by the writer to make clear to us by which of the two standards usually employed the estimate of the weight of the year’s growth of hair was made. We may therefore conclude with probability that “the king’s shekel” was no other than the double shekel (260 grains). It will have been noted that in Genesis and Judges, admittedly two of the oldest books, there is mention made of only one kind of shekel, and that it is only in Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus, all of late date, that we find the shekel distinguished as that of the Sanctuary, and that it is only in Samuel that we find reference made to the _royal shekel_. It is also worthy of notice that neither in Genesis nor Judges is there any mention made of a maneh or talent, although there was full opportunity for the appearance of the former if it had been then in use, as we find such sums as 400 shekels (4 manehs), 1100 shekels (11 manehs) and 1700 shekels (17 manehs), whilst in the other series of books named we find both the maneh and the talent. It is not unreasonable therefore to suppose, that with the advent of the _maneh_ and _kikkar_ or talent from their powerful kinsfolk and neighbours came also the practice of employing the double shekel, the fiftieth part of the mina of gold and mina of silver, which was employed in that part of the Assyrio-Babylonian empire, where the use of the heavy Assyrian shekel was in vogue. Besides gold and silver, spices were likewise weighed according to the shekel of the Sanctuary. “Take thee also unto thee principal spices, of pure myrrh five hundred [shekels], and of sweet cinnamon half as much [even] two hundred and fifty [shekels], and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty [shekels], and of cassia five hundred [shekels], after the shekel of the Sanctuary[331].” If we had any doubt as to whether it was not possible that there were two separate shekels of the Sanctuary, one for gold, and one of different standard for silver, our misgivings are at once dispelled by finding spices weighed after the holy shekel. It is certainly incredible that there could have been a separate standard of the Sanctuary for the weighing of spices. There seems then no reasonable doubt that there was only one shekel of the Sanctuary, and that the unit of 130 grains. In support of this we may adduce Josephus[332], who made the Jewish gold shekel a Daric (which as we have already seen is our unit of 130 grains). This in turn derives support from the fact that the Septuagint, which regularly renders the Hebrew _sheqel_ (which like the Greek _Talanton_ means simply _weight_) by both _siklos_ and _didrachmon_, not unfrequently renders _shekel of gold_ by chrysûs[333], which means of course nothing more than gold _stater_, that is a didrachm of gold, such as those struck by the Athenians, by Philip of Macedon, Alexander and the successors of the latter, including the Ptolemies of Egypt, under whom was made the Septuagint Version. We have thus found the earliest Hebrew weight unit to be that standard which we have found universally diffused, and which we have called the ox-unit.

Next let us see how from this unit grew their system. In several passages the shekel of the Sanctuary is said to consist of 20 _gerahs_[334], a word rendered simply by _obolos_ in the Septuagint. As before observed, the Hebrew metric system was essentially decimal, like that of Egypt; in fact had Tacitus been a metrologist he might have quoted this as an additional proof that the Jews were Egyptian outcasts, expelled by their countrymen because they were afflicted with a plague, perhaps the _scabies_[335], which so frequently affects swine. The measures of capacity, both dry and liquid, are decimal, and so accordingly we find a decimal division applied to the shekel. The latter is divided into two _bekahs_ (בֶּקַע, “a division,” “a half”), and each _bekah_ is divided into 10 _gerahs_ (גֵּרָה). The latter signifies “a grain” or “bean.” The Hebrew literature does not state what kind of seed or grain it was, although it is defined by Rabbinical writers as equal to 16 barleycorns. But the fact is that, as we see from the Septuagint rendering, the name in the course of time came to be considered simply as that of one-twentieth of the shekel, whether that shekel was the shekel of the Sanctuary, the Phoenician silver shekel of 220 grains, or the kings shekel of 260 grains used for copper and lead. The _gerah_ of the gold shekel or shekel of the Sanctuary was probably the most ancient and came closest to the natural seed from which it derived its name; this _gerah_ would be about 6½ grains (130 ÷ 20 = 6·5). On an earlier page (p. 194) we gave the weights of a number of grains and seeds of plants, and amongst them that of the lupin, called by the Greeks _thermos_. According to the ancient tables the _thermos_ is equal to two _keratia_, or _siliquae_ (the seeds of the carob tree); but since each _siliqua_ = 4 wheat grains, the _thermos_ = 8 wheat grains, or 6 barleycorns, or 6 Troy grains. If the wheat grain in Palestine was as heavy as that of Egypt or Africa (·051 gram, instead of ·047 gram.), the 8 wheat grains, would = 6·4 grains troy. Again, the Roman metrologists estimated the _lupin_ as the third part of the _scripulum_, which weighed 24 grains of wheat[336]; thus the Roman _lupin_ also = 8 wheat grains. We may therefore have little doubt that the _gerah_ was simply the _lupin_[337]. But what about the Rabbinical _gerah_ of 16 barleycorns? In the first place let us recall the confusion which exists in the Arab metrologists respecting the _habba_, some making three habbas, some four equal to the _karat_. This arose, as we saw, from confounding the wheat and barley grain. If the 16 grains assigned to the _gerah_ by the Rabbis are really wheat grains, all is at once clear. The _gerah_ to which they refer is that of the royal or double shekel (260 grs.), or in other words it is a double _gerah_. We have just found the _gerah_ of the Sanctuary shekel to be the lupin, and equal to 8 wheat grains, accordingly its double will contain 16 wheat grains. Nothing is more common than a change in the value of a natural weight unit, when in the course of time its real origin has been forgotten, and it has been adjusted to meet the requirements of newer systems. Thus the value of the Greek _thermos_ and its Roman equivalent the _lupin_ both suffered in later days, and were regarded as only equal to 6 wheat grains instead of the original 8 owing to a like confusion between wheat grains and barleycorns. Finally there is a further reason why the authors of the Septuagint Version would translate _gerah_ by _obolos_. Writing at Alexandria under Ptolemaic rule, at a time when the Ptolemaic silver stater of 220 grains contained exactly 20 obols of the Attic or ordinary Greek standard of 11 grains, they would all the more readily adopt a rendering, which harmonized so well with the monetary system of their own day; at the same time the Greek habit of dividing all staters into 12 _obols_, no matter on what standard the stater was struck, naturally would incline them all the more to regard the _gerah_ not as an actual weight, but simply as the twentieth of the shekel, be the shekel what it might.

The Hebrew gold standard accordingly consisted of a shekel of 130 grains, subdivided into 2 _bekahs_ or _halves_; each of which in turn contained 10 _gerahs_ or lupins: 100 such shekels made a maneh, and according to Josephus[338] 100 manehs made a _kikkar_ or talent. It would thus appear that, just as in the time of Solomon the heavy mina had been introduced which was equal to 100 shekels of the Sanctuary, so the Hebrews carried out consistently this principle by making 100 minae go to the talent. It is however most probable that before that time they had employed a maneh of their own of 50 light shekels, for we have seen above that the talent of silver mentioned in Exodus consisted of only 3000 shekels, just as in all the other gold and silver systems of Asia Minor and Greece: and since we have proved that the silver shekel of the Sanctuary was the ordinary light shekel of 130 grains, it is evident that the silver talent is not made up of 3000 double shekels, but is really nothing more than the sixty-fold of a mina which contained 50 shekels of the ox-unit standard. If gold was weighed at all by any higher standard than the shekel, it is almost certain that it must have been weighed by this mina and talent[339]. However, by the time of the monarchy it is most probable that the double or heavy mina had been introduced for silver as well as for gold. In fact the probabilities are that it was applied for the weighing of silver before that of gold. Thus when Naaman the leper set out to go to the Hebrew prophet, “he took with him ten talents of silver, and six thousand [pieces] of gold, and ten changes of raiment[340].” Here the 6000 gold pieces are perhaps the 6000 light shekels which would make a talent of the heavy Assyrian standard after the ordinary Phoenician system of 50 shekels = 1 mina, and 60 minae = 1 talent: and doubtless Naaman counted these 6000 gold pieces as a talent of gold; but inasmuch as the Hebrews had a peculiar system of their own, by which 100 minae, and 10,000 light shekels went to the _kikkar_, these 6000 are not described as a talent by the Hebrew writer. We may thus regard the silver talent as consisting of 3000 light shekels, at the earliest period, and later on as of 3000 heavy shekels: finally, when coinage was introduced and money was struck under the Maccabees on the Phoenician silver standard, it consisted of 3000 shekels of 220 grs. each. But there is one period about which we find great difficulty in coming to any conclusion. After the return from the Babylonian captivity what standards were employed for gold and silver? As Judaea formed part of the dominions of the Great King, we would naturally expect to find in Nehemiah and Ezra traces of the standard then employed throughout the Persian Empire for the precious metals. As we have found that the light shekel formed the unit for gold from first to last, and as it was also the gold unit of the Babylonians and Assyrians, we may unhesitatingly assume that it formed the basis of the Jewish system in the days of Nehemiah (446 B.C.). As regards the silver standard we have fortunately one piece of evidence, which may give us the right solution. We found that in Exodus each male Israelite contributed a _bekah_, or half a shekel (of the Sanctuary) to defray the cost of the tabernacle: this half-shekel was a drachm of about 65 grs. Troy. Now after the Return from Captivity, we find Nehemiah (x. 32) writing: “We made ordinances for us, to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel[341] for the service of the house of our God.” Why the third of a shekel instead of the half of earlier days? When we read of the generous and self-sacrificing efforts made by the Jews to restore the ancient glories of the Temple worship, we can hardly believe that it was through any desire to reduce the annual contribution. The solution is not far to seek when we recollect that the Babylonian silver stater of that age weighed about 172·8 grs. This formed the standard of the empire, and doubtless the Jews of the Captivity employed it like the rest of the subjects of the Great King. The third part of this stater or shekel weighed about 58 grains; so that practically the third part of the Babylonian silver shekel was the same as the half of the ancient light shekel, or shekel of the Sanctuary. From this we may not unreasonably infer that after the Return the Jews employed the Babylonian silver shekel as their silver unit, and this probably continued in use until Alexander by the victories of Issus and Arbela overthrew the Persian Empire, and erected his own on its ruins. But although the Babylonian shekel was the official standard of the empire there can be no doubt that the old local standards lingered on, or rather held their ground stubbornly in not a few cases. We saw above that the Aramaean peoples had especially preferred the double shekel, and from it they developed the so-called Phoenician or Graeco-Asiatic silver standard. Gold being to silver as 13·3:1, one double shekel of 260 grains of gold was equal to fifteen reduced double shekels of silver of 225 grains each. Now it is important to note that the Phoenician shekel or stater was always considered not as a didrachm but as a tetradrachm; a fact which is explained by its development from the old double shekel, which of course was regarded as containing four drachms, and which at the same time explains why it is that in the New Testament the Temple-tax of the half shekel is called a _didrachm_, the term applied to the shekel itself in the Septuagint. When the Jews coined money under the Maccabees, they struck their silver coins on this Phoenician standard, and their shekel was always regarded as a tetradrachm. For the ancient half shekel of the Sanctuary they soon substituted the half of their shekel coins, that is about 110 instead of 65 grains of silver. This change probably took place under the Maccabees; silver had then probably become much more plentiful in Judaea as shown by the fact that they were able to issue a silver coinage. When those who collected the Temple-tax asked Christ for his didrachm, he bade Simon Peter go to the sea and catch a fish, in the mouth of which he would find a _stater_, “that give him, said he, for both me and thee.” As the stater evidently sufficed to pay a didrachm for each, there can be no doubt that the shekel or stater was considered by the Jews to be a tetradrachm.

It is very uncertain whether the Hebrews at any time employed a _maneh_ of 60 shekels. They most certainly did not do so for gold and silver, and probably not even for copper and other cheap commodities. Very unfortunately the famous passage in Ezekiel (xlv. 12), which deals with weights and measures, is so confused in the description of the maneh that we cannot employ it as evidence. The one element of certainty is that the gold shekel never varied from first to last. It is likewise probable that, whilst the heavy maneh was introduced for gold silver and copper alike, the shekel always remained the same, 100 shekels being counted to the mina of gold and silver in the royal system, whilst 50 shekels always continued to be regarded as composing the maneh of the Sanctuary, such as we found it in the Book of Exodus. To confirm this view of the shekel we can cite the Bull’s-head weight (fig. 27), which came from Jerusalem, and weighs 36·800 grammes, which represents the amount of 5 light shekels (making allowance for a small fracture), the light shekel being 8·4 grams. (130 grs.). It is plain that this is a multiple of the light and not of the heavy shekel, for it is not likely that such a multiple as 2½ would be employed. On the other hand, we found the five-fold multiple of the light shekel appearing in the Assyrian system, and also the Egyptian.

The Hebrew systems, as we have tentatively set them forth, may be seen in the following tables.

I. Earliest period. Shekel of 130-5 grs. alone employed for gold and probably silver.

II. Mosaic period. _Gold and Silver._ (The old light shekel or ox-unit is now called shekel of the Sanctuary to distinguish it from its double.)

50 light Shekels = 1 Maneh
3000 light Shekels = 60 Manehs = 1 Kikkar (_talent_).

III. Regal period. _Gold._

100 light (= 50 double) shekels = 1 heavy Maneh
5000 heavy (= 10,000 light) ” = 100 heavy Manehs = 1 talent.