Chapter XXV: Appendix: C (1)

KELTIC AND SCANDINAVIAN WEIGHT SYSTEMS.

It is always dangerous to deal with things Keltic. So much difficulty is there in getting at any facts amidst masses of wild assertions and loose conclusions, that a prudent man may well shrink back. However, as it is worth while to give some _facts_ respecting the actual weights of gold rings and other ornaments, I have thought it best to print the following pages.

Attempts have long ago been made to find the standard of the so-called ring money. Sir William Betham, followed by John Lindsay[450], after weighing many examples, arrived at the conclusion that they are based on the ounce Troy. Now as the ounce Troy is entirely unknown to the Brehon Laws, and was only brought into Ireland by the English settlers, it is needless to argue further against that doctrine. Dr Petrie’s[451] discussions about Irish coins are similarly vitiated by his treating as Troy grains the grains of wheat mentioned by the authorities.

1. _Irish._ Let us work back from the known to the unknown.

The system in the Brehon Laws is as follows:

1 Cumhal (ancilla) = 3 Cows.
1 Cow = 1 Unga (uncia of silver).
1 Unga = 24 Screapalls.
1 Screapall = 3 Pinginns.
1 Pinginn = 8 grs. of wheat.

Unga = 576 grs. of wheat.

The ounce seems to be the highest unit of weight, and just as in the Brehon Laws an _unga_ of silver is equated to a cow, so in early times an _unga_ of gold seems to have been the regular value of a slave, the most valuable of living chattels. At least we may so infer from a curious story of St Finnian of Clonard:

LIFE OF ST FINNIAN (OF CLONARD, CO. MEATH).

(BOOK OF LISMORE, fol. 24 b, c.)

Tainic iar sin Finnen cu Cilldara co Brighit, cu m-bui ic
tiachtuin leiginn ocus proicepta fri re. Ceilebrais iar sin do
Brigit ocus dobreth Brighit fainne oir dho. Nir ’bho santach som
imon saegul: ni roghabh in fainne. “Ce no optha,” ar Brigit,
“roricfea a leas.” Tainic Finnen iar sin cu Fotharta Airbrech.
Dorala uisce do. Roinnail a lamha asin usci[452]: tuc lais for a
bhais asan uisci in fáinne targaidh Brighit dó.

Táinic iar sin Caisin, mac Naemain, co faelti moir fri Finden.
Ocus coneadhbair fein dó ocus roacain fris ró Fotharta ic
cuinghidh oir fair ar a shaeire. “Cia mét,” ar Finnen,
“conaidheas?” “Noghebhudh uingi n-oir,” ar Caisin. Rothomthuis sé
iar sin in fainne [ocus frith uingi oir[453]] ann. Dorat Caisin
hi ar a shaeriri.

TRANSLATION.

“After that came Finnian to Kildare to Brigit and he was engaged
in teaching and preaching for a time. He takes leave afterwards
of Brigit and Brigit gave a ring of gold to him. He was not
covetous regarding the world: he accepted not the ring. “Though
thou refusest,” said Brigit, “thou wilt require it.” Finnian came
after that to Fotharta Airbrech[454]. [On his way] he met water.
He washed his hands with the water [and] brought on his palm from
out the water the ring that Brigit offered to him.

“After that came Caisin, son of Naeman, with great joy to [visit]
Finnian. And he offered himself to him and complained to him
that the king of Fotharta was demanding gold from him for his
liberation. “How much,” said Finnian, “asketh he?” “He would
accept an ounce of gold,” said Caisin. He [Finnian] weighed after
that the ring (and there was found an ounce of gold[455]) in it.
Caisin gave it for his liberation.”

I am indebted for this valuable reference, which also enables us to form an idea of the relative value of gold and silver in early Ireland, to the Rev. B. Mac Carthy, D.D., of Youghal.

But there is another weight called crosoch (crosóg or crosach), found in the most ancient poems. For instance in Cuchulaind the brooch of Queen Medbh, “My spear brooch of gold which weighs thirty ungas, and thirty half ungas, and thirty crossachs and thirty quarter [crossachs].” (O’Curry, _Manners and Customs_, Vol. III. p. 102.) The weight of a crosoch we learn from a gloss quoted by O’Donovan (Supplement to O’Reilly’s Dictionary) from _MS. R. I. A._, No. 35, 5. 49.

da pinginn agas cetrime pinginne isin lacht caerach i,
crosóg[456].

“Two pinginns and a fourth of a pinginn are a milk of a sheep, i.e. a crosóg.” Since 1 pinginn = 8 grs. wheat therefore a crosóg = 18 grs. wheat or 13·5 grs. Troy.

There are accordingly 32 crosochs in the unga of the Brehon Laws.

Inspection at once shows that the crosoch must have belonged to a different system, on which either the system of ungas and screapalls was grafted or _vice versa_. The expulsion of the crosoch from the later Irish shows that the first alternative is the true one.

Again, it is certain that the unga and screapall were borrowed from the Roman system, probably before the time of Constantine, as after his time the solidus became universal throughout the Empire, and has left its impress everywhere.

The crosoch therefore must be non-Roman, _i.e._ belong to the native population.

Above we saw that it was used along with ungas and half ungas in describing Medbh’s Fibula. Here is historical evidence of its use in the weighing of gold ornaments.

There were certainly 32 crosochs in the ounce of the Brehon Laws, but if we can show in another system of north-western Europe a weight exactly the same as the crosoch, with an ounce which is its thirty-fold, we may hesitate to lay down that the full Roman ounce with its 432 grs. Troy (576 grs. wheat) was the earliest form of Irish _unga_.

There is no mention of screapalls in the weight of Medbh’s brooch. It is quite possible that under ecclesiastical influences the full Roman ounce and its division into screapalls may have been introduced at a comparatively late period. The contact between Kelts and Scandinavians in early times has of late excited much interest.

2. Let us now turn to the old Norse system. It is as follows:

1 pening = 13·5 grs. Troy
10 penings = 1 örtug = 136·7 grs.
3 örtugs = 1 öre = 410 grs.
8 öres = 1 mark = 3280 grs.

Let us deal first with the mark. As its name signifies, it in all probability was originally not a _weight_, but a _measure_. The use of _mark_ as a land measure is well known in the Teutonic languages. It is also used as a measure of length. Thus a mark of cloth consists of 448 _alen_ or _ells_. After what we have learned about the history of the Roman _as_ (p. 354) we need not be surprised if a term originally used as a measure of some article which was not as yet sold by weight, came in similar fashion to be incorporated at a later period into the weight system as a higher unit. If the mark was originally a given measure of bronze or iron, we can readily see how it came later on to be used as a weight, and ultimately to be the chief unit of account among our Anglo-Saxon forefathers, until it was at last driven out by the _pound_.

That silver was cast into bars which weighed a mark is rendered highly probable by the fact that three of the silver bars found at Cuerdale weigh respectively 3960, 3954, and 3950 grs. Troy; that is, just the weight of 160 pennies of the reign of Alfred. 160 pennies are two-thirds of a pound of 240 pennies, or in other words a _mark_.

The practice of running silver into ingots of such a weight may well have arisen from an earlier practice of employing bronze or iron bars of such a weight. It is at all events certain that the mark is native Teutonic and is not borrowed from Rome. That the Kelts at least used bars of iron as money is made not unlikely by a famous passage of Caesar which I shall quote later on. A various reading states that the Britons used iron rods as money (_ferreis taleis_). Even without this we may reasonably infer from what we have learned of the practice of primitive peoples in dealing with iron or copper, that the Teutons and Kelts must have used these by measure. It is well known that the Swedes used ingots of copper as currency down to comparatively recent times. It is then most likely that the _öre_ or ounce of 410 grs. was the highest original weight unit, just as the _unga_ is in the ancient Irish system. The weight of this _öre_ is of great interest. If we found the Roman pound of 12 ounces in Scandinavia, we should at once say that the _öre_ of 410 grs. was the reduced Roman ounce (432 grs.). But as the native mark evidently got its position before the influence of Rome was felt in the North, we may well consider the _öre_ to be pre-Roman. The reader will remember that I identified the ancient Roman _uncia_ with the small talent of Sicily and Macedonia. The latter weighed 3 ox-units or about 405 grs. I also suggested that it originally represented the value of a _slave_, and was thus the original highest unit used for gold or silver. I showed on an earlier page (141) that the Norse _örtug_, the one-third of the _öre_, was the price of a cow. If three cows were the price of a slave in Scandinavia as they were in Ireland, and probably in Homeric Greece, an _öre_ of gold was the price of a slave. The passage from the life of St Finnian given at once shows that an ounce of gold was the regular price of a slave in early Ireland, and probably a good Scandinavian scholar could soon find similar evidence for the value of the old Norse slave.

The meaning and derivation of the term _örtug_ have been much discussed. It occurs in the forms _örtog_, _örtug_, _ertog_, _œrtug_. Cleasby’s Lexicon makes nothing out of the first part of the word, but takes the second part (-tog -tug = tugr = 20), because _örtug_ had the value of 20 _penningar_, though _tugr_ means 10. But as a matter of fact there were, as we saw above, 240 _penningar_ in the mark, and therefore there were 10 _penningar_ in the _örtug_. Holmboe[457] goes more deeply into the origin of _örtug_. He says, “As _á_, pl. _œr_, signifies a _ewe_, and _tug-r_ as a derivative of _ten_ both by itself and in compounds signifies _ten_, _ertug_ seems originally to have signified 10 _ewes_, just as the weight _ertug_ betokens the weight of 10 _peningar_, and _peningr_ itself also means a _sheep_. It may be regarded as questionable to assume the plural _œr_ to form the first part of the compound, yet _œr_ must at an early period have been used in the formation of compounds, since both the folkspeech of Norway has the form _œr-saud-ewe_, sheep, technically a _ewe-with-lamb_, and the folkspeech of Denmark has _œr lam_ in the sense of _ewe-lamb_[458].” Another suggestion is that _örtug_ comes from _arta_ = a pea-_formed knob_, so that örtug = örtu-vog, the weight of a pea.

The objection to this would be that the pea would weigh 13·5 grs. Troy, which seems far too much.

In spite of the philological difficulty in making _örtug_ = 10 ewes, it is very remarkable that this value corresponds so accurately with the value of a cow, which I independently found for it. I have already pointed out that 10 sheep were the usual value of a cow. So it was at Rome in 451 B.C. and so it is with the Modern Ossetes. The ox fit for the yoke was probably worth 20 lambs or 5 sheep in Lusitania[459], and as we saw that in the Welsh Laws the ox when fit for the yoke was worth half a full-grown cow, the Lusitanian cow was worth 10 sheep. So also at Athens, when Plutarch[460] says an ox was worth 5 sheep, he probably means an ox fit for the yoke, the cow being worth 10 sheep. In the Brehon Laws 8 sheep go to the cow, but as I have already pointed out the insulated position of Ireland would tend to cause a variation in prices from those on the mainland of Europe. Thus we see from the story of St Finnian that gold must have been worth only three times its weight in silver in Ireland in the early centuries of our era. For the price of a slave was an ounce of gold, whilst in the Brehon Laws it is 3 ounces of silver. It might be said that we cannot prove that this was the value of a slave in gold and silver at any one time, and that silver may have been much cheaper at an earlier date. When we recollect that silver has never existed in any quantity in Ireland, and that where it does exist it can only be obtained by systematic mining, a thing impossible in the eternal turmoil of Ireland, and also bear in mind that when Japan was opened to Europeans in this century gold was exchanged for three times its weight in silver, we need not think such a relation at all unlikely in ancient Ireland. The paucity of silver ornaments in the Royal Irish Academy Museum confirms this opinion. But the evidence from the Penitentials shows that silver was scarce at a comparatively still early date in Ireland[461]. Thus XII altilia vel XIII sicli praetium unius cuiusque ancillae.

I have already shown the universality of making gold ornaments after a fixed weight. The passages given above show that a similar practice existed among the ancient Irish.

Let us turn to the numerous gold rings, commonly called Ring Money, of which there are some 50 in the Museum of the Royal Irish Academy of various weights and sizes. I give these weights. Let us examine them, and see if we can find any indications gained inductively of a weight standard.

As by inspection we see that the smallest rings weigh 13 and 14 grs. Troy, and the next three 29, 31, 32 respectively, which look like the double of the smaller, I shall group the rings according as they approximate to the multiples of 15.

---------+---------------------+----------+---------+-------+--------
Multiples| Actual Ring Weights | Multiples| Actual | Rings | Weights
of 15 | (Royal Irish Acad.) | of 15 | | |
---------+---------------------+----------+---------+-------+--------
15 | 13, 14 | 180 | 179 | 345 |
30 | 29, 31, 32, 36 | 195 | 199, 203| 360 |
45 | 40, 46 | 210 | 206, 209| 375 | 372
60 | 54, 56, 58, 59, | 225 | 220 | 370 |
| 61, 65, 65 | | | |
75 | 69, 73 | 240 | 247 | |
90 | 84, 84, 88, 96 | 255 | 259 | |
105 | 98, 104, 111 | 270 | | |
120 | 121, 124 | 285 | 283, 283| |
135 | | 300 | | |
150 | 144, 144, 147, | 315 | 322 | |
| 147, 150, 151 | | | |
165 | 171, 172 | 330 | 332 | |

A glance at the foregoing table shows that the most numerous group of rings occurs at the fourfold (60), no less than seven specimens ranging themselves at that point, next we find six specimens at the tenfold (150), whilst next in order comes the sixfold with four examples. There are three cases of the double (30). On the other hand it is worth noticing the absence of the ninefold, whilst there are three instances of the sevenfold, and the absence of the eighteenfold (2 × 9) likewise, whilst we have the elevenfold, twelvefold, thirteenfold, fourteenfold. However from the absence of the twentyfold (2 × 10) we cannot lay great stress on this. The heaviest specimen (372) closely approximates to the twenty-five fold (375).

I add the weights of the ancient Irish gold rings preserved in the British Museum.

_Irish small plain ring money. Some are without localities but
may be assumed to be Irish. Marked thus *._

*103, 563, *389, *121, *29½, 218, 224, 323, 295 injured, 218,
122, 90, 28, 56, 215 copper plated with gold (injured), 299, 148,
98, 366, 89 piece cut from a larger bracelet?, 48½ hollow and
open? plating of bronze ring? (banded), 422, 410 (ounces), 288
(injured).

_Irish fluted ring money. * No precise locality, but presumably
Irish._

*106, *123 (worn), 30, 59, 90, 66, 59½.

With disks, 249, 806 (2 oz.), 595, 283, 169, 665, 139, 119.

Dots, no lines, 32.

The weights of these rings show many points of agreement with those in the Irish Museum. Thus we get 28, 29½, 30, and 32 grs. corresponding to 29, 31, and 32 grs. of the second group in the Irish Table. Again, 56 and 59½ where we get 54, 56, 58, 59, 61 in the Irish, and 66 corresponding to 65, 65; 98 to 96 and 98; and 89 corresponding to 88 and 90; 119, 121, 122 and 123 to 121 and 124; 139 to 144, and 144 and 148 to 147 and 147; then 169 to 171 and 172. Then comes a break, and we get 215, 218, 218, 224 corresponding to 220, and 249 to 247, and 283 to 283 and 283; and 323 to 322, and 360 to 366. But the British Museum gives us in the higher weights three very important specimens: for 410 grs. is the ounce corresponding exactly to the old Norse _öre_ of 410 grs., and the ring of 422 grs. looks like the later ounce rising towards the full weight of 432. The ring of 806 grs. is plainly 2 ounces of the standard of 410 (806 ÷ 2 = 403).

The occurrence of several specimens so constantly all of the same weight, as for instance those about 220 grs., points beyond doubt to the conclusion that when the rings were being made a given quantity of gold was weighed out for the purpose. The story of St Finnian proves that for any transaction in which rings were employed as money, the scales were employed.

There is a set of leaden weights in the Royal Irish Academy Collection, found at Island Bridge, Dublin, in 1869, when Ancient Irish and Scandinavian remains were found together. As they are more or less corroded, it is not advisable to lay much stress on their present weights.

grs.
1. Semicircular weight 1852
2. Animal’s head 1550
3. Circular 1221
4. 958
5. 634
6. Oblong 539
7. 459
8. Quadrangular 414 (oz.)
9. 395 (oz.)
10. 220

There are certainly some interesting points of agreement between the weights and the gold ornaments, _e.g._ the weights of 220, 390, 414, 630, have corresponding weights in gold. The largest weight may be 4½ oz. of 410 grs.

* * * * *

Let us now return to the Irish monetary system, and see if we can determine more accurately its relation to that of Rome.

8 grains of wheat = 1 pinginn.
24 ” ” = 3 pinginns = 1 screapall.
576 ” ” = 72 ” = 24 screapalls = 1 unga.

As regards _unga_ and _screapall_ we have spoken already. Of their origin there is no doubt. The pinginn on the other hand is not so easy. The name is certainly Teutonic, said to be ultimately a loan word formed from _pecunia_. It seems to have been employed as a general term for the smallest form of currency. Hence we find the Saxon form (_pendinga_) applied to the 240th part of the lb., and of about 32 grs. wheat, and the Norse _peningr_ used for the 240th part of the _mark_, whilst in Ireland the cognate form is applied to the 72nd part of the ounce, and is of the weight of 8 grains _wheat_.

The Irish employed the system of Uncia and Scripula. Shall we say then that this system was in vogue in Britain likewise before the time of Constantine and yielded slowly before the later one?

Since then it was common to the Kelts on both sides of the Irish Sea, and we find that in Ireland it was grafted upon an earlier system, of which the _crosoch_ is a survival, we may reasonably infer that the Kelts of Britain had likewise a native system analogous to the _crosoch_. But further, of this we have strong evidence of two kinds. Caesar _B. G._ v. 12, when describing the British Kelts and their manners, says; pecorum magnus numerus. Utuntur aut aere aut nummo aureo aut annulis ferreis ad certum pondus examinatis pro nummo[462]. The passage has been mutilated by Editors, but this is the reading of the best MSS. Caesar thus tells us that they had a system of weights of their own. Secondly the evidence of the actual British Coins (cf. Evans, _Coins of Ancient Britons_) which are of a standard not Roman.

Now we have seen above that the Irish gold rings were weighed on a standard of almost 13·5 grs. Troy. Let us now see if the larger gold ornaments preserved in our Museums confirm or disprove the evidence of the rings. I shall first give the weights of those in the Royal Irish Academy[463]:

_Crescent shaped ornaments_: 1539, 434 (ounce of Brehon Laws?),
733, 1008, 255, 2013, 489, 552, 660, 1081, 98, 432 (ounce of
Brehon Laws), 339, 400 (early ounce = Norse _öre_?), 187, 390
(old ounce?), 797 (2 ounces, 2 × 398½).

The following are not in Wilde’s Catalogue: 472, 505, 542, 540,
630, 647, 667, 687, 720, 722, 737, 1092, 4331.

_Torques_: 476, 1013, 1527, 3126, 3168, 4722, 5941, 6007, 10268.

Not in Wilde: 154, 342, 1946, 2715, 4172, 5207, 5275, 6012, 6881.

_Armlets_: 144, 158, 182, 329, 401 (small pre-Roman ounce), 421
(ounce), 487, 510, 684, 757, 894, 989, 1037, 1369, 1630 (4 ounces
of 407 grs.?), 1716 (4 ounces of 426 grs.?), 2089 (5 oz. of 418
grs.?), 5635 (14 oz. of 402 grs.?), 6265 (15 oz. of 417 grs.).

Not in Wilde: 130, 145 (⅓ of oz. of 432 grs.?), 178, 184, 187,
199, 208, 215 (half oz. of 432 grs.?), 241, 289, 301, 303 (¾ oz.
of 405 grs.?), 345, 396 (oz.?), 487, 509 (1¼ oz.?), 547 (1⅓ of
oz.), 606 (1½ oz. of 405 grs.?), 630 (1⅓ oz. of 420 grs.?), 740,
753 (1¾ oz.), 1093 (2½ oz.?), 1190, 1210 (3 oz. of 405 grs.),
1267 (3 oz. of 422 grs.?), 1322, 1641 (4 oz. of 410 grs.), 1730
(4 oz. of 432 grs.?), 1836, 1836 (4½ oz. of 410 grs.?), 1940 (5
oz. of 388 grs.? or 4¾ oz. of 410 grs.?), 1980 (5 oz. of 396 grs.
or 4¾ oz. of 410 grs.?), 2201, 6144 (15 oz. of 410 grs.?), 13557
(33 oz. of 410 grs.?).

_Fibulae_: 56 (4 crosachs), 179, 180 (⅖ oz. of 400 grs.?), 415
(oz.), 600 (1½ oz. of 400 grs.?), 1231 (3 oz. of 410 grs.), 1345
(3½ oz. of 432 grs.), 1596 (4 oz. of 399 grs.?), 2301 (5¼ oz. of
400 grs.), 2536 (6 oz. of 422 grs.), 17200 (43 oz. of 400 grs.?),
8092 (20 oz. of 404 grs.), 19440 (48 oz. of 405 grs.).

Not in Wilde: 61, 106 (¼ oz.), 170, 170 (⅖ oz. of 425 gr.), 191,
196 (½ oz.?), 207, 209 (½ oz.), 248, 275 (⅔ oz. of 411 grs.), 315
(¾ oz.?), 379 (oz.), 542 (1⅓ oz.?), 557 (1⅓ oz.?), 586 (1½ oz.?),
649 (1½ oz. of 432 grs.?), 1187 (3 oz. of 396 grs.?).

_Gorgets_: 1160 (3 oz. of 387 grs.?), 2020 (5 oz. of 404 grs.?),
3091 (8 oz. of 386 grs.?), 3444 (8 oz. of 430 grs.?).

The result of an examination of the foregoing weights is to show that in all probability the vast majority of them were made on a standard much lighter than the Roman ounce of 432 grs., which was in full use in mediaeval Ireland. We saw that the Roman ounce had been only 420 grs. down to the Second Punic war, and I suggested that originally it was of the same weight as the Sicilian talent 390-405 grs. Can we observe a similar increase in the Irish ounce? The ounce of 400-410 seems to point to a time when Kelt and Scandinavian had a common higher unit of similar weight corresponding to the value of a slave[464], just as the Sicilian and Macedonian talent of three ox units represented the same slave unit.

I shall now give the weights of the various ornaments of gold found in England, Wales and Scotland which are preserved in the British Museum. For these I am indebted to the great kindness of Mr F. L. Griffith of the Anthropological department.

_Torques with rings._

Boxton, Suffolk, torque band twisted. 1·038 (2½ oz. of 415 grs.)
with double ring. Weight 24·8 grs.

(A ring of 8 parallel sections, bronze plated with gold,
injured, weighs 111 grs.; the locality is not known, but it
seems connected with this class. Probably Irish, one in Wilde’s
catalogue of 7 sections.)

Another double ring, Devonshire, weighs 563 grs. (1⅓ oz. of 420
grs.).

Lincolnshire torques; 1454 grs. (3½ oz. of 415 grs.), coiled band
119½. Quadruple ring, 93½ (¼ oz.?), another similar 93.

Cambridgeshire torques (not in B. M.) 1944 (5 oz. of 387? or 4¾
oz. of 410), rest in B. M. viz.:—bracelet 613 (1½ oz. of 412
grs.), two treble rings linked together, combined weight 358,
double ring, weight 132 (⅓ oz.), another 131½, two others similar
but smaller are each 68 (⅙ oz.).

Wales. Two plain bracelets, near Beaumaris, Anglesea, 1028
(2½ oz. of 410 grs.); 420 (1 oz.), crescent-shaped gorget,
Caernarvon, 2861 (7 oz. of 410 grs.).

Scotland. Noard, near Elgin, torques formed of a plain twisted
band, 207 (½ oz.): 215 (½ oz.): 192 (½ oz.): 119 grains.

The evidence points to an ounce of 420 grs. It is worth noting that this is just 5 times the weight of the latest British coins, 84-82 grs.

Whence then did the Britons obtain this pre-Roman standard? Was it of native development or borrowed from some other people? By Britons we must be careful to express not all the natives of Britain. They fall most certainly into at least two groups. I. The Kelts in the East and South East. II. The barbarous inhabitants of the interior, who subsisted by hunting and fishing, and who were probably of that Iberic race, which spread over all Western Europe before the advance of the Aryans. It is only with the first group that we are immediately concerned. They almost exclusively possessed the art of coining, as is shown by the area over which British coins are found. Furthermore Caesar tells us of the close relationship of the first group to the Gauls, as is shown by their tribal names, language and customs. In addition their coinage is similar. Now there can be no doubt as regards the source from whence the Gauls derived their coinage. As they got the art of writing from the Phocaeans of Massilia (founded circ. 600 B.C.), so likewise did they gain the art of money-stamping from the same famous town, as has been completely demonstrated long since. People are inclined at once to assume that the Gauls and Britons got their weight standards also from Marseilles. There is certainly some evidence to support this belief. Thus the gold torque lately found in Jersey weighs 11500 grs., which is exactly the mina of the Phocaic system at a time when 57½ grs. went to the drachm. Again we have seen that there were a considerable number of gold ornaments in Ireland and Britain which weigh 224-216 grs. This is the Phocaic (or Phoenician) stater. But the question is not so simple as it might appear at first sight in relation to the weight system, as will appear most readily by a short survey of the history of the monetary system of Massilia.

I. The earliest coinage consists of silver, small divisions of the Phocaic drachm (58-54 grains Troy). These have various symbols on the obverse, but have uniformly the incuse square on the reverse. These may be placed after 500 B.C. “Notwithstanding their archaic appearance, it does not seem that these little coins are much earlier than the middle of the 5th century.”

II. Next comes a series, chiefly obols for the most part with head of Apollo on obverse, and a wheel on reverse, the latter probably a development of the earlier incuse square. They are mostly obols of 13-8 grains.

III. About the middle of the 4th century the drachm first appears with the head of Artemis on obverse and a lion on the reverse, weighing 58-55 grains.

Now over all Gaul, and far into Northern Italy, and the valleys of the Alps, as far as the Tyrol, the coinage of Massilia made its way and was abundantly imitated. In fact these imitations formed the entire medium of those regions until the Roman conquest. The imitations of the little coins with Apollo and the wheel as reverse are found right into the north of France, and in England.

Did the Kelts borrow their 13½ grain unit from the 13 grain obol of Massilia, or is it of far earlier growth? The Etruscans used a unit of 13½ grs. in the 4th century B.C., and we find the Massaliotes having almost the same. Is the true answer this? All over Western Europe the ox unit of 135 grs. of gold was subdivided into 10 parts each of 13½ grs. These 10 parts corresponded to 10 sheep, the regular value of a cow. There was also a higher unit from Greece to Gaul and Britain corresponding to the slave. There were fluctuations in their worth in various times and places, but on the whole there was a tendency to raise the weight of the higher unit (ounce). But it is natural that the Kelts may have taken over into their system certain units from the Phocaic system which they used as multiples of their own smaller units, just as the Teutonic peoples took the Roman pound into their own system, and the natives of West Africa made the Spanish dollar the multiple of their own native weights, based on seeds. Some idea of the relative ages of Keltic gold ornaments may perhaps be got from applying the criterion of weight standard to them.

FOOTNOTES

[1] _Metrologische Untersuchungen über Gewichte, Münzfüsse und Masse des Alterthums in ihrem Zusammenhange._ Berlin, 1838.

[2] χρύσεα χαλκείων, ἑκατόμβοι’ ἐννεαβοίων.

[3] _Iliad_, XXIII. 750.

[4] Victor A. L. Morier, _Murray’s Magazine_, August, 1889, p. 181.

[5] _Trans-Caucasia_, p. 410 (Engl. trans. 1854).

[6] Pollux, IX. 73, τὸ παλαιὸν δὲ τοῦτ’ ἦν Ἀθηναίοις νόμισμα καὶ ἐκαλεῖτο βοῦς, ὅτι βοῦν εἶχεν ἐντετυπωμένον. εἰδέναι δ’ αὐτὸ καὶ Ὅμηρον νομίζουσιν εἰπόντα ἑκατόμβοι’ ὲννεαβοίων.

[7] Cf. Aesch. _Agam._ 36; Theognis 815. Cp. τὰν ἀρετὰν καὶ τὰν σοφίαν νικᾶντι χελῶναι, a proverb (given by Pollux IX. 74) alluding to the _Tortoise_ coins of Aegina; and Menander (_Al._ 1), παχὺς γὰρ ὗς ἔκειτ’ ἐπὶ στόμα.

[8] ἡ γλαῦξ ἐπὶ χαράγματος ἢ τετραδράχμου, ὡς Φιλόχορος· ἐκλήθη δὲ τὸ νόμισμα τὸ τετράδραχμον τότε [ἡ] γλαῦξ· ἦν γὰρ ἡ γλαῦξ ἐπίσημον καὶ πρόσωπον Ἀθηνᾶς, τῶν προτέρων διδράχμων ὄντων, ἐπίσημον δὲ βοῦν ἐχόντων.

[9] Plutarch, _Solon_, c. 15.

[10] Hultsch, _Reliquiae Scriptorum Metrologicorum_, I. 301, τὸ δὲ γαρ’ Ὁμήρῳ τάλαντον ἴσον ἐδύνατο τῷ μετὰ ταῦτα Δαρεικῷ. ἄγει δ’ οὖν τὸ χρυσοῦν τάλαντον Ἀττικὰς δραχμὰς β’, γράμματα ζ’, τετάρτας δηλαδὴ τεσσάρας.

[11] _Iliad_, XVIII. 507, 8,

κεῖτο δ’ ἄρ’ ἐν μέσσοισι δύω χρυσοῖο τάλαντα,
τῷ δόμεν, ὃς μετὰ τοῖσι δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴπῃ.

See Appendix A for a linguistic proof that the two talents were for the Judge.

[12] _Ancient Law_, p. 375.

[13]

ἀνδρὶ δὲ νικηθέντι γυναῖκ’ ἐς μέσσον ἔθηκεν,
πολλὰ δ’ ἐπίστατο ἔργα, τίον δέ ἑ τεσσαράβοιον.

[14] _Od._ I. 430.

[15] _Iliad_, IX. 12 _seqq._

[16] _Il._ XXIII. 262 _seqq._

[17] Of course amongst the lowest races of savages such as the aborigines of Australia, even barter is almost unknown. Each man makes his own stone implements from the greenstone which is everywhere in abundance, his own clubs and boomerangs, whilst Nature supplies all his other wants.

[18] Whymper’s _Alaska_, p. 225.

[19] Morier, _Murray’s Magazine_, August, 1889, p. 181.

[20] Jevons, _Money_, p. 24.

[21] _Tribes of California_, p. 21.

[22] _Op. cit._, p. 335.

[23] Clavigero, _Hist. of Mexico_, Vol. I. 386.

They counted the Cacao nuts by 8000 and to save the trouble of counting them they reckoned them by sacks, every sack being reckoned to contain 24,000. Cf. Prescott, _Conquest of Mexico_, Vol. I. p. 44.

[24] G. M. Dawson, ‘Report on the Queen Charlotte Islands, 1878,’ p. 135 B (_Geological Survey of Canada_), Montreal, 1880.

[25] F. Magnússon, _Nordiske Tidskrift for Oldkyndighed_, II. 112.

[26] _Wanderings in a Wild Country, or Three Years among the Cannibals of New Britain_ (London, 1883), p. 55.

[27] For shell money in the Caroline Islands cf. Kubary’s _Ethnographische Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Karolinen Archipels_ (Leipzig, 1889); in the Pelew Islands cf. Karl Semper, _Die Pelau Inseln_ (Leipzig, 1873), p. 60; and for shell money in general cf. R. Stearn’s _Ethno-conchology_ (Washington, 1889).

[28] Jevons, _Money_, 25.

[29] Terrien de la Couperie, _Coins and Medals_, p. 193.

[30] Terrien de la Couperie, _Coins and Medals_, p. 199.

[31] Yule’s Translation, Vol. II. p. 70.

[32] Gill, _River of Golden Sand_, II. p. 77.

[33] Yule’s Translation, Vol. II. p. 45.

[34] So the Irish _sed_, the most general name for _chattel_, originally meant simply an _ox_.

[35] _Cochin-Chine Française. Excursions et Reconnaissances_, XIII. (1877), p. 296-8.

[36] _Excursions et Reconnaissances_, XIII. No. 30 (1887), p. 296-304.

[37] M. Aymonier, _Cochin-Chine. Excursions et Reconnaissances_, Vol. X. No. 24 (1885), pp. 233 _seqq._

[38] _Ibid._ p. 317.

[39] _Rig-Veda_, _Mandala_, VII. 90. 6, VIII. 67. 1-2, VI. 47, 23-4.

[40] _Vendidâd_, _Fasgard_, VII. 41 (Darmesteter’s translation in Sacred Books of the East).

[41] _Vendidâd_, _Fasgard_, IX. 37.

[42] _Ibid._ IV. 2.

[43] Hakluyt Society, 1857, p. 35.

[44] For _larins_ cf. Prof. Rhys Davids, “On the Ancient Coins and Measures of Ceylon” (_Numismata Orientalia_, Vol. I. 68-73). Mr Rhys Davids makes no mention of the bronze fish-hooks, but there are a number of them in the British Museum.

[45] I am indebted to the kindness of Mr A. Galetly of the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art for the drawing from which the figure here shown is reproduced, as also for the drawing of the Calabar wire money and West African axe money figured lower down. My friend Mr J. G. Frazer (one out of countless kindnesses) called my attention to all three objects.

[46] Haxthausen, _Transkaukasia_ II. p. 30 (Engl. Trans. p. 409).

[47] _Il._ XXIII. 485.

[48] _Oecon._ II. 21.

[49] II. 18.

[50] _Annals of the Four Masters_, Anno 106 A.D. (O’Donovan’s ed.).

[51] _Ancient Laws of Wales_, p. 795.

[52] O’Donovan’s Supplement to O’Reilly, s.v. _Lacht_: _Senchus Mor_, I. 287.

[53] Thorpe, _Laws of the Anglo-Saxons_, I. 357. Cunningham, _History of English Commerce_, I. 117.

[54] Illud notandum est quales debent solidi esse Saxonum: id est, bovem annoticum utriusque sexus, autumnali tempore, sicut in stabulum mittitur, pro uno solido: similiter et vernum tempus, quando de stabulo exiit; et deinceps, quantum aetatem auxerit, tantum in pretio crescat. De annona vero bortrinis pro solido uno scapilos quadraginta donant et de sigule viginti. Septemtrionales autem pro solidum scapilos triginta de avena et sigule quindecim. Mel vero pro solido bortrensi, sigla una et medio donant. Septemtrionales autem duos siclos de melle pro uno solido donent. Item ordeum mundum sicut et sigule pro uno solido donent. In argento duodecim denarios solidum faciant. Et in aliis speciebus ad istum pretium omnem aestimationem compositionis sunt. _Capitulare Saxonicum_, II. Migne, XCVII. 202.

[55] Schive and Holmboe, _Norges Mynter_ (Christiania, 1865), pp. I.-III.

[56] G. Hoffmann, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, Vol. II. (1887) p. 48.

[57] Schliemann, _Mycenae_, and _Tiryns_, p. 354.

[58] _Il._ XVIII. 401 πόρπας τε, γναμπτάς θ’ ἕλικας, κάλυκάς τε, καὶ ὅρμους.

[59] _Homer. Epos_, 279-281 (2nd ed.).

[60] Hesychius s.v. ἕλικες explains them as _earrings_ (ἐνώτια), or _armlets_, _anklets_ (ψέλλια), or _rings_ (δακτύλιοι). Eustathius on _Iliad_ XVIII. 400 explains them as ἐνώτια ἢ ψέλλια παρὰ τὸ εἰς κύκλον ἑλίσσεσθαι, “earrings or armlets (anklets), so called from being rolled up” (_helissesthai_). Cp. Ebeling, _Lexicon Homericum_, s.v. ἕλιξ.

[61] Keary, _Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Coins_, I. p. vii. From _beag_ Mr Max Müller derives _buy_ in spite of a phonetic difficulty.

[62] Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are in the collection of my friend Mr R. Day, F.S.A., of Cork. The others are in my own possession.

[63] _Journal of Hellenic Studies_, Vol. X. Here is the description and weight of the rings (which I have been enabled to figure by the kindness of Mr John Murray):

+--------+-------------+-----------------------+
| | | WEIGHT |
| METAL | DESCRIPTION +---------+-------------+
| | GRAMMES | GRAINS TROY |
+--------+-------------+---------+-------------+
| Silver | Plain ring | 8·8 | 137 |
| Gold | Spiral | 8·5 | 132 |
| ” | ” | 9·9 | 153 |
| ” | ” | 10·8 | 167 |
| ” | Plain ring | 15·9 | 248 |
| ” | ” | 16·5 | 257 |
| ” | ” | 19·0 | 297 |
| ” | ” | 19·4 | 303 |
| ” | Spiral | 20·5 | 320 |
| ” | ” | 21·5 | 335 |
| ” | Plain ring | 22·0 | 340 |
| ” | Spiral | 29·3 | 452 |
| ” | ” | 39·0 | 612 |
| ” | ” | 39·5 | 617 |
| ” | ” | 41·5 | 643 |
| ” | ” | 42·2 | 654 |
| ” | ” | 42·3 | 655 |
| ” | ” | 42·8 | 662 |
+--------+-------------+---------+-------------+

[64] Cf. Keary’s _Catalogue of English Coins in the British Museum_, p. 6.

[65] Strabo iii. p. 155. ἀντὶ δὲ νομίσματος οἱ λίαν ἐν βάθει φορτίων ἀμοιβῇ χρώνται ἢ τοῦ ἀργύρου ἐλάγματος ἀποτέμνοντες διδόασιν.

[66] Gordon Lang, _Travels in Western Africa_ (1825), Prefatory Note.

[67] The specimen figured was brought home about 30 years ago and is now in the Edinburgh Museum of Science and Art.

[68] The specimens here figured are in the splendid collection of my friend Mr R. Day, of Cork.

[69] This information I owe to Lieut. Troup.

[70] I am indebted to Messrs James Booth and Co. for this information.

[71] Dapper _Description de l’Afrique_ (Amsterdam, 1686) p. 367. “Le bois rouge de Majumba et la _pao_ de Hiengo de Benguela tiennent aussi le lieu de monnaie: on en coupe des morceaux d’un pied de long; on leur met une certaine taxe selon laquelle le prix des vivres se règle.”

[72] Peter Kolben, _Present state of the Cape of Good Hope_, p. 262.

[73] R. W. Felkin, “Notes on the Madi or Moru Tribe of Central Africa,” _Transactions of Royal Society of Edinburgh_, Vol. XII. p. 303 _seqq._

[74] _Voyage au Darfour_, Mohammed Ibn Omar el Tounsy (translated by Perron), Paris, 1845, pp. 218, 315.

[75] _Voyage au Darfour_, p. 316.

[76] _Ibid._ p. 319.

[77] _Voyage au Darfour_, p. 321.

[78] _Voyage au Ouadai_, Mohammed Ibn Omar el Tounsy (French translation by Perron), p. 559.

[79] Elliot’s _Alaska_, p. 8. This is an interesting parallel to the ancient tradition that the Carthaginians employed leather money. (_Vide_ Smith’s _Dict. of Geogr._ I. 545.)

[80] _Il._ XXIII. 826.

[81] _Il._ XXIV. 230-2.

[82] Timaeus 12.

[83] _B. G._ v. 12.

[84] 199.

[85] Schrader. _Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples_, p. 260.

[86] _Odyssey_, XXIII. 198.

[87] Cunningham, _Hist. of English Commerce_, I. p. 117.

[88] _Il._ XXI. 41.

[89] _Od._ XV. 460.

[90] Prescott, _Mexico_, p. 234.

[91] Schrader, p. 255.

[92] Schrader, _op. cit._ p. 255.

[93] Polybius II. 19.

[94] W. Deecke, _Etrusk. Forschungen_, p. 5.

[95] Herod. IV. 49.

[96] _Ausland_, 1873, No. 39.

[97] Arist. Θαυμ. 833 b. 14, φασὶ δὲ ἐν τοῖς Βάκτροις τὸν Ὦξον ποταμὸν καταφέρειν βωλία χρυσίου πλήθει πολλά.

[98] Herod. IV. 18.

[99] Herod. III. 116, λέγεται δὲ ὑπὲκ τῶν γρυπῶν ἁρπάζειν Ἀριμάστους ἄνδρας μουνοφθάλμους.

For the gold-fields of India, cf. Dr Valentine Ball’s excellent chapter (IV.) in his _Geology of India_.

[100] Herod. IV. 25.

[101] Herod. IV. 71, ἀργύρῳ δὲ οὐδὲν οὐδὲ χαλκῷ χρέωνται.

[102] Strabo, XI. p. 499, παρὰ τούτοις δὲ λέγεται καὶ χρυσὸν καταφέρειν τοὺς χειμάρρους, ὑποδέχεσθαι δ’ αὐτὸν τοὺς βαρβάρους φάνταις κατατετρημέναις καὶ μαλλωταῖς δοραῖς· ἀφ’ οὖ δὴ μεμυθεῦσθαι καὶ τὸ χρυσόμαλλον δέρος.

[103] Strabo, XIV. p. 680.

[104] Herod. I. 93, πάρεξ τοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Τμώλου καταφερομένου ψήγματος.

[105] XIII. 625 _sq._

[106] Herod. VI. 46 _sq._

[107] Strabo, 331.

[108] Herod. IX. 75.

[109] Strabo, 618. 29. Didot.

[110] Cf. Isaiah xlv. 14.

[111] The Debae of Agatharchides and Artemidorus are held by almost all scholars to be the people of Ptolemy’s Θῆβαι πόλις, i.e. Dhahabân, from _Dhahab_, gold, with term.-ân.

[112] Strabo, 661. 45. Didot.

[113] Diodorus Sic. II. 50. 1 _sq._

[114] This story about their connection with Boeotia doubtless arose from the confusion between Δέβαι and Θῆβαι.

[115] Diod. Sic. III. 45. 4.

[116] His description of the size of the largest nuggets of gold varies slightly; in his second reference he compares them to “royal nuts” (κάρυα βασιλικά), which are generally admitted to be walnuts, though walnuts are sometimes also called “Persian nuts” (κάρυα Περσικά), the latter name reminding us of the derivation of _walnut_ itself; in the first passage he likens them in size to chestnuts (κάρυα κασταναικά) or κασταναῖα, the name being said to be derived from Castanaea, a city of Pontus. It would seem from this then that Diodorus got his accounts from two slightly different sources. Strabo has been so cautious as not to give us any specific epithet for the large nut, which we may accordingly regard as we please either as a chestnut or a walnut. There can be no doubt about the fruit to which Strabo compares the medium-sized nuggets. The _mespilon_, Latin _merpilum_ (from which comes the French _nèfle_), is undoubtedly the medlar, whilst perhaps the most likely meaning for the smallest of the three fruits is _olive-stone_.

[117] Diodorus, III. 12-14.

[118] Mansfield Parkyns, _Life in Abyssinia_, Vol. I. p. 405 (London, 1853).

[119] For similar ways of trading in Africa in modern times see Rawlinson’s note _ad locum_.

[120] Herod. IV. 49.

[121] Strabo, 173. 34-49, Didot.

[122] Ibid. 178 Didot.

[123] Th. Mommsen (_Nordetruskische Alfabete_, p. 250, _seqq._) gives an admirable summary of the metallurgical history of this region.

[124] Strabo, 218.

[125] Pliny, XXXIII. 4. § 78, extat lex censoria Victumularum aurifodinae, qua in Vercellenai agro cavebatur, ne plus quinque M hominum in opere publicani haberent.

[126] Strabo, 205.

[127] Th. Mommsen, _Die nordetruskischen Alfabete_, p. 223; Pauli, _Altitalische Forschungen_, p. 6.

[128] Strabo, 191.

[129] Hucher, _L’Art Gaulois_, 19.

[130] We must then in all probability place the first striking of the Gaulish imitations of the Philippas about 150 B.C., rather than as is usually stated about 250 B.C.

[131] Strabo, 187.

[132] Strabo, 146.

[133] Diodorus, v. 27.

[134] Strabo, 190.

[135] Both are from coins in my own possession; A found near Mildenhall (Suffolk) in 1884, cf. Dr Evans, _Ancient British Coins_, Pl. XXIII. 4; B at Potton in Bedfordshire, 1888; cf. _op. cit._ Pl. B. 8.

[136] Strabo, 191.

[137] Caesar, _B. G._ V. 12, pecorum magnus numerus. Utuntur aut aere aut nummis aureis aut taleis ferreis ad certum pondus examinatis pro nummo. Nascitur ibi plumbum album in mediterraneis regionibus, maritimis ferrum, sed eius exigua est copia, aere utuntur importato.

[138] Caesar, _B. G._ II. 4.

[139] W. Ridgeway, “The Greek Trade Routes to Britain” (_Folklore_, March 1880, p. 23).

[140] Strabo, 199, leaves out tin here although he mentions it when quoting from Posidonius. The reason is that after the tin-mines of Northern Spain had been developed by Publius Crassus, Caesar’s lieutenant, the British tin trade ceased.

[141] Strabo, page 201.

[142] IV. 151.

[143] Herodotus, I. 163-4.

[144] Strabo, 147.

[145] Strabo, 146.

[146] Strabo, 146 _sq._

[147] Diodorus, v. 35.

[148] Marsden’s _History of Sumatra_, p. 172.

[149] Pliny, _H. N._ XXXIII. 4, 21 aurum arrugia quaesitum non coquitur sed statim suum est; inueniuntur ita massae; necnon in puteis denas excedentes libras; palacras Hispani, alii palacranas, iidem quod minutum est balucem uocant.

May the French _paille_ (in the phrase _pailles d’or_), Ital. _paluola_, Span. _palazuola_, all used technically of gold, be derived from _pala_, the old technical term, rather than from _palea_, chaff?

[150] Herod. IV. 11.

[151] How trade was carried on in early days may be well illustrated from Torres Straits of to-day. (Haddon, “The Western Tribe of Torres Straits,” _Journal of Anthrop. Inst._ XIX. p. 347.)

Dance masks made of turtle shell (340) occasionally used as money.

If a Muralug man wanted a canoe he would communicate with a friend at Moa, who would speak to a friend of his at Badu; possibly the Muralug man might himself go to Badu, or treat with a friend there. The Badu man would cross to Mabuiag to make arrangements, and a Mabuiag man would proceed to Saibai.

If there was no canoe available at the latter place word would be sent on, along the coast, that a canoe was to be cut out and sent down.

The canoe would then retrace the course of the verbal order and ultimately find its way to Muralug. The annual payment for a canoe was say three _dibi dibi_ or goods of about equal value. There were three annual instalments.

There is no money in the Straits; but certain articles have acquired a generally recognized exchange value, a value which is intrinsic, and not irrespective of the rarity of the material or the workmanship put into it. These objects cannot be regarded as money; they are the round shell ornaments (_dibi dibi_, shell armlet, _wai wai_, dugong, harpoon, _wap_, and canoe). A good _wai wai_ is the most valuable possession; the exchange of a _wai wai_ was a canoe, or harpoon. Ten or twelve _dibi dibi_ was considered of equal value to any of the above. A wife was the highest unit of exchange, being valued at a canoe, or a _wap_ or _wai wai_. “The intermediaries (in the purchase of a canoe) are paid for their services ‘by charging on,’ the amount depending on individual cupidity, or they may be recompensed for their trouble by presents from the purchaser” (p. 841).

[152] [Aristotle,] _De Miris Auscult._ 104-5 (839ᵃ 34 _seqq._).

[153] Pind. _Isth._ V. 22 _sq._ μυρίαι δ’ ἔργων καλῶν τέτμηνθ’ ἑκατόμπεδοι ἐν σχερῷ κέλευθοι | καὶ πέραν Νείλοιο παγᾶν καὶ δι’ Ὑπερβορέους.

[154] _Ol._ III. 31 _sq._

[155] _Ol._ III. 13 _sqq._

[156] Pind. _Pyth._ X. 29 _sqq._

[157] Herod. IV. 32.

[158] Herod. IV. 13.

[159] Herod. IV. 33.

[160] Boeckh, _Corp. Inscr. Graec._ Vol. I. p. 807.

[161] Cf. Sallust, _Jug._ 18.

[162] They derived it from λύγξ and οὖρον. The difference in colour between the Baltic and Ligurian amber found an easy explanation, the latter was regarded as the solidified urine of the female lynx, the former of the male animal. Pliny, _H. N._ XXXVII. 2, § 34.

[163] Cf. Boyd Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_, 466. Von Sadowski, _Die Handelstrassen der Griechen und Römer_, p. 15.

[164] _Il._ V. 720 _seqq._

[165] _Il._ XXIII. 826 _seqq._

[166] _Il._ XII. 433-7,

ἀλλ’ ἔχον, ὤς τε τάλαντα γυνὴ χερνῆτις ἀληθής,
ἤ τε σταθμὸν ἔχουσα καὶ εἴριον ἀμφὶς ἀνέλκει
ἰσάζουσ’ ἴνα παισὶν ἀεικέα μισθὸν ἄρηται.
ὦς μὲν τῶν ἐπὶ ἶσα μάχη τέταται πτόλεμός τε κ.τ.λ.

Dr Leaf, in his introduction to Book XII., when calling attention to various marks of lateness in this book, says: “It has further been remarked with some truth that the numerous similes, though beautiful in themselves, are often disproportionately elaborated and lead up to points which are almost in the nature of an anti-climax.” But the use of the word ἀληθής in an entirely un-Homeric sense seems to make it almost certain that these lines are of late date.

[167] Cf. Plautus, _Merc._ II. 3. 63. Virg. _Georg._ I. 390, carpentes pensa puellae.

[168] Mr J. G. Frazer gives me the following interesting note:

As to the cutting off a child’s hair and weighing it against gold or silver, the facts are these.

(1) Among the Harari in Eastern Africa when a child is a few months old, its hair is cut off and weighed against silver or gold money; the money is then divided among the female relations of the mother.

Paulitschke, _Beiträge zur Ethnographie und Anthropologie der
Somâl, Galla und Hararî_ (Leipzig, 1886), p. 70.

(2) Mohammed’s daughter Fâtima gave in alms the weight of her child’s hair in silver.

W. Robertson Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in early Arabia_, p.
153.

(3) Among the Mohammedans of the Punjaub a boy’s hair is shaved off on the 7th or 3rd day after birth, or sometimes immediately after birth. Rich people give alms of silver coins equal in weight to the hair.

_Punjab Notes and Queries_, I., No. 66.

(4) When the Hindus of Bombay dedicate a child to any god or purpose, they shave its head and weigh the hair against gold or silver.

_Id._ II. No. 11.

(5) In the inland districts of Padang (Sumatra) three days after birth the child’s hair is cut off and weighed. Double the weight of hair in money is given to the priest.

Pistorios. _Studien over de inlandsche Huisponding in de
Padangsche Bovenlanden_, p. 56; Van Hasselt, _Volksbeschrijving
van Midden-Sumatra_, p. 268.

(6) There is the Egyptian custom, for which we have the evidence of Herodotus, II. 65, and Diodorus, I. 8.

[169] F. L. Griffith, “Metrology of the Medical Papyrus Ebers,” _Proceed. of Soc. Bibl. Arch._ June 1891.

[170] Hultsch, _Metrol. Scrip._ 299, τὸ Μακεδονικὸν τάλαντον τρεῖς ἦσαν χρύσινοι.

[171] _Catalogue of Greek Kings of Bactria_, p. lxix.

[172] _Catalogue of Greek Kings of Bactria_, p. lxvii.

[173] Lepsius, _Denkmäler_, 331.

[174] Brugsch, _Op. cit._ I. 386.

[175] _Münz- Mass- und Gewichtswesen in Vorderasien_, p. 80 seqq.

[176] Lenormant, _La Monnaie dans l’Antiquité_, I. 103 seqq.

[177] _Metrol._², p. 375.

[178] Horapollo, I. 11, Πάρ’ Αἰγυπτίοις μονάς ἐστιν αἱ δύο δραχμαί.

[179] Deecke, _Etrusk. Forsch._ II. p. 1. Head, _Op. cit._ p. 12.

[180] Head, _Op. cit._ p. 747.

[181] Τὸ μέντοι Σικελικὸν τάλαντον ἐλάχιστον ἴσχυεν, τὸ μὲν ἀρχαῖον, ὡς Ἀριστοτέλης λέγει τέτταρας καὶ εἴσκοσι τοὺς νούμμους τὸ δὲ ὕστερον δυοκαίδεκα, δύνασθαι δὲ τὸν νοῦμμον τρία ἡμιωβόλια. (Hultsch, _Reliq. Metrol. Scrip._ 300.)

[182] Cf. Hucher, _L’Art Gaulois_, p. 19 and Pl. I.

[183] _Histoire de la Monnaie Romaine_, I. 236.

[184] _Étude des Monnaies de l’Italie antique._

[185] _De Rep._ II. 35, 60.

[186] X. 50.

[187] Aulus Gellius, XI. 1. 2. 3; Plutarch, _Poplic._ 11, says a cow = 100 ὀβολοί, a sheep 10 ὀβολοί.

[188] Pollux, IX. 80, εὐθὺς πρίω μοι δέκα νόμων μόσχον καλάν.

[189] Theocr. IX. 3, μόσχως βουσὶν ὑφέντες.

[190] Mr Head (_Coinage of Syracuse_), _Numismat. Chronicle_, New Series, Vol. XIV., thinks that under Dionysius the Elder (406-367 B.C.) and his successors gold was to silver as 15:1 at Syracuse, whilst in the time of Agathocles (317-289 B.C.) it was as 12:1. We can however hardly take the evidence of the coin weights as sufficient, when we consider the extraordinary devices to which Dionysius resorted to raise money, causing coins of tin to pass as silver, making the silver coins bear a double value etc. as is related by Aristotle, _Oeconomica_, II. 21.

[191] _Op. cit._ 26.

[192] Livy XXXIV. 1. Valer. Max. 9. 1. 3.

[193] Head, _Op. cit._ 160.

[194] Mommsen (Blacas), _Histoire de la Monnaie romaine_, III. 275.

[195] Pertz, _Monumenta Historica Germaniae_, Vol. III. Lex Alamannorum, _lib. sec._ LXXX. _summus bovis 5 tremisses valet cett_.

[196] Pertz, _Op. cit._ _Leges Burgundiorum_, p. 534: pro bove solidos 2 cett.

[197] Schive and Holmboe, _Norges Mynter_ (Christiania, 1865), pp. i-iv.

[198] Herod. VI. 57. See evidence of this collected by Stengel, Die griechische Sakralaltertümer, pp. 29 _sq._ 81 _sq._ (Iwan Müller’s Handbach, Vol. V. pt. iii.)

[199] _Hist. Animal._ X. 50, τά γε μὴν ἱερεῖα ἑκάστης ἀγέλης αὐτόματα φοιτᾷ καὶ τῷ βωμῷ παρέστηκεν, ἄγει δὲ ἄρα αὐτὰ πρώτη μὲν ἡ θεός, εἶτα ἡ δύναμίς τε καὶ ἡ τοῦ θύοντος βούλησις. εἰ γοῦν ἐθέλοις θῦσαι οἶν, ἰδού σοι τῷ βωμῷ παρέστηκεν οἶς, καὶ δεῖ χέρνιβα κατάρξασθαι· εἰ δὲ εἴης τῶν ἁδροτέρων καὶ ἐθέλοις θῦσαι βοῦν θήλειαν ἢ καὶ ἔτι πλείους, εἶτα ὑπὲρ τῆς τιμῆς οὔτε σὲ ὁ νομεὺς ἐπιτιμῶν ζημιώσει οὔτε σὺ λυπήσεις ἐκεῖνον· τὸ γὰρ δίκαιον τῆς πράσεως ἡ θεὸς ἐφορᾷ. καὶ εὖ καταθεὶς ἵλεων ἕξεις αὐτήν· εἰ δὲ ἐθέλοις τοῦ δέοντος πρίασθαι εὐτελέστερον, σὺ μὲν κατέθηκας τὸ ἀργύριον ἄλλως, τὸ δὲ ζῷον ἀπέρχεται, καὶ θῦσαι οὐκ ἔχεις.

[200] _Egypt under the Pharaohs_ (2nd edit. Engl, transl.), Vol. II. p. 199.

[201] Sir Rutherford Alcock, _The Capital of the Tycoon_, I. 281.

[202] Marco Polo, Yule’s Transl. II. pp. 62 and 70.

[203] _Aegypten und ägyptisches Leben in Alterthum_, p. 611.

[204] 1 Kings x. 21.

[205] 2 Chron. i. 15.

[206] 2 Chron. i. 17.

[207] _Sacred Books of the East_, Vols. V., XVIII., and XXIV.

[208] _Report of the Royal Commission appointed to enquire into the recent changes in the relative values of the precious metals._ 1st Report, p. 60 (1866).