History of the World/History of the World (Bureau Development, Inc.)(1992).BIN/dp/0211/02114.txt

Text File | 1992-10-12 | 28.7 KB | 462 lines

$Unique_ID{how02114}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{History Of Monetary Systems
Part I}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Del Mar, Alexander}
$Affiliation{}
$Subject{moslem
gold
ratio
roman
arabian
silver
coins
abd-el-melik
empire
emperor}
$Date{}
$Log{}
Title:       History Of Monetary Systems
Book:        Chapter V: Moslem Moneys
Author:      Del Mar, Alexander

Part I

Chapter Contents

     The empire of Islam - Conquest of the Roman provinces in Asia, Africa,
and Spain - Administrative policy of the Moslem - Monetary regulations -
Numismatic declaration of independence - Origin of the dinar and dirhem -
Singular ratio of value between silver and gold - Probable reasons for its
adoption - Its worth as a historical guide - As a monetary example -
Permanence of the tale ratio between dinar and dirhem - Moslem remains in the
Western and Northern States of Europe: Spain, France, Burgundy, Flanders,
Britain, and Scandinavia - Coinage system of Abd-el-Melik - Prerogative of
coinage vested in the caliphate - Individual coinage unknown - Emir coinages -
These substantially ceased with the reform of Abd-el-Melik - Legal tender in
Egypt, Spain, and India - Weights and fineness of the dinar in various reigns
- Same of the dirhem - Frontier ratios between gold and silver.

Moslem Moneys

     Islam, like Rome, was a sacred empire; the sovereign was both emperor and
high-priest, but with this remarkable difference, that whilst the Roman
emperor demanded to be worshiped as a god, the Commander of the Faithful
unswervingly directed all worship to be made to an incorporeal deity.  Mr.
Freeman perceives another difference.  The Roman emperor, he says, was pontiff
because he was emperor, whilst "the Prophet, from a spiritual teacher,
gradually became a temporal lord, consequently his successor is only emperor
because he is pontiff." ^1 I confess myself unable to follow this author,
either as to the fact or its significance.  The first Augustus was emperor for
several years before the death of Lepidus enabled him to reunite the two
offices in one person.  After that time the Augustus or Basileus was the
emperor, and the emperor was the Augustus.  Those who were proclaimed by the
army were necessarily emperors before they could be invested as chief-pontiff.
On the other hand, those who became sovereign-pontiffs by adoption or descent
were both emperors and chief-pontiffs at the same time.  With respect to the
Moslem, Mr. Freeman's inaccuracy is still more glaring. Mahomet was never a
temporal lord; whilst several temporal lords, or emirs, ruled the empire which
he did so much to erect, before Abd-el-Melik proclaimed himself an independent
sovereign, and, uniting the pontificate to the throne, took the title of
caliph and Emir-el-Moumenin, or Commander of the Faithful.  Spain emancipated
herself from the temporal but not from the spiritual control of the Arabian
caliphs so early as A. D. 756; Egypt followed suit in A. D. 868.  Abd-el-Raman
I. was therefore an independent sovereign before he became a pontiff; indeed,
he never became one.  Says Lavoix: "The Ommiades of Spain always respected the
supremacy of the caliph." This was true down to the reign of Abd-el-Raman
III., but not afterwards. The previous caliphs of Spain never styled
themselves Emir-el-Moumenin, but he did.  He was not only Commander of the
Faithful, he was also En-Nasr-li-din-Allah, or "Servant of the Religion of
God."

[Footnote 1: Freeman's "History of the Saracens," p. 62.]

     As usual, the coinage decides the point.  The Arabian emirs or caliphs,
call them what you will, struck no independent coins before Abd-el-Melik.
Their coins bear the stamp of Roman suzerainty; the emblems of the Roman
religion; the legends of Roman superstition.  These are proofs that until
Abd-el-Melik the Arabian caliphs were not independent sovereigns.  But the
coinage proves more than this: it proves that the temporal sovereignty of the
caliphs did not arise from their spiritual authority.  This existed from the
time of Mahomet, while the temporal sovereignty only began with Abd-el-Melik.
Another proof of the correctness of this view is derived from the coinage of
gold, which, with the Arabs as with the Persians and Romans, was a sacerdotal
prerogative.  This prerogative belonged to the caliph as the sovereign-pontiff
of Islam.  The early emirs struck no gold, not even with Roman devices, and
when Abd-el-Melik struck gold, the sovereign-pontiff of Rome, who was aware of
its significance, immediately declared war upon him.  It was the same in
Spain.  The Spanish caliphs struck no gold before Abd-el-Raman III.  Until
then the gold coins used in Spain were struck by the Arabian caliphs as
Commanders of the Faithful.  In Egypt it was the same.  When the first
Fatimite King struck gold in that province he meant it to be understood, and
the caliphs so construed it, that he regarded himself as independent of the
caliphate, and was prepared to take the consequences of that declaration.

     The spiritual and temporal attributes of the caliph, and the important
bearing which this dual character had upon the development of the Moslem
empire, is best shown by the historian Dozy.  The empire rose by the strength
which it derived from this union of the spiritual and temporal powers; it fell
by the weakness which invariably follows such a union.  The strength was born
of religious enthusiasm; the weakness resulted from the impractical features
of hierarchical government.

     The demands of space forbid us to follow this subject any further.  Our
object is not to trace the history of Islam, but of its monetary systems in
Europe.  We can, therefore, only glance at the events connected with the
establishment of Moslem government.

     It is a common mistake to confound the rise of Saracenic power with the
advent of Mahomet.  Three centuries before his time the frontier tribes of
Arabia had ventured to resist the authority of Rome, and under their goddess
or queen Mania ^1 their strength had been sufficient to defy and overthrow an
imperial army.  Their religion had also taken form.  Sozomen, describing the
Arabs of the fourth century, says: "They practice circumcision, refrain from
the use of pork, and observe many other Jewish rites and customs." It may be
added that they observed many religious rites and customs which were
afterwards adopted by the Roman church. ^2

[Footnote 1: Rufinus calls the Arabian queen Mania; Socrates and Sozomen, call
her Mavia.  The name is probably the same as Maia, Maria, etc.]

[Footnote 2: Stanley's "Sabean Philosophy," p. 800.]

     However, the establishment of Islam is certainly due to Mahomet and his
successors, and to their conquests of Persia, Syria, Egypt, Africa and Spain.
It is through this last-named country that France, England, Germany and
America are interested in the progress of the Arabian monetary systems.

     At the time of Mahomet and the emirs the Arabs numbered about 120,000
fighting men.  These constituted that army of invasion which accomplished its
work with so much courage and energy.  After repelling the forces which had
confined them to the desert, they burst out upon Rome and Persia, at that time
the two most powerful States of the Western world.  In less than ten years
they subdued Irak, Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt, and turned these countries
into "the dwelling of the Arab race, the kernel of the empire, the garden
where Religion and Victory were born together." ^3 The attack was so rapid
that the conquest proceeded almost without administrative organization.
Locally this was left entirely in the hands of the conquered races.  In Persia
the conquerors, who were rough soldiers and awkward in clerkly duties,
employed Jewish or Persian writers and accountants.  The native language was
retained.  In Syria the principal servants of the Arabian government down to
the reign of Abd-el-Melik were "Arian" Greeks.  For example, one Sergius, a
Greek, was superintendent of finances, or collector of taxes.  But in the
reign of Abd-el-Melik all was changed.  The civil government of Irak was taken
from the Persian writers and given to Arabians.  The Domesday Book of Syria
was translated into Arabic; the registry of the treasury, the tax lists, and
the text of the laws all became Arabic.

[Footnote 3: Ibn Kaldoun.]

     It was the same with the coinage.  During nearly sixty years following
the conquest, this privilege and function was exercised by local emirs, who
employed Persian, Greek or Hebrew moneyers.  The sizes, types and inscriptions
of the coins, their weight, fineness, value, legal function, and other
characteristics were copied with precision from the current coins and monetary
systems of the subdued nations. ^1 Under Abd-el-Melik this was all reformed.
The coins became wholly Arabian, and among the characteristics which they
acquired was one which was carried westward, and continued to influence the
coinages of Europe until after the discovery of America.  This was the
peculiarly Arabian valuation of silver to gold of 6 1/2 for 1.  But before
explaining this subject, let us first briefly follow the Arabian conquests
through Africa to Spain.

[Footnote 1: From Abd-el-Melik the Arabs seldom omitted an opportunity to
proclaim upon the coins the unity of God.  The ordinary motto was, "There is
no God but the one God." Upon the bilingual coins it varied; for example: "In
Nomine Domini Misericordis.  Unus Deus." . . . "Non est Deus nisi Solus Deus
cui non socius Alius." . . . "Non est Deus nisi, Unus cui non Deus alius
similis." The coinage of the emirs began as early as A. D. 638; of Ali 660;
Abd-el-Melik, 685.]

     An interesting relic of antiquity, communicated to the world in recent
years, assures us that the Arabian policy in Egypt was the same as in Persia
and Syria - the local administration was at first left entirely in the hands
of the conquered nation. ^1

[Footnote 1: "Chronique de Jean, eveque de Nikiou" (Nikos), texte Ethiopien,
publie et traduit par H. Zotenberg, Paris, 1883.  This bishop lived in Egypt
during the latter half of the seventh century, that is to say, at the time of
the Arabian invasion.]

     John of Nikios, after describing the anarchical condition of the
religious community in Egypt, the dissensions which distracted it, the
persecutions instituted by the sacred emperor Heraclius, and the joy with
which the inhabitants forsook the Roman for the Moslem yoke, notices the
wisdom of the Arabian policy in retaining native administrative officers. Says
John: "After the Moslem conquest a man named Menas, whom the Emperor (of
Byzantium) made praefect of Lower Egypt, and who despised the Egyptians, was,
nevertheless, retained at his post.  The Moslem also chose another Greek,
named Sinoda, as praefect of the province of Rif, and another, named
Philoxenos, as praefect of Arcadia or Fayoum." Even when Menas was removed
from the government of Alexandria, the Moslem replaced him by John of
Damietta, a Greek who had also been a praefect under the Emperor, and who,
moreover, had successfully exerted himself to save the city from injury by its
Arabian conquerors.  This was his recommendation to them.

     The conquest of Africa was very different from that of Persia, Syria and
Egypt.  In these countries the worship of Caesar had deeply disgusted the
inhabitants with Roman rule, and even where "Christianity" ^2 had supplanted
emperor-worship, the people never became wholly reconciled to the religion of
their conquerors.  The Berbers of Africa, being more remote from Byzantium,
were less troubled by religious disputes.  Neither the worship of Augustus,
nor Bacchus, nor of the reigning emperor, gave them much concern. They were
strangers to both the Latin and Greek tongues, and came but little into
contact with the officials, either secular or sacred, who had been appointed
over them.  Hence they were not divided by schism, and were far from being
disposed to welcome the new race of religious enthusiasts and conquerors.  The
conquest of the other provinces of Rome had been effected by the Moslem in
campaigns, which, ending with the battle of Nevahend (A. D. 641), had lasted
less than ten years.  The conquest of the African provinces of that empire
cost them half a century of fighting.  The country which lay before them
comprised Tripoli to the Tingitane, Central Maghred and Western Maghred.  Two
races occupied it; the seaports were in the hands of the Byzantines, who also
possessed, in the interior, military posts defended by strong garrisons.  The
Byzantine legate reigned at Carthage; Gregory, the patrician, governed at
Sufetula; the rest of the country was filled by the warlike Berbers, chiefly
in Auras, Zab and Hodna, where they had established themselves during the
contests between the Romans and Vandals.

[Footnote 2: It is hardly necessary to remind the intelligent reader that the
so-called "Christianity" of the seventh century bore but slight resemblance to
the Christianity of the present day.]

     After a series of preliminary raids and skirmishes, during which the
Moslem established bases of supplies at Zaoueilah and Barkah, they prepared
for a more extended campaign in A. H. 49.  This was under the chief command of
Akbar-ben-Nafi, who, in A. H. 50, founded the city of Kairoun.  At the end of
twelve years' hard fighting Akbar had penetrated westward so far as Ceuta,
then commanded by Count Julian.  From the flanks of this fortress Akbar first
beheld the limitless ocean of the West and the towering Rock of Hercules,
Calpe (or Gibraltar), beyond which lay the famed land of gold and silver.
Leaving Ceuta on his right, Akbar marched straight on to Tangier.  Here, while
separated from his army, and defended by only 300 cavaliers, he was ambushed
and massacred by the enemy.

     Zohair-ben-Kais, and after him Hasan, having succeeded to the command of
the Moslem forces, other campaigns followed, in which Carthage was won, then
lost, and then won again.  With its second winning the Roman garrisons in
Africa were virtually subdued.  The natives, however, were far from being
conquered.  Under their queen, Kahinah, they held the Arabians in check, and
eventually defeated them.  Africa seemed unconquerable.  After this defeat -
the most terrible that the Moslem had ever sustained - Hasan received orders
from the indomitable caliph to renew the war.  This time Kahinah was defeated
and Kairoun retaken.  The Moslem armies again took up the march for Ceuta.
Hasan was now replaced by Mousa-ben-Nosier, under whose vigorous command Ceuta
was secured, and (A. D. 704) the arms of Arabia were carried to the Western
Ocean.

     Five years later Abou-Zoriah-Tharik-ben-Zaid (better known to us as
Tarik), under the orders of Mousa, passed the Straits of Hercules with one
hundred horse and four hundred foot soldiers, debarked at the Rock, captured
and sacked the town, as well as the neighboring cities of Carteia and
Algeciras, and then returned to Africa rich with spoils.  Next year Tarik
landed with a larger force, better equipped, and boldly advanced to meet the
Gothic army of King Roderic.  Except when the Saracenic vassals of the empire,
whom Valens in 378 had called to the defense of Constantinople, and whose
savage valor had avenged his death by bloodily repulsing the Goths from the
suburbs of the capital, this was the first occasion when the Moslem and the
Gothic arms came into conflict, and here, again, victory was with the Arabs.
The immediate consequence of the action was to open the road to Toledo, and in
an incredibly short space of time nearly the whole of Spain fell into the
hands of the invaders.  The fame of this extraordinary exploit aroused the
jealousy of Mousa, who, crossing from Africa, hastened to complete the
conquest of Spain, and share the vast spoils of Tarik.  By A. H. 94 (A. D.
712) the conquest was completed, and Mousa, like Cortes at a later period,
found himself master of an empire greater and richer than that of the caliph
his master.

     In every country that fell beneath their sway the policy of the Moslem
was the same: they imposed a tribute (usually of about one dinar per capita
per annum) upon the inhabitants, but only so long as they remained kafirs or
infidels.  The moment they accepted the Moslem formula - "There is but one
God" - the tribute was taken off, and they became Mahometans and freemen. The
civil administration of Spain was entrusted to native (Gothic) clerks and
leaders.  The coinage, which began in each country from the moment that
victory was assured, was always an exact imitation of the previous local
coinage.  No change at all is perceptible at first.  For example, Mousa
commenced to strike coins from the moment that the conquest of Spain was
effected, and one of these pieces is still extant.

     In A. H. 37 (A. D. 658), during the civil contest between Ali and
Moawiyah, the latter "bought peace of the Emperor Constans by a round sum of
ready money and the payment of a daily tribute." In A. H. 59 (A. D. 679),
after his repulse from the walls of Constantinople, Moawiyah was fain to
purchase peace from Constantine Pogonatus by an annual tribute of 3,000 libras
of gold, fifty slaves, and fifty Arab horses. ^1 In A. H. 67 (A. D. 686)
Abd-el-Melik, being at that period involved in civil war with the Mardaites,
bought peace of Justinian II. (afterwards called Rhinotmetus) by the payment
of a tribute of 1,000 gold solidi or dinars per annum for ten years.  Down to
this time these coins were struck by Abd-el-Melik, with Roman emblems and
legends upon them.  Six years later the Arabian caliph, having disposed of the
Mardaite trouble, determined to assert his independence of Rome, and by a
token understood of all the world.  He struck gold coins with his own effigy,
holding a drawn sword, as afterwards did Edward III. when he renounced the
same dread authority.  Abd-el-Melik's dinars bore this challenging legend:
"The Servant of God, Abd-el-Melik, Emir-el-Moumenin." These coins Justinian
refused to receive, because, says Zonaras, "It is not permitted to stamp gold
coins with any other effigy but that of the emperor of Rome." ^2 Whereupon a
war was declared by Justinian, which lasted until the latter was driven from
his throne by a civil revolt, which occurred in A. D. 695.  Justinian was
banished by his successor to the Crimea, where he married the daughter of a
Mongol chieftain.  He afterwards escaped to Bulgaria, where he married the
daughter of a Gothic chieftain.  Then, in A. D. 705, he appeared before
Constantinople with an army of barbarians, and re-entered it in triumph.
Among his first acts was the striking of a gold solidus, with which he hurled
back the religious challenge of the Arab.  Upon this solidus appears the
legend: "Our Lord Justinian, the Servant of Christ."

[Footnote 1: Freeman (pp. 90, 91) says "pieces" of gold, or dinars.]

[Footnote 2: Consult Theophanus (pp. 751-818); Cedrenus (eleventh century) and
Zonaras (twelfth century) on this subject.]

     The monetary system of Abd-el-Melik consisted of coins of purely Arabian
type and legend.  The ratio between silver and gold was that oriental
valuation of 6 1/2 for 1, which marked for several centuries the line of
separation between the Moslem and Christian States of Europe.  The Arabian
ratio was fixed by striking dinars, each of approximately 65 grains, and
silver dirhems of approximately 43 grains, and valuing ten of the latter, in
the law, at one of the former.  Unless the purely economical considerations,
which will presently be adduced, are deemed sufficient, it is difficult to
discern the reasons for establishing this peculiar ratio; yet practical
politicians will assure us that economical considerations have never been the
principal influence which determined the policy of nations. ^1

[Footnote 1: "The events of the last few years on both sides of the Atlantic
have proved that men are not now, any more than they ever were, chiefly
governed by calculations of material profit and loss" (Bryce, "Holy Roman
Empire," p 301).]

     The ratio of 6 1/2 may have been a reaction from the coinages effected
under the ratio of 13, mentioned by Herodotus concerning the ancient Persian
tributes; ^2 or it may have been due to the fact that in all the western
countries conquered by the Moslem, silver was chiefly in the hands of the
people, whilst gold was in those of their rules; and the great alteration
which was made in their relative value was a covert bribe to gain the
suffrages of the former and reconcile them to Moslem government and religion.
But it is far more likely to have originated in a simpler and straightforward
manner.  The Athenian, Persian, Egyptian and Roman governments had
successively absorbed a large portion of the profits derived from the Indian
trade, by lowering the value of silver (in which their tributes were chiefly
received) in the Occident to half its value in the Orient.  By making the
bullion trade a strictly governmental monopoly, as Cicero informs us was the
case with Rome, that hierarchy obtained twice as much gold for silver in India
as it paid for it in Europe.  This policy, except where it was swept away by
the influence of Islam, was pursued until the Roman empire expired. The
Arabian government was more considerate of its merchants: it threw open the
oriental trade to all true believers; it imposed no restrictions; it was
averse, at least at that period, to the imposition of covert exactions. During
the seventh century of our era the ratio in India was about 6 1/2 for 1, and
this high valuation of silver in India continued substantially unchanged until
the fifteenth century.  It was at the Indian ratio that the Moslem struck
their coins of gold and silver.

[Footnote 2: Thalia, p. 95.  Some warrant for this hypothesis is afforded by
the Brazilian milreis, which, though derived from that of Portugal, contains
only half the same quantity of fine metal ("Hist. Money and Civilization,"
chap. xii.)]

     Whatever the true reason of this policy, it was certainly more profitable
for the Moslem conquerors than had they adopted the contemporaneous Roman
ratio of 12 for 1.  A brief computation will serve to measure this profit.
After consulting those Arabian authors who have treated the subject, and
making allowances for instances where exaggeration seems to have been
employed, we have ventured to roughly estimate the Moslem spoil of the
precious metals, including the tributes exacted from the conquered nations
during the first eighty years of the conquest, at about five million marks'
weight of gold and about one hundred million marks' weight of silver.

     In determining at what relation of value of one to the other metal this
mass of gold and silver should be coined, Abd-el-Melik may be reasonably
supposed to have indulged in some such considerations as the following:

     "We have a vast treasure before us to coin.  At what ratio of value
between silver and gold shall we coin it?  Our armies are invincible; the
populations are tired of Roman rule; our conquests will extend.  Arabia is a
commercial country, watered by three oceans - the Mediterranean connects it
with the West, the Euxine with the North, and the Red Sea with India and
China.  The influx of the precious metals, due at first to our arms, will be
continued by means of trade.  In the Roman empire and its feudatories the
coinages have hitherto been conducted on the basis of 12 weights of silver for
1 of gold; in the Orient the ratio is 6 or 7 for 1.  It is evident that the
most profitable, perhaps also the most important, part of our commerce will be
with what we soon hope to call our Indian empire; and it is more desirable
that our moneys should harmonize with the Indian than with the Roman coinages.
It must also not be forgotten that to conform with the Roman coinages would
involve us in pecuniary loss, whereas to follow the oriental ratio would
afford us a profit.  Judging from the proportions of the metallic spoil thus
far captured, we shall secure about twenty times as much (in weight of) silver
as gold, and assuming that we eventually secure 100,000,000 marks of silver,
and coin it at the Indian ratio, our fund will amount to 1,120,000,000 dinars;
whereas if we coin at the Roman ratio, it will only come to 746 2/3 millions.
Let those who are learned in the art of arithmetic make the calculation for
themselves.  The only questions left to consider are these: Can we permanently
maintain this ratio of value - so different from that established by the
coinages of the Roman empire, a large portion of which, however, is already
subject to our arms?  Will not our gold dinars flow out and silver metal come
into Arabia to take its place?  and, if so, will not this prove injurious to
our affairs?  These questions can be answered very readily.  As we have
already gained control of the Egyptian, and, please Allah, will soon have
control of the Spanish mines, from what other country is the silver metal to
come which is to buy our gold dinars? Answer - No country.  As we have driven
the Romans from the Mediterranean, and will soon control the commerce of
maritime Europe, whither could our gold dinars go outside of the influence of
our own trade?  Answer - Nowhere.  If, nevertheless, such an unlikely thing
should come to pass, how much should we loss were our 280,000,000 of gold
dinars to flow out and we received for them 280,000,000 dinars' worth of
silver at our own ratio of valuation?  Answer - Nothing.  Then what is the
objection to the adoption of such a ratio of value between silver and gold as
best suits our present interests and our probable future trade with India?
Answer - None whatever." ^1

[Footnote 1: At the ratio of 6 1/2 there would be 56 dinars and 84 dirhems
struck from the mark weight; at the ratio of 12 there would be 56 of each coin
struck from the mark weight.  The difference in the total sum would amount to
373 1/3 millions of dinars.]

     Encouraged, more than likely, by reflections of this character, the
Arabians commenced, under Abd-el-Melik, that system of purely Arabian coinages
which continued until the center of their empire was virtually removed to
India, and they had lost control of both the mines and the commerce of Europe.

     These coinages were for several centuries conducted on the basis of 6 1/2
weights of coined silver as the equivalent in value of I weight of coined
gold.  This was not only a peculiar ratio; it differed so greatly from the
Roman one of 12 for I that it can never fail to be recognized wherever and
whenever it existed - whether in the countries of Islam or elsewhere.
Moreover, when found elsewhere, it is an infallible sign of Moslem connection
or influence.  As in the remains of antiquity the presence of silk and
porcelain denotes commerce with China; of spices, with India; of tin, with
Britain; of amber, with Iestia; and of papyrus, with Egypt, so, in the
monuments of the mediaeval ages, does the establishment of this peculiar ratio
of value between silver and gold in coins denote intercourse with the
Arabians.  Wherever this ratio was adopted merely by giving currency to
Arabian coins at Arabian values, the intercourse with Arabians may have been
limited to commerce.  Where the ratio was established by means of local
coinages, based on the Moslem valuation and supplemented by the use of Moslem
types, the former implies the presence of Moslem artificers.  Where to the
Moslem ratio and types was added the Moslem religious formula, "There is but
one God," this definitively bespeaks the presence of Moslem influence, and a
formal protest against polytheism.  All these will be found in some mediaeval
States - the Moslem ratio, type, and religious formula; hence their historical
significance.

     When it is borne in mind that the Moslem empire was a sacred one, that
the Moslem coinages, like the Roman or Byzantine, were employed as a means of
disseminating religious doctrine, and that, also like the Roman, the legal
ratio of value between coins of the precious metals, once fixed, remained
unchanged for centuries, the importance of the Moslem ratio for solving other
historical problems will be better understood.  For example, how far did the
Moslem conquest and occupation of France extend?  and how long did it last?
are questions to which a far more reliable answer will be found in the
Merovingian coinages than in the popular story of Martel's victory. ^1 To what
extent, at a given era, was Christianity established in Gothic countries, is a
problem to be solved much more satisfactorily by means of the coinages and
valuations which prevailed in those countries than by listening to the airy
fictions of the Quindecemviral College.

[Footnote 1: One of the earliest Arabian dinars, now in the Paris collection,
was found at Autun, with two Merovingian coins (Lavoix's Catalogue, No. 26).]