by David Astle
As Pergamum marks the beginning of that period when Delos and Rhodes were leading money and slave markets of the world, it would seem that some kind of agreement must have existed between those who controlled trade and finance at all these points.
Considering the essential secrecy that necessarily attends the corrupt operations of so-called bankers, it may be quite reasonable to suppose, that in Pergamum itself, in Aegina, Delos, Rhodes and for that matter, a dozen other trade centres, there was a class of persons who very well understood each other’s interests, who very likely were related by racial and religious custom, and whose supra-nationalism transcended all city boundaries and borders of states.
Money was their trade, and they married only amongst their own group as the best protection towards maintaining inviolable the secret of that financial hegemony they had established internationally, and which in a way had put them above kingship; no doubt in the fevered imagination of some of them, one with the gods. Through the illusion of the establishment of silver as the standard of value internationally or nationally, and whose supply they totally controlled, it is true, they actually did wield that power which formerly had been the sole prerogative of the gods in the cities of ancient Sumeria, through their sons upon earth, the Priest-Kings; even if only as the venal and self-interested men that they were.
The activities of this group towards the instigation of wars, and disturbances never ceased. Out of the needs of peoples in despair came their advantage and strengthened control; and because they controlled the fiscal affairs of the temples, whose very existence became completely intertwined with their activities,[293] it may safely be said that they controlled the oracular pronouncements which so often could decide yea or nay to war. Out of rumour generally they guided the moods of the peoples. Such wars were necessary, as much as today, towards the maintenance of their great arms industry and their continued control through the sale of the best and newest of weapons to that new “conqueror” who promised most of all to serve their purposes in the renewal of their stocks of treasure, so necessary to maintain “confidence,” and their stocks of mine slaves. war also revived that feverish and competitive demand for that treasure; and in the hurly-burly it created, merchants gladly accepted as money anything offered from seemingly reputable sources including that abstract money denoted by ledger credit page entry; the loan of which but cost the lender the entry by slave scribe on the clay tablet, though immense real wealth might be offered as “collateral” as against failure to repay such alleged loan by the date stipulated.
The far-flung activities of Apollonius, economic manager to Ptolemy Philadelphus, as recorded by Professor Rostovtsev,[294] give but a glimpse of this interlocking control by an Aramaic speaking middle class, within which the Hebrew may also have been an interwoven thread. Perhaps the weft, although not the weft and the warp.
For indeed there is no evidence that he was all, and that such magnates that controlled the economy of the ancient world were many of them Jews. Nevertheless the claim by the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia[295] that the Hebrews, as a people who absorbed foreign cultures, yet rigidly maintain their national identity caused them to be most appreciated by the brilliant and ambitious Alexander, should not be lightly dismissed. Alexander was trainee of Aristotle, who, as husband of the niece of Hermias, Banker-Tyrant of Assos and Atameus, certainly should have come to learn something of the true meaning of Money Power. Alexander therefore, presumably had substantial understanding of the meaning of money relative to Kingship.
The Hebrew, as equally skilled in money and trade as the Aramean and equally fluent in Aramaic, since he was established in most of the important cities of the ancient world, from the Pillars of Hercules to India in which Aramaic, certainly existed as lingua franca, at least in those cities between India and the Levant, could very well have been a major part of that vehicle constructed by Alexander to spread his dream of Pan-Hellenism. His special concessions to Jaddua, High Priest in Jerusalem in 333 B.C. in respect to those Jews of both Judea and Babylon, and also in respect to the foundation of Alexandria,[296] certainly suggest deference to a power far beyond that power visibly represented by that relatively small group of people who dwelt at Jerusalem and on the highlands by which it was surrounded. According to the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia: during the siege of Tyre by Alexander, Jaddua, High Priest of Jerusalem, not wishing to offend Persia and Darius, had refused Alexander the troops and provisions he sought.[297] After the fall of Tyre, Alexander advanced on Jerusalem, ancient ally of Tyre as the assistance of Hiram, King of Tyre towards the building of the Temple of Solomon will call to mind;[298] undoubtedly with the intention of reducing that city should no satisfactory settlement be reached.
As Alexander neared the Temple, so the story goes, the High Priest clothed in full vestments of gold and purple, and the Priests in their sacerdotal robes, and a great multitude dressed in white, went out to meet him, the decision having no doubt been arrived at that discretion was the better part of valour. Alexander, seeing the High Priest and his mitre on which was written the Name of God, reverenced the Name and saluted the High Priest. He said he had seen a figure such as the High Priest in a dream, who had told him he would give him Lordship over the Persian Hosts.
Then Alexander entered the city, and, as was his usual custom with submissive cities, he sacrificed to their God.
The fact that he gave the Jews of Palestine such special concessions as a years remission of taxes which was also extended to the Jews of Babylonia, and specially invited any Jew to settle in his city of Alexandria, would suggest that the visible help refused him by Jaddua had been more than made up for by assistance of a less visible nature such as, it might reasonably be expected, had helped to secure the fall of Babylon, to Cyrus, ancestor of Darius, and founder of the Achaemenid Dynasty of Persia.[299]
The stress on the Aramaic speaking middle class of all those “Empires” from the assyrian, until the successors to alexander, and perhaps beyond, is more than justified in view of the results of the studies of various scholars. if aramaic was the language of officialdom under the achaemenid rulers of the persian empire, and remained so under alexander and the successors, it may reasonably be supposed that the official and merchant classes that used aramaic as their everyday language, had gone far beyond the borders of the persian empire, both to the east and to the west. as has been previously pointed out, with that aramaic interstratum moved also to the east and west, the agents of that money power centred in mesopotamia, heir to the secrets, not only of the sumerian priesthood, but of the priesthood of much more ancient times, selling as they went along the idea of the use of precious metal money.
No sooner had short sighted rulers instituted the use of precious metal money, than the agents of such money power, to whom by now the ruler was beholden for supplies of bullion, were setting up “modern” banking houses. in short order the various practices of dubious legality that are the foundations of such money power would be instituted; firstly that of the creation, relatively without limit, of abstract units of exchange as through the institution of ledger credit page entry money, under whatever cover to create legality, and which the banker claimed was backed by his “Credit”!--(As if he could have more “Credit” than any sovereign people and their ruler!)--and which was usually backed in final analysis by little or nothing other than the sanction of a foolish prince. Secondly, from the point of view of maintenance of “confidence” so far as lesser trade was concerned, was the issue of intrinsically valueless facsimiles of existing precious metal coinage, for every one of which a customer who accepted them in the exchanges, thought that there was a precious metal original lodged in the local temple or acropolis.
To our Lord Jesus Christ, Aramaic was the everyday language that would have enabled Him to travel, and converse freely with scholar, poet, priest, and merchant, certainly as far East as Peshawar. Aramaic is used in the Syrian Christian Church, in the Jewish liturgy, and still lives in the villages of the A
nti-Lebanon, in South East Anatolia, and on the Eastern shores of Lake Urmia in Armenia.[300]
Thus the opinion of Emil G.H. Kraeling[301] that the Aramean was the vehicle by which the so called eternal values of Hellas and Israel were communicated throughout the Orient, in a way concurs with the Opinion of the Jewish Encyclopedia referred to above.[302] That those values denoted by Hellas withered and almost disappeared, while those as denoted by Israel through Christianity, flourished until relatively recently, is merely further proof that money power must destroy the body on which it feeds, and is nourished, and the body it fed on at the time herein recorded, that is, immediately after Alexander, was Hellas, and indeed, Israel itself. It cannot flourish alongside blind belief and simple faith which instinctively tear off its impudent claims as they gnaw their way into the very heart of the Tree of Life.
Nevertheless, out of Babylonian money power itself, oblivious it seems to its own real self interest, carrying Christianity as far as those limits unto which its total hegemony prevailed, Christianity itself rose as an island of love and goodness in an ocean of hatred, confusion, greed, and depravity that had come to exist as the ultimate result of at least three thousand years of the depredations of such private money creative power. With one convulsive shrug it threw off the snake like coils, reestablishing thereafter the natural order of life, of god, priest-king and priesthood and the people, all living as was ordained, with faith, piety, and sure belief. Thereafter, for a thousand years, International Money Power can only be faintly discerned, as a smouldering ember; a fire not entirely extinguished; evidence thereof being an occasional wisp of smoke as it waited for a day when a certain evil wind might blow, and flames come forth again to deal man total woe.
Voices from the Dust
Before ever the lust seized the Greeks for the precious metal pieces on which were recorded their laws in respect to the unit of exchange; that is, before Greece became completely thrall to the international bullion and slave interests, money had existed among them in various forms for a long time previously.[303] Little knowledge remains of such systems of exchange as existed prior to the assumption of international bullion and slave interests of total hegemony over a great deal of Greece, but exist such systems did, and the significance of its monetary units issued against state expenses, and as opposed to issue by private persons as against collateral security, was understood, as the evidence of the Sparta of Lycurgus indicates.
On this subject Babelon, French Numismatist of the 19th Century says: “Having established the existence of these salmons or spits of iron that were the circulating money of the Pewloponnese, it will be easy for us to define clearly the part played by this prince (Pheidon). He was not inventor of money, but the same as Servius Tullius, a reformer. He introduced into the Peloponnese a definite system of weights and measures, instead of the numerous systems that had thrown confusion and disorder into commercial relations; he adapted the weight of the new money to the new system of weights, and he officially abolished the old and cumbersome iron money, of which he consecrated several samples in the Temple at Argos.”[304]
Numismatists airily dismiss the suggestions of the symbols of money as being indicated in ancient times on leather, wood, or baked clay, which are found in both Cedrenus, Suidas, and Seneca,[305] but study of so-called primitive currencies of today, such as the shell moneys of Oceania, leave little doubt that our forefathers, fully understanding of the true philosophy of money, may very well have used such intrinsically valueless materials to record the values of their tangible money, prior to the commencement of precious metal coinage; in the same way as the Melanesians and Micronesians have used shells for such purpose, from time immemorial.[306]
There can be no doubt that those social organizations such as existed prior to the establishment of precious metals as a standard by which values were assessed, were often, in the case of the Northern Mediterranean and Anatolia, erected on a structure, of which integral part was system of exchange constructed according to the teachings of such philosophy.
However, that the numismatists dismiss the significance of such money and question it as having ever existed, is not surprising considering that they merely record the money towards the creation of which the controllers of bullion supplied the material; thus in a way controlling its issue and such order of society as it gave rise to, and therefore the numismatists themselves. Consequently the dismissal by the numismatists of other materials for money and its symbols, not internationally desirable or controllable by their masters might be expected.
According to Professor Fritz Heichelheim in his Ancient Economic History, Suidas ascribes the monetary use of leather and “ostrakina” (pieces of shell and pottery) to the romans previous to numa pompilius. shells appear on the coins of magna graecia, especially those of tarentum, which may be an indication that shell money was known in the italy[307] of historical memory, at that time. Oyster shells discovered by Heinrich Schlieman in the Royal graves at Mycenae together with obsidian weapons, indicate that in an age when obsidian weapons were still in use, also remained respect for certain shells that in former times had been evincement of stored wealth.[308] But equally as any other, such a currency only had value insomuch as it carried with it the will of the ruler.
In the Hittite language there are many words almost identical to their counterpart in Latin:[309]
Troy fell to the Greeks under Agamemnon in 1250 B.C. according to the modern dating and the opinion of Herodotus. That Troy was the outpost of the Hittite empire that controlled the Dardanelles, and that the rulers of Troy spoke a Hittite language, is reasonable supposition.[310] The destruction of Bog-Haz Koi, the Hittite capital is now accepted as being 1225 B.C. This event, which could only have taken place as the result of investment by experienced, disciplined, and well organized forces, with an excellent engineering corps, considering that so many well walled cities had fallen before them, brought the Hittite world to fragmentation.[311]
Therefore during the years from the time of the crossing of the Dardanelles and the sack of Troy, to the time of the total collapse that must have followed the destruction of Bog-Haz Koi, refugees would have sought freedom by sailing westward, which direction it seems was the only way to go. To the North and North-West were the “Peoples of the Sea,” to the south-east was Assyria, obviously ally of the same “Peoples of the Sea,” and to the south, Ugarit and Alalakh were empty ruins, and the coast to the sinai border occupied by the enemies of the hittites.
Therefore it seems reasonable that the legend of the settlement of Aeneas, refugee from Troy in the territory of Latinus as recorded by Livy[312] the same as most legends, had a basis of fact. This is further shown by the close resemblance between the Hittite, Trojan, Latin languages as pointed out above. According to Dawson[313] the production of leather in the Hittite world was a state monopoly. Such monopoly of leather production would suggest the possibility, if not the likelihood of leather as the material on which the symbols of their money were recorded.
For any state to be as strong as indeed was the Hittite state for a relatively long period of time, and, moreover, stable, it had to control, not merely the issue of the unit of exchange, but also the material of which its visible symbols were made; which, of course had to be total monopoly. The fact that the Hittite state appears to have been one constructed to the same order as those early Mesopotamian cities, that is, of God, Priest-King and priesthood and the devoted living in natural order, makes this deduction the more likely.
The similarity of language, together with the legend relative to Troy would certainly suggest the forefathers of the patricians of Rome derived from Northern Anatolia, and therefore from within the Hittite (or Bog-Haz Koi) sphere of influence. If so, would it not be natural for them to reinstitute the same monetary system amongst themselves as they had known in their homelands?
The numismatists and historians date the Aes Grave, considered by them to be the first true metallic currency of Rome, from 338 B.C.[314] accep
ting the opinion of Professor Haeberlin.[315] What then did Rome use for money prior to that date considering the relatively exact property valuations and taxes of Servius? That they used rough lumps of copper (Aes Rude) as everyday money, cannot be accepted. There is no vestige of a doubt that a refined system existed by no means unrelated to the exchange systems definitely known to have existed in Greece, and in which a form of “Credit,” too often a privately created abstract money, was made use of. This system may have been no more related to silver bullion, than it may have been to any other commodity, and international silver bullion interests would exercise no definite control therein.
There would be no reason whatsoever to discredit Suidas’ remarks in respect to leather and clay money previous to Numa Pompilius. The clay “scarabs” still being unearthed in Etruria may very well represent evidence of the clay units. Leather money of course would long since have perished. nor is there reason to think that the fiduciary money of clay undoubtedly issued by the bankers of athens in the 5th Century B.C.,[316] was in anyway a new idea. As throughout the Near East clay was the principal medium for the keeping of records, the use of clay money follows naturally, and might well be expected in Etruria or wherever the agents of the Babylonian or Greek bankers traded; the clay coin itself also being record; a tangible evincement of the creation of a unit of exchange, or divisible or multiple thereof.
According to Livy, relative to the financing of the cavalry of Rome of the Kings: “Each century had a grant from the treasury of 10.000 aeses for the purchase of horses, with a further grant levied on rich widows of 2000 a year for their feeding and maintenance.”[317]
If then there was neither minted silver or copper at the time of Servius, are we to understand that the rich widows came to the treasury with bags of pieces of rough copper?[318]