kind.[353] If the sacrificer wished to redeem his animal, etc., he must pay twenty per cent more than the priest's assessment of it.[354] Until the Exile the precious metals were paid by weight.[355] The rings represented on the Egyptian monuments were of wire with a round section. Those found by Schliemann at Mykenae are similar, or they are spirals of wire.[356] In Homer cattle are the unit of value, but metals are used as media. The talent is mentioned only in reference to gold.[357] Possibly Schurz is right in supposing that fluctuations in the value of cattle and sheep forced the classical nations to use metal.[358] The metals were in the shape of caldrons or tripods, in which fines were imposed. They may have been accumulated because used as money, or a great man who had many clients may have needed many for meals.[359] "The transition from the old simple mode of exchange to the use of currency can nowhere be better traced than amongst the Romans." Fines were set in cattle or sheep, but copper was used as well, weighed when sold. Then the state set the shape and fineness of the bars and stamped them with the mark of a sheep or ox. Later the copper was marked to indicate its value, and so money was reached.[360] Amongst Germans and Scandinavians the cow was the primitive unit of value.[361] It was superseded by metals used in rings to make out the fractions.[362] +154. The evolution of money.+ It is evident that money was developed out of trade by instinctive operations of interest, and that money existed long before the idea of it was formed. The separate operations were stimulated only by the most immediate and superficial desires, but they set supply and demand in motion and produced economic value thousands of years before any man conceived of value. The rational analysis of value and money is not yet satisfactorily made. There are, therefore, points of view in which money is the most marvelous product of the folkways. The unconsciousness of the operation and the secondary results of it are here in the strongest contrast. Inside of the we-group useful property was shared or exchanged in an infinite variety of ways, according to variations of circumstances. We cannot follow the customs which thence arose, because the phenomena have been reported to us without distinction between intragroup and intergroup transactions. We see groups of predominant wares set out in intergroup trade, and only slowly is a smaller number segregated to be the general terms of every trade. The inconvenience of barter was only slowly felt, and could not have been a motive until trade was customary and familiar. In intragroup exchanges the predominant ware was more easily differentiated. It was the thing greatly desired. Here the amulet-trophy-ornament was important for the elements of superstition, vanity, and magic which it bore. In intergroup trade the utility of the object predominated.