I shall refrain from any discussion of the merits of either view for the present. I will only add one observation: Mr Soutzo (p. 17) regards the Italian weight standards as borrowed from the East, and starts with bronze as the earliest stage in the history of the weights. The only clearly defined unit of Roman growth according to him is the Centupondium, which he says is the same as the Assyrian talent. From this the Romans obtained their own libra or pound by dividing their talents into 100 parts instead of 60. We shall find hereafter that this is an untenable position, but meantime it is interesting to find the Centupondium, or sum of 100 _asses_ taken by an unprejudiced writer as the basis of the Roman system in the light of the fact that the ancient Roman value of the cow is likewise 100 _asses_. If Mr Soutzo was right, our thesis finds complete support, as it would plainly appear in that case that, although the Italians received their weight-unit ready made, they found it nevertheless necessary to equate the new metallic unit so obtained to the cow, the older unit of barter. In Sicily we have an opportunity not merely of finding the approximate value of a cow in gold without having to deal with the disturbing question of the relative value of copper and silver, but also of showing that Soutzo’s relation of 120:1 as that between silver and copper in early Italy must certainly be wrong, and that Mommsen’s view is in the main correct. The famous Sicilian poet Epicharmus has left us a line: “Buy me straightway a nice heifer calf for ten _nomoi_[188].” As regards the value of the _nomos_, or _nummus_ (νόμος or νοῦμμος), Pollux supplies us with some definite information.