coin of 5 annas is a thing quite distinct from the _dirhams_ mentioned in the same table, or else why is there a difference in nomenclature? The _dirham_ is probably the usual _dirham_ of 43-40 grains. But as we find 53 of these _dirhams_ = 16 _stirs_ of Col. IV. accordingly the _stir_ of Col. IV. = 132 grains Troy, which is plainly the Babylonian shekel, and 73 _dirhams_ = 25 _stirs_. This gives an average for the _stir_ of 126 grains Troy, which again points directly to the light shekel of 130 grains Troy, or in other words to the weight of the Daric. Another piece of evidence in the same direction is the fact that the Sassanide kings struck their silver coins on the so-called Attic standard, which of course was identical with that in use from the earliest times in Asia, as the standard of the Daric. The founder of the Sassanide Dynasty, Ardeshir, struck his first gold coins on this standard (staters of 135-0), whilst all the silver coins of this dynasty are half-staters (65 grains) of the same standard. The statement in Col. I. that each _stir_ has four _dirhams_ probably refers to a later period, when 4 _dirhams_ of the ordinary Muhammedan standard (43 grains Troy) were equivalent to a rupee (180-170 grains). If it should be objected that the _istir_ of the Avesta is the old Persic silver standard of 172 grains, my reply is that as it is evident from what we have seen above that in this _weight_ system there were _sixty_ staters in the _mina_, this must be the _weight_, not the silver _coin_, as there were only _fifty_ staters in the _money_ mina. The ox of the Zend-Avesta according to tradition is therefore rated at 12 _stirs_ or staters of 130 grains of silver each. From the time of Alexander right down to the third century after Christ it is probable that all through the Eastern Mediterranean and Asia Minor gold was to silver as 12:1. If this were so, the ox of the Avesta was worth 130 grs. of gold, that is the weight of a Daric, and of the Homeric ox-unit. Such then are the approximate results that we have been able to obtain regarding the value in gold of an ox in various parts of the ancient world. Of course I do not pretend that they have the same force as if they represented the value of the ox everywhere in one particular epoch, or as if we had found the ox directly equated to gold in every case. But on the other hand the persistency of prices in semi-civilized countries is a fact well known: for example, prices have changed but very slightly in India[208] during a long course of years, for although the silver rupee has sunk to about two-thirds of its nominal value in exchanges for gold, it purchases as much as ever in India. It is likely therefore that the conventional value of the ox would have remained unchanged for a long period of time, and the fact that our approximate values taken from various countries and from various centuries so closely coincide is a strong indication that such was the case.