CHAPTER XXVII

FISHERIES—ATTEMPTED CORRELATION OF THE PRICE OF FISH THEN AND NOW—SPAWNING

“_When a (fisherman) father casts his net, his fate is in the hands of God. In truth there is no calling which is not better than it._”[855]

The classification of Egyptian society made by Herodotus[856] merits mention if only on account of its unexpected gradations; (A) Priests, (B) Warriors, (C) Cowherds, (D) Swineherds, (E) Tradesmen, (F) Interpreters, (G) Boatmen. The position allotted to the cowherd and swineherd before the tradesman, if startling to modern eyes, characterises most early societies. “For trader,” as Seymour shows, “Homer knows no word.”[857] _Fishermen_, although unnamed but presumably included under boatmen, figure last, a rank consonant with that assigned by the Scribe above.

If their life was socially of the lowest and their toil of the hardest, they must have earned a modest living, even though no tacksman millionaire finds record. We may fairly assume a general and constant demand for fish from (A) the revenues yielded by fisheries, and (B) the taxes paid by fishermen.

Of (A) Lake Mœris affords a striking instance. When the water retired from the lake to the Nile, the daily sale realised one talent of silver (reckoned by Wilkinson at £193 15_s._ 0_d._), and when the current set the other way one-third of that sum, but in all some £45,000 yearly.[858] We learn that the proceeds of these fisheries formed the dowries or allowances for the scents, etc.,[859] of the Queens.

Later on they also received as appanage the revenues of Anthylla famous for its wines, so they fared not badly for pin money. Herodotus[860] informs us that the town “is assigned expressly to the wife of the ruler of Egypt to keep her in shoes. Such has been the custom ever since Egypt fell under Persian rule,” an origin not improbable from Plato’s statement that one district was allotted for toilette purposes to the Persian Queens and called “The Queen’s Girdle.”

(B) The taxes (or revenues) obtained in the Ptolemaic times, ἰχθυηρά, were probably a Government monopoly. They were divided into (_a_) a tax on fishermen of one quarter of the value of the fish caught (τετάρτη ἁλιέων), (_b_) the profits of sale of fish at prices higher than those paid for them direct to the fisherman.

In the Roman period we find τέλος ἰχθυηρᾶς δρυμῶν, or a rent from marshes deep enough at the time of the inundation to contain fish and shallow enough at other times to grow papyri and marsh plants. Leases for fishing and selling papyri, etc., brought good returns. But these returns must be distinguished from other revenues derived from the industry, _e.g._ the fisheries of Lake Mœris, and from a tax paid by the fishermen, both of which seem to correspond with the Ptolemaic “fourth part.” On the other hand the φόρος, no doubt, was a tax paid by fishermen for the right of fishing, or for the use of boats in waters owned by the temples.[861]

The Net, in the marsh country, was not only the most lucrative “engine of encirclement,” but also a double duty paid. In other parts the inhabitants passed their nights upon lofty towers to escape the gnats, but in the marsh land (Herodotus continues), “where are no towers, each man possesses a net instead.[862] By day it serves to catch fish, while at night he spreads it over the bed in which he is to rest and creeping in goes to sleep underneath.” While struck by the resemblance to Goldsmith’s article of furniture,

“A bed by night, a chest of drawers by day,”

we are forced once more to “scrat head,” and very hard. Imagination reels before the mesh of a Net, capable alike of catching a marketable fish and denying a gnat!

Fish intended for immediate use were usually dressed on the boat and quickly dispatched to market; the rest of the catch was opened ashore, split, salted, and hung to dry in the sun. Pictures[863] of all these operations, and examples of splitting knives, survive. Splitting in the earlier eras, for some reason, ran, not sheer down the back, but always rather to one side or other.

Promptness of curing in a hot climate like Egypt was all important. Diodorus, indeed, tells us that practically all fish were at once pickled or salted, a statement confirmed by Julius Pollux’s mention of the Egyptian _tariché_, especially that from Canopus, being exported[864] far and wide, certainly to Palestine, whither “the Egyptian fish came in baskets or barrels.”[865]

Prices of wheat, honey, fish and other wares occur in Spiegelberg’s work,[866] but no attempt is made by him (as far as I know) to correlate the prices in ancient and modern Egypt.

I essay the task more as a _jeu d’esprit_ than for any result of economic value, by means of the _Mugil capito_. This grey mullet has been identified with the ancient _’Ad_, a fish which figures frequently in the representations, _e.g._ in the Tomb of Ti, of Ptahhetep,[867] and of Naqada.[868] Its habit of ascending the Nile from the sea was known and noted by ancient authorities. Strabo, after stating that it, the Dolphin, and the Shad were the only fish so to do, informs us that the Mullet in his upward journey carefully consorted with the Schalls, or Catfish, whose strong spikes afforded it protection against the crocodiles.[869]

We find at the end of the XXth Dynasty, say 1200 B.C., that 300 of _Ireth_ fish, 100 of _Shena’_, and 800 _’Ad_ (each lot) fetched 1 _kite_ of silver—the _kite_ being 1/10 of a _deben_ of 91 _grammes_. Although in the XVIIIth Dynasty gold had been just twice as valuable as silver, at this time silver stood to gold in a ratio of 1⅔ to 1.

Thus 100 _Shena’_, 300 _Ireth_ (both of which are as yet unidentified) and 800 _’Ad_ fish were (each lot) worth 91/10 × ⅗, _i.e._ 5·46 _grammes_ of gold.

Now one sovereign weighs 123·27447 grains, and as 11/12 of this is gold it contains 113·0016 grains of gold. As a _gramme_ equals 15·432 grains, the value of 5·46 _grammes_ of gold thus works out at about 14 shillings and 11 pence to the nearest farthing. The whole calculation, however, depends on the assumption that the _kite_ is known to be exactly 9·1 _grammes_.

This, the latest estimate of its probable weight, can only be an estimate, for the Egyptians of the XVIIIth Dynasty, at any rate, did not make weights to a minute fraction of a _gramme_. A calculation therefore to the nearest farthing is somewhat meaningless, unless the weight of the _kite_ is determined to be 9·10, and not 9·09 or 9·11 _grammes_. Since the weight is certainly not known to two places of decimals, it is doubtful if it can be regarded as correct to the first place. Hence 14_s._ 11_d._ is not absolutely a more accurate estimate than 15/-.[870]

Assuming for convenience that the _kite_ was worth 15/-, we could have purchased at the end of the XXth Dynasty 800 _’Ad_ fish for this sum. One fish would thus cost (15 × 12)/800 = 9/40 of a penny: but since the Egyptian _Mugil capito_, as sold in the big markets, averages (I am informed) ½ lb., the conclusion of the whole matter is that in the era mentioned 1 lb., or two fish, cost 9/20, or ·45 of a penny. In pre-war days the average marketable price worked out at 2·954 pence per lb., so the Egyptian _Mugil_ in 1913 cost about 6½ times more than _c._ 1200 B.C., while the English _Mugil_ in 1913, which (according to figures kindly furnished me by the Fishmongers Company) averaged 10 to 12 pence per lb., cost about 24 times more.

The Egyptian correlation of 6½ to 1 cannot, it is true, be definitely established until we have data proving that the _kite_ was exactly 9·1 _grammes_, nor can it be accurately applied to other commodities, but it may help us to a rough approximation of what some of their prices were in the XXth Dynasty.[871]

The depreciation of money between the XVIIIth and XXth Dynasties, heavy as it seems, was as nothing to that which ensued in subsequent centuries. Examples of this can be observed in the fall of the Gallienus _tetradrachm_ from about half a crown to one halfpenny in less than a century. Again under Macrianus (260 A.D.) the coinage was so bad and so worthless that the banks closed their doors, but were compelled by the king to open and continue “his divine coinage.” At the time of Diocletian’s Edict on maximum prices (301 A.D.) a _denarius_ (4 _drachmæ_) was reckoned at 1/50000 of a _litra_ of gold, but in Egypt after Constantine’s reign it fell much lower, _e.g._ 432,000 _denarii_ equalled 1 pound.

From the _Papyrus Oxyrh._ 1223 we find the _solidus_ computed at 2,020 × 10,000 = 20,200,000, (!) _denarii_ at the end of the fourth century.[872]

Billon _Denarii_, _i.e._ made out of copper and very little silver, ceased to be coined at Alexandria after A.D. 297, and got utterly depreciated.

We get little farther in our quest of correlation of prices even with other passages; in _Pap. Fayum Towns_ (A.D. 100), of 12 _drachmæ_ for fish; in _Pap. Petrie III._ 107 (_e_), 6, 24 _drachmæ_ for fish (third century B.C.); and in a Papyrus not yet (1918) published, 4 _obols_ and 5 _obols_ for a “male” _Cestreus_, or _Mugil capito_.

With salt fish, again, we have no certain leading. For 2 _dipla_ or double jars of this comestible the price was 2 _drachmæ_, but then their size is uncertain.[873] So again it doth not vantage us much to read of 240 _drachmæ_ being given in A.D. 255 for “a jar of pickled fish” (λεπτίον), because the size of the jar is still undetermined.[874] Nor does “56 _drachmæ_ for 100 pieces of salt fish” (third century A.D.) solve the problem because, although a “piece of salt fish” probably implied some definite weight, we have no data for discovering to what this amounted.[875] Nor again can we deduce anything definite from the statement that in the third century A.D. a jar (κεράμιου) of salt fish fetched 1 _drachma_ 1½ _obols_.

The superior derision with which some writers regard the simple, if inaccurate account, given by Herodotus of the spawning of the Egyptian fish betokens their ignorance of the parable of the beam and the mote.

If Herodotus erred, what (and this I keep reiterating, on the Kipling principle of “lest we forget”) about the theorists for 2300 years as to the procreation of Eels?

Aristotle with his “Entrails of the earth,” Oppian with his “Slime of their bodies,” Helmont with his “May Dew,” others with their “Horse-hair,” and Walton with his “Spontaneous Generation” are they as correct zoologists as the Father of History? With him procreation resulted from a semi-direct if inaccurate connection, but May Dews and Horse-hairs, etc., etc., what do they or what could they do in the galley of contact?

After which outburst I pass to Herodotus.[876]

“Gregarious fish are not found in any numbers in the rivers; they frequent the lagunes, whence, at the season of breeding, they proceed in shoals towards the sea. The males lead the way, and drop their milt as they go, while the females, following close behind, eagerly swallow it down. From this they conceive, and when, after passing some time in the sea, they begin to be in spawn, the whole shoal sets off on its return to its ancient haunts. Now, however, it is no longer the males, but the females, which take the lead: they swim in front in a body, and do exactly as the males did before, dropping little by little their grains of spawn as they go, while the males in their rear devour the grains, each one of which is a fish. A portion of the spawn escapes and is not swallowed by the males, and hence come the fishes which grow afterwards to maturity....

“When the Nile begins to rise, the hollows in the land and the marshy spots near the river are flooded before any other places by the percolation of the water through the river-banks; and these, almost as soon as they become pools, are found to be full of numbers of little fishes. I think that I understand how it is this comes to pass. On the subsidence of the Nile the year before, though the fish retired with the retreating waters, they had first deposited their spawn in the mud upon the banks: and so, when at the usual season the water returns, small fry are rapidly engendered out of the spawn of the preceding year. So much concerning the fish.”

And was the great zoologist Aristotle[877] more accurate in his suggestion as to spawning? “Some surmise that the female becomes impregnated by swallowing the seminal fluid of the male. And there can be no doubt that this proceeding on the part of the female is often witnessed, for at the breeding season the female follows the males and perform the act and strike the males with their mouths under the belly, and the males are thereby induced to part with the sperm sooner and more plentifully.”

The Pahlavi texts tell us that at spawning time or season of excitement fish in pairs travel to and fro a mile in running water. In this coming and going they rub their bodies together, and a kind of sweat drops out between, and both become pregnant.

FOOTNOTES:

[855] Maspero, _Du genre épistolaire chez les Égyptiens_, p. 65 f.

[856] II. 164. Cf., however, II. 47. It is not quite clear whether the order of the list is intentional. If so, it is certainly justifiable from the point of view of primitive or early society.

[857] See p. 65, _antea_.

[858] Herod., II. 149.

[859] Diodorus Siculus, I. 52. Twenty-two different kinds of fish existed in the royal fish ponds of Mœris. Keller, _op. cit._, 330.

[860] II. 98.

[861] See Grenfell and Hunt, _Tebtunis Papyri_, II. 180-1, and I. 49-50. Also Wilcken, _Griechische Ostraka_, I. 137 ff. The craft employed were usually primitive rafts or canoes made of papyrus canes bound together with cords of the same plant. Theophrastus, _Hist. Plantarum_, IV. 8, 2, alludes to them. Pliny, _N. H._, VII. 57, speaks of Nile boats made of papyrus, rushes and reeds, while Lucan, IV. 136, refers to them in

“Conseritur bibula Memphitis cymba papyro.”

[862] II. 95.

[863] See Alan H. Gardiner, _The Tomb of Amenemhat_ (London, 1915), Pl. II, and Petrie, _Medum_, Pl. XII.

[864] _Onomasticon_, VI. 48. A primitive method of curing prevailed in the last century among the Yapoos—“the fisher then _bites out_ a large piece of the fish’s belly, takes out the inside, and hangs the fish on a stick by the fire in his canoe.” See Darwin, _Voyages of Adventure, etc._ (London, 1839), p. 428.

[865] Mish., _Makhshirin_, VI. 3. The Greeks and Copts of the present day, whose enjoined fasts are frequent, rarely split their fish before packing them in large earthen pots.

[866] _Rechnungen aus den Zeit Setis_, I. 87 ff.

[867] Quibell, _The Ramesseum_ (London, 1898), Pl. XXXIII.

[868] J. de Morgan, _Ethnographie Préhistorique_ (Paris, 1897), 193.

[869] Cuvier and Valenciennes, _Op. cit._, XI. p. 62.

[870] In Ridgeway, _The Origin of Metallic Currency_, etc. (Cambridge, 1892), p. 240, is illustrated a fine _Kite_ weight from which one _Kite_ would equal about 140 grains, corresponding to 9·08 _grammes_.

[871] The information as to the average prices and weights of the _Mugil capito_, on which the above calculations were grounded, was obtained from the Department of Supplies in Egypt. “In the markets of Alexandria the weight of the grey mullet varies from 8 to 3 to the _oke_ (2·75 lbs.), say 5½ to 14½ oz. each. The _pre-war_ retail price was for large fish, 3 or 4 to the _oke_, 8 _Piastres_; for small, 8 to the _oke_, 5 Piastres.” The prices in August, 1920, had increased to 20 and 16 _Piastres_ respectively, or nearly two-thirds more.

[872] Cf. _Pap. Oxyrh._ 1430, _Introd._

[873] _Pap. Oxyr._, III. 520, 21, A.D. 143.

[874] _Berliner Griechische Urkunden_, I. 14, col. IV. 18.

[875] _Egyptian Exploration Fund Annual Report_, 1906-7, p. 9.

[876] Bk. II. 93.

[877] _N. H._, V. 5.