Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
STANDARDS OF WEIGHT
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: SOU-STE
del.icio.us it!
|
See also:STANDARDS OF See also:WEIGHT .— For these we have far more See also:complete data than for volumes or even lengths, and can ascertain in many cases the nature of the See also:variations, and their type in each See also:place. The See also:main See also:series on which we shall rely here are those—(1) from See also:Assyria (38) about 800 B.c.; (2) from the eastern See also:Delta of See also:Egypt (29) (Defenneh); (3) from western Delta (28) (See also:Naucratis); (4) from See also:Memphis (44)—all these about the 6th See also:century B.C., and therefore before much interference from the decreasing See also:coin standards; (5) from See also:Cnidus; (6) from See also:Athens; (7) from See also:Corfu; and (8) from See also:Italy (See also:British Museum) (44). As other collections are but a fraction of the whole of these, and are much less completely examined, little if any See also:good would be done by including them in the combined results, though for See also:special types or See also:inscriptions they will be mentioned. 146 grains.--The See also:Egyptian unit was the kat, which varied between 138 and 155 grains (28,29). There were several families or varieties within this range, at least in the Delta, probably five or six in all (29). The See also:original places and See also:dates of these cannot yet be fixed, except for the lowest type of 138-140 grains; this belonged to See also:Heliopolis (7), as two weights (35) inscribed of " the See also:treasury of An " show 139.9 and 140.4, while a See also:plain one from there gives 138.8; the variety 147-149 may belong to Hermopolis (35), according to an inscribed weight. The names of the kat and tema are fixed by being found on weights, the uten by inscriptions; the series was (n), to=kat, to=uten, to= tema. 14'6 gm. 146 146o 14,600. The tema is the same name as the large See also:wheat measure (35), which was See also:worth 30,000 to 19,000 grains of See also:copper, according to Ptolemaic receipts and accounts (Rev. Eg., 1881, 15o), and therefore very likely worth to utens of copper in earlier times when metals were scarcer. The kat was regularly divided into to; but another See also:division, for the See also:sake of interrelation with another See also:system, was ins and 4, Punic variant of the a See also:bath or saton of See also:Phoenicia. One See also:close datum, it trustworthy, would be See also:log of See also:water =See also:Assyrian See also:mina .•. bath about 2200 cub. in. The rabbinical statement of cub. cubit of 21.5 holding 320 logs puts the bath at about 2250 cub. in.; their log-measure, holding six See also:hen's eggs, shows it to be over rather than under this amount; but their reckoning of bath =1 cubit cubed is but approximate; by 21.5 it is 1240, by 25.1 it is 1990 cubic in. The earliest See also:Hebrew system was (log, 4=kab) 3=hin, 6 Z = ( bath, or ? , 5 See also:homer—wet. 'issar6n ro y epha 10— (or kor-dry. 32 cub. in. 128 230 283 2300 23,000 'Issaron (" tenth-See also:deal ") is also called See also:gomer. The log and kab are not found till the later writings; but the ratio of hin to `issarbn is practically fixed in See also:early times by the proportions in Num. xv. 4-9. See also:Epiphanius stating See also:great hin =18 xestes, and See also:holy hin =9, must refer to Syrian xestes, equal to 24 and 12 See also:Roman; this makes holy hin as above, and great hin a See also:double hin, i.e. seah or saton. His other statements of saton = 56 or 50 sextaria remain unexplained, unless this be an See also:error for bath =56 or 5o Syr. sext. and .•. =2290 or 2560 cub. in. The wholesale theory of Revillout (35) that all Hebrew and Syrian See also:measures were doubled by the Ptolemaic revision, while retaining the same names, rests entirely on the resemblance of the names apet and epha, and of log to the Coptic and See also:late measure lok. But there are other reasons against accepting this, besides the improbability of such a See also:change. The Phoenician and old Carthaginian system was (18)—log, 4=kab, 6=saton, 3o=See also:torus, 31 cub. in. 123 740 22,200 valuing them by 31 Sicilian =41 See also:Attic modii (See also:Josephus, above). The old Syrian system was (18)—cotyle, 2=Syr. xestes, 18=sabitha or See also:salon, 21 cub. in. 41 740 also Syr. xestes, 45=marls, 2=metretes or 41 185o 3700 The later or Seleucidan system was (18) cotyle, 2=Syr. xestes, go=Syr. metretes, 22 44 '12=collathan, 2=bath-artaba; 11r0 2220 artaba. scarcely found except in the eastern Delta, where it is See also:common (29); and it is known from a See also:papyrus (38) to be a Syrian weight. The uten is found =6=245, in Upper Egypt (rare) (44). Another division (in a papyrus) (38) is a See also:silver weight of Ta kat =about 88—perhaps the Babylonian siglus of 86. The uten was also binarily divided into 128 peks of See also:gold in See also:Ethiopia; this may refer to another See also:standard (see 129) (33). The Ptolemaic copper coinage is on two bases—the uten, binarily divided; and the Ptolemaic five shekels (1050), also binarily divided. (This result is from a larger number than other students have used, and study by diagrams.) The theory (3) of the derivation of the uten from 3gls- cubic cubit of water would See also:fix it at 1472, which is accordant; but there seems no authority either in volumes or weights for taking 1500 utens. Another theory (3) derives the uten from 1i,Iuo of the cubic cubit of 24 digits, or better
of 2063 ; that, however, will only See also:fit the very lowest variety of the uten, while there is no See also:evidence of the existence of such a cubit. The kat is not unusual in See also:Syria (44), and among the See also:haematite weights of See also:Troy (44) are nine examples, See also:average 144, but not of extreme varieties.
129 grs. ; 258 grs. parentreof ssevarald otherB systems; became the
7750' '5,500' and its derivatives became more widely spread 465,000.
than any other standard. It was known in two
forms—one system (24) of--
See also:urn, 6o=sikhir, 6=See also:shekel, ro=See also: This is the system of the " Babylonian " talent, by See also:Herodotus=7o minae Euboic, by See also:Pollux=7o minae Attic, by See also:Aelian=72 minae Attic, and, therefore; about 470,000 grains. In Egypt this is found largely at Naucratis (28, 29), and less commonly at Defenneh (29). In both places the See also:distribution, a high type of 129 and a See also:lower of 127, is like the monetary and See also:trade varieties above noticed; while a smaller number of examples are found, fewer and fewer, down to 118 grains. At Memphis (44) the shekel is scarcely known, and a mina weight was there converted into another standard (of 200). A few barrel weights are found at See also:Karnak, and several See also:egg-shaped shekel weights at Gebelen (44) ; also two cuboid weights from there (44) of i and io utens are marked as 6 and 6o, which can hardly refer to any unit but the heavy shekel, giving 245. Hultsch refers to Egyptian gold rings of See also:Dynasty XVIII. of 125 grains. That this unit penetrated far to the See also:south in early times is shown by the See also:tribute of Kush (34) in Dynasty XVIII.; this is of 8oi, 1443 and 23,741 kats, or 15 and 27 manehs and 71 talents when reduced to this system. And the later Ethiopic gold unit of the pek (7), or i5 of the uten, was 10-8 or more, and may therefore be the sikhir or obolos of 21.5. But the fraction s}8, or a continued binary division repeated seven times, is such a likely mode of See also:rude subdivision that little stress can be laid on this. In later times in Egypt a class of large See also:glass scarabs for funerary purposes seem to be adjusted to the shekel (30). Whether this system or the Phoenician of 224 grains was that of the See also:Hebrews is uncertain. There is no doubt but that in the Maccabean times and onward 218 was the shekel; but the use of the word darkemon by See also:Ezra and See also:Nehemiah, and the probabilities of their See also:case, point to the daragmaneh, cio maneh or shekel of Assyria; and the mention of s shekel by Nehemiah as See also:poll tax nearly proves that the 129 and not 218 grains is intended, as 218 is not divisible by 3. But the Maccabean use of 218 may have been a reversion to the older shekel; and this is strongly shown by the fraction 4 shekel (I Sam. ix. 8), the continual mention of large decimal See also:numbers of shekels in the earlier books, and the certain fact of See also:loo shekels being =mina. This would all be against the 129 or 258 shekel, and for the 218 or 224. There is, however, one good datum if it can be trusted: 300 talents of silver (2 See also:Kings xviii. 14) are 800 talents on See also:Sennacherib's See also:cylinder (34), while the 30 talents of gold is the same in both accounts. Eight See also:hundred talents on the Assyrian silver standard would be 267--0r roundly 30o—talents on the heavy trade or gold system, which is therefore probably the Hebrew. Probably the 129 and 224 systems coexisted in the See also:country; but on the whole it seems more likely that 129 or rather 258 grains was the Hebrew shekel before the Ptolemaic times —especially as the loo shekels to the mina is paralleled by the following See also:Persian system (Hultsch)-- shekel, 65o0=mina .. m.. i . 6o.=.talent . of gold = .. .na 6o=talent of trade, 120 grs. 6450 7750 387,000 465,000 the Hebrew system being gerah, 2o=shekel, too=maneh, 3o=talent, 12.9 grs. 258? 25,800 774,000 and, considering that the two Hebrew cubits are the Babylonian and Persian See also:units, and the volumes are also Babylonian, it is the more likely that the weights should have come with these. From the See also:east this unit passed to See also:Asia See also:Minor; and six multiples of 2 to 20 shekels (ay. 127) are found among the haematite weights of Troy (44), including the See also:oldest of them. On the See also:Aegean. See also:coast it often occurs in early coinage (17)—at See also:Lampsacus 131—129, See also:Phocaea 256—254, See also:Cyzicus 252—247, Methymna 124.6, &c. In later times it was a main unit of See also:North Syria, and also on the Euxine, leaden weights of See also:Antioch (3), Callatia and Tomis being known (38). The mean of these eastern weights is 7700 for the mina, or 128. But the leaden weights of the See also:west (44) from Corfu, &c., average 7580, or 126.a; this standard was kept up at Cyzicus in trade See also:long after it was lost in coinage. At See also:Corinth the unit was evidently the Assyrian and not the Attic, being 129.6 at the earliest (17) (though modified to double Attic, or 133, later) and being =3, and not into 2 drachms. And this agrees with the mina being repeatedly found at Corcyra, and with the same standard passing to the See also:Italian coinage (17) similar in weight, and in division into a—the heaviest coinages (17) down to 400 B.C. (Terina, See also:Velia, See also:Sybaris, Posidonia, See also:Metapontum, See also:Tarentum, &c.) being none over 126, while later on many were adjusted to the Attic, and See also:rose to 134. Six disk weights from See also:Carthage (44) show 126. It is usually the case that a unit lasts later in trade than in coinage; and the prominence of this standard in Italy may show how it is that this mina (18 unciae = 7400) was known as the " See also:Italic " in the days of See also:Galen and Dioscorides (2). 126 grs. A variation on the main system was made by forming a mina of 5o shekels. This is one of the Persian series (gold), 6300. and the 4 of the Hebrew series noted above. But it is most striking when it is found in the mina See also:form which distinguishes it. Eleven weights from Syria and Cnidus (44) (of the curious type with two breasts on a rectangular See also:block) show a mina of 6250 (125'0); and it is singular that this class is exactly like weights of the 224 system found with it, but yet quite distinct in standard. The same passed into Italy and Corfu (44), averaging 6000—divided in Italy into unciae (iY, and scripulae (-,A 8), and called litra (in Corfu?). It is known in the coinage of Hatria (18) as 6320. And a See also:strange division of the shekel in 10 (probably therefore connected with this decimal mina) is shown by a series of bronze weights (44) with four curved sides and marked with circles (British Museum, place unknown), which may be Romano-Gallic, averaging 125+10. This whole class seems to cling to sites of Phoenician trade, and to keep clear of See also:Greece and the north—perhaps a Phoenician form of the 129 system, avoiding the sexagesimal multiples. If this unit have any connexion with the kat, it is that a kat of gold is worth 15 shekels or 4 mina of silver; this agrees well with the range of both units, only it must be remembered that 129 was used as gold unit: and another silver unit deduced from it. More likely then the 147 and 129 units originated independently in Egypt and Babylonia. From 129 grains of gold was adopted an equal value 8 g8600 sof silver =1720, on the proportion of 1: 13;, and this 5,6,000. was divided in 10 =172—which was used either in this form, or its See also:half, 86, best known as the siglus (17). Such a proportion is indicated in Num. vii., where the gold See also:spoon of 10 shekels is equal in value to the bowl of 130 shekels, or double that of 70, i.e. the silver vessels were 200 and Too sigh. The silver plates at Khorsabad (18) we find to be 8o sigh of 84.6. The Persian silver coinage shows about 86•o; the danak was a of this or 28.7, See also:Xenophon and others See also:state it at about 84. As a monetary weight it seems to have spread, perhaps entirely, in consequence of the Persian dominion; it varies from 174• downwards, usually 167, in Aradus, See also:Cilicia and on to the Aegean coast, in See also:Lydia and in See also:Macedonia (17). The silver bars found at Troy averaging 2744, or 3 mina of 8232, have been attributed to this unit (17) ; but no division of the mina in a is to be expected, and the average is rather See also:low. Two haematite weights from Troy (44) show 86 and 87.2. The mean from leaden weights of See also:Chios, Tenedos (44), &c., is 8430. A duck-weight of Camirus, probably early, gives 848o; the same passed on to Greece and Italy (17), averaging 861o; but in Italy it was divided, like all,other units, into unciae and scripulae (44). It is perhaps found in Etrurian coin-See also:age as 175—172 (17). By the See also:Romans it was used on the See also:Danube (18), two weights of the first See also:legion there showing 861o; and this is the mina of 20 unciae (8400) named by Roman writers. The system was- obol, 6=siglus, too= mina. 68= talent. 14.3 grs. 86 86co 5i6,000 A derivation from this was the a of 172, or 57.3, the so-called Phocaean drachma, equal in silver value to the 26 of the gold 258 grains. It was used at Phocaea as 58.5, and passed to the colonies of Posidonia and Velia as 59 or 118. The See also:colony of Massilia brought it into See also:Gaul as 58.2—54.9. 224 grs. That this unit (commonly called Phoenician) is derived 21,200; from the 129 system can hardly be doubted, both being 67z,000. so intimately associated in Syria and Asia Minor. The relation is 258 :229 ::9:8; but the exact form in which the descent took place is not settled: .1t, or 129 of gold is worth 57 of silver or a drachm, 4 of 230 (or by trade weights 127 and 226) ; otherwise, deriving it from the silver weight of 86 already formed, the drachm is of the stater, 172, or double of the Persian danak of 28.7, and the sacred unit of Didyma in See also:Ionia was this half-drachm, 27; or thirdly, what is indicated by the Lydian coinage (17), 86 of gold was equal to 1150 of silver, 5 shekels or 16 mina. Other See also:pro-posed derivations from the kat or pek are not satisfactory. In actual use this unit varied greatly: at Naucratis (29) there are See also:groups of it at 231, 223 and others down to 208; this is the earliest form in which we can study it, and the corresponding values to these are 130 and 126, or the gold and trade varieties of the Babylonian, while the lower tail down to 208 corresponds to the shekel down to 118, which is just what is found. Hence the 224 unit seems to have been formed from the 129, after the main families or types of that had arisen. It is scarcer at Defenneh (29) and rare at Memphis (44). Under the See also:Ptolemies, however, it became the great unit of Egypt, and is very prominent in the later literature in consequence (18, 35). The average of coins (21) of See also:Ptolemy I. gives 219.6, and thence they gradually diminish to 210, the average (33) of the whole series of Ptolemies being 218. The "argenteus" (as Revillout transcribes a sign in the papyri) (35) was of 5 shekels, or See also:Togo; it arose about 440 B.c., and became after 16o B.C. a weight unit for copper. In Syria, as early as the 15th century a.c., the tribute of the Rutennu, of Naharaina, Megiddo, Anaukasa, &c. (34), is on a basis of 454–484 kats, or 300 shekels (fig talent) of 226 grains. The commonest weight at Troy (44) is the shekel, averaging 224. In coinage it is one of the commonest units in early times; from Phoenicia, See also:round the coast to Macedonia, it is predominant (17) ; at a maxirnum of 230 (Ialysus), it is in Macedonia 224, but seldom exceeds 220 elsewhere, the earliest Lydian of the 7th century being 219, and the See also:general average of coins 218. The system was ('. 8=drachm, 4=shekel, 25=mina, 120=talent. 7 go. 56 224 560o 672,000 From the Phoenician coinage it was adopted for the Maccabean. It is needless to give the continual evidences of this being the later Jewish shekel, both from coins (max. 223) and writers (2, 18, 33) ; the question of the early shekel we have noticed already under 129. In Phoenicia and Asia Minor the mina was specially made in the form with two breasts (44), 19 such weights averaging 560o (=224) ; and thence it passed into Greece, more in a double value of 11,200 (=224). From Phoenicia this naturally became the main Punic unit; a bronze weight from Iol (18), marked Too, gives a drachma of 56 or 57 (224–228) ; and a Punic inscription (18) names 28 drachmae =25 Attic, and .•. J7 to 59 grains (228–236); while a probably later series of 8 See also:marble disks from Carthage (44) show 208, but vary from 197 to 234. In See also:Spain it was 236 to 216 in different series (17), and it is a question whether the Massiliote drachmae of 58-55 are not Phoenician rather than Phocaic. In Italy this mina became naturalized, and formed the " Italic mina " of See also:Hero, See also:Priscian, &c.; also its double, the mina of 26 unciae or Io,800,=5o shekels of 216; the average of 42 weights gives 5390 (=2156), and it was divided both into too drachmae, and also in the Italic mode of 12 unciae and 288 scripulae (44). The talent was of 120 minae of 5400, or 3000 shekels, shown by the talent from See also:Herculaneum, TA, 66o,000 and by the weight inscribed See also:PONDO cxxv. (i.e. 125 librae) TALENTUM SICLOR` \1. iii., i.e. talent of 3000 shekels (2) (the M being omitted; just as Epiphanius describes this talent as 125 librae, or B (=9) nomi,mata, for 9000). This gives the same approximate ratio 96: too to the See also:lira as the usual drachma reckoning. The Alexandrian talent of See also:Festus, 12,000 denarii, is the same talent again. It is believed that this mina +12 unciae by the Romans is the origin of the Arabic ratl of 12 ukiyas, or 5500 grains (33), which is said to have been sent by See also:Harun al-Rashid to See also:Charlemagne, and so to have originated the See also:French monetary See also:pound of 5666 grains. But, as this is probably the same as the See also:English monetary pound, or See also:tower pound of 5400, which was in use earlier (see Saxon coins), it seems more likely that this pound (which is common in Roman weights) was directly inherited from the Roman See also:civilization. 80 grs. Another unit, which has scarcely been recognized in 40~; metrology hitherto, is prominent in the weights from 440 o0o Egypt—See also:seine 5o weights from Naucratis and 15 from Defenneh plainly agreeing on this and on no other basis. Its value varies between 76.5 and 81.5—mean 79 at Naucratis (29) or 81 at Defenneh (29). It has been connected theoretically with a binary division of the To shekels or " stone " of the Assyrian systems (28), 1290=16 being 80.6; this is suggested by the most usual multiples being 40 and 8o =25 and 50 shekels of 129; it is thus akin to the mina of 50 shekels previously noticed. The tribute of the Asi, Rutennu, Khita, Assaru, &c., to Thothmes III. (34), though in un- even numbers of kats, comes out in round thousands of units when reduced to this standard. That this unit is quite distinct from the Persian 86 grains is clear in the Egyptian weights, which maintain a wide See also:gap between the two systems. Next, in Syria three inscribed weights of Antioch and Berytus (18) show a mina of about 56,400, or 200 X82. Then at Abydus, or more probably from Babylonia, there is the large bronze lion-weight, stated to have been originally 400,500 grains; this has been continually -:-6o by different writers, regardless of the fact (Rev. See also:arch., 1862, 30) that it bears the See also:numeral too; this therefore is certainly a talent of roo minae of 4005; and as the mina is generally 50 shekels in See also:Greek systems it points to a weight of 80.1. Farther west the same unit occurs in several Greek weights (44) which show a mina of 7800 to 8310, mean 8050+ 100 = 8o•5. Turning to coinage, we find this often, but usually overlooked as a degraded form of the Persian 86 grains siglos. But the earliest coinage in Cilicia, before the general Persian coinage (17) about 38o B.C., is See also:Tarsus, 164 grains; See also:Soli, 169, 163, 158; Nagidus, 158, 161-153 later; Issus, 166; Mallus, 163-154—all of which can only by straining be classed as Persian; but they agree to this standard, which, as we have seen, was used in Syria in earlier times by the Khita, &c. The Milesian or " native " system of Asia Minor (18) is fixed by Hultsch at 163 and 81.6 grains—the coins of See also:Miletus (17) showing 160, 8o and 39. Coming down to See also:literary evidence, this is abundant. See also:Bockh decides that the "Alexandrian drachma" was 6 of the Solonic 67, or= 80.5, and shows that it was not Ptolemaic, or Rhodian, or Aeginetan, being distinguished from these in inscriptions (2). Then the Alexandrian mina " of Dioscorides and Galen (2) is 20 unciae=8250; in the " Analecta " (2) it is 15o or 158 drachmae=81oo. Then Attic: Euboic or Aeginetan :: 18:25 in the metrologists (2), and the Euboic talent = 7000 " Alexandrian drachmae; the drachma therefore is 8o•o. The " Alexandrian " See also:wood talent: Attic talent :: 6:5 (Hero, See also:Didymus), and.•.48o,000, which is 6o minae of 800o. See also:Pliny states the Egyptian talent at 8o librae=396,000; evidently=the Abydus lion talent, which is= loo, and the mina is.•.3960, or 50X79'2. The largest weight is the "wood" talent of Syria (18) =6 Roman talents, or 1,86o,000, evidently 120 Antioch minae of 15,500 Or 2 X7750. This evidence is too distinct to be set aside; and, exactly confirming as it does the Egyptian weights and coin weights, and agreeing with the early See also:Asiatic tribute, it cannot be overlooked in future. The system was 5 5o = talent. drachm, 2 =stater, 5o=mina, 6o=Greek talent. 8o grs. 16o 8000 400,000 480,000 207 grs. to 190 This system, the Aeginetan, one of the most See also:im- 9650; portant to the Greek See also:world, has been thought to 579 X00 be a degradation of the Phoenician (17, 21), sup- posing 220 grains to have been reduced in See also:primitive Greek usage to 194. But we are now able to prove that it was an See also:independent system—(I) by its not ranging usually over 200 grains in Egypt before it passed to Greece; (2) by its earliest example, perhaps before the 224 unit existed, not being over 208; and (3) by there being no intermediate linking on of this to the Phoenician unit in the large number of Egyptian weights, nor in the Ptolemaic coinage, in which both standards are used. The first example (30) is one with the name of Amenhotep I. (17th century B.C.) marked as " gold 5," which is 5X207.6. Two other marked weights are from Memphis (44), showing 2o1.8 and 196.4, and another Egyptian 191.4. The range of the (34) Naucratis weights is 186 to 199, divided in two groups averaging 190 and 196, equal to the Greek monetary and trade varieties. Ptolemy I. and II. also struck a series of coins (32) averaging 199. In Syria haematite weights are found (30) averaging 198.5, divided into 99'2, 49'6 and 24.8; and the same division is shown by gold rings from Egypt (38) of 24.9. In the medical papyrus (38) a weight of a kat is used, which is thought to be Syrian; now 3 kat=92 to 1()I grains, or just this weight which we have found in Syria; and the weights of and a kat are very rare in Egypt except at Defenneh (29), on the Syrian road, where they abound. So we have thus a weight of 207-191 in Egypt on marked weights, joining therefore completely with the Aeginetan unit in Egypt of 199 to 186, and coinage of 199, and strongly connected with Syria, where a double mina of See also:Sidon (18) is 10,460 or 5oX 209.2. Probably before any Greek coinage we find this among the haematite weights of Troy (44), ranging from 208 to 193.2 (or 104-96.6), i.e. just covering the range from the earliest Egyptian down to the early Aeginetan coinage. Turning now to the early coinage, we see the faller weight kept up (17) at See also:Samos (202), Miletus (201), Calymna (Too, 50), Methymna and Scepsis (99, 49),i Ionia (197) ; while the coinage of See also:Aegina, (17, 12), which by its wide See also:diffusion made this unit best known, though a few of its earliest staters go up even to 207, yet is characteristically on the lower of the two groups which we recognize in Egypt, and thus started what has been considered the standard value of 194, or usually 190, decreasing afterwards to 184. In later times, in Asia, however, the See also:fuller weight, or higher Egyptian See also:group, which we have just noticed in the coinage, was kept up (17) into the series of cistophori (196-191), as in the Ptolemaic series of 199. At Athens the old mina was fixed by See also:Solon at 15o of his drachmae (18) or 9800 grains, according to the earliest drachmae, showing a stater of 196; and this continued to be the trade mina in Athens, at least until 160 n.e., but in a reduced form, in which it equalled only 138 Attic drachmae, or 9200. The Greek mina weights show (44), on an average of 37,9650 (=stater of 193), varying from 186 to 199. In the Hellenic coinage it varies (18) from a maximum of 200 at Pharae to 192, usual full weight; this unit occupied (17) all central Greece, See also:Peloponnesus and most of the islands. The system was-- obol, 6 = drachm, 2 =stater, 5o =mina, 6o=talent. 16 grs. 96 192 9600 576,000 i That this unit was used for gold in Egypt, one thousand years before becoming a silver coin weight in Asia Minor, need not be dwelt on, when we see in the coinage of Lydia (17) gold pieces and silver on the same standard, which was expressly formed for silver alone, i.e. 84 grains, The Attic and Assyrian standards were used indifferently for either gold or silver. It also passed into Italy, but in a smaller multiple of 35 drachmae, or i of the Greek mina; 12 Italian weights (44) bearing value marks (which cannot therefore be differently attributed) show a See also:libra of 2400 or i of 9600, which was divided in unciae and sextulae, and the full-sized mina is known as the 24 uncia mina, or talent of 120 librae of See also:Vitruvius and Isidore (18) =9900. Hultsch states this to be the old See also:Etruscan pound. 412 With the trade mina of 9650 in Greece, and recognized 495 in Italy, we- can hardly doubt that the Roman libra is o grs. the half of this mina. At Athens it was 2 X4900, and on the average of all the Greek weights it is 2 X4825, so that 4950 —the libra—is as close as we need expect. The division by 12 does not affect the question, as every standard that came into Italy was similarly divided. In the libra, as in most other standards, the value which happened to be first at See also:hand for the coinage was not the mean of the whole of the weights in the country; the Phoenician coin weight is below the trade average, the Assyrian is above, the Aeginetan is below, but the Roman coinage is above the average of trade weights, or the mean standard. Rejecting all weights of the lower See also:empire, the average (44) of about too is 4956; while 42 later Greek weights (nomisma, &c.) average 4857, and 16 later Latin ones (solidus, &c.) show 4819. The coinage standard, however, was always higher (18) ; the oldest gold shows 5056, the Campanian Roman 5054, the consular gold 5037, the aurei 5037, the See also:Constantine solidi 5053 and the Justinian gold 4996. Thus, though it See also:fell in the later empire, like the trade weight, yet it was always above that. Though it has no exact relation to the congius or See also:amphora, yet it is closely =4977 grains, the See also:fir, of the cubic See also:foot of water. If, however, the weight in a degraded form, and the foot in an undegraded form, come from the East, it is needless to look for an exact relation between them, but rather for a See also:mere working See also:equivalent, like the loon ounces to the cubit foot in See also:England. Bockh has remarked the great diversity between weights of the same age—those marked " Ad See also:Augusti Temp " ranging 4971 to 5535, those tested by the fussy See also:praefect Q. See also:Junius Rusticus vary 4362 to 5625, and a set in the British Museum (44) belonging together vary 4700 to 5168. The series was- siliqua, 6=scripulum, 4=sextula , 6=uncia, 12 libra, 2.87 grs. 17.2 68.7 412 495o the greater weight being the centumpondium of 495,000. Other weights were added to these from the Greek system- obolus, 6=drachma, 2=si:ilicus, 4=uncia; 8 6 grs. 51.5 103 412 and the sextula after Constantine had the name of solidus as a coin weight, or nomisma in Greek, marked N on the weights. A beautiful set of multiples of the scripulum was found near See also:Lyons (38), from t to 10X17.28 grains, showing a libra of 4976. In Bryzantine times in Egypt glass was used for coin-weights (30), averaging 68•o for the solidus=4896 for the libra. The Saxon and See also:Norman See also:ounce is said to average 416.5 (Num. Chron., 1871, 42), apparently the Roman uncia inherited. 67 grs. The system which is perhaps the best known, through 6700; its See also:adoption by Solon in Athens, and is thence called Attic or Solonic, is nevertheless far older than its intro- 407,00, duction into Greece, being found in full vigour in Egypt in the 6th century B.c. It has been usually reckoned as a rather heavier form of the 129 shekel, increased to 134 on its adoption by Solon. But the Egyptian weights render this view impossible. Among them (29) the two contiguous groups can be discriminated by the 129 being multiplied by 30 and 6o, while the 67 or 134 is differently X25, 40, 50 and too. Hence, although the two groups overlap owing to their nearness, it is impossible to regard them as all one unit. The 129 range is up to 131.8, while the Attic range is 13o to 138 (65.69). Hultsch reckons on a ratio of 24:25 between them, and this is very near the true values; the full Attic being 67.3, the Assyrian should be 129.2, and this is just the full gold coinage weight. We may perhaps see the sense of this ratio through
another system. The 8o-See also:grain system, as we have seen, was prob-
ably formed by binarily dividing the to shekels, or " stone "; and
it had a talent (Abydus lion) of 5000 drachmae; this is practically
identical with the talent of 600o Attic drachmae. So the talent of
the 8o-grain system was sexagesimally divided for the mina which
was afterwards adopted by Solon. Such seems the most likely
See also:history of it, and this is in exact See also:accord with the full original weight
of each system. In Egypt the mean value at Naucratis (29) was
66.7, while at Defenneh (29) and Memphis (44)—probably rather
earlier —it was 67•o. The type of the grouping is not alike in different
places, showing that no distinct families had arisen before the
diffusion of this unit in Egypt; but the usual range is 65.5 to 69•o.
Next it is found at Troy (44) in three cases, all high examples of
68.2 to 68.7; and these are very important, since they cannot be
dissociated from the Greek Attic unit, and yet they are of a variety
as far removed as may be from the half of the Assyrian, which ranges
there from 123.5 to 131 ; thus the difference of unit between Assyrian
and Attic in these earliest of all Greek weights is very strongly
marked. At Athens a low variety of the unit was adopted for the
coinage, true to the See also:object of Solon in depreciating debts; and the
first coinage is of only 65.2, or scarcely within the range of the trade
weights (28) ; this seems to have been See also:felt, as, contrary to all other
states, Athens slowly increased its coin weight up to 66.6, or but little under the trade average. It gradually supplanted the Aeginetan standard in Greece and Italy as the See also:power of Athens rose; and it was adopted by See also: 11.17 67 6700 402,000 Turning now to its usual trade values in Greece (44), the mean of 113 gives 67.15; but they vary more than the Egyptian examples, having a sub-variety both above and below the main See also:body, which itself exactly coincides with the Egyptian weights. The greater See also:part of those weights which See also:bear names indicate a mina of double the usual reckoning, so that there was a light and a heavy system, a mina of the drachma and a mina of the stater, as in the Phoenician and Assyrian weights. In trade both the minae were divided in and s, regardless of the drachmae. This unit passed also into Italy, the libra of See also:Picenum and the double of the Etrurian and Sicilian libra (17) ; it was there divided in unciae and scripulae (44), the mean of 6 from Italy and See also:Sicily being 6600; one weight (bought in See also:Smyrna) has the name " Leitra " on it. In literature it is constantly referred to; but we may See also:notice the " general mina " (See also:Cleopatra), in Egypt, 16 unciae=6600; the Ptolemaic talent, equal to the Attic in weight and divisions (Hero, Didymus) ; the Antiochian talent, equal to the Attic (Hero) ; the treaty of the Romans with See also:Antiochus, naming talents of 8o librae, i.e. mina of 16 unciae; the Roman mina in Egypt, of 15 unciae, probably the same diminished; and the Italic mina of 16 unciae. It seems even to have lasted in Egypt till the See also:middle ages, as Jabarti and the " katib's See also:guide " both name the See also:rat', misri (of See also:Cairo) as 144 dirhems=676o. r. Denominations.—The denominations of trade weights and measures at See also:present used in the See also:United See also:Kingdom are represented by " See also:Board of Trade standards," by which are regulated the accuracy of the common weights and measures handled in shops, &c.:1 Imperial Measures of Length.—loo feet, 66 feet or a See also:chain of too links, See also:rod, See also:pole, or See also:perch, measures from to feet to 1 foot; i Board of Trade See also:Model Regulations, 1892; Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 1889, 1892, 1893. 18 inches; yard of 36 inches, 2, *, -& yard, See also:nail, See also:inch, and duodecimal, decimal and binary parts of the inch. Imperial Measures of Capacity.—Liquid measures from 32 gallons to I See also:gallon, quart, See also:pint, a pint, gill, z gill, ; gill. Dry measures of See also:bushel, Z bushel, See also:peck, gallon, quart, pint, i pint. Apothecaries' Measures.—4o fluid ounces to 1 fl. oz., 16 fluid drachms to 2 fl. dr., 6o minims to i See also:minim. See also:Avoirdupois Weights.—Cental (too lb), 56 lb (4 cwt.), 28 lb, 14 lb (stone), 7, 4, 2, i Ib; 8, 4, 2, 1, z ounce (8 drams); 4, 2, 1, i drams. Troy Weights.—The ounce (48o gr.) and multiples and decimal parts of the ounce troy from 500 ounces to 0.001 oz. Apothecaries' Weights.—'o oz. to i oz. (48o gr.); 4 drachms to z oz.; 2, I drachms; 2 scruples to a See also:scruple; and 6 grains to 'z grain. Pennyweights.—2o dwt. (48o grains), to, 5, 3, 2, I dwts. Grain Weights.—4000, 2000, moo gr. (making 7000 gr. or I Ib), 500 to o•o, gr. 2. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] STANDARDS OF VOLUME |
[next] STANDERTON |