Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/503

Punic variant of the 1/3 bath or saton of Phoenicia. One close datum, if trustworthy, would be log of water＝Assyrian 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 hen’s eggs, shows it to be over rather than under this amount; but their reckoning of bath＝1/2 cubit cubed is but approximate: by 21·5 it is 1240, by 25·1 it is 1990 cubic in. The earliest Hebrew system was—

(log,	4 ＝kab). . . . . . .	3＝hin, 6	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$＝$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	bath, or	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$, 10 ＝$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	homer—wet.
	⁠ʽissarón. . . . . . . 10			epha		or kor—dry.
32 cub. in.	128  230	283		2300		23,000

ʽIssarón (“tenth-deal”) is also called gomer. The log and kab are not found till the later writings, but the ratio of hin to ʽissarón is practically fixed in early times by the proportions in Num. xv . 4-9. Epiphanius stating great hin＝18 xestes, and holy hin＝9, must refer to Syrian xestes, equal to 24 and 12 Roman; this makes holy hin as above, and great hin a double hin, i.e. seah or saton. His other statements of saton＝56 or 50 sextaria remain unexplained, unless this be an error for bath＝56 or 50 Syr. sext. and ∴ ＝2290 or 2560 cub. in. The wholesale theory of Revillout (35) that all Hebrew and Syrian 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 late measure lok. But there are other reasons against accepting this, besides the improbability of such a change.

The Phoenician and old Carthaginian system was (18)—

log.	4＝kab,	6＝saton,	30＝corus,
31 cub. in.	123	740	22,200

valuing them by 31 Sicilian＝41 Attic modii (Josephus, above).

The old Syrian system was (18)—

cotyle,	2＝Syr. xestes,	18＝sabitha or saton,	11/2＝collathon,	2＝bath-artaba;
21 cub. in.	41	740	1110	2220

also

Syr. xestes,	45＝maris,	2＝metretes or artaba.
41	1850	3700

The later or Seleucidan system was (18)—

cotyle,	2＝Syr. xestes,	90＝Syr. metretes,
22	44	4000

the Syrian being 11/3 Roman sextarii.

The Babylonian system was very similar (18)—

(1/4), 4＝capitha,$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	15＝maris
	18＝......epha,	10＝homer,	6＝achane.
33 cub. in.⁠132	1980 2380	⁠23,800	142,800

The approximate value from capitha＝2 Attic choenices (Xenophon) warrants us in taking the achane as fixed in the following system, which places it closely in accord with the preceding.

In Persia Hultsch states—

⁠capetis. . . . . . . . . 48 ＝artaba,	40	${\Big \}}$＝achane,
⁠maris. . . . . . . .	72
74·4 cub. in. ⁠1983⁠3570		142,800

the absolute values being fixed by artaba＝51 Attic choenices (Herod, i. 192). The maris of the Pontic system is 1/2 of the above, and the Macedonian and Naxian maris 1/10, of the Pontic (18). By the theory of maris＝1/5 of 20·6³ it is 1755·; by maris＝Assyrian talent, 1850, in place of 1850 or 1980 stated above; hence the more likely theory of weight, rather than cubit, connexion is nearer to the facts.

Aeginetan System.— This is so called from according with the Aeginetan weight. The absolute data are all dependent on the Attic and Roman systems, as there are no monumental data. The series of names is the same as in the Attic system (18). The values are 11/2×the Attic (Athenaeus, Theophrastus, &c.) (2, 18), or more closely 11 to 12 times 1/8 of Attic. Hence, the Attic cotyle being 17·5 cub. in., the Aeginetan is about 25·7. The Boeotian system (18) included the achane; if this＝Persian, then cotyle＝24·7. Or, separately through the Roman system, the mnasis of Cyprus (18)＝170 sextarii; then the cotyle＝24·8. By the theory of the metretes being 11/2 talents Aeginetan, the cotyle would be 23·3 to 24·7 cub. in. by the actual weights, which have tended to decrease. Probably then 25·0 is the best approximation. By the theory (18) of 2 metretes＝cube of the 18·67 cubit from the 12·45 foot, the cotyle would be about 25·4, within ·4; but then such a cubit is unknown among measures, and not likely to be formed, as 12·4 is 3/5 of 20·6. The Aeginetan system then was—

cotyle,	4＝choenix, ${\Big \{}$	3＝chous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .		16	${\Big \}}$＝medimnus.
		8＝....hecteus,	4＝metretes,	11/2
25 cub. in.	100	300 800	⁠ 3200		⁠4800

This was the system of Sparta, of Boeotia (where the aporryma ＝4 choenices, the cophinus＝6 choenices, and saites or saton or hecteus＝2 aporrymae, while 30 medimni＝achane, evidently Asiatic connexions throughout), and of Cyprus (where 2 choes＝Cyprian medimnus, of which 5＝medimnus of Salamis, of which 2＝mnasis (18)

Attic or Usual Greek System.—The absolute value of this system is far from certain. The best data are three stone slabs, each with several standard volumes cut in them (11, 18), and two named vases. The value of the cotyle from the Naxian slab is 15·4 (best, others 14·6–19·6); from a vase about 16·6; from the Panidum slab 17·1 (var. 16·2–18·2); from a Capuan vase 17·8; from the Ganus slab 17·8 (var. 17·–18·). From these we may take 17·5 as a fair approximation. It is supposed that the Panathenaic vases were intended as metretes; this would show a cotyle of 14·4–17·1. The theories of connexion give, for the value of the cotyle, metretes＝Aeginetan talent, ∴ 15·4–16·6; metres 4/3 of 12·16 cubed, ∴16·6; metretes＝27/20 of 12·16 cubed, ∴ 16·8; medimnus＝2 Attic talents, hecteus＝20 minae, choenix＝21/2 minae, ∴ 16·75; metretes＝3 cub. spithami (1/2 cubit ＝9·12), ∴ 17·5; 6 metretes＝2 ft. of 12·45 cubed, ∴ 17·8 cub. in. for cotyle. But probably as good theories could be found for any other amount; and certainly the facts should not be set aside, as almost every author has done, in favour of some one of half a dozen theories. The system of multiples was for liquids—

cyathus,	11/2＝oxybaphon,	4＝cotyle,	12＝chous,	12＝metretes,
2·9 cub. in.	4·4	17·5	210	2520

with the tetarton (8·8), 2＝cotyle, 2＝xestes (35·), introduced from the Roman system. For dry measure—

cyathus,	6＝cotyle,	4＝choenix,	8＝hecteus,	6＝medimnus,
2·9 cub. in.	17·5	70	560	3360

with the xestes, and amphoreus (1680)＝1/2 medimnus, from the Roman system. The various late provincial systems of division are beyond our present scope (18).

System of Gythium.—A system differing widely both in units and names from the preceding is found on the standard slab of Gythium in the southern Peloponnesus (Rev. Arch., 1872). Writers have unified it with the Attic, but it is decidedly larger in its unit, giving 19·4 (var. 19·1–19·8) for the supposed cotyle. Its system is—

cotyle,	4＝hemihecton,	4＝chous,	3＝(n).
58 cub. in.	232	932	2796

And with this agrees a pottery cylindrical vessel, with official stamp on it (ΔΗΜΟΣΙΟΝ, &c.), and having a fine black line traced round the inside, near the top, to show its limit; this seems to be probably very accurate, and contains 58·5 cub. in., closely agreeing with the cotyle of Gythium. It has been described (Rev. Arch., 1872) as an Attic choenix. Gythium being the southern port of Greece, it seems not too far to connect this 58 cub. in. with the double of the Egyptian hon＝58·4, as it is different from every other Greek system.

Roman System.—The celebrated Farnesian standard congius of bronze of Vespasian, “mensurae exactae in Capitolio P. X.,” contains 206·7 cub. in. (2), and hence the amphora 1654, By the sextarius of Dresden (2) the amphora is 1695; by the congius of Ste Geneviève (2) 1700 cub. in.; and by the ponderarium measures at Pompeii (33) 1540 to 1840, or about 1620 for a mean. So the Farnesian congius, or about 1650, may best be adopted. The system for liquid was—

quartarius,	4＝sextarius,	6＝congius,	4＝urna,	2＝amphora,
8·6 cub. in.	34·4	206	825	1650

for dry measure 16 sextarii＝modius, 550 cub. in.; and to both systems were added from the Attic the cyathus (2·87 cub in.), acetabulum (4·3 cub. in.) and hemina (17·2 cub. in.). The Roman theory of the amphora being the cubic foot makes it 1569 cub. in., or decidedly less than the actual measures; the other theory of its containing 80 librae of water would make it 1575 by the commercial or 1605 by the monetary libra—again too low for the measures. Both of these theories therefore are rather working equivalents than original derivations; or at least the interrelation was allowed to become far from exact.

Indian and Chinese Systems—On the ancient Indian system see Numismata Orientalia, new ed., i. 24; on the ancient Chinese, Nature, xxx. 565, and xxxv. 318.

Standards Of Weight.—For these we have far more complete data than for volumes or even lengths, and can ascertain in many cases the nature of the variations, and their type in each place. The main series on which we shall rely here are those—(1) from Assyria (38) about 800 B.C.; (2) from the eastern Delta of Egypt (29) (Defenneh); (3) from western Delta (28) (Naucratis); (4) from Memphis (44)—all these about the 6th century B.C., and therefore before much interference from the decreasing coin standards; (5) from Cnidus; (6) from Athens; (7) from Corfu; and (8) from Italy (British Museum) (44). As other collections are but a fraction of the whole of these, and are much less completely examined, little if any good would be done by including them in the combined results, though for special types or inscriptions they will be mentioned.

146 grains.—The 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 original places and dates of these cannot yet be fixed, except for the lowest type of 138–140 grains; this belonged to Heliopolis (7), as two weights (35) inscribed of "the treasury of An" show 139·9 and 140·4, while a 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),	10＝kat,	10＝uten,	10＝tema.
14·6 grs.	146	1460	14,600.

The tema is the same name as the large wheat measure (35), which was worth 30,000 to 19,000 grains of copper, according to Ptolemaic receipts and accounts (Rev. Eg., 1881, 150), and therefore very likely worth 10 utens of copper in earlier times when metals were scarcer. The kat was regularly divided into 10; but another division, for the sake of interrelation with another system, was in 1/3 and 1/4,