It also passed into Italy, but !n a smaller multiple of 35 drachmae,
or 14 of the Greek mina; 12 Italian weights (44) bearing value marks
(which cannot therefore be differently attributed) show a libra of
2400 or 14 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 Vitruvius and Isidore (18)＝9900. Hultsch states this to
be the old Etruscan pound.
412
4950 grs.With the trade mina of 9650 in Greece, and recognized
in Italy, we can hardly doubt that the Roman libra is
of this mina. At Athens it was 2×4900, and
on the average of all the Greek weights it is 2×4825, 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 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 empire, the average (44) of about 100 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 Constantine
solidi 5053 and the Justinian gold 4996. Thus, though it 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 amphora, yet it
is closely＝4977 grains, the 180 of the cubic 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 mere working equivalent, like the
1000 ounces to the cubit foot in England. Bockh has remarked
the great diversity between weights of the same age—those marked
“Ad Augusti Temp” ranging 4971 to 5535, those tested by the fussy
praefect Q. 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 | 4950 |
the greater weight being the centumpondium of 495,000. Other weights were added to these from the Greek system—
| obolus, | 6＝drachma, | 2＝sicilicus, | 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 Lyons (38), from 1 to 10×17·28 grains, showing a libra of 4976. In Byzantine times in Egypt glass was used for coin-weights (30), averaging 68·0 for the solidus＝4896 for the libra. The Saxon and Norman ounce is said to average 416·5 (Num. Chron., 1871, 42), apparently the Roman uncia inherited.
67 grs.
6700;
402,000.The system which is perhaps the best known, through
adoption by Solon in Athens, and is thence called
Attic or Solonic, is nevertheless far older than its introduction
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 60, while the 67 or 134 is
differently ×25, 40, 50 and 100. 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 130 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 80-grain system, as we have seen, was probably
formed by binarily dividing the 10 shekels, or “stone”; and
it had a talent (Abydus lion) of 5000 drachmae; this is practically
identical with the talent of 6000 Attic drachmae. So the talent of
the 80-grain system was sexagesimally divided for the mina which
was afterwards adopted by Solon. Such seems the most likely
history of it, and this is in exact 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 67·0. 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 69·0.
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 object of Solon in depreciating debts; and the
first coinage is of only 65·2, or scarcely within tliq range of the trade
weights (28); this seems to have been 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 power of Athens rose; and it
was adopted by Philip and Alexander (17) for their great gold
coinage of 133 and 66·5. This system is often known as the “Euboic,”
owing to its early use in Euboea, and its diffusion by trade from thence.
The series was—
| chalcous, | 8＝obolus, | 6＝drachma, | 100＝mina, | 60＝talanton. |
| 1·4 grs. | 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 body, which itself exactly coincides with the Egyptian weights. The greater part of those weights which 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 12, 14, 18, 13, and 16, regardless of the drachmae. This unit passed also into Italy, the libra of 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 Sicily being 6600; one weight (bought in Smyrna) has the name “Leitra” on it. In literature it is constantly referred to; but we may notice the “general mina” (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 Antiochus, naming talents of 80 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 middle ages, as Jabarti and the “kātīb’s guide” both name the raṭl misri (of Cairo) as 144 dirhems＝6760.
Authorities.—(1) A. Aures, Métrologie égyptienne (1880); (2) A. Böckh, Metrologische Untersuchungen (1838) (general); (3) P. Bortolotti, Del primitivo cubilo egizio (1883); (4) J. Brandis, Münz-, Mass-, und Gewicht-Wesen (1866) (specially Assyrian); (5) H. Brugsch, in Zeits. äg. Sp. (1870) (Edfu); (6) M. F. Chabas, Détermination métrique (1867) (Egyptian volumes); (7) Id., Recherches sur les poids, mesures, et monnaies des anciens Égyptiens; (8) Id., Ztschr. f. ägypt Sprache (1867, p. 57; 1870, p. 122) (Egyptian volumes); (9) H. W. Chisholm, Weighing and Measuring (1877) (history of English measures); (10) Id., Ninth Rep. of Warden of Standards (1875) (Assyrian); (11) A. Dumont, Mission en Thrace (Greek volumes); (12) Eisenlohr, Ztschr. äg. Sp. (1875) (Egyptian hon); (13) W. Golénischeff, in Rev. egypt. (1881), 177 (Egyptian weights); (14) C. W. Goodwin, in Ztschr. äg. Sp. (1873), p. 16 (shet); (15) B. V. Head, in Num. Chron. (1875); (16) Id., Jour. Inst. of Bankers (1879) (systems of weight); (17) Id., Historia numorum (1887) (essential for coin weights and history of systems); (18) F. Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie (1882) (essential for literary and monumental facts); (19) Ledrain, in Rev. égypt. (1881), p. 173 (Assyrian); (20) Leemans, Monumens égyptiens (1838) (Egyptian hon); (21) T. Mommsen, Histoire de la monnaie romaine; (22) Id., Monuments divers (Egyptian weights); (23) Sir Isaac Newton, Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit (1737); (24) J. Oppert, Étalon des mesures assyriennes (1875); (25) W. M. F. Petrie, Inductive Metrology (1877) (principles and tentative results); (26) Id., Stonehenge (1880); (27) Id., Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (1883); (28) Id., Naukratis, i. (1886) (principles, lists, and curves of weights); (29) Id., Tanis, ii. (1887) (lists and curves); (30) Id., Arch. Jour. (1883), 419 (weights, Egyptian, &c.); (31) Id., Proc. Roy. Soc. Edin. (1883–1884), 254 (mile); (32) R. S. Poole, Brit. Mus. Cat. of Coins, Egypt; (33) Vazquez Queipo, Essai sur les systèmes métriques (1859) (general, and specially Arab and coins); (34) Records of the Past, vols. i., ii., vi. (Egyptian tributes, &c.); (35) E. Revillout. in Rev. ég. (1881) (many papers on Egyptian weights, measures, and coins); (36) E. T. Rogers, Num. Chron. (1873) (Arab glass weights); (37) M. H. Sauvaire, in Jour. As. Soc. (1877), translation of Elias of Nisibis, with notes (remarkable for history of balance); Schillbach (lists of weights, all in next); (38) M. C. Soutzo, Étalons pondéraux primitifs (1884) (lists of all weights published to date); (39) Id., Systèmes monetaires primitifs (1884) (derivation of units); (40) G. Smith, in Zeits. äg. Sp. (1875); (41) L. Stern, in Rev. ég. (1881), 171 (Egyptian weights); (42) P. Tannery, Rev. arch. xli. 152; (43) E. Thomas, Numismata orientalia, pt. i. (Indian weights); (44) a great amount of material of weightings of weights of Troy (supplied through Dr Schliemann’s kindness), Memphis, at the British Museum, Turin, &c. (W. M. F. P.)
III. Commercial
1. Denominations.—The denominations of trade weights and measures at present used in the United Kingdom are represented by “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.—100 feet, 66 feet or a chain of 100 links, rod, pole, or perch, measures from to feet to 1 foot;
- ↑ Board of Trade Model Regulations, 1892; Weights and Measures Acts, 1878. 1889. 1892. 1893.
