Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 24.djvu/511

The Gallic leuga, or league, is a different unit, being 1.59 British miles by the very concordant itinerary of the Bordeaux pilgrim. This appears to be the great Celtic measure, as opposed to the old English, or Germanic, mile. In the north-west of England and in Wales this mile lasted as 1.56 British miles till 1500; and the perch of those parts was correspondingly longer till this century (31). The "old London mile" was 5000 feet, and probably this was the mile which was modified to 5280 feet, or 8 furlongs, and so became the British statute mile.

Standards of Area.—We cannot here describe these in detail. Usually they were formed in each country on the squares of the long measures. The Greek system was—

foot,	36=	hexapodes
	100=	................	acæna	25=aroura,	4=plethron.
1.027 sq. ft.		36.96	102.68	2567	10,268

The Roman system was—

pes,	100=decempeda,	36=clima,	4=actus,	2=jugerum,
94 sq. ft.	94	3384	13,536	27,672

jugerum,	2=heredium,	100=centuria,	4=saltus.
.6205 acre	1.241	124.1	496.4

Standards of Volume.—There is great uncertainty as to the exact values of all ancient standards of volume, the only precise data being those resulting from the theories of volumes derived from the cubes of feet and cubits. Such theories, as we have noticed, are extremely likely to be only approximations in ancient times, even if recognized then; and our data are quite inadequate for clearing the subject. If certain equivalences between volumes in different countries are stated here, it must be plainly understood that they are only known to be approximate results, and not to give a certain basis for any theories of derivation. All the actual monumental data that we have are alluded to here, with their amounts. The impossibility of safe correlation of units necessitates a division by countries.

Egypt.—The hon was the usual small standard; by 8 vases which have contents stated in hons (8, 12, 20, 22, 33, 40) the mean is 29.2 cubic inches ± .6; by 9 unmarked pottery measures (30) 29.1±.16, and divided by 20; by 18 vases, supposed multiples of hon (1), 32.1±2. These last are probably only rough, and we may take 29.2 cubic inches ± .5. This was reckoned (6) to hold 5 utens of water (uten ∴ 1470 grains), which agrees well to the weight; but this was probably an approximation, and not derivative, as there is (14) a weight called shet of 4.70 or 4.95 uten, and this was perhaps the actual weight of a hon. The variations of hon and uten, however, cover one another completely. From ratios stated before Greek times (35) the series of multiples was

ro,	8=hon,	4=honnu,	10=apet	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	............	10=(Theban),	10=sa.
			or besha	4=tama
		116.8	1168		4672	11,680	116,800

(Theban) is the "great Theban measure."

In Ptolemaic times the artaba (2336.), modified from the Persian, was general in Egypt, a working equivalent to the Attic metretes,—value 2 apet or 1/2 tama; medinmus = tama or 2 artabas, and fractions down to 1/400 artaba (35). In Roman times the artaba remained (Didymus), but 1/6 was the usual unit (name unknown), and this was divided down to 1/24 or 1/144 artaba (35),—thus producing, by 1/72 artaba a working equivalent to the xestes and sextarius (35). Also a new Roman artaba (Didymus) of 1540. was brought in. Beside the equivalence of the hon to 5 utens weight of water, the mathematical papyrus (35) gives 5 besha=2/3 cubic cubit (Revillout's interpretation of this as 1 cubit³ is impossible geometrically, see Rev. Eg., 1881, for data); this is very concordant, but it is very unlikely for 3 to be introduced in an Egyptian derivation, and probably therefore only a working equivalent. The other ratio of Revillout and Hultsch, 320 hons = cubit³ is certainly approximate.

Syria, Palestine, and Babylonia.—Here there are no monumental data known; and the literary information does not distinguish the closely connected, perhaps identical, units of these lands. Moreover, none of the writers are before the Roman period, and many relied on are mediæval rabbis. A large number of their statements are rough (2, 18, 33), being based on the working equivalence of the bath or epha with the Attic metretes, from which are sometimes drawn fractional statements which seem more accurate than they are. This, however, shows the bath to be about 2500 cubic inches. There are two better data (2) of Epiphanius and Theodoret,—Attic medinmus=1 1/2 baths, and saton (1/3 bath) =1 3/8 modii; these give about 2240 and 2260 cubic inches. The best datum is in Josephus (Ant., iii. 15, 3), where 10 baths =41 Attic or 31 Sicilian medimni, for which it is agreed we must read modii (33); hence the bath =2300 cubic inches. Thus these three different reckonings agree closely, but all equally depend on the Greek and Roman standards, which are not well fixed. The Sicilian modius here is 10/31, or slightly under 1/3, of the bath, and so probably a Punic variant of the 1/3 bath or saton of Phœnicia. One close datum, if trustworthy, would be log of water = Assyrian mina ∴ bath about 2200 cubic inches. The rabbinical statement of cubic cubit of 21.5 holding 320 logs puts the bath at about 2250 cubic inches; 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 inches. 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.
		‘issarón	..........	10		epha	or kor—dry.
32 cub. in.	128	230	283					2300			23,000

‘Issarón ("tenth-deal") is also called gomer. The log and kab are not found till the later writings; but the ratio of hin to issaron 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 cubic inches. 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 Phœnician 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,	1 1/2=collathon,	2=bath-artaba;
21 cub. in.	41	740	1110	2220

also

{{center|1=

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 1 1/3 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 chœnices (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	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	=achane.
	maris..................		72
74.4 cub. in.	1983	3570			142,800

the absolute values being fixed by artaba = 51 Attic chœnices (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 ???.; 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.

Æginetan System.—This is so called from according with the Æginetan 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 1 1/3 × the Attic (Athenæus, Theophrastus, &c.) (2, 18), or more closely 11 to 12 times 1/8 of Attic. Hence, the Attic cotyle being 17.5 cubic inches, the Æginetun is about 25.7. The Bœotian 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 1 1/2 talents Æginetan, the cotyle would be 23.3 to 24.7 cubic inches 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 Æginetan system then was—

cotyle,	4 =chœnix	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	3=chous.........................................	16		$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	=medimnus.
8=..........		hecteus,	4=metretes,	1	1/2
25 cub. in.	100		300	800	3200				4800

This was the system of Sparta, of Bœotia (where the aporryma=4 chœnices, the cophinus=6 chœnices, and saites or saton or hecteus=2 aporryma, 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 = Æginetan talent, ∴ 15.4-16.6 ; metretes 4/3 of 12.16 cubed, ∴ 16.6;