Rutennu, Khita, Assam, &e., to Thothmes III. (34), though in uneven 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 gap between the two systems. Next, in Syria three inscribed
weights of Antioch and Berytus (18) show a mina of about 16,400,
or 200 x 82. Then at Abydus, or more probably from Babylonia,
there is the large bronze lion-weight, stated to have been origin
ally 400,500 grains; this has been continually 60 by different
writers, regardless of the fact (Rev. Arch., 1862, 30) that it bears
the numeral 100 ; this therefore is certainly a talent of 100 minse
of 4005 ; and as the mina is generally 50 shekels in 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-rlOO = 80 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) about380 B.C., is Tarsus, 164 grains ; 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 Miletus (17) showing 160, 80, and 39. Coming down to
literary evidence, this is abundant. Bb ckh decides that the
"Alexandrian drachma" was of the Solonic 67, or = 80 5, and
shows that it was not Ptolemaic, or Rhodian, or JEginetan, being
distinguished from these in inscriptions (2). Then the "Alexandrian mina" of Dioscorides and Galen (2) is 20 uncia; = 8250 ; in
the "Analecta" (2) it is 150 or 158 drachms -81 00. Then Attic :
Euboic or jEginetan : : 18 : 25 in the metrologists (2), and the
Euboic talent = 7000 "Alexandrian" drachma;; the drachma therefore is 80 0. The "Alexandrian" wood talent : Attic talent::
6 : 5 (Hero, Didymus), and . . 480,000, which is 60 minre of 8000.
Pliny states the Egyptian talent at 80 libra = 396, 000 ; evidently =
the Abydus lion talent, which is-=-100, and the mina is . . 3960,
or 50x79 "2. The largest weight is the "wood" talent of Syria
(i8) = 6 Roman talents, or 1,860,000, evidently 120 Antioch minse
of 15,500 or 2 x 7750. 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 Asiatic tribute, it cannot be
overlooked in future. The system was
drachm, 2 = stater, 50 = mina, 1GO = talcnt. 80 grs. 1GO 8000 400,000 480,000 on 1 ? t ion
This system, the AEginetan, one of the most important to the Greek world, has been thought to Jjn ftnft be a degradation of the Phoenician (17, 21), supposing 220 grains to have been reduced in primitive Greek usage to 194. But we are now able to prove that it was an independent system (1) 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 5 x 207 6. Two other marked weights are from Memphis (44), showing 201 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 hrematite 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 kat is used, which is thought to be Syrian; now f kat = 92 to 101 grains, or just this weight which we have found in Syria ; and the weights of f and |- 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 .ffiginetan unit in Egypt of 199 to 186, and coinage of 199, and strongly connected with Syria, where a double mina of Sidon (18) is 10,460 or 50 x 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 fuller weight kept up (17) at Samos (202), Miletus (201), Calymna (100, 50), Methymna and Scepsis (99, 49),[1] Ionia (197); while the coinage of AEgina (17, 12), which by its wide 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 fuller weight, or higher Egyptian group, which we have just noticed in the coinage, was kept up (17) into the scries of cistophori (196-191), as in the Ptolemaic series of 199. At Athens the old mina was fixed by Solon at 150 of his drachmae (18) or 9800 grains, according to the earliest drachma?, showing a stater of 196 ; and this continued to be the trade mina in Athens, at least until 160 B.C., 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, Peloponnesus, and most of the islands. The system was—
obol, C = drachm, 2 = stater, 50 = mina, C0=talent. 16 grs. 96 192 9600 576,000
It also passed into Italy, but in a smaller multiple of 25 drachmae, or | of the Greek mina; 12 Italian weights (44) bearing value marks (which cannot therefore be differently attributed) show a libra of 2400 or 4 of 9600, which was divided in uncire and sextulae, and the full-sized mina is known as the 24 uncia mina, or talent of 120 libra; of Vitruvius and Isidore (i8) = 9900. Hultsch states this to be the old Etruscan pound.
412 4950 grs.
With the trade mina of 9650 in Greece, and recognized AQKO in Italy, we can hardly doubt that the Roman libra is OU grs. the ]m]f of thig mina At Athens it was 2 x 4900; an( | on the average of all the Greek weights it is 2 x 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 .ZEginetan 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 ( 1 8) ; 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 ^ of the cubic foot of water. If, however, the weight in a degraded form, and the foot in an unde- graded 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 cubic foot in England. Bb ckh has re marked the great diversity between weights of the same age, those marked "Ad August! Temp" ranging 4971 to 5535, those tested by the fussy prefect 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 = suxtula, C = 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 = dniehnia, 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 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 its adoption by Solon in Athens, and is thence called Attic or Solonic, is nevertheless far older than its introdotion 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 x 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 drachmæ; this is practically identical with the talent of 6000 Attic drachmæ. So the talent of
- ↑ 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.
