and beautifully finished specimen of a genuine ancient type—spindle shaped with a flat oval surface in the middle of one side. I have no special acquaintance with ancient weights, and cannot say anything as to the distribution of this particular type; it is known to me by specimens from Egypt, of much larger size but similar pattern, two of which I myself purchased at Gizeh in 1891. The flattening of the middle of one side is obviously convenient as providing a surface on which the weight rests without rolling; but I imagine also that the final adjustment to the standard was made in the process of rubbing down the flat base. The whole aspect of the weight and the skill with which it is shaped and polished seem to me to be strong presumptive evidence that it is genuine. If it be spurious, it is a forgery of a perfectly novel kind, and the first efforts of forgers in a new direction are not generally happy. Of course this argument in favour of the weight does not necessarily apply to the inscription; for it is a well-known trick to put a false inscription on a genuine object with a view to enhancing its value.
2. The inscription has been studied by Professor Sayce, on the original, and by Professor Euting, the celebrated epigrapher of Strassburg, on the cast published by the Palestine Exploration Fund. The copy of this cast used by Professor Euting was sent to him by Professor König, and the results of his examination are briefly communicated by the latter in his "Einleitung," p. 425 note. On one side of the weight Professor Sayce reads רבע של and on the other רבע נצג. As regards the first side, Professor Euting accepts רבע, but can find no trace of של; as regards the second, he admits that Professor Sayce's reading is possible if only נצג were a real word and gave sense. But he urges that נצג gives no sense, and that the last letter may be taken as ף instead of ג;, in which case the words on the second side are not genuine Hebrew, but the Arabic nis f, "half," in old Hebrew characters, and so necessarily spurious. To all this Professor Sayce replies that the cast is imperfect and does not represent all the lines of the original, which his opinion can only be read as he has read it.
3. In this state of the controversy a fresh examination of the original and a thorough comparison between it and the cast were clearly desirable. Through the kindness of Dr. Chaplin, I have had the use of the original for two entire days, during which I have studied it in every way, by natural and artificial light, with the naked eye and under weak and strong lenses. For the purpose of comparison I have been able to use two copies of the cast, one of which was supplied from the office of the Palestine Exploration Fund, while the other was lent me by Professor Driver. Both these copies appear to me to be excellent, and faithfully to represent every line of the inscription. On this point I entirely agree with what has been already stated by Dr. Chaplin in the Academy of November 4, from his own observation and that of Mr. Armstrong; and I may add that, at my request, my colleague Professor Bevan and Mr. F. C. Burkitt, both of whom are very competent judges in such
