gold was equal to 1150 of silver, 5 shekels or 110, mina. Other proposed derivations from the kat or pek are not satisfactory. In actual use this unit varied greatly at Naucratis (29) there are groups of it at 231, 223 and others down to 208, this is the earliest form in which we can study it and the corresponding values to these are 130 and 126, or the gold and trade varieties of the Babylonian, while the lower tail down to 208 corresponds to the shekel down to 118, which is just what is found. Hence the 224 unit seems to have been formed from the 129, after the main families or types of that had arisen. It is scarcer at Defenneh (29) and rare at Memphis (44). Under the Ptolemies however it became the great unit of Egypt, and is very prominent in the later literature in consequence (18, 35) The average of coins (21) of Ptolemy I. gives 219·6 and thence they gradually diminish to 210, the average (33) of the whole series of Ptolemies being 218. The “argenteus” (as Revillout transcribes a sign in the papyri) (35) was of 5 shekels, or 1090; it arose about 440 B.C. and became after 160 B.C. a weight unit for copper. In Syria, as early as the 15th century B.C., the tribute of the Rutennu, of Naharaina, Megiddo, Anaukasa &c. (34), is on a basis of 454–484 kats, or 300 shekels (110 talent) of 226 grains. The commonest weight at Troy (44) is the shekel, averaging 224. In coinage it is one of the commonest units in early times; from Phoenicia, round the coast to Macedonia, it is predominant (17); at a maximum of 230 (Ialysus) it is in Macedonia 224, but seldom exceeds 220 elsewhere, the earliest Lydian of the 7th century being 219, and the general average of coins 218. The system was—
| (18), | 8＝drachm, | 4＝shekel, | 25＝mina, | 120 talent. |
| 7 grs. | 56 | 224 | 5600 | 672,000 |
From the Phoenician coinage it was adopted for the Maccabean. It is needless to give the continual evidences of this being the later Jewish shekel, both from coins (max. 223) and writers (2, 18, 33); the question of the early shekel we have noticed already under 129. In Phoenicia and Asia Minor the mina was specially made in the form with two breasts (44), 19 such weights averaging 5600 (＝224); and thence it passed into Greece, more in a double value of 11,200 (＝224). From Phoenicia this naturally became the main Punic unit; a bronze weight from Iol (18), marked 100, gives a drachma of 56 or 57 (224–228); and a Punic inscription (18) names 28 drachmae ＝25 Attic, and ∴ 57 to 59 grains (228–236); while a probably later series of 8 marble disks from Carthage (44) show 208, but vary from 197 to 234. In Spain it was 236 to 216 in different series (17), and it is a question whether the Massiliote drachmae of 58-55 are not Phoenician rather than Phocaic. In Italy this mina became naturalized, and formed the “Italic mina” of Hero, Priscian, &c.; also its double, the mina of 26 unciae or 10,800,＝50 shekels of 216; the average of 42 weights gives 5390 (＝215·6) and it was divided both into 100 drachmae, and also in the Italic mode of 12 unciae and 288 scripulae (44). The talent was of 120 minae of 5400, or 3000 shekels, shown by the talent from Herculaneum ta, 660,000 and by the weight inscribed pondo cxxv. (i.e. 125 librae) talentum siclorvm. iii., i.e. talent of 3000 shekels (2) (the M being omitted; just as Epiphanius describes this talent as 125 librae, or θ (＝9) nomismata for 9000). This gives the same approximate ratio 96:100 to the libra as the usual drachma reckoning. The Alexandrian talent of Festus, 12,000 denarii, is the same talent again. It is believed that this mina ÷ 12 unciae by the Romans is the origin of the Arabic raṭl of 12 ūkīyas, or 5500 gains (33), which is said to have been sent by Harun al-Rashid to Charlemagne, and so to have originated the French monetary pound of 5666 grains. But, as this is probably the same as the English monetary pound, or tower pound of 5400, which was in use earlier (see Saxon coins), it seems more likely that this pound (which is common in Roman weights) was directly inherited from the Roman civilization.
80 grs
4000;
400,000.Another unit which has scarcely been recognized in
metrology hitherto, is prominent in the weights from
Egypt—some 50 weights from Naucratis and 15 from
Defenneh plainly agreeing on this and on no other basis.
Its value varies between 76·5 and 81·5—mean 79 at Naucratis (29)
or 81 at Defenneh (29). It has been connected theoretically with a
binary division of the 10 shekels or “stone” of the Assyrian systems
(28), 1290÷16 being, 80·6; this is suggested by the most usual
multiples being 40 and 80＝25 and 50 shekels of 129; it is thus akin
to the mina of 50 shekels previously noticed. The tribute of the Asi,
Rutennu, Khita, Assaru &c. 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 200×82. Then at Abydus, or more probably from Babylonia,
there is the large bronze lion-weight, stated to have been originally
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 minae 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÷100＝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) about
380 B.C., is Tarsus, 164 grains; Soli, 169, 163, 158; Nagidus, 158,
161-133 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, 89 and 39. Coming down to literary evidence, this is
abundant. Böckh decides that the “Alexandrian drachma” was
65 of the Solonic 67 or＝80·5, and shows that it was not Ptolemaic,
or Rhodian, or Aeginetan, 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 drachmae＝8100. Then Attic: Euboic or Aeginetan::18:25
in the metrologists (2), and the Euboic talent＝7000 “Alexandrian”
drachmae; the drachma therefore is 80·0. The “Alexandrian”
wood talent: Attic talent :: 6:5 (Hero, Didymus) and ∴ 480,000,
which is 60 minae of 8000. Pliny states the Egyptian talent at
80 librae＝396,000; evidently＝the Abydus lion talent, which
is ÷ 100 and the mina is ∴ 3960 or 50×79·2. The largest weight is
the “wood” talent of Syria (18)＝6 Roman talents, or 1,860,000,
evidently 120 Antioch minae of 15,500 or 2×7750. 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, | 50＝talent. |
60＝Greek talent. |
| 80 grs. | 160 | 8000 | 400,000 | 480,000 |
207 grs. to 190
9650;
579,000.This system, the Aeginetan, one of the most important
to the Greek world, has been thought to
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 5×207·6. 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 haematite 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 23 kat is used which is thought to be Syrian;
now 23 kat＝92 to 101 grains, or just this weight which we have
found in Syria; and the weights of 23 and 13 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 Aeginetan unit an
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 50×209·2.
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 series 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 drachmae, 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, | 6＝drachm, | 2＝stater, | 50＝mina, | 60＝talent. |
| 16 grs. | 96 | 192 | 9600 | 576,000 |
- ↑ 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 grams. The Attic and Assyrian standards were used indifferently for either gold or silver.
