DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.619#0093
84
NAUKRATIS.
certify the higher variety. The lower variety
agrees with the usual coin standard. The
heaviness of these early Aeginetan weights from
Naukratis, which are hefore the bulk of weights
ordinarily known, bears strongly on the possible
derivation of the Aeginetan standard from an
Egyptian and Oriental unit of 200 grains. (See
"Archaeological Journal," xl. 420.) Certainly,
looking to the curves, it seems quite impos-
sible to believe that the Aeginetan is derived
from the Persian silver standard, as has been
supposed.
The Phoenician is a singularly disjointed and
rambling group; and the bad workmanship in
general of the weights is in accordance with this.
If this name is rightly applied to the standard,
we may see in this variability an appropriate
connection with the people who had no centralized
national life, and were merely a collection of
traders with independent interests and ways.
There is a possibility that many of the weights
assigned to the Assyrian, Attic, and Egyptian
groups are of the Phoenician standard. Instead
of being decimal multiples of the former, they
might be triple multiples of the latter. 3 Phoe-
nician of 210 would be 630, or equal to 5 shekels
of 126; while the range extends to 235, 3 of
which would be 705, or equal to 5 kats of 141;
thus covering also the whole range of the Attic
weights. Here a new statistical test comes to
our aid. The possible instances of this kind must
be all multiples by 5, 10, or 20 of the other three
standards, in order to be triple multiples of the
Phoenician. Selecting therefore all such, and
placing them together, we find about 12; but of
these only one is of a rectilinear form, and that
one is connected with similar weights, which are
not quinary multiples of the Attic, and which
cannot therefore be Phoenician. Hence we have
a possibility of 11 weights being Phoenician triple
multiples, not one of which is rectilinear; whereas
Phoenician weights, on the average, have a large
proportion rectilinear (about 1 in 4). Hence it
is unlikely that these weights in general are of
Phoenician standard, and consequently we have
no evidence of any triple multiples of that
standard. These weights are therefore all left in
the Assyrian, Attic, and Egyptian standards as
quinary multiples.
It is striking to see the large number of weights
of the Assyrian standard, confirming the many
similar weights which I had already published as
being found in Egypt (" Archaeological Journal,"
xl. 421).
The curve of the Assyrian standard agrees
closely with other sources of this standard. The*
mean of the lion weights is 126*5; of the ducks
125*6; of the barrel weights 128*1; of the other
Egyptian examples 127*5; and of the coined
Darics 129*2; these various classes just occupying
the highest part of the curve of frequency.
The Attic weights, though not made with much
elegance of form, being generally of rounded,
bulging curves, are yet more accurate than tbe
other standards, as is seen by the compactness
and steepness of the curve.
The Egyptian curve shows the well-known gap
between high and low varieties, suggesting a
special standard of 139 grains, beside the high
type of 142 to 151. The low standard is that
shown by the well-known inscribed " 5 kat of
Heliopolis;" and this seems as if it were a truly
local variety, since an uten weight from Heliopolis
gives 138*8 (in Mr. Chester's possession). What
is greatly needed now is to obtain a large number
of dated weights from each place, and so disen-
tangle the varieties belonging to each district in
98. One clue to the variations may be found in
some cases by examining the forms or materials
of each standard. Eor instance, taking the kat
weights, there are a sufficient number of particular
types to compare their distribution. This is best
done by curves, as in comparison of the relation-
ship of standards; but here we may treat it in the
briefer way of taking the means of the examples
of each class of form:—
NAUKRATIS.
certify the higher variety. The lower variety
agrees with the usual coin standard. The
heaviness of these early Aeginetan weights from
Naukratis, which are hefore the bulk of weights
ordinarily known, bears strongly on the possible
derivation of the Aeginetan standard from an
Egyptian and Oriental unit of 200 grains. (See
"Archaeological Journal," xl. 420.) Certainly,
looking to the curves, it seems quite impos-
sible to believe that the Aeginetan is derived
from the Persian silver standard, as has been
supposed.
The Phoenician is a singularly disjointed and
rambling group; and the bad workmanship in
general of the weights is in accordance with this.
If this name is rightly applied to the standard,
we may see in this variability an appropriate
connection with the people who had no centralized
national life, and were merely a collection of
traders with independent interests and ways.
There is a possibility that many of the weights
assigned to the Assyrian, Attic, and Egyptian
groups are of the Phoenician standard. Instead
of being decimal multiples of the former, they
might be triple multiples of the latter. 3 Phoe-
nician of 210 would be 630, or equal to 5 shekels
of 126; while the range extends to 235, 3 of
which would be 705, or equal to 5 kats of 141;
thus covering also the whole range of the Attic
weights. Here a new statistical test comes to
our aid. The possible instances of this kind must
be all multiples by 5, 10, or 20 of the other three
standards, in order to be triple multiples of the
Phoenician. Selecting therefore all such, and
placing them together, we find about 12; but of
these only one is of a rectilinear form, and that
one is connected with similar weights, which are
not quinary multiples of the Attic, and which
cannot therefore be Phoenician. Hence we have
a possibility of 11 weights being Phoenician triple
multiples, not one of which is rectilinear; whereas
Phoenician weights, on the average, have a large
proportion rectilinear (about 1 in 4). Hence it
is unlikely that these weights in general are of
Phoenician standard, and consequently we have
no evidence of any triple multiples of that
standard. These weights are therefore all left in
the Assyrian, Attic, and Egyptian standards as
quinary multiples.
It is striking to see the large number of weights
of the Assyrian standard, confirming the many
similar weights which I had already published as
being found in Egypt (" Archaeological Journal,"
xl. 421).
The curve of the Assyrian standard agrees
closely with other sources of this standard. The*
mean of the lion weights is 126*5; of the ducks
125*6; of the barrel weights 128*1; of the other
Egyptian examples 127*5; and of the coined
Darics 129*2; these various classes just occupying
the highest part of the curve of frequency.
The Attic weights, though not made with much
elegance of form, being generally of rounded,
bulging curves, are yet more accurate than tbe
other standards, as is seen by the compactness
and steepness of the curve.
The Egyptian curve shows the well-known gap
between high and low varieties, suggesting a
special standard of 139 grains, beside the high
type of 142 to 151. The low standard is that
shown by the well-known inscribed " 5 kat of
Heliopolis;" and this seems as if it were a truly
local variety, since an uten weight from Heliopolis
gives 138*8 (in Mr. Chester's possession). What
is greatly needed now is to obtain a large number
of dated weights from each place, and so disen-
tangle the varieties belonging to each district in
98. One clue to the variations may be found in
some cases by examining the forms or materials
of each standard. Eor instance, taking the kat
weights, there are a sufficient number of particular
types to compare their distribution. This is best
done by curves, as in comparison of the relation-
ship of standards; but here we may treat it in the
briefer way of taking the means of the examples
of each class of form:—