DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.619#0094
THE WEIGHTS OF EATTKRATIS.
85
Hounded.
Sub-domed.
Domed.
Dome.
Basalt.
Alabaster,
Limestone.
Bronze.
1 143-6
140 7
144*2
1450 i
217-6
227-5
232
223
Here we see that the sub-domed type is the
specially low variety of the standard, and that
the fullest dome form is the heaviest. In the
Assyrian shekels there is no difference of weight
in the types worth notice, except that the barrel
weights are all either high or low; 3 being under
124-5, and 3 over 130-4. The tendency to a
straggling set of low varieties, so peculiarly seen
in the Assyrian, may be well due to a wish for
inter-relation with the Egyptian kat; especially as
the kat was naturally multiplied by 5 and the
shekel by 6. Thus if they took a sixth of 5 kats
of 151 to 138 grains, they would reach a shekel of
126 to 115 grains, which is very closely the range
of the low varieties of the shekel outside of the
main curve. In the Attic weights the forms seem
unconnected with varieties of weight.
The Phoenician shekel, which afterwards became
the Alexandrian standard, shows well-marked
varieties. The mean of the different types
being—
Irregular.
2254
Sub-domed. Domed. Pome.
230- 2190 228-5
Square, &c.
231-
Is"ow, since this standard degraded to the Alex-
andrian form, it may be surmised that the square
and sub-domed types are earlier than the closer
copies of the Egyptian domed form.
The varieties of material may be similarly
examined. Taking the kat weights, the mean
values of the examples are—
Baanlt.
114 9
Syenite.
144*2
Alabaster.
141-1
Bronze.
143-5
showing that the alabaster belongs usually to
lighter weights, and the basalt to the heaviest.
In the Phoenician standard the mean values
are—
1 It should be explained that these are not numerical
means, since such are often misleading, one extreme example
outweighing a number of concordant ones. The safer plan
in most subjects is to take the central example, i.e. that
weight which shall have an equal number of instances
higher and lower. This is particularly the case in a con-
sideration further on, of the average multiplying of each
standard; and such a method is in the strictest accordance
with the mathematical theory of frequency of error.
Thus the basalt is generally the lighter, and the
limestone the heavier standard.
Another interesting inquiry is with reference to
the average multiple of each standard; or, in
fuller terms, the average bigness of the weights,
irrespective of all variations in the value of the
standard. If a standard is generally used for
valuable objects, the weights will, on an average,
be little weights; or if for common and cheap
things, the weights will be ponderous. If a col-
lection of modern English weights were made, the
Troy and Apothecaries' weights would be mostly
little ones, of grains and drams and ounces;
whereas the avoirdupois weights would be mostly
ounces, pounds, and stones. Finding therefore
what example of each weight has an equal number
smaller and larger than itself, the values are in
grains—
Egyptian, Assyrian. AtMc. Phoenician. Aepinetan. 80-jrrain.
730 500 650 220 390 20C0
And hence we conclude that the Phoenician weight
was most commonly used for precious metals and
such valuables; that the Aeginetan may have
been the same; but that the Egyptian, Assyrian,
and Attic would be used for more ordinary trade
in the common metals, and perhaps domestic
purposes—particularly the Egyptian; while the
80-grain standard was not a coin standard, but
rather used for domestic and common purposes.
99. Having now briefly pointed out some of the
results which may be deduced from the collection
of Naukratis weights, we will consider the origin
of the 80-grain standard, the only one that is
found here which is not already well known. As I
have observed,the gap between this and the Persian
silver curve, and the want of relationship between
this and the two-thirds of the Assyrian shekel,
is good evidence that this is not merely a low
variation of the Persian silver standard. Another
evidence is in the large size of its examples,
averaging 2000 grains, and therefore not so likely
85
Hounded.
Sub-domed.
Domed.
Dome.
Basalt.
Alabaster,
Limestone.
Bronze.
1 143-6
140 7
144*2
1450 i
217-6
227-5
232
223
Here we see that the sub-domed type is the
specially low variety of the standard, and that
the fullest dome form is the heaviest. In the
Assyrian shekels there is no difference of weight
in the types worth notice, except that the barrel
weights are all either high or low; 3 being under
124-5, and 3 over 130-4. The tendency to a
straggling set of low varieties, so peculiarly seen
in the Assyrian, may be well due to a wish for
inter-relation with the Egyptian kat; especially as
the kat was naturally multiplied by 5 and the
shekel by 6. Thus if they took a sixth of 5 kats
of 151 to 138 grains, they would reach a shekel of
126 to 115 grains, which is very closely the range
of the low varieties of the shekel outside of the
main curve. In the Attic weights the forms seem
unconnected with varieties of weight.
The Phoenician shekel, which afterwards became
the Alexandrian standard, shows well-marked
varieties. The mean of the different types
being—
Irregular.
2254
Sub-domed. Domed. Pome.
230- 2190 228-5
Square, &c.
231-
Is"ow, since this standard degraded to the Alex-
andrian form, it may be surmised that the square
and sub-domed types are earlier than the closer
copies of the Egyptian domed form.
The varieties of material may be similarly
examined. Taking the kat weights, the mean
values of the examples are—
Baanlt.
114 9
Syenite.
144*2
Alabaster.
141-1
Bronze.
143-5
showing that the alabaster belongs usually to
lighter weights, and the basalt to the heaviest.
In the Phoenician standard the mean values
are—
1 It should be explained that these are not numerical
means, since such are often misleading, one extreme example
outweighing a number of concordant ones. The safer plan
in most subjects is to take the central example, i.e. that
weight which shall have an equal number of instances
higher and lower. This is particularly the case in a con-
sideration further on, of the average multiplying of each
standard; and such a method is in the strictest accordance
with the mathematical theory of frequency of error.
Thus the basalt is generally the lighter, and the
limestone the heavier standard.
Another interesting inquiry is with reference to
the average multiple of each standard; or, in
fuller terms, the average bigness of the weights,
irrespective of all variations in the value of the
standard. If a standard is generally used for
valuable objects, the weights will, on an average,
be little weights; or if for common and cheap
things, the weights will be ponderous. If a col-
lection of modern English weights were made, the
Troy and Apothecaries' weights would be mostly
little ones, of grains and drams and ounces;
whereas the avoirdupois weights would be mostly
ounces, pounds, and stones. Finding therefore
what example of each weight has an equal number
smaller and larger than itself, the values are in
grains—
Egyptian, Assyrian. AtMc. Phoenician. Aepinetan. 80-jrrain.
730 500 650 220 390 20C0
And hence we conclude that the Phoenician weight
was most commonly used for precious metals and
such valuables; that the Aeginetan may have
been the same; but that the Egyptian, Assyrian,
and Attic would be used for more ordinary trade
in the common metals, and perhaps domestic
purposes—particularly the Egyptian; while the
80-grain standard was not a coin standard, but
rather used for domestic and common purposes.
99. Having now briefly pointed out some of the
results which may be deduced from the collection
of Naukratis weights, we will consider the origin
of the 80-grain standard, the only one that is
found here which is not already well known. As I
have observed,the gap between this and the Persian
silver curve, and the want of relationship between
this and the two-thirds of the Assyrian shekel,
is good evidence that this is not merely a low
variation of the Persian silver standard. Another
evidence is in the large size of its examples,
averaging 2000 grains, and therefore not so likely