CHAPTER X.

THE SYSTEMS OF EGYPT, BABYLON, AND PALESTINE.

We are now in a position to approach the last stage in our task, that which deals with the growth and development of various weight-standards, all of which start from a common unit. Of necessity Egypt, Babylon, Greece and Italy will claim a chief share of our attention. The question now is, Shall we deal with these regions according to the priority of their civilization, that is, in the order in which I have just named them, or shall we rather adhere to the principle which has hitherto guided us, of working back from that which is better known to that which is less known?

On the whole the former is perhaps the better for our present purpose. As we believe that we have discovered by the inductive method the common unit which lies at the base of all these systems, there is no longer the same necessity for always starting with that which is the less ancient. Besides, if we were nominally to pursue this course, it by no means follows that we would be starting from that which is the best known. _Prima facie_ we ought to start with the Roman system, the tradition of which has remained unbroken down to our own days. We could work back through the system of the Middle Ages to the time of Constantine the Great, from Constantine to the early Empire, and from the Empire to the Republic. Moreover no weight-unit is more accurately known than the Roman pound. But the early history of Rome is so obscure that we have absolutely no records of a time, when Greece had already a literature of a venerable antiquity. Rome has no literary remains and even not more than a very few meagre inscriptions dating from before the first Punic War (263-241 B.C.), the very time when Hellas was already far advanced in the autumn of her life. Then Italy had borrowed so much from Hellas that the enquirer must be cautious as to how far he may be dealing with material of true Italian or merely adventitious origin. As we are concerned rather with the _origin_ than with the later developments of weight-systems, it is plain that for dealing with our principal objects the Italian systems present us with no special aid. The late period (268 B.C.) at which the Romans struck silver coins places us at a still further disadvantage if we start with their system. Greece on the other hand presents us not only with abundant literary records of great antiquity, some of them descending from an age which knew not the uses of coined money, but also with thousands of inscriptions cut in marble or bronze, many of which contain data of great value for dealing with the history of currency and weight, and finally presents us with vast series of coins from which we can learn empirically the coin standards employed in various times and places. But it is the very wealth of material that is in some degree here our difficulty. The special feature of Greek national life was its numerous autonomous states. There was no central authority with a mint which issued coins for a whole empire as was virtually the case in the great Persian kingdom, and at a later period in the Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great. In the palmy days of Hellas each petty state issued its own coinage, following in its silver and copper mintages whatever standard or module it pleased.

To commence our constructive part with a country where we are confronted with such an array of separate coinages and of diverse standards would be unwise if it were possible to start from some region where there was a single central authority, and consequently less diversity of standards. We are thus led to choose either Egypt or Babylonia as our starting point. The former presents to us a system less developed and more simple than the latter. In fact we are tolerably well justified, in view of recent discussion, in regarding all that is more complex in the system of Egypt as borrowed from Babylonia. Yet it must not be supposed that we escape all difficulties in thus starting with Egypt. If in Hellas we found ourselves embarrassed by the wealth of coinages, in Egypt on the other hand we have no native coinage to guide us, for it was only after the conquest of Egypt by Alexander that under the Greek dynasty founded by Ptolemy Lagos the essentially Greek art of coining was introduced into Egypt. We depend therefore for our knowledge of Egyptian standards upon the actual weighings of weight-pieces and such information as can be gleaned from the ancient Egyptian documents. The same holds good likewise on the whole for the Assyrian system, where however the actual weight-pieces and statements derived from cuneiform inscriptions can in some degree be supported by collateral evidence. At the same time we must be careful not to assign as much importance to the literary evidence supplied to us by Egyptian hieroglyphic or Assyrian cuneiform as we do to the records of Greece or Rome. The keys to the former have only been obtained within the present century, and many of the translations of such documents given us by that brilliant band of savants who have opened to us the portals of a Past far exceeding in antiquity the most remote epoch of which the literatures of Greece and Rome contain even any tradition, must at the best in many cases be considered only as tentative.

Furthermore although the knowledge gained from actually existing weights, which have been gleaned from the ruins of Nineveh, Khorsabad, or Naucratis, may be regarded as positive and more or less exact, we are met by the difficulty that in the case of Egypt and Assyria, where there was no coined money, we have no means of deciding what class of weight was used for certain kinds of commodities. In Greece and in the countries which formed the Persian empire we can be sure at all events of the standards which were employed in the weighing of gold and silver: the absence of this test is a serious hindrance in the study of Egyptian and Assyrian metrology. It is easy to illustrate by a supposed example the element of uncertainty introduced. Let us suppose that in ages to come the ruins of some English ironmonger’s shop were excavated, and a series of weights was found therein, a set of Avoirdupois weights ranging from a one-hundredweight to half an ounce; a set of Troy weights ranging from one pound to half a grain, and one of Apothecaries’ weights consisting of ounces, drachms, scruples, and grains. Suppose likewise that some ardent metrologist of that age, in addition to this splendid find, should be able to add to his material from elsewhere one or two sovereign and half-sovereign weights, a guinea, half-guinea, quarter-guinea, and seven-shilling-piece weight, perhaps even a noble, or a half-noble weight, and then without consulting literary sources, or previously studying the standards on which the English coinage had been struck at different periods, proceeded to reconstruct the metrological system of England. It is needless to say that his conclusions would be indeed widely aberrant from the truth.

Having thus sketched however roughly some of the difficulties which beset our path, and after warning the reader that in metrology if anywhere the maxim of the old Sicilian poet is to be observed,

Sober keep, to doubt inclined be; Hinges these are of the mind[292],

I shall now proceed to set forth the method in which I conceive the various systems gradually rose and expanded. Let us bear in mind the fact already proved that gold was the first of all commodities to be weighed, and that consequently the standards employed for weighing that metal are the most archaic.

EGYPT.

As has been previously remarked, we are not concerned with the long battle still raging between Assyriologists and Egyptologists as regards the respective claims of Egypt and Babylonia to the invention of measure and weight-standards. Boeckh himself seems instinctively to have felt this difficulty. For whilst he took Babylonia as the birthplace and home of all the ancient systems, nevertheless he held that contemporaneously there must have existed a connection between Egypt and Babylonia in remote antiquity, from which alone certain agreements and relations between the measures and weights of Egypt and Babylonia were capable of explanation[293]. The primitive measures of length are undoubtedly by the consensus of mankind based upon the parts of the body, such as the finger, the thumb, the foot, the arm, or both arms fully extended, standards common to Egyptians and Chaldaeans alike. Whilst at a later stage in the history of all civilized peoples efforts have been made to obtain more accuracy in these standards, which of necessity have produced certain local and national divergencies, yet inasmuch as all alike started from these standards which have been supplied by nature, it is obvious that many striking similarities and relations will always be found when any comparative study of different systems is attempted. The same principle of course holds good for weight-standards. According to our argument there was a common animal unit existing in Assyria and Egypt, which was represented by a metal unit, prevailing alike in both regions possibly with certain modifications. Egypt and Assyria starting with this common unit, each in their own fashion constructed their distinctive national systems, and we need not be surprised if at a later period under certain political conditions certain parts of the system of one of these regions are found exercising some influence upon that of the other.

We shall now briefly state the Egyptian weight-system. In the oldest Egyptian documents two weights continually occur, the Kat (_Ket_ or _Kite_) and the Uten (_Ten_ or _Outen_). Already in the third millennium before Christ the precious metals were in full use in Egypt, and copper likewise was employed in the purchase of articles of small value. Although very large amounts are recorded, yet they had devised no larger unit than those mentioned.

[Illustration: FIG. 22. Egyptian Five-Kat weight (Harris Collection).]

To M. Chabas belongs the honour of being the first to clear up the relations between the uten and kat. The history of this discovery is an interesting proof of the fruitlessness of the purely empirical form of metrology which confines itself to the measuring of buildings, and weighing of ancient weight-pieces and coins, unless its path is made clear by means of the light derived from ancient records. The names uten and kat had been long known, as both of them recur frequently on the walls of the temple of Karnak (_Temp._ Thothmes III. 1700-1600 B.C.), and Egyptian weights were in the museums of Europe, but nevertheless “the exact relation of the one to the other remained unknown until it was fortunately disclosed by a passage in the Harris papyrus, which contains the annals of Rameses III. (circ. 1300 B.C.). From this it appears that the Uten contained ten Kats[294].” The uten therefore is the tenfold of the kat: Nissen[295] thinks that the latter was perhaps originally a gold weight (_vielleicht ursprünglich ein Goldgewicht_). These two units served for the weighing of gold, silver and copper, and there seems to be no difference noted in the documents between the units used for each purpose. In the lists of booty we read of such sums as 3144 utens of gold and 36692 utens of electrum. In lists of prices of commodities kats and utens of silver and copper are frequently mentioned. The weight of the kat has been fixed by Lepsius at 9·096 grammes (142·1 grains) and that of the uten at 90·959 grammes (1421·2 grains). But as it often happens in the case of coins that one well-preserved specimen is a better index of the normal standard than any that can be attained by taking the average of 100 bad specimens, so in the case of weights, one good specimen, made of some hard and imperishable substance, will give us a truer representation of the standard unit than the average of a large number of weights made of some less durable material, and carelessly executed, and meant merely for traffic in goods of little value. If such a weight as we have supposed is inscribed with its name, and we can also get some indication that it has all the authority that belongs to a weight used for official purposes, its value becomes still greater. Such a piece fortunately exists in the Harris Collection. It is a beautifully preserved serpentine weight, and weighs 698 grs. Troy. Allowing for its extremely slight loss we may suppose its original weight to have been about 700 grs. It bears the inscription, _Five Kats of the Treasury of On_. This gives 140 grains Troy as the weight of the kat[296]. This inscription also proves that the kat was the unit. For if as is commonly stated the uten is the unit, of which the kat is simply the one-tenth, we must naturally expect to find this weight described as ½ uten rather than as 5 kats. This is confirmed by a statement of the grammarian Horapollo (or Horus, who although writing about 400 A.D. nevertheless preserves much valuable information) that “with the Egyptians the didrachm is the monad. But the monad is the source of production of all numeration.” As two drachms were 135 grs., it is evident that it is the kat of 140 grs., and not the uten of 1400 grs. which the Egyptians themselves regarded as the basis of their system[297]. Mr Flinders Petrie from the weights of 158 specimens found in the ruins of Naucratis, which range from 136.8 grains to 153 grains, concludes that there were two distinct kat units, one weighing 142 grs., the other 152 grs. But until some literary evidence is forthcoming for the existence of this second and heavier kat[298], we must suspend our judgment. It is perfectly possible that such existed, being used for some purpose different from that of the kat of 140 grains. For instance it might have been used specially for copper owing to a desire to make certain adjustments between silver and copper, but this is of course mere conjecture.

It is worth while here to see the method by which those who believe in a scientific system of Egyptian origin obtain their unit.

Signor Bortolotti (_Del primitivo cubito Egizio_) thinks that the uten of 1400 grains is exactly the ⅟₁₀₀₀ part of the weight of a cubic cubit of Nile water, the cubit in question being not the ordinary royal cubit of 20·66 inches, but a measure which he calls the primitive Egyptian cubit of 19·71 inches in length. Signor Bortolotti also suggests that the standard uten of Mr Petrie’s heavy system was 1486 grains, being the ⅟₁₅₀₀ part of the weight of a cubic _royal_ cubit (20·66 inches) in Nile water. But as I have just pointed out the evidence is in favour of the kat being the original unit rather than the uten. Besides if the Egyptians obtained their system for the first time by the scientific process, we ought naturally to find some of those larger units such as the talent and mina, which are found in Egypt at a later epoch. But as we have seen in the case of Greeks, Hebrews, Chinese and Hindus, everywhere weight systems begin with a weight for gold, and this is naturally a small unit.

There is still one element in this matter which we must not overlook. A certain number of gold rings have been found in Egypt. Their unit is fixed by Lenormant at 8·1 grammes (128 grains). Brandis regarded them as Syrian in origin, and thus got rid of all difficulty. Others regard the rings as evidently of Egyptian manufacture, and from finding as they think a corresponding mina appearing in Egypt in Ptolemaic times regard this unit as a genuine ancient Egyptian standard in use long anterior to the Persian conquest. It may thus be very probable that the standard employed in early days in Egypt for gold (and also electrum and silver) was this unit of 128 grains, which is of course almost identical with an ox-unit. Silver, according to Erman[299], was in the time of the oldest Egyptian records more valuable than gold, for in enumeration it is always named before gold, whereas under the later dynasties it is named as with us always after gold, shewing that a great change had taken place in the relations between these metals. It is then clearly conceivable that at the outset one and the same unit of about 128-30 grains, under the name of kat, served as the unit for both gold and silver (which explains perfectly the fact that an ox is valued at a kat of silver), but that in after days when the change in the relative values of the metals came, there was found a need for a new silver unit, just as the Greeks in certain places found it necessary to form the Aeginetan and other standards, and the Babylonians found themselves compelled to form that standard which alone can with truth be termed _the Babylonian_, the silver unit of 172 grains.

We have now before us the data for the early Egyptian weight system[300]. It is simple; the unit is the kat probably based on the ox as we have seen already. The fact that weights formed in the shape of cows and cows’ heads are represented in Egyptian paintings as employed in the weighing of rings, indicates that in the mind of the first manufacturer of such weights there was a distinct connection between the shape given to the weight and the object whose value in gold (or silver) it expressed. Specimens of such weights are known, and are always of small size, a sure indication that the commodity for which they were employed was very precious. The fact that we find weights in the shape of lions can be readily accounted for by the supposition that in the course of time when the connection between the ox and the original weight-unit became forgotten, and different standards had been evolved, some distinctive animal form was adopted to distinguish the weights of a particular standard. The original unit being thus obtained, the higher unit, the uten, was formed by the method most familiar to all races of men. The fingers of one hand suggested to mankind a simple means of counting; and the combined fingers of both hands gave them the decimal system. The Egyptians accordingly simply took the tenfold of the ox-unit as their highest unit. As weighing in the earliest stage was confined to the precious metals, this unit was sufficient for all practical needs[301]. It will be noticed that the process employed in forming this weight-system is exactly that which we have found in the Chinese and its related systems. The Chinese _liang_ (_tael_ or ounce) corresponds to the Egyptian kat (or shekel). Under its name of _tical_ or _bat_ we found it as the unit of gold in South-Eastern Asia, and for the weighing of precious metals we found that the highest unit employed was the _nên_, the tenfold of the original unit, (the _tael_) itself still the only unit in use in China for the precious metals. In process of time when ordinary commodities of life began to be reckoned by weight, the Chinese made use of the _pical_ (which originally simply meant a man’s load) as their highest commercial unit. Much the same process seems to have taken place in Egypt, for in later times we find _talents_ of various kinds in use. Thus the Alexandrine talent which was employed for wood contained 360 utens. Was this talent originally nothing more than a man’s load, which in a later and more scientific age was adjusted to the weight standard time out of mind employed for metals? In this talent of 360 utens we can see the influence of the _sexagesimal_ systems of Asia Minor, which, as we shall presently see, was really a commercial standard of comparatively late development and never at any time was employed for the precious metals. The Alexandrine talent of 360 utens contained 3600 kats, just as the _royal_ Babylonian talent contained 3600 shekels.

THE ASSYRIO-BABYLONIAN SYSTEM.

[Illustration: FIG. 23. Lion weight.]

[Illustration: FIG. 24. Assyrian half-shekel weight of the so-call