Cone-shaped stone, with long
inscription in Babylonian.
'1 mina, true weight. — copy
of weight or standard of
Dunt^'i ... by Nebuchad-
nezi-ir . . , king of Babylon'
[about 18 grains lost by
fracture of the stone,
oriijinally 15,105 grains
244-8 81-87
164-8
0783
489-6 491-22
492-9 979-5
Shekel
Mina = 60 shekels
Talent=60 minas =
sents the average mina of the light standard, viz. 49r2 grammes = 7580 grains. The corresponding mina of the heavy standard is tlierefore 9S24 grammes = 15,160 grains. Tlie following table gives the values of the complete scale : —
Values of the e.\rliest Babylonian Weights.
Heavt. LlOIlT.
2.523 grains 126J grains*
15,160 „ 7580
circa 2J lb. avoir. dr. l^'^ lb. avoir. = 3600 shekels,
circa 130 lb. avoir. ,, 65 ,, „ These new values are considerably less in the higlier denominations than those previously aiioi)ted in metrological studies, which were based oil the evidence of numerous lion and duck weiglits of a much later period from the ruins of Babylon and Nineveh, yielding minas of 15,600 (heavy) and 78(10 grains (light standard), and shekels of 26U and l.SO grains respectively. From the fact that several of the bronze lion weifjhts bear inscriptions con- taining inter alia, the plirase ' 1 mina, | mina, etc., oftheldnq,' it has become customary to descrilie these as belonging to tlie royal standard, to dis- tingnisli them from the earlier or common standard. In addition to these two standards, Dr. Lelimann has brought forward evidence, to which we pro- pose to add presently, to show that the common standard at some early period received an increase of 5 ]jer cent., yielding miiiiis of circa 16,000 and 8000 grains respectively. Whether or not tliis in- crease was intended to be conlined to p.ij-ments made to the royal treasury cannot be ascertained, but there is monumental evidence that Darius Hystaspis added just this percentage to the weights of his time (see the inscrioed weiglit published by Budge, PSBA (1888), pp. 464-466; Lelimann, Ver- handlungen d. berliner Gesell. /. Anthropologic, etc. 188'J, p. 273).
Returning now to the original mina of 15,160 (7580) grains, and shekel of 2,')2 (126) grains, we lind from a comparative study of the weight-systems of antiquity that the advancing tide of Babylonian civilization carried them to the shores of the Mediterranean, from whence they passed, in a bewildering variety of forms, to almost every civilized country. Thus, when the first Ptolemy
* This is only 3 ^nlna heavier than the EnglUh sovereign, 123874 grains.
reorganized the metric system of his new kingdom, he introduced the light mina of 7580 grains as the standard trade weight of Egypt. This mina, again, is exactly IJ times the Koman pound, 01 libra, of 5053 grains, which is one-third of the cor- responding lieav3' mina. The available evidence, further, goes to sliow that the shekel of 252 grains was the unit for t}>e weighing of gold adopted by the Hebrews, as it was the gold as well aa the trade unit of Babylonia — as has been assumed in the article Money (see table, vol. iii. p. 419''), althimgh, in the light of recent discoveries, to be related in the .sequel, and of the preference of the priestly legislation of the Fentateucli for tlie Phoenician or silver standard of the same table, the a.ssumption of that article requires to be some- what qualilied. Still, when we compare the state- ment of the Hebrew historian as to the amount of 9ezekiah's indemnity imposed by Sennacherib, so far as the amount of gold is concerned, viz. 30 talents (2 K IS'''), with the latter's official account (see Schrader, KIB ii. p. 95), where precisely the same amount is recorded, we are bound to infer the identity of the Hebrew and Babylonian talent of gold. Then there is the statement of Josephus with reference to the weight (300 minas) of the beam of solid gold taken by Crassus from the temple treasury ; 17 5^ iiva Trap i)fuv (Vxi^ci Xirpas Svo ruiiuv (Ant. XIV. vii. 1 [Niese, § 106]). This gives a weight of 2i Pionian libras, or 12,630 grains, for the mina of 50 shekels, and 252| grains for the shekel, or alternatively 126J grains for the mina of 100 sliekels (for this division see below). In either case, the result is the familiar shekel of the early Babylonian sj-stem. This yields a Hebrew gold monetary talent of 60 minas or 758,000 grains ((,-. 108 lb. avoir.). But another statement of Joseplius shows that at least an article made of gold might have its weight stated in other terms ; for he gives the weiglit of the golden candlestick, which was a talent according to Ex 25'', as 100 minas {/ttxas iKaT6v), adding : 'E/Spaiot fiiv koKovhi. KLyx^P^^ [*.6. ^7?Jt ^^'5 5^ ri]!/ 'EX\7;i'tK7;i' /xerafiaWdfjievo^ yXuiTTav arjualvit. ra\avTov [Ant. III. vi. 7 [§ 144]). Tlie mina of this passage is clearly distinct from the mina of the passage just cited, viz. yJj of 7.38,000 grains, or 7580, which is the light Baby- lonian trade mina of 60 shekels of 126J grains, as shown in the table, § ii. above. This exjilana- tion, suggested for the first time, has the merit of preserving the consistency of Josephus as regards the weiglit of the Hebrew gold talent. On the other hand, inasmuch as the weights of gold and silver in the Priests' Code are e.xpressly stated to have been on the standard of the so-called ' shekel of the .sanctuary' (see next §, and Money, vol. iii. p. 422), or Phoenician shekel of 224A grains, 3000 of which yield a talent of 673,500 grains, the explana- tion of the passage adopted in the previous article (I.e.), that tlie luO minas are Attic minas of 6735 grains, is perhaps to be preferred, even at the expense of the Jewish historian's consistency, and despite the fact that the Koman-Attic mina in his day weighed considerably less (see § v. below). These considerations, at least, show the difficulty of arriving at definite results in the absence of monumental data.