the Syrian standard ; and certainly the unit must be raised, in deference to the unequivocal testimony of the Chaplin weight, to 160 or 320 grains. The result, then, of the recent discoveries is to show that from the 16th to the 6th cent. li.C. a light shekel was in use in .Syria and Egypt of the value of 160 grains, which was at tlie same time the half of a corresponding heavy shekel of 320 grains, each being 5'^ of min;is of 8000 grains (Ii lb. avoir.) and 16,000 grains (2» lb. ) respectively. Further, this mina of the 320-grain or Syrian standard continued in use in Syria down to the Chri.stian era: witness the inscribed weights from Antioch and neigli- bourhood, described by Brandis (iJas Miinz-, Miia.\- unci Gewic/Ussi/stem Vurdcrasiens, 156 ft'.), one of which bears tlie interesting legend BAIilAEfiS AXTIOXOT GEUT EIIW'ANOT iMNA, and weighs 7'J60 grains. The sniallness of the Palestine weights points, like the tribute lists, to the use of this unit for weighing the precious metals ; while the large size of the Naukratis weights shows that in Egyjit it was rather used ' for domestic and common purpo.ses' (Fetrie). So far, then, as our present evidence goes, we may conclude that this ancient unit was in use for all transactions along- side of the Phuiiiician unit, next to be discussed, until displaced by the latter after the Exile, largely, no doubt, owing to the inlluence of Ezekiel and the Priests' Code, both the>e authori- ties contemplating the latter as the <inly olhcial unit. It is worth noting, finally, as a notable example of the trustworthiness of tradition, that Maimonides in his a-hja niD'j.i, a coninientary on the Mishiia treatise Slieknlim, records that the early Hcb. shekel weighed 320 grains of barley (i.e. Troy grains), and was supplanted in the time of the second temple by the §ela,' (y'pc), the Heb. equivalent of the tetradrachm or lieavj- Plnen. shekel (see Surenhusius' summary in his preface to the treatise in question, Miihna, ii. 177).
iv. (c) The Plu£nii:ian or 2J4-grain unit. — Pre- vious to the discovery of the weights described in the foregoing section, the only lleb. unit monu- mentally attested was the shekel of the coins of the revolts, generally but wrongly known as the Mac- caba'an shekel. The usual explanation of the origin of this widely-spread unit (the theoretical value of which may be put at 224i grains, with i fl'ec- tive weight averaging 218-220 grains) as a silver unit from the Babjloiiian gold shekel of 252 grains, on the ratio of gold to silver as 13.)| : 1, has been given under Mo.NEY (iii. 419"). Hultsch, on the other hand (Gewichte d. Alterttims, 7, et passim), linds its origin in Egyjit, the shekel of 224 grains being A of a mina of 60 shekels, each of the value i ket (140 grains x J x 60^.")0 = 224). It is possible, however, that the Fhuuiician 224-grain shekel is to be derived from the Syrian 100-giain shekel described in the previous section. We have only to a.ssume that in the West gold stood to silver in the more convenient ratio of 14 : 1 ; the gold shekel of 160 grains would then be worth ten silver shekels of 224 grains each, since 160 x 14 = 224x10. This is at least preferable to Kidge- way's theory based on an assumed ratio between the metals of 17 : 1 {Origin of Currency, 287).
In any case we liave to deal with an exceed- ingly ancient unit, for an Egyptian weight in- scribed with the n.ame of Ampi, a priest of the 10th dynasty (c. 2300 B.C.), and marked lus 10 units, weighs 218H grains (tirillith, FSHA xiv. 445), yielding a unit of 2188 grains, which can scarcely be other than the Pha'n. shekel of 218-224 grains. Its prevalence in Palestine from the earliest histori- cal period need not be doubted, as it may be coii- lidently assiiiiied to have been the siher, if n<it, also, ttie trade shekel of the Fhicnician tiadeif in Canaan, whose name Canaanite CHi^) came latterly
306 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
to signify ' merchant' in general (Zee 11'- " [LXX], Pr 31-'' etc.). It must therefore have existed side by side with the 320 (IGO)-grain .shekel al)uve de- scribed. Like the otiier units of Western Asia, the PhcBn. unit had its lieavy and light shekels of 2244 and 112i grains respectively. Fifty of the former or 100 of the latter went to the heavy mina of 11,225 grains (c. 1^ lb. avoir.), and GO niin.as, as else- where, to the talent (see table, vol. iii. p. 419''). It is manifestly the shekel intended by Ezekiel (45''), who hrst mentions the subdivision into 20 rjerahs — a term apparently adopted from the Babylonian, giru being the name of a small silver coin (?) of Nebuchadnezzar's time, and identified by the Alexandrian translators with the tireek (i/3oXo's (see, further. Money, vol. iii. p. 422). The Priests' Code likewise seems to contemplate its adoption for every transaction with tlie balance, certainly for silver and gold (Ex 38=^"-), spices (30-"), anil copper (cf. 38^ with Lv 27"). Ibis is conhrmed by the evidence of the Misbna to the weights of the first two centuries of our era (see next §). That the hea\'y shekel of 220-224 grains, and no other, can be the ' shekel of the sanctuary,' or ' sacred shekel,' we have endeavoured to prove else- where (I.e. ). The ' 20 shekels of bread ' of Ezk 4'» are doubtless of this standard, probably also the talents of iron of 1 Ch 29' ; while for the brass and iron of Goliath's armour (1 S 17°'') we have the choice of the Phoen. and of the new Syrian shekel. V. (rf) The syncretic weifj/U-stjstein of the Mishna. — It has been sufficiently explained elsewhere (Money, iii. 426 ff.) how, after the Roman con- quest of the East, the drachm of the Greek monetary sj'stem became interchangeable with the lioman denarius, reduced in weight, first to 60, and then by Nero to 52.J grains, when it ditlered but little from the quarter-.'-hekel of 54J grains, efl'ective weight. Xow, since the denarius was a fixed fractional part of the lioni.in pound, being ^ of the libra and therefore J of the uncia, the denarius-drachm was found to be not only useful as money, but exceedingly convenient as a weight. Thus it came to form the unit of the latest Jewish weight-system as reflected in the Mishna. Its divisions and multiples are a tribute to the adaptive genius of the Jewish people, com- bining, as they do, elements from the systems of Phoenicia, Greece, and Rome, which all had their meeting-ground in the Palestine of the first century. The denarius-drachm itself was named the zuz (m), and retained the division into six obols (n;;=). Two denarii made a (light) shekel, four a tetra- drachm (y'jc), the ancient Ueb. (heavy) shekel, of which 25, or 100 ziiz, went to the mina. For the last the old Heb. term njD was retained, e.g. a mina of flesh (Sanhcd. viii. 2), of figs (Peah viii. 5), of wool (Khullin xi. 2). In the two passages last cited, and elsewhere, we meet with the jicrds (o";5) or halfniina. This term most scholars now agree in finding — as first suggested by M. Clermont- Ganneau — in the Perks and U-'Phar.sin of Dn 5J8. »^ jijg mysterious writing on the wall signify- ing, not as in RVm 'numbered, numbered, weighed, and divisions,' but 'a mina, a mina, a shekel, and half-minas.' The system above sketched may be presented thus, omitting thelowestdenomination —