The latest valuation of the cubit by the distin- guished metrologist Flinders Petrie (PEFSt, 1892, 28 t}'., the tomb-cutters' cubit at Jerusalem) cannot be so easily dbj)0.<ed of. The dimensions contem- plated in the Mishna are evidently the use-and- wont dimensions that would satisfy a contract in which no more precise specifications were entered, hence they do not preclude the possibility of larger dimensions being used on occasion. Now Petrie, on the strength of many hundred measurements of the dimensions of actual tombs, contends that the great majority disclose a cubit of 22'6 in., which he maintains (loc. cit.) 'should be taken as the standard in future.' This is not the place either to expound or to criticise the methods employed by Petrie here and elsewhere in his metrological works, beyond saying that a considerable element of uncertainty must always attach to them where the results cannot be controlled by literary evidence (cf. Ridge- way's criticism of tliis method of determining the value of ancient standards of length by measure ment alone, in Smith, Diet, of Antig.^ ii. 166), a statement of which an illustration may now be given. In the case of the tombs in question, Petrie finds recurring lengths of about
88-1, 113 U, 1320, 150-7, 171-9, and 226 in., all pretty certainly even numbers of the same cubit. And it is therefore seen that the multiples
4, 5, 6, 7, 7i, and 10 cubits are the numbers in question, as we thus reach
22-0, 22-6, 220, 228, 22-9, 226 in. for the cubit, yielding an average of 22-61+ 03 in. (loc. cit. 29). But suppose, taking the first row of figures, w-e were to say tliat the nmltiples
5, 6i, 7i, 9, lu, and 13 cubits are the numbers in question, we should obtain
17-6, 17-4, 17-6, 17-7, 172, 174 in. for the cubit actually a smaller range of variation than is sliown by Petrie's own results, — or an aver- age of 17.| in., which is in remarkable agreement with the approximations already obtained. There is therefore a clear alternative before us. Either we must bring down the Siloam inscription to the Roman age, as has indeed been recently projiosed, and say that the Jews of that period had finally discarded their native cubit, of which, in that case, wc remain in absolute ignorance, in favour of the Gra;co-Roman cubit, or — which is the preferable alternative — we must hold to the Egyptian origin of both the historically attested cubits of 7 and 6 liandbreadths, the latter, originally 17i in. in length, having been gradually reduced, until in
• Warren here (fives some interesting statistics as to tiie heipht of the modem Jew ; and, although not aware of the above pojviage of the Mishna, conducts the same ari^ment and decides for a cubit of 17-75 in.
WEIGHTS AND ilEASURES
WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 909
NT timi's it was etjuated with the Greek cubit of I'ih in. This Kj,'y|)tiiiii, as oiJposed to an alternative Babylonian, derivation is further conlirmed by tlio following considerations: (1) the existence, just referred to, at one period among the Hebrews of two cubits of 7 and 6 handbreadths respectively ; (2) the subdivisions (see table) are parallel in both systems, and bear no trace of sexagesimal or Baby- lonian influence ; (3) the smallest unit, the digit, bears a cognate designation in both, 'ezba in Hebrew, t'ia in Egyptian, while the corresponding Hebrew unit was named ubiinu in Babylonian, probably the Heb. [nS ; (4) the Heb. zereth or span linds its nearest congener in the Egyptian drt (Ges.-Bulil, Lex. s.v. ; cf. similar affinities below, under measures of eajjacity). The following table shows the values of the Heb. culiits and subdivisions on the basis of the Siloani cubit of 17 "58 in., which proves to be the mean between the original Egyp. short cubit of 17 '68 and the Gr. cubit of 17 '47 in., and is probably the nearest value attainable until further monumental evidence is forthcoming : —
Table
OF THE Hebrew Measures op
Length.
Value in
Convenient
Digit.
Palm.
Span.
Cubit.
approxi- mation.
Mm.
In.
Digit . Palm .
1
18-8
■73
}la.
4
1
...
"4
2-93
3 ..
Span .
12
8
i
■Z23
8-79
9 .;
Cubit .
24
«
2
i
441)
17-68
IJ ft.
Cubit of
28
7
...
...
621
20-61
l| ..
Ezeldel
Reed .
144
8A
12
e
...
105-48
9 ..
Reed of
188
42
.•>
• ••
I2;i-«i
10 „
Ezeldel
No reference has yet been made to the determination of the value of the cubit from the statement of the mediuuval Rabbis tliat the smallest unit, the flntrerltreadth, waa equal to (i mcdiuin-sized grains of barley laid side by side, partly liecause the tradition is of late ori{^in, and partly on account of the widely diverifinfj results that this method has produced.* Maimonides, writintj in Egyjit, seems %o have been the first to j^vc curn-nt^y to this mode. He assij^ed 7 barleycorns to the digit, or Kis to the cubit, apparently ldentifyin^J it with the royal Eicyptian cubit (see Zuclteniiann, 1>. jitd. Maaxsystem, '20; Boeciih, Metrolmj. Vntt^rinichutujen, 268 ff., which see also for further detaib of this method). It is, however, a striking coincidence, to say tile least, that the latest and most scit-ntilic attempt to determine the Jewish cubit on the basis of the usual liab- binic valuation of 144 barlevoorns yields a cubit of 17-7 in. (Col. Watson, PlJFSt, 18i)r, "201 O.), which ig practically the short cubit of Ei^ypu