Weights of various grains.
| grammes | ||
|---|---|---|
| Troy Grain | ·064 | |
| Barley | ·064 | |
| Wheat | ·048 | |
| Rice | ·036 | |
| Carob | ·192 | = 3 barley = 4 wheat |
| Lupin | ·384 | = 2 carobs |
| Maize (ordinary) | ·128 | = 2 barley |
| Ratti | ·128 | = 2 barley |
| Rye | ·032 | = ½ barley |
CHAPTER IX.
Statement and Criticism of the Old Doctrines.
Nec Babylonios
Tentaris numeros.
Hor. Carm. I. 11. 2.
We now proceed to the statement and criticism of the old doctrines of the origin of metallic currency and weight standards. To enter into an elaborate account of the various shades of doctrine held by the followers of Boeckh would be useless and wearisome, for as they all alike are agreed in starting from an arbitrary scientifically obtained unit, it matters not as far as my object is concerned. Certain metrologists lay down that Egypt borrowed her system from Babylon, whilst others[250] again declare that Egypt is the true mother of weight standards, and this battle is raging hotly at the present moment. Thus but recently Professor Brugsch has written a vigorous article (in the Zeitschrift für Ethnologie[251]) to prove that the Chaldeans borrowed their system from Egypt. But the Assyriologists were not prepared to assent to a doctrine which placed the Babylonians in an inferior position. Accordingly Dr C. F. Lehmann (Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1889, p. 245 seqq.) has made an elaborate defence of the original doctrine first propounded by Boeckh and developed and expounded by Dr Brandis and Dr Hultsch. This Assyrio-Egyptian struggle for pre-eminence has at present no importance for our enquiry, as it is based almost entirely on à priori assumptions, although when we come eventually to deal with the question of efforts at systematization which arose at a later stage in the evolution of weight and measure standards, it will be necessary for us to examine the respective claims. At present we are engaged in searching for an historical basis, and as both the Assyriologists and Egyptologists alike unite in deriving all weights from a deliberate scientific attempt on the part of a highly civilized people, they are perfectly agreed in the principle, the soundness of which it is the object of the present investigation to test. The ablest exponent in this country of the German theory is Dr B. V. Head, who has given an admirable summary of the position of that school in his Introduction to his great work, Historia Numorum (p. xxviii.). To ensure a fair statement of the doctrine for the reader, it will be better for me to give here Mr Head’s exposition in preference to any summary of my own, as any statement by the critic of the doctrine to be criticized is always liable to the suspicion of being ex parte and consequently inadequate. Such a suspicion is avoided by letting as far as possible our opponents state their position in their own words.
“For many centuries before the invention of coined money there can be no doubt whatever that goods were bought and sold by barter pure and simple, and that values were estimated among pastoral people by the produce of the land, and more particularly in oxen and sheep.
“The next step in advance upon this primitive method of exchange was a rude attempt at simplifying commercial transactions by substituting for the ox and the sheep some more portable substitute, either possessed of real or invested with an arbitrary value.