WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

WELL

venience' sake the names 'Babylonian' and 'Phoeni-cian' may be retained, although it must be remembered that they are conventional. The above table gives the equivalents in weights on the two systems, both for the precious metals {in which the mina weighed 50 shekels) and for trade (in which it weighed 60 shekels).

The evidence of actual weights found in Palestine is as follows: 1. 2. 3. Three stone weights from Tell Zaka-rlya, inscribed apparently netseph, and weighing — 10-21 grammes = 157-564 grains troy. 9-5 „ =146-687

9 „ =138 891

4. A weight with the same inscription, from near Jerusalem, weighing 8-61 grammes = 134-891 grains troy.

6. A weight from Samaria inscribed apparently i netseph and i shekel, weighing 2-54 grammes=39-2 grains troy; yielding a netseph of 9-16 grammes = 156-8 grains troy. This has been dated In the 8th cent. B.C.; and all the weights are apparently of pre-exilic date. There are other weights from Gezer, which have, without due cause, been connected with the netseph standard; and a second set of weights from Gezer, Jerusalem, Zakariya, and Tell el-Judeideh may be ignored, as they seem to bear Cypriote inscriptions, and represent a standard weight of 93 grammes maxi-mum. Some addition must be allowed to Nos. 2 and 3 of the above-mentioned netseph weights, for fracture, and probably to No. 4, which is pierced. The highest of these weights is some 10 grains or 0-7 grammes less than the light Bab. shekel. It probably, therefore, represents an independent standard, or at least a deliberate modification, not an accidental degradation, of the Bab. standard. Weights from Naucratis point to a standard of about 80 grains, the double of which would be 160 grains, which is near enough to the actual weight of our specimens (maximum 157% grains). We need not here concern ourselves with the origin of this standard, or with the mean-ing of netseph; there can be no doubt of the existence of such a standard, and there is much probability that it is connected with the standard which was in use at Naucratis. Three weights from Lachish (Tell el-Hesy) also indicate the existence of the same 80-grain standard in Palestine. The standard in use at the city of Aradus (Arvad) for the coinage is generally identi-fied with the Babylonian; but as the shekel there only exceptionally exceeds 165 grains, it, too, may have been an approximation to the standard we are con-sidering. But in Hebrew territory there can be no doubt that this early standard was displaced after the Exile by a form of the Phoenician shekel of 14-54 grammes, or 224-4 grains. It has, indeed, been thought that this shekel can be derived by a certain process from the shekel of 160 grains; but on the whole the derivation from the gold shekel of 126-23 grains suggested above is preferable.

The evidence as to the actual use of this weight in Palestine is as follows: From Ex 38^5'- it appears that the Hebrew talent contained 3000 shekels. Now, Josephus equates the mina used for gold to 2% Roman pounds, which is 12,633-3 grains troy, or 818-625 grammes; this is only 10 grains heavier than the heavy mina given above. From Josephus also we know that the kikkar or talent contained 100 minas. The talent for precious metals, as we have seen, contained 3000 shekels; therefore the shekel should be *^'iSj5?" grains = 421 grains. We thus have a heavy shekel of 421 grains, and a light one of 210-5 grains. There is other evidence equating the Hebrew shekel to weights varying from 210-48 to 210 55 grains. This is generally supposed to be the Phoenician shekel of 224-4 grains in a slightly reduced form. Exactly the same kind of reduction took place at Sidon in the course of the 4th cent. B.C., where, probably owing to a fall in the price of gold, the weight of the standard silver shekel fell from about 28 60 grammes (441-36 grains) to 26 30 grammes (405-9 grains). A change in the ratio between gold and silver from 13J:1 to 12i:l would practically, in a country with a coinage, necessitate a change in tiie weight of the shekel such as seems to have taken place here; and although the Jews had no coinage of their own before the time of the Maccabees, they would naturally be influenced by the weights in use in Phoenicia. The full weight shekel of the old standard probably remained in use as the ' shekel of the sanctuary,' for that weight was 20 gerahs (Ezk 45«, Ex 30"), which is translated in the LXX by '20 obols,' meaning, presumably, 20 Attic obols of the time; and this works out at 224-2 grains. This shekel was used not only for the silver paid for the 'ransom of souls,' but also for gold, copper, and spices (Ex 302»- M 38«»-); in fact, the Priests' Code regarded it as the proper system for all estimations (Lv 27^). The beka = i shekel is mentioned in Gn 24^2, Ex 38»>.

Foreign weights in the NT. — The 'pound' of spike-nard (Jn 12') or of myrrh and aloes (19'') is best ex-plained as the Romanlibra (Gr. Htra) of 327-45 grammes. The 'pound' in Lk 19'"- is the money-mina or A of the Roman-Attic talent (see art. Money, 7 (;)). The 'talent' mentioned in Rev 16» also probably belongs to the same system.

For further information see esp. A. R. S. Kennedy, art. 'Weights and Measures' in Hastings' DB, with bibliography there given. Recent speculations on the Heb. systems, and publications of weights will be found in PBFSt, 1902, p. 80 (three forms of cubit, 18 in., 14.4 in., and 10-8 in.); 1902, p. 175 (Conder on general system of Hebrew weights and measures) ; 1904, p. 209 (weights from Gezer, etc.); 1906, pp. 182 f., 259 f. (Warren on the ancient system of weights in general); Comptes Rmdus de I'Acad. des Inscr. 1906, p. 237 f. (Clermont-Ganneau on the capacity of the hin).

G. F. Hill.

WELL. — See Cistern, Fountain, Water.

971