Weights: stone as metric mediator

Whilst the concept of a stone ‘weight’ (often of a more or less standard mass) used for technical purposes, such as for looms, was apparently known well before the 3rd millennium, concrete remains of a standardized weighing system, with objects of identifiable multiples and fractions of abstract units, seem to have appeared only sometime in the mid-third millennium BC. In fact several types of weights and weighing systems have been identified, with differing distributions. Three discrete systems have been identified across the Near East: the ‘Mesopotamian’, variations of the ‘Syrian’ and the more restricted ‘Indus’ type (Rahmstorf 2010a).

Whilst the particular multiples and material forms of the weights differ slightly in each region, as Rahmstorf has argued, it now seems very likely that, excluding the southern Mesopotamian/Sumerian system, all of the weighing systems of the 3rd millennium either had a common source or were designed to facilitate relatively easy inter-conversion (see Table 4.1 for a table of conversion based on Rahmstorf ’s arguments)⁵¹. In the archaeological record, various recognisable material forms are prevalent, the most easily recognized from 3rd millennium contexts are the

‘Syrian’ haematite types (Figure 4.12a), Aegean spool-shaped types (Figure 4.12b), and Harappan cubic types (Figure 4.12c). The significance of the particular forms is currently not obvious, though we may speculate that there were some cultural prototypes before the introduction of weighing to a region. The majority of weights recognized in the archaeological record were made from stone, such as haematite and marble, though lead weights are known from 2nd millennium contexts in the Aegean (Michailidou 2010, 72-73, fig. 7.3, 7.14). We should bear in mind, however, that weights could easily have been made in less durable or more recyclable materials (such as sand-bags or metals). Arguably, standardized ingots also represent a kind of ‘weight’ (see Section 5.2.5, 5.6.1). This aside, it is interesting to consider why stone appears to have become such an important medium for precision weight measurement: the material qualities of stone as un-fluid, un-changing and subtractive presumably played a role in this.

Standardized weighing systems are significant for exchange and routes because they index the need or desire to consistently and accurately compare material goods which were sourced over large distances (Figure 4.13a). The inter-calculability of the systems that emerge in the 3rd millennium provides an indication of the common acceptance of the necessity of standardization and also suggests that similar types of goods were being exchanged. It is normally assumed that the emergence of an international metals trade must have been the driving factor for the creation of weighing systems, particularly for economies in which metals were becoming central mediators of value (see Section 5.4.1). Textual evidence from 3rd millennium Mesopotamia and earlier 2nd millennium Anatolia reminds us that, unsurprisingly, metals were not the only item to be weighed with these systems however. Materials and commodities such as wine, beer, oils, barley, wheat, flour, pulses and figs appear to have usually been measured by volume (presumably using standardized vessel sizes⁵² – something which may explain

51 In fact the ‘standard’ value given for the southern Mesopotamian shekel (of 8.33g) cannot fit into this system, only by using a higher value of 8.54g (or else 8.616g) can it be made to be easily convertible, suggesting an alternative (and competing?) metric system in use (Rahmstorf 2010a, 102).

52 Compare the interpretation of the Urukian ‘bevel-rimmed bowl’ as a standardized ration of wheat or bread (Goulder 2010).

the increasing use of wheel-made pottery from the 3rd millennium onwards), whereas metals, precious stones, wool and goat’s hair, linen, yarn, ropes, alum, wood (occasionally), ivory (as fragments), certain spices, perfumes and dyes, celery, wax and tendons, finished textiles (occasionally, when compared to raw materials), hides (occasionally), and (very rarely) bread, fish and possibly meat are all recorded as being measured by weight (Michailidou 2010, 74-75). That textiles and precious stones were also measured by weight suggests a wider interest in ensuring trust and equality of exchange in many different materials as a complex package of new exchange traditions.

Figure 4.12. Selection of objects confirmed as weights in recognizable weighing systems, alongside

unconfirmed or possible weights of the 3rd millennium BC: (a) ‘Syrian’ haematite weights (Rahmstorf 2010a, 93, fig. 8.3); (b) Aegean spool-shaped weights (Rahmstorf 2010a, 89, fig. 8.1); c. ‘Harappan’ cubic weights from Chanhu-Daro (Aruz and Wallenfels 2003, 401-402, cat. 292a; photo: © 2014 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Joint Expedition of the American School of Indic and Iranian Studies and the Museum of Fine Arts, 1935–1936 Season, 36.2274, 36.2297, 36.2299 36.2305, 36.2308, 36.2316, 36.2322, 36.2325, 36.2328); d.

possible lead weight, shaped as a bull, unprovenanced (Aruz and Wallenfels 2003, 363, cat. 255); e. ‘miniature columns’ of unknown function, Togolok 21, Murghab delta (Sarianidi 2006, 269, fig. 122); f. an example of an

‘intercultural-style’ handbag ‘weight’ or ‘stone pocketbook’ from eastern Iran, the Gulf region or Central Asia, unknown provenance (Aruz and Wallenfels 2003, 328-329, cat. 225b; photo: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Gift of Norbert Schimmel Trust, 1989.281.40). Note, however the very different scales.

a.

b.

c.

5cm

5cm

5cm

10cm

10cm

10cm

d.

e.

f.

a d

b e

c f

Despite the widespread distribution of weighing systems, there are areas in which weighing systems have definitely not (yet) been identified, and at present this includes both our case-study regions. ‘Intercultural-style’ weights, also known as ‘stone pocketbooks’ (Hiebert 1994a, 157) – whose distribution stretches from the Persian Gulf to the Pamirs– have already been mentioned above (Figure 4.7c).

Their small number and lack of sufficiently detailed publication have generally prevented the possibility of identifying an indisputable weighing system; and the same is true of the exceptional ‘bull weight’, thought to have come from eastern Iran or central Asia (Figure 4.12d), and the spool-like ‘miniature columns’ typical of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (Figure 4.12e), whose function remains elusive but which bear a formal resemblance to Aegean spool-weights even if they are much larger. Too often the mass of objects, including those thought to be weights, is not published, making it impossible to confirm or reject the hypothesis that certain objects might be part of a weighing system. Given the extent of interaction between Mesopotamia, the Indus and Central Asia in the second half of the 3rd millennium (seen already in some of the iconographic links between the regions), and the fact that two of the commodities assumed to have been transported from Central Asia to Mesopotamia (precious stones and

“Sumerian”* “Ugarit” “Hatti” “Carchemish” “Harappan” Modern

metric Rahmstorf

m (8.54g) u (9.4g) h (11.75g) k (7.83g) i (13.71g) grams units

          10

b a

Figure 4.14. Summary of distribution data on lapis lazuli, carnelian, ‘intercultural-style’ objects and weighing systems for the 3rd millennium BC.

metals) were normally weighed in Mesopotamia, it would be surprising if the communities of Central Asia were not familiar with weighing systems. However, we should also consider the possibility that if the communities of this region had no need of standardized measurements, objects like the ‘stone pocketbooks’

may represent some kind of pseudo-weights – particularly interesting if the Indus script is indeed a kind of ‘pseudo’-writing as has sometimes been argued (Farmer, Sproat and Witzel 2004; Lawler 2004). Indeed the items shown on the right side of Figure 4.12 are much larger than those on the left, supporting alternative perhaps symbolic rather than metrical roles.

If we exclude the urbanizing sites of northern Syria, no objects have been identified which might be identified as weights for measurement have been found in eastern Anatolia. Again this is surprising if we consider the geographic proximity to weight-using cities of Syria and central Anatolia, and in the context of metal extraction in which the eastern Anatolian highlands and Transcaucasia are assumed to have played a role (see Section 5.2.5). What are we to make of this negative evidence for weighing systems? If we exclude the possibility that this is simply a factor of archaeological visibility (e.g. that local weights were made in perishable materials), then this absence shows that, despite geographical proximity and deep iconographic and material connections, local communities did not see the need to measure objects using standardized systems. This implies either that local social systems of control were not strong enough to enforce standardization, or indeed that standardization was not necessary for the kinds of interaction and exchange being enacted in these regions. In other words it makes it more likely, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the economies were based on non-commercial non-regulated exchange systems (like gift-exchange and barter) than on market and prices.