Breaking down the bullion. The compliance of bullion-currencies with official weight-systems in a case-study from the ancient Near East

Scales, weights and weight-regulated artefacts in Middle and Late Bronze Age Britain

“…The identification of weights and weight-regulated artefacts is crucial for establishing the existence of value ratios, and hence trade, in past societies. Recently, an early example of the appropriation of weight-regulated (silver) objects as ‘bullion-currencies’ has been identified in the ancient Near East (Ialongo et al 2018), and several scholars have identified early weighing equipment in specific parts of prehistoric Europe, including Italy, Central Europe and Portugal (Cardarelli et al 1997; Pare 1999; Peake et al 1999; Rahmstorf 2003; Vilaça 2003, 2011; Ialongo 2018; Ialongo & Rahmstorf in press). Our general understanding of the use of weights in Bronze Age Europe, however, remains far from complete and, until now, nearly no weights or no weight-regulated artefacts have been identified from Bronze Age Britain.…”

The Earliest Balance Weights in the West: Towards an Independent Metrology for Bronze Age Europe

“…This study proceeds under the assumption that local weight systems, regardless of theoretical units, tend to normalize within large-scale trade networks (Ialongo et al . 2018a). The existence of standard weight systems implies compliance with a norm, but a self-regulated network based on customary commercial relationships can enforce such a norm effectively, even in the absence of centralized regulatory authorities (Chambon 2006; Ialongo et al 2018b; Rahmstorf 2010).…”

“…However, several studies have shown that advanced statistical methods yield great potential in the empirical evaluation of weight systems, even without relying on exact units as ultimate principles (e.g. Hafford 2005; 2012; Ialongo et al 2018a; Pakkanen 2011; Petruso 1992; Rahmstorf 2010).…”

“…no less than ±10 per cent, if we consider a 2σ distribution). It can even happen that two similar, but distinct, theoretical units are so close that the respective statistical dispersions overlap to a point where they are almost impossible to discern (Hafford 2012): this is the case, for example, of the ‘Syrian’ (7.8 g) and the ‘Mesopotamian’ (8.4 g) shekels , whose respective error distributions significantly overlap at a standard deviation of ±5 per cent (Ialongo et al 2018a). All in all, this means that, when we think we recognize a close similarity between two supposed units, we might be looking, in fact, at two distinct systems that just happen to be similar enough to be confused.…”

“…Similar cases are documented in archaeological contexts. For instance, the balance weights of the city of Larsa (southern Mesopotamia, second millennium bc ) consistently produce high peaks around 5.6 g, corresponding to two-thirds of the ‘Mesopotamian unit’ of 8.4 g (Ascalone & Peyronel 2006, 451–64; Ialongo et al 2018a). Moreover, the inscribed weights from Ayia Irini (Crete) clearly indicate a unit between c. 58 and 65 g (Petruso 1992, 61); however, while the CQA shows very good ‘peaks’ for the complete array of logical fractions of the unit, it does not indicate any positive result for the unit itself (see further, Fig.…”