Context
At this point in our research, we think that our weights were in use during the Late Roman/Early Byzantine Empire. Because of their small size, we think that they were probably used to weigh coins and precious metals, verifying their authenticity and ensuring legitimacy in tax paying and money changing. The weights of our specific objects do not align perfectly with any historical units of measurement, however we can assume that they have corroded or been worn with use and time, therefore making them lighter. With this in mind, they seem to relate to the standardized weight system used for coinage in the Late Roman/Early Byzantine Empires. Weight 2 is 4.18 grams, which is relatively close to the standard solidus or nomisma, which was 4.55 g. Similarly, Weight 7 is 1.45 grams, relatively close to the tremessis (⅓ of the solidus) which was 1.52 grams (Grierson 1999, 43). Because of the very similar size and the closeness of the weights of 3 (2.95g), 4 (2.83g), 5 (2.86g), and 6 (2.75g) we think that they may have all once been the same weight. These do not correspond to any specific, individual unit, although we noticed that they could potentially be two tremessis (⅔ of a solidus). Weight 1, which is 5.76 grams, continues to confuse us as it does not seem to relate to any of the Byzantine units of weight used for coinage.
The forms which our weights take appear to be popular shapes in the early Byzantine period. As Tekin explains, “While Byzantine weights were square-shaped in the beginning, later on round i.e. disc-shaped examples start appearing” (Tekin 2016, 46). Most of the comparanda we found was incised with far greater detail than is visible upon our own objects. Based on our reading we have concluded that the small indents in the centers of some of our weights may have been denomination marks, which would have indicated to the user the exact weight of the brick/disk. However, it was also very difficult to find comparanda that was quite as small as our weights (often weight like these are shown/cataloged in sets and only one size/weight is given for the whole group, making it difficult to know the exact characteristics of each separate object). We hypothesize that at such a small scale (all of our pieces are just 11mm or smaller), detailed incisions were difficult upon the metal surface, and those that were able to be executed were probably shallower and simpler, indicating that they may have been lost as the objects corroded. This is supported by Comparanda 2, a brick very similar in size and weight to our objects, which is inscribed with very simple denominational marks.We have also been thinking about the class implications possible within weights, and as they were such common objects that business people and others who dealt with money would own and use, they probably represent a high level of diversity in their expense and ornamentation. For example, those that we were able to find in museum collections, which were heavily ornamented and inscribed may have belonged
to wealthier individuals or even important officials, whereas ours could have been lower class objects. A Roman funerary relief depicting a butcher at work prominently features a pan scale, illustrating that weights like this would have belonged to members of the lower/mercantile classes as well.
The forms which our weights take appear to be popular shapes in the early Byzantine period. As Tekin explains, “While Byzantine weights were square-shaped in the beginning, later on round i.e. disc-shaped examples start appearing” (Tekin 2016, 46). Most of the comparanda we found was incised with far greater detail than is visible upon our own objects. Based on our reading we have concluded that the small indents in the centers of some of our weights may have been denomination marks, which would have indicated to the user the exact weight of the brick/disk. However, it was also very difficult to find comparanda that was quite as small as our weights (often weight like these are shown/cataloged in sets and only one size/weight is given for the whole group, making it difficult to know the exact characteristics of each separate object). We hypothesize that at such a small scale (all of our pieces are just 11mm or smaller), detailed incisions were difficult upon the metal surface, and those that were able to be executed were probably shallower and simpler, indicating that they may have been lost as the objects corroded. This is supported by Comparanda 2, a brick very similar in size and weight to our objects, which is inscribed with very simple denominational marks.We have also been thinking about the class implications possible within weights, and as they were such common objects that business people and others who dealt with money would own and use, they probably represent a high level of diversity in their expense and ornamentation. For example, those that we were able to find in museum collections, which were heavily ornamented and inscribed may have belonged
to wealthier individuals or even important officials, whereas ours could have been lower class objects. A Roman funerary relief depicting a butcher at work prominently features a pan scale, illustrating that weights like this would have belonged to members of the lower/mercantile classes as well.
A variety of primary sources and images from this and later time periods, like Julian the Moneychanger from the Homilies of Gregory Nazianzus, indicate that this type of weight was used in balanced pan scales, which would have been held in the middle. An excerpt from Emperor Constantine Augustus included in the Theodosian Code describes this process, saying, "When gold is paid, it shall be accepted with equal balance and equal weights. Of course, the top of the cord shall be held with two fingers, and the other three fingers shall be free and point toward the tax receiver. They shall not press down the weights with any finger; thus the balance of the scales shall be preserved and the weighing pans shall be suspended with equal and similar weights." (Pharr, Davidson, and Pharr 2001, 377-378). The wide spread of images depicting weighing and various mentions of it by emperors and other officials, indicate the importance of this standardized practice within society, one made especially important by growing concerns with fraud and other forms of corruption (Vikan and Nesbitt 1980, 29). One especially common form of which was the shaving or clipping of coins by a slight amount. This would reduce the weight of the coin but would probably not be noticeable to the eye, thus allowing individuals to underpay without detection. The incidence of this type of practice appears to have been quite high, so high in fact that it sometimes prompted reforms on the part of the emperor. Vikan and Nesbitt explain, “To facilitate trade, the Emperor Julian instituted in A.D. 363 major reforms of enduring value for the market place. He established in ‘each municipality’ a ‘public weigher’ (zygostates), charged with the duty of settling disputes between buyers and sellers over the weight of gold coins-- in particular, clipped coins or coins otherwise lessened in weight.” (Vikan and Nesbitt 1980, 30). There is also evidence to suggest that a standardized, official weight set was housed in the church of each major town in the Late Roman/Early Byzantine era, as was described in Justinian's orders from 545 which read,
"We order that those who collect public taxes shall use honest weights and measures, in order that they might not harm our taxpayers in this manner. But if taxpayers believe that they have suffered harm in respect to either weights or measure, they shall have freedom to receive, on one hand, measures and weights from the glorious prefects for the weighting of taxes in kind and, on the other hand, weights from the current count of the imperial largesses (the count of imperial expenditure) for the weighing of gold, silver, and other metals... these measures and weights are to be kept for safeguarding in the most holy church of each city." (Justinian, Novel 118 from 545, quoted in Vikan and Nesbitt 1980, 31).
"We order that those who collect public taxes shall use honest weights and measures, in order that they might not harm our taxpayers in this manner. But if taxpayers believe that they have suffered harm in respect to either weights or measure, they shall have freedom to receive, on one hand, measures and weights from the glorious prefects for the weighting of taxes in kind and, on the other hand, weights from the current count of the imperial largesses (the count of imperial expenditure) for the weighing of gold, silver, and other metals... these measures and weights are to be kept for safeguarding in the most holy church of each city." (Justinian, Novel 118 from 545, quoted in Vikan and Nesbitt 1980, 31).
This highly secure setting is indicative of the importance of these standardized units. The officiation of private weight sets, for the use of shopkeepers and business men, like the butcher for example, helped fight against another type of fraud, which involved the use of lightened weights in business transactions (Vikan and Nesbitt 1980, 30). Often, images inscribed upon the weights themselves, like that which adorns the Exegium Solidi, a weight which would have been used to verify the authenticity of a solidus coin, emphasize the importance of weights within the justice system. This is further enforced by the emblematic association between scales, justice, and prosperity which is expressed in this image and continues to persist today.
The fact that these represented a standard held throughout the Empire is key, as it indicates their importance within expanding systems of trade. The regulation of units of weight eased this trade and made it possible across cultures.
The fact that these represented a standard held throughout the Empire is key, as it indicates their importance within expanding systems of trade. The regulation of units of weight eased this trade and made it possible across cultures.