4 ms·

Couldn't it also be that a king intentionally sent unequal weights to different parts of their domain? It allows unequal taxing without an obvious bias, and exc

Couldn't it also be that a king intentionally sent unequal weights to different parts of their domain? It allows unequal taxing without an obvious bias, and exchanging between kingdoms could have been a part of diplomacy.

mc32 5y ago
Sure, but as far as we know, there wasn't a king or emperor that ruled from Anatolia to Great Britain at the time but they have these weight samples from all over this area from c. 1000BC.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  It traveled over a period of two thousand years, easily possible through the diplomacy I mention.
t-writescode 5y ago
At least in the Middle East, unequal weights were very disapproved of and I can’t imagine citizenry tolerating their leadership doing that, for long.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  It's a fact that the weights were unequal, the only question is why. And it's not like it'd be an easy thing for citizens to notice.
  - AlotOfReading 5y ago
    The weights only have an error of 5%, which is a standard deviation of about a gram at any particular point in time. Manufacturing error is a far more parsimonious explanation.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      The article's argument is that a state run distribution would have eliminated those manufacturing errors, but they could have just used them to their advantage.
      - AlotOfReading 5y ago
        The principle of parsimony applies here. Explanations that don't require centralized bronze age kingdoms everywhere, formal standardization of weights, and thousands of years of no one conducting long distance trade are more parsimonious than those that do. One of the issues with archaeology is that it's easy to come up with thousands of plausible explanations for any particular set of data. Parsimony and other tools are essential to winnowing things down a bit.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >Explanations that don't require centralized bronze age kingdoms everywhere, formal standardization of weights, and thousands of years of no one conducting long distance trade are more parsimonious than those that do. We have ample evidence of all three of those existed to some degree, and that's why the idea that the measurements were decreed has been the predominant explanation for a while now. I think this one piece of evidence could be explained within the current hypothesis.

mc32 5y ago

Sure, but as far as we know, there wasn't a king or emperor that ruled from Anatolia to Great Britain at the time but they have these weight samples from all over this area from c. 1000BC.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
It traveled over a period of two thousand years, easily possible through the diplomacy I mention.

t-writescode 5y ago

At least in the Middle East, unequal weights were very disapproved of and I can’t imagine citizenry tolerating their leadership doing that, for long.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
It's a fact that the weights were unequal, the only question is why. And it's not like it'd be an easy thing for citizens to notice.
- AlotOfReading 5y ago
  The weights only have an error of 5%, which is a standard deviation of about a gram at any particular point in time. Manufacturing error is a far more parsimonious explanation.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    The article's argument is that a state run distribution would have eliminated those manufacturing errors, but they could have just used them to their advantage.
    - AlotOfReading 5y ago
      The principle of parsimony applies here. Explanations that don't require centralized bronze age kingdoms everywhere, formal standardization of weights, and thousands of years of no one conducting long distance trade are more parsimonious than those that do. One of the issues with archaeology is that it's easy to come up with thousands of plausible explanations for any particular set of data. Parsimony and other tools are essential to winnowing things down a bit.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        >Explanations that don't require centralized bronze age kingdoms everywhere, formal standardization of weights, and thousands of years of no one conducting long distance trade are more parsimonious than those that do. We have ample evidence of all three of those existed to some degree, and that's why the idea that the measurements were decreed has been the predominant explanation for a while now. I think this one piece of evidence could be explained within the current hypothesis.