All these theories labour under serious difficulties. Brandis’ theory was overthrown easily as soon as attention was called to the well-defined heavy series of Aeginetic coins, he having been led to his opinion by a comparison of the heaviest specimen of the Babylonian standard with the lightest of the Aeginetic. Here incidentally we may call the readers’ attention to the fact that in numismatics the weight of the heaviest specimens of any series must be regarded as the true index of the normal weight, for whatever may have been the inclination to mint coins of a weight lighter than the proper standard, we may rest assured that the ancient mint-master was no more inclined than his modern representative to put into coins of gold or silver a single grain more than the legal amount. Hence it is a most faulty and fallacious method when dealing with coin weights to take the average of a certain number of specimens as the true standard. Out of 30 specimens 29 may have lost more or less in weight by wear, whilst one may be a fleur de coin, perfect as at the moment when it left the die. No one can doubt that the evidence of that single coin as regards the standard is worth far more than that of all the remaining 29 examples. I have thought it well to call attention to this question of method as the vicious principle of arriving at standards by taking the average is still found in works of men of great eminence.
Next let us consider the probability of the derivation of the Aeginetic standard from Egypt. The fact that weights of like standard have been found in that country, although superficially plausible, in reality is of little force as evidence of borrowing. For unless we find that the Egyptians used those weights for weighing silver, even the prima facie case breaks down at once. As a matter of fact there is no evidence up to the present that these weights were so employed, although there is some evidence