(M463) The other system applied to land the names of measures of capacity used for measuring crops. We read of so many _GUR_ and _ḲA_ of land, where _1 GUR = 300 ḲA_, as shown by Dr. Reisner. We may guess that a _GUR_ of land was so called because it took a _GUR_ of corn to sow it, or because it yielded a _GUR_ of corn as an average harvest. These are mere guesses and we must remain in ignorance until further evidence connects a _GUR_ of land on one side with its length and breadth, or some other relation between the _GUR_ and the _GAN_ can be deduced. Then we shall want to know the size of the _GUR_ of corn, of which at present we have no knowledge. But already in Susa a broken pot has been found with its original contents marked upon it. When others are found, from which an approximate estimate of contents can be made, and an inscription read giving the capacity, we shall be able to make a definite statement. At present the data are insufficient and what the metrologists write is only ingenious speculation. (M464) A piece of land had, so to speak, an individuality of its own. Once marked out, and that probably from time immemorial, it was rarely divided. It seems probable that corn-land at any rate was divided into long, narrow strips. But the plots became gradually of all sizes and shapes, as the many plans of estates show. The lengths of the sides are usually given on such plans, and much labor has been expended with small result on reconciling the given dimensions with the area ascribed to the plot. But it is certain that these were often recorded merely for purposes of identification. The area of the field was well known, and its average crop also, without any need of resort to calculations. (M465) These plots often bear their owner’s name, and that long after he had passed away. The boundary-stones of the field were sacred. Not a few were inscribed with some sort of history of the plot. Especially was this the case when the land was granted to fresh owners, by sale, or charter. No inconsiderable portion of what we know of history is derived from inscribed boundary-stones. They are the oldest monuments and rarely deeply buried. Hence they are easy to find. They have even been brought to London, as ship’s ballast, in times before they could be read. They would be invaluable, if found _in situ_, for a modern survey of the country and a reconstruction of its ancient history. As a rule they are splendidly preserved.