Babylonia.^90 Some have conjectured that in these years, the Assyrian king had
momentarily lost political control over Babylonia.^91 However, since in both
cases the intercalation wasfirst made in Assyria, and then six months later in
Babylonia, it is alternatively possible that the royal order to intercalate arrived
too late from Assyria to Babylonia, and that a pragmatic decision was there-
fore taken in Babylonia to postpone the intercalation to the next available slot,
i.e. six months later.
Communication problems of this nature would have been exacerbated in
the Achaemenid period, because of the sheer size of the greatly expanded
Achaemenid Empire. Although a Babylonian residing at Ecbatana in Media in
537 BCEcould be aware that a second Ululu had been intercalated (Stolper
1990), in more remote regions such as Elephantine in southern Egypt the year
could be treated as non-intercalated sometimes many months after an inter-
calation had been made in Babylonia; the calendar was corrected only after
news of the intercalation arrived (Stern 2000a). Still, this demonstrates that as
a matter of principle, the same intercalations were expected to be followed
across the Achaemenid Empire. Communication problems disappeared in the
later Achaemenid period, when the intercalation becamefixed and cyclical
(see below) and the same intercalations could be made everywhere without
error.
It is evident from the neo-Assyrian sources cited above that in the earlier
period, the decision whether or not to intercalate was made on a year-to-year
basis, and depended sometimes perhaps on royal whim (Brown 2000: 195).
But this does not mean that intercalation was erratic. Literary texts from the
late second millenniumBCEonwards indicate that a number of astronomical
criteria could be used to regulate intercalation, such as the synchronism of
lunar months with thefirst appearances of planets, stars, or constellations.
The astronomical compendium MUL.APIN, for example, states that if the
moon is in conjunction with the constellation of Pleiades on 1 Nisannu, no
intercalation is needed, but if this occurs on 3 Nisannu, then an intercalation
must be made (and further rules of this kind appear after that in the
same passage).^92 The rule is also given there that intercalations are made
every three years.^93 The three-year rule would yield an insufficient number
(^90) Parpola (1970–83) ii. 381. Evidence for the intercalation of Addaru in Assyria in 667BCEis
not explicit but inferred from Assyrian astronomical sources (ibid.), as well as from Balasî’s
request to intercalate Addaru in that year (ibid. i, no. 325, cited above; see above, n. 82). The
dating of the latter is not certain, however, as 672BCEremains a possibility (Brown 2000: 275).
(^91) Parpola (1970–83) ii. 186 n. 323.
(^92) MUL.APIN II gap A8—ii 8, in Hunger and Pingree (1989) 89–93 (partial citation in
Hannah 2005: 31). On the date and origins of this work, see discussion in Brown (2000)
115 – 16, 259; in broad terms, it was composed during the late second millennium and the early
centuries of thefirst.
(^93) MUL.APIN II ii 9–17, in Hunger and Pingree (1989) 93–5. On these intercalation schemes,
see ibid. 152–3. Hunger and Pingree (ibid. 150–2, followed by Brown 2000: 117–18) identify yet
The Babylonian Calendar 97