Calendars in Antiquity. Empires, States, and Societies

otherwise consistent practice, it seems likely that [385/4] is mistaken, although a plausible explanation of the error is hard to

find

’. But inasmuch as Saros Canon texts are purely

theoretical, it seems far more likely that it is their record (384/3) that is unreliable, representing a later reconstruction of the calendar accordi

ng to the ideal Saros Canon scheme.

dThis entry, for 382/1, should be treated as tentative. A theoretical lunar eclipse text (LBAT 1422) and Saros Canon texts have the intercalation in 381

/0, where it belongs according to the

Saros Canon cycle (in year 6). However, an observational text in Sachs and Hunger (1988

• 2006: v, no. 59) implies that the intercalation was not in 381/0, but in 382/1 (see comment ibid.

209; this seems not to have been noted in previous scholarship). An intercalation in 382/1 is consistent with the intercalation of 385/4; it looks as th

ough the Saros Canon cycle jumped one

year forward in these years.eNot certainly attested, but an economic source (BE ix. 32) dated year 32 of Artaxerxes may belong here, i.e. to Artaxerxes II (otherwise to Artaxerxes I

in 433/2;

W

alker, unpubl.).

fThe evidence is scant, and appears restricted to an economic document from Nippur that can be dated to this year on the basis that other documents from th

e same batch belong to the

reign of Artaxerxes II (Joannès 1982: 4

• 6).

gNot explicit in any source, but inferable from Saros Canon texts.hBesides being in the Saros Canon, this entry is attested in Sachs and Hunger (ibid. v, no. 69), but the text is not clearly observational.iThe previous entry (for 267/6, in year 6), which conforms to the Saros Canon cycle, is attested in ibid. no. 72, an observational text. The present entry

(for 266/5), completely out of

sequence, is attested in Clay (1913) no. 11 (dated 21 XII

(^461)
SE;
first Addaru implies intercalation); its provenance from Uruk (as opposed to Babylon, the presumed provenance of Sachs
and Hunger v, no.72) is unlikely to account for the discrepancy. Clay (1913: 84) marks the year number with a question mark, presumably only because of t
his discrepancy.
jIn this year (246/5
BCE
, i.e. 66
SE) one would expect the intercalation of XII
; but this intercalary month is missing in Sachs and Hunger ibid. v, no. 39, a monthly list of lunar data for the 2
years 62

-^93

SE. Nevertheless, one intercalation must be posited between 248/7 and 243/2, otherwise the calendar would have fallen one month behind. The right half o

f the column where,

on the tablet, this intercalary month would have appeared is broken (see ibid. pl. 14), which justi

fies the conjecture that this intercalary month was actually listed (although the editors do

not conjecture it, ibid. 101). The tablet is otherwise complete, which excludes the possibility of an intercalation one year earlier or later.kThis intercalation is attested once in Sachs and Hunger ibid. v, no. 74 (a text from Uruk dated 121

SE), twice ibid.. no. 39, and once ibid.. vi, no. 69. It is missing in ibid.. v, no. 40, but the

dating of this text is uncertain (see next n.).lAttested ibid.. v, no. 39, vi, no. 6. In v, no. 40, XII

appears not in this year but one year earlier (241/0, i.e. 71 2

SE); but the astronomical dating of this source is problematic, and I would

regard it therefore as uncertain.m

The year of this intercalation (from Sachs and Hunger ibid.. v, no. 81) is uncertain.

Note:

Italics are for intercalations attested only in theoretical astronomical sources (generally disregarded if they con

flict with other sources). Brackets are for entries that are conjectural or

textually problematic.