expansion, and increasing centralization of the great empires oflate Antiquity
(Ch. 6).
Both approaches remain, of course, valid and plausible; but they raise the
question of the relationship between micro-and macro-history.^5 This ques-
tion is not confined to the Jewish calendar, but willarise many times in the
course of this work.InCh. 4, for example,Ishallbe asking whether the
dissemination of thefixed, Egyptian calendar in the possessions of thePtole-
maic kingdom, andlater JuliusCaesar’s reform of the Roman calendar (and its
fixation in the form of the Julian calendar), were caused by specific, micro-
historicalcircumstances, or belong to a broad, macro-historicalpattern of
change fromflexiblecalendars tofixed schemes—or whether again, both
explanations are correct. This partly depends on the theoreticalquestion,
familiar to historians, of whether history is the outcome of macro-historical
patterns and forces, or rather the sum of micro-historicalevents which each
came about forlocal, specific reasons and for which an integrated, macro-
historicalinterpretation is onlyillusory—a question that remains open and at
the core of this present study.
DEFINITIONS ANDSCOPEThe calendar is defined in this work as a structure that divides and organizes
the temporalcontinuum into discrete, recurrent periods, with the day as the
smallest period and the year as thelargest (thelength of the year being usually
defined by the calendar itself ). The objective of a calendar is primarilyto
identify points in time, to measure durations of time, and to structure theflow
of time into cyclical, repetitive patterns.^6
Nearlyallancient calendars within the scope of this study used the month, a
period of approximately 30 days, as the main intermediary time unit between
(^5) By‘macro-history’—a term that willappear not infrequently in this work—Imean a history
that is‘long’both in time and in space, as it considers at once many periods,lands, and peoples.
It is not identicalwith theAnnalesconcept ofstructure delonguedurée, which usually designates
along-term structure that is either static or cyclicaland repetitive. Macro-history is a more
neutralterm that makes room for dynamic, ever-changing, and non-repetitive patterns and
structures.
(^6) Systems for subdividing the day, e.g. into hours, are usually not categorized as calendars.
Periods of time that arelonger than the year, e.g. eras and reigns, in the framework of which
years can be counted, do not belong to calendars but rather to what is commonlycalled
chronology.In contrast to calendars, chronologicalstructures tend to belinear and non-
recurrent, although cycles are sometimes also found (e.g. jubilees, indictions). On subdivisions
of the day in the Graeco-Roman world, seeHannah (2009). On chronology in Roman society
and culture, see the excellent study of Feeney (2007); chronologicalsystems inlate Antiquity
were surveyed by Grumel( 195 8); see also Mosshammer (2008). Subdivisions of the day and
chronology are outside the scope of this work.
Introduction 5