substantial differences between them, in terms of when exactly the lunar
month began and when intercalations were made.^9 But even if the correspon-
dence between both calendars may have been in reality not quite as exact, the
Behistun inscription can still be taken as evidence of a certain process of
adaptation of the Old Persian to the Babylonian calendar. This process would
have arisen in the context of the Babylonian calendar’s becoming dominant,
by the sixth century, in most of the Near East.
The adaptation of the Old Persian and (now also) Elamite calendars to the
Babylonian calendar becomes more evident slightly later, in the Persepolis
Fortification and Treasury Tablets. A continuous sequence of Old Persian
(with some Elamite) intercalations is attested in these documents for the years
ranging from 506/5 to 490/89BCE, and corresponds exactly to the sequence of
intercalations in the Babylonian calendar, which we know from Babylonian
sources elsewhere—see Chapter 2 and Table 2.4: the same months were
intercalated in the same years.^10 This correspondence can hardly have been
fortuitous. It clearly means that Old Persian and Elamite calendars had
become assimilated, in this period, to the Babylonian calendar.^11
Still, in a small minority of Persepolis Fortification Tablets the Old Persian
intercalations do not agree exactly with those of the Babylonian calendar. In
three documents relating to 503/2BCE, the Old Persian intercalary month is X 2
(^9) Pacede Blois (2006) 43–4.
(^10) Walker (1997) 23–4. An Elamite intercalation is only attested for 500/499BCE(XII
2 ), in
Hallock (1969) nos. 1046, 1049, and 1057; it is the same as in the Babylonian calendar. Old
Persian intercalations, conforming to Babylonian intercalations, are attested as follows: 506/5BCE
(XII 2 ) Hallock (1969) no. 881; 503/2 (VI 2 ) ibid. nos. 660, 894, 1790, 1943; 500/499 (XII 2 ) ibid.
nos. 764, 870, 875, 966, 1718; 498/7 (XII 2 ) ibid. nos. 246, 297, 765, 998, 999, 1257, 1844; 495/4
(XII 2 ) ibid. no. 864; 492/1 (VI 2 ) G. G. Cameron (1965) no. 19; and 490/89 (XII 2 ) id. (1948) no. 2.
Old Persian intercalations are also attested for the years 484/3 (VI 2 , Hallock 1969: nos. 10–11)
and 474/3 (XII 2 , ibid. no. 27), but in the absence of Babylonian evidence for these years, we
cannot be certain that the same intercalations were made (see Table 2.4 nn.f,i). Onefinal Old
Persian intercalation is attested for 460/59 (XII 2 , G. G. Cameron 1948 no. 79), the same as in the
Babylonian calendar (Sachs and Hunger 1988–2006: v. no. 56).
(^11) The widely-held opinion that the Old Persian and Elamite intercalary months in the
Persepolis Fortification and Treasury Tablets coincided with those of the Babylonian calendar
depends, however, on whether in general Old Persian and Elamite month-names can be reliably
correlated with those of the Babylonian calendar. The Behistun inscription remains a reasonable
source of evidence for 522/1BCE, but we cannot be certain that the same correlation maintained
itself from year to year. The correlation of Elamite month-names with Babylonian months is
particularly speculative. The identity of Aššetukpi as the twelfth month of the Elamite year is
convincingly established by Hallock (1969: 75); but this leads him to assume that Aššetukpi was
equivalent to (and thus coincided with) Babylonian Addaru, which is impossible to prove. But
even if we cannot be certain that the sequence of months in all three calendars was concurrent
(and hence, that their intercalary months, e.g. XII 2 , occurred at the same time), it remains true
that in the years 506/5 to 490/89BCE, Old Persian intercalations occurred in the same years as in
the Babylonian calendar, at the same intervals, and with months designated in both calendars as
either the sixth or the twelfth of the year. Thus it is evident that even if they did not necessarily
coincide, Old Persian (and perhaps also Elamite) intercalations were modelled entirely on the
Babylonian sequence of intercalations.
TheRise of the Fixed Calendars 171