(i.e. a second 10th month), whereas in the Babylonian calendar (as attested in
Babylonian sources) it was VI 2 , i.e. four months earlier.^12 In a single document
relating to 499BCE, the Old Persian intercalary month is given as I 2 , whereas in
the Babylonian calendar it was XII 2 , one month earlier.^13 These deviations
from the Babylonian calendar are probably survivals of the Old Persian
calendar: the intercalation of months X 2 and I 2 may have been normal practice
in the original Old Persian calendar, in contrast with the Babylonian calendar
that only allowed the intercalation of VI 2 and XII 2.^14
Before going further, a brief explanation is needed. My interpretation of the
evidence depends on the meaning of the termbeptika, which appears in these
four documents as an epithet of the month-name (X and I respectively), and
which I take to mean‘intercalary’. Although the normal Elamite term for
‘intercalary’isme-ša-na(‘later’: Hinz and Koch 1987: ii. 916–17), the termbe-
ip-ti-kais clearly used in other Fortification Tablets for Elamite intercalary
months.^15 There is no reason to assume thatbeptikameant anything else for
Old Persian months. Hallock interprets the termbeptikadifferently, because
of a tacit (and unsupported) assumption that Old Persian intercalary months
must have been the same as in the Babylonian calendar, thus precluding an
intercalary month X 2 or I 2. In his view,beptikameans not‘intercalary’but
‘shifted’, and indicates a month occurring some time after an intercalation
(e.g. in 502/3, X occurred after the intercalation of VI 2 ); for this intercalation
had the effect of‘shifting’or postponing all subsequent months.^16 But this
interpretation must be rejected on a number of counts. Firstly, as stated above,
it is unlikely that the termbeptikahad a different meaning for Elamite and
Old Persian months. Secondly, the designation of some months of the year as
(^12) Hallock (1969) nos. 1069, 1070, 1073. My use of Roman numerals follows modern
scholarly convention; in the sources, only month-names are used.
(^13) Ibid. no. 1053. By‘earlier’(in both cases) I mean in positional terms, i.e. in terms of its
position within the annual sequence of months. If, however, the sequence of months of both
calendars concurred (as is commonly assumed: see above, n. 11), then also in temporal terms,
the Babylonians would have made the intercalation (in this case) one month before the Persians.
(^14) Hartner (1985) 746–8. Note also that according to de Blois (2006) 52, Old Persian month X
would have corresponded to the Elamite month ofŠerum, which is attested in the late second
millennium BCE as being repeated (see above, n. 5). This may confirm that month X was
specifically designated for intercalation (even though no repetition ofŠermi, the early Achaeme-
nid Elamite successor ofŠerum, is attested in our sources). A further possible argument is that
the Old Persian name of month X, Anāmaka (which means‘nameless’), may express the fact that
this month could be repeated (the intercalary month would have been‘nameless’because extra-
sequential). However, this would not clearly explain why the regular, non-intercalary month X
should also have carried this name; moreover, the use of the same word in Sanskrit for
intercalary months (mentioned by Boyce 1975–91: ii. 23–4 and Lecoq 1997: 173) is actually
not clearly attested (de Blois 2006: 45).
(^15) Hallock (1969) nos. 1046, 1049, and 1057. Thus in no. 1046, Elamite months X to XII
beptikaare reckoned as a four-month period.
(^16) Hallock (1969) 75, endorsed by Hinz and Koch (1987) i. 181–2 (s.v. be-ip-ti-qa, which they
translate asverzögert, delayed).
172 Calendars in Antiquity