sections of a loan record between the Idumaean Qosyada and the Greek
Nikēratos (the former, in Aramaic, the statement of Qosyada’s loan, and the
latter, in Greek, Nikēratos’receipt); it is likely, therefore, that the Aramaic and
Greek dates were supplied by each party independently of one another.^29
Nevertheless, the day of the month is the same in each section (12th), which
suggests perhaps that both calendars were identical or assimilated to one
another.
This ostracon shows that the Babylonian calendar was still in use by
Aramaic-speakers in areas beyond Seleucid control.^30 In these areas, however,
the assimilation of Macedonian and Babylonian calendars was different from
that in the Seleucid Empire: on this ostracon, at least, Tammuz is equated with
Panemos, whereas according to the Seleucid scheme, it should have been
equated with Loios (or Siwan with Panemos: see Table 5.2). It seems most
likely that the Macedonian calendar assumed in this ostracon was that of the
Ptolemaic rulers, which was reckoned quite independently from that of the
Seleucids (Samuel 1972: 146–9); this would explain the equation of Tammuz
and Panemos.^31 As to the day of the month (12th), it is impossible to tell
whether the Macedonian Ptolemaic (Greek) and Babylonian (Aramaic) days
of the month happened on this occasion to coincide, or the Greeks in Idumaea
were following the dates of the Babylonian calendar still dominant in this
region, or again, on the contrary, the Aramaic-speaking Idumaeans were
following the dates of the now politically dominant Macedonian Ptolemaic
calendar.
Analysis of this ostracon reveals how complicated, and perhaps somewhat
indeterminate, the process of calendar assimilation could be. But what needs
to be most emphasized, out of all this evidence, is theassimilatorytendency
of calendars in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic Empires.^32 This assimilatory
(^29) Geraty (1975) 59 n. 30 notes, however, that the ostracon is written in a single handwriting,
except for the name‘Nikēratos’in both the Aramaic and Greek sections, which perhaps
Nikēratos himselffilled in. Nikēratos’Semitic patronym, transliterated in Greek asSobbathos,
suggests that his origins were perhaps Idumaean, although his use of Greek in this ostracon was
clearly a marker of Greek identity.
(^30) It is unlikely that in this early period, the Idumaeans were using a local, independent
calendar that had only retained Babylonian month-names. Since they did not form a coherent
and independent political entity, but were still subject to the successors of the Achaemenid
Empire (now Ptolemaic, but not long before Seleucid), they would have continued using their
official imperial calendars. The development of independent calendars in the Near East was
characteristic of the post-Seleucid period, as we shall presently see.
(^31) The later years of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (from year 21 onwards) are known, from
papyrological sources, to have been over-intercalated (see Ch. 3, near n. 92). This inscription
confirms that by year 6 of his reign, one excessive intercalation had already been made, so that
Panemos coincided no longer with the Babylonian month of Siwan, but with the following
month of Tammuz.
(^32) On the assimilation of the Macedonian calendar to the Egyptian civil calendar in early- or
mid-2nd-c. Ptolemaic Egypt, see Ch. 3 n. 86.
Fragmentation: Babylonian and Julian Calendars 245