In short, the shift in the equation of Macedonian and Babylonian month-
names was not the result of a single, centralized political decision (e.g. by a
Parthian king), but rather the effect of a general tendency, in most post-
Seleucid cities and kingdoms of the Near East, to over-intercalate the Mace-
donian calendar—typically, but not always, by one month—whereas the less
commonly used Babylonian calendar had apparently remained stable. The
new equation did not necessarily represent a calendrical reality, as a number of
post-Seleucid calendars (e.g. Ascalon) did not quite conform to it. It was rather
a standard, conventional translation that suited better the realities of the post-
Seleucid world.
Calendar diversityThe most important effect of over-intercalation in the post-Seleucid period,
arguably more important than the new Macedonian–Babylonian equation,
was calendar diversity. The proliferation of independent calendars in Asia
Minor and the Near East was a major departure from the Seleucid period,
when a single official calendar had been in use. The resulting diversity was to
remain a characteristic of Asian and Near Eastern calendars even in the
Roman period, when these calendars became adapted in various ways to the
Julian calendar. Calendar diversity was a reflection of the political fragmenta-
tion of the post-Seleucid world, but as we shall now see, it survived in the
Roman Near East until the end of Antiquity.
- THE JULIAN CALENDAR IN THE EAST
After Pompey’s campaigns in the East in the 60sBCE, most of Asia Minor and
part of the Near East were brought under Roman rule; Egypt was annexed in
30 BCE, and the Roman Empire went on expanding into the Near East until the
end of the second centuryCE(Millar 1993). One of the many indices of the
Romanization in the Near East was the introduction and spread of the Julian
calendar, which had been instituted in Rome—perhaps not entirely by
chance—soon after Pompey’s conquests.^74 One by one, the calendars of Asia
Minor and the Near East—until then, mostly lunar and based on the Macedo-
nian or Babylonian calendars—converted and became adapted to the Julian
scheme. This calendar change signaled the political, administrative, and
(^74) On the possible connection between the institution of the Julian calendar in 46BCEand the
expansion of the Roman Empire, see above Ch. 4. 3.
Fragmentation: Babylonian and Julian Calendars 259