explained in relation to the broader context of ancient calendars, i.e. the
societies and politicalstructures in the context of which ancient calendars
were designed, managed, and used.
Nilsson’s evolutionist approach, echoed somewhat by Bickerman, was
largely fuelled by the assumption thatlunar calendars were closer to nature
and therefore more primitive than solar calendars, but this again is only
modern prejudice. Neither calendar, in fact, is closer to nature than the
other. As explained above, inlunar calendars the fundamentaltime unit is
the month, as defined by the naturalphases and motion of the moon, whereas
the year is only an artificialsequence of twelve or thirteen months which fails
to keep regular track of the sun and seasons; in solar calendars, conversely, the
fundamentaltime unit is the year, as defined by the naturalmotion of the sun,
whereas the months are an artificialsubdivision of the year which failto keep
track of thelunar months. Both calendars are thus at once naturaland artificial
in different respects.In terms of practicalutility, it could be argued thatlunar
calendars are, if anything,less relevant to nature or reallife than solar
calendars, because thelunar month and the phases of the moon are only
important in dailylife for night illumination and (of relevance only to coast-
line and river-mouth settlements and navigators) for determining the times of
tides; whereas the solar year and the cycle of the seasons that is related to it are
criticalto nearlyallhuman needs and activities such as agriculture, pastoral-
ism, hunting andfishing, clothing and shelter, navigation,land traveland
migration, etc.In terms of practicalreckoning, however,lunar calendars are
arguablycloser to nature than solar calendars: for althoughlunar calendars
are slightly complicated by the practice of intercalation,lunar dates can easily
be estimated by observing the size and shape of the moon, whereas it is
virtually impossible—without accurate astronomicalinstruments and knowl-
edge of astronomicaltheory—to estimate a solar date by observing the posi-
tion of the sun (it is possible to estimate it at night time, but again, only on the
basis of good knowledge of the stars, which even in Antiquity not everyone
could necessarily have boasted of ).^21 My point, in short, is that it is difficultto
argue that either thelunar or the solar calendar is inherentlycloser to nature,
and for that reason inherently more primitive. The generalshift in Antiquity
fromlunar to solar calendars was not the result of some inherent progress
from primitive to advanced, but rather of socio-political processes and
changes which affected in many other ways the whole of ancient society.
Softer forms of evolutionism have been implied by others, e.g. Jack Goody,
who argues, in a short encyclopedia article, that the formalization of calendars
(^21) In modernlife, where the calendar is solar, it is quite common for people not to know the
date and to ask for it—which surely must be viewed as something of aflaw; see further discussion
inCh. 3. 3.
Introduction 17