The calendar of the province of AsiaAmong the lunar calendars of Asia Minor and the Near East that adapted to
the Julian calendar in the early Roman period, the calendar later known as
‘Asian’was perhaps thefirst. The decree that led to its institution, datable to
the last decade of thefirst centuryBCE, has been uniquely preserved, and in
more than one copy. The most complete version is in an inscription from the
city of Priene (hence sometimes referred to, misleadingly, as the‘decree of
Priene’), but other fragments have been found in inscriptions from Apameia,
Eumeneia, Dorylaion, Metropolis, and the smaller settlement of Maeonia.^102
The same calendar, with the same Macedonian month-names, is also listed in
thehemerologiaas‘Ephesian’(Florence MS) or‘Asian-Pamphylian’(Vatican
MS).^103 Epigraphic evidence confirms that the decree was widely diffused in
the Roman province of Asia—as required by the text of the decree^104 —and
that its calendar became the official calendar of the province throughout the
Roman period.^105
The inscriptions consist of an edict of the proconsul (Roman governor of
the province of Asia), partly in Latin and in Greek, followed by a decree of the
koinon(association, confederation) of the cities of the province of Asia, in
Greek. In his edict, the proconsul puts forward the proposal—which, as Sherk
rightly remarks, was to be read as a virtual directive^106 —that special honours
(^102) Laffi(1967) with original texts, composite texts, and commentary; Sherk (1969) 328– 37
(no. 65) with a composite text and commentary. For summaries, see Samuel (1972) 181–2 and,
including a partial English translation, Hannah (2005) 131–5. The Metropolis fragment is a more
recent discovery, and helps to correct some of Laffi’s textual conjectures (Dreyer and Engelmann
2006: 175 103 – 82; reference courtesy of Simon Price).
Kubitschek (1915), Samuel (1972) 175 n. 2. Minor differences between the manuscripts
will be discussed below. Although the calendar, with its Macedonian month-names, is designated
‘Ephesian’in the Florence manuscript, epigraphic sources from Ephesus attest the survival there
of local month-names (e.g. Anthesterion, inIBMiii. 481 =I. Ephesosii. 27, cited in Laffi1967: 76,
dated 104CE; see Samuel 1972: 123–4, 176, Stern 2001: 43 and n. 176). Bickerman (1968) 48
wrongly infers from the survival of these local names that the calendar had remained lunar; in
structure, it was in fact identical with the calendar of the province of Asia. 104
Priene inscription, ll. 62–7: Laffi(1967) 21–3, 83–5, in Doc. VI; Sherk (1969) 332, D62–7.
(^105) The calendar of the Roman province of Asia , as laid out in this decree, is well attested
early on in the region of Lydia, in the cities of Nysa, dating from 1BCE(CIG2943) and
Philadelphia, 40CE(IGRiv. 1615)—both in Kubitschek (1915) 92–3, Laffi(1967) 75– 6 —also
in Metropolis (early 1st c.CE: Engelmann 1999: 142–3), and later in Ephesus (104CE: above,
n. 103). It is still attested in late Antiquity in an anonymous Paschal homily of 387CE(Floëri and
Nautin 1957) and in an inscription from Sardis of 459CE(CIG3467 =Inscr. Sardis18 =AE2000:
1380: see Laffi1967: 78 and Stern 2001: 43, refuting the suggestion of Samuel 1972: 132–3 and
Bickerman 1968: 48 that the calendar of Sardis was still lunar). The calendar also spread beyond
the province of Asia, as we shall later see.
(^106) Sherk (1969) 334. The proconsul’s letter refers to itself as aäØÜôƪìÆ(Laffi1967: 20, Doc.
IV l. 30), which translates the Latinedictumand implies therefore something quite authoritarian;
the tone of the letter itself, however, is considerably milder and makes it read more like a
recommendation (ll. 35–6); see below, after n. 120. It may have been normal for Roman
274 Calendars in Antiquity