By modifying the proconsul’s scheme and improving its synchronization to
the Julian calendar, thekoinonwere paradoxically asserting on the one hand
their commitment to conform to the calendar of Rome, and on the other hand,
their autonomy with regard to the proconsul’s authority. Thekoinon’s decree
represents, in this respect, another manifestation of the complex (albeit
unequal) political relationship between provincial cities and the Roman Em-
pire. This complex relationship is also evident in the proconsul’s letter, which
blends the authoritarian status of an‘edict’with the conciliatory tone of a
recommendation.^120
But these small concessions to provincial autonomy should not obscure the
fact that the institution of the calendar of Asia was, fundamentally, an act of
submission to the imperial rulers. It is clear from the contents, tone, and
emphasis of both the proconsul’s edict and thekoinon’s decree that the main
and perhaps sole purpose of this calendar reform was for the province to
demonstrate its loyalty to the emperor Augustus. Indeed, the only calendar
change that the proconsul proposed in the Greek version of his edict was the
institution of the New Year on Augustus’birthday. Although this necessitated,
by implication, the conversion of the lunar calendar to a 365-day year (other-
wise, the New Year could not have remained permanently on 23 September),
conversion of the calendar was only a technical and incidental aspect of the
decree’s implementation, which is why the proconsul did not bother to
mention it explicitly. A list of month-lengths does appear in the Latin text of
his edict, but its mediocre design (which we have noted above) betrays his lack
of attention to technical, calendrical details. The point of the proconsul’s edict
was only that the province should observe Augustus’birthday as a New Year’s
day.
The motivation for this calendar reform, on both sides, was thus essentially
political. The political gains that both the proconsul and the province stood to
make in the process were, indeed, potentially considerable.^121 Significantly,
and in contrast, neither the proconsul nor thekoinonreferred in their decree
to the practical, administrative advantages of synchronizing the calendar of
Asia to the Roman calendar. That this argument was ignored may appear
surprising, because it should have been evident that synchronization of the
calendars would have greatly facilitated the local administration of the prov-
ince as well as its wider integration into the Roman Empire. This omission has
much to teach us about how calendars were perceived in ancient society; it also
calls us to revise the common modern assumption that calendar reforms were
motivated in Antiquity by arguments such as administrative convenience or
(^120) See above, n. 106.
(^121) Magie (1950) i. 480–1, followed by Samuel (1972) 182 n. 5, refer to the decree of the
koinonas‘flattery’, but we need not assume that this expression of political loyalty was excessive
or even insincere (see Sherk 1969: 336–7).
Fragmentation: Babylonian and Julian Calendars 277