Asia, between 12 and 2BCE.^124 The observance of Augustus’birthday as a New
Year certainly suggests that these calendars were instituted during the time of
Augustus’reign.
According to thehemerologia, these calendars share in common a New Year
on about 23 September and a 365-day year, but they have different month-
names and some minor, structural differences, some of their months begin-
ning on different days (see Table 5.6).^125 The scheme laid down in the Priene
inscription is only identically matched, in thehemerologia, by the calendars‘of
Ephesus’(distinct from the calendar‘of Asia’; Florence MS) and‘of Asia’
(Leiden MS). But in a few other calendars even the New Year date differs, with
24 September (in the calendar of Asia, Florence MS) and 22 September
(calendar of Cyprus, Vatican MS). Atfirst sight, these deviant New Year
dates might be attributed to scribal error, on the grounds that the whole
point of these calendars must have been to start the year on Augustus’
birthday, which was on 23 September.^126 But on closer inspection, as I shall
now argue, these variations are more likely to reflect a historical reality; they
suggest that the Asian calendar was not uniformly reckoned in cities and
provinces of the Roman East.
Differences between Asian and Asian-type calendars in thehemerologia
cannot be simply dismissed, indeed, as scribal errors in the manuscripts.
Scribal errors are evident where thefigures are internally inconsistent; exam-
ples of inconsistency can be found in all the manuscripts, particularly in the
Asia-Pamphylia column of Vatican MS^127 The New Year of 22 September
(Cyprus, Vatican MS) does not involve any such inconsistency, but may still
be explained as a scribal error on the basis that day 1 of this month is
duplicated (on 22 and 23 September); although duplication of day 1 is
common in thehemerologia, it may be possible to conjecture that thefirst of
these two days (22 September) is an error and should read‘ 31 ’(of the previous
month), and hence, that the year really begins on 23 September.^128 But where
thefigures are internally consistent, and where day 1 of the month is not
(^124) This is based on one of the months’being named Archiereus (or Archierios), an apparent
reference to Augustus’appointment aspontifex maximusin 12BCE, and the lack of any month-
name referring to the title ofpater patriaewhich Augustus assumed in 2BCE(Samuel loc. cit.);
but this argument is obviously not watertight.
(^125) On these variations see Kubitschek (1915) 91–6, Laffi(1967) 71–5. Samuel (1972) 175
ignores these variations and misleadingly reduces all the Asian-type calendars to a single set of
dates. The account in Grumel (1958) 170 126 – 1 is also unclear.
So Laffi(1967) 73 n. 134, although he concedes in conclusion that variation within the
Asian calendars cannot be entirely excluded. On the date of Augustus’birthday, see below,
n. 136).
(^127) See e.g. Table 5.6 n.h.
(^128) If so, the previous month would have to become a 31-day month; the original reading for
its last day would have been∧A, later corrupted intoA. Most 31-day months in the Cyprus
calendar of the Vatican MS are counted with a duplicate day 1, and therefore end on day 30; but a
day 31 is attested on 23/5, so it would not be impossible here on 22/9.
Fragmentation: Babylonian and Julian Calendars 279