BRIEF OVERVIEWOF THELITERATUREThe comprehensive survey of ancient calendars is an ancient, well-established
literary genre, although it was sporadically pursued before the modern period.
It may be traced back to Antiquity itself, with substantialpassages in the works
of Geminus (first centuryBCE) andCensorinus (third centuryCE), followed in
the Middle Ages by al-Biruni’s encyclopedic work,Chronology of the Ancient
Nations(writtenc. 1 000), then in substantialpassages of Joseph Scaliger’sDe
Emendatione Temporum( 15 83).Particularly noteworthy in modern scholar-
ship are: the extensive‘handbooks’ofIdeler ( 1825 – 6) and Ginzel( 1911 ),
though now unreliable and outdated; Nilsson ( 1 920), which is focused on a
problematic evolutionist theory (see above); and Otto Neugebauer (especially
1975 ), whose concern was the history of science rather than of ancient
calendars.
Elias Bickerman’sChronology of the AncientWorld(second edition 1 968)
haslong been treated as the authoritative reference work on the subject,
although its section on calendars is brief and somewhat uneven (pp. 13 – 61 —
the rest of the work deals with the count of years and chronology). Because of
its brevity, Bickerman’s work tends towards oversimplification and conse-
quently inaccuracy; it is weak on Egyptian and Near Eastern calendars, but
quite usefulon Greek ones (27–38). Alan Samuel( 1 972) confined himself,
perhaps more wisely, to Greek and Roman calendars; his work is a mine of
information, notwithstandingDavid Lewis’s scathing review ( 1975 ). Grumel
( 195 8) coverslate Antiquity, but focuses on chronology and is not entirely
reliable about the calendars.Cohen ( 1 993) is essentialon ancient Near Eastern
calendars, but sayslittle of the structure of the calendars and how they were
reckoned. Richards ( 1 998) offers a generalsurvey of worldcalendars; Black-
burn andHolford-Strevens ( 1 999) is much broader in scope, but also presents
in some detailhow worldcalendars were (and are still) reckoned. More
recently,Hannah (200 5 , 2009) presents an interesting discussion of aspects
of Greek and Roman calendars and time reckoning.
The contribution of a number of scholars to the study of individualancient
calendars is worthy of particular mention.Iam much indebted to the works of
W. KendrickPritchett on Greek (especially Athenian) calendars,ChrisWalker
on the Babylonian calendar (though much of his relevant work remains
unpublished), LeoDepuydt on Egyptian calendars, François de Blois on
Iranian calendars, andChris Bennett onPtolemaic, Roman, and the early
Julian calendars. These scholars address a wide range of detailed calendrical
problems which, for reasons of scope,Ihave not been able to discuss in depth
in this study. AlthoughIhave often relied on their research andfindings,
Ihave always re-evaluated the arguments and the primary evidence, and in
20 Calendars in Antiquity