6
Dissidence and Subversion: Gallic,
Jewish, and Other Lunar Calendars in the
Roman Empire
All ancient calendars we have studied so far were set and controlled by
political rulers. Although, in some cases, the advice of astronomers was sought
(mainly in the context of the Babylonian calendar, also of Julius Caesar’s
calendar reform), critical decisions were always taken by kings, city magis-
trates, and city councils; they decided the beginning and length of all months
and years, and they decided how the calendar would be structured. Control of
the temporal organization of society was regarded, it seems, as an inherent
right of political rulers; this is why reckoning of the calendar was understood
in the ancient world as a political function, which could often be invested with
political meaning. The use of the official imperial calendars in the satrapies of
the Achaemenid and Seleucid Empires was thus construed as a statement of
political allegiance to the king; by contrast, deviation from these official
imperial calendars (e.g. through over-intercalation) in post-Seleucid city states
and kingdoms was an expression of political autonomy and independence
from the great Empire.
Some ancient calendars, however, were not set or controlled by political
rulers, either central (the emperor, the king, the imperial administration) or
local (provincial governors, city councils), but by alternative, unofficial struc-
tures of social authority that were distinct from the structures of the state.
These unofficial calendars will be the subject of this chapter. Although they
may have existed throughout Antiquity, it is only in the Roman Empire that
they become visible. Because these calendars lay outside the control of political
rulers, I propose to interpret them as a form of subculture and also, to a certain
extent, as an expression of political subversion and dissidence.
The concepts of‘dissidence’and‘subversion’must be treated here with
caution. Their modern use originates from the context of the twentieth-century
totalitarian regimes, and it is still with political resistance to these regimes
that these concepts are frequently associated. The forms of‘dissidence’and