Table 2.1.Intercalations in the neo-Babylonian period
YearBCE Intercalation (month number) Interval from previous intercalation
(number of years)
624/3 XII 2
621/0 VI 2 2½
619/18 XII 2 2½
616/15 VI 2 2½
614/13 XII 2 2½
611/10 VI 2 2½
608/7 VI 2 3
606/5 XII 2 2½
603/2 VI 2 2½
600/599 VI 2 3
598/7 VI 2 2
596/5a VI 2 2
594/3 XII 2 2½
591/0 XII 2 3
588/7 XII 2 3
584/3b VI 2 3½
582/1 XII 2 2½
579/8c XII 2 3
577/6 XII 2 2
574/3 VI 2 2½
572/1 XII 2 2½
569/8d XII 2 3
564/3 VI 2 4½
563/2 XII 2 1½
560/59 XII 2 3
557/6 XII 2 3
555/4e XII 2 2
553/2 XII 2 2
550/49 XII 2 3
546/5 VI 2 3½
544/3 XII 2 2½
541/0 XII 2 3
537/6 VI 2 3½
aOne text has VI 2 in 597/6 (BM 55905, in CT 57:404;Walker, unpubl.). This is probably an
error, but other explanations (e.g., possibly, provenance) should be investigated.
bThis entry follows YBC 4110 and 8860 (Parker and Dubberstein 1956: 5), as well as two
other sources listed byWalker (BM 54603, and PTS 3175). However, according to BM 35196
as transcribed in Sachs and Hunger (1988–2006) v. 152 (no. 53), the intercalation was six
months earlier, in 585/4 XII 2 (hence a three-year interval). It is possible, however, that the
regnal year number in this text has been misread, or that it belongs to another reign.
cOne text has XII 2 in 580/79 (BM 69027;Walker ibid.), which appears a plausible alternative
to the intercalation of 579/8. This inconsistency in the texts may be the result of error, but
again, other explanations should be considered.
dThis intercalation is well attested. One text in Sachs and Hunger (1988–2006) i, no. 567
appears to place this intercalation one year later, in 568/7, but this is probably a
misinterpretation.
eAlso well attested. One text, however, has XII 2 in 556/5 (VAT 8508;Walker, ibid.); the same
comment as on 579/8 (notecabove) applies.
The Babylonian Calendar 101