was of Macedonian origin,^87 but as we shall see this is unlikely for several
reasons.
Little is known about the Macedonian calendar before its introduction to
Egypt, but it was clearly lunar^88 and most probably similar to other Greek
calendars,^89 thus subject to arbitrary, irregular intercalation of days and
months.^90 After Alexander’s the Great conquest of the Near East, the Mace-
donian calendar in the Seleucid Empire was very soon assimilated to the
standard Babylonian calendar (see Chapter 5), and thus conformed to its
fairly stable 19-year cycle and its strictly lunar month (see Chapter 2). But
in Ptolemaic Egypt the Macedonian calendar appears to have fallen behind the
seasons. This is evident from third-centuryBCEdouble-dated documents (with
Macedonian and Egyptian dates), which demonstrate that months were being
excessively intercalated. Thus an Idumaean ostracon from year 6 of Ptolemy II
Philadelphus (285/4–247/6BCE) dated (Babylonian) Tammuz and (presum-
ably, Ptolemaic Macedonian) Panemos^91 suggests that already then, the Ptol-
emaic calendar was retarded by one month in relation to the more stable
Seleucid calendar. Excessive intercalations are then attested in the last two
decades of Philadelphus’reign, so that by the early reign of his successor,
Ptolemy III Euergetes, the Ptolemaic calendar was four months behind its
Seleucid counterpart (this is evident, for example, from the Macedonian date
of the decree of Canopus in 238BCE, year 9 of his reign); the discrepancy
increased to about six months by the end of Euergetes’reign in 222BCE.^92
In spite of this, it is commonly believed that the Ptolemaic Macedonian
calendar conformed to certainfixed patterns or cycles. Edgar put forward the
theory, subsequently endorsed by most scholars, that in the latter part of
Philadelphus’reign intercalations were made on a regular, biennial basis.^93
131/0BCEthe month of Dystros was assimilated to Thoth (first month of the Egyptian civil year),
whereas from 119/18BCEit was Dios that became assimilated to Thoth.
(^87) Grzybek (1990) 52–60, 171–4.
(^88) See Samuel (1972) 139 and n. 1, Grzybek (1990) 15–16.
(^89) See Trümpy (1997) 263–5, with specific attention to the Macedonian month-names.
(^90) Evidence of arbitrary intercalation of days in the Macedonian calendar may be found in
Plutarch,Alexander25, where at siege of the Tyre in 332BCEAlexander added one or two days at
the end of the month, and of irregular intercalation ibid. 16, where Alexander renamed the
month of Daisios as‘second Artemisios’(but see discussion in Ch. 1, near n. 140).
(^91) Geraty (1975); for full discussion, see Ch. 5. In this period, Idumaea was under Ptolemaic
rule.
(^92) The evidence was originally listed and analysed in Edgar (1931) 56–7 and Samuel (1962),
esp. 48–9, 60–73, but it is now updated and reviewed by Chris Bennett < http://www.tyndale-
house.com/Egypt/ptolemies/chron/chronology.htm> and (2011). Bennett argues that excessive
intercalation was part of a deliberate programme of calendar reform whose purpose was to
achieve a realignment of Macedonian months in relation to the Egyptian calendar; but why such
a realignment was sought, and why it was implemented in such a long-term, gradual way, remain
unexplained and problematic to his theory (see further Ch. 2, n. 126).
(^93) Edgar loc. cit., Bickerman (1968) 28, 38, Bennett (2011). But Samuel’s theory of biennial
intercalation in thefirst decades of Philadelphus’reign is no longer acceptable.
The Egyptian Calendar 155