the Germans that only tangentiallyrelates to the calendar has been cited as
evidence that‘the Germanic’calendar waslunar.^12 Entire calendar cycles,
rules, and schemes have sometimes been reconstructed on the basis of a
smallnumber of scattered dates; resort, for this purpose, to statisticaland
mathematicalmodels has sometimes been over confident and misleading (see
for example, again on the Athenian calendar,Ch. 1. 1 ). My generalapproach,
in this study as elsewhere, has been to avoid speculative models and remain as
close as possible to the explicit evidence; butImay stillbe criticized for having
relied, on occasion, on insufficient evidence—a tendency that is difficult, in
thisfield, to avoid.It is criticalto remember, moreover, that this present study
reflects only the evidence that happens to be extant. Experience has shown me,
while writing this book, that fresh discoveries can very easily upset earlier
theories and interpretations, and callsometimes for very radicalrevisions.
Ihave not made much use of theory—not out of ignorance or phobia, but
rather as a criticaland informed decision. My scepticism towards theoretical
models and approaches, which reflects perhaps a certain post-modern per-
spective, is explained and justified in the next section below. Nevertheless,
some theory has occasionally been used.Ihave tried a touch of structuralism
inCh. 4, whereIexplore the relationship between calendar and political
structures inlate Republican Rome, and of post-colonialtheory inCh. 6,
whereIinterpret unofficialcalendars in the Roman Empire as expressions of
subversion and dissidence.
Related to post-colonialism is the concept of globalization, of which the
present-day experience has probably exerted a significant impact on my
interpretation of calendars in the ancient world. Just as globalization today
may be seen as the product of post-colonial,political, and economic hegemo-
nies supported in turn by the ever-improving technologies of communica-
tions, soIhave argued that it is the great imperialpowers of Antiquity thatled
to the unification of culturalpractices, and more specifically, to the develop-
ment and dissemination offixed and standard officialcalendars across wide
imperialterritories. This politicized interpretation may go down wellin the
(^12) Bickerman ( 1 968) 1 7, on the sole basis of Tacitus’comment that the Germans treat as
auspicious the new and fullmoon days and reckon the night before the day (Germania 11 ). The
auspiciousness of new and fullmoon days does not necessarily imply, however, the use of alunar
calendar (as we shallsee inCh. 3, a non-lunar calendar was used in ancient Egypt, even though
specialcultic significance was given to various phases of the moon; the same applies to
Zoroastrianism, on which see de Blois 2006: 4 5 – 7). The practice of beginning the 24-hour period
in the evening, and thus of reckoning the night before the day, is admittedly distinctive oflunar
calendars based on new moon sightings (e.g. the Babylonian and Jewish calendars), but in actual
fact Tacitus does not even clearly say this: his comment is only that the Germans do not count
the number of days (‘like us’) but only the number of nights, so that‘the night seems tolead the
day’.Counting the number of nights is not a feature oflunar calendars, nor of any other
particular calendar (it is practised, for obvious reasons, in hotels today).
Introduction 9