year of Antiochus’ IV death is given as 149SE, whereas we know from
Babylonian Astronomical Diaries that his death was around month X year
148 (about December 164BCE;Sachs and Hunger 1988–2006: iii. 18–19); the
date in 1 Macc. is compatible if we assume a Seleucid era beginning six months
earlier. Similarly, Demetrius’II accession is dated to year 151 (1 Macc. 7: 1)
not long before 13 Adar (1 Macc. 7: 49), i.e. month XII of the Babylonian
calendar; whilst according to the Astronomical Diaries it was some time
between month VII year 150 (autumn 162BCE) and month II 151 (Sachs
and Hunger 1988–2006: iii. 34–5). These dates can be reconciled if we assume
that Demetrius acceded not long before month XII 150 (Babylonian), but that
1 Macc. calls it‘year 151’because it reckons the year from the previous
autumn, following Macedonian usage. However, this interpretation creates a
further inconsistency, because the events following immediately the defeat of
Nikanor in 13 Adar 151 are dated to thefirst month of 152 (1 Macc. 9: 1–3),
which suggests that Adar was the last month of the year, following Babylonian
usage. It may be safer to conclude, therefore, that whilst the assumption of a
Macedonian Seleucid era from autumn 312BCEhelps to resolve some incon-
sistencies in the datings of thefirst book of Maccabees, the chronology of
1 Maccabees is generally too confused to serve itself as evidence of the
existence of such an era.^7
The Macedonian autumn New Year (and hence the Macedonian Seleucid
era from autumn 312BCE) is much better attested in later periods, and may
reasonably be regarded as a survival from the Seleucid period. Almost all the
calendars of Asia Minor and the Near East in the Roman period began the year
in the autumn.^8 In the Parthian kingdom, the Macedonian calendar seems also
(^7) Grabbe (1991) suggests that thefirst book of Maccabees is consistently using an era from
spring 312BCE. This may resolve most of the difficulties, but the existence of such an era would be
historically unaccountable except as an error on the part of this book’s author.
(^8) e.g. the calendars of Antioch (with a New Year on 1 October: Samuel 1972: 174 n. 1), Gaza
(28 October, according to Samuel 1972: 177 n. 4, and following a similar argument Ascalon, 27
November; alternatively we may suggest 29 August for both, on the assumption that the
epagomenals, in both calendars on 24–8 August, marked the end of the year), Gerasa (ibid.
180 – 1), and Cyprus (in its various calendars: ibid. 183–6). The year at Palmyra began in
Hyperberetaios = Tishrei, as attested from a late-2nd-c.CEinscription (ibid. 178–9 n. 3); the
calendar of Palmyra may still have been lunar in this period (see discussion in Ch. 6 n. 6), but in
any case this month would have occurred in the early autumn. A number of calendars began the
year on 23 September, in the provinces of Asia, Bithynia, Cyprus, Crete, and possibly in the city
of Heliopolis (Baalbek) (ibid. 174–6, 181–2); but since 23 September was Augustus’birthday, this
should not necessarily be interpreted as the survival of a pre-Roman, Seleucid autumn New Year.
See however Callataÿ (1997), 170, who argues from numismatic evidence that the pre-Roman
Macedonian calendar of Ephesus (later in the Roman province of Asia) must have begun the year
in the autumn (see also Samuel 1972: 123). The calendar of the province of Arabia (instituted in
106 CE) is the only known calendar of the Roman Near East to have begun the year in the spring
(assuming that its epagomenals, on 17–21 March, marked the end of the year; see Samuel 1972:
177). Some have explained this as a result of Arabia’s cultural affinity with Babylonia, where the
year began in the spring (MacAdam 1986: 34, adding that this‘also broadens the scope of the
236 Calendars in Antiquity