referred to it.^22 This conclusion, however, is overconfident. The sources
presented above do not prove that the Macedonian calendar did not exist
independently of the Babylonian calendar. They only prove that writers in
Greek commonly translated Babylonian month-names into Macedonian
names, and that they had a consistent way of doing so. But whether this
translation convention reflected an actual reality—whereby, in the Seleucid
period, Macedonian and Babylonian months were indistinguishable—is an
entirely different matter: in reality, the Macedonian calendar could still have
been reckoned separately and independently, coinciding only approximately
with the Babylonian calendar. Nevertheless, the existence of a consistent,
conventional translation scheme from Babylonian to Macedonian month-
names suggests that the relationship between Macedonian and Babylonian
months must have been quite stable. This would imply, at least, that the
intercalation of months was carried out in the same way, and if so, that
those who reckoned a Macedonian calendar generally followed the Babylonian
fixed, 19-year cycle.
Calendar assimilation: extent and limitsThe Seleucid adoption of the Babylonian calendar and the assimilation to it of
Macedonian month-names is a likely assumption, even if it is difficult to prove
this from Macedonian-dated documents of the Seleucid period. The Babylo-
nian calendar had a long history as the official imperial calendar in the
Achaemenid and preceding empires. The Seleucids inherited it together with
the other imperial and administration institutions of the Achaemenid Empire,
and had every reason to continue using it as official calendar. By the time of
Alexander’s conquest, indeed, this calendar was widely used in daily life by
Aramaic-speakers across the Empire;^23 its ever-increasing regularity, which we
have traced in Chapter 2, made it particularly suited to the administrative
needs of a large empire. At the same time, however, the preservation of the
Macedonian calendar remained a political advantage to the Seleucids; its
month-names were also more appropriate for dating documents in Greek,
the new official imperial language. To reckon both calendars separately would
not have made much sense, especially as both were lunar. It was much easier,
(^22) Samuel (1972) 140–1; also Toomer (1984) 13 n. 22, who, however, argues that the
assimilation of Babylonian and Macedonian months may actually be later than the mid-3rd-c.
BCE, as Ptolemy’s translation of the Babylonian month-names into Macedonian equivalents may
have been carried out at a later date.
(^23) It is well attested, e.g., in Aramaic ostraca from Idumaea (southern Palestine) of the late
Achaemenid and early Hellenistic periods: see e.g. Eph’al and Naveh (1996). For evidence from
Samaria (dated 335BCE), see Cross (1985).
Fragmentation: Babylonian and Julian Calendars 241