month-names of the calendar of Antioch (itself equivalent, by then, to the
Julian calendar) in accordance with the new equation, as is well attested in
literary and other sources (see Table 5.3). In this case, however, some elements
of the old equation survived. A distinctive feature of the Syrian calendar is that
some of its month-names are doubled up: Tishrei I and II, Kanun I and II. This
feature is quite unusual (although it was later imitated in the Muslim calen-
dar), as previously and elsewhere, the practice of doubling month-names was
restricted to intercalary months.What seems to have happened is that after
Hyperberetaios was realigned with Tishrei (and hence became Tishrei I), Dios
retained nevertheless its old equation with Tishrei (hence Tishrei II). A similar
phenomenon could have occurred to Kanun: the alignment of Kanun with
different Macedonian months could have given rise to the two Kanuns in the
Syrian calendar.^71
The post-Seleucid one-month shift in the equation of Macedonian and
Babylonian month-names, which seems to have become established as stan-
dard by thefirst centuryCE, has generally been attributed by modern scholars
to the decision of afirst-centuryBCEParthian king.^72 But as has been pointed
Table 5.3.The Syrian-Antiochene calendar
Syrian Antiochene JulianTishrei I Hyperberetaios October
Tishrei II Dios November
Kanun I Apellaios December
Kanun II Audnaios January
Shebat Peritios February
Adar Dystros March
Nisan Xanthikos April
Iyar Artemisios May
H:aziran Daisios June
Tammuz Panemos July
Ab Loos August
Elul Gorpaios September
Note: all months are exactly conterminous.(^71) This month-name is not Babylonian, but it is attested in the calendar of Palmyra, where it is
equated with Dios (Samuel 1972: 179), and in the calendar of Heliopolis (Baalbek), where it
appears in third position after Tishrei (ibid. 176). One of the earliest attestations of Tishrei I is in
a Syriac inscription from Serrin (on the Euphrates) dated 73CE(Healey 2009: 226–8 no. 47).
(^72) Johnson (1932) 11; Bickerman (1968) 25; Samuel (1972) 143; Assar (2003) 183. Samuel
(loc. cit.) suggests, as a possible alternative, a late Seleucid king; however, this would run counter
to the apparent conformity of the Antiochene calendar to the Babylonian calendar in 47BCE, still
after the fall of the Seleucid Empire (see above, n. 27). According to Assar, the new equation was
instituted in Parthia in the mid-1st-c.BCE(in his view, more precisely in 48BCE), but in 67CEthe
old system was reinstated. This is based on a series of coins from 77/8 and 78/9CEthat seem to
attest a year beginning in the month of Dios (see above, near n. 11). The evidence is tenuous, and
Fragmentation: Babylonian and Julian Calendars 257