were given by Antony to Cleopatra, probably in 37/36BCE;^152 but soon after,
with the fall of Cleopatra, Gaza was given by Augustus to King Herod of
Judaea, in 30BCE.^153 The fate of Ascalon is unclear, but it must surely also have
been severed by then from Egypt. It seems unlikely that in their short associa-
tion with Egypt from 37 to 30BCEthe cities of Ascalon and Gaza should have
adopted the Egyptian calendar. After 30BCE, under the rule of Herod, it is the
Macedonian lunar calendar (similar to or identical with the Judaean calendar)
that would naturally have been used.
It seems most likely, in short, that the calendars of Ascalon and Gaza
remained Macedonian and lunar throughout the Hellenistic period, until the
cities were annexed by the Roman Empire (which for Gaza was in 4BCE, when
it became part of the Roman province of Syria).^154 The changes that were then
made to the calendars of Ascalon and Gaza followed the pattern of all the
Roman Near Eastern calendars in this period: Macedonian month-names
were retained, but with the Julian year length of 365 days. The decision of
Ascalon and Gaza to adopt the structure of the Alexandrian calendar was
unusual and original, but may have been motivated by geographical proximity
to Egypt and frequent commerce with it.^155 This was also a way for Ascalon
and Gaza to distance themselves from the other Julianized calendars of the
Roman Near East, and hence—as elsewhere—to demonstrate a certain degree
of political autonomy.^156 The one-month discrepancy between their sequences
of months (Loos in Ascalon = Gorpiaios in Gaza: see above) may also have
been an expression of the distinct and possibly rival identities of these neigh-
bouring cities. All this, again, had the overall effect of perpetuating the post-
Seleucid tradition of calendar fragmentation in the Roman Near East.
Later Roman expansion in the Near East:
Arabia and Dura-EuroposThe conversion of local, lunar calendars to Julian-type schemes continued in
later centuries, as the Roman Empire expanded deeper into the Near East. The
104 BCE(see Schürer loc. cit.), but this does not necessarily have any bearing on the calendar it
used.
(^152) Schürer (1973–87) i. 298, ii. 92. The evidence is from Josephus,JewishWar1. 18. 5 (361)
andAntiquities15. 4. 1 (95); Ascalon is not explicitly mentioned, but was clearly included
(Schürer 1973–87: ii. 107).
(^153) Ibid. ii. 92, 101–2, following Josephus,JewishWar1. 20. 3 (396),Antiquities15. 7. 3 (217).
(^154) Schürer (1973–87) ii. 101–2, and Millar (1993) 43–4, following Josephus,JewishWar2. 6.
3 (97),Antiquities17. 11. 4 (320). The fate of Ascalon is again unclear; it is possible that it was the
same as Gaza’s, or that it only came under direct Roman rule in 6CEafter the Roman annexation
of Judaea.
(^155) Grumel (1958) 172; Stern (2001) 35 n. 153.
(^156) As noted by Schürer (1973–87) ii. 103.
290 Calendars in Antiquity