calendar;^39 although too small to prove that both calendars were identical,
they are sufficient to demonstrate that the Coligny calendar was not an
isolated phenomenon. Although Coligny and Villards d’Héria are relatively
close to one another, the topography is such that access between them is
difficult; furthermore, Coligny was in the tribal territory of the Ambarri, whilst
Villards d’Héria was in that of the Sequani. This indicates that Gallic lunar
calendar inscriptions spread to more than one region and tribe of Roman
Gaul. But in the absence of evidence that both calendars were identical, it is
impossible to determine the extent to which the Gallicfixed calendar may have
been standardized, and hence, to what extent calendar dissidence may have
been structured and organized in the context of Roman Gallic society.
2.LUNADATES IN LATIN SOURCESLunar dates and lunarparapegmataLatin inscriptions from the Roman imperial period are dated nearly always
according to the Julian calendar, but some, in addition, include a lunar date.
Lunar dates are attested mainly in Italy and Rome, and suggest the survival of
lunar calendar reckoning in what one would have expected to be the heartland
of the Julian calendar. In this section, I shall propose that the use of lunar dates
in Latin inscriptions can be interpreted as dissident.
Lunar dates in Latin inscriptions, as in later (mainly Christian) literary
sources, are expressed by the standard formula:luna(ablative) + ordinal. This
formula indicates the day number in a lunar month, but does not identify
this month by name or number. The total number of inscriptions that use this
formula is not large, but large enough to be regarded as significant. The
formula is mainly found in Christian inscriptions from late antique Rome,
but its early pre-Christian attestation supports the view that it was actually an
ancient Italian tradition. Its earliest attestation, indeed, is a late republican
sarcophagus inscription from Ferentium, Etruria, which is dated as follows:
a(nte) d(iem) XV K(alendas) Octob(res) C(aio) Ca[lpurn]io Pisone M(anio) Acilio
co(n)s(ulibus) mens(e) Gigne...luna IIIThe year, dated by the Roman consuls, is 67BCE. The date is given according to
the Roman republican calendar (of which the equivalent in the retrojected
Julian calendar is uncertain, although we may assume some time in
mid-September); but in addition, reference is made to a month called
(^39) Olmsted (1992), table 62.
Dissidence and Subversion 313