on a visit to Abdera, that each citizen appointed his own herald to announce
the new month whenever he thought it began.^19 This suggests that there was
no official announcement of the new month at Abdera, and consequently, that
people disagreed as to when the month began. The story seems somewhat
incredible, although it has much to teach us about what a fourth-century
Athenian like Stratonicus would have expected of a calendar: decision of the
archons, official announcement of the new month, and consequently, calen-
drical consensus imposed by the political authorities. It is the absence of these
at Abdera that made Stratonicus’story worth telling.
The account of Stratonicus should not be dismissed as historically implau-
sible. It is not inconceivable that in Abdera political authorities really had no
involvement in calendrical decisions, and hence that people made their own
assumptions about when the month began. Consensus about when the month
had begun could have been reached informally, later in the month, after the
initial period of disagreement had elapsed.^20 A similar situation may have
existed on the island of Ceos, as may be implicit in the saying:‘What is the date
on Ceos?’^21
But whatever happened exactly at Abdera and in Ceos, it is clear that
elsewhere in Greece, the calendar was determined and enforced by political
authorities. At Athens, the formal decision was taken by the archon(s),
although other members of the political body could also participate in the
decision-making process. Thus in the text of a latefifth-centuryBCEdecree
issued by the Boule (city council) and the people’s Assembly, it is an influential
politician (Lampon, also an expert in cultic matters) who puts forward the
(^19) The story is told by Machon (third centuryBCE, Alexandria), fr. 11, ll. 119–23, ed. Gow
(1965) 41; see also Bickerman (1968) 32, Pritchett (2001) 36. I am grateful to Leofranc Holford-
Strevens forfirst drawing my attention to this text.
(^20) Calendrical systems of this kind are attested in modern anthropological studies. Turton
and Ruggles (1978; see also Gell 1992: 300–5, Drucker-Brown 1999/2000) show how the calendar
of the Mursi of South-Western Ethiopia is lunar, with half-monthly periods adding up to 29 or
30 days; however, the date is frequently subject to disagreement because of different claims as to
when the new or full moon has been seen (the evidence presented by Turton and Ruggles
suggests to me that early, and thus false, new moon sightings tend to be the cause of disagree-
ment). Disagreements are retrospectively resolved when the next full or new moon respectively is
seen (Turton and Ruggles 1978: 591). Persistent disagreement with retrospective correction thus
preserves a certain level of calendrical consensus; what makes this consensus possible is the
empirical, lunar foundation of the calendar. The same (or something similar) might have been
possible at Abdera and Ceos, even if it seems somewhat unlikely. Turton and Ruggles show
further how, among the Mursi, the name of the month is also subject to persistent disagreement
(with retrospective correction), because although it is known that some years can have 13
months, there is no official or deliberate procedure of intercalation. Thisfinds no parallel, to
my knowledge, in ancient Greece (but it does perhaps in Egypt: see Ch. 3).
(^21) Crates, fr. 32. 5 Kassel–Austin, which is interpreted as meaning that nobody knew the date,
and that each person announced thenoumeniafor himself (Gow 1965: 86; see also Gomme,
Andrewes, and Dover 1945–81: iv. 75).
30 Calendars in Antiquity