motion—duly endorsed and recorded in the text of the decree—that the next
archon shall intercalate a second month of Hekatombaion.^22
Political authorities had control over more than one aspect of the calendar.
They had the power of deciding whether a month was‘hollow’(koilos, i.e. 29
days long) or full (30 days long), but also of arbitrarily intercalating or
suppressing days, at any point during the month.^23 The practice of intercalat-
ing days is well attested in epigraphic sources.^24
They also decided when to intercalate an extra month in the year, as is
evident from thefifth-century Athenian decree above mentioned. Epigraphic
sources show that at Athens and elsewhere, different months of the year could
be made intercalary^25 and the frequency of intercalation was variable.^26 This
suggests that the intercalation of months—just as of days—was not deter-
mined by anyfixed rule, but depended largely on thead hoc(and somewhat
unpredictable) decisions of political authorities.
(^22) IGI (^3). 78, Meiggs and Lewis (1988) 217–23 no. 73, ll. 53–4 (commonly known as the‘First-
fruits decree’). I am grateful to Robert Parker for this reference. See also Hannah (2005) 66–7.
(^23) It may be presumed that intercalations and suppressions did not affect the count of days of
the month, because if (e.g.) a day was intercalated after the 5th of the month, it would be
numbered‘ 5 embolimos’(5 intercalary), whereas if the 5th was suppressed, the count of days
would jump from 4th to 6th.
(^24) For epigraphic evidence of intercalary days, see Pritchett and Neugebauer (1947) 20–2;
Dunn (1998) 221; Pritchett (2001) 6–7 (with evidence, in one case, of as much as 8 successive
intercalary days). Positive epigraphic evidence of suppressed days is unavailable (indeed it is, by
nature, more difficult tofind), but one literary source, Diodorus 1. 50. 2, informs us that‘most
Greeks’intercalated and suppressed days and months (see also Plutarch,Table Talk9. 6 and
Brotherly Love 18 —on which see Loraux 2002: 171– 90 —and Philostratus,Lives of Sophists2. 1.
10, but these passages seem to refer to the permanent suppression of specific days in the
Athenian calendar, rather than to the irregular,ad hocsuppressions which we are discussing
here). Moreover, it is evident that if days could be arbitrarily intercalated, an equivalent
suppression of days had to be made elsewhere, otherwise the lunar character of the Greek
calendar would have been irreversibly lost. In second-centuryBCEinscriptions with both arch-
ontic andkata theondates (the latter are regular lunar dates: see}4 below), the archontic date is
always lower (see Dunn 1998: 225), which would suggest that intercalations were always made
first, and suppressions thereafter to compensate. However, this conflicts with evidence that most
intercalations were made at the end of months and end of years (see Loraux 2002: 221–2), as if to
compensate for earlier suppressions; and note alsoWoodhead’s inference (1997: 149) that
suppression of days did not occur at Athens in Skirophorion, the last month of the Athenian
year. It is difficult, therefore, to infer any consistent pattern for the intercalation and suppression
of days.
(^25) The most common intercalary month at Athens was Poseideon, but other months are also
attested: e.g. Hekatombaion (Meiggs and Lewis 1988: 217–23 no. 73, ll. 53–4), Gamelion (IGii^2.
- 54), Anthesterion ibid. 844. 33) (the latter are cited in Meiggs and Lewis loc. cit.). See also
Hannah (2005) 43.
(^26) See especially Pritchett (2001) 7–8, 21–2. Note, however, that the interpretation of epi-
graphic evidence can sometimes be uncertain: see e.g.Woodhead (1997) 381. For a full listing of
epigraphic evidence, see Dunn (1998) 221–2.
Calendars of AncientGreece 31