prytanic calendar was prone to irregularities (both in thefifth century and
from the fourth centuryBCEonwards). This assumption, like Pritchett’s, is
impossible to prove, which is why the Meritt–Pritchett controversy (now more
than half a century old) has largely turned in circles.^82 But although diametri-
cally opposed, both sides hold in common the premise thatoneof the
Athenian dating systems must have been regular, whilst irregularities in the
other would account for mismatches in double-dated inscriptions. This para-
digm has since been questioned byWoodhead (1992), who suggests that the
search for one regular calendar may reflect an excessively modern perspective
on ancient calendars. According toWoodhead, the epigraphic evidence is best
interpreted ifboththe festival and the prytanic calendars are considered to
have been, to some extent, irregular and prone to political interference. The
prytanic calendar was probably more regular than the festival calendar, in-
asmuch as we lack explicit evidence of political tampering with it.^83 But the
rigid, Aristotelian model for the prytanic calendar can no longer be assumed.^84
In this light, the institution of the prytanic calendar in the late sixth or mid
fifth centuries represented only a political, administrative measure but should
not be interpreted as a move towards the regularization of the Athenian
calendar.
- GREEK ASTRONOMICAL CALENDARS
Greek‘astronomical calendars’designate a type of calendars that were lunar—
inasmuch as their months corresponded to the moon’s cycle, and their years
consisted of 12 or 13 months—butfixed and modelled on the basis of purely
mathematical, astronomical schemes.^85 Their designation as‘astronomical’
reflects the probability that they were created by and for astronomers. Their
(^82) SeeWoodhead (1992) 140 n. 17. The arguments on both sides are often rather weak (see
e.g. Pritchett 2001: 127–83). Pritchett (2001) 145 citesIGi^3. 396. 6, according to which‘7 days
were left in the prytany’, as evidence that the length of the prytanies wasfixed and determined in
advance; but this may be likened to Strepsiades’backward count of the last days of the archontic
month (on which see above). He has occasionally made some concessions: most recently, he has
acknowledged (2001: 182–3) that the 5th-c. prytanic calendar remains full of imponderables, and
thus that the number of 366 days should be treated as only conjectural. 83
In 2nd-c.BCEdouble-dated inscriptions from Athens, prytanic dates (when, in this period,
there were twelve prytanies) are generally equivalent tokata theondates (on which see below,}
4), suggesting regularity in both systems (Dunn 1998: 223–4); whereas discrepancies between
prytanic and archontic dates remain ibid. 226).
(^84) Woodhead (1992) 118–19 (but on p. 120 he accepts Pritchett’s 366-day prytanic year), and
(1997) 109, 128, 149–50, etc., although in the latter workWoodhead still tends to lean in favour
of Meritt 85 ’s approach (1997: 117, 119, 128, 152, etc.).
For a general survey see Samuel (1972) 33–55.
Calendars of AncientGreece 49