procedure embody the centralizing force of the king over the cities of the
empire, but it also turned the standard Babylonian calendar into a truly
imperial calendar.
In summary, astrological omen lists from the neo-Assyrian period suggest
that the beginning of the month was determined on the sole basis of new
moon sightings, but letters from astrologers to the king suggest that some
account was also taken of new moon predictions: if the latter conflicted with
evidence from new moon sightings, the matter was resolved on the basis of
new moon sighting reports from other cities. New moon sighting, therefore,
was the paramount criterion. Astrologers were responsible for reporting new
moon sightings, but decisions about the month were ultimately taken by the
king.
The later periods (sixth–first centuriesBCE)New moon reports from astrologers to the king are less common, if at all
extant, in the neo-Babylonian, Achaemenid, Seleucid, and early Parthian
periods (c. late seventh–first centuriesBCE). In these later periods, indeed,
astrologers of the great city temples were less directly answerable to the
king.^42 But a few early Achaemenid sources indicate that the calendar
month was centrally determined and, presumably, still under the king’s
control. Thus, a letter from some temple official to a governor at Sippar (in
Babylonia) asks for a report on whether the last month was 29 or 30 days. The
reference to a‘report’suggests that he was not asking for the governor’s own
opinion or decision, but rather for an official report that will have been
received from elsewhere, most probably from Babylon (at that time the
imperial capital).^43 This letter—addressed as it is from a temple official to a
governor—implies that the calendar month was dependent on and centrally
set by the imperial administration, and not by the temple astrologers.
Nevertheless, the Astronomical Diaries, which become available in this
period and which will be studied in some detail below, reveal a Babylonian
calendar that was far more regular in relation to the new moon than it had
been in the neo-Assyrian period. This suggests that although calendar month
decisions were still taken by the king and the imperial administration (at least
Nevertheless, positive evidence of discrepancies between Assyrian and Babylonian months is yet
to be discovered.
(^42) Brown (2000) 41–7, 162.
(^43) Beaulieu (1993) 70–1. Another letter, dating from the reigns of Cyrus or Cambyses, from
an official of the Ebabbar temple at Larsa to an official of the Eanna temple at Uruk mentions that
he has received a report that the last month was of 29 days: ibid. 76–8.
The Babylonian Calendar 83