birthday/deathday

[Taphoi]

Well we will have to assume a typo as his article runs to only 73 pages. But the discussion is on pp 221-226 of the book you have scanned, that is what needs to be revealed.

It is still pretty moot concerning Gaugamela, however as we can be certain that the archon date was pretty much in synch with the lunar as the eclipse of the 15 Boedromion lunar coincided with ‘about the start of the Mysteries’ 14 Boedromion archon. Arrian’s Pyanepsion can only come from the month for month equation he used and not any error in Athenian calendar.

Still like to hear Meritt’s argument, though .

The extra pages are below (although I seriously doubt whether they cast any light on the particular issue.) Much more apposite is the fact that a 12 month "Ordinary" year was 10.88 days short of a solar year, so just over one year in three needed to add a thirteenth intercalary month. This means that sequences of 3 successive 12-month years should be very rare in a regular calendar, but there are at least a dozen such sequences in Meritt's Tables (and one sequence of 4 ordinary years). It is virtually inevitable therefore that the Archon calendar went ahead of the Lunar Regulatory calendar on occasion.

I'm afraid that I don't agree that Plutarch knew for sure that the Mysteries were in mid-Boedromion in the Lunar Regulated calendar that he was using. You yourself have pointed out the caginess of his reference, which is because he knew that his statement would only have been roughly true, if the Archon calendar was not too far out of line at that time. He would not have used his approximate language if he actually knew the relative alignment of the two calendars at that point.

Would that necessarily have been so? - that the lunar calendar fell a month behind the Archon calendar just because there were 13 New Moons that year? So help me, I took my little pencil and printed out the lunar cycle for 2008-2011. There were 13 New Moons between the beginning of June, 2008 and the end of May, 2009. If we were to convert to a lunar cycle and start each month on the new moon, then the months would have begun thus: June(2008) on the third of June, July on the 3rd of July, August on the 1st of Aug, Sept on the 30th of August, October on the 29th of September, November on the 28th of October, December on the 27th of November, January on the 27th of December, February on the 26th of January, March on the 25th of February, April on the 26th of March, May on the 25th of April, and June (again) on the 24th of May. The next new moon was June 22, pushing it close for the summer solstice to fall in that month, but nothing that a few intercalculary days couldn't fix. So even though there were thirteen New Moons between the solstices, our regular calendar wouldn't have fallen behind that much in 2008-9, and certainly not by a full month.

We are looking at a situation in 265/4 where there were actually 13 New Moons between the solstices, but the Archon calendar calendar only had 12. It is perfectly true that you could push the discrepancy into the preceding year and suppose that the Archon and Lunar Regulatory calendars became realigned in 265/4. The reason that that is very unlikely to be true is that 264/3 AND 263/2 were 13-month years in the Archon calendar, very strongly suggesting that it had some serious retardation to do (i.e. had gone a long way in advance) to get back in line with Lunar Regulation (and so keep the seasons in the same place in the year.)

Best wishes,

Andrew

Image1.jpg (169.72 KiB) Viewed 4573 times

Image2.jpg (155.83 KiB) Viewed 4573 times

Image1.jpg (169.72 KiB) Viewed 4573 times

[Taphoi]

Image4.jpg (192.35 KiB) Viewed 4573 times

Image4.jpg (192.35 KiB) Viewed 4573 times

Image4.jpg (192.35 KiB) Viewed 4573 times

[agesilaos]

The extra pages are below (although I seriously doubt whether they cast any light on the particular issue.)

Which begs the question of why you are introducing ‘evidence’ you have not even bothered to read.Thanks nonetheless, I shall read them.

Much more apposite is the fact that a 12 month "Ordinary" year was 10.88 days short of a solar year, so just over one year in three needed to add a thirteenth intercalary month. This means that sequences of 3 successive 12-month years should be very rare in a regular calendar, but there are at least a dozen such sequences in Meritt's Tables (and one sequence of 4 ordinary years). It is virtually inevitable therefore that the Archon calendar went ahead of the Lunar Regulatory calendar on occasion.

What this actually shows is that the Athenians were not operating your mythical Lunar Regulated Calendar, nor a regular Metonic system all they worried about was having seven intercalary months in a nineteen year cycle so that the seasons didnot get too out of line.

I'm afraid that I don't agree that Plutarch knew for sure that the Mysteries were in mid-Boedromion in the Lunar Regulated calendar that he was using.

Your assumption is that the archon calendar was never in synch with nature. What is this putative calendar Plutarch, or as I said his source is using? The ‘kata theon’ date of 150 years after Gaugamela? A better candidate would be the Babylonian and we know that reckoned the battle was 24 not 26 that would give Plutarchs source pause. You have to assume that Plutarch had a regulated date of 26 Boedromion but chose to supress it; I say he took a vague indication from his source and later took the reference to the beginning of the Mysteries literally to arrive at his date of 26. Others can make their minds up on which is more likely.

You yourself have pointed out the caginess of his reference, which is because he knew that his statement would only have been roughly true, if the Archon calendar was not too far out of line at that time. He would not have used his approximate language if he actually knew the relative alignment of the two calendars at that point.

Again the vague language is his source’s NOT Plutarch’s; and you are still failing to grasp that the archon date is going to be in Boedromion unless there was a five day advance of the archon year against the astronomical. There is no evidence for the archon year ever getting ahead of the astronomical in a way that mattered. All the epigraphic evidence shows retardation in the archon year being compensated for later in the year. The mysteries being and end on fixed dates 15-25 Boedromion.

Aristotle Ath Pol. 43.2 states that the civil (pryttany) and sacred (archon) years began and ended at the same time which means that the calendars actually used in Fourth and Third Century Athens must have intercalated in the same year. This may be ‘wrong’ against a theoretical calendar based strictly on the moon but the Athenians do not seem to have given a Punic promise.

In the Second century things changed and they seem to have felt the need to correct things vis-a-vis the moon, I would tentatively suggest that this has more to do with being minor players in the Leagues of the time and having to know what date their leaders actually meant. In the days of Empire and Nostalgia that followed it the allies had to dance to Athens tune and, incidently, due toe the vagaries of the date always being retardation with regard to the true date the allies might frequently respond early but had no excuse for being late.

[Taphoi]

The extra pages are below (although I seriously doubt whether they cast any light on the particular issue.)

Which begs the question of why you are introducing ‘evidence’ you have not even bothered to read.Thanks nonetheless, I shall read them.

The basis of my opinion that they would be unlikely to elucidate the matter was that I had looked through them.

…the Athenians were not operating your mythical Lunar Regulated Calendar, nor a regular Metonic system all they worried about was having seven intercalary months in a nineteen year cycle so that the seasons didnot get too out of line.

Samuel.jpg (116.97 KiB) Viewed 4553 times

...Pritchett and Neueberger's more sensible (IMHO) opinions...

Yes, indeed.

What is this putative calendar Plutarch, or as I said his source is using?

The Athenian Lunar Regulatory Calendar as mentioned by Samuel above.

Aristotle Ath Pol. 43.2 states that the civil (pryttany) and sacred (archon) years began and ended at the same time which means that the calendars actually used in Fourth and Third Century Athens must have intercalated in the same year. This may be ‘wrong’ against a theoretical calendar based strictly on the moon but the Athenians do not seem to have given a Punic promise.

“Sacred” calendar = kata theon calendar = Lunar Regulatory calendar ≠
Archon/Festival calendar

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

The basis of my opinion that they would be unlikely to elucidate the matter was that I had looked through them.

So why bring it into the discussion? Surely you did not think I would bow to the opinion of another scholar; I have always been the Kallithenes in the proskynesis event.

Samuel is paraphrasing Pritchett-Neueberger, they never suggest that the fifth/fourth century had any lunar regulatory calendar but because they are treating the whole of the Athenian calendar so they must mention the ‘Kata theon’ calendar of the second century because there is plenty of evidence for it after 196 BC.

Again, it is bad practice to suppose that a practice to suppose that the usages of the second century BC can be applied to the fourth.

“Sacred” calendar = kata theon calendar = Lunar Regulatory calendar ≠
Archon/Festival calendar

NO; the sacred calendar is the one by which the religious Festivals are set and that is the one set by the archons, emphatically NOT the kata theon calendar which is the astronomically correct one that only came to matter c 200 BC.

Two unrelated points, how do you get your scans of books to come up technofailure on my part. And, slightly more to the subject is there any way of working out which months would be hollow and which full?

[Paralus]

Again, it is bad practice to suppose that a practice to suppose that the usages of the second century BC can be applied to the fourth.

Indeed. And not only for "chronological practice". One might just as simply apply the later Antigonid notations of "hypaspistae" to Alexander's day. Such would see them as a small group concerned only with "policing" duties. Clearly, whilst Alexander's hypaspists performed this duty in camp, they were, first and foremost, an elite infantry unit; a job performed by the "peltasts" in the Antigonid armies.