pothos.org

agesilaos wrote:Sorry, see your point now.(DOH)

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Athens operated according to the Metonic cycle, that is an invention of Merrit and Dinsmoor (not the metonic cycle itself, of course just its use in Athens) to support their fixed festival calendar theory; it seems that there were no rules for intercalation at Athens, although it must have happened; the intercalary months we have evidence for move all over the calendar. Nor is there a 'kata theon' dating for 264 the earliest being 196, so Merrit it working purely on his own discredited theory. Pritchett and Neueberger's more sensible (IMHO) opinions are neatly summarised here

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/pr ... _81_1_2374

This has nothing to do with any theory of Meritt's. He cites the evidence as being certain that the Archon calendar only had twelve months in 265/4 (he uses an asterisk in his table of intercalations to show that the evidence is certain in this instance). The Lunar calendar will have followed the Metonic cycle in this case (it would be extremely rare for actual lunar observations not to follow the Metonic rules). Anyway I have looked at the lunar eclipses in 265/4 and there were definitely 13 New Moons between the two summer solstices, so there is no real doubt that the Lunar calendar had 13-months in that year. Therefore it fell a month behind the Archon calendar and that situation persisted for a year. There are almost certainly other instances of this due to the irregularity of the intercalary months in the archon calendar (they missed some and added others). The Lunar calendar was observational and could not be irregular.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Then please disclose his evidence; an asterisk really counts for nothing

agesilaos wrote:Then please disclose his evidence; an asterisk really counts for nothing

Meritt cites a Table on p.97 of Hesperia XXVI (1957) for evidence on his entry for this year. I have no idea whether it is also the source of his information that the Archon year was ordinary (12-month).

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:

agesilaos wrote:Then please disclose his evidence; an asterisk really counts for nothing

Meritt cites a Table on p.97 of Hesperia XXVI (1957) for evidence on his entry for this year. I have no idea whether it is also the source of his information that the Archon year was ordinary (12-month).

Best wishes,

Andrew

http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/index.php/publi ... 26/1/24-97

Unfortunately I don't have JSTOR access which is needed to read this online. Probably wouldn't be able to make sense of it anyway.

Best wishes,

amyntoros wrote:

Taphoi wrote:

agesilaos wrote:Then please disclose his evidence; an asterisk really counts for nothing

Meritt cites a Table on p.97 of Hesperia XXVI (1957) for evidence on his entry for this year. I have no idea whether it is also the source of his information that the Archon year was ordinary (12-month).

Best wishes,

Andrew

http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/index.php/publi ... 26/1/24-97

Unfortunately I don't have JSTOR access which is needed to read this online. Probably wouldn't be able to make sense of it anyway.

Best wishes,

Just send it allmy way. Ill let you know what's going on.

spitamenes wrote:Just send it all my way. Ill let you know what's going on.

Good, because Taphoi and Agesilaos are currently the only ones who have the foggiest idea what they're talking about ...

If you could provide a brief overview of the arguments for us, Spitamenes, that would be most helpful ...

ATB

I shall try to summarise, but I cannot promise to clarify.

At III 15 vii Arrian says that the battle of Guagamela happened in the same month as the lunar eclipse and that that month was Pyanepsion. Plutarch says Alex.31 and Camillus 19.iii that the month was Boedromion, the immediately preceding month at Athens.

I contend that Arrian was converting the Macedonian months he found in his sources to their Athenian equivalents of his day when the Macedonian year had been revised to run Hyperberetaios to Gorpaios rather than Dios to Hyperberetaios, which is to say the year had advanced one month against the Athenian calendar so that the old equations

1 Hekatombaion 10.Loios
2 Metageitnion 11 Gorpiaios
3 Boedromion 12 Hyperberetaios
4 Pyanepsion 1 Dios
5 Maimakterian 2 Apellaios
6 Poseidon 3 Audunaios
7 Gamelion 4 Peritios
8 Anthesterion 5 Dystros
9 Elaphebolion 6 Xandikos
10 Mounichion 7 Artemisios
11 Thargelion 8 Daisios
12 Skirophorion 9 Panemos.

Became

1 Hekatombaion 10 Panemos.
2 Metageitnion 11 Loios
3 Boedromion 12 Gorpiaios
4 Pyanepsion 1 Hyperberetaios
5 Maimakterian 2 Dios
6 Poseidon 3 Apellaios
7 Gamelion 4 Audunaios
8 Anthesterion 5 Peritios
9 Elaphebolion 6 Dystros
10 Mounichion 7 Xandikos
11 Thargelion 8 Artemisios
12 Skirophorion 9 Daisios

The evidence for this shift are two series of coins from Seleucia-on- the-Tigris which have moneyers marks and both year dates using the Seleukid Era and months these only make sense if Hyperberetaios had become month 1. Josephus, Ant Iud I 3 iii where he states that Dios is the second Macedonian month and a graffitto horoscope of 176 equating 9 Panemos with July 3 which would be Loios, further hints are given by SEG II 770 and 771 where the embolomic month is Dystros rather than the usual Xandikos.

This matters because if I am right then all the Attic months given in the ‘Anabasis’ are late by one month.

Taphoi believes the cause of the disparity between Arrian and Plutarch is the tampering of the archons with the calendar and I am at the moment arguing that the way their interference worked only retarded the archon calendar against the true astronomical date which is supported by all the surviving dated inscriptions. Taphoi has found a reference in Merrit, who worked on the Athenian Calendar in the 40’s and 50’s which would suggest that the archon calendar ran ahead in 265/4 but the relevant text is available at JSTOR and neither of us have access.

I expect you all to join in now that I have made this all so clear!

Meritt cites a Table on p.97 of Hesperia XXVI (1957) for evidence on his entry for this year. I have no idea whether it is also the source of his information that the Archon year was ordinary (12-month).

Surely some mistake; the table on p 97 covers the archons from 116/5 to 101/0. The body of the text, which is concerned with recent finds in the Agora, has no mention of 265/4. The entry for 165/4 is

166/5 ? Achaios IV Eupyridai The calendar of this year needs further study
165/4 0* Pelops V Hekale

here the first entry is the date the next the nature of the year O* means ordinary(12 month), next the name of the archon, then the number and tribe of the Secretary.

I have included 166/5 because we have two inscription with double dating for this year which show the archon year already a month behind.

IG II² 946
Athens: Akr. — non-stoich. — 166/5

ἐπὶ Ἀχαιοῦ ἄρχοντος ἐπὶ τῆ[ς — — ίδος ἐνάτης πρυ]-
τανείας, ἧι Ἡρακλέων Νανν̣[άκου Εὐπυρίδης ἐγραμμάτευ]-
εν· Ἀνθεστηριῶνος δευτέρα[ι ἐμβολίμωι, κατὰ θεὸν δὲ Ἐλα]-
φηβολιῶνος τετράδι μετ’ εἰκάδα[ς, τετάρτηι καὶ εἰκοστῆι τῆς πρυτανεί]-
ας· ἐκκλησία ἐμ Πειραιεῖ· τῶν πρ[οέδρων ἐπεψήφιζεν

2 Anthesterion again (so 3) against Elaphebolion 27 c26 days of Anthesterion plus the 27 of Elaphebolion meaans 53 days behind ! By month 8

IG II² 947
Att. — Athens: Akr. — non-stoich. — c.166/5

[ἐπὶ Ἀχαιοῦ] ἄρχοντος ἐπὶ τῆς — — — ς ἑνδεκάτης πρυτ[α]ν[ε]ία[ς], ἧι [Ἡρ]-
[ακλέων Νανν]άκου Εὐπυρίδης ἐγρ[αμμάτε]υεν· Μουνιχιῶνος [δ]ωδ[εκ]άτ[ηι],
[κατὰ θεὸν δὲ] Θαργηλιῶνος [δωδ]ε[κάτηι], δωδεκάτη[ι τῆ]ς πρυ[τανείας]·

12 Mounichion against 12 Thargelion by month 10. 29 or 30 days behind. These discrepancies do suggest additional intercalary months but they are in the archon calendar and that is, as usual retarded against the lunar. We can posit an intercalary month required in the lunar calendar not being reflected in the archon calendar to allow the catching up by c24 days we see probably by an embolimic Mounichion kata theon and five embolimic days (the inscription shows one, Anthesterion 2 again) they would then have to skip another intercalary month or pare down the months of the next year to get back in synch. It is clear that the Athenians were in big trouble in 166/5.

Adding an embolimic Mounchion and allowing five extra days in the archon calendar also works out for the prytanny days. At this time the prytannies varied in length between 28 and 29 days, there being 13 tribes at this time (Ptolemais having joined Antigoneis and Demetrias above the original ten).

So either the reference is wrong or if it were these years he was thinking of (not all of the inscriptions may have been available in 1957) his argument turns out to have no Meritt.

agesilaos wrote: So either the reference is wrong or if it were these years he was thinking of (not all of the inscriptions may have been available in 1957) his argument turns out to have no Meritt.

Ahh haha! I was waiting for that one!

marcus wrote:

spitamenes wrote:Just send it all my way. Ill let you know what's going on.

Good, because Taphoi and Agesilaos are currently the only ones who have the foggiest idea what they're talking about ...

If you could provide a brief overview of the arguments for us, Spitamenes, that would be most helpful ...

ATB

It seems Agesilaos beat me to it. But I was going to say all that if he didn't.

spitamenes wrote:

marcus wrote:

spitamenes wrote:Just send it all my way. Ill let you know what's going on.

Good, because Taphoi and Agesilaos are currently the only ones who have the foggiest idea what they're talking about ...

If you could provide a brief overview of the arguments for us, Spitamenes, that would be most helpful ...

ATB

It seems Agesilaos beat me to it. But I was going to say all that if he didn't.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... of course you were ...

agesilaos wrote:

Meritt cites a Table on p.97 of Hesperia XXVI (1957) for evidence on his entry for this year. I have no idea whether it is also the source of his information that the Archon year was ordinary (12-month).

Surely some mistake; the table on p 97 covers the archons from 116/5 to 101/0. The body of the text, which is concerned with recent finds in the Agora, has no mention of 265/4. The entry for 165/4 is

166/5 ? Achaios IV Eupyridai The calendar of this year needs further study
165/4 0* Pelops V Hekale

here the first entry is the date the next the nature of the year O* means ordinary(12 month), next the name of the archon, then the number and tribe of the Secretary.

I have included 166/5 because we have two inscription with double dating for this year which show the archon year already a month behind.

IG II² 946
Athens: Akr. — non-stoich. — 166/5

ἐπὶ Ἀχαιοῦ ἄρχοντος ἐπὶ τῆ[ς — — ίδος ἐνάτης πρυ]-
τανείας, ἧι Ἡρακλέων Νανν̣[άκου Εὐπυρίδης ἐγραμμάτευ]-
εν· Ἀνθεστηριῶνος δευτέρα[ι ἐμβολίμωι, κατὰ θεὸν δὲ Ἐλα]-
φηβολιῶνος τετράδι μετ’ εἰκάδα[ς, τετάρτηι καὶ εἰκοστῆι τῆς πρυτανεί]-
ας· ἐκκλησία ἐμ Πειραιεῖ· τῶν πρ[οέδρων ἐπεψήφιζεν

2 Anthesterion again (so 3) against Elaphebolion 27 c26 days of Anthesterion plus the 27 of Elaphebolion meaans 53 days behind ! By month 8

IG II² 947
Att. — Athens: Akr. — non-stoich. — c.166/5

[ἐπὶ Ἀχαιοῦ] ἄρχοντος ἐπὶ τῆς — — — ς ἑνδεκάτης πρυτ[α]ν[ε]ία[ς], ἧι [Ἡρ]-
[ακλέων Νανν]άκου Εὐπυρίδης ἐγρ[αμμάτε]υεν· Μουνιχιῶνος [δ]ωδ[εκ]άτ[ηι],
[κατὰ θεὸν δὲ] Θαργηλιῶνος [δωδ]ε[κάτηι], δωδεκάτη[ι τῆ]ς πρυ[τανείας]·

12 Mounichion against 12 Thargelion by month 10. 29 or 30 days behind. These discrepancies do suggest additional intercalary months but they are in the archon calendar and that is, as usual retarded against the lunar. We can posit an intercalary month required in the lunar calendar not being reflected in the archon calendar to allow the catching up by c24 days we see probably by an embolimic Mounichion kata theon and five embolimic days (the inscription shows one, Anthesterion 2 again) they would then have to skip another intercalary month or pare down the months of the next year to get back in synch. It is clear that the Athenians were in big trouble in 166/5.

Adding an embolimic Mounchion and allowing five extra days in the archon calendar also works out for the prytanny days. At this time the prytannies varied in length between 28 and 29 days, there being 13 tribes at this time (Ptolemais having joined Antigoneis and Demetrias above the original ten).

So either the reference is wrong or if it were these years he was thinking of (not all of the inscriptions may have been available in 1957) his argument turns out to have no Meritt.

No. I don't think any of that is relevant. He definitely means 265/4. He may mean p.97 of his article rather than p.97 of the journal. Or it may be a typo. Here is the Table in his book for your delectation. It looks to me as though 277/6 is another case where they missed an intercalary year and the Archon calendar would inevitably have gone ahead of the Lunar Regulatory calendar btw.

Best wishes,
Andrew

Am trying very hard to follow this discussion so please excuse me if and when I'm way off base. I'm going back a few posts for my first, simple question.

Taphoi wrote: ... Anyway I have looked at the lunar eclipses in 265/4 and there were definitely 13 New Moons between the two summer solstices, so there is no real doubt that the Lunar calendar had 13-months in that year. Therefore it fell a month behind the Archon calendar and that situation persisted for a year. There are almost certainly other instances of this due to the irregularity of the intercalary months in the archon calendar (they missed some and added others). The Lunar calendar was observational and could not be irregular.

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.

I can see now why the intercalculary months were irregular.

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote:Am trying very hard to follow this discussion so please excuse me if and when I'm way off base. I'm going back a few posts for my first, simple question.

Taphoi wrote: ... Anyway I have looked at the lunar eclipses in 265/4 and there were definitely 13 New Moons between the two summer solstices, so there is no real doubt that the Lunar calendar had 13-months in that year. Therefore it fell a month behind the Archon calendar and that situation persisted for a year. There are almost certainly other instances of this due to the irregularity of the intercalary months in the archon calendar (they missed some and added others). The Lunar calendar was observational and could not be irregular.

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.

I can see now why the intercalculary months were irregular.

Best regards,

Hi amyntoros,

I have no time, but one point is that "regularity" in this context means what is required by Lunar observation. The pattern of O's and I's would still look irregular in the ordinary sense of the word, but the point is that the Archon did not follow the pattern driven by observations and that he both added unnecessary 13th months and sometimes missed them when observations required them. A Lunar synodic month is 29.53 days so you can work out how long a 13 month and 12 month Lunar year would be relative to the year between equinoxes, which is always ~365.24 days!

Best wishes,

Andrew

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 .