![]() |
|||
|
|||
of the eponymous magistrate in republics and to the anniversary of
accession of the ruler in monarchies. For instance, the Achaean New
Year, between 227 and 208 B.C., moved from the spring to the fall, in
conformity with the shifted time in which the strategus of the League
entered on his office.3 Accordingly, in a
monarchy, New Year's day changed with every reign, as was still the
practice in Ptolemaic Egypt until the adoption of the Egyptian
calendar by the court by the end of the third century
B.C.4 The Seleucids gave to Babylonian
months the corresponding names of Macedonian lunar months, but
accepted the Babylonian system of intercalations and accordingly
abandoned the variable regnal year. For the same reason the
Achaemenidae, having introduced in the Persian Empire the same
Babylonian system of time-reckoning,5 used
the device of the "accession year." The last civil year of a previous
ruler was identified with the "year of the beginning" of his
successor, and "year 1" of the latter started at the next Nisanu 1
only. Under the Macedonian rulers the natives of Asia continued to
reckon regnal years from Nisanu 1. But since the Macedonian usage did
not have an "accession year," which in accordance disappeared from
Babylonian datings,6 the natives now counted
as "year 1" the period between the accession of a king and the next
Nisanu I. Thus, between Nisanu I and the anniversary of accession the
Babylonian year's number would be always greater by one than the
Macedonian.
The Seleucids (and the Macedonian colonies in Asia) calculated the regnal years of Seleucus I, and then the Seleucid Era, from an autumnal date,7 which we are still unable to precise,8 of year 312 B.C. But in Seleucid reckoning the Babylonian year's number is lesser by one than the Macedonian, in the winter half year, and both numbers coincide between Nisanu I and the fall only. For instance, the restoration of the temple of Jerusalem by Judas Maccabaeus, approximately 15 December 164 B.C., fell in the year 148 of the Seleucid Era according to Jewish (and Babylonian) calculation, but in the year 149 for the court, since the latter counted from the autumn 312 while the natives reckoned Nisanu I (April 3) 311 as the initial date of the Seleucid computation. How to explain the paradox that the natives did not take into account the period between the fall 312 and Nisanu I, 311 ? The explanation is to be found in the historical situation. Seleucus I, we are told, |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
Created by the Digital
Documentation Center at AUB
in collaboration with Al
Mashriq of Høgskolen i
Østfold, Norway. 990205 PN - Email: hseeden@aub.edu.lb |