Calendrical Synchronisms
There are several cross-calendrical synchronisms that could be used to reconstruct Roman chronology. However, many of them are much less useful than one might expect. For the pre-Julian period I have found the following:
A.U.C. 537 = 217: According to Polybius, the battle of Lake Trasimene, fought on a.d. X or a.d. VIII Kal Quin. A.U.C. 537, was reported to Philip V of Macedon as he attended the Nemean Games. The Argive date of these games was 12 or (more likely) 18 Panemos. The Julian equivalent of Argive Panemos is controversial. It is argued here that it was roughly equivalent to Hekatombaion in the better-known Athenian calendar. This synchronism establishes a lower limit on the number of intercalations between 217 and 190.
A.U.C. 584 = 170: An Argive inscription probably dates the embassy of Cn. Octavius to Appelaios of this (Argive) year. This embassy is also known from Polybius and Livy, and occurred towards the end of A.U.C. 584. However, since the absolute chronology of this year can be firmly established by other means, the synchronism is more useful for Argive calendrics than for Roman chronology.
A.U.C. 586 = 168: An Athenian inscription tells us that the battle of Pydna, which according to Livy was fought on the day after a lunar eclipse occurring on a.d. III Non. Sept. A.U.C. 586, occurred very shortly before the end of the Athenian month Skirophorion, the last day of the archonship of Eunikos. This synchronism strongly supports the veracity of Livy's date for the eclipse.
A.U.C. 614 = 140: A Thessalian inscription records that a senatorial decree probably dated [prid] Non. Quint., most likely in A.U.C. 614, was issued under the Thessalian strategos Thessalos and recorded in the term of the next strategos Leon. This synchronism allows us to estimate the number of intercalations between A.U.C. 586 = 168 and A.U.C. 614 = 140 and to reconstruct the regulatory provisions of the Lex Acilia which governed intercalation from A.U.C. 563 = 191 to A.U.C. 708 = 46.
A.U.C. 642 = 112: An Athenian inscription dated to Hekatombaion of this (Athenian) year records a Roman senatorial decree dated a.d. [X] Id. Iun. A.U.C. 642. This synchronism allows us to determine the number of intercalations between this year and A.U.C. 677 = 77.
A.U.C. 668 = 86: Plutarch notes that Sulla's sack of Athens on Kal. Mart. A.U.C. 668 occurred close to 1 Anthesterion in the Athenian calendar. This allows us to to estimate the number of intercalations between A.U.C. 668 = 86 and A.U.C. 677 = 77 and to validate the reconstructed date of Kal. Ian. AUC 677 = 17 December 78.
A.U.C. 687 = 67: The inscription CIL I2 2511 says that a.d. XV Kal. Oct. A.U.C. 687 was day 3 of a lunar month. September may be equated to a lost month name (Gigne[..]??) in another calendar, possibly Etruscan; alternately, it may indicate the waxing moon. The lunar aspect of this synchronism is critical to establishing exact Roman chronology in the 70s, 60s and early 50s of the first century B.C.
A.U.C. 696 = 58: The inscription CIL IX 3513 equates a.d. III Id. Quin. A.U.C. 696 to a.d. III Id. in the Vestinian month Flusaris. However, nothing is known about the Vestinian calendar except that it was a typical calendar of the Italian type. It was probably enslaved to the Roman calendar by this time anyway. As a result, this synchronism is chronologically useless, notwithstanding arguments Radke has made to the contrary.
A.U.C. 698 = 56: An inscription found at Salona records that a.d. V Non. Mart. A.U.C. 698 = [x] Artemitios in the calendar of Issa, modern Viš. Unfortunately, not only is the day lost but the calendar of Issa is, so far as I can determine, otherwise unknown.
A.U.C. 708 = 46: Caesar's arrival in Antioch is dated by Malalas, admittedly a late source, to 23 Artemisios (SE 265 = 16 April 47). According to Cicero, Caesar was in Antioch in early Quintilis A.U.C. 707, which started on 17 April 47 if A.U.C. 708 was 445 days long or 10 May 47 if it was 422 days long. This synchronism helps to confirm that A.U.C. 708 was 445 days long.
For the early Julian calendar there are five additional synchronisms:
A.U.C. 728 = 26: 7 Mesore year 4 of Augustus is arguably equal to prid. Kal. Sex. A.U.C. 728. In itself, the datum is fragile, but it suggests that the Roman and Egyptian calendars were one day out of aligment compared to the standard model.
A.U.C. 730 = 24: 1 Mesore year 6 to 19 Thoth year 7 of Augustus explicitly equals a.d. VIII Kal. Sex. to a.d. XVI Kal. Oct. A.U.C. 730. These synchronisms support the result of the ephemeris data in the same papyrus, pOxy 61.4175, that the Roman calendar was exactly aligned to the Egyptian civil calendar and to the Julian one at that time.
A.U.C. 746 = 8: 14 Peritios in the unreformed Asian calendar explicitly equals a.d. X Kal. Feb. in either A.U.C. 745 or 746. This synchronism is the only direct contemporary evidence for the triennial leap year cycle of the early Julian calendar. Unfortunately I think it is also the only synchronism we have for the unreformed Asian calendar. However, if it applies to A.U.C. 746 = 8, it establishes that this calendar was lunar, as we would expect.
A.U.C. 746-8 = 8-6: 27 Epeiph explicitly equals a.d. XIIII Kal. Aug. in an unrecoverable year. Since the Roman date shows that it was after 8 B.C., the Egyptian date must be on a fixed cvil calendar. This synchronism establishes that at this time the Egyptian and Roman calendars were at least two days out of sync, compared to the standard relationship between the Julian and Alexandrian calendars.
A.U.C. 759 = A.D. 6: A pair of inscriptions in Wadi Menih in the Eastern Desert are probably to be restored as giving te synchronism [1]8 Epeiph year 35 of Augustus = a.d. III Non. Iul. year XXXV = 5 July A.D. 6. If correct this is the earliest known synchronism to the true Julian calendar.
Eight of the synchronisms listed are taken from epigraphic sources of the second and first centuries B.C., and three more are papyrological. Several of these have been overlooked by most Roman chronologists. Only five are from literary sources, and the most important of these, the synchronism provided by Plutarch for Sulla's sack of Athens. has been generally overlooked. The Sack of Athens, and the epigraphic synchronisms for A.U.C. 687 = 67 and A.U.C. 614 = 140, are vital to reconstructing the Lex Acilia.
I found two of these epigraphic synchronisms -- those for A.U.C. 614 = 140 and A.U.C. 698 = 56 -- in R. K. Sherk, Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus, a compilation of epigraphic translations; that of A.U.C. 642 = 112 was first brought to my attention by Mark Passehl. More such synchronisms ought to exist for this period, since at this time Rome was a dominant force in Greece and Asia Minor, areas with their own independent calendars and a strong epigraphic tradition. They may well be sitting there unrecognised in the epigraphical literature. Such synchronisms are by far our best bet for ever making progress in nailing down the exact chronology of those years. Nevertheless they are unlikely to be straightforward, both for epigraphic reasons and because in many cases, such as that of A.U.C. 698 = 56, they may be synchronisms to calendars that are less well understood than the Roman one.
Additional synchronisms in the third century or earlier, unfortunately, are not to be expected, since Roman rule in this period did not cover areas with a known calendar and a strong epigraphic tradition. The only possible source of epigraphic data for this period is Sicily and Greek Italy.
Finaly, additional synchronisms for the early Julian period may well emerge from Egyptian papyri. However at this point such synchronisms are more likely to establish the correct operation of the Egyptian civil calendar before the Augustan reform than they are to further revise our knowledge of the Roman calendar.
If you know of any others please contact me.
Website © Chris Bennett, 2001-2008 -- All rights reserved