|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.) The matter of the length of the month may be considered in terms of three possibilities. The first possibility is that the Athenians calculated the motion of the moon and predicted new moons and months. The second possibility is that the Athenians simply ignored the moon altogether and opted for a regular alternation of 29 and 30 days. The third possibility is that the Athenians based the new moon date on observation. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
2.1.) The first possibility is easily disposed of. Meton and his contemporaries were groping toward an understanding of the length of the solar year. Insight into the irregularity of solar movement cannot be credited before the time of Hipparchos in the second century B.C. The writings of Euclid and Autolykos show a complete lack of the mathematical tools necessary for quantitative prediction in such matters. The Athenians were in no position to calculate the much more complex motions of the moon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.2.) The second possibility has been accepted by Dinsmoor and other authorities. There is no proof for this rule. Pritchett and Neugebauer (p. 13) point out that the assumption of alternation is based upon a misreading of a single passage in the Eisagoge of Geminus, which states, "They made 110 months hollow and 125 months full, so that instead of their being alternately hollow and full, there were sometimes two full months in succession." The misreading is based upon the interpretation of the pronoun "they" as meaning the Athenians; it actually refers throughout the section in question to three individuals. The report does not concern an actual calendar, but rather an ideal cycle under discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3.) The third possibility is actually the most likely. First, it is supported by what is known of calendric practice throughout the Mediterranean area at the time. Second, historical evidence supports this interpretation. The Almagest of Ptolemy provides four instances of observations that allow us to compare the date of the actual astronomical new moon and the noumenia, or first day of the month. In each case, the first day of the month is exactly the date which would be predicted by observation (Pritchett and Neugebauer, p. 12). Given the facts that the Greeks did not have any regular rule for intercalating years and tampered freely with the calendar, it would be inconsistent to expect them to have adhered to a rigid rule for calculating the lengths of months. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The case for a lunisolar Attic civil calendar, then, is fairly strong, although certainly not airtight. In this view, the Athenians of the period based their civil calendar on the visibility of the lunar crescent. Thus, the months were conceived as full or hollow, depending upon the period between observations. The fact that the term "hene kai nea" as a "last day" could apply to either the 29th or 30th day clearly indicates that the Greeks regarded that matter as unsettled until the actual end of the month had been determined by observation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One implication of this conclusion is that paleoastronomy could be used to establish the actual dates of new moons during this period. This data could then be used to establish the most probable dates for the noumenia for each month. Unfavorable |
|
|
|
|
|