Talk:Babylonian calendar

message: Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 17:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Time/Assessment|WikiProject Time assessment rating]] comment 

message: Was the Babylonian calendar really fully lunar until the 5th century BC?  If so, why would regnal years of kings line up more or less with Julian year calculations of eclipse data? john k 20:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Somehow that escaped my notice. As far as I know, the Babylonian calendar was always lunisolar, thus it did not drift through the seasons like the present Islamic calendar does. But before about 499 BC it was purely observational, with the intercalary month being inserted only as needed. I'm changing the article. — Joe Kress 20:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lunar?

message: [Joe], your assumption that Babylonians had always used the 19-year cycle is false. The cycle was introduced probably in the V century BC. So do you imply that before that time there was no Babylonian calendar? Of course, there was, and Babylonians had to rely solely on the vernal equinox as a point of reference to fix the beginning of the new year in their calendar. This can be seen from the VI BC tablets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bravehearted (talk • contribs) 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware that the 19-year cycle only began in 499 BC, with only three minor exceptions until 380 BCE (thereafter there were no exceptions) according to the tables of Parker and Dubberstein (1956). But according to those same tables the earlier Babylonian calendar could not have used any astronomical cues (either the vernal equinox or the heliacal rising of a single star like Sirius) because there was too much variablility between intercalary months. There was simply no rhyme or reason to the years having an intercalary month before 500 BCE. If they had used an astronomical cue, then they would have introduced an intercalary month every two or three years, but there was a far greater variability in its frequency, so they must have been much more arbitrary in their decision on when to decree it. One possibility is that they used the heliacal risings of many stars, such as those listed in the MUL.APIN tablets, which allowed the astronomers to pick and chose which heliacal rising to accept or reject, allowing them or the king to aribitrarily decree that almost any year was or was not intercalary. Another possibility is that they may have used environmental clues, as did the later Hebrew calendar prior to the destruction of the Second Temple. Of course, the king could have ignored his astronomers and arbitrarily decreed the intercalary month as he saw fit. A final possibility is that the tables of Parker and Dubberstein are grossly in error, which I reject because those same tables are relied upon as evidence for the use of the 19-year cycle during the last half of the first millennium BCE. Of course, those tables no doubt have a few errors because other cuneiform tablets have been discovered, recognized, or re-interpreted since 1956 (see Sources for Babylonian to Julian Conversion), but their tables cannot have had gross errors. — Joe Kress 03:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Let's settle a couple of facts. First of all, on the basis of the Old Testament we can assume that Hebrews had begun their new calendar year sometime about the vernal equinox, because about the time of the Passover they had to present first freshly harvested barley grains. Also their first month had been called Abib relating to the greenish color of nearly ripe barley. So Jews without using any special system just relied on the looks of barley and also the weather conditions - rain season should have been over and roads fairly dry for the people to come to Jerusalem from all over Israel. But Babylonians who had no Passover also started their new year about the time of the vernal equinox even before the V c BC. This can be clearly shown from the dates of king Nebuchadnesar's reign. If Babylonians did not rely on the spring equinox, then what did they depend on in deciding on the time when their new calendar year should begin? Jews had nearly ripe barley and fairly dry roads, what data did Babylonians have? Because they must have relied on something as they never started their year before the vernal equinox, but alwas in the month starting on or after that day (again, data from Nebuchadnesar's reign). Bravehearted 17:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The vernal equinox is never mentioned in the Torah. Instead, the first month or Abib had to be a spring month. "Spring" is a three month season which gives the first month great variability in time without violating Jewish law, similar to the variability of the meteorological cues that you mention (the condition of roads and the barley crop). The Babylonians were unaware of precession, that is, they made no distinction between a tropical year event like the vernal equinox and a sidereal year event like the heliacal rising of stars. Indeed, the Babylonian Mul.Apin tablets (1100–700 BC) specifically state that the constellation Perseus became visible on 1 Nisanu  without mentioning the vernal equinox. Use of the 19-year cycle after 500 BC does not require the observation of any astronomical cue, either the vernal equinox or the heliacal rising of Perseus—the cycle itself causes the year to begin within half a month of any astronomical cue. The high variability in the interval between intercalary months before 500 BC recorded by Parker and Dubberstein mean that Nisan did occur before the vernal equinox during some years, which is consistent with the heliacal rising of a whole constellation rather than a specific star (like Sirius for the Egyptians). Your rather vague assertion that the year began "about the time of the vernal equinox" during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar is not contradicted by Parker and Dubberstein. But the Babylonians themselves stated that they used the heliacal rising of stars, not the vernal equinox, to regulate their year before 500 BC. — Joe Kress 08:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please cite at least one Babylonian document where Nisan 1 fell before the vernal equinox? I haven't read what Parker said about Babylonian documents from VI BC, but I know what he noted on the subject of double dated Elephantine papyri where in one case Jews recorded a date suggesting Nisan 1 falling before the vernal equinox - Parker said this only shows they had poor knowledge of Babylonian calendar or made a mistake - please see Sacha Stern, The Babylonian Calendar at Elephantine z Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 130 (2000) 159-171, as far as I remember Parker's comment is cited somewhere in footnotes. And as far as Jews go, there was no much possibility of greater variation from the time of vernal equinox as all Jewish feasts had to fit in certain seasons of the year to bring the proper kind of crops required by the law or to arrive in Jerusalem when they wouldn't have had to travel in dirt, rain and cold. Isn't that strange that Persians, Babylonians, Israelites, Assyrians and other nations in the regions started their new calendar year about the time of the vernal equinox? It is strange you shift this aside as I have heard the vernal equinox mentioned many times by people writing on the Babylonian calendar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bravehearted (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vernal equinox 

message: Joe Kress: Don't alter articles when you clearly don't know the subject. You alterations have had to be reversed becuase they are either weak, irrelevant or incorrect. Article writers should be expert before they consider alterations. --Cal Enda Gar (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you have me confused with someone else because I wrote about half the article and that half has not been reverted (most of the first paragraph, all of the paragraph below the table of months, and the Parker and Dubberstein ref). I am readding Chris Bennett's supposedly 'irrelevant' external link because I assume you only read his bare bones Intro page, but did not bother to click on his description of the Babylonian calendar nor on his three century conversion table between Babylonian and Julian dates. However, to avoid the extra step of having to click on his description, I'm changing the link from his introduction to his description. I refrain from explicitly providing a link to the conversion table because he provides it in two formats, Excel and HTML. — Joe Kress (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article alterations 

message: I am making a calendar converter using algorithms from Dershowitz and Reingold in an Excel spreadsheet. They don't have algorithms for the Babylonian calendar so I am using the Hebrew calendar algorithms and taking out the adjustments.  I would like to know what the intercalary month in year 17 was called. Would I be right in assuming that if the regular month Adar is called, Araḫ Addaru or Araḫ Adār, and the intercalary month Adar is called, Araḫ Makaruša Addari or Araḫ Ve-Adār, which I assume means "Second month Adar", then the month Araḫ Ulūlu, would be called Araḫ Makaruša Ulūli or Araḫ Ve-Ulūlu, "Second Month Ululu", when it is the intercalary month.  Google translator doesn't do Babylonian.  alexselkirk1704@hotmail.com
Alexselkirk1704 (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Assyrologists usually refer to these months as Addaru II and Ululu II. See the link to the Babylonian calendar converter (based on the 1956 Parker & Dubberstein tables) at the bottom of the page. AstroLynx (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Intercalary Month in year seventeen

message: The Umma article says, "The Umma calendar of Shulgi (ca. 21st century BC) is the immediate predecessor of the later Babylonian calendar..." Then via a redirect, the Umma calendar link brings the reader to this Babylonian calendar article, which only says, that the Babylonian "calendar is based on a Sumerian (Ur III) predecessor preserved in the Umma calendar of Shulgi (c. 21st century BC)."  Since both links in that single sentence over at Umma resolve to this article, it might be better to remove the redirect to this Babylonian calendar article, and then to unlink "Umma calendar". Confused? Me too! :) Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host  (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is confusing and would vote for removing this redirect. AstroLynx (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Umma Calendar really redirect to this article? 

message: 3rd dynasty Ur (2009-1900bc) was moved to (2138-2029bc) because Ibbi-sin was made an elder or one of the 2nd dynasty kings (body of elders) before he became last king of 3rd dynasty. Thus his death in 1901bc is ignored, and he is thought to be 2029bc (actually fall of 1st dynasty) because of his putting Ishbi-Era on the throne of Isan in 2017bc. This is why then Abram and AmarPal are put 100 years earlier than they are. The actual Shulgi (Dungi) is 48 years 1991-1943bc and equated with 12th dynasty 1991bc (by 1290bc Ramses Papyrus canon) but as 12th dynasty 1943bc by Genesis Moses. His son AmarPal ruled 9 years 1943-1934bc and is reason Abram left Ur. The intercalary here (thanks for telling me year 17) as ULULU is named after king Elulu (25 years 2091-2066bc) which is prelude to Egyptian 25 year calendar brought by Abram at 75 to 1st year 12th dynasty 1st Pharaoh Amenhotep. Tamuz is Mars behind the sun, and its origin is 1770bc July 10 which would mean the moon is labeled as Tamuz (Tau of Damuzu) to honor that year and not before it. Marduk epoc for Babel is 2368bc Oct 1 later changed in 747bc to be 2945bc Thoth Aug 29, and Harran Marduk is Noah's Flood 2370bc Oct 12, later changed to be 2947bc Thoth Aug 30. This civil 747bc chronology-change does show evidence to begin its roots in 1458bc with a 3744-year 5200bc Adam (or Julian Sothic years back to 5202bc). 75.86.172.174 (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: chronologies

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Babylonian calendar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609160608/http://books.google.com/books?id=qVNqXDz4CE8C to https://books.google.com/books?id=qVNqXDz4CE8C
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: From reading https://cdli.ucla.edu/files/publications/cdlj2016_001.pdf and https://cdli.ucla.edu/files/publications/cdlj2003_002.pdf, it appears obvious that this calendar was not used throughout Babylonian times, but came into existence at some point, adapted and evolved from other calendars.
When was this calendar adopted?
CielProfond (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  When Was it Established? 

message: I'd be interested to know the source for the presiding deities in the table shown in the "Months" section. I'm puzzled by some of the attributions - for instance, Nergal is given as the presiding deity for Pabilsag, but in MUL.APIN Nergal is associated not with Pabilsag, but with "the Panther" (I.i.28). Similarly, with zodiac signs, UR.GU.LA is sometimes used for Leo, so I was interested in where Nēšu comes from. I'm interested in whether the concept of a ruling deity for a month is attested in the older sources (around 1000 BCE, like MUL.APIN and the 36 stars astrolabe P), or whether this was a more recent addition - and if so, was this during the Seleucid period and so possibly an attempt at mapping Hellenistic rulerships onto Babylonian deities?
Would it be possible to add a source for the various columns in this table?
BristolChris (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the initial table in the Months section 

message: This article obviously includes one or more cuneiform fonts, but gives (SFAICT) exactly zero information about how to render it. I have three different cuneiform fonts loaded, none of which renders whatever font(s) are being used here. Many English Wikipedia pages which include fonts that are "exotic" to English provide this sort of information, and could serve as models for how to do this in a useful way.  Thanks very much.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:686:DE5C:CDA6:36F6:21CD:441A (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No specific fonts are embedded; the cuneiform are unicode and it is up to the browser to find the correct font on your system to render them (assuming you have a font that includes cuneiform in its proper unicode location). Firefox before Quantum had an issue with finding the appropriate font (it would give up too early, from what I understand) so you had to provide a list of fonts in about:config to make it consistently work. Not sure if Chrome had the same issue or not. Firefox after Quantum (as far as I have so far seen) hasn't had this problem. 1990s era old style cuneiform specialized fonts (fonts dedicated for cuneiform, but placed it in the ascii space) should not be used on Wikipedia as embedded fonts in Wikipedia are not good and causes major issues for users since almost nobody uses those fonts. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please identify the embedded font(s) 

message: The section that mentions the Babylonian "week" cites an unreliable, early twentieth century author (the publication date for the encyclopedic entry is 2003 but the author cited died in 1934). Unreliable, because he was writing at the peak of the pan-Babyonian, Bible/Babel movement when anything and everything in the Hebrew Bible was attributed to Babylonian sources. In fact, there is no hard evidence to support the idea the the month was broken into weeks in the Neo-Babylonian era - only a reference to unpropitious days where certain activities for kings, priests and high officials (but not the general populace) were forbidden. These occurred on the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st and 28th days of the lunar month.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sineaste (talk • contribs) 06:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable citation on the Babylonian "week" 

message: The table divides the standard year into three sets of four months each: Reš Šatti (start of the year), Mišil Šatti (middle of the year), and Qīt Šatti (end of the year). I don't see a discussion of this division on the page. I suspect this segmentation of the year into defined fourth-month groups is based on a misreading of a passage in W. Muss-Arnolt, The Names of the Assyro-Babylonian Months and Their Regents, Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 11, No. 1 (1892), pp. 72–94, at 73 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3259081.pdf): "The Babylonian year began in historical times in the spring. The year is divided into reš šatti, 'beginning of the year' ... mišil šatti, 'the middle,' and kīt (qīt) šatti, 'the end of the year.'" But mišil šatti simply means 'midpoint of the year'(see CAD Š2, 198–199); the idea of a 'middle four months of the year' is not, so far as I know, a native Babylonian notion. 
Hithpael (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the division of the year into thirds (table, first column) legitimate? 

message: In Iraq and the Levant the Gregorian solar calendar is used with the babylonian month names replacing the latin names. The Assyrian calendar is an example, also the Turkish months. These were inspired by the Ottoman Rumi calendar, itself derived from the Julian solar calendar. Despite appropriating the mere names, their months are not equivalent to those of the Hebrew calendar and Babylonian lunisolar calendar.Jaredscribe (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A solar month, whether gregorian, julian, or the original egyptian, is NOT EQUIVALENT to a lunar months, despite appropriating the the mere name 

message: Very disappointing that this article has almost nothing about the Babylonian calendars anymore, given the large impact they've had on calendars in history.
Current concerns
* The single article in the references that I could find supporting the data in the table is from... 1892! Is it reliable? I think not, since after looking for other sources for an hour, I found no-one else presenting those specific "regnant deities" of each month.
* One source I did find (Calendars and Years: Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East) is very nice. There are three articles in it that together give a detailed explanation of the chronology of Babylonian metrology during the relevant two millennia.
* On that note, this article is frighteningly vague about any chronology whatsoever; I don't think the Sumerian names were ever used for the standardized Babylonian calendar. There should be more stratification of the eras, because this calendar evolved over the course of two thousand years!
Actionable items
* Find a more recent source that verifies the table, or remove the unverifiable columns. (A few sources did mention presiding stars—but not deities. I did find a source that claimed the decans had presiding deities.)
* Using the Calendars and Years source, fill in more details about the Babylonian calendars and the chronology.
Tectoskepsis talk 01:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much to do 

message: The header states 'redirect from Umma' and there is no longer any mention of Umma.  If it was important where has it gone.  If it is no longer important there is no explanation. Puzzlement. To my view, this has become a bit of a mess and difficult to discern the grain from the chaff. NojokingHELP (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did 'Umma' go