CALENDAR REGULATION. 1. THE INTERCALATION.
The circumstance that the lunar months are among almost all peoples
named from the phases of Nature involves the necessity of an
agreement between the two really incommensurable periods given by
the sun and the moon. This problem is the central point of the older
scientific chronology. We shall now investigate more closely how
the problem has arisen, and what has been its development among the
primitive peoples.
Where there is only a series of less than twelve months, the problem
of calendar regulation does not exist. The series is begun on the
appearance of the signs from which the first month is named, and is
continued from that point until the end. The vacant period serves,
unconsciously of course, to bring lunar reckoning and solar year into
agreement. Nevertheless the months can be fixed in a more accurate
fashion. The Eskimos of Greenland, for instance, mark the winter
solstice by the position of the sun, and then begin to count the
moons, and continue doing so until the moon can no longer be observed
in the bright summer nights[862]. The Lower Thompson Indians in
British Columbia counted up to ten or sometimes eleven months, the
remainder of the year being called the autumn or late fall. This
indefinite period of unnamed months enabled them to bring the lunar
and solar year into harmony. Also the Shuswap and the Lillooet in the
same country counted eleven months and then the ‘fall-time’, which
was the balance of the year[863].
Among most peoples, however, a series of months covering the
whole year has arisen, and this series has more often 13 than 12
months. Here the difficulties first begin. If a new moon falls on
a certain day of the solar year, in the following year a new moon
will occur about 11 days before or 19 days after this day, and in
the year after that about 21 days before or 9 days after it. Since
the natural phases are bound up with the solar year, they get out
of place in relation to the moon. The situation is still further
complicated by the fact that the phases of Nature, and with them the
occupations, vary somewhat according to the peculiarities of the
climate in different years. Hence doubt arises, and the accustomed
order of succession of the months is broken. And this is not a mere
theoretical piece of reasoning: primitive peoples are not seldom in
perplexity as to which month they are to count. Of the Dakota it is
said that they often have heated debates as to which moon it is. The
raccoons do not come out of their winter holes at the same time every
winter, the conditions which cause inflammation of the eyes do not
appear at the same time every spring, the geese lay their eggs at a
slightly different period according to the character of the year.
Twelve moons do not bring them back to the same point in the season
as that from which their reckoning began; and therefore towards the
end of the winter there is dispute among the Dakota as to the correct
current date[864]. If the people has a thirteenth month, the matter
is no better. Of the Pawnee, who had an intercalary month, it is
stated that they sometimes became inextricably involved in reckoning,
and were obliged to have recourse to objects about them to rectify
their computations. Councils have been known to be disturbed, or
even broken up, in consequence of irreconcilable differences of
opinion as to the correctness of their calculation[865]. The same is
reported of the Caffres. Their months are named e. g. from the first
cry of the cuckoo, the flowering of the erythusia, the dust in the
dry season, midwinter, and since all these phenomena may appear at
somewhat different dates, even the Caffre astrologers do not know
what moon they are really in. The first appearance of the Pleiades
just before sunrise always rectifies the confusion[866]. Even
peoples who have a developed, astronomically regulated, lunisolar
calendar sometimes have recourse to the natural phases in order to
rectify it. In Bali not only were the stars observed but also the
flowering of certain plants, or even the date when the white ants
got their wings, in order to rectify the lunar calendar[867]. The
months of the Bataks of Sumatra are regulated by the constellation
Scorpio[868]: the magicians, who control the calendar, are not
certain as to the position of the months, but look for general points
of reference in the phenomena of Nature. Thus, for instance, the
dates of certain migratory birds are known: they come in the fourth
and go in the first month. In the third month a black flying-ant is
accustomed to appear in great numbers. The presence of the bird of
prey _lali piuan_ makes known the sixth and seventh months. The bird
_sosoit_ sings in the eleventh month, and the turtle-dove is silent
in the eighth. The west monsoon proclaims the third, storms are very
frequent in the eleventh and twelfth[869].
Many peoples slip over the difficulties, they do not properly
know of how many moons the year consists: such peoples are the
Dyaks[870], the Warumbi of Central Africa[871], the Ibo-speaking
peoples[872], the Algonquin[873]. But if a definite series of months
is established, without a vacant interval such as occurs in the case
of some peoples, the number of months naturally becomes 12 or 13.
Even in this case the people sometimes let matters go as they will,
as is reported of the Yukaghir. The people having been christianised,
says our authority, it is now difficult to say whether the ancient
Yukaghir made some adjustment by adding a month to accommodate their
lunar year to the solar one. It seems to me, from the answers which
I received from the Yukaghir to my inquiries, that this point did
not interest them. Generally a month is the time from one new moon
to another, but it did not matter to them whether twelve such months
made up a full cycle of the year or not. When it was necessary they
simply ignored some of the names of months, being far ahead[874].
The Koryak have twelve lunar months, and the first one begins at
the time of the winter solstice and corresponds to our December.
Yet they are very little troubled by the fact that in the interval
between two winter solstices an extra new moon may occur[875]. The
very perplexity described above implies a great advance, viz. the
recognition of the difficulties, which is the first stage towards
mastering them.
Therefore every now and again some month must be left out or a month
added. This necessity, at first not recognised, or not clearly so, is
the chief cause of the above-mentioned disagreement in the reckoning
of the months[876]. For when the counting is performed in accordance
with the series only, it soon happens (apart from the climatic
variations of the years already mentioned) that the months deviate
from the natural phases from which they are named. The arguments in
the dispute as to which month it really is are based on the condition
of the phases of nature: the result is a correction of the counting,
i. e. the months are pushed forwards or backwards according to
circumstances, i. e. the month which should have followed is left
out, or a month is added to the series. Thus an intercalation comes
about without it being suspected what is really done. In general the
whole process is not even so conscious as the desire for theoretical
exactness has led me to represent in using the example of the
Dakota. The series and the number of months were from the beginning
unstable, and the natural conditions have brought it about that this
characteristic has been preserved in at least one particular, viz.
that in certain cases a month could be passed over. Let us, for the
sake of clearness, take a fictitious example from Swedish conditions.
As a rule the rye-harvest falls at the beginning of August, the
oat-harvest at the end of August and beginning of September, the
potato-harvest at the end of September. These occupations might very
well be distributed among three months named after them. But a year
would sometimes come in which the oat-harvest took place about at
the interval between two moons, the rye-harvest at the beginning of
the first moon, and the potato-harvest at the end of the second moon.
There would therefore be no place for a month of the oat-harvest, it
must simply be omitted. That this is the case among the primitive
peoples is proved by the fact that many, in fact most, of them
have a series of thirteen months of which one must according to
circumstances be passed over in certain years.
Experience teaches the peoples who have only a twelve-month series
that this is not sufficient: so we are told of the Mandan and
Minnetaree that they have generally recognised that the year has
more than twelve months[877]. When the intercalary month, as among
certain Indians, is named ‘the lost month’[878], this points to the
fact that it is an addition to a twelve-month series, just as in
Babylonia, where the same method of expression recurs[879]. The Masai
have twelve months[880]. The great rains cease with _loo-’n-gokwa_,
which is named from the evening setting of the Pleiades. Should
the rains still continue at the beginning of the following month,
the Masai say:--“We have forgotten, this is _loo-’n-gokwa_.”
Should the hot season not be over at the beginning of the month
following _ol-oiborare_, they say:--“We have forgotten, this is
_ol-oiborare_”[881]. It is clear that if through the dead reckoning
the months are advanced in relation to the seasons, one month will be
repeated, i. e. intercalated. The preceding month is forgotten.
Thus the necessity for modifying the series of months is felt, and
in response to this an empirical intercalation arises. When this
intercalation is left to itself, conflicting opinions, as we have
already seen, arise as to it. An end is made to these disputes
and order is established when the decision is placed in the hands
of definite persons. This was done among the Jews, the regulation
of whose calendar affords a particularly plain example of this
empirical intercalation, which, out of religious conservatism, they
kept until well into the post-Christian period, in fact until the
necessities of the Dispersion compelled, from the second century, a
mitigation of the original rules, and finally at an uncertain period,
perhaps not until medieval times, led to a calculated regulation.
According to the Talmud the appearance of the crescent of the new
moon was determined by deposition before a court of justice of three
members. After that the beginning of the month was signalised in the
country in earlier times by fires, later by couriers. A suitable
intercalation was absolutely necessary for the celebration of the
feasts, since at the Feast of the Passover on the 14th of Nisan the
first-fruits of the corn were offered, and the two other great feasts
were also of an agrarian character. For this purpose the court of
justice visited the fields. If they saw that the crops were not yet
ripe at the Passover time, and that the fruits also were not so far
advanced as they were accustomed to be at this time of the year,
they intercalated a month in accordance with these two signs: if
only one of these signs was to be observed the decision was made to
depend on other minor circumstances[882]. By way of example I give an
official document of Rabbi Gamaliel II, issued to the inhabitants of
Judaea, Galilaea, and the Dispersion at the date 90-110 A. D.[883].
“We make known to you that the lambs are small and the young of the
birds are tender and the time of the corn-harvest has not yet come,
so that it seems right to me and my brothers to add to this year
thirty days.” The intercalary month was the last month of the year,
_Adar_. On rare occasions _Nisan_, when it had begun, was altered
into _Adar II_. Here the intercalation took place in the interests
of the religious cult, but the cult on its side was dependent on the
natural phenomena. The intercalation is of the same empirical order
as that which we have met among the primitive peoples. It is only
that the development of the ecclesiastical laws has led to a judicial
procedure, and the task of determining the intercalation has been
handed over to a committee of the Sanhedrin.
There exists a possibility of a somewhat different development
among peoples who originally had less than twelve months and also
counted a vacant interval: it is conceivable that the unnamed months
may be named, until at last twelve months have names and the vacant
interval remains only as an intercalary month. This seems to be the
case among the Central Eskimos; they have a ‘sunless’ month, which
covers the time when the sun does not appear and when there is also
hardly any twilight: it is said to be of indeterminate length. After
an interval of a few years this month is left out, if new moon and
winter solstice coincide[884]. When the intercalary month has thus
arisen, its position in the year is fixed. One other example of
this method may exist. The author who gives the list of the months
of the Kwakiutl of the Island of Vancouver, beginning with March,
inserts between the tenth and eleventh months the winter solstice,
and says that the solstice moons are called by a name which probably
means ‘split both ways’, and adds that the readjustment is made
in midwinter[885]. Unfortunately the author does not tell us how
the readjustment is made, whether the winter solstice moon or some
other moon is the intercalary month. If the former be the case, the
explanation is given by the above.
There is rarely any rule for the position of the intercalary month.
Where the sources simply enumerate a thirteen-month series, it is to
be presumed that no fixed position for the intercalary month exists.
But such a month can be found, since naturally a month named from a
natural phase of less importance will be omitted, or an additional
month inserted, at a time when there is little work going on, and
when consequently little attention is paid to the time-reckoning. So
it is said of the Pawnee that the intercalary month was usually put
in after the summer months[886]. On the Society Islands the month
corresponding to our March or our July was commonly omitted[887].
The first regulation of the calendar is therefore roughly empirical,
and in fact is nothing but an occasional and arbitrary deviation,
necessitated by the natural phases, from the existing series of
months. The natural phases, however, as we saw in chapter IV, are
determined in more accurate fashion by the stars, and particularly
by their risings and settings. Consequently the months also can be
named from stars, and a considerable number of such names of months
was found in the lists of chapter VII. This phenomenon has hitherto
been only briefly touched upon; for the regulation of the calendar it
is of supreme importance, since the risings and settings of the stars
accurately determine the date, so that the fluctuation of the natural
phases is excluded. Where only one month is named after a star and
determined by it, the series of months is immovably fixed.
Just as the Pleiades play the most important part in the
determination of time from the phases of Nature, so it is also in
the naming of the months. The Konyag have a month named from this
constellation, which is followed by one named after Orion[888]. Of
the Diegueño of S. California it is stated that they divided the
year into six months and observed the morning rising of five chief
stars. The names of months are given, but unfortunately there is
no information as to the sense[889]. The Hottentots and the Herero
both have a Pleiades month[890]. On the islands of the Pacific
Ocean the practice is carried so far that in some cases every month
is described by the rising of a constellation, as is done by the
Maoris[891], or even named from stars, as among the inhabitants of
Mortlock’s Island[892] and, for most of the months, by tribes of the
Torres Straits[893].
This, however, is an exception. Where only one month is named from
the rising of a star or brought into connexion with it--in this case
the stars in question are usually the Pleiades--the latter furnishes
the means of correcting the reckoning of the months, and the
intercalary month is consequently introduced, as need arises, before
the month in question. The Pleiades month therefore of itself becomes
the starting-point of the reckoning of the months, i. e. becomes the
beginning of the year. Immediately after the discovery of America
it was already reported of certain tribes on the Mexican coast that
they began the year at the setting of the Pleiades and divided it
into moon-months[894]. In Loango the months are counted from new
moons, but Sirius, the rainy star, offers a means of correcting the
reckoning sidereally. With the first new moon which sees Sirius
rising in the east their new cycle of twelve months begins, and
this must run as well as it can until the new year. When the cycle
of months and the year do not fit, which happens about every three
years, a thirteenth month must be inserted. This is the evil time,
when the wandering spirits are at their worst[895]. The Caffres
have twelve moon-months with the usual descriptive names: on this
account uncertainty often arises as to which month it really is. The
confusion is always rectified by the morning rising of the Pleiades,
and the reckoning goes on smoothly for a time, until the months once
more get out of place and it becomes necessary to refer again to the
stars in order to correct them[896]. In Bali the Pleiades and Orion
are observed for the purpose of correcting the calendar of moons by
intercalation: thus the month _kartika_ is doubled, or the month
_asada_ is prolonged until the Pleiades appear at sunset. Moreover
certain natural phenomena are observed[897]. In New Zealand, where
all months were described by stars, the year began with the new moon
following on the rising of the winter star _puanga_ (Rigel)[898];
the thirteenth month often passed unobserved[899], i. e. served as
an intercalary month. Elsewhere we are told that the displacement of
the moon-months in relation to the year was rectified through the
observation of the rising of the Pleiades and of Orion, and that the
most accurate way of calculating the beginning of the year was to
observe the first new moon after the morning rising of Rigel[900].
The Papuans limit the year by the constellation of the Serpent,
_manggouanija_; when it appears again in the north, it is a sign that
the new year is beginning[901]. The people of Nauru, west of the
Gilbert Islands, count by moon-months. The time that elapses until
the Great Bear returns to the same spot is reckoned as a year[902].
The last two reports are so condensed that it is impossible to see
whether the stars serve for the rectifying of the calendar of moons
found among these peoples, or only for the fixing of the beginning of
the year, which, as will be shewn below, may be independent of the
reckoning of months.
About the regulation of the Hawaiian calendar the authorities are not
unanimous. Dibble says (p. 108) that the month _welehu_ completed the
year, and the new year began with the following month, _makalii_.
The year varied between 12 and 13 months. Each month had 30 days;
however he adds that in practice the number of days varied between
30 and 29. This is the phenomenon familiar in other places, e. g. in
Greece, among the Bataks, etc., in which a round number of 30 days is
given to the moon-month, the real length of this being a little more
than 29½ days. Fornander (I, 119 ff.) states that this variation,
though not common, did occur, but asserts that the year of 360 days
was rectified by the intercalation of 5 days at the end of the month
_welehu_: these were _tabu_ days, dedicated to the festival of the
god Lono. Similarly an old woman of Maui stated that eight months had
30 days and four 31, and that these additional days were called _na
mahoe_, ‘the twins’[903]. This statement cannot be correct, since
the month was strictly lunar and must have been wholly disarranged
by these intercalary days, as is pointed out by the historian of the
Sandwich Islands, W. D. Alexander[904]. This writer also remarks that
it is a well-established fact that the ancient Hawaiians intercalated
a month about every third year, but that the rule governing the
intercalation is unknown. Certainly there was no such rule, but
the intercalation was empirically treated, and regulated by the
appearance of the Pleiades. Such contradictory statements as the
above are due to the influence of the European calendar, owing to
which the native calendar has early fallen into disuse. Fornander has
probably mistaken a feast for intercalary days.
The treatment of the calendar among the Bataks of Sumatra is of
great interest. The calendar indeed originates in India: the days of
the months shew the familiar names of planets in corrupted Sanskrit
forms, four times repeated and distinguished by various additions.
Only the 28th and 29th or the 29th and 30th days, as the case may
be, have names of another kind, so as to equalise the number of the
days of the moon-month. The week is therefore not shifting but is
immovably fitted into the month. The months are regulated by Scorpio,
the largest star of which is Antares. The year begins with the new
moon at the morning setting of Orion and the contemporary morning
rising of Scorpio in May. The full moon fourteen days later then
stands in the constellation Scorpio. In the first half of the year
the full moon goes farther from Scorpio every month, and in the
second half gets nearer and nearer to it. In the Batak calendar,
which has 12, sometimes 13, × 30 squares, the sign of Scorpio is
registered at the proper day, and the month is decided by it. As
a means of control the soothsayer uses a buffalo rib with 12 × 30
holes (four times repeated), and every day he draws a string through
one hole in order to keep account of the days. It is clear that the
calendar can give no certain help in the establishing of the month,
and that the means of control must be directly misleading, since
the moon-months vary between 29 and 30 days. For this reason the
soothsayer is often uncertain in his reckoning of the months, and
refers to the natural phases in order to correct it[905]. Hence in
his selection of days he looks not only to the current month, but
also to the preceding. Our authority says that the surplus month is
no intercalary month in the European sense, although it is likely
that to it originally fell the task of equalising the lunar and the
solar years. This is indeed the only correct explanation. When,
presumably in the twelfth month, a following month is involved in the
decision, the thirteenth is also included so that an intercalation
takes place. If the thirteenth month is not available, the first is
taken, we are told. But an intercalation is necessary all the same:
the observation of the natural phases and of the morning rising of
Orion serves for the correction. And this can happen just because
the people are uncertain in the reckoning, and act according to
circumstances. The Batak calendar is a product of decay, and is used
exclusively for divination, not as a genuine calendar[906]; but it
is of great interest to observe how the soothsayers, since they do
not possess the knowledge necessary for a proper management of the
calendar, fall back upon primitive methods. It is significant that
the indispensable thirteenth month has often been lost: the people do
not even understand the difference between the months and the year,
and yet they cannot avoid the necessity of the intercalation.
There are two historically important cases of this empirically
regulated intercalation of months, which must be dealt with in
detail, since they are much debated. The dispute has arisen from a
failure to recognise the empirical intercalation and its workings.
The one case is that of the old Arabian calendar before Mohammed, the
other that of the Babylonian calendar.
The old Arabian names of months depend in great measure, as has
been shewn already[907], upon the seasons. Originally therefore
the months must have been connected with the solar year, and must
have been approximately fixed in their position by the sufficiently
familiar empirical method. The same thing is shewn by the naming
of the last months from the pilgrimage to Mecca. In pre-Mohammedan
times the pilgrimages were at the same time business journeys; trade
and cult were, as so often, united, and commercial intercourse was
first made really possible when by religious sanction a time of peace
was established during which journeys to and fro could be taken in
safety. The first month of the peace of God is _dhu-l-qa’da_, and
_dhu-l-hijja_ is the month of the gathering in Mecca: the following
month, _safar I_, was also included in the time of peace, and was
therefore called _muharram_. During all three months there were
fairs: in the neighbourhood of Mecca there was a whole succession of
them, following upon each other in _dhu-l-qa’da_ and _dhu-l-hijja_;
in _safar_ there was a corn-market in Yemen[908]. The gay life of the
great fair of Mecca is described in detail in old Arabic sources;
it seems to have drawn the people almost more than the religious
ceremonies, and first gave Mecca its real importance. An annual
fair is however dependent upon the seasons, both on account of the
journeys and for the products bought and sold. Sprenger has already
remarked that the winter months are quite unsuitable for merchants’
journeys to Syria, and that in the late summer it was not to be
expected that corn which had been cut at the beginning of March
should be taken in to the markets[909]. Because of the markets that
were held in them, the months must also have had a fixed position
in the solar year. This importance of Mecca explains why the Meccan
months became so wide-spread. The two names _dhu-l-qa’da_ and
_dhu-l-hijja_ are formed with _dhu_, differently from the others, and
were coined at Mecca. This leads to the conclusion that these names
were innovations occasioned by the business intercourse of that city.
For the purpose of determining the time of the peace of God and of
the gathering in Mecca unity must prevail as to the position of the
months, and for this the above-mentioned occasional correction of
the position is quite inadequate. Mohammed prescribed the strictly
lunar year: by this means the time of every month was definitely
fixed, but in about 33 years the months would pass through the circle
of a whole solar year. The question is whether before Mohammed an
ordered intercalation, which he abolished, or the lunar year existed.
For although it lies in the nature of things that the market should
originally be connected with a definite time of the year, it cannot
of course be denied that later, when the fairs had already attained
this predominating position, the date could be fixed by reference to
the purely lunar year. It is certain that in the years just before
the prescription of the lunar year by Mohammed the months were
inverted in relation to the year, so that the spring months fell in
autumn and the autumn months came in the spring[910].
The passage in the Koran 9, 36 ff. is often adduced as evidence
that Mohammed abolished the intercalation:--“Truly the number of
the months with God is twelve months in the book of God, on the
day when He created the heavens and the earth. Of these four (i. e.
_rajab_, _dhu-l-qa’da_, _dhu-l-hijja_, _muharram_) are holy. This is
the right religion. Be not unjust therein towards yourselves, but
fight against the heathen without distinction, since they make no
distinction in fighting against you, and know that God is on the side
of the faithful. The _nasî_ is in truth an addition to unbelief (or,
in unbelief), in which the unbelievers go astray. They allow it one
year, and one year they explain it as unlawful, in order to equalise
(bring into agreement) the number of that (i. e. the months) which
God has commanded to keep holy. But they declare lawful what God has
forbidden.” It is claimed that the emphasis laid upon the fact that
there are twelve months is directed against the intercalation, but
this is no proof. The sense depends entirely upon what is implied by
_nasî_. Etymologically the word is derived from _nasaa_, ‘to push
aside, away’.
On this point there has been from the earliest days of Arabic
literature a dispute which has been still further complicated
by modern hypotheses[911]. According to one view _nasî_ is the
intercalation of a month, which served to bring the months into
agreement with the solar year[912]. Some authors have even attempted
to establish an intercalary cycle, and it has been asserted that
the intercalation was borrowed from the Jews. This opinion may be
left out of account, since the cycles differ among themselves and
are therefore invented, while the intercalation was governed by
a hereditary _nasî_-controller from the tribe of Kinâna, who was
called the _qalammas_, i. e. ‘Sea of Wisdom’. If the intercalation
is controlled by a central authority, as e. g. in Babylonia, an
intercalary cycle is unnecessary: the central authority supplies
its place. According to the other view the _nasî_ consists in the
transferring of the holy character of one month to another, e. g.
the declaring of _muharram_ as free and the pronouncing of _safar_
as holy instead of it. This view is based on the supposition that
the Arabs found a time of peace lasting for three successive months
burdensome, and in order to be able to make predatory excursions
in a holy month, and yet keep the number of holy months unchanged,
they made another month holy instead. The treatment e. g. of the
_karneios_ by the Argives and of the _daisios_ by Alexander the
Great[913] was very similar. Therefore, it is maintained, before
Mohammed the year was a purely lunar one, and Mohammed only forbade
the disarrangement of the holy period. These authorities also ascribe
the right of changing the holy month to the _qalammas_, who at the
end of the feast of pilgrims in _dhu-l-hijja_ rose and in an address
to the assembly arranged the re-distribution. A third view, according
to which the feast of pilgrims was held eleven days later every year,
until after a cycle of 33 years it came back again to the same month,
is certainly incorrect, since the feast was connected with the phases
of the moon. The theory is extracted from the comparison between the
lunar and the solar years[914].
Several sources give the words in which the _qalammas_ made known the
re-distribution: they are affected by later views but must contain
a kernel of truth, since they shew difficulties which are not even
noticed by the authorities. According to Kalby the expression runs
simply:--“The _safar_ of this year is declared holy”, or “free”;
according to Ibn Ishaq:--“O God, I declare one of the two months
called _safar_, namely the first, to be free, and I postpone the
other till next year.” What is meant by postponing _safar II_ until
the next year is unexplained and unexplainable. Since the year begins
with _safar I_, and the proclamation takes place in _dhu-l-hijja_,
_safar II_ already belongs to the next year. _Safar II_ is in itself
not holy, so that here there can be no question of a changing of the
holy character of the month. But if by the expression _safar safar
I_ is understood, matters become clear. _Safar I_ is doubled: _I
a_ is an intercalary month, and therefore not holy, and belongs as
a thirteenth month to the current year; _I b_ begins the new year
and is holy. “I remove _safar_ (viz. _I b_) to next year” is an
incorrect but intelligible way of saying that the new year begins
with this month. In the _Qâmûs_ the expressions runs:--“O God, I am
authorised to move the months or to leave them in their places and
confirm them, and none can blame me or put me to my defence. O God,
I declare the first _safar_ to be free, and the second holy. The
same do I determine in respect of the two _rajab_, namely _rajab_
and _sha’ban_.” The first sentence, if authentic, doubtless refers
to an intercalation, since the words are ‘move the months’, and not
‘the holy character of the months’; but we can hardly insist so far
upon the expression. The last sentence is more conclusive. It shews,
namely, that not only was _safar I_ shifted to _safar II_, but at the
same time _rajab_ was moved to _sha’ban_. This is a system, not an
incidental expedient to render possible a military expedition in a
holy month. Later authorities add that the holy character of _safar_
was moved to _rabi I_, and that the process went on from month to
month until every month in the year had at one time or another been
declared holy. How this is to be understood is shewn by the oldest
report which has been handed down to us. It comes from Modjahid, who
was born in the year 21 of the Hegira. “The heathen were accustomed
in every month of the lunar year to go on pilgrimages for only two
years.” It must be realised that in the course of a cycle of 33
years a month of the lunar year will coincide two to three times,
according to the series, with one and the same month of the lunisolar
year, and that the months of the Mohammedan lunar year and of the
old Arabian lunisolar year, which must once have existed, have the
same names. Modjahid’s statement can only be understood thus: that
the heathen pilgrimage was re-arranged every third year in relation
to the Mohammedan lunar months--two years is a rough approximation
for ‘sometimes two, sometimes three years’--because it was to be kept
in place in regard to the solar year. But the pilgrimage took place
in a definite month, and therefore the months also belonged to a
lunisolar year. If the months of the lunisolar year are compared with
those of the lunar year confusion results, since both series have the
same names. Let us take, for example, a sentence of the distinguished
chronologist Albiruni, who represents the opinion that _nasî_ means
the intercalation of a month: “The first intercalation applied to
_muharram_, in consequence _safar_ was called _muharram_, _rabi I_
was called _safar_, and so on; and in this way all the names of all
the months were changed. The second intercalation applied to _safar_;
in consequence the next following month (_rabi I_, the original
_rabi II_)[915] was called _safar_, and this went on till the
intercalation had passed through all twelve months and returned to
_muharram_.” When other writers, not so well trained in chronology,
say that the hallowing of the month was transferred from _muharram_
to _safar_ and from _safar_ to _rabi I_, this means that, according
to the year, the _safar_ or _rabi I_ of the lunar year corresponds
to the _muharram_ of the lunisolar year. When in the speech of the
_qalammas_, _safar I_ and _rajab_ are simultaneously shifted to the
month following in each case, this involves the shifting of the whole
series of months. A genuine intercalation therefore takes place. The
term _nasî_, ‘to push aside’, resembles the world-wide description of
the intercalation of the month. _Safar I_ is ‘forgotten’, but upon
this it follows that not this month is holy, but the following one,
which is now also called _safar I_ but corresponds to _safar II_ of
the strictly lunar year. The sanctity or non-sanctity of the months
was for the people the all-important point, and the _qalammas_, who
was a religious authority, was obliged to refer to it. Hence he
declared the month as free and the following month as holy without
expressing himself, as we should have wished, in the technical
terms of chronology. The people understood him: if the month after
_dhu-l-hijja_ was free, it followed that not this month but the next
was holy, the month with which the new year began, _safar I_. The
intercalation therefore involves a transference of the sanctity of
the month following the feast of pilgrims to the next but one after
the feast. Hence has arisen the misunderstanding that the _nasî_
consisted _only_ in a transference of the sanctity of the months.
The tribe of Kinana, to which the _qalammas_ belonged, inhabited
the district around Mecca, and the famous tribe of the Koraish, its
most distinguished branch, was supreme in Mecca[916]. The calendar
regulation therefore took place in the interests of Mecca and its
trade, and it is quite ridiculous to say that the sanctity of a month
was transferred to another merely in order to render possible a
predatory excursion. Besides this would make matters no better, since
all the tribes concerned would have to have peace or war in the same
months. A shifting of this nature would only be really effectual if
it offered a means of surprising an unsuspecting neighbour in time of
peace. Probability therefore also points to the view that the _nasî_
was a genuine intercalation carried out by a person appointed for the
purpose, so that the dates of the markets and the pilgrimage might
be fixed at the proper times of the year. For this no intercalary
cycle was employed, any more than elsewhere: the empirical
intercalation sufficed, and it was made known to the people at the
feast of pilgrims, whence the knowledge spread all over. However the
entrusting of such power over the calendar to one individual lends
itself only too easily to abuses with a view to ends which have
nothing to do with the calendar. The stock example is afforded by the
Roman pontifices at the end of the Republic. It is therefore nothing
to wonder at that the calendar should have been disorganised during
Mohammed’s stay in Mecca. Hence also the attempts at determining the
calendar from two or three certainly known dates are vain, for when
a system is lacking or is broken up it is impossible to compute a
calendar systematically from a couple of dates. Mohammed’s action is
thus to be explained:--The misuse of the intercalation had destroyed
the dependence of the pilgrimage upon the time of the year: Mohammed
wished to create order, and did so in radical fashion by forbidding
the intercalation, the misuse of which he saw, but the usefulness of
which he failed to recognise.
It has been pointed out above that the Sumerian months completely
correspond in character to those of the primitive peoples[917].
The establishing of the months in their definite places followed
originally from the reference to the seasons, not from the position
in the series of months. The seasons on their part were, as always,
brought into relation to the phases of the stars. There is indeed
little information as to this point, but what little there is is
sufficient to establish it. It is however much to be desired that
specialists should pay more attention to the matter and if possible
procure more information. The Pleiades are brought into connexion
with the annual inundations, which took place about the time of the
invisibility of these stars, i. e. between their evening setting
and morning rising[918]. The name of the constellation Virgo means
‘root of the sprouting wheat-stalk, or corn’, that of the star Spica
‘proclaimer of the sprouting wheat-stalk’. These names agree with
the evening rising of this constellation, which at the date 2,000
B. C. took place about the 28th of February of our modern calendar,
and with the morning setting, which took place some 16 days later.
Circumstances exclude the ripening, which took place in the second
half of April.[919] Consequently the months were also determined by
the phases of the stars: among the names of months there is one which
points to this fact, ‘the month in which the white star (_bar-zag_)
sinks down from the culmination-point’[920]. The naming of the months
from the stars has not been carried through consistently, but each
month, just as e. g. among the Maoris, was fixed by one or more
risings of stars. There are several lists in which now one, now two,
or even three of the fixed stars are assigned to each of the twelve
months[921]. In the Creation epic, Tablet V, 4 ff., we read:--“For
twelve months he set down three constellations, according to the
times of the year fashioned he the groups of stars.” Among the
Maoris all the stars suitable to the time in question are used in
the fixing of the month: in Babylonia there was probably a gradual
limitation to the stars of the ecliptic, i. e. the 12 signs of the
zodiac, the number of which points to the fact that they owe their
origin to the endeavour to fix the twelve months astronomically[922].
This is an important advance of Babylonian stellar science, that
the constellations of the ecliptic should be separated from the
others. Weidner, p. 21, inverts matters when he says, with reference
to a list in which, instead of the fainter constellations of the
zodiac, neighbouring bright stars are given (e. g. Sirius instead
of Cancer):--“The system of the _paranatellonta_ is also found
already, i. e. the system which allows neighbouring bright stars
or constellations to step in instead of less bright constellations
of the zodiac. But this is no longer primitive astronomy, it marks
rather, as Weissbach has already pointed out with reference to
Newcomb-Engelmann, the beginnings of a scientific astronomy.” On the
contrary, as the examples from the primitive peoples shew, in the
utilising of stars to fix a point of time or a month no notice is
originally taken of the position of the star within or without the
ecliptic, but the most easily recognisable stars and constellations
are naturally preferred, wherever they may be situated. A list of
fixed stars which determine months, including also stars situated
outside the ecliptic, is primitive; it is out of the question that a
constellation outside the ecliptic is referred to instead of a sign
of the zodiac in the proper sense--that in which the constellations
of the zodiac are to be regarded as the _prius_. After the signs
of the zodiac have been fixed, so that a systematic duodecimal
division of the year has been obtained, the stars situated outside
the ecliptic are compared with the signs of the zodiac in order to
indicate with accuracy to which month they belong, or in other words
the system of the _paranatellonta_ is found.
It is indispensable to enter into the all-important question of the
intercalation, but here opinions are so directly opposed to one
another that Weidner establishes a very accurate 38-year intercalary
cycle as early as the time of the dynasty of Ur, while Kugler denies
the existence of any intercalary cycle before the year 528 B. C.;
Kugler again publishes a document in which an intercalary rule is
recognised as dating from a time after 504 B. C.[923], while Weidner
regards this as a copy of a much older original. An impartial opinion
can only be arrived at by working through the material, and this
is impossible for anyone who is not an Assyriologist: I am all the
more compelled, therefore, to limit myself to suggestions and to the
comparison with primitive conditions[924].
Where surplus months exist, there is no intercalation in the proper
sense, although the same name, e. g. the ‘harvest month’, will recur
sometimes after 12, sometimes after 13 months, since owing to the
fluctuating and unstable nature of the naming of the months the
latter are distributed according to circumstances[925]. This covers
the difficulty. Such seems to have been the state of affairs in the
pre-Sargonic period at Lagash. Certainly Kugler (II, 216) has tried
to demonstrate intercalary years: this is possible in the sense given
above, but actually very uncertain, since the starting-points for the
arrangement of the months are anything but certain[926]. Only the
arising of a fixed series of months makes a genuine intercalation
possible, since as a rule the general custom is to intercalate a
definite month (in Babylonia, at least later, there were two such
months, _adarru_ and _ululu_). The process is either an omission
of one month in the series of thirteen, or an intercalation of one
month in the series of twelve. The former appears in Lagash in the
time of Sargon, the latter in the time of Dungi. We have found that
the intercalation among the primitive peoples takes place as need
arises. If the series of months is fixed, but the intercalation
is neglected, the months must get out of place in relation to the
seasons: this can be demonstrated in a couple of cases. So if
the translation of the name of the fourth month in the list from
Lagash is correct--_šu-kul-na_, ‘sowing month’--the harvest month,
_še-kin-kud_, is the twelfth, and is therefore at a distance of eight
months instead of the five which the natural conditions shew[927].
Further the list at the time of Dungi shews a disarrangement of the
months as compared with the Sargonic list, the tenth month having
dropped out and the following months being now pushed one place
forwards. This difference can be explained either by a neglect of the
intercalation, or by the fluctuating nature of the nomenclature: in
the latter case there is really no genuine intercalation.
At the time of Dungi and his successors we have documentary evidence
for a number of years with intercalation.[928] At this date Kugler
stoutly denies and Weidner supports the existence of an intercalary
cycle. Weidner says:--“If we denote Dungi 39 (the 39th year of his
reign) by I, the following years are proved by documents to contain
intercalary months:--II, V, XI, XIV, XVI, XVIII, XX, XXIII, XXVI,
XXIX, XXXII, XXXV, XXXVIII. But between Dungi 43 and 49 there is at
least one more leap-year to be added, most probably Dungi 46, i. e.
VIII. For the period of 38 years we should then have 14 intercalary
months attested. This is therefore an intercalary system that works
quite well. A 19-year intercalary cycle however it cannot be, since
in that case, corresponding to the former part, the years XXI, XXIV,
etc. in the latter would have to be leap-years. _We have therefore
to assume a 38-year intercalary cycle, which in perfection far
surpasses that of 19 years._ It is the half of the well-known
76-year cycle of Callippus.” The conclusion is unwarrantable from
the premises. For the intercalation which takes place just as need
arises keeps the months firmly in their place in the solar year,
and attains the same result as an intercalary cycle. A period of 76
Indian years will contain just as many months as a Callippean cycle.
The only conclusive factor therefore is the periodicity, and this
is not proved. Through an accident of tradition the leap-years are
known for a period of 38 years, and it is obvious that during these
38 years an empirical intercalation, regularly carried out, kept the
lunisolar year in order. The evidence that even under the Hammurabi
dynasty no intercalary cycle existed is given by Kugler[929].
But there is also direct evidence that the intercalation took place
empirically, i. e. as need arose. Ungnad has shewn this from a
comparison of the known leap-years. Best known of all is the letter
of Hammurabi to Siniddinam:--“Since the year has a deficiency, let
the previous month be entered as Elul II. And instead of bringing the
taxes on the 25th Tishritu to Babylon, let them be brought to Babylon
on the 25th Elul II”[930]. For the empirical correcting of the
position of months the stars are used among the primitive peoples,
and so also in Babylonia. A tablet in the British Museum[931]
gives the following injunction:--“The constellation _dilgan_ rises
heliacally in the month _nisan_. As often as this constellation
remains invisible, its month shall be forgotten”. The same injunction
is given in regard to other constellations from which months are
named. The expression that the month Nisan is to be ‘forgotten’
reminds one of the description of the intercalary month as the ‘lost’
or ‘forgotten’ month among certain tribes of N. American Indians,
and of the expression of the Masai. The forgotten month is not the
intercalary month in our sense, i. e. not the second of two months
that have arisen by doubling; it is the first. This month must be
passed over, not counted, forgotten, its name must be transferred
to the following month, so that the year may run properly. The
establishing of the months by means of phases of the stars is so
abundantly demonstrated for primitive peoples in the preceding pages
that no words need be wasted in describing the method of its carrying
out. It is a method that works perfectly well but is entirely
empirical, and where recourse is had to this method we know that the
regulation by a definite intercalary cycle does not exist. With a
more extended development of the method a still better result can be
obtained, and this is the direction that the Babylonians have taken.
The regulation runs:--“If on the first day of the month _nisannu_ the
constellation of the Pleiades and the moon are together, the year
shall be an ordinary one. If on the third day of the month _nisannu_
the constellation of the Pleiades and the moon stand together, the
year shall be a full one (i. e. a leap-year)”[932]. The meaning and
effect of this rule are explained by Schiaparelli. But this too is an
empirical rule, aimed at an empirical, not a cyclical, intercalation.
Where an intercalary cycle exists, no such rule is needed.
Since by the letter of Hammurabi it is indisputably established that
the intercalation took place not in years previously determined but
at the command of the king, those who in spite of this would maintain
the existence of an intercalary cycle hold to the assertion that
the 27-year intercalary period was not a strictly fixed but a free
cycle. In other words the intercalation rule only runs:--“Within a
period of 27 years 10 intercalary months are to be inserted, but
the choice of the leap-years is left open to the astronomer”[933].
But this is nothing less than an abandonment of the intercalary
cycle. The purpose of such a cycle is to render it possible to
compute the calendar beforehand for any number of years to come, and
this purpose is frustrated by a regulation of this kind. It only
says that in _x_ years _y_ intercalary months occur: this is not a
rule for intercalation but an empirical observation, which readily
results from a proper treatment of the empirical intercalation.
Such observations must have been made by the Babylonians. In a
tablet published by Kugler it is said of Saturn and of the fixed
star _kak-si-di_, respectively, “ ... the period of the visibility
of Sirius amounts to 27 years. Turn back and consider day after
day,” according to Weidner, p. 73; according to Kugler I, 47 the
inscription runs, “Day by day ... shalt thou see (the same phenomena
as 59, or 27, years before).” Both Kugler and Weidner find here a
27-year intercalary cycle regulated by the star; the former places
it before 533 B. C., the latter at a considerably earlier period.
But in accordance with what has here been said about the empirical
regulation of the intercalation by phases of the stars it follows
that there is no intercalation at all, but only the empirical
verification of the fact that the new moon and Sirius come back after
27 years into the same mutual relationship: this will actually be the
result with an accurate treatment of the intercalation based on the
observation of this constellation.
Under these circumstances it would have been an easy matter to
establish an intercalary cycle, but the demand for this is an affair
of practical life: astronomy is concerned only with the calculation.
The failure to observe this fact has led the discussion astray. The
calendar is of course the most conservative of all human things;
centuries after the establishment of very accurate calculations of
the course of the moon and the introduction of a good intercalary
cycle, the Jews adhered to the empirical observation of the new
moon, and we know how difficult it is in modern times to introduce
any improvement into the calendar. Because in Babylon there was a
central government which could arrange the intercalation in proper
fashion, the lunisolar year was kept in order, and in practical life
there was no necessity to be able to calculate months and days for
several years in advance. The empirical intercalation worked well,
and there was no need to replace it by an intercalary cycle. The
latter is indeed a simplification undertaken on practical grounds, an
intercalating rule being substituted for the immediate astronomical
observation: astronomy is concerned only with the calculation and
with the further refinement of the rule. In so far as I am able to
pronounce upon the material Kugler is right: no cyclically regulated
intercalation existed before the Persian period; but from this it is
in no way possible to arrive at any decision as to the position of
the Babylonian astronomy. The regulation of the months by the phases
of the stars was a suggestive problem for the astronomers, and it led
to the recognition of the periodicity of the phenomena. This is the
_prius_, not the desired establishment of an intercalary cycle.
A second means of fixing the months in their position in the solar
year is afforded by the regulation by the solstices and equinoxes;
but since, as will be shown in the following chapter, the observation
of these is difficult and is seldom undertaken, a regulation of
this nature is correspondingly rare. It can be demonstrated for the
Eskimos[934], the Kwakiutl[935], and the Hopi, whose 13 ‘sun-points’
doubtless correspond to the 13 months[936]. Of the Basuto it is
said that an attempt is made to determine the time of sowing from
the moon, but that the people commonly go wrong in their reckoning,
and after much dispute are obliged to fall back upon the climatic
conditions and the state of the vegetation as more certain marks for
the time of sowing. Intelligent chiefs, however, rectify the calendar
(i. e. the moon-months) by the summer solstice, which they call the
summer house of the sun[937].
The risings and settings of the stars, as has been shewn above, are
brought into relation with the seasons. There is a possibility of
bringing these sidereally determined seasons into a system. Thus
the year of the Luiseño Indians of S. California consists of 2 × 8
divisions, which are determined by the morning rising of certain
stars[938]. This is however an isolated case, since the reckoning
by months has penetrated almost everywhere, and both seasons and
risings of stars are brought into connexion with this. The most
complete example is seen in the months of the Maoris[939]. Moreover
the creation of such a system was not possible among the primitive
peoples, since for the purpose of determining time they were only
accustomed to observe a few stars, principally the Pleiades. On the
other hand the observation of the stars plays a great part in another
matter not necessarily connected with the reckoning of the months,
viz. the beginning of the year, and to this we shall now turn our
attention.