250 
Transactions of the Boyal Society of South Africa. 
calary month. But intercalary months were only inserted to bring the 
calendar into harmony with the season, and the insertion of one in the 
above circumstances would imply a very inaccurate system of observation 
in the eleventh century B.C., or the existence of some custom with regard 
to the insertion of intercalary months at this period of which we have no 
other evidence or indication " Chronicles," vol. i., p. 208). 
Intercalary months were inserted when it was known that the equinox 
would otherwise fall later than the middle of the month Nisan. For the 
first Nisan to fall so late as May 4th would mean that though an inter- 
calary month should have been inserted tiuo years before, this was not 
done either on that year or on the year following, but was two years 
late : a thing inexplicable, because the necessity of so inserting an inter- 
calary month must have been manifest at foitr equinoxes, two spring and 
two autumn. There is evidence that on rare occasions, when by some 
oversight, perhaps the result of persistent cloudy weather, an intercalary 
month was not inserted when this should have been done, that when the 
omission was revealed on the occurrence of the autumn equinox it was 
rectified by the insertion of an intercalary month after the month Elul as 
a second Elul."' 
Assuming that the record establishes the occurrence of a total eclipse 
of the sun, visible from some place in Babylonia during the period —1250 
to —950, and in the months of May, June, or July, it remains to be seen 
if it can be identified with any particular eclipse. 
I have examined every eclipse occurring between - 1250 and - 920 
which could have been total within ten degrees of latitude during the 
months of May, June, or July. They are some seventy in number, and 
* Mr. Fotheringham draws attention to an account of the early Babylonian Calendar 
given by Signor Schiaparelli in " Scientia," vol. iii., pp. 17-21, from which he draws the 
conclusion that there was no fixed or uniform method of intercalation, and that it is 
impossible to assert with confidence that a particular Julian date fell within a particular 
Babylonian month [Ohseri^atory, March, 1909, p. 141). I have not seen this paper, and 
so cannot judge the evidence that has led to this remarkable conclusion ; but it would 
require the most explicit and definite evidence from contemporaneous records to establish 
a conclusion so exceptional in character and so irreconcilable with what is known con- 
cerning systems of Oriental chronology. No evidence drawn from incidental coincidences 
or adopted identifications of epochs would suffice for this purpose. If data sufficient to 
establish this remarkable conclusion really does exist, apparently it has escaped hitherto 
the notice of the best authorities. If it be true that it is impossible to state definitely the 
particular Babylonian month corresponding to a particular Julian date, as intercalary 
months were inserted at all periods of the year, then it would go far to destroy the value 
of their ancient eclipses of the sun for deducing the true value of the secular accelerations 
of the lunar angular elements, or, indeed, their value for almost any chronological 
purpose. For as usually the year is uncertain within wide limits, and the particular place 
of observation uncertain within still wider limits, as a rule unless the month be known 
there is little to identify the eclipse with any certainty. 
/ 
