Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:15:05.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Babylonian time Reckoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Extract

The Babylonian day began and ended with sunset, apparently the disappearance of the rim of the orb. In practice the umu was divided into two, the light, or day, also UD, umu, and dark. Except at the equinoxes, light and dark are unequal in length. In the purely theoretical calendar year of 360 days, certainly never in official use after the beginning of the Third Dynasty of Ur, perhaps never before that, the twelve months of 30 days were given the names of the true lunar months used in the official government calendars which were adjusted periodically to relate 1st Nisan to the spring equinox. In the theoretical calendar 1st Nisan is always the equinox. Thus the night of 1st Adar was theoretically equal to the 1st Iyyar daylight in length. Light and dark, whatever their length, were each divided into three watches; thus the watch, EN.NUN maṣṣartu, also varied seasonally. The routine for reliefs of guards or observers in ancient times can be inferred from Egyptian practice; no precise information seems to be available from cuneiform texts, but it would be surprising if a team for the maṣṣartu was not divided into two, with alternate reliefs in each half-team. The seasonal variations in time-lengths for duty, and other necessities of daily life, required some measurement, by a standard, of seasonal beru and other time units.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Purposely rough, without any attempt at greater finesse, which may have been possible.

2 I have to thank Dr. Armitage of the History of Science Department, University College, London, for reading this through to see that nothing contravenes ordinary astronomical terminology. Any errors are entirely my own.