The Arctic Home in the Vedas c11.24

c11.24

But the Taittirîya Samhitâ is not alone in being thus unable to assign any reason for this relic of the ancient calendar, or the duration of the annual Sattra. We still designate the twelfth month of the European solar year as *December*, which word etymologically denotes the tenth month, (Latin *decem*, Sans. *dashan*, ten; and *ber* Sans. *vâra*, time or period), and we all know that Numa added two months to the ancient Roman year and made it of twelve months. Plutarch, in his life of Numa, records another version of the story, *viz.*, that Numa, according to some, did not add the two months, but simply transferred them from the end to the beginning of the year. But the names of the months clearly show that this could not have been the case, for the enumeration of the months by words indicating their order, as the fifth or *Quintilis* (old name for July), the sixth or *Sixtilis*, (old name for August), the seventh or *September* and so on the rest in their order, cannot, after it is once begun, be regarded to have abruptly stopped at *December*, allowing only the last two months to be differently named, Plutarch has, therefore, rightly observed that "we have a proof in the name of the last (month) that the Roman year contained, at first, ten months only, and not twelve¹." But if there was any doubt on the point, it is now removed by the analogy of the Gavâm-ayanam and the legends of the Dashagvas and Dîrghatamas. Macrobius (Saturnal. Lib. 1. Chap. 12) confirms the story of Numa's adding, and not simply transposing, two months to the ancient year of ten months. What the Avesta has to say on this subject we shall see later on where traditions about the ancient year amongst the other Aryan races will also be considered. Suffice it to say for the present that, according to tradition, the ancient Roman year consisted only of ten months, and like the duration of the Gavâm-ayanam, it was subsequently changed into a year of twelve months; and yet, so far as I know, no reason has yet been discovered, why the Roman year in ancient times was considered to be shorter by two months. On the contrary, the tendency is either to explain away the tradition some how as inconvenient, or to ignore it altogether as incredible. But so long as the word December is before us, and we know how it is derived, the tradition cannot be so lightly set aside. The Encyclopædia Britanica (s. v. calendar) records the ancient tradition that the oldest Roman year of Romulus was of ten months of 304 days, and observes "it is not known how the remaining days were disposed of." If, with all the resources of modern science at our command, we have not yet been able to ascertain why the oldest Roman year was of ten months only, and how the remaining days were disposed of, we need not be surprised if the Taittirîya Samhitâ refrained from speculating on the point and contented itself with stating that such was the 'path' or the old custom or practice handed down from generation to generation from times immemorial.