Given that annual fluctuations in solar irradiation become less pronounced the closer you get to the equator, it might get less relevant to track time by referring to our position to the sun?
Very interesting question.
I don’t think so. Lunar calendars are just simply easier and more relevant to keep track of (eg, when to plant and when to harvest), so it made more sense to use those initially. Wasn’t it only like 500 years ago that Europe switched to a solar calendar? And that was primarily for religious reasons, iirc.
Not a history buff, but that was my impression.
But the moon cycles do not match the seasonal (solar) cycles no?
If you plant every six full moons, you end up planting in the winter at some point?
But then again, this only applies to higher latitudes.
Yeah, but my impression has been that there was no need to keep perfect time - good enough and easy to keep track of were the priority.
Like in the Roman times, they only had 10 months in a year. Not because each month was longer, but simply because they didn’t bother to keep track of the time during the 2 winter months (it was unproductive anyways, and so there was no need to keep track of the time). I can definitely see the use of a system in which the first month of the year is just defined as “the moon cycle when you start planting seeds.” And any deviation is just swept under the rug as “winter month weirdness.”
As a matter of fact, my impression has generally been that most (or all?) lunar calendars define their first month as the moon cycle that contains the spring equinox, likely for the exact reason that that’s when you start planting crops
