Bicker man, ey demu Wagedets Arde 35, "2 OF APT _ stow omens _ am ner THE “ZOROASTRIAN“ CALENDAR* BBlias J. Blokerman, New York ‘The Arab conquest brought the Mohammedan lunar calendar to Persia ln A.D. 651, But the Persians rather used the vague solar year of 265 lays. (This was also the tax year.) Only in 1079 did a Seljug ruler reform the solar calendar by ordering the Intercalation of a day every four years. Muslim and Zoroastrian scholars of post Islamic Persia regarded the vague ‘Solar year asa relic ofthe Sassanid’ empire. This idea js confirmed by the Tact that solar years were counted from the accession (or from the death) fof Yazdagird III (63251), the last Sassanid ruler. Thus, the solar calen- ar of postislamic Porsia'can be regarded as the official reckoning of the later Sassanid empire 1 ‘The year of 965 days, being almost six hours shorter than the solar year, advances by about one day in four years.with regard to the sun. Recordingly, the fullen (and then our Gregorian) calendars insert Gn extta day every four years. But in the Persian solar year the days hanged thelr position backward with reference to the Jullan year at ‘very Dissextile of the later. Thus, the Persian New Year's day which fel ‘on 16 june in A. D. 6322 corresponded to 15 June in A.D. 638. Accordingly, ft synchronism between a day of this wandering year and a Jullan day ‘makes ft possible to reduce any date of the vague year to its Jullan equivalent By the some token, we can calculate the beginning of the Persian sckoning. Arab astronomers In agreement with contemporary Persian Sources (in Pablavt} assert that in prinetple the beginning of the Persian “Abbreviations: Birr Glam, Hyde, deer — se m1. Lawy =H, Lewy, Orton, {Toaen sae rane Ss nyborg, "estes oe 1: Yanan 3H Tale, ‘1a rattan Calendars (838) and transaid in Thomas, lyde, Veteruh afunacon Kana’ sto be Upate Unease sane, Bebihie der Perse (ord {esnal yore wer Curia fom isda Th, Now year was to coincide with “the entrance of the sun in the constellation ‘of Aries, that 1s the time of the vernal equinox As the rotating year fof 365 days goes backward one day every four years, it returns to Its ‘estronomical staring polat in 1460 Jullan years. Accordingly, B. W. West, from the Julian date of the Parsoe New Year in 1865 (the Parsees con tinue to use the Persian vague year) could easly compute the year in Which the Parsee New Year Would have occurred at the dato of the spring ‘equinox (March 27th}. This would have happened c. 505 B. C+ |. Marquart used the same method as West His point of reference, however, was the Cappadocian calendar which, as he believed, was ‘offshoot of the ancent Persian year. From the synchronism given in Grook sources: 1 Dathusios (Cappadocian) = 1 Thot (Egyptian) = 22 December (Julian) he calculated that 1 Fravartin, the beginning fof the Persian year, would have colncided with the vernal equinox c. 450 Bc. Impressive as these results are by thelr astronomical preciston, they fare based on some historical suppesitions ‘which are rather dubious. ‘There fs no proo{ that Fravartin was originally the first Persian month hor tha the year originally began at the timo of the spring equinox? Secondly, a calendar system may or may not be Introduced at Its New ‘Year. Thus, the Gregorian callendar began in England on September 3, 41732. In other words, we should not identify the starting point of a ca: lendar with the date of its introduction. On the other hand, according to the same Muslim scholars who informs us about the Persian vague ‘year, this year was not the original one, but came about by the neglect Of the last Sassanids. Before this, the Persian year was regulated and brought into conformity with the seasons by Intercalations. From Hyde point OY the ance Feat “Ck. Lewy, poze "nn "et Commer ae ne wes Sa ee one sa Ete ei TE Es wm coe Gee aS ata ce a igs raegearaweh ie haa he ig atoe re of pega ‘Wr tastcenee, ie enitehrjien der Winer Sect Sik Mae phae cat us tee So cipic Eatece Pi ga ee ens iri keene wey‘on (1700} modern scholars neglect this statement of our sources, and ohner suppose that the Persians had two solar years: the wandering one TaQveryday life and the intercalated one in religious life. There is no fevidence for this hypothesis. " ‘The Persian year was divided into twelve months of thirty days each plus five supplementary days. Every 120th year, however, the kings Inserfed the thirteenth month. The effect of this was that the New Year's Uay eould not retreat more than thirty days from the vernal equinox fand always remained in the sign of Aries. According to the astronomer ‘Abul Hasan Kushyar b. Labban (who died in 985), the mode of inter~ Calation was as follows: the first month of the next year was counted Gs the thirteenth monf*ot the year of intercalation, and the five epago- tenae were moved to the end of this first month. The supplementary days remained here until the next intercalation. The New Year now began with the previous second month? ‘This elegant solution has been accepted by modern historians. Yet it disagrees with the historical experience. Intercalary months and days postpone the future, they do not anticipate it. The Babylonian intercalary Routh was Addarw It (or Ulula 1} and not Nisannu. Among the pre- Islamic Arabs, if the intercalary month occupfed the place of the first (second, and so on) regular month, the next regular month received the name of the first month, and so on, so that the names of all the months were changed. When primitive tribes discover that a season, Say of the rains, continues beyond the usual date, they say, we have forgotten, now is the time of the rain month.!0 {In fact, as Birunt informs us, the intercalary months remained name- less, nor was there @ fixed position for the intercalary month. (The same is true for many primitive peoples.) As in pre-Islamic Arabia, the inter: telation passed through all twelve months. As Birunl says, to avoid the uncertainty as to the place of the next intercalary month, the Persians ‘moved the five epagomenae to the end of that month to which the turn tof intercalation had proceeded, This precaution was very useful. Among, eae, 3%, tn te aan tonne eee Tater's sraiary andesite years he foes belong vi" aigagrornent. with We tan also brings the a8" sac ie en Sree Sr ye Bee Ma sear mh Arar uso p24 On pre rcalation in Arabi ef. Birunh p. 62; Gina, 200 J. prckeRMan primitive tribes the intercalations often’ provoke quarrels as to the cor- Fectness of calculation.!* ee persian intercalation has been misunderstood by modem scholars wha nenone that the change in the position of the epagomenae must have ane vod the New Year's day. Thus, they imagine that when the residual dee. gcame placed after Fravartin, the first month, Artavahisht, the cays month of the series, opened the year. But the festival days are second rim their months. ‘The intercalations do not change the date arpossever, It was and is always celebrated on 14 Nisan. Likewise, Ot dha time of Birunt the New Year's day fell on 1 Fravartin, though the Chapomensi days stood after Avan, the elghth month. The intercalation eeatinism worked as follows: suppose that before the intercalation the retdwat days are attached to the month of Fravartin. In the year of inte ae aa ne epagomenal days will be moved to the end of Artavahisht, Gar toowing month, and a nameless period of thirty days will be in- ree aelatter for before?) this month. The next New Year, on 1 Fravartin, ‘will now coineide with the vernal equinox. nthe vagabond year of post-Sassanid Persia, the five supplementary ‘days stood ater the eighth month (Avan). Persian savants accordingly voting atest and last intercalation was the eighth. After- the Sassanids became disturbed by calamities wares caspoth their empire and thelr religion perished”. In this way, ana vesstan solar year became the vague year on account of neglected intercalation, “The last intercalation was the eighth, it means that it was carried out 120 x 8 = 960 years after the beginning of the Quib ad-din cycle, ou Jrastronomer of the fourteenth century, already noted.# The late a oan eotlected by Hyde in 1700 attributed the last intercalation to the ares cont King, Yazdagird III who reigned from 632 to 651. This brings weet Sestaning of the 960 year period to 328 B.C., that fs, to the time rae rewinger the Great. But Fréret in 1742 believed he had found a re of Alexantne use of the Persian reckoning as early as 580 B.C. in a Chi seeneetronomlcal book. He calculated that 560 B.C. would be the tenth Neer of an intercalation period of 120 years. In this way, he arrived at yeas BC. as the starting point of the Persian reckoning.* A generation “iBinitp. 44: Qu addin apd Hyde, p, 203, Qui a rocker Rpt t (asia) 274, The than source of Hyge wa rocketman, oy Caaylud Ea. Kennady, Transactions of the Ameren Palcsophca sey kav & pe t2s ne 8 Sh “reer oe Pancen Inserigtons, Ui (1731), B28 année des forse” In Mémotes de Académie des‘Te “Zoroastrian” Calends 201 tater, the astronomer J. S. Bailly, adducing some astronomical proofs, removed the beginning of the Persian calendary system to 3209 B.C. ailly, the future mayor of revolutionary Paris (and a victim of the Reign. Of Terror) was probably not averse to showing that the Zoroastrians had fcalendary system long before Moses and even before the Deluge. {_ B. Gibert was more prudent.5 In 1769 he tried to combine the data tof Arabic sources about the wandering year and about intercalation. His calculations established that 1 Fravartin in the vague year had coincided with the vernal equinox in 484—481. Thus, in 1768 he anticipated the hypo- thesis of J. Marquart published In 1905. On the other hand, following the aforementioned Kushyar (quoted by Hyde), he attributed the last Intercalation to Chosroes I (A.D. 531—79). This brought the date of the beginning of the cycle to 428381. He now supposed that the cycle began on March 12th in 424 B. C., when the first day of both the wandering and of the fixed year happened to coincide. ‘A century later, in 1862, A. von Gutschmid, as Fréret before him, based his calculations on the count of intercalations alone.15 Like Gibert, whom he neglects to mention, he placed the last intercalation under Chosroes 1 and naturally came to the same arithmetic result: the reckoning began between 428 and 361 B.C. As Fréret he belleved that the Armenian ca- Iendar simply continued the Persian system (though the Armenian year had no intercalation whatsoever). Noting that in 426 the Armenian ealendar would have disagreed by some days with the supposed calendary ‘schema of the Persian year, he supposed without @ shade of proof that the Persian calendar was started not on the first but on the nineteenth of Fravartin. In this way he came to the date 411 B.C. As late as 1939, ‘an American scholar asserted that Gutschmid for the first time had “cor~ rectly explained the arrangement of the Persian calendar”. In 1889 E. Drouin'8 returned to simple arithmetic, and counting back from Chos- oes’ accession (A.D. 531) arrived at 309 B.C. as the date of the first intercalation, He believed that before this date the Persians had @ wan dering year. ‘The latest, though probably not the last scholar wno again tried the same key to the same secret door, was S. H. Tagizadeh. Following Biruni, he placed the last intercalation under Yazdagird I (399-420), ‘and counting backward from A. D. 399, he arrived at 441 B.C. as the date for the establishment of the calendar. “This was the seventh Intercalation WT, & Baily, Histoire de Fastronomie ancienne, 2nd 64. (3781), p. 354 1 fm Gibert "Nouvelles observations sur Tennée des ancions Petsos", Mémoires VAcad. des Tnseripions, XXEI {1763}, p. 68. Ck. Hyde, p- 208; Idler, . 624: Ginza, im Gutschmid, and other ary ee eect ety as a i een seen ee 22 ©) BIoKERMAN when the seventh month (Mihr) had to be repeated according to the established rule.”!9 But Biruni does not say anything about the seventh intercalation or the month Mibr. Biruni rather says that Yazdagird 1 intercalated two months, one to rectify past deficiencies, and the other fas a precaution against future negligence. In Yazdagird's intercalation, fas Birunl expressly states, the turn came to Avan, the eighth month. Thus, it was the elghth Intercalation, and the cycle must have begun between 561 and 549 B.C. ‘As a matter of fact Birun! (A.D. 8731048) and other astronomers noticed that in the vague Persian year of their time the five residual days stood after the eighth month and not, as it would be natural to expect, fat the end of the year. (The epagomenal days were again placed after the twelfth month in 1006.) They supposed, and they were probably right, that the anomaly was caused by intercalations. They knew that the Persians intercalated complete months. They accordingly concluded that the latest Intercalation was the eighth. Unfortunately, they had no certain tradition as to the date of the last intercalation. Some assigned ito the reign of Yazdagird III, the last Sassanid. king, -others spoke of Chosroes I. Birunl attributed the rectification to Yazdagird 1, and he ‘was even able to give the name of the savant who carried out the inter- calation under Yazdagird 2 Unfortunately, in a later work (Qanun-t-Ma- sud), Birunt places the last intercalation under Peroz (459—84).3 Tagizadeh, p. 20. Otnerwise, the author supports his hypothesis with wnsupported suppositions ("it seems tome. Teasonsble to suppose") ole Psychological Kind. Forinstane, "is more likely” that the (supposed) teanafer of tho Porsan year near ‘saulnox was the year on which the Babylonian New Your also fell not far tne "same equinox (p.3}, and s0 on. In 1082, the author restetod is hyper in some changes (BSOAS, 14, p. 003). He now believes that the intercalation Tule was "theoretical aid without ‘any Sppleation in daily life” (p- 603), and that the Fabylonian calender seas the oftielat one probably ‘through. the wh postod (p. 604], Yet he atl belleves that the Egyptian year “pechaps” was edopted By'the Zoroastian community ¢. 505, places the, feginning of the intercalation system _ tthe y suesting (pei) hatte pealty that the Aehwemtatan ny gtidont of the question ter persal ot what hae een seid above” 3 piruns, p45. Ch Birunl, The Book ‘of Instructions in the Blements of of Astrology, transl. RR. Weight {1094} p. 100 n. 274" the last Persian boecured in ihe month of Aben. The five supplementary days are inserted aftr ADA Se an indeation of th which Was last dup "H The epagomenal days continued tobe placed after the eighth month inthe Ccasplan province and. in Khorasan. SH. Taglzedeh, BSOAS, 0. (1957 puruntp. 45. Chosroes, revised aso (1903) p-243~E. 8: Kennedy, 8. L van den We {fo Mirvak at Gann at-Maswdt as quoted in 5. Tagizadeh, BSOAS, 9 (1937-1030) liront hésrd that an assembly of astronomers had. verified astronomical tables fn, the twenty-fth year of a Persian king. But he could ‘not ascertain whether ts ‘was Chosroes I Chosroes Il ot some other, Sassanid ‘STeqhaaeh, p. 37" a, BSOAS, 9 (19371090), 135. The passage in question ‘can now be found in the Hyderabad edition of Birun?'s Qanum 1" (1084), p. 132" the Jast of the intereelations was tn the days of Peroz, son of Youdagled. (I owe. tis {information to my collengue Gerson Cohen.)he "Zoroastra 203 1 am unprepared to choose between these kings I must confess, owever, that the Idea of intercalation carried on each 120 years duritg hhowtyennium, from the Achaemenids to the Sassantds, does not stitse a vrata probable conjecture? It is dificult to believe that in the Hitt ime ury B.C. the Persians had the capacity for such ideas. When Darius t (ent to instruct his Ionian officers, who were fellow-citizens of Thales od Pythagoras, to wait sixty days for im, he gave them a plece of 9px, ath city knots and told them to untie one of the knots day after day Witt Siuner probable that the Persian intercalated haphazardly, according te seed and that the theory of the 120-years intercalation was invented (0) the Zoroastrian savants of post-Islamic Persia to account for the po- Rluom of the epagomenal days in the wandering year. tn 1941 Hildegard Lewy propounded a more complex theory. ‘The vague your of 365 days was established by Mithridates II of Parthia c, 220 B.&.; yout atercalation was introduced by Ardashir 1 in A. D. 228 but there wore Wo systems of intercalations, one in the religious another in the lil (wieder, Unfortunately, the learned author bases her theory on astro- ca iercal calculations which in turn depend on arbitrary conjectures, Thus, Romani says that when kings transferred their residence from Balkh {eastern Bactria) to Persis and Babylon (that is in the age of Cyrus (eehethaps, in Parthian times) they corrected the calendar by five Gaye with reference to the summer solstice Birun\’s modern inter: Grater substituts a Sassanid for a mythical king and instead) of prestice speaks of vernal equinox. Having found that in A. D. 226, setording. to her calculations, the month of Mihr would have co- ixGed with the sun in Aries, the modern author decides that at this time Mihr was the first month of the year, and therefore Ardashir 1 was the reformer spoken of by Biruni.® m Let us now pass from speculation to fact. The Sassanid calendar, ‘as it is known. to us from Birunt and other Islamic sources, betrays the Great influence of Zoroastrianism in the month names, and. particularly, Ai the names of days” (Each day had its proper name which was the Higgins, op. ett, votes for Yantagird 1, Lawy, p. 27, proters Chosroes 1 3 Hints Paay emphasized the improbabiity of the tmerealtory cycle B Ntrod 4, 9, 2B Nitseon,'p. 243. A Fablavl text (Denkart) forbids months at once. Nyborg, "Texte", p- 38, gs At once NeeBirun p, 2. Names of months and days in the Chorezmian catonde, iby xe’ moral ibe younger Avestan reckoning.” But the evidence {= {fom the Vil c.A.D. WB. Henning, Asta Major ie. ste VU AP nat the use of Fligious day, names betrays the Eayetian origin of the Zoroastrian calendar (Nyberg, p. 377 fs unfounded, The Egypt of the Zora ca re the Persian did Cl. also St. Wikander, Fewerpriester (1940), pr'208" S: Weinstock, TRS, 19 (1945), p. 57, sealing more than five 204 J, BICKERMAN same In all months. For instance, the first day of each month was named after the supreme god Aburamazda.) “Accordingly, Iranists believe that the initial date of this calendar must give us a fixed point in the history of the Zoroastrian religion. “This ts the only concrete evidence of the Achaemenids accepting Zoroastrian ideas" Haunted by this idea, the Iranists accept with docility any date suggested by chronologists for the establishment of the calendar, be it 485, 411, or 441 B.C. Asa matter of fact, there is no necessary connection between the invention of names of months and days used in a calendar and the date of its introductions! The names of our months had been in use long before Caesar established the Julian calendar. Let us deal with each problem seperately: first the Zoroastrian names, then the Sas- santa calendar. ‘Islamic sources which give the names of months and days in the Sas sanid calendar are confirmed by documentary evidence. Thus the name of the month “Spandarmat” occurs in Persian papyri written in Egypt ©. A.D. 62032 A royal inscription found at Bishapur was erected under Shapur I in the month of “Fravardin”, which was, as the text implies,— the first month of the year at this time. The Pahlavi graffiti painted in the synagogue of Dura-Europus in the fourteenth and fifteenth years of the same king mention the months "“Fravardin” and “Mihr" and the day “Rashnu"5S "An inscription of Artabanus (V), the last Arsacid king 1s dated: “Year 462, (month) Spandarmat, day of Mibr.” A Pahlavi contract written in the year "300", that is, probably, in A.D. 54/55, refers to the month of “Harvatat”.3 Aramaic ostraca from Parthian Nisa preserve accounts Gated by months and days of the “Zoroastrian” calendar. One of these texts has been published. It contains the name of the month Hrut that 1s “Harvatat"2% This ostracon written in 90 B.C. is the earliest datable evidence as yet for the “Zoroastrian” calendar. On the other hand, the Gocuments from the treasury of Persepolis prove that as late as 459 B. C. the Zoroastrian month and day names were not used by the Achaemenid. ‘Thus, the Zoroastrian names for months and days were introduced in SWCitiean, The Meules and the Persona (2066), p. 274. Cf. ten Nyberg. p36. |, Ducheane-Oullemin, ‘Le-religion de iran ancien (1962), p. 20, RN. Frye, The hiertape'of Persie (2903), p. 199; 1 Gerschevitch, INES, 23 (3804), p21. ‘S7° Dlchesne-Gullenin, op. cp. 108 has already made this obser 3 6, Htansone ADhanalungen der’ Preuf. Akad. 1997, 3 Faye, op, itp 100, 5. Kraeling, “The Synagogue” of Dura Buropes, ty 1 (1856) sta Major, 2, (3952), p. 170, S:W. 8 Henning: “tranath (2958), p. 20 in B. Spuer’s Handbuch der Orientals 2 Yih Diakongy, WLivaiay Documenty” iz Moy (1900), p. 22, 08 2107. Prot. iaxontv kingly Informs: me tat’ new and very Interesting material from Nisa con Cusning month names is going to be Published by Prot Lvahiz. The Aramaic inscription SU Nagur-tusam wien exit the proper name soleus" and mentions the mond aaa mat’ iz of uncertain date. Herselg, alperssche Inschrijien (1938), p. 125 wi B"Henming. op. cit, p24. CL. also J. de Monasce, J. As, 241 (1958), p. 426 20 "0 in The Excavations‘The “Zoroastrian” Calendar 205, the Persian official calendar between 459 and 90 B.C. My guess is that the “Zoroastrian” calendar was brought by the Parthians from Central Asia. ‘As to the solar calendar, the Behistun inscription of Darius I and the accounts from Persepolis prove that from the beginning and until 459 B.C, at least, the Achaemenids used. the Babylonian lunisolar calendar, though they substituted Iranian names for the Babylonian in tranian documents? Further, Aramaic documents from Egypt prove that from 471 to 401, at least, the Persian administration used the same Babylonian talendar3® Since almost all of these Aramaic documents happened to come from the Jewish military colony at Elephantine, the reckoning was regarded as Jewish, I often protested against this misunderstanding.» ‘A newly published Aramaic papyrus written for a Sidontan, probably ‘at Abydos, in 417 B.C. and dated 3 Kislev = 11 Thod confirms my view. ‘Thirdly, Aramaic papyti from Samaria prove that the Imperial admint- stration continued to use the Babylonian lunisolar calendar until the end of the Achaemenids! The Macedonian rulers of Iran followed this practice, ‘in the absence of dated documents of the fourth century, we cannot prove or disprove the assumption that the Achaermenids continued to use the Babylonian Iunisolar calendar until their fall, but it Is quite likely.#. ‘The same 1s true for the first 250 years of the Arsacids, as a Greek letter of Artabanus III of the year A. D. 21 proves? But the above-mentioned inscription of Artabanus V which contains the “Zoroastrian” name of the month “Spandarmat” and of the day “Mihr”” poses a problem, The inscription was engraved in the year “462” of the ‘Arsacid era. The years of this reckoning, starting from the spring of 247 B.C., were the Babylonian lunisolar months. Did the Arsacids, as the ‘Achaemenids before them, substitute Iranian names for the Babylonian ames of months and days in documents written in Parthian and other 2 A, Kowbet, AfSt, 99 (4938), p. 190; 6. 6. Cameron, Persepolis Treasury Fablete (1946). aie Geraheviten, Astd Major, 11 {2981} p. 158. GG. Cameron, INES XXIV (196): 7, BaP” Cowley, Aramaic Papyrl (123), Ne 5 and &. G. Kracling, The Arookiyr ‘Museum Aramate Pepyrt (1953), 38 10. ony Chrondlogle (1839), p18 and my La eronologla nel mondo antico (1963), p37 a Prenldor, Syria, 41 (964), p. 285, ap a ross, “iblical \Arenaelogist XVI (1963), p. 110 ff. quote “20 Adar, your 2 (whieh a} the accession yeor of ‘Darius (111) the i Ti, 3"%o “aoscetbing’ a testval. of $32°8, C. says thet 365. young men’ followed {he Bagh inthe procession ‘before ‘Darius “II, lebus ols 'annt pares “numero, ltuippe'Bersts quogue tn totidem dies dlacriptus est ants, ‘This shows thatthe Persian ia iknow that the solar year consisted of 305 days. The Babylonians. Greeks, Tews {nd oon, also Knew this elomentary fact, but thelr calendars remained 1 ECG. Weiles, Royal Correspondence’ (1938), 34.75. 206 Ef. BICKERMAN Iranian languages? The Manicheans did it, and the preserved equations: 4Shahrevar = 4 Addaru and 8 Mihr = 8 Nisanu prove that the first month of the Iranian year (Fravardin) corresponded to the Babylonian Tashritu, ‘The Manicheans may have followed the Arsacid practice. Yet, we must keep in mind the possibility that the Arsacids (or the later Arsacids at least) used two eras both starting in the spring of 247 B.C., one in Baby- onian lunisolar style, and another, in Iranian documents, which was reckoned in solar years. In post-Islamic Iran the Hegira era was counted both in Mohammedan lunar years and for taxation purposes in solar years. ‘The post-tslamic sources tell us that the Sassanids used the solar calendar in the whole empire5 But there is no documentary evidence fas yet for thelr practice. The Sassanids were wary of giving chrono- logical references in their inscriptions. Shapur 1 could relate his vic- torious campaigns and a grandee commemorate the building of a bridge ‘without any date.# As a matter of fact, the functioning of the Sassanid ‘solar calendar is unknown as yet. The synchronisms known as yet are raret? and often, as for instance the dates of Mant's life,® uncertain. ‘We are unable to say when and why the Sassanids introduced the solar calendar. Its derivation from the Egyptian year is rather doubtful. The ‘schematic year of twelve months and 360 (or 365) days was practised by many peoples besides the Egyptians. Fréret already quoted the ‘example of the Aztecs. In pre-Spanish Peru the year also consisted ot 42X30 +5 days. In Vedic sources, the year was divided into twelve months of thirty days each. The Babylonians as well as the Athenians in business life, for instance in calculating interest, and for fiscal account- Ing used the standard month of thirty days. The same is true for Babylo- ian (and Assyrian) religious fasti, The Persepolis tablets show that the Persian administration used the same conventional time-unit for pay- ments in kind (grain, wine and so on) to workers.#? Thus, the Sassanid BW. B. Menning, RAS (1944), p. 140; id, Asia Major, 3. (1952) p, 200. The Zoroastrian thecloglas combined thelr theory of welve mifennla of the world with toe Babylonian (Seleucid) ere from S11 B.C. Cl. H. Lewy, 1408, 64 (1944), p38 eausTulzagon ai (0, p90 8. Kenny, Bev wherdn, Jad, 73 Pi facade, aS04S, 9 (109-190), 25 4 Bina peal oA Marea, Classe ot Orientala (1985), p. 7; W. B. Wenning, Asta Major, 4 co95g) 538 i * ‘ilggins op. cit, p. 35. Royal horoscopes of Sassanids are later computations. , Pingree, JA08, 82 (1962), p. 18, air b Mening, Asta Major, 3 (1952), p. 198; 5. H, Tagladeh, op. city & (1957) 107; Maricg, op. elt p. 0. icveret {a i3},’pr 298; Sonthetmer RE, 10, 40 (on Athens). The Babylonians widely wsed, the’ setae esiendar af thiry-day months, Ct 0. Neugebauer, [WES, 4 e400" S: Langdon, Babylonian. Meologie (1045); R- Labat, Hemérotogles’et Inanologhes ascur {i8%0]° The compendium. mul Apin offers a schematic lst of TE 0" days for ealculating celestial poenomens {Scorpio rises onthe fifth day of te ignth month, and so on). the year begs wih the appearance of Aries. W. K-Peitcet,‘The “Zoroastrian” Calendar 207 year may be an adaptation of a fiscal or sacral year of great antiquity. It may be the Sassanid answer to the Julien year. There were several focal forms of the Julian calendar arranged according to the scheme O12 X 30 +5 days: in Ascalon, Gaza, Cappadocia, and the Roman pro- ince of Arabia, organized in A.D. 105. Yet, these calendars of Zgyption type were Roman innovations.‘° Was the Sassanid calendar an innova- tion? We just do not know, ‘Our conclusions are as follows: 1) The Achaemenids used the Baby- nian lunisolar calendar. 2) The Arsacid used the same calendar, yet the possibility cannot be excluded that they may also have used the solar year in Iranian documents, 3) The functioning of the Sassanid solar year Femains unknown, though the post-lslamic sources mention an inter- talation in the fifth century A.D. 4) The use of Zoroastrian names for months and days is first attested in 90 B.C, 5) These results concern nly the official calendar. As in post-Islamic Pessia and in modern ‘Afghanistan! there could have been other calendars used locally or {or different purposes. 1, 1, van der Waeedon, in Neate year, et tnzel 376. On accouniing in Perse exon, 1950)", 'p.79. The Imonth of thety daye, are Very tea) p18. ‘e the Hatedonian month and the corresponding Semitic letin_ de comespondence hellénigue, LXXXV (1964), p42 ‘inde Classique, 1 (1953), Dylonian accounts, which ore based on the schematle imflar. Ci. e.g, F. X. Kugler, Sternkunde .--ln Babylon, snes of th Julian calendar of the province of Arabi, jonth nares (Nisan, and s0 00) in Nabutaesn iscrip- lions show thet before the annexation ‘of the. Nabateoon kingdom and. organization of the prowince de lunisolar calendar, probably of the Selevcid i (1982), pp. 10, 20, 24, and 20 9. 108, ‘The inscription In Centinea, p. 18 15 tatereating. It Is ar 205, “according to the counting of the Romans that te the Seleucid era’ (A. D. 9), 'W'S.'H Tagizadet, BSOAS, 9 (1937-1095), p. 207; W. Lentz, Abhandl. der Preup. ‘Akad, 1956, Ne? "There. existed ables which gave eppronimeic” equations. betwoen islamic and Persian ealendars. Ct. 8. Spuler, Byzantin. Zettsehr, 44 (1051), P- B40.