CALENDARS

i. Pre-Islamic calendars .

ii. In the Islamic period .

iii. Afghan calendars .

iv. Other modern calendars .

 

i . Pre-Islamic Calendars

Although evidence of calendrical traditions in Iran can be traced back to the 2nd millennium B.C., before the lifetime of Zoroaster (see discussion of the Zoroas­trian calendar below), the earliest calendar that is fully preserved dates from the Achaemenid period.

The Old Iranian calendar . The Old Persian calendar was lunisolar, like that of the Babylonians, with twelve months of thirty days each; the days were numbered but not named (with the exception of the last day of the month, Jiyamna “the decreasing one(?)” in the ex­pression Jiyamnam patiy , DB 2.62; Kent, Old Persian , pp. 122, 124). Only eight month names are mentioned in the Old Persian inscriptions (cf. Kent, Old Persian , pp. 128, 131; see also individual months): ?dukanaiša (Kent, Old Persian , p. 167; Brandenstein and Mayrhofer, p. 101, with refs.; Cornillot; lit. meaning and ety­mology uncertain), Θ?rav?hara, possibly “(month) of strong spring” (Kent, Old Persian , p. 188; cf. Branden­stein and Mayrhofer, p. 147), Θ?igraciš “garlic-­collecting month” (Kent, p. 187, with ref. to Justi), Garmapada “heat-station (month)” (Kent, Old Per­sian , p. 183), B?gay?diš, probably “(month) of the worship of baga (i.e., Miθra)” (Kent, Old Persian , p. 199, and b?gay?diš), ?çiy?diya  “(month) of the worship of the fire” (Kent, Old Persian , p. 166), An?maka “month of the nameless god(?)” (Kent, Old Persian , p. 167), and Viyax(a)na “digging-up (month)” (Kent, Old Persian , p. 208). The Old Persian names of the remaining four are known in Elamite transcription, but only two—the eight and the eleventh—have re­ceived probable etymologies (for the remaining two see Hinz, pp. 68-69): *Vrkazana “(month) of wolf killing,” Elamite Mar-ka-ca-na° (DB 3.88; Kent, Old Persian , pp. 126, 128; Weissbach, 1911, pp. 56-57; cf. Branden­stein and Mayrhofer, p. 152; Hinz, p. 68), and *Θwayauv? “the terrible one,” Elamite Samiyamaš/Samiyamantaš (Hinz, p. 69, comparing Av. θβa­iiahuuant - “terrible”; cf. the Ossetic name of January/February: “month of threat”). The absence of the three other names and uncertainty about the order of the months led H. C. Rawlinson, J. Oppert, G. F. Unger, F. Justi, J. Prášek, and J. Markwart to propose different sequences (cf. Ginzel, I, p. 296 table), which were shown to be incorrect after A. Poebel (1938, pp. 130-65, 285-314; 1939, pp. 121-45) was able to specify the three missing names from newly discovered Akkadian and Elamite sources. A list of Old Persian month names (only partial in Old Persian script but complete in Elamite script) is thus available for com­parison with the lists in Elamite and Babylonian (see Table 20 ).

As E. J. Bickerman has shown, the Achaemenids used the lunisolar calendar at least until 459 B.C. Between 471 and 401 the Babylonian calendar was still used in Aramaic documents issued by the Persian administration (almost all found at the colony of Elephantine in Egypt). The testimony of Quintus Curtius Rufus (3.3.10) Magos trecenti et sexaginta quinque iuvenes sequebantur puniceis amiculis velati, diebus totius anni pares numero; quippe Persis quoque in totidem dies descriptus est annus (The magi were followed by three hundred and sixty-five young men clad in purple robes, equal in number to the days of a whole year; for the Persians also divided the year into that number of days), referring to the year 333 B.C., seems to indicate the existence of a somewhat later solar calendar, though opinions differ on this point (Bickerman, 1967, p. 205 n. 41).

Another problem is posed by the system of interca­lation used in the Achaemenid calendar, for which no direct and explicit testimony survives. Hallock (1969, p. 74) maintains that the Old Persian calendar followed the same system of intercalation as the Babylonian calendar. Hartner’s interpretation differs: “The Old Persian and the Babylonian calendars will then have had different systems of intercalation. The latter we have seen operated with irregular, empirical Ul?lu and Add?ru intercalations down to 527, then passed over to the octaëteris and finally, when in the 19th year of Darius the beginning of the year coincided with spring equinox, to the 19-year cycle” (1985, p. 747).

Bibliography :

T. Benfey and M. A. Stem, Ueber die Monatsnamen einiger alter Völke? … , Berlin, 1836.

E. J. Bickerman, “The "Zoroastrian" Calendar,” Archív orientální 35, 1967, pp. 197-207.

R. Borger, Die Chronologie des Darius-Denkmals am Behistun-Felsen , Göttingen, 1982.

Boyce, Zoroastrianism II, pp. 23-25.

W. Brandenstein and M. Mayrhofer, Handbuch des Altpersischen , Wies­baden, 1964.

G. G. Cameron, Persepolis Treasury Tablets , Chicago, 1948.

F. Cornillot, “Le secret d’ Adukanaiš ,” IIJ 24, 1982, pp. 205-13.

W. Eilers, Der alte Name des persischen Neujahrfestes , Abh. der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse, Wiesbaden, 1953, no. 2.

R. Fruin, “Der Anfang des susischen Jahres I: Zur Zeit der elamitischen Könige; II: Zur Zeit der persischen Könige,” Acta Orientalia 13, 1935, pp. 319-23.

I. Gershevitch, “No Old Persian sp?θmaida,” in Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic, and Typological Linguistics. Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi … , ed. B. Brogyanyi, I, Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 290-95.

F. K. Ginzel, Handbuch der mathe­matischen und technischen Chronologie I, Leipzig, 1906, pp. 275-98.

L. H. Gray, “Calendar (Persian),” in J. Hastings, ed., Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics III, Edinburgh, 1910, pp. 128-31.

Idem, “The Iranian Calendar,” in Zoroastrian Studies , 2nd ed., New York, 1965, pp. 124-31.

R. T. Hallock, Perse­polis Fortification Tablets , Chicago, 1969, pp. 74-75.

W. Hartner, “Old Iranian Calendars,” in Camb. Hist. Iran II, 1985, pp. 714-92.

W. Hinz, Neue Wege im Altpersischen , Wiesbaden, 1973, pp. 64-70 (names of months).

S. H. Horn and L. H. Wood, “The Fifth-­Century Jewish Calendar at Elephantine,” JNES 13, 1954, pp. 1-20.

T. Hyde, Veterum Persarum et Par­thorum et Medorum Religionis Historia , 2nd ed., Oxford, 1760.

F. Justi, “Die altpersischen Monate,” ZDMG 51, 1897, pp. 233-51.

A. Kohut, “The Tal­mudic Records of Persian and Babylonian Festivals Critically Illustrated,” AJSLL 14, 1897-98, pp. 183­-94.

H. Lewy, “Le calendrier perse,” Orientalia , 1941, pp. 1-64.

Th. Nöldeke, “Zur persischen Chrono­logie,” ZDMG 50, 1896, p. 141.

J. Oppert, “Le calendrier perse,” in Actes du onzième Congrès International des Orientalistes I, Paris, 1897, pp. 327-48.

Idem, “Der Kalender der alten Perser,” ZDMG 52, 1898, pp. 259-70.

J. A. Paine, “The Eclipse of the 7th Year of Cambyses,” JAOS 14, 1890, pp. xl-xliii.

A. Poebel, “The Names and the Order of the Old Persian and Elamite Months during the Achaemenid Period,” AJSLL 55, 1938, pp. 130-41.

Idem, “Chronology of Darius’ First Year of Reign,” AJSLL 55, 1938, pp. 142-65, 285-314.

Idem, “The Duration of the Reign of Smerdis the Magian and the Reigns of Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzar IV,” AJSLL 56, 1939, pp. 121-45.

Idem, “Critical Note. The King of the Persepolis Tablets the Nineteenth Year of Artaxerxes,” AJSLL 61, 1939, pp. 301-04.

J. Prášek, “Die ersten Jahre Dareios’ des Hystaspiden and der altpersische Kalender,” Beiträge zur alten Geschichte I/1, Leipzig, 1901, pp. 26-50.

M. Sprengling, “Chronological Notes from the Aramaic Papyri. The Jewish Calendar. Dates of the Achaemenians (Cyrus-Darius IV),” AJSLL 27, 1910-­1911, pp. 233-66.

S. H. Taqizadeh, “Sur le calendrier iranien,” in Atti del XIX Congresso Internazionale degli Orientalisti , Rome, 1935, pp. 268-75.

Idem, G?hšom?r? dar ?r?n-e qad?m , Tehran, 1316 Š./1937.

Idem, Old Iranian Calendars , London, 1938.

Idem, “The Old Iranian Calendars Again,” in Studies Presented to Vladimir Minorsky , BSOS 14, 1952, pp. 603-11.

F. H. Tolman, “Ancient Persian Month Garmapada,” American Journal of Philology 32, 1911, pp. 444-45.

F. H. Weissbach, “Über einige neuere Arbeiten zur babylonischen Chronologie,” ZDMG 55, 1901, pp. 195-220.

Idem, “Zur neubabylonischen und achämenidischen Chronologie,” ZDMG 62, 1908, pp. 629-47.

Idem, Keilinschriften der Achämeniden , Leipzig, 1911, p. lxxi.

The Seleucid and Parthian calendar systems . Alex­ander probably used the Macedonian calendar, but the Achaemenid system seems not to have been abolished. In the time of Seleucus I (321-281 B.C.) the Babylonian calendar was adopted, but the original names of the months were replaced by the Macedonian names, in which N?sannu corresponded to Artemisios and so on (cf. Bickerman, 1980, p. 20). The Arsacid kings fol­lowed the same practice, but it appears from material discovered at Nisa (2nd-1st century B.C.) and Avroman (1st cent. a.d.) that the Zoroastrian solar calendar (see below) was also used. The names of the months are shown in Table 21 . The names of the days are only partly attested (see Boyce, pp. 814-15). For dates in documents using the Seleucid calendar, see dating.

 

Bibliography :

E. J. Bickerman, “Notes on Seleucid and Parthian Chronology,” Berytus 7/2, 1944, pp. 73-83.

Idem, “The "Zoroastrian" Calendar,” Archív orientální 35, 1967, pp. 197-207. Idem, Chronology of the Ancient World , 2nd ed., London, 1980.

M. Boyce, “Iranian Festivals,” in Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, pp. 792-815. I. M. D’yakonov and V. Livshits, Dokumenty iz Nisy , Moscow, 1960.

J. Harmatta, “Late Bactrian Inscriptions,” Acta Anti­qua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 17, 1969, pp. 297-432.

J. Oppert, “L’éclipse lunaire de l’an 232 de l’ère des Arsacides (23 mars 24 a. J.-C.),” ZA 4, 1889, pp. 174-85.

R. Schmitt, “Zu den alten armeni­schen Monatsnamen,” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 6, pp. 91-100.

The Zoroastrian calendar . Reconstruction of a calendrical tradition from before the time of Zoroaster is based on hypothetical derivations from Avestan texts and on comparison with the Vedic tradition (see Taqizadeh, 1938, pp. 10-11; Hartner, pp. 749-55). The precise differences between a supposed Old Avestan and a Later Avestan calendar seem ambiguous, however, given that both have been reconstructed on the basis of the same Avestan and Pahlavi sources. In Belardi’s view (pp. 113-49) the earliest calendar may originally have been lunar and sidereal, consisting of thirteen months of twenty-seven days (27.3 x 13 = 354.9 days), with Miθra at the midpoint of each. Traces of a synodical cycle have also been transmitted in the Avesta, however (cf. M?h yašt 2: “fifteen days the moon waxes, fifteen days the moon wanes”). Traces of an ancient lunar calendar also persisted in the Pahlavi texts (cf. Belardi, passim), especially the D?nkard (bk. 3, ed. Madan, I, pp. 274-76; ed. Dresden, pp. 624-23; tr. Menasce, pp. 262-64), where there is a description of a lunar year used by Zoroastrians (cf. Harmer, 1985, pp. 778-79).

The Zoroastrian calendar consisted of twelve months of thirty days each (cf. Y. 16.3-6; see S?-r?zag xwurdag and S?-r?zag wuzurg , Dhabhar, pp. 175-81, 223-59; Table 22 , Table 23 ), Avestan sources give the names of all thirty days but of only seven of the twelve months (cf. Belardi, p. 77). That the names of the days are of Old Iranian origin and not merely Middle Iranian inno­vations may be inferred from the fact that they are recorded in their correct Old Iranian genitive singular forms, governed by an understood “day of.” The internal structure of the months has been considered by different scholars to have been quadripartite (Nyberg, 1931, pp. 128-34) or bipartite (Lewy, p. 64 n. 2). Belardi (pp. 59-139) attempted to establish the central position of Miθra (the fourteenth of twenty-seven days was named Mihr).

This lunar calendar, with the addition of the epact in each year, became the Sasanian “civil” calendar. In a second calendar, the cumulative lag of an additional quarter-day per year was corrected, theoretically at least, by the intercalation of one month in every 120 years. According to B?r?n? ( ???r , p. 11; tr. Sachau, pp. 12-13; but see D?nkard , bk. 3, ed. Madan, I, pp. 402­-05; ed. Dresden, pp. 519-16; tr. Menasce, pp. 374-79), another system of intercalation was also used: insertion of one month in every 116 years in order to recover the quarter-days plus an additional one-fifth of an hour per year.

The date on which the intercalary calendar was introduced is a matter of debate. W. E. West put it in 505 B.C. (pp. xxvii-xlvii), Markwart lowered it to 493­-90 (Marquart, p. 210 n. 1), and Taqizadeh proposed 441 (1938, pp. 36-37). All these hypotheses are based on the same assumptions about the way in which interca­lations were performed in the 120-year system. The first intercalary month was supposed to have been inserted after the twelfth month of the 120th year and to have been given the same name as the first month of the year. The five Gathic days were then inserted after the extra month in order to avoid confusion. In this way the first month of the intercalated calendar corresponded to the second month of the civil calendar; after another 120 years the first month corresponded to the third month in the civil calendar and so on until the eighth addition, after which intercalation was no longer practiced. Multiplying the 120 years of the cycle by the number of intercalations made should thus yield the full number of years in which the calendar was in use, and simple subtraction should produce the date on which the calendar was introduced.

The sources are contradictory, however. The astron­omer Abu’l-?asan K?šy?r (fl. ca. 990/1000; Ger. tr., p. 291) reported that in the time of ?osrow II (531-79) the sun entered Aries in ??ar and the five epagomenal days were added at the end of ?b?n (the eighth month and thus the eighth intercalation); then following the fall of the Sasanian empire intercalation was no longer practiced until it was reintroduced in 375 Yazdegerd? (a.d. 1006). B?r?n? ( ???r , p. 45; tr. Sachau, pp. 55-56), on the other hand, declared that in the time of Yazdegerd b. Š?p?r (399-420) two extra months were inserted, one to correct the cumulative lag, the other to forestall future errors. On that occasion, too, the epagomenal days were added at the end of ?b?n.

Taqizadeh (1938, pp. 36-37), relying on B?r?n?, took the first year of the reign of Yazdegerd I as his point of reference and, multiplying 120 by 7 (the 8th interca­lation being for the future), arrived at 441 B.C. for the date on which this system of intercalations was intro­duced. This and other solutions have been contradicted, however, by the documents assembled by Bickerman (1967, pp. 197-207); the earliest (aside from the Avesta) in which the use of the Zoroastrian calendar is attested is an ostracon referring to the month Hrwt (Av. Haurvat?t?) of the year 90 B.C. (see also Boyce, 1970).

More recently (1985, pp. 759-72) Hartner, noted that the shorter, 116-year cycle of intercalations would accord well (at the beginning dates) with the sidereal year (365.25636 days; multiplying B?r?n?’s figures yields 365.2586 days), and, from comparisons with later dates and with the Egyptian (S?thic) calendar, arrived at the date 503 for the introduction of the Zoroastrian calendar. Nevertheless, the problem remains open (cf. Bickerman, 1983).

The late Avestan (probably Sasanian) text ?fr?nag?n g?h?nb?r 3.2, 7-12, and Pahlavi texts mention six seasonal holidays ( g?h?nb?r ; see Table 24 ), the origins of which are problematic (Taqizadeh, 1939, pp. 6-12). Hartner (1985, pp. 749-56) maintains that they were fixed on the basis of observations at Persepolis of the acronical risings and cosmical settings (observable at sunset and sunrise respectively) of different stars in the late 6th century B.C. The intervals between the g?h?nb?r were sixty days from the first to the second, seventy-five from the second to the third, thirty from the third to the fourth, eighty from the fourth to the fifth, seventy-five from the fifth to the sixth, and forty-five from the sixth to the first ( ?fr?nag?n 3.7-13; cf. B?r?n?, ???r , pp. 215-­33; tr. Sachau, pp. 199-219).

The five days of the epact took their names from the five Gathas, which have been transmitted with several variants in the Zoroastrian literature (cf. Belardi, pp. 77-81). B?r?n? ( ???r , pp. 43-44; tr. Sachau, pp. 53­-54) mentions six different sets of names for the epago­menal days. In the district of Natanz, among others, the epagomenal days are still inserted after the eleventh month, Bahman.

In addition to information on the standard Zoroas­trian calendar and its variants, B?r?n? ( ???r , p. 11; tr. Sachau, p. 13) reported that the so-called “P?šd?dian” kings of the Persians had calculated the length of the year as 360 days, with twelve months of thirty days each. Every six years an intercalary month was inserted and every 120 years two months, in the first instance to recover five days for each year (the uncomputed epago­menal days), in the second to recover the remaining quarter-days. It is doubtful, however, that such a calendar ever existed (Hartner, 1985, p. 750 n. 2; Belardi, p. 82).

Bibliography :

J. S. Bailly, Histoire de l’astronomie ancienne … , 2nd ed., Paris, 1781.

W. Belardi, Studi Mithraici e Mazdei , Rome, 1977.

E. J. Bickerman, “The "Zoroastrian" Calendar,” Archív orientální 35, 1967, pp. 197-207.

Idem, “Time-Reckoning,” in Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, pp. 778-91.

M. Boyce, “On the Calendar of the Zoroastrian Feasts,” BSOAS 33, 1970, pp. 513-39.

W. B. Hen­ning, “An Astronomical Chapter of the Bundahishn,” JRAS , 1942, pp. 229-48.

K. R. Cama, “The Zoroas­trian Calendar,” in Spiegel Memorial Volume , ed. J. J. Modi, Bombay, 1908, pp. 230-36.

Idem, “The Inter­val of Time between one Gahambar and Another,” in Actes du 6e Congrès International des Orientalistes III, Leiden, 1885, pp. 583-92.

E. Cavaignac, “Note on the Origin of the Zoroastrian Calendar (tr. H. D. Banaji),” Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute 22, 1932, pp. 1-6.

Idem, “Note sur l’origine du calendrier zoroastrien,” JA 202, 1923, pp. 106-10.

J. Darmesteter, Le Zend-Avesta , Paris, 1892; repr. 1960, I, pp. 33-41.

B. N. Dhabhar, ed., Zand i K?rtak Avist?k , Bombay, 1927; Eng. tr. Bombay, 1963.

J. Duchesne-Guillemin, “Yasna 45 and the Iranian Calendar,” BSOAS 13, 1950, pp. 635-48.

N. Fréret, “De l’ancienne année des Parses,” in Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 16, Paris, 1751, pp. 233-85; repr. in Fréret, Œuvres complettes , 4 vols., London, 1775.

W. Geiger, Ost­iranische Kultur im Altertum , Erlangen, 1882, pp. 314-27.

I. Gershevitch, “No Old Persian sp?θ­maida ,” in Studies in Diachronic, Synchronic, and Typological Linguistics. Festschrift for Oswald Szemerény … ,ed. B. Brogyanyi, I, Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 290-95.

J. B. Gibert, “Nouvelles observations sur l’année des anciens Perses,” Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 31, 1768, p. 68.

F. K. Ginzel, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie I, Leipzig, 1906, pp. 275-309.

L. H. Gray, “Der iranische Kalender,” in Grundriss II, pp. 675-78.

Idem, “Medieval Greek References to the Avestan Calendar,” in Avesta, Pahlavi and Ancient Persian Studies in Honour of … P. B. Sanjana , Strass­burg, 1904, pp. 167-75.

A. von Gutschmid, “Über das iranische Jahr,” in Kleine Schriften III: Schriften zur Geschichte und Literatur der nichtsemitischen Völker von Asien , Leipzig, 1892, pp. 209-15.

C. de Harlez, “Le calendrier persan et les pays originaires du zoroastrisme,” Bulletin de l’Athéné Orientale 1881/2, pp. 79-97, 159-83.

Idem, Le calendrier aves­tique et les pays originaire de l’Avesta , Louvain, 1882. W. Hartner, “Old Iranian Calendars,” in Camb. Hist. Iran II, pp. 714-92.

Idem, “The Young Avestan and Babylonian Calendars and the Antecedents of Precession,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 10, 1979, pp. 1-22.

M. N. Kuka, “The Antiquity of the Iranian Calendar and the Era of Zoroaster,” Journal of the South Indian Association , 1913, pp. 1-25.

Abu’l-?asan K?šy?r b. Labb?n J?l?, in L. Ideler, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie II, Berlin, 1825-26, pp. 547, 624; Ger. tr. in F. K. Ginzel, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie I, Leipzig, 1906, p. 291; Eng. tr. W. Hartner, “Old Iranian Calendars,” in Camb. Hist. Iran II, p. 758.

H. Lewy, “Le calendrier perse,” Orientalia , N.S. 10, 1941, pp. 1-64.

J. Markwart, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran II, Leipzig, 1905.

D. N. MacKenzie, “Zoroastrian Astrology in the Bundahišn,” BSOAS 27, 1964, pp. 351-529.

N. P. Metha, “A Study of the Zoroastrian Calendar,” Journal of the Cama Oriental Institute 34, 1940, pp. 1­-36.

J. D. Nadershah, “The Zoroastrian Months and Years with their Division in the Avestaic Age,” in The K. R. Cama Memorial Volume , Bombay, 1900, pp. 244-73.

H. S. Nyberg, “Questions de cosmogonie et de cosmologie mazdéennes,” JA 219, 1931, pp. 1-134.

Idem, “Texte zum mazdayasnischen Kalender,” Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift , Uppsala, 1934.

R. Roth, “Der Kalender des Avesta und die sogenann­ten Gahanb?r,” ZDMG 34, 1880, pp. 698-720.

J. J. Scaliger, Thesaurus Temporum , Amsterdam, 1658.

Idem, De Emendatione Temporum , Geneva, 1962.

A. S. Shahbazi, “The "Traditional Date of Zoroaster" Explained,” BSOAS 40, 1977, pp. 25-35.

W. E. West, Pahlavi Texts V: Marvels of Zoroastrianism , SBE 47, Oxford, 1880; repr. Delhi, 1965, 1977.

Calendars derived from the Zoroastrian calendar .

1. The Cappadocian calendar. That the Cappadocian solar calendar, with twelve months of 360 days plus five epagomenal days, was an imitation of the Zoroastrian calendar is especially clear from the names and order of the months. The names have been transmitted only in Greek characters, however (Nyberg, p. 479; see Table 25 ). According to Markwart’s calculations (Marquart, p. 210), the Cappadocian calendar must have begun in 490 B.C.; Duchesne-Guillemin (1948, pp. 108-13) put the date between 490 and 480. Bicker­man objected (p. 198) that its system was only a local form of the Julian calendar, but the names of the months (which are in the genitive) are preserved in linguistic forms of an earlier period (Duchesne­-Guillemin, loc. cit.; Belardi, p. 76).

This calendar is attested in the texts of the Greek astronomers (Lagarde, 1899, pp. 259-60) with a few variants in the spelling of the month names (see, e.g., Hemerologium Florentinum in Ginzel). It is not certain when it was introduced in Cappadocia, but it was in use before the Roman conquest, from the time of King Archelaos (34 B.C.-A.D. 17) until that of King Epiphanios (A.D. 400; Ginzel).

 

Bibliography :

W. Belardi, Studi Mithraici e Maz­dei , Rome, 1977.

F. J. Bickerman, “The "Zoroastrian" Calendar,” Archív orientální 35, 1967, pp. 197-207.

J. Duchesne-Guillemin, Zoroastre , Paris, 1948, pp. 108­-13.

Idem, La religion de l’Iran ancien , Paris, 1962.

K. F. Ginzel, “Kappadokischer Kalender,” in Pauly-Wissowa, X/2, col. 1917.

K. Hannel, “Das Meno­logium des Liber glossarum,” Bulletin de la Société des Lettres de Lund , 1931-32, pp. 7-38.

P. de Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen , Leipzig, 1866.

J. Mar­quart, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran II, Leipzig, 1905.

J. H. Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism. Lectures … , London, 1913; repr. London, 1926, pp. 33, 103-07, 430-37.

H. S. Nyberg, Die Religionen des alten Iran , tr. H. H. Schaeder, Leipzig, 1938, p. 479.

2. The Armenian calendar. The Armenian calendar also has twelve months of thirty days each plus five epagomenal days ( aweleac? ). The names and order of the months are given in Table 26 . At least four of the twelve month names are clearly of Iranian origin: Nawasard-i “month of the new year” from * na?a­sarda -; Tr?, obviously derived from Middle Persian t?r ; Mehekan-i “month of Mithra” from *Miθrak?na-, probably via Parthian *Mihrak?n (cf. Gr. Midrákana, MPers. Mihrag?n); Ahekan-i “month of the fire” from *Aθrak?na. All twelve month names are in the genitive form, originally governed by amis “months of …” (cf. Schmitt, pp. 91-100). In a.d. 1084 this calendar ceased to be used when John the Deacon adopted the Julian calendar.

Bibliography :

H. S. Badalyan, ?rac?uyc?i patmu??yun (=G. S. Badalyan, Istoriya kalendarya ), Erevan, 1970.

V. Bânâteanu, “Le calendrier arménien et les anciens noms des mois,” Studia et Acta Orientalia 10, 1980, pp. 33-46.

E. Dulaurier, Recherches sur la chronologie arménienne. Technique et historique I: Chronologie technique , Paris, 1859.

N. Fréret, “De l’année arménienne, ou suite des obser­vations sur l’année vague des Perses,” Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres 19, 1953, pp. 95-114.

F. K. Ginzel, Handbuch der mathemati­schen und technischen Chronologie III, Leipzig, 1914, pp. 314-21.

L. H. Gray, “On Certain Persian and Armenian Month-Names as Influenced by the Avesta Calendar,” JAOS 28, 1907, pp. 331-34.

V. Grumel, La chronologie , Paris, 1958.

F. Macler, “Calendar (Armenian),” in J. Hastings, ed., Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics III, Edinburgh, 1910, pp. 70-73.

J. Marquart, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran II, Leipzig, 1905.

A. K. Sanjian, Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, 1301-1480. A Source for Middle Eastern History , Cambridge, Mass., 1969.

R. Schmitt, “Zu den alten armenischen Monatsnamen,” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 6, 1985, pp. 91-100.

B. E. Tumanian, “Measurement of Time in Ancient and Medieval Armenia,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 5, 1974, pp. 91-98.

3. The Sogdian calendar. The Sogdian calendar, which was described by B?r?n? ( ???r , pp. 45-47; tr. Sachau, pp. 56-57), is better known today, owing to the discovery and decipherment of original Sogdian sources (cf. Henning, 1939, pp. 87-95). It consisted of twelve months of thirty days each. The names of the days correspond closely to those of the Zoroastrian calendar ( Table 27 ), while those of the months did not. According to B?r?n?, the five epagomenal days were added at the end of the year, rather than at the end of ?b?n, which resulted in some disjunctions between the two calendars. The order of the months is given in Table 28 according to the documents from Mount Mug, the Manichean texts, and B?r?n?. According to the Sogdian text M 18400, the year was divided into three seasons of four months each (Kudara and Sundermann, p. 340).

In Manichean texts we also find a system of seven weekdays ( Table 29 ), called by their Middle Persian names: šmbyd , ?yw-šmbyd (or i-šmbyd ), … p??-šmbyd , ??’yng (Henning, 1945, e.g. pp. 149ff., where both systems are used; also attested in a Chinese text, Pelliot, 1913, pp. 162-65, 176) or by the names of the seven “planets” (Müller, p. 458). It is possible that this planetary week was diffused by the Nestorian and Manichean communities in Central Asia and from them found their way to China, where they are attested in Chinese astrological texts, in which they are attributed to Mani (Pelliot, 1913, pp. 161-77). See also Henning, loc. cit.; Belardi, pp. 65, 80-81; and Boyce, pp. 814-15.

Bibliography :

M. Boyce, “Iranian Festivals,” in Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, pp. 792-815.

É. Chavannes and P. Pelliot, eds., “Un traité manichéen retrouvé en Chine,” JA , 10th ser., 18, 1911, pp. 191-201; 11th ser., 1, 1913, pp. 99-199, 261-394, esp. pp. 167-77.

M. J. Dresden apud M. Boyce, “Iranian Festivals,” in Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, pp. 814-15.

A. A. Fre?man, Datirovannye sogdi?skie dokumenty s gory Mug v Tadzikistane , Leningrad, 1936; repr. in his Sogdi?skie dokumenty s gory Mug I: Opisanie, publikatsii i issledovanie dokumentov s gory Mug , Moscow, 1962, pp. 27-45.

Idem, “Sogdi?ski? rukopisny? dokument astrologicheskogo soderzhaniya (kalendar’),” VDI , 1938, 2/3, pp. 34-49; repr. in Sogdi?skie dokumenty … , pp. 46-60.

W. B. Henning, “Zum soghdischen Kalender,” Orientalia , 1939, pp. 87-95 ( Selected Papers I, Acta Iranica 5, Tehran and Liège, 1977, pp. 629-37).

Idem, “The Manichaean Fasts,” JRAS , 1945, pp. 146-64 ( Selected Papers II, Acta Iranica 6, pp. 205-23).

K. Kudara and W. Sundermann, “Zwei Fragmente einer Sammelhandschrift buddhistischer S?tras in soghdischer Sprache,” AoF 14, 1987, pp. 334-49.

F. W. K. Müller, “Die "persi­schen" Kalenderausdrücke im chinesischen Tripitaka,” SPAW , 1907, pp. 458-65.

R. Schmitt, “Zu den alten armenischen Monatsnamen,” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 6, 1985, pp. 91-100.

K. Usman, “Un calendario sogdiano della scuola di Ulug Beg,” in VII Centenario della nascita di Marco Polo , Venice, 1955, pp. 319-25.

4. The Choresmian calendar. This calendar consists of twelve months of thirty days each with the epago­menal days inserted after the last month. According to B?r?n? ( ???r , pp. 47-49; tr. pp. 57-58), the five days of the epact were not individually named. The names of the months are given in Table 30 in the forms found on the ossuary of Tok-kala (a.d. 8th century; for a com­parison of these names with those given by B?r?n?, see Livshits, 1968, pp. 444-46; for the names of the days, see Livshits, loc. cit., and Boyce, pp. 814-15; for the Chores­mian g?h?nb?r , see B?r?n?, ???r , pp. 236-38; tr., pp. 223-­26; Henning, 1953, passim; and for the reform of the Choresmian calendar, see B?r?n?, ???r , pp. 241-42; tr., pp. 229-30).

Bibliography :

M. Boyce, “Iranian Festivals,” in Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, pp. 792-815.

Henning, “Mit­teliranisch,” pp. 20-116 (see also pp. 56-58, 109-20).

Idem, A Fragment of a Khwarezmian Dictionary , ed. D. N. MacKenzie, London, 1971.

V. A. Livshits, “Khorezmi?ski? kalendar’ i èry drevnego Khorezma,” in Istoriya, kul’tura, yazyki narodov Vostoka , Mos­cow, 1970, pp. 5-16; Eng. tr. “The Khwarezmian Calendar and the Eras of Ancient Chorasmia,” Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 16, 1968, pp. 433-46.

5. The calendar of S?st?n. Thanks to B?r?n? ( ???r , p. 42; tr., pp. 52-53), the structure of the calendar of S?st?n has been recorded; it consisted of twelve months of thirty days each plus five epagomenal days inserted according to the Persian custom (Taqizadeh, 1938, p. 2 n. 2). The names of the months are given in Table 31 , though the spelling is uncertain. The names of the days are unknown.

Duodecennial calendars .

1. The Khotanese calendar. The names of the months are known from private and official letters, reports, and receipts, as well as from medical texts translated from Sanskrit or Tibetan (especially Ravigupta’s Siddhas?ra “The perfect selection” and the Suvar?abh?sas?tra “Sutra of golden light”). In the medical texts translated from Sanskrit two divisions of the year are recorded, one of four seasons (summer, autumn, winter, spring) of three months each, and one of six seasons of two months each (see Table 32 ). In a passage of the Siddhas?ra that is not translated from the Sanskrit or Tibetan, the seasons in the sixfold division are counted from the middle rather than the beginning of the first month. Since only the four seasons have special names in Khotanese, this may be the indigenous division; the exact distribution of the months in this division, however, is not known. In the Book of Zambasta a somewhat different four-part division is found (names of months are in Khotanese, of seasons in Sanskrit); the winter season ( hemanta ) goes from the middle of the fourth month to the middle of the eighth (= four months), then summer ( gr??ma ) to the middle of the twelfth (= four months), then the rainy season ( var?a ) to the middle of the first (= one month), and finally the long rainy season ( d?rgha-var?a ) to the middle of the fourth month (= three months). The various divisions no doubt reflect the differences between the actual seasons of India and Khotan. (For editions of the private and official documents see especially Bailey, 1961; 1968. For the Sanskrit and Tibetan text of Siddhas?ra 1.4, see Emmerick, 1981, p. 17, 1982, pp. 14-15; for the Khotanese text see Bailey, 1969, p. 6. For the chapter on healing from the Suvar?abh?sas?tra , see Skjærvø, pp. 454-57, with references. For the Book of Zambasta , see Emmerick, 1968, pp. 260-61. See also Bailey, 1937.) The origin of the month names is still conjectural (Bailey, 1982, p. 30).

The years are named according to the central Asian animal cycle, in which one animal presides over one year in the twelve-year cycle, which is then repeated ( Table 33 ), and are also numbered according to the regnal year of the ruling king. In the view of L. Bazin (p. 355), the Khotanese animal cycle must have been of Chinese origin, but sinologists are still debating this question (Needham, pp. 405-06). A complete list of the animal years in Khotanese is found in the text edited by Bailey (1937, pp. 924-30) in which it is explained how a man’s destiny is linked to the year of his birth. For the identification of years by regnal years, see, e.g., Bailey, 1937, pp. 933-36, and dating. The day was divided into twelve double hours, each governed by one of the twelve animals of the animal cycle (Bailey, 1937, p. 924).

Bibliography :

H. W. Bailey, “Hvatanica (I),” BSO(A)S 4, 1937, pp. 923-36; repr. in Bailey, Opera Minora I, Shiraz, 1981, pp. 336-50.

Idem, Khotanese Texts IV, Cambridge, 1961, p. 11.

Idem, Khotanese Texts I-III, Cambridge, 1969.

Idem, Saka Docu­ments. Text Volume , Corp. Inscr. Iran. II/V, London, 1968.

Idem, The Culture of the Sakas in Ancient Iranian Khotan , New York, 1982, pp. 29-31, 41.

L. Bazin, “Histoire et philologie turque,” Annuaire de l’École pratique des hautes études , 4th sec., 1973, pp. 353-56.

R. E. Emmerick, The Book of Zambasta. A Khotanese Poem on Buddhism , London, 1968.

Idem, The Siddhas?ra of Ravigupta , Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Suppl. 23, 1-2, Wiesbaden, I: The Sanskrit Text , 1980; II: The Tibetan Version with Facing English Translation , 1982.

S. Konow, “The Calendar,” Acta Orientalia 20, 1948, pp. 293-94.

Idem, “The Dates in Saka Texts from Khotan and Tun-huang,” Acta Orientalia 7, 1928, pp. 66-76.

H. Lüders, “Zur Geschichte des ostasiatischen Tierkreises,” SPAW , 1933, pp. 1-27.

J. Needham, Science and Civilisation in China III: Mathematics and the Sciences of the Heavens and the Earth , Cambridge, 1959.

P. O. Skjærvø, “The Old Khotanese Fragment H 147 NS 115 and Remarks on Old Khotanese ha?dräväto , pat??u , vya and ya ,” BSOAS 44/3, 1981, pp. 453-67.

2. The calendar of Tumšuq. The months of the calendar of Tumšuq were named by number or name. Only three names are known, all from private letters (genitive singular or adjectival forms): Ahverjane (cf. Man. So. Xwrjnyc), (perhaps) Buza?ine, Tsvi??nañye. The years are named according to the animal cycle and by regnal year of the ruling king.

Bibliography :

W. B. Henning, “Neue Materi­alien zur Geschichte des Manichäismus,” ZDMG 90, 1936, pp. 1-18 (esp. pp. 11-14).

S. Konow, “Ein neuer Saka-Dialekt,” SPAW , phil.-hist. Kl., 1935, 20, pp. 772-823.

Idem, “The Oldest Dialect of Khotanese Saka,” NTS 14, 1947, pp. 156­-90.

(Antonio Panaino)

 

ii. In the Islamic period

Soon after the inception of Islam Muslim leaders found it necessary to establish a basis for determining the proper dates for recurring religious observances. As the community grew, this simple calendar had to be altered and supplemented to meet the need for more sophisticated recording of events and transactions. Finally, after the conquest, it became clear that effective administration of a vast territorial empire would require a consistent calendar suitable especially for the collec­tion of taxes and tribute. Gradually evolving awareness of these increasingly complex demands was reflected in anomalies like the concurrent use of different calendars for different purposes. Several of the calendars introduced in the Islamic period were adaptations of ancient Iranian systems, and in Iran itself foreign influences continued to be assimilated to indigenous practices and requirements.

The lunar Hejr? calendar (Q. = Qamar? , A.H. = anno hegirae) . For several years after the hejra (the Prophet’s flight from Mecca to Medina), which took place in the Arab month of Rab?? I, that event was taken as the starting point of the Islamic calendar, and dates were reckoned by counting the months from Rab?? I. W?qed? (130-207/747-823), who was a major source for most later historians, reckoned dates in this way until the expedition against D?mat al-Jandal in the forty-ninth month after the hejra (5/626; I, p. 402). After that, though he sometimes dated an event or expedition by this system, he more often specified the year, following the old Arabian system in which the years began with the month of Mo?arram. It thus seems clear that he did not calculate the dates himself but simply copied them as he found them in his sources. Ebn Sa?d (168-230/784-845), author of Ket?b al-?abaq?t at-kobr? , and the historians Ya?q?b? (d. 284/897), ?abar? (d. 311/923), and Mas??d? (d. ca. 345/956) also included both kinds of dates in the same apparently random way, no doubt reflecting their sources.

Early Islamic historians and later scholars have been virtually unanimous in reporting that the so-called lunar Hejr? calendar was introduced by the second caliph, ?Omar b. ?a???b (r. 13-23/634-44), in A.H. 16, 17, or 18 (637-39). This statement has apparently never been seriously questioned, yet the sources contain other evidence that this calendar was already in use before his succession. ?abar?, who gives a lengthy account of the introduction of the lunar calendar by ?Omar (I, pp. 1250-56, 2480), also quotes the full texts of letters from ??led b. Wal?d (d. 21/642) to the governors of certain towns (I, pp. 2044-45, 2051); they are dated in different months of the twelfth year after the hejra , before ?Omar’s accession to the caliphate. Bal??or? (pp. 80-81) quotes a message from the Prophet himself, dated in the ninth year of the hejra ; another letter from the Prophet, of the same year, is quoted by Ab? No?aym (I, pp. 52-53) and ?amd-All?h Mostawf? (pp. 229-31; for other documents, see Abdollahy, 1987, pp. 15-­25).

The practice of counting months from Rab?? I but years beginning with Mo?arram soon led to difficulties, however, and it was to resolve the resulting confusion that ?Omar decided to convene a council, reports of which are included in several sources (Mas??d?, Tanb?h , pp. 266-67; Ya?q?b?, II, p. 29; ?abar?, I, pp. 1250-56, 2480). These accounts suggest that two matters were discussed at the meeting of this council. The first was official definition of the lunar Hejr? era. The second was formulation of an appropriate calendar for collecting tribute and taxes (see below). In order to regularize public business, either 1 Rab?? I or 1 Mo?arram of the year in which Mo?ammad made the hejra had to be chosen as the official beginning of the Muslim epoch. According to ?abar? (I, p. 1253), ?Omar summoned the leading men and asked, “from which day should we write [dates]?” ?Al? b. Ab? ??leb answered, “from the day on which God’s Apostle emigrated [from Mecca],” that is, the first day of Rab?? I. ?Omar, however, preferred 1 Mo?arram (15 July 622; ?abar?, I, pp. 1254-­55). As the Prophet’s departure from Mecca had taken place on the eve of a Monday (i.e., on a Sunday night), that Monday was established as the first day of the month of Rab?? I of the first year in the Hejr? calendar (12 September 622).

The lunar Hejr? calendar was based on the synodic month, reckoned from one sighting of the new moon to the next. The root meanings of the month names, many of which refer to climatic conditions (see Table 34 ), indicate that in pre-Islamic Arabia lunar months had customarily been brought into line with the seasons through recurrent insertion of an intercalary month and thus that a sort of lunisolar calendar was in use. There is, however, a great deal of evidence to suggest that no such intercalation took place in the territory under the Prophet’s rule during the first decade after the hejra (Nallino, pp. 108ff.; Beeston, pp. 15-25; Nilsson, pp. 251-55; see also Abdollahy, 1987, pp. 29-30). The lunar Hejr? calendar used by Muslims today for the timing of religious observances still follows the same pattern as in those first Hejr? years; it consists of lunar years and months with no intercalations.

For the purpose of establishing consistent intervals between the beginning of the epoch and given dates, however, astronomers adopted an “artificial” standard calendar. As a result, two separate lunar Hejr? calendars have arisen: an unofficial version used for determining religious observances and an official one computed mathematically, in which dates are more predictable. It often happens that the calculated first days of lunar months given in almanacs differ by one or two days from the dates of religious celebrations determined by sightings.

Astronomers base their computations for almanacs and perpetual lunar calendars on a mean value for the length of a synodic month: 29; 31, 50 days, expressed sexagesimally (i.e., 29 days plus 31 sixtieths of a day plus 50 sixtieths of a sixtieth of a day); the length of the year is 354; 22, or 354 11/30 days. The lengths of the months are normally set alternately at thirty and twenty-nine days; ?u’l-?ejja, the last month, contains twenty-nine days in an ordinary year and thirty in a leap year. In the computed lunar Hejr? calendar leap years are dis­tributed over thirty-year cycles. Each cycle consists of 354 11/30 x 30, or 10,631 days, which are divided among nineteen ordinary years of 354 days each (a total of 6,726 days) and eleven leap years (a total of 3,905 days). Within each cycle the second, fifth, seventh, tenth, thirteenth, sixteenth, eighteenth, twenty-first, twenty-fourth, twenty-sixth, and twenty-ninth years are designated as leap years. This is the system of ???razm? and of Ya?y? b. Ab? Man??r (see Pingree, p. 110). Others intercalate on the third, sixth, eighth, eleventh, thirteenth, sixteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, twenty­-fourth, twenty-seventh, and thirtieth years, but gener­ally all astronomers follow Ya?y? (see Ginzel, I, p. 255).

The ?ar?ji calendar . Early Muslim leaders dispensed with the old Zoroastrian method of intercalation, based on a solar year of 365 1/4 days. In this cycle a normal year contained 365 days, and after 120 years an extra month of thirty (120 x 1/4) days was added. Under the newly adopted Hejr? calendar, however, the period during which ?ar?j , or land tax (paid in cash or kind), was to be collected fell earlier in each annual agricul­tural cycle; as a result there were long intervals in which the tax came due before harvest time. This problem must have been recognized very early. The captive Iranian general Hormoz?n is said to have attended ?Omar b. ?a???b’s advisory council (see above) to explain the solar calendar by which taxes had been collected in the Sasanian empire (B?r?n?, ???r , pp. 29-­30; ?ab?b al-s?ar I, pp. 484-85). Some modern research­ers have exaggerated the importance of Hormoz?n’s role, even claiming that ?Omar’s formulation of the lunar Hejr? calendar was made on his advice (Hom???, pp. 399-402), but it is clear that Hormoz?n could not have had either the competence or the status to participate in such a decision. Although early historians do not mention whether or not ?Omar decided to adopt a version of the Iranian calendar for tax purposes, Mo?ammad b. Ab? ?Abd-All?h Sanjar Kam?l?, author of Z?j-e ašraf? (ca. 710/1310), reports that in his time the people and astronomers believed that it was ?Omar who had introduced it (fol. 3a-b).

The assumption that a ?ar?j? calendar was in use in early Islam and that it was based on a calendar originally introduced by the Sasanians (see i above; see also Abdollahy, 1988, pp. 225-34, 279-95) is corrobo­rated by a report in Z?j-e ašraf? (fol. 10b), in which it is stated that the calendar used for collecting the ?ar?j began 468 solar years before the beginning (1 Far­vard?n) of the Jal?l? era (see below), which fell on 9 Rama??n 471/15 March 1079 (see also F?rs?, fol. 7b). If 468 years of 365 days are subtracted from the beginning of the Jal?l? era, the result is a.d. 611, the twenty-first year of the reign of ?osrow II (591-628); despite arguments to the contrary put forward by S. H. Taqizadeh (1937-39, pp. 909-10; 1967, pp. 164-66), this date was not related to the Hejr? era. Further confir­mation is to be found in the ?afar-n?ma (828/1424-25) of Šaraf-al-D?n ?Al? Yazd?, who noted that the ?ar?j? calendar had been introduced in the late Sasanian period (see Taqizadeh, 1937-39, p. 909).

Early Islamic Persian writers rarely cited ?ar?j? dates, but the few instances in which they did give them with their Hejr? equivalents throw some light on the nature of the early ?ar?j? calendar. For example, according to Z?j-­e ašraf? (fol. 10b), the months used in F?rs coincided exactly with those of the Yazdegerd? calendar, though they were eleven full years apart. This calendar of F?rs must have been the original ?ar?j? calendar adopted soon after the coming of Islam. The ?ar?j? dates given by Mo?ammad b. Ebr?h?m (see Abdollahy, 1988, pp. 289, 290, 365; 1977, pp. 140-41, 194) are of the same nature. On the other hand, those given by Wa???f (663-735/1265-1334; Abdollahy, loc. cit.) indicate that he followed a system in which the months coincided with the months of the Jal?l? calendar (see below; cf. F?rs?, fol. 5b).

Whether or not it was ?Omar b. ?a???b who adapted the Sasanian ?ar?j? calendar for tax purposes in Islam, it was already in use by the time of the caliph Heš?m (r. 105-25/724-43); B?r?n? reports that landlords petitioned one of his officials to restore the intercalary month and thus to postpone the beginning of tax collection ( eftet?? ?ar?j ; ???r , p. 32). Although taxpayers’ complaints persisted through the early ?Abbasid period, it was not until the reign of al-Mo?ta?ed (279-89/892-902) that an intercalation of two months was introduced into the Zoroastrian year (B?r?n?, ???r , p. 33; Qom?, pp. 145-46; Mas??d?, Mor?j , ed. Pellat, V, pp. 172-73; tr. P?yanda, II, p. 664); through the addition of sixty days to the year 264 Yazdegerd? (282/895), Nowr?z was relocated from Saturday, 1 Farvard?n (12 ?afar/12 April), to Wednesday, 1 ?ord?d (13 Rab?? 1/12 May; see Abdollahy, 1988, pp. 280, 283).

The Jal?l? calendar . A true solar calendar was introduced during the reign of the Saljuq sultan Jal?l-al-Dawla Mo?ezz-al-D?n Abu’l-Fat? Malekš?h (465-85/1072-92) and variously designated t?r??-ejal?l? , t?r??-emalek? , t?r??-emalekš?h? , t?r??-esol??n? , and t?r??-emo?da? (modern). According to early historians and astronomers, the main purpose of the reform was to fix the beginning of the calendar year (Nowr?z) at the vernal equinox. Thenceforth the first day of the official new year was always the day on which the sun entered Aries before noon. That is in fact the definition of Nowr?z given by Na??r-al-D?n ??s? ( Z?j-e ?l-??n? , fol. 15b), Olo? Beg (p. 310), and many later authors (B?rjand?, fol. 23b; Moll? Mo?affar, b?b 2, sec. 4).

Calculations based on the many Jal?l? dates recorded by historians and astronomers give the Hejr? date of its adoption as Friday, 9 Rama??n 471/15 March 1079 (= 19 Farvard?n 448 Yazdegerd?; cf. Taqizadeh, 1940-­42, p. 112; Ginzel, I, pp. 303-04; Bulsara, pp. 66ff.). Although some astronomers mention both the years 468 and 471 for the beginning of the Jal?l? calendar, the former is not a Hejr? date but the corresponding ?ar?j? date (see above; cf. Abdollahy, 1988, pp. 298ff.).

Most astronomers and historians agree that the first eighteen days of Farvard?n of the Yazdegerd? year in which the Jal?l? era began were treated as an intercal­ation ( kab?sa-ye jal?l? ). In order to distinguish the two calendars, in which the same Zoroastrian month names were used, the Yazdegerd? months were qualified as qad?m? (old) or f?rs? and those of the Jal?l? calendar as either jal?l? or malek? . Similarly, Nowr?z in the Jal?l? calendar was designated Nowr?z-e malek? , Nowr?z-e sol??n? , and Nowr?z-e ?amal . Na??r-al-D?n ??s? de­scribes the Jal?l? calendar in Z?j-e ?l-??n? ; elsewhere, however, he remarks that certain earlier astronomers had recorded the introduction of new names for the months and days in the Jal?l? calendar (1330/1912, fa?l b). These names also appear, with some differences, in Z?j-e ašraf? (Sanjar Kam?l?, fol. 4a). See Table 35 , Table 36 .

Medieval astronomers mention that, because the Jal?l? year was a true solar year, some people assumed, that the length of its months was that of a true solar month; they therefore also assumed incorrectly that the beginning of each month was the day on which the sun entered the associated sign of the zodiac. In fact, the months were not true solar months but consisted of thirty days each. The seasons in this calendar were astronomically true, however, as the beginning of each was marked by the apparent passage of the sun through the equinox or solstice.

The astronomers responsible for devising the Jal?l? calendar worked out rules for the sequence of ordinary and leap years. ?Abd-al-Ra?m?n ??zen? (fl. 6th/12th century), who is said to have been one of the eight astronomers in charge of the reform, explains in his al-­Z?j al-mo?tabar al-sanjar? the method of intercalation in a cycle of 220 years (Mo??? ?ab??ab???; Taqizadeh, 1939-42, pp. 111, 114-16; Abdollahy, 1977, p. 151; 1988, pp. 306-08). It seems, however, that his formula was abandoned in later centuries. The establishment of the observatory at Mar??a in the second half of the 7th/13th century resulted in significant advances in astronomy, and the length of the true solar year was found to differ from the length of the year in the Jal?l? calendar; modification of the intercalation system there­fore became necessary.

In Z?j-e ?l-??n? Na??r-al-D?n ??s? gives a table in which the quadrennia and quinquennia of the first 295 Jal?l? years are shown (fol. 16a). That is, an extra day was added every four years, and after seven such quadrennia the extra day was added to a period of five years. The quinquennial leap years are the Jal?l? years 31, 64, 97, 130, 163, 192, 225, 258, and 291 (Abdollahy, 1977, pp. 154-56; 1988, pp. 309-16). In 295 years there­fore a quarter-day was intercalated 295-9 = 286 times, for a total of 295 x 365 + 286 x 1/4 days. The length of a solar year thus closely approximated Ptolemy’s 365 1/4-1/300 days (expressed sexagesimally, 6, 5; 14, 48 days; the length of the Jal?l? year would be 6, 5; 14, 45 days by this reckoning).

In order to discover whether a particular year in the Jal?l? calendar is an ordinary or a leap year, it is necessary first to add 3 to the year in question (correct­ing for the beginning of the epoch), then to multiply the total by 39 (the number of leap years in each major cycle), and finally to divide the product by 161; if the remainder is less than 39, the year was a leap year. The fraction 39/161 is a crude approximation of the excess of a solar year over 365 days: 39/161 ~ 0; 14, 33, instead of Ptolemy’s 0; 14, 48. (For the more accurate 128-year cycle see discussion of the solar Hejr? calendar below).

The duodecennial animal cycle . As ??s? supervised construction of the observatory at Mar??a at the request of the Mongol ruler H?l?g? (Hülegü) Khan, it is not surprising that the greater part of his Z?j-e ?l-??n? , which he wrote there, is devoted to the calendar used by the Mongols, the duodecennial animal cycle (see also i above), in which the years are named after each of twelve animals in turn. There can be no doubt, however, that the original Chinese-Uighur form of this calendar was never used by Iranians, either during the Mongol period or later. The only references to it are several dates in the early Mongol period mentioned by Raš?d-al-D?n (p. 18; Boyle, 1971, pp. x, 346). The form of this cal­endar used by Iranians combined features of the Chinese-Uighur original with those of the lunar Hejr? and Jal?l? calendars. Furthermore, during the period of seven centuries in which this calendar was in use, from the Mongol invasion until 1304 Š./1925, certain ad­ditional modifications were made. (Cf. Tables 33, 42.)

The point from which the years are reckoned is the same as for the Hejr? era (Thursday, 15 July 622). A new starting point was adopted in the reign of ??z?n Khan (r. 694-703/1295-1304), but it did not remain in use for long; contemporary historians do not agree on the corresponding lunar Hejr? date (see Abdollahy, 1977, pp. 164-65; 1988, p. 330). Dating by the T?r??-e??z?n? , or T?r??-e??n? , continued in official Il-khanid circles during the reign of ??z?n’s successors ?lj?yt? (Öljeitü, 703-17/1304-17) and Ab? Sa??d (717-36/1317-35) but was not in general use (see Sayılı, pp. 229-31).

Even after the duodecennial animal cycle became widely accepted, use of the lunar months determined by direct observation was not given up. Consequently, two features of the lunar Hejr? calendar were incorporated into it: the starting point, which was directly connected with the Prophet of Islam, and the lunar months, which, according to Koranic teaching, could not be changed. The religious year was considered to begin on the first day of the lunar Hejr? calendar, but in administrative affairs the solar Nowr?z-e jal?l? was used, and the year ended on the day before the next Nowr?z. In order to keep the reckonings of these lunar and solar years in harmony any lunar year that happened to fall com­pletely within a solar year was dropped from the animal cycle (Poole, pp. xviii-xx; see also Abdollahy, 1988, pp. 334-36).

In 1329/1911 the Persian parliament adopted as the official calendar of Iran the Jal?l? solar calendar with months bearing the names of the twelve constellations of the zodiac and the years named for the animals of the duodecennial cycle; it remained in use until 1344/1925. The naming of years for animals is still customary in certain Persian almanacs. In order to determine the animal to which a given Hejr? year is allotted, 6 must first be added to the year in question and the sum divided by 12; the remainder can be matched to an animal in the cycle: 1 = mouse, 2 = ox, 3 = tiger, and so on up to 12 = pig, the last animal in the cycle.

The solar Hejr? (Š. = Šams?) and Š?hanš?h? calendars . The combination of the solar year with the Hejr? era, called Taqw?m-e hejr?-e šams? , is a comparatively recent development. The law by which it became the official Persian calendar was enacted by the Majles on 11 Farvard?n 1304 Š./31 March 1925; it has remained in force since, except for a short break ( Table 37 ).

On 24 Esfand 1354 Š./14 March 1975 the Majles approved a new era based on the supposed year of accession of the first Achaemenid king, Cyrus the Great (559 b.c.); thus, 21 March 1976 became the first day (Nowr?z) of the year 2535 in the Š?hanš?h? era. The month names of the Persian solar Hejr? calendar were retained without change. Official documents and publications were dated ac­cording to the new calendar. This caused much confusion and created widespread discontent, particularly among the clergy. Eventually, on 5 Šahr?var 1357 Š./27 August 1978, the government, in the face of the coming revolution, reverted to the solar Hejr? calendar. This calendar is reckoned from 1 Farvard?n, 119 days before 1 Mo?arram of the Arabian lunar year in which the hejra took place. The Julian date corre­sponding to the first day of the solar Hejr? era is 19 March 622. Taqizadeh gives 17 March 622 (1937-39, p. 916), which was apparently the date arrived at by the Persian commission for calendar reform in 1304 Š./1925.

The months of the solar Hejr? and Š?hanš?h? calendars are named for the ancient Iranian months, first attested in the Arsacid period (see i above; cf. Abdollahy, 1977, p. 78; 1988, p. 166) and used in various Iranian calendars up to the present day. Although the sequence and number of months are identical in all Iranian calendars, the lengths of the months were changed by the reform of 1304 Š./1925. In the solar Hejr? calendar the year begins on Nowr?z-e jal?l? ; the first six months have thirty-one days each, the next five thirty days each, and the last one twenty-nine days in ordinary years and thirty in leap years. The length of each year is thus absolutely solar.

The timing of ordinary and leap years in this calendar follows the Jal?l? rule of intercalation over a 128-year cycle. To determine whether a particular year in the solar calendar is an ordinary or a leap year, 38 must be added to the year in question (correcting the epoch), the sum multiplied by 31, and the product divided by 128. If the remainder is greater than 30, the year is an ordinary year; if not, it is a leap year. The fraction 31/128 means that each year contains 6, 5; 14, 32 days, close to the previous 6, 5; 14, 33 days.

Conversion of dates . The method of converting dates traditionally given in astronomical handbooks is to reckon the number of days between the date in question and the beginning of the calendar in which it appears and then to translate this figure into the comparable interval in the second calendar (Abdollahy, 1987, pp. 67-95). For example, to convert a lunar Hejr? date to the corresponding date in the Julian calendar (in use before the Gregorian reform on 16 Rama??n 990 = 22 Mehr 961 Š./4 October 1582), the elapsed complete lunar Hejr? years are multiplied by 354 11/30 (the average number of days in a lunar year) and the elapsed days of the date year (see Table 38 ) are added; the resulting total of elapsed days is added to the number of days between the beginnings of the two calendars. The result represents the number of days between the beginning of the Christian era and the date in question. This number is then divided by 365 1/4; the quotient is the number of elapsed years and the remainder the number of additional elapsed days. As Christian dates are given in current years, the elapsed years must be increased by one. (For Gregorian equivalents up to a.d. 1699, ten days must be added to the Julian date, for 1700-99 inclusive eleven days, for 1800-99 inclusive twelve days, and for 1900-2099 inclusive thirteen days.) When the highest possible number in the columns of elapsed days in the Julian year is subtracted from the remainder (i.e., the number of days in the current year), the residue is the day of the month corresponding to that highest possible number. (See B?rašk for methods of conversion from Hejr? lunar to Hejr? solar and Christian dates and vice versa, as well as lists of conversion from 621 to 2621 a.d.)

Bibliography :

Primary sources: Ab? No?aym, ed. S. Dedering, Geschichte Isbahans , 2 vols., Leiden, 1931-34.

Bal??or?, Fot?? , ed. ?A. An?s al-?ab?, Beirut, 1957.

Ab? Solaym?n D?w?d Ban?kat?, Raw­?at ?li’l-alb?b f? ma?refat al-taw?r?? known as T?r??-eBan?kat? , ed. J. Še??r, Tehran, 1348 Š./1969.

Moll? ?Abd-al-?Al? B?rjand?, Šar?-e z?j-e jad?d-e sol??n? , India Office Library and Records, ms. Ethé 2237.

B?r?n?, Ket?b al-tafh?m le aw??el ?en??at al-tanj?m , tr. R. Wright, London, 1934.

Idem, al-Q?n?n al-mas??d? , 3 vols., Hyderabad, 1373/1953-54.

Ebn Es??q, S?rat Ras?l All?h , tr. Q??? Abarq?h, ed. A. Mahdaw?, 2 vols., Tehran, 1360 Š./1981.

Abu’l-?ayr Mo?ammad F?rs?, ?all at-taqw?m , India Office Library and Rec­ords, London, ms. 2244.

Mo?ammad b. Ab? Bakr F?rs?, Z?j-e momta?an , University Library, Cam­bridge, ms. Gg. 3.27.

?amza E?fah?n?, T?r?? sen? mol?k al-ar? wa’l-anb??? , ed. J. ?r?n? Tabr?z?, Berlin, 1340/1921-22.

????-al-D?n Jamš?d b. Mas??d K?š?, Z?j-e ??q?n? , India Office Library and Records, ms. Ethé 2232.

Mas??d?, Mor?j , tr. A. P?yanda, 2 vols., Tehran, 1344-46 Š./1965-67.

Idem, Tanb?h , tr. A. P?yanda, Tehran, 1349 Š./1970.

Mo?ammad b. Ebr?h?m, T?r??-esalj?q??n-e Kerm?n , ed. M. T. Houtsma, Leiden, 1886.

Moll? Mo?affar, Šar?-e b?st b?b , Tehran, 1267/1851.

?amd-All?h Mostawf?, T?r??-egoz?da , ed. A.-?. Nav???, Tehran, 1339 Š./1960.

Nowr?z-n?ma , ed. M. M?nov?, Tehran, 1312 Š./1933.

?asan b. Mo?ammad b. ?asan Qom?, Ket?b-e t?r??-e Qom , ed. J. ?ehr?n?, Tehran, 1313 Š./1934.

Raš?d-al-D?n Fa?l-All?h, Tangs?q-n?ma , Tehran, 1350/1971.

Mo?ammad b. Ab? ?Abd-All?h Sanjar Kam?l?, Z?j-e ašraf? , Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. Suppl. 1488.

?asan b. ?osayn b. ?asan Š?hanš?h Semn?n?, Taw???-e z?j-e ?l-??n? , British Museum, ms. Add. 11, 636.

Ab? Ja?far Mo?ammad b. ??seb ?abar?, Z?j-e mofrad , Cambridge, ms. Browne 0.1(10). T?r??-eWa???f , ed. M. M. Es­fah?n?, Tehran, 1338 Š./1959.

Na??r-al-D?n ??s?, S? ­fa?l , Tehran, 1330/1912.

Idem, Z?j-e ?l-??n? , Cam­bridge, ms. Browne 0.2.(7). Mo?ammad b. ?Omar b. W?qed?, Ket?b al-ma??z? , ed. M. Jones, 3 vols., London, 1966.

Ya?q?b?, Ta?r?? , tr. M. ?yat?, 2 vols., Tehran, 1344-45 Š./1965-66. Z?j-e Olo? Beg , ed. A. Sédillot, Paris, 1847.

Studies: R. Abdollahy (?Abd-All?h?), A History of Chronology and Calendars in Iran from Ancient to modern Times with Principles of Date Conversion , Ph.D. thesis, Durham University, 1977. Idem, Ta?q?q-? dar zam?na-ye g?h-šom?r?-e hejr? wa mas??? , Tehran, 1365 Š./1987. Idem, T?r??-et?r??dar ?r?n , Tehran, 1366 Š./1988. L. Bazin, Les calendriers turcs anciens et mediévaux , thesis, Paris University, 1972; publ. Lille University, 1974. A. F. L. Beeston, Epi­graphic South Arabian Calendar and Dating , London, 1956. ?. Behr?z, Taqw?m-e nowr?z?-e šahr??r? (šams?-­e qamar?-e f?rs?) , ?r?n K?da 18, Tehran, 1347 Š./1968. A. B?rašk, G?hn?ma-ye ta?b?q?-e se-haz?r-s?la , n.p., 1367 Š./1988. J. A. Boyle, “The Longer Introduction to the Z?j-e Il??n? of Na??r al-D?n ??s?,” Journal of Semitic Studies 8/2, 1963, pp. 244-54. Idem, tr., The Successors of Genghis Khan , New York, 1971. S. T. Bulsara, “The Old Iranian Calendar,” in M. P. Kharegat Memorial Volume I, Bombay, 1953, pp. 177-97. G. S. P. Freeman-Grenville, The Muslim and Christian Calendars , London, 1963.

F. K. Ginzel, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie , 3 vols., Leipzig, 1906-14.

J. Hom???, T?r??-eadab?y?t-e ?r?n az qad?mtar?n ?a?r-e t?r??? t? a?r-e ???er , Tehran, 1340 Š./1961.

L. Ideler, Hand­buch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie II, Berlin, 1826.

N. Majd, Taqw?m-e ta?b?q?-e ša?t-o-šeš s?la.1304-1369 šams?, 1925-1991 m?l?d? , London, 1987.

S. M. Mo??? ?ab??ab???, “E?q?q-e ?aqq-e ??zen?-e ma?l?m,” Gowhar 1, 1352 Š./1973, pp. 683-­92.

C. A. Nallino, ?Elm al-falak. Ta?r??oh ?end al-?Arab fi’l-qor?n al-wost ¡ ? , Rome, 1911.

M. P. Nilsson, Primitive Time-Reckoning. A Study in the Origins and First Development of the Art of Counting Time among the Primitive and Early Culture Peoples , Lund, 1920.

D. Pingree, “The Fragments of the Works of al­-Fazar?,” JNES 29/4, 1970, pp. 103-23.

R. S. Poole, The Coins of the Shahs of Persia. Safavids, Afghans, Efsharis, Zands and Kajars , London, 1887.

T. R????, Šar?-e taqw?mh?-ye mo?talef wa mas?ala-ye kab?sah?-­ye Jal?l? , Tehran, 1335 Š./1956.

A. Sayılı, The Observatory in Islam and Its Place in the General History of the Observatory , Ankara, 1960.

S. H. Taqizadeh, “Various Eras and Calendars Used in Countries of Islam,” BSO(A)S 9, 1937-39, pp. 903-­22; 10, 1939-42, pp. 107-32.

Idem, G?h-šom?r? dar ?r?n-e qad?m , Tehran, 1317 Š./1938.

Idem, B?st maq?la , tr. A. ?r?m, Tehran, 1346 Š./1967.

V. V. Tsybulsky, Calendars of Middle East Countries. Conversion Tables and Explanatory Notes , Moscow, 1970.

(Reza Abdollahy)

 

iii. Afghan calendars

The solar ( šams? ) hejr? calendar, beginning with the vernal equinox, has been official in Afghanistan since 1301 Š./1922 (See afghanistan x. political history ). Prior to this time all official events were recorded according to the lunar hejr? calendar, although the solar one was already in common use.

The Afghan solar calendar ( Table 39 ) is basically the same as the Persian one. In Persian of Afghanistan ( dar? ) the names of the twelve months are the same as the Arabic terms for the zodiacal signs. Pashto translations of these names also exist but are rarely used. Before 1336 Š./1957 the number of days in most months ranged from 29 to 32 according to the year. In 1336 Š./1957 the number of days was fixed at 31 days in each of the first six months, 30 each in the next five, and 29 in the last (30 in leap years).

The lunar calendar in use in Afghanistan before 1301 Š./1922 was the common Arabic one ( Table 40 ). While local Persian speakers borrowed the Arabic names of the twelve months, non-Persian speakers such as the Pashtun and Haz?ra created partly original termi­nologies ( Table 40 ). The latter shared the common practice of naming Rab?? I and II and Jom?d? I and II according to a four-number system, calling them the first, second, third, and fourth “sister” ( ??r ) in Pashto, and the first, second, third, and fourth “leap” ( al?? ) in Haz?rag?—possibly a remnant of old Iranian traditions of jumping over a fire as a purification rite at the beginning of each of these months (Ferdinand, p. 45).

The special calendars traditionally in use among the mountain populations of the eastern Hindu Kush were described by W. Lentz, whose work is now the standard. West of them the Haz?ra and some of their Aym?q and Uzbek neighbors have developed a peculiar type of sidereal calendar based on the conjunction (Dar? qer?n ; Haz?rag?, t??al ) of the moon and the Pleiades (Dar? parv?n ; Haz?rag? m???d/t ). There are eleven visible t??al s in the year, each of them with a different number reckoned in descending odd order from the twenty-first t??al in early summer to the first in early spring. As the winter t??al s are the only ones that can be observed before midnight, the five last t??al s in the year (9th-1st) are more commonly used than the six early ones (21st-11th). Each “ t??al month” lasts two days less than a lunar month. Between early spring and early summer the Pleiades are no longer visible in the sky, and the Haz?ra reckon time by the few days in each solar month when the moon appears in the constellation Scorpio (Ferdinand; Bausani; Šahrest?n?).

The old Sino-Turkish animal cycle of twelve solar years was commonly used in Kabul at the beginning of the 14th/20th century and still is in remote parts of the country such as Haz?raj?t (Schurmann, p. 292). Older people still remember in which animal year they were born, and this system of time-reckoning ( s?l-e ?ayw?n? ) was explicitly referred to in the supplement to the enumerator’s instruction manual for the determination of age of the population that was used during the demographic census of 1358 Š./1979.

Bibliography :

A. Bausani, “Osservazioni sul sistema calendariale degli Hazara di Afghanistan,” Oriente moderno 54, 1974, pp. 341-54.

P. Centlivres, Un bazar d’Asie Centrale , Wiesbaden, 1972 (pp. 123f. contain a detailed description of popular time-reckoning in northern Afghanistan based on meteo­rological, rather than astronomical, observations).

K. Ferdinand, Preliminary Notes on Haz?ra Culture , Hist. Filos. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 37, no. 5, Copenhagen, 1959, esp. Appendix I, pp. 40-46.

W. Lentz, Zeitrechnung in Nuristan und am Pamir , APAW, phil-hist. Kl., no. 7, Berlin, 1938, 2nd expanded ed., Graz, 1978.

Š?h ?Al?-Akbar Šah­rest?n?, “Adab-e ??mm??na-ye dar?-e haz?rag?,” Adab (Kabul) 21/3, 1352 Š./1973, pp. 43-106-XVI ( Set?ra-šen?s? , pp. 91-95).

Idem, Q?m?s-e lahja-ye dar?-e haz?rag? , Kabul, 1361 Š./1983, s.v. t??al , pp. 313-14.

H. F. Schurmann, The Mongols of Afghanistan , Central Asiatic Studies 4, The Hague, 1962.

(Daniel Balland)

 

iv. Other Modern Calendars

Modern Zoroastrian calendars . The vague Zoroas­trian year (see i, above) was subject to varying correc­tions by the Zoroastrian communities in Iran and India. In Iran the Jal?l? calendar (see ii, above) was adopted by several Zoroastrian communities; the 5 or 6 epagomenal days follow the month of Esfand?rmo? or, in some villages in the district of Na?anz, the month of Bahman (Taqizadeh, p. 610; A. K. S. Lambton apud Hartner, 1971, p. 784). Indian and Iranian Zoroastrians (cf. Vitalone) were already aware from a.d. 1635 of the mutual differences in their calendars but showed no interest in resolving them until in 1720 a man from Kerm?n named J?m?sb Wel?yat? arrived in Surat and noted that the calendar of the Parsi community was a month behind that of Iran (Darmesteter, p. xii). On 17 June 1745 (Darmesteter, loc. cit.) or 1746 according to Boyce (1979, p. 189) and Hinnells (1981, p. 51) one segment of the Parsi community there­fore adopted the Persian calendar, calling it qad?m “old.” The majority of Parsis, however, rejected this innovation and adopted the name rasm? “traditional” for their calendar, in opposition to the qad?m? s (cf. Darmesteter, p. xcv; Boyce, 1977, pp. 164-66; 1979, pp. 189-90). The rasm? s (also known as “Sharshais” or “Shenshais,” Boyce, 1979, p. 190) claimed in fact that it was the Iranian community that was a month behind because it had not intercalated one month after each cycle of 120 years. In 1906 an attempt was made to resolve the controversy with the adoption of a new calendar similar to the Gregorian. This provoked the formation of a new group, the fa?l? s (separatists), who are particularly concentrated in western India (Boyce, pp. 212-13, 221). The qad?m? s and the rasm? s have preserved their own respective calendars. The latter community is the more numerous. Today, however, the three sects do not differ in other important ways, and the hostility and polemics of the last century are only a memory. The qad?m? and “Shenshai” (royalist: Boyce, 1979, p. 190; cf. Sogd. š?nš?y “king of kings”; Sundermann) calendars are dated from the coronation of the last Sasanian king, Yazdegerd III, in a.d. 631 (e.g., 1358 Yazdegerd? = 1989).

Bibliography :

M. Boyce, A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism , Oxford, 1977.

Idem, Zoroastrians. Their Religious Beliefs and Practices , London, etc., 1979.

J. Darmesteter, Le Zend-Avesta I, Annales du Musée Guimet 21, Paris, 1892, pp. xii, xciv-xcvi.

J. R. Hinnells, Zoroastrianism and the Parsis , London, 1981, pp. 51-53.

F. M. Kotwal and J. W. Boyd, ed. and tr., A Guide to the Zoroastrian Religion. A Nineteenth Century Catechism with Modern Commentary , Chico, Calif., pp. 10, 65, 158, 162, 176-81.

K. P. Mistree, Zoroastrianism. An Ethnic Perspective , Bom­bay, 1982, pp. 110-15.

Sundermann, “Sogdische š?nš?y,” AoF 10, 1983, pp. 193-95.

S. H. Taqizadeh, “The Old Iranian Calendars Again,” in Studies Presented to Vladimir Minorsky , BSOS 14, 1952, pp. 603-11.

M. Vitalone, “Note su due Rev?yat persiane inedite,” in Proceedings of the First European Conference of Iranian Studies , Turin, 1987 (forthcoming).

The Syro-Macedonian calendar . The Syro-­Macedonian calendar ( Table 41 ), which has been adopted by the eastern Christian communities in Iran, is regulated according to the Julian calendar but with Arabic (derived from Phoenician) names for the months. This calendar is old, probably pre-Islamic, according to B?r?n? ( ???r , pp. 59-60, tr. Sachau, pp. 69-70).

Bibliography : G. D’Erme, Grammatica del Neopersiano , Naples, 1979, p. 210. M. O. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam. Conscience and History in a World Civilization I: The Classical Age of Islam , Chicago, 1974, p. 22.

The Turkish duodecennial calendar . The Turkish calendar was inspired by the same duodecennial system as, for instance, the ancient Khotanese calendar (see i, above), but its origin is clearly Turkish. Each twelve-year cycle is called a mucal . The year ( ïl ) is solar, divided into twelve “mansions” according to the signs of the zodiac; it begins with the vernal equinox (see Table 42 ; modern Tk. forms in parenthesis). See further ii, below.

Bibliography :

L. Bazin, Les calendriers turcs anciens et mediévaux , thesis, Paris University, 1972; publ. Lille University, 1974.

G. D’Erme, Grammatica del Neopersiano , Naples, 1979, p. 210-11.

The Ossetic calendar . Although the names of the months in the Ossetic calendar have been adopted from the Latin tradition in the corresponding Russian forms, in the Iron and Digoron dialects other names are also preserved; at least some of them seem to have been adopted after the conversion of the Alans to Christian­ity (a.d. 10th century). Still another group of month names is linked to observations of recurring natural phenomena clearly traceable to pagan traditions of the Alans, though these names have also been Christianized. In Table 43 the names of the months are given after Abaev, 1970, with variants from Magometov in brackets.

Bibliography :

V. I. Abayev, “The Names of the Months in Ossetic,” in W. B. Henning Memorial Volume , ed. M. Boyce and I. Gershevitch, London, 1970, pp. 1-7.

Idem, Istoriko-ètimologicheski? slovar’ osetinskogo yazyka , Moscow and Leningrad, 1958- (s.vv.).

J. F. Baddeley, The Rugged Flanks of the Caucasus , Oxford and London, 1940, I, p. 187.

A. Christensen, Textes ossètes , Copenhagen, 1921, p. 64.

G. Gappo Baiew, Iron k’pelindper , Berlin, 1925.

J. von Klaproth, Reise in den Kaukasus und nach Georgien , 2 vols., Halle and Berlin, 1814, II/1, p. 599.

A. Kh. Magometov, Kul’tura i byt osetinskogo naroda , Ordzhonikidze, 1968, pp. 504-05.

V. Miller, Osetinskie ètyudy , Uchenyya zapiski Imperatorskago Moskov­skago Universiteta, otd. ist.-filol., 2, Moscow, 1882, pp. 262-88 (on festivals and the calendar).

B. Mun­kácsi, Blüten der ossetischen Volksdichtung , Budapest, 1932, pp. 208-22.

The Sangesari calendar . The Sangesaris, a semitribal people living north of Semn?n and south of the Alborz mountains, has a special calendar of 12 months with 30 days each and an epact ( p?tak ) added after the last month of the year. Of the old names of the days only two have been retained: Varmaz ( Hormoz ), Anir?n ( An?r?n ); the 13th day of T?r?-m? is called T?r?-m?-yi sizd? . (See Table 44 .)

Bibliography : ?.-?A. A??am?, “The Sangesari Calendar,” Journal of the K R. Cama Oriental Institute 55, 1988, pp. 155-99.

(Antonio Panaino)

Table 20 . Month names in Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian

a. Avestan Zaremaya; Dad?st?n ? d?n?g , chap. 16; tr. West, SBE 17, p. xxiv.

Table 21 . Parthian month names

Table 22 . The months of the Zoroastrian calendar

Table 23 . The days of the Zoroastrian calendar

Table 24 . The Zoroastrian G?h?nb?r

Table 25 . The names of the months in the Cappadocian calendar

Table 26 . The names of the months in the Armenian calendar

Table 27 . The days of the Sogdian calendar

Table 28 . The names of the months in the Sogdian calendar

Table 29 . The seven weekdays in Sogdian

Table 30 . The names of the months in the Choresmian calendar

Table 31 . The names of the months in the calendar of S?st?n

Table 32 . Names of the six-fold Khotanese calendar divisions

Table 33 . Names of the years in the Central Asian animal cycle

(1) Genitive singular. (2) For Konow’s ?i?ye D. Hitch reads Gi kh ye (unpublished)

Table 34 . Lunar hejr? months

(1) Definitions are taken from E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon , London, 1863; repr. Beirut, 1968, s.vv. (2) According to some medieval sources, the name Jom?d? was derived from “freezing of water” and the two months of that name originally fell in winter, an interpretation that would seem reasonable in more northern climates. For these sources and the opinion that in Arabia the two months originally fell in a dry period of late spring, see Lane, s.v. Jom?d?.

Table 35 . Jal?l? month names

(1) Garm?faz?y in Sanjar Kam?l?, fol. 4a. (2) Sarm?faz?y in Sanjar Kam?l?, fol. 4a. (3) ??s? gives the name of this month as M?h-e R?zafz?n (1330/1912, fa?l b), a repetition of the name of the fourth month. The name M?h-e S?lafz?n is given by Sanjar Kam?l?, and its correctness is confirmed by its literal meaning “the month of increasing year(s),” i.e., the month after which a new year is added: M?h-e R?zafz?n, lit. “month of increasing days,” may be interpreted as the month in which the day becomes longer than the night.

Table 36 . Jal?l? day names

Table 37 . Names of the months in the Persian civil calendar

Table 38 . Aggregate totals of months and days

Table 39 . The Afghan solar calendar

Sources: 1322/1904-05 after a calendar printed in Kabul for that year. 1312-17 Š./1933-39 after Lentz, p. 53

Table 40 . The Afghan lunar calendar

Notes: 1. Supplementary material (dialect forms) is to be found in Lentz, pp. 49f. and 57, and tables A and C. 2. From Ferdinand, pp. 44f.

Table 41 . The names of the months in the Syro-Macedonian calendar

Table 42 . The names of the months in the Turkish calendar

Table 43 . The names of the months in Ossetic

Table 44 . The months in Sangesari

(Antonio Panaino, Reza Abdollahy, Daniel Balland)

Originally Published: December 15, 1990

Last Updated: December 15, 1990

This article is available in print.
Vol. IV, Fasc. 6-7, pp. 658-677