Yazdgerdi calendar : some remarks by our readers

[babak]

As one of the persons in charge for this site, I received several e-mails concerning the Yazdgerdi calendar used on Fravahr.org. I thought that it was convenient to place them in this forum.

[Sarosh Manekshaw]

Dear Mr. Khandani:

I just came across your website http://www.fravahr.org/ after it was brought to my attention by Mr. Parviz Varjavand (see below).

Forgive me for pointing out, but the Zarathushtrian date on your website is wrong - or more specifically - the year is incorrect.

The Zarathushtrian tradition has always been to use the system of dating the era starting with the coronation of the last Zarathushtrian emperor. The last Sassanian emperor, Yezdigard III, we know was coronated on Navroze day (Hormuz roj, Farvardin mah), June 16, 631 CE. Thus, the current Zarathushtrian year is 1373 AY (After Yezdigard III).

Incidentally, there is no record, in the entire history of Zarathushtrian rule in Iran, of there ever being a ZRE in use. This era is purely a figment of one individual's imagination, with no proof that it ever existed, and is totally incorrect and un-Zarathushtrian to use. The Zarathushtrians, unlike the Muslims and Christians, never used a religious-based era for chronological purposes, it was always regal-based. I see no reason why we should now try to emulate the Christians and Muslims.

I hope that you will correct this significant error, by returning to our time-honored system of dating.

With best wishes,

Sarosh Manekshaw

Dear friends,

www.fravahr.org is one of the best sites about materials relating to Zoroastrianism and truly worthy of our attention. Raham Asha is a young scholar who should be on top of our list when it comes to scholars of our religion. This kind and happy young man has received the friendship of many top dastoors in India as he is nothing but good manners and courtesy when it comes to relating to us. He is at present in India studying rare Zoroastrian manuscripts and our priests have opened the doors of their well guarded libraries in India and Pakistan to him for they have come to trust him. If we want to suport a scholar that will not spit in our eye after receiving many years of kindness and generosity from us, Raham is one such man.

Raham and some of his learned friends, Mrs. Homa Nategh, Alain Mole, Massoud Mirshahi, RazmikYeghnazary, Nima Sadjadi, Arman Jamshidi, and Babak Khandani, publish www.fravahr.org from Paris, France. Please go to this site and read it and if you like what you see, please support these wonderful persons so that they may continue their very worthwhile work. I salute all those involved with Fravahr Organization and wish them the best.

Ushta, Parviz Varjavand

[Jamshid Zartoshti]

Dear Sarosh!

The Zarathushtrian tradition has always been to use the system of dating the era starting with the coronation of the last Zarathushtrian emperor. The last Sassanian emperor, Yezdigard III, we know was coronated on Navroze day (Hormuz roj, Farvardin mah), June 16, 631 CE. Thus, the current Zarathushtrian year is 1373 AY (After Yezdigard III).

I have one question regarding to calculation of this year.Arithmetically today is (2004 CE) - (631 CE) = 1373 AY. This would be correct however for Sassanian Vihezakiik Calendar or for Sassanian Oshmurdiik Calendar, if the additional months for regulation would be added to Oshmurdiik Calendar every 120 year. We know however that after the Islamic conquest of Iran the intercalation month never has been added, and the modern Shaahenshaahi and Quadimi Calendars have 365-day Calendar without additional periods. So, according to it, it should be 1374 AY according to Shaahenshaahi and Quadimi Calendars?

Because the difference between Tropical Year and 365-day Calendar per year = 5 hour 48 minutes 45.5 seconds = 20925.5 seconds, and in a period of 1373 year it give us (1373*20925.5 seconds) = 28730711.5 seconds = 332.5 days, about a year. If the Nowruz day in 631 CE was on June 16, then according to a 365-day Calendar today should be 1374 AY?

Please can you kindly clarify if the calculation is right or wrong?

Incidentally, there is no record, in the entire history of Zarathushtrian rule in Iran, of there ever being a ZRE in use.

In the Pahlavi text "Vichidakiha-i Zadspram" ("Selections of Zadspram") 23:9-12 are the following statement:

9. In the forty-seventh year Zartosht passes away, who attains seventy-seven years and forty days in the month Ardwahisht, on the day Khur; and for eight rectified (vehicako) months, till the month Dadvo and day Khur, he should be brought forward as to be reverenced.
10. In the same month Ardwahisht, in the sixty-third year, Frashostar passed away, and in the sixty-fourth year Jamasp, the same as became the priest of priests after Zartosht; in the seventy-third year Hangaurush, son of Jamasp; in the eightieth year Asmok-khanvato, and also in the eightieth year Kabed-us-spae, who is called also Akht the wizard, is killed.
11. Of the six great upholders of the religion there are the two daughters of Zartosht, whose names are Freno and Srito, with Aharubo-stoto, son of Maidok-mah, and another three, who are renowned for their religion for a hundred years, who are Vohunem that is born in the fortieth year of the religion, Seno is afterwards born and passes away in the two-hundredth year, and as to his hundred-discipledom, it exists day and night till the three-hundredth year.
12. Afterwards the religion is disturbed and the monarchy is contested (jangiaito).

It show that there was a time which the Year of the Proclamation of Religion was used. It does not the evidence that the ZRE Yearcalculated by late Zabih Behruz is right (it is another question), but it show that it was used in past.

--
Ushta,
Jamshid Zartoshti,
Minsk, Belarus.

[Sarosh Manekshaw]

Dear Jamshid:

Thanks you for your comments.

As you know, the Shehnshai/Kadmi Zarathushtrian calendars are vague year alendars – of 365 days a year, without any intercalation. As a result, the Zarathushtrian year falls back by approximately one day every four years. Thus it would take approximately ,460 (365 x 4) Julian years for the Zarathushtrian calendar to fall back by one full year. In other words, in 1460 Julian years there would be 1461 Shehnshai/Kadmi years.

So, if we take the start of the current Zoroastrian era (the coronation of Yezdigard III) as the starting point (Navroz day, June 16, 631 CE-Julian) then in approximately 2091 CE (631 + 1460), the Yezdigard era would be 1461 AY. In other words, it would take one full cycle for an extra year to be added to the Yezdigard era. (Please note that the calculations are not precise – but approximate.)

I thus believe that the correct AY year (for the current Zarathushtrian year ending in August 2004 CE) is 1371.

With respect to uses of eras in determining the chronology for Zarathushtrian use, you are quite correct in that Zadspram mentioned that “In the forty-seventh year Zartosht passes away, who attains seventy-seven years and forty days in the month Ardwahisht, on the day Khur, …” Zadspram was referring to incidents that took place with reference to the life of Zarathushtra, so it is quite permissible for him to use, as the applicable epoch for that era, the revelation of Zarathushtra. There is no indication that in Zadparm’s time that all Zoroastrian chronology was based on the revelation of Zarathushtra as the epoch.. If there had been this continued use, upto Zadspram's time, we would not have all this confusion. Historically, it appears, that the system has always been based on each era starting with the coronation of a new emperor. Al Biruni, in his Chronology of Ancient Nations, attests to this fact.

Permit me to also quote from the Greater Bundahisn (Chapter XXXVI):

CHAPTER XXXVI

0. As regards the [Taji] year reckoning of time, of twelve thousand years.

1. One says in the Scripture, "For three thousand years, there was the spiritual state, that is, the creatures were unthinking, unmoving, and intangible; [the lords of the millennia were Aries, Taurus, and Gemini.]

2. For three thousand years Gayomard with the 'gav' was in the material state with antagonism; and the lords of the millennia were Cancer, Leo, and Virgo, so that it became six thousand years.

3. When the rule of the millennium came to Libra, the adversary entered, and Gayomard lived thirty years in the adverse state. 4. Then Mashye and Mashyane grew up for forty years, and it was for fifty years that they did not live as wife and husband. For ninety-three years [and six months] they lived together as wife and husband, till the time when [307] Hooshang attained [to full age.]

5. Hooshang ruled forty years, Tahmurasp thirty years, Jam {Jamshed} ruled six hundred and sixteen years and six months, till the glory {khwarrah} departed [from him,] and after that he was in flight for [a] hundred years, [in all, it is seven hundred and sixteen years and six months.

6. And] then the rule of the millennium came to Scorpio, and Dahak {Zohak} [reigned] a thousand years.

7. Then the rule of the millennium came to Sagittarius; Faridoon [reigned] five hundred years; in these five hundred years of Faridoon, Airij reigned twelve years; Manushchihr reigned a hundred and twenty years; during this reign of Manushchihr, when he was in Mount Patashkhvar, Frasiyav reigned twelve years, Uzob son of Tuhmasp reigned five years, and Kay Kobad fifteen years; [the rule of Sam was during those of Uzob, Kobad, and Manushchihr.] Kay Kaus reigned seventy-five years till his going to the sky, and seventy-five years after that, altogether a hundred and fifty years. Kay Khosraw reigned sixty years; Kay Lohrasp a hundred and twenty years; Kay Vishtasp reigned thirty years till the coming of the Revelation; [approximately one thousand years.

8. Then the rule of the millennium came to Capricornus, and Zartosht of Spitama came for prophecy from the creator Ohrmazd to King Vishtasp. 9. King Vishtasp reigned ninety years after receiving the Revelation {Den},] altogether a hundred and twenty years. Vohuman son of Spend-dat reigned a hundred and twelve years; Humay daughter of Vohuman thirty years; Daray {Darius} son of Chihr-azat, that is Vohuman, twelve years; Daray son of Daray, fourteen years; Alexander the Aruman, fourteen years; the Ashkanians, who bear the name for righteous rule, reigned two hundred and eighty-four years thereafter. Ardashir son of Babag, and the Sasanians reigned four hundred and sixty years in this reckoning; [till the brood of the Tajis {Arabs} gained the position up to the Parsik year four hundred and forty-seven.

10. At present it is the Parsik year five hundred and twenty-seven.]

While the revelation of Zarathushtra is mentioned in paragraph 7, there is no mention of that being the epoch of a new calendar.

Note also that the last paragraph (#10) states that the year (in which the Bundahisn was written) is 527 Parsik.

There is no mention of any ZRE being used in any of this chronology.

Permit me to add, that if the ZRE were a historical fact, there would be no need for the debate (regarding the date of Zarathusthra) to rage on and on. Most recently Gherardo Gnoli, who had initially put Zarathushtra at about 1000 BC, has joined Professors Gershevitch and Henning, in accepting the “Traditional” dating of Zarathushtra, at 258 years before Alexander.

If only our ancestors had maintained a true era starting with the birth or epiphany of Zarathushtra, as the epoch, we would not be in this dilemma. The important point is we just do not know, with any degree of certainty, the date of Zarathushtra.

In conclusion, I maintain that the ZRE is a fabrication of one individual’s imagination. There is no historical record in the Zoroastrian literature that it ever existed.

We are already confused by having 3 Zarathushtrian calendars, let’s not further confuse ourselves by starting a new era, for which we do not even have any definitive proof. This is how we complicate our own history for the future generations.

With best wishes,

Sarosh

[Sarosh Manekshaw]

My apologies for a typing error.

The fourth paragraph should read:

I thus believe that the correct AY year (for the current Zarathushtrian year ending in August 2004 CE) is 1373. (I had 1371 by mistake.)

Best wishes,

Sarosh

[Jamshid Zartoshti]

Dear Sarosh!

Thank you for your kind clarification. Highly appreciate it. I have checked also the Shahenshahi/Kadimi Calendar which I have received from WZO and it is in tune with your words, so July 21 is the start of Kadimi 1374, and August 20 is the start of Shahenshahi 1374. Thank you once again.

If there had been this continued use, upto Zadspram's time, we would not have all this confusion. Historically, it appears, that the system has always been based on each era starting with the coronation of a new emperor. Al Biruni, in his Chronology of Ancient Nations, attests to this fact.

You may be right. I think that if it was in use, it was not for a long time. The Shahs of Iran have used the calculation from coronation, as you write. The quote from Bundahishn is, however, in my humble opinion, related with other calculation -- so called Milleniums. "Bundahishn" and other Pahlavi books says that the world existence time is 9,000 year, so the authors want to calculate the today point. It is not the exact indication, and it was calculated with some lacunas and intercalations.

Permit me to add, that if the ZRE were a historical fact, there would be no need for the debate (regarding the date of Zarathusthra) to rage on and on. Most recently Gherardo Gnoli, who had initially put Zarathushtra at about 1000 BC, has joined Professors Gershevitch and Henning, in accepting the "Traditional" dating of Zarathushtra, at 258 years before Alexander.

Linguistically the Gathas are more early work than the Rig Veda. So it should be written not in 7 century BC. The languages have their evolutions, and it was impossible, in my humble opinion, to make in 7 century BC the Songs in such ancient language. It should be
approximately around 15 century BC -- so it very close to ZRE, while I am not sure that the date is right.

We are already confused by having 3 Zarathushtrian calendars, let’s not further confuse ourselves by starting a new era, for which we do not even have any definitive proof. This is how we complicate our own history for the future generations.

Sadly I have no the English translations of the works written by Zabih Behruz -- it is only in Persian for now. Hope soon we can translate it and will see, if the proofs exist or no.

Thank you again for your clarification. With best wishes,

Ushta,
Jamshid Zartoshti,
Minsk, Belarus.

http://avesta.org.ru
mailto:info@avesta.org.ru