calendar. For the Cappadocian calendar, as known in late Antiquity, consisted
of twelve 30-day months followed byfive epagomenal days, and its month-
names were clearly of Avestan origin.^51 The use of Avestan month-names may
also suggest that the introduction of this calendar to Cappadocia went as far
back as the Achaemenid period.
Further evidence that the Cappadocian calendar was originally Persian
Zoroastrian can be drawn from its relationship to the Julian calendar in the
late Roman period, when the Cappadocian New Year was fixed on 12
December. This seemingly arbitrary date can be explained on the assumption
that when the drifting Cappadocian calendar was adapted and stabilized in
relation to the Julian calendar through the addition of one day in leap years, its
New Year happened to occur on Julian 12 December. The earliest the Cappa-
docian calendar could have been‘Julianized’in this way was after the institu-
tion of the Julian calendar in 46BCE, at which time the Persian Zoroastrian
New Year (1 Farwardīn) fell a few days earlier than 12 December (and in
subsequent years, earlier still).^52 Although the dates do not agree exactly
(a solution to this problem will be presented in Chapter 5, where the Julianiza-
tion of the Cappadocian calendar will be discussed in detail), at present it is
sufficient to note that the date of the Roman-period Cappadocian New Year
(12 December) is at least approximately compatible to an originally Persian
Zoroastrian calendar,^53 which confirms that the latter was originally used in
Cappadocia.
Sistan, MandaeansA totally different region of the Achaemenid Empire where the Persian
Zoroastrian calendar may have been introduced is Sistan, a south-eastern
province of Iran. In al-Biruni’s period (c.1000CE), indeed, its calendar was a
365-day year.^54 Nothing is known, however, about the earlier history of this
calendar.
More can be said of the Mandaeans, whose modern-day location in southern
Iraq and Khuzistan (ancient Elam) probably goes well back into Antiquity.
(^51) Boyce (1975–91) iii. 279–81, Panaino (1990) 663–4; see also Kubitschek (1915) 102–4. The
Avestan month-names indicate that this calendar was specifically Persian Zoroastrian rather
than Egyptian. The Egyptian calendar is known to have been adopted elsewhere in the Eastern
Mediterranean (see later in this chapter), but this is very unlikely in Cappadocia, where Egypt is
not known to have ever exerted any influence.
(^52) This is assuming, following de Blois (see above), the original Persian Zoroastrian calendar
before its Sasanian reform.
(^53) By contrast it is incompatible an originally Egyptian calendar, because the Egyptian civil
New Year (1 Thoth) never occurred in December during the whole of the Roman period. 54
Panaino (1990) 666. Surprisingly, Panaino makes no reference to the Mandaean calendar.
182 Calendars in Antiquity