Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:56:50.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Era of Zoroaster”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

S. H. Taqizadeh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is well known that the time of Zoroaster and the date of his birth or that of the announcement of his mission have not so far been indisputably established. In spite of very numerous writings published during more than two centuries, in which the question has been studied by many scholars, no unanimous conclusion has been reached. The opinions of famous scholars in the last eighty years have differed so widely that the date suggested has ranged between the eleventh or tenth centuries and the last part of the sixth century B.C. We are still hardly near to agreement on the matter.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 79 , Issue 1-2 , January 1947 , pp. 33 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1947

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 33 note 1 We have some indications of the existence of an “Era of Ardashir” in some writings of the Syrian subjects of Persia, but no definite proof of its use in the official or non-official Persian documents of the Sasanian period

page 34 note 1 An era beginning in 247 b.c. was apparently in use before Sasanians at least in certain circles (e.g. in Babylonian documents), and this was, no doubt, the “Arsacid Era”; but it is doubtful if it was ever in general use as the Parthian coins bear no such dates.

page 35 note 1 For full details see the article on “Some Chronological data relating to the Sasanian period” by the present writer, , BSOS., vol. ix, p. 134Google Scholar.

page 38 note 1 I had reached the same conclusion independently, but the learned lady has certainly full right to priority by publishing her ingenious remarks.

page 39 note 1 This is according to the Kisravī's table as given by Bīrūnī, (Chronology, p. 130)Google Scholar on the authority of Ḥamza of Isphahan. The numbers in the printed copy of the book of Ḥamza (Berlin ed., pp. 15–16) are, however, erroneous.