A History of Zoroastrianism: Volume 1, The Early Period (Handbook of Oriental Studies/Handbuch Der Orientalistik) 9004104747, 9789004104747

Citation preview

A HISTORY OF ZOROASTRIANISM Volume One

HANDBUCH DER ORIENTALISTIK HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES ERSTE ABTEILUNG

DER NAHE UND MITTLERE OSTEN THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST

DREIZEHNTER BAND

RELIGION ERSTER ABSCHNITT

REUGIONSGESCHICHTE DES ALTEN ORIENTS UEFERUNG2 HEFf2A

A HISTORY OF ZOROASTRIANISM

A HISTORY OF ZOROASTRIANISM BY

MARY BOYCE Professor of Iranian Studies in the University of London

VOLUME ONE

THE EARLY PERIOD THIRD IMPRESSION WITH CORRECTIONS

EJ. BRILL LEIDEN ·NEW YORK· KOLN

1996

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. First imllression 1975 Second Impression, with corrections 1989

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Die Deutsche Bibliothek- CIP-Einheitsaufnahme The CIP-data has been applied for.

ISSN 0169-9423 ISBN 90 04 10474 7 © CoJ!Yright 1996 by EJ. Brill, Leitkn, The Netherlands AU rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval systtm, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mecluznical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Autlzorkation to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by EJ. BriU provided that the appropriate fees are paid directlY to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 RosewoodDrWe, Suite 910 Datwers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINfED IN MALTA BY INTERPRINT IJMITED

Dedicated (according to the order of our meeting) to those of my Zoroastrian friends to whom this history of their faith owes most Arbab J amshed Sorush Sorushian of Kerman Agha Rustam N oshiravan Belivani of Sharifabad Dastur Khodadad Shehriar N eryosangi of Y azd Ervad Dr. Firoze Meherji Kotwal of Navsari

CONTENTS Foreword . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . IX Foreword to the Third Impression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . XIV Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv PART ONE THE PAGAN BACKGROUND I. General . . . . . . . 3 II. The gods of pagan Iran 22 III. Demons and evil-doing, fabulous creatures, first men and heroes . . . . . . . . 85 IV. Death, the hereafter and funeral rites . 109 V. The nature of the world and its origins . 130 VI. The pagan cult . . . . . . . . . 147

PART Two ZOROASTER AND HIS TEACHINGS VII. Zoroaster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 VIII. Ahura Mazda, Angra Mainyu and the Bounteous Immortals 192 IX. The two states and the three times . . . . . . . . . . . 229 PART THREE THE PREHISTORIC PERIOD OF THE FAITH X. The unrecorded centuries . . . . . XI. The legends of Zoroaster and his sons XII. The laws of purity. . . . . . . . . Excursus: the Zoroastrian funeral rites. Select Bibliography . . Index . . . . . . . . Addenda et Corrigenda

249 277 294

325 • 331

334 348

FOREWORD The serious study of Zoroastrianism in the West is scarcely two hundred years old, for it is founded on the interpretation of the Zoroastrian holy books, called collectively the Avesta, which remained unknown outside the community itself until the late 18th century. From the days of ancient Greece Zoroaster's own name had been familiar to the learned as that of a fabled Eastern sage; and when the Avesta came at last into scholars' hands, they sought eagerly in it for teachings which would justify this fame. At the time European men of letters acknowledged the twofold authority of Christianity and Reason, that of the former being as yet unchallenged by scientific advance; and Zoroastet 's faith, since it had been propounded by one of the great teachers of mankind, was expected to be of a kind which a rational Christian could approve. There was dismay when its scriptures showed it to be on the contrary in many respects remote and strange. For one thing, it was a faith which acknowledged, under God, many lesser divine beings, who were reverenced with a wealth of complex rituals and observances. Christianity and acquaintance with Greek mythology had combined to create in Europe a conviction that polytheism belonged to the childlike past of the human race, having been superseded for all advanced peoples by monotheism. Protestant Christianity, moreover (in which faith most Western interpreters of Zoroastrianism were reared), had no high regard for ritualism, even in the worship of a single God. To accept Zoroastrianism as it was, and to try to understand Zoroaster's teachings with the help of the living tradition, proved accordingly too much for the West; and a solution to the resulting dilemma was eventually found, in the middle of the Igth century, by the brilliant philologist Martin Haug. By painstaking study he isolated the Giithas (a group of seventeen ancient hymns) as the only part of the A vesta which could be regarded as the direct utterance of Zoroaster; and he then proceeded, in all sincerity, to interpret these archaic and very difficult texts (concerning whose translation no two scholars to this day agree) independently from the actual beliefs and practices of Zoroaster's followers, whose forbears, he thought, must have early corrupted their prophet's teachings. Struggling as a pioneer with these baffling hymns, Haug managed to understand Zoroaster to have preached a strict monotheism-stricter even than that of the Hebrew prophets-rejecting while he did so all rituals of sacrifice and worship, apart from prayer. He assumed, that is, that the

X

FOREWORD

prophet of ancient Iran had been the bearer of a rational and ethical theism, which was so remote from the concepts and customs of his own people that, though they brought themselves to accept his teachings, they could not long live with their austerity, but soon distorted them, relapsing more or less into their former beliefs and ways. One consequence of this simplification of Zoroaster's message was that it delayed recognition of his vital part in shaping those Messianic and eschatological doctrines which were to have so great an influence on later Judaeism, Christianity and Islam. In seeking to exalt the prophet's stature, Haug in fact diminished his role in the history of human thought. His thesis proved, however, a potent factor in the development of Zoroastrian studies, and even in that of modern Zoroastrianism. In Europe it was adopted by a number of leading scholars, who were happy to be enabled thus to view Zoroaster in a way acceptable to their own time and culture; and in India, where Haug expounded it in person in the r86o's, it was warmly welcomed by one group of Zoroastrians themselves. This was composed ofParsiswho had received a Western education in Bombay, and who found in Haug's theories a swift and radical solution to a problem that had been tormenting them, namely how to reconcile the elaborate doctrines and usages of their venerable faith with rgth-century scientific thought, and to maintain its dignity against the assaults of Protestant Christian missionaries. They gave ardent support to the idea thus presented to them that Zoroaster had not been even a dualist-a doctrinal

position abhorrent to the proselytizing Christians-but had taught a very simple faith, free from all ritualism and subtleties of dogma. Hence to become his true disciples they had only to reform the existing religion on this basis, making it once more a creed to which any thinking man who was not an atheist could readily adhere. These reformists, setting vigorously about their task, expressed themselves mostly in English, and so it was their voices which were chiefly heard in the West, where by a circular process they were welcomed as confirming scholarly interpretations of their ancient faith. Within their own community they met, however, with strenuous opposition from those, both learned and simple, who were not so ready to abandon the beliefs and customs of their forefathers for a religion newly defined at a European desk. In Europe too the school of rational theism had its sturdy critics, some of whom went to the other extreme, seeing in early Zoroastrianism a traditional polytheism not far removed from the beliefs of Vedic India. The scholarly disputes of the nineteenth century lasted into the twentieth, as did the religious controversies among the Parsis; and

FOREWORD

XI

the difficulty of finding common ground led to ever-new interpretations being propounded in both Europe and India, some of which seem strangely remote from the realities of Zoroastrian scripture or tradition. In general Western scholarship has tended, naturally enough, to concern itself with texts rather than with practice, and with doctrine and mythology rather than with the devotional life of the faith; and these limitations have made it all the easier for free rein to be given to fantasy. While theories about Zoroastrianism have multiplied in the present century, so too has actual knowledge of the religion in all its aspects, through the work of philologists, historians, archaeologists and numismatists, and above all that of Zoroastrian scholars themselves, who, overcoming a habit of reticence engrained by centuries of persecution, have described their own ceremonies and customs, and have published many previously-unknown secondary texts, thus sharing their religious heritage with the outside world. It has not always been easy, however, for Western scholars to use these books, particularly those which expound rituals, since these assume both basic knowledge and also religious attitudes unfamiliar to the non-Zoroastrian. Some have, therefore, remained virtually unstudied, and early misconceptions have thus managed to persist despite new sources of knowledge. The only way to gain perspective for assessing recent developments in Zoroastrianism, and at the same time to find means of marshalling the mass of evidence now available for earlier epochs, seemed to be to attempt the writing of a continuous history of the faith, from the time of the prophet to the present day, without leaving (as has been customary) great gaps over which imagination can all too freely leap, such as the 500 years of Parthian rule in Iran, or the first I,ooo years of Zoroastrianism after the coming of Islam. The difficulties in the way of carrying out such a task are plainly formidable, because of the deficiency of the sources; but enough material has by now accumulated for it to seem no longer impossible. In undertaking it the writer started from the premise that Zoroaster's message is more likely to have been understood by his own disciples and followers than by students from a totally different culture and religious heritage, who first came to struggle with it, purely intellectually, millennia after he had preached. Accordingly throughout this work considerable reliance has been placed on the Zoroastrian tradition, which can be shown to have been remarkably strong and consistent at all known periods down to the time of European impact in the mid-Igth century. It was originally intended to preface the present volume with a brief survey of the various interpretations of Zoroastrianism advanced in

XII

FOREWORD

recent decades; but it became plain that this could not be usefully done until earlier developments had been traced. This survey will accordingly be set instead as an appendix to the last volume. Naturally incidental references to the views of individual scholars are made throughout the work. A minor difficulty in attempting a history of Zoroastrianism lies in the transcribing of proper names and technical terms, since the forms of these vary in the different languages concerned, and at different times and places. For the anCient period one has Avestan and Old Persian, to be followed by Parthian and Middle Persian; and in modern times the speech of the Parsi and Irani communities has again diverged. In the present volume Avestan and Middle Persian (Pahlavi) forms have in general been preferred, since the Zoroastrian texts themselves are preserved in those two languages; but even so the nature of the evidence makes it impossible to avoid some mixing of Avestan and Middle Persian terms. In the transcriptions, particular scholarly usages have been avoided where these could be confusing in a general work, notably the rendering of the voiceless velar fricative (i.e. the final sound in Scottish "loch") by "x". This sound is here represented instead by "kh" (except rarely where whole passages of Avestan or Pahlavi have been transcribed). The practice of using "s" for the voiceless palatal fricative seems, however, simple and unambiguous, and has been adopted except initially, since there are several proper and place names beginning with this sound (such

as Shapur, Shiraz) which are too well-known not to look odd if so spelt. The signs "c" and "z" (in preference to "ch" and "zh") have similarly been retained. The transcriptions "a" for a short indefinite Avestan vowel, and "u" for a modified nasal will not, it is hoped, trouble the general reader. A far greater problem is presented by the nature of the sources. The Zoroastrian priests were long reluctant to use the alien art of writing to record their sacred texts, and no religious works exist whose written form can be attributed to earlier than the 3rd century A. C. Most of what was written down then and thereafter contains matter which is evidently immeasurably older; and the difficulty is to decide which are the ancient elements in each individual work, and to what epoch they can properly be assigned. It has been usual to deal with this problem by treating all Pahlavi books as products in toto of the Sasanian period; but this results in strange anomalies, obliging one, for instance, to expound the immensely archaic cosmology upon which Zoroaster's own teachings rest as if it were the creation of that relatively modern and sophisticated age. Accordingly a different course has been taken in the present work, and comparatively

FOREWORD

XIII

late sources have been drawn on when necessary, with due caveats, to illustrate what appear to have been the beliefs of prehistoric times. In the writing of this first volume (and indeed of the history as a whole) I am deeply indebted for help and information, most generously given, to those of my Zoroastrian friends to whom it is dedicated. It is ruefully said nowadays by Zoroastrians themselves that where three of them are gathered together, there will be three different interpretations of their faith; and I cannot therefore expect that the conclusions drawn here should win their assent. I can only hope that they will be recognizable as part of an honest attempt to approach the truth. I further owe a particular debt to my friend Dr. M. I. Scott of the University Library, Cambridge, for her continual help in obtaining books and references, and even more for illuminating discussions of many perplexing points. Professor Paul Thieme has most kindly spared time for correspondence, and has thereby furnished me with help even beyond what I have derived from his penetrating printed works. I owe too a considerable debt to my friend Dr. Ilya Gershevitch, who by fiercely disagreeing with some of my conclusions has provided a needful spur to further reflection and research. I have also enjoyed discussions of archaeological matters with my learned colleague Dr. A. D. H. Bivar, and have had much help from him, and from his former student, Dr. Shapur Shahbazi, now Director of the Institute for Achaemenid Research at Persepolis. Scholars who have earned my warm gratitude by most kindly sending me references, articles in typescript, rare books or xeroxes relevant to the present volume are Professor Sir Harold Bailey, Professor I. M. Diakonov, Professbr J. Duchesne-Guillemin, Mr. Gordon Wasson, Professor Jacob Neusner, Professor R. E. Emmerick, Professor Martin Schwartz, the late Dr. P. K. Anklesaria, Dr. A. Tafazzoli, Miss Helen Potamianos and Mr. Bela Broganski. I owe particular thanks to Mr. J. R. Hinnells for kindly reading proofs of this volume; and to Professor B. Spuler and the house of Brill for the forbearance which they have shown in face of the slow, remorseless growth of this history from the 30 pages originally allotted to Zoroastrianism in the H andbuch der Orientalistik to the planned four volumes of the present work.

FOREWORD TO THE THIRD IMPRESSION During the twenty years since this volume first appeared two others have been published, and a fourth is in progress which will bring the history down to the end of the Parthian period. As this first volume deals with the founding of the faith and its essential beliefs and observances, its main source is the Avesta. Much work has been done in Avestan studies during these two decades, notably on Old Avestan, the language of the prophet; and this has led to striking advances in the understanding of particular passages in his utterances, and yet new theories about his teachings. No fresh discoveries have, however, led the author to alter her own interpretation of the latter, for the evidence still appears to her to show that they were well understood and faithfully transmitted by his followers, forming the core of Zoroastrian orthodoxy down the ages. (Cf. her article "On the orthodoxy of Sasanian Zoroastrianism", BSOASLIX.1, 1996.) She has discussed some of the new work in her Zoroastrianism: its antiquity and constant vigour (Costa Mesa/New York 1992), in which she was able to use and develop what is perhaps the greatest single contribution to Zoroastrian studies this century, namely Johanna Narten's solidly based conclusion (see her Der Yasna Haptauhaiti, Wiesbaden 1986) that, like the Gathas, the "Worship of the Seven Chapters" (the only other considerable Old Aves tan text) is to be attributed to Zoroaster - something previously only adumbrated. This recognition means that this deeply revered liturgical work can be drawn on for fresh insights into the prophet's beliefs, and for facts about the rituals with which he supported them; and it attests the fidelity of his community to his teachings and devotional practice. Those scholars who maintain the theory of an almost complete abandonment of his doctrines by his first followers are reluctant accordingly to accept the attribution, even though, as well as philological arguments, strong general reasons can be found for regarding all the Old Avestan texts as Zoroaster's own words, piously preserved by his community at the heart of their daily act of worship. References to other new publications relevant to early Zoroastrian studies have been included in a revised addenda et corrigenda list, although considerations of space have required these to be relatively few and selective. As in the second impression, asterisks are set in the text margins to draw attention to this material.

ABBREVIATIONS PRIMARY SOURCES [Where an editor's or translator's name follows in brackets, see under this in the select bibliography]

AN

A.taA Niyayes Ardiy Viriz Nimag (Jamaspji Asa-Haug) Didestin i dinig (T. D. Anklesaria) Dinkard (P. B. and D. P. Sanjana, D. M. Madan} The Greater (or Iranian} Bundahi§n (T. D. Anklesaria, B. T. Anklesaria} The Indian Bundahisn Ind. Bd. KB Kau!?itaki-Brahmai,la Kasyapa-sa:qthiti KSS Mahibhirata Mbh. Menog i Khrad (E. W. West} MKh. Nirangestin (D.P. Sanjana, S. J. Bulsara) Nir. Niyayes Ny. Pahl. Riv. A.durfarnbag The Pahlavi Riviyat of A.durfarnbag (B. T. Anklesaria} Pahl. Riv. Dd. The Pahlavi Riviyat accompanying the Didestin i dinig (B. N. Dhabhar) Pahl. Riv. Farnbag-Sros The Pahlavi Riviyat of Farnbag-Sros (B. T. Anklesaria} The Persian Rivayats (M. R. Unvala, B. N. Dhabhar) Riv. RV Rigveda Saddar Bd. Saddar Bundahisn (B. N. Dhabhar} Sns. Sayest ne-sayest (J. C. Tavadia, F. M. Kotwal} Vendidad Vd. Vr. Visperad VS Vajasaneyisa:qthita Y Yasna YHapt. Yasna Hapta:ghaiti Yt. Yast Zadspram Vizidagihi i Zidspram (B. T. Anklesaria} ZVYt. Zand i Vahman Ya.St (B. T. Anklesaria) ZKh.A Zand i Khordag Avestag (B. N. Dhabhar) AVN Dd. Dk. GBd.

JOURNALS AND OTHER COMPOSITE WORKS AION AKGW zu Gtittingen AMI APAW ARW BSO(A)S ERE GIP IF

IIJ

JA JAOS JBBRAS

Annali dell' Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli Akademie der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft Bulletin of the School of Oriental (and African} Studies, London Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings, 13 vols., Edinburgh 1908-1926 Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, herausgegeben von W. Geiger und E. Kuhn, 2 vols., Strassburg 1895-1904 Indogermanische Forschungen Indo-Iranian Journal Journal asiatique Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society

XVI

JCOI JNES JRAS KZ MO MSS OLZ RHR SBE SPAW TPS WZKM WZKSO ZDMG

ABBREVIATIONS

J oumal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen, begriindet von A. Kuhn Le Monde orientale Miinchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft Orientalische Literaturzeitung Revue de l'histoire des religions The Sacred Books of the East, ed. F. Max Miiller Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Transactions of the Philological Society, London Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde Siid- und Ostasiens Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenliindischen Gesellschaft OTHER SECONDARY WORKS

For abbreviated titles of books see under the author's or editor's name in the select bibliography at the end of the volume. Abbreviations of authors' and editors' names are also given there. NOTE In passages translated from Avestan or Pahlavi an asterisk before a word indicates uncertainty about either its reading or its rendering. With single words an asterisk simply marks a postulated form.

PART ONE

THE PAGAN BACKGROUND

CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL No sound tradition exists about the date of Zoroaster ;1 but the great Iranian prophet cannot be assigned to a time before his people acquired their separate identity in parting from their close cousins, the Indians, 2 and forging their own distinctive languages and culture. For thousands of years, it seems, the Indo-Iranians lived together as nomads on the broad Asian steppes, stretching from the lower Volga eastward to the boundary of Kazakhstan. There they herded long-horned cattle on foot, moving slowly between pastures; and there they gradually evolved a common culture of such strength that elements persisted as a shared heritage long after the two peoples had divided and gone their separate ways. It is generally held that they began to drift apart during the third millennium B.C.; and it is thought that the composition of the oldest Indian work, the Rigveda, should be set as beginning some time around 1700 B.c. a The language of its hymns, in their surviving form, is very close to that of the Gathas, the hymns of Zoroaster; and not only the outward form of the prophet's works, but also strikingly archaic elements in their content, make it reasonable to suppose that he himself cannot have lived later than about 1000 B.C.4 He may in fact have flourished some time earlier. The linguistic evidence shows, moreover, that his home must have been among the Iranians of the north-east; and it is probable that 1 The two dates which exist, that of 6ooo years before Plato (preserved by the Greeks) and that of 258 years before Alexander (to be found in the late Zoroastrian tradition of Sasanian times) both appear to have been calculated from alien data. On these see further p. 286 n. 38 and in Vol. II. 2 In the following pages the term "Indian" is used, for simplicity's sake, for the IndoEuropean people who later invaded the Indian sub-continent, and who in other contexts are referred to as "Indo-Aryans", to distinguish them from the indigenous peoples of India. s See the works of H. Jacobi and B. G. Tilak (bibliography apud S. Konow, Die Inder (Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, begriindet von Chantepie de Saussaye, 4th ed., ed. A. Berthelet and E. Lehmann, Tiibingen 1925) II 6; W. Wiist, "Ober das Alter des ~gveda", WZKM XXXIV, 1927, 186 f.; G. R. Kaye, Hindu Astronomy, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India, No. 18, 1924, 29 ff.; H. W. Bailey in Literatures of the East, ed. E. B. Ceadel, Cambridge 1953, 100. 4 That the date of Zoroaster was somewhere between 1000 and goo B.C., or perhaps even earlier, was formerly the opinion of most Western scholars, including E. Meyer, F. C. Andreas, C. Clemen, C. Bartholomae, B. Geiger, F. Windischmann, A. B. Keith, J. Charpentier, C. P. Tiele and R. Kent. The support given to the date of "258 years before Alexander" in recent decades is largely due to the powerful advocacy of A. Meillet, E. Herzfeld, S. H. Taqizadeh and W. B. Henning; but the authenticity of this date has latterly been strongly challenged again, see further inCh. ], below.

* The asterisks in the margin refer to the Addenda et Corrigenda at the end of the book.

*

* *

*

*

4

THE PAGAN BACKGROUND

* his own people (known as the "Avestan people" from the name of the

*

Zoroastrian scriptures, the Avesta) settled eventually in Khwarezmia, the land along the lower course of the Oxus.s Up to the present century little was known of the prehistory of this area, or of the surrounding ancient kingdoms (Bactria, Sogdia and Ferghana to the south-east and east, Parthia and Margiana to the south). All these now form part of Soviet Central Asia, being divided among the territories of the Uzbek, Tajik, Turkmen and Kirghiz republics; and during this century much excavation has been carried out in the region by Soviet archaeologists, through which knowledge has been gained of its remote past. s As for the Indo-Iranians in their nomadic stage, they have been identified as one of the bearers of the Andronovo culture, which in the znd millennium B.C. was distinguished by fine tool- and weapon-making in bronze. 7 (The great mace wielded by the Iranian Mithra appears from its fixed poetic description to have been fashioned of this metal. B) A slender shaft of light has been thrown on their society by the study of certain legalistic Vedic and Avestan texts,9 which show that the Indians and Iranians had a common tradition not only of kingship but of high kings, and that the high king's rule was not arbitrary, but was bounded to some extent by undertakings entered into with his vassals, so that he acknowledged obligations as well as exercising rule. This pattern of society appears to have become reflected in that of the gods, for its influence has been traced in the development of beliefs in the asuras of the Indo-Iranian

6 This country first became known to the West through the Greeks, and various other forms of its name are in use, e.g. Chorezm, Choresmia, Khorasmia, Khwarezm. In Old Persian it appears as (H)uvarazmi. On the various grounds for linking the prophet's people with this area see J. Marquart, Eriinsahr nach der Geographic des Ps. Moses Xorenac'i, AKGW zu Gottingen, Berlin 1901, 155-6; A. Christensen, Acta Orientalia IV, 1926, 82 with n. I (who cites also F. C. Andreas); E. Herzfeld, AM I I, 1929/1930, 104 n. 2, II, 1930, 4-7; H. W. Bailey, BSOS VI, 1932, 951-3; E. Benveniste, BSOS VII, 1934, 268-72; W. B. Henning, Zoroaster, politician or witch-doctor?, Ratanbai Katrak Lectures I949. Oxford 1951, 44-5· 6 A survey of Soviet excavations, with a valuable annotated bibliography, is provided by G. Frumkin, Archaeology in Soviet Central Asia (Handbuch der Orientalistik VII.3.1, ed. J. E. van Lohuizen-de Leeuw), Leiden 1970. For a more general treatment see A. Belenitsky, The ancient civilization of Central Asia, transl. by J. Hogarth, London 1969; V. M. Masson and V.I. Sarianidi, Central Asia, Turkmenia before the Achaemenids, trans!. by R. Tringham (Ancient Peoples and Places, ed. G. Daniel) London 1972. 7 The great difficulties in definitely identifying a people with a culture known only from material remains makes this arguable, however. See, contra, K. Jettmar, Zur Wanderungsgeschichte der !ranier, Vienna 1956. 8 See W. B. Henning apud M. Boyce, BSOAS XXXIII, 1969, 16 n. 31. On the coming of the Iron Age among the Indians and Iranians, from c. 1000 B.C., see N. R. Banerjee, The Iron Age in India, Delhi 1965; R. Ghirshman, Iran (Pelican Archaeology Series) London 1954, 86-8. 9 See H. Liiders, Eine arische Anschauung uber den Vertragsbruch, SPA W, Phil.-hist. kl., 1917.

GENERAL

5

pantheon.1o It may also be mirrored in one of the oldest of the Avestan hymns, the Mihr Y ast, where the expression vispanqm dahyunq_m dai~hu­ paiti- "king of many countries" occurs, as well as dai~husasti "command of countries, empire", and dahyunqm jrat~matat "council of the first men of countries", possibly that is, of tribal chiefs or vassal kings.ll That those with power themselves should have accepted the restraints of pact and bond seems in accord with the leading philosophical concept of the IndoIranians, that ofrta (Avestan a5a),12 by which was understood a principle of order and rightness that governed the natural world (causing the sun to rise and set and the seasons to change), and also directed human society, so that to be happy in life and death men must submit to its workings, and regulate their own lives with seemliness. The social pattern thus divined for the Indo-Iranians is in harmony with what is known of later nomads of the steppes, such as the Mongols, among whom likewise there existed strong traditions of mutual loyalty and obligation, as well as power in the hands of great chiefs. In the uncertain conditions of a wandering life good leadership is necessary for the well-being offamily, tribe and people; and so one has the development of "nomad feudalism", with a hierarchy mounting up to a position of very considerable power for its head. As has been pointed out, 1a the ultimate conquests by Indians and Iranians of the lands where they now live would hardly have been possible without such leaders, as in the case of the great nomad invasions of historic times. Another aspect of Indo-Iranian society in its pastoral period was that it was divided broadly into three groups.14 In Zoroaster's hymns these were called by the following terms: nar, literally "man", that is, the fighting man or warrior; zaotar "priest", either "he who makes the offerings" or 10 See in more detail in the following chapter. For the persistence in the Rigveda and later Indian literature of the idea that earthly kings, and the king of the gods, were both themselves bound by obligations see H.-P. Schmidt, Vedisch vratd. und awestisch urvllta, Hamburg 1958, 42-4; W. Rau, Staat und Gesellschaft im alten Indien, Wiesbaden 1957, 93 f.; P. Thieme, II] III, 1959, 148-9. 11 See Yt. xo. 145, 87, 18. I. Gershevitch (The Avestan hymn to Mithra, Cambridge 1959, 296-9) who thus interprets these terms, seeks, perhaps rightly, to link them rather with conditions prevailing in Central Asia in the 6th century B.C., at the time of the rise of the Achaemenians. The fluidity of the oral tradition by which almost all Avestan texts have been transmitted makes it impossible to date their subject-matter at all closely. 12 See further in the following chapter. 13 Liiders, op. cit., p. 374· 14 See E. Benveniste, "Les classes sociales dans la tradition avestique", ]A 1932, 117-34; "Traditions indo-iraniennes sur les classes sociales", ]A 1938, 529-49. On G. Dumezil's theory that these three groups were reflected in a threefold division also of the IndoEuropean (and hence Indo-Iranian) gods see Vol. IV, Appendix. On the general social and cultural picture given by the Avesta (treated in the main as if it represented "Avestan" society at one place and time) see B. Geiger, Ostiriinische Kultur im Alterthum, Erlangen 1882; transl. by D. P. Sanjana, Civilization of the Eastern Iranians in ancient times, London !885.

*

6

THE PAGAN BACKGROUND

* "he who invokes" ;15 and viistar "pasturer", the herdsman who tended the

cattle in their grazing grounds (viistra-). In the later Avesta other terms occur also. Thus there is a general term for a priest, iithravan, athaurvan (Skt. dtharvan), an Indo-Iranian word of doubtful etymology; 1 6 and the herdsman is commonly called viistryo.Jsuyant "(cattle)-fattening pasturer", and is also termed khvasar "good-pasturer" .17 The warrior is usually known as rathaestar "chariot rider", a term evolved evidently after the Iranians had adopted the war-chariot instead of fighting on foot. This development is held to have taken place during the second millennium B.C. ;18 and so popular did the chariot become that in time most of the gods of the Iranians and Indians came to be conceived as driving in one. Zoroaster himself seems to have made use of a wheeled vehicle in his journeyings ;1 9 but the vocabulary of his poetry still reflects an older state of affairs, when probably only the weak and old travelled in heavy ox-drawn carts, and men would have made their way, and fought, on foot. The riding of horses seems to have come even later, probably not until well into the first millennium B.C., 20 and is reflected in yet another Younger Avestan word for warrior: biisar "horseman" .21 The dog must earlier have been therefore an invaluable ally of the nomad herdsman, in rounding up and protecting the grazing herds; and it was evidently in those far-off days that cow and dog together assumed their great importance in the social and also religious life of the Indo-Iranians, an importance which in Zoroastrianism they never lost. The division of society into three classes or estates is found with other pastoral peoples of old, such as the ancient Irish, and is indeed held by some to have been a feature of Indo-European society. The theory was long sustained in Iran and India; but plainly even in their nomadic days

* *

15 Ir. zaotar, Ved. hotyprobably both derive from an Indo-Iranian *zhautar in which two meanings appear to have coalesced, from agent nouns of two different verbs meaning to "pour" and "call"; see Bartholomae, Altiranisches Worterbuch, 1653; K. F. Geldner in Indo-Iranian Studies presented to D. P. Sanjana, 2nd series, 1925, 277 ff.; Gershevitch, AHM, 272. 16 The link formerly proposed with Av. iitar "fire" is now generally rejected on philological grounds. SeeS. Wikander, Feuerpriester in Kleinasien und Iran, Lund 1946, 12-14. 17 See Benveniste, ]A 1932, 123-4 {khvii§ar ( *hu.viistar-). 18 See Stuart Piggott, Prehistoric India to zooo B.C., 2nd ed., London 1962, 268-9, 275-83; A. Kammenhuber, Hippologia hethica, Wiesbaden 1961, 10 f.; R. A. Crossland, Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd ed., I 2, 1971, 873-4; D. M. Lang, Armenia, London 1970, 82-3. 19 See Yasna 51.12 (if the assumption is right, see Bartholomae, Air. Wb. 1417, that viizii is dual for "two draught-animals"). 2o The Scythians or Sakas seem to have been the first fully-mounted nomads of the steppes. 21 See Benveniste, loc. cit.; Bartholomae, Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, I 171, § 295 {bii§ar- bartar-).