|
ZOROASTRIANISM
i.
HISTORICAL
REVIEW
This
article
presents
an
overview
of
the
history
of
Zoroastrianism
from
its
beginnings
through
the
9th
and
10th
centuries
CE.
Details
of
different
periods
and
specific
issues
relating
to
Zoroastrianism
are
discussed
in
relevant
entries.
Owing
to
both
the
nature
and
availability
of
sources,
it
is
difficult
to
write
a
comprehensive
history
of
Zoroastrianism,
as
there
are
periods
about
which
we
know
very
little,
others
for
which
information
is
well
restricted
to
circumscribed
subjects
or
genres,
and
still
others
that
must
be
reconstructed
by
reading
back
in
time
from
the
contents
of
later
writings
or
by
reading
forward
from
the
sources
of
cognate
cultures.
A
survey
of
the
important
scholarly
literature
on
the
subject
will
reveal
both
areas
of
consensus
and
those
of
widely
divergent
opinion.
While
it
is
often
possible
to
distinguish
clearly
fact
from
theory,
one
finds
all
too
frequently
that
fact
and
theory
are
hard
to
disentangle
one
from
the
other.
Sources.
The
most
important
source
for
our
knowledge
of
the
ancient
period
of
Zoroastrian
history
is
the
collection
of
scriptures
known
by
its
Middle
Persian
(Pahlavi)
name
Abesta@g
(Avesta,
q.v.).
Written
in
an
ancient
Eastern
Iranian
language,
Avestan
(q.v.),
the
Avesta
is
the
great
achievement
of
learned
Zoroastrian
priests
who
collected,
edited,
and
codified
a
variety
of
written
and
oral
traditions
during
the
Sasanian
period,
that
is,
during
an
era
far
removed
from
the
times
when
the
constituent
pieces
of
the
tradition
were
composed.
Those
constituent
pieces
that
have
survived
to
today,
however,
represent
only
a
fraction
of
what
the
Sasanian
priests
produced.
During
the
reign
of
Kòosrow
I
Ano@æirava@n
(531-79
CE),
if
not
earlier,
there
existed
a
vast
collection
of
texts
consisting
of
twenty-one
Nasks
(parts).
These
Nasks
had
been
composed
partially
in
Avestan
and
partially
in
Pahlavi.
In
addition
to
much
of
the
extant
corpus
of
the
Avesta,
there
were
other
Avestan
texts
that
have
since
been
lost,
as
well
as
a
vast
amount
of
texts
written
in
Pahlavi,
called
zand
"commentary,"
which
were
either
glosses
of
Avestan
originals
or
compositions
for
which
no
Avestan
ancestor
had
existed.
Priest-scholars
in
the
9th
and
10th
centuries
compiled
extensive
digests
of
these
materials,
such
as
the
De@nkard
and
the
Bundahiæn
(qq.v.).
In
sorting
through
these
digests,
one
must
attempt
to
distinguish
what
may
have
had
an
ancient
Avestan
origin
and
what
derives
from
Sasanian
or
even
Arsacid
sources.
What
this
means
to
the
historian
is
that
the
disposition
of
the
scriptural
sources
is
almost
entirely
non-contemporaneous
with
times
and
eras
that
one
wants
to
understand
through
them.
Furthermore,
it
is
almost
impossible
to
figure
out
the
date
with
any
degree
of
accuracy,
since
the
constituent
pieces
of
the
Avesta
deal
to
a
great
extent
with
matters
of
ritual,
myth,
and
worship
without
any
reliable
ties
to
dateable
events.
To
gain
a
perspective
on
ancient
western
Iranian
religious
history
one
has
the
relatively
small
corpus
of
Achaemenid
inscriptions
contemporaneous
with
the
events
they
report
and,
in
addition,
documents
from
the
ancient
Near
East
and
the
writings
of
Classical
authors,
of
whom
the
most
significant
is
Herodotus.
Although
Greek
and
Latin
authors
are
important,
sometimes
sole
sources
for
the
span
of
time
stretching
from
the
Achaemenids
through
the
Sasanians,
they
must
always
be
approached
with
critical
caution.
There
is
very
little
source
material,
indigenous
or
foreign,
for
the
Seleucid
and
Arsacid
periods.
For
the
Sasanians
there
are
the
literary
sources
already
discussed,
inscriptions,
especially
important
among
them
being
that
of
the
high
priest
Kirde@r,
and
a
variety
of
writings
on
coins,
silverware,
etc.;
in
addition,
we
have
Byzantine
sources
and
historians
of
the
Islamic
period
(e.g.,
T®abari,
Êa¿a@lebi,
Meskawayh)
preserve
much
valuable
information.
For
all
periods,
save
the
most
ancient,
art,
architecture,
and
the
material
culture
revealed
by
archeology
provide
information
usually
not
present
in
the
written
record.
Ancient
Iranian
religion.
Just
as
in
the
case
of
other
religions
that
can
be
identified
with
a
founder,
whether
Jesus,
Ma@ni,
or
Moháammad,
so
too
with
Zoroastrianism,
we
find
that
the
new
religious
movement
was
inspired
and
informed
against
an
historical-cultural
background
peculiar
to
the
founder.
Thus,
the
history
of
Zoroastrianism
cannot
begin
with
Zarathustra,
but
rather
with
the
reconstruction
that
we
achieve
of
ancient
Iranian
religion.
Matters
are
complicated
by
the
fact
that
Zarathustra's
religious
vision
(dae@na@,
see
DEÚN)
seems
to
have
been
slow
in
its
spread
among
the
Iranian
peoples.
Ancient
forms
of
religion
coexisted
and
intermingled
with
the
new.
An
eventual
synthesis
occurred,
quite
different
from
the
ruptures
with
the
past
that
one
finds
in
Christianity
and
Islam.
During
the
3rd
millennium,
a
large
group
of
loosely
associated
tribes
calling
themselves
Arya
(q.v.),
living
somewhere
in
central
Asia
and
speaking
related
dialects
of
what
is
now
known
as
the
Indo-Iranian
group
of
Indo-European
languages,
differentiated
itself
into
two
major
linguistic
and
cultural
groups.
By
the
middle
of
the
2nd
millennium
one
group
was
migrating
into
the
Punjab
region
of
the
Indian
subcontinent
and
into
Anatolia,
while
the
other
group
was
migrating
over
the
Iranian
plateau.
The
Indo-Aryans
who
found
themselves
in
the
ancient
Near
East
played
a
brief
role
in
political
and
military
affairs,
but
were
soon
absorbed
by
the
dominant
cultures.
The
Indo-Aryans
who
settled
the
Punjab
and
the
Iranians
(Mid.
Pers.
e@ra@n,
an
old
genitive
plural
*arya@na@m,
Av.
airya@na…m
"land
of
the
Aryas")
soon
overwhelmed
the
respective
indigenous
populations
politically,
linguistically,
and
culturally.
Once
sharing
common
religious
ideologies
and
cultic
practices,
as
they
settled
down,
the
two
groups
began
to
develop
their
religious
lives
along
separate
lines.
Nevertheless,
when
the
religious
texts
of
both
are
studied
together
they
provide
a
basis
for
reconstructing
common
features
and
for
identifying
innovations.
Central
to
both
Iranians
and
Indo-Aryans
was
the
sacrificial
worship
(Av.
yasna-,
OInd.
yajña‚-)
of
the
gods
(Av.
dae@va-,
OPers.
daiva,
OInd.
deva‚;
see
DAIVA,
DEÚV),
in
which
an
essential
element
was
the
preparation
of
the
sacred
drink
(Av.
haoma-,
OPers.
hauma-,
OInd.
so‚ma-;
see
HAOMA).
They
worshiped
deities,
some
of
whom
bore
the
same
or
nearly
identical
names,
for
example,
Miƒra/Mitra,
Vayu/Va@yu,
ÿwo@r™ætar/TvasátÂar,
and
some
represented
common
concepts
of
divine
functions,
for
example,
V™r™ƒra©na/Indra
(warrior),
Sp™nta@
AÚrmaiti/Práthiv^
(Earth),
AÚtar/Agni
(Fire).
At
the
head
of
the
Iranian
pantheon
stood
Ahura
Mazda@
(q.v.).
He
was
a
creator
(da@tar)
in
the
sense
that
he
exercised
dominion
over
creation
in
establishing
order
and
putting
(vb.
da@-)
everything
in
its
proper
place.
The
actual
crafting
of
the
creation
was
the
work
of
the
demiurge,
ƒwo@r™ætar-
"craftsman."
Ahura
Mazda@'s
consort
was
the
Earth,
known
by
the
name
Sp™nta@
AÚrmaiti
(q.v.),
though
he
seems
to
have
had
other
wives,
the
Ahura@n^s
(q.v.)
"wives
of
Ahura."
Ahura
Mazda@
had
a
particular
connection
to
the
cosmic
principle
of
order
and
truth
called
aæáa-
(q.v.)
in
Avestan
(OInd.
ráta‚-,
OPers
arta-),
and
like
the
supreme
Vedic
god
Varunáa,
was
a
source
of
insight
into
Truth
for
poets,
the
divinely
inspired
creators
of
sacred
hymns.
Two
male
deities
were
closely
associated
with
Ahura
Mazda@.
One
was
Raænu
"Judge,"
who
had
a
limited
judicial
function,
analogous
to
that
exercised
by
Varunáa,
in
serving
as
the
divine
judge
presiding
over
the
oaths
sworn
by
men.
The
other
was
Miƒra.
While
Miƒra
was
a
complex
deity,
the
essence
of
his
being
was
that
he
was
foremost
the
god
"Covenant."
That
is,
he
presided
over
all
treaties
between
nations
and
covenants
between
people.
The
image
of
him
as
a
mighty
warrior
riding
in
his
chariot
full
of
weapons
reflects
his
ability
to
enforce
the
sanctity
of
covenants.
As
a
warrior
he
shares
much
in
common
with
another
powerful
deity
V™r™ƒra©na
(Mid.
Pers.
Wahra@m,
NPers.
Bahra@m)
"Victory,"
whose
name
etymologically
means
"the
smashing
of
resistance"
(AirWb.,
col.
1412;
see
BAHRAÚM).
As
such
he
embodied
the
ideal
of
the
Iranian
warrior
who
was
capable
of
smashing
the
defenses
of
all
enemies
(Boyce,
1975-82,
I,
pp.
62-65;
Schwartz,
pp.
671-73).
Warriors
invoked
both
Miƒra
and
V™r™ƒra©na
as
they
went
into
battle,
yet,
when
it
came
to
the
exercise
of
legitimate
temporal
power
and
the
success
of
the
ruler
in
wielding
that
power,
two
other
forces
came
into
play.
The
Iranians
developed
a
unique
concept
of
an
impersonal
force
called
xúar™nah-
"glory,"
conceived
as
a
fiery
presence
that
attached
itself
to
legitimate
rulers
but
remained
unobtainable
by
illegitimate
usurpers
(see
FARR[AH];
Bailey,
pp.
1-51).
Without
this
royal
glory
one
could
not
hope
to
hold
power.
Whereas
xúar™nah-
was
an
impersonal
power,
victory
to
the
legitimate
ruler
and
righteous
warrior
was
granted
by
the
goddess
Ana@hiti/Ana@hita@
(see
ANAÚHIÚD),
who
maintained
this
role
even
into
Islamic
times,
disguised
as
ˆahrba@nu.
Like
Athena
and
Iætar,
she
dispensed
success
in
arms.
(Schwarz,
pp.
667-84).
The
cosmos
was
basically
three-tiered,
consisting
of
earth,
atmosphere,
and
heaven.
The
earth
was
divided
into
six
concentric
continents
(karævar)
surrounding
the
central
continent,
Xúainiraƒa
(Mid.
Pers.
Xwanirah),
where
aryana
vae@jah
(Mid.
Pers.
EÚra@n-We@z,
q.v.)
"the
Iranian
expanse"
was
located
(Gnoli,
1980,
pp.
88-90;
idem,
1989,
pp.
38-47;
Benveniste,
1933-35;
for
various
suggestions
concerning
its
location,
see
Dandamaev,
pp.
36-37).
At
the
center
of
the
earth
was
the
cosmic
mountain,
Hara@
B™r™zait^,
the
Alborz
(q.v.),
which
acted
as
the
axis
mundi.
At
its
southern
flank
was
the
sacred
Vouru-kaæa
sea
(see
FRAÚXKARD),
in
the
middle
of
which
grew
the
Tree
of
Life
(Av.
Gaok™r™na,
Mid.
Pers.
Go@girn).
Over
the
earth
and
expanse
of
sky
arched
the
stone
vault
of
heaven
(asman-)
beyond
which
was
the
realm
of
the
Infinite
Lights
(ana©ra
rao±å),
and
the
heavenly
abode
called
the
Best
Existence
(vahiæta-
ahu-),
and
the
House
of
Song
(garo@.nma@na-,
Mid.
Pers.
garo@dma@n,
q.v.).
Below
the
earth
was
the
realm
of
Infinite
Darkness,
(ana©ra
t™må).
The
entire
earth
rested
upon
and
was
surrounded
by
the
waters
of
chaos.
Fresh
water
flowed
down
Hara@
in
the
river
goddess
Ar™dv^
Su@ra@,
the
Strong
Moist,
into
the
Vouru-kaæa,
and
from
it
the
various
rivers
of
the
world
flowed,
accumulating
pollutants
in
their
courses,
to
the
salt
sea
called
Pu@itika,
the
Filterer,
from
which
the
hydrological
cycle
repeated
itself
(Boyce,
1975-82,
I,
pp.
135-36).
As
far
as
one
can
reconstruct
on
the
basis
of
Pahlavi
sources,
thought
concerning
the
temporal
dimension
of
the
cosmos
was
in
terms
of
a
system
of
three
or
four
world
ages,
analogous
to
the
yuga
system
of
ancient
India
and
the
four
metallic
ages
of
Greece,
with
each
lasting
three-thousand
years.
One
can
guess
that
there
was
an
idea
of
the
degradation
of
the
cosmos
over
the
course
of
the
ages
and
that
a
complete
cycle
would
have
ended
with
a
cataclysm
and
subsequent
creation
that
renewed
the
cycle,
though
in
its
present
form
the
cycle
has
been
thoroughly
transformed
into
a
myth
of
creation,
battle
of
good
and
evil,
final
triumph
of
the
good
and
establishment
of
the
eternal
kingdom
of
God,
Ohrmazd
(see
COSMOGONY
AND
COSMOLOGY
i.).
The
yearly
cycle
was
punctuated
by
various
sacred
festivals,
which
probably
varied
from
region
to
region.
The
most
important
was
the
spring
festival
celebrating
the
new
year
(Phl.
no@g
ro@z,
New
Pers.
nowruz),
preceded
by
a
liminal
time
marking
the
return
of
the
spirits
of
the
dead,
the
frawaæis
(see
FRAVAˆI;
Gignoux,
2001,
pp.
16-20).
The
ancient
Iranian
cultic
practices
seem
to
have
been
very
similar
to
those
referred
to
in
the
Vedic
literature.
Men
with
special
training
were
required
and,
as
at
later
periods,
the
priestly
functions
may
have
been
hereditary.
The
presiding
priest
was
the
zaotar-
(OInd
ho‚tar-)
'the
one
who
offers
libations,"
who
was
attended
by
various
functionaries.
Another
functional
title,
aƒaurvan-
(cf.
OInd.
a‚tharvan-)
became
the
name
for
the
sacerdotal
caste,
though
originally
it
may
have
designated
those
priests
charged
with
the
care
of
the
sacred
fire,
a@tar-
(see
AÚTAˆ),
both
the
element
and
a
deity.
Worship
of
the
deities
was
ritually
performed
through
the
yasna.
Originally
this
was
a
complex
ritual
that
involved
the
offering
of
a
sacrifice
(food)
and
the
sacred
haoma
(drink).
Modeled
on
rites
of
hospitality,
the
yasna
was
an
elaborate
festive
meal
to
which
a
deity
or
deities
were
invited
as
honored
guests.
The
deity
was
offered
food
and
drink,
and
was
entertained
through
the
recitation
of
poetry
created
for
the
occasion
to
magnify
the
divine
guest.
The
poet
was
called
a
ma…ƒra@n
(cf.
OInd.
mantrín-),
that
is,
one
who
creates
sacred
poetry
(ma…ƒra-).
The
yaæts
of
the
Avesta
are
collections
of
such
poetry
(see
Thieme,
1957).
Beliefs
about
the
soul,
death,
and
an
afterlife
were
complex.
A
person
possessed
a
number
of
what
one
might
loosely
call
souls.
In
addition
to
animating
forces,
the
urvan
(Pahl.
ruwa@n)
was
the
individual's
soul,
which
survived
death
and
went
to
the
other
world;
the
frawaæi
was
a
guardian
spirit;
the
dae@na@
was
a
sort
of
spiritual
double
(Gignoux,
2001,
pp.
12-16,
20-30;
Widengren,
1983).
At
death,
when
the
breath
of
life
(vya@na@-;
Mid.
Pers.
gya@n,
NPers.
ja@n)
departed,
the
soul
hovered
near
the
corpse
(immediately
possessed
by
Nasu,
the
demon
of
putrefaction)
for
three
days
before
journeying
to
a
bridge
crossing
to
the
other
world.
This
is
the
Ùinwad
bridge
(see
ÙINWAD
PUHL)
mentioned
already
by
Zarathustra.
It
is
not
known
what
ethical
concepts
were
originally
applied
to
this
perilous
crossing,
but
with
Zarathustra
and
the
rest
of
the
Zoroastrian
tradition
the
crossing
meant
the
time
of
reckoning
for
one's
good
and
evil
deeds,
with
the
righteous
proceeding
to
heaven,
the
wicked
to
the
abyss.
Zarathustra.
One
of
the
most
vexing
problems
for
a
history
of
Zoroastrianism
is
the
location
of
Zarathustra
in
time
and
place.
While
there
is
general
agreement
that
he
did
not
live
in
western
Iran,
attempts
to
locate
him
in
specific
regions
of
eastern
Iran,
including
Central
Asia,
remain
tentative.
Also
uncertain
are
his
dates.
Plausible
arguments
place
him
anywhere
from
the
13th
century
BCE
to
just
before
the
rise
of
the
Achaemenid
empire
under
Cyrus
II
the
Great
(q.v.)
in
the
mid-6th
century
BCE,
with
the
majority
of
scholars
seeming
to
favor
dates
around
1000
BCE,
which
would
place
him
as
a
contemporary,
at
least,
of
the
later
Vedic
poets
(see,
e.g.,
Boyce,
1975-82,
I,
pp.
190-91;
Duchesne-Guillemin,
pp.
135-38;
Gnoli,
1980,
pp.
159-79;
Henning;
Hertel;
Herzfeld;
Jackson,
1896;
Klima,
1959;
Shahbazi,
1977
and
2002).
The
milieu
in
which
Zarathustra
began
his
mission
was
sketched
above.
He
was
both
a
zaotar
and
a
ma…ƒra@n.
The
only
reliable
biographical
information
about
him
is
contained
in
his
Gathas
(q.v.),
preserved
by
oral
tradition
for
centuries
and
then
continued
to
the
present
in
oral
and
written
priestly
transmission.
Zarathustra
had
a
particularly
close
relationship
with
Ahura
Mazda@,
from
whom
he
received
revelatory
visions
(dae@na@-).
His
vision,
expressed
in
the
Gathas,
included
a
radical
transformation
of
traditional
beliefs.
In
place
of
the
pantheon
he
elevated
Ahura
Mazda@
to
a
position
of
supremacy
that
approaches
monotheism
and
surrounded
him
with
a
group
of
abstract
entities,
the
Am™æa
Sp™ntas
(q.v.),
all
of
whom
perpetuate
key
concepts
of
Iranian
religion
as
hypostases
of
Ahura
Mazda@.
At
the
heart
of
the
vision,
though,
was
an
ethical
dualism
that
saw
the
principles
of
Truth
(aæáa-)
and
Falsehood
(druj-,
q.v.,
OPers
drauga-,
OInd.
dro‚ha-)
in
fundamental
opposition.
In
Zarathustra's
thought
dualism
is
not
primordial,
as
it
appears
in
later
Sasanian
theology,
but
arose
out
of
the
right
and
wrong
choices
made
by
twin
Spirits,
who
stand
in
paradigmatic
relationship
to
human
beings
in
the
exercise
of
free
will.
As
a
result,
the
world
could
be
divided
between
the
followers
of
Truth
(aæáavan-,
q.v.;
cf.
OPers.
arta@van-,
OInd.
ráta@´van-)
and
the
followers
of
the
Lie
(drugvant-;
see
DRUJ).
His
dualistic
theology
also
included
the
polarization
of
the
traditional
classes
of
deities,
the
ahuras
and
the
dae@vas.
As
a
zaotar,
Zarathustra
was
concerned
with
proper
cultic
practice,
especially
the
proscription
of
violence
upon
the
sacrificial
victim
as
carried
out
by
the
dae@vic
priests.
He
may
have
modified
the
haoma
cult,
but
certainly
did
not
ban
it.
Finally,
Zarathustra
articulated
the
kernel
of
the
idea
of
a
Savior
figure,
the
Saoæyant
(Mid.
Pers.
So@æyans),
who
would
arrive
in
the
future
to
redeem
the
world.
The
history
of
Iranian
religion
after
Zarathustra
is
very
difficult
to
reconstruct.
In
the
course
of
his
ministry
in
eastern
Iran,
he
converted
a
local
ruler
(kavi-)
named
Viæta@spa,
who
became
his
patron
and
protector
(Jackson,
pp.
59
ff;
Boyce,
1975-82,
I,
pp.
11,
279-81).
For
convenience,
following
Ilya
Gershevitch
(pp.
8-9),
we
may
call
the
religion
of
the
prophet
"Zarathuætrianism."
We
can
only
assume
that
the
religious
community
that
Zarathustra
founded
continued
and
thrived
after
his
death.
The
Yasna
Haptaºhait^
is
the
production
of
this
community.
With
the
consolidation
of
greater
Iran
under
the
Achaemenids,
his
religion,
into
whatever
form
it
had
evolved,
made
its
way
to
western
Iran,
where
it
encountered
forms
of
Iranian
religion
different
not
only
from
itself,
but
also
from
non-Zarathuætrian
religions
of
the
East.
The
Achaemenid
period.
The
question
of
Zoroastrianism
among
the
Medes
is
moot,
as
we
possess
too
little
information
about
this
period
to
form
any
clear
idea
what
their
religious
practices
and
beliefs
were.
The
one
piece
of
information
that
stands
out
is
the
inclusion
of
the
Magi
by
Herodotus
in
a
listing
of
the
Median
tribes
(Herodotus,
1.101).
The
power
that
the
Magi
enjoyed
in
western
Iran
during
the
Median
rule
is
indicated
by
further
statements
of
Herodotus
concerning
the
pervasive
presence
of
this
priesthood
in
religious
matters.
From
Herodotus's
account
we
learn
that
the
Magi
were
necessary
for
the
performance
of
sacrifices
at
which
they
recited
"theogonies,"
that
is,
presumably
hymns
in
praise
of
the
gods
being
worshiped.
They
also
were
involved
in
the
disposal
of
the
dead
through
exposure
to
birds
and
dogs;
and
they
exhibited
a
passion
for
killing
noxious
creatures
(Herodotus,
1.132).
Further
the
political
intrigues
of
the
Magi,
especially
that
of
the
false
Smerdis/Bardiya
(q.v.),
attested
both
in
Herodotus
and
Darius's
inscription
at
Bisotun
(DB
1.30-33;
Herodotus,
3.30,
61,
65
ff.),
and
the
subsequent
magophonia
festival,
bear
witness
to
the
continued
importance
of
this
caste
in
Pa@rsa
and
the
Achaemenid
empire
(Herodotus,
3.78-79).
As
Zoroastrianism
became
the
dominant
religion
of
the
empire,
the
Magi
assumed
its
priestly
functions,
giving
their
name
to
the
priestly
nomenclature
of
post-Achaemenid
Zoroastrianism.
There
is
no
consensus
among
scholars
over
the
question
whether
the
early
great
kings
(Cyrus
II
The
Great,
Darius
I
The
Great,
Xerxes)
were
influenced
by
some
form
of
Zarathuætrianism.
They
certainly
believed
in
the
absolute
supremacy
of
Ahura
Mazda@
(OPers.
Auramazda@h-)
and
in
the
dichotomy
of
ahura-
and
daiva-.
Beyond
that,
however,
all
is
speculation.
Neither
the
Achaemenids
themselves
nor
Herodotus
mention
Zarathustra,
and
Gathic
quotations,
which
some
see
in
the
inscriptions
(Skjaervø,
1999)
may
merely
reflect
phrases
common
to
the
shared
(Indo-)Iranian
poetic
diction.
Although
Cyrus's
famous
cylinder
(q.v.)
inscription
proclaiming
himself
as
the
appointee
of
the
Babylonian
deities
may
be
dismissed
as
pure
propaganda,
it
does
stand
in
sharp
contrast
to
the
fervent
devotion
to
Ahura
Mazda@
of
Darius
and
Xerxes.
The
latter's
destruction
of
the
daivada@na-
(daiva-sanctuary;
XPh
35-41)
may
show
Zoroastrian
zeal,
or
it
may
bear
witness
to
an
old
Iranian
dichotomy
independent
of
the
Prophet's
teachings.
Centuries
later,
the
Sasanians,
who
were
indisputably
Zoroastrians,
in
their
inscriptions
invoke
Ohrmazd
and
use
the
term
mazde@sn
"Mazdean"
(e.g.,
ˆa@pur
I's
inscriptions
ˆKZ
24,
H®ajjia@ba@d
[ˆH]
1,
3;
ˆa@pur
II
at
T®a@q-e
Busta@n
[ˆTBn]
2,
5;
Narseh
at
Veh
ˆa@buhr
[NVˆ]
1,
6;
see
Back,
pp.
334,
372,
490),
nowhere
did
they
mention
the
prophet's
name
(*Zarduxæt).
Achaemenid
imperial
art
shows
at
least
extensive
iconographic
borrowing
from
the
ancient
Near
East,
for
example,
the
wingeàd
Ahura
Mazda@
icon
borrowed
from
nearly
identical
Assur
figures
(Root,
1975;
Jacobs,
1991).
The
silence
of
the
sources
may
reflect
the
attitude
of
the
Achaemenids
toward
religion
in
general.
Their
policy
toward
non-Iranian
religions
was
one
of
tolerance
and
issues
of
orthodoxy
at
home,
so
prominent
under
the
Sasanians,
were
probably
not
a
concern
to
them.
In
any
case,
the
reign
of
Artaxerxes
II
(404-359
BCE,
q.v.),
marked
by
a
calendar
reform,
in
which
the
names
of
Zoroastrian
deities
were
substituted
for
the
earlier
Persian
month-names,
by
the
introduction
of
the
Ana@hita@
cult
and
the
worship
of
Mithra,
and
by
the
first
mention
of
Zoroaster
in
Greek
sources,
was
a
turning
point
(see
CALENDARS
i.).
What
emerged
during
the
Achaemenid
period
was
an
eclectic
Iranian
religion,
Zoroastrianism,
which
contained
elements
of
Zarathuætrianism,
apocryphal
legends
of
the
prophet,
a
full
pantheon
of
deities
that
are
almost
entirely
absent
from
the
Gathas,
an
overriding
concern
over
purity
and
pollution,
the
establishment
of
fire
temples,
a
strong
ethical
code
based
on
man's
part
in
the
cosmic
struggle
between
the
principles
of
the
Truth
and
the
Lie,
and
an
eschatology
which
saw
history
as
an
unfolding
struggle
between
these
principles,
which
would
lead
to
the
final
Renovation
(fraæo@-k™r™ti,
q.v.)
of
the
Cosmos.
Thus,
it
contained
a
great
deal
of
the
Old
Iranian
religion
outlined
above.
Curiously,
the
extant
Avesta
remains
thoroughly
eastern
Iranian
in
its
geographic
(see
AVESTAN
GEOGRAPHY;
Gnoli,
1980;
idem,
1985,
pp.
17-30)
and
linguistic
orientation
(see
AVESTAN
LANGUAGE).
One
assumes
that
radical
concessions
to
traditional
beliefs
had
already
taken
place
after
Zarathustra's
death
and
before
Zoroastrianism
became
pan-Iranian.
A
significant
question,
for
which
there
are
few
definitive
answers,
is
to
what
extent
were
Judaism
and
later
Christianity
indebted
to
Zoroastrianism
for
ideas
that
surfaced
beginning
in
the
5th
century
BCE
but
persisted
well
into
the
Parthian
period,
ideas
such
as
a
trans-historical
maæiahá,
heaven
and
hell,
and
a
day
of
judgement.
Greeks
and
Parthians.
Our
knowledge
of
Zoroastrianism
during
the
long
stretch
of
time
extending
from
the
conquest
of
the
Persian
empire
by
Alexander
The
Great
(330,
i.e.,
the
death
of
Darius
III;
qq.v.)
to
the
foundation
of
the
Sasanian
dynasty
(ca.
224
CE)
is
very
fragmentary.
Although
pieces
of
information
are
abundant
enough
to
witness
the
presence
of
Zoroastrianism
throughout
the
Near
East,
including
Armenia,
they
do
not
add
up
to
a
coherent
history.
Sasanian
writers
knew
of
Alexander
only
as
a
legendary,
evil
(Mid.
Pers.
gizistag)
Roman
(hro@ma@yig,
i.e.,
Byzantine)
enemy
of
Iran,
who
destroyed
the
Avesta
and
created
general
confusion
of
the
Good
Religion.
There
is
a
vague
reference
in
the
De@nkard
(q.v.)
to
an
attempt
under
Walaxæ
(Vologases
I,
ca.
51-80;
see
BALAÚˆ
I)
to
gather
together
the
Avesta
dispersed
because
of
Alexander.
In
general,
however,
Sasanian
political
rhetoric
was
at
pains
to
place
the
Arsacids
(q.v.)
in
a
bad
light
as
custodians
of
traditional
Iranian
values,
while
portraying
themselves
as
the
restorers
of
tradition
and
particularly
of
Zoroastrianism.
Since
already
in
the
3rd
century
the
high
priest
Kirde@r
presupposes
an
ecclesiastical
hierarchy
and
organization,
one
may
assume
that
this
was
an
inheritance
from
the
Arsacids
(Widengren,
1965a).
The
Sasanians
(see
also
SASANIAN
DYNASTY
at
iranica.com).
The
ancient
world
at
the
time
of
the
Sasanian
rise
to
power
under
Ardaæir
(ca.
224
CE,
q.v.)
was
very
different
from
that
which
the
Achaemenids
had
entered
more
than
seven
centuries
before.
The
Roman
empire
extended
throughout
the
Mediterranean
world
and
had
challenged
the
Parthians
over
control
of
the
Near
Eastern
heartland.
Although
the
Roman
empire
embraced
and
tolerated
a
vast
array
of
local
and
national
religions,
the
Roman
Imperial
Cult,
soon
to
be
replaced
by
Christianity,
was
imposed
throughout
the
empire.
Local
religious
movements
and
cults
were
gaining
universal
followings.
Not
only
was
the
tide
of
Christianity
(q.v)
rising
in
the
west,
but
also
the
wave
of
Buddhism
(q.v.)
had
been
sweeping
over
eastern
Iran
and
Central
Asia.
Jewish
communities
were
long
settled
in
Mesopotamia
and
Persia,
and
Manicheism
was
soon
to
burst
on
the
scene.
Zoroastrianism
itself
had
been
the
national
religion
of
the
majority
of
Iranian
peoples,
whether
they
were
living
in
the
Near
East
or
on
the
Iranian
plateau.
Whereas
the
Arsacids
had
continued
the
tradition,
going
back
to
the
Achaemenids,
of
religious
tolerance
throughout
their
empire,
the
Sasanians
broke
with
that
practice.
Also,
while
there
can
be
no
doubt
that
among
the
Arsacids
and
their
predecessors
the
support
and
spread
of
Zoroastrian
institutions
was
closely
tied
to
the
interests
of
the
state,
the
Sasanians
quickly
developed
a
theology
of
the
unity
of
church
and
state,
which
was
generally
intolerant
both
of
foreign,
that
is,
non-Zoroastrian,
religions
and
of
internal
deviations
from
what
would
be
declared
orthodoxy.
The
Iranian
example
was
to
be
followed
in
the
west
as
Christianity
became
the
state
religion
of
the
Roman
empire(s),
and,
centuries
later,
the
arrival
of
Islam
through
the
Arab
conquest
would
have
a
devastating
effect
upon
Zoroastrianism
itself.
The
Sasanian
period
was
one
of
relative
stability,
during
which
Zoroastrianism
flourished.
Although
there
were
heresies
and
challenges
from
other
religions,
the
authority
of
the
Zoroastrian
church
was
basically
uncontested.
The
numbers
of
sacred
fires
were
greatly
increased
throughout
Persia
and
with
them
the
pervasive
presence
of
priests.
There
were
calendar
reforms
and
the
standardization
of
the
yearly
cycle
of
festivals.
Zoroastrianism
also
supported
an
increasingly
rigorous
division
of
society
into
castes
(pe@æag),
with
priests
and
nobles
as
elites
lording
it
over
peasants
and
artisans.
The
burden
of
support
for
the
elites
shouldered
by
the
lower
castes
was
heavy,
and
their
plight
would
find
brief
expression
in
Mazdakism
(see
below).
Ardaæir
I
Pa@paga@n
(ca.
224-40),
founder
of
the
Sasanian
dynasty,
set
about
to
establish
uniformity
in
theology
and
practice
throughout
his
empire.
He
was
assisted
in
his
project
by
an
able
he@rbed
(q.v.)
named
Tansar
(or
To@sar).
From
Tansar's
own
epistle,
the
Na@ma-ye
Tansar,
preserved
in
a
13th-century
Persian
translation
by
Ebn
Esfandia@r
of
an
Arabic
translation,
and
from
various
notices
in
the
De@nkard,
we
know
that
he
was
responsible
for
two
major
policy
moves.
One
was
the
establishment
of
a
new
canon
of
authoritative
scriptures
that
was
purged
of
materials
judged
heterodox.
This
new
canon
provided
a
basis
for
placing
all
interpretation
of
the
religion
within
his
control
under
a
declaration
of
infallibility.
The
other
was
to
promote
the
expansion
of
sacred
fires
while
enforcing
cultic
uniformity.
Especially
important
was
the
iconoclasm
of
the
reformed
Zoroastrianism,
which
forbade
the
use
of
idols
in
worship
but
allowed
extensive
use
of
divine
images
in
art.
In
many
cases
the
installation
of
the
sacred
fire
was
the
substitute
for
a
purged
image
(Boyce,
Introd.
to
Na@ma-ye
Tansar,
tr.,
pp.
5-7).
Ecclesiastical
authority
soon
passed
to
an
extraordinary
priest
named
Kirde@r,
whose
long
career
began
under
Ardaæir
and
extended
into
the
reign
of
Bahra@m
II
(r.
276-93,
q.v.).
Even
though
ˆa@pur
I
(r.
240-72)
speaks
of
the
many
fires
which
he
established,
he
seems
to
have
relaxed
the
policies
of
Ardaæir
and
Tansar
in
matters
of
religion,
allowing
not
only
a
free
exercise
of
belief
but
also
himself
flirting
with
the
new
gnosticism
preached
by
Ma@ni
(q.v.
at
iranica.com)
at
court.
His
long
reign
must
have
tried
the
patience
of
the
strictly
orthodox
Kirde@r.
Yet,
the
skilful
priest
maintained
his
power,
while
waiting
for
a
change
in
succession.
After
the
death
of
ˆa@pur,
Kirde@r's
power
grew
greatly
to
the
point
that
he
was
the
supreme
authority
in
all
matters
pertaining
to
religion.
In
fact,
his
power
paralleled
royal
power
to
the
extent
that,
uniquely,
he
could
publish
his
inscription
in
various
places,
including
the
Ka¿ba-ye
Zardoæt
below
the
famous
inscription
of
ˆa@pur
I
(see
Gignoux,
1983,
pp.
1209-11;
idem,
1965;
Hinz,
1970).
From
the
first
part
of
this
inscription
we
learn
that
a
formidable
bureaucracy
was
in
place
to
support
the
establishment
and
maintenance
with
funds
and
magi
of
local
fires
in
both
Iranian
and
non-Iranian
territory.
Further,
heresies
had
been
rooted
out,
idols
destroyed,
and
other
religions
(inter
al.,
Jews,
Christians,
Manicheans,
Buddhists
and
Brahmins)
were
being
attacked.
Using
a
theme
to
be
greatly
elaborated
toward
the
end
of
the
Sasanian
period
in
the
book
Arda@
Wira@z
na@mag,
(see
ARDAÚ
WIÚRAÚZ),
the
second
part
of
the
inscription
describes
an
other-worldly
journey
by
mediums
conjured
up
by
Kirde@r,
whose
mission
it
was
to
confirm
his
spiritual
authority.
(see
SHAPUR
I,
sec.
4,
at
iranica.com;
Skjaervø,
1983).
It
seems
from
Manichean
sources
that
Kirde@r
arranged
to
have
Ma@ni
dispatched
sometime
during
the
reign
of
Bahra@m
I
(Mary
Boyce,
1975,
texts
m-p,
pp.
43-48;
Widengren,
1965b,
pp.
37-42),
and,
while
it
flourished
in
other
parts
of
the
ancient
world,
Manicheism
was
rendered
insignificant
in
the
Iranian
heartland.
The
most
significant
theological
controversy
within
Zoroastrianism,
one
that
seems
to
have
been
already
present
in
the
Parthian
period
and
perhaps
earlier,
was
over
Zurvanism.
This
theology
reckoned
Zurva@n
"Time"
as
the
supreme
deity,
whose
twin
sons,
Ohrmazd
and
Ahriman
(q.v.),
vied
for
control
of
the
universe
(Zaehner,
1955,
pp.
60-61,
245).
It
was
opposed
to
the
dualistic
theology
that
held
Ohrmazd
and
Ahriman
to
be
primordial,
uncreated
spirits.
Although
radical
dualism
prevailed
in
the
latter
part
of
the
period,
it
is
not
clear
to
what
extent
Zurvanism
was
ever
viewed
as
heresy.
It
is
probable
that
Kirde@r
himself
held
Zurvanite
beliefs,
and
all
evidence
indicates
that
it
was
the
accepted
orthodox
theology
among
the
Sasanian
rulers
(see
Boyce,
1979,
pp.
112-13,
118-23).
ˆa@pur
II
(r.
309-79),
shortly
after
ascending
the
throne,
assembled
representatives
of
various
religious
movements,
about
whom
no
details
are
given,
in
order
to
establish
truth.
A
certain
priest
named
AÚdurba@d
^
Mahraspanda@n
(q.v.)
prevailed,
not
only
by
theological
argument,
but
also
by
submitting
successfully
to
the
ordeal
(war)
of
having
molten
metal
poured
on
his
chest.
As
with
Tansar,
this
was
an
occasion
for
the
king
to
affirm
orthodoxy
and
to
root
out
heterodoxy.
One
may
wonder
whether
this
was
a
triumph
of
Zurvanism.
It
is
possible,
moreover,
that
the
development
of
the
Avestan
script
and
organization
of
the
religious
canon
into
the
Nasks
(divisions)
was
carried
out
during
the
reign
of
ˆa@pur
II,
although
it
seems
more
likely
that
it
was
the
achievement
of
Kòosrow
I
Ano@æirava@n
(r.
531-79).
While
wars
with
Rome
and
Byzantium
in
the
west
and
skirmishes
with
nomadic
tribes
in
the
northeast
were
a
perpetual
threat
to
the
stability
of
the
empire,
signs
of
internal
social
unrest
were
clearly
visible
during
the
reign
of
Kawa@d
I
(r.
488-531)
with
the
rise
to
prominence
of
the
religious-social
movement
led
by
a
certain
Mazdak
^
Ba@mda@da@n,
who
would
displace
Ma@ni
in
the
later
literature
as
the
arch-heretic.
Mazdakism
was
an
eclectic
religion
based
in
both
Zoroastrianism
and
in
an
ascetic
spirituality
that
appears
to
have
roots
in
Manicheism.
It
challenged
the
establishment,
preaching
social
equality,
including
women,
to
the
extent
that
property
should
be
held
in
common.
The
appeal
of
such
ideas
to
the
masses
is
obvious,
yet
Mazdakism
also
had
a
following
among
nobles.
Kawa@d
himself
embraced
Mazdakite
ideas.
For
this
apostasy
he
was
deposed
by
a
coalition
of
nobles
and
priests,
only
later
to
win
back
the
throne.
After
that
he
distanced
himself
from
Mazdakism
to
the
extent
that
eventually
he
allowed
his
son,
Kòosrow
I
to
have
Mazdak
and
his
followers
killed
at
a
banquet
in
528
(see
Klima,
1977;
Yarshater;
Nöldeke,
Geschichte
der
Perser,
pp.
455-67).
The
reign
of
Kòosrow
I
is
remembered,
often
romantically,
into
the
Islamic
period
as
the
great
era
of
the
blossoming
of
Sasanian
culture
and
political
power.
This
was
not
so
much
a
time
of
innovation
as
that
of
consolidation
and
preservation.
For
Zoroastrianism
this
meant
primarily
the
final
canonization
of
the
sacred
Avesta
together
with
its
commentary
traditions,
the
Zand,
as
well
as
the
production
of
other
forms
of
religious
literature.
The
extensive
Pahlavi
writings
of
the
9th
century
are
either
copies
of
or,
what
is
more
significant,
digests
of
the
vast
literature
of
late
Sasanian
times.
After
Kòosrow's
death,
internal
struggles
for
power
and
the
external
defense
of
borders
led
to
a
fairly
rapid
decline
in
the
central
authority
of
the
state
(see
HORMOZD
IV;
HORMOZD
V).
No
one
was
aware
of
the
assault
on
Zoroastrianism
and
on
the
state
that
was
about
to
issue
from
Arabia.
When
Yazdagird
III
perished
in
651,
Zoroastrianism
was
dealt
a
blow
from
which
it
never
recovered,
even
though
it
has
managed
to
survive
to
the
present
day.
The
military
conquest
of
the
Sasanian
empire
was
relatively
swift,
the
religious
conquest
slower,
yet
ultimately
triumphant
(see
¿ARAB
v.).
The
reasons
for
the
triumph
of
Islam
are
complex.
There
were
certain
cases
of
conversion
by
the
sword,
but
these
were
the
exception.
Rather,
the
motivations
for
Zoroastrian
conversion
must
be
sought
elsewhere.
A
central
problem
for
the
survival
of
Zoroastrianism
was
Sasanian
theology
of
the
unity
of
throne
and
church.
With
the
elimination
of
the
throne,
the
church
was
not
only
bereft
of
its
political-economical
support,
but
also
of
its
place
in
the
eschatological
plan
of
world
history.
The
oppressed
state
of
the
lower
classes
in
Sasanian
society
that
had
provided
the
conditions
for
the
rise
of
Mazdak
had
remained
unaddressed.
Islam's
promise
of
universal
equality
must
have
given
many
people
both
spiritual
and
material
hope
for
a
better
life.
Furthermore,
the
relegation
of
Zoroastrians
to
the
tolerated,
though
second-class
status
of
"people
of
the
book"
(ahl
al-keta@b)
was
a
clear
incentive
for
many
who
sought
advancement
to
apostatize.
In
some
ways
Zoroastrianism
was
an
archaic
religious
system
with
complex
rituals
that
could
be
performed
only
by
priests
and
with
a
dualistic
theology
that
was
wedded
to
ancient
myths
and
ancient
deities.
In
contrast,
Islam
presented
a
simple
monotheistic
theology
that
did
not
need
to
be
mediated
by
an
institutional
priesthood.
Moreover,
because
it
held
key
beliefs
in
common
with
Zoroastrianism,
especially
that
world
history
was
leading
to
the
Day
of
Judgement
to
be
followed
by
eternal
life
of
beatitude
for
the
righteous,
Islam
presented
a
path
to
salvation
that
was
familiar
to
Zoroastrians.
Besides,
as
Islam
became
entrenched
in
Persia,
it
borrowed
from
Zoroastrianism;
Shi¿ites
eventually
held
the
idea
of
a
future
savior
(the
"Hidden
Imam"),
embraced
shrines
of
saints,
and
developed
a
system
of
clergy.
Islamic
law
also
presented
a
comprehensive
ethical
system
for
the
individual
and
society
that
could
displace
the
ideals
of
Zoroastrianism.
In
spite
of
the
constant
erosion
of
Zoroastrian
influence
in
the
early
centuries
of
Arab/Islamic
dominance,
the
Good
Religion
maintained
a
vigorous
presence
in
Iranian
society.
From
the
point
of
view
of
later
history,
the
9th
and
early
part
of
the
10th
centuries
were
pivotal
for
the
preservation
of
the
faith,
for
that
period
witnessed
a
prodigious
output
of
religious
literature
mentioned
above.
We
cannot
know
to
what
extent
this
scholarly,
intellectual
activity
was
motivated
by
a
premonition
of
impending
eclipse
or
by
hope
for
revival.
What
it
did
accomplish
was
the
production
of
encyclopedias,
treatises
on
ethics
and
ritual,
theological
tracts,
and
the
provision
for
the
scribal
tradition
that
would
preserve
the
written
testimony
of
Zoroastrianism
through
great
vicissitudes
up
to
modern
times.
Bibliography:
The
bibliography
for
pre-Islamic
Zoroastrianism
is
vast.
The
works
listed
below
are
major
works
in
the
field
(with
brief
annotations)
or
discussions
of
topics
in
the
text
above.
Particularly
important
are
the
comprehensive
volumes
by
M.
Boyce
(History)
and
M.
Stausberg,
the
latter
especially
for
its
bibliography.
For
the
general
reader
and
for
use
in
college
courses,
Boyce's
Zoroastrians
provides
an
accessible
orientation.
See
also
the
many
specialized
entries
in
EIr.
(keyword
search
"Zoroastrian"
at
iranica.com).
Michael
Back,
Die
Sassanidischen
Staatsinschriften:
Studien
zur
Orthographie
und
Philologie
des
Mittelpersischen
der
Schriften,
Acta
Iranica
18,
Leiden,
1978.
Harold
W.
Bailey,
Zoroastrian
Problems
in
the
Ninth-Century
Books,
Oxford,
1943.
Emile
Benveniste,
"L'EÚra@n-ve@‘
et
l'origine
le‚gendaire
des
Iraniens,"
BSOS
7,
1933-35,
pp.
265-74.
Mary
Boyce,
A
Reader
in
Manichaean
Middle
Persian
and
Parthian:
Texts
with
Notes,
Acta
Iranica
9,
Leiden,
1975.
Idem,
Zoroastrians:
Their
Religious
Beliefs
and
Practices,
London,
1979
(basically
a
summary
history
of
Zoroastrianism
from
its
beginnings
to
the
present
intended
for
the
general
reader,
following
the
contours
of
her
three-volume
history).
Idem,
A
History
of
Zoroastrianism,
vols.
I-II,
Leiden,
1975-82.
Mary
Boyce
and
Franz
Grenet
A
History
of
Zoroastrianism
III:
Zoroastrianism
under
Macedonian
and
Roman
Rule,
Leiden,
1991.
(These
three
volumes
present
a
comprehensive,
detailed,
and
richly
documented
account
of
the
beginning
of
Zoroastrianism,
its
development
under
the
Achaemenids
and
during
a
long
period
extending
from
the
Macedonian
conquest
of
Persia
in
330
BCE
to
the
4th
century
CE
in
the
Greco-Roman
cultural
and
political
spheres.
In
the
first
volume,
the
author
has
used
later
Pahlavi
sources,
rather
uncritically,
to
provide
a
reconstruction
of
Zoroaster's
religion.
She
also
seeks
to
establish
a
very
early
date
for
Zoroaster
and
to
demonstrate
the
great
continuity
of
the
belief
and
practice;
some
of
her
conclusions,
however,
have
been
argued
against
by
other
scholars
of
the
field.)
Muhammad
A.
Dandamaev,
A
Political
History
of
the
Achaemenid
Empire,
tr.
Willem
J.
Vogelsang,
Leiden,
1989.
George
Dume‚zil,
Naissance
d'archanges,
Abbeville,
1945
(in
a
variety
of
books,
but
mainly
in
this
one,
the
author
describes
Zarathustra's
theology
of
the
Am™æa
Sp™ntas
as
a
sublimation
of
his
tripartite
ideology
of
the
Indo-Europeans).
Jean
Duchesne-Guillemin,
La
religion
de
l'Iran
ancien,
Paris,
1962
(an
excellent
handbook;
the
author,
although
under
the
influence
of
George
Dume‚zil's
theory
of
a
tripartite
ideology,
is
not
intrusively
dogmatic
and
presents
a
balanced
view
with
references
to
various
scholarly
approaches).
Ebn
Esfandia@r,
Na@ma-ye
Tansar,
ed.
Mojtaba@
Minovi,
Tehran,
1975;
tr.
Mary
Boyce
as
The
Letter
of
Tansar,
Rome,
1968.
Ilya
Gershevitch
The
Avestan
Hymn
to
Mithra,
Cambridge,
1959
(tr.
of
Yaæt
10
with
commentary,
with
an
introduction
containing
a
cogent
reconstruction
of
the
development
of
the
religion
in
which
the
terms
"Zarathustrianism"
and
"Zoroastrianism"
are
defined
to
differentiate
the
religion
of
the
prophet
from
the
religion
of
the
Younger
Avesta).
Philippe
Gignoux,
"Middle
Persian
Inscriptions,"
in
Camb.
Hist.
Iran
III/2,
1983,
pp.
1205-15.
Idem,
"L'Inscription
de
Kartir
aà
Sar
Maæhad,"
JA
256,
1968,
pp.
387-418.
Idem,
Man
and
Cosmos
in
Ancient
Iran,
Rome,
2001.
Gherardo
Gnoli,
Zoroaster's
Time
and
Homeland:
A
Study
on
the
Origins
of
Mazdeism
and
Related
Problems,
Naples,
1980.
Idem,
De
Zoroastre
aà
Mani,
Pais,
1985.
Idem,
The
Idea
of
Iran:
An
Essay
on
Its
Origin,
Rome,
1989.
Walter
Bruno
Henning
[q.v.],
Zoroaster:
Politician
or
Witchdoctor,
Oxford,
1951
(harshly
criticizes
both
Herzfeld
and
Nyberg).
Johannes
Hertel,
Die
Zeit
Zoroasters,
Leipzig,
1924.
Ernst
Herzfeld,
"The
Traditional
Date
of
Zoroaster,"
in
Jal
Dastur
C.
Parvy,
ed.,
Oriental
Studies
in
Honour
of
Cursetji
Erachji
Parvy,
London,
1933,
pp.
132-36.
Idem,
Zoroaster
and
His
World,
2
vols.,
Princeton,
1947
(portrays
Zarathustra
as
a
player
at
the
Achaemenid
court;
criticized
and
refuted
by
Henning).
Walther
Hinz,
"Die
Inschrift
des
Hohenpriesters
Karde@r
am
Turn
von
Naqsh-e
Rostam,"
AMI,
NS
3,
1970,
pp.
251-65.
A.
V.
Williams
Jackson,
"On
the
Date
of
Zoroaster,"
JAOS
17,
1896,
pp.
1-22.
Bruno
Jacobs
"Der
Sonnengott
im
Pantheon
der
Achämeniden,"
in
J.
Kellens,
ed.,
La
religion
iranienne
aà
l'e‚poque
ache‚me‚nide,
Gent,
1991,
pp.
58-80.
Jean
Kellens
Les
textes
veiel-avestiques
I,
text
with
Fr.
tr.
and
commentary,
Wiesbaden,
1988
(argues
that
Zarathustra
never
existed
as
an
individual,
and
the
work
attributed
to
him
was
really
by
a
committee
of
poets).
Otakar
Klima,
"The
Date
of
Zoroaster,"
Archiv
Orientali
27,
1959,
pp.
556-64.
Idem,
Beiträge
zur
Geschichte
des
Mazdakismus,
Prague,
1977.
Herman
Lommel,
Die
Religion
Zarathustras
nach
dem
Awesta
dargestelt,
Tübingen,
1930.
(The
problems
involved
in
interpreting
the
Gathas
and
of
reconstructing
a
coherent
picture
of
Zoroaster's
religion
still
plague
scholarship;
yet
this
work
of
Lommel
remains
the
most
balanced
account
and
necessary
starting
point
for
discussion.
For
details
on
Gathic
problems
see
further
under
zarathustra
and
gathas.)
Henrik
Samuel
Nyberg,
Die
Religionen
des
alten
Irans,
tr.
Hans
Heinrich
Schaeder,
Leipzig,
1938;
2nd
ed.
with
new
Preface,
Osnabrück,
1966
(presents
Zarathustra
as
just
a
shaman;
sharply
criticized
and
refuted
by
Henning).
Margaret
C.
Root,
The
King
and
Kingship
in
Achaemenid
Art,
Leiden,
1975,
pp.
169-176.
James
Russell,
Zoroastrianism
in
Armenia,
Cambridge,
Mass.,
1987
(combines
knowledge
of
Zoroastrianism
and
of
Armenian
sources
to
provide
a
comprehensive
work
on
this
often
neglected
area).
A.
Shapur
Shahbazi,
"The
Traditional
Date
of
Zoroaster
Explained,"
BSOAS
40,
1977,
pp.
25-35.
Idem,
"Recent
Speculations
on
the
'Traditional
Date
of
Zoroaster',"
Studia
Iranica
31/1,
2002,
pp.
7-45.
Michael
Stausberg,
Die
Religion
Zarathustras:
Geschichte,
Gegenwart,
Rituale,
2
vols.,
Stuttgart,
2002.
(The
first
volume
provides
an
excellent
detailed
history
of
pre-Islamic
Zoroastrianism
with
rich,
up-to-date
bibliography
and
much
useful
and
necessary
discussion
of
methodological
problems;
it
is,
however,
not
as
comprehensive
as
Mary
Boyce's
History.)
Martin
Schwartz,
"The
Old
Eastern
Iranian
Worldview
According
to
the
Avesta,"
in
Camb.
Hist.
Iran
II,
1981,
pp.
640-63
(an
informative
article
about
the
cultural
background
of
the
Avesta).
Idem,
"The
Religion
of
Achaemenian
Iran"
in
Camb.
Hist.
Iran
II,
pp.
664-97.
P.
Oktor
Skjœrvø
"Kirdir's
Vision,"
AMI
16,
1983,
pp.
269-306.
Idem,
"Avestan
Quotations
in
Old
Persian,"
in
S.
Shaked
and
A.
Netzer,
eds.,
Irano-Judaica
IV,
Jerusalem,
1999,
pp.
1-64.
Paul
Thieme
"Vorzarathustrisches
bei
den
Zarathustriern
und
bei
Za
rathustra,"
ZDMG,
107,
1957,
pp.
67-104.
Geo
Widengren,
Die
Religionen
Irans,
Stuttgart,
1965a
(an
excellent
handbook
of
the
pre-Islamic
religions
of
Iran,
although
the
author
was
strongly
influenced
by
Dume‚zil
and
by
Nyberg's
shamanistic
interpretation
of
Zarathustra;
it
makes
the
most
use
of
the
comparative
religious
method).
Idem,
Mani
und
der
Manichäismus,
tr.
Charles
Kessler
as
Mani
and
Manichaeism,
New
York,
Chicago,
and
San
Francisco,
1965b.
Idem,
"La
recontre
avec
la
dae@na@,
qui
represente
les
actions
de
l'homme,"
in
Gherardo
Gnoli,
ed.,
Orientalia
Romana:
Essays
and
Lectures
5,
Iranian
Studies,
Rome,
1983,
pp.
41-79.
Ehsan
Yarshater,
"Mazdakism,"
in
Camb.
Hist.
Iran
III/2,
1983,
pp.
991-1024.
Robert
C.
Zaehner,
Zurvan,
A
Zoroastrian
Dilemma,
Oxford,
1955.
Idem,
The
Dawn
and
Twilight
of
Zoroastrianism,
London,
1961.
(As
the
title
suggests,
this
book
basically
ignores
the
Greco-Roman
and
Arsacid
periods;
Zaehner's
approach,
although
somewhat
idiosyncratic
and
dogmatic,
provides
a
balance
to
the
weight
of
Dume‚zil's
and
Nyberg's
theories,
which
were
prevalent
in
the
mid-twentieth
century.
The
book
also
contains
an
annotated
bibliography.)
(William
W.
Malandra)
October
7,
2005 |