FIRST MAN, FIRST KING Notes on Semitic-Iranian Syncretism and Iranian Mythological Transformations
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
FIRST MAN, FIRST KING Notes on Semitic-Iranian Syncretism and Iranian Mythological Transformations Shaul Shaked, Jerusalem In the original Indo-Iranian period Yima (Indian Yama) was probably a First Man figure. This trait of his personality is not preserved with any clarity either in India or in Iran, but certain hints in late Iranian literature show that he may have been considered as the originator of humanity and of civilization. 1 Several myths con nected with his figure suggest that he was the first mortal, for at his time humanity knew no death. His connection with death is also a prominent feature of the Indian figure of Yama. 2 As the first mortal, he is the originator of proper human existence. If it is true that he was in one early layer of tradition the first human, he may have lost that position in Iran with the advent of Zoroastrianism. This could have been the result of a reshuffle of functions, caused, among other things, by the fact that Gaya Maretan assumed the role of the first Man. Gaya Maretan (later Gayomard) belongs to the specific Zoroas trian terminology, and is thus part of the novel religious conception introduced in Iran by Zoroastrianism. The main argument in favour of this assumption is the observation that his name has a structure similar to that of several other Zoroastrian innovations: Angra 1 Cf. Christensen 1934:35; also the recent and interesting study by Kellens 1984. 2 For details see lately Kellens 1984:279ff. SHAKED 239 Manyu "the Evil Spirit", Vohu Manah "the Good Mind", Asa Vahista "the Best truth", etc.3 The name Ahura Mazda "Lord Wis dom" itself falls in the same category. The structure of this divine name serves, I believe, as a powerful argument in favour of the Zoroastrian origin of this deity, although the issue is still disputed.4 Yima, representing an older layer of tradition, has had to be accommodated as a secondary figure, one whose function, in part overlapping with that of Gayomard, is not entirely lucid. It is by no means clear where he fits in within the Zoroastrian history of human ity. He does not form part of the cycle of creation stories, but occurs separately, both in the A vesta and in the later literature, in a series of independent episodes.5 Only in mediaeval texts is there an attempt 3 This is an opinion already expressed by Christensen 1917:4lf.; Schaeder 1926:21lf.; LommelI930:137. Hoffmann 1957 argues that the myth of Gayomard continues an ancient Indo-Iranian story, attested in India for the figure of Miirt3I).~a, a suggestion which makes good sense. (He does not make the identification, but Boyce 1975:97 regards Gayomard as identical with Miirt3I).~.) Hoffmann further as sumes that the epithet Gaya Maretan, which became the proper name of the First Man figure in Iran, goes also back to Indo-Iranian times, since it corresponds closely to the epithets ammtya· gaya- "immortal life", attested in the Rigveda (cf. Hoff mann 1957: 100). The last point is important, but does not prove the existence of the Avestan epithet in the ancient period or of the person to which it was applied. It only shows that such an epithet was in use. The Avesta contains numerous expressions and themes which continue pre-Zoroastrian usage; for establishing the continuity of a divine figure we want to know that it existed in the Indo-Iranian period, but evi dence for this is lacking. Lincoln 1975/6 assumes, on the basis of the Scandinavian parallel, that Gayomard takes the position initially occupied by Yima. Again, wheth er this is correct or not, this would not affect our judgement as to whether Gayomard is a creation of the Zoroastrian religion. If there was an ancient myth of the sacrifice and dismemberment of Yima, memory of it was no longer alive either in India or in Iran by the time of the beginnings of Zoroastrianism. 4 Cf. Kent 1933; Konow 1937; Thieme 1970; Humbach 1957; Boyce 1975:38ff. The issue is not capable at the moment of proof, the arguments in either direction being undecisive. The fact that, like the abstractions which later became the Amesa Spenta, and similar Zoroastrian deities, Ahura Mazda too was not yet a fixed proper name in the Gathas shows, I believe, that at the time of Zoroaster it was still an inno vation. In the pre-Zoroastrian period an earlier process had taken place by which abstract notions had become divine proper names (cf. e.g. Mitra=Mithra, Varuna, Aryaman; Thieme 1970:402ff.). The Gathic list constitutes the beginning of a new layer of notions which were to undergo the same procedure. See also lately Lincoln in Colpe 1974:352-354 s.v. "Gayomart". S An example of the embarrassment caused to Zoroastrian commentators by the position of Yima with regard to the couple Mashye and Mashyane may be seen in .